Lexical Availability as a Measure of the Acquisition of Characteristics from Another Dialect

81 Pages·2017·1.66 MB·English

BBrriigghhaamm YYoouunngg UUnniivveerrssiittyy
BBYYUU SScchhoollaarrssