The mestizo speech

Abstract

The goal of this chapter is to reflect on methodological practices in second language (L2) speech concerning participant selection and task choices. To frame the discussion, I turn to two central issues in cultural studies: the concept of mestizaje and the connection between speech and writing. First, drawing from research on L2 acquisition of intonation, I argue for the need of problematizing multilingual identities to include populations that currently do not fit our selection criteria. Secondly, I suggest that the discussion about the centrality of alphabetic writing in Western societies can inform research on the role of reading and writing in L2 and bilingual speech.

Sociophonetic Investigation of the Spanish Alveolar Trill /r/ in Two Canonical-Trill Varieties

“…However, this work does not consider situations in which speakers variably produce the alveolar trill based on the number of occlusions present during lingual trilling, a gap which was addressed in the present study. One important contribution of our findings is that the sociophonetic variation found in the production of /r/ need not be limited to differences in place of articulation (alveolar versus velar, see Arias, 2019; Delgado-Díaz & Galarza, 2015) or manner of articulation (fricative versus trill, see Colantoni, 2006a, 2006b). As we have demonstrated, the envelope of variation can likewise involve the number of lingual constrictions present in the trilling gesture.…”

“…In canonical varieties, the apical trill involving two or more occlusions—for which we employ the term “canonical trill”—is the most common realization and is likely the articulatory target that speakers employ even in instances of incomplete trilling that result in no lingual contacts or a single lingual contact. 2 In non-canonical varieties, by contrast, speakers typically produce the /r/ phoneme with variants that deviate in their place and/or manner of articulation with respect to the voiced alveolar trill (e.g., Arias, 2019; Colantoni, 2006a, 2006b; Willis, 2007). Hualde (2005, pp.…”

“…Given this diversity of productions, it is perhaps not surprising that most sociophonetic research on Spanish /r/ focuses on data from non-canonical varieties (Colantoni, 2006a, 2006b; Delgado-Díaz & Galarza, 2015; Díaz-Campos, 2008; Rissel, 1989; Vigil, 2018; Willis, 2006, 2007; inter alia). Studies focused on canonical varieties alternatively investigate the phonetic correlates signaling the phonemic tap-trill contrast.…”

“… 3. While Colantoni (2006a, 2006b) shows that speakers from Argentina’s northern and western regions predominantly favor assibilated variants, handbooks of Spanish dialectology indicate that speakers from metropolitan Buenos Aires are more likely to favor canonical realizations of the /r/ phoneme (Canfield, 1981, p. 24; Lipski, 1994, p. 170). …”

The missing link in Spanish heritage trill production

“…Besides being classified as one of the latest acquired sounds, the Spanish trill is phonetically realized in various ways within and across dialects, which includes approximant (Díaz-Campos, 2008), fricative (Bradley & Willis, 2012; Colantoni, 2006; Lewis, 2004; Willis, 2006), pre-breathy tap, or tap followed by frication (Bradley & Willis, 2012; Willis, 2006), and it can be either voiced or voiceless (Lewis, 2004). However, in some dialects /r/ is still realized most frequently with two apico-alveolar constrictions (e.g., see Lastra & Martín Butragueño, 2006 for Mexico City Spanish or Henriksen, 2014 for Peninsular Spanish).…”