Spanish in Contact with Quechua

Escobar, Anna María

doi:10.1002/9781444393446.ch16

Cited by 35 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While it still maintains respectable levels of usage in Colombia and Mexico City, its frequency has dropped to less than 15% in all other communities, averaging only 11% worldwide. These values corroborate reports of the MF being a receding form in the Americas (Escobar 1997), Colombia (Montes Giraldo 19621985), and Mexico (Moreno de Alba 1970), as well as the account that the morphological future has almost completely disappeared in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, and Mexico (Lope Blanch 1972, 144). Conversely, the figures for the SP indicate that it is consistently used more than the MF to express futurity, with robust frequencies of usage in Spain, Colombia, and Mexico.…”

Section: Distribution Of Future Variants In Native Speaker Usagesupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Empirical sociolinguistic scholarship has demonstrated that the PF is overwhelmingly preferred over both the MF and SP in all future-time contexts. Thus, the PF's consistent dominance of the expression of futurity throughout the Spanishspeaking world (see Table 1) is congruent with reports that this form has become the default expression of the future in all varieties of Spanish (Blas Arroyo 2008;Escobar 1997;Silva-Corvalán 1988van Naerssen 1983, 58;Zentella 1997, 190;among others). More specifically, the higher average frequency of the PF (70.8%) is consistent with accounts of its most frequent occurrence in monolingual varieties of Spanish (cf.…”

Section: Distribution Of Future Variants In Native Speaker Usagesupporting

confidence: 83%

“…The figures in Table 1 are also consistent with the fact that the PF usually occurs more frequently when Spanish is in direct contact with other languages. Thus, the PF has also been found to occur more frequently in communities where Spanish is in contact with English (Orozco forthcoming;Silva-Corvalán 1994;Villa Crésap 1997;Zentella 1997) and in situations of contact with Quechua (Escobar 1997;Niño-Murcia 1992).…”

Section: Distribution Of Future Variants In Native Speaker Usagementioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The future tense in Spanish L2 textbooks

Orozco¹,

Thoms²

2014

SiC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper revisits the treatment of the expression of futurity in Spanish foreign language (FL) textbooks. We analyzed twenty college-level Spanish FL textbooks to determine and quantify how futurity is represented. Variationist research has shown the periphrastic future (PF) to be the most frequent variant of futurity followed by the simple present (SP) and the morphological future (MF). Our findings reveal that, despite over two decades of communicative language teaching, Spanish FL textbooks still do not completely present the reality of the expression of futurity. Introductory texts present all three variants of futurity. However, there is a dramatic difference in the formal representation of these three variants in intermediate texts. The PF is formally presented in only four of the ten intermediate texts analyzed. Interestingly, all ten intermediate textbooks include a formal section on the MF. From a formal treatment perspective and unlike native speaker usage, the MF continues to be the futurity variant most often presented to learners, followed by the PF, and the SP, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Distribution Of Future Variants In Native Speaker Usagesupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Distribution Of Future Variants In Native Speaker Usagesupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Distribution Of Future Variants In Native Speaker Usagementioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The future tense in Spanish L2 textbooks

Orozco¹,

Thoms²

2014

SiC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As previously indicated, PAS has received little attention in Spanish linguistics compared to Andean Spanish (see, for instance, A. M. Escobar 1992Escobar , 1997Escobar , 2005Escobar , 2011Klee and Ocampo 1995;O'Rourke 2005;Sánchez 2004;Zavala 2001;among others). Some information about PAS can be gleaned from dialectology studies, which typically distinguish between three major varieties of Spanish in Peru: the Coastal variety, the Andean variety, and the Amazonian variety (Escobar 1978;Ramírez 2003;Calvo Pérez 2008 (Escobar 1978(Escobar , 1981Caravedo 1995;Ramírez 2003).…”

Section: Features Of Pasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peruvian Amazonian Spanish

Vallejos¹

2014

SiC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some linguistic structures found in Amazonian Spanish tend to be associated by and large with a rural variety spoken by people frequently depicted as indigenous. However, direct observations indicate that most of these features are pervasive among speakers across the social spectrum. What, then, are the parameters of linguistic variation in Peruvian Amazonian Spanish? Is there any social and/or linguistic meaning associated with the attested variation? This paper looks at data from ten monolingual speakers, five born and raised in Iquitos, and five born and raised in Kokama indigenous villages. The linguistic variables examined are: (i) permutation j/f, (ii) possessor/noun number agreement, (iii) double possession, and (iv) genitive fronting. This study concentrates on one social variable, place, which is found to significantly impact language use. City-speakers emphasize or downplay their category membership through the quantitative manipulation of markers; village-speakers show less variability in their language use. In addition, certain possessive constructions seem to be undertaking specialized functions.

show abstract

“…Rather, the distinction between the two phonemes is maintained: ''llama'' is pronounced [λama], while ''yapa'' is pronounced [yapa]; likewise, ''calló '' would not be confused with ''cayó .'' These phonological processes are not the only ones apparent in Peruvian Andean Spanish; there are also morphosyntactic and semantic processes that have been studied extensively by several researchers, such as Escobar (2000Escobar ( , 2011a and Cerró n-Palomino (2003b). 3 According to Escobar (2000:113), morphosyntactic processes are divided into eight main categories: (1) word order; (2) agreement; (3) ellipsis; (4) reduplication; (5) redundancy; (6) generalization; (7) derivation; and (8) semantic accommodation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%