Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic Linguistics: Bridging Frames and Traditions 2019002235, 9781138223691, 9781315403946

Citation preview

 i

Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic Linguistics

Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic Linguistics: Bridging Frames and Traditions examines the existing historiographic, foundational and methodological issues surrounding Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic linguistics. The volume offers a balanced collection of original research from synchronic and diachronic perspectives. It provides a first step to assessing the present and future state of Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic linguistics and argues for an inclusive approach to the study of these three traditions, which would enhance our understanding of each. Presenting the latest research in the field, this volume is a valuable resource for scholars in Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic linguistics. Gabriel Rei-​Doval is Associate Professor of Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA. Fernando Tejedo-​Herrero is Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.

ii

Routledge Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics Series Editor: Dale Koike, University of Texas at Austin

The Routledge Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics series provides a showcase for the latest research on Spanish and Portuguese Linguistics. It publishes select research monographs on various topics in the field, reflecting strands of current interest. Collocations and Other Lexical Combinations in Spanish Theoretical, lexicographical and applied perspectives Edited by Sergi Toner and Elisenda Bernal Gallen Current Research in Puerto Rican Linguistics Edited by Melvin González-​Rivera Lexical Borrowing and Deborrowing in Spanish in New York City Towards a synthesis of the social correlates of lexical use and diffusion in immigrant contexts Rachel Varra Biculturalism and Spanish in Contact Sociolinguistic Case Studies Edited by Eva Núñez-​Méndez Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic Linguistics Bridging Frames and Traditions Edited by Gabriel Rei-​Doval and Fernando Tejedo-​Herrero For more information about this series please visit: https://​www.routledge. com/​Routledge-​Studies-​in-​Hispanic-​and-​Lusophone-​Linguistics/​book-​ series/​RSHLL

 iii

Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic Linguistics Bridging Frames and Traditions Edited by Gabriel Rei-​Doval and Fernando Tejedo-​Herrero Series Editor: Dale A. Koike Spanish List Advisor: Javier Muñoz-​Basols

iv

First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 selection and editorial matter, Gabriel Rei-​Doval and Fernando Tejedo-​Herrero; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Gabriel Rei-​Doval and Fernando Tejedo-​Herrero to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Rei Doval, Gabriel, editor. | Tejedo-Herrero, L. Fernando, editor. | Muñoz-Basols, Javier, advisor. Title: Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic linguistics : bridging frames and traditions / edited by Gabriel Rei-Doval and Fernando Tejedo-Herrero; Spanish list advisor, Javier Muñoz-Basols. Description: Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2019. | Series: Routledge studies in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019002235 | ISBN 9781138223691 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315403946 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Portuguese language–Grammar, Comparative. | Galician language–Grammar, Comparative. | Spanish language–Grammar, Comparative. | Languages in contact. | Sociolinguistics. Classification: LCC PC5044 .L87 2019 | DDC 460–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019002235 ISBN: 978-​1-​138-​22369-​1  (hbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​315-​40394-​6  (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Newgen Publishing UK

 v

Contents

List of contributors  Acknowledgments  Interdisciplinarity in Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic linguistics: a working proposal 

viii xiii

1

G AB RI E L RE I - ​D OVA L A N D FER NA N D O TEJEDO-​H ERRE RO

PART I

Historiography and epistemology 

13

1 Hispanic linguistics: epistemological labels, contents, and borders 

15

F RAN C I S C O MO R EN O -​F ER NÁ N D EZ

2 Sociolinguistic history of Brazil 

38

DAN T E LU C C H ESI

3 Galician and the Portuguese-​speaking world from the perspective of translation 

55

H E N RI QU E M O N TEAG U D O

4 Language standardization and purism: a historiographical approach to Galician grammar and lexicography in the 19th century 

73

E RN E S T O G ON ZÁ LEZ- ​S EOA N E A N D G A BR I EL REI-​D OVAL

5 Galician linguistics: between hispanic philological tradition and visibility in the Luso-​Brazilian sphere  ROSARI O ÁLVA R EZ

92

vi

vi Contents PART II

Linguistic analyses 

113

6 NEG-​NADA: Discourse-​pragmatic licensing of non-​canonical negation in two related languages 

115

MARY J OH NSO N A N D SC OTT A .  SC H WEN TER

7 Wheat and pimples: toward a prototypical, individualized approach to understanding metaphor 

135

ANA M.  AN D ER SO N

8 Debonding of three Hellenisms in Spanish: macro-​, mega-, and (p)seudo-​ 

151

J ONAH   C ON N ER

9 Testing contact-​induced change in the Spanish of Mallorca: insights from a historical perspective 

168

AN D RÉ S E NR I QU E-​A R I A S

10 On grammaticalization and the development of Latin /nVr/​in Spanish, Portuguese, and other varieties of Western Romance 

184

K E N N E T H J.  WI R EBAC K

PART III

Language and society 

203

11 Using statistics as a tool in the analysis of sociolinguistic variation: a comparison of current and traditional methods 

205

MAN U E L D Í A Z- C ​ A MPO S A N D STEPH A N I E DICKINS ON

12 The disappearance of the Morphological Future from educated spoken Carioca Portuguese 

227

MI C H AE L G R A D OV I LLE

13 An overview of Luso-​Brazilian sociolinguistics: second person pronouns  MARI A MARTA PER EI R A SC H ER R E, LI LI A N COUTINHO YAC OV E N C O, A N D MA R I A DA C O N C EI Ç ÃO DE  PAIVA

246

 vii

Contents vii

14 Phonetic (non)prestige markers in Galician, in contrast with Portuguese and Spanish: a sociolinguistic view 

263

OB D U L I A   C AS TRO

Index 

279

viii

Contributors

Rosario Álvarez, Professor of Galician Philology and member of the Instituto da Lingua Galega, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; president, Consello da Cultura Galega; permanent member, Real Academia Galega. Her research focuses on language variation (primarily geographical) and change in Galician. She has been an ab initio member of the team developing the Atlas Lingüístico Galego. She is co-​author of two Galician grammars, with Monteagudo/​Regueira (1986) and Xove (2002), and the chief researcher of the team writing the grammar of the Real Academia Galega. She leads the Tesouro do léxico patrimonial galego e portugués project. She has been general editor of the journal Estudos de Lingüística Galega. Ana M.  Anderson, Director of the Spanish Writing Center, Franklin & Marshall College (PhD, University of Minnesota). Her research interests center on the spectrum of language contact phenomena ranging from the societal level (e.g., her dissertation work on contact between Spanish and Galician in northwest Spain) to the individual level (e.g., her work on student writing development in their second language). She has focused particularly on contact phenomena in Spanish, Galician, and Portuguese. Obdulia Castro, Professor, Regis University. Her primary research is in the areas of Spanish and Galician phonology and morphology and sociolinguistic processes. She is also very interested in the process of development of communication systems across different cultures, and she conducts research in environments and processes of language and culture acquisition, maintenance, and change. Her most recent book-​length publications include: Aproximación a la fonología y morfología gallegas (UPS, 1998) and Issues in Spanish Morphophonology: Implications for Language Acquisition (University Press of America, 2006). Jonah Conner, Testing Coordinator at Madison Area Technical College. He holds a doctorate in Spanish Linguistics from the University of Wisconsin-​ Madison, where he defended his dissertation, entitled “Productive Neoclassical Prefixes in Spanish.” He has presented aspects of his work in Spanish historical linguistics at professional meetings: “The history and

 ix

Contributors ix present status of the prefix (p)seudo-​in Spanish,” and “Morphosyntactic innovation with three Hellenisms in modern Spanish: macro-​, mega-​, and (p)seudo-​.” Paper presented at the 3rd Symposium of Luso-​ Hispanic Linguistics, The University of Wisconsin-​Madison (2014). Manuel Díaz Campos, Professor, Indiana University (Bloomington). His areas of research are sociolinguistics, phonological variation, child phonology and intonation. He has edited The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics (Wiley-​Blackwell, 2011); Selected Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonetics and Phonology (Cascadilla, 2006). His most recent book publication includes Introducción a la Sociolingüística hispánica (Wiley, 2014) and Introducción y aplicaciones contextualizadas a la lingüística hispánica [with Kimberly L. Geeslin and Laura Gurzynski-​Weiss] (Wiley, 2017). Stephanie Dickinson, Senior Statistical Consultant, Indiana University (Bloomington). She has extensive experience as a professional statistician in many settings and has served as data analyst on research projects across a broad range of topics and fields including linguistics, social sciences, biology, and public health. She has co-authored many papers highlighting statistical methodology for applications of data analysis in experimental and observational research. Andrés Enrique-​Arias, Professor, Universitat de les Illes Balears. His research focuses on historical morphosyntax, corspus linguistics, and contact linguistics, particularly between Spanish and Catalan from Mallorca. He is the founder and director of the Biblia Medieval project, a corpus that gathers various versions of medieval bibles in Castilian along with their parallel texts in Hebrew and Latin. He is currently working on corpus of eighteenth-​and nineteenth-​ century documents written by bilingual speakers of Catalan and Castilian. He is co-author of Sociolingüística y Pragmática del Español, 2nd ed. C. Silva-Corvalán & A. Enrique-Arias (2017). Ernesto González-​Seoane, Professor, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, former Director of the Instituto da Lingua Galega and currently Vice-​ Chancellor at the Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. His research interests are Galician lexicography from both historiographical and applied perspectives, and the modern Galician standardization process. He is the author of Lexicografía de las lenguas románicas. Perspectiva histórica (De Gruyter, 2014), with Félix Córdoba and Dolores Sánchez Palomino, and Léxico dialectal y lexicografía en la Iberorromania (Iberoamericana Vervuert, 2018), with María Álvarez de la Granja. He was also the director of the Dicionario de dicionarios do galego medieval (2006) and is an active participant in the development of the Tesouro do léxico patrimonial galego e portugués.

x

x Contributors Michael Gradoville, Assistant Professor, Arizona State University. His work focuses on issues related to sociophonetics, Spanish Linguistics (particularly Caribbean, Rioplatense, Mexican, Southwest), and Portuguese Linguistics (particularly Northeast Brazilian). Some of his most recent publications include: “Stable variation or change in progress? A  sociolinguistic analysis of pa(ra) in the Spanish of Venezuela” in Language variation and contact-​induced change. Spanish across space and time, (John Benjamins, 2018) [with Stephen Fafulas and Manuel Díaz-​Campos]; “The cognitive representation of multi-​word sequences. A usage-​based approach to the reduction of Fortalezense Portuguese para” (Lingua 199, 2017). Mary Johnson, former Assistant Professor, Occidental College, California. Dr. Johnson’s research interests include language variation, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics. Since her doctorate in 2013 (Ohio State University), Professor Johnson’s work has been published by some of the most reputable journals and book publishers: “Pragmatic Variation in Voseo and Tuteo Negative Commands in Argentinian Spanish: A pragmatic distinction” Forms of address in Spanish across the Americas (John Benjamins, 2016); with John Grinstead Morgan Donnellan and Jennifer Barajas: “Pronominal Case and Verbal Finiteness Contingencies in Child English” Applied Psycholinguistics (2014). Dante Lucchesi, Professor, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. His research focuses on the areas of sociolinguistics, historical linguistics, Creole languages and the history of the Portuguese language. Author of Sistema, mudança e linguagem: um precurso da lingüística neste século (Colibri, 1998); O portuguȩs afro-​brasileiro (EDUFBA, 2009); Língua e sociedade partidas: a polarização sociolinguística do Brasil (Contexto, 2015). Henrique Monteagudo, Professor of Galician Philology and member of the Instituto da Lingua Galega, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; Secretary of the Real Academia Galega. His main areas of research are history of the language, sociolinguistics and language policy. He is the author of Historia Social da Lingua Galega (1999), Letras primeiras. A emerxencia do galego escrito e os primordios da lírica trovadoresca (2008), and De verbo a verbo. Documentos en galego anteriores a 1260 (2009). Francisco Moreno-​Fernández, Professor of Hispanic Linguistics and former Executive Director of the Instituto Cervantes at Harvard, Observatory of the Spanish Language and Hispanic Cultures in the United States. He is co-​editor of Spanish in Context, editor of Lengua y migración/​Language and Migration. A  selection of books: La maravillosa historia del español (Espasa, 2015); Spanish Revolution. Ensayo sobre los lenguajes indignados (Unoycero, 2014); Las lenguas de España a debate (Unoycero, 2013) with. F.  Ramallo; Sociolingüística cognitiva (Iberoamericana, 2012); La lengua española en su geografía. Manual de dialectología hispánica (Arco/​Libros,

 xi

Contributors xi 2nd. ed., 2014); Principios de Sociolingüística y Sociología del Lenguaje (Ariel, 3rd ed., 2008); Historia social de las lenguas de España (Ariel, 2005). Maria da Conceição de Paiva, Professor, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, researcher of CNPq (National Council for the Research and development), and member of the Research group PEUL. Her work focuses on phonetic, morphosyntactic, and discursive variation in Brazilian and European Portuguese. She has recently co-edited, with Pilar Barbosa and Celeste Rodrigues, Studies on Variation in Portuguese (John Benjamins, 2017) and with Christina Abreu Gomes, Dinâmica da variação e da mudança na fala e na escrita (Contracapa, 2015). (http://lattes.cnpq.br/7796134210271116) Gabriel Rei-​Doval, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin-​Milwaukee. His fields of academic interest include Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, sociolinguistics and sociology of language, language contact, language standardization, language revitalization, and linguistic historiography. He has published another twelve volumes. His more recent books include the monograph, A lingua galega na cidade no século XX: unha aproximación sociolingüística (Xerais, 2007)  and several (co-​)edited volumes, including Contacto de linguas, hibrididade, cambio: contextos, procesos e consecuencias (Council for Galician Culture and Instituto da Lingua Galega, 2013), and Responses to Language Endangerment: New directions in language documentation and language revitalization (John Benjamins, 2013). Maria Marta Pereira Scherre, voluntary Professor at the Federal University of Espírito Santo, Research Associate at the University of Brasília, a founding member of PEUL – Programa de Estudo sobre o Uso da Língua, at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, and holds a research grant from CNPq, the National Research Council of Brazil. Her research focuses on variation and change in Brazilian Portuguese. She has published and (co-)edited books in Brazilian Portuguese, and published chapters and articles in Brazilian and international learned books, handbooks and journals. (http://lattes.cnpq.br/6129587291049735) Scott Schwenter, Professor, Ohio State University. His areas of interest are pragmatics and variation analysis in both Spanish and Portuguese, including comparative aspects of the two languages. He is the author of over 50 articles and book chapters. Some of his most recent book chapter contributions are: “Null objects with and without bilingualism in the Portuguese-​and Spanish-​ speaking world,” (with Lorena Sainza-​ Maza Lecanda) in Multidisciplinary Approaches to Bilingualism in the Hispanic and Lusophone World (John Benjamins, 2017); “Some issues in Negation in Portuguese,” in The Handbook of Portuguese Linguistics (Blackwell, 2016); “Two kinds of differential object marking in Portuguese and Spanish” in Portuguese-​Spanish Interfaces: Diachrony, synchrony, and contact (John Benjamins, 2014).

xii

xii Contributors Ken Wireback, Professor, Miami University, Ohio. Professor Wireback specializes in Spanish and Portuguese historical linguistics, particularly in aspects of phonological change. Since his book publication, The Role of Phonological Structure in Sound Change from Latin to Spanish and Portuguese (Peter Lang, 1997), he has continued to publish widely in topics concerned with consonantal palatalization in the history of Ibero-​romance. Lilian Coutinho Yacovenco, Professor, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Brazil. She has worked on a range of topics in sociolinguistics, specializing in language variation and change in present-​day Brazilian Portuguese morphology and syntax. She is the coordinator of “Research group PortVix, Projeto Português Falado na Cidade de Vitória. (http://lattes.cnpq. br/4214287374430490).”

 xiii

newgenprepdf

Acknowledgments

For myriad reasons this volume has had a long gestation. It began as a project before, during, and after the conversations surrounding the successful editions of the Lusophone and Hispanic Linguistics Symposium at our respective institutions. The initial stages and inspiration for this volume owe a great deal of gratitude to the high quality of presentations at those meetings, and to words of encouragement from those who attended, collaborated, and participated at those meetings, particularly to Manuel Díaz-​Campos who, as we were walking down State Street at the end of one of those meetings on a chilly Wisconsin evening, urged us to move forward the idea of putting together a volume that represented the core intention behind the Lusophone and Hispanic Linguistics Symposium editions. We would like to express our gratitude to a number of colleagues and institutions that have made this project possible by supporting, encouraging, and helping in any possible way. We are indebted to all the colleagues who accepted to offer their professional opinion in the process of reviewing manuscripts: Grant Armstrong, José Luis Blas Arroyo, Steven Byrd, María Luisa Calero Vaquera, Ana Maria Carvalho, Gloria Clavería, Salvatore Digesto, Steve Dworkin, María Teresa Espinal, Elisa Fernández Rei, Charlotte Galves, Valéria Gil Condé, Silvia Gláucia, César Gutiérrez, Gregory Guy, Johannes Kabatek, Ana Luna Alonso, Francisco Ocampo, Lluís Payrató, David Pharies, Fernanda Pratas, Fernando Ramallo, Rajiv Rao, Xosé Luis Regueira, Xoán Paulo Rodríguez Yáñez, Guillermo Rojo, M.a Dolores Sánchez Palomino, Natalia Stolova, Juan Uriagereka, Eduardo Urios Aparisi, Juan A.  Villena Ponsoda, Rik Vosters. We are specially indebted to David Korfhagen and Kristin Neumayer for their careful reading, stylistic revisions, and valuable feedback to the introduction and several chapters included in the volume. We are also grateful to the Faculty of Letters & Science and the Graduate School at the University of Wisconsin-​Madison for research funding, and to the College of Letters and Science and the Office of Research at the University of Wisconsin-​Milwaukee for their financial support. Special thanks are due to the series editor Laura Sandford and the publishing team of Taylor & Francis for their professionalism, wise advice, and extraordinary patience with the publication of this volume. ¡Gracias!, Obrigados!, Graciñas!

xiv

 1

Interdisciplinarity in Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic linguistics A working proposal Gabriel Rei-​Doval and Fernando Tejedo-​Herrero

The aim of the present volume is twofold. First, it offers a selection of rigorously peer-​ reviewed studies that represent some of the most innovative research in their respective fields. Second, it intends to promote both a more collaborative dialogue among three Ibero-​Romance languages with different linguistic traditions as well as a more inclusive exchange among various approaches to linguistic methodologies, descriptions, and analyses. Two of these languages, namely, Spanish and Portuguese, correspond to wider communication, whereas the other, Galician, is a minoritized language, which underscores the holistic nature of what the editors consider to be a novel scholarly proposal.

1.  Linguistic traditions and frames A volume devoted to Lusophone, Galician, and Hispanic linguistics might not need much justification. Considering their shared ancestry and genetic relatedness, the three languages (in all of their variation) can offer a wealth of empirical data that can help advance the scientific study of language in general. It is also the case, however, that each language developed within its own linguistic tradition with its own set of concerns.1 From this viewpoint, what constitutes the focus of linguistic research and what is understood as linguistics in the context of Portuguese, Spanish, or Galician, therefore, might not be exactly the same. In order to understand how these linguistic traditions have evolved given their distinctive concerns and linguistic agendas, we will briefly outline their sociohistorical development as pluricentric (Portuguese and Spanish) or minoritized languages (Galician). The Hispanic linguistic tradition extends over centuries and closely parallels the development of a nation-​state built around centralizing policy agendas put forward by powerful monarchs, as initially discussed by Haugen (1972 [1966]): the de facto promotion of Castilian as the official language via extensive cultural activities during the reign of Alfonso X (1256–​1284); the strengthening of a central administration by the Catholic Monarchs (1474–​ 1504); and followed by an intense elaboration and codification of Castilian from the 16th century onwards as Spain spread its influence within and beyond

2

2  Gabriel Rei-Doval & Fernando Tejedo-Herrero the old continent. The imposition of Castilian as the national language—​at the expense and in spite of other linguistic varieties—​continued during the 18th century with the establishment of the Real Academia Española under the Bourbon dynasty (1700–​present) in Spain, and maintained its status as official language in the Americas even as the new republics gained their independence during the second half of the 19th century.2 During the 20th century, Spanish consolidated its status as a global language and became deeply ideologized in Spain during the dictatorship of Francisco Franco (1939–​ 1975). In the past few decades, efforts to plan and promote other linguistic varieties as well as the Real Academia’s initiatives to broaden its agenda have been the subject of intense public debate. Similar to Spanish, the Lusophone linguistic tradition extends over a long period of time. Its cultural and linguistic differentiation from other Ibero-​Romance varieties, and Galician in particular, was closely connected to Portugal’s establishment as an independent kingdom in the 12th century. From that moment forward, language historians have pointed to a number of milestones in the development of modern Portuguese as a pluricentric language spoken on five continents. While the production of Portuguese texts (including notarial and chancery records) can be traced back to the 14th century, an intense and sustained standardization took place during the 16th century (via grammars, vocabularies, orthographies, etc.). The political expansion of Portugal in Africa, Asia, and America created favorable conditions for the imposition of the language in some of these territories as well as its subsequent diversification among them. As a result of Brazil’s political and economic independence in the early 19th century, Portuguese became a pluricentric standard language whose tradition(s) has followed a very interesting path both historiographically and as an object of linguistic study. Galician emerged as one of the Romance languages located in the northwestern Iberian Peninsula, with written documentation dating as far back as the 13th century. By then, this language had already acquired cultural recognition beyond its territorial borders in poetic compositions. During the Middle Ages, as Galicia was incorporated into the Kingdom of León and, later, into that of Castile, its sociolinguistic situation did not change drastically (Mariño Paz, 1999; Monteagudo, 1999; Ramallo, 2007, p. 22). A more consequential change, however, took place under the Catholic Monarchs in the 15th and 16th centuries through the implementation of a more professional and complex central administration and the expansion of the ecclesiastic hierarchy. In most cases, officials and clergy holding higher positions (as well as their entourages) came from Castile, which resulted in a gradual but consistent displacement of Galician as a language of administration, religion, and culture, that is, its more socially prestigious functions. As mentioned in the context of the Spanish tradition, the rise of the Bourbon dynasty in 18th-​century Spain translated into tighter centralization policies and the dominance of Spanish over other Iberian languages (e.g. Galician, Asturian, Basque, Aragonese, and Catalan) in the administration and education. As Ramallo points out: “It

 3

Interdisciplinarity in linguistics 3 was not to be until the second half of the nineteenth century that the non-​ institutional recovery of the cultural uses of the Galician language was to occur” (2007, p. 23).3 After the fall of Franco’s dictatorship in 1975, which had favored Spanish over any local variety, the central government has trodden a delicate path to plan and promote minoritized languages in Spain.4 The foregoing introduction highlights a number of contrasts in the sociohistorical contexts in which the three traditions developed. On the one hand, Spanish and Portuguese have become pluricentric global languages, with longer and more abundant linguistic traditions. On the other hand, Galician remains a more geographically defined language that is genetically closer to Portuguese but historically minoritized and roofed by Spanish (Ramallo & Rei-​Doval 2015).5 Galician’s linguistic tradition, given its fragmented history and despite recent efforts to uncover its historical record, is shorter (see Álvarez this volume). These differences do not prevent Galician, Portuguese, or Spanish to be studied as fully fledged languages within any framework in modern linguistics and thus contribute to our understanding of language in general. However, it is important to be aware that the sociohistorical differences outlined here guide to a great extent the research priorities and goals of what it is understood to be Galician/​Lusophone/​Hispanic linguistics. Thus, contemporary Galician linguistics has had, as one of its primary focuses, the engineering of the standard language in addition to carrying out historical and dialectal analyses. Issues concerned with the selection of a foundational variety, orthographic debates, prescriptive and purism attitudes, and so forth, become not only objects of study, but also part of the ongoing and current debate among scholars. The present volume illustrates these trends in Galician linguistics with chapters on translation in Galician and its reception in Lusophone-​speaking countries (Ch. 3 by Monteagudo), metalinguistic commentary included in 19th-​century grammars and dictionaries (Ch. 4 by González-​Seoane & Rei-​ Doval), the linguistic historiography of Galician studies (Ch. 5 by Álvarez), and the ideologies that motivate the selection of features in the development of the standard variety (Ch. 14 by Castro). All form part of what constitutes Galician linguistics today.6 In the case of Spanish and Portuguese, languages with long-​standing pluricentric standard varieties, linguistic research extends to debates on divergent national languages that emerge as a result of political separation between speech communities (e.g. Brazilian Portuguese versus European Portuguese; Spanish versus Hispanic), and to analyses and interpretations of data within current theory in general Linguistics.7 This volume presents the larger scope of these linguistic traditions: two chapters discuss, from historiographical and sociolinguistic perspectives, the conceptualization of labels such as hispano and lusófono (Ch. 1 by Moreno-​Fernández) and the development of Brazilian Portuguese (Ch. 2 by Lucchesi). The second half of the volume contributes original chapters devoted to some of the main components of Lusophone (Ch. 6 by Johnson & Schwenter; Ch. 12 by Gradoville; Ch. 13 by Scherre

4

4  Gabriel Rei-Doval & Fernando Tejedo-Herrero et  al.; and Ch. 10 by Wireback), and Ibero-​Romance linguistics (Ch. 6 by Johnson & Schwenter; Ch. 11 by Díaz-​Campos; Ch. 7 by Anderson; Ch. 8 by Conner; Ch. 9 by Enrique-​Arias; and Ch. 10 by Wireback). In sum, while Hispanic, Lusophone, and Galician linguistics could find common goals and objectives in a broader sense (i.e., contribute toward the understanding of language in general), it is also important to understand each tradition and its contribution to the development as a language in itself.

2.  Challenges to the study of linguistic traditions Perhaps one of the main challenges to the study of linguistic traditions comes from the field of Linguistics itself, or from the underlying ideologies that guide some of the current research. It is widely accepted within histories of Linguistics and historiographies of linguistic knowledge that the 20th century (and, to a considerable extent, the 19th century) showcases an intense effort to develop Linguistics as an area of research, fully equipped with its own questions, methods, and theories, that is, as a discipline perceived as both autonomous and scientific. As exciting and promising as this path might appear for the field of Linguistics, it is also true that it has led to two significant areas of concern in the history of Linguistics. The first is that, in the words of Joseph, Love, and Taylor, “What counts as ‘linguistics’—​ or as a ‘linguistic’ study of language—​has been an important ideological issue, strongly influencing the ways that language is studied and written about, within as well as without the walls of the professional institutions of learning.” (2001, p. viii). An example of this influence has been the (almost) exclusive reliance on widely used standard language varieties as sources of data. The ideologies of the standard inherited from the 19th century, as argued by Milroy (2001) and others, aligned with prevailing structural and more formal approaches to the study of language, frequently disregarding data and contributions that could come from non-​standard(ized) varieties and social variability. Related to this modern reconceptualization of Linguistics, another area of concern arises from the exclusion of scholars in other fields who also have thought and written about language, as well as aspects of the study of language that were no longer perceived as relevant to the revised, new vision of Linguistics. Since one of the goals of 20th-​century Linguistics was scientific independence and autonomy, the inclusion of other disciplines such as Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, or even inquiries previously considered to be relevant to the study of language, became problematic. That is, linguistic knowledge as gathered in grammatical descriptions, compilation of dictionaries, and so forth, as well as linguistic historiography in general, has remained marginalized in current Linguistics. The ramifications of this problem are apparent in the way in which much of the scholarship has approached the phenomena of linguistic change. In an effort to prioritize “linguistic” explanations, evidence has been presented in terms of “internal”

 5

Interdisciplinarity in linguistics 5 versus “external” or similar dichotomies in which the “external” was frequently considered supplementary, less consequential, or otherwise unequal to the “internal” evidence.8 Similarly, explanations based on linguistic contact were offered as a last resort or not considered at all, as the acceptance of contact features and contact varieties has challenged the construction and consideration of standard national languages.

3.  Bridging frames and traditions: A working proposal The above discussion makes clear that we are advocating for a broader approach to the study of language and linguistic traditions. The interdisciplinary approach we propose can be best summarized by Junyent: “La lingüística, la més humana de les ciències, la més científica de les humanitats” ‘Linguistics, the most human of all sciences, the most scientific of all humanities’ (2018). Indeed, our volume is based on the premise that interdisciplinary approaches that draw from scientific and humanistic traditions need to be recognized and included as important contributions to the discipline as a whole, as much as those produced within the confines of academic linguistics. If one considers linguistic traditions free from legitimizing forces within academic–​professional linguistics and standard language ideologies, it becomes clear the extent to which “extra-​disciplinary” reflection on language brings into sharper focus what is yet in need of discussion, investigation, and explanation. In this sense, then, the studies contained herein further some of the activities and approaches that are generally considered proper to the realm of Linguistics (i.e., Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics), but also demonstrate the interplay between Linguistics and, for instance, Historiography, Epistemology, and Social History. Nevertheless, this volume does not pretend to be all-​inclusive, and limitations of space have required selective coverage of the subject matter.9 Neither do we claim that our own stance is free from the influence of intellectual ideologies. On the contrary, the genesis of this project emerged from our conviction that work on language is a fundamentally interdisciplinary undertaking, and that intellectual exchange over time and among disciplines can invigorate language theory with new influences, methodologies, and approaches. The history of linguistics has demonstrated that previously unknown or minority language situations have the potential to stimulate and open new avenues in mainstream linguistic traditions. The continuity of a given tradition or the emergence of a different paradigm shift in language sciences are the result of a number of factors, including group configurations and reformulations; theoretical, empirical and social findings; and heretofore unrecognized factors in circumstantial historical discoveries (the interaction between English and Indian linguists working on Sanskrit and the foundation of modern Western linguistics in the 19th century come to mind). The conditions for substantive realignment in language science cannot be created in a publication as if it were a test tube. However, widening our scope to

6

6  Gabriel Rei-Doval & Fernando Tejedo-Herrero include more peripheral situations and traditions could indicate new opportunities that have been overshadowed by central, long-​standing dilemmas. In this regard, the incorporation of minority peripheral linguistic traditions (e.g., Galician, Catalan) offers the possibility to explore new topics or revisit assumptions about old ones. This can be accomplished if Lusophone and Hispanic linguists accept that deeply rooted traditions are not necessarily better prepared to understand linguistic description and interpretation than those coming from minoritized peripheral traditions and, in turn, this is possible only if we understand that theories, goals, methods, and concepts in Linguistics are as temporary as in any other field of inquiry and, indeed, in any aspect of human intellectual and biological life. Previously overlooked perspectives may contribute to innovative approaches while matters that have been considered peripheral may become more central as the shift in the chosen object of analysis has the potential to refine the analysis itself.

4.  Outline of the volume The present volume contains 14 peer-​reviewed articles, organized around 3 thematic sections: (1) Historiography and Epistemology (2); Linguistic Analysis; and (3) Language in Society.10 Historiography and Epistemology. These chapters are concerned with questions of epistemology by looking at the historiography of labels such as “Hispanic,” “Spanish,” “Portuguese,” “Lusophone,” or “Galician”; the underlying ideologies behind the development of a standardized variety; or the relationship between standardization and other topics, such as translation. Moreno-​Fernández opens the section with a chapter that focuses on one of the central issues, namely our understanding of language and cultural labels, especially in connection to the field of linguistics. The author explores the main trends and shifts in the use of hispánico since the 20th century and frames the question within the two most important paradigms in the study of the Spanish language: the Pidalian paradigm and the Hispanic paradigm. Moreno-​Fernández explores this issue through the lens of the curricula found in the Iberian Peninsula and in the Americas (including the United States) and comments on the close ties between the epistemologies of labels such as hispánico and lusófono and the ramifications of how these labels have been understood and construed. Chapter 2, by Lucchesi, offers an original account of the current linguistic situation in Brazil, the linguistic tension within Brazilian society, and the polarization between Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese. The author suggests that in order to define Brazilian Portuguese, it is crucial to acknowledge its development as a contact-​induced variety among speakers of Amerindian, African, and European languages. While the Brazilian Portuguese variety (or some of its variants) has been accepted by the Brazilian elite, the cultural dependence of Portugal is heavily felt. Lucchesi’s chapter demonstrates the intricate layers to consider when trying to understand

 7

Interdisciplinarity in linguistics 7 the sociolinguistic divisions in Brazil’s society and between Brazilian and European Portuguese. In Chapter  3, Monteagudo studies the phenomenon of translation to and from Galician and Portuguese, the variety of the language used in the process, and the reception of the translated text. Monteagudo incorporates various competing proposals and working ideologies in the standardization of Galician, as well as the differences and similarities among the Galician, Brazilian, and Portuguese language codes, to reflect on epistemological issues about the notions of “Galician” and “Portuguese,” and the linguistic future of Galician with respect to Portuguese. Chapter  4, by González-​ Seoane and Rei-​ Doval, studies an important phase in the process of standardization of Galician, namely, the intensification in the elaboration and codification of Galician through the cultural movement known as Rexurdimento (“Renaissance”). This revival of Galician in the written domain introduced the language to public use, but also resulted in debates over the preferences promoted in grammars and dictionaries published at the time. In the words of the authors: “Our historiographical analyses of the ideologies on language contact underscore the different metalinguistic processes involved, as well as the importance of purism for language standardization.” The section closes with Chapter 5 by Álvarez, who offers a detailed overview of the history of Galician linguistics, including a periodization and foci of research during each period proposed. The author describes the various language-​planning activities connected with the diffusion, codification, and acceptance of a standard variety of Galician. These activities have created collaborative opportunities as a language uniquely positioned to contribute to the Lusophone and Hispanic traditions, given its historical, geographical, and linguistic traditions. Linguistic Analysis. The second section of this volume includes five chapters that examine, from synchronic and diachronic perspectives, innovative linguistic analyses on an array of topics in pragmatics, semantics, morphology, syntax, and phonetics and phonology. The chapters offer Spanish and (Brazilian or European) Portuguese contrastive analyses of linguistic features or structures that advance our understanding of various phenomena connected with cognitive semantics in Spanish, and propose original approaches to analyze changes in progress in Spanish derivational morphology, and lack thereof, in bilingual communities of Mallorca (Spain). On the whole, the studies offer a broad range of frameworks in their linguistic analyses. In their contribution in Chapter  6 (“NEG-​NADA: Discourse-​pragmatic licensing of non-​canonical negation in two related languages”), Johnson and Schwenter employ data from Brazilian Portuguese and Argentinian Spanish to analyze parallel expressions (structurally) in the presentation of contexts involving the item nada, as in Brazilian Portuguese: “Eu acho que o pai dela já morreu.—​Não morreu nada,” and Argentinian Spanish: “Creo que su padre

8

8  Gabriel Rei-Doval & Fernando Tejedo-Herrero ya murió”—​No murió nada.” The differences, however, in terms of information structure and the properties of the targeted information are different. Moving on to the area of semantics, Anderson proposes in Chapter 7 the need for further studies from a prototypical framework to better account for individual variation in speakers’ interpretations of semantic extensions. Anderson’s evidence shows that classifications of metaphors are not as clear-​ cut as received descriptions might indicate. Because of fuzziness in the interpretation and variation at the individual and group levels, it behooves us to further continue our investigation on metaphors. In Chapter 8, Conner studies a change in progress in the morphology of Spanish (and other Romance languages) concerned with the status of Greek prefixes (macro-​, mega-​, (p)seudo-​). Conner demonstrates, within current approaches to (de)grammaticalization, the various degrees of debonding in neoclassical prefixes in connection with syntactic autonomy and gender and number agreement. Conner argues that these cases might represent the incipient stages of a recategorization process that encourage further pan-​Romance research to explore the process and its possible underlying restrictions. Enrique-​ Arias demonstrates in Chapter  9 (“Testing contact-​ induced change in the Spanish of Mallorca. Insights from a historical perspective”) that what might seem at first glance to be a set of recent language-​induced changes in the Spanish of bilingual speakers from Mallorca is in fact the retention of 18th-​century or older phenomena, such as variants that were neither incorporated into the Catalan standard nor ousted linguistically or socially. Enrique-​Arias’s study demonstrates two important aspects: first, not all language contact leads to change; and, second, the important connection between historical perspective and research in present-​day language variation. In the last chapter of the section, “On the Development of Latin /​mVr/​ and /​nVr/​in the History of Spanish and Portuguese,” Wireback offers an original approach to a long-​studied issue in Luso-​Hispanic historical linguistics. The author combines current phonological theory with grammaticalization approaches to study the different outcomes of the Latin sequences /​nasal/​+ unstressed vowel + /​r/​in Castilian, Portuguese, and other Romance languages. Language in Society. The last section of the volume is devoted to the study of language in society from a variety of perspectives (synchronic and diachronic) and foci (phonetics, morphology or, more generally, language standardization). The section opens with Chapter  11, “Using Statistics as a Tool in the Analysis of Sociolinguistic Variation: A comparison of current and traditional methods,” by Díaz-​Campos and Dickinson, who provide an overview of three of the most widely used methods applied to the study of language variation and change: conditional inference tree; mixed-​effects model; and logistic regression. In the chapter, Díaz-​Campos and Dickinson review the pros and cons of these statistical models and underscore the crucial importance of qualitative research as a first priority. The authors demonstrate this

 9

Interdisciplinarity in linguistics 9 point in their analysis of two morphosyntactic variables: word order in and choice of . Chapter  12, by Michael Gradoville, studies “The Disappearance of the Morphological Future from Educated Spoken Carioca Portuguese.” The author applies the mixed-​effects model to study the social and linguistic predictors in the variation of the future form (expressed as a morphologically marked form or as a periphrastic future). The study concludes that age (a social factor) and third-​person subject, high frequency, and low certainty of the event’s occurrence (linguistic factors) were significant in maintaining the use of the morphological future. In addition, the author contributes a counter-​example to the scholarship against frequency as a predictor of selection of the future form and offers suggestions on sampling methodologies for those cases in which distribution of variants might be uneven across data sets. In Chapter 13, Scherre, Yacovenco, and Paiva offer a brief survey of the history of sociolinguistics in Portugal and Brazil, particularly as regards studies and projects connected with research on second-​ person pronouns (você/​ tu). The authors compare the variation between você (and variants ocê, cê) and tu in Brazilian Portuguese, and suggest the existence of four major sub-​ systems in the use of the second-​person forms of address. As demonstrated by Scherre, Yaconvenco, and Paiva, collaborative bridges between Brazilian and European Portuguese traditions could contribute key findings about the intra-​and inter-​linguistic diversity of Portuguese. The section closes with Chapter 14, by Castro, which compares the effects of institutional language standardization on the phonological inventory of Galician. Castro focuses on four consonantal characteristics (/​v/​, /​x/​as produced in gheada, /​s/​, /​ʎ/​) and one aspect of the vocalic system (the loss of vowels in unstressed position) to discuss the ideologies and influences behind language standardization and identity-​ construction in Galician (e.g. the media, speakers who shift from Spanish to Galician as their more dominant language, the educational system, etc.).

5.  Concluding remarks Based on the above, we hope that this volume will contribute to and enhance work on comparative studies that integrate lesser-​ examined languages, such as Galician. The inclusion of papers that adopt different traditions and frameworks promotes a more open exchange of ideas about theories and methodologies, challenges accepted tenets, and offers alternatives that can be adopted in future studies. While some of the contributions reflect on the historiography of ideas and epistemological issues concerned with languages and their linguistic traditions, others use empirical data to further the study of language. Both the historiographical and the empirically based approaches can contribute to the scientific study of language. If research into subfields of Linguistics, such as those addressed in this volume, advances our

10

10  Gabriel Rei-Doval & Fernando Tejedo-Herrero understanding of language, then reflecting on the history of linguistic knowledge, likewise discussed herein, may well serve as an overarching perspective that presents us with a wealth of research avenues as yet unexplored.

Notes 1 Linguistic traditions can be understood in a variety of ways (Swiggers, 2010, p. 7). For our purpose and in the context of geographically defined linguistic varieties, the notion of linguistic tradition is understood as the focus on the evolutionary course of linguistic knowledge in the territories where Galician, Portuguese, and Spanish are spoken. It is important to emphasize that the interdisciplinarity of historical historiography is rooted in the intersection of linguistics, history, philosophy, and the sociology of science. 2 Even though language assumed an important role in the process of independence and nation-​building among scholars, it is worth mentioning that representation of indigenous languages was never at the forefront. This sowed the seeds for language maintenance issues in many Latin American countries (the exception being Guaraní in Paraguay). For relevant studies concerned with the history and rise of Spanish as a global language and the ideologies behind it, see Del Valle (2015), Del Valle and Stheeman (2002), and Sánchez Méndez (2003). 3 Paradoxically, during the revival of Galician in the 19th century, Galician was still the variety spoken by more than 90  percent of the population (Rei-​Doval, forthcoming). 4 Relevant bibliography about the language revitalization process (i.e., normalización lingüística) can be found in Lluch and Kabatek (2006) and Herreras (2006). 5 Regueira (2006–​ 2007) offers an illuminating in-​ depth contextualization of the development of Galician as a standard language. 6 Galician linguistics before the 1970s was focused on traditional approaches, such as Dialectology and History of the language. In the 1970s, language contact studies became more common as the need for a standard began to be perceived. The situation changed dramatically when language corpora become available in the 21st century, cfr. Regueira (2006–​2007) and Álvarez (this volume). For a state-​of-​the-​ art guide to Galician (and Portuguese) Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, see Dubert and Galves (2015). For a comprehensive bibliographical account of Galician Linguistics, see Regueira Fernández et al. 1996 and Bibliografía da lingua galega www.cirp.gal/​bdo/​bil/​bilega.html). 7 Galician is also experiencing a case of pluricentricity; as Dubert and Galves observe about the varieties spoken along the Galician–​Asturian border: “While they are traditionally considered part of the Galician language, some Asturian academics (SLNE 2006) argue that they constitute an independent language and merit their own standardization’s [sic] process” (2015, p. 411). 8 For an important discussion about how Sociolinguistics and Formal Linguistics can inform each other to “illuminate a path towards a genuine science of language” see, for instance, Guy (2011). 9 Additionally, the volume was not conceived as a handbook that covers the main angles in the cross-​sectional analysis of Spanish, Portuguese, and Galician, but rather invites an integration and common consideration of all three traditions in future analyses and studies. Recent publications in book format such as Español

 11

Interdisciplinarity in linguistics 11 y portugués en contacto. Préstamos léxicos e interferencias (Corbella & Fajardo, 2017) and Portuguese-​ Spanish Interfaces: Diachrony, synchrony, and contact (Amaral & Carvalho, 2014) are excellent examples of how this approach can positively contribute to the linguistic analysis and understanding of each tradition. It is no coincidence that many of the examples come from scholars who have made contributions to the field of language contact. Indeed, this approach to the study of language has often drawn from a variety of disciplines, perspectives, and methodologies, question existing frames, defy mainstream approaches and traditions built exclusively or mainly on standardized language varieties, and challenge the ideologies that supported those viewpoints. 10 Some of which were originally presented in earlier versions at the four editions of the Lusophone and Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, hosted at the University of Wisconsin–​Milwaukee and the University of Wisconsin–​Madison (2013–​2016).

References Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. Brocardo, M. T. & Lopes, C. R.  S. (2016). History and current setting. In W. L. Wetzels, J. Costa, & S. Menuzzi (Eds.), The handbook of Portuguese linguistics, pp. 1–​14. Oxford: Wiley. Corbella, D. & Fajardo, A. (Eds.). (2017). Español y portugués en contacto. Préstamos léxicos e interferencias. Berlin: De Gruyter. Del Valle, J. (Ed.). (2015). Political history of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Del Valle, J. & Gabriel-​Stheeman, L. (Eds.). (2002). The battle over Spanish between 1800 and 2000: Language ideologies and Hispanic intellectuals. London: Routledge. Dubert García, F. (2013). As formas tipo ‘tivo’ e o contacto lingüístico cos romances centrais. In Gugenberger, E., Monteagudo, H., & Rei-​Doval, G. (Eds.), Contacto de linguas, hibrididade, cambio: contextos, procesos e consecuencias, pp. 137–​167. Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega/​Instituto da Lingua Galega. Dubert García, F. (2017). Sobre a Gallaecia Magna e as relacións históricas e xeolingüísticas entre galego, portugués e asturiano. Estudis romànics, 39,  43–​69. Dubert García, F. & Galves, C. (2015). Galician and Portuguese. In Ledgeway, A., & Maiden, M. (Eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, pp. 411–​446. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Escobar, A. M. (2014). Haciendo visible lo invisible: Contacto de lenguas e instrumentos de vitalidad lingüística. In Zajícová, L. & Zámec, R. (Eds.), Lengua y política en América Latina: perspectivas actuales (Language and Politics in Latin America: Present Perspectives), pp. 149–​175. Olomouc, Czech Republic: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. (appeared in 2015). Gonçalves, M. F. (2006). Treinta años de historiografía lingüística del portugués. In Villayandre Llamazares, M. (Ed.), Actas del XXXV Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística, pp. 732–​745. León: Universidad de León. Available at: www3.unileon.es/​dp/​dfh/​SEL/​actas.htm. Guy, G. R. (2011). Sociolinguistics and formal linguistics. In Wodak, R., Johnstone, B., & Kerswill, P. (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics, pp. 249–​264. London: SAGE.

12

12  Gabriel Rei-Doval & Fernando Tejedo-Herrero Haugen, E. (1972 [1966]). Dialect, language, nation. In Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings, pp. 97–​111. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Herreras, J. C. (2006). Lenguas y normalización en España. Madrid: Gredos. Joseph, J., Love, N., & Taylor, T. (2001). Introduction. In Joseph, J., Love, N., & Taylor, T. (Eds.), Landmarks in linguistic thought II. The Western tradition in the twentieth century, pp. 8–​13. London: Routledge. Junyent, C. (2018). Per a què serveix un lingüista? In VilaWeb [April 27,  2018]: www.vilaweb.cat/​noticies/​per-​a-​que-​serveix-​un-​linguista-​grup-​estudi-​llengues-​ amenacades-​gela/​ Lluch, M. & Kabatek, J. (Eds.). (2006). Las lenguas de España. Política lingüística, sociología del lenguaje e ideología desde la Transición hasta la actualidad. Madrid: Iberoamericana. Mariño Paz, R. (1999). Historia da lingua galega. 2nd ed. Santiago de Compostela: Sotelo Blanco. Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5/​4, 530–​555. Monteagudo, H. (1999). Historia social da lingua galega. Vigo: Galaxia. Ramallo, F. (2007). Sociolinguistics of Spanish in Galicia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 184,  21–​36. Ramallo, F. & Rei-​Doval, G. (2015). Standardization of Galician. Sociolinguistica: International Yearbook of European Sociolinguistics /​Internationales Jahrbuch für Europäische Soziolinguistik, 29 (1), 61–​82. Regueira, X. L. (2006–​2007). Galician language studies: Between ideology and linguistics. Galician Review, 5–​6,  1–​24. Rei-​Doval, G. (forthcoming). Galician-​Spanish language contact. In Sousa, X., and González-​Seoane, E. (Eds.), Manual of Galician linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. Sánchez Méndez, J. 2003. Historia de la lengua española en América. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch. Swiggers, P. (2010). History and historiography of linguistics: Status, standards, and standing. EUTOMIA. Revista Online de Literatura e Linguística, 3 (2), 1–​17.

 13

Part I

Historiography and epistemology

14

 15

1  Hispanic linguistics Epistemological labels, contents, and borders Francisco Moreno-​Fernández

1.  Introduction The notion of “Hispanic” is far from being interpreted in a unanimous fashion. It is enough to compare the Spanish definition of the word hispánico given in the Diccionario de la Lengua Española with the English-​language definition provided by Merriam-​Webster’s Dictionary: Diccionario de la Lengua Española (DLE) (2014) 1. Perteneciente o relativo a la antigua Hispania o a los pueblos que formaron parte de ella. ‘Belonging or relating to Ancient Hispania or to the peoples that inhabited it.’ 2. Perteneciente o relativo a España y a los países y cultura de habla española. ‘Belonging or relating to Spain and to Spanish-​speaking countries and culture.’ Merriam-​Webster Dictionary  (2011) Simple definition: coming originally from an area where Spanish is spoken and especially from Latin America; also: of or relating to Hispanic people. Full definition: of or relating to the people, speech, or culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal. The differences between the two languages might be subtle, but they are still significant. The Diccionario de la lengua española makes a clear reference, on one hand, to Ancient Hispania, where Spanish was not spoken and, on the other hand, to Spanish-​speaking countries, without any mention of the Lusophone world. The English-​language dictionary grants a special position to Latin America, while also clearly mentioning Spain and Portugal, the two modern countries that correspond geographically with Ancient Hispania. Additionally, when “Hispanic” is interpreted from specific national contexts, different semantic features emerge: for instance, in the United States, “Hispanic” refers to people and communities, whether born within

16

16  Francisco Moreno-Fernández the United States or not, that have origins in Spanish-​speaking countries, and the term is used by the U.S. Census as an official ethnic category (US Census Bureau, 2017). These simple and accessible references reveal several truths. First of all, they indicate that the interpretation of the concept of “the Hispanic” is conditioned by geographic and historical factors. Beyond this, they show that the multiple meanings of the word Hispanic, both in English and in Spanish, encourage the appearance of values derived from different ideologies (Moraña, 2005), with ideology being understood as a body of notions and beliefs related to a specific social or cultural reality (Woolard, 1998, pp. 5–​9). This polysemy and the interpretations that are derived from it are not diminished when the adjective Hispanic is applied to language or to any of its spoken or written manifestations, including the study of language itself. José del Valle (2016, p. 35) referred to the complexity of the word “Hispanic” as a term that problematically points at sub-​national, national, and transnational cultural fields. As a result, the meaning conferred by Hispanic in phrases such as Hispanic linguistics, Hispanic philology, or Hispanic literature—​and even Hispanic language or Hispanic culture—​is neither constant nor homogeneous; and its use in different contexts can have different references and connotations as well. The following pages will present an analysis of the epistemological contents and limits of “Hispanic linguistics” over the last century with thought also given to Lusophone linguistics. This analysis will allow us to explicate referents to which this label has been applied and also to understand how the concept of “Hispanic linguistics” has been dealt with in the academic world. This will require keeping in mind various aspects of the fields of linguistic ideologies and sociology of science and knowledge, as well as the ways in which these subjects are studied across university curricula in different countries.

2.  The “Hispanic” trend The semantic history of the term Hispanic reveals a multiplicity of meanings that, in turn, have been conditioned by the meanings of related words from the same lexical family (Hispanicity, Hispanism). In effect, the semantics of the word Hispanic has referred primarily to the following: 1. Ancient Hispania, as a geographic whole. 2. The peoples born from Ancient Hispania in later periods. 3. Spain and Portugal, as a geographic whole, with all their linguistic and cultural diversity. 4. Spain in its geographic totality, with its linguistic and cultural diversity. 5. The Spanish language and culture. 6. The territories and nations in which Spanish is spoken. 7. The community and group of peoples that speak Spanish. On the other hand, when the geography of the Spanish language is taken into account, it quickly becomes clear that the terms used to define it and qualify it present a complex onomasiology. As a matter of fact, the territories where Spanish is spoken and that, as a result, constitute one of the principal referents for the concept of “Hispanic linguistics,” have received

 17

Hispanic linguistics: Epistemological labels 17 various names over the course of history. These names are of interest due to the different nuances that each one brings, and because of the connotations associated with each one in each geographic area and in every historical moment. Among these denominations, the most relevant are Hispanoamérica (Hispanic America) and Latinoamérica (Latin America), without forgetting others like Iberoamérica (Ibero-​ America) and mundo hispánico (Hispanic world).1 The semantic evolution of the word hispánico (Hispanic) starts with a historical reference to Ancient Hispania and the territories born from it, and then during the 20th century, begins to refer to the domain of Spanish language and culture. But the question that arises immediately is what led to the appearance and diffusion of this referential value. The answer to this question must shed light on the epistemology of “Hispanic linguistics.” As a starting point, one must take into account the fact that, even if the notions of “Hispanoamérica” and of “hispanoamericano” (Hispanic American) were primarily utilized in the Americas after the Independence period, the notion of “Hispanic” was first developed in Spain, even if the term was not necessarily created there. This is also true of related notions of “hispanidad” (Hispanicity), “hispanismo” (Hispanism) (both in the first half of the 20th century) and “Iberoamérica” (at the end of the 19th century). In the progression of these concepts, it is worth highlighting the period immediately following the loss of Spain’s last colonies or provinces in Asia and in the Americas (Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam). At that period in history, there was a sense of deep reflection on Spain’s reality, now separate from that of Spanish America, and a conception of the Americas as a whole, around the Fourth Centenary of Columbus’s arrival in the Americas. And even if it was invented before 1898, the concept of “Iberoamérica,” which also includes the Portuguese-​speaking world, began to find fertile ground for its development in Spain during the first decades of the 20th century. On the other hand, the consolidation of the new American republics, in the last decades of the 19th century, led to a progressive intellectual rapprochement with Spain as soon as a sense of American identity was affirmed (Formentín Ibáñez & Villegas Sanz, 1992). Proof of this is the foundation of Spanish-​ American Academies of Language in correspondence with the Real Academia Española (Royal Spanish Academy), a process that began with the foundation of the Colombian Academy of the Spanish Language in 1871, with Rufino José Cuervo at the head.2 This reconciliation with Spain was reciprocated by numerous Spanish intellectuals, who wanted to affiliate themselves with American university circles. In 1911, Adolfo Posada said that it was a matter of “establishing a solid intellectual cooperation with Hispanic America that would have a common culture at its base, and that would abandon paternalistic projects geared toward aiding America.” The Real Academia Española unfurled a policy of openness toward American varieties of Spanish, the most evident manifestation of which was the 15th edition of the dictionary, then known as the Diccionario de la lengua

18

18  Francisco Moreno-Fernández española (Dictionary of the Spanish Language), not Diccionario de la lengua castellana (Dictionary of the Castilian Language) as in previous editions. The 15th edition, published in 1925, took a qualitative and quantitative leap in the lexicographical treatment of American words. According to this edition’s prologue, the new title was the result of the greater attention given to the multiple linguistic regions—​Aragonese, Leonese, and Hispano-​American—​which integrate the literary and cultivated language. We can see, then, how a sentiment and discourse of community based on the Spanish language was forged, offering a new sociocultural interpretation of the old relations between the metropolis and its provinces, as well as between Castile and other provinces of Spain. Later, Francisco Franco’s dictatorship had a significant influence on configuring Spanish thought about Spanish America and about the conception of relationships between Spain and the group of Hispano-​American republics. It was in this period that the term hispánico, of much older origin, received the push of Francoist cultural strategy. In 1940, Franco founded the Consejo de la Hispanidad (The Council of Hispanicity) which, in 1945, became the Instituto de Cultura Hispánica (The Institute of Hispanic Culture), again making use of the adjective in question to refer to regions through which Spanish language and culture had spread. The publication Mundo hispánico was founded in 1947, and the Biblioteca de los Pueblos Hispánicos (Library of Hispanic Peoples) began in 1949. In 1948, the publication Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos was introduced and, though its title makes use of an adjective with a longer tradition in the Americas (Hispanoamericanos), it already carried the subtitle of Revista mensual de Cultura Hispánica (Monthly Review of Hispanic Culture). In 1956 the Real Academia Española itself debuted the meaning of hispánico, which refers to the peoples who made up Ancient Hispania and to “those who were born of these peoples in later eras,” including speakers of the Spanish and Portuguese languages. In Spain, the use of hispánico peaked around 1950, and again around 1980. Figure 1.1, made via the NGram tool of Google Books,3 shows how 1950 and 1980 were the years with a wider usage of hispánico in Spanish-​language publications. However, in a similar way to the Fourth Centenary, the Fifth Centenary of Columbus’s arrival in America contributed to invigorating the concept of “Hispanic” and to giving it new dimensions after 1992. This milestone led to the construction and reinforcement of a discourse of relations between both sides of the Atlantic, whose conception of Hispanic is based on Spanish language and culture, and not on the Portuguese or Lusophone language and culture. In this period, as a result, with Francoist policy forgotten, a change was produced in the ideological paradigm that entailed a redefinition of the term hispánico and the expansion of its use. In addition, the 1990s bore witness to a strengthening of political, economic, and cultural ties among all of the Spanish-​speaking countries, which encouraged the spread of a discourse of community.

 19

Hispanic linguistics: Epistemological labels 19 0.00000260% 0.00000240% 0.00000220% 0.00000200% 0.00000180% 0.00000160% 0.00000140% hispanico

0.00000120% 0.00000100% 0.00000080% 0.00000060% 0.00000040% 0.00000020% 0.00000000% 1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Figure 1.1 Frequencies of hispánico in the Google Books Ngram Viewer (Spanish) between 1880 and 2000 (Michel et al., 2010).

Since the 1980s, the use of hispánico and hispanoamericano, referring strictly to the Spanish language and Hispanic cultures, began to shift in meaning through discourses, elaborated in Spain and in the Americas, around the new political, economic, social, and cultural relations formed between both sides of the Atlantic. In this process of semantic change, which entails an ideological shift in the Hispanic, the attitude of the Academies of the Spanish Language, which have formed a partnership since 1951, has been decisive, as was the creation in 1992 of the Congresos Internacionales de la Lengua Española (International Conferences of the Spanish Language) (Narvaja de Arnoux & Nothstein, 2014). And so, since the 1990s, the term hispánico has been losing the Francoist connotations that it acquired in Spain, at the same time that it has gradually become more generalized in public and academic discourse in order to designate everything related to the Spanish language and culture that can be expressed in Spanish, all of it linked to its longstanding meaning in the Americas. It is true that the concept of “the Hispanic” can be interpreted with hints with different ideologies (Del Valle & Gabriel-​Stheeman, 2004), but it is just as true that the most recent meaning of hispánico, referring to the Spanish language, as well as to the literature and thought that are communicated in Spanish, must be interpreted in accord with the sociopolitical, economic and cultural environments of the most recent decades and not that of other periods. Thus, it is the reference to “the Hispanic” that becomes evident in titles like Poesía feminista del mundo hispánico, ‘Feminist Poetry of the Hispanic World’ (Flores & Flores, 1984), or La globalización del léxico hispánico, ‘The Globalization of the Hispanic Lexicon’ (López Morales, 2006), to give just two examples of a large collection of works of varied geographic and ideological provenance.

20

20  Francisco Moreno-Fernández

3.  Hispanic linguistics as a sequence of paradigms Karl Popper (1972) introduced, as fundamental elements of the sociology of knowledge and science, its forms of expression and the nature of its methodology. These elements can be traced by looking at the name of scientific specialties, as well as at the thoughts of their creators and promoters. On the other hand, Thomas Kuhn (1962), interested in the evolution of science, established the concept of a “paradigm,” understood as a set of scientific realizations that, during a given period, provide models of problems and their solutions for the scientific community. The concept of “paradigm” was initially applied to physical and biological sciences, but it has been also useful for interpreting the evolution of human sciences, and specifically of linguistics, as John Joseph proposed in 1995. In regard to the labels related to or similar to Hispanic linguistics, there is one in Spain that has stood out above all other possibilities, due to tradition and to the breadth of its contents: Filología Española (Spanish Philology). This label includes the distinguished noun Filología, firmly in use since the 18th century (and attested since the 16th century), but definitively stamped as official with the 1914 foundation of the Revista de Filología Española, under the direction of Ramón Menéndez Pidal, who refused to accept the separation between philology and linguistics (Catalán, 1974). This line of study had a clear historicist, Romanist, and Peninsularist nature characteristic of the so-​called Spanish School of Philology or the Spanish Philological School, which was formed around the Centro de Estudios Históricos (Center for Historical Studies) and has been a major influence on all studies conducted in Spain since its formation (Abad, 1976). In fact, the studies on historical grammar are one of its hallmarks. Indeed, we could talk about the existence, in terms of Kuhn’s philosophy of science, of a Pidalian paradigm in the linguistic-​philological domain that began at the end of the 19th century and extended until the 1980s. The main features of this paradigm would be its historicist nature, a philological approach, and a Romance perspective, as well as the interest in literature as a protagonist and reflection of the linguistic evolution. As scientific realizations of this paradigm and models for the scientific community, Menéndez Pidal’s works Manual elemental de gramática histórica (1904) and Orígenes del español (1929), or Rafael Lapesa’s Historia de la lengua Española (1945) could be mentioned. The Peninsularist nature of the content of this Pidalian paradigm can be seen in the pursuit of projects like the Atlas Lingüístico de la Península Ibérica (Linguistic Atlas of the Iberian Peninsula), promoted by Menéndez Pidal and directed by Tomás Narravo Tomás (1962), which contained the work of collaborators from the Catalan region (Sanchis Guarner, Francisco de Borja Moll) and the Galician-​ Portuguese region (Aníbal Otero, Luís F.  Lindely Cintra, Armando Nobre de Gusmão), among others (Lorenzo Rodríguez-​Castellano) (Cortés Carrera & García Perales, 2009). The rise of

 21

Hispanic linguistics: Epistemological labels 21 this school was also manifest in the later creation in Spain of “Spanish philology” university departments. With respect to the label “Hispanic linguistics,” it is necessary to point out that, during the first half of the last century, its referent has been the languages and cultures that were born from Ancient Hispania, which naturally included Portugal and Portuguese, as well as all of the linguistic varieties of Spain and their historical and literary expressions. This entails, as a result, an interpretation tied to the Pidalian paradigm. However, if its content has expanded progressively toward an America conceived of as a linguistic community and as a cultural complex, in accordance with the vision of Spanish linguist Amado Alonso (1935), that then announced a paradigm shift in advance. This latter feature can be distinguished in various specialized publications, both Spanish and Spanish American, like Revista de Filología Hispánica, which was founded in 1939 under the leadership of Amado Alonso himself (Barrenechea, 1995–​1996). The Instituto de Filología y Literaturas Hispánicas (Institute of Philology and Hispanic Letters) of Argentina (1923) was also created due to the impetus of Menéndez Pidal’s Spanish school (Pérez Pascual, 1998; Del Valle, 2004), with the intention of promoting study in areas of general philology, such as Romance, American, and Indigenous philologies. Both the Revista and the Instituto contained references to Ancient Hispania as well as to the Spanish language and Spanish-​language culture.4 Moreover, Amado Alonso founded the Biblioteca de Dialectología Hispanoamericana in Buenos Aires (1930–​ 1949), the clearest antecedent of an international vision for Spanish dialectology. Somewhat later on, the departure of Alonso from Argentina and his moving to the United States led to the 1947 foundation in Mexico of the Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica. The concept of “Hispanic” that is used in this publication is also quite broad, as can be observed in the categories gathered in the classified bibliography the journal publishes regularly, in which appear sections such as “Linguistic Variation: Latin and Romance Context,” in addition to literature from all regions and time periods. In Spain, a very important indication of how the phrase “Hispanic linguistics” has been understood since the 1950s can be seen in one of the bibliographical monuments of Peninsular philology: Diccionario critico etimológico castellano e hispánico, published by Joan Corominas, with the collaboration of José Antonio Pascual (1980–​ 1991). This edition revises and expands upon the Diccionario critico etimológico de la lengua castellana, published by Corominas between 1954 and 1957. The change of title was justified in a revealing way by Corominas himself in the prologue of the 1980 edition: Adding a word to the title was done because it became objectively necessary. New contributions to the study of the Galician lexicon, and of Galician-​Portuguese in general, make this a critical and complete dictionary, in terms of etymology, of the Western (Romance) Language;

22

22  Francisco Moreno-Fernández its contributions to the analysis of Mozarabic and of Basque-​influenced Romance are not of lesser quality or breadth. In addition, it must be remembered that the Catalan varieties were already very much present in the edition from the 1950s. In this way, the term Hispanic comes to refer to the Peninsular linguistic reality in all of its varieties, without dismissing any information related to Spanish-​American reality. To conclude this point, linguistic research on the Spanish-​ speaking countries—​ in the Americas and in Spain—​utilized the adjective hispánico in the 20th century in reference to the historical entities born from Ancient Hispania in all of its varieties and in all of its regions, with attention paid to Latin and Romance themes in general. This reveals the influence of the Pidalian paradigm, but with an expanded interest in American subjects, which is signaling a paradigm shift into a new one that could be named Hispanic paradigm and that would start in the 1950s to become predominant in 1990s. During a transitional period, some works with the adjective hispánico in its title could be found: for example, Menéndez Pidal’s 1953 Romancero Hispánico (Hispano-​Portuguese, American, and Sephardic) or Enciclopedia Lingüística Hispánica coordinates by Manuel Alvar (1960). The interest in Peninsular linguistic history is evident in both works. The main characteristics of the Hispanic paradigm would be its linguistic approach, its Hispanic American projection, the attention paid to the geographic varieties within their idiomatic and cultural environments, and the interest in spoken language. As scientific realizations of this paradigm and models for the scientific community, several works could be mentioned: Ángel Rosenblat’s Nuestra lengua en ambos mundos (1971), Antonio Alatorre’s Los 1001 años de la lengua española (1979), or Manuel Alvar’s Manual de dialectología hispánica (1996). Within this paradigm, several collaborative and international projects such as the “Proyecto para el studio de la norma culta del español” (Lope Blanch, 1986) or the “Linguistic Atlas of Hispanic America” (Alvar & Quilis, 1984) can also be included, as well as the later “Proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y de América (PRESEEA)” (Moreno-​Fernández, 1996) or the project for the study of “lexical availability” (López Morales, 2005). To the authors mentioned could be added a pleiade of linguists who developed the paradigm in all corners of the Hispanic space: Ambrosio Rabanales (Chile), José Pedro Rona (Uruguay) or José Joaquín Montes Giraldo (Colombia), among others. In the case of the specific designation Filología Hispánica, we have seen that it began to be used in the Americas in the 1920s and that it spread throughout the continent. In the bibliographic dataset of Google Books ®, Filología Hispánica was only equaled by Filología Española in the mid-​1970s. In this period, a field of study called Filología Hispánica was created at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, which served as a reference for other universities in Spain. Nevertheless, on the American side, there were also notable antecedents tied to the Centro de Estudios Históricos (López Sánchez,

 23

Hispanic linguistics: Epistemological labels 23 0.0000900% 0.0000800% 0.0000700% 0.0000600% 0.0000500% 0.0000400% 0.0000300% 0.0000200% 0.0000100% 0.0000000% 1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

Filología Hispánica Lingüística Hispánica

1940

1950

1960

Filología Española

1970

1980

1990

2000

Filología Románica

Lingüística Española

Figure 1.2 Frequencies of Filología española, Filología hispánica, Lingüística hispánica, Lingüística española and Filología románica in Google Books Ngram Viewer (Spanish) between 1880 and 2000 (Michel et al., 2010).

