Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Inter-generational contact and variation in agreement in Afro-Bolivian Spanish DPs. Bangor University 10 January 2011. Manuel Delicado-Cantero Australian National University ESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism, Bangor University firstname.lastname@example.org. Sandro Sessarego
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
10 January 2011
Australian National University
ESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism, Bangor University
The Ohio State University
Slavery was formally abolished in Bolivia in 1826, reestablished in 1830, and abolished again in 1831.
However, until 1952, when the Land Reform took place, Afro-Bolivians continued to be employed in Los Yungas as slaves in haciendas.
The most important North Yungas communities containing high concentrations of Afro-Bolivians are Tocaña, Mururata, Chijchipa, Coscoma, Dorado Chico and Khala Khala.
In South Yungas the principal black community is Chicaloma.
Both areas are mainly inhabited by Aymara-speaking indigenous population.
Black Yungueños in South Yungas have frequently intermarried with Aymaras, speak Aymara and wear traditional Aymara clothing. As a result, in this area only a few of the traditional dialect features remain.
On the other hand, in North Yungas communities, Afro-Bolivians remain linguistically and culturally separate from Aymaras; Afro-Hispanic speech still survives and is used as intra-group language between the members of the community.
(a) lack of noun-adjective gender agreement:
1. La fiesta muy bonito [HBS bonita]
The.fem.sg party.fem.sg very beautiful.®.sg
`The very nice party’
(b) invariant plurals:
2. 100 mandarina [HBS 100 mandarinas]
(c) extra invariant plural definite article lu (‘the-pl’):
3. Lu taza [HBS las tazas]
(d) frequently, the retention of plural /s/ only on the first element of plural DPs:
4. Mis abuelo [HBS mis abuelos]
5. Las cosa [HBS las cosas]
6. *un curva ancha [HBS una curva ancha]
a.Ø curve.fem.sg. wide.fem.sg
‘a large curve’(Lipski 2006)
Our results indicate that the rate of –s ‘omission’ is higher for inflectional instances of –s (see Table 1)
Strictly phonological factors are playing only a limited role.
Supported by the occurrence of plural forms like lu dictador [los dictadores] ‘the dictators’, lu varón [los varones] ‘the males’ without the –e of the Spanish plural morpheme.
ABS –s plural marking variation is syntactic rather than phonological.
Table 2. Contribution of Grammatical Category to the Omission of Plural (s) (Log likelihood = -287.688, Significance = 0.007, N=944)
Results agree with Lipsky’s works: more omission for adjectives than for Ds
Number/gender disagreement on strong quantifiers
(despite highest position in the clause)
7. Todolas cosa bonita [HBS todas las cosas bonitas]
all.Ø the.fem.pl thing.fem.Ø pretty.fem.Ø
‘all the nice things’
Percolation cannot account for the data
Formal analysis of variation based on feature presence/absence (Adger & Smith 2005, Adger & Trousdale 2007)
Minimalist program approach to agreement
A probe lacking feature specification searches for a local –i.e. c-commanded– goal (inside its domain) to undergo agreement
(Chomsky 2000: 101, 134; Chomsky 2001: 12, 15)
Valuation/Interpretability biconditional(Chomsky 2001):
1. Uninterpretable features are unvalued
2. Interpretable features are valued
3. Uninterpretable features must be valued and deleted
Feature sharing (Frampton and Gutmann 2000; Pesetsky and Torrego 2004, 2007)
Multiple Agree (Hiraiwa 2001, Carstens 2001, Chomsky 2008: 142)
Necessary to account for multiple expression of a feature inside the DP (as is the norm in Romance, for instance)
Agree (Pesetsky and Torrego 2007:4): valued vs. unvalued
(i) An unvalued feature F (a probe) on a head H at syntactic location (F) scans its c-command domain for another instance of F (a goal) at location (F) with which to agree.
(ii) Replace Fwith F, so that the same feature is present in both locations.
Matching feature present
PROBE c-commands GOAL
Result: same feature in both categories
uF [ ]: uninterpretable, unvalued feature
iF [ ]: interpretable, unvalued feature
uF [val]: uninterpretable, valued feature
iF [val]: interpretable, valued feature
Adger & Smith (2005)
Certain uninterpretable features may be variably present in one category but absent in another.
Being uninterpretable, they would have no semantic repercussion, thus being equally legitimate for a convergent derivation with different phonological outcomes
Variation is reduced to the specification of the uninterpretable features in a derivation (Adger & Smith 2005: 161)
Underspecification of uninterpretable features
→ no-F [ ]
Complies with Brody’s (1997) Radical Interpretability
(Adger & Smith 2005: 164)
8. Unos amigos
a. [DP lus [NumP guaguasjóvenes]]
b. [DP lus [NumP guaguasjoven]]
c. [DP lus [NumP guaguajoven]]
‘The young kids’ (adapted from Lipski 2008: 93)
Other languages show impoverished agreement in DP
Amele (Corbett 2000: 137):
11. a. Dana (uqa) hoia
man 3.sg came.sg
‘The man came’
b. Dana (ale) hosia
man 3.dual came.dual
‘The two men came’
c. Dana (age) hoiga
man 3.pl came.pl
‘The men came’
Brazilian Portuguese (Braga 1977, Scherre & Naro 1998, 2006; Magalhães 2004; Simioni 2007, among others)
Colloquial French (Rowlett 2007: 19-20): loss of liaison
Cape Verdean Creole (Baptista 2007)
1. Magalhães (2004): BP
2. Carvalho (2006): Uruguayan Spanish in contact with Portuguese
NumP (Ritter 1991, 1995; Picallo 2008)
Hypothesis for variation:
1. Full redundancy [inum: ] on Num + valued on N
2. Only D: [inum: ] on Num, no-F on N + N-to-n-to-Num, feature valued on D after Agree
Variation is located only on the featural content of lexical categories (as expected for variation and change)
Partial valuation due to defective (i.e., missing) phi-feature (Bejar 2003: 61)
Ortmann’s (2000) Principle of economic plural marking
a. [DP lus [NumP [NP guaguasjóvenes]]
b. [DP lus [NumP [NP guaguasjoven]]
c. [DP lus [NumP [NP guagua joven]]
‘The young kids’ (adapted from Lipski 2008: 93)
Feature [ + pl] (Zamparelli 2008)
Analysis based on Bernstein (1993), Picallo (2008): [num] on Num
Pesetsky & Torrego (2007) suggest that [inum: ] may actually be always located in Num in Spanish
No [inum: ] on N in Spanish
Carstens (2001: 154): N-to-n-to-Num, but not for morphological reasons (no strong feature movement; cf. Alexiadou 2001)
Postnominal APs are located following Demonte (2008: 25, 27)
Agreement between APs and Nfeature sharingNum-A-N (Danon 2008)
Num carries valued [inum: ] from Lexical Array/Numeration (Picallo 2008)
N movement forced by N-feature on n and Num (EPP or categorial F; cf. Alexiadou 2001: 223)
Absence of [num] on A and N eliminates probing
[num] feature is overtly marked on D as affix (materialization of [+ pl] in Spanish in the morphology component). No relevant lexical item in Num for any –s to materialize (N is not eligible; defective, underspecified for [num]).
Feature interpreted once in the chain, as needed (Brody 1997)
12. *[DP el [NP guaguasjóvenes]
No-num [+pl] [+pl]
13 [QP todo [DP lus [NumP guaguajoven]]]
no-num[..] unum[+pl]…. no-num[..]..…..……..no-num[..]
‘All the young boys’
Numerals such as tres (three) carry inherent plural features, thus licensing number on semantic grounds. Maybe also for strong quantifiers such as mucho/todo.
Crosslinguistic evidence: Hungarian, Archi (Caucasus), Kurdish, Huanca Quechua, etc. (cf. Ortmann 2000: 252-3)
Adger, D. & J. Smith. 2005. Variation and the Minimalist Programme. In Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social.Cornips, L. & K. P. Corrigan (eds.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 149-178.
Adger, D. & G. Trousdale. 2007. Variation in English Syntax: Theoretical Implications. English Language and Linguistics 11:261-278.
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Adjective syntax and noun raising: Word order asymmetries in the DP as the result of adjective distribution. StudiaLinguistica55.3: 217-248.
Carstens, V. 2000. Concord in Minimalist Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31.2: 319-355.
Carstens, V. 2001. Multiple Agreement and Case-Deletion: Against Φ-(In)Completeness. Syntax 4: 147-163.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Martin, R., D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language. Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1-52.
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Structures and Beyond.The Cartography of Syntactic Structure Vol 3. Belletti, A. (ed). Oxford: OUP. 104-131.
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud.Freidin, R., C. Otero and M-L. Zubzarreta (eds). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 133-166.
Danon, Gabi. 2008. Definiteness spreading in the Hebrew construct state. Lingua 118.7: 872-906.
Demonte, V. 2008. Meaning-form correlations and adjective position in Spanish. Ms.
Frampton, J. & S. Gutmann. 2000. Agreement is Feature Sharing, ms. Available at <http://www.math.neu.edu/ling/>
Lipski, J. 2006. El dialecto afroyungueño de Bolivia: en busca de las raíces del habla afrohispánica. RILI 3.2: 137-166.
Lipski, J. 2008. Afro-Bolivian Spanish. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.
Ortmann, Albert. 2000. Where plural refuses to agree: feature unification end morphological economy. ActaLinguisticaHungarica47. 1-4: 249-288.
Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego. 2004. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. Ms
Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. Karime, S. et al. (eds.). Amsterdam-Philadelphia. John Benjamins. 262-294.
Picallo, M. C. 2008. Gender and number in Romance. Lingue e linguaggioVII.1: 47-66.
Poplack, S. 1979. Function and process in a variable phonology.Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Zamparelli, R. 2008. On the interpretability of φ-features”. In The Bantu–Romance Connection. De Cat, C and K. Demuth (eds.), Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 167–199.