Spanish, as is the case of Portuguese, Turkish, Italian, and other
languages, is known to be a pro-drop or null subject language, which
means that speakers have the option of expressing a subject personal
pronoun (henceforth SPP) or omitting it. A language such as English is
not considered to be a null subject language, for in almost all
instances SPPs must be expressed.
In general, studies on the variable use of overt SPPs have reported
that linguistic factors, such as a switch in reference, the distance to
the previous mention of the verb's subject, /-s/ deletion
on 2nd person verbs, the verb's person and number, verb semantics,
contrast and emphasis, and morphological ambiguity influence
speakers' use of the null or overt form. These findings have been
documented in several Spanish dialects of the United States, in Puerto
Rico, the Dominican Republic, Madrid, Mexico, and in Latin America
(Ávila-Jiménez, 1996; Barrenechea & Alonso, 1977; Bayley & Pease-Álvarez, 1997;
Bentivoglio, 1980, 1983, 1988; Cameron,
1992, 1993, 1995; Enríquez,
1984; Flores-Ferrán, 2002;
Flores & Toro, 2000; Henríquez Ureña, 1939; Hochberg, 1986; Jiménez-Sabater, 1975; López Morales,
1983, 1992;
Morales, 1986, 1988, 1997; Pérez Sala, 1973; Silva-Corvalán,
1982, 1994).
There has been great debate as to how contact with English may be
influencing speakers of Spanish in Puerto Rico and the United States
mainland to produce redundant uses of SPPs. English does not have the
same inflectional richness in its verbs as Spanish, and it requires
almost all verbs to have an expressed subject. Therefore, although
vivimos or nosotros vivimos are referentially
equivalent in Spanish, speakers cannot alternatively use ‘We
live’ and *‘(0) live’ to convey the same meaning in
English.
Having stated that English has an almost obligatory use of SPPs,
several nonvariationist researchers have suggested that Spanish
speakers on the island of Puerto Rico are paralleling structures
similar to those of English when they express overt SPPs in a redundant
manner. These studies argue in favor of the permeability of syntactic
structures (De Granda, 1978; Gili Gaya, 1959; Navarro,
1974).
But most sociolinguistic quantitative research conducted on the
island and in the United States mainland (Ávila-Jiménez, 1996; Flores-Ferrán, 2002; Flores & Toro, 2000; Morales, 1986; Pérez
Sala, 1973) has not found a correlation between the use of overt
SPPs and exposure to English as hypothesized by the previously
mentioned nonvariationist studies. What is consistently reported by
variationist studies, however, is that the Spanish variety of Puerto
Rico, as other Spanish varieties spoken in the Caribbean, shows higher
rates of overt pronominal usage than non-Caribbean varieties (Cameron,
1992, 1993, 1995; Flores-Ferrán,
2002; Flores & Toro, 2000; Lipski, 1994; Morales, 1986, 1997; Pérez Sala, 1973; Silva-Corvalán, 1994).
Research conducted in Puerto Rico has documented English-contact
induced change. Morales' (1986) research
was able to find evidence of English influence in several syntactic
structures. However, that same study was unable to find a correlation
between the use of overt SPPs and the levels of exposure to English.
Instead, Morales (1986) maintained that a
switch reference operates as a pivotal factor in the use of SPPs.
Morales (1986) also noted that the previous
mention of the verb's subject also conditions the use of overt
SPPs. In addition, Morales (1986) found
evidence that new information resulted in higher use of overt SPPs,
whereas old or repeated information favored null SPPs.
In Puerto Rico, Ávila-Jiménez's (1996) study also did not support the claim that
English contact alone could account for higher use of overt SPPs among
the young generation of participants in that study.
Pérez Sala (1973), in another
variationist study conducted on island residents, arrived at a similar
conclusion to that of Morales (1986). That
research suggested that speakers express SPPs overtly to add emotional
weight to an expression that could have been produced with a null
subject. Pérez Sala also suggested that similar patterns of
overt SPPs found in island residents also appeared in Spanish varieties
of Madrid, Perú, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Mexico, areas
that were considered at the time to have little contact with
English.
In another study conducted in Puerto Rico, Cameron (1992) argued that the realization of the SPP was
strongly conditioned by several linguistic factors, among them, the
switch reference.
On the mainland of the United States, Hochberg (1986) conducted a study that examined morphological
ambiguity and its effect on pronominal expression in Puerto Ricans
living in Boston. The results of that study showed that when the
/-s/ in 2nd person singular verbs was dropped, functional
compensation occurred. That is, speakers used SPPs at a higher rate
because with the /-s/ deletion, the verb alone could not
distinguish person. However, Cameron (1992)
and Morales (1997) found evidence contrary to
the hypothesis.
In short, variationist research conducted in Puerto Rico reveals that
contact with English does not correlate with heightened use of overt
SPPs, and that other linguistic factors play a stronger role in
determining the selection of an overt or null form.
With respect to Spanish varieties of the United States mainland,
findings of Silva-Corvalán (1994) and
Bayley and Pease-Álvarez (1997) also
revealed that English contact did not influence speakers of the Mexican
Spanish variety in California to use more overt forms.
In sum, exposure to English has not been found to correlate with
increased use of SPPs in the Spanish varieties spoken in the United
States and in Puerto Rico.
It should be noted that with regard to research conducted on the
variable use of SPPs, Flores-Ferrán's (2002) study is the most extensive of its kind that
documents SPP expression in the Spanish variety of Puerto Rican
residents of New York City. The study is also the most extensive study
conducted in a language contact environment regarding this feature. For
details of the extensive study, see Flores-Ferrán (2002).
In the research presented here, I discuss findings regarding the
factors of the verb's person and number (henceforth, person and
number), switch reference, and exposure to NYC (which is indirectly
associated with English contact), and how these independent variables
influence speakers' use of overt SPPs. I illustrate and discuss
how the NYC residents as a whole and as three separate groups (recent
arrivals, established residents, native-born NYC residents) use overt
SPPs.
First, with regard to person and number, I examine the relative
frequency with which speakers use overt SPPs and proceed to compare the
findings in NYC to the findings reported in San Juan by Cameron (1992) and Ávila-Jiménez (1995, 1996), who
conducted the two most recent sociolinguistic studies in San Juan. For
the factor of switch reference, I also examine the relative frequency
with which speakers in NYC signal a switch in reference and compare the
results to those reported only1
Ávila-Jiménez (1995, 1996) examined
switch reference, but constructed the switch reference factor group
differently than Cameron's (1992) study.
This made comparisons difficult. In addition,
Ávila-Jiménez (1995, 1996) did not present varbrul weights for
all tables, further limiting comparisons.
by Cameron (
1992) in a seminal study that provided the
foundations for this present study. The factor group created to examine
switch reference in this present NYC study was constructed using
Cameron's (
1992) formula of switch
reference, which he crafted based on Haiman's (
1983), Hochberg's (
1986), and Silva-Corvalán's (
1982) work. It was essential to follow
Cameron's (
1992) study to allow for more
accurate comparisons between the NYC and the San Juan speakers.
It should be noted that, although I discuss the factor of exposure to
NYC as it may relate to indirect exposure to English, the problem
addressed throughout the article is whether or not the almost
categorical use of SPPs in English influences NYC speakers' use of
more overt SPPs with regard to the verb's person and number and in
switch reference environments when compared to residents of the island.
If a positive influence is found, it should be detected in the relative
frequencies and probabilities with which speakers express overt SPP
when compared to those documented in Puerto Rico by Cameron (1992) and Ávila-Jiménez (1995, 1996). That is, the
presence of the effect should be represented by more elevated uses of
explicit SPPs in NYC, because I am comparing two different geographical
yet parallel contexts. This positive effect would be suggestive of a
contact hypothesis. If no effect that departs from previous research
appears, then the absence of that effect should be detected in the
similar frequencies, probabilities and/or patterns of pronominal
expression found in the NYC residents. In this respect, if no apparent
effect is found, it would be suggestive of a noncontact hypothesis, and
we can thereby rest the case that suggests that exposure to life in the
City plays a role in determining the selection of the explicit or null
forms in NYC residents.
As will be shown in greater detail in the following sections, I
present three arguments here that support a noncontact hypothesis.
First, it will be demonstrated that NYC speakers as a whole tend to use
overt SPPs in patterns similar to those documented in San Juan. Second,
the frequencies and the strengths of the probabilities will also be
similar to those reported by Cameron (1992)
and Ávila-Jiménez (1995, 1996). And third, even though the native-born NYC
residents tend to express more overt SPPs than the established
residents or recent arrivals to the City, the NYC native-born Puerto
Ricans do not strongly diverge from the patterns found in residents of
the island (Ávila-Jiménez, 1995, 1996; Cameron, 1992). This set of conditions will lead to
the conclusion that exposure to life in NYC does not correlate to
heightened uses of overt SPPs in NYC. Admittedly, although there are
some differences with regard to the frequencies with which the NYC
native-born Puerto Ricans use this feature, there are far more striking
similarities in the frequencies, probabilities, and patterns of
pronominal expression within all three groups of residents examined in
this study. It may well be that other factors may be playing a role in
determining the choice that speakers make with regard to the overt or
null SPP. The other suggested factors that may play a role in
conditioning the use of the explicit or null form will be discussed in
the latter part of this article.
The article first presents the demographics of the study, followed by
a discussion on the envelope of variation, in which I explain how the
data were analyzed. To illustrate the analysis, I use examples of
naturally occurring speech from taped narratives. Second, I present and
discuss the findings with regard to person and number and immediately
proceed to compare these results with those documented in San Juan
(Ávila-Jiménez, 1995, 1996; Cameron, 1992).
Third, a discussion on switch reference is presented. I describe how
the factor of switch reference was defined in this study, and provide
examples of how the verbs were analyzed under this complex factor
group. The results for this factor once again are compared to
Cameron's (1992) study on pronominal
usage and switch reference. And finally, I discuss the use of overt
SPPs according to the degree of exposure to NYC. In this section, I
discuss how recent arrivals, established residents, and native-NYC born
participants express overt SPPs as separate groups and draw comparisons
between these groups and the islanders.
DEMOGRAPHICS OF THIS STUDY
Following Labov's (1984) methods of
sociolinguistic interviews, I interviewed 20 men and 21 women between
the ages of 23 and 81 who were randomly referred to me during a
six-month period. All the participants were asked to recount an
incident that had an impact on their lives.
As seen in Table 1, the majority of
participants were between 20 and 59 years old. The education level of
the participants was slightly different between males and females
(Table 2). More females had college
experience than did the males. Participants in the professional
category were in banking, teaching, TV reporting, nursing professions,
and so forth (Table 3). The managerial
category was reserved for participants who supervised people. The
skilled category included printers, clerks, postal workers, and so
forth. The unskilled category was used mainly for delivery workers,
supermarket staff, doormen, maintenance workers, or unskilled
retirees.
Distribution of participants according to age and gender
Distribution of participants according to educational level
Distribution of participants according to occupation
Participants self-reported the information appearing in Table 4. The majority of participants were in daily
contact with English at home. Those who claimed to use only Spanish
were still in daily contact with English, because they worked in
bilingual settings. In Table 5, we find that
the majority of participants had lived in the City for 16 to 45
years.