2006), from which sprung the Instituto “Miguel de Cervantes” de Filología Hispánica of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Deepening the analysis, it is interesting to compare all of these Spanish-​ language labels (especially Filología Española and Filología Hispánica) with the corresponding English denominations. According to Figure  1.3, during the first half of the 20th century, one can observe the monopoly of Spanish philology, coinciding with what occurs in Spanish. That said, there has been, since 1960, a spectacular shift in terms, with the major ascent of Hispanic philology, especially since 1980, and an alternation between Hispanic and Spanish linguistics. In effect, we can affirm that the change from the Pidalian paradigm to the Hispanic paradigm occurred in the 1980s among English-​ speaking publications. For Spanish, however, Figure 1.2 shows a coexistence of Filología Española and Filología Hispánica, even though the former one has clearly lost ground since the 1970s. The abandonment of the formulas Spanish philology and Filología Española is probably due not only to a paradigm shift, but also to its exclusive association with studies that refer to Spain or to the fact that there are other languages considered “Spanish languages” which are also spoken in Spain. Next to the most common labels, there are other, similar terms that provide interesting nuances of meaning. On one hand, there are the subjects that deal with specifically linguistic matters, and not the philological ones that are interested in historical and literary questions. In this sense, there is a “Hispanic linguistics” that is differentiated not only from “Hispanic philology” in the manner just mentioned, but also from “Spanish linguistics,”

24

24  Francisco Moreno-Fernández 0.000000700% 0.000000600% 0.000000500% 0.000000400% 0.000000300% 0.000000200% 0.000000100% 0.000000000% 1900

1910

1920

1930

Hispanic philology

1940

1950

1960

Hispanic linguistics

1970

1980

1990

2000

Spanish linguistics

Spanish philology

Figure 1.3 Frequencies of Hispanic philology, Hispanic linguistics, Spanish philology and Spanish linguistics in Google Books Ngram Viewer (Spanish) between 1880 and 2000 (Michel et al., 2010).

whose primary characteristic would be its specific interest in all that relates to language and its study in Spain, even though “Spanish” could also refer to Spanish language in general. “Hispanic linguistics,” for its part, deals with the linguistic questions of Spanish in all of its regions and manifestations, throwing aside its link to the Ancient World and its status as a Romance language, and allowing for a holistic vision of Spanish America that was previously cultivated by Max Leopold Wagner, Pedro Henríquez Ureña and Amado Alonso (Malkiel, 1968, pp. 164–​172). This lexical usage continued in Hispanic America during the second half of the 20th century, as is revealed by the use of the expression lengua hispánica (“Hispanic language,” instead of lengua española, or “Spanish language”) by some intellectuals, as the Venezuelan Ángel Rosenblat in 1962. The general dissemination of the term Hispanic linguistics, together with the “Hispanic philology” label from the last third of the 20th century, clearly reveal the emergence of the new Hispanic paradigm, replacing the Pidalian paradigm, though partway coexisting with it. Another designation that includes references to Spanish language and culture is Filología Románica (Romance philology), product of the studies on Romance languages started in Europe at the end of the 19th century (Malkiel, 1968). This is how linguistic and literary studies have been referred to in Spanish university curricula, especially since the 1940s, presenting a strong relationship between the Peninsular and Romance languages and literatures. A  course of study in Romance philology has been offered at

 25

Hispanic linguistics: Epistemological labels 25 the Universidad Complutense de Madrid since 1944, when the Facultad de Filosofía y Letras were organized into three sections: Romance philology, Classical philology, and Semitic philology. In 1968, however, a change that is significant for our interests was made: the creation of a section named “Hispanic philology,” independent from Romance philology, with a curriculum divided into two subsections: Hispanic linguistics and Hispanic literature (Universidad Complutense). These concentrations included as subjects Galician and Catalan languages and literatures, in addition to Romance linguistics and other similar disciplines. Curiously, literary studies in Spanish distinguish “Spanish literature” from “Spanish-​American literature,” which in the Americas is usually known as “Latin American literature.” In general, “Hispanic literatures” tends to apply to the combined study of Peninsular literatures, not just in the Spanish language.

4.  Hispanic linguistics and Lusophone linguistics The repeated allusion to the interpretation of hispánico as that which refers to the Iberian Peninsula and to the cultural heritage of Hispania forces us to pay some attention to the way in which philological and linguistic investigation on the Spanish language has been tied to the study of the Portuguese language. In other words, it is of great interest to mention how Hispanic linguistics has been able to relate to Lusophone linguistics, given the historical existence of a shared Hispania. Right away, one can see the disparity in the names of the fields of study: lingüística hispánica is the habitual name for the study of the Spanish language, and lingüística lusófona is used for Portuguese, but this has not always been the case. The term lusófono (as well as lusofonía for the entire Lusophone sphere) is a recent introduction into Portuguese; in fact, it is neither found in Figueiredo’s 1925 dictionary nor among the results in Mark Davies’s 2006 corpus of the Portuguese language, which contains references from the 1990s and 2000s (Davies & Ferreira, 2006). The Portuguese-​language Dicionário Houaiss does, however, document its use in 1950. Somewhat similar are the cases of hispanófono (“Hispanophone” or Spanish-​speaking) and hispanofonía (the Spanish-​speaking world). All of these labels display a parallel with the French francophonie, a term created by Onésime Reclus in 1880, even if its wide use did not really begin until 1963 (Tétu, 1992, p. 43). This suggests that, just as the label filología hispánica (Hispanic philology, in the sense of Hispanic linguistics and Hispanic literature) boasts a history of almost a century, the term lingüística lusófona (which refers to the studies of Portuguese, from Portugal, Brazil or any other Lusophone country) can scarcely claim two decades as a common denomination, whether in replacement of or in tandem with the more traditional lingüística (or filología) portuguesa. The Portuguese field, then, resolves with a linguistic reference what the Spanish domain expresses via a historical one. Upon analysis of the relationships that have existed between the linguistic study of Spanish and that of Portuguese in the last hundred years—​that is,

26

26  Francisco Moreno-Fernández beyond personal relationships between experts or their knowledge of Spain and Portugal, Brazil or the Spanish-​American republics—​it is determined that there have not been scientific links close enough to allow any thought about a shared epistemology. Of course, this absence of close relations has not been without exceptions, but it seems to be the prevalent dynamic, which can be proved in various ways. First of all, the most notable figures in Portuguese and Brazilian philology in the early 20th century were found in Europe, principally in France and Germany. Portuguese philological studies had a strong Romanist base, which oriented its gaze toward Northern Europe. It was in this context that the work of Friedrich Diez, Harri Meier, and Joseph Piel was read and cited assiduously in the training of Portuguese students. (Bechara, 1997, p. 10). In addition, there were linguists, such as David de Melo Lope and Serafim Pereira de Silva Neto, who were trained in Europe, not to mention the German origin of one of the most prominent figures of Portuguese linguistics: Carolina Michaëlis (Gärtner, 1997). This Northern European predominance was prolonged by the advent of Structuralism, even if, by the second half of the century, models from the United States began to be more frequent, especially in the field of Generativism and in the study of variation. Furthermore, Brazilian linguistics has been characterized by its interest in the study of modalities native to Brazil, following a line of national preference already demonstrated in American countries by Eugenio Coseriu (1968), who exerted a large influence on all of Ibero-​American linguistics. This same European influence, including that of Coseriu, had been felt in Hispanic America, thanks to the stays of Andrés Bello and Rufino José Cuervo in London and Paris, respectively, or with the arrival to Chile of Hispanists such as Federico Hansen and Rodolfo Lenz (Coseriu, 1968; Malkiel, 1968). In addition to the international influences, there were other very important influences, between Portugal and Brazil, which are personified by the figure of Leite de Vasconcelos. Evanildo Bechara has affirmed the following (1997, p. 13) about Leite de Vasconcelos: In Portugal and Brazil, he exerted such an effective and decisive influence that it can be argued that everything that has been written about our language either came from his teachings or made reference to them as a guarantee of theoretical solidity. The relationship between Spanish linguistics and Portuguese linguistics has its clearest example in the collaboration of Luís Felipe Lindley Cintra in the Atlas Lingüístico de la Península Ibérica (ALPI: Linguistic Atlas of the Iberian Peninsula) (Cortés Carreres & García Perales, 2009). Cintra was an ALPI researcher promoted by Menéndez Pidal, who was his doctoral advisor, a fact that gave Cintra the ability to learn first-​hand how work was done in the Spanish School, especially with respect to Dialectology and Historical Linguistics (Cintra, 1983). It can be said that, through Cintra, the Pidalian paradigm also reached Portuguese philology. After Cintra, Luso-​Hispanic

 27

Hispanic linguistics: Epistemological labels 27 interactions have primarily occurred in the context of European projects like the Atlas Linguarum Europae (1975; Viereck, 2006) and the Atlas Linguistique Roman (Tuaillon & Contini, 1996), beyond the studies on the connections between Galician and Portuguese.

5.  Hispanic curricular diversity Just as important as the labels used to designate disciplines are the scientific contents and formulations that, in large part, can be determined from the curricula of these disciplines (Piaget, 1968). What has happened in recent decades to courses of study dedicated in the Spanish language or linguistics? Obviously, there is a certain parallelism between the development of research and university education (Rabanales, 1978; Lope Blanch, 1980), but they do not always follow the same rhythm. In the case of Spain, the study of Spanish—​ including Hispanic linguistics—​has been articulated from inside of departments of philology and under the banner of “Hispanic philology” since the 1970s, until the university reform that followed from the Bologna Process, which turned the five-​year licenciaturas (somewhat between a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree) into four-​year undergraduate degrees (Grados) starting in 2007. Before this time, the licenciatura in Hispanic philology included the subjects of language and literature. Literature subjects were referred to as “Spanish literature” or “Spanish-​American literature.” The Spanish-​language subjects, held separate from General Linguistics since being reconfigured as a different area of knowledge in 1984, fundamentally include “Spanish language” (subdivided into the study of its different levels), “History of the Spanish language,” “Dialectology,” and “Sociolinguistics.” In each of these fields, the weight of the Spanish Philological School continues to be felt, even if they have opened up to the influence of the Hispanic paradigm. Of these fields, the ones most interested in variation are also more clearly dedicated to the labeling conflict, especially Dialectology. In Spain, the traditional title of this latter field has been “Spanish dialectology,” following the philological, and Peninsularist, tradition that calls for a defense of the linguistic unity of the Iberian-​Romance group against the Gallo-​Romance dialect group. Only during the transition toward the current century has the designation “Hispanic dialectology” begun to be used widely, finding initial support in the work of Manuel Alvar: Dialectología hispánica (1978) and especially Manual de dialectología hispánica (1996). Of course, Alvar had already used the adjective hispánico to title a work on dialectology, in which extensive attention was given to American varieties of Spanish: 1960s Textos hispánicos dialectales (Dialectal Hispanic Texts). Let us not forget that the traditional manuals of Vicente García de Diego and Alonso Zamora Vicente were called Manual de dialectología española (1959) and Dialectología española (1960), respectively, and that these works paid much attention to the contact of Spanish with other Peninsular varieties, while giving little time to

28

28  Francisco Moreno-Fernández the study of American parlances. The use of hispánico in Alvar’s work seems to be evidence of the rise of a Hispanic paradigm and to respond more to the influence of dialectological studies performed in the Americas after Amado Alonso and the ideological shift with respect to “the Hispanic” experienced in Spain around 1992. Alvar, who had not come up from Menéndez Pidal’s personal circle, was a good example of this shift. Hispanic linguistics in Mexico largely established itself on the basis of studies done in El Colegio de México, founded in 1943 by exiled Spanish intellectuals and traditionally focused on literary matters and topics of historical and cultural appeal (Coseriu, 1968, p. 17), as can be seen in the trajectory followed by the previously mentioned Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica. Attention to more purely linguistic subjects, within a Hispanic paradigm, began to develop with the work of Juan M.  Lope Blanch (1987), director of the monumental Atlas Lingüístico de México (1990–​2000) and who had studied in the Spanish Philological School environment (Martín Butragueño, 2003). This attention to linguistics has continued in the lexicographic work of Luis F. Lara and in the sociolinguistic work of Pedro Martín Butragueño. In Mexico, the National Autonomous University of Mexico has offered a licenciatura since 1998 in Hispanic Language and Literatures. This program’s description mentions the study of the “structure and historical development of the Spanish language, as well as of Hispanic literatures (Mexican, Spanish and Ibero-​American).”5 The content attributed to this use of Hispanic is important, even though these literatures are presented in the curriculum as the differentiated traditions of Mexican Literature, Spanish Literature, and Ibero-​American Literature. Curiously, the adjective in question only appears specifically once in the course listing, for a class in “Hispanic philology” dedicated to the study of Latin phonetics and lexicon and their evolution on the Iberian Peninsula, thus reviving a “Peninsularista” usage of the label hispánico as it was known in Spain throughout the 20th century. In South America, the university curricula of Argentina, Colombia, and Chile are worthy of attention, even if there is only space here to mention one university from each country. All of these universities organize their content in accord with what we have called the Hispanic paradigm. As has already been stated, Argentina was the pioneer among Spanish-​American nations in establishing Linguistics and Philology as fields of study, and was home to the most important center for Hispanic Studies in Ibero-​America until the 1950s. This was achieved due to the efforts of Amado Alonso, whose work was furthered by eminent scholars like Pedro Henríquez Ureña, Ángel Rosenblat, Raimundo Lida, and Ana María Barrenechea, the latter sharing Alonso’s interest in the value of Structuralism. The University of Buenos Aires began a licenciatura that, curiously enough, did not include any adjectives related to the Spanish language in any of the course titles dealing with linguistics, with one exception: “Spanish American dialectology.” In the literary domain, however, there are indeed specific mentions of Argentine, Spanish, and Latin American Literatures. Linguistics subjects are referred to as “Linguistics,”

 29

Hispanic linguistics: Epistemological labels 29 “Grammar,” “Sociolinguistics,” “Lexical theory,” and even “History of the language,” without any further indications. This form of presenting linguistics courses was quite possibly an attempt to avoid old debates about the name of the language previously mentioned in Amado Alonso’s well-​known book, Castellano, español, idioma nacional (1942). At the University of Buenos Aires, the first chair of Grammar, with a strong structuralist imprint, was created in 1958. Since the 1980s, partly because of the exhaustion of the structuralist model, linguistic studies were oriented toward discourse analysis and textual grammar. Subsequently, different specialties of linguistics have been incorporated into the Argentinean university, largely influenced by research from the United States (Giammateo & Albano, 2007). In Colombia, the Instituto Caro y Cuervo, founded in 1942, was the primary center for linguistic instruction in the country until the 1990s. In the 1970s, the Institute took the baton from the Institute of Buenos Aires as the principal center of linguistic research in Ibero-​America. Its most relevant lines of inquiry were lexicography and dialectology, with the Atlas Lingüístico y Etnográfico de Colombia (Linguistic and Ethnographic Atlas of Colombia) as the standard (Flórez, 1981–​1983). Decisive in the making of this work was the consultation of several Spanish linguists, chief among them Tomás Navarro Tomás (1962), who lived in New York at the time, and Tomás Buesa, of Manuel Alvar’s dialectology school. Notable dialectologists have worked at the Instituto Caro y Cuervo, such as José Joaquín Montes Giraldo (1982), and many of the scholars who studied there now hold university professorships in Colombia. At present, the National University of Colombia offers a licenciatura in Spanish and Classical philology. Its curriculum mentions the instruction of teachers of the Spanish language and of literature (without any adjectives). Among the courses with linguistics content one finds “Phonetics and Spanish phonology” and “History of the Spanish language,” in addition to a Seminar in Spanish linguistics, referring to the language. Finally, since 1943, Chile has had an Institute of Philology that belongs to the University of Chile, the oldest university in the country. This institute has continued the work of the older Pedagogical Institute, founded in 1935 and directed by Rodolfo Oroz. Traditionally, research in Chile has been oriented toward the studies of different forms of Chilean speech, with attention paid to geographical and social factors, even if the most prominent linguists, like Ambrosio Rabanales and Lidia Contreras, also incorporated Structuralism into their research. The University of Chile currently provides licenciaturas in Hispanic Language and Literature, with courses such as “Phonology and Grammar of the Spanish Language,” “Semantics and Pragmatics of the Spanish Language,” and “History of the Spanish Language,” in addition to a Seminar on the Spanish of America. In the literary field, distinctions are made between “Spanish Literature,” “Latin-​American Literature,” and “General Literature.” A cursory look at all those curricula reveal a diversity of solutions, the most notable of which is the wide use of the designation Española to refer

30

30  Francisco Moreno-Fernández to the language, and the inclusion of the adjective Hispánica in some of the licenciaturas, even if the literature from the whole of Hispanic America tends to be referred to as Latin American. More recently, in Spain and in the United States, there has been increasing acceptance of Estudios Hispánicos (Hispanic Studies) as the preferred denomination, thus adopting the adjective already used in other countries—​in France, the Institut d’Études Hispaniques was founded in 19176—​and following the norm established by the strengthening of the bonds between Spanish-​speaking countries, which occurred most particularly after the 1980s. In this way, materials referring to the Spanish language and culture are presented not just as a collective reality, but also in a manner that avoids the conflict between the subjects of Philology, Linguistics, and Literature for priority. In some cases, the epistemological difficulties can be sidestepped by referring to a licenciatura or degree in “Spanish,” as is done in the National University of Colombia and has been recently adopted in the Complutense University of Madrid. In regard to the study of Hispanic linguistics, it is interesting to remember the term Hispanística (“Hispanistics”), frequently utilized in German universities (think of the Bibliographie der Hispanistik, which started in 1971), once it was separated from the more traditional Romanística (“Romanistics”). This field includes linguistic and literary content, orienting interest in the language toward diverse topics (grammar, dialectology, history) that include the teaching and learning of the language. Nevertheless, studies in “Hispanistics” tend to alternate with those of an “Iberian-​Romanistics” that includes Portuguese and other Peninsular languages, and is progressively broadening its interests toward history, culture, and politics, in a manner similar to Cultural Studies (Neuschäfer, 1996).7

6.  And the United States In the United States, there was a Literary Studies tradition nourished by the initial wave of Hispanism (George Ticknor, Alfred Coester) and by the presence of Spanish intellectuals (Federico de Onís, Antonio García Solalinde, Dámaso Alonso, Homero Serís, Pedro Salinas) (Fernández Cifuentes, 2014), many of whom were tied to the Pidalian paradigm. Equally important was the launching of the journal Hispania in 1917, from the hand of Aurelio Espinosa—​the author of important studies on the Spanish of New Mexico—​ who maintained close ties with Menéndez Pidal’s School in terms of both content and form. Also, in 1933, the University of Pennsylvania began the publication of the journal Hispanic Review which, though more concerned with literary and cultural questions, has not been foreign to Linguistics. As a summary, it could be said that in the years following the establishment of Spanish linguistics and Romance linguistics in American universities, these disciplines were firmly rooted in philology, or in literary history, or linguistics, in tune with the Pidalian paradigm (Dworkin, 2006a, p. 118; Greer, 2006, p. 71; Gutiérrez-​Rexach, 2016, p. 11).

 31

Hispanic linguistics: Epistemological labels 31 The study of the Spanish language has had distinguished representatives from the United States. There have been scholars such as Delos L. Canfield and Charles Kany, who have primarily been concerned with dialectal matters; figures interested in historical questions, like Robert Spaulding, Hayward Keniston, John J. Nitti, and A. Lloyd Kasten, who fit perfectly with Hispanic Studies in both Europe and Spanish America (Dworkin, 2006b). On the foundations laid by the English-​language texts written by these important experts, several generations of linguists have worked to extend the tradition of Hispanism in the United States into the present with texts in English and also in Spanish. Such figures include authors such as Peter Boyd-​Bowman, Neddy Vigil, Garland Bills, and John Lipski, all of whom evince an appreciable inclination toward historical and dialectal topics. Authors such as Dwight Bolinger and Richard Teschner, on the other hand, have shown more concern for grammatical, synchronic, and applied themes. All of them, however, reveal a clear connection to the Hispanic paradigm. More recently, Hispanic linguistics in the United States has followed rhythms and the major trends that began in the field of English-​language linguistics. In fact, a good number of linguists of Spanish American origin (from Venezuela, Cuba, Chile, and other countries) have studied with the most renowned specialists in U.S. linguistics and have moved on to fill university positions in Hispanic linguistics, completely removed from the Pidalian paradigm and concerned with topics in phonology and syntax, among other linguistic fields: Francesco D’Introno, Juan Zamora Munné, Jorge Guitart, and Carmen Silva-​Corvalán. Specialists such as these, together with other linguists from the United States have made up a large number of the linguists who currently inhabit linguistics departments in this country. Regarding linguistic studies specifically, Martín-​Astudillo, Ocampo, and Spadaccini published an interesting volume in 2006 titled Debating Hispanic Studies: Reflections on Our Disciplines. The papers collected paid attention both to questions of Hispanism and Hispanic linguistics. Regarding the latter, Francisco Ocampo (2006) pointed out the presence of five recurring themes: the optimistic vision of Hispanic Linguistics as a research field; the external perception of Hispanic linguists as pedagogues and administrators; the emphasis on empirically based research; the encouragement of interdisciplinary research; and the need to strengthen the relationship between linguistics and literature. Despite this last point, U.S. universities offer programs in linguistics that are associated with literature programs in Spanish and Portuguese departments, or in Romance Languages and Literature departments, in which during the last decade, there has been a drift toward Latin American issues and a distancing from topics associated with the language and literature of Spain. The movement toward issues related to Hispanic, or Latin America, is a process derived from the seminal work of noteworthy scholars such as Anderson Imbert, reinforced by the Latin-​Americanist trend driven in the 1980s. Closer to literary and historical fields, and to Cultural Studies above all (Castillo

32

32  Francisco Moreno-Fernández & Egginton, 2006), one encounters labels like “Latino/​a studies” and “Latin American studies,” which are relatively frequent not just in the United States, but in Canada and the United Kingdom as well.

7.  Conclusion The history of the word hispánico, referring to the Spanish language and to culture in Spanish, has experienced a lengthy development process, both in the Americas and in Spain, during which it has been associated with different meanings, including one that linked it to Ancient Hispania and the populations born from it. The term hispánico achieved a high level of use since the 1980s, when there was an ideological shift triggered by the strengthening of political relationships, not just between Spain and Spanish America, but also among Spanish-​American countries themselves, at all levels. These pages have shown that, throughout the 20th century, there has been a paradigm shift in studies on the Spanish language, which has been accompanied by an ideological turn in social discourses. During the first half of the 20th century and up to the 1970s, the Pidalian paradigm was predominant. This paradigm showed a clear philological and historicist interest, while conferring great importance on literary studies. From the eighties, and internationally from the 1990s, the Pidalian paradigm was replaced by the Hispanic paradigm—​clearly interested in linguistics, in its different trends—​and by conceiving of the Spanish-​speaking world as a linguistic and cultural realm with its communalities and particularities. Finally, the study of Portuguese linguistics, which was barely connected to Spanish-​speaking linguistics beyond a few notable exceptions, transitioned from an interest in the field of general Romance languages into the study of the language as part of a tradition that was recently labeled as lusófona. University curricula of recent decades, both in Spain and in the Americas, are interested in Spanish language and culture that is expressed in Spanish, reflecting their adoption of a Hispanic paradigm and a diversity of solutions appropriate to the particular circumstances of each region.

Notes 1 The notion of “Hispanoamérica” and the use of the adjective hispanoamericano, with its morphological variants had a fundamentally American origin during the 19th century, after the independence of the Old Spanish colonies and provinces. More likely than not, the first testimonies referred to in the Corpus Diacrónico del Español (CORDE) come from intellectuals of the young American republics: Venezuelan-​Chilean Andrés Bello (1841), Argentine Domingo Faustino Sarmiento (1845), Chilean Miguel Luis Amunátegui (1853), Ecuadorian Juan Montalvo (1880); Spanish intellectuals aware of the American cultural reality were also not lacking: Antonio Alcalá Galiano (1847), Juan Valera (1868). Previous examples likely exist as well, but it would be difficult to find any from before 1815. The concept and the term Latinoamérica or América Latina, in fact, has its origin in the

 33

Hispanic linguistics: Epistemological labels 33 French Amérique Latine, which also emerged in the 19th century and expanded greatly in the final decades of that century, even though its greatest expansion occurred between the 1960s and 1970s, very much linked to left-​wing intellectuals. If one enters the terms Hispanoamérica, Latinoamérica, and Iberoamérica into the online search engine NGram (Google Books), with the dates limited between 1880 and 2000, one observes that the oldest designation is Hispanoamérica, in reference to the grouping of republics that emancipated themselves from Spain, while Latinoamérica and Iberoamérica do not begin to have a single noteworthy result until midway through the 20th century. From this moment, Latinoamérica experiences exponential growth in Spanish-​language books and establishes a clear predominance over the other alternatives starting in the 1960s and 1970s. Iberoamérica, in turn, has had a more measured and stable usage since the second half of the 20th century, perhaps due to the greater specificity of its referent. With respect to mundo hispánico, it spreads more widely between 1940 and 1970, only to fall in the 1980s and rise again with more stability starting in the 1980s. 2 What is more, during the period in question there was international interest in everything relating to Spanish culture—​not just the folklore—​that led to the creation of the modern concepts of hispanismo and hispanista, and that had spectacular development in France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and, peculiarly, in the United States. 3 This corpus of books on Spanish is formed by texts dated between 1522 and 2011, especially after 1800. In total, the number of volumes scanned is 854,649, which includes more than 8.3 billion words/​tokens (Lin et al., 2012). We do not know the exact composition of the corpus of Spanish-​language books, even if we do know that it includes volumes published in all of the Spanish-​speaking countries. 4 The CORDIAM corpus of the National Autonomous University of Mexico does not yet include the term hispánico/​a. Mark Davies’s corpus, “El corpus del español” (2002), does not provide testimonies previous to those mentioned here. 5 The texts and the contents referring to the courses of study that are mentioned have been accessed directly from the webpages of the universities analyzed. 6 In France, the adjective hispanique has been used frequently in reference to the modern Spanish-​speaking space or the multilingual Peninsular reality. The French publication Bulletin Hispanique was founded in 1899 and includes among its interests linguistic and literary themes from both Spain and the Americas. The Bulletin Hispanique was a competitor of the Revue Hispanique, founded in 1894 (Niño 1988). In 1976, the publication Cahiers d’Études Hispaniques Médiévales was founded. 7 The concept of “Iberística” (“Iberistics,” or Iberian Studies) was created in order to refer to studies concerned specifically with the languages and cultures of the entire Iberian Peninsula. This led to the appearance of university departments and professorships under this name in various European countries.

References Abad, F. (1976). Historia de la lingüística como historia de la ciencia. Valencia: Fernando Torres. Abellán, J. L., & Monclús, A. (Coords.). (1989). El pensamiento español contemporáneo y la idea de América. II. El pensamiento en el exilio. Barcelona: Anthropos. Alatorre, A. (1979). Los 1001 años de la lengua española. México, DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

34

34  Francisco Moreno-Fernández Alonso, A. (1935). El problema de la lengua en América. Madrid: Espasa-​Calpe. Alonso, A. (1942). Castellano, español, idioma nacional. Historia espiritual de tres nombres. Buenos Aires: Losada. Alvar, M. (1960). Textos hispánicos dialectales. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Alvar, M. (Dir.). (1960). Enciclopedia Lingüística Hispánica. 2 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Alvar, M. (1978). Dialectología hispánica. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. Alvar, M. (Dir.). (1996): Manual de dialectología hispánica. Barcelona: Ariel. Alvar, M., & Quilis, A. (1984). Atlas Lingüístico de Hispanoamérica. Cuestionario. Madrid: Instituto de Cultura Hispánica. Atlas Linguarum Europae: Introduction. (1975). Assen: Van Gorcum. Barrenechea, A. M. (1995–​1996). Amado Alonso en el Instituto de Filología de la Argentina. Cauce. Revista de Filología y su Didáctica, pp. 18–​19, 95–​106. Bechara, E. (1997). A tradição gramatical Luso-​ Brasileira. In E. Gärtner (Ed.), Pesquisas lingüísticas em Portugal e no Brasil (pp. 9–​20). Madrid: Iberoamericana. Castillo, D., & Egginton, W. (2006). Hispanism(s) briefly: A reflection on the state of the discipline. Hispanic Issues on Line, 1, pp. 47–​52. Catalán, D. (1974). Lingüística íbero-​románica. Crítica retrospectiva. Madrid: Gredos. Cintra, L. F. Lindely. (1983). Estudos de Dialectologia Portuguesa. Lisboa: Sá da Costa Editora. CORDE. Real Academia Española. [Online]. Corpus diacrónico del español. Retrieved from www.rae.es. Corominas, J. (1980–​1991). Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico. With the col. of J. A. Pascual. Madrid: Gredos. CORPES XXI. Real Academia Española. [Online]. Corpus del español del siglo XXI. Retrieved from www.rae.es. Cortés Carreres, S., & García Perales, V. (Eds.). (2009). La historia interna del Atlas Lingüístico de la Península Ibérica (ALPI). València: Publicacions de la Universitat de València. Coseriu, E. (1968). General perspectives. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Current trends in linguistics. IV: Ibero-​American and Caribbean linguistics (pp. 5–​62). The Hague: Mouton. Davies, M. (2002–present). Corpus del Español: 100  million words, 1200s-​ 1900s. Available online at www.corpusdelespanol.org. Davies, M., & Ferreira, M. (2006–present). Corpus do Português: 45  million words, 1300s-​1900s. Available online at www.corpusdoportugues.org. Del Valle, J. (2004). Menéndez Pidal, la regeneración nacional y la utopía lingüística. In J. del Valle & L. Gabriel-​Stheeman (Eds.), La batalla del idioma. La intelectualidad hispánica ante la lengua (pp. 109–​136). Madrid: Iberoamericana. Del Valle, J. (2016). Lines of the flight in Hispanic linguistics. Hispanic Issues on Line. Debates, 6,  30–​37. Del Valle, J., & Gabriel-​ Stheeman, L. (Eds.). (2004). La batalla del idioma. La intelectualidad hispánica ante la lengua. Madrid: Iberoamericana. Diccionario de Autoridades. Real Academia Española. (1726–​1739). Diccionario de la lengua castellana. Madrid: Ibarra. Dicionário Houaiss da língua portuguesa. (2001). Lisboa: Temas e debates. DLE. Real Academia Española-​Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. (2014). Diccionario de la lengua española. 23rd ed. Madrid: Espasa.

 35

Hispanic linguistics: Epistemological labels 35 DRAE. Real Academia Española. (2001). Diccionario de la lengua española. 22nd ed. Madrid: Espasa-​Calpe. Dworkin, S. (2006a). Thoughts on the place of Spanish linguistics in the American university. Hispanic Issues On Line, 1, 115–​120. Dworkin, S. (2006b). Para la historia de la lingüística española (y románica) en los Estados Unidos (1880–​1940). Caminos actuales de la historiografía lingüística. Vol. 1. (pp. 483–​492). Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. Fernández Cifuentes, L. (2014). Hispanic language and literature in the United States. Three decisive moments. Informes del Observatorio/​Observatorio Reports, 01-​005. Instituto Cervantes at Harvard University. Figueiredo, C. (1846–​1925). Nôvo diccionário da língua portuguêsa. Lisboa: Tavares Cardoso. Flores, Á., & Flores, K. (1984). Poesía feminista del mundo hispánico. México, DF: Siglo XXI. Flórez, L. (1981–​1983). Atlas Lingüístico y Etnográfico de Colombia. 6 vols. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Formentín Ibáñez, J., & Villegas Sanz, M. (1992). Relaciones culturales entre España y América. La Junta para la Ampliación de Estudios (1907–​1936). Madrid: Mapfre. García de Diego, V. (1960). Manual de dialectología española. Madrid: Instituto de Cultura Hispánica. Gärtner, E. (Ed.). (1997). Pesquisas lingüísticas em Portugal e no Brasil. Madrid: Iberoamericana. Giammateo, M., & Albano, H. (2007). Los estudios lingüísticos en Argentina: un breve panorama. Hispanic Issues On Line, 2, 113–​120. Greer, M. (2006). Hispanism and Its Disciplina. Hispanic Issues On Line, 1,  69–​73. Gutiérrez-​Rexach, J. (2016). Hispanic linguistics in North America: How we got here and where we go now. Hispanic Issues On Line. Debates, 6,  10–​20. Joseph, J. (1995). The structure of linguistic revolutions. Historiographia Linguistica, 22, 379–​399. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lapesa, R. (1942). Historia de la lengua española. Madrid: Escelicer. Lin, Y., Michel, J. B-​, Lieberman Aiden, E., Orwant, J., Brockman, W., & Petrov, S. (2012). Syntactic annotations for the Google Books Ngram Corpus. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Jeju Island, Korea, 8–​14 July 2012 (pp. 169–​174). Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates Inc. Lope Blanch, J. M. (1980). Perspectivas de la investigación lingüística en Hispanoamérica. México, DF: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Lope Blanch, J. M. (1986). El estudio del español hablado culto. México, DF: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Lope Blanch, J. M. (1987). Estudios sobre el español de Yucatán. México, DF: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. López Morales, H. (2005). Un nuevo corpus para el estudio del español: la disponibilidad léxica. Oralia: Análisis del discurso oral, 8, 141–​160. López Morales, H. (2006). La globalización del léxico hispánico. Madrid: Espasa. López Sánchez, J. (2006). Heterodoxos españoles. El Centro de Estudios Históricos, 1910–​1936. Madrid: Marcial Pons-​Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Malkiel, Y. (1968). Hispanic philology. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Current trends in linguistics. IV: Ibero-​American and Caribbean linguistics (pp. 158–​228). The Hague: Mouton.

36

36  Francisco Moreno-Fernández Martín Astudillo, L., Ocampo, F., & Spadaccini, N. (Eds.). (2006). Debating Hispanic studies: Reflections on our disciplines. Hispanic Issues on Line, 1. Martín Butragueño, P. (2003). Juan M. Lope Blanch. Revista de Filología Española, 83, 311–​318. Menéndez Pidal, R. (1904). Manual elemental de gramática histórica española. Madrid: V. Suárez. Menéndez Pidal, R. (1929). Orígenes del español. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Históricos. Menéndez Pidal, R. (1953). Romancero hispánico. Madrid: Espasa-​Calpe. Merriam-​Webster Dictionary. (2011). In Merriam-​Webster.com. Retrieved from www. merriam-​webster.com/​dictionary/​hacker. Michel, J.-​B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., The Google Books Team, Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., and Lieberman Aiden, E. (2010). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science. Published Online Ahead of Print: 12/​16/​ 2010. DOI: 10.1126/​ science.1199644 www.sciencemag.org/​content/​early/​2010/​12/​ 15/​science.1199644. Montes Giraldo, J. J. (1982). Dialectología general e hispanoamericana: orientación teórica, metodológica y bibliográfica. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Moraña, M. (2005). Ideologies of Hispanism. Nashville, TN: Vandervilt University Press. Moreno-​ Fernández, F. (1996). Metodología del “Proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y de América.” Lingüística, 8, 257–​287. Narvaja de Arnoux, E., & Nothstein, S. (Eds.). (2014) Temas de glotopolítica: integración regional sudamericana y panhispanismo. Buenos Aires: Biblos. Navarro Tomás, T. (Dir.). (1962). Atlas Lingüístico de la Península Ibérica. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Neuschäfer, H. (1996). La situación de la hispanística en las universidades alemanas. Revista de Hispanismo Filosófico, 1,  77–​80. Niño, A. (1988). Cultura y diplomacia: los hispanistas franceses y España de 1875 a 1931. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. NTLLE. Real Academia Española. Nuevo Tesoro Lexicográfico de la Lengua Española. Retrieved August 20 2016, from http://​ntlle.rae.es/​ntlle/​SrvltGUILoginNtlle. Ocampo, F. (2006). The state of Hispanic linguistics in the American University: Some trends. Hispanic Issues On Line, 1, 95–​100. Pérez Pascual, J. I. (1998). Ramón Menéndez Pidal: ciencia y pasión. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León. Piaget, J. (1968). Genetic epistemology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge, an evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Posada, A. (1911). En América. Una campaña. Madrid: Beltrán. Rabanales, A. (1978): Repercusión de las corrientes lingüísticas contemporáneas en lberoamérica. Boletín de Filología (Universidad de Chile), 29, 219–​257. Real Academia Española—​Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. (2014). Diccionario de la lengua española. 24th ed. Madrid: Espasa. Rosenblat, Á. (1971). Nuestra lengua en ambos mundos. Barcelona: Salvat. Tétu, M. (1992). La Francophonie: histoire, problématique, perspectives. Montréal: Guérin Universitaire.

 37

Hispanic linguistics: Epistemological labels 37 Tuaillon, G., & Contini, M. (1996). Atlas Linguistique Roman (AliR), Vol. I. Présentation. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca Dello Stato. Universidad Complutense [Online] Historia de la Facultad de Filología. Retrieved August 30 from http://​filologia.ucm.es/​historia. US Census Bureau. (2017). About Hispanic origin. www.census.gov/​topics/​population/​hispanic-​origin/​about.html. Viereck, W. (2006). The Atlas Linguarum Europae—​A brief presentation. Dialectologia et Geolinguistica, 14, 104–​110. Woolard, K. A. (1998). Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. Shieffelin, K. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies. Practice and theory (pp. 3–​ 47). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zamora Vicente, A. (1960). Dialectología española. Madrid: Gredos.

38

2  Sociolinguistic history of Brazil Dante Lucchesi*

1.  Introduction Currently, more than 80% of 200 million native speakers of the Portuguese language are Brazilian. Brazil is the only country, apart from Portugal, where Portuguese is the mother tongue of the vast majority of its population—​ about 98% of the population. In the other Portuguese-​speaking countries (Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-​Bissau, Cape Verde, Sao Tome and Principe, East Timor, and Macau), most of the population speaks one of numerous indigenous languages or speaks a creole formed during the colonial period. However, the Portuguese spoken by Brazilians differs greatly from the Portuguese spoken in Portugal. The different linguistic situation of Brazil in contrast with the other countries colonized by Portugal reflects the process of European colonization in the Americas, whereby the indigenous population was largely wiped out as a result of the wars of conquest, mistreatment, and diseases brought from Europe. With the extermination of most of this population, the American continents were then repopulated by a massive influx of European settlers and the importation of millions of enslaved Africans. In this setting, hundreds of indigenous languages disappeared with the genocide of their speakers. In addition, the remaining indigenous population and the enslaved Africans were forced to adopt the languages of the colonizers. Over time, their descendants abandoned the languages of their ancestors and acquired only the languages of the European settlers as their mother tongues. Thus, today, the vast majority of the populations of the American continents are native speakers of a European language. Possibly over a thousand indigenous languages were formerly spoken in Brazil, and some two hundred different languages were introduced from Africa (Petter, 2006). However, today, there are less than three hundred indigenous languages (Franchetto, 2005), and not a single African language has survived. Thus, the sociolinguistic history of Brazil is characterized by this long and violent process of linguistic homogenization. However, the transition from a widespread multilingualism to a localized multilingualism (Mattos e Silva,

 39

Sociolinguistic history of Brazil 39 2004) left unmistakable marks on the current Brazilian sociolinguistic scenario, clearly splitting the country between the language of the literate elite and the language of much of the socially marginalized. This division is strongly accentuated by the social stigma that befalls the typical forms of popular language (Lucchesi, 2001, 2015). At a morpho-​syntactic level, this difference is due to the morphological simplification in the popular language, which affected the rules of nominal and verbal agreement, as in the following example: (1) a. Meus filhos trabalham muito. (Standard Portuguese) ‘My sons work a lot’ b. Meus filhoØ trabalhaØ muito. (Popular Brazilian Portuguese) As most of the population that speaks this simplified variety of Portuguese is made up of descendants of Indians and Africans, one can attribute this simplification to changes produced by language contact.1 However, there is no clear historical record of the emergence of a pidgin or creole language in Brazil derived from Portuguese, unlike the situations for English, Spanish, French, and Dutch, in the Caribbean, or for English in the southern United States, two other major regions of the Americas that  concentrated a large population of African slaves (Winford, 2008; Lipski, 2008a). The specific socio-​historical conditions of Brazil did not permit the emergence of creole languages, but it is quite probable that the varieties of Portuguese that became the native language of descendants of Indians and Africans were affected by language contact, by means of a light creolization, that is a light type of irregular language transmission, in contrast with the radical process that characterizes the formation of pidgins and creoles (Lucchesi, 2009, 2012; Lucchesi & Baxter, 2009). This is the best explanation for the morphological simplification currently found in the popular language. On the other hand, the language of the elite sector of Brazilian society was also being affected diachronically by the contact between masters and slaves, particularly domestic slaves. Some changes triggered by language contact could have spread to all sectors of society. This may explain, to a large extent, the linguistic differences that separate Brazil from Portugal today. This chapter provides an overview of the sociolinguistic history of Brazil, focusing primarily on language contact in order to explain the current linguistic division of Brazilian society, which displays a strong contrast between standard language and popular language. To accomplish this goal, this chapter is structured as follows. The first section contains an overview of the sociolinguistic history of Brazil. In the second section, based on the concept of irregular linguistic transmission, we present a theory of how contact between

40

40  Dante Lucchesi languages affects grammatical structure. The third section describes the changes that language contact produced in the current varieties of Brazilian Portuguese, establishing the sociolinguistic division of Brazil. The conclusion synthesizes the chapter content.

2.  Contact of the Portuguese language with indigenous and African languages in Brazil When Portuguese colonization began in the 16th century, the indigenous peoples who inhabited the coast of Brazil spoke very similar varieties of languages of the Tupi-​Guarani family, to the extent that both the settlers and the Portuguese missionaries referred to these varieties as a single language, which they called the língua brasílica, ‘Brazilian language.’ This was the language of intercourse between Portuguese and indigenous peoples in the early colonial period (Rodrigues, 2010). However, it is essential to distinguish two sociolinguistic scenarios in the colonial Brazil of the 16th and 17th centuries. In the first scenario of Portuguese colonization, the reduced contingent of settlers, overwhelmingly men, led to a broad process of miscegenation with the indigenous population, resulting in the growth of a mameluco (Luso-​ Amerindian mestizo) society. The language that predominated in this new society was a variety of the Tupi language of the indigenous population, modified by the new colonial context, which would go down in history as the língua geral (Rodrigues, 2010). This scenario prevailed in São Paulo, in the 16th and 17th centuries. With the expulsion of the French from São Luis in 1615, yet another variety of Tupi came to dominate the colonial society that the Portuguese established initially in Maranhão. Subsequently, colonization expanded into the Amazon, seeking jungle spices and capturing and enslaving new indigenous peoples, mostly speakers of different languages, including other language families such as Arawak and Carib groups, distinct from the Tupi-​Guarani family. However, the language of intercultural communication that came to prevail in the Amazon was the increasingly altered variety of Tupi, called nhengatu (lit. ‘good language’). This variety eventually became nativized among indigenous peoples of the region and is today the mother tongue in some locations of the Upper Amazon. The língua geral was predominant in São Paulo until the late 17th century. However, the discovery of gold and diamonds in the neighboring region of the present state of Minas Gerais brought a large influx of Portuguese settlers, which led to the displacement of the old São Paulo settlers toward the center-​west of Brazil, reducing the use of São Paulo língua geral. In contrast, in Maranhão and Pará, in northern Brazil, the língua geral was maintained for much longer, only to decline throughout the 19th century (Freire, 2004). On the other hand, in the more dynamic regions of colonial Brazil, in the northeast, the local indigenous population was quickly decimated during the 16th and 17th centuries, being soon replaced by large numbers of slaves

 41

Sociolinguistic history of Brazil 41 imported from Africa. This constitutes the second sociolinguistic scenario of colonial Brazil. In demographic terms, this scenario was far more representative than the first, because the main driving force of the Portuguese colonial venture in Brazil was African slaves and their creole descendants. Not only in Brazil, but throughout the process of colonization of America between the 16th and 19th centuries, the importation of large contingents of African slave labor played a crucial role. It is estimated that, during more than three centuries the slave trade introduced about ten million Africans to the American continents. The participation of this population in the formation of nations that came to constitute the new continents was significant, despite the oppression that sought to erase the cultural identity of the slave. On diverse cultural levels, the contribution of Africans is indelible. At the linguistic level, the emergence of creole languages is notable in plantation societies on large agro-​exportation properties employing slave labor in the Caribbean region. Among the more than thirty creole languages in this region, we find Haitian French Creole, Jamaican English Creole, Papiamento (a Spanish/​Portuguese lexified creole), spoken in Curaçao and the English-​ lexified creoles Sranan and Saramaccan, in Suriname. Brazil was the destination of nearly 40% of Africans brought to the Americas, corresponding to four million individuals. Mostly, they came from the regions of present-​day Angola, Nigeria, and Benin. From the first region came speakers of Bantu languages, particularly Kimbundu, Kikongo, and Umbundu. From the second region came the speakers of Kwa languages, mainly Yoruba, Ewe, and Fon. The slaves from Angola were exported to Pernambuco and especially to Rio de Janeiro, which became the main port in Brazil as of the 18th century. From Rio de Janeiro, they were distributed to the rest of Brazil, except for Bahia, which imported most slaves from the Mina coast, predominantly Yoruba speakers, so that this language was still spoken among the poor population of Salvador until the early 20th century. Table  2.1 below shows that, until the mid-​19th century, about 70% of Brazil’s population was made up of Indians, Africans, and their descendants, so much so that, in 1850, Africans, Creoles (Brazilian Negroes), and mulattoes, represented 65% of the total population. This contingent constituted the Table 2.1 The population of Brazil according to ethnicity, 16th to 19th centuries Ethnicity

1583–​1600

1601–​1700 1701–​1800 1801–​1850 1851–​1890

Africans Brazilian Negroes Mulattoes White Brazilians Europeans Integrated Indians

20% -​ -​ -​ 30% 50%

30% 20% 10% 5% 25% 10%

Source: Mussa (1991, p. 163)

20% 21% 19% 10% 22% 8%

12% 19% 34% 17% 14% 4%

2% 13% 42% 24% 17% 2%

42

42  Dante Lucchesi labor forces of the sugarcane, tobacco, and cotton plantations in the Brazilian northeast, between the 17th and 19th centuries. It also provided the labor force for the extraction of gold and precious stones in Minas Gerais in the 18th century, and also that of the coffee plantations in the Paraíba Valley and the São Paulo plains, in the 19th century. From the outset of the African slave trade to Brazil, slaves of different ethnicities were mixed to prevent the articulation of revolts. In Brazil, this practice was continued, and Africans were prevented from using their native languages and were obliged to use Portuguese even to communicate with each other (Mattoso, 2003). However, the acquisition of Portuguese was rudimentary, and this second language became a restricted code of interethnic communication, with limited grammatical structure often modeled on African languages, and it could, in certain contexts, have led to the formation of a pidgin language. Such second-​language varieties of Portuguese gradually became the mother tongue of the children of slaves. This kind of irregular process of language transmission can lead to the formation of a qualitatively distinct language called a creole language, and it is possible that pidgin and creole languages were formed in Brazil, especially in the 17th century. However, if they ever existed, these languages had a very short life and left no documented evidence. The reasons why long-​lasting and representative processes of pidginization and creolization of Portuguese did not occur in Brazil are as follows (Lucchesi, 2009): (1) A percentage of speakers of the dominant language (at least 30% of Portuguese native speakers during the colonial and imperial periods), far superior to that found in known situations of pidginization/​creolization (less than 20% speakers of the dominant group). (2) Cultural practices of assimilation of children of African slaves, including full-​blood Brazilian-​born negroes and, mainly, mulattoes, who quickly integrated into white society, especially on a linguistic level. (3) High degree of miscegenation between the Portuguese male colonists and Indian and African women. These conditions prevented the formation of pidgins and creoles in Brazil but did not prevent the changes that came to separate the Portuguese of the descendants of Indians and Africans from the Portuguese variety spoken by the colonial and imperial elites (Lucchesi, 2001, 2009, 2015). Thus, a divided Portuguese language gradually became the hegemonic language of Brazilian society. The Portuguese language began to spread more broadly in Brazil in the 18th century with the discovery of large deposits of gold and precious stones in the region of the state of Minas Gerais (Lucchesi, 2006). The influx of Portuguese settlers and the importation of slaves increased significantly, such that the population of Brazil increased eleven-​fold during the 18th century, from a mere three hundred thousand inhabitants in 1700 to some

 43

Sociolinguistic history of Brazil 43 three million, three hundred thousand inhabitants in 1800. The advance of the Portuguese language continued in the next century, with the transfer of the Portuguese court system to Brazil in 1808. The African slave trade was outlawed in 1850, ending the main source of multilingualism in Brazil. The abolition of slavery occurred only in 1888, later than in any other former European colony. Therefore, the demand for a labor force in the agricultural sector was met by an influx of some three million immigrants from Europe and Asia between the last decades of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century. However, until the first phase of the republic, beginning in 1889 and ending in 1930, Brazil continued to be a rural agricultural export country, with coffee as the main export product. In 1900, approximately two thirds of the total population resided in the countryside and were descendants of Indians and Africans, and almost all of them were illiterate. Under these conditions, the linguistic division of the country remained deep, separating, on the one hand, the language of the majority of the population—​a Portuguese considerably altered by changes arising from language contact—​and, on the other hand, the language of an elite minority that looked to Portugal for models of the correct use of Portuguese. This situation was to change, as of the Revolution of 1930, with the defeat of rural oligarchies and the beginning of industrialization and urbanization of the country. Throughout the 20th century, Brazil’s population became predominantly urban, with 80% of Brazilians living in big cities by 2000. Urbanization favors the insertion of the segments of the population originating in the rural sector into the consumer market and into the world of literacy (Faraco, 2008). However, the late process of socio-​economic development dependent on capitalism in Brazil has made this insertion both precarious and partial. Therefore, many of the hallmarks of rural language remain in the speech of the poor population that resides in the outskirts of the large cities. Certainly, the urbanization that has occurred since 1930 has altered popular Portuguese, decreasing the characteristics that originated in past language contact. However, many such characteristics still persist, separating the language of the socially marginalized population from the cultured language of the literate elite of the country, in a situation of sociolinguistic polarization (Lucchesi, 2015). Identifying the effects of language contact in the historical development of Brazilian popular Portuguese is one of the main research fields of linguistics today.

3.  Language contact and irregular language transmission in the formation of Brazilian popular Portuguese The notion of irregular language transmission as a gradual concept seeks to develop a broader model for the analysis of linguistic changes induced by language contact beyond classical situations of creolization (Lucchesi, 2012; Lucchesi & Baxter, 2009). Situations of massive contact can lead to the

44

44  Dante Lucchesi formation of a creole language, which has a qualitatively different grammar than that of the target language (Rougé, 2008), but they can also result in the formation of varieties of the dominant language with some of the structural features of creole languages, albeit at a less-​intense and more-​superficial level, characterizing a light type of irregular language transmission.2 In both cases, what is essentially at stake is the need for restoration of grammatical structures that were lost in the initial contact situation, resulting from language acquisition of the language of the dominant group as a second language (L2) on the part of adult speakers of the dominated groups. Hence, it is the intensity of erosion of the dominant language grammar that will determine the degree of grammatical restructuring of the linguistic variety that will form in the contact situation. This means that in order for pidgins and creoles to be formed via this grammatical restructuring process, access to models of the dominant language must be restricted during the period of formation of this new speech community. This is what happened historically in plantation societies or in maroon communities (Arends, 2008). In typical creolization situations, communication between the dominant group and the dominated groups is through a restricted vocabulary of the language of the dominant group, and virtually devoid of grammatical structure, called pre-​pidgin (Siegel, 2008). As most often the dominated groups speak mutually unintelligible languages, the pre-​pidgin is adopted as a means of interethnic communication within the dominated groups. This is crucial for the development of the pidgin, because the pre-​pidgin comes to be used in broader communicative functions than merely that of the relationship between dominators and dominated. This functional expansion triggers grammatical restructuring that gives rise to the pidgin language (Mühlhäusler, 1986). As speakers of the dominated groups have very limited access to grammatical models of the dominant language, they resort to grammatical structures of their native languages to grammaticalize the pre-​pidgin, a process called relexification (Lefebvre, 1998; Lumsden, 1999) or transfer of the substrate (Siegel, 2008). To the extent that children born in the contact situation acquire the pre-​ pidgin or pidgin as their first language, creolization occurs because while the pidgin is essentially a second-​language variety, the creole is by definition the mother tongue of the vast majority of its speakers. In cases of rapid creolization, children would need to develop their mother tongue on the basis of the pre-​pidgin model alone, a linguistic variety almost devoid of regular grammatical structure. As such, children would undertake the grammatical structuring of creole languages based on devices innate to the human language faculty, called the Language Acquisition Bioprogram (Bickerton 1981, 1999). In this way, pidgin and creole languages display grammatical structures qualitatively different from those of the languages from which they took most of their vocabulary (the lexifier language). So, pidgins and creole languages express the values of grammatical categories of tense, mood and aspect using pre-​verbal particles, and not through verbal inflection, as occurs in

 45

Sociolinguistic history of Brazil 45 their  European lexifiers. Grammaticalization, in this instance, plays a crucial role in the formation of pidgin and creole languages. Thus, the verb ‘to give’ may grammaticalize to perform the function of the dative preposition, the discendi verbs (say/​speak) may perform the function of complementizers, and the noun representing ‘head’ or ‘body’ may function as a reflexive pronoun (Winford, 2008). Pidginization/​creolization can also be viewed as a process of morphological simplification (McWhorter, 2001). So, pidgin and creole languages generally do not have case inflection of personal pronouns, verbal inflection for person and number or agreement in the noun phrase (Crowley, 2008). All this grammatical restructuring of pidgin and creole languages occurred in very specific socio-​historical situations in which a community developed a language from a limited set of lexical items. However, in many situations of European colonialization in America, the massive contact of English, Portuguese, and Spanish with other languages did not lead to the development of creole languages. In these historically and demographically more typical situations, speakers of the dominated groups and their descendants were able to have greater access to the grammatical models of the European language, which inhibited the processes of creolization. But that does not mean that the varieties of English, Portuguese, and Spanish that developed in many low-​ income communities across the American continents do not display reflexes of structural changes resulting from language contact (e.g., Lipski, 2008b). What these mild cases of irregular language transmission have in common with the cases of creolization is the process of morphological simplification, which affects primarily the grammatical mechanisms that have no informational value or have a more abstract semantic value. There would only be a quantitative difference between the two cases: In creolization these mechanisms would be virtually eliminated, while the irregular language transmission of a lighter type would lead to a broad process of grammatical variation in the use of these mechanisms, without their elimination (Lucchesi, 2012). This can be seen in the Table 2.2, comparing the representation of person and number in relation to the verb, in São Tomé Creole Portuguese, in Africa, which has no inflection for person and number, Popular Brazilian Portuguese (PBP), which displays partial inflection, and Standard Portuguese, which has full inflection. Therefore, the broad and deep scenario of variation in the subject-​verb agreement rule observable today in rural and popular varieties of Brazilian Portuguese is the most notable reflex of the light process of irregular linguistic transmission that affected the development of these varieties of Brazilian Portuguese (Lucchesi, 2001, 2012, 2015). Taking this line of research further, Avelar and Galves (2014, pp. 243–​244) argue that certain grammatical characteristics of Brazilian Portuguese that distinguish it among the Romance languages are due to the action of linguistic contact between speakers of Portuguese and African languages (particularly Bantu languages), postulating the transfer of morpho-​syntactic properties of African languages. The characteristics produced by language contact, which

46

46  Dante Lucchesi Table 2.2 Representation of person and number in relation to the verb, in São Tomé Creole Portuguese, popular Brazilian Portuguese, and Standard Portuguese São Tomé Creole Portuguese

Popular Brazilian Portuguese

Standard Portuguese

English

n’sebê bo sebê e sebê nõ sebê nãsse sebê inem sebê

eu sei tu/​você sabe ele/​ela sabe nós sabe/​sabemo(s) vocês sabe(m) eles/​elas sabe(m)

eu sei tu sabes ele/​ela sabe nós sabemos vocês sabem eles/​elas sabem

I know you know he/​she knows we know you know they know

are evident in the current varieties of Brazilian Portuguese, will be addressed in the next section.

4.  The effects of language contact visible in current varieties of Brazilian Portuguese Brazil today is a linguistically divided society. The division reflects the economic, social, and political divisions of the country. Despite being among the world’s largest economies, Brazil is among the countries with the highest concentration of income, with wealth concentrated in a minority because of the super-​exploitation of wage labor. This socioeconomic context produces an ideology that foments many prejudices against the poor, feeding racism and linguistic stereotypes. Linguistic prejudice is directed against the most typical forms of popular language and has been a powerful ideological weapon of the Brazilian elite to legitimize their power and privileges (Lucchesi, 2011, 2015). As argued in the previous sections, this division is the result of language contact that promoted the changes that affected the popular language at all levels of linguistic structure, generating forms that carry social stigma. At the phonological level, the most characteristic phenomena of popular language that suffer the greatest discrimination, are: (1) depalatalization: muyé for mulher ‘woman’; (2) rhotacism: craro for claro ‘of course’; (3) reduction of proparoxytones to paroxytones: xicra for xícara ‘cup’; (4) velarization of laterals: farta for falta ‘lack.’ In addition to these discontinuous phenomena that separate Popular Brazilian Portuguese from Standard Brazilian Portuguese, there are also continuous variable phenomena that affect all varieties of Brazilian Portuguese (Bortoni-​Ricardo, 2005). Among these are: loss of final /​r/​: brincá for brincar ‘to play’; vocalization postvocalic /​l/​, as in sów for sol ‘sun’; and aspiration of postvocalic consonants: mehmo for mesmo ‘same.’ At the morphosyntactic level, the markers of Popular Brazilian Portuguese that are most discriminated against are those arising from the morphological simplification induced by language contact in the past. Among these are:

 47

Sociolinguistic history of Brazil 47 (1)

Variation in subject-​verb agreement involving the first, second-​and third-​person plural: nós /​  vocês /​  eles    trabalha 1Pl.NOM /​2Pl.NOM /​2Pl.NOM work.PRS-​3.SG or nós    trabalhamos 1PL.NOM work.PRS-​1.PL ‘we work’ Vocês   /​  eles    trabalham 2Pl.NOM /​2Pl.NOM work.PRS-​2 /​3.PL ‘You /​they work’

(2)

Variation in noun phrase number agreement: os menino ART.DEF.M.PL boy.M ‘the boys’ or os meninos ART.DEF.M.PL boy.M.PL ‘the boys’

(3)

Loss of personal pronoun case, with etymological nominative forms used in variation: Ana viu            nós,  mas nós    não viu        ela. Ana see.PST.PFV.3S 1PL.NOM but 1PL.NOM NEG see.PAST. PFV 3S.NOM ‘(literally) Ana saw we, but we didn’t see she’ or Ana nos  viu,      mas nós  não a  vimos Ana 1PL.ACC see.PST.PFV.3S but 1PL.NOM NEG 3S.ACC see. PAST. PFV.1PL ‘Ana saw us, but we didn’t see her’

In addition to these more general phenomena of PBP, there are more extreme phenomena resulting from a more profound process of grammatical restructuring produced by language contact in the past, possibly with the transfer of structures from the African substrate languages. Such structures are found only in the popular Portuguese varieties most affected by contact between languages as the language of the most isolated rural communities formed by direct descendants of African slaves. In this variety, called Afro-​ Brazilian Portuguese (Lucchesi, Baxter, & Ribeiro, 2009), the following phenomena are observed:

48

48  Dante Lucchesi (4)

Variation in subject-​verb agreement involving the first person singular: eu trabalha 1S.NOM  work.PRS-​3.SG or eu trabalho 1S.NOM  work.PRS-​1.SG ‘I work’

(5)

Variation in gender agreement within the noun phrase: um    pessoa ART.INDF.M.SG person.F.SG or uma pessoa ART.INDF.F.SG person.F.SG ‘a person’

(6)

Double object construction, wherein the indirect object is not pre-​ posed, in variation with standard pre-​posed indirect object: Ana deu          os        meninos  o        remédio Ana give.PST.PFV.3.SG ART.DEF.M.PL child.M.PL ART. DEF.M.SG medicine.M.SG ‘Ana gave the children the medicine’ or Ana deu          o        remédio    para os    meninos Ana give.PST.PFV.3.SG ART.DEF.M.SG medicine.M.SG PREP ART. DEF.M.PL child.M.PL ‘Ana gave the medicine to the children’

This last construction, in which the indirect object (IO) occurs without a preposition and precedes the direct object (DO), sounds ungrammatical to the educated urban speaker. The hypothesis that the emergence of this construction is the result of language contact is reinforced by the fact that it is widespread among the creole languages of the Atlantic region, even in those derived from Romance languages, in spite of the fact that it is not present in the history of the Romance languages. Example (7) shows this construction in Fa d’Ambu, a Portuguese-​lexified creole spoken on Anobon island in the Gulf of Guinea (Lucchesi & Mello, 2009): (7)

Malía da    pe-​d’eli      tabaku. Maria  give.PST father.GEN.3.S    tobacco ‘Maria gave her father tobacco’

Avelar and Galves (2014, pp.  253–​278) identify other characteristics of popular Portuguese as being possible cases of grammatical transfer from Bantu languages, the languages of the majority of African slaves in Brazil:

 49

Sociolinguistic history of Brazil 49 (8)

topic-​subject constructions, specifically in cases in which items with a locative or possessive interpretation occupy the subject position and agree with the verb: Essas      ruas      passam        muito    carro. DEM-​F-​PL street.F-​PL pass-​PRS-​3.PL  many  car.M-​SG ‘Many cars pass through these streets’

(9)

Bare singular nouns (i.e., nouns devoid of a determiner) occurring in argument positions: Aí    soldado        pegou        nós        para there  soldier.M-​SG    grab-​PST.3.SG  1.PL.ACC  to.PURP carregar    esse         defunto carry-​INF  DEM-​M-​SG  deceased-​M-​SG ‘then a soldier grabbed us to carry the deceased’

(10) Use of the preposition em with the complements of verbs of movement, as well as variable absence of prepositions with the complements of such verbs: a              primeira      vez       que   fui        ART.DEF-​F-​SG  first-​F-​SG    time.F-​SG  REL  go.PST.1.SG o         médico ART.DEF-​M-​SG  doctor-​M-​SG ‘the first time I went to the doctor’ Certain other changes that very likely originated in PBP because of prior  language contact were generalized to the upper socio-​ economic classes  due to the close contact between members of the elite with subordinates, as slaves and domestic servants, wet nurses, and so on. Such is the case of the loss of relative clauses with pied piping that are no longer part of the grammar of Brazilian Portuguese. Relatives with pied piping, exemplified in (11) and (12) below, are found only in the most formal speech styles of the educated elite, due to the influence of schooling (Tarallo, 1983). In less formal styles and popular speech, relative clauses are almost only constructed with an unmarked relativizer and either with a gap in the relativized position, as in examples (13) and (14) below, or with a resumptive pronoun in this position, as in (15) and (16) below (Ribeiro, 2009). (11) Não encontrei o funcionário a quem entreguei o documento. ‘I didn’t meet the employee to whom I gave the document’ (12)

A aluna cujo pai está muito doente ficou deprimida. ‘The student whose father is very sick got depressed’

50

50  Dante Lucchesi (13)

Não encontrei o funcionário que entreguei o documento. ‘(literally) I didn’t meet the officer that I gave the document’

(14)

A aluna que o pai está muito doente ficou deprimida. ‘(literally) The student that the father is very sick got depressed’

(15)

Não encontrei o funcionário que entreguei o documento para ele. ‘(literally) I didn’t meet the officer that I gave the document to him’

(16)

A aluna que o pai dela está muito doente ficou deprimida. ‘(literally) The student that her father is very sick got depressed’

On the other hand, there are processes of variation and change in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) that differentiate it from European Portuguese (EP), and whose origin cannot be determined as being the result of language contact or internal drift. Such is the case of the frequent use of null objects in BP, a phenomenon absent from EP, wherein the anaphoric direct object occurs: (17) Gostei do          vestido  e    comprei            logo. (BP) like.PST.PFV.1.SG  dress    and  buy.PST.PFV.1.SG  soon ‘I liked the dress and bought (it) soon’ (18)

Gostei do        vestido  e  comprei-​o             logo. (EP) like.PST.PFV.1.SG dress  and buy.PST.PFV.1.SG=3.SG.ACC  soon ‘I liked the dress and bought it soon’

The widespread substitution of the pronoun tu for você ‘you’ in vast areas of Brazil also differentiates BP from EP, where the form tu is strongly maintained as an intimate form, as opposed to você, which is more formal. In many areas of Brazil, tu is maintained as a less formal term of address. However, in most cases, the pronoun tu is used with the unmarked third person singular of the verb (tu fala for tu falas). This is especially true of PBP, in which verbal inflection was lost completely. This reinforces the hypothesis that the lack of agreement is the result of morphological simplification resulting from contact between languages. In Brazil, replacement of the pronoun nós ‘we’ with the old nominal expression a gente ‘the people’ is much more frequent than in Portugal, reaching all social classes, although it occurs more in popular speech, and nós still predominates in writing. These changes in the set of personal pronouns result in a significant difference between BP and EP, with regard to the values of the null subject parameter. EP behaves as a typical pro-​drop language, and subject pronouns are used only in very specific situations, to express emphasis or contrast. In Brazil, the phonetic subject pronouns are realized at a very high frequency, in all its varieties, and it is possible that the BP is losing the null subject parameter.

 51

Sociolinguistic history of Brazil 51 It has been suggested that this increase in use of the subject pronoun may be linked to simplification of verbal inflection number and person (Duarte & Varejão, 2013). In the speech of the educated elite, this simplification is associated with the replacement of the pronouns tu and nós, respectively, with você and a gente, which are combined with the unmarked verb of the 3rd person singular. Thus, person and number inflection on the verb can be reduced to two forms only in some tenses: eu /​       

você /​    ele /​a gente             trabalhava

1.NOM.SG /​2NOM.SG /​3.NOM.M.SG /​1.NOM.PL   work.PST;IPFV.3SG ‘I /​you /​he /​we work’ vocês /​      eles          trabalhavam 2. NOM.PL /​3.NOM.M.PL work. PST;IPFV.2/​3.PL

‘You /​they work’ Thus, the two major varieties of BP arrive at the same result (loss of the of the null subject parameter) by different paths. In contrast with these general changes in BP, contact-​induced changes that characterize PBP divide the sociolinguistic reality of Brazil because they are significantly restricted in the speech of the educated population of the higher social classes, which discriminate against popular speech. The sociolinguistic polarization that opposes the language of the upper classes and the language of the lower social classes involves three variable phenomena that affect the rules of nominal and verbal agreement (Lucchesi, 2015, p. 75): (1) the frequency of use of linguistic variants: In popular speech, the lack of agreement prevails; in the speech of the educated, it is very restricted. (2) The social evaluation of the phenomenon: The upper classes discriminate against the lack of use of agreement rules; in the lower classes, there is no explicit assessment of the phenomenon. (3) Ongoing change: The pattern of variation in the middle and upper classes points to stable variation; in the lower classes, the variation represents change in progress involving the acquisition of the rules of verbal and nominal agreement.3 Nevertheless, the characteristics of PBP that result from changes induced by the language contact that occurred during the formation of Brazilian society are gradually being lost, especially since 1930, when industrialization and urbanization of Brazil effectively began, in a linguistic leveling process in which models of the urban variety of BP spread to all segments of society and all regions of the country. However, the particular characteristics of the late process of socio-​economic development in Brazil prevented the completion of these changes. The socio-​economic marginalization of the lower classes prevents its members from having adequate access to standard BP, such that the sociolinguistic division of Brazil continues to this day. This linguistic division is reinforced by the linguistic prejudice of the upper classes against

52

52  Dante Lucchesi popular language, nurturing a mentality that legitimizes the concentration of income and the overexploitation of labor. Thus, overcoming the sociolinguistic division in Brazil must be seen as linked to the effective democratization of Brazilian society, with a fairer distribution of the country’s wealth.

5.  Conclusion Of the eight countries that have Portuguese as an official language, Brazil stands out for having the largest number of speakers. Furthermore, like Portugal, where the language originated, it has Portuguese as the majority language. This latter fact results from the manner whereby Brazil was colonized by Portugal, with the extermination of most of the Brazilian indigenous population and the massive arrival of Portuguese colonists. The diffusion of the Portuguese language was facilitated greatly by the four million African slaves introduced between 1550 and 1850. Thus, in the same way as the assimilated indigenous population, the Africans were obliged to acquire Portuguese as their vehicular language, such that Portuguese gradually became the mother tongue of their descendants. As such, the sociolinguistic history of Brazil may be characterized as a violent process of linguistic homogenization. The contact-​induced L2 acquisition of Portuguese by millions of enslaved Africans and acculturated Indians, and its subsequent nativization among their descendants, produced significant changes in the grammatical structure of the variety of Portuguese spoken by the poorest sectors of Brazilian society today, which consist mainly of descendants of Indians and Africans. This sociolinguistic division of the country is reinforced by the social discrimination of the most typical forms of popular language that the contact between languages produced, making racist linguistic discrimination a powerful ideological weapon of class rule. In spite of the sociolinguistic polarization, many changes originated by linguistic contact have spread to all sectors of society and constitute defining features of BP as a whole. These and other changes have rendered BP quite different from the Portuguese language currently spoken in Portugal, which evolved in different ways, especially during the passage of the 18th to the 19th century. However, since the end of the 19th century the Brazilian literate elite has adopted models of EP as a standard of linguistic reference, which has produced a great sense of linguistic insecurity among Brazilians. Thus, although Brazilians constitute the vast majority of Portuguese speakers today, they still feel like illegitimate speakers of their language.

Notes *  I am especially grateful to Alan Baxter for comments, suggestions and criticisms that greatly contributed to the final form of this text. Any remaining shortcomings or inaccuracies are entirely my responsibility. 1 From a different perspective, Naro and Scherre (2007) view this simplification as being the result of a process of internal drift characteristic of the Portuguese language since before the colonization of Brazil.

 53

Sociolinguistic history of Brazil 53 2 John Holm (2008) presents a similar proposal with the notion of partial linguistic restructuring. 3 See Labov (1972, 1981, 1994)  concerning the concepts of stable variation and change in progress.

References Arends, J. (2008). A demography perspective on creole formation. In S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (Eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creole studies (pp. 309–​331). Oxford: Wiley-​Blackwell. Avelar, J., & Galves, C. (2014). O papel das línguas africanas na emergência da gramática do português brasileiro. Linguística, 30(2), 241–​248. Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Bickerton, D. (1999). How to acquire language without positive evidence: what acquisitionists can learn from Creoles? In M. Degraff (Ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development (pp. 49–​74). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bortoni-​Ricardo, S. M. (2005). Nós cheguemu na escola e agora? Sociolinguística e Educação. São Paulo: Parábola. Crowley, T. (2008). Pidgin and creole morphology. In S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (Eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creole studies (pp. 98–​129). Oxford: Wiley-​Blackwell. Duarte, M. E., & Varejão, F. (2013). Null subjects and agreement marks in European and Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 12(2), 101–​124. Faraco, C. A. (2008). Norma culta brasileira: Desatando alguns nós. São Paulo: Parábola. Franchetto, B. (2005). Línguas indígenas, línguas ameaçadas. Ciência & Ambiente, 32, 107–​122. Freire, J. B. (2004). Rio Babel: A história das línguas na Amazônia. Rio de Janeiro: Atlântica. Holm, J. (2008). Languages in contact: The partial restructuring of vernaculars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (1981). What can be inferred about change in progress from synchronic descriptions? In D. Sankoff & H. Cedergren (Eds.), Variation omnibus (pp. 177– 200). Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research. Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Lefebvre, C. (1998). Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: The case of Haitian Creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lipski, J. (2008a). Spanish-​based creoles in the Caribbean. In S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (Eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creole studies (pp. 19–​47). Oxford: Wiley-​Blackwell. Lipski, J. (2008b). Afro-​Bolivian Spanish. Madrid: Iberoamericana. Lucchesi, D. (2001). As duas grandes vertentes da história sociolinguística do Brasil. DELTA, 17(1), 97–​130. Lucchesi, D. (2004). A participação do contato entre línguas na formação do português popular do Brasil: Novas evidências empíricas. In M. Fernández, M. Fernández-​ Ferreiro, & N. V. Veiga (Eds.), Los criollos de base ibérica (pp. 215–​226). Madrid: Iberoamericana.

54

54  Dante Lucchesi Lucchesi, D. (2006). Século XVIII, o século da lusofonização do Brasil. In W. Thielemann (Ed.), Século das luzes: Portugal e Espanha, o Brasil e a região do Rio da Prata (pp. 351–​370). Frankfurt: TFM, Teo Ferrer de Mesquita. Lucchesi, D. (2009). História do contato entre línguas no Brasil. In D. Lucchesi, A. Baxter, & I. Ribeiro (Orgs.), O Português Afro-​Brasileiro (pp. 41–​73). Salvador, Editora da Universidade Federal da Bahia. Lucchesi, D. (2011). Racismo linguístico ou ensino democrático e pluralista? Grial—​ Revista Galega de Cultura, 190(XLIX),  86–​95. Lucchesi, D. (2012). A diferenciação da língua portuguesa no Brasil e o contato entre línguas. Estudos de Lingüística Galega, 4,  45–​65. Lucchesi, D. (2015). Língua e sociedade partidas: a polarização sociolinguística do Brasil. São Paulo: Contexto. Lucchesi, D., & Baxter, A. (2009). A transmissão linguística irregular. In D. Lucchesi, A. Baxter, & I. Ribeiro (Orgs.), O Português Afro-​Brasileiro (pp. 101–​124). Salvador: Editora da Universidade Federal da Bahia. Lucchesi, D., Baxter, A., & Ribeiro, I. (Orgs.). (2009). O Português Afro-​Brasileiro. Salvador: Editora da Universidade Federal da Bahia. Lucchesi, D., & Mello, C. (2009). A alternância dativa no português afro-​brasileiro: Um processo de reestruturação original da gramática. Papiá—​Revista de Crioulos de Base Ibérica, 19, 153–​184. Lumsden, John. (1999). The role of relexification in creole genesis. In M. Degraff (Ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development (pp. 129–​158). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Mattos e Silva, R. V. (2004). Ensaios para uma sócio-​história do português brasileiro. São Paulo: Parábola. Mattoso, K. (2003). Ser escravo no Brasil. 3rd ed. São Paulo: Brasiliense. McWhorter, J. H. (2001). The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology, 5(2/​3), 125–​166. Mühlhäusler, P. (1986). Pidgin and creole linguistics. London: University of Westminster Press. Naro, A., & Scherre, M. (2007). Origens do português brasileiro. São Paulo: Parábola. Petter, M. (2006). Línguas africanas no Brasil. In S. Cardoso, J. Mota, & R. V. Mattos e Silva (Orgs.), Quinhentos anos de história lingüística do Brasil (pp. 117–​142). Salvador: Secretaria da Cultura e Turismo do Estado da Bahia. Ribeiro, I. (2009). As sentenças relativas. In D. Lucchesi, A. Baxter, & I. Ribeiro (Orgs.), O Português Afro-​Brasileiro (pp. 185–​208). Salvador: Editora da Universidade Federal da Bahia. Rodrigues, A. D. (2010). Tupi, tupinambá, línguas gerais e português do Brasil. In V. Noll & W. Dietrich (Orgs.), O português e o tupi no Brasil (pp. 27–​48). São Paulo: Contexto. Rougé, J. L. (2008). A inexistência de crioulo no Brasil. In J. L. Fiorin & M. Petter (Eds.), África no Brasil: a formação da língua portuguesa (pp. 63–​74). São Paulo: Contexto. Siegel, J. (2008). The emergence of pidgin and creole languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tarallo, F. (1983). Relativization strategies in Brazilian Portuguese (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Winford, D. (2008). Atlantic creole syntax. In S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (Eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creole studies (pp. 19–​47). Oxford: Wiley-​Blackwell.

 55

3  Galician and the Portuguese-​ speaking world from the perspective of translation Henrique Monteagudo

Both Galician and Portuguese (particularly, the latter’s two main national varieties, European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese) have undergone far-​reaching redefinitions since approximately 1975, under the influence of a number of historical changes, either specific or shared: the fall of the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal, the democratization of the Brazilian political system (with policies of social integration pursued by the Partido Trabalhista, or Labor Party, in power from the beginning of the 21st century), the independence of Portugal’s African colonies1 and, for Galician, Spain’s democratic transition and the creation of the so-​called “State of Autonomies.” This happened within the context of the process of building of the European Union (and, more recently and to a more modest degree, the creation of MercoSur) the triumph of neo-​liberalism in the eighties and the start of the worldwide phenomenon known as globalization. All these processes led to substantial changes in the ecology of the languages considered, some of them shared to some extent by them and/​or linked to other languages (especially neighboring ones such as Spanish), others specific to each of them in particular. These changes have affected the place of each language in its own society and internationally, its form (particularly in writing), and its representation. In the meantime, linguistics also modified its theoretical and analytical tools, owing in large part to the emergence of a discipline offering a new vision of languages: sociolinguistics. Study of the interface between language and society paved the way for analyzing cultivated language varieties, codification and standardization phenomena, language policy and so on. All of these developments have obviously exerted some influence on discussions about the status of Galician as a language. In this chapter the matter will be examined in the light of concepts such as pluricentricity, polynomy and interposition, while at the same time obtaining insight from an empirical study of the phenomenon of Galician/​Portuguese translation. Some aspects of translation between Galician and Portuguese have been objects of study from a variety of perspectives.2 This phenomenon, duly analyzed, will provide a body of evidence informing an approach to the study of processes of mutual knowledge/​recognition of Galician and Portuguese either as varieties of the same language or as different languages. This leads us to

56

56  Henrique Monteagudo focus on (linguistic) varieties adopted for Galician texts (used for convenience as a synonym of “texts in Galician”) for circulation in Portuguese-​speaking countries; and, vice-​versa, by Portuguese texts (i.e., texts in Portuguese) for use in Galicia. What kind of reception is given to Galician texts in Portugal and Brazil, and to Portuguese texts in Galicia? How necessary has it been considered to translate one into the other? What was the result of the translating operation, and how were those translations received? What role has Spanish played in these translation processes? Note that for this discussion, we shall use the verb translate and the noun translation without implying the adoption of an a priori position regarding the subject in question.

1.  The polynomy/​polystandardization of Galician Let us start with a brief review of the historical context. Following an early flourishing (in the 13th to 15th centuries) of the Galician language as a written and literary medium that was common to Galicia and Portugal until the end of the fourteenth, Galician was later replaced by Castilian in Galicia in written and learned uses, whereupon Galician entered a long period of decline that continued uninterrupted until the 19th century. Portuguese, meanwhile, became the language of a state and subsequently of high culture; divergence from Galician began in the late fourteenth century and became more marked from the 16th century onward and even more so beginning in the 18th century, by which time it had spread to several continents (Monteagudo, 2012). A Galician language revival began in the 19th century and progressed throughout the 20th, surviving persecution and many challenges under the Franco dictatorship (1936–​1975). It was only after 1970 that efforts to codify and standardize Galician got underway in earnest, gaining more momentum after 1980 with the establishment of Galicia’s statute of autonomy (Monteagudo & Santamarina, 1993). Recent developments surrounding Galician may justifiably be regarded as a revolution, in spite of the fact that this revolution has yet to lead to the reversal of language shift. During the middle years of the 20th century, in the midst of the national-​Catholic dictatorship, language shift accelerated abruptly, and this situation was inherited at the end of the Franco era (Fernández & Rodríguez, 1995, pp.  51–​55). From 1977 onward, especially after passing of the statute of autonomy, Galician achieved recognition as an official language jointly with Spanish; this has had implications for the language’s presence in schools, its use in different areas of the public administration, the language’s public visibility and expansion into the press and media, and increased prestige (Monteagudo & Bouzada, 2002). As regards standardization, an important part of this normalization process was the adoption of a set of official Normas Ortográficas e Morfolóxicas (1982), which was followed by the development of a grammar, lexicon, stylistic variation, and so on (Monteagudo, 2003 & 2005). This all took place in the midst

 57

Galician and Portuguese in translation 57 of a clamorous debate focusing on the very question of Galician’s relationship to Portuguese and position within a purported Galician-​Luso-​Brazilian diasystem (Sánchez Vidal, 2010). Given the common origin of both languages, the modern standardization of Galician begs the important question of whether Galician is to be treated as a completely autonomous language or as a variety of Portuguese. De facto, ever since its earliest modern literary use in the second half of the 19th century, Galician has been progressively standardized as an autonomous language; however, in recent years a movement has arisen in support of the second option, known as reintegracionismo, which advocates “reintegrating” Galician into Portuguese. The resulting situation will here be called polynomy, a term we shall use in a somewhat different sense from the one it was originally given. Galician is a polynomic language at the present time in the specific sense that, within Galician, multiple emergent standards are vying with each other. Marcellesi introduced this term with a rather different purpose in mind, but it would seem that, with due qualification, it remains useful for referring to the situation of Galician. Marcellesi coined the term “polynomic languages” to refer to Romance languages in the process of being constituted or making themselves be recognized (in France: Corsican, Occitan) … the unity of which is an abstraction resulting from a dialectic movement, rather than the mere ossification of a single norm, and whose existence is based on its widespread affirmation by those who speak it, giving it a particular name and declaring it autonomous from other recognised languages. (Marcellesi, 1984, p. 314; see also Thiers, 1993, p. 255). From the Galician point of view, the term “polynomic language” is useful for addressing not only (or not so much) dialectal diversity, but also (or above all) multiple standardization proposals that have a bearing on linguistic usage in formal discourse, including somewhat inconsistent and variable written usage. Alternatively, we could speak of “polynormative” languages, but it is perhaps unnecessary to invent a new term. Initially this debate overlooked a fact the importance of which has grown in the last few years, as we shall see: the pluricentricity of Portuguese. We may well ask which variety of Portuguese Galician is supposed to “reintegrate” into: European or Brazilian? The answer may seem obvious: the geographical proximity of Galicia to Portugal, and the membership of both in the European Union, clearly suggest that one would opt for European Portuguese. And yet, for reasons relating to the way the Luso-​Brazilian diasystem developed (aside from considerations concerning the size of the population of Brazil, its economic weight, etc.), in some important ways Galician is linguistically just as closely akin to Brazilian as to European Portuguese, and possibly even more so (Monteagudo, 2012). The 1990 Acordo Ortográfico, which has been officially adopted in both Portugal and Brazil might provide a solution to this

58

58  Henrique Monteagudo dilemma if it were not for the facts that it has met with such strong resistance in Portugal and that it sanctions dual spelling options in pertinent cases (besides those of lexicon and terminology). Given that the pluricentricity of the Luso-​Brazilian diasystem is an established fact that is in any case achieving full recognition, the polynomy/​polynormativity of Galician clearly interrelates with Portuguese pluricentricity. All that is reflected in the diversity of translation (and non-​translation) policies from Galician to Portuguese (to two kinds of Portuguese: European and Brazilian) and vice-​versa, as will be shown. Special attention will be paid to the dissemination of Galician texts (again, read: ‘in Galician’) in Portugal and Brazil, since it is this matter that has attracted most interest, resulting in a firmer basis for this study.

2.  The pluricentricity of Portuguese A hard-​fought battle has taken place in Portuguese between competing drives toward unification on the one hand and even stronger and persistent centrifugal tendencies on the other (Castro, 2007). On the unifying side of the scale, there have been increasing efforts since the eighties to promote the status of Portuguese to that of a Language of International Communication (Faraco, 2010; Faraco, 2016, pp. 194–​199 and 301–​357), as shown by the creation of an International Portuguese Language Institute (1989), the establishment of a Community of Portuguese Language Countries (1996), and the development of an Acordo Ortográfico, which aims to bridge the gap between written European and Brazilian Portuguese (1990). Current Portuguese discourse about a language of international communication no longer follows an anachronous imperial rhetoric (even if some echoes persist, particularly in Portugal); rather, it is permeated by a globalist ideology (Oliveira, 2013a & 2013b is a good example; see also Monteagudo, 2016). On the centrifugal side, the crisis of the formal standard in Brazil is leading down the road toward acceptance of American Portuguese as a national variety with not just phonetic and lexical but also characteristic morphosyntactic, semantic, and discourse-​pragmatic features making it clearly distinct from European Portuguese (Bagno, 2003 & 2011, Lucchesi, 2011). In the wake of the implementation of democracy in the “American giant,” a reformulation of Brazil’s national identity has been taking place for the last few decades, casting off a northward-​looking, exclusive, racist Eurocentric attitude and replacing it with a pluralistic, hybrid, integrating model oriented toward emerging countries and the south. The question of the formal standard that has risen over recent decades is inseparable from Brazil’s striving to define itself as a multiracial country that incorporates its indigenous and African heritages as well as those of various waves of immigration over the past hundred years and, more specifically, the endeavors of progressive governments to move in the direction of a more inclusive and cohesive society. A key component of this program is the use of education as a springboard for achieving social inclusion and

 59

Galician and Portuguese in translation 59 equal opportunity. The progressive expansion of the school system to include entire sectors of the population that were previously excluded has highlighted dramatically the inadequacy of the old class-​biased, Europeanizing linguistic standard, which is a far cry from the real living language (Lucchesi, 2015). Lurking behind the pluricentric view of Portuguese currently gaining ground is an unresolved tension between unifying and separating forces (Baxter, 1992, Castro, 2007, Rosa, 2008). The redefinition of Portuguese as a Language of International Communication made it necessary to abandon (or appear to) the old idea of an imperial, mono-​(Euro)-​centric, uniform language (Oliveira, 2013a). This involves not just Brazil but also Angola and Mozambique, where the advance of Portuguese as L1 or L2 has almost inevitably entailed renativization of the language in a local form. At the present time a key element in this process, the 1990 Acordo Ortográfico (AO), has been fully implemented in Brazil (since 2009)  and Portugal (since 2011)  but not yet in Angola nor in Mozambique. Although not the subject of the present study, let us note in passing that geopolitical dimensions of Brazil’s and Portugal’s foreign policy interests, which do not coincide in every case (Faraco, 2010 & Castro, 2010), underlie AO.3

3.  Castilian interposition Before examining the mutual influence between Galician and Portuguese, we need to take into account the influence of Castilian, drawing on the notion of ‘interposition.’ As defined by Lluís V.  Aracil, this refers to the fact that in situations of diglossia or where a minority status has been attributed to a language community (such as Galician, G) in subordination to another, dominant one (here Castilian, C), all or at least the most important relations with other language and cultures are filtered through the superimposed language and culture (Aracil, 1983, pp.  171–​206). Interposition is, thus, a particular feature of diglossia. Figure 3.1 shows how the Galician system is locked in by Castilian: Other systems are in direct contact with each other, but the former is only in direct contact with the latter. Figure 3.2 is another representation of the same situation: The Portuguese, French, English, and so forth systems are directly connected with each other and with Castilian, whereas Galician only has one direct connection, making it subordinate to Castilian, the language that mediates between it and all the others. The spatial distribution corresponds to a mental structure underlying people’s behavior; this is also a sociocultural structure. The function of access from Galician to other languages/​cultures is monopolized by Castilian. To quote Aracil (1983, p. 193): But in actual fact the mediating language is not merely ‘vehicular.’ Rather, it is a relaying station that retransmits (and furthermore an intermediary that represents and reinterprets …). The interposed language always works as a selective valve somehow controlling relations between the [G]‌ community and the rest of the world.

60

Other languages: Portuguese, Latin, English, French, Italian, German, etc.

Castilian (Spanish)

Galician

Figure 3.1 Representation of interposition. Castilian is interposed between Galician and other languages (see Aracil, 1983, 181)

Portuguese

Latin

French

Galician

Castilian (Spanish)

English

Other languages

German

Italian

Figure 3.2 Representation of interposition. Castilian is interposed between Galician and other languages (see Aracil, 1983, 181)

 61

Galician and Portuguese in translation 61 Table 3.1 Translations to and from Galician, 1980–​2014 Galician → Other languages Other languages → Galician Total

1,540 items 3,063 items 4,603 items

Source: Bitraga, 2016

I think the notion of interposition helps to cast light on the study of translation processes from and to a minority language and the role of the dominant language in that process. The case of translation from Galician to Portuguese and vice-​versa illustrates this, as will be shown in the following pages.

4.  Translation to and from Galician: overview (1980–​2014) For perspective I  will first look at the overall statistics for translation from Galician into other languages and from other languages into Galician (data are from Bitraga, 2016; see Table 3.1).4 As seen in the table, the figures for the period from 1980 to 2014 are fairly high. There are twice as many items with Galician as their target language in proportion to those with Galician as their source language, which is unsurprising considering the Galician-​language community’s minor size and subordinate status. Now we will look at the figures for the ten most frequent source languages. As expected, the main language is Spanish (700 items approx.), followed at a distance by English (400 items approx.), French (300 items approx.) and Catalan (300 items approx.), all with similar percentages. German is the source language of over two hundred items, and Italian of about one hundred. Portuguese follows Italian and is itself followed by Basque and Russian. Basque is the only language for which the predominant direction of translation is from Galician. The balance goes against Galician in the case of Spanish, Catalan, Italian, and Portuguese but is fairly even, unlike English, French and German, for which Galician is clearly at a disadvantage. This is not the place for even a brief analysis of these statistics: they bear witness to the importance of translation among the languages of Spain in particular and the Iberian Peninsula generally. We should also note the significant part played by children’s and young-​adult literature in the translation flow (Luna Alonso, 2012a).

5.  Translations to and from Portuguese Now we will focus on the flow of translations between Galician and Portuguese. Let us note first of all that existing studies cover some aspects while neglecting others; for instance, they refer almost exclusively to Galicia, Portugal, and Brazil without accounting for African countries where Portuguese is the official language, and only cover literary texts. The first point is no doubt due to the flow differences between the mentioned countries. Regarding the second

62

62  Henrique Monteagudo Table 3.2 Translations between Galician and Portuguese, 1980–​2010 Po. Port. → Gal.: 45 Gal. → Po. Port.: (79) 55 Po. Port. ↔ Gal. (total): 100 Br. Port. → Gal.: 32 Gal. → Br. Port.: 7 Br. Port. ↔ Gal. (total): 49 Po+Br (total) → Gal.: 77 Gal. → Port. (total): 62 Total: 149 Source: Bitraga, 2016

point, as observed by one of the few Portuguese scholars who have studied this matter, “the literary channel is, at present, the only one that permits such a study of behaviours” (Venâncio, 2007, p. 44), given that, as he notes, “literary translation is not, in our societies, a powerful means for linguistic intervention,” but “constitutes a laboratory where proportions may be examined and processes detected” (Venâncio, 2007, p.  51). It should also be borne in mind that we generally only have access to occasional impressionistic details about the distribution of translations, their reception and audience reactions, either in Galicia or in Portugal or Brazil. Totals for the period 1990–​2010 are shown in Table  3.2. A  substantial proportion of the total number of translations from Galician to Portugal Portuguese, 79, are from a single collection of children’s comics, Os Bolechas, so we have subtracted their number (24) from the total to obtain the numbers shown. Next, we shall look at the different approaches to publishing Galician texts (in Galician) in Portuguese-​speaking countries and Portuguese texts (in Portuguese) in Galicia. Schematically, the approaches are: (1) Publish both Galician texts in Portugal/​Brazil and Portuguese ones in Galicia in their respective original languages. (2) Publish Portuguese texts in Galicia in the original language, but publish Galician texts in Portuguese translations in Portugal /​Brazil. (3) Publish Galician texts in Portugal/​ Brazil Portuguese in Portuguese translations, and Portuguese texts in Galicia in Galician translations. Here, the following points should be kept in mind: (a) The dissymmetry of the areas under consideration. Between Galician and Portuguese (whether European or Brazilian), there are vast differences of size, and even more importantly of political-​cultural and sociolinguistic status. Knowledge, recognition, and mutual intelligibility of both the spoken and the written languages are therefore not mutual between Galician and Portuguese speakers, or at least not symmetrical. Galician people know, recognize, and understand Portuguese, either spoken or written, much better than vice-​versa. (b) The terms of the discussion change crucially depending on whether the standard of Galician we are talking about is the official “autonomous”

 63

Galician and Portuguese in translation 63 standard or the “reintegrationist” norm, which treats Galician as a variety of Portuguese. In point of fact, for the “reintegrationist” position, options (2) and (3) are excluded, and the only legitimate option is (1), in which case the texts circulated in Portugal/​Brazil would be written in a form close or identical to Portuguese.5 (c) Book distribution policies between Portugal and Brazil, in other words, between European and Brazilian Portuguese, are a further factor. Barring occasional exceptions, publications in one country do not reach the other, and when they do the texts are usually adapted to the language variety of the recipient country. Few Portuguese authors have the privilege of being published in the original version in Brazil, as is the case of José Saramago. (d) As one translation specialist has put it, “in the Portuguese-​speaking domain, the Portuguese do not read Brazilian translations and Brazilians do not read Portuguese translations. Furthermore, Brazilian books are adapted to the Portuguese of Portugal, erasing all traces of the language spoken in Brazil” (Barbosa, 2011, p.  32).6 Audiovisual materials made in Brazil are shown in Portugal as they are, but quite often those from Portugal are subtitled in Brazil. (e) The position of Castilian as an interposed language mediating between Galician and Portuguese: Spanish translations of Portuguese texts are circulated in Galicia, and originally Galician works are published in Portugal and Brazil via translations into Castilian (Vilavedra, 2005, Montero Küpper, 2012a, p.  76  & 2012b, p.  122). Maria Magdalena Vila Barbosa, a Portuguese scholar who has studied this phenomenon, says: “one sad reality cannot be denied: the dependence on Spanish as a language bridge” (2011, p. 26). Indeed, there are instances of Galician authors being promoted in Portugal and Brazil as Spanish authors, via Castilian. In this context the phenomenon of self-​translation by Galician authors to Spanish should be noted; this is sometimes more than a translation, more like creation of a new original, as can be seen from examples. The subsidiarizing effect of the practice of self-​translation is the circulation and exportation of the Spanish translation as the original, and it is used as such in translations into other languages. And as Dolores Vilavedra (2005) has pointed out, in the opposite direction Galician translators also play the role of intermediaries in Spanish translations of Portuguese literature. In another sense, Fernando Venâncio (2008) notes that translations from Galician to Portuguese often lead to Spanish.

6.  Circulation of Portuguese books in Galicia There are three ways a Portuguese book (more often in European than in Brazilian Portuguese) may be circulated in Galicia. The most usual way is in a Spanish translation. Another possibility is for it to be in the original (Portuguese) version, either sold in specialized bookshops in Galicia or

64

64  Henrique Monteagudo carried across the border (the readership for Portuguese books is limited yet substantial enough to constitute a small market). And once in a while, such a book may be published in a Galician version. It is very rare for a title to circulate in all three versions. Statistics are unavailable for the sale of Portuguese-​ to-​Spanish translations in Galicia, but an example will be mentioned below. Let us consider some examples illustrating the circulation of books either in Portuguese or in a Galician translation. Those in Portuguese may either be imported from Portugal or Brazil, or published in Galicia. The availability of original Portuguese titles produced in Galicia has relevance for our subject. A  Galician publisher, Laiovento Editora, founded in 1990, began offering works in Portuguese in its “Vento do Sul” series. An analysis of its catalogue carried out through the University of Santiago Library showed the series to have remained active from 1994 to 2006; it published a total of 23 books, six of which are anthologies, while ten are works by Portuguese, Brazilian, or Portuguese-​speaking African authors in Portuguese. Many are original works that did not see publication outside Galicia. The most productive period was from 1996 to 1999, when most (16) of the titles were published. We do not have data about the sales of these books in Portugal or Brazil, or in Galicia either, but the fact that the series ceased after 2006 is probably an indication of a meager reception. Nevertheless, more recently (from 2010 to 2015)  another Galician publisher, Atraves, has issued works in Portuguese, largely by Galician authors, at a faster pace; their titles already number fifty. We lack information about how many copies have been printed or sold. Returning to the sale in Galicia of original works in Portuguese by authors outside Galicia, an interesting example is Vozes no Deserto by Nélida Piñón. The Galician publisher Candeia published an edition of the original Portuguese text in Galicia, but the original Brazilian edition was also sold in Galicia. It seems that the original Brazilian edition sold more copies than that published by Candeia with exactly the same text. As for Galician translations from Portuguese, a good example is provided by the books of Paulo Coelho, three of whose works have been translated: O peregrino a Compostela: diario dun mago (1998); Veronika decide morrer (2000, second edition 2007) and O alquimista (1998; four editions until 2009). There is also a trilingual edition in Galician, Portuguese and English of his Camiño Peregrino  =  Caminho Peregrino  =  The Pilgrim’s Way (2009). Perhaps the most interesting example, however, despite its uniqueness, is Nélida Piñón’s A República dos Sonhos, which has sold in Galicia in (Brazilian) Portuguese, in Spanish and in Galician. Sales of the Galician translation have been a success with four printings between 2004 and 2015. But it should be borne in mind that the author, Nélida Piñón, is a daughter of Galician emigrants who retains close links with her parents’ country of origin, and this book is thought of an epic tale about Galician emigration to Brazil. In any case, in view of these examples it seems that the most effective strategy for selling Portuguese books in Galicia is through translation into Galician, although we lack figures that would permit a comparison with Spanish-​language translations.

 65

Galician and Portuguese in translation 65 For periodicals, mention should be made of the Galician journals Grial and A Trabe de Ouro, and the digital media Sermos Galiza and Terra e Tempo. Grial has included contributions in Portuguese from Portuguese, Brazilian and, occasionally, African authors since 2008. It has a policy of trying to get one such contribution per issue, but this is not always achieved. There have also been interviews with and articles from numerous prominent Portuguese and Brazilian linguists, some of whom, however, prefer their texts to be translated into Galician. When I myself write for Portuguese-​language books or journals (of a professional, more restricted kind), I am often asked to write in Galician rather than Portuguese.

7.  Translation from Galician into Portuguese What about circulation of Galician texts in Portugal, either in original versions or translated into Portuguese? Three publishers have undertaken specific initiatives to promote Galician literature in Portugal: Edições Tema (small-​scale), Deriva (in Porto) and Dom Quixote (in Lisbon) (Fernández Rodríguez et al., 2012, pp. 157–​159). As we have seen, one strategy is to circulate (literary) texts in Galician, untranslated. For poetry, anthologies have been published in two-​column bilingual editions (for Rosalía de Castro) or through superficial orthographic adaptation. One Galician work that achieved remarkable success in Portugal was O catecismo do labrego by Valentín Lamas Carvajal, originally published in 1889, the 1967 Portuguese translation of which has sold 20,000 copies (Barbosa, 2011, p.  45). Apart from this and a few other (rare) instances, the great pioneer of Galician-​Portuguese translation in the 1970s was the journalist and author José Viale Moutinho, from Porto, in whose opinion “translation is the way to spread Galician literature in Portugal.” “Avoiding translation at the present time amounts to preventing Galician texts from being read by a Portuguese audience” because “the Portuguese reader is adverse to reading Galician” (Barbosa, 2011, p. 54). “The Portuguese have a negative attitude toward Galician, which I believe was encouraged historically by Spanish centralism” (Fernández et al., 2012, p. 159). One notable initiative was the Eixo Atlántico (“Atlantic Axis”) Award for narrative prose, administered by the Eixo Atlántico from 1997 to 2006.7 Interestingly, this award for original writing in Galician and Portuguese provided for publication of the winning entry (which might be in Galician or Portuguese) both in Galician in Galicia and in Portuguese in Portugal. An instructive example is that of the vicissitudes of the Portuguese translation of one of the winning novels, No ventre do silencio by Xosé Luís Méndez Ferrín. The Lisbon publishing house Dom Quixote asked Aguilar Teixeira to translate it from Galician into Portuguese on the sole grounds that he was a qualified translator from Spanish (Barbosa, 2011, p. 43). By his own admission, he carried out the translation using a Galician-​Spanish dictionary and checking with the original author when in doubt. Here is Castilian in

66

66  Henrique Monteagudo the role of intermediary between Galician and Portuguese once more. The same scholar whom we have quoted several times already wrote: “Apparently, having translated from Spanish is [considered] a good enough reason to assume that a translator can also translate from Galician” (Barbosa, 2011, p. 43). As for the reception in Portugal accorded to the translated works, a Portuguese scholar refers to their “limited impact” (modesta repercusão), recognizing that “in actual fact, of present-​day Galician writers only Manuel Rivas is a recognised name in publishing circles” (Venâncio, 2007, p. 44). We shall have more to say about Rivas, internationally the most acknowledged and translated Galician living writer. As noted earlier, Galician writers are often also the translators of their own works into Spanish. But in such cases the author-​translator’s role often goes well beyond that of merely rendering the original into Spanish, with changes in the text (or even the plot!) which are sometimes later incorporated into new editions in Galician (Dasilva Fernández, 2008, p. 388); witness for example Manuel Rivas’s novel As chamadas perdidas, and some by Suso de Toro such as A sombra cazadora, Calzados Lola, and Ambulancia. The Portuguese translations are based on Castilian versions, not on Galician originals. A case in point is O Segredo da Terra, a work by Manuel Rivas published in Portugal: this is a translation of the book in Spanish El secreto de la tierra, which was compiled from two separate titles in the original Galician, Un millón de vacas and Os comedores de patacas. The Portuguese book includes the author’s prologue originally written for the Spanish edition. Coming back to Galician texts translated into Portuguese, Manuel Rivas’s novel O lapis do carpinteiro, for example, was first translated into the Portuguese of Portugal by the writer Pedro Tamen for Publicações Dom Quixote, and afterwards translated into Brazilian Portuguese in a very different version by the poet Ladusha Spinardi for Editora Objetiva, working from the Spanish version in both instances (Fernández et al., 2012, p. 159). Compare the only translation of the book into English, published simultaneously in the United Kingdom and the United States (also translated from the Spanish version). Another book by Rivas, As chamadas perdidas, was translated from the Galician original, contrasting with the Spanish version, which was carried out by the author himself. But the latter strategy is the exception rather than the rule, the usual pattern being for the Spanish version to serve as an intermediary interposed between Galician and Portuguese.

8.  Galician texts in Portuguese-​speaking countries: the reintegrationist strategy From the reintegrationist viewpoint, as we saw earlier, the logical thing would be to promote the circulation of originals in “reintegrated” Galician in Portuguese-​speaking countries. Some examples will illustrate what difficulties are faced by this approach. In 2006 Inxalá, a novel by Carlos Quiroga (who teaches Portuguese literature at a university), was published by the Galician

 67

Galician and Portuguese in translation 67 publisher, Laiovento, in reintegrated Galician. In 2008 the same book was published in Portugal with the title Inxalá. Espero por ti na Abissínia, by the Lisbon publisher Quid Novi de Lisboa; the text had undergone a linguistic revision, as is indicated in the epilogue. Comparing the Portuguese text to the reintegrated Galician original, Fernando Venâncio, a Portuguese specialist in translation, comments: “After fifteen or twenty pages it is clear what ‘revision’ means. The work has been ‘revised’ in depth. Not to beat around the bush: it has been rewritten” (2008). Another example is As sete fontes by Concha Rousia, published in Portuguese by Arcos Digital in 2005. Fernando Venâncio points out that the work is full of expressions the use of which is restricted to rural northern Portuguese dialects. In his opinion the effect is counterproductive: “The story’s more or less markedly rural lexis in limited use simply reinforces the stereotype of Galicia as a back-​country of farmers frozen in time” (Venâncio, 2007, p. 50). On the basis of his analysis of these and other translations, Venâncio questions the assumption that Galician and Portuguese (of Portugal or Brazil) are “perfectly mutually intelligible, at least in their formal registers” (Peres Rodrigues, 2004, p.  78), suggesting that this belief constitutes a “rather euphoric interpretation of reality.” In his opinion, “there exists, at best, a generic mutual intelligibility between the three standards,” noting that “in formal register, even Castilian is transparent for a Portuguese person” (Venâncio, 2007, p.  28). The literary register, he finds, “presents a partial opacity between Galician and Portuguese which, even if it does not impede general understanding, stands too much in the way of pleasurable reading” (Venâncio, 2007, p. 28). He therefore agrees with his fellow-​countryman, José Viale Moutinho, in the end: “We consider that has been demonstrated, if not the necessity, at least the strong advisability of translating Galician works of fiction for Portuguese readers” (Venâncio, 2007, p. 28). Venâncio suggests that Portuguese publishers could publish Galician works with Portuguese spelling, removing “the most bothersome Castilianisms” and appending a Galician–​Portuguese glossary. These “cleaned up” Galician texts could also be sold in Galicia: “The same edition would then be commercialized in Galicia. Thanks to the filtering out of Castilian elements, the text would be a useful means for strengthening Galician and conserving its authenticity” (apud Barbosa, 2011, pp. 29–​30).

9.  Other types of text. Audiovisuals We have only considered written literary texts. Consideration should also be given to other kinds of writing (journalism, scientific and technical prose, professional writing, etc.) and of course audiovisual materials too, especially television programs (for viewers of TVG in northern Portugal), fiction series (Galician, on RTP) and films. Another area is oral communication, both informal and public/​formal. There is the case of the Galician MEP, Camilo Nogueira, who reached an agreement with the European

68

68  Henrique Monteagudo Parliament’s Portuguese interpreters whereby they translated his speeches (in Galician) in plenary sessions. From personal experience we know that communication difficulties are infrequent in personal exchanges, and fewer still in professional writing. Ledo (2011) has produced a study of intelligibility and acceptance of Galician audiovisual products among various Portuguese-​speaking audiences.

10.  Conclusion In her study of literary translation of Galician literature in Portugal and Brazil, the Portuguese specialist Maria Magdalena Vila Barbosa (2011, p. 54) concludes that: The approach of trying to introduce Galician texts into the Portuguese-​ speaking world by using a linguistic model that is closer to Portuguese doesn’t seem to work as well as the option of translating [and, on the other side] a translation carried out in Portugal will not be fully valid for use in Brazil, since it is customary for each country to have its own version. Experience to date (brief, but not negligible) seems to suggest that in the area considered here of literary translation, Galician and Portuguese so far are behaving like closely related but different languages. They also, however, seem to be making some progress moving toward each other: Spanish is no longer necessarily the interposed language, with a considerable increase in the number, and a slight diversification in the genres, of the Galician literary texts translated into Portuguese (with the addition of children’s and young adult literature). Certain Galician authors are also managing to place works originally written in Portuguese directly in the Portuguese-​speaking market, but only at the cost of becoming practically bilingual and only in exceptional cases. This review of the phenomenon of translation from Galician to Portuguese and vice-​versa (and, in connection with it, the circulation of Portuguese texts in Galicia and Galician texts in Portugal and Brazil) suggests that it is advisable to abandon a monolithic abstraction of the language and take into account the varied, heterogeneous reality of linguistic repertory, discourse genres, and text types, and diverse degrees and kinds of productive and receptive competence, and address the question from the viewpoint of knowledge/​ recognition, that is, communication and linguistic culture. The picture presented here does not warrant any categorical conclusions: The Galician-​ Portuguese/​ Brazilian knowledge/​ recognition process is dynamic—​it is incipient and nobody knows how it will end. In any event, I  think it is legitimate to conclude that the reintegrationists have been too hasty to assume that Galician will eventually be assimilated to Portuguese. My conclusion is that the most important thing is to forge ahead, even if we are not absolutely certain where we are going. Perhaps the process is more important than the objective, and the road is the real goal.

 69

Galician and Portuguese in translation 69

Notes 1 In Angola, Mozambique and other African and Asian contexts, the transformation has been even more radical, but this is less relevant to our topic. 2 See especially Baltrusch, 2008, 2009; Barbosa, 2011; Dasilva Fernández 2005 and 2008 , 2005, Peres Rodrígues, 2013; Pereiro, 2007,  2004; Venâncio, 2007 and 2008; Vilavedra, 2005. 3 Especially Brazil’s interest in increasing its influence in Africa, traditionally dominated by Portugal alone in what almost amounts to a monopoly. Portugal categorically prevented Brazil from having relations with what were then its colonies. It is not yet clear whether this has had anything to do with the increased circulation of Brazilian publications in Portugal and vice-​versa. 4 See Fernández Rodríguez et al. (2012) for a fuller picture with statistics and analysis until 2010. Note in particular the chapter by Galanes Santos (2012, pp. 87–​ 108), and concerning children’s and young adult literature, Luna Alonso (2012a, pp. 129–​148). 5 Often close to Portuguese in intention only! As we will show, it is not uncommon for reintegrationist Galician texts (in co-​called “galego-​português” or “português da Galiza”) to be full of Galicianisms, Castilianisms or questionable forms, making such texts hardly recognizable as Portuguese for speakers of the latter language. 6 This is illustrated by the Harry Potter books, where very different strategies were used in Portugal and Brazil: the Brazilian translations, unlike the Portuguese ones, adapted proper names using personal names adapted to Portuguese, the sports terminology of Potterland, names of the Hogwarts houses, etc. Incidentally, the translator of the Galician versions told the present author that she was not allowed to do this by the publisher that owns the rights to the translation, who insisted she must use the original English names (personal communication, 28 June, 2016). 7 Eixo Atlántico is an organism that was created in the framework of the European Union by a group of cities in Galicia and the north of Portugal in connection with the creation of the Galicia–​North Portugal Euroregion.

References Aracil, Ll. V. (1983). Dir la realitat. Barcelona: Edicions Països Catalans. Bagno, M. (2003). A norma oculta. Língua & poder na sociedade brasileira. São Paulo: Parábola. Bagno, M. (2006). Lingua e sociedade na historia do Brasil. Grial, 172, 110–​117. Bagno, M. (2011). Gramática pedagógica do Português brasileiro. São Paulo: Parábola. Baltrusch, B. (2008). Tradución e nación. Galicia entre a lusofonía e posnacionalismo. Grial, 179,  60–​67. Baltrusch, B. (2009). Galiza e a Lusofonía-​unha tradución entre a miraxe e a utopía. Galicia 21, Issue A, 4–​19. Retrieved from: www.galicia21journal.org/​A/​pdf/​galicia21_​2_​baltrusch.pdf Barbosa, M. M.  V. (2011). Primeira aproximación á tradución da literatura galega en Brasil e Portugal. Tradução & Comunicação. Revista Brasileira de Tradutores, 23,  21–​57. Baxter, A. (1992). Portuguese as a pluricentric language. In M. Clyne (Ed.), Pluricentric languages. Differing norms in different nations (pp. 11–​43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

70

70  Henrique Monteagudo Biblioteca da Tradución Galega [BITRAGA] (2016). Retrieved from: http://​bitraga. gal/​bbdd/​. Castro, I. (2007). Forças de união e separação no espaço da língua portuguesa. Paper given at the Institut d’Estudis Catalans. 16/​03/​2007. Retrieved from: www.clul. ul.pt/​files/​ivo_​castro/​2007_​Unio_​e_​Separao.pdf Castro, I. (2010). As políticas linguísticas do português. Retrieved from: www.apl.org. pt/​docs/​25-​textos-​seleccionados/​05-​Ivo%20Castro.pdf. Dasilva Fernández, X. M. (2005). Perfiles de la traducción hispano-​portuguesa 1. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo. Dasilva Fernández, X. M. (2008). O alleo é noso. Contribucións para a historia da tradución en Galicia. Noia: Toxosoutos. Dasilva Fernández, X. M. (2009). Autotraducirse en Galicia: ¿Bilingüismo o diglosia?. Quaderns: Revista de Traducció, 16, 143–​156. http://​ddd.uab.cat/​pub/​quaderns/​ 11385790n16p143-​2.pdf [17/​03/​2014] Faraco, C. A. (2010). A encruzilhada da lusofonia, Grial, 187,  76–​81. Faraco, C. A. (2016). História sócio-​política da língua Portuguesa. São Paulo: Parábola. Fernández Rodríguez, Á. (2013). A tradución do galego-​portugués-​galego a debate. O intercambio cultural, unha fonte de riqueza necesaria. In X. M. Mosquera Carregal (Ed.), Lingua e tradución. IX Xornadas de lingua e uso (pp. 183–​195). A Coruña: Universidade. Fernández Rodríguez Á. et al. (Eds.) (2012). Traducción de una cultura emergente. La literatura gallega contemporánea en el exterior. Bern: Peter Lang. Fernández Rodríguez, M., & Rodríguez Neira, M. (Coords.). (1995). Usos lingüísticos en Galicia. A Coruña: Real Academia Galega. Galanes Santos, I. (2012). La traducción literaria en Galicia a partir del catálogo BITRAGA. In Á. Fernández Rodríguez et  al. (Eds.), Traducción de una cultura emergente. La literatura gallega contemporánea en el exterior (pp. 87–​108). Bern: Peter Lang. Ledo Andión, M. (Ed.). (2011). Lusofonía. Interactividade e interculturalidade. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago. Lucchesi, D. (2011). Racismo linguístico ou ensino democrático e pluralista? A questão do ensino da língua portuguesa no Brasil, Grial, 190,  86–​95. Lucchesi, D. (2015). Língua e sociedade partidas. A  polarização sociolingüística do Brasil. São Paulo, Contexto. Luna Alonso, A. (2012a). La proyección de la literatura infantil y juvenil gallega a través de la traducción. In Á. Fernández Rodríguez et al. (Eds.), Traducción de una cultura emergente. La literatura gallega contemporánea en el exterior (pp. 129–​148). Bern: Peter Lang. Luna Alonso, A. (2012b). Traducir en nombre propio. De la Academia a la plaza pública. In Á. Fernández Rodríguez et  al. (Eds.), Traducción de una cultura emergente. La literatura gallega contemporánea en el exterior (pp. 149–​175). Bern: Peter Lang. Marcellesi, J.-​B. (1984). La définition des langues en domaine roman: les enseignements à tirer de la situation corse. In Actes du XVIIème Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes (Aix-​en-​Provence, 29 août–​3 septembre 1983), vol. 5 (pp. 309–​314). Aix-​en-​Provence: Université de Provence. Monteagudo, H. (2003). A demanda da norma. Avances, problemas e perspectivas no proceso de estandarización do idioma galego. In H. Monteagudo and X. Bouzada (Eds.), O proceso de normalización do idioma galego 1980–​2000. Vol.

 71

Galician and Portuguese in translation 71 3. Elaboración e difusión da lingua (pp. 37–​129). Santiago: Consello da Cultura Galega. Monteagudo, H. (2005). La estandarización del gallego. Problemas y avances. In C. Sinner (Ed.), Norm und Normkonflikte in der Romania (pp. 112–​130). München: Peniope. Monteagudo, H. (2012). Galego, Portugués e Brasileiro no tempo. Achegas para unha diacronía comparada. In X. C. Lagares & H. Monteagudo (Eds.), Galego e Português Brasileiro. História, variação e mudança (pp. 37–​ 104). Niterói: Universidade Federal Fluminense. Monteagudo, H. (2016). Linguas, globalización e interculturalidade. Unha reflexión desde o galego, Grial, 209,  70–​79. Monteagudo, H. & Bouzada, X. (Eds.). (2002). O proceso de normalización do idioma galego 1980–​ 2000. Vol. 1.  Política lingüística: análise e perspectivas. Santiago: Consello da Cultura Galega. Monteagudo, H. & Santamarina, A. (1993). Galician and Castilian in contact: Historical, social, and linguistic aspects. In R. Posner & J. Green (Eds.), Trends in Romance linguistics and philology. Vol. 5. Bilingualism and linguistic conflict in Romance (pp. 117–​73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Montero Küpper, S. (2012a). Contextualización histórico-​cultural y apuntes sobre el sector editorial gallego. In A. Fernández Rodríguez Áurea et al. (Eds.), Traducción de una cultura emergente. La literatura gallega contemporánea en el exterior (pp. 61–​86). Bern: Peter Lang. Montero Küpper, S. (2012b). De la literatura gallega a la literatura mundial. Las obras literarias gallegas traducidas después de 1980. In Á. Fernández Rodríguez et  al. (Eds.), Traducción de una cultura emergente. La literatura gallega contemporánea en el exterior (pp. 129–​148). Bern: Peter Lang. Oliveira, G. Müller de (2013a). Um Atlântico ampliado. O Português nas políticas linguísticas do século XXI. In Luiz P. da M. Lopes (Ed.), O Português do Século XXI. Cenário Geopolítico e Sociolinguístico (pp. 53–​73). São Paulo: Parábola. Oliveira, G. Müller de (2013b). Política linguística e internacionalização: a língua portuguesa no mundo globalizado do século XXI. Trabalhos de Lingüística Aplicada, 52(2). Retrieved from: www.scielo.br/​scielo.php?pid=S0103-​18132013 000200010&script=sci_​arttext Pereiro, X. M. (2007). Traducir ou non traducir. Os autores galegos só son lidos en Portugal cando a súa obra se publica no idioma luso. Luces/​El País. Retrieved from: http://​elpais.com/​diario/​2007/​02/​02/​galicia/​1170415109_​850215.html. Peres Rodrigues, J. H. (2004). A proximidade tipológica entre o (galego-​)português e o espanhol e o seu relevo para a prática e para o ensino da tradução. Agália, 77/​ 78,  73–​86. Rosa, G. L.  de (2008). Unimultiplicidade e Policentrismo do Português no Século XXI. In Diálogos com a Lusofonia. Colóquio Conmemorativo dos 30 anos da Secção Portuguesa do Instituto Ibéricos e Ibero-​americanos da Universidade de Varsóvia. Warszawa: Instytut Studiów Iberyjskich i Iberoamerykańskich UW. Retrieved from: https://​iberystyka-​uw.home.pl/​content/​view/​392/​113/​lang,pl/​ Sánchez Vidal, P. (2010). O Debate Normativo da Lingua Galega (1980–​ 2000). A Coruña: Fundación Barrié de la Maza. Thiers, G. (1993). Language contact and Corsican polynomia. In R. Posner and J. Green (Eds.), Trends in Romance linguistics and philology. Vol. 5. Biingualism and linguistic conflict in Romance (pp. 253–​270). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

72

72  Henrique Monteagudo Valls Alecha, E. & González González, M. (2016). Variación e distancia lingüística na Romania Antiqua: Unha contribución dialectométrica ao debate sobre o grao de individuación da lingua galega. Estudos de Lingüística Galega, 8, 229–​246. [DOI http://​dx.doi.org/​10.15304/​elg.8.3175]. Venâncio, F. (2007). Palavras doutra tribo. Sobre traduções de literatura galega. Viceversa, 13,  25–​54. Venâncio, F. (2008). O galego pasteurizado. Retrieved from: www.pglingua.org/​ opiniom/​artigos-​por-​data/​234-​o-​galego-​pasteurizado Vilavedra, D. (2005). Galego, portugués e castelán. Unha interacción produtiva. In M.  H. Mira Matéus (Ed.), Mais línguas, mais Europa: celebrar a diversidade lingüística e cultural da Europa (pp. 58–​69). Lisboa: Colibri.

 73

4  Language standardization and purism A historiographical approach to Galician grammar and lexicography in the 19th century Ernesto González Seoane and Gabriel Rei-​Doval This contribution aims to validate the interaction of writing systems and standardization in processes of language revival and awakening from a Galician perspective.1 The emergence of previously dormant (written) languages can help to address the recurrent issue of language purism that invariably triggers the design, emergence, and use of a new standard variety. The Galician case is particularly relevant because of its contact situation with Spanish, another closely related ceiling language. The consequences of such contact, and the attention that both the dominant and the minority language received, conditioned the choices made by linguists in the 19th century. As a result, these choices often followed contrastive and subsidiary patterns. However, in the Galician setting, language legitimization was favored both discursively and through the introduction of distinct iconic graphic features, in an unclear situation where hybridization and purism are either complementary or irreconcilable sides of the same coin. As a result, ethnographic purism was used as a strategy to seek authenticity in a language whose primary source was casual speech isolated in rural areas from the dominant language. These debates are related to the foundation of a national discourse based on the existence and promotion of a separate national language and its problematic relationship with its Spanish counterpart. Galician linguistic and literary historiography laid the foundation for the Rexurdimento in the mid-​19th century. This sociocultural movement made regional affirmation as well as civic and identity vindication its priority. Linguistically speaking, the Rexurdimento led to the elaboration of a discourse to defend and promote the Galician language and its reappearance in writing, primarily in literature and, more specifically, in poetry. After 350  years of being confined to the family domain and limited to informal and colloquial registers, Galician re-​emerged as a written language. As a result of this, the need to elaborate a linguistic model became a concern. This model was meant to be somewhat unified—​in particular at the graphic level—​and suitable to serve as a vehicle for written usage. It is in this context that the emergence of the first metalinguistic reflections on the Galician language in the public sphere, as well as the publication of

74

74  E. González Seoane & G. Rei-Doval the first grammars and dictionaries, should be understood. In such linguistic texts, Spanish turns into a basic referential element that even conditions the structural configuration of these works and the assessment of certain solutions and features. This is no surprise if we take into account the central role played by Spanish as the only official language in Spain and, as a consequence, the fact that it was also the language of instruction and usage for learned elites, whether Galicianist or not. Furthermore, we should also take into consideration that, at least until late in the second half of the 19th century, the existence of a rich medieval literary tradition in Galician was almost unknown. In addition, before the turn of the century the proposals to move closer to the lusophone world were not yet formulated, at least not explicitly. In the following pages, an identification and analysis will be undertaken of the different levels where the influence of Spanish in Galician grammars and dictionaries was present. Finally, an assessment of the attitudes observed among the first grammarians and lexicographers of the Galician language in the 19th century will be provided.

1.  The 19th century and the emergence of Galician linguistics The starting point of Galician linguistics (at least as printed texts are concerned) takes place in the middle of the 19th century. There are some antecedents already from the early 16th century, in particular in the field of lexicographical production,2 but, in almost all cases, those texts had remained unpublished and ignored until very recent times. For this reason, these texts neither affected nor influenced their contemporaries or the following generations, and as a result it could be argued that they did not comprise a proper tradition.3 The texts inaugurating the (published) Galician linguistic tradition are two very modest volumes: the Diccionario gallego-​castellano by Francisco Javier Rodríguez, printed in 1863, and the Compendio de gramática gallega-​ castellana by Francisco Mirás, printed in 1864. The former is a posthumous volume that its author had left handwritten and unfinished upon his death in 1854; the volume was published on the initiative of Antonio de la Iglesia, one of the most active promoters of the Galician Rexurdimento. The original manuscript included 3,440 entries, over a third of which were lacking a definition or equivalence. The editor went beyond putting the text in printed version: He also completed the missing definitions, added new entries, and adapted the original orthography to his taste (cf. Santamarina, 2003, p. 29). As for the latter, it is an openly miscellaneous book, where the space dedicated to non-​grammatical content is much greater than that providing a proper grammatical description that is otherwise a short presentation of grammar paradigms. Therefore, the founding works of the tradition are two very elementary texts with serious imperfections. However, in the subsequent years, Juan Cuveiro and Juan Antonio Saco Arce published two new grammatical

 75

Standardization and purism in 19th century Galician 75 descriptions, both in 1868. The grammar by Cuveiro is entitled El habla gallega. Observaciones y datos sobre su origen y vicisitudes and is, like Mirás’s text, a miscellaneous and elementary work. In contrast, Saco’s Gramática gallega, unlike those of his two predecessors, is a serious and rigorous one, revealing both a good knowledge of the Galician language and solid grammatical training. As for the lexicographical texts, in the second half of the 19th century two other dictionaries were published: the Diccionario gallego by Juan Cuveiro (1876) and the Diccionario gallego-​castellano by Marcial Valladares (1884). The former brought a very significant increase in the volume of compiled vocabulary, almost tripling the number of entries contained in Rodríguez (1863). Nevertheless, the masterpiece of Galician lexicography in the 19th century is unquestionably the Diccionario gallego-​castellano by Marcial Valladares, published in 1884 (cf. Sánchez Palomino, 1999). Regardless of the number of compiled entries, his dictionary stood out among others in the Rexurdimento for its wise choices in the selection of lemmas and its greater technical perfection, both in terms of definitions and organization of the lexicographical articles. Therefore, Saco’s grammar and Valladares’s dictionary became key reference works of 19th-​century Galician linguistics. It is not by chance that the appearance in writing of the first grammatical and lexicographical texts on the Galician language coincided in time with the publication of Cantares gallegos by Rosalía de Castro in 1863. For Galician linguistic and literary historiography, this book has been considered the foundational event of the Rexurdimento. On the contrary, this coincidence demonstrated that the mid-​century appearance of grammatical and lexicographical projects such as the aforementioned ones was closely connected to the revival of the literary cultivation of the Galician language and with the movement to affirm, defend and assert its dignity. As a matter of fact, from the beginning the promoters and leaders of the Rexurdimento were conscious of the crucial importance of le processus qui conduit à décrire et à outiller une langue sur la base des deux technologies qui sont encore aujourd’hui les piliers de notre savoir métalinguistique: la grammaire et le dictionnaire (the process of describing and equipping a language based on the two technologies that are still today the pillars of our metalinguistic knowledge: grammars and dictionaries). (Auroux, 1992, p. 28) Thus, the considerations regarding the necessity for the Galician language to have a grammar and a dictionary as soon as possible would soon become a recurrent issue in the writings of those who promoted the Rexurdimento (González Millán, 2003). The invoked reasons were of a utilitarian nature: Elaborating a unified language model was perceived as an urgent task that could counteract a

76

76  E. González Seoane & G. Rei-Doval certain sensation of anarchy, especially at the orthographical level. In this regard, it was assumed that grammars and dictionaries were tools of cardinal impor­tance to configure an exemplary variety. As Boulanger (2003, p.  230) indicates, “la grammatisation par le dictionnaire et par la grammaire ouvre la voie aux travaux de régularisation et de régulation du bon usage” (codification through dictionaries and grammars paves the way for the regularization and regulation of good usage). In addition, we should also bear in mind that this lack of consistency in written Galician was being exploited by the foes of the Galicianist movement in order to discredit and undermine its consistency and seriousness (cf. González Seoane, 1991; Hermida, 1992, pp. 206–​216). However, there were also symbolic reasons, as the supporters of the revival of the Galician language were not ignorant of the relevance that grammars and dictionaries hold in processes of emergence of standard va­rieties (cf. Auroux, 1992; Zgusta, 1989). Furthermore, it is not surprising that the discussions on the importance for the Galician language to be equipped with linguistic reference texts as soon as possible led to somewhat articulated and consistent proposals for the creation of a language academy (cf. Alonso Montero, 1988). In this regard, what happened in the second half of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century is not too far from what Thomas (1991, p. 111) observes in this same period in other linguistic areas where, in the heat of the emergence of standard varieties, language institutions arose following the pattern previously established by the Académie Française or the Real Academia Española. Therefore, when the Real Academia Galega was founded in 1906, the institution defined its strategic goals, which included writing a grammar and a dictionary, and adopted a slogan that constituted a full declaration of principles: “colligit, expurgat, innovat” (corrects, expurgates, innovates). The preeminent position assigned to Spanish by its status of official language within Spain, as well as the consequences of the long-​term contact situation, clearly conditioned many of the decisions made during the process of standardizing the Galician language—​either positively or negatively—​in the 19th century and beyond. Next, we will analyze some of these consequences.

2.  Contrastive perspective and subsidiarity First of all, it is important to note that the position of Spanish produced a  decisive influence on the setting and configuration of the grammatical and lexicographical texts. This influence was particularly visible in the predominantly contrastive approach adopted by these texts and in the implicit assumption of a status of subsidiarity with respect to the corresponding works for the Spanish language. As for the grammars, authors tended to avoid those aspects where both languages coincided and instead focused on the issues that allowed the Galician language to be considered unique. In general, Galician grammarians did not hesitate to acknowledge such purposes. For example, Mirás, after

 77

Standardization and purism in 19th century Galician 77 recognizing that his work “no tiene otro objeto que el aclarar cuanto sea posible las locuciones y vocablos más obscuros del dialecto gallego” (has no other purpose than to clarify as much as possible the most obscure expressions and words of the Galician dialect), added that he considered it enough to indicate “la declinacion del artículo, nombre, pronombre, la conjugacion de los verbos regulares, y la de algunos irregulares de mas complicacion” (the inflection of articles, nouns, pronouns, the conjugation of regular verbs, and that of some of the more complicated irregular ones) (Mirás, 1864, p. 9). Cuveiro, for his part, declared: Siendo el habla gallega en su estructura y formas, igual á la castellana, con algunas diferencias que iremos estampando, nos parece inutil esplicar aqui los sonidos, partes de la oracion, declinacion del artículo, números, personas y géneros, puesto que en cualquiera de nuestras gramáticas, se hallarán nociones generales, no solo de aquellas, sinó de las cuatro partes en que se divide ésta: ortografia, analogia, sintaxis y prosodia. (Cuveiro, 1868, p. 7; our emphasis) (Given that Galician is equivalent to Spanish in its structure and forms, with some differences that we will be pointing out, it seems pointless to us to explain here the sounds, sentence structure, inflection of articles, numbers, persons, and genders, since general notions, not only of those features, but also of the four parts in which the language is divided: orthography, analogy, syntax, and prose, can be found in any of our grammars). Likewise, Saco, who offered the best and most complete description of the Galician language of his time by far, admitted that in his work, or at least in some of its chapters, his interest was only focused on the differential aspects: Si bien los dialectos gallego y castellano, como hijos de un mismo idioma en lo esencial, no presentan gran número de diferencias en su sintáxis, no es sin embargo tan exacta su conformidad en este punto, que no ofrezca algunas verdaderamente dignas de consideración. En estas diferencias se fijará casi exclusivamente nuestra atencion, pasando por alto ó contentándonos con mencionar lo que sea comun á entrambos idiomas. (Saco Arce, 1868, p. 155; our emphasis) (Even if the Galician and Castilian dialects, as children, essentially, of the same language, do not present a large number of differences in their syntax, their conformity in this respect is not, nevertheless, so exact that it does not offer some differences truly worthy of consideration. Our attention will be focused almost exclusively on these differences, leaving to the side or simply mentioning the commonalities between the two languages.)

78

78  E. González Seoane & G. Rei-Doval Similarly, the three lexicographical texts published throughout the 19th century (like all of those printed between 1900 and 1979)  were one-​way Galician-​Spanish bilingual dictionaries. The overwhelming predominance of Galician-​Spanish dictionaries (and the total absence of monolingual ones) was closely related to the function that the lexicographical text intended to undertake and explained in light of the complex sociolinguistic context where their elaboration and use were meant to be introduced. Therefore, it could be  argued that in general these dictionaries were essentially conceived as auxiliary instruments to decode texts written in Galician, rather than for codifying texts in Spanish by Galician speakers. These volumes’ goals had a direct impact both at the macro-​structural and micro-​structural levels. Words or meanings coinciding with Spanish were expeditiously eliminated, if not completely ignored. As a result, dictionaries published throughout the 19th century did not register common words—​such as boca, brazo, cabeza, casa or mesa (mouth, arm, head, house, table)—​as they were solutions coinciding with Spanish or, at most, included only some of their differential meanings. This self-​limitation was already formulated explicitly in the foreword of Rodríguez’s dictionary (1863, p. x), where the author warned that he would not include in his work “las voces comunes a gallegos y castellanos, sino las puramente gallegas” (the words in common between Galician and Spanish, but rather the purely Galician ones). As Pensado notes: Este principio determinador de la galaicidad de una palabra en función del castellano ha contribuido enormemente a olvidar muchos términos comunes e idénticos en ambas lenguas, y a iniciar una definición negativa del léxico gallego: el que no es igual al castellano. (Pensado, 1976, p. 8) (This determining principle of the Galicianness of a word with respect to Spanish has contributed enormously to the overlooking of many common and identical terms shared by both languages, and to the initiation of a negative definition of the Galician lexicon: which is not the same as the Spanish one.) This practice placed lexicographical Galician works in a subsidiary and dependent position with respect to Spanish dictionaries. In other words, they did not intend to collect a corpus acceptably coherent of Galician words—​ coinciding or not with the Spanish—​but simply a differential corpus created in contrast to Spanish (González Seoane, 2014, p. 175). Therefore, no matter how the contrast took place between different languages in this case, the perspective offered by Galician dictionaries within this period was very similar to that of dictionaries of regionalisms or dialectalisms found in other language settings. These works are defined

 79

Standardization and purism in 19th century Galician 79 by registering only those entries and definitions that do not appear in the general reference dictionary of the language in question (cf. Zimmermann, 2003). This perspective is quite different from the one that characterizes regional or integral general dictionaries, which try to provide the vocabulary from a given “communication community” (cf. Lara, 2006, p. 109). As a result, the process of codification (grammatization) of the Galician language, in spite of being guided by individuals whom Joseph (1987, p. 53) might call the “avant-​garde of acculturation,” that is, individuals belonging to the Galician elite completely immersed in Spanish but committed to the promotion and recognition of the Galician language, presents some features that approximate it to exogrammatization processes such as the ones characterizing the lexical and grammatical descriptions of indigenous languages. Hence, for a start, the models, concepts and methods used in the 19th-​century lexical and grammatical description of Galician were mimetic applications of the customary ones in the Spanish linguistic tradition. Otherwise, in the work of some authors, such as Mirás, it seems that the elaboration of linguistic tools for Galician was oriented not so much by an attempt to dignify the native language as by “des intérêts extérieurs aux communautés qui parlent la langue” (outside interests to the communities that speak the language) (Borges & Nunes 1998, p.  52). In other words, that social groups of foreign origin or, in general, from Spanish-​speaking sectors (priests, lawyers, doctors, or landowners) could understand poor villagers.

3.  Contrastive perspective and language legitimization In the construction of a discourse for legitimizing the Galician language versus their internal and external detractors, the search for features that would permit identifying Galician played a central role and, at the same time, permitted establishing a contrast with Spanish that was advantageous to Galician. This is the role played, for instance, by the constant reference to certain clichéd virtues that supposedly embellished Galician versus Spanish (musicality, softness, sweetness, etc.), as well as the frequent appeal to graphical features such as accents, apostrophes, or the hyphen. In the grammatical discourse, these features acquired a function that transcended the purely utilitarian one of serving as an indicator for the stressed syllable or the degree of aperture of the vowels, or as an indicator of certain phonotactic processes such as elision or contraction. They indeed assumed an emblematic value as they conferred on Galician a peculiar graphic shape and permitted representing these topical virtues visually (regarding this process, it is useful to consider the concepts of iconization and branding in Irvine & Gal, 2000, and Sebba, 2015). Obviously, using differential graphic signs in Galician did not prevent graphic conventions in Spanish from being adopted in many other cases.

80

80  E. González Seoane & G. Rei-Doval Similarly, in some grammatical texts, namely those by Saco, distinctively Galician grammatical features, such as the existence of a conjugated infinitive (that is also known in Portuguese), are highlighted: Esta variedad de terminaciones del infinitivo, que es una prueba más de la dócil flexibilidad de nuestro dialecto, favorece mucho á la claridad y concision de la cláusula, como se evidencia comparando los ejemplos gallegos con su traduccion castellana: la frase resulta al propio tiempo más expresiva. (Saco Arce, 1868, p. 184) (This variety of inflections on the infinitive, which is additional evidence of the malleability of our dialect, greatly favors clarity and concision of the clause, as becomes evident when we compare Galician examples with their Spanish translations: The sentence turns out at the same time to be more expressive.) Similar doses of enthusiasm can be found in the description of other features that single out the Galician language, such as the so-​called solidarity dative (Saco Arce, 1868, p.  165) or the opposition between the pronominal compound llo [(give) it to him] and llelo [(give) it to them]: El pronombre reflexivo se no tiene aqui la anomalia de usarse como en castellano en vez de le, cuando va seguido de otro caso de este mismo pronombre, como se los llevé por le los llevé, que en gallego es leveill’os. Con esto se evita ademas la oscuridad que en castellano puede ocasionar la circunstancia de servir para ambos números el pronombre se. Estas dos frases deill’os, deillel’os se traducen al castellano de un mismo modo, se los dí, dejando incierto si es una ó muchas personas á quienes los he dado, incertidumbre que en gallego escluye el empleo de las dos formas lle y lles. (Saco Arce, 1868, pp. 56–​57) (The reflexive pronoun se does not have here the anomalous use, seen in Spanish, in place of le, when it is followed by another case of this same pronoun, such as se los llevé for le los llevé, which in Galician is leveill’os [I brought (those things) to (him, her)]. In this way, moreover, the ambiguity that sometimes arises in Spanish, where the pronoun se can be interpreted as singular or plural, is avoided. These two sentences, deill’os and deillel’os, translate to Spanish in the same way, se los dí [I gave (those things) to (him, her, them)], leaving an uncertainty as to whether I have given [those things] to one or many people, an uncertainty that is excluded by the use of the two forms lle and lles in Galician) Another central element within this strategy of legitimization was the appeal to a supposed preeminence in time of Galician versus Spanish (and also

 81

Standardization and purism in 19th century Galician 81 versus Portuguese). This conception was based on the belief, shared by a good portion of writers and scholars, that Spanish was, like Portuguese, a product of a free evolution of Old Galician. Either out of ignorance or as an attempt to underline its importance and antiquity—​two concepts that usually go together in these texts—​the truth is that the most common interpretation takes Galician, in the words of Antonio de la Iglesia, to be considered “fillo d’o latino e pai d’o precioso castillano” (son of Latin and father of dear Spanish) (Iglesia, 1888, p. 337). This type of conception allows Cuveiro to include words taken from Old Spanish texts, like archaic Galician entries, in his dictionary.

4.  Hybridization and purism Finally, as for the language model, the concern about the hybridization of Galician and Spanish was also a constant issue.4 The voices noting this phenomenon in the literary language were very common. See for instance the following observations by Martínez Salazar: Se han deslizado ya en el idioma gallego no pocas palabras y giros castellanos, lo cual tiene fácil explicación por cuanto la educación intelectual de los que escriben en gallego ha sido genuínamente castellana, y hasta parece, á veces, que aquéllos han leído y pensado en castellano y expuesto sus ideas en gallego. (Martínez Salazar, 1888, p. 248) (More than a few Spanish words and expressions have slipped into the Galician language, which has an easy explanation in that the intellectual education of those who write in Galician has, in fact, been Spanish, and it even seems, at times, that they have read and thought in Spanish and presented their ideas in Galician.) Other prominent members of the galeguista intelligentsia expressed their opinions in similar terms. For example, Aureliano José Pereira who, after pointing out that “para escribir en gallego, no basta emplear palabras gallegas” (to write in Galician, it is not enough to just use Galician words), noted that very often “las poesías que se titulan gallegas son, ó parecen, poesías castellanas traducidas al gallego. Así está este idioma desnaturalizado, corrompido” (poems that claim to be Galician are, or seem to be, Spanish poems translated to Galician. Such is the state of this altered, corrupted language), and concluded that “esto hay que atribuirlo precisamente á los que escriben en gallego, muchos de los cuales antes de conocer éste bien, lo usan” (this can only be attributed precisely to those who write in Galician, many of whom use it without first knowing it well) (Pereira, 1887, p. 107). It is this negative consideration of hybridization that led a grammarian such as Saco to propose the habla rústica y aldeana (rustic and coarse speech),

82

82  E. González Seoane & G. Rei-Doval which had traditionally been the object of mockery and ridicule, as a foundation and model for a standard Galician. If he did so it was because he considered that in those geographical areas Galician had safeguarded itself from the penetration of Spanish, unlike urban areas where, according to his testimony, people spoke “una abigarrada mezcla de gallego y castellano” (a jumbled mixture of Galician and Spanish) (1868, p.  X ). In this regard, Saco was categorical: Una lengua que apenas puede llamarse escrita, no puede tenerse por pura, sino tal como la hablan las únicas personas que no se han dejado aun contagiar del castellano, esto es, los rústicos. (Saco Arce, 1868, p. V I I I ) (A language that can barely be called written, cannot be considered pure, but rather such as the only people who have still not allowed themselves to be contaminated by Spanish speak it, that is, rustic people) In a text, which appeared later than his grammar, Saco hammered his argument home: Si los buenos hijos del país no trabajan por atajar esta creciente descomposicion de su lengua, si no se disipa esa vergonzosa preocupacion que nos hace ruborizarnos de hablar con pureza el lenguaje de nuestros abuelos, no tardará en alzarse sobre las ruinas del legítimo gallego tradicional, un gallego macarrónico, una informe jerga que servirá de transicion entre el lenguaje de nuestros antepasados y el de Castilla que aspira á reemplazarlo. (Saco Arce, 1876, p. 9) (If the country’s good youth do not work to contain this increasing decomposition of their language, if this shameful fear that makes us blush when we speak our grandparents’ language with purity does not go away, it will not delay in rising above the ruins of the authentic traditional Galician, a macaronic Galician, an ignoble jargon that will act as a transition between the language of our ancestors and that of the Castile that wants to replace it.) This view connects to “ethnographic purism,” as defined by Thomas (1991, pp. 77–​78). As Thomas himself acknowledged, in this type of purism nationalist movements are “full of nostalgia and idealisation for the countryside and folk virtues” in their imagery (Smith, 1971, p.  63). As a result, and as Thomas further admits, “the notion that the rural dialects are somehow purer than city speech” (Thomas, 1991, p. 77) has enjoyed popularity among both linguists and the cultural intelligentsia for a long time. These considerations are highly relevant to this case. Faced with the cultist version of the language designed by elites with some rural aversion and the

 83

Standardization and purism in 19th century Galician 83 Spanish standard norm and grammar as an alternative approach, the populist orientation is the dominant trend in written Galician in the 19th and 20th centuries, even if in each period it was manifested with different degrees of intensity and responded to objectives that were also different. Thus, in a first stage covering most of the 19th century this approach toward populist choices would be a manifestation of Thomas’s (1991) ethnographic purism—​in tune with a ruralist approach to Galician literature, expressed not only in lexical selection but also in other linguistic choices. However, from the late 19th century onwards, the incorporation of ‘populisms’ became just another resource available to the cause of Galician linguistic differentialism, the mainstream orientation in the first third of the 20th century and, even if progressively milder and watered down, it was still found up to the 1970s. This model of ethnographic purism is at odds with Valladares’s elitist model (1892), which incomprehensibly imitated the purist model inspired by the Spanish grammar. However, Valladares failed to recognize that Galician was then primarily an oral language used by the masses and that no urban educated models for this language existed. First of all, we must emphasize the clear elitist tone present in the previous quote by Saco, where emphasis is placed on “los buenos hijos del país” (the country’s good youth), whose social position and intellectual authority made them the trustees of faithfulness and holders of the social position and intellectual authority to propose and execute the measures necessary to avoid “esta creciente descomposición” (this increasing decomposition). Not even one of the most authorized voices in this period, like Saco, is capable of withdrawing from the purist atmosphere characterizing the attempts of language standardization proposed during the Rexurdimento. Although the process of language shift from Galician to Spanish was still at low levels, especially in comparison with the 20th century, the fear and climate of public opinion on language decay meant an important preoccupation for intellectuals who, like Saco, tried to imagine a process of language revival. There are clear and relevant semantic associations among the terms characterizing the purist strategies and processes. According to Saco, speaking with purity implied using “el lenguaje de nuestros abuelos” (our grandparents’ language), thus assigning language authenticity to earlier stages of the language that were therefore easy to glorify at that time, while the reality of 1876 which, being his present, was harder to glorify. Obviously, from the perspective of the early twenty-​first century said glorification of language enxebrismo (authenticity) looks less problematic and easier to come to terms with. Similarly, the use of adjectives such as “vergonzosa” (shameful) or actions such as “ruborizarnos” (to blush) makes an interesting reference to the behavior of those who do not follow the purist model established by Saco and his peers. Of course, those who decided to opt for the public usage of ‘authentic’ linguistic elements would have lacked the referential support that mass media at the beginning of the twenty-​first century—​the variety used at

84

84  E. González Seoane & G. Rei-Doval school and the one used by Galician politicians—​could offer. All of these were inexistent referents at that time, and perhaps the idea that ‘the good old days were always better’ is the main argument or feeling behind this rationale of rejecting the late 19th-​century oral language. The absence of middle-​and high-​class citizens using Galician at that time is probably behind this absence of referents for where to anchor standard Galician; significantly enough, a good part (if not all) of the regionalist intelligentsia used Spanish in public speech, even if Galician was their written or literary language. The turn of the 20th century and the shift from Galician regionalism to nationalism after the Irmandades da Fala and Xeración Nós would change this situation and, consequently, intellectuals used Galician in all public situations, either written or oral. Due to the absence of established oral referents for establishing an ‘authentic’ standard Galician, the question arises as to what Saco’s real and concrete way to speak Galician purely would have been. In our opinion, this author was making an appeal to our predecessors, referents with a substantial emotional positive charge. Who could deny the authority that elderly people in a rural society with several generations living in the same house could have? The elderly probably represented some type of locus amoenus, but they also appeal to the rural settings where the elderly lived in almost all cases in 19th-​ century rural Galicia. In any case, this pure way to speak the language leads to some kind of proposal for rebellion against the established social behavior that is perceived and manifested at this point as something possible. Being able to face shame and blush is a step forward as compared to the previous social situation of the language. Of course, it is hard to say how much those fears expressed by Saco came from using Galician instead of Spanish and how much was related to using a variety perceived as rural, used by peasants and without previous referents. Clearly, in the arguments used by Saco some of the elements and ideologemes characterizing the definition of standard Galician then and now appear, even if they are not organized in the same sequence. Of course, the tradition was then just emerging, and therefore could offer only limited help, and for this reason only the rural world could turn into some sort of linguistic locus amoenus where, especially at that time, the presence of Spanish was very limited. All of this leads to clearly contradictory parameters and conclusions. Obviously, the labels “galego popular,” “rústico,” or “aldeán” was offered under a clearly idealized view, as the last haven of language purity. This potential contradiction could be shadowed by the considerations and proposals of those who, in accordance with the same rightful commitment with the recuperation of the Galician language, considered (and consider) the popular language an ignoble jargon, a patois unworthy of becoming the foundation for a literary language and cultured literature. In any case, it seems obvious that the defense of popular Galician, championed by Saco, clearly demonstrates a preoccupation for the

 85

Standardization and purism in 19th century Galician 85 hybridization of Galician by Spanish that our author related to the more urbanized language varieties, which in his opinion could not serve as the base for standard Galician.

5.  Purism, differentialism and linguistic independence From the early Galician texts in the 19th century, a clear purist vocation could be perceived, both in writers and grammarians. Although said tendency is more or less present depending on the case, it is manifested not only in the condemnation of Castilianisms and hybrid forms, but also in the linguistic model implicitly proposed by grammarians and the language really used by writers. This makes us think that the real pure alternatives at the disposal of someone like Saco proposing a new educated oral language were quite limited. From a geographical or a social point of view, there was no prestigious linguistic variety that could act as an alternative model to the one proposed by Saco at that time. Nor was there a corpus of classic authors and works to imitate.5 This fact could have conditioned the intensity of the criticism. As is widely known, purism affects both languages with a fully consolidated standard variety and languages in the process of standardization, which does not necessarily mean that purism deserves the same sociolinguistic, ethical, or ideological consideration. Therefore, in the case of consolidated standards, purism is usually a consequence of a “desire to protect the traditional standard from ‘contaminations’ from any source, be they foreign loan words or internally generated variation and change” (Lodge, 1993, p. 3). In other words, purism constitutes a manifestation of resistance to change and the tendency to stability that characterizes standardized languages (Joseph, 1987, pp. 108–​109). On the contrary, when we are dealing with standards in a state of emergency the situation may change dramatically. In these cases, purism would not be a manifestation of resistance to innovation (as there is not a proper standard to protect), but a contribution to reinforce the “separatist function” (Garvin, 1964, p. 155) that the standard would be called upon to exercise. This function, defined by Garvin as the “function to set off a speech community as separate from its neighbors” acquires a special protagonism in the case of elaborating a language covered by a linguistically akin ceiling. This is the view contemporarily established in Galician linguistics. According to Antón Santamarina: Cómpre no noso caso, e quizais en moitos outros, lembrar que o proceso de urbanización da lingua leva aparellado un empobrecemento en tódolos sentidos. No léxico é onde resulta máis visible. Isto provoca unha reducción das distancias interlingüísticas e agudiza o temor de que a lingua caia por «quasi-​dialectalisation» na esfera do castelán. (Santamarina, 1994, p. 70) (It is important in our case, and perhaps in many others, to remember that the process of urbanization of the language brings with it an

86

86  E. González Seoane & G. Rei-Doval impoverishment in every sense of the term. This is most visible in the lexicon. This causes a reduction of the interlinguistic distances and sharpens the fear that the language might undergo “near-​dialectalization” with respect to Spanish.) This fear of language decay was clearly noticeable in texts from the Rexurdimento, where the dilemmas faced by the elaboration of a standard language barely imagined at that time were given full and very clear consideration. In this context, purism, which was regarded as a prophylactic barrier against the risk of satellization around Spanish, gave origin to differentialism. This process involved ascribing all cases of formal coincidence between Galician and Spanish to the influence of the latter on the former. As a consequence, priority was automatically given to linguistic solutions that accentuated differences between these two languages. This trend gradually gained ground in the process of Galician language standardization and reached its zenith in the early 20th century.6 Within this trend there are obviously different degrees, depending on the search for differentiation being accomplished using materials provided by the oral language (thus taking advantage of dialectal plurality, the existence of phonetic varieties or social variation, among others) or calling on resources in principle foreign to the same language (replacing suspicious forms by others taken from Portuguese or by solutions seemingly Galician but artificially created). Although not with the virulence that characterizes the early 20th century, differentialism acts noticeably in the written Galician of the 19th century, at the graphic, morphosyntactic, and lexical levels. The comparison and dependence on Spanish orthography undoubtedly coexisted with the search for distinctive graphic features that allow differentiating and individualizing Galician from the neighboring languages, in particular Spanish. That explains the preference for the apostrophe and the hyphen, two orthographic features that transcended the purely utilitarian function of serving as a marker of phonotactic processes—​such as elision or contraction—​and thus assumed an emblematic value insofar as it assigned to Galician a particular graphic value and likewise served to represent certain virtues conventionally attributed to Galician (musicality, euphony, flexibility, etc.). At the morphosyntactic and lexical level, the presence of Castilianisms whose form closely resembled Galician coexisted with the preference for solutions divergent from Spanish. Therefore, the limited literary usage of the personal pronoun tu, even among authors who should have it as a native form, as well as its omission in most of the grammatical texts, clearly responded to the intention of proscribing a solution interpreted as Spanish-​oriented. This is the reason for the predominance of differential words that have coincident synonyms, even if in some cases the latest enjoy considerable dissemination, occasionally greater than the differential forms. This could be the case of

 87

Standardization and purism in 19th century Galician 87 bágoa (tear), that has, even since Rosalía’s times, revealed itself as preferred to the synonym lágrima. Other features, such as the reflection in the written language of alterations, which were common in popular oral Galician, must also be interpreted as an indication of this tendency. Examples of this include fror or frol instead of flor (flower), probe instead of pobre (poor), and even the creation of supposedly Galician forms through the more or less arbitrary ‘deformation’ of learned words or neologisms (sufiá ‘sofá’ [sofa], telefro ‘telégrafo’ [telegraph], etc.). Indeed, the consolidation of this trend did not take place until the first decades of the 20th century. Nevertheless, the view presenting the Rexurdimento writers as notaries or messengers of their oral varieties does not seem accurate. Thus, even though it is true that in this period the insistence on hiperenxebrismos7 is far from reaching the level of usage in other periods of the history of this language, it also seems clear that these authors show “unha vontade deliberada de diferenciación fronte ó castelán” (a deliberate will to differentiate [Galician] from Spanish) (Monteagudo & Fernández Salgado, 1995, p. 132). In other words, the call for differentiation, somewhat exacerbated, exists regardless of the resources available to that end. It seems obvious that, initially, populisms and vulgarisms were the fundamental means these authors used to pursue an authentic enxebre Galician language, exempt from Castilianist attachments. An objection could be made that the presence of this type of solution is only an index of faithfulness to oral Galician. However, being broadly true that these forms constitute the most evident proof of their call for authenticity, it cannot be denied that its accumulation is the manifestation of a mistrustful attitude toward all features attributable to the influence of Spanish. In any case, as the usage of vulgarisms and hiperenxebrismos became more common, many voiced their concerns about the viability of a Galician whose only purpose was to contrast starkly with Spanish at any cost. In this regard, critical opinions already mentioned such as the ones by Saco became relevant. After censoring the usage of Castilianisms and hybrid voices, this author referred to differentialism with these words: Otro defecto, propio, generalmente hablando, de aquellos que, sin estro poético, se propasan á cultivar el campo de las Musas, es el inconsiderado afan de rebuscar y acumular las voces más extrañas y menos conocidas, ya para ocultar bajo rimbombante palabrería la falta de inspiracion, ó ya para hacer ostentacion de su perfecto dominio del dialecto. (Saco Arce, 1876, p. 10) (Another flaw, characteristic, generally speaking, of those who, without poetic inspiration, cross the line to cultivate the field of the Muses, is the hasty eagerness to glean and accumulate the most exotic and least familiar words, either to hide their lack of inspiration under ostentatious wordiness, or to flaunt their perfect command of the dialect.)

88

88  E. González Seoane & G. Rei-Doval Similar opinions are expressed, among others, by Rodríguez Rodríguez (1892, p.  465 n.) (“si así desfiguramos los vocablos, barbarizaremos en lugar de galleguizar” [if we disfigure our words in that way, we will barbarize instead of Galicianize]), Valladares (1892, p. 21), who qualified the usage of Castilianisms as abusive, “como abusivo es galleguizar innecesariamente muchas [palabras] castellanas [i.e., ‘coinciding with Spanish’], ó adulterar las gallegas” (as abusive it is to unnecessarily Galicianize many Spanish [words] [i.e., ‘coinciding with Spanish’], or alter Galician ones), or Barreiro Meiro (1888, p.  212), who criticized in general the ‘tendency of some writers to use a Galician ‘aportuguesado’ and ‘rústico’ which they pretend to pass off as more enxebre.

6.  Conclusions A careful consideration of the 19th-​century Galician grammars and dictio­ naries indicates the concern that some factions of the Rexurdimento showed toward the differentialist orientation that was being adopted in written Galician. Nevertheless, these warnings would not suffice to stop this trend that, as indicated, would on the contrary be strengthened over time until reaching its peak the early 20th century. A historiographical review of the standardization of Galician in the 20th century seems to suggest that the origins of linguistic purism in this tradition date back to the 19th century and not to the contemporary period, even if it was then fully and fruitfully developed (cf. Rei-​Doval, 2013). The absence of a clear reference for the standard language and the fear that the almighty standard Spanish prevented the consolidation of an educated oral Galician was unquestionably hard to avoid among those who aimed to consolidate the emergent sociolinguistic status of Galician, crucial for the configuration of its identity in the 19th century. The documentation of said standardizing stra­ tegies under the purist point of view seems hard to rebut, although it would be necessary to establish the evolution that this purist paradigm followed in the first third of the 20th century more clearly. This foundational period in Galician linguistics shows the special features and tone that purism adopted in the Galician setting. The hope to purify the language from the influence of Spanish tried to identify the distinct nature of the language with appeals such as Saco’s one, based on its rural past, and often sought such distinctiveness emphasizing the structural and lexical differences with the dominant Spanish language. The contrastive nature of Galician grammar and lexicography in this period showcased its subsidiarity respect to their Spanish counterparts, but also demonstrated the attempt to visualize and assert the existence of the language in a context where there had been no previous vindication of the language. Other questions usually placed in academic approaches to purism still require a more thorough analysis for the period comprising the Galician Rexurdimento. Annamalai (1989) argues that purism is usually initiated and legitimized by elites, who take it as a symbol of their sociocultural agenda, to

 89

Standardization and purism in 19th century Galician 89 which elitist rhetoric typically serves. However, it would be interesting to discuss more thoroughly whether 19th-​century Galician elites had the ability and prestige necessary to inspire a social change of this dimension. We might think that this would be particularly problematic in a context where simply making the Galician language visible in mainstream society was already complicated. Similarly, given that purist acts are commonly used to acquire, maintain and exert influence and power, an analysis of the relationship between sociopolitical conditions and the purist groups would permit us to shed more light on the understanding of language and power in the 19th century. Given the differences that exist between the sociopolitical conditions of that time and the current ones, additional comparative analyses should be undertaken soon.

Notes 1 The authors would like to thank Kerry Ann McKevitt for revising the article and improving both its language and style. The suggestions and comments provided by the anonymous reviewers also helped to improve this contribution. 2 The foundational volume in the history of Galician lexicography is a modest list of 156 Galician words with their Spanish equivalents or definitions, written around 1536 (Olea, 2003, p. 60). 3 This is the case of the lexicographical fieldwork undertaken throughout the second half of the 18th century by Father Sarmiento and Father Sobreira. Their works were only published in the second half of the 20th century. 4 For a multidimensional approach to language contact, hybridization, and purism, see Gugenberger, Monteagudo, and Rei-​Doval (2013). 5 As Saco states in his grammar: “Es verdad que tales ejemplos [those illustrating his own grammatical descriptions] no serán tomados de autores clásicos, puesto que no existen” (It is true that such examples [those illustrating his own grammatical descriptions] will not be taken from classical authors, since they do not exist). And in a footnote he clarifies thus: “No es esto decir que carezcan de mérito los pocos escritos que hay en gallego, sino que sus autores son demasiado modernos para tener autoridad de clásicos. Solo citaré a veces, por razón de su mayor antigüedad y erudición vastísima, al ilustre P. Sarmiento” (This is not to say that the few writings that exist in Galician lack any merit, but rather that their authors are too modern to have the authority of classical writers. I will only occasionally cite, due to the greater age of his writings and his extremely vast erudition, the illustrious Father Sarmiento) (Saco, 1868, p. ix). 6 This trend toward differentialism is well documented in elaboration processes of independent standards from a single abstand language. See Joseph (1987, p. 72) who, quoting examples from languages such as Czech and Slovak, Serbian and Croat or Macedonian and Bulgarian, affirms that when “a relatively uniform linguistic community is split politically[… those responsible for standardization often ideologize whatever minor differences do separate them, so as to create the illusion of a greater Abstand.” By this means, differentialist attitudes with respect to Portuguese would also be explained. 7 Hiperenxebrismos are terms that do not exist in traditional Galician and have been artificially created by some writers so as to avoid words that coincide with Spanish and to increase the lexical distance between the two languages.

90

90  E. González Seoane & G. Rei-Doval

Primary Sources Barreiro Meiro, J. (1888). Á todos y á uno. Galicia. Revista Regional, 2(5), 211–​214. Cuveiro Piñol, J. (1868). El habla gallega. Observaciones y datos sobre su origen y vicisitudes. Pontevedra: Imp. de José A. Antúnez. Cuveiro Piñol, J. (1876). Diccionario Gallego, el más completo en términos y acepciones de todo lo publicado hasta el dia. Barcelona: Establecimiento Tip. de N. Ramírez. Iglesia, A. de la. (1888). Ortografía gallega. Galicia Humorística, 1(10), 305–​307; 1(11), 337–​339; 2(1),  13–​15. Martínez Salazar, A. (1888): Á uno, á otro y á todos. Galicia. Revista Regional, 2(6), 241–​250. Mirás, F. (1864). Compendio de gramática gallega-​castellana. Santiago de Compostela: Establecimiento tipográfico de Manuel Mirás. Pereira, A. J. (1887). Academia gallega. Galicia. Revista Regional, 1(2), 105–​108. Rodríguez, F. J. (1863). Diccionario gallego-​castellano. A Coruña: Imprenta del Hospicio Provincial. Rodríguez Rodríguez, M. (1892). Declinación gallega. Galicia. Revista Regional (2ª época), 1(5), 267–​275; 1(6), 335–​345; 1(7), 385–​390; 1(8) 461–​469; 1(9), 525–​528. Saco Arce, J. A. (1868). Gramática gallega. Lugo: Imprenta de Soto Freire. Saco Arce, J. A. (1876). Poesía gallega contemporánea. Sus defectos más comunes. El Heraldo Gallego, 3(104), 3–​5; 3(105), 9–​11; 3(106), 17–​18. Valladares, M. (1884). Diccionario gallego-​castellano. Santiago de Compostela: Establecimiento tipográfico del Seminario Conciliar. Valladares, M. (1892/​1970). Elementos de gramática gallega. Vigo: Galaxia.

References Alonso Montero, X. (1988). Prehistoria da Academia. Á procura da norma culta de 1875 a 1905, Grial, 99,  8–​18. Annamalai, E. (1989). The linguistic and social dimensions of purism. In B. Jernudd & M. Shapiro (Eds.), The politics of language purism (pp. 225–​232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Auroux, S. (1992). Introduction. Le processus de grammatisation et ses enjeux. In Sylvain Auroux, dir.: Histoire des idées linguistiques. (Vol. 2, pp. 11–​64). Liège: Mardaga. Borges, L. C., & Horta Nunes, J. (1998). La langue générale et la grammatisation des langues indiennes. Langages, 32(130),  52–​67. Boulanger, J.-​ C. (2003). Les inventeurs de dictionnaires. De l’eduba des scribes mésopotamiens au scriptorium des moines médiévaux. Ottawa: Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa. Garvin, P. L. (1964). On linguistic method: Selected papers. The Hague: Mouton. González Seoane, E. (1991). O debate sobre o galego na prensa do XIX. Algúns datos para unha historia do antigaleguismo. Grial, 110, 275–​287. González Millán, X. (2003). La reivindicación de un “diccionario gallego” en el siglo XIX. Revista de Dialectología y Tradiciones Populares, 53(2),  5–​32. González Seoane, E. (2014). La lexicografía gallega premoderna (1863–​1985). In F. Córdoba, E. González Seoane, & D. Sánchez Palomino (Eds.), Lexicografía de las lenguas románicas. I Perspectiva histórica (pp. 167–​183). Berlin: De Gruyter.

 91

Standardization and purism in 19th century Galician 91 Gugenberger, E., Monteagudo, H., & Rei-​Doval, G. (Eds.). (2013). Contacto de linguas, hibrididade, cambio: contextos, procesos e consecuencias. Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega. Hermida, C. (1992). Os precursores da normalización. Defensa e reivindicación da lingua galega no Rexurdimento, 1840–​1891. Vigo: Xerais. Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 35–​84). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Joseph, J. E. (1987). Eloquence and power. The rise of language standards and standard languages. London: Frances Pinter. Lara, L. F. (2006). Diccionarios regionales e integrales del español contemporáneo. In G. Colón & L. Gimeno Betí (Eds.), Els noms i els conceptes: Noves tendències en l’estudi del lèxic (pp. 105–​116). Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I. Lodge, R. A. (1993). French: From dialect to standard. London: Routledge. Monteagudo, H., & Fernández Salgado, B. (1995). Do galego literario ó galego común: o proceso de estandarización na época contemporánea. In H. Monteagudo (Ed.), Estudios de sociolingüística galega. Sobre a norma do galego culto (pp. 99–​ 177). Vigo: Galaxia. Olea, B. (2003). Vocabulos gallegos escuros. Lo que quieren dezir. Edition and study by José Luis Pensado. Revised, completed and prepared for printing by Dieter Messner. A. Coruña: Real Academia Galega. Pensado, J. L. (1976). Contribución a la crítica de la lexicografía gallega. I.  El Diccionario Gallego-​Castellano de F. J. Rodríguez y su repercusión en la historia de la lexicografía gallega. Salamanca: Universidad. Rei-​Doval, G. (2013). Purismo e control normativo na lingua galega: Análise crítica dunha proposta actual. In E. Gugenberger, H. Monteagudo, & G. Rei-​Doval (Eds), Contacto de linguas, hibrididade, cambio: Contextos, procesos e consecuencias (pp. 261–​288). Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega. Sánchez Palomino, M. D. (1999). Ideas que sustentan a elaboración do diccionario de Valladares. Cadernos de lingua, 20,  5–​28. Santamarina, A. (1994). Norma e estándar. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (Vol. 6:2, pp. 66–​79). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Santamarina, A. (2003). Diccionario de diccionarios. Versión 3. A Coruña: Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza. Sebba, M. (2015). Iconisation, attribution and branding in orthography. Written Language & Literacy, 18(2), 208–​227. Smith, A. D. (1971). Theories of nationalism. London: Duckworth. Thomas, G. (1991). Linguistic purism. London: Longman. Zgusta, L. (1989). The role of dictionaries in the genesis and development of the standard. In F. J. Haussmann, O. Reichmann, H. E. Wiegand, & L. Zgusta (Eds.), Wörterbücher. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexikographie/​Dictionaries. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography/​ Dictionnaires. Encyclopédie internationale de lexicographie (Vol. I, pp. 70–​79). Berlin: De Gruyter. Zimmermann, K. (2003). El fin de los diccionarios de americanismos: la situación de la lexicografía del español de América después de la publicación de los diccionarios contrastivos del español de América. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 1,  71–​83.

92

5  Galician linguistics Between Hispanic philological tradition and visibility in the Luso-​Brazilian  sphere Rosario Álvarez 1.  Introduction: An irregular history, between two worlds The history of the Galician language is an irregular one and, therefore, the same case applies to the history of Galician linguistics. As a result of the decline experienced by Galician at the end of the Middle Ages, a long period of abandonment of the literary use of the language occurred, which translated not only into a circumstantial written development which was intermittent and disconnected, but also into a lack of interest by the elites in its study, codification, and transmission. This chapter is not the place to examine the causes of this decline or the sociolinguistic description of the period which is known in Galician historiography, significantly, as the “Dark Centuries,” and for which we can refer to a basic bibliography (Monteagudo, 1999; Mariño, 1998; for the characteristics of conserved texts, Álvarez & Seoane, 2016). I seek only to highlight that until recently a tradition of linguistic and philological studies did not emerge in Galicia, and much less regarding the autochthonous language, and that until the 20th century Galician institutions responsible for the codification, planning, and dissemination of Galician did not exist. In sum, Galician linguistics experienced a late birth and, as we shall see, it arose with urgency. In spite of the inexistence of a tradition of specific studies on Galician and its position in the sphere of Romance, in Galicia there was always an awareness of the close connection with Portuguese, compatible with the affirmation of Galician’s singularity; Galician scholars, as well as the population in general, shared this opinion, as the experience of mutual intelligibility could always be adduced as clear proof of affinity. Galician and Portuguese are languages connected by a common source in the Romance that emerged in the ancient territory of Gallaecia (the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula, to the north of the River Douro), and are therefore both heirs of Galician Latin. The two languages were distributed through the Atlantic stretch of the Iberian peninsula: Galician to the north, in Galicia (an autonomous community within Spain, in the north of Gallaecia) and on the bordering fringe to the east (the western parts of Asturias and Castilla-​León); Portuguese to the south (as an independent state, which occupies the south of Gallaecia and

 93

Galician: Between tradition and visibility 93 all the territory annexed during the Reconquest), with a very different political and sociolinguistic history, enjoying an uninterrupted “normality” for centuries and with its own overseas expansion. It is not therefore surprising that Galician linguistics and philology emerged with a distant focus on the tradition of Portuguese studies, much more robust and advanced in Portugal, Brazil, and other places.1 The political position of Galicia, located from the Middle Ages within the orbit of the kingdoms of León and Castile, and later in the kingdom of Spain, also conditions the characteristics with which Galician linguistics and philology were born. The academic training of the leading figures behind its emergence, who hail from the field of Romance Studies, took place in the fold of the Hispanic linguistic and philological school, with a clear tendency towards historical linguistics and philology. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the Spanish academic framework displayed little interest in other Peninsular languages spoken in Spain and absolute ignorance towards the proximity of Portuguese. This is why the Galician pioneers had to endeavor to maintain this attentive gaze upon Portuguese linguistics and philology, which remained very distant in terms of the academy, in spite of the physical proximity. However, owing to this interest, authors such as J.  J. Nunes, S.  Silva Neto, B. Williams, J. Huber, J. M. Piel or M. Said Ali were well received in Galicia and addressed the lack of specific studies on Galician, whether through direct information or comparative readings (Santamarina, 2005). Galician’s decadence during the Dark Centuries produced an even more negative effect than the lack of written practice or of the creation of linguistic documents: the progressive loss of its speakers’ linguistic rights. Among these, the right to learn to read and write and to be educated in their language, a circumstance that had negative effects beyond the difficulties in the learning process: It handicaps the language in the eyes of the community that speaks it and, regarding the subject matter of this chapter, leads to basic, necessary resources not being produced and disseminated. From the Enlightenment figures of the 18th century to the protagonists of the Rexurdimento (Revival),2 and continuing up to the present, expressions, actions and measures in favor of restoring these rights have increased. The birth of Galician philology and linguistics must be understood in this context: the recovery of the Galician language as a stamp of identity of a sub-​state nation and the restoration of a people’s linguistic rights. Only in this manner can Galician linguistics be understood as not just an area of scientific study, comparable to linguistics and philologies that emerged as a response to neighboring languages, but also a sphere of resistance, social intervention, affirmation of identity, visibility in the world, and dialogue with specialists regarded as peers.

2.  Background and periodization The medieval literary splendor of Galician was not accompanied by a program of political action that today, despite the obvious differences, could

94

94  Rosario Álvarez be termed “planning,” neither in the sense of codification and enhancement of the language, nor in the stimulation of its employment as a national language. Without underestimating the impact on Galician literature of its poetical use in the courts of Castile and Portugal, it should be pointed out that nothing similar to the Toledo school of translators or the Alcobaça scriptorium—​ which had significant repercussions on the emergence of a literary culture that employed the vulgar language and on the availability of a benchmark written variety—​ever existed for Galician, not even during the periods of greatest expansion in its lyrical and profane poetry. The lack of interest in codification and standardization became more evident in the following centuries, accompanying the weakening of Galician as a learned language, and of its written form in a general way. No work was produced in the 1400s, 1500s, or 1600s that would be comparable to those that can be found during the same period in Castilian and Portuguese, which underwent an intense period of production in the form of linguistic documents and metalinguistic reflection. The following texts are representative of this period: Gramática castellana by Antonio de Nebrija (1492), his Latin–​Spanish (1492), and Spanish–​Latin (c. 1494) dictionaries, and Reglas de ortografía (1517), along with Juan de Valdés (1535), Ambrosio de Morales (1546), Villalón (1558), and Gonzalo Correas (1630). For Portuguese, representative examples include the grammarians Fernão de Oliveira (1536), João de Barros (1540), and Duarte Nunes de Lião (1576, 1606), along with the lexicographers Jerónimo Cardoso (1561), António Velez (1599?), Agostinho Barbosa (1611), and Bento Pereira (1697). In contrast with this flourishing in the fields of Castilian and Portuguese, the closest that Galician can offer in terms of institutional or individual interest in data collection, description or codification is the very basic vocabulary by Olea (c. 1536), a list of 156 utterances arranged in alphabetical order (interrupted at ostilla), with elementary lexical annotations regarding words that are “obscure” to the ears of this foreigner (Pensado & Messner, 2003). Galician is absent from debates and the production of key linguistic works in the period when other Romance varieties emerge as state languages, increasing their prestige to combat Latin to a greater degree. At the same time, the educated elites, in this new sociolinguistic context, establish themselves through oral and written communication in the language that is promoted and given prestige by the royal court. For Galicia, this means abandoning the autochthonous language to its fate. The lack of interest in documenting Galician was alleviated, very slightly, in the 18th century, but further advancements were not made until the second half of the 19th century. The Enlightenment brought with it linguistic institutions of such significance as the Real Academia Española (founded in 1713), whose objective was the production of a dictionary (Diccionario de autoridades, 1726–​1739), orthography (1741), and a grammar (1771); slightly later, the Academia Real das Sciencias de Lisboa (founded in 1779), with very broad objectives and missions in the scientific and cultural spectrum, among them that of encouraging the enrichment of Portuguese and advising the

 95

Galician: Between tradition and visibility 95 government in linguistic matters. In Galicia, the first basic calls requesting data collection, study, systematization and change of social status for the Galician language began to be heard, but at no time was the need for an institution of similar stature (to that of the Academias) addressed, nor was there speculation about the possibility of creating one. Among the figures who express such objectives, and who represent a point of inflection in the sense indicated in the previous paragraph, the friar Martín Sarmiento (1695–​1772), one of the most relevant figures of the Spanish Enlightenment, stands out. In addition to his arguments in favor of dignifying and normalizing Galician, his defense of delivering primary education in the maternal language, and his criticism of the marginalization of the Galician language, and so forth, it is interesting to highlight his works on the origin and development of Galician, linguistic, and etymological comparison, and his methodological writings for scientific projects, which had a large impact at the national level, such as the production of lexical catalogs or the systematic gathering of linguistic data for the study of the Galician language in all its scope.3 Except for rare historical antecedents, it can be stated that Galician linguistics and philology began during the Rexurdimento, around the 1860s. In my view, three periods can be established: (1) the time of the “Precursors,” starting around 1860, which lasts an entire century; (2)  the period when studies increase in frequency, starting around 1965, characterized by its focus on a diverse range of urgent social needs; and (3) a new period of maturity, since 1990, characterized by greater specialization and tendency towards exterior projection. 1. In general terms, the period referred to as the “time of the Precursors” (approx. 1860–​1965), is designated as such because the first grammars and dictionaries of Galician appear—​of uneven quality, and the result of individual effort by educated people (not necessarily with philological training), whose efforts are at the service of Galician in order to provide it with a grammar or dictionary that might confirm its discrete nature as well as inner wealth. After some time, the first sporadic descriptions of specific linguistic features appeared, along with a demand for scientifically based synchronic and diachronic studies of the language. This was also the period in which the first attempts at codifying the language occurred (Monteagudo, 2003). Its beginning can be placed in a conventional manner in the 1860s through the appearance of the first printed lexicographical work,4 Diccionario gallego-​ castellano, by Francisco Javier Rodríguez (1863, Santiago de Compostela; González Seoane, 2014), and the first Galician grammars, Compendio de gramática gallega-​ castellana, by Francisco Mirás (1964, Santiago de Compostela), Gramática Gallega, by Juan Antonio Saco Arce (1868, Lugo) and El habla gallega by Juan Cuveiro Piñol (1868, Pontevedra). The modest and inconclusive work by Rodríguez was published posthumously on the initiative of Antonio de la Iglesia, one of the most active and important promoters of the Rexurdimento. With regard to grammars, the work edited by

96

96  Rosario Álvarez Saco, which was still a point of reference for those published a century later, should be highlighted; different contributions appeared throughout the 19th century, but none of the stature of Saco’s work (Álvarez, 2003). Therefore, the birth of Galician linguistics is indissociable from the Rexurdimento (in political, cultural, literary, and linguistic terms), the period of Galicia’s history in which all symbols were established and the principles upon which Galicianist thought will evolve in all its manifestations. Galician linguistics did not advance at the start of the 20th century, in spite of the establishment of the Real Academia Gallega (1906) (whose founding objectives included the preparation of a grammar and dictionary), the boost given to the defense of Galician by the Irmandades da Fala (1916), and the advances in research on Galician matters carried out by university students in the Seminario de Estudos Galegos (1923). For example, the grammars by R. A. (1919) and Manuel Lugrís (1922), with the historical relevance of both being published in Galician, did not represent any advance over their predecessor. Of greater interest, in terms of originality, are the works that combine a historical perspective with a grammatical description of modern learned Galician, such as those by Santiago y Gómez (1918) and Couceiro Freijomil (1935). However, the major development is that interest in the genuine features of Galician led to the appearance of studies on specific linguistic themes that concentrate on uses and idioms taken from popular language (with the Galician people always employed as a guide to authenticity), such as the contraction ao (Salvador Golpe Varela, 1906), the definite article (Andrés Martínez Salazar, 1907), some aspects of personal pronouns (Julio Pol, 1915; Aurelio Ribalta, 1915), the affirmative mode (Rafael Pérez Barreiro, 1924) or diminutives (Rafael Pérez Barreiro, 1931). For a revision of the historical role played by the study of Galician during this period which was interrupted by the Spanish Civil War (1936), see Fernández (2000). The application of scientific methods to Galician reality, and to the language in particular, began to be perceived as a necessity. The first call for the creation of a specific chair at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), and even a section on “linguistic sciences” was made in 1910 (Boullón & Tato, 1991). When the Faculty of Letters (1922) was finally created, neither philological studies nor the anticipated chair were created. Faced with such frustration, the most pro-​Galician sectors of the University of Santiago de Compostela (instructors and students) channeled their objectives through the Seminario de Estudos Galegos (SEG, 1923), conceived as a sort of parallel university. With the appointment of Alejandro Rodríguez Cadarso (1930) as chancellor, a period of hope and change began, as he built bridges with the SEG and created the Instituto de Estudios Regionales (during the academic year 1931–​1932), with the intention of “Galicianizing” the university. The activities of the institute included the delivery of courses and conferences by such relevant figures as Ramón Otero Pedrayo, Vicente Risco, Xosé Filgueira Valverde, Ricardo Carballo Calero, and Abelardo Moralejo. The sudden death of Chancellor Cadarso (1933) and the outbreak of the Spanish Civil

 97

Galician: Between tradition and visibility 97 War (1936) brought an end to this intense extracurricular activity, which had served to systematize the thinking of the time, open up research possibilities, and timidly advance the field of existing knowledge. The research of the immediate post-​war period focused on the study of the use of language by individual authors, above all to characterize the language model proposed through formal choices.5 At the same time, the feeble tradition forged in Galicia was strengthened by contributions from elsewhere, a phenomenon that had not occurred previously. From Hispanic philology and linguistics, this occurred in the fields of historical grammar (Vicente García de Diego) and dialectology (D. Alonso, Alonso & Yebra, A.  Zamora). The contribution was modest and did not represent the consolidation of a tradition that was otherwise nonexistent; in the words of García Gondar (2001, p. 435), who searched for traces in the first Spanish philology journals between 1914 and 1970, “the attention was minimal; just two names could be cited from some Romanists and Hispanists who incidentally researched specific areas or characteristic phenomena of their diatopic development or make some contribution to the field of historical grammar and etymological studies.” In European philology, studies were carried out in the field of dialectology and philology: On the one hand because, at the beginning of the 20th century, the unknown land and language of Galicia drew the attention of German dialectologists (F. Krüger, H. Schneider, W. Schroeder, W. Ebeling; Regueira, 1991); on the other hand, owing to the interest in medieval Galician writing, namely poetry, held by the Romanists. In general terms, although highly valuable at an individual level, these contributions comprise a fragmentary and discontinuous linguistics, hampered by an external gaze with very partial and distant knowledge of the Galician language. Surprisingly, Galician hardly attracted the attention of Portuguese scholars; the few figures who made passing references to its existence and notes on its characteristics regarded it as a foreign, extramural reality beyond their concern. For this reason, Romanists, Hispanists, Lusophonists or researchers in any other branch of linguistics and philology who wished to include Galician in their comparisons, assessments, and commentaries, lacked the most basic descriptions and news by the mid-​20th century. In these historiographical assessments, it is commonplace to refer to the words of figures like Alonso Zamora Vicente (1962), Dámaso Alonso (1966), or Pilar Vázquez Cuesta (1967), who at the end of this period lamented the incredible backwardness of studies on Galician linguistics, with the result that the modern state of the language continued to remain unknown (cf. Mariño, 2002, p. 130). In summary, the boost given to the autochthonous culture since the Rexurdimento, renewed during the period of the Irmandades and the Seminario de Estudos Galegos, had little effect on this field of knowledge, removed from the university and the immediate interest of Galicianist intellectuals who, perhaps through a lack of such specialized knowledge, were more inclined to literary, historical, and ethnographic topics.

98

98  Rosario Álvarez 2. The following period, which may be referred to as an “emergence,” barely lasted a quarter of a century (approx. 1965–​1990), but was highly intensive. The beginning was characterized by Galician becoming a source of study at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), an event that led to a level of research activity unimaginable in the previous decade. Above all, however, it was characterized by social and political changes that occurred in the last quarter of the 20th century and urgently required a series of basic resources in order to effect the presence of Galician in those areas where new legislation granted preferential rights, namely teaching, the media, and public administration.6 It should be borne in mind that on the eve of the officializing of Galician and its imminent public use, Galician lacked a socially accepted standard variety. The emergence took place around 1965 and reveals the importance of the academic sector for understanding the definitive reasons for the scarcity of prior studies as well as for evaluating the significance of the role of the university in the new situation now unfolding. For the first time, this five-​hundred-​year-​old university taught philological studies and, in 1966, the first degrees in Romance Philology were awarded. With this development, which was promoted by a Galicianist sector of society, the old aspiration to include Galician Studies in the curriculum of future philologists (1965), and to create the first chair in this philological branch (awarded to Ricardo Carballo Calero) was fulfilled. It coincided with the appointment of Constantino García (1966), who would go on to lead a very active department of Romance Philology, with support from the enthusiastic and well-​trained philologists from the first graduates of Galician from USC (especially Antón Santamarina, who would be the true central figure of the Santiago linguistics school). From the first moments of the creation of the discipline, a radical change occurred. The inclusion of Galician in university studies required the urgent preparation of basic reference works, namely a grammar and a dictionary. Above all, however, it changed because Galician was included in Romance Studies, together with other Romance languages, within a scientific framework and with an innovative methodology in keeping with the times; the creation from scratch of a good philological library at USC—​a memorable undertaking by the founders of this school—​contributed to this (Santamarina, 2005, p. 191). The first academic studies were carried out (1967: course assignments, undergraduate dissertations, doctoral theses, etc.), which constituted the basis of the scientific corpus and supported the first collections of monographs and journal articles. Very shortly afterwards (in 1971), the Instituto da Lingua Galega (ILG), a research center at the University of Santiago de Compostela, was created and saw the beginnings of major projects, some of which were long-​term in nature: a grammatical research program, creation of a corpus, a Galician linguistic atlas, information campaigns, learning methods for the standard language, teacher training, outlets for academic publications, and so forth.

 99

Galician: Between tradition and visibility 99 This expansion led by young people in the lecture rooms of Santiago de Compostela was accompanied by the intellectual and productive maturity of a series of Galician philologists trained outside Galicia, and who secured teaching posts, generally in universities, in Galicia or abroad: Such was the case with José Luis Pensado Tomé, Xesús Alonso Montero, Amable Veiga Arias, Ramón Lorenzo, Álvaro Porto Dapena, Domingo Prieto Alonso, Ramón Blanco Carril, and Carlos Peregrín Otero. In addition, notable contributions were made by foreign researchers, above all Germans (Harri Meier, Joseph-​ Maria Piel and Walter Mettmann, among others; cfr. Regueira, 1991). 3. The third period, that of “maturity,” began in the 1990s. The most urgent tasks, fundamentally linked to the codification of the standard and the production of basic resources, activities that set the pace during the previous period, were now completed; on the other hand, the consolidation of university studies allowed for the exponential expansion of the number of researchers. The new period was characterized by a greater opportunity for researchers to specialize, allowing tasks to be assigned, lines of research to be planned, and methodologies to be explored—​which in the previous period could hardly be envisaged. This allowed, within a very short period of time, for great advances to be made in the fields of phonetics, phonology, prosody, morphology, syntax, and lexical sciences, with important repercussions within and outside of Galicia. The impact can be seen in other studies produced in Galicia, as well as in the production of new contributions from abroad.7 Indeed, Galician linguistics is also characterized by internationalization, in the sense of increasing the transfer of research findings from Galicia to the rest of the world as much as stimulating diverse interest among researchers outside Galicia. The technological revolution of recent decades has represented a great opportunity for Galician linguistics as an enabling tool in tasks as well as offering, crucially, the opportunity for immediate dialogue with other specialists and the unlimited dissemination of resources and results from their research.

3.  Linguistics in construction From the period of expansion, half a century passed in which Galician linguistics was in permanent construction. Although tasks overlapped, it can be said that there were three phases: information gathering (fieldwork, description of small domains, and consultation of texts); descriptions of Galician (phonetics, morphology, syntax, and lexicon) and definition of the standard; and the creation of corpora and resources.8 Below, I will attempt to describe the main bases of concern and production which, in my judgement, have underpinned the construction of Galician linguistics over the last fifty years: (1) the high priority assigned to spoken language, with Galician speakers being the cornerstone of the description of real Galician; (2) the recovery,

100

100  Rosario Álvarez inventory and study of the written tradition; (3) the linguistic description, codification and development of the standard; (4) the listing, assessment and dissemination of findings, between the immediate response to social requirements and the objective of internationalization. 3.1.  The speakers’ language: data collection, description, corpus The Romance Philology section of USC organized from the outset the collection of examples of spoken Galician throughout the territory, with different survey methods and objectives. The priority given to spoken language, much more extensive than the norm at the time in similar domains, can be explained by the historical context in which it took place, in favor of the recovery of the language as a stamp of identity and in favor of the linguistic rights of the Galician people, and in the assumption by linguists of their capacity for intervention in public life. These first philologists trained at USC include one of Galicianism’s old aspirations in their program: the systematic mapping, throughout Galicia, of the rich and diverse linguistic variety that remains alive in the authentic depository of Galician linguistic heritage, Galician speakers (uneducated in their language and often illiterate), without which it would not be possible to establish endeavors as basic as the editing of a grammar and the production of a dictionary. The debates that took place in preceding years concerning the activities of the Penzol Foundation (Monteagudo, 2010) serve as an example, as do the difficulties involved in the editing of a Real Academia Galega’s grammar in the 1960s (Santamarina, 2009). Through successive thematic enquiries, fieldwork permitted a massive collection of lexical data with geographical reference for a Tesouro léxico galego, which is conserved in hard copy in the ILG. The incentive of undergraduate dissertations and doctoral theses on different forms of Galician speech enabled the territory to be covered with a network of dialectal monographs, which changed the typology during the two decades in which they were being produced: a thematic glossary with a brief grammatical introduction and appendices, a descriptive study based on a broad and spontaneous transcribed corpus. It was a matter of surveying the lexicon used by speakers in different areas as well as creating a basic grammatical corpus on the basis of phonetic and morphological descriptions, and an oral corpus on which to base syntactic description. The Tesouro do léxico patrimonial galego e portugués (TLPGP) was created with the objective of bringing together in a single database the lexicon contained in many collections of dialectal lexicon with geographical referencing. Many of the aforementioned local monographs can be found in the database, as well as other studies, published and unpublished, carried out over decades throughout the territory. The database, in permanent expansion, allows consultation via variant or theme and, in addition to providing information contained in the sources, it locates all occurrences on the map.

 101

Galician: Between tradition and visibility 101 Studies on linguistic geography also fall into this category: on the one hand, the Galician contribution of the Atlas lingüístico de los marineros peninsulares (Santamarina & Ríos Panisse, 1973)  and the Nomenclatura da fauna e flora marítimas de Galicia (Ríos Panisse, 1977–​1983); on the other, above all, the Atlas Lingüístico Galego (ALGa), for which field work was carried out between 1974–​1976 (Álvarez & Fernández Rei & González), and on which is based the Galician material for the Atlas Liguarum Europae (ALE) and for the Atlas Linguistique Romane (ALiR). The ALGa materials are in the process of being published (six printed volumes with online indexes), but its unpublished materials were widely employed as a corpus and base for various kinds of works, most notably the NOMIG publication, which established the morphological and written standard of modern Galician, and the VOLGa, which standardized the lexicon. The intense gathering of lexical data was complemented by the inventory of Galician phraseology, owing to the Tesouro fraseolóxico galego, coordinated by Xesús Ferro Ruibal (1997), which stores in a single database the fieldwork carried out by the team and the collections of phrases from oral and written sources (published and unpublished collections, popular songs, relevant literary works, etc.); the imminent availability of the first archive has been announced on the project portal. Making available oral texts on which to base linguistic description, as a fundamental complement to the body of written texts, is a constant concern. O Arquivo do Galego Oral (AG O ; Fernández Rei, 2011), was created out of the need to obtain and unite spontaneous samples from speakers regarding highly different subject matter, as part of a fine network that would cover all Galician-​speaking territory. In the initial project, informants were sought who possessed the traditional characteristics of the linguistic geography. The immense oral archive is housed at the ILG, in different phases of development (transcription, edition, and classification); until now, it has only been possible to make a minimal part available to the public, with audio and text, located with precision on the map and classified thematically. Meanwhile, the Corpus oral informatizado da lingua galega (CORILGA), directed by X.  L. Regueira (in progress), gathers the various types of oral texts (conversations, semi-​structured interviews, conferences, poetry, theatre, etc.), with the purpose of making categorized materials available as a basis for future studies; aligning the audio and written transcription of the text, although the midterm objective is for all recordings to contain phonetic and morphosyntactic annotation. Finally, Toponimia de Galicia (PTG) is an ambitious project supported by the Galician government that seeks to collect all minor toponymy through fieldwork in order to include it in the general toponymical inventory. Regarding the current state of the corpus, the browser allows results of the search to be classified according to different criteria (among them, the type of toponymy) and located with precision on an aerial photograph. In a complementary way, the Nomenclátor de Galicia offers the denominations of more than 42,000 locations, included successively as parishes, councils, and

102

102  Rosario Álvarez provinces. A Cartografía dos apelidos de Galicia (Boullón & Sousa, 2006) uses the population census as its basis. 3.2.  The written tradition: inventory, edition, corpus and resources As has already been indicated, the first leading figures of the emergence of Galician linguistics were philologists and linguists whose training was in the field of Romance philology, with a clear tendency towards historical linguistics. For this reason, the special attention paid to the spoken language, imposed by circumstances and ideology, was accompanied by the development of a valuable line of key resources in written texts, from the emergence of Romance until the present. Attention turned to textual editing with philological criteria, from works of a literary or historical nature, as well as archival collections, to the creation and compilation of an inventory of transcribed texts with a variety of criteria, to the production of glossaries organized by work or topic, to the creation of documentary archives and, finally, to the development of corpora and other resources for the consultation of texts, all on an open-​access basis. The Corpus Documentale Latinum Gallaeciae (CODOLGA; López Pereira, 2004) allows data to be obtained on the linguistic forms of texts written in Latin in the space of the former Gallaecia, including from the medieval period. The Tesouro Medieval Informatizado da Lingua Galega (TMILG; Varela, 2004) is a large database consisting of similar texts, whether literary or documentary, written in Galician from the emergence of Romance up to the year 1600. Gallaeciae Monumenta Historica (GMH; Villares, 2015) is a documental repository that gives access to texts or complete collections, downloadable in digital format, and accompanying an elaborate search system that allows, in addition to the usual searches in linguistic corpora, the identification of people and places and the location of terms according to subject. The Tesouro Informatizado da Lingua Galega (TILG; Santamarina, 1986) hosts Galician written from 1600 to the present, with the option to search by lemma as well as variant, plus contextual combinations. The Corpus de referencia do galego actual (CORGA; Rojo & López, 2001) includes texts published since 1975 and is regarded as a representative corpus of modern linguistic usage; it is in the process of categorization. The Seminario de Lingüística Informática da Universidade de Vigo offers a wide range of local and external resources, most notably the Corpus Técnico do Galego (CTG), the TERMOTECA (terminological database) and the NEOTECA (neologistical database), developed on the basis of usage in written corpora. As a complement, it is necessary to mention the development of glossaries and the availability of the lexicographical corpus. O Glosario da poesía medieval galego-​portuguesa (GLOSSA; Ferreiro, 2014) is a comprehensive repertoire of lexical corpora of secular Galician–​Portuguese poetry. The Dicionario de dicionarios do Galego Medieval (DDGM; González Seoane, 2006), compiles the partial glossaries created by different publishers in a

 103

Galician: Between tradition and visibility 103 unified database, constituting a multi-​dictionary with a wide range of query types in the entire collection. It is inspired by the Dicionario de dicionarios (DdD, 2000), prepared by Antón Santamarina, which compiles lexicographical works produced in a chronological arc that goes from Martin Sarmiento in the 18th century to the present, excluding modern dictionaries on the commercial market. 3.3.  The description and codification of Galician The situation in which the language was at the time when it acquired official status explains why most efforts were directed towards its linguistic description (mainly phonetics, morphology and syntax) and its codification. It is true that the grammatical studies had broader developments and objectives, but until recent decades that was the main purpose of both small-​domain grammars and the monographic description and analysis of specific problems or issues, whether from an internal perspective (historical or synchronic), or of a comparative nature. The same can be said of lexical sciences, which followed a similar path: from the systematic collection of lexical data taken from local vocabularies and the compilation of the lexicographical heritage according to the fixing of the standard form of the lexicon and the production of the first modern dictionaries, for general or school purposes. The extraordinary development of dialectology, with different ways of addressing linguistic variation, can be explained because it serves the same purpose: to become familiar with the rich and changing variation offered by the spoken language, because it is on this that the codification of the language must be based. What comprised this codification and what degree of development has it attained? These are the results and documentation: (a) Orthography and morphology. These are regulated by the Normas ortográficas e morfolóxicas do idioma galego ( NOMIG), produced by the Real Academia Galega and the Instituto da Lingua Galega (RAG & ILG, 1982) and formalized by the Galician government (1983). (b) Phonetics and prosody. The basic reading criteria set out in the NOMIG. The standard pronunciation of words and the common forms of names, established in Dicionario de pronuncia da lingua galega (Regueira, 2010). A prosodic or phonetic standard is not defined at other levels. (c) Lexicon. The first step in its standardization was the Vocabulario ortográfico da lingua galega (VOLGa), approved by the Real Academia Galega and the Instituto da Lingua Galega (1989), which fixed the standard form of words and acted as a basis for all modern dictionaries, among them the Dicionario da Real Academia Galega ¸ which the RAG updates periodically in the open-​access digital version (DRAG, 2013). The establishment of terminology is the responsibility of TERMIGAL ( C IR P & R AG, 1997), which offers a terminological database (TERGAL) and access to special vocabularies; above all, an indispensable reference

104

104  Rosario Álvarez is the work in the field of terminology carried out by the Servizo de Normalización Lingüística da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela which, since 1994, has maintained a very active platform for consultations, discussions, correction, dissemination and access to resources (www.usc. gal/​gl/​servizos/​snl/​terminoloxia/​). (d) Syntax. There is a defined syntactic standard, under the general principle that all of the syntactic variation that exists among the different varieties is accepted as a part of the standard as long as is not due to linguistic interference. It is hoped, however, that the imminent publication of the Gramática by the Real Academia Galega will offer guidance in the most doubt-​causing aspects of language usage. (e) Onomastics. The official form of place names (provinces, councils, parishes, and places), which by law must be in Galician, is regulated in the Nomenclátor de Galicia (Xunta de Galicia, 2003). The freedom of choice of personal names and the regular transmission of surnames does not excuse the Nomenclátor from having to include the Galician form or forms of anthroponyms, as a guide for new attributions or for those who, through the new legal framework, may wish to translate their name or restore their surname to the original Galician form. The Dicionario dos nomes galegos (Ferro et  al., 1992), endorsed by the RAG, and the Dicionario dos apelidos galegos, a joint project by the ILG and RAG (in progress) address this matter. In summary, the codification of Galician has not been exempt from a broad social debate. In the most extreme camps, on one side, there were those who advocated for maintaining a maximal fidelity to the spoken language, without intervening for reasons of purity or in order to recover features or words that already belonged to the past. On the other side, advocates supported employing Portuguese as a modern, learned variety of Galician and, therefore, considered intervention to be unnecessary. Between the two extremes existed the majority, holding positions that in different degrees would lean to one or the other extreme. The theses that have prevailed are those that regarded Galician as a well-​identified linguistic entity—​historically, socially, and geographically—​and which attempted to make sure that the creation of a standard would lead to “a common language based on speech, but purged of Castilianisms, supradialectal, rooted in tradition, coherent, and harmonious with other languages of culture,” especially with Portuguese (NOMIG, p. 10). 3.4.  Criticism, bibliographical inventories, dissemination of results, internationalization In recent decades, bibliographic summaries and critical reviews of the current state of the art have proliferated, accompanying interest in bibliographic repertoires and the commitment by the presence of Galician production in indexes and bibliographic repertoires based outside Galicia. An example

 105

Galician: Between tradition and visibility 105 of the former is Elaboración e difusión da lingua, the third volume of the report, O proceso de elaboración do idioma galego 1980–​2000 (Monteagudo & Bouzada, 2003). Among the latter, Bibliografía Informatizada da Lingua Galega (BILEGA; García Gondar, 1998) emerges individually and in permanent growth and improvement, which not only provides bibliographic information on the work devoted wholly or partly to Galician (research, dissemination or opinion) in different periods and in all formats, but also information about the content, critical reviews and publication notes they have prompted, with the complete publishing history. Finally, I will briefly record some of the foreign bibliographic repertoires in which Galician has its own section: the pioneering The Year’s Work in Modern Language Studies (YWMLS, London: The Modern Humanities Research Association), from 1995; the successive annual editions of Romanische Bibliographie (Tübingen), from 1997; or those produced by X. L. Regueira in Bibliographie linguistique/​ Linguistic bibliography, published by the Comité Internacional Permanente de Lingüistas with the support of UNESCO and other public organizations; and also Comparative Romance Linguistics Newsletter (CRLN), under the auspices of a section of the Modern Language Association. The dissemination of results has always been a constant concern and has led to the creation of independent channels with the aim of international promotion (collections, conferences, journals, etc.) and a great effort towards digitalization. Among them, the book format, published by both Galician commercial companies and the annexes of scientific journals (those of Verba laid the first solid foundations of Galician linguistics) and the collectively authored tribute books, so neglected by the usual academic research exercises and so much a part of Galician practice; I would like to draw attention to the indisputable fact that a great deal of the best Galician linguistic research can be found in them. As for magazines, among those whose profiles are more focused on the Galician language, and published in Galicia, the following should be mentioned: Verba. Anuario Galego de Filoloxía, from 1974 (Universidade de Santiago de Compostela); Cadernos de Lingua (Real Academia Galega), from 1990; Viceversa. Revista galega de tradución (Universidade de Vigo & Asociación de Tradutores Galegos), from 1995; Revista Galega de Filoloxía (Universidade da Coruña), from 2000; and Estudos de Lingüística Galega (ELG, Instituto da Lingua Galega—​Universidade de Santiago de Compostela), the first Galician philology and linguistics journal in electronic format, from 2009. All of these aspire to meet the quality standards required (assessment, indexes, etc.); ELG and Verba have the certificate of excellence awarded by FECYT, a Spanish assessment agency, and are listed in international indexes. Among those promoted internationally in the field of Galician Studies, the following are worth highlighting: Madrygal: Revista de estudios gallegos (Universidad Complutense, Madrid), Galicia 21 Journal of Contemporary Galician Studies (Bangor University & University College Cork), and the discontinued Galician Review (of the Centres for Galician

106

106  Rosario Álvarez Studies of the Universities of Birmingham and Oxford) and Galicien Magazin: Zeitschrift der Deutsch-​ Galicischen Gesellschaft (do Galicien-​ Zentrum, Universität Trier). Scientific journals that specifically include Galician studies in a wider field, whether in the Hispanic (e.g., Antípodas, Journal of Hispanic and Galician Studies, Auckland University) or the Lusophone sphere (e.g., Abriu. Estudos de textualidade do Brasil, Galicia e Portugal, Universitat de Barcelona; e Labor Historico, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro) also deserve attention. The drive for internationalization is marked not only by external dissemination (conferences and publications) but by participation in research teams and collaborative networks led from Galicia or from an external research center. Connections are made especially with centers that are Iberian in scope, which include Galician, or can address similar problems in a wider geographical area (ALPI, Wedisyn); and with centers in some European countries (Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy) and the Anglo-​Saxon world (United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States), which include Galician as a subject or are receptive to our work (PatRom, DÉRom, AliR, ALE, AMPER). However, the most prominent place is occupied by Portugal and Brazil, where receptivity is increasing, whether for the exchange of knowledge or for collaborative projects with mixed or complementary teams (TLPGP, TEDIPOR, BRASIGAL, etc.).

4.  Desideratum and conclusion Cooperation between the Galician language and the Portuguese language is in itself a novelty. As I pointed, at the beginning of this chapter, to the reception of Portuguese linguistics and philology in Galicia, the opposite cannot be said: Until very recently, with few exceptions, in Portuguese-​speaking countries, the existence of Galician linguistics and philology was unknown and, therefore, in bibliographical references they were not mentioned or pre-​ scientific works that were already completely outdated were cited. It was and is the task of Galician researchers to look for a new time, characterized by visibility in Portugal and Brazil, and in those places where the Portuguese language is studied. The consideration of Galician as a differentiated Romance language, and not as a diatopic variety of Portuguese, is a majority view in Galician linguistic research; it is also supported by the departments that undertake these studies at the three Galician universities and that defend the principal authoritative linguistic institutions in Galicia (namely, the Royal Galician Academy and the Galician Language Institute), in tune with the general feeling of Galician society, which sees the “Galician language” as the central pillar of its collective identity. This position is not incompatible with the recognition of the proximity to Portuguese or the feeling that the Galician language is part of the same Romance branch with Portuguese (the Iberian western block: Galician and Portuguese), separated from the branch that includes Castilian and

 107

Galician: Between tradition and visibility 107 central Iberian varieties. Therefore, the Galician language moves between two worlds: born within the realm of Hispanism, it seeks its own space in the field of Lusophone linguistics, in which it aspires to be known and recognized. The main centers of interest shared in the partnership now effective between Galician and Portuguese linguistics, still in its infancy, can serve to indicate the paths towards that progressive linkage and circulation of knowledge in both directions. The main lines can ultimately be summarized as history, change, and variation. The linguistic border that now clearly marks the boundary between the Galician and Portuguese varieties (Goebl, 2013; Álvarez, 2015) did not exist in earlier periods, however much punctual diatopic variation can be detected since ancient times. Therefore, it is obvious that neither the history of Galician nor the history of the Portuguese language can be fully reconstructed by mutually ignoring what happened to the other side of that conventional limit; on the other hand, even after political separation (1139, independence from Portugal), throughout the Middle Ages, there was a more or less continuous flow of nobility, ecclesiastical, economic, or cultural interests. It should be added that considering from this point of view the diachronic evolution of Galician and Portuguese, the existence of long-​cycle processes of change and phenomena of variation that go through centuries have been detected, acting in an apparently independent way, in the same direction in both languages. As such, the history and diachrony of the Galician language and the Portuguese language are linked not only at the primordial level, during the period of the emergence of Gallaecia, but also during the medieval period in which they constituted separate Romance varieties and, even later, which obliges us to reconsider both the evolutionary lines and their periodization (Monteagudo, 2012). Interest in shared variation and change affects all periods of both languages and the constitution of all their varieties. Hence, the importance given to the study of the dissemination of the heritage lexicon and comparative grammar, not only among the respective standards but taking into account the actual linguistic variation (Lagares, 2012). The coincidence between “typical” Galician phenomena (in contrast to those of European Portuguese) with verifiable traits in Brazil—​and/​or in Portuguese varieties from Africa—​demands that its genesis, diffusion, and establishment be reconsidered, together with the chronology of all stages, since it is not possible to postulate in a general way a linguistic continuity based on direct transmission from Galician. This aspect, which deserves a separate study, could only be identified in a detailed way in Brazilian diatopic varieties, which might eventually be affected by the massive presence of Galician immigrants. It is obvious that Galician linguistics does not have the dimension, in quantitative terms, of Spanish or Portuguese linguistics, but this does not in itself put it in a situation of dependence. We therefore demand a proper place that is well identified and which does not imply isolation in any way. To the question, so often asked from outside Galicia, regarding the best position of Galician

108

108  Rosario Álvarez linguistics, and Galician Studies in general, within the international academic field, the answer is conditional: it should be linked to Portuguese studies, if they exist, or to Iberian studies. If such conditions are not met, it should be under the umbrella of Hispanic studies (often identified, with etymological abuse, as ‘Castilian, Spanish’). In any case, Galician linguistics should always be building bridges.

Notes 1 I shall refer to all of them as Portuguese linguistics or philology, with focus on the object of study and not the source of authors or geographical variety. 2 The Rexurdimento was a pro-​Galician movement that promoted the reconstruction of Galician identity on the basis of Romantic nationalism, together with the defense and revival of auchtocthonous culture and language. It began in the mid-​19th century and reached its peak in the 1860s. The year 1863 is regarded as symbolic in that it was when Rosalía de Castro published her first book, Cantares Gallegos, written in Galician. This period is referred to as the Rexurdimento in Galician historiography. 3 For a complete list of the Friar Martín Sarmiento archives, access to recovered works, and other useful related information, see the Proxecto Sarmiento portal supervised by Henrique Monteagudo and hosted by the Consello da Cultura Galega. www.consellodacultura.gal/​sarmiento/​. 4 In the early 20th century, small vocabularies were produced (destined to remain unpublished), mainly the result of the efforts of attentive and curious travelers, and not from a desire by Galician figures to record their lexical heritage. The first work that reflected the change of attitude in this respect is the Breve diccionario by Xoán Manuel Pintos (1853), a modest but dedicated publication, once again the work of an enthusiastic individual. 5 An example would be the pioneering works on the language of the poets from the north of Lugo (Aquilino Iglesia Alvariño, 1949), that of Manuel Curros Enríquez (Xesús Alonso Montero, 1951; Leandro Carré, 1959; Ramón Fernández Pousa, 1952), and Ramón Cabanillas (A. Iglesia Alvariño, 1964). 6 After the passing of the Constitución española (1978) and the Estatuto de Autonomía de Galicia (1981), in 1983, the Lei de normalización lingüística (LNL) de Galicia was passed, regulating Galician citizens’ rights to use their language and to promote its public use (www.parlamentodegalicia.es/​sitios/​web/​BibliotecaLeisdeGalicia/​Lei3_​ 1983.pdf). 7 A full account of these advances and their protagonists, within and outside of Galicia, falls outside the scope of the present study. Interested readers can consult the BILEGA database where, thanks to an extensive cataloging system, it is possible to find the referenced studies as well as historiographical works and valuable studies related to each specific topic. 8 This aspect will be taken very much into account in this analysis, although I will select only the most crucial of these. There are numerous pages that serve as an inventory; as demonstrated, independent of its creators, by the website http://​maos. gal/​recursos/​recursos-​galego/​. The date when it was made accessible to the public can act as a guide, but almost all of its content is under ongoing construction and being updated.

 109

Galician: Between tradition and visibility 109

References AGO = Fernández Rei, F. (Dir.). (2011–present). Arquivo do galego oral. Santiago de Compostela: Instituto da Lingua Galega. Retrieved from http://​ilg.usc.gal/​ago/​. Álvarez, R. (2003). A gramática galega. In H. Monteagudo & X. Bouzada (Ed.), O proceso de normalización do idioma galego (1980–​2000). Vol. III: Elaboración e difusión da lingua (pp. 131–​163). Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega. Retrieved from http://​consellodacultura.gal/​mediateca/​documento.php? id=303. Álvarez, R. (2015). Constituição e consolidação da fronteira galego-​ portuguesa. A difusão do léxico. In M. Ferreira (Ed.), Descrição e ensino de línguas (85–​110). Campinas: Pontes. Retrieved from http://​ilg.usc.gal/​gl/​publicacions/​contribucions/​ constituicao-​consolidacao-​fronteira. Álvarez, R., & González Seoane, E. (2016). Iluminar los Séculos Escuros: Gondomar, un corpus para el estudio del gallego en la Edad Moderna. In J. Kabatek (Ed.), Lingüística de corpus y lingüística histórica iberorrománica (pp. 115–​136). Berlin: De Gruyter. BILEGA = García Gondar, F. (Dir.). (1998–present). Bibliografía informatizada da lingua galega. Santiago de Compostela: Centro Ramón Piñeiro para a Investigación en Humanidades. Retrieved from www.cirp.gal/​bdo/​bil/​bilega.html. Boullón, A. I., & Sousa, X. F. (Dir.). (2006–present). Cartografía dos apelidos de Galicia. Santiago de Compostela: Instituto da Lingua Galega. Retrieved from http://​ilg.usc.gal/​cag/​. Boullón, A. I., & Tato, F. (1991). A Cátedra de Lingua e Literatura Galega da Universidade de Santiago, datos para a historia dunha reivindicación. In M. Brea & F. Fernández Rei: Homenaxe ó profesor Constantino García (II, pp. 33–​53). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Retrieved from http://​hdl.handle.net/​10347/​12478. CODOLGA  =  López Pereiro, X. E. (Dir.). (2004–present). Corpus Documentale Latinum Gallaeciae. Santiago de Compostela: Centro Ramón Piñeiro para a Investigación en Humanidades. Retrieved from http://​corpus.cirp.gal/​codolga/​ index.html. CORGA = Rojo, G. & López, M. (Dir.). (2001–present). Corpus de Referencia do Galego Actual. Santiago de Compostela: Centro Ramón Piñeiro para a Investigación en Humanidades. Retrieved from http://​corpus.cirp.es/​corga. CORILGA Regueira, X. L. (Dir.). (2014–present). Corpus Oral Informatizado da Lingua Galega. Santiago de Compostela: Instituto da Lingua Galega. Retrieved from http://​ilg.usc.gal/​gl/​proxectos/​corpus-​oral-​informatizado-​da-​lingua-​galega-​corilga. Couceiro Freijomil, A. (1935). El idioma gallego: historia, gramática, literatura. Barcelona: A. Martín. CTG = Seminario de Lingüística Informática & Grupo TALG. (2006-​). Corpus Técnico do Galego. Retrieved from http://​sli.uvigo.gal/​CTG/​corpus.html. DdD  =  Santamarina, A. (Dir.). (2000). Dicionario de dicionarios. Santiago de Compostela: Instituto da Lingua Galega. Retrieved from http://​sli.uvigo.gal/​DdD. DDGM = González Seoane, E. (Dir.). (2006). Dicionario de dicionarios do galego medieval. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Retrieved from http://​sli.uvigo.es/​DDGM/​. DRAG  =  Real Academia Galega. (2013–present). Dicionario da Real Academia Galega. A Coruña: Real Academia Galega. Retrieved from http://​academia.gal/​ dicionario#inicio.do.

110

110  Rosario Álvarez Fernández Salgado, B. (2000). Os rudimentos da lingüística galega. Un estudo de textos lingüísticos galegos de principios do século XX (1913–​1936). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Ferro Ruibal, X. et al. (1992). Dicionario dos nomes galegos. Vigo: Ir Indo. Ferro Ruibal, X. (Dir.). (2004-​). Tesouro fraseolóxico galego. Santiago de Compostela: Centro Ramón Piñeiro para a Investigación en Humanidades. Retrieved from www.cirp.gal/​w3/​proxectos/​proxecto-​fraseoloxia-​galega.html. García Gondar, F. (2001). La presencia del gallego en la filología española (1914–​ 1970). Análisis de algunas revistas. In M. A. Maquieira Rodríguez, M.D. Martínez Gavilán, & M. Villayandre Llamazares (Eds.), Actas del II Congreso Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Historiografía Lingüística (León, 2–​5 de marzo de 1999) (pp. 435–​446). Madrid: Arco. GLOSSA  =  Ferreiro, M. (Dir.) (2014). Glosario da poesía medieval profana galego-​ portuguesa. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. Retrieved from http://​glossa.gal. GMH  =  Villares, R. (Dir.). (2015-​ ). Gallaeciae Monumenta Historica. Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega. Retrieved from http://​gmh. consellodacultura.org/​. Goebl, H. (2013). La dialectometrización del ALPI: Rápida presentación de resultados. In E. Casanova Herrero & C. Calvo Rigual (Eds.), Actas del XXVI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y de Filología Románicas. Valencia 2010 (VI, pp. 143–​154). Berlin: De Gruyter. Golpe Varela, S. (1906). Cuestión gramatical sobre el uso de ao. Boletín da Real Academia Galega, 1(2), 32–36. González Seoane, E. (2014). La lexicografía gallega premoderna (1863–​1985). In F. Córdoba Rodríguez, E. González Seoane, & M. D. Sánchez Palomino (Eds.), Lexicografía de las lenguas románicas. Perspectiva histórica (I, pp. 167–​183). Berlin: De Gruyter. Lagares, X. (2012). Galego-​ Portugués-​ Brasileiro. Os desafios de uma perspectiva histórica integrada. In X. Lagares & H. Monteagudo (Eds.), Galego e Português Brasileiro: historia, variação e mudança (pp. 11–​ 36). Niterói: Editora da Universidade Federal Fluminense. Mariño, R. (1998). Historia da lingua galega. Santiago de Compostela: Sotelo Blanco. Mariño, R. (2002). Breve historia de la lingüística gallega contemporánea (1965–​ 2000). In A. Bernabé Pajares, J. A. Berenguer Sánchez, M. Cantarero, & J. C. de Torres Martínez (Eds.), Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España: La Sociedad de Lingüística, 30 años después. Actas del II Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística (Madrid, 11–​15 de diciembre de 2000) (I, pp. 128–​152). Madrid: Sociedad Española de Lingüística. Martínez Salazar, A. (1907). Antiguallas de Galicia: Apuntes acerca del origen é historia del artículo definido gallego-portugués. A Coruña: Imprenta y fotograbado de Ferrer. Monteagudo, H. (1999). Historia social da lingua galega. Idioma, sociedade e cultura a través do tempo. Vigo: Galaxia. Monteagudo, H. (Dir.). (2002-​). Proxecto Sarmiento. Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega. Retrieved from www.consellodacultura.gal/​sarmiento/​. Monteagudo, H. (2003). A demanda da norma. Avances, problemas e perspectivas no proceso de estandarización do idioma galego. In H. Monteagudo & X. Bouzada (Eds.), O proceso de normalización do idioma galego (1980–​ 2000). Vol. III. Elaboración e difusión da lingua (pp. 37–​129). Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega. Retrieved from http://​consellodacultura.gal/​mediateca/​ documento.php?id=303.

 111

Galician: Between tradition and visibility 111 Monteagudo, H. (2010). A Fundación e Biblioteca Penzol e a Filoloxía galega. In M. D. Cabrera & H. Monteagudo (Eds.), Fermín Penzol. Unha obra para un país (pp. 71–​80). Vigo: Galaxia. Monteagudo, H. (2012). Galego, Portugués e Brasileiro no tempo. Achegas para unha diacronía comparada. In X. Lagares & H. Monteagudo (Eds.), Galego e Português Brasileiro: Historia, variação e mudança (pp. 37–​104). Niterói: Editora da Universidade Federal Fluminense. Monteagudo, H., & Bouzada, X. (Ed.). (2003). O proceso de elaboración do idioma galego 1980–​ 2000. Vol. III: Elaboración e difusión da lingua. Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega. Retrieved from http://​consellodacultura. gal/​mediateca/​documento.php?id=303. Pensado Tomé, J. L., & Messner, D. (2003). Bachiller Olea. Vocábulo[s]‌gallegos escuros: lo [que] quieran dezir. A Coruña: Real Academia Galega. Pérez Barreiro, R. (1924). Sobre el modo de afirmar en gallego. In Primer Congreso celebrado por el Instituto de Estudios Gallegos (La Coruña, 1919) (pp. 71–77). A Coruña: Imprenta Zinck Hermanos. Pérez Barreiro, R. (1931). Algo sobre diminutivos gallegos. Boletín da Real Academia Galega, 20, 317–320. Pintos, X. M. (1853). A gaita gallega tocada po lo gaiteiro, ou sea Carta de Cristus para ir deprendendo a ler, escribir e falar ben a lengua gallega, e ainda mais. Pontevedra: Imprenta de don José y don Primitivo Vilas. Pol, J. (1915). Pronombres gallegos. Estudios Gallegos, 9, 4. Real Academia Galega & Instituto da Lingua Galega. (2012). Normas ortográficas e morfolóxicas do idioma galego. 23ª edición. Vigo: Real Academia Galega & Instituto da Lingua Galega. Retrieved from www.realacademiagalega.org/​ recursos. Real Academia Galega/​Instituto da Lingua Galega. (1989-​). Vocabulario ortográfico da lingua galega (VOLGa). A Coruña: Real Academia Galega & Instituto da Lingua Galega. Retrieved from http://​academia.gal/​recursos-​volg#http://​academia.gal/​Volga/​? Regueira, X. L. (1991). A contribución alemana á lingüística galega. In M. Brea & F. Fernández Rei (Eds.), Homenaxe ó Profesor Constantino García (Vol. II, pp. 155–​178). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Retrieved from http://​hdl.handle.net/​10347/​12516. Regueira, X. L. (2010). Dicionario de pronuncia da lingua galega. Santiago de Compostela: Instituto da Lingua Galega. Retrieved from http://​ilg.usc.gal/​ pronuncia/​. Ribalta, A. (1915). Algo sobre pronombres gallegos. Estudios Gallegos, 6, 1–3; 8, 2–3. Santamarina, A. (2005). A lingüística galega nos últimos 25 anos. In 25 anos coa cultura galega. Vinte e cinco perspectivas para o século XXI (Vol. II, pp. 189–​215). Santiago de Compostela: Sotelo Blanco. Santamarina, A. (2009). Informe de Ramón Piñeiro á Real Academia Galega. Boletín da Real Academia Galega, 370, 7–​17. Retrieved from http://​academia.gal/​ boletins#paxinas.do?id=3392. Santamarina, A., & Ríos Panisse, M. C. (1973). Atlas lingüístico de los marineros peninsulares. Cuestionarios galegos. Santiago de Compostela: Instituto da Lingua Galega [unpublished]. Santiago y Gómez, J. (1918). Filología de la lengua gallega. Santiago de Compostela: Tipografía de El Eco Franciscano.

112

112  Rosario Álvarez Seminario de Lingüística Informática & Grupo TALG. (2006-​). Termoteca. Banco de datos terminolóxico da Universidade de Vigo. Retrieved from http://​sli.uvigo.gal/​ termoteca/​ Seminario de Lingüística Informática & Observatorio de Neoloxía. (2016-​). Neoteca. Banco de datos de neoloxismos da Universidade de Vigo. Retrieved from http://​sli. uvigo.es/​neoteca/​. TERMIGAL = González, M. (1997-​). Servizo de Terminoloxía Galega. Santiago de Compostela: Centro Ramón Piñeiro para a Investigación en Humanidades & Real Academia Galega. Retrieved from www.cirp.es/​w3/​proxectos/​proxecto-​termigal. html TILG  =  Santamarina, A. (Dir.). (1986-​). Tesouro informatizado da lingua galega. Santiago de Compostela: Instituto da Lingua Galega. Retrieved from http://​ilg. usc.gal/​TILG. TLPGP = Álvarez, R. (Dir.). (2014-​). Tesouro do léxico patrimonial galego e portugués. Santiago de Compostela: Instituto da Lingua Galega. Retrieved from http://​ilg.usc. gal/​Tesouro/​. TMILG = Varela, X. (Dir.). (2004-​): Tesouro medieval informatizado da lingua galega. Santiago de Compostela: Instituto da Lingua Galega. Retrieved from http://​ilg. usc.gal/​tmilg. TPG  =  Xunta de Galicia. (2000-​ ). Proxecto Toponimia de Galicia. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta. Retrieved from http://​toponimia.xunta.es/​gl/​Proxecto ToponimiaGalicia. Xunta de Galicia. (2003). Nomenclátor de Galicia. Retrieved from http://​www.xunta. gal/​nomenclator.

 113

Part II

Linguistic analyses

114

 115

6  NEG-​NADA Discourse-​pragmatic licensing of non-​canonical negation in two related languages Mary Johnson and Scott A. Schwenter 1.  Introduction Lately there has been a surge of interest in the study of non-​canonical negation, that is, “marked” negative constructions whose meaning and contextual appropriateness are more restricted than the corresponding canonical negative construction in the same language variety (Cinque 1976; Fretheim 1984; Schwenter 2003, 2005, 2006). In addition to Romance examples such as the contrast between no V and no V pas in Catalan (Espinal, 1993), or between non V and non V mica in Italian (Cinque, 1976; Hansen & Visconti, 2009), which are also often included in discussions to illustrate the diachronic workings of Jespersen’s Cycle (Jespersen, 1917; Schwenter, 2006; cf. Dahl, 1979 for the origin of this term), there is now a wealth of evidence from other languages and language families to show that non-​canonical negative (NCN) constructions are anything but rare in cross-​linguistic perspective. This research has revealed that the differences between NCN forms and their canonical counterparts (cf. Bond, 2013; Miestamo, 2005) are due to information-​structural differences in the discourse-​pragmatic licensing of competing forms. Essentially, there are special ways in which NCNs must relate to prior discourse context while a lack of specific contextual restrictions characterizes canonical negative forms. One result of this research has been to force us to reconsider how we conceive of negation in discourse-​pragmatic perspective. Since at least Givón (1979) it has been widely believed that “negatives are uttered in a context in which corresponding affirmatives have already been discussed, or else where the speaker assumes the hearer’s belief in—​and thus familiarity with—​the corresponding affirmatives” (Givón 1979, p.  109). However, newer research on NCNs has shown repeatedly that a clear distinction should be drawn between these and canonical negatives, based specifically on the distinction between responding or not to “already discussed or assumed affirmatives.” This distinction seems to be a prerequisite for NCNs. Responding in contexts where no prior propositional content is assumed is precisely where NCNs are disallowed, but canonical negatives are felicitous. Empirical research on the use and distribution of negative sentences in naturally occurring discourse has corroborated this view (e.g., Tottie, 1991; Thompson, 1998). In fact,

116

116  Mary Johnson & Scott A. Schwenter Thompson has concluded that the “data … show clearly that there is typically no sense in which a negative clause denies anything, either explicit or implicit, in the conversation” (Thompson, 1998, p. 323; emphasis original); by “negative clause” Thompson is referring to the canonical negative form in a language, such as preverbal não/​no + VP in Portuguese and Spanish. The distinct coding of NCNs versus canonical negatives is therefore iconic: It uses a special form for a special function (i.e., the negation/​denial of a proposition already activated in the ongoing discourse context). This chapter provides a comprehensive contrastive analysis of two NCN constructions in a pair of closely related language varieties: Brazilian Portuguese (BP) and Argentinian Spanish (AS). The two constructions at issue are essentially identical in form, both consisting of a preverbal negator (não in BP, no in AS) plus a verb followed by the negative indefinite nada ‘nothing’; for this reason, we term the construction NEG-​NADA. A typical example of this construction in each language is given in (1): (1)

a.

A: B:

b.

A: B:

Eu acho que o pai dela já morreu. ‘I think her father already died.’ Não morreu nada. ‘He didn’t die.’ Creo que su padre ya murió. No murió nada.

The formal similarity in (1), however, belies significant differences in the contextual licensing and interpretation of NEG-​NADA in BP and AS, and this chapter is devoted to detailing these differences and their importance for theoretical discussions not only of NCNs across languages, but also of the kinds of information-​structural notions needed to account for felicitous use of NCNs. Despite the increased recent attention to the intersection between negation and information structure, especially in the analysis of NCN constructions, our position is that much still remains to be learned from analyses such as ours, where near-​identical NCNs from closely related languages show different behavior. The rest of this chapter is structured as follows. In section 2, we discuss some general issues regarding the negative indefinite nada and the distinction between non-​canonical negation and metalinguistic negation. In sections 3 and 4 we analyze NEG-​NADA in BP and AS, respectively. We provide concluding remarks, including the broader implications of our analyses, in section 5.

2.  Nada Across languages, the behavior of negative indefinites (e.g., words meaning ‘nobody,’ ‘nothing,’ ‘nowhere’) can vary with respect to their occurrence with other negative elements. Both Portuguese and Spanish are examples of

 117

NEG-NADA: negation in two related languages 117 languages whose negative indefinites show a “mixed behavior” with respect to predicate negation (Haspelmath, 1997). When the negative indefinite nada occurs in postverbal position in these languages, it must be accompanied by a preverbal negator, such as não (BP) or no (AS). Without the preverbal negator, ungrammaticality results:1 (2)

a. b.

A Maria *(não) quer nada para comer hoje. María *(no) quiere nada para comer hoy. ‘Maria doesn’t want anything to eat today.’

However, when nada occurs in preverbal position it does not require another predicate negator in order to be licensed. This behavior in both Spanish and Portuguese makes them representative of what Giannakidou (1998) has termed “non-​strict” negative concord languages. Such behavior contrasts with that of “strict” negative concord languages (e.g., Romanian or Greek, where negative indefinites must co-​occur with another negator in preverbal position). Compare the examples in (1) above with those in (3) below, where nada is in preverbal position, and the co-​presence of the standard preverbal negation marker (não/​no) would be ungrammatical in both languages: (3)

a. b.

Nada (*não) vai me fazer feliz. Nada (*no) me va a hacer feliz. ‘Nothing is going to make me happy.’

In what follows, we will see that in the case of AS this particular syntactic restriction on nada holds even in this variety’s NEG-​NADA construction: it cannot occur in postverbal position without a preverbal negative (most often no) to license it. The situation in BP, however, is more complex in that nada in this variety can and often does occur in postverbal position as an NCN without preverbal não. The presence/​absence of preverbal não, however, is not random or a case of “free variation”; rather, as we will show, it is subject to a strict discourse-​pragmatic condition. In terms of its semantics, nada in both languages has two principal meanings. The choice of conveyed meaning is dependent on the kind of predicate with which the negative indefinite combines. One meaning is pronominal, where nada stands in place of a noun and expresses the absence of any correspondence to an object in the world, as in Spanish (4a), where the transitive verb comer ‘to eat’ subcategorizes for a direct object. By contrast, in (4b) nada is a degree adverb that places the action described by the (negated) predicate p at the most minimal degree of p possible, that is, the absence of any talking at all. This interpretation derives from the fact that hablar ‘to talk/​speak’ is (usually) an intransitive verb and nada cannot be understood as a direct object. We include the degree modifier mucho ‘much, a lot’ here for comparative purposes, since it forms a paradigm with nada.

118

118  Mary Johnson & Scott A. Schwenter (4)

a.

No comiste mucho/​nada. ‘You didn’t eat much/​anything.’

b.

Ricardo no habla mucho/​nada. ‘Ricardo doesn’t talk much/​at all.’

Similar examples can be found for Portuguese, as in (5a) and (5b), which illustrate the pronoun and degree adverb use, respectively: (5)

a.

Não comeu muito/​nada. ‘You didn’t eat much/​anything.’

b.

O Ricardo não fala muito/​nada. ‘Ricardo doesn’t talk much/​at all.’

As will be discussed below when we turn to NCN uses of nada in both BP and AS, a crucial point is that nada as a negative indefinite cannot combine with intransitive, non-​gradable verbal predicates in either language, since such predicates do not allow degree modification of the verbal action. Thus in (6), the verb morirse ‘to die’ cannot combine with degree modifiers such as mucho ‘much, a lot’ or nada ‘at all’ since dying is not gradable (one either dies or does not). (6)

El viejo no se murió #mucho/​#nada. ‘The old man didn’t die much/​at all.’

Likewise in (7), the Portuguese equivalent morrer ‘to die’ cannot occur with degree modifiers: (7)

O homem velho não morreu #muito/​#nada. ‘The old man didn’t die much/​at all.’

This contrast is crucial, since the NEG-​NADA construction is actually compatible with discourse contexts in which (6)  and (7)  could occur felicitously. However, in these contexts the meaning of nada is no longer one that expresses a degree, but instead provides an information-​structural link to propositional content already accessible in the discourse context. BP and AS differ, however, in the details of how accessible this content must be in order to be compatible with NEG-​NADA, and in the precise meaning conveyed by each language’s NEG-​NADA construction. We flesh out these details in the two sections that follow. It is important at this point to clarify the difference between non-​canonical negation, on the one hand, and metalinguistic negation, on the other, since these have been confused in prior research. For Portuguese, some authors (Pinto, 2010; Martins, 2014) have considered dialogic uses of nada like those

 119

NEG-NADA: negation in two related languages 119 in (1)  above, and in many other examples to be more fully described and analyzed below, to constitute “metalinguistic” (Horn, 1985, 1989) negation, which objects to any aspect whatsoever of an interlocutor’s (typically immediately prior) utterance. As argued in Schwenter (2016), this terminology reflects a misapprehension of the concept of metalinguistic negation, which is restricted to objections of non-​propositional content (cf. Geurts, 1998; Horn, 2002). Compare the English metalinguistic negation in (8) where the proposition “John is tall” is not being denied as untrue, but rather as too weak of an assertion on a scale of tallness, and the descriptive negation in (9), where the truth of “tall” is denied and corrected with an opposing adjective. (8) (9)

John isn’t tall, he’s gigantic. John isn’t tall, he’s tiny.

(metalinguistic) (descriptive)

Just as in English, the canonical negative constructions in Portuguese and Spanish can be used in the metalinguistic example in (8), but NCNs like NEG-​NADA cannot. The NEG-​NADA construction in both BP and AS is in fact restricted only to denials of propositional content, such as that in (9), and cannot occur in metalinguistic negation contexts. We believe that NCNs and metalinguistic negation have been confused in the literature due to the fact that both of them are “responsive” in nature (cf. Carston, 1996). In metalinguistic negation (8), the speaker would have no reason to deny the assertability of “John is tall” unless someone else had asserted or implicated it as an appropriate characterization. NCNs are likewise responsive, but instead of challenging an utterance’s assertability, they target (like descriptive negation) the truth of the proposition derivable from that utterance. Note that metalinguistic negation, as Horn (1985) originally pointed out, also requires a “correction” like “he’s gigantic” in order to be recognized as such. NCNs, by contrast, require no such correction and can stand alone as proposition denials.

3.  NCNs and NEG-​NADA in BP Non-​canonical negative forms in BP are fairly well known in the literature on NCNs (Schwegler, 1991; Schwenter, 2005; Zanuttini, 1997) because of the wide range of different types found in this variety. Particularly, and somewhat peculiarly, BP has, in addition to its canonical preverbal sentential negative (10a), a “doubled” negative (dupla negação) as in (10b), and a strictly postverbal negative as in (10c): (10)

a. b. c.

Eu não vi a Maria ontem. Eu não vi a Maria ontem não. Eu vi a Maria ontem não. ‘I didn’t see Maria yesterday.’

(NEG1) (NEG2) (NEG3)

120

120  Mary Johnson & Scott A. Schwenter Table 6.1 Parameters of acceptability for NCNs in BP

NEG1 NEG2 NEG3

Monologic

Inferrable

Dialogic

Explicit Activation

OK # #

OK OK #

OK OK OK

OK OK NECESSARY

These three negative forms are now standardly termed NEG1, NEG2, and NEG3 in the literature on NCNs (Schwegler, 1991; Schwenter, 2005; Teixeira de Sousa, 2012), and BP shows variation among all three sentential negative constructions. There is no propositional meaning distinction among the three structures: in (10) they all convey the same semantic content. Where they differ is in their contextual licensing conditions: NEG2 and NEG3 require that the proposition they target be activated (cf. Dryer, 1996) in the ongoing discourse, while NEG1 does not (Schwenter, 2005). In fact, NEG1 can be used in “out of the blue” contexts or in contexts where the negative sentence or utterance is being presented specifically as new information in the discourse. The contexts that license NEG2 and NEG3, conversely, require the proposition being negated to be activated, though not necessarily believed to be true, in the prior context. The most important difference between NEG2 and NEG3 relates to how the proposition that each form negates has been activated in the discourse. Both NEG2 and NEG3 can occur felicitously in the context of a reply to a yes/​no-​question, however only NEG2 can respond to a presupposition inferrable from such a question (Schwenter, 2005). A summary of the licensing differences between the NEG1/​2/​3 forms is presented below. Only NEG1 is acceptable in monologic contexts, where there are no opposing viewpoints at issue. NEG2 is felicitous in inferrable contexts, while NEG3 is not. Both NEG2 and NEG3 require dialogic contexts, typically denials of an interlocutor’s previous assertion, but more generally require access to opposing viewpoints in discourse. Finally, the parameter of explicit activation helps distinguish between NEG2 and NEG3, since the negated proposition in NEG3 contexts must be one that is overtly activated in the discourse. Our discussion of NEG-​NADA will take the parameters in Table 6.1 as its organizing metric. These parameters reveal why NEG1, the strictly preverbal negative construction, is considered the canonical form: It has no restrictions on its contexts of occurrence. Both of the NCN forms in the table, NEG2 and NEG3, are more constrained than NEG1. As will be shown, NEG-​NADA in BP shows considerable similarity with both NEG2 and NEG3 but with different discourse-​pragmatic licensing conditions. The NEG-​NADA construction has the same explicit activation requirement as NEG3, but instead of being a prototypical response to a yes/​no-​ question like NEG3, NEG-​NADA is more commonly found in corrective denial contexts, as in (11):

 121

NEG-NADA: negation in two related languages 121 (11)

A:

Você gostou do filme, né? ‘You liked the film, right?’

B:

Não gostei nada. ‘I didn’t like it (at all).’

There is an ambiguity inherent in B’s response in (11), however, resulting from the quantificational adverbial meaning of nada ‘nothing.’ Given that gostar ‘to like’ is a gradable verb that can be modified by adverbs like muito ‘much,’ algo ‘something,’ and nada, the interpretation of (11) can be taken as referring to a minimal amount of liking the film in question. At the same time, however, nada can be interpreted as referring to the proposition in A’s turn, the confirmation of which is being asked for in the tag question né ‘right.’2 As noted for (7), however, there is a different use of nada that occurs with non-​gradable predicates, and thus cannot be interpreted as conveying the “not at all” meaning. Consider the exchange in (12): (12)

A:

Eu acho que o pai dela já morreu. ‘I think her father already died.’

B:

Não morreu nada. ‘He didn’t die.’

In this context, nada cannot have a degree interpretation, since dying is an all-​or-​nothing act. It is not possible to die “a little” or “a lot” or “not at all,” at least when referring to the literal conception of dying. The only interpretation possible in this case is that nada is an anaphoric element that points back to the proposition expressed by A’s utterance. The interpretational conundrum of an example like (12), however, is that both NEG2 and NEG3 can also occur in this same context, with seemingly the same function (the parentheses around não indicates that either NEG2 or NEG3 are possible in B’s reply): (12)’ A: B:

Eu acho que o pai dela já morreu. ‘I think her father already died.’ (Não) morreu não. ‘He didn’t die.’

So how can we distinguish among these three competing forms, all of which can occur felicitously in the context of (12)? The standard answer to this question, first mentioned by Schwenter (2005) and then further discussed by Cavalcante (2011), is that the NEG-​NADA construction is more “emphatic” than the other competing forms. But emphasis, as has been argued on a number of occasions (Schwenter, 2003, 2005, 2006), is little more than an intuition if

122

122  Mary Johnson & Scott A. Schwenter not defined in explicit fashion (cf. Israel, 2011), and cannot offer predictions about what form will be employed under specific discourse contexts. One way to get at the interpretational differences between these competing forms is to look at what kinds of discourse continuations are (in) compatible with them. This is the strategy employed by Amaral and Schwenter (2009) in their study of English hardly and European Portuguese mal V que S ‘barely V that S’ (where V = an imperfective epistemic state verb and S = a sentential complement), where these are interpreted as negatives. For instance, a discourse continuation that minimizes the effect of an initial negative answer is compatible with canonical no in English replies, but not with hardly: (13)

a.

A: Did you finish writing your chapter? B: No, but I’ll finish it tomorrow.

b.

A: Did you finish writing your chapter? B: #Hardly, but I’ll finish it tomorrow.

The “hardly” response in (13) commits the speaker to a scalar interpretation: On a scale of (being close to) finishing the chapter, B is not close to the state of having finished. The canonical reply with “no,” by contrast, conveys nothing about where B situates herself on the scale. Indeed, note that, for instance, the initial negative reply in (13) would also be compatible with a continuation such as “and I don’t think I’ll ever finish,” thereby showing that no does not commit the speaker to a particular scalar interpretation of the negative response. Returning to Portuguese, we find a similar difference between NEG2/​3 and NEG-​NADA. With NEG2/​3 it is possible to provide a continuation that minimizes or otherwise hedges the negative reply to A’s assertion, as in (14): (14)

A:   Eu acho que o pai dela já morreu.    ‘I think her father already died.’ B:   (Não) morreu não, mas parece que vai morrer logo.    ‘He didn’t die, but it looks like he’s going to die soon.’

However, NEG-​NADA is infelicitous with this kind of continuation. Like “hardly” in English (Amaral & Schwenter, 2009), it commits the speaker to a scalar interpretation of a “strengthened” denial of the assertion by A: (14)’ A: B:

Eu acho que o pai dela já morreu. ‘I think her father already died.’ Não morreu nada, #mas parece que vai morrer logo. ‘He didn’t die, but it looks like he’s going to die soon.’

 123

NEG-NADA: negation in two related languages 123 The scalar interpretation here is anchored in the negative proposition derivable from the assertion with NEG-​NADA. The denial it expresses of a prior proposition must be intuitively understood as situating the negated proposition as far from the truth. Thus, a response with NEG-​NADA is not compatible with a proposition that expresses an approximation to the truth of the proposition that the NEG-​NADA utterance is denying. In the context already provided, then, both a hedging continuation as in (14)’ and one that expresses approximation to the truth of the proposition in the prior turn are infelicitous: (14)’’ A: B:

Eu acho que o pai dela já morreu. ‘I think her father already died.’ Não morreu nada, #mas quase morreu. ‘He didn’t die, but he almost died.’

By contrast, a continuation after NEG-​ NADA that reinforces the strengthened negative interpretation by indexing an opposing scalar viewpoint (here, on a scale of “healthiness”) is perfectly acceptable, as shown in (15). (15)

A:

Eu acho que o pai dela já morreu. ‘I think her father already died.’

B:

Não morreu nada, ele está excelente de saúde! ‘He didn’t die, his health is excellent!’

The intuition about NEG-​NADA being “emphatic,” then, comes from its scalar orientation: It denies the truth of a proposition that is already activated in the discourse (just as NEG2/​3 do) and situates that denial at a scalar extreme that is opposed to the other extreme representing the truth of the proposition (distinctly from NEG 2/​3). This meaning is closely connected to the degree meaning of nada in its adverbial use, where it means “not at all,” in the sense that it minimizes the truth of an activated proposition in the discourse.3 There are two more points to be dealt with before concluding the discussion of NEG-​NADA in BP. The first of these concerns its occurrence in dialogue versus monologue contexts. As the examples thus far suggest, NEG-​NADA is typically found in dialogues, where two speakers disagree about the truth of a discourse-​activated proposition. However, it is possible to find NEG-​NADA in monologic contexts as well, with the proviso that the denial proffered by NEG-​NADA be construed as targeting a proposition that represents an explicitly opposing viewpoint in the discourse context. One such example can be seen in (16), an online report from Brazil about an episode of the U.S. television series Desperate Housewives:

124

124  Mary Johnson & Scott A. Schwenter (16)

Há morte também durante o capítulo. O marido de Bree, […] é dado como morto. “Só que o corpo dele não aparece em nenhum momento,” disse Dávila. “Já tem site especulando que ele não morreu nada, que combinou tudo com os amigos do hospital.” There is also death during the episode. Bree’s husband is given up for dead. “Only his body never appears,” Dávila said. “There are already websites speculating that he didn’t die, that he set everything up with his friends at the hospital.” [http://​noticias.uol.com.br/​uolnews/​cultura/​pop]

In previous examples above (e.g. (12), (15)), preverbal não is an optional element and is actually often elided in BP. Such elision occurs in dialogues, where the responding speaker who utters NEG-​NADA is repeating the verb (and potentially another part of the VP) in order to effect a denial. This option of elision is not possible in (16), a monologic example that nevertheless opposes two clearly articulated viewpoints. The first is that of the television show (and its writers), which advance the storyline that Bree’s husband is dead (italicized). The other viewpoint (in bold and italics) is that of the websites (and their authors) who follow the show, who are speculating that he is not actually dead (far from it!). The felicity of NEG-​NADA in (16) depends on the confrontation of these two opposing viewpoints, and also on their explicit presentation in context. In other words, even in non-​dialogic response contexts, it must be possible to construct a dialogue-​ like opposition where NEG-​ NADA provides a response as the second part of an adjacency pair. This discourse-​pragmatic condition on NEG-​NADA is tied to the structural option of eliding the preverbal não (or any other preverbal negative word), which is only possible in true dialogue contexts, where NEG-​NADA—​or more accurately, (NEG)-​NADA—​is proffered as a proposition denial (cf. Geurts, 1998) of the content derivable from an interlocutor’s prior utterance. There is, then, no reason to distinguish between two “non-​argumental” uses of nada, one with and the other without preverbal negation (cf. Cavalcante, 2012; Pinto, 2010): the possibility of preverbal não elision follows directly as a consequence of the dialogic context. A naturally occurring example of NEG-​NADA in dialogue without preverbal não is given in (17). This example also highlights nicely the anaphoric properties of NEG-​NADA (punctuation presented as in original): (17)

-​acho que nasceu no dia errado. ‘I think you were born on the wrong day.’ -​nasci nada! tenho um feriado só para mim. ‘no I wasn’t! I have a holiday all to myself.’ [www.screamyell.com.br/​]

 125

NEG-NADA: negation in two related languages 125 Here, nada points back to and negates the PP no dia errado ‘on the wrong day.’ That is, the denial is not meant to apply to the meaning of the verb itself (the speaker is not denying that he was born), but rather to the rest of the verb phrase. Clearly, pragmatics play a key role here in ensuring that the target of the denial is worked out correctly. Although preverbal não is absent here, its inclusion would not change the felicity of the example. To sum up this section, we have shown that NEG-​NADA in BP has restrictions similar to those of NEG2/​3, the more well-​studied NCNs in BP. NEG-​NADA is like NEG3 in that it requires explicit activation of the negated proposition in the prior discourse context, but differs from NEG3 (and also from NEG2) in that it proffers a strengthened negation that indexes scalar information via nada. Specifically, it takes an activated proposition p and denies the truth of p, and simultaneously asserts that p’s truth is “minimal,” thereby providing a clear link to nada in its degree adverbial use.

4.  NCNs and NEG-​NADA in AS Compared to BP, relatively less attention has been devoted to the study of NCNs in AS. Recent work in Johnson (2014) discusses an NCN she calls “negative más” in this variety, but little attention has been given to the NEG-​ NADA construction in AS. Di Tullio (2008) concentrates on the distinction between nada as an indefinite pronoun or as a quantifier,4 and what she deems “emphatic” nada; the latter corresponds to what we are calling NEG-​NADA in this chapter. She discusses a series of properties that distinguish NEG-​ NADA from the other uses of nada. Unlike quantifier nada, which can be used as a pronoun or an adverb, NEG-​NADA is not transcategorical. For example, (18) shows how it cannot be replaced by a noun phrase. Furthermore, there are no other words that form a paradigm with NEG-​NADA, like there are for quantifier nada (18). Also, unlike quantifier nada, it is not independent, it cannot stand on its own as an answer to a question (18c). While quantifier nada may allow expansions that make it part of a larger expression (e.g., No le dije nada de lo que había pensado), NEG-​ NADA does not (18d). Furthermore, NEG-​ NADA can never be an argument, and does not serve a syntactic function (18e). NEG-​ NADA can have a [reduplicated] object, but it must be dislocated (18f). Another property that differentiates NEG-​NADA from quantifier/​pronoun nada is that it has a strict immediately post-​verbal position (compare (18e) and (18g)). Lastly, Di Tullio states that NEG-​NADA cannot have any of the meanings associated with a quantifier, such as frequency, duration or intensity. Therefore, only (19a) is NEG-​NADA, while (19b-​d) are quantifier nada. (18)

a.

No se lo dije nada (# ninguna palabra). ‘I didn’t it to tell him/​her (#not a word).’

b.

No se lo dije {*mucho, *algo, nada}. ‘I didn’t it to tell him/​her (*a lot, *something, nada)’

126

126  Mary Johnson & Scott A. Schwenter

(19)

c.

¿Se lo dijiste? ―*Nada. ‘Did you tell it to him/​her? ―*Nada’

d.

No se lo dije nada (*de eso, *parecido, *que haya dicho). ‘I didn’t tell it to him/​her nada (*of that, *similar, *that he/​she said)’

e.

No se lo digo nada a Luisa. ‘I won’t tell it [nada] to Luisa.’

f.

No se lo dije nada | lo que había pensado. ‘I didn’t tell it to him/​her [nada] | what I had thought.’

g.

*No se lo digo a Luisa nada. ‘I won’t tell it to Luisa [nada]’

a. b. c. d.

Ya no corre nada. (= He has stopped doing so regularly) Ya no corre nada. (= He gets tired after just a few minutes). Ya no corre nada. (= He has lost speed). Ya no corre nada. (as an emphatic response to Is he still running?) ‘He doesn’t run anymore [nada]’

Di Tullio’s properties are helpful in understanding how nada in the NEG-​ NADA construction is different from the other uses of nada as an indefinite pronoun or an adverbial quantifier in AS. However, they mostly concentrate on what NEG-​NADA is not and delve less into what it is. What makes NEG-​ NADA in AS intuitively “emphatic”? And how does this “emphasis” compare to the “emphasis” in the construction in BP, which we defined above as being scalar in nature? In order to answer these questions, we must consider the information-​structural constraints on NEG-​NADA in AS, to determine how it accesses the propositional content that it is negating. As mentioned in section 1, NCN uses of NEG-​NADA are most easily recognizable with intransitive, non-​gradable verbs. It is in these cases where nada cannot be interpreted in any way other than an additional negative particle, without pronominal use, and without expressing degree. The verb morir ‘to die’ meets those criteria, since it is both intransitive (one cannot “die” someone or something else) and non-​gradable. In (20) it is apparent that nada is infelicitous as a degree adverb but is in fact felicitous when interpreted as NEG-​NADA. (20)

A:

Me parece que el padre de ella ya murió. ‘I think her father already died.’

B1: No, no murió nada. ‘No, he didn’t die.’ B2: No, no murió nada. Pero parece que ya va a morir. ‘No, he didn’t die. But it looks like he is going to die soon.’

 127

NEG-NADA: negation in two related languages 127 B3: No murió nada, pero casi murió. ‘No, he didn’t die, but he almost died.’ B3: No, no murió nada. Está de muy buena salud. ‘No, he didn’t die. He is in very good health.’ The responses in (20) show that NEG-​NADA in AS is felicitous in contexts where in BP, it would not be, namely where there is a continuation that hedges or further specifies B’s initial negative reply to A’s assertion. In this regard, NEG-​ NADA in AS appears to parallel BP’s NEG2/​3 (cf. Schwenter, 2005), more than BP’s NEG-​NADA. In AS, it is clear that NEG-​NADA does not share the scalar interpretation it has in BP. It is perfectly acceptable to use NEG-​NADA to negate the proposition that the father died, even if the father is in poor health, or is about to die. It does not speak to how close the man came to death. A further exploration of what contexts license NEG-​NADA in AS follows. Let us take (21) as a starting point, where again we have an intransitive, non-​ gradable5 verb (i.e., fue ‘he/​she went’). (21)

A:

Roberto fue a la charla de María. ‘Roberto went to María’s talk.’

B:

No, no fue nada. ‘No, he didn’t go.’

In (21), the response in B denies A’s assertion that Roberto had gone to María’s talk. This assertion is directly asserted, dialogically, in the immediately prior discourse. The interpretation of nada with the intransitive verb ir ‘to go’ in this example cannot make reference to a minimal degree of the realization of the act of going, since what is at issue is the binary distinction between Roberto’s having gone or not having gone to María’s talk. Therefore, the adverb nada cannot be understood as modifying the verb in any way. Another example can be seen with the verb venir ‘to come,’ which has the same restrictions on it as those of ir, in (22). (22)

Abril … me iba a pasar a buscar a mi casa asi ibamos juntas [a la playa] la cosa es que todavia no apareció … encima el viernes pasado me hizo lo mismo, habíamos arreglado y al final no vino nada, bueno la otra vez aviso pero ahora ni siquiera eso. ‘Abril was going to pick me up at my house so we could go together [to the beach] but the thing is that she hasn’t shown up yet. On top of that last Friday she did the same thing, we had plans and in the end she didn’t come (nada), well that time she let me know but this time not even that.’ http://​feeling-​weak.blogspot.com/​

128

128  Mary Johnson & Scott A. Schwenter In (22), the proposition that Abril was going to pick the speaker up was overtly asserted, in this case monologically. The speaker then uses NEG-​ NADA to negate this proposition, saying that Abril did not come, after all. Thus (21) and (22) show that the proposition negated by NEG-​NADA may enter into the discourse both dialogically and monologically. This differs from BP’s NEG-​NADA construction, which is licensed only in dialogic contexts. The proposition denied by NEG-​NADA need not be explicitly activated in the prior discourse, however. In (23), we see an example of nada denying a proposition that was in the implicit common ground, in a context with no immediately prior monologue or dialogue to activate this proposition. (23)

[Context:] A husband and wife expected the plumber to come fix their leaky faucet while they were at work during the day. Upon arriving home before his wife, the husband sees that the plumber did not in fact come and therefore that the faucet remains leaky. When his wife arrives home a short while later, also with the prior expectation that the plumber will have fixed the faucet, the husband breaks the bad news to her: a. El plomero no vino. b. ʻThe plumber didnʼt come.ʼ c. El plomero no vino nada. d. ʻThe plumber didnʼt come (nada).ʼ

In (23), the proposition that the plumber was going to come was presumably part of a prior discourse, making it shared knowledge, but it was not part of the immediately prior discourse. The utterance is a result of the husband’s observation that the plumber had not come. He can use canonical preverbal negation, as in (23), or he can use NEG-​NADA (23), given the shared understanding that the plumber should have come and fixed the faucet by that time. Similarly, the author of the online post in (24) uses NEG-​NADA to negate a proposition that is in the common ground. Bin Laden’s death was notably in the common ground at the time of this online post, since it is from May 5, 2011, just days after his death first made news. (24)

BIN LADEN NO MURIÓ NADA. No les creo nada a los norteamericanos. ¿Tanto les cuesta mostrar la foto de él muerto?… ‘Bin Laden didn’t [actually] die. I don’t believe the North Americans. Is it so hard to show a picture of him dead?’

In (24), this is a response to an article headline about Osama Bin Laden’s plans to attack trains on the 10th anniversary of September 11th, but in the comments section to the article there were many posts about his recent death. Therefore, it can be interpreted that Bin Laden’s death was in the common

 129

NEG-NADA: negation in two related languages 129 ground. However, like the example in (23), this comment was not in response to any specific dialogue about Bin Laden’s death, and as a result was not explicitly activated. An additional way that the negated proposition may enter the discourse is via (an inferred) presupposition, as in (25). (25)

A:   ¿Te gustó la charla de María?      ‘Did you like María’s talk?’ B1:  No fui.     ‘I didn’t go.’ B2:  No fui nada.     ‘I didn’t go nada.’

From the question in (25), B can infer that A believes he went to María’s talk. The use of canonical negation, in B1, would be felicitous in any circumstance in which B did not in fact go to the talk. The response with NEG-​ NADA in B2, however, is felicitous as long as it is entailed by the common ground that B originally planned to go, but later decided not to. Therefore, we might assume that NEG-​NADA presupposes a change. However, the example in (26) shows us that this is not the case. (26)

[Context: shared assumption that B was not going to María’s talk] A:   ¿Al final, fuiste a la charla de María?     ‘In the end, did you go to Maria’s talk? B1:  No, no fui. B2:  No, no fui nada.     ‘No, I didn’t go.’

In (26), both A and B know that B never intended to go to the talk. A’s question is not based on any prior belief that B had gone, and B knows this. However, A  inquires about whether B had changed his mind. Therefore, A  brings the possibility of B going to María’s talk back into the common ground. This is what licenses B to respond with NEG-​NADA, in (26)B2. Recall that NCNs tend to differ from canonical negatives in that they are licensed only in contexts where prior propositional content is assumed. In (26), then, NEG-​NADA is accepted as expected, since A brings the possibility of B going to María’s talk back into the discourse. What NEG-​NADA does, then, is negate a proposition that is available in the common ground. This can be further demonstrated by its use in a question, in (27). (27)

A:   No fuiste nada al gimnasio ayer?     ‘You didn’t go to the gym yesterday?’

130

130  Mary Johnson & Scott A. Schwenter B:   Si nunca tenía pensado ir.     ‘(Si) I never planned to go!’ In (27), NEG-​NADA in A’s question indicates that B going to the gym was in the common ground. From B’s response, it is clear that he is rejecting the truth of this proposition in the common ground. Further evidence of the assumed presence of this proposition can be seen in the use of discourse marker si. Schwenter (1998, 2002) demonstrates that discourse marker si is used to negate the relevance of a prior assertion. It has also been used as a test for non-​propositional meaning in Spanish (Johnson, 2016 a & b). In (27), instead of responding about whether or not he in fact went to the gym yesterday, B denies A’s assumption that he was ever going to go. In doing so, he rejects the notion that his going to the gym was in the common ground. A parallel can be drawn between this use of NEG-​NADA in AS, and the use of NEG2 in BP (Schwenter, 2005), as in (28): (28)

A:  *Não foi ontem na academia nada? A’:   Não foi ontem na academia não?     ‘You didn’t go to the gym yesterday?’ B:   Não, mas nem pensava ir.     ‘No, but I didn’t plan to go.’

Because BP’s NEG-​NADA is only possible in declarative assertions, the question in (28A) is impossible with the intended meaning (it could be understood, alternatively, as referring to the number of times that B went to the gym, but this meaning is irrelevant in [32]). However, when asked with NEG2 (in 28A), the BP version works just like NEG-​NADA in AS. B’s response still serves to reject A’s assumption that he intended to go to the gym. If the restrictions that apply to BP’s NEG-​NADA do not apply to AS’s NEG-​NADA where, then, is it not used in AS? The constructed example in (33) demonstrates that if the proposition being denied is not already entailed in or implicated by the common ground, then NEG-​NADA would not occur. (29)

A:

¿Viste que a Nico se le murió el viejo anoche? ‘Did you hear that Nico’s dad died last night?’

B1: Uh que mal. Mi viejo no se ha muerto (#nada) todavía pero me imagino que te sentís re mal. ‘Uh, how bad. My dad hasn’t died (#nada) yet but I imagine you feel really bad.’ B2: Uh que mal. Yo sé lo feo que es eso. Bueno, mi viejo no se ha muerto nada todavía pero mi mamá sí y te sentís re mal. ‘Uh, how bad. I know how bad that is. Well, my dad hasn’t died nada yet but my mom has, and you feel really bad.’

 131

NEG-NADA: negation in two related languages 131 Table 6.2 Parameters of acceptability for NEG-​NADA in AS & BP, and NEG2 in BP

AS NEG-​NADA BP NEG-​NADA BP NEG2

Not in CG

Inferrable

Monologic

Dialogic

Explicit Activation

# # #

OK # OK

OK # #

OK OK OK

OK OK OK

The response in B1 would be infelicitous with NEG-​NADA, since it denies a non-​existent proposition that the speaker’s father had died. In B2, the speaker adds information that may be construed to implicate that his father may have also died, and therefore the use of NEG-​NADA to deny this implicature becomes felicitous. What we have seen is that while the NEG-​NADA constructions in BP and AS are similar in form, the contextual licensing conditions are quite different, and the meanings that they convey in the discourse are also distinct. In BP, the proposition must be directly activated by the immediately prior discourse, either monologically or dialogically. Preverbal não may be elided in dialogic contexts. In AS, preverbal no is always obligatory in the NEG-​NADA construction. NEG-​NADA in AS is less restricted than that of BP, since it is licensed to negate any proposition in the common ground, be it activated monologically, dialogically, or inferrable. Nevertheless, the discourse constraints on NEG-​NADA in AS more closely parallel those of another NCN in BP, namely NEG2 (Schwenter 2005). The constraints on these NCNs are depicted in Table 6.2.

5.  Conclusions We have shown that despite the existence of formally nearly identical constructions in BP and AS, there are noteworthy, and simultaneously subtle, discourse-​pragmatic differences between them. We have fleshed out the intuitive notion of emphasis that has been suggested as a descriptor of the NEG-​ NADA construction in both languages, and demonstrated that this notion differs across BP and AS. In BP, the intuitive emphasis in NEG-​NADA stems from its scalar orientation, and in how it situates the denial of a proposition p at a point that is extreme on a scale of truth from the interlocutor’s hypothesized truth value for p. The connection between this use and the adverbial use of nada is evident in BP, since both serve to express minimization in discourse, but at different levels (adverbial modification versus utterance-​and truth-​based minimization). In AS, no such scalar interpretation is found for NEG-​NADA. The licensing of the construction relies on the presence in the common ground of the proposition being negated. AS NEG-​NADA is comparatively much less restricted than the counterpart BP construction, and comparatively much less emphatic, since it does not carry out strengthened negation. This is demonstrated in (20), where the felicity of NEG-​NADA in

132

132  Mary Johnson & Scott A. Schwenter AS does not change across possible responses, even though the nearness of the truth of the state of affairs at issue (in this case, death), as indicated by the possible continuations, does change. More generally, once again we see in the analysis of NEG-​NADA that NCNs display information-​structural constraints that are sensitive to how the proposition being denied has entered the discourse model (cf. Amaral & Schwenter, 2009). Activation, truth-​value, common ground status, and dialogue versus monologue discourse type are all relevant notions for distinguishing NEG-​ NADA from other NCNs both within and across languages. As a result, any theoretical model of information structure will need to include these fine-​grained distinctions in order to reflect the complexity of the phenomena. The choice of negative construction, and particularly between canonical negatives and NCNs, is similar to the choice between competing word orders and syntactic constructions (cf. Birner & Ward, 2009): NCNs (or non-​canonical word orders) are not only used less frequently than their canonical counterparts, but are also much more highly constrained by discourse context. What we are finding as we study more and more NCNs is that the micropragmatic details of these constraints are much more complex than we ever imagined.

Notes 1 For colloquial spoken/​ written BP, this is not completely true. When negative indefinites occur in postverbal position, they do not always occur in tandem with preverbal negation—​i.e., negative concord in colloquial BP is variable (Agostini & Schwenter, 2015; cf. Cyrino & Biberauer, 2009; Fonseca, 2004). 2 Syntactic tests also help reveal the differences between the negative indefinite meaning of nada as pronoun or adverb and its meaning as part of the NEG-​NADA construction. For example, fronting or clefting of nada are only possible with the negative indefinite interpretation, while in NEG-​NADA nada must be postverbal. The tests to distinguish the different meanings/​uses of AS nada in section 3 apply as well to BP nada. 3 Cavalcante (2012) claims that nada in the NEG-​NADA construction no longer functions as a minimizer. While this may be true, strictly speaking, when considering the relationship between nada in NEG-​NADA and its degree adverbial use, it fails to capture the semantic/​pragmatic similarities in the expression of “minimization” by each use. 4 Di Tullio (2008) refers to both of these uses as quantifiers. 5 If fue or any form of the verb ir ‘to go’ is used habitually then gradable modification is possible: Ella fue mucho a trabajar ‘She went to work a lot.’ However a unique event of going does not allow for gradability.

References Agostini, T., & Schwenter, S. A. (2015, September). Variable negative concord in Brazilian Portuguese: Acceptability and frequency. Paper presented at the Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, University of Illinois at Urbana-​Champaign.

 133

NEG-NADA: negation in two related languages 133 Alkmim, M. (2002). Negativa pré-​e pós-​verbal: implementação e transição. In M. A. Cohen & J. Ramos (Eds.), Dialeto mineiro e outras falas (pp. 169–​182). Belo Horizonte: FALE/​ UFMG (Colegiado de Gradução da Facultade de Letras /​ Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais). Amaral, P. M., & Schwenter, S. A. (2009). Discourse and scalar structure in non-​ canonical negation. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35, 367–​378. Birner, B. J., & Ward, G. (2009). Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1167–​1187. Bond, O. (2013). A base for canonical negation. In D. Brown et al. (Eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax (pp. 20–​47). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carston, R. (1996). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 309–​330. Cavalcante, R. (2009). A negação sentencial. In D. Lucchesi (Ed.), O português afro-​ brasileiro (pp. 251–​267). Salvador: Editora da Universidade Federal da Bahia. Cavalcante, R. (2011, December). Negação enfática e negação exclamativa. Paper presented at Pós-​ Graduação em Letras e Linguística (PPGLL), Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brazil. Cavalcante, R. (2012, August). Qual o marcador negativo enfático no português brasileiro? Paper presented at the Workshop Interfaces, Universidade de Campinas. Cinque, G. (1976). Mica. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Padova, 1, 101–​112. Cyrino, S., & Biberauer, T. (2009, December). Appearances are deceptive: Jespersen’s Cycle from the perspective of the Romania Nova and Romance-​based creoles. Paper presented at the 23rd Going Romance Conference in Nice, France. Dahl, Ö. (1979). Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics, 17, 79–​106. Di Tullio, Á. L. (2008). Palabras negativas en contexto enfático: nada, ningún. Unpublished Handout. Dryer, M. S. (1996). Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 475–​523. Espinal, M. T. (1993). The interpretation of no-​pas in Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 353–​369. Fonseca, H. D. C. (2004). Marcador negativo final no português brasileiro. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos, 46,  5–​19. Fretheim, T. 1984. Denials and Other Negatives. In K. Bergslund (Ed.), Riepmocála, Essays in honour of Knut Bergslund: Presented on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (pp. 49–​65). Oslo: Novus Forlag. Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Geurts, B. (1998). The mechanisms of denial. Language, 74, 274–​307. Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press. Hansen, M-​B. M., & Visconti, J. (2009). On the diachrony of “reinforced” negation in French and Italian. In C. Rossari et al. (Eds.), Grammaticalization and pragmatics (pp. 137–​171). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61, 121–​174. Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

134

134  Mary Johnson & Scott A. Schwenter Horn, L. R. (2002). Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing. Chicago Linguistic Society, 38(2),  55–​82. Israel, M. (2011). The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jespersen, O. (1917). Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Høst and Son. Johnson, M. C. (2014, October). Negative más constructions in Argentinian Spanish. Paper presented at the 2nd Conference of the American Pragmatics Association, University of California at Los Angeles. Johnson, M. C. (2016a). Epistemicity in voseo and tuteo negative commands in Argentinian Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 97,  37–​54. Johnson, M. C. (2016b). Pragmatic variation in voseo and tuteo negative commands in Argentinian Spanish. In M. I. Moyna & S. Rivera-​Mills (Eds.), Forms of address in Spanish across the Americas (pp. 127–​148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martins, A. M. (2014). How much syntax is there in metalinguistic negation? Natural language and linguistic theory, 32, 635–​672. Miestamo, M. (2005). Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pinto, C. (2010). Negação metalinguística e estructuras com nada no Português Europeu (Master’s Thesis, Universidade de Lisboa). Retrieved from http://​repositorio.ul.pt/​ bitstream/​10451/​4245/​1/​ulfl078524_​tm.pdf. Schwegler, A. (1991). Predicate negation in contemporary Brazilian Portuguese: A change in progress. Orbis, 34, 187–​214. Schwenter, S. A. (2002). Discourse markers and the PA/​SN distinction. Journal of Linguistics, 38,  43–​69. Schwenter, S. A. (2003). No and tampoco: A pragmatic distinction in Spanish negation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 999–​1030. Schwenter, S. A. (2005). The pragmatics of negation in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua, 115, 1427–​1456. Schwenter, S. A. (2006). Fine-​tuning Jespersen’s Cycle. In B. J. Birner & G. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-​Gricean studies in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp. 327–​344). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schwenter, S. A. (2016). Some issues in Portuguese negation. In J. Costa et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Portuguese linguistics (pp. 425–​440). Oxford: Blackwell. Teixeira de Sousa, L. (2012). Sintaxe e interpretação de negativas sentenciais no português brasileiro (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Stadual de Campinas, Unicamp). Retrieved from www.bibliotecadigital.unicamp.br/​document/​?code=000877868. Thompson, S. A. (1998). A discourse explanation for the cross-​linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogation and negation. In A. Sierwiska & J. J. Song (Eds.), Case, typology, and grammar: In honor of Barry Blake (pp. 307–​340). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tottie, G. (1991). Negation in English speech and writing. New York, NY: Academic  Press. Zanuttini, R. (1997). Negation and clausal structure: A comparative study of Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 135

7  Wheat and pimples Toward a prototypical, individualized approach to understanding metaphor Ana M. Anderson

1.  Introduction Imagine living in 17th-​century Madrid. You walk through the streets at midnight, and suddenly a dark figure emerges from the shadows. Sword in hand, it advances menacingly on you. You try to run, but find yourself trapped against a wall. There is no way out, and you are literally “entre la espada y la pared” (literally ‘between the sword and the wall,’ or roughly, ‘between a rock and a hard place’). Though occasions for literal use of this phrase are less than common in the 21st century, it is still used metaphorically to describe situations in which “tienes que tomar una decision y no te queda otro remedio” ‘You have to make a decision, and you have no other option,’ according to a native Spanish speaker from Spain. Despite being a metaphor, it is not surprising that this phrase still evokes images of fencing and duels, at least for some speakers, as in (1): (1)

R: Estar entre la espada y la pared … viene … de los duelos antiguos todo eso, y: si estás entre la espada y la pared es que tienes que … tomar una decisión y y no te queda otro remedio porque … si estás entre la espada y la pared no te puedes mover eh sino te pueden hacer daño con una con la espada, y bueno no puedes estar más pa atrás, tienes que decidir algo porque chocas contra la pared. R: Being between the sword and the wall … it comes … from the old duels and all that, and if you’re between the sword and the wall it’s like you have to … make a decision and you have no other option because … if you’re between the sword and the wall you can’t move or else they could hurt you with the sword, and well you can’t back up, you have to decide something because you’re up against the wall.1

Here, R begins by explicitly stating her belief that the expression originates in a dueling culture, and then she uses a series of metaphoric statements to superimpose the image of a duel on a situation in which “tienes que tomar una decision.”

136

136  Ana M. Anderson Despite the strong imagery in this statement, it is unclear whether this would be considered an example of what Lakoff and Turner (1989) call “image metaphors.” These authors propose a categorical division between image metaphors and conceptual metaphors; however, this distinction may not adequately represent human cognitive experience. Deignan (2007, p. 174) argues that it does not, stating that such a categorical distinction “fails to capture the imagistic quality” of many metaphors that would not be considered image metaphors, strictly speaking, under Lakoff and Turner’s classification. The following is from a pilot study investigating the relationship between metaphors and image in the minds of two native speakers of Castilian Spanish. This takes the work of Deignan (2007) a step further by analyzing real data from speakers rather than relying solely on personal intuition. In what follows, I  briefly explain relevant aspects of Lakoff and Turner’s typology of metaphor and of prototype theory. After providing evidence from the data collected, I argue that a prototypical understanding of metaphor is indeed more adequate than a dichotomous classification system, and I briefly suggest the promise of dialogical theory to provide an appropriate basis for understanding how individuals process metaphor in online language use. The exploration of dialogicality and metaphor processing is left for future investigation.

2.  Classification of metaphor According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), metaphor is a relationship which serves to structure comprehension of a target entity in terms of a source entity. A straightforward example is the conceptual metaphor, TIME IS MONEY, in which time is conceived of in monetary terms, giving rise to common expressions such as “spend time” in English and “ahorrar tiempo” in Spanish.2 Lakoff and Johnson argue that these structuring relationships are an integral part of any culture’s way of seeing the world, and that it is impossible to understand or relate to the world—​and therefore to communicate—​without relying on metaphor. Although this model has been criticized by some theorists (see, for example, McGlone (2007)), the present chapter follows Lakoff and Turner (1989) in adopting Lakoff and Johnson’s model in order to best problematize their “image metaphor” concept. Lakoff and Turner (1989) distinguish between various types of metaphor, claiming that the most generalized, omnipresent types are the conceptual metaphors exemplified by the TIME IS MONEY mapping given previously. As their name implies, a conceptual metaphor structures one concept in terms of another (Lakoff & Turner 1989, p. 51). These metaphors are highly conventional and automatic, and “there are a great number of words and idiomatic expressions in our language whose interpretations depend upon those conceptual metaphors” (p. 51). It is important to note that, in part because of its conventionality, a metaphor may not always be directly recognized as such by all speakers. Additionally, although conceptual metaphors can often be

 137

An approach to understanding metaphor 137 extended through a wide variety of expressions all based on the same mapping (e.g., “save,” “spend,” “waste,” and “budget” time), they are also, by necessity, only partial structurings: Not every aspect of the source concept has a target equivalent, nor is every target concept conceived of in source concept terms. As an extreme example of the partiality of metaphoric entailment, Lakoff and Turner (1989) present the “image metaphor.” They propose that image metaphors, unlike conceptual metaphors, have as their focus a strong and rich mental image. They refer to these as “one-​shot metaphors” due to the “proliferation of detail” that “limits image-​mappings to highly specific cases” (p. 91). Because of this, image metaphors are not considered conceptual metaphors, since the application of the former lacks the inferential structures and the extendibility of the latter. Deignan (2007) strongly criticizes this rigid classification. She reasons that some conceptual metaphors also evoke a strong mental image, giving as an example the expression “dig one’s heels in.” She argues that this is an instantiation of the conceptual metaphor PROGRESS IS MOTION FORWARD. However, she also claims that this expression carries with it the image of someone or something “leaning backwards, their heels pushed firmly into the ground, while an unseen force tries to pull them forwards as they resist” (p. 173). Despite Lakoff and Turner’s insistence on maintaining a distinction between the two, Deignan (2007) offers this and several other examples of metaphorical expressions that are both conceptual and imagistic, thus casting doubt on the division. She does not deny, however, that many of the examples proposed by Lakoff and Turner do seem to be neatly classifiable. Thus, the present work examines the appropriateness of an overlapping and prototypical approach to metaphor. The following section briefly explains prototypicality and gives examples of two previous studies whose results can be taken to support such a model.

3.  Prototypes and metaphor Taylor (2007) presents prototypicality as closely related to our perception of a hierarchy of membership in a category. Whenever a category is not discrete, it is likely prototypical, with some members who fully exhibit all the central characteristics of the category and some who have very few of these elements. For example, consider the category “chair.” A prototypical example of this category might be a dining room chair: It has four legs, a well-​defined shape, and can be used by anyone for sitting. Less prototypical examples of this category might be a recliner, a wheelchair, or a high chair, all of which deviate to some extent from the “central” characteristics of the category “chair,” but all of which are still clearly chairs. However, it may be less clear whether a stool or a loveseat should be considered an example of a “chair,” or at what point a piece of furniture fully ceases to be chair-​like. As applied to metaphor, then, it seems reasonable to suspect prototypicality whenever borders between concepts seem fuzzy. This has previously been shown to be the case for some types of metaphors, particularly with regard to

138

138  Ana M. Anderson idioms and to so-​called “dead” metaphors. Hellin García (2008) defines dead metaphors as those that are no longer recognized as metaphors by speakers, indicating that “a metaphor may lose degree [sic] of ‘metaphoricity,’ and as a consequence a speaker may recognize it as such or not” (p. 80). The reference in this quote to degrees of metaphoricity indicates that dead metaphors are prototypical, from which it follows naturally that some metaphors are easily recognized as such, others may be recognized with difficulty, and some may be completely unrecognizable. Gibbs and O’Brien (1990) also examine dead metaphors, but in the specific context of idioms. Their study contradicts the traditional position that assumes that idioms, which originated as metaphors, are now dead in that their sense cannot be recovered from the individual components of the phrase. They demonstrate that in many cases speakers do possess an understanding of the metaphoric underpinnings of idioms, and they further indicate that speakers’ explanations of these idioms surprisingly often have very specific common elements. Significantly, they also show that in many cases speakers’ mental representations also contain strong images, which Deignan (2007) cites as evidence for her argument that image and conceptual metaphors sometimes coincide. These studies suggest that a prototypical approach to the broad concept of metaphor and idiom may be appropriate, and the present study examines whether these hints at prototypicality also hold for image metaphors. If such a conceptualization—​in which both extendibility and imagistic quality are taken as continuous and variable properties—​is adequate, one would expect to find conceptual metaphors that are completely devoid of imagery but also some that provoke rich images. Likewise, strongly imagistic metaphors should vary in their extendibility. What follows is a pilot study analyzing imagistic qualities, or the lack thereof, in explanations of various metaphors obtained from two native Spanish speakers from Spain.

4.  Methodology Two informants, both college-​educated women from Galicia between the ages of 26 and 28, participated in this study. Both are bilingual in Spanish and Galician, and both have a basic knowledge of other languages, including English. For this pilot study, I compiled a list of 57 metaphorical statements and asked both informants to explain them.3 Metaphors were chosen based on a web search and on my own experiences in Galicia, and the final list was verified by a native speaker before the participants were interviewed. The metaphors chosen were of varying types with respect to Lakoff and Turner’s (1989) typology, including both conceptual and image metaphors (by the researcher’s judgment), as well as metaphors assumed to be “dead” and some common idiomatic expressions. A  mix of topics was chosen, with several

 139

An approach to understanding metaphor 139 examples involving laughter and hunger, but with many phrases unrelated to others in the list. Each speaker was orally presented with each metaphor one at a time, in alphabetical order by first word. They were asked to respond to the following three questions for each phrase: (1) ¿Puedes darme un ejemplo en que se usaría esta expresión? 2. ¿Qué quiere decir? 3. ¿Por qué significa eso?4 Both conversations took place via Skype and were recorded. They were later transcribed by the researcher, and the analysis was performed based on the transcriptions.

5.  Analysis 5.1  “One-​shot” metaphors As previously indicated, Lakoff and Turner (1989) use the term “one-​shot” to describe metaphors limited to a very particular circumstance, and they employ this term synonymously with “image metaphor.” However, the data collected indicate that not all “one-​shot” metaphors behave the same way, as seen in examples (2) and (3). (2)

R: Media naranja, … se suele decir en plan romántico ¿no? Es mi media naranja ¿no? Mi novio, el chico que que, l-​l-​la persona que te complementa, se supone que es yo soy media naranja, tú eres otra media naranja, juntos hacemos una naranja. R: Orange half, … it’s usually said like romantically, right? He’s my orange half, right? My boyfriend, the guy that that, th-​th-​the person who complements you, it’s like I’m one orange half you are another orange half, together we make an orange.

(3)

M: ¿A toda leche? … Eso es muy coloquial. A: Aha. ¿En qué se usaría? M: … Pues cuando andas estresado andas a toda leche. A: De acuerdo. Y ¿por qué significa eso? M: … Pues no sé, pregúntale a quien inventó esa frase, bien fue fumado o: bebido, no sé qué estaba pensando. M: At full milk? … It’s very colloquial. A: Uh huh. When would it be used? M: … Well when you’re going around stressed you’re going at full milk.

140

140  Ana M. Anderson A: Agreed. And, why does it mean that? M: … Well I don’t know, ask whoever invented the phrase, maybe they were high or drunk, I don’t know what they were thinking. In (2), the one-​shot metaphor “media naranja” is also an image metaphor in that the image of two lovers is juxtaposed with the image of two orange halves that come together to make a whole orange. There is not an extended conceptual system that links the structure of a romantic relationship with the structure of an orange—​we do not talk about the peel of the relationship or about juicing it—​it’s a metaphor that does not extend beyond this one instance, and thus it is an example par excellence of what Lakoff and Turner (1989) call an image metaphor. However, the correspondence between lack of extendibility and image metaphor is proved problematic in (3). “A toda leche” is clearly metaphorical since milk is not generally associated in its literal sense with stress. It is also a one-​shot metaphor in that it is not extendible: No one talks about having low stress as going “a poca leche” ‘at little milk’ or “a media leche” ‘at half milk,’ for example. However, despite M’s clear ability to understand the meaning of “a toda leche,” the metaphor does not appear to provoke a clear image in her mind; indeed, she has difficulty explaining the logic behind the phrase at all, making this a dead, “one-​shot” metaphor that does not correspond with an image metaphor. This is not to say that when it was first introduced in society the phrase may not have been accompanied by an image, but at the present time any image that may have once existed appears to have lost its relevance, at least for these two modern speakers. 5.2  Conceptual metaphors with hunger, laughter, and secrets In this study the informants were asked to comment on several metaphors related to hunger, and one of the underlying conceptual metaphors that drives these examples is HUNGER IS AN OBJECT. This conceptual metaphor is present in expressions such as “dar hambre” and “tener hambre,” and both of these are examples that Lakoff and Turner (1989) could use to support their division between conceptual and image metaphors. Explanations of these phrases from both participants totally lacked visual elements, as can be seen in examples (4) and (5): (4)

R: Bueno, em, dar se usa no sólo para que te den cosas sino pa que algo a ti te da. Me dan ganas de hacer tal cosa, me dan ganas de comer, pues me da hambre o me da envidia. O sea el verbo mm se usa mucho así en ese tipo de de expresiones, o sea no es especial:mente una expresión hecha. R: Well, um, give is used not only when people give you things but when something gives to you. It gives me desire to do this thing, it gives me desire to eat, well it gives me hunger or it gives me envy. In other words the verb, mm, is used a lot in that type of expressions, in other words it’s not particularly a fixed expression.

 141

An approach to understanding metaphor 141 (5)

M: Tener hambre. Tener hambre es lo que se tiene cuando llega la hora de comer o cuando lleva mucho tiempo sin comer. A: Vale. Y: ¿por qué significa eso? M: Porque yo tengo hambre. Claro. … Sí, no hay otra expresión para decirlo tampoco. … Sí, tengo hambre. Sí, es que no hay otra expresión. M: To have hunger. To have hunger is what you have when it’s time to eat or when it’s been a long time since you ate. A: Okay. And why does it mean that? M: Because I have hunger. Obviously. … Yeah, there isn’t another way to say it either. … Yeah, I have hunger. Yeah, there’s not another expression.

In the second example, the speaker has difficulty even finding other ways to paraphrase the metaphor. It’s a metaphor that, in Hellin García’s (2008) terms, has lost some of its metaphoricity; speakers no longer recognize it as figurative language. This conventionalization can also be seen in the Real Academia Española’s entry for tener, which gives “experiencing” things such as hunger, shame, and fear as a possible definition of the word, despite the fact that according to Lakoff and Johnson (1980) this is a metaphorical rather than a literal meaning of the word. The same type of conventionalization is seen in the explanations for the other hunger metaphors analyzed (“quedarse con hambre,” “ataque de hambre,” and “aguantar el hambre”); these are all instantiations of highly conventionalized conceptual metaphors, and they completely lack imagistic associations. One might expect the same to hold for conceptual metaphors related to laughter, and for some, such as LAUGHTER IS AN ILLNESS (“morirse de risa,” “contagiar la risa”) and LAUGHTER IS WAR (“provocar la risa,” “ataque de risa”) this does seem to be the case. However, the participants did give some examples that complicate the situation, such as in the phrase “no puede contener la risa” and in “me sale la risa.” The conceptual metaphors THE HUMAN IS A CONTAINER and LAUGHTER IS AN ANIMATE BEING are at play here, as can be seen in (6): (6)

R: Contener, vale. E:m viene de un contenedor. Un recipiente ¿no? Entonces no, eh, o sea algo está contenido en un contendedor o: se va del contenedor y:, em, por eso no te puedes contener….Es como si tú fueras un recipiente y la risa saliera. R: Contain, okay. Um it comes from a container. A receptacle, right? So no, uh, that is something is contained in a container or it leaves the container and, um, so you can’t contain yourself … It’s as if you were a receptacle and the laughter left.

This representation is somewhat difficult to classify; though it does have some elements that suggest imagery, such as painting the human body as a

142

142  Ana M. Anderson container, it hardly contains the “proliferation of detail” that Lakoff and Turner (1989) say is characteristic of image metaphors. M’s representation in (7) is somewhat more visual: (7)

M: Cuando tú contienes la risa, … normalmente el contener es agarrar algo, y cuando agarras algo es porque algo se mueve mucho porque tiene muchas ganas de salir. M: When you contain laughter, … normally containing is holding on to something, and when you hold onto something it’s because something is moving a lot because it really wants to get away.

Here it is much easier to visualize a person holding a laughter-​animal in her hands trying to keep it from escaping, while the laughter-​animal itself squirms desperately. It seems that, at least for one of the participants, this conceptual metaphor also is imagistic. A second problematic case with respect to laughter was elicited by the expression “partirse de risa.” It appears to form part of the conceptual metaphor HUMOR IS A  CUTTING OBJECT, together with phrases such as “mondarse de risa” and the description of a “sharp” sense of humor. For one of the speakers this does not evoke a strong image, as can be seen in (8): (8)

R: Partirse de risa, pues, pues eso es lo mismo de morirse, partirse, mondarse, va por ahí todo, ¿no? … es eso, partirse, porque cuando te ríes te, te duele el estómago, te doblas, es como si te partieras, pues es lo mismo. R: To split from laughter, well, well that is the same thing as dying, splitting, scalping, they’re all along the same lines, right? … It’s this, to split, because when you laugh your, your stomach hurts, you bend over, it’s as if you were splitting, well it’s the same thing. However, for M, the result is drastically different:

(9)

M: Hay una expresión en España, pero es que eso lo tengo que hacer en video. Esto es me parto de la risa. Me parto y me mondo. Es como cuando tú cortas una manzana, que te parte, vale, pues tú cuando te estás riendo mucho, tú estás ajajajajajaja [speaker presses her arms to her stomach, imitating a knife], es como si te estuvieras partiendo. M: There is this expression in Spain, but this I have to do on video. This is I split from laughter. I split and I scalp myself. It’s like when you cut an apple, it splits, okay, well when you are laughing a lot, you are all ahahahahahaha [speaker presses her arms to her stomach, imitating a knife], it’s as if you were splitting yourself.

 143

An approach to understanding metaphor 143 Not only does M overlap the image of an apple with the human body verbally, she also supports her explanation with gestures that are highly relevant to this image. She physically demonstrates the act of cutting herself like an apple by pretending that her arms are a knife that, as she laughs, apply pressure and split her in half. This is a clear example of an image being associated with the expression of a conceptual metaphor. A similar overlapping of words and gestures occurs with the conceptual metaphors A SECRET IS A PRECIOUS POSSESSION and THE HUMAN IS A  CONTAINER, represented by the phrase “guardar un secreto.” R describes it thus: (10)

R: Supongo que es e:h si alguien te cuenta algo y no lo vas a decir, como que: haces un compartimento en algún lugar de tu: cuerpo, tu cerebro y que lo: pones allí, como si fuera un cajón. Entonces la idea es guardarlo. R: I suppose that it’s u:h if someone tells you something and you’re not going to say it, as if you make a compartment in some part of your body, your brain and then you put it there, as if it were a box. So the idea is to safeguard it.

For her, this metaphor evokes the image of a compartment within the human body in which you can store things you do not want to reveal. If the box is closed, others will not be able to see what you have inside. M presents the same image in (11), but she takes it a step further by adding the physical manifestation in (12): (11)

M: Un secreto es algo tan valioso que … es como meterlo en una caja donde nadie lo encuentre, entonces lo guardas. Si no, si lo tuvieras colgado en un sitio o: tal allí lo podría ver pero si tú tienes algo guardado nadie lo puede ver. M: A secret is something so valuable that … it’s like putting it in a box where no one will find it, so you safeguard it. Otherwise, if you had it hanging up somewhere or something there others could see it but if you have it safeguarded no one can see it.

(12)

M: Pues guardártelo es como, como hacen los niños pequeños, que cierras la cremallera y te pones el candado [gesture of closing her mouth with a zipper and turning a key]. M: Well safeguarding it is like, like the little kids do, you close the zipper and you put on the lock [gesture of closing her mouth with a zipper and turning a key].

In this case, adding the corresponding gesture to the words “cierras la cremallera” does not leave much doubt that her intention is to transmit the image of a person who, instead of lips, has a zipper that can be closed so that

144

144  Ana M. Anderson the person does not talk and let the secret out. Her specification that this is “como hacen los niños pequeños” is interesting in that it implies that, at least in this case, the correspondence between the metaphor and the image is widespread in the society. 5.3  Idiosyncrasies Though Lakoff and Turner (1989) describe metaphors as cultural artifacts shared by speakers, and despite the fact that some examples such as (12) support the socially shared nature of metaphor, this explanation on its own does not seem to adequately explain the variation found between participants with respect to some metaphors. The expression “se me fue la olla,” for example, evokes an imagistic explanation from both participants, but the images in question differ from one another, as can be seen in examples (13) and (14). (13)

M: Sí, se me fue la olla, pues normalmente cuando … de pronto estás pensando en tus cosas y:: vuelves a escuchar una conversación y dices, pues, me acabo de perder, se me fue la olla…la olla es la cabeza…Yo creo que … cuando tú estás cocinando a veces salta, a veces la comida salta cuando fríes algo, y entonces pienso que pues a lo mejor pues viene de ahí, de que a lo mejor llega un momento en el que estás tan cansado de pensar o de tal que de pronto ya te va la olla. M: Yeah, the pot got away from me, well normally when … suddenly you’re thinking about your own things and you start listening to the conversation again and you say, well, I’m lost, the pot got away from me … the pot is your head … I think that … when you are cooking sometimes it jumps out, sometimes the food jumps out when you fry something, and so I think that perhaps, well, it comes from there, maybe from when there’s a moment when you’re so tired of thinking or such that suddenly the pot gets away from you.

(14)

R: Se me fue la olla. Eh como si las ollas se fueron solas a algún lado. … se usa como excusa para cualquier cosa, o sea si no hiciste algo y alguien te pregunta, se me fue la olla, em pues se te olvidó algo, pues se me fue la olla. … No sé de dónde viene ni me lo imagino, es en plan de una olla se pone a andar y se va a algún lado. R: The pot got away from me. Uh as if pots went off somewhere by themselves … It’s used as an excuse for anything, like if you didn’t do something and someone asks you, the pot got away from me, um well you forgot something, well the pot got away from me … I don’t know where it comes from and I can’t imagine, it’s like a pot decides to start walking and goes off somewhere.

 145

An approach to understanding metaphor 145 In (13), M’s mental image is that of fried food getting out of the pan due to lack of attention from the cook, whereas R’s image in (14) features an animate pot deciding on its own to walk away without the person’s permission. While the general use of the phrase described by each speaker is essentially the same—​something slipped someone’s mind—​the images it creates for each speaker are very different. Thus, it appears that, aside from lexical commonalities, mental representations of metaphors for different speakers need not be directly related to one another. Neither is it the case that speakers’ mental representations always follow the same logical motivation behind the metaphor’s initial formation. A surprising example of this was found for the expression “directo al grano.” This expression comes from the source domain of wheat, which has two parts: the chaff and the grain. The chaff is worthless and inedible, and so is discarded, while the essential part of the plant is the grain. In this sense, going “directo al grano” ‘straight to the grain’ implies that someone gets straight to the most important point. This same meaning is the one the expression conveys today, at least for these two participants. However, both have constructed for themselves a different image and explanation that are unrelated to wheat, as can be seen in (15) and (16). (15)

M: Directo al grano. Mm. Bueno, yo creo, no sé, no estoy muy segura de dónde sale esta frase, pero mi mente retorcida llega a pensar que a lo mejor es que cuando una persona tiene un grano, es inevitable que no:: se lo explote. M: Straight to the grain.5 Mm. Well, I think, I don’t know, I’m not very sure where this phrase comes from, but my twisted mind manages to think that perhaps it’s like when someone has a pimple, they just can’t help but pop it.

(16)

R: Directo al grano. No sé de dónde viene la expresión…Bueno puedo hacer una posición pero no sé….Los granos de la cara, eh de cuando los vas a explotar que:: em en plan yo tengo ese símil ¿no? Porque es lo más parecido que se me ocurre que alguien va y llega y sin decirte nada te va y explota un grano, pues creo que es algo pare-​la idea de dónde viene la expresión creo que viene de ahí. R: Straight to the grain. I don’t know where the expression comes from …Well, I can make a guess but I don’t know … The pimples of the face, uh like when you’re going to pop them uh like I have this simile, right? Because it’s the closest thing I can think of, someone goes and comes up to you and without saying anything to you they go and pop a pimple, well I think it’s something si-​the idea of where the expression comes from, I think it comes from there.

146

146  Ana M. Anderson It seems apparent from this example that cultural connections only go so far in metaphorical understanding, and that the participants themselves also have a role to play. This point will be explored further in the discussion to follow.

6.  Discussion The main purpose of this pilot study was to use speaker data to problematize the dichotomy presented by Lakoff and Turner (1989) between image and conceptual metaphors, and to determine whether a prototypical approach, which already appears in certain studies of idioms and dead metaphors, would more accurately reflect the set of data obtained. As stated previously, an argument for prototypicality would be supported if, in addition to clear examples of both conceptual, non-​ imagistic metaphors and non-​ extendable image metaphors, the data were to include conceptual metaphors containing images and, similarly, highly imagistic metaphors with varying degrees of extendibility. Table 7.1 summarizes the findings presented in the previous section. As can be clearly seen, these different combinations of traits did indeed appear in speaker explanations of metaphoric phrases. The model proposed by Bortfield and McGlone (2001),6 in which they discuss attributional and analogical metaphors as differing points on a continuum, is a promising example of what a prototypical approach to metaphor might look like. In their model, attributional metaphors focus on shared characteristics (as in dirtiness and laziness in the metaphor “Matt is a pig”), while analogical metaphors focus on shared relationships and analogical structures (as in “memory is a sponge,” in which information interacts with memory analogously to the way water interacts with a sponge). However, they treat a focus on attributes and a focus on structures as gradient traits, which leads to the model in Figure 7.1. What such a model fails to address, however, is the idiosyncratic nature of metaphor comprehension indicated by the results of the present study. While there was some consistency in explanations between the two speakers, it was Table 7.1 Extendibility and imagistic quality of metaphors Extendible Image

No image

Non-​extendible

Not included in Lakoff & Turner Standard Image Metaphors (1989) “Partirse de risa,” “Contener la risa,” “Media naranja” “Guardar un secreto” Standard Conceptual Metaphors Not included in Lakoff & Turner (1989) “Dar/​tener hambre,” “Contener la “A toda leche” risa,” “Partirse de risa”

 147

An approach to understanding metaphor 147

Memory is a sponge

Shared relations

+

Life is a day

Matt is a pig – –

Shared attributes

+

Figure 7.1 Model from Bortfield & McGlone (2001)

not uncommon for one speaker’s description to contain strong images that the other’s lacked, or for both speakers to have differing mental images of the same metaphor. This could be seen as surprising, given that metaphor is traditionally considered to be “shared by members of a culture” (Lakoff & Turner, 1989, p. 51). On the other hand, given that both speakers have experiences and ways of seeing the world that are independent of one another, this may not be so surprising after all. In either case, it is a phenomenon that needs to be accounted for in an adequate theory of metaphor. On this note, it is important to bear in mind that the images and descriptions produced by speakers here were produced in the context of a very specific task that required them to actively think about the reasoning behind the various phrases in question. Herein lies one of the biggest weaknesses of the present work: Despite the evidence it provides that the dichotomous classifications in Conceptual Metaphor Theory are problematic on a theoretical level, and on a practical level it can offer no real evidence for or against either Conceptual Metaphor Theory or the alternative presented by Bortfield and McGlone (2001) in terms of what may actually happen in active, online processing in more conventional (i.e., everyday conversational) contexts, aside from advising that, if Conceptual Metaphor Theory is already problematic on a theoretical level, it should be approached cautiously and with healthy doubts as a practical account of online metaphor processing. Several studies exist that have proposed to examine whether Conceptual Metaphor Theory is adequate as a theory of metaphor processing and comprehension, with mixed results. Gibbs, Bogdanovich, Sykes, and Barr (1997), for example, performed a series of experiments designed to test the hypothesis

148

148  Ana M. Anderson that conceptual metaphors are accessed immediately during rapid on-​line processing, with results indicating a relationship between the presence of phrases consistent with an underlying conceptual metaphor and faster processing time. Glucksberg (2003), however, found no difference in processing time between literal and metaphorical expressions. On the basis of similar results, Keysar, Shen, Glucksberg, and Horton (2000) concluded that if underlying conceptual metaphors do in fact exist, they must only be used in comprehension of new expressions, and that common, supposedly metaphorical expressions are instead processed as literal expressions. While the data presented here does not allow me to weigh in directly on this debate, it is important to note specifically that despite the use participants seem to make of conceptual metaphors in their explanations of many phrases, this should not be taken as contradicting the arguments of Keysar et  al. (2000). Given the unique context of being asked to explain isolated metaphorical statements, use of conceptual metaphors was made relevant to participants in a way that it is difficult to imagine such use being in everyday circumstances. This brings to mind Tendahl and Gibbs’s (2008) description of Relevance Theory, which indicates that the purpose behind metaphor is to allow speakers to communicate the most relevant information in a way that is least cognitively demanding. If this is so, surely speakers do not use cognitive resources in imagining a pot walking away every time they use the phrase “se me fue la olla” or in picturing a hidden place within themselves whenever they are asked to “guardar un secreto.” The imaginative leaps they are able to make when asked to explain a metaphor go beyond what Linell (2009) calls “understandings ‘for current (practical) purposes’ ” (p. 226), which he argues is the essential level of understanding in human communication. Dialogical theory as presented by Linell (2009) is also able to explain some of the unexpected results obtained in this study. The connections he draws between “situations” in context and wider societal traditions referred to as “situation-​transcending practices” may explain, for example, participants’ surprising explanations of the phrase “directo al grano.” Because the “get-​ to-​the-​point” meaning of the phrase is a generally established societal fact, and therefore “situation-​transcending,” this may be all that speakers need to understand “for current practical purposes” in their everyday conversations. Therefore, when put in a situation where they need to explain the origins of the saying, which in this case did not form part of the speakers’ explicit knowledge, they appear to have used their own current situated context in dialogue with the broader societal understanding of the phrase to create a reasonable explanation. In other words, it appears possible that the images associated with a metaphor do not arise from the historic origins of the metaphor nor even from the a priori relationship between source and target domains, but rather that the mind may first understand the metaphor’s intended meaning and later construct reasonable links between domains to explain the apparently anomalous, non-​literal use of the expression. Such an interpretation would be in line with the conclusions presented by Keysar et al. (2000) with

 149

An approach to understanding metaphor 149 respect to the nature of the involvement of underlying conceptual metaphors in online processing. Though metaphor is not explicitly referenced in his book, dialogism as discussed by Linell (2009), including but not limited to concepts such as the interplay between situations and situation-​transcending practices, may be a promising theoretical basis for creating a more comprehensive theory of metaphor that is able to simultaneously account for societal coherence and individual variation. However, as the presentation of a fully developed theory of metaphor is well beyond the scope of this pilot study, such an endeavor is left for future research.

7.  Conclusion The theory of metaphors proposed by Lakoff and Turner (1989) makes a very clear distinction between conceptual and image metaphors, relegating the latter to “one-​shot” metaphors to imply their supposed inability to extend themselves to various situations. In this pilot study, however, the explanations of metaphors given by two native speakers of Spanish give cause to doubt this sharp division, as several conceptual metaphors have been shown to also have visual elements. This study also demonstrates that the status of a metaphor may vary from person to person. It is possible that a metaphor that evokes an image for one speaker may not do so for another, and the apparent strength of the images may differ. This observation implies that the “imagistic” quality of metaphor may be less rigid than Lakoff and Turner (1989) claim, and that a prototypical consideration may be appropriate. Further, one important and unexpected result of this study is that a speaker’s mental image is not always related to the actual origins of the metaphor. This could indicate that the mapping of traits from one domain to another, when it happens, is generated after comprehension of the phrase has occurred. Such a possibility is consistent with a dialogical account of language processing as presented by Linell (2009), as well as with the results of previous studies such as Keysar et al. (2000) that indicate that conceptual metaphors, if they exist, may not be active in online processing. The possible connection between metaphor theory, online metaphor processing, and dialogism is a topic that deserves much further consideration in future research.

Notes 1 In each example, the metaphor being discussed is underlined in both the original and the translation. Translation of metaphors into English is given as literally as possible so as to maintain the words of the original. 2 I follow the convention of Lakoff and his collaborators in indicating conceptual metaphors in capital letters. 3 Although 57 metaphorical statements were presented to participants, in the results analyzed below, I  focus on those responses that best support the argument that

150

150  Ana M. Anderson Lakoff and Turner’s (1989) strict division between conceptual and image metaphors is problematic and that a more prototypical categorization scheme may be appropriate. The existence of responses that do neatly fit in their classification scheme is not denied in this work, and indeed many of the responses obtained that are not included in the results section of this paper are those that do follow the patterns presented by Lakoff and Turner (1989). 4 1. Can you give me an example of when this expression would be used? 2. What does it mean? 3. Why does it mean this? 5 The word grano in Spanish can mean both ‘grain’ and ‘pimple.’ 6 Following Gentner and Clement (1988).

References Bortfield, H., & McGlone, M. S. (2001). The continuum of metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1&2), 75–​86. doi: 10.1207/​S15327868MS1601&2_​6 Deignan, A. (2007). “Image” metaphors and connotations in everyday language. Annual Review of Cognitive Lingistics, 5, 173–​192. doi: 10.1075/​arcl.5.08dei Gentner, D., & Clement, C. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol. 22 (pp. 307–​358). New York, NY: Academic Press. Gibbs, R. W., & O’Brien, J. E. (1990). Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition, 36, 35–​ 68. doi: 10.1016/​ 0010-​0277(90)90053-​M Gibbs, R. W., Bogdanovich, J. M., Sykes, J. R., & Barr, D. J. (1997). Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(2), 141–​154. doi:10.1006/​ jmla.1996.2506 Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92–​96. doi:10.1016/​S1364-​6613(02)00040-​2 Hellin García, M. J. (2008). Framing terrorism through metaphors: José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (2004–​2007) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Dissertation No. 3321903). Keysar, B., Shen, Y., Glucksberg, S., & Horton, W. S. (2000). Conventional language: How metaphorical is it? Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 576–​593. doi:10.1006/​jmla.2000.2711 Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. McGlone, M. S. (2007). What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor? Language & Communication, 27(2), 109–​126. doi:10.1016/​j.langcom.2006.02.016 Taylor, J. R. (2007). Prototype categories: I. In K. Brown et al. (Eds.), Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.) (pp. 41–​62). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tendahl, M., & Gibbs Jr., R. W. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823–​ 1864. doi:10.1016/​j.pragma.2008.02.001

 151

8  Debonding of three Hellenisms in Spanish: macro-​, mega-​, and (p)seudoJonah Conner

This chapter deals with recent theory regarding word/​morpheme category change in language. As can be expected, there are numerous subdivisions and terms that are found in the literature to refer to such processes (conversion, category shift, transcategorization, decategorialization, [de]morphologization, lexicalization, functional shift, relisting, etc.) which at times overlap significantly with other terms as well (Brinton & Closs Traugott, 2005; Doyle, 2002; Nagano, 2008 following Lieber, 1992; Norde, 2009; Valera, 2006). For clarification sake, the term recategorization (Ramat, 2001) in this present study is the most general and refers to any word/​morpheme category change in language,1 degrammaticalization (Willis, 2007 and others) will be used to refer to the more specific phenomenon of leftward movement on the lexical grammatical continuum, and the most significant class involving rightward movement of a bound affix > free morpheme will be referred to as debonding (Norde, 2009).2 After briefly discussing in section one the various subtypes of recategorization and the particular features of debonding in language, section two will deal with individual examples of debonding with these three neoclassical prefixes in modern Spanish.

1.  Recategorization, degrammaticalization and debonding 1.1  Terminology and characteristics of recategorization, degrammaticalization and debonding Examples such as the Spanish los macroíndices > los índices macros ‘macrorates’ involve a recategorization of a bound element to a free one, that is, a morphological unit becomes a syntactic one. Alterations in word or morpheme category are commonly observed in languages throughout the world, especially with items that show great type and token frequency (Heine, Claudi, & Hünnemeyer, 1991). Such changes can be divided into three principal subdivisions: conversion, grammaticalization and degrammaticalization. What is frequently deemed conversion refers in the most fundamental sense to a category change from one free morpheme to another, such as adjective > noun or noun > verb (Balteiro, 2007; Don, 2005). In English, one of the

152

152  Jonah Conner most frequently observed conversions is the so-​called zero derivation change of noun > verb (fish N > fish V), as in they caught a fish (N) versus they fish a lot (V). In these occurrences the change does not immediately result in a morphologically modified form and is thus deemed zero (Booij, 2005; Matthews, 1991; Valera, 2006). The second term grammaticalization is perhaps the most inclusive and has been the focus of numerous and extensive studies in recent years.3 Although semantic change is often involved as well (such as bleaching), in the most basic sense it refers to any change that involves a free morpheme becoming more bound, that is, a rightward movement on the lexical grammatical continuum.4 In true cases of grammaticalization, there typically is a movement of at least one step to the right on the cline presented by Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer (1991, after Givón, 1979): Discourse > syntax > morphology > morphophonemics > zero5 On the other hand, as its name implies, degrammaticalization can be seen as a general reversal or leftward cline movement, in which an item becomes less grammatical and more lexical.6 Compared to its counterpart, degrammaticalization has been less studied and far fewer examples have been found. In fact, up until only about twenty years ago, there was debate among scholars as to whether such a phenomenon even existed, and morphosyntactic cline movement was deemed “unidirectional.” In other words, it was argued that in regard to the cline presented above, the only possible movement was rightward (Willis, 2007).7 Lehmann (1995, p. 19), for example, after examining several claims to degrammaticalization such as the Proto-​ Indo-​European *–​a and the Proto-​Germanic genitive suffix –​s, concludes that “no cogent examples of degrammaticalization have been found.”8 Likewise, Haspelmath concludes: Grammaticalization is the gradual drift in all parts of grammar toward tighter structures, toward less freedom … [It] is unidirectional in that elements and structures always become more grammatical(ized), while the reverse (development of less grammatical from more grammatical structures or elements) is practically unattested … grammaticalization is overwhelmingly unidirectional. (1998, pp. 318 & 347)9 Yet at about the same time others such as Harris and Campbell (1995) argued against these declarations, asserting that true examples of reverse-​ cline movement, while undoubtedly less common, are present in certain languages. To prove this, these authors cited the example of the Old Estonian clitics –​ es and  –​ep, which historically marked questions or exclamations but later functioned as independent words in sentence-​initial position. Such examples demonstrate, however, that cases of degrammaticalization typically do not

 153

Debonding three Hellenisms in Spanish 153 move through the entire cline but rather only show movement of one step (Norde, 2009).10 It is now the general consensus that category innovations between bound and free elements can occur in both directions; that is to say, a free element can become bound and a bound become free, lexical items can become more grammatical, and vice versa. In both changes there can be either a loss or acquisition of certain grammatical features such as gender, number, case, and tense markers. Within degrammaticalization there are also three main subdivisions: degrammation, deinflectionalization11 and debonding, the latter of which refers to leftward cline movement with affixes and is therefore the most relevant for this present study. Degrammation is uncommon in languages and is seen when a functional word gains semantic and morphosyntactic traits, such as when the preposition up becomes a lexical verb in phrases like to up the volume. Deinflectionalization refers fundamentally to the loss of paradigmacity, such as the possessive  –​s in English and Swedish, which historically marked the genitive and is the lone remnant of the lost case system with nouns. The specific phenomenon most directly dealt with here is therefore debonding, which involves the degrammaticalization of a derivational affix, in this case, prefixes. Compared with other types of category change in languages, fewer examples exist of debonding, and like degrammaticalization itself, its seldom occurrence led many to doubt its existence entirely. Haspelmath (1998, p. 347), for instance, states firmly that “there are at most a few cases of affixes turning into phrasal clitics (like Scandinavian and perhaps English genitival -​s), but no good examples of affixes turning into free words.” Yet, in the last few decades several scholars have argued to the contrary. One of the more referenced examples is that presented by Doyle (2002, p. 68), who documents how the inflectional suffix –​maid (1st person plural) in Early Modern Irish (c.1200–​1600) has since become the independent 1st person plural pronoun muid ‘we’ in the modern Irish spoken in the Conomara region: (1)

a.

Molfa-​maid Praise.FUT-​1pl ‘We will praise’

(Early Modern Irish)

b.

Molfaid    muid Praise.FUT  we ‘We will praise’

(Contemporary Conomara Irish)

Norde (2009, p. 207–​209, 220–​225) lists three documented cases, the first of which is haga in Northern Saami (spoken primarily in Finnmark), which was formerly an absessive case marker but has subsequently become a free adverbial element meaning ‘without,’ either preposed or postposed. The prefix bö in Northern Swedish, historically a transitivizing affix (be-​) found in verbs such as behöva ‘to need,’ can now be used as a verb in certain contexts with

154

154  Jonah Conner the meaning ‘need.’ Also, the English suffix ish, has recently become a free morpheme with the interpretation ‘sort of’ or ‘kind of.’ Debonding, like most examples of language change, occurs slowly over time during which there is typically a transition period, sometimes very long, and equivalent forms will exist concurrently, thus representing a change of A > A~B > B.12 Hopper and Closs Traugott have argued the following: (…) When an innovated form B enters the grammar alongside of an older form A, it does so abruptly … however … the spread is gradual … Older and newer forms coexist for individual speakers as well as for communities over time. Indeed, A probably never “becomes” B without an intermediary stage in which A and B coexist. (2003, p. 46–​47) These same authors go on to state that it is through the overall accumulation of individual acts of innovation that change occurs in language, and the transition stage could last even centuries. The older forms may or may not completely fall away at a given point in the future, and it is therefore not always immediately clear whether they constitute merely sporadic innovations or permanent language change. As Brinton and Closs Traugott affirm: Textual evidence suggests that many changes involve periods of relative indeterminacy in which it is not clear whether the older or the newer usage is in evidence; in other words, the steps may be tentative at first. Indeed, the first steps may never result in change, in the sense of acceptance by a community of speakers. (2005, p. 26) When the change becomes more established, however, what often has occurred historically is a split in functions, which results in two separate lexical entries, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as divergence, which Willis explains as follows: Grammaticalization [and degrammaticalization] frequently leads to the split or divergence of a single item. As it grammaticalizes in one context, it remains ungrammaticalized in another [or vice-​versa], and the two diverge, resulting in independent lexical items, and independent subsequent histories. (2007, p. 296) As this author notes, this phenomenon is not limited to debonding but is also observed in many cases of both grammaticalization and degrammaticalization. The original category can be maintained entirely with no change, or it can be lost, as is the case with Latin habeo ‘to have,’ whose remnants no longer

 155

Debonding three Hellenisms in Spanish 155 function as lexical verbs in Spanish. In either instance, however, divergence is said to have taken place. As Doyle (2002) has noted, debonding is also much more likely to take place when the morpheme in question is morphologically and semantically transparent. When there is a clear division in the speaker’s mind, it is logically more likely to gain syntactic independence. The final result, then, can be viewed simply as a syntactic representation of what has already occurred on the morphological and semantic levels. Such characteristics are certainly observable in the various examples of debonding with neoclassical prefixes, as will be examined in section two. 1.2  Reanalysis and ambiguity One of the most important phenomena related to recategorization of any kind is reanalysis, which has long been recognized in diachronic studies as a mechanism for many morphosyntactic innovations. While some scholars such as Haspelmath (1998) have voiced the opinion that reanalysis is less significant than previously thought, Harris and Campbell argue as follows: Reanalysis has been the most important concept for most attempts to explain syntactic change throughout the history of linguistics … [N]‌ot all diachronic developments in the domain of syntax involve reanalysis … but this is clearly a major mechanism of syntactic evolution which we must understand. (1995, p. 61, after Langacker, 1977) Simply put, reanalysis refers to a change in interlocutor conception regarding a given linguistic element, yet “does not involve any immediate or intrinsic modification of its surface manifestation,” such as with the French negating element pas, which originally was used only as an intensifier of the negative ne, but due to the frequency in which these appeared together they were reanalyzed as an obligatory pair (Harris & Campbell, 1995, p. 61). This type of change can occur on many linguistic levels and is certainly not limited to syntax. One fundamental characteristic of reanalysis is its covert nature, which Hopper and Closs Traugott explain as follows: In reanalysis, the hearer understands a form to have a structure and a meaning that are different from those of the speaker, as when [Hamburg] + [er] ‘item of food from Hamburg’ is heard as [ham] + [burger]. Sooner or later someone substitutes the word cheese or beef for ham; but this substitution is merely the symptom of a change that has already occurred silently. The reanalysis is covert until some recognizable modification in the forms reveals it. (2003, p. 50)

156

156  Jonah Conner Reanalysis is thus covert since it takes place on the interpretive level in the mind of the interlocutor, but becomes manifest in the production of innovative forms such as veggieburger, cheeseburger, and so forth. It is in this way that analogous forms can prove or confirm that reanalysis has occurred. While not always the case, the category of the words/​morphemes in which such changes take place is often ambiguous or fuzzy. Lack of clarity with respect to morpheme category (and at times semantic interpretation) thus plays a major role in various types of recategorization (Brinton & Closs Traugott, 2005; Willis, 2007). In previous studies, reanalysis has been argued to be a significant factor in certain cases of debonding. For instance, in the specific example with the Northern Saami haga ‘without’ mentioned previously, Norde (2009) argues that reanalysis of word boundary has been the primary factor in the observed change. In regard to structural or categorial ambiguity, Baker affirms the following: Many words one usually thinks of as being a member of one category can also be used as members of another category in a suitable context … [S]‌uch ambivalence of category is fairly widespread, and can be exploited in creative ways by speakers in response to a particular communicative situation. (2003, p. 266–​267) Among the “widespread” examples in modern languages, there are certain qualities that can contribute to fuzziness, particularly in regard to morphological ending, and some forms are more prone to reanalysis than others, as Willis argues: For a grammatical item to be reanalyzed as a verb, it must look as though it has some appropriate form of person, number and tense marking. Similarly, for it to degrammaticalize as a noun, it must look as though it has some appropriate form of case and number marking. This situation must arise by chance. (2007, p. 303) In other words, the fuzzy nature of certain category memberships is exacerbated by chance morphological forms. This appears to be the case with certain neoclassical prefixes included in this present study, particularly those ending in  –​o such as macro-​, micro-​ and (p)seudo-​. Due to the fact that the –​o is the default ending for the majority of descriptive adjectives in Spanish, it is much more likely that they can be reinterpreted as such. Take for instance, constructions such as medio hermano ‘half brother’ (preposed adjective) versus pseudohermano ‘pseudobrother’ (prefix), both of which have the same ending (–​o), the same function (they modify a noun), and are in a similar syntactic position (immediately before the modified noun). Once speakers begin viewing the latter as equivalent to the former, constructions

 157

Debonding three Hellenisms in Spanish 157 such as pseuda hermana ‘pseudosister’ logically will follow, being formed in the likeness of media hermana ‘half sister.’ Thus the “chance” ending –​ o in all likelihood contributes to reanalysis by adding to the fuzzy nature of their category status. Category fuzziness is thus directly related to cline movement in either direction, and as will be seen in the following section, the data suggest that this is the case with debonding of certain neoclassical prefixes.

2.  Debonding with macro-​, mega-​, and (p)seudo-​in Spanish 2.1  Debonding in Spanish with macro-​ During the last two decades, there has been clear and recurrent evidence of debonding with macro-​ in modern Spanish. From the 1990s on, the CREA corpus and other sources record numerous instances of postposed adjectival uses of macro with the semantic value of ‘large-​scale.’ However, despite this syntactic expansion, in the majority of occasions there is no morphological adjustment to match the gender or number of the modified noun, which demonstrates its lack of full integration into the grammatical system of modern Spanish. The dominant form in all contexts is the unmarked macro, even in very recent examples such as the following: [T]‌oda la política macro del gobierno tendió a que la ciudad tenga una industria más limpia. ‘All of the government’s macropolitics tended to give the city a cleaner industry.’ (La Nación. 2014. Argentina.)13 In addition to this, there are also instances of its adjectival construction with the generic definite article lo: Estos desafíos en lo macro … podremos resolverlos solamente si logramos encontrar modelos funcionales para lo micro. ‘We can only solve these challenges in the macro if we can find functional models in the micro.’ (CREA. 2004. Uruguay.) Although in these contexts macro in normally unchanged regardless of the gender and number of the modified noun, there are a few cases in recent years in which it appears both postposed and in the plural form macros when matched with a plural noun, either masculine or feminine. These are clear cases of morphological adaptation and demonstrate a more complete adjustment to the adjectival norms of modern Spanish, as seen in these examples:

158

158  Jonah Conner [S]‌uelen sumar a los datos macros … una página sobre los usos y costumbres. ‘They tend to add to the macrodata… a page about uses and trends.’ (CORPES XXI. 2008. Mexico.) [Alguien] deberá establecer una suerte de clasificación de los eventos y festivales, no por sus cifras macros, sino por sus valores intangibles. ‘Someone should establish a type of classification for events and festivals, not for their macronumbers, but for their intangible values.’ (CORPES XXI. 2008. Spain.) These non-​prefixed constructions in Spanish strongly suggest that macro is being reanalyzed by certain speakers and has thus expanded into other word classes. Nevertheless, it must be noted that examples with the plural macros are still relatively few, and the feminine forms *macra or *macras do not appear in the sources consulted. The fact that it is most commonly used in a morphologically neutral form (i.e., unchanged macro), and at times in quotations or italics, suggests that the debonding process is ongoing and it has not yet fully adopted its expanded status as an adjective. Until now there certainly has been a hesitancy to use this word with morphologically altered endings, yet its occasional usage in plural might be evidence that this is in fact the beginning of a change in progress and all four morphological forms will eventually appear. 2.2  Debonding in Spanish with mega-​ Debonding with mega-​ has also been frequent during the last two decades. The data consulted show that, starting mostly in the mid-​1990s, mega-​ has been recategorized as syntactically free adjective, which can be preposed, postposed or appear with the definite article lo. In many of these instances, it also appears in quotation marks, which suggests the author recognizes some abnormal characteristic of the usage: La música está en un segundo plano … basamos el éxito de una ópera en que sea “mega.” ‘The music is secondary … we measure the success of an opera on its being mega.’ (CREA. 1996. Spain.) [C]‌on sólo 38 pies de profundidad, [el canal] no podría manipular barcos “mega.” ‘Being only 38 feet deep, [the canal] could not handle megaships.’ (CREA. 1998. Puerto Rico.) El paradigma cuantitativo, sostenido todavía por los museos mayores y las políticas culturales adictas a lo “mega,” cede en favor del paradigma cualitativo. ‘The quantitative paradigm, still maintained by larger museums and cultural politics addicted to the mega, yields to the qualitative paradigm.’ (La Nación. 2000. Argentina.)

 159

Debonding three Hellenisms in Spanish 159 Although still quite infrequent, there are instances of the new morphological plural form megas when it modifies a plural noun, as can be seen in the following: [T]‌engo la ventaja de practicar con la arquitectura y crear megas esculturas. ‘I have the advantage of practicing with architecture and creating megasculptures.’ (CREA. 2003. Chile.) [E]‌l nuevo PRI … estrenará el año con dos “megas derrotas.” ‘The new PRI will start the year with two megadefeats.’ (CORPES XXI. 2011. Mexico.) En febrero, [tendrán] las megas elecciones de la Mesa de la Unidad Democrática… ‘In February [they will have] megaelections for the Mesa de la Unidad Democrática.’ (CORPES XXI. 2012. Venezuela.) While these examples represent obvious innovations in modern Spanish, as of yet there are no registered examples of marked gender such as *mego or *megos when this element modifies a masculine noun. However, the data suggest that adjectival debonding with mega-​ is still a very recent phenomenon, since no instances of the pluralized adjectival megas appear before 2003. This element, then, could be representative of the beginnings of a change in progress, and thus the masculine forms could be expected to appear in the near future if the present patterns continue. 2.3  Debonding in Spanish with (p)seudo-​ As far as recategorization is concerned, (p)seudo-​ is unique for two main reasons. First, it is the only neoclassical prefix to have clearly developed debonded adjectival forms in the plural (p)seudos before 1980. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that plural forms with this element were in use as early as the late 18th century. Tokens before 1900 are not numerous (only two in the sources consulted) but do appear to be genuine examples of speaker innovation, as Alonso Carrió de la Vandera illustrates in his El Lazarillo de ciegos caminantes (c1775), registered in the CORDE corpus: [C]‌iertos seudos religiosos … son el contagio de la mayor parte de las provincias. ‘Certain pseudoreligious people are the infection of the majority of the provinces.’ (CORDE. c1775. Spain.) Likewise, the corpus CE includes only one example of plural (p)seudos before 1900, from Emilio Castelar’s Crónica Internacional (1866):

160

160  Jonah Conner [Él] muestra en unas y otras volubilidad casi mariposeante … así apercibiéronse sus seudos representantes … ‘[He] shows in some things an almost fluttering inconsistency … such is how his pseudorepresentatives perceived it.’ (CE. 1866. Spain.) In the first half of the 20th century more examples begin to appear, as the following citation illustrates: Hay … unos seudos escritores y traductores que huelen el dinero editorial donde lo haya. ‘There are … certain pseudowriters and translators that smell editorial money wherever it is.’ (CORDE. 1948. Argentina.) The plural forms have continued in recent years and are frequently documented in the sources consulted, all with the primary semantic value of ‘false’ or ‘counterfeit’ that has historically been expressed with this element. Seudos directivos ‘pseudodirectors’ (CREA. 1997. Spain.), seudos periodistas ‘pseudojournalists’ (La Nación. 2002. Argentina.), pseudos sindicatos ‘pseudounions’ (El Universal. 2008. Mexico.), and pseudos luchadores ‘pseudofighters’ (El Universal. 2012. Venezuela.) are just a few representative examples. The second reason that (p)seudo-​ is unique is that it is the only element to have clearly developed opposite gender forms that are normally seen in Spanish adjectives ((p)seudo > (p)seuda, (p)seudas), thus demonstrating a complete morphological paradigm. As has been shown, this is not the case for other converted adjectives, regardless of their ending (macro > *macra, *macras; mega > *mego, *megos; micro > *micra, *micras). While other features may have a role in this, a major reason no doubt is the fact that (p) seudo-​has had a significantly longer history of productivity and debonding in the Spanish language. As the CORDE and CE corpora show, (p)seudo-​is the only element of the three included here to show substantial productivity as a prefix with native roots before the end of the 19th century (seudopredicadores ‘pseudopreachers,’ 1758 and seudocoches ‘pseudocars,’ 1845). If debonding is indeed a slow and gradual process, longer time in the language, combined with greater frequency than other neoclassical prefixes, is likely to be a major factor. Appearing less foreign due to greater familiarity and being found in a wider range of contexts and registers, it is more likely, then, that speakers will more readily create and diffuse innovative morphological forms. As with the other examples of adjectival debonding of neoclassical prefixes, the first innovative form is the plural, in this case (p)seudos. The feminine forms (p)seuda and (p)seudas are quite recently formed in comparison and much fewer in number, since the earliest examples appear no earlier than the

 161

Debonding three Hellenisms in Spanish 161 year 1999. However, there are several examples from various sources within the last decade: Tras la pseuda calma … el dólar se mostró hoy estable. ‘After the pseudocalm … the dollar was stable today.’ (La Nación. 2009. Argentina.) No por tener más alumnos y más pseudas universidades vamos a mejorar. ‘We are not going to improve by having more students and more pseudouniversities.’ (El Universal. 2011. Venezuela.)14 Interestingly, however, despite these innovative morphological forms, (p) seudo-​and its variants systematically appear preposed to the modified noun, in contrast with others such as macro-​ and micro-​ which are also found postposed. In fact, the sources consulted have not produced a single example of postposition with (p)seudo (*universidades pseudas, etc.). A  possible explanation could be found in semantic restraints. Demonte (1999) and Butt and Benjamin (2004) have stated generally that although the vast majority of adjectives in modern Spanish can be found preposed or postposed to the modified noun, there are a few cases in which position significantly effects semantic interpretation or is fixed entirely, such as the adjective integral ‘whole,’ which must be postposed (pan integral ‘whole wheat bread,’ *integral pan), and the adjective presunto ‘presumed,’ which must be preposed (presunto crimen ‘presumed crime,’ *crimen presunto). Table 8.1 Syntactic position of presunto ‘presumed’ and supuesto ‘supposed’ when paired with criminal ‘criminal,’ líder ‘leader,’ and padre ‘father’ in CORDE, CREA and CORPES XXI CORDE

CREA

C. XXI

Total tokens

presunto(s) criminal(es) supuesto(s) criminal(es) criminal(es) presunto(s) criminal(es) supuesto(s)

5 3 0 0

50 14 0 0

30 10 0 0

85 27 0 0

presunto(s) líder(es) supuesto(s) líder(es) líder(es) presunto(s) líder(es) supuesto(s)

0 0 0 0

11 9 0 0

32 23 0 1

43 32 0 1

presunto(s) padre(s) supuesto(s) padre(s) padre(s) presunto(s) padre(s) supuesto(s)

9 7 2 0

12 13 0 0

9 21 0 1

30 41 2 1

Tokens with preposed adjective

258 (98%)

Tokens with postposed adjective

4 (2%)

162

162  Jonah Conner In such cases there are important parallels that relate directly to the preposed (p)seudo. Adjectives like presunto ‘presumed’ and the partially synonymous supuesto ‘supposed’ share some semantic qualities with (p)seudo in the sense that they refer to something ‘not totally genuine,’ since something presumed or supposed has yet to be proven authentic. Despite the presence of a few exceptions, the data (summarized in Table 8.1) confirm that these two adjectives are indeed syntactically preposed in the vast majority of cases, at least with the frequent nouns criminal ‘criminal,’ líder ‘leader,’ and padre ‘father.’ The adjective medio ‘half, middle’ also shows similar syntactic constraints since it is dominantly preposed. There is thus a significant correlation between the dominantly preposed presunto/​supuesto/​medio and (p)seudo due to the semantic values that these terms share, since they can all represent something ‘not totally genuine.’15 If speakers are associating (p)seudo with these adjectives, then the semantic restraints are relevant and could explain its rigid preposition. However, this explanation is not without difficulty, since other adjectives, including the partial synonym falso (see DRAE s.v.), are found both preposed and postposed. The CREA and CORPES XXI corpora reveal numerous examples of both syntactic positions, such as falso orgullo ‘false pride,’ falso concepto ‘false concept,’ and discurso falso ‘false discourse.’ At times there are even examples of falso preposed and postposed with the same root: falso amor/​amor falso ‘false love,’ falso techo/​techo falso ‘false roof,’ and falso testimonio/​testimonio falso ‘false testimony.’ It is possible, then, that rigid syntax with recategorized (p)seudo cannot be fully explained by semantic restraints related with adjectives like presunto, supuesto and medio. It likely depends on how speakers are interpreting neologisms with (p)seudo, either as ‘sort of’ or ‘false.’ If the former, then association with supuesto, presunto and medio is highly significant given the strict preposition of these adjectives. However, if speakers view (p)suedo primarily as carrying the semantic value of ‘false,’ then the rigid syntax is less explicable in light of the correlation with falso. Perhaps it is more accurate to attribute this case to multiple factors, including the ongoing nature of the debonding process. Since (p) seudo still commonly functions as a prefix in many neologisms, speakers are accustomed to using it before the root. Whether due to this reason or not, the sources certainly demonstrate that speakers are still most comfortable preposing this element.

