Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T01:20:21.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the nature of cross-linguistic transfer: A case study of Andean Spanish*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2012

ANTJE G. MUNTENDAM
ANTJE G. MUNTENDAM*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
*
*Address for correspondence: Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, Postbus 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a study on cross-linguistic transfer in Andean Spanish word order. In Andean Spanish the object appears in preverbal position more frequently than in non-Andean Spanish, which has been attributed to an influence from Quechua (a Subject–Object–Verb language). The high frequency of preverbal objects could be explained by focus fronting. The main syntactic properties of focus fronting in Spanish are weak crossover and long distance movement. Two elicitation studies designed to test for these properties in non-Andean Spanish, Andean Spanish and Quechua show no evidence of syntactic transfer from Quechua into Andean Spanish. Rather, the analysis of naturalistic data and an elicitation study on question–answer pairs show that there is pragmatic transfer from Quechua into Andean Spanish. The study has implications for theories of syntax and language contact, and especially for the debate on the nature of cross-linguistic transfer.

Keywords

language contactsyntaxpragmaticsAndean SpanishQuechua
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 111 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research has been funded by Letterenfonds (Leiden University, 2000–2001), Leids Universiteits Internationaal Studie Fonds (2000–2001), Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Summer Research Fellowship (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 2004), Tinker Field Research Grant (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 2004), Dissertation Travel Grant (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 2006), and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). I would like to thank Karlos Arregi, Rakesh Bhatt, Silvina Montrul, Pieter Muysken, three anonymous reviewers, and Carmen Silva-Corvalán for their useful comments on previous versions of this paper. Any errors are, of course, my own responsibility.

References

Adelaar, W. F. H., & Muysken, P. C. (2004). The languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, J. (1979). Causative serial constructions and word order change in Papua New Guinea. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Camacho, J. (1999). From SOV to SVO: The grammar of interlanguage word order. Second Language Research, 15 (2), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L. (1993). On proposed universals of grammatical borrowing. In Aertsen, H. & Jeffers, R. (eds.), Historical linguistics 1989, pp. 91–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerrón-Palomino, R. (1987). Lingüística quechua. Cuzco, Peru: Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos Bartolomé de las Casas.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, pp. 183–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 24 (2), 239–297.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (1982). Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Cole, P., & Hermon, G. (1981). Subjecthood and islandhood: Evidence from Quechua. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 1–30.Google Scholar
Cusihuamán, A. (1976/2001). Gramática quechua. Cuzco-Collao. Cuzco, Peru: Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos Bartolomé de las Casas.Google Scholar
Escobar, A. M. (2000). Contacto social y lingüístico. El español en contacto con el quechua en el Perú. Lima, Peru: PUCP, Fondo Editorial.Google Scholar
Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Harris, A., & Campbell, L. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INEC [Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos]. (2001). Censo de población 2001. Estudios socioeconómicos de la provincia del Cañar. Quito: INEC.Google Scholar
Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2002). Censo nacional de población y vivienda 2001. Cochabamba: resultados departamentales. La Paz, Bolivia: Instituto Nacional de Estadística.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klee, C. (1996). The Spanish of the Peruvian Andes: The influence of Quechua on Spanish language structure. In Roca, A. & Jensen, J. (eds.), Spanish in contact: Issues in bilingualism, pp. 73–91. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C., & Muysken, P. C. (1983). Raising as move case. The Linguistic Review, 2, 161–210.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C., & Muysken, P. C. (1988). Mixed categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Martínez, Parra R. (1999). La fábula quechua. Lima, Peru: Editorial San Marcos.Google Scholar
Muntendam, A. (2008a). Crosslinguistic influence in Andean Spanish: Word order and focus. In Bowles, M., Foote, R., Perpiñán, S., & Bhatt, R. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum, pp. 44–57. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Muntendam, A. (2008b). Transfer in the C-domain: Word order and focus in Andean Spanish. In Chan, H., Jacob, H. & Kapia, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 311–322. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Muntendam, A. (2009). Linguistic transfer in Andean Spanish: Syntax or pragmatics? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. C. (1984). The Spanish that Quechua speakers learn: L2 learning as norm-governed behavior. In Andersen, R. (ed.), Second languages: A crosslinguistic perspective, pp. 101–119. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. C. (1995). Focus in Quechua. In Kiss, K. É. (ed.), Discourse configurational languages, pp. 375–393. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., & Reinhart, T. (1998). Scrambling and the PF interface. In Butt, M. & Geuder, W. (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, pp. 309–353. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ocampo, F. (1994). The word order of two-constituent constructions in spoken Spanish. In Downing, P. & Noonan, M. (eds.), Word order in discourse, pp. 425–447. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ocampo, F., & Klee, C. (1995). Spanish OV/VO word-order variation in Spanish–Quechua bilingual speakers. In Silva-Corvalán, C. (ed.), Spanish in four continents: Studies in language contact and bilingualism, pp. 71–82. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, E. (2005). Intonation and language contact: A case study of two varieties of Peruvian Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Parker, G. (1969). Ayacucho Quechua grammar and dictionary. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. (1988). On pragmatic change: The borrowing of discourse functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. (1992). On syntax in discourse, in language contact situations. In Kramsch, C. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study, pp. 98–112. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Company.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1998). The borrowing of meaning as a cause of internal syntactic change. In Schmid, M. S., Austin, J. R. & Stein, D. (eds.), Historical linguistics 1997: Selected papers from the 13th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, pp. 339–362. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1997). Interface economy: Focus and markedness. In Wilder, C., Gärtner, H. & Bierwisch, M. (eds.), The role of economy principles in linguistic theory, pp. 146–170. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of grammar, pp. 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, M. (1996). Focus. In Lappin, S. (ed.), The handbook of temporary semantic theory, pp. 271–297. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sánchez, L. (2003). Quechua–Spanish bilingualism: Interference and convergence in functional categories. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, L. (2010). The morphology and syntax of topic and focus: Minimalist inquiries in Quechua. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1993). On the permeability of grammars: Evidence from Spanish and English contact. In Ashby, W., Mithun, M., Perissinotto, G. & Raposo, E. (eds.), Selected papers from the 21st Symposium on Romance Languages, pp. 19–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1998). On borrowing as a mechanism of syntactic change. In Schwegler, A., Tranel, B. & Uribe-Extebarria, M. (eds.), Romance linguistics: Theoretical perspectives, pp. 225–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2008). The limits of convergence in language contact. Journal of Language Contact, 2, 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto Ruiz, C. (1993). Manual de enseñanza. Lima, Peru: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. (1997). On mechanisms of interference. In Eliasson, S. & Hakon, E. Jahr (eds.), Language and its ecology: Essays in memory of Einar Haugen, pp. 181–207. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh & Washington, DC: Edinburgh University Press & Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. (2008). Social and linguistic factors as predictors of contact-induced change. Journal of Language Contact, 2, 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torero, A. (1964). Los dialectos quechuas. Anales científicos de la Universidad Agraria, 2 (4), 446–478.Google Scholar
Weber, D. (1996). Una gramática del quechua del Huallaga (Huánuco). Lima, Peru: Ministerio de Educación. Instituto Lingüístico del Verano.Google Scholar
Zagona, K. (2002). The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. (1998). Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. (1999). Las funciones informativas: Tema y foco. In Bosque, I. & Demonte Barreto, V. (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española 3, pp. 4217–4244. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar