Ambiguous agreement, functional compensation, and nonspecifictúin the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Madrid, Spain

Abstract

Richness of subject-verb agreement is implicit in the functional compensation interpretation of variable second person /-s/ in Puerto Rican Spanish (PRS). Because /-s/ is not variable in Madrid Spanish (MS), richer agreement is assumed, and a lower rate of pronominal expression is expected. Central to this interpretation are effects associated with ambiguous marking of person on finite singular verbs. Although an increase of pronominal expression correlates to ambiguous marking for PRS speakers, a similar result has not been reported for MS speakers. Nonetheless, a varbrul analysis yields similar weights for this constraint in both dialects. Moreover, ambiguity effects are best understood as constraints on null subject variation that interact with switch reference. Identity of varbrul weights for constraints on pronominal and null subject variation in PRS and MS also supports the Constant Rate Hypothesis. However, the two dialects do show a diametrically opposed effect associated with nonspecific tú.

Subject pronoun expression in Mexican Spanish: ¿Qué pasa en Xalapa?

“…In general, internal constraints have a greater conditioning effect on overt SPP occurrence based on their order of selection and p-values. Moreover, the constraint hierarchy found in Xalapa with (a) grammatical person and number of the subject and (b) prior subject's grammatical person and number being the strongest internal predictors is largely consonant with findings around the Hispanic World including Barranquilla, Colombia (Orozco 2015); Los Angeles (Silva-Corvalán 1982, 1997); Madrid, (Enríquez 1984); Mexico City (Lastra & Martín Butragueño 2015); Puerto Rico (Cameron 1993(Cameron , 1995; New York City , Rivera, Uruguay (Carvalho & Bessett 2015); and Yucatan, Mexico (Michnowicz 2015); inter alia. This finding corroborates that despite varying pronominal rates at the surface level, the grammar underlying SPE across varieties remains essentially the same (Cameron 1993;Michnowicz 2015;Travis 2007;Torres Cacoullos & Travis 2010).…”

“…These results imply that the effects of TMA are similar across Mexico. These tendencies are further commensurate with what occurs throughout the Hispanic World in monolingual speech communities (Abreu 2009(Abreu , 2012Cameron 1993;Claes 2011;Orozco 2015;Travis 2005bTravis , 2007; among others) as well as in situation of contact with other languages (Bayley & Pease-Álvarez 1997;Erker & Guy 2012;Hochberg 1986;Shin & Erker 2015:180). Thus, our results support the premise that morphologically ambiguous verbal paradigms such as the imperfect tense promote more overt pronominal subjects than unambiguous forms.…”

“…I based my choice of predictors on the findings of a multitude of previous SPE investigations (cf. Cameron 1992Cameron , 1993Cameron , 1995Enríquez 1984;Flores-Ferrán 2002Lastra & Martín Butragueño 2015;Orozco 2015;Otheguy, Zentella & Livert 2007;Torres Cacoullos & Travis 2010Travis 2005aTravis , 2005bTravis , 2007Travis & Torres Cacoullos 2012;among others). The four internal predictors analyzed here are (1) Verb class, (2) Prior subject's grammatical person and number, (3) Verbal tense, mood and aspect (TMA) of the verb, and (4) Grammatical person and number of the subject.…”

“…With this analysis, I sought to probe the contention that social constraints do not significantly condition SPE in monolingual speech communities (cf. Alfaraz 2015:5;Bentivoglio 1987;Cameron 1992Cameron , 1993Lastra & Martín Butragueño 2015:41). 5.1.…”

Variation and Formal Theories of Syntax, Chomskyan

“…Other linguistic variables that can be found in variationist sociolinguistic practice over the last fifteen years in journals such as Language Variation and Change and Journal of Sociolinguistics include, for example, null versus overt subjects in varieties of Spanish (Cameron, 1993) and Bislama (Meyerhoff, 2000), particles in Japanese (Takano, 1998) and Mandarin Chinese (Shi, 1989), null versus overt objects in Hungarian (Kontra, 2001), double objects in Dutch (Cornips, 1998), relativization strategies in English varieties and AAVE (Tottie and Rey, 1997), and negation in Scots English (Smith, 2001).…”