The Syntax and Pragmatics of Language Contact: a case study of Andean Spanish

Abstract

In this paper, I report the results of tests that I designed to show how Andean Spanish(AS) word order is affected by language contact with Quechua. In AS the object appears in preverbal position more frequently than in Standard Spanish(SS). The main syntactic properties of focus-fronting in SS are weak-crossover and long-distance movement. I constructed tests to check for these syntactic properties and the pragmatics of focus in AS and Quechua. The results show that AS and SS are syntactically identical, but that there is pragmatic transfer from Quechua into AS. The study has implications for language contact and syntax.

Subject Position and Information Structure in L2 Spanish

“…Furthermore, Domínguez and Arche (2014) argue that this is because learners are exposed to conflicting input, which in turn could explain the lack of acceptance of postverbal subjects in their study. This becomes evident when considering the responses provided by native speakers and is in line with results from intonational studies (Gabriel, 2006, 2010; Hoot, 2012; Muntendam, 2009; Vanrell & Fernández-Soriano, 2013), which have shown that speakers of different dialects of Spanish allow for the realization of focus in situ.…”

“…These include fronting (6a), clefting (6b), or clitic left dislocation (6c), among others. Nonetheless, dialectal variation is found as well regarding the preferred strategies; in this regard, the use of postverbal subjects resulting from p-movement has been shown to be infrequent in varieties such as Buenos Aires Spanish (Gabriel, 2006, 2010), Mexican Spanish (Hoot, 2012), Andean Spanish (Muntendam, 2009), and certain varieties of Peninsular Spanish (Vanrell & Fernández-Soriano, 2013). F [ Martín ], encontró la cartera .…”

Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies

“…in pragmatic bleaching in word order change. To take but one example, in some varieties of Quechua, many sentences now have VO order rather than the original OV, while in rural Spanish, many sentences are OV rather than the original VO (Muntendam, 2009, 2012; Muysken, 1982). Simplification due to contact (Mühlhäusler, 1974), particularly when the languages contrast.…”

Time and reminiscence in contact

“…The variety in contact in this case is Quechua IIC (following Torero 1964), the most widely-spoken and best-studied of the Quechua languages. In this time, contact effects have appeared at all levels of linguistic structure (BustamanteLópez & Niño-Murcia 1995;Calvo Pérez 2000;Escobar 2000;Muntendam 2011;Pfänder 2009;Sánchez 1996). In particular, the verbal system in the Andes has developed into quite a different system than that commonly attributed to normative Spanish varieties, whether peninsular or American (Escobar 1997;Klee & Ocampo 1995;Sánchez 2004).…”