Miami-Cuban Spanish vowels in contact

Abstract

While traditional studies on Spanish vowels have agreed that it is a stable system with very little variation, Varela (1992) claims to have observed English transfer phenomena in the vowel system of Miami Cuban Spanish (i.e. schwa in unstressed position, diphthongization of mid-vowels, and the use of English vowels in place of Spanish vowels: e.g. [æ] for /o/, [æk.tú.b?e] for octubre). The current study empirically tests Varela’s claims of English transfer in the Spanish vowel system of three generations of Miami Cuban bilinguals. Speech is analyzed acoustically with Praat and vowel formant values (F1 and F2) are normalized with NORM. No evidence of English vowels replacing Spanish vowels is discovered but the existence of vowel centralization of unstressed vowels in Miami Cuban Spanish is confirmed. The current study discusses the stability of the Miami Cuban Spanish vowel system as compared to Spanish in general.

Examining the (mini-) variable swarm in the Spanish of the Southeast

“…Although cross-dialectal comparisons have revealed some minor quality and quantity differences (Chládková et al, 2011, Quilis & Esgueva, 1983, research examining bilinguals -both L2 learners of Spanish and HSs -suggests substantial variation in distribution and organization. One of the most salient differences concerns the position of /u/, which is often fronted (i.e., higher F2) in bilingual speech relative to monolingual norms (Alvord & Rogers, 2014;Cobb & Simonet, 2015;Grijalva, Piccinini, & Arvaniti, 2009;Menke & Face, 2010;Ronquest, 2012;Willis, 2005; among others). With specific reference to HSs, Ronquest (2012) found that /e/ was produced farther back in the acoustic space than traditionally depicted, and that the back vowel space was much more condensed relative to the front vowel space.…”

“…What is needed is inquiry that compares a large number of diverse variables." Following Thomas's suggestion, this study includes analyses of four distinct variables that are known to vary based on speakers' linguistic experience (i.e., bilingual versus monolingual), as well as across dialects: realization of intervocalic /bdg/ (Carrasco, Hualde, & Simonet, 2012;Rao, 2015), Spanish vowels (Alvord & Rogers, 2014;Chládková, Escudero, & Boersma, 2011), prosodic rhythm (Shousterman, 2014;Carter & Wolford, 2016), and bilingual discourse markers (Torres, 2002(Torres, , 2011Torres & Potowski, 2008). Examining linguistic variation through multiple variables simultaneously allows for the formation of a more nuanced and complete understanding of the structure and trajectory of Spanish in the region.…”

Research on Heritage Spanish Phonetics and Phonology: Pedagogical and Curricular Implications

“…The vowels that seem to undergo the greatest modification when compared to those of native speakers are the high vowels /iu/ (especially /u/) and the mid vowels /eo/. While one could surmise that the observed reduction is due to contact with English, Alvord and Rogers (2014) present Cuban data in which both HL users and older immigrants exhibit this trend.…”

“…Studies delving into the Spanish vowel system of HL users find vowel spaces that are not as symmetrical as those of native speakers and that do display evidence of shift toward the center of the vowel space (i.e., reduction) in unstressed syllables (Alvord & Rogers, 2014;Boomershine, 2012;Ronquest 2012Ronquest , 2013Willis, 2005). Both of these trends are particularly noteworthy in more spontaneous speech styles.…”

The missing link in Spanish heritage trill production

“…For instance, Einfeldt et al (2019) found that heritage speakers of Italian maintain the contrast between singleton and geminate consonants. However, in other areas they show variability that is different from monolingual norms (Alvord & Rogers, 2014; Amengual, 2016; Colantoni et al, 2016; Godson, 2004; Henriksen, 2015; Robles-Puente, 2014; Ronquest, 2012, 2013). Studies have found that heritage language vowel space either shows assimilation to or dissimilation from that of the majority language (Cummings Ruiz, 2019; Ronquest, 2012, 2013) and that heritage language stop productions are affected by factors such as cognate status (Amengual, 2012), code-switching (Łyskawa, Maddeaux, Melara & Nagy, 2016), and speaker generation (Mayr & Siddika, 2018; Nodari, Celata & Nagy, 2019).…”