Distribution of participants according to gender and language at
home
Distribution of participants according to years in New York
City
THE ENVELOPE OF VARIATION
The envelope of variation refers to the set of environments within
which the SPPs are said to vary or to constitute a linguistic variable.
In this study, the envelope of variation was defined as a tensed verb
whose [+human] subject can be either a null or expressed SPP.
If the alternation could not occur, the verb was excluded from the
analysis.
The examples that follow represent instances in which a speaker had
the option of expressing the overt SPP or omitting it in the Spanish
variety of Puerto Rico:
(1) Yo (a) quiero que tú (b) sepas que nosotros te
(c) ibamos a botar como bolsa.
‘I want you to know that we were going to throw you
out like a bag.’ (Participant #27)
In (1), the speaker had the option of using all three verbs (a)
quiero, (b) sepas, and (c) ibamos without
the overt SPP. In this example, all three verbs were entered in the
analysis because they represented a site where the variable use of SPPs
existed.
(2) Y de regreso (a) me acordé que (b) tenía
un montón de correspondencia en casa de mi amigo José xxx
de los bancos, y eso porque (c) tuve que poner la dirección de
el. Él me (d) ayudó muchísimo.
‘and upon returning, [I] remembered that
[I] had a bunch of mail in the house of a friend, José
xxx of the banks, and that was because [I] had to address
things to his place. He helped me a lot.’ (Participant
#27)
In (2), the same speaker used null forms with verbs (a)
acordé, (b) tenía, and (c)
tuve, but used an overt 3rd person SPP in verb (d)
ayudó. All four verbs were entered in the analysis
because the option of expressing a null or overt form existed in each
case.
There are certain environments, however, where SPPs must be
obligatorily expressed. Therefore, the verbs in the following examples
were not included in the analysis:
(3) Él llegó tarde pero ella no dijo
nada.
‘He arrived late but she didn't say anything.’
(Participant #8)
In (3), the verb llegó was entered in the analysis
because it represented a site where the variation could take place.
However, the verb dijo did not enter the analysis because the
speaker had to use the overt form obligatorily to preserve the meaning
and contrast with the competing 3rd person Él. Without
the overt expression of ella, the verb dijo would be
interpreted as having él as its subject, as in (3a):
(3a) El1 llegó tarde pero
no 01 dijo nada.
Therefore, clauses like (3) with pero + NP2 Verb
did not enter the analysis.
Instances in which the use of a null SPP was the only option were
also omitted from the analysis:
(4) Muchos amigos míos que son policías
…
‘Many friends of mine that are policemen’
…
Here an expressed SPP produces:
(4a) *Muchos amigos míos que ellos son
policías …
In Spanish, in general, including the Spanish variety spoken in
Puerto Rico, (4a) is not considered grammatical.
As previous studies have indicated (Bayley &
Pease-Álvarez, 1997; Cameron,
1992; Silva-Corvalán, 1994;
Otheguy & Zentella, 2000), there are
specific uses of certain verbs in which pronouns are obligatorily
expressed or are obligatorily absent. These particular verbs, in which
the alternation could not have existed, were also excluded from the
analysis:
Nonpersonal subject as:
‘That lasted three years’. (Participant
#1)
Existential verbs haber as:
(6) Hay que trabajar mucho.
‘One has to work a lot.’ (Participant
#8)
Verbs with inanimate subjects such as:
(7) Faltaban dos horas para los bancos cerrar y ellos
cierran a las tres.
‘There were two hours before the banks closed and they
close at 3.’ (Participant #7)
Verbs with nonpersonal pronouns such as:
‘That's not the way it is.’ (Participant
#7)
Verbs with uno as their subject such as:
‘You cannot imagine …’ (Participant
#24)
Verbs with impersonal se such as:
(10) En Puerto Rico se vive muy bien.
‘In Puerto Rico [one] lives well.’
(Participant #41)
Verbs that had subjects referring to atmospheric conditions as:
(11) Hace calor en Florida.
‘It is hot in Florida.’ (Participant
#3)
Verbs in pseudo-cleft constructions in which the SPP falls to the
right of the verb (D'Introno, 1989) as
in:
(12) La que me voy soy yo.
‘The one who is leaving is me.’ (Participant
#8)
Verbs in constructions of contrast with pero as in:
(13) Ellos optaron por el suicidio pero ellas no pensaron
igual.
‘They opted for suicide but they didn't think the
same way.’ (Participant #16)
The subject of the verb pensaron must be expressed in this
sentence because the referents are not the same. In this instance, the
verb pensaron is excluded from the study.
(14) El redujo la velocidad pero siguió tocando
bocina …
‘He reduced the speed but kept on honking his horn.’
(Participant #19)
The subject of siguió is the same as that of
redujo. Variation can exist with siguió.
Verbs in constructions where the pronoun is expressed with
mismo as in:
(15) El mismo me lo dijo.
‘He himself told me.’ (Participant
#30)
Subject headed relative clauses:
(16) Muchos amigos míos que son
policías.
‘Many of my friend that are police officers.’
(Participant #40)
Set phrases:
(17) Qué sé yo. ‘What do
I know?’
¡No chaves! ‘Don't bother
me.’
The varbrul program, commonly used for variationist
research, was also used in this study to analyze over 15,000 tokens.
The dependent variable was identified as the overt or null SPP, and in
the binomial application of varbrul, the probabilities were
defined relative to the occurrence of the overt SPP. A probabilistic
weight of above .50 was considered as favoring the presence of the
overt SPP, and a weight lower than .50 was considered as disfavoring
the use of the overt form. Generally speaking, .50 is considered as an
absence of an effect. However, it is important to note that a value of
.50 relative to a value of .42, for example, can also be interpreted as
showing a stronger probability, and therefore a higher favoring of
overt SPPs. Likewise, a value of .75 relative to .65 can also be
interpreted as showing a stronger probability, and therefore a higher
favoring of overt SPPs. In general, we can consider that the
probabilistic weights also serve to indicate a degree of strength that
the independent variable has on the use of the dependent variable, the
overt SPP. For varbrul see Paolillo (2002).
Unless otherwise indicated, the significance value of all runs in
Flores-Ferrán's large-scale study was (p <
.0001). The p value represents the probability that the
results obtained were due to chance. The log likelihood for the best
run was found to be equal to −8900.612, with a chi-square of
1.390 per cell. Chi-square values have been omitted from the
tables that show comparisons between two or more studies.2
For other chi-square values see Cameron
(1992, 1995).
Every table showing
cross-tabulations between two factor groups of this study, however,
have chi-square values explicitly indicated.
FINDINGS
To begin, Table 6 shows the frequencies and
weight probabilities of overt SPP (PRO+) expression for the entire
group of NYC residents who participated in the study. In general, Table 6 shows that at .44, the Puerto Rican
residents of NYC, as a group, do not tend to favor the use of overt
SPPs, but rather favor the null form at .56, a tendency found in most
Spanish varieties. We can assume then, at this point, that a shift in
the tendency favoring the use of overt SPPs would have indicated a
departure from most Spanish varieties.
Frequencies and weights for the use of overt SPPs in New York
City
Even though there were differences in the agendas of these two
studies with regard to the number and types of factors examined,3
Flores-Ferrán's (2002) complete study examined over 15 different
linguistic and social factors. Of these, four factors were identically
constructed and coded according to Cameron's (1992) study: switch reference, person and number,
gender, and degrees of bilingualism.
in
Table 7 we see that the frequencies with which
speakers use overt and null forms are the same for both groups. But
further analysis and details must be considered when making general
observations of this nature that indicate identical frequencies, for
these types of studies are unable to directly address subgroup
differences, which under a different research model might yield
important results (
Cameron, 2000). We turn
now to a comparison of the NYC group with San Juan residents and
further analyze the data in more detail.
Comparison of New York City to San Juan speakers' use of overt
and null SPPs
PERSON AND NUMBER
In Table 8, comparisons of the frequencies
of overt SPP use among NYC and San Juan residents are made with the
purpose of determining the differences between the two geographic
areas, if any.
Overt SPPs for person and number: San Juan and NYC
A number of interesting points can be drawn from Table 8. First, the NYC speakers as a whole do not
tend to deviate from the current patterns of pronominal expression when
compared to speakers residing on the island. The NYC group tends to
produce overt SPPs within or below the range of frequencies of these
two studies, with the exception of 3rd person SPPs. Second, there are
similar patterns found in the order or rank in which the frequencies
appear. For instance, Ávila-Jiménez' (1995, 1996) and
Flores-Ferrán's (2002) studies
showed identical ordering: 2nd person nonspecific
tú,4
Nonspecific
tú is considered ‘one’, whereas specific
tú is considered as ‘you’.
with
the highest frequency, followed by specific
tú, and
then 1st person
yo. This order was followed by 3rd person
singular
el/ella and later by 3rd person plural. Finally,
in both studies, 1st person plural
nosotros had the lowest
frequency of overt SPP expression. With regard to Cameron's (
1992) study, the order of the frequencies are
slightly different. Note that the highest frequency of overt SPP
expression was also nonspecific
tú, but the SPP with
the second highest use was 1st person
yo, followed closely by
specific
tú. In all three studies, the lowest frequency
of overt pronominals appears with the 1st person plural form.
There are two observations that need to be made with respect to the
frequencies in Table 8, however. First, there
seems to be a slight difference in the frequencies with which speakers
use 2nd person nonspecific tú. Cameron's (1992) study shows 69%, whereas Flores-Ferrán
(2002) shows 60%. But note that even though
we find slight differences, we still see that all three studies show a
higher frequency in the use of the nonspecific tú than
of specific tú. Furthermore, the frequency found in the
NYC residents is not higher than that found in the other two studies.
Note that the frequency is not working in the direction of a contact
hypothesis. Second, there also seems to be a slight difference with
regard to the use of 3rd person el/ella. The NYC group
uses higher frequencies than those reported in both San Juan groups.
This difference requires further examination.
If we observe the probabilistic weights reported for nonspecific
tú and 3rd person el/ella, reported by
Cameron (1992) and Flores-Ferrán
(2002), more similarities than differences
can be uncovered.
The varbrul weights in Table 9
show that for the use of overt 3rd person el/ella the
islanders have a probability weight of .47, disfavoring the use of
overt 3rd person el/ella, whereas the New Yorkers have one
of .52, which represents a stronger probability in favor of the overt
expression. Relative to .47, this .52, although not a very big
difference in the strengths, suggests a positive effect with regard to
the use of overt SPPs in the 3rd person in the NYC group. But, at this
point, we cannot distinguish if this difference is correlated to
increased exposure to NYC. Therefore, I will revisit the discussion
regarding 3rd person SPPs later in this article.
Comparison of New York City and San Juan probability weights of overt
SPPs with person and number
In Table 9, however, we are still left with
the most marked difference in the probability weights of nonspecific
tú. NYC speakers have a .58 probabilty of expressing
the nonspecific pronoun overtly, whereas the islanders have a much
stronger probability, .72. This difference in the probability weights
does not favor a contact hypothesis, but suggests that perhaps this gap
exists in part because of the differences in the type of corpora
analyzed when examining the use of overt SPPs with 2nd person
nonspecific tú.5
Whereas
the corpora of my study consisted of oral narratives produced by
individual speakers who were interviewed by me alone, Cameron (1992) used oral interviews and narratives with
small groups and individual speakers. It may well be that the topic of
the conversation generated the use of ‘one’, the
nonspecific tú form, or that the three-way
conversations may have produced more of the other form. In the
narratives produced in this current study, the speakers were only
addressing me and had less need to produce the specific
tú. Rather, they mostly were using the nonspecific or
generic tú form as they narrated their stories or
lectured me about their particular opinions.
In terms of
relative strengths, it is important to note that it is the San Juan
group that expresses more overt 2nd person nonspecific
tú, not the NYC residents. Again, this is another
observation that does not support a contact hypothesis.
In sum, although it is understood that varbrul weights and
frequencies cannot be compared on a strictly equivalent basis, because
these three studies contained different factor groups, the similarities
found in the use of overt SPP for person and number are striking. Thus,
and in general terms, it seems reasonable to assume that the NYC group,
although separated by distance and exposed to an urban environment
where English is spoken, seems to have similar patterns of overt SPP
usage when compared to their counterparts on the island.
Before turning to switch reference, I would like to revisit the
observation made regarding the use of 3rd person SPPs, because the
large study further examined the use of overt and null SPPs with regard
to 3rd person in more detail. Because 3rd person pronouns el
and ella use the same morphological endings in their verbs, I
hypothesized that potential interference may influence speakers use of
overt 3rd person SPPs in their narratives. Therefore, a factor group
named Competition or Potential Interference between previously
overtly mentioned 3rd person singular subjects was constructed in
Flores-Ferrán (2002). The purpose of
this factor was to determine whether contexts with two or more 3rd
person singular subjects in previously mentioned verbs tend to produce
more appearances of overt SPPs in the verb under study. The rationale
behind this factor was that the two or more 3rd person subjects in the
same narrative would create an environment of potential referential
ambiguity. Contrary to my hypothesis, an initial varbrul run
in a step-down analysis asked for this factor group's removal.
That is, the results showed that there was no connection between the
use of multiple 3rd persons subjects in a narrative and the high or low
numbers of overt 3rd person SPPs.
SWITCH REFERENCE
A factor that has been shown to condition the use of overt SPPs in a
significant and systematic manner is that of switch reference, found
across Spanish dialects (Cameron, 1992, 1995; Ávila-Jiménez, 1996; Bayley & Pease-Álvarez, 1997; Flores-Ferrán, 2002; Morales, 1986; Silva-Corvalán, 1982, 1994) and also
other languages (Eid, 1983; Enç, 1986; Lira,
1982).
In search for evidence of contact showing that the NYC residents
studied here have altered their use of pronominal expression because of
their exposure to the City, I questioned whether or not a switch in
reference influenced speakers' use of overt SPPs, and I also
questioned if the patterns of pronominal expression were similar to
those documented on the island. I hypothesized that if differences were
found, they could be attributed to the degree of exposure to NYC.
DEFINING SWITCH REFERENCE AND HOW THE DATA
WERE ANALYZED
Cameron's (1992, 1995) study conducted in Puerto Rico constitutes a
valuable contribution to any study related to the variable use of SPPs.
That study showed that a switch in reference has a robust effect on the
use of overt SPPs. Therefore, Cameron's (1992) terminology and formula were used to analyze
the data in this present study with the purpose of providing a point of
comparison for the NYC data:
… two related reference relations that may hold between
two NPs. When these two NPs have different referents, they are
‘switch’ in reference. When these two NP's share the
same referent, they are ‘same’ in reference. (1992, p.117)
The relationship of switch and same reference for this present study
was defined between two NPs where the second NP is the
[+human] subject of a tensed verb that occurs after and
nearest to another subject NP of a tensed verb. Following
Cameron's (1992) terminology, NP (1) is
known as the trigger and NP (2) as the target. The
target is the subject NP that is marked as either switch or same with
respect to the trigger. For the purposes of comparison, I strictly
adhered to Cameron's (1992, 1995) formula:
The NYC narratives for switch reference analysis were coded using the
following:
0 = There is no trigger (for beginning of
discourse)
1 = The target NP referent is the same as the trigger
NP
2 = The target NP referent is not the same as the trigger
NP
3 = The target NP referent is a subset of the trigger
NP
4 = The trigger NP referent is a subset of the target
NP
Examples of how a switch referent was analyzed and coded:
In example (17), when we compare the target NP of verb (b)
contesta to the NP of the trigger (a) estaba, we find
that there has been a switch in reference from mami to
yo, and therefore contesta was coded with factor 2
(switch in reference). However, when we compare the target NP in verb
(c) dice, to the NP trigger (b) contesta, we find
that both NPs refer to the same subject, ella and
mami. Therefore, (c) dice was coded as same in
reference (factor 1). When we compare the NP target in (d)
estás to its trigger NP found in (c) dice, we
find that the NP for (d) estás is the null 2nd person
specific tú, whereas the NP for (c) dice, is
the null form 3rd person, ella. Therefore, the verb (d)
estás was coded with factor 2, as a switch
reference.
Table 10 shows higher frequency and
probability weights for the use of overt SPPs in a switch reference
environment. In instances where there is no switch, speakers expressed
only 38% of their SPPs overtly. The strength of this frequency is
represented by .43 varbrul weight. Said differently, when
there is not a switch reference, speakers tend to favor null SPPs.
However, when there is a switch reference, there is a stronger
probability (.57) that speakers will use an overt SPP. That is, when a
switch occurs, speakers favor the use of an overt form. This pattern
was also reported by scholars in the United States, the Caribbean,
Mexico, Spain, and Latin America, which suggests that a switch
reference conditions the use of overt SPPs. In sum, a switch reference
in NYC does show a robust effect on pronominal expression.
Null and overt SPP expression in switch reference
environments
We now turn to a comparison of switch reference findings in NYC and
San Juan. In Table 11, we see that the
frequencies of overt SPP expression resemble those documented in San
Juan. First, and in general, both groups show higher rates of overt
SPPs in a switch reference, and lower rates in a nonswitch environment.
Second, we find that in a switch, the San Juan speakers expressed 57%
of their SPPs overtly, whereas the NYC group expressed 54%, a close
proximity. A similarity also exists in the use of overt SPPs in a
nonswitch environment. The NYC group expressed overt SPPs in a
nonswitch environment in 38% of their verbs, while the San Juan
residents did so for 31%. Although the patterns are similar, the NYC
group tends to express more overt SPPs in a nonswitch environment (38%)
than the islanders (31%). This observation may require further
examination.
Comparison of switch reference environments in San Juan (Cameron,
1992, 1995) and New
York City (Flores-Ferrán,
2002)
But before further examining the nonswitch environment of the NYC
group, a comparison of singular and plural verbs in a switch reference
environment is in order. Table 12 also shows
striking similarities in the frequencies with which overt SPPs are
expressed in a singular and plural context. Notice, however, that in
nonswitch instances, the NYC group shows higher frequencies of singular
and plural overt SPPs than the islanders. Further discussion is also
needed with regard to this observation.
Comparison of overt singular and plural SPPs in switch reference: New
York City (Flores-Ferrán, 2002) and
San Juan (Cameron, 1992)
Before continuing, I need to address the questions asked earlier:
Does a switch in reference exert an influence on the use of overt SPPs
in the NYC group? The response is positive; a switch in reference does
exert an influence on the use of overt SPPs in NYC. Furthermore, the
patterns of pronominal expression are similar to those documented in
San Juan (Cameron, 1992). When I address the
second question regarding the relative frequencies of overt SPP
expression and whether or not the NYC group exceeds the frequencies
found in San Juan, I find that the only distinction that can be made is
that the NYC group tends to use more overt SPPs in a nonswitch
reference environment. At this point, I cannot find evidence of a
change with regard to this factor, unless I address how the three
separate groups of residents use overt SPPs in this environment.
To further examine this finding, we now look at how the three
distinct groups, the recent arrivals, the established residents, and
the NYC native-born, use SPPs in a switch reference environment. In
this analysis some gaps begin to emerge in the data, in particular,
with the NYC native-born group.
EXPOSURE TO NEW YORK CITY AND SPP USE: IS
THERE EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN PROGRESS?
Recall that I used Cameron's (1992)
formula for defining a switch reference for analyzing the corpora. I
hypothesized that residents of NYC would show similar patterns of overt
pronominal expression to those in San Juan, providing that the NYC
group had not been affected by their exposure to NYC, which I can
indirectly associate to English contact. In Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, when comparisons
between the NYC group and the islanders were drawn, similar patterns of SPP
expression were found, as well as similar frequencies and probability weights
with regard to person and number, switch reference, and the use of overt
singular and plural SPPs in switch reference. But earlier in the article, it
was also mentioned that if heightened use of overt SPPs were detected and
those frequencies and/or probabilities exceeded those already documented
in San Juan, then this would be considered a sign of divergence,
pointing towards a contact hypothesis. I discovered that for nonswitch
reference, the realization of the overt SPP in the New Yorkers was seen
at a frequency of 38%, whereas the islanders showed only a 31%
frequency. The question I need to address now is whether or not this
difference detected is sufficient to claim that degree of exposure to
NYC can be correlated to the use of overt SPPs.
When constructing the factor group that examined the indirect
exposure that a NYC resident might have to English, I had to take into
account several subfactors that were self-reported. Still, these
factors indirectly address the matter of English contact. The factor of
exposure to NYC was coded as: Degree of exposure to NYC, wherein
absences away from the City were not subtracted from the total years:
- N = speaker has lived in NYC since birth and had any 5 of the first
8 years of education in the United States (native-born New
Yorker)
- E = speaker has lived in NYC more than 16 years (established
resident)
- R = speaker has lived in NYC between 0 and 5 years (recent
arrival)
Total years in NYC, wherein absences from the City were subtracted
from the total years:
- 1 = less than 15 years
- 2 = between 16 and 30 years
- 3 = between 31and 45 years
- 4 = more than 45 years
Age of arrival to NYC was coded with:
- B = born in NYC
- C = child until 12 years
- T = teen from 13 to 19 years
- A = adult more than 20 years
Language at home was coded with the following schema:
- E = English
- S = Spanish
- B = Both
The only factor group to survive the step-up/step-down analysis
of the varbrul program was that of exposure to NYC, which did
not take into account the time that a participant may have left NYC to
go to Puerto Rico on vacation or left NYC for a period of time to live
elsewhere. One reason why the distinction was made regarding the factor
groups of degree of exposure and total years in NYC was that older
participants could not identify the exact years they had spent away
from the City. The nonsignificance of age of arrival, language spoken
at home, and whether one arrived as a child or at an older age shows
that these three categories are immaterial for describing an account of
indirect English contact. However, some observations can be made if we
examine the only surviving factor in this category.
Table 13 shows that only the NYC
native-born group (at .55) has a probability of using more overt SPPs
with their verbs than the other two groups. That is, the recent
arrivals and the established residents do not show a probability weight
that favors the dependent variable, the overt SPP (.39, .45).
Furthermore, there is an increase in the progression of the frequencies
and probability weights as degrees of exposure increase. This finding
with regard to native NYC-born Puerto Ricans and their tendency to use
more overt SPPs needs further discussion, for it appears to favor a
contact hypothesis. But first, I will compare research documented in
San Juan, Boston, and New York and then discuss in more detail how
these comparisons may relate to the results found with the NYC
native-born group reported in Flores-Ferrán (2002).
Overt SPP use according to degree of exposure to New York
City
I use Table 14 as a point of reference to
enable us to see at a glance if the NYC group's frequencies
diverge from other studies. In Table 14, the
NYC group as a whole shows a similar frequency of overt SPP expression
to those documented in Boston and San Juan. Now I would like to further
address why the NYC native-born Puerto Ricans may be exceeding in the
frequencies. Recall that in Table 13 the NYC
group was shown to use 53% of its SPPs overtly. By cross-tabulating the
factor group of degree of exposure to NYC and the factors of switch
reference and the use of singular and plural subjects, we find that, on
the surface, some data may support the contact hypothesis.
Comparison of overt SPPs according to regional dialects
I ran a cross-tabulation of the factors of switch reference and
degree of exposure to NYC. In Table 15, one
sees that the NYC native-born group does express more overt SPPs in a
nonswitch environment than the established residents and the recent
arrivals. This frequency also exceeds the frequency reported by Cameron
(1992), which was 31%. Therefore, although
the established and recent arrivals remain within or close to the
boundaries of previously reported research, the native NYC-born Puerto
Ricans do not. But a closer look shows that there is an increased
progression in the frequencies of pronominal expression for the
nonswitch environment, but not in instances of switch. This is the
first contradiction that emerges, in that the recent arrivals and the
established residents show very similar frequencies (49% and 48%,
respectively).
Cross-tabulation of switch reference and degree of exposure to New
York City
Table 16 once again shows that the NYC
native-born group leads in the use of overt singular SPPs at 57%. We
also see an increased progression in the frequencies that match the
degree of exposure for the use of singular SPPs. However, we do not
find that for plurals the same pattern holds. That is, the native-born
New Yorkers and the recent arrivals show identical frequencies in the
use of overt plural SPPs (25%), a concern that does not point toward a
contact hypothesis. It should be noted that previous studies (Barrenechea & Alonso, 1977; Bentivoglio, 1980; Cameron,
1992; Enríquez, 1984; Morales, 1986) have reported that plural subjects
show a much lower rate of SPP expression than do singular subjects;
therefore, in that sense, the NYC native-born group seems to follow
patterns documented in other studies.
Cross-tabulation of singular and plural overt SPPs and degree of
exposure
In sum, the explanation that states that the increased progression in
the frequencies of overt SPP expression parallels years of exposure can
no longer be used to support a contact hypothesis, because this is the
second instance in which this inconsistency appears. If English were to
be indirectly influencing Puerto Ricans who are NYC native-born, then
we should be seeing increased uses of overt SPPs in plurals also
because it is expected that the almost categorical use of overt plural
SPPs in English may also influence NYC speakers to use more overt
plural SPPs in Spanish, regardless of number.
If we go back to Table 15, one can also see
that the NYC-born residents tend to express more overt SPPs in almost
half of their verbs (46%), even when a switch in reference has not
occurred. This observation lends itself to the question of whether the
NYC native-born group is arriving at the stage of expressing overt SPPs
with and without a switch. This parallel use of the overt form may
suggest that perhaps the strategy for signaling a switch may be what is
being altered as a consequence of indirect exposure to English, an
observation that is outside the scope of this study and would need
further investigation.
Because we now know that the NYC native-born group shows a stronger
tendency to use overt SPP in both switch and nonswitch references, we
should then compare the NYC native-born group with the San Juan
speakers. I draw on these comparisons to see if there are any
similarities with respect to switch reference, as the participants in
this study are exposed to NYC English.
In Table 17, note that both groups have a
tendency to express higher rates of SPPs in a switch reference, and
both decrease frequencies in a nonswitch environment. However, one can
see that the San Juan group makes a clear distinction of expressing
overt SPPs in a switch versus a nonswitch, as there is a 26 percentage
point gap. The NYC native-born group, on the other hand, has only an 18
percentage point gap difference between switch and nonswitch instances.
One may consider this gap of 18% to be a signal indicating that the NYC
native-born group does not clearly make the distinction of using overt
SPPs in switch as the San Juan group does; however, the 26% to 18%
difference is not very robust. It should be noted that, with regard to
Madrid Spanish, Cameron's (1992) study
also found a 19% difference in the use of overt SPPs between a switch
and nonswitch environment. Therefore, the 18% difference on the surface
does not necessarily point toward a change in a switch reference
strategy.
Comparison of use of overt SPPs in switch reference: New York City
native-born speakers (Flores-Ferrán,
2002) and speakers from San Juan (Cameron,
1992)
CONCLUSION
In this article, I explained how a group of NYC Puerto Ricans use
overt subject personal pronouns in oral narratives, and I examined how
their use of overt SPPs was conditioned by the factors of the
verb's person and number, switch reference, and the degree of
exposure to NYC. The problem addressed in this research was to
determine whether or not the use of overt SPPs was affected by the NYC
residents' degree of exposure to NYC. Based on initial results, it
was found that NYC Puerto Rican residents express overt SPPs in
patterns, frequencies, and probability weights similar to those
reported on the island. As a group, the NYC residents did not diverge
from patterns found for speakers residing on the island.