3.  Conclusion for debonding with neoclassical prefixes Table  8.2 gives an overall summary of the debonding observed with these three representative neoclassical prefixes. Three overall conclusions can be made concerning this phenomenon in modern Spanish. First, fuzzy category status has contributed to reanalysis, which is evident in innovative morphosyntax, such as new syntactic positions and pluralization. The second is that the debonding process is ongoing and is

 163

Debonding three Hellenisms in Spanish 163 Table 8.2 Summary of debonding with macro-​, mega-​, and (p)seudo-​(All claims are limited to the data in the sources consulted) PREFIX > ADJECTIVE MORPHOLOGY

MACRO MEGA (P)SEUDO

SYNTAX

Plural

Gender

Postposition

With article lo

YES índices macros YES megas esculturas YES seudos religiosos

NO *macra NO *mego YES (p)seuda

YES índices macro YES barcos mega NO *religiosos (p)seudos

YES Lo macro YES Lo mega YES Lo (p)seudo

manifest by incomplete paradigms (macro, macros, *macra, *macras) and possibly by rigid syntax with some elements (pseudas universidades, *universidades pseudas). Lastly, divergence has occurred. These prefixes have expanded to other word classes, particularly adjectives, yet prefixal use does not appear to be falling away. Although their category membership is indeed fuzzy, morphologic and semantic transparency undoubtedly play a major role in the recategorization of these prefixes in modern Spanish. Speakers can and do recognize the independent characteristics of these elements and their expansion into other morphosyntactic areas is evidence of that. Imbedded or opaque items simply could not produce such results. It is also important to recognize the morphologically peripheral aspect of prefixes, which undoubtedly contributes to the likelihood of recategorization, since the division between root and affix is not only more obvious but more easily breached as well. The data confirm that the first new morphologic forms that have appeared in modern Spanish are plural with no change in gender.16 In other words, mega, ending in –​a which typically marks the feminine, first developed megas instead of *mego. Likewise, macro has first developed macros instead of *macra. This suggests that speakers feel a greater need to mark pluralization than gender, and that pluralization is therefore more vital to human communication. As speakers become more and more familiar with the prefix > adjective debonded forms, these are likely to become more fully adapted to Spanish morphology, possibly producing constructions like *la macra idea, *el mego debate, and so forth. The fact that this has already happened with (p)seudo proves that it indisputably is possible to occur with others of like use and structure, given the necessary time and exposure. Language change, however, is of course unpredictable. The history of Spanish gives clear evidence of other similar elements that still have not developed opposite-​gender forms despite a long period of extensive use in the language, such as the Italianism alerta ‘alert,’ which originally was borrowed in the late 15th century but is still

164

164  Jonah Conner used systematically in Spanish as both a masculine and feminine adjective, while the masculine alerto rarely appears.17 While the phenomenon itself has been amply documented in recent decades, certain characteristics of recategorization remain a mystery. For instance, while semantic restraints can play a significant role, there is no conclusive reason why some prefixes tend to be found postposed whereas others are only preposed. It would be logical for there to be a correlation between the development of new morphologic forms and syntactic freedom. In other words, it would seem natural for an element that has masculine and feminine, singular and plural forms to be viewed as more incorporated into the language, with the result being that it is also found both preposed and postposed, since this is true for the vast majority of adjectives in the Spanish language. However, the data show that this is simply not the case. Macro is found postponed frequently, yet never with feminine forms (las cifras macro ‘macronumbers,’ *las cifras macras), whereas (p)seudo has developed new feminine forms yet only is found in the preposed position (las pseudas universidades ‘pseudouniversities,’ *las universidades pseudas). Semantic restrictions in regard to (p)seudo and presunto/​supuesto/​medio perhaps play a role in the rigid preposition of the former, but evidence from synonyms like falso puts this in question. Overall, such data suggest that there is still a general vagueness as to the classification of these elements and how exactly to use them. Their fuzzy nature is manifest not only in variant syntactic position and morphologic forms, but also in word spacing, spellings and other orthographic representations such as the use of hyphens or quotation marks. Despite the explosion of use since the latter part of the 20th century, these elements have clearly not become fully standardized in modern Spanish varieties and continue to represent changes in progress that should be expected to stabilize at some point in the future. Whether or not these innovations represent widespread change remains to be seen, since these recent debonded examples are still quite infrequent compared to their prefixed counterparts. That is to say that at the present time there is no sign of prefixal use falling away in modern Spanish, since prefixal productivity with these elements is still the most commonly observed in the sources consulted. At this point in time neoclassical prefixes have not ceased to be prefixes but rather spread in use to other word categories, particularly adjectives. Divergence is thus clearly seen in the data, which results in the parallel existence of two separate forms. The fact that similar phenomena have also occurred in other European languages proves that innovation with neoclassical elements is certainly not confined to modern Spanish. The data presented here are thus representative of a fairly widespread phenomenon and present the linguist with many opportunities for future comparative studies.

Notes 1 Ramat uses the term recategorization (or transcategorization) primarily to refer to a category change from major to minor word class (decategorialization in Brinton

 165

Debonding three Hellenisms in Spanish 165



& Closs Traugott, 2005). In the present study it will be used more generally to refer to any word/​morpheme category change, as is the case with the Spanish equivalent recategorización in Demonte (1999). 2 Brinton and Closs Traugott (2005) prefer the term syntacticization when the affix is derivational, as is the case with neoclassical prefixes. 3 See Davidse, Breban, & Brems (2012), Narrog and Heine (2011) and Stathi, Gehweiler, & König (2010), among others. 4 Famous examples are the Romance synthetic future and conditional tenses resultant from the Latin verb habeo ‘to have.’ 5 A later version of cline movement was proposed by Hopper and Closs Traugott (2003): Content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix [> zero]

6 Haspelmath (2004) prefers the term antigrammaticalization (cited in Brinton & Closs Traugott, 2005). 7 “Unidirectional” here is used to mean ‘only rightward’ on the lexical > grammatical cline. However, virtually all examples of grammaticalization and degrammaticalization are “unidirectional” in the sense that they only move in one direction without turning around (cantare habeo > cantar he > cantaré *[> cantar he > cantare habeo]). 8 Lehmann explains these two cases as follows: Proto-​Indo-​European *–​a was a derivational nominal affix with collective meaning. In Latin, it was grammaticalized to the plural marker of neuter nouns, e.g. ovum ‘egg,’ pl. ova. In Italian, the Latin neuter nouns have become masculine and form their plural in –​i. However, –​a is again used as a derivational collective suffix, e.g. in muro ‘wall’ –​ mura, uovo ‘egg’ –​ uova … in Proto-​Germanic, the genitive suffix –​s was a flexional ending bound to the word. In Modern English, however, we find such phrases as the King of England’s daughter and the man I met yesterday’s son, where the –​s is agglutinated to a complex NP. (1995, p. 16–​18) 9 Haspelmath bases much of his argument on phonetic characteristics involved in grammaticalization, stating: The continuum of phonetic variation can only be shifted upward, leading to the loss of the most clearly articulated variants[;]‌… the unidirectionality of grammaticalization is a direct consequence of this … since the ease of perception is less important with frequent items, they are subject to greater phonetic reduction … the reverse development is impossible. (1998, p. 321–​322) It appears, however, that phonetic qualities play a lesser role in degrammaticalization than in grammaticalization, certainly so in the particular cases dealt with in this present study. 10 However, Norde (2009) also points out that in certain cases of debonding there is a possibility of jumping over an intermediate step. 11 Also referred to as deflexion by Willis (2007). 12 At times referred to as gradualness (Brinton & Closs Traugott, 2005; Closs Traugott & Trousdale, 2010; Hopper & Closs Traugott, 2003). 13 For sake of space, only the source, year, and country of origin are cited in the examples of section two. Article titles, precise dates, and other information can

166

166  Jonah Conner be found on the respective websites provided in the bibliography. All English translations of Spanish examples are mine. 14 Examples of innovative feminine forms are particularly numerous in South-​ American newspapers: seuda izquierda ‘pseudoleft’ (La República. 2013. Peru.), seudas mentalidades ‘pseudomentalities’ (El Universal. 2009. Venezuela.), pseudas técnicas ‘pseudotechniques’ (La Nación. 2011. Argentina.). Yet the presence of such forms in other regions show that it cannot be classified as a regional phenomenon only. 15 Medio with the definition ‘half’ is only classified as an adjective or adverb in the DRAE (s.v.), not as a prefix. 16 That is not to say that a prefix has true grammatical gender, but since the majority end in either –​o or –​a, they seemingly have gender when separated from the based. 17 Originally from the Italian noun phrase all’erta ‘on the alert’ (DRAE s.v.). Although the DRAE (s.v.) includes the masculine form alerto, it is extremely rare in the sources consulted. The CREA and CORPUS XXI corpora register only one example.

References Baker, M. (2003). Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Balteiro, I. (2007). The directionality of conversion in English: A dia-​synchronic study. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Booij, G. (2005). The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butt, J., & Benjamin, C. (2004). A new reference grammar of Modern Spanish (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Closs Traugott, E., & Trousdale, G. (2010). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In E. C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradualness, gradience and grammaticalization (pp. 19–​44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CE = Davies, M. (Online). Corpus del Español. Available at www.corpusdelespañol.org CORDE  =  Real Academia Española. (Online). Banco de datos CORDE. Corpus diacrónico del español. Available at www.rae.es/​recursos/​banco-​de-​datos/​corde CORPES XXI = Real Academia Española. (Online). Banco de datos CORPES XXI. Corpus del español del siglo XXI. Available at www.rae.es/​recursos/​banco-​de-​datos/​ corpes-​xxi CREA  =  Real Academia Española. (Online). Banco de datos CREA. Corpus de referencia del español actual. Available at www.rae.es/​recursos/​banco-​de-​datos/​crea Davidse, K., Breban, T., & Brems, L. (Eds.). (2012). Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Demonte, V. (1999). El adjetivo: clases y usos. La posición del adjetivo en el sintagma nominal. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Dirs.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 129–​216). Madrid: Espasa. Denison, D. (2010). Category change in English with and without structural change. In E. C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradualness, gradience, and grammaticalization (pp. 105–​128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 167

Debonding three Hellenisms in Spanish 167 Don, J. (2005). On conversion, relisting and zero-​derivation. SKASE: Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 2, 2–​ 16. Retrieved from www.skase.sk/​Volumes/​JTL03/​ 02.pdf Doyle, A. (2002). Yesterday’s affixes as today’s clitics: A case study in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 67–​81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DRAE  =  Real Academia Española. (Online). Diccionario de la Real Academia Española. Available at www.rae.es El País (Madrid, Spain). (Online). Available at www.elpais.com El Universal (Caracas, Venezuela). (Online). Available at www.eluniversal.com El Universal (Mexico City, Mexico). (Online). Available at www.eluniversal.com.mx Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press. Harris, A. C., & Campbell, L. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-​linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haspelmath, M. (1998). Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language, 22(2), 315–​351. doi:10.1075/​sl.22.2.03has Haspelmath, M. (2004). On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Perridon (Eds), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization (pp. 17–​44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptional framework. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. La Nación (Buenos Aires, Argentina). (Online). Available at www.lanacion.com.ar La República (Lima, Peru). (Online). Available at www.larepublica.pe Langacker, R. W. (1977). Syntactic reanalysis. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 57–​139). Austin: University of Texas Press. Lehmann, C. (1995). Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa. Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University  Press. Nagano, A. (2008). Categorical change of conversion and the process of relisting. English Linguistics, 25, 369–​401. doi:10.9793/​elsj1984.25.369 Narrog, H., & Heine, B. (Eds.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ramat, P. (2001). Degrammaticalization or transcategorization? In W. U. Dressler, C. Schaner-​Wolles, J. R. Rennison, & F. Neubarth (Eds.), Naturally! Linguistic studies in honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler presented on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 393–​401). Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. Stathi, E., Gehweiler, E., & König, E. (Eds.). (2010). Grammaticalization: Current views and issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Valera, S. (2006). Conversion. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.), vol. 3, 172–​175. Boston: Elsevier. Willis, D. (2007). Syntactic lexicalization as a new type of degrammaticalization. Linguistics, 45(2), 271–​ 310. Retrieved from http://​people.ds.cam.ac.uk/​dwew2/​ degramm.pdf

168

9  Testing contact-​induced change in the Spanish of Mallorca Insights from a historical perspective* Andrés Enrique-​Arias

1. Introduction Studies on language contact consistently address a number of issues pertaining to the well-​known debate on the extent of contact-​induced change: whether any element can be transferred between languages; to what extent are external factors (the sociolinguistic situation) or internal ones (the structure and typology of the languages themselves) responsible for the direction and intensity of transfer; or which are the possible outcomes of a language contact situation. With respect to the latter issue, a widespread assumption in the linguistic literature is that language change is an expected, and even unavoidable, result of language contact. Those who invoke this association between contact and change do so on the assumption that bilingualism sets the stage for a variety of linguistic phenomena that result in change of one kind or another: code-​switching, borrowing, simplification of grammatical and lexical categories, development of periphrastic constructions, or overgeneralization of forms following a regularizing pattern, among other kinds of interference (Silva-​Corvalán, 1994, p. 7, p. 119, p. 130). This seemingly ubiquitous association between contact and change, however, has been challenged in a number of recent studies. As Poplack and Levey (2010, p. 391) point out, “much of the evidence brought to bear on contact-​induced change—​diachronic as well as synchronic—​either fails to demonstrate that change has occurred, and/​or if it has, that it is the product of contact and not internal evolution.” First, there is the problem of mistaking the inherent variability typical of all spoken language for change: whereas for any change to happen there needs to be variation, variation by itself does not always imply that a change is occurring. In fact, variation can be quite stable, and alternations between variant forms can be constant for several centuries (Poplack & Levey, 2010, p. 394). Second, while it is widely considered that language contact almost inevitably leads to change, much less attention has been paid to the fact that contact can just as well have the opposite effect and lead to the reversal or inhibition of a change in progress (Blas Arroyo, p. 2007; Enrique-​Arias, 2010, 2014a). And, third, in many cases in which a change is reported to result from contact there is no sound

 169

Contact-induced change in Mallorca Spanish 169 scientific demonstration that a change has actually occurred (Poplack & Levey, 2010, pp. 394–​398). Variationist sociolinguistics and experimental studies on bilingualism and second-​language acquisition have investigated contact-​induced changes—​ how innovative variants are transmitted and acquired—​through the synchronic observation of different generational groups. Even if we accept the empirical value of these approaches, there is no question that in establishing contact-​induced change we need to look at the history of the languages involved and examine whether the proposed interference features were not present in the pre-​contact variety—​that is, “we have to prove that the receiving language has changed by innovating these features” (Thomason, 2001, pp. 93–​94). The inclusion of a historical perspective thus enriches the study of language contact: Only in this way can we verify that phenomena identified as deviations from the monolingual norm did not already exist during pre-​contact situations. And so, it is always valuable to complement studies on apparent language change with the direct observation of older stages of languages beginning with the analysis of historical documents produced in the bilingual environment in order to trace out the history of interference phenomena in real time. The objective of this chapter is to explore the possibilities provided by historical research to the study of language contact, using as case studies three features characteristic of the variety of Spanish spoken in Mallorca that at first sight may seem to be the result of contact-​induced changes. Our goal is to demonstrate how a multidimensional approach to the study of linguistic change, taking into account both synchronic and diachronic analytical techniques, allows us to crucially determine whether a change has actually occurred. In the sections that follow, I  begin by providing a brief overview of the mechanisms that facilitate outcomes other than change in language-​contact situations, such as the inhibition or deceleration of a change. I then review the data and methodology that I  will follow that combine synchronic and diachronic analyses and are capable of identifying contact-​induced change in the Spanish of Mallorca. In the next section, I illustrate the utility of this approach by looking at three case studies: the use of the preposition en to express direction of movement; the preponderance of synthetic cantaré over periphrastic future voy a cantar; and the verb pedir ‘ask for something’ with the semantic and syntactic structure of preguntar ‘ask a question’. Finally, I conclude with some observations about the relevance of a historical perspective in the empirical establishment of contact-​induced change.

2.  An alternate outcome of language contact: inhibition of change While change is widely considered to be a common outcome of language contact, very little attention has been given to alternative scenarios, such as when contact favors the retention of traditional features that are receding in

170

170  Andrés Enrique-Arias the non-​contact variety. As I have explained elsewhere (Enrique-​Arias, 2010, pp.  100–​102), the mechanism that facilitates this outcome is fairly straightforward: When there is a change in progress (i.e., an innovative variant is increasing its frequency and encroaching on new contexts) the traditional variant may be reinforced by (a) the existence of a parallel structure in the contact language and/​or (b)  the absence of a structural equivalent for the innovative variant in the contact language. In such cases change could be delayed, and thus the spread of the innovative variant would progress more slowly than in non-​contact varieties of the same language. The evolution of the phenomenon known as yeísmo (the loss of the phoneme /​ʎ/​and its merger into the phoneme /​ʝ/​) illustrates how language contact has been a factor in the retention of traditional variants in the Spanish spoken in Mallorca (cf. Enrique-​Arias, 2010, pp. 101–​102). The loss of /​ʎ/​is a trend that has become part of the dominant urban speech pattern in Peninsular Spanish, but the existence of a more robust distinction between /​ʎ/​and /​ʝ/​in Catalan apparently has the effect of slowing down this change in Mallorcan Spanish. In Romera’s study in Palma, Mallorca’s main city and administrative capital, speakers with Catalan as L1 exhibited considerably higher levels of conservation of the distinction compared to those classified as Spanish L1 (Romera, 2003, pp. 371–​372). Similar effects of retention of conservative variants have been observed concerning the preservation of final /​s/​(Romera, 2003, p. 373) and /​d/​in -​ado participles (Blas Arroyo, 2007, pp. 269–​270) in Spanish in contact with Catalan situations. The mechanism that we have illustrated could explain the considerable vitality in Mallorcan Spanish of historical traits that exhibit a decrease in frequency or have even disappeared in general Spanish, such as: preverbal negative concord (nadie no ha venido, literally ‘nobody not has come’); overgeneralization of hacer ‘do/​make’ as a support verb for collocations that employ dar ‘give,’ tomar ‘take’ or poner ‘put’ in standard general Spanish (hacer asco ‘be disgusting’); the preference for using haber de rather than tener que in obligation periphrases; the tendency to adopt a two-​member deixis in the demonstratives in contrast with the tripartite distinction in monolingual Spanish, among others. Historical data (cf. Enrique-​Arias, 2010) reveals that these features are attested in Mallorcan Spanish at least since the 1700s and also had some sort of existence in monolingual Spanish varieties at the time when the language was introduced to the island of Mallorca. The historical continuity of these phenomena in Mallorcan Spanish suggests that these features are the result of the preservation of structures that are recessive in non-​contact Spanish but in Mallorca have been reinforced by the existence of a parallel Catalan structure. In sum, contact-​induced change is not the only outcome of language contact: When we incorporate a historical analysis or look at the trajectory of change over time we find alternate outcomes, including the retention of older variables or the inhibition or slowing down of a change.

 171

Contact-induced change in Mallorca Spanish 171

3.  Corpus and methodology In order to conduct a multidimensional (historical and synchronic) study on Mallorcan Spanish with a solid empirical base, we must make use of a historical corpus of Spanish-​language texts produced by bilingual Catalan speakers as well as a historical control corpus consisting of monolingual Spanish texts. At the same time, for the synchronic analysis, we need a corpus of interviews conducted in Mallorca with sociolinguistic stratification for sex, age, and level of education and distinguishing various levels of Catalan/​Spanish bilingualism (Catalan dominant, Spanish dominant) as well as access to a comparable corpus of Spanish-​language interviews compiled in a monolingual environment. At the present moment, there are no data sources with the characteristics we have just indicated; there are, however, two initiatives underway that will help remedy this situation. The research team that I coordinate at the University of the Balearic Islands is compiling the Corpus Mallorca (www.corpusmallorca. es), a collection of judicial statements and personal letters from the 18th and 19th centuries produced in Mallorca by Spanish-​Catalan bilinguals. Likewise, our team is creating a corpus of sociolinguistic interviews in the city of Palma. The analysis that follows will employ, in a preliminary and programmatic fashion, all of the currently available material. For the diachronic study we will utilize the epistolary archive of Cecilia Zaforteza, which contains 250 letters (approximately half in Spanish, half in Catalan) dated between 1739 and 1788 (for a complete description cf. Enrique-​Arias, 2014b). We will complement this with documentation from the Corpus Mallorca, which currently includes transcriptions of more than thirty collections of legal statements dated between 1769 and 1841. In order to obtain data on the Spanish that is currently in contact with the Catalan in Mallorca, we will refer to the existing research (Moll, 1961; Serrano Vázquez, 1996; Romera 2003), as well as to examples gathered from texts published in the local press. In order to compare the Spanish produced in the bilingual context of Mallorca against the monolingual peninsular varieties, we have made use of an online grammaticality judgment questionnaire that was distributed among university professors and students in Mallorca (distinguishing between Catalan-​ dominant and Spanish-​ dominant bilinguals) as well as among monolingual Spanish speakers in Salamanca, Madrid and Seville (see Enrique-​Arias, 2014a, p. 280 for detailed information on the participants in the study). On the test, participants were asked to evaluate the grammaticality of a number of sentences with scores ranging from 1 to 7 (where 1 stands for “completely unacceptable,” whereas 7 means “completely acceptable and natural sounding,” and 4 “acceptable although it sounds a bit strange”). I  am aware that this sort of data collecting cannot replace sociolinguistic interviews that aim to emulate spontaneous speech; however, the questionnaires serve the purpose of contrasting how comparable populations (educated young adults) in monolingual and bilingual settings react to the structures under study.

172

172  Andrés Enrique-Arias

4.  Testing contact-​induced change I will now turn to the historical analysis of a number of structures present in the Spanish spoken in Mallorca that are candidates for contact-​ induced change. Catalan has been in contact with Spanish to some degree since the late Middle Ages. At least since the late 1700s, there has been a growing sector of Mallorca’s Catalan-​speaking population that has used Spanish as the customary language for writing, as well as for communicating orally with native Spanish speakers from outside Mallorca (Enrique-​Arias, 2014b, p. 362). At present, knowledge of Spanish is practically universal in Mallorca, while knowledge of Catalan is conditioned by a speaker’s place of origin. According to data collected by the Regional Government of the Balearic Islands in 2010, 94% of individuals who were born on the Balearic Islands declared that they spoke Catalan, a percentage that drops to 29% for residents born outside the islands. Overall, 63.4% of the Balearic population is able to speak Catalan, or, in other words, is bilingual in Spanish and Catalan (for a detailed analysis of the available data see Melià, 2011). It is important to highlight two key aspects of the history of the contact between Spanish and Catalan in Mallorca: first of all, that this is a situation of social bilingualism that has endured for various centuries; and second, that for most of the period in which this contact has existed, Catalan has been in a position of subordination with respect to Spanish. In short, the circumstances necessary for the transference of features between the two languages have long been in place; however, as we are about to see, this fact alone does not imply that every phenomenon in the Spanish spoken in Mallorca that appears to be contact-​ induced change is in fact change at all, much less contact-​induced change. 4.1  Convergence with the non-​contact variety In the Spanish spoken by Catalan–​Spanish bilinguals in Mallorca, the preposition en is sometimes used to express direction, a phenomenon already observed by Moll (1961, p. 472), who provides examples like (1a,b) below. I have collected similar examples from the local press in Mallorca, as in (2):1 1. (1) 2. a.

b.

(2)

Se  fue    en Barcelona. REF   he-​left  in Barcelona ‘He left for Barcelona.’ A las nueve llegamos en la ciudad. at the nine we-​arrived in the city ‘At nine we arrived in the city.’

La pareja se trasladó en esta urbanización. [DM 09/​06/​2006] the couple REF moved in this housing-​complex ‘The couple moved to this housing complex.’

 173

Contact-induced change in Mallorca Spanish 173 The structure in examples (1a,b) and (2)  is ungrammatical in standard Spanish, which uses en for location and a for direction as shown in the examples (3a,b). In contrast, the Catalan spoken in Mallorca uses a to express both location and direction as exemplified in (4a,b). (3)

a. b.

(4)

a. b.

Estoy *a /​en Palma. ‘I am in Palma.’ Voy *en /​a Palma. ‘I go to Palma.’ Som *en /​a Palma. ‘I am in Palma.’ Vaig *en /​a Palma. ‘I go to Palma.’

From a comparison of the related Spanish and Catalan structures it follows that the directional uses of en in the Spanish of Mallorca are not the result of simple direct transfer from present-​day Catalan. As illustrated in (4a,b) Mallorcan Catalan uses a for both situation and direction; therefore, if bilinguals were just transferring the Catalan structure into their Spanish one would expect an overuse of the preposition a, not en, to express spatial relations. Interestingly, this sort of mismatch between the prepositional use in the suspected source of the interference and the actual outcome in the Spanish contact variety is rather common: Directional uses of en are attested in the varieties of Spanish that have come into contact with a number of languages such as Guarani in Paraguay (Choi, 2001), English in Texas (García, 1982) or Fang in Equatorial Guinea (Granda, 1988; Lipski 1990, p. 19). And this overuse of en happens regardless of how or whether the languages in question distinguish between situation and direction in their prepositional use. This suggests that we are dealing with a phenomenon, motivated by the tendency toward simplification and restructuring of grammatical rules, that is common in language contact situations (Silva-​Corvalán, 2014, p. 122). In order to observe the pervasiveness of this structure among Catalan-​ speaking bilinguals and Spanish-​speaking monolinguals from various geographic areas, the grammaticality judgment questionnaire includes the following items relevant to the directional uses of en. (5)

a.

Hace tiempo que la familia se trasladó en este barrio ‘Some time ago the family moved to this neighborhood’

b.

Salgan en la calle para ver la cortina desde fuera ‘Go out in the street to see the curtain from outside’ Me pongo nervioso cuando tengo que ir en un sitio nuevo ‘I get nervous when I have to go to a new place’

c. d.

Cuando llegamos en Barcelona ya no quedaban hoteles ‘When we arrived to Barcelona there were no hotel rooms left’

174

174  Andrés Enrique-Arias Table 9.1 Grammaticality of structures with directional uses of en Mallorca

5a 5b 5c 5d Average

Non-​contact Spanish

L1 Cat

L1 Span

Castile

Madrid

Andalucía

2.91 2.11 2.03 2.21 2.31

2.62 2.08 1.91 2.35 2.24

1.87 1.73 1.55 2.02 1.79

2.24 1.85 1.75 2.04 1.97

2.34 2.15 1.96 2.38 2.20

The results (see Table 9.1) show that overall the participants in the survey do not find the directional uses of en to be acceptable. In all cases we find values well below 4 (labelled ‘acceptable but sounds a bit strange’). The data in Table 9.1 seems to indicate that the directional uses of en are idiosyncratic (i.e., non community-​wide) structures that appear sporadically in a few bilingual speakers. Although acceptability among Mallorcans is slightly higher than what we observe in non-​contact areas, the difference is rather small. In contrast, the historical corpus shows that the use of en to express direction of movement was rather frequent among Catalan-​Spanish bilinguals in the 1700s, as exemplified in (6) and (7) below. In the Spanish letters written by Mallorcans there are 17 structures that convey direction of movement; of these 11 (65%) use the preposition en while only 6 (35%) conform to today’s standard use with a.2 (6)

En el viernes pasado pasamos en Palma. [ZA 121, 24, 1773] in the Friday past    we.passed in Palma ‘Last Friday we went to Palma.’

(7)

Llegamos en esse puerto. [ZA 70, 11, 1759] we.arrived in that port ‘We arrived at that port.’

Quite possibly, this feature of 18th-​ century Mallorcan Spanish was encouraged by the existence of a parallel construction in the Catalan of the time (Enrique-​Arias, 2010, p.  113). Unlike present-​day Catalan, in the language of the 18th century, en was frequently used to express direction, as documented in the Catalan letters in the historical corpus: 4. (8)

(9)

5. Aurà  de passar en Vic. [ZA 20, 21, 1743] will.have of pass  in Vic ‘He will have to get to Vic.’ Arribà lo dia de Pasqua en Madrit. [ZA 52, 6, 1756] he.arrived the day of Easter in Madrid ‘He arrived in Madrid on Easter.’

 175

Contact-induced change in Mallorca Spanish 175 The historical data, then, suggest that the current directional use of en that Moll (1961) and others have registered in the Spanish of Mallorca is the remnant of a structure that was fairly common in the 18th century but has declined considerably after a process of convergence with the non-​contact standard variety. 4.2  Inhibition of change Since the 17th century, future temporal reference in Spanish has undergone a significant change, whereby the territory of the morphological future cantaré has been progressively taken over by the periphrastic future voy a cantar (Aaron, 2010). A fair number of studies have demonstrated this trend, which is particularly advanced in Latin American Spanish (Sedano, 2007). Further, it has been claimed that in the Southwest region of the United States contact with English has accelerated the advance of the periphrastic future (Gutiérrez, 1995). In the areas where Spanish coexists with Catalan, however, the substitution of the morphological future by the periphrastic one is less advanced (Blas Arroyo, 2004, p. 1068). The inhibition in the Spanish spoken in Catalan-​ speaking areas of a trend that is virtually pan-​Hispanic seems to be due to the structural asymmetry of the expression of future in Catalan and Spanish. Both languages share the widespread Romance morphological future derived from the Latin periphrasis infinitive + HA BERE ‘to have’ (AM ARE H AB E O > amar-​é ‘I will love’). Nevertheless, unlike Spanish, which has developed a new periphrastic future with ir ‘go,’ the literal Catalan equivalent, that is, the periphrasis with anar ‘go,’ is used for the expression of preterit actions and states. The result of this asymmetry is that, while all varieties of Spanish have shown a historical tendency to replace the morphological future with the periphrasis with ir, bilingual Catalan speakers tend to retain it more; in other words, this is a case in which the outcome of language contact is the inhibition or deceleration of a change (Enrique-​Arias, 2010, p.  104–​105; 2014a, p.  290–​291). The effect of Catalan language contact on the retention of the morphological future has been illustrated by Blas Arroyo’s (2007) detailed study of the distribution of future forms in the Spanish of the Catalan-​speaking region of Castellón: speakers who are Catalan-​dominant exhibit systematically higher percentages of use of the morphological future. In order to observe from a historical perspective how this mechanism works, we would have to examine how the distribution of the two future forms has evolved over time and see whether the Spanish-​language documents produced in a bilingual setting exhibit a slower tendency towards the adoption of the periphrastic future. Even though as of yet there is not a historical corpora that would allow us to make this comparison on a solid empirical grounding, we will proceed to perform a preliminary analysis based on the available material. The most complete work on the evolution of Spanish future forms can be found in Aaron (2010). In her study, Aaron selects several historical periods (we leave aside Medieval Spanish as it is not relevant for this discussion): (a) the beginning of the 17th century, (b) the end of the 18th century to the

176

176  Andrés Enrique-Arias Table 9.2 Historical evolution of the expression of future in monolingual and bilingual areas Century

Monolingual writers (Aaron 2010)

Bilingual writers (Enrique-​Arias 2014a)

17th-​18th 19th TOTAL

4.3% (59/​1367) 13.1% (77/​588) 6.9% (136/​1955)

0.07% (2/​280) 1.2% (2/​168) 0.09% (4/​448)

beginning of the 19th century, and (c) the end of the 20th century to the early 21st century. In terms of results, her corpus registers 4% periphrastic future in the 17th and 18th centuries combined, 13% in the 19th century and 25% and 59%, respectively, for written and spoken materials in the most recent period (Aaron, 2010, p. 5). A comparison of these results with the available data for the Spanish of bilingual Mallorcans effectively suggests that there is indeed a slower evolution of this phenomenon among speakers of the contact variety. In the Spanish-​language letters found in the Cecilia Zaforteza epistolary archive (18th century), we find 210 examples of the morphological future as opposed to only two examples of the periphrastic future with ir.3 Similarly, the presence of the periphrastic future in the Royal Court of Palma documents is minimal: Out of 132 occurrences of future forms found in the 18th-​century texts no one is the periphrastic future, and in the 19th-​century documents there are only two examples in comparison to 166 occurrences of the synthetic future (in other words, the percentage of periphrastic future usage is less than 1%). Table 9.2 presents a summary comparison of both corpora: The comparison of the global data from each corpus seems to confirm the hypothesis that contact with Catalan has had the effect of slowing down the development of the periphrastic future in the Spanish of bilinguals, since monolingual peninsular data from both the 17th–​18th centuries and the 19th century produce percentages much higher than those observed in the Mallorcan corpus. That said, we must keep in mind that there are comparability problems between the two corpora (cf. Enrique-​Arias, 2012). First of all, there are discrepancies with respect to the dating of the chosen texts: The segment of the peninsular corpus that comprises texts from the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century coincides well enough with the dates of the Mallorcan corpus, but the author decided to combine data from 17th and 18th centuries, which affects the comparability of the two data sets. The 19th-​century data corresponds to two plays written in the 1830s, a time period close to the bulk of the legal document portion of the Mallorcan corpus, but quite distant from the Zaforteza letters, which spans the years 1739–​1788. The 18th-​century peninsular texts are from the last two decades of that century, that is, they coincide with many of the documents from the Royal Court of Palma, but in calculating the results in combination with the 17th-​century texts one loses the ability to directly compare the data with those of the Mallorcan corpus.

 177

Contact-induced change in Mallorca Spanish 177 The distribution of textual genres within the corpora also compromises comparability. With the intention of obtaining language samples that better reflect the interactivity of oral discourse, the corpus used in Aaron (2010) consists primarily of dramatic works (an objective that is compromised in the case of the 17th-​century plays and in one of the 18th-​century works since they are written in verse). The Mallorcan corpus brings together, on the one hand, personal letters, a genre that tends to be closer to spoken registers (Biber, 1995, p. 283–​300) and, on the other hand, court records in which we find both the formulistic language typical of the juridical register as well as more spontaneous passages, such as witness statements. Finally, as regards the different nuances in meaning that can emanate from the use of future tense forms, it is worth mentioning that we have just recorded every occurrence of the future tense forms under analysis in all the texts without distinguishing its exact meaning or function. To make a more detailed comparison, it would be necessary to consider the distribution of different uses of the future forms (future reference, imperative, epistemic value, etc.) in each of the corpora studied. At the present moment, the rather limited number of occurrences of the periphrastic future in the Mallorcan corpus makes a study on the co-​occurrences of different values of the future tense similar to that conducted by Aaron (2010) completely impossible. With respect to the values of the four periphrastic future examples contained in the corpus (10a-​d), in all cases the temporal reference corresponds to an event very near the moment of enunciation. (10)

a.

En esta voy a dar relación a V.M. … el modo de proseguir nuestro viaje [ZA, 125, Naples, 1777] In this letter I am going to relate to you the way of continuing our trip

b.

Perico ya está bueno pues luego le van a dar el Socorro [ZA, 212, ca. 1778] Perico is doing well as they are going to give him the succor right away

c.

Al parecer va a armarse un encuentro y competencia entre las dos justicias de Esporlas y Soller que parece del cabo evitar [AA 979/​14, 8r, Palma, 1804] Seemingly there is going to be an encounter and competition between the authorities of Esporlas and Soller which should be absolutely avoided

d.

Vuestra Magnánima, se ha de servir absolver a mi principal … por los motivos y razones que voy a exponer [AA 974/​5, 25r, Buñola, 1834] Your Honor should dismiss my client for the motives and reasons that I am going to set forth

178

178  Andrés Enrique-Arias In the cases of (10a) and (10c) voy a dar relación ‘I am going to give an account’ and voy a exponer ‘I am going to set forth,’ a reference is made to an action that the speaker is about to undertake; that is, there is an inchoative aspectual value that expresses a preparatory phase of the verbal action. In (10b), the imminence of the verb action is highlighted by the adverb luego ‘right away.’ And in (10c), the speaker alludes to imminence of an event that should be avoided. There are no examples in which the periphrastic future is used to predict an action or condition in a distant or indefinite future. In sum, the brief analysis of historical data in the preceding pages illustrates how the use and distribution of the two futures in the Spanish produced in Mallorca have been influenced by contact with Catalan, but not in a manner that has accelerated change, as is often invoked in studies of languages in contact: The available data point to the less frequent use of the innovative variant, the periphrastic future, which is restricted to its most conservative uses of referring to actions and situations that will occur immediately after the time of the utterance. 4.3  Persistence of a pre-​contact feature One of the more salient types of change reported to result from contact is when, in a given variety, we find a feature that (a) is different from the structural equivalent in the non-​contact variety, and (b) exhibits a structural parallel with the presumed source. This is what, at first sight, happens with the distribution and uses of pedir ‘ask’ in Mallorcan Spanish. General standard Spanish has two distinct verbs to convey the idea of ‘ask’: pedir (‘to ask someone to do or give something’) and preguntar (‘to ask a question’). Besides this lexical contrast, the two verbs have different syntactic properties: in general standard Spanish only preguntar, and not pedir, can subcategorize an interrogative clause (11a). In contrast, Catalan has one verb, demanar, which can be used in either sense, and can therefore subcategorize interrogative clauses (11b). (11)

a.

Le *pidió /​preguntó cómo estaba. him asked          how was

b.

Li va demanar com estava. him asked    how was ‘He asked him how he was doing’

Apparently, as a result of contact with Catalan, pedir in the Spanish spoken in Mallorca has acquired the semantic and syntactic properties of Catalan demanar. Therefore, in Mallorca, structures like (11a) are grammatical with either verb and it is rather common to hear expressions like me pidió cuánto cuesta el libro ‘he asked me how much the book costs’ which in non-​contact Spanish must use preguntar (Moll, 1961, p.  471; Serrano Vázquez, 1996, pp. 384–​385). The following examples from the local press illustrate this use:

 179

Contact-induced change in Mallorca Spanish 179 6. (12) 7. a. b.

8. Nos pidieron qué hacíamos aquí. [UH 7/​02/​06] ‘They asked us what we were doing here’ Así que llega al convento de Calvià, y pide por las langostas. [UH 29/​10/​06] ‘And so, he arrives to the convent in Calvia, and ask about the lobsters’

With the objective of studying the prevalence of this structure in the bilingual Catalan-​speaking population as well as in the monolingual Spanish-​ speaking population of various geographical areas, the questionnaire includes the following questions relevant to the uses of pedir in Balearic Spanish: (13)

a.

Mi vecina se acercó y me pidió por María. ‘My neighbor approached me and asked me about Maria’

b.

El policía se acercó y nos pidió qué estábamos haciendo allí ‘The police officer came over and asked us what we were doing there’

c.

Sebastián me pidió cuál era el camino hacia el castillo. ‘Sebastian asked me what was the way to the castle’

d.

Si no sabes llegar a mi despacho pide en recepción ‘If you don’t know how to get to my office ask at the reception desk’

The sentences present various types of deviations from the monolingual Spanish norm: the collocation pedir por in (13a); pedir subcategorizing an indirect interrogative in (13b-​c); and an intransitive use of pedir in (13d), which would mean something like ‘ask for alms’ and not ‘ask a question’ in monolingual Spanish. Table  9.3 presents a summary of the point totals received by the different pedir structures.

Table 9.3 Grammaticality of structures with pedir meaning ‘preguntar’ Mallorca

a pedir por ‘ask about’ b pedir qué ‘ask what’ c pedir cuál ‘ask which one’ d intransitive pedir AVERAGE

Non-​contact Spanish

L1 Cat.

L1 Span.

4.94 5.00 5.19 4.44 4.89

4.54 5.05 5.42 4.81 4.95

1.85 1.81 2.02 1.91 1.89

180

180  Andrés Enrique-Arias As anticipated, the results show that in Mallorca there is a high degree of acceptability, both among L1 Catalan speakers (4.89 on average) and L1 Spanish speakers (4.95); this suggests that we are dealing with a structure that has been completely integrated into Mallorcan Spanish. At the same time, monolingual Spanish speakers clearly reject such uses of pedir instead of preguntar (1.89). On the other hand, the corpus of historical documents produced in the bilingual Mallorcan context shows that this is not a new structure for the Spanish spoken in Mallorca. The letters and legal testimonies from the 18th and 19th centuries contain examples in which pedir is used to subcategorize interrogative clauses: (14)

a.

Margarita Dezclapés me ha embiado recado por que passasse a verla; y ha sido por pedirme, de Juana, si es de buena gente [ZA, 159, Palma, 1780] ‘Margarita Dezclapés sent me a message to come see me; and this was to ask me, about Juana, whether she comes from a good family’

b.

le acometieron y pegaron primero sin mas fundamento que el haver antes el declarante llamado aparte a Visente Palou y pedidole si contenia verdad que havia dicho bruta a su muger [AA 974/​10, 30v, Buñola, 1833] ‘They rushed him and hit him first without any more grounds than the declarant having called Visente Palou aside and asked him if it was true that he had called his wife a brute’

But to establish that the uses of pedir meaning ‘asking a question’ in the Spanish of Mallorca are indeed the result of a change, we need to show that over time there has been a difference between an outcome and an earlier stage, that is, we must compare the current structure with a relevant precursor to make sure that these uses did not exist in the pre-​contact variety. For this it suffices to take a look at the Royal Academy’s dictionaries and see that indeed the use of pedir in the sense of ‘to ask a question’ was not a rarity in 17th-​and 18th-​century general standard Spanish: In the first edition of the Academy’s dictionary, dated 1726–​1739, and all the subsequent updates through 1852 pedir is defined in its second meaning as “to ask [literally preguntar] or obtain information from someone on something” (cf. Real Academia Española sv. pedir). The very example provided by the Royal Academy to illustrate the correct uses of the word features pedir as matrix verb of an interrogative clause (pedían cuál era el camino ‘they asked which road it was’); the fact that this example (taken from a work written a century earlier by Baltasar Gracián) was included in the dictionary indicates that this use of pedir was approved and endorsed by the educated classes in the early 1700s.

 181

Contact-induced change in Mallorca Spanish 181 A number of other dictionaries reflect this older use of pedir as ‘ask a question’ in the history of Spanish. Corominas and Pascual (1980–​1991, sv. pedir) point out that in the past pedir was used with the value of preguntar … as is still the case with French demander and Catalan demanar.” Rufino José Cuervo, in his Diccionario de construcción y régimen de la lengua castellana (1994, s.v. pedir) also underscores this supposedly antiquated usage, which he illustrates with numerous examples selected from writers such as Mateo Alemán (1547–​1615), Saavedra Fajardo (1584–​1648), or Avellaneda’s Quijote (printed in 1614), among others. In short, the analysis that we have just conducted allows us to conclude that the uses of pedir in Mallorcan Spanish do not seem to merely be the result of an ex novo borrowing of Catalan syntactic structures into Spanish. Contact with Catalan has not led to the introduction of an innovating structure; instead, it has resulted in the preservation of a linguistic usage that existed in monolingual Spanish, reinforced by the existence of a parallel structure in Catalan.

5.  Summary and conclusions The historical considerations that have been presented throughout this chapter have served to illustrate the relevance of a diachronic perspective in the study of linguistic phenomena supposedly induced by language contact. I am well aware of the fact that, at present moment, we do not have sufficient empirical grounding to begin a full-​scale diachronic study on the Spanish of bilingual Catalan speakers in Mallorca; nevertheless, it has become clear from these preliminary explorations how some phenomena that from a purely synchronic standpoint are understood as innovations induced through the influence of Catalan—​the use of preposition en to express direction of movement, the preponderance of synthetic cantaré over periphrastic future voy a cantar, and the verb pedir ‘ask for something’ with the semantic and syntactic structure of preguntar ‘ask a question’—​are in fact structures that were already present in the writings of bilingual Catalan speakers from the 18th century. The historical analysis reveals that the aforementioned phenomena, which at first sight seem to be contact-​induced changes, are better analyzed with alternate explanations: the directional uses of en would represent residual variation after a process of convergence with the monolingual standard; the distribution of the futures is a case of inhibition or slowing down of a change, and the uses of pedir meaning ‘ask a question’ would be a case of retention of an older variable. Historical analysis is thus a fruitful way to arrive at a better understanding of how a contact variety is formed. We have also highlighted a series of methodological problems: the scarcity of historical Spanish-​language texts produced in a bilingual setting, the lack of detailed descriptions of some phenomena of theoretical relevance, and the problems of comparability between data sets coming from different corpora due to containing texts that belong to different time periods and linguistic

182

182  Andrés Enrique-Arias registers. Above all, it is necessary to establish a control corpus of monolingual Spanish that is similar in composition and characteristics to the corpus of Spanish produced in Mallorca’s bilingual environment. Only in this way will we be able to confidently move forward in the historical study of social, cognitive and linguistic factors that influence linguistic variation and change in contact situations.

Notes *  The research reported here was funded by grants from the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain (reference FFI2014-​59135-​R) cofinanced by FEDER funding, and by the La Caixa Bridge Program for research groups at the Universitat de les Illes Balears. 1 I identify the examples from local newspapers indicating the source (UH for Última Hora and DM for Diario de Mallorca) and date of publication. 2 The examples in the historical corpus are identified as follows: ZA for the collection of letters of Cecilia Zaforteza, with indication of document number, place, and date, and AA for the documents from the Royal Court of Palma, followed by signature, folio number, place and year. 3 This total (210) was arrived at after counting all of the occurrences in the epistolary corpus. If we restrict our count to texts written by subjects who are clearly bilingual Mallorcans, we arrive at 148 total cases (cf. Enrique-​Arias, 2010, p. 105; 2012, p. 18). This still indicates a very low percentage of periphrastic future usages (1.3%, or 2/​148), and in either case, the percentage is lower than that indicated in by Aaron’s data on monolingual Spanish for the 18th century (Aaron, 2010).

References Aaron, J. E. (2010). Pushing the envelope: Looking beyond the variable context. Language variation and change, 22,  1–​36. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-​ linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Blas Arroyo, J. L. (2004). El español actual en las comunidades del ámbito lingüístico catalán. In R. Cano Aguilar (Ed.), Historia de la lengua española (pp. 1065–​1086). Barcelona: Ariel. Blas Arroyo, J. L. (2007). El contacto de lenguas como factor de retención en procesos de variación y cambio lingüístico. Datos sobre el español en una comunidad bilingüe peninsular. Spanish in context, 4(2), 263–​329. Choi, J. K. (2001). The genesis of voy en el mercado: The preposition en with directional verbs in Paraguayan Spanish. Word, 52(2), 181–​196. Corominas, J., & Pascual, J. A. (1980–​1991). Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico. Madrid: Gredos. Cuervo, R. J. (1994). Diccionario de construcción y régimen de la lengua castellana. Santa Fe de Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Enrique-​Arias, A. (2010). On language contact as an inhibitor of language change: The Spanish of Catalan bilinguals in Majorca. In A. Breitbarth, C. Lucas, S. Watts, & D. Willis (Eds.), Continuity and change in grammar (pp. 97–​118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 183

Contact-induced change in Mallorca Spanish 183 Enrique-​Arias, A. (2012). Retos del estudio sociohistórico del contacto de lenguas a través de un corpus documental. El caso del castellano en contacto con el catalán en Mallorca. Revista de investigación lingüística, 15,  23–​46. Enrique-​ Arias, A. (2014a). Efectos del contacto de lenguas en el castellano de Mallorca: Una perspectiva histórica. In A. Enrique-​Arias, M. J. Gutiérrez, A. Landa, & F. Ocampo (Eds.), Perspectives in the study of Spanish language variation (pp. 271–​297). Santiago de Compostela: Universidad. Anexos de Verba, 72. Enrique-​Arias, A. (2014b). Lengua y escritura en la Mallorca del XVIII: El archivo epistolar de Cecilia Zaforteza. In A. Castillo Gómez & V. Sierra Blas (Eds.), Cinco siglos de cartas. Historia y prácticas epistolares en las épocas moderna y contemporánea (pp. 313–​328). Huelva: Universidad de Huelva. García, M. (1982). Syntactic variation in verb phrases of motion in U.S.-​Mexican Spanish. In J. Amastae & L. Elías-​Olivares (Eds.), Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic aspects (pp. 82–​92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Granda, G. de. (1988). Origen y configuración de un rasgo sintáctico en el español de Guinea Ecuatorial y en el portugués de Angola. Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica, 4,  81–​98. Gutiérrez, M. (1995). On the future of the future tense in the Spanish of the Southwest. In C. Silva-​Corvalán (Ed.), Spanish in four continents: Studies in language contact and bilingualism (pp. 214–​226). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Lipski, J. M. (1990). El español de Malabo: procesos fonéticos/​ fonológicos e implicaciones dialectológicas. Malabo: Centro Cultural Hispano-​Guineano. Melià, J. (2011). La llengua catalana a les Balears. Algunes dades recents sobre usos i coneixements. Lluc. Revista de cultura i d’idees, 878,  3–​7. Moll, F.  de B. (1961). El castellano en Mallorca. In Studia Philologica. Homenaje ofrecido a Dámaso Alonso por sus amigos y discípulos con ocasión de su 60° aniversario (Vol. 2, pp. 469–​474). Madrid: Gredos. Poplack, S., & Levey, S. (2010). Contact-​induced grammatical change: A cautionary tale. In P. Auer & J. E. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, vol. 1—​Theories and methods (pp.  391–​419). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Real Academia Española. Nuevo tesoro lexicográfico de la lengua española [consulted on line at www.rae.es]. Romera, M. (2003). La variedad del castellano actual en Baleares. Moenia, 9, 359–​381. Sedano, M. (2007). Future tense expressions in several Spanish corpora. In G. Parodi (Ed.), Working with Spanish corpora. Research in corpus and discourse (pp. 132–​ 144). London: Continuum. Serrano Vázquez, M. del C. (1996). Interferencias léxicas y semánticas en una situación de contacto entre dos lenguas, catalán y castellano. In M. Pujol & F. Sierra (Eds.), Las lenguas en la Europa comunitaria II (pp. 375–​394). Amsterdam: Diálogos Hispánicos. Silva-​Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change. Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon. Silva-​Corvalán, C. (2014). Bilingual language acquisition. Spanish and English in the first six years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomason, S. (2001). Language contact. An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

184

10  On grammaticalization and the development of Latin /​nV̆ r/​ in Spanish, Portuguese, and other varieties of Western Romance Kenneth J. Wireback 1.  Introduction After syncope of the unstressed vowel in the Latin /​mV̆ r/​ and /​nV̆ r/​ sequences, which produced /​mr/​and /​nr/​, respectively, Spanish and Portuguese show epenthesis in the development of Latin /​mV̆ r/​ (e.g., HUMERUM > /​ˈom.ru/​ > OSp., Ptg. ombro ‘shoulder’), but little or no epenthesis in the case of Latin /​nV̆ r/​ (e.g., GENERUM > /​ˈɟen.ru/​> Ptg. genro, Gal. xenro, Sp. yerno ‘son-​in-​ law’); TENERE HABEO > /​ten.ˈraj/​ > OPtg. terrei, OSp. terné, terré, tenrré (vs. less frequent OSp. tendré) ‘I will have.’ These outcomes stand in clear contrast to other Western Romance data, for example TENERE HABEO > OFr. tendrai ‘I will have’; GENERUM > Fr., Cat. gendre ‘son-​in-​law,’ where epenthesis was a regular outcome not only for Latin /​mV̆ r/​but also for Latin /​nV̆ r/​. One frequent explanation of the changes that applied to /​mr/​and /​nr/​claims that syncope produced disfavored or phonotactically awkward nasal + /​r/​sequences which were then resolved through epenthesis, assimilation, or metathesis (Penny, 2002, pp. 88–​90; Lloyd, 1987, p. 204). The motivation for such changes is apparently the crosslinguistic tendency to maximize the sonority sequencing of the syllable transition to ensure that the sonority of the onset consonant is not greater than that of the consonant in the preceding coda (Vennemann, 1988; Holt, 2004; Martínez-​Gil, 2003). Since rhotics are more sonorous than nasals, nasal + /​r/​sequences frequently undergo metathesis, regressive assimilation, or obstruent epenthesis in order to improve the sonority profile. What is not immediately clear, however, is why speakers choose one way to improve the cumbersome sequence rather than another. If metathesis, epenthesis, and assimilation all improve the sonority profile of /​mr/​and /​nr/​, what other factors might play a role in determining which of these ameliorative changes will eventually attain the greatest degree of regularity? Why was epenthesis of /​d/​, /​nV̆ r/​> /​nr/​> /​ndr/​, relatively rare in Old Spanish and Old Portuguese, and unable to match the regularity of /​b/​epenthesis (Latin /​mV̆ r/​ > /​mr/​> /​mbr/​)? Why did some speakers retain the disfavored /​nr/​sequence? In my view, one of the factors that favored one outcome over another was the impact of grammaticalization, because its reductive effects on sounds and sound sequences made changes like syncope, assimilation, and metathesis

 185

Grammaticalization and Latin /​nVr/​in Romance 185 especially likely to occur. In contrast, grammaticalization’s tendency toward phonological reduction would have impeded or minimized the frequency of epenthesis, because this latter change depends upon articulatory and acoustic enhancement rather than reduction (Recasens, 2011; Warner & Weber, 2001). From this perspective, my analysis postulates that the absence of regular /​nr/​ > /​ndr/​epenthesis in Hispano-​and Luso-​Romance was in large part due to the reductive effects of grammaticalization upon those /​nV̆ r/​sequences that formed part of the Romance future/​conditional stems. The Romance data suggest a relative chronology according to which the changes that affected Latin /​nV̆ r/​—​syncope, assimilation, metathesis, or epenthesis—​began first in the future/​conditional stems. Thus grammaticalization caused the reduction and transformation of the /​nV̆ r/​sequence to attain regularity first in the future/​conditional stems of high-​frequency verbs like P ON E RE ‘place,’ T ENER E ‘hold,’ VENI R E ‘come’ (cf. Phillips, 2006, pp.  113–​ 114; Malkiel, 1969; Lyons, 1978, p. 238, with regard to verb forms on the leading edge of a sound change). As a result, these future/​conditional stems could influence the ways in which /​nV̆ r/​sequences would subsequently develop in other word forms such as adjectives and nouns. Furthermore, since the reductive effects of grammaticalization (Hopper & Traugott, 1993, pp. 145–​150; Bybee et al., 1994, pp. 107–​110) made the perception of the /​nr/​sequence more difficult, the probability of assimilation to /​rr/​or metathesis to /​rn/​increased, whereas the probability of epenthesis to /​ndr/​decreased. Consequently, one reason for the general absence, or at best low frequency, of /​nr/​>/​ndr/​epenthesis in Luso-​and Hispano-​Romance was that grammaticalization favored the selection of non-​epenthetic variants of Latin /​nV̆ r/​(e.g., /​rr/​and /​rn/​) which, in turn, meant few or no /​ndr/​sequences in the future/​conditional allomorphy that could influence or be extended to other lexical items like Latin G E N E RU M ‘son-​in-​law’ and T ENERUM ‘tender.’ The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the data and discusses the major changes that applied to /​mV̆ r/​ and /​nV̆ r/​; section 3 discusses the mechanics of consonant epenthesis; section 4 investigates the key role of grammaticalization in minimizing or preventing epenthesis with regard to Latin /​nV̆ r/​, and section 5 provides a brief conclusion to the study.

2.  Data With regard to the outcomes of the Latin /​mV̆ r/​ and /​nV̆ r/​sequences, one must take into account four changes, namely syncope, epenthesis, assimilation, and metathesis. The first to occur was syncope, that is the loss of an unstressed pretonic or posttonic vowel, for example the loss of posttonic /​e/​in Latin G E NERUM /​ˈge.ne.ru/​> [ˈɟen.ru] ‘son-​in-​law,’ or the loss of pretonic /​e/​ in TENER E H A BEO > /​te.ne.ˈra.jo/​> Occitan tenrai ‘I will hold.’ After syncope, the /​mr/​and /​nr/​nasal + rhotic sequences could either: (a) remain intact, as in TENER E H A BEO > /​te.ne.ˈra.jo/​> Occitan tenrai ‘I will hold’; (b) undergo epenthesis, which is the insertion of an adventitious consonant between the

186

186  Kenneth J. Wireback nasal and /​r/​(e.g., TENERE HA BEO > /​te.ne.ˈra.jo/​ > /​ten.ˈraj/​> OFr. tendrai ‘I will hold’); (c) undergo assimilation via the deletion of the nasal together with the compensatory lengthening of /​r/​to produce /​rr/​(e.g., T E N E RE H AB E O > /​te.ne.ˈra.jo/​ > /​ten.ˈraj/​ > /​ter.ˈraj/​> OPtg. terrei /​te.ˈrej/​‘I will have’ (with degemination of /​rr/​to /​r/​in all of Western Romance)); or (d) have the order of the two consonants inverted from nasal + rhotic to rhotic + nasal via metathesis (e.g., TENERE HABEO > /​te.ne.ˈra.jo/​ > /​ten.ˈraj/​ > /​ter.ˈnaj/​> OSp. terné ‘I will have’). It is very likely that one of the primary motivators of the aforementioned changes that befell Latin /​nV̆ r/​was grammaticalization. Grammaticalization is a process whereby “lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions” (Brinton & Traugott, 2007), and “in which a linguistic element becomes less prototypically lexical and more prototypically grammatical” (Juge, 2007). In the case of the Romance future and conditional, the various forms of the verb H AB E RE lost their independent lexical status and fused with the infinitive stem as grammatical morphemes (e.g., T ENER E H ABEO > /​te.ne.ˈra.jo/​‘I will hold’). With regard to the phonological consequences of the process, grammaticalization frequently causes a reduction of the sounds that will comprise the newly created grammatical form: Vowels and consonants are deleted, a stress accent may be lost, adjacent sounds are assimilated to one another, and the duration of sounds and forms becomes shorter “as the phonemes that comprise them erode” (Hopper & Traugott, 1993, p. 145). Thus, Latin /​nV̆ r/​in expressions like T E N E RE H AB E O > /​te.ne.ˈra.jo/​‘I will hold’ would have been especially prone to undergo changes like syncope and assimilation because of the grammaticalization context in which the /​nV̆ r/​sequence occurred. With the aforementioned changes in mind, along with the impact that grammaticalization had in making changes like syncope and assimilation especially likely to occur, the remainder of section 2 presents the Luso-​and Hispano-​Romance data, and also the relevant Gallo-​Romance data for comparative purposes. As shown by the Luso-​Romance /​mV̆ r/​ and /​nV̆ r/​data in (1), epenthesis (>/​mbr/​) was the regular outcome for /​mV̆ r/​. With respect to Latin /​nV̆ r/​, a regular outcome for the future/​conditional stems was assimilation /​nr/​> /​rr/​, and in other lexical items /​nr/​was the regular result, though one finds sporadic cases of epenthesis or metathesis as well.1 The assimilatory outcome in the future/​conditional allomorphy, /​nV̆ r/​ > /​nr/​ > /​rr/​, was undoubtedly fostered by the grammaticalization context. (1)

Gal., Ptg. ombro ‘shoulder’ Gal., Ptg. cogombro ‘cucumber’ NUMERUM > OPtg. nombro ‘number’ MEMO R A RE > Gal., Ptg. lembrar ‘remember’ C A M ER A > OPtg. cambra ‘room’ P O NER E HABEO > OPtg. porrei ‘I will place’ HUMERUM >

C UC UMERUM >

 187

Grammaticalization and Latin /​nVr/​in Romance 187 OPtg. porredes ‘you (pl.) will have’ OPtg. terrei ‘I will have’ T ENER E HA BENT > OPtg. terran ‘they will have’ V E NIR E HABEO > OPtg. verrei ‘I will come’ V E NIR E HABES > OPtg. verrás ‘you will come’ V E NIR E HABEBAT > OPtg. berria ‘s/​he would come’ M A N E R E HABEO > OPtg. marrei ‘I will stay’ P O N E R E HA BETI S > T ENER E HA BEO >

T ENER E HA BEO > P O N E R E HA BEO > V E NIR E HABEO >

OPtg. tẽerei ‘I will have’ OPtg. põerei ‘I will place’ OPtg. vῖirei ‘I will come’

Ptg. genro, Gal. xenro ‘son-​in-​law’ Ptg. tenro ‘tender,’ terno ‘compassionate’ *C INER ATA > Ptg. cenrada ‘lye’ H O NO R A R E > O Ptg. ondrar ‘honor’ INGENER AR E > Ptg. engendrar ‘engender’ G E NERU M > T ENERU M >

OPtg. querrei ‘I will want’ OPtg. morrei ‘I will die’ F ER IR E HA BEO > OPtg. ferrei ‘I will strike, wound’ *G UA R IR E HABEO > OPtg. guarrei ‘I will give shelter to’ QUA ER E R E HA BEO > *M O R IR E HA BEO >

S A LIR E HABEO > VA L ER E HABET >

OPtg. salrei ‘I will leave’ OPtg. valrrá “s/​he will be worthy’

It is important to note that, in addition to syncope and assimilation as regards the development of Latin /​nV̆ r/​to /​nr/​and then /​rr/​, syncope of the unstressed pretonic vowel produced /​rr/​or /​r/​in other future/​conditional stems (e.g., QUA E R E R E HA BEO > OPtg. querrei ‘I will want’; SAL I RE H AB E O > OPtg. salrei ‘I will leave’). This is important because these other forms with a trill would have reinforced the connection between stem-​final /​r/​and the future/​ conditional allomorphy. Finally, we should also make note of the fact that for several centuries the future/​conditional stems with trill /​r/​(= grapheme ‘rr’) coexisted with analogical forms based upon the infinitive, e.g., T E N E RE H A B EO > OPtg. tẽerei alongside earlier terrei ‘I will have’ (Maia, 1986, pp. 841, 853; Moreno Bernal, 2004, p. 138). The analogical forms eventually ousted those with trill /​r/​, so that by the 16th century forms such as terrei ‘I will have’ and querrei ‘I will seek/​want’ had become restricted to rustic speech (Maia, 1986, p. 841; Teyssier, 1959, p. 119). According to the Spanish data in (2), obstruent epenthesis was the regular outcome for /​mV̆ r/​but not /​nV̆ r/​. The future/​conditional stems show a variety of outcomes, and metathesis is probably the most frequent outcome for both verbal and non-​verbal word forms (Moreno Bernal, 2004; Malkiel, 1946).2

188

188  Kenneth J. Wireback (2)

OSp. ombro ‘shoulder’ C UC UMERUM > OSp. cogombro, cohombro ‘cucumber’ MEMO R A RE > OSp. membrar ‘remember’ HUMERUM >

OSp. cambra ‘room’ combrá, comerá ‘s/​he’ will eat’ HABET > tembrá ‘s/​he will fear’

C A M ER A >

C O M EDER E HABET > TIM ER E

OSp. porné, porré, ponrré, pondré ‘I will place’ OSp. terné, terré, tenrré, tendré ‘I will have’ TENER E HABEBAM > OSp. tenrrie, terria ‘I would have’ V ENIR E HA BET > OSp. verná, verrá, venrrá, vendrá ‘s/​he will come’ V ENIR E HA BEBAT > OSp. verria ‘s/​he would come’ P O NER E HABEO > TENER E HABEO >

OSp. yerno ‘son-​in-​law’ tierno ‘tender,’ ‘compassionate’ (D IES ) V ENER I S > viernes ‘Friday’ *C IN E R ATA > OS p. cernada, cendrada ‘coarse ashes’ HO N O R AR E > ornar, onrrar, ondrar ‘honor’ IN G E NERARE > engendrar ‘engender’ P IGNO R A > /​ˈpeʲɲ.ra/​ > pendra ‘pledge’ GENERU M > TENERU M >

OSp. querrá ‘s/​he will want’ OSp. conquerrá ‘s/​he will conquer’ FER IR E HABETI S > OSp. ferredes ‘you (pl.) will strike, wound’ PA R ER E HABES > OSp. parrás ‘you will give birth’ S A L IR E HABET > OSp. salrrá ‘s/​he will leave’ VA LER E HA BET > OSp. valrrá “s/​he will be worthy’ QUA E R E RE HABET >

C O N QUIRER E HABET >

Similar to what we see with the Luso-​Romance data in (1), the Old Spanish data in (2) show the effects of grammaticalization in the creation of stem-​final /​r/​< /​rr/​in the future/​conditional (e.g., OSp. terré ‘I will have’; OSp. querrá ‘s/​ he will want’). With regard to the French, Occitan, and Catalan data in (3), syncope followed by obstruent epenthesis was the predominant outcome in French and Catalan for both /​mV̆ r/​ and /​nV̆ r/​. In southern Gallo-​Romance, however, retention of /​nr/​was as regular as epenthesis to /​ndr/​, and in certain dialects of Catalan (e.g., rosellonès, mallorquí), post-​syncope /​nr/​was the regular outcome rather than epenthetic /​ndr/​(Fernández González, 1985, pp. 222, 357–​ 358; Wüest, 1979, pp. 316–​320).3 (3)

Fr., Occ., Cat. nombre ‘number’ OFr. membrer, OOcc., OCat. membrar ‘remember’ C A M ER A > Fr. chambre, Occ., Cat. cambra ‘room’ TR E MER E > *CR EMERE > OFr. criembre ‘to fear’ NUMERUM >

MEMO R A RE >

 189

Grammaticalization and Latin /​nVr/​in Romance 189 P O NER E HA BEO >

Occ. ponrai, pondrai, Cat. pondré, dial. ponré ‘I will

place’ TENER E HA BEO >

OFr. tendrai, Occ. tenrài, tendrài, Cat. tindré, dial.

tinré ‘I will hold’ OFr. vendra, Occ. venrà, vendrà, Cat. vindrà, dial. vinrà ‘s/​he will come’ V ENIR E HA B ET >

GENERU M >

Fr. gendre, Occ. genre, gendre, Cat. gendre, dial. genre

‘son-​in-​law’ TENERU M >

Fr. tendre, Occ. ‘tender,’ ‘compassionate’ Occ. divenres, divendres, Cat. divendres, dial. divenres

DIE S V ENERI S >

‘Friday’ Fr. vendredi ‘Friday’ Fr. cendre Occ. cenre, cendre ‘ashes’ HO N O R A R E > Occ. onra(r) ‘honor’ P O NER E > OFr. pundre ‘to place’ V ENER IS DI ES > C IN E R E M >

DO NA R E HABEO > DUR A R E HABEO >

/​do.na.ˈra.jo/​ > donrai > OFr. dorrai ‘I will give’ /​du.ra.ˈra.jo/​> OFr. durrai ‘I will last, endure’

Similar to the verbal /​nV̆ r/​> /​nr/​> /​rr/​data in (1) and (2), we have in (3) data that suggest that grammaticalization fostered the assimilatory shift from /​nr/​ to /​rr/​, for example Old French dorrai ‘I will give’ (Pope, 1934, pp. 113, 148). In summary, the data in (1)–​(3) show that, in contrast to the broad, regular epenthetic outcome for /​mr/​> /​mbr/​, the epenthesis of /​d/​in the /​nr/​sequence was the preferred outcome of Latin /​nV̆ r/​only in French, Catalan, and a few other varieties like Navarro-​Aragonese (Moreno Bernal, 2004, pp. 147–​149). In the next section we discuss the mechanics of consonant epenthesis in the /​mr/​ and /​nr/​ sequences.

3.  Syncope, rhotics, and epenthesis Since syncope of the unstressed vowel in Latin /​mV̆ r/​ and /​nV̆ r/​placed a syllable-​final nasal in contact with a rhotic, one should consider the articulation of the rhotic sound. Evidence in the form of commentaries from Latin grammarians (“tremulous motion,” “rapid blows”) indicates that both R and RR were trills (Sturtevant, 1940, pp.  150–​151), though there may have also existed non-​vibrant allophones (Catford, 2001). In addition, it is likely that Latin intervocalic R was frequently realized as a tap or as a one-​contact trill. Bhat (1974, pp. 83–​84) observes that data on trill variation in many languages indicate that trills frequently lenite to taps in intervocalic position, and Latin dissimilation data (e.g., MADI DUS, MAREDUS ‘wet,’ ‘drunk’); *M E D ( I ) E I -​D I E > M E R IDIE ‘at noon’ (Lindsay, 1894, p. 288; Baldi, 2002, p. 292) confirm this for Latin R. Consequently, regarding the Latin /​mV̆ r/​ and /​nV̆ r/​sequences, one may suggest that as long as the intertonic vowel was maintained or weakly

190

190  Kenneth J. Wireback articulated, /​r/​was probably realized as a tap or a one-​contact trill (e.g., GENERU M > [ ˈɟe.ne.ɾu] , [ ˈɟe.nə.ɾu] ‘son-​in-​law’; M E M ORARE > [me.mə.ˈɾa.ɾe] ‘remember’). Conversely, after syncope the vibrant was probably realized as a trill (e.g., GENERUM > [ˈɟen.ru] ‘son-​in-​law,’ M E M ORARE > [me.m.ˈra.ɾe] ‘remember’), since trills are “more suited” to a postconsonantal environment in comparison to taps (Bhat, 1974, pp. 83–​84; Bradley, 2001, pp. 93–​94, 109; Recasens & Espinosa, 2007; Recasens, 2011, p. 1146). With respect to epenthesis, nasal + vibrant sequences like /​mr/​and /​nr/​ undergo obstruent epenthesis due to both articulatory and perceptual factors. During the first part of the nasal + /​r/​sequence, the velum is lowered for /​m/​or /​n/​in order to allow nasal resonance; velic closure occurs at the offset of the nasal in anticipation of the following trill. In some instances, velic closure occurs somewhat prematurely, with the result that the oral closure of the nasal continues beyond the onset of velic closure. If this occurs, the result is the emergence of an oral stop that is homorganic with the preceding nasal (Ohala, 1993a, p. 160; 1997). According to Recasens (2011) and Warner and Weber (2001), the degree to which this emergent or coarticulatory stop is perceived depends upon the robustness of the consonant release; one source of robustness is the buildup of intraoral pressure. In the nasal + trill sequence, intraoral air pressure is relatively high at the offset of oral closure due to the production requirements of the trill, with the result that in the articulation of the /​mr/​and /​nr/​sequences a [b]‌or [d] is often salient enough to be perceived and subsequently reanalyzed as /​mbr/​and /​ndr/​, respectively (e.g., H U M E RU M > [ˈom.ru] > OSp., Ptg. ombro ‘shoulder’; TE N E RE H AB E O > /​te.ne.ˈra.jo/​ > [ten.ˈrej] > OSp. tendré ‘I will have’; GENERUM > [ˈɟen.ru] > Fr., Cat. gendre ‘son-​in-​law’). The French and Catalan data in (3) show that, regardless of whether the nasal is /​m/​or /​n/​, or whether the word in question was a future/​conditional form, epenthesis was the regular outcome (e.g., T E N E RE H AB E O > /​ten.ˈraj/​ > Fr. tendrai, Cat. tindré ‘I will hold/​have’; GE N E RU M > [ˈɟen.ru] > Fr., Cat. gendre ‘son-​in-​law’; CA MER A > Fr. chambre, Cat. cambra ‘chamber’). In contrast, even though Spanish and Portuguese also show obstruent epenthesis with Latin /​mV̆ r/​, they do not follow suit in the case of /​nV̆ r/​ (e.g., T E N E RE HA B EO > / ​ten.ˈraj/​> OSp. terné, OPtg. terrei ‘I will have’; G E N E RU M > Sp. yerno, Ptg. genro ‘son-​in-​law’). This lack of a broader instance of /​nr/​> /​ndr/​ epenthesis in Luso-​and Hispano-​Romance is unexpected given the role of homorganicity in fostering epenthesis. Recasens (2011, pp. 1142–​1146) states that homorganicity seems to increase the duration of closure, thereby leading to greater intraoral air pressure, a more robust burst at closure offset, and consequently a more perceptible emergent obstruent. Since alveolar /​n/​and /​r/​form a homorganic sequence, the dominance of epenthetic outcomes for Latin /​nV̆ r/​in French and Catalan is in line with the view that homorganicity favored the eventual regularization of /​nV̆ r/​> /​nr/​> /​ndr/​. It is unclear, therefore, why Old Spanish and Old Portuguese speakers did not opt for a regular epenthesis with regard to /​nr/​> /​ndr/​. In section 4, I account for this

 191

Grammaticalization and Latin /​nVr/​in Romance 191 discrepancy with an appeal to the role of grammaticalization in leading the development of Latin /​nV̆ r/​away from an epenthetic outcome.

4.  The role of grammaticalization in the development of Latin /​nV̆ r/​ in Spanish and Portuguese 4.1  Grammaticalization and the outcomes of Latin /​nV̆ r/​ Whereas Italian, Galician–​Portuguese, and Spanish differ in terms of the outcome of nouns and adjectives that contained the Latin /​nV̆ r/​ sequence (e.g., G E N E RU M > Ital. genero, Ptg. genro, Sp. yerno ‘son-​in-​law’), they are similar as regards the future/​conditional stems (e.g., V E N I R E H A B E O > Ital. verrò, OPtg. verrei, OSp. verre ‘I will come’). In terms of relative chronology, this suggests that the reduction and syncope of Latin /​nV̆ r/​ began earlier in the future/​conditional stems (Valesio, 1968, pp. 287ff.; Lyons, 1978, p. 227), and only later became regular in nominal and adjectival forms like G E N E RU M ‘son-​in-​law’ and T E N E RU M ‘soft, tender,’ by which point Italo-​, Luso-​and Hispano-​Romance had increased further their degree of dialectal differentiation. As discussed above in section 2, the most likely explanation for the earlier reduction of Latin /​nV̆ r/​in the future/​conditional word forms is that in this context the /​nV̆ r/​sequence was subjected to a grammaticalization process, the morphologization of infinitive + HABEO ‘I have’ and infinitive + H AB E BAM ‘I had’ periphrases for the future and conditional, respectively. Since grammaticalization frequently causes phonological reductions of various types (Klausenburger, 2000, p. 71; Hopper & Traugott, 1993, pp. 145–​150; Bybee et al., 1994, pp. 107–​110), it is quite probable, in the spoken Latin of those areas of Romania that had chosen infinitive + habeo/​habebam rather than some other way of indicating futurity/​ subsequence, that /​ nV̆ r/​ sequences in periphrastic expressions like VENI R E HABEO / ​βe.ni.ˈra.jo/​ ‘I will come,’ P O NER E HA B EO /​po.ne.ˈra.jo/​ ‘I will place,’ and T E N E RE H AB E O /​te.ne.ˈra. jo/​ ‘I will hold,’ were the first /​nV̆ r/​sequences to undergo reduction, syncope, assimilation, or epenthesis. 4.2  Grammaticalization and epenthesis In terms of the interaction between grammaticalization and epenthesis, grammaticalization must have lowered the frequency of /​nr/​> /​ndr/​epenthesis, that is to say the frequency with which speakers perceived an emergent [d]‌as a “by-​product” of the articulation of the /​nr/​sequence. As discussed in section 3, epenthesis of /​d/​depends upon a sufficiently robust burst at the oral release of /​n/​into /​r/​(Recasens, 2011, pp.  1145–​1146), without which the stop will tend not to be perceived (Warner & Weber, 2001, p.  81). Given that grammaticalization generally reduces both the substance and the duration of sounds (Bybee et  al., 1994, pp.  6–​7), an

192

192  Kenneth J. Wireback epenthetic [d] should be more difficult to perceive if /​nr/​occurs within a grammaticalization context. The likelihood that perceptually driven /​nV̆ r/​> /​nr/​> /​ndr/​epenthesis was inhibited to a certain extent by grammaticalization explains why, in certain Romance areas, speakers retained the apparently disfavored /​nr/​sequence rather than opt for epenthetic /​ndr/​. While in some areas of Western Romance epenthesis was in fact the regular outcome in the future and conditional of verbs like V ENI RE ‘ come,’ PO NERE ‘put,’ TE N E RE ‘hold,’ and in turn also regular in non-​verbal forms like GENERUM > Fr., Cat. gendre ‘son-​in-​law,’ TENERUM > Fr., Cat. tendre ‘tender, soft,’ other Western Romance varieties clearly preferred maintenance of /​nr/​over epenthesis (e.g., G E N E RU M > Occ., dial. Cat. genre ‘son-​in-​law’; TENER E HA BEO > Occ. tenrai, Cat. (rosellonès) tenré ‘I will have’).4 By locating the first phase of the reduction of Latin /​nV̆ r/​in the context of a grammaticalization process, one may explain in part why non-​epenthetic /​nr/​survived in several areas of Western Romance, (e.g., to the north and east of Langue d’Oïl, areas of Occitan, and in varieties of Catalan (Zink, 1986, p. 188; Wüest, 1979, pp. 315–​320; Walsh, 1987, pp. 314, 318n. 35, 36)). Epenthesis never became established in the future/​ conditional allomorphy of stems like /​ten.ˈr-​/​ ‘hold,’ /​pon.ˈr-​/​‘place,’ and therefore no verbal /​ndr/​sequences arose that otherwise might have influenced other lexical items. 4.3  Grammaticalization, assimilation, and the development of /​nV̆ r/​ to /​rr/​ in Luso-​Romance In contrast to its effects upon epenthesis, grammaticalization undoubtedly increased the likelihood of regressive assimilation from /​nr/​to /​rr/​by enhancing certain phonetic aspects of the /​nr/​sequence that already favored /​r/​over /​n/​. First, the nasal consonant in the future/​conditional stems was in the coda of an unstressed syllable, a context that tends to cause segment reduction and weaker acoustic cues (Hume, 2004, p. 214). Second, of the two consonants in the /​nr/​sequence, the trill was especially likely to overpower the nasal acoustically, given the trill’s high acoustic perceptibility (Widdison, 1997) and the fact that it was the second consonant in the VCCV sequence; the acoustic cues of the second consonant are more salient and generally overshadow those of the first (Ohala, 1993a, p. 159; Blevins, 2007). Thus, under the additional pressure of grammaticalization, we would expect the implosive nasal to bear the brunt of this pressure, so that speakers frequently heard only those cues of the dominant second consonant, the trill. Consequently, as the data show above in section 2, one finds an assimilatory outcome to /​rr/​in the future/​conditional stems of several Romance-​speaking areas (e.g., PONERE HABEO > O Ptg. porrei, Ital. porrò ‘I will place’; VENIRE HABET > OSp. verrá ‘s/​he will come’).5 With regard to the development of Latin /​nV̆ r/​in Galician-​Portuguese, it is likely that the reduction of /​nV̆ r/​to /​rr/​rather than to /​nr/​, due to grammaticalization (e.g., OPtg. porrei ‘I will put, place,’ terrei ‘I will hold/​have,’ verrei

 193

Grammaticalization and Latin /​nVr/​in Romance 193 ‘I will come’), rendered unlikely an epenthetic development /​nV̆ r/​ > /​nr/​ > /​ndr/​for lexical items like Latin GENERUM ‘son-​in-​law’ and T E N E RU M ‘soft, tender.’ Since there survived in Galician-​Portuguese no /​nr/​sequences in the future/​conditional allomorphy of VENI R E ‘come,’ P ON E RE ‘put,’ and T E N E RE ‘hold/​have,’ it was impossible for epenthesis to occur, and thus there were no instances of /​ndr/​in the future/​conditional allomorphy that might otherwise have provided the impetus toward the later formation and preference for outcomes like *gendro ‘son-​in-​law,’ *tendro ‘tender’ in Luso-​Romance. On the other hand, even though an extension of /​nr/​> /​rr/​in Galician-​ Portuguese, from the future/​conditional allomorphy to nominal or adjectival forms like G E N E RU M > Ptg. genro, Gal. xenro ‘son-​in-​law,’ T E N E RU M > tenro ‘tender, soft,’ was theoretically possible (cf. H O N O R A R E > OIt. orrare alongside onrare ‘honor,’ and H O N O R A B I L E > OIt. orrevole ‘honorable,’ due perhaps to the prevalence of infinitival and future/​conditional stems with /​rr/​—​Malkiel, 1973, pp.  222–​223; Tuttle, 1974, p.  453), in my view there were several obstacles to such an extension. First, the absence of a grammaticalization context for G E N E RU M > genro ‘son-​in-​law,’ T E N E RU M > tenro ‘tender, soft,’ * C I N E R ATA > cenrada ‘lye’ meant that the /​nr/​sequence was probably articulated with a more perceptually salient /​n/​than was the case for /​nr/​in the future/​conditional stems. Second, in the development of Latin G E N E RU M ‘son-​in-​law,’ T E N E RU M ‘tender, soft,’ the nasal formed the coda of a stressed syllable (e.g., G E N E RU M > /​ˈɟen.ru/​> /​ˈdʒen.ro/​> /​ˈdʒẽ.ro/​ > Ptg. genro, Gal. xenro ‘son-​in-​law’), and therefore was even less susceptible to elision (cf. Sampson, 1999, p. 184). Third, /​nr/​> /​rr/​assimilation in Luso-​Romance future/​conditional stems may have occurred in part due to the influence of other future/​conditional stems that possessed /​rr/​as a direct reflex of syncope (e.g., querrei < quererei ‘I will want,’ morra < morira ‘s/​ he will die,’ guarrei < guarirei ‘I will heal,’ ferra < ferira ‘s/​he will wound’). Thus /​rr/​< /​nr/​probably became associated primarily with the future/​conditional morphology (cf. Malkiel, 1973, pp.  222–​223; Tuttle, 1974, p.  453, n. 9; Moreno Bernal, 2004, p. 136; Alvar & Pottier, 1983, pp. 251–​252), and consequently /​nV̆ r/​> /​nr/​> /​rr/​was much less likely to be extended to other, non-​verbal word forms. The presence of analogical future/​conditional stems formed with the infinitive (Williams, 1962, p. 207; Maia, 1986, p. 841), for example T E N E RE H AB E O > tener hei > tẽerei, terei ‘I will have’ (where ‘r’ represents the alveolar tap /​ɾ/​), was another obstacle to the creation of verbal /​nr/​> /​ndr/​models, since intervocalic /​-​n-​/​had nasalized the preceding vowel and was subsequently lost (Sampson, 1999, pp. 182–​185; Williams, 1962, pp. 70–​74). According to Maia (1986, pp. 840–​841), these analogical forms go back rather far into the history of Galician-​Portuguese (though apparently not as far back as the stems with trill ‘rr’), and appear to have coexisted with the assimilated /​rr/​> /​r/​stems for several centuries, until the analogical forms eventually won out. In summary, the impossibility of a verbal /​nr/​> /​ndr/​shift because of the Luso-​ Romance preference for either future/​ conditional stems with

194

194  Kenneth J. Wireback assimilatory /​rr/​> /​r/​, or analogical forms whose stem had lost the intervocalic /​n/​, meant that speakers of Old Galician and Old Portuguese possessed no verbal /​ndr/​sequences that might otherwise have tipped the balance in favor of epenthetic outcomes for words like GENERU M ‘son-​in-​law’ and T E N E RU M ‘tender, soft.’ Thus OPtg. genro ‘son-​in-​law,’ and tenro ‘tender’ maintained the /​nr/​sequence until the onset of vowel nasalization + loss of /​n/​from the 10th century onward (Williams, 1962, pp.  70–​74; Sampson, 1999, pp.  190–​ 194, 207–​208, 216). 4.4  Grammaticalization, /​nV̆ r/​, and metathesis in Hispano-​Romance With respect to the regularity of /​nr/​> /​rn/​metathesis in Old Spanish, one may posit a relationship between the effects of grammaticalization upon /​nV̆ r/​ in the future/​conditional stems, an increase in the probability of metathesis, and the subsequent spread of metathesis to other word forms like T E N E RU M ‘soft, tender’ and GENERUM ‘son-​in-​law.’ According to Hume’s (2004) indeterminacy/​attestation model, metathesis from /​nr/​to /​rn/​depends upon two interrelated factors, perceptual ambiguity as to the order of the two sounds together with extant /​rn/​sequences. First, in terms of perceptual ambiguity and indeterminacy, both /​n/​and /​r/​are sonorant consonants that share an alveolar point of articulation (Hume, 2004, p. 218); this similarity complicates the listener’s ability to determine the correct sequencing of the two sonorants. Second, some of the acoustic cues for consonant nasality are diffuse in that they “manifest themselves over fairly long temporal intervals” (Ohala, 1993b, p. 251); thus the absence of a sharp onset or offset for these cues exacerbates the level of ambiguity regarding whether the listener has in fact heard /​nr/​ or /​rn/​. Third, uncertainty as to the correct order of /​r/​and /​n/​is especially likely if the rhotic is articulated as a tap, or is at least more “tap-​like” rather than more “trill-​like.” Support for this view derives from the fact that nasals and vibrants are frequent targets of dissimilation and non-​adjacent metathesis, where intervocalic /​r/​was most likely realized as [ɾ]; for instance, B E N E > dialectal Romanian bire ‘well’; serano > W. Tusc. sen(n)ero ‘celery’ (Catford, 2001, p. 178; Tuttle, 1974, p. 462). With regard to adjacent metathesis from /​nr/​ to /​rn/​, one could argue that the trill following /​n/​was acoustically closer to [ɾ] in comparison to trills articulated in other phonological contexts. According to Recasens and Espinosa (2007, pp. 14–​15), two short contacts are the rule for postconsonantal trills in Catalan, and this is also the case for Spanish (Navarro, 1957, p. 122). In some cases there is only one contact, rather than two (Recasens & Espinosa, 2007), which from an acoustic perspective suggests a trill realization that is indistinguishable from tap [ɾ] (Lindau, 1985, pp. 161, 166). Finally, Inouye’s (1995, p. 244) analysis found that 1.5 contact trills—​ trills with one contact plus a second incomplete or approximated closure—​ were acoustically all but indistinguishable from tap [ɾ]. The attestation part of Hume’s analysis claims that sound sequences that already form part of the phonotactic inventory of a language often lead

 195

Grammaticalization and Latin /​nVr/​in Romance 195 speakers to invert the order of two phonetically similar sounds. With respect to the /​nr/​reflex of Latin /​nV̆ r/​, diffuse cues for nasality and the acoustic similarity of nasals and vibrants exacerbate the uncertainty as to whether one has heard /​rn/​or /​nr/​; in such cases, the presence of /​rn/​sequences in the lexicon cause the listener to perceive [nr] as /​rn/​(Hume, 2004, p. 209). Since /​rn/​was a permissible sequence in Latin (e.g., PER NA ‘ham,’ F U RN U S ‘oven’), this could have led speakers of Old Spanish to interpret any acoustically ambiguous realizations of post-​syncope /​nr/​ as  /​rn/​. Given the central role of perceptual uncertainty or ambiguity in cases of /​nr/​> /​rn/​metathesis, grammaticalization must have increased further the likelihood of metathesis. Hume (2004, pp.  217–​219) notes that the context in which a sound sequence occurs may mask key acoustic cues, resulting in “diminished perceptual salience”; given the reductive effects of grammaticalization, we should expect /​nr/​> /​rn/​metathesis to be somewhat more likely in these cases. First, as noted above in section 4.3, the fusion of infinitive + HABEO/​H ABEBAM ‘I have/​I had’ sequences into one word form placed /​n/​in the coda of an unstressed syllable, which would have reduced its perceptual salience (Hume, 2004, p. 214; Klausenburger, 2000, p. 71). Second, reduction due to grammaticalization would have increased the frequency with which /​r/​ was articulated with fewer alveolar contacts, namely more one-​and 1.5-​contact trills. If a greater number of /​r/​realizations, under pressure of grammaticalization, consisted of one or 1.5 contacts, the acoustic distance between /​n/​and /​r/​would have been further minimized, and the probability of metathesis would have increased. Thus, the grammaticalization context in which the reduction of /​nV̆ r/​first arose increased further the odds of metathesis from /​nr/​to /​rn/​, with the result that it became regular in Old Spanish. Once established in the future/​conditional allomorphy, metathetic /​rn/​models undoubtedly influenced speakers’ preference for parallel instances of metathesis in other lexical items like GENERUM > yerno ‘son-​in’law,’ *CINERATA > cernada ‘coarse ashes,’ and TENERUM > /​ˈtɛn.ru/​> /​ˈtjer.no/​ > tierno ‘soft, tender.’ Ultan (1978), in his typological overview of metathesis, noted that metathesis is a recessive process, often overpowered by more dominant sound changes like assimilation. Thus, even though grammaticalization made metathesis somewhat more likely to occur, one might still wonder why speakers did not prefer more potent alternatives like assimilation /​nr/​> /​rr/​. In fact, a closer analysis of syncope reveals at least one way in which speakers of Hispano-​ Romance may have been led to select metathesis to /​rn/​before the onset of assimilation. The development of Latin /​mV̆ r/​ and /​nV̆ r/​is often described as a straightforward case of syncope or vowel loss (e.g., G E N E RU M > [ˈɟen.ru] > Ptg. genro ‘son-​in-​law’). However, it is very likely that, along with syncope, there were also weakly articulated variants of the unstressed vowel (e.g., G E N E RU M > [ˈɟe.nə.ru], [ˈɟe.nə.ru] ‘son-​in-​law’), so that syncope was the last stage of a more gradient process of vowel reduction (cf. Rix, 1966; Nishimura, 2008, pp. 44–​49). Harris-​Northall’s (1990, p. 139) investigation provides support for this view. His analysis stressed the gradual extension of syncope from contexts

196

196  Kenneth J. Wireback that did not violate Latin phonotactics to contexts that were increasingly more eccentric in this respect. Since Harris-​Northall locates the transformation of the Latin /​mV̆ r/​ and /​nV̆ r/​sequences towards the end of the overall process—​by which time syncope had “gathered sufficient momentum to force into existence … clusters that were formerly disallowed” (1990, p. 151)—​it is conceivable that until that point speakers may have attenuated the impetus toward a broader application of syncope through retention of a weak or vestigial version of the intertonic vowel, perhaps according to speech style (Gsell, 1996, p. 560; Loporcaro, 2011, p. 61; Harris-​Northall, 1990, p. 141). Maiden’s (1995, pp.  46, 87)  analysis of vowel substitutions in the history of Italian also supports the possibility of weakly articulated vowels as precursors to syncope. In his view, if there had not survived some sort of weak intertonic vowel, “it is difficult to see how it is that … a new vowel is introduced only where there had previously been a vowel sound” e.g., D E B I L E M > *[ˈde.bə. le] > Ital. dèbole ‘weak’ (1995, p. 87). In sum, together with syncopated [nr] variants of Latin /​nV̆ r/​, one may postulate [nəɾ] variants that maintained a weakly articulated intertonic. As shown below, the possibility of [nəɾ] variants is important because it helps to explain how metathesis may have occurred in lieu of assimilation or other changes. Investigations of Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan /​ɾ/​show that when /​ɾ/​ occurs with an adjacent consonant, speakers often insert a svarabhakti vowel (Bradley, 2001, pp. 93–​96; Quilis, 1999, pp. 332, 337–​342; Malmberg, 1965, pp. 31–​39; Gili Gaya, 1921; Recasens & Espinosa, 2007; Trennephol da Costa, 2013); this occurs when /​ɾ/​is in the syllable onset (e.g., Sp. prado /​ˈpɾa.do/​ -​-​ > [ˈpaɾa.ðo] ‘meadow,’ or in the syllable coda, as in Sp. muerte /​ˈmweɾ.te/​ -​-​> [ˈmweɾe.te] ‘death’). Crosslinguistic data indicate that the preferred context for /​ɾ/​is intervocalic, and that the motivation for the svarabhakti vowel stems from the fact that an intervocalic context facilitates perception of the tap (Bhat, 1974, pp. 83–​84; Romero, 2008; Bradley, 2001, p. 92). Given the likelihood of variants of Hispano-​Latin /​nV̆ r/​that maintained a weakly articulated vowel (e.g., TENERE HA B E O > [te.nə.ˈɾaj] ‘I will have’), and the likelihood that speakers of early Old Spanish, similar to speakers of modern Ibero-​Romance, variably rendered /​rn/​sequences as [ɾVn], we have not only an additional context in which the vibrant was “tap-​like” (in this case a true tap), but also a variant of Latin /​nV̆ r/​that could become input to metathesis before syncope to /​nr/​. From this perspective, speakers of early Old Spanish regularly perceived [nəɾ] variants of Latin /​nV̆ r/​to be svarabhakti [ɾVn] variants of extant Latin /​rn/​(e.g., FUR NUM ‘oven’), with the result that they consistently “hyper-​corrected” (in the sense of Ohala, 1989, p.  189) phonetic [nəɾ] to phonemic /​rn/​(e.g., TENER E HA BE O > [te.nə.ˈɾaj] regularly heard as [te.ɾə.ˈnaj], and then reanalyzed as /​ter.ˈnaj/​> OSp. terné /​teɾ.ˈne/​‘I will have’). Subsequently, with regular reanalysis of [nəɾ] to phonemic /​rn/​in the future/​conditional stems tern-​, porn-​, and vern-​(< tener ‘have,’ poner ‘place,’ venir ‘come,’ respectively), the model was set for similar cases of metathesis in other lexical items like GENERUM > [ ˈɟe.nə.ɾo] > /​ˈjeɾ.no/​ yerno ‘son-​in-​law.’

 197

Grammaticalization and Latin /​nVr/​in Romance 197 In sum, the possibility of pre-​syncope variants of Latin /​nV̆ r/​with a weakly articulated vowel meant that metathesis had a head start over other possible outcomes, like assimilation, that depended upon syncope to /​nr/​. Speakers of Old Spanish must have begun to hyper-​correct [nəɾ] to /​rn/​while syncope /​nV̆ r/​> /​nr/​was still variable, first in the future/​conditional allomorphy and by extension in other nominal/​adjectival word forms, with the result that metathesis—​normally a recessive process in the face of other more dominant ones like assimilation (Ultan, 1978)—​was able, in the case of Old Spanish, to become regular in advance of the other possible outcomes of Latin /​nV̆ r/​.

5.  Conclusion With respect to obstruent epenthesis in the development of Latin /​mV̆ r/​ and /​nV̆ r/​, the Hispano-​and Luso-​Romance data show regular epenthesis after the bilabial nasal (e.g., MEMORARE > Gal., Ptg. lembrar, OSp. membrar ‘remember’) but a largely non-​epenthetic outcome for /​nV̆ r/​ (e.g., GENERUM > Sp. yerno, Ptg. genro, Gal. xenro ‘son-​in-​law’). Given research that shows that homorganicity increases the probability of epenthesis, it is at first glance unclear why /​nr/​> /​ndr/​epenthesis was not more regular. In my view, since the reduction of the Latin /​nV̆ r/​sequence appears to have arisen first in the future/​ conditional stems formed from the infinitive + HABERE , one may attribute the near absence or low frequency of /​nr/​> /​ndr/​epenthesis in Old Portuguese and Old Spanish to the effects of grammaticalization, which determined that other, non-​epenthetic variants of Latin /​nV̆ r/​would become dominant in the future/​conditional stems of TENERE ‘hold,’ PONERE ‘place,’ VENIRE ‘come.’ At a minimum, these non-​epenthetic verb-​stem variants of Latin /​nV̆ r/​ subsequently effected a non-​epenthetic outcome for /​nV̆ r/​in other word forms by preventing the creation of any verb-​stem models with /​ndr/​; alternatively, non-​ epenthetic verb-​stem variants of Latin /​nV̆ r/​were extended to adjectival or nominal forms. From this perspective, the consequences of the grammaticalization context were threefold. First, the Luso-​Romance preference for /​rr/​> /​r/​in the future/​conditional stems, rather than /​ndr/​, meant that no /​nr/​> /​ndr/​ epenthetic models took root in these verb forms; the absence of any future/​ conditional stems with /​ndr/​in turn meant that Luso-​Romance speakers were less likely to perceive an emergent [d]‌in other lexical items like GENERUM > genro ‘son-​in-​law’ and TENERUM > tenro ‘tender.’ Second, grammaticalization intensified further the degree of perceptual uncertainty regarding the order of /​n/​and /​r/​in the /​nr/​sequence in Old Spanish, thereby making metathesis to /​rn/​somewhat more likely to occur. This increase in perceptual uncertainty due to grammaticalization, together with the likelihood of [nəɾ] variants of Latin /​nV̆ r/​and svarabhakti [ɾVn] variants of Latin /​rn/​, allowed metathesis to become regular in Old Spanish in advance of other possible outcomes like assimilation or epenthesis. Once established in the future/​conditional morphology (e.g., OSp. verná ‘s/​he will come’), these metathetic models would have favored metathesis in other lexical items like VENERIS > [ˈβjen.res], [ˈβje.nə.ɾes]

198

198  Kenneth J. Wireback > Sp. viernes ‘Friday,’ at the expense of epenthesis. Finally, the reductive effects of grammaticalization upon sounds and sound sequences may explain why an emergent [d] was not perceived in the future/​conditional stems with /​nr/​, and therefore was not extended to other words with /​nr/​, with the result that some Western Romance varieties retained the disfavored /​nr/​sequence rather than opting for /​ndr/​(e.g., PONERE HABEO > Occ. ponrai, dial. Cat. ponré ‘I will place’; GENERUM > Occ. genre, dial. Cat. genre ‘son-​in-​law’).

Notes 1 Luso-​Romance data from Williams, 1962; Nunes, 1930; Maia, 1986; Coutinho, 1976. Several studies claim that epenthetic outcomes like OPtg. ondrar were due to Spanish influence (e.g., Williams, 1962, p. 110; Nunes 1930, p.144; Coutinho, 1976, p. 126). 2 Data from Lloyd, 1987; Penny, 2002, and Lanchetas, 1900. According to Malkiel (1946, p. 314) and Moreno Bernal (2004, pp. 145–​153), metathesis /​nr/​> /​rn/​was much more frequent than epenthesis /​nr/​> /​ndr/​in Old Spanish. 3 Data from Ronjat, 1932, 1937; Grandgent, 1905; Moll, 1952; Moreno Bernal, 2004; Pope, 1934. According to Fernández González (1985, p.  22), /​nr/​is the autochthonous outcome for Provençal, and forms with epenthetic /​ ndr/​were “francianisms” due to northern influence; /​nr/​is also apparently the norm to the north and east of Langue d’Oïl (Zink, 1986, p. 188; Wüest, 1979, p. 319). 4 The greater degree of /​nr/​> /​ndr/​epenthesis in Gallo–​Romance may have been due in part to the formation of /​ndr/​models via infinitive forms with /​ndr/​due to syncope, e.g., P RE H EN D ERE > Fr. prendre ‘grasp, take.’ Another possible factor was the fact that Gallo-​Romance was the Romance area most affected by atonic vowel loss (Moreno Bernal, 2004, pp. 131, 139; Zink, 1986, p. 39; Lloyd, 1987, pp. 199–​200), and thus earlier and more frequent syncope to /​nr/​. 5 Italian maintains the geminate trill /​rr/​in forms like porrò ‘I will place,’ whereas in Old Spanish and Old Portuguese the grapheme ‘rr’ represented a degeminated alveolar trill /​r/​(e.g., OPtg. porrei /​po.ˈrej/​, OSp. porré /​po.ˈre/​‘I will place’).

References Alvar, M., & Pottier, B. (1983). Morfología histórica del español. Madrid: Gredos. Baldi, P. (2002). The foundations of Latin. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bhat, D.N.S. (1974). The phonology of liquid consonants. Working Papers on Language Universals, 16, 73–​104. Blevins, J. (2007). Interpreting misperception: Beauty is in the ear of the beholder. In M.-​J. Solé, P. Speeter Beddor, & M. Ohala (Eds.), Experimental approaches to phonology (pp. 144–​154). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bradley, T. G. (2001). The phonetics and phonology of rhotic duration contrast and neutralization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University. Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E.C. (2007). Lexicalization and grammaticalization all over again. In J.C. Salmons and Shannon Dubenion-​Smith (Eds.), Historical Linguistics 2005: Selected papers from the 17th Conference on Historical Linguistics, Madison, WI, 31 July-​5 August 2005 (pp. 3–​19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 199

Grammaticalization and Latin /​nVr/​in Romance 199 Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Catford, J. C. (2001). On Rs, rhotacism and paleophony. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31, 171–​185. Coutinho, I. de Lima. (1976). Pontos de gramática histórica (7th ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Ao Livro Técnico. Fernández González, J. R. (1985). Gramática histórica provenzal. Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo. Gili (Gaya), S. (1921). La ‘R’ simple en la pronunciación española. Revista de filología española, 8, 271–​280. Grandgent, C. H. (1905). An outline of the phonology and morphology of Old Provençal. Boston: D. C. Heath. Gsell, O. (1996). Chronologie frühromanischer Sprachwandel. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik II.1 (pp. 557–​583). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Harris-​Northall, R. (1990). The spread of sound change: Another look at syncope in Spanish. Romance Philology, 44, 137–​161. Holt, E. (2004). Optimization of syllable contact in Old Spanish via the sporadic sound change metathesis. Probus, 16,  43–​61. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hume, E. (2004). The indeterminacy/​attestation model of metathesis. Language, 80, 203–​237. Inouye, S. B. (1995). Trills, taps and stops in contrast and variation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles. Juge, M. (2007). Metaphor and teleology do not drive grammaticalization. In J.C. Salmons & Shannon Dubenion-​Smith (Eds.), Historical Linguistics 2005: Selected papers from the 17th Conference on Historical Linguistics, Madison, WI, 31 July-​5 August 2005 (pp. 33–​48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Klausenburger, J. (2000). Grammaticalization: Studies in Latin and Romance morphosyntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lanchetas, R. (1900). Gramática y vocabulario de las obras de Gonzalo de Berceo. Madrid: Real Academia Española. Lindau, M. (1985). The Story of /​r/​. In V. Fromkin (Ed.), Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged (pp. 157–​168). New York: Academic Press. Lindsay, W. M. (1894). The Latin language. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lloyd, P. M. (1987). From Latin to Spanish. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Loporcaro, M. (2011). Syllable, segment and prosody. In M. Maiden, J. C. Smith, & A. Ledgeway (Eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. I: Structures (pp. 50–​108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, C. (1978). A look into the Spanish future. Lingua, 46, 225–​244. Maia, C. de Azevedo. (1986). História do galego-​português. Estado lingüístico de Galiza e do Noroeste de Portugal desde o século XIII ao século XVI. Coimbra: Instituto Nacional de Investigação Científica. Maiden, M. (1995). A linguistic history of Italian. London: Longman. Malkiel, Y. (1946). The etymology of Hispanic vel(l)ido and melindre. Language, 22, 284–​316.

200

200  Kenneth J. Wireback Malkiel, Y. (1969). Sound changes rooted in morphological conditions. Romance Philology, 23, 188–​200. Malkiel, Y. (1973). Etiological studies in Romance diachronic phonology. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 14, 201–​242. Malmberg, B. (1965). Estudios de fonética hispánica. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Martínez Gil, F. (2003). Consonant intrusion in heterosyllabic consonant-​ liquid clusters in Old Spanish and Old French. In R. Núñez-​ Cedeño, L. López, & R. Cameron (Eds.), A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use: Selected papers from the 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (pp. 39–​58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moll, F. de B. (1952). Gramática histórica catalana. Madrid: Gredos. Moreno Bernal, J. (2004). La morfología de los futuros románicos: Las formas con metátesis. Revista de filología románica, 21, 121–​169. Navarro, T. (1957). Manual de pronunciación española. New York, NY: Hafner. Nishimura, K. (2008). Vowel reduction and deletion in Italic: Effects of stress (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles. Nunes, J. J. (1930). Compêndio de gramática histórica portuguesa (2nd ed.). Lisboa: Livraria clássica. Ohala, J. J. (1989). Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. In L. E. Breivik & E. H. Jahr (Eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes (pp. 173–​198). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ohala, J. J. (1993a). Coarticulation and phonology. Language and Speech, 36, 155–​170. Ohala, J. J. (1993b). The phonetics of sound change. In C. Jones (Ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives (pp. 237–​278). London: Longman. Ohala, J. J. (1997). Emergent stops. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th Seoul International Conference on Linguistics (pp. 84–​91). Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea. Penny, R. (2002). A history of the Spanish language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, B. S. (2006). Word frequency and lexical diffusion. New York, NY: PalgraveMacmillan. Pope, M. K. (1934). From Latin to Modern French with especial consideration of Anglo-​ Norman: Phonology and morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Quilis, A. (1999). Tratado de fonología y fonética españolas (2nd ed.). Madrid: Gredos. Recasens, D. (2011). Articulatory constraints on stop insertion in consonant clusters. Linguistics, 49, 1137–​1162. Recasens, D., & Espinosa, A. (2007). Phonetic typology and positional allophones for alveolar rhotics in Catalan. Phonetica, 64,  1–​28. Rix, H. (1966). Die lateinische Syncope als historisches und phonologisches Problem. Kratylos, 11, 156–​165. Romero, J. (2008). Gestural timing in the perception of Spanish r+C clusters. In L.  Colantoni & J. Steele (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology (pp. 59–​ 71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Ronjat, J. (1932). Grammaire historique des parlers Provençaux modernes. II: Consonnes et fénomènes généraux. Montpellier: Société des Langues Romanes. Ronjat, J. (1937). Grammaire istorique des parlers Provençaux modernes. III: Morphologie et formation des mots. Montpellier: Société des Langues Romanes.

 201

Grammaticalization and Latin /​nVr/​in Romance 201 Sampson, R. (1999). Nasal vowel evolution in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University  Press. Sturtevant, E. H. (1940). The pronunciation of Greek and Latin. Philadelphia, PA: Lingusitic Society of America. Teyssier, P. (1959). La langue de Gil Vicente. Paris: Klincksieck. Trennephol da Costa, L. (2013). Fenômenos variáveis e variantes líquidas produzidas no ataque complexo. Acta Scientarum, 35, 179–​186. Tuttle, E. F. (1974.) Sedano, senero, prezzemolo and the intertonic vowels in Tuscan. Romance Philology, 27, 451–​465. Ultan, R. (1978). A typological view of metathesis. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language II: Phonology (pp. 367–​402). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Valesio, P. (1968). The Romance synthetic future pattern and its first attestations II. Lingua, 20, 279–​307. Vennemann, T. (1988). Preference laws for syllable structure and explanation of sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Walsh, T. J. (1987). On the permutation of the Vulgar Latin tonic front mid-​vowels in medieval Catalan. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 64, 305–​318. Warner, N., & Weber. A. (2001). Perception of epenthetic stops. Journal of Phonetics, 29,  53–​87. Widdison, K. A. (1997). Variability in lingual vibrants: Changes in the story of /​r/​. Language and Communication, 17, 187–​193. Williams, E. B. (1962). From Latin to Portuguese (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Wüest, J. (1979). La dialectalisation de la Gallo-​Romania: Problèmes phonologiques. Berne: Éditions Francke. Zink, G. (1986). Phonétique historique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

202

 203

Part III

Language and society

204

 205

11  Using statistics as a tool in the analysis of sociolinguistic variation A comparison of current and traditional methods Manuel Díaz-​Campos and Stephanie Dickinson 1.  Introduction There has been much interest in the use of statistical analysis in the study of sociolinguistic variation in the last eight years or so. With the development of new tools and the availability of emerging technologies, the field is also moving forward as these new applications are easy to access. The Variable Rule Program implemented as VARBRUL is approximately forty years old now. Concurrently, the analysis of linguistic variation has evolved, and what used to be common practice is changing with the implementation of new techniques. This combination of factors has motivated methodological debates concerning the type of quantitative analysis needed to be performed in the area of language variation and change. The treatment of phonological variables, for instance, has explored the gradient definition of the variants as well as the independent variables included in those studies (also known as factor groups). The present article is a contribution to the discussion of current and traditional methods of statistical analysis using two examples of variable phenomena in Spanish. A discussion of the type of dependent and independent variables is included as are the implications for selecting appropriate statistical tools. The main purpose of this chapter is to show that decision making should be based on the linguistic analysis as a first priority. This approach would take into consideration linguistic theory and the hypothesis of the investigation as the main motivation to select a particular statistical analysis. In some occasions, due to the interest in the application of the new methods, the linguistic analysis becomes secondary. However, the main focus should be the theoretical proposal of the investigation. With the purpose of illustrating the selection of a statistical tool for sociolinguistic analysis, a description of tests is presented in the first part of the chapter. An emphasis on the study of sociolinguistic variation and the types of approaches used is also discussed. The second section is concerned with the linguistic analysis of [más + negative word] as an example of the methodological choices the researcher can make. The third section discusses the case of copula choice as a second example of how to compare the results of different methodological approaches. The last section presents the conclusions.

206

206  Manuel Díaz-Campos & Stephanie Dickinson

2.  The analysis of sociolinguistic variation The seminal article by Cedergren and Sankoff (1974) presents a description of the variationist methodology using examples from Spanish, French, and English. Cedergren and Sankoff examine syllable-​final /​ɾ/​in Panamanian Spanish, deletion of complementizer que in Montreal French, and contraction and deletion of copula in African-​American English. This chapter presents a step forward in concretely formalizing Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog’s (1968) statement of the “orderly heterogeneity” according to which variation in language is not arbitrary, but regular. The sociolinguistic variable implies the analysis of linguistic variants associated with the same function. For example, we will discuss the case of copula choice in Spanish with particular reference to the copula + adjective structure. Examples (1) and (2) illustrate this. (1)

Pero bueno, ¿y por qué se va a casar, si él ya era casado? ‘But well, why is he going to get married, if he is already married?’ (CB3FB)

(2)

A lo mejor tú estás casado ‘Maybe you are married’ (CA5MA)

Example (1) presents the use of ser + casado. The adjective in this case is considered the attribute. The same attributive function is observed in example (2), but this time the speaker uses estar + casado. In the case of the examples described above, one can conceive these two variants as part of the same variable because they serve the attributive function in this context. Traditionally, the treatment of sociolinguistic variables such as this one is conceived as binary. There are two clear variants (i.e., ser or estar ‘to be’) fulfilling the same function. Recent research has challenged this limitation by proposing variables that can be defined as continuous. This is particularly relevant for phonological variables that can be conceptualized as continuous by looking at acoustical properties such as duration and degree of voicing, among others (File-​Muriel & Brown, 2011). However, in this chapter the focus is on two morphosyntactic variables that are treated as categorical. For sociolinguistic analysis, the social and linguistic contexts where the variants are produced are crucial aspects. In fact, independent variables test hypotheses based on the context of use of the variants. In the particular examples we present in this chapter, the idea is to understand the social characteristics of the individuals who use certain variants as well as the properties of the discursive and syntactic context that can be quantified for predicting such selections. The traditional implementation of analysis only allows a categorical definition of the variables. It is easy to see that this design was related to linguistic theories at the time when linguistic

 207

Statistics in analysis of sociolinguistics 207 features were conceived as [±] or, in other terms, as the absence or presence of a certain characteristic (Chomsky & Halle, 1968). In summary, the basic idea behind a variationist analysis is to account for the several choices an individual can make by considering linguistic and extralinguistic factors that constrain these selections. Researching this variability not only contributes to our understanding of language variation and change, but also to discovering general patterns across languages. With the availability of new tools and with the experimentation of new ways of analyzing variation, some challenges have emerged for the standard approach. In particular, traditional tests do not capture individual differences or the effect of specific lexical items associated with the target phenomena. The Variable Rule program implemented using GoldVarb performs a logistic regression in which one of the main assumptions of the model is the independence of observations. The technical definition of independent observation entails that each observation in the analysis is a random sample with equal probability of being selected. However, sociolinguistic studies are based on correlated data where each speaker produces more than one sample. The logistic regression by means of the binomial up and down in GoldVarb assumes the independence of observations, which may be a problem when the sample of speakers from the population is small. In particular, the violation of the assumption of independence may affect the accuracy of the p-​values from the model. This is also an issue for any statistical package, including GoldVarb, that one can use to perform a standard logistic regression (e.g., SPSS, R, etc.). In fact, most of the standard tests (i.e., t test, ANOVA, chi-​ square, etc.) assume independence of observations. Recent critics to the Variable Rule Analysis have pointed out that the use of mixed-​effects models may be a way to account for individual variation by including random effects for subjects. Furthermore, mixed-​effects models can be used to test the influence of specific lexical items as a random effect. Tagliamonte (2012)1 argues that criticisms of the Variable Rule Program come from outside the field, and these observations about the role of the individual indicate lack of familiarly with the standard practices in sociolinguistics. In fact, Tagliamonte (2012) maintains that variationist researchers have been aware of the problem of independence of observations for a long period of time, and the findings of several investigations have revealed that individuals tend to pattern consistently according to what is common in their speech community. Currently, there is an available toolkit base on the Variable Rule Program (i.e., RBRUL) that can be used to implement a mixed-​effects model controlling for individual and lexical variation as random effects. In the following sections we present more details about the mixed-​effects model and compare it with standard tools in sociolinguistics. Some of the standard types of tests are used in the analysis of data according to the nature of the dependent or independent variables. For example, the Pearson Chi-​Square test can be used to determine if the relationship between a categorical dependent variable and one independent categorical variable

208

208  Manuel Díaz-Campos & Stephanie Dickinson Table 11.1 Type of test according to the nature of the dependent and independent variables to be included, assuming independent observations Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

Type of Analysis

Categorical Categorical (Binary)

1 Categorical Multiple Categorical or Continuous Multiple Categorical or Continuous

Pearson Chi-​square test Logistic Regression

Continuous

Linear Regression

is significant. Logistic regression can be used to test the effect of multiple categorical or continuous independent variables on a categorical dependent variable. Linear regression, on the other hand, is used for testing the effect of multiple categorical or continuous independent variables on a continuous dependent variable. Table 11.1 presents a summary of these observations. The tests described in Table  11.1 are basic tools available to scholars performing quantitative analyses in linguistics and most particularly in sociolinguistics. The mixed-​effects model is an additional option that accounts for correlated data within subject, and a conditional inference tree is another method that has increased in popularity. For the present chapter, the focus will be on three particular tests: (a) conditional inference trees, (b)  mixed-​ effects models, and (c) logistic regression as implemented in the Variable Rule Program in GoldVarb X. The first type of test used in our investigation is the conditional inference trees. Conditional inference trees is a specific type of Classification and Regression Tree (CART) method which uses recursive partitioning to create a visual tree structure that identifies decision rules among the independent variables that best predict particular outcomes of the dependent variable. In particular, these trees are helpful to identify different combinations of factors that are most predictive. Conditional inference trees is a non-​parametric class of trees that provides significance tests for each decision rule, as well as the magnitude and direction of such effects. In these tree structures, leaves at the bottom represent the outcome categories being predicted, and the branches represent combinations of features that are associated with each category. This analysis is implemented through the free software R in the “party” package (Hothorn, Hornik, & Zeileis, 2006). While this statistical tool provides a way to explore the data and the relationships among the independent variables included in the analysis, it does not resolve the issue of correlated data, as it also assumes independent observations. Another tool is the mixed-​effects models (also called Linear Mixed Models or Generalized Linear Mixed Models) which contains fixed effects (e.g., the linguistic and extralinguistic factors of interest) and random effects (e.g., the individual speaker or word). Random effects are useful to account for variability between subjects and correlation of observations within subjects. This

 209

Statistics in analysis of sociolinguistics 209 Table 11.2 Description of the statistical test used in the present investigation. In the following section, we exemplify three types of analysis with two sociolinguistic variables ([más + negative word] and copula choice) Purpose

Dependent Variable

Independent Variables

Statistics

Good for

Test formal Categorical accounts for [más + negative word]

Multiple categorical

Test linguistic Categorical and extralinguistic factors predicting copula choice

Multiple categorical

Conditional inference trees Mixed-​ effects model Logistic regression Conditional inference trees Mixed-​effects model Logistic regression

All tools determine significant effects. Mixed effects calculate random effects. All tools determine significant effects. Mixed effects calculate random effects.

model addresses the issue of non-​independence of observations of correlated data by modelling variation between subjects as a random effect (see Johnson, 2014, and Tagliamonte & Baayen, 2012). The next relevant tool incorporated in the present analysis is a logistic regression implemented by means of GoldVarb (also known as the Variable Rule Analysis). This test represents the probabilistic modeling and the statistical treatment of discrete choices and their conditioning. Statistical inference is used to identify factors that have a genuine effect on the choice rather than being just an artifact of the particular data sample. In the Variable Rule Analysis, computations are done one step at a time with different configurations of factor groups (independent variables or fixed effects). Table 11.2 presents a summary of the types of tests included in this investigation. This tool can only analyze categorical variables, and the dependent variable has to be binary.2 In the following section, we exemplify three types of analysis with two sociolinguistic variables ([más + negative word] and copula choice).

3.  [Más + negative word] constructions We begin this section by describing the first sociolinguistic variable, which involves the alternation in the use of [más + negative word]. In the variety of Spanish studied in this chapter (i.e., Venezuelan Spanish) the negative words nada (nothing), nunca (never), nadie (nobody), and ninguno (not one) can appear before or after más as in examples (3), (4), (5), and (6).

210

210  Manuel Díaz-Campos & Stephanie Dickinson (3)

Entonces me dijo que yo iba a tener cuatro niñas nada más, que no buscara más porque no lo iba a tener. (CB5FD_​87) ‘So he/​she told me that I was going to have four girls, no more, that I shouldn’t expect another because I wasn’t going to have him.’

(4)

Primero, me dijo que… iba a tener cuatro niñas, más nada, y que no buscara varón porque no lo iba a tener. (CB5FD_​87) ‘First, he/​she told me that I was going to have four daughters, no more, and that I shouldn’t expect a boy because I wasn’t going to have him.’

(5)

Entonces no hice bachillerato, me quedé dentro de la casa y nunca más pisé la calle. (CC4FA_​87) ‘So I did not complete High School, I stayed at home and I did not go out anymore.’

(6)

Y me pegó y más nunca me trató ¿oíste? (CD4FC_​87) ‘And he hit me and he did not speak with me anymore. Did you hear that?’

In the examples above, variation in the word order of the negative word with respect to más is illustrated. This phenomenon has been documented in Andalusian Spanish, in the Canary Islands and in American Spanish (Lope Blanch, 1964, p. 85; Kany, 1966, pp. 363–​364; Pharies, 2006, p. 202, amongst others). This pattern of alternation of [más + negative word] has been described using formal theories based on generative approaches to grammar. However, until very recently sociolinguistic analyses of this phenomenon were nonexistent. Recent efforts include Díaz-​Campos and Zahler (2013) for Spanish, and Peake (2014) for Brazilian Portuguese. The main purpose of this section is to test the hypotheses proposed in the formal accounts by analyzing corpus data. Based on generative work, Gutiérrez-​ Rexach and González-​ Rivera (2012) explain the following formal constraints to account for the preposition of más with respect to the negative word (i.e., más nunca, más nada, etc.): (1) Polarity. Gutiérrez-​Rexach and González-​Rivera, (2012) argue that only purely negative sentences allow the preposing of más (e.g., No creo en más nada, ni ningún santo ni en más nada (CB4FC_​87) ‘I don’t believe in anything else, no saint nor anything else’). In their example sentences, the nada más is similar to English ‘only’ and the negative word does not have sentential scope. The argument is that linguistic units indicating grade/​

 211

Statistics in analysis of sociolinguistics 211 degree may be moved from their natural syntactic context and más can only be preposed in purely negative sentences since postposed más would differ in having focal interpretation (sólo ‘only’). (2) Comparative phrases only allow postposing. The argument is that más cannot be moved in comparative constructions due to a violation of syntactic locality (e.g., Yo creo que no hay nada más malo que tú te equivoques y la … la gente te aplauda (CA3FD_​87) ‘There is nothing worse than when you are mistaken and people applaud you’). (3) Position of más + negative word in comparison to verb. Focal constructions only allow postposed más. This factor was taken into account in order to capture focalized structures since the formal analysis proposes that they would be considered closed domains inhibiting más from climbing to a higher position (e.g., El guiso nada más, eso sí, en el guiso va de todo. (CC5FA_​87) ‘The stew only, that’s it, in the stew you put everything’). (4) Animacy. The argument is that only subjects that are agents allow preposed más (e.g., Porque si es uno el que se va a casar, ellos no pueden decir más nada (CC5FB_​87) ‘Because if one is the one who is getting married, they cannot say anything else’). There is a semantic inference that the agent is unable to continue the action when más is preposed. Since we could not test for the particular presupposition involved in the cases analyzed, we coded for animacy as a way to capture the proposal of Gutiérrez-​Rexach and González-​Rivera (2012). (5) Person and number of the subject. The idea behind including this variable is that (1)  and (2)  are correlated to animacy and would favor preposed más. (6) Verb type. The prediction for this independent variable is that transitive and prepositional complement verbs also correlate with animacy and would favor preposed más. 3.1  Data The corpus used in the present investigation is the Estudio sociolingüístico de Caracas (Bentivoglio & Sedano, 1987) ‘Sociolinguistic Study of Caracas 1987.’ This corpus comprises 160 sociolinguistic interviews each lasting a half-​hour, conducted in 1987 and 1988. The participants in these interviews were born and raised in Caracas, with parents also from Caracas. Speakers are divided evenly among four age groups, both genders, and five socioeconomic groups. The data analyzed is composed of the 160 participants taken from Díaz-​ Campos and Zahler (2013). The average tokens per participants were 4.15. 3.2  Dependent variable and independent variables The dependent variable is the construction [más + negative word] comprising the following variants: más + nada/​nadie/​nunca/​ninguno and nada/​nadie/​ nunca/​ninguno + más. The independent variables include six linguistic factors

212

212  Manuel Díaz-Campos & Stephanie Dickinson Table 11.3 Summary of linguistic factors and predictions for [Más + Negative Word]. The analysis of the data as explained in the second section of the chapter involved three different tests: (a) conditional inference trees, (b)  mixed-​ effects models, (c) logistic regression with GoldVarb. In what follows the results of the different tests are presented Linguistic variable

Prediction

Polarity (negative, affirmative)

→ Purely negative sentences favor preposing. → Comparative phrases favor postposing.

±Comparative (+comparative, -​comparative) Position of más + negative word in comparison to verb Animacy (animate, inanimate) Person and number of the subject (second, first, third) Verb type (prepositional complement, transitive, impersonal, gustar type, intransitive, copulative, pronominal)

→ Focal constructions favor postposed más. → Only subjects that are agents favor preposed más. → 1 and 2 are correlated to animacy and favors preposed más. → Transitive and prepositional complement verbs also correlate with animacy and favor preposed más.

(i.e., polarity, ±comparative, position of más + negative word in comparison to verb, animacy, person and number of the subject, and verb type) and three extralinguisitic factors (i.e., age, sex, and socioeconomic level). Table  11.3 summarizes the linguistic factors included and the hypotheses behind each one of them. The analysis of the data as explained in the second section of the chapter involves three different tests: (a) conditional inference trees, (b) mixed-​effects models, (c) logistic regression with GoldVarb. In what follows the results of the different tests are presented. 3.3  Results The results of the [más + negative word] constructions are based on 396 tokens extracted from the corpus analyzed. There were 182 instances of preposed más, representing 46% of the total cases, and 214 tokens of postposed más, representing 54%. After several runs of the data we found that the factor ± comparative categorically favored [negative word + más] and that verb type had very few cases in certain categories (e.g., gustar-​like, pronominal, and impersonal verbs). For this reason, the linguistic independent variables tested were polarity, position of más + negative word in comparison to verb, animacy, and person and number of the subject. All sociolinguistic variables were tested as well. Table 11.4 shows the distribution of [más + negative word] and [negative word + más] according to polarity and socioeconomic level. Figure 11.1 shows the results of the significant factors conditioning the preposing of más in the data. Two factors were selected in the analysis: polarity

 213

Statistics in analysis of sociolinguistics 213 Table 11.4 Distribution of [Más + Negative Word] and [Negative Word + Más] Overall

N

[más + negative word]

[negative word + más]

396

182 (46%)

214 (54%)

Polarity Negative Affirmative

100 296

76 (76%) 106 (36%)

24 (24%) 190 (64%)

Socioeconomic Level Upper Middle Lower

64 214 118

19 (30%) 119 (56%) 44 (37%)

45 (70%) 95 (44%) 74 (63%)

1 polarity p < 0.001 n

a

3 socioeconomic p = 0.021 1

{2, 3} 1

Node 5 (n = 223) a

a

1

Node 4 (n = 49)

1

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

0

0

0

p

0.8

p

p

a

Node 2 (n = 97)

Figure 11.1 Conditional inference tree of the significant conditioning factors for [más + negative word] constructions (a=preposed, p=postposed)

and socioeconomic background. Figure  11.1 shows two lines related with polarity marked with (n) for negative and (a) for affirmative. Since polarity appears at the first node, it has the greatest magnitude of effect in relation to social class. At the bottom of Figure 11.1 there are three bars. The light gray area indicates the level of preposing [más + negative word] (a) and the black part shows the level of postposing (p). Concerning socioeconomic level, (1) means upper class, (2) middle class, and (3) lower class. The findings reveal that negative sentences favor [más + negative word] nearly 80% of the time (e.g., No estudié más nada sino hasta sexto grado. (CC4FD_​87) ‘I didn’t study but up to sixth grade.’). Another decision rule is included for socioeconomic

214

214  Manuel Díaz-Campos & Stephanie Dickinson Table 11.5 Results of the mixed-​effects model analysis on [Más + Negative Word] constructions. Source

Wald Chi square

Intercept 1.247 Polarity 38.113 Animacy 3.025 Person and number of the subject 4.872 Position of [más + negative word] with 3.276 respect the verb of the main clause Socioeconomic level 12.133 Age 2.527 Sex .413

Type III Degrees of Freedom

Significance

1 1 1 4 1

.264