Based strictly on the facts presented here, there is more evidence in
this study that points toward a noncontact hypothesis than to a contact
hypothesis. To substantiate this claim, I will outline the findings:
- With regard to the factor of person and number, Puerto Rican
residents of NYC used overt SPPs below or in the range of frequencies
of those studies reported in San Juan.
- When further examining the factor of person and number, the
ordering or rank of overt SPPs was identical to the frequencies
reported by Ávila-Jiménez (1996).
- With regard to the factor of switch reference, the NYC group
appeared with frequencies and probability weights of SPP expression
that resembled those documented by Cameron (1992). Furthermore, the patterns in the expression
of overt SPPs were the same.
- With regard to singular and plural SPP expression in a switch
reference environment, the NYC group produced identical frequencies of
SPP expression.
- The factor groups of switch reference and person and number in this
study initially were not loosely constructed. They were constructed in
the same manner as Cameron's (1992)
study. Therefore, the comparisons made between the two studies are
accurate comparisons made between two distinct geographical
regions.
I also suggested that if a positive effect were found in the use of
overt SPPs with regard to the factors of person and number and switch
reference, then we would be able to detect that effect by seeing
elevated frequencies in the use of the feature under study, but none
were found.
Two findings that emerged may favor the contact hypothesis:
- The NYC native-born was found to have the highest probability of
overt SPP expression.
- The NYC native-born residents also showed higher frequencies of
expression in a nonswitch environment.
With regard to the latter point, in Madrid Spanish, Cameron (1992) also found a small gap in the use of overt
SPPs in a switch and nonswitch environment. Therefore, this observation
is not an indication of any one tendency.
I would like to further address the former point regarding the NYC
native-born because this group expressed more overt SPPs than its local
counterparts. The NYC native-born group is considered to be a bilingual
group, because participants may have been exposed to NYC all their
lives. Yet, the direct means to further analyze this group do not
exist, because the other accompanying factors—language spoken at
home, age of arrival, and years in NYC (which subtracted absences from
this City)—were removed from the statistical runs. Therefore, we
need to question if the only surviving factor group that did not
include time spent outside of NYC can accurately portray a picture of
indirect English contact, because within the results, several
contradictions emerged.
Two strong contradictions that emerged suggested that the degree of
exposure to NYC did not parallel the increased use of overt SPPs:
- The recent arrivals and the established residents had similar
frequencies of overt SPP expression in a switch reference. The recent
arrivals had the higher of the two frequencies.
- NYC native-born and the recent arrivals expressed plural SPPs with
identical frequencies.
If data showing that the degree of exposure consistently produced
heightened uses of overt SPPs, then the data would have substantiated a
claim pointing toward a contact hypothesis. Also recall that the factor
group that produced the NYC native-born category did not take into
account the time the participants spent traveling or living outside
NYC, and perhaps this observation may explain why this factor group
survived the analysis. It was self-reported data and participants may
have not provided accurate accounts to this effect. The factor that
accurately measured the years in NYC, excluding absences or travel or
staying in the island over summer, had to be removed from the runs.
Furthermore, the manner in which the degree of exposure to NYC is
defined cannot solely be considered a sign of indirect exposure to
English. If that were the case, it would also represent a sign of
indirect exposure to other Spanish varieties in NYC. For example,
Dominican Spanish is spoken by many NYC residents and that community is
in daily contact with Puerto Rican residents of NYC. They coexist in
the same island of Manhattan in large numbers where this study took
place. Because Dominican Spanish has been documented as having one of
the highest rates of pronominal expression in Spanish (Flores & Toro, 2000; Lipski,
1994), it may well be that contact with the Dominican variety
mediates the influence of overt SPPs in the NYC native-born Puerto
Ricans. But this study did not address the problem of exposure to NYC
as it relates to other Spanish varieties.
Chambers (1992) suggested that people who
immigrate to different dialect areas will not show similar acquisition
patterns of complex features of a new dialect. Although the use of
overt SPPs may not represent a complex feature, in that the use of the
overt form does not violate grammar rules and it is a variable feature,
it is difficult to say at this point whether or not the contradictions
found in the NYC native-born with respect to overt SPP usage are a
reflection of the varying degrees of acquisition. What was consistent
throughout this study was that no evidence of innovative uses of overt
SPPs were found in the NYC native-born participants, the established
residents, or the recent arrivals.
Another aspect of this research that is absent is the effect of early
bilingualism of the NYC native-born group, a concern that was not
within the scope of this study. And to that effect, early contact with
other Spanish dialects should also be examined.
According to Thomason and Kaufman (1988),
In order to support a claim that feature X arose in a language
A under the influence of language B, we need to show that features
a,b,c,y,z—at least
some of which belong to a subsystem different from the one X belongs
to—also arose in A under the influence of B. (p. 61)
We know through previous research that there is evidence of contact
in the Spanish of Puerto Ricans in New York (Klein,
1980; Pousada & Poplack, 1982;
Torres, 1997; Zentella,
1997). The general picture presented is that English is widely
used by New York Puerto Ricans, and the lexicon is generally
affected. But few studies have argued in favor of linguistic changes in
the Spanish of Puerto Ricans in the City. For example, Pousada and
Poplack (1982) did not find a significant
difference in the tense-mood-aspect system of NYC Puerto Ricans.
Zentella (1997), for example, was also able
to document a full array of verb tenses in children. In a preliminary
study of contact, Flores and Toro (2000) were
unable to find a correlation between the use of overt SPPs and English
contact. This study examined several Spanish dialects, including Puerto
Ricans in NYC.
From this present study, it appears that there is insufficient
evidence that favors the case of whether or not the degree of exposure
to NYC can be correlated with increased uses of overt pronominals in
the Spanish of Puerto Ricans in NYC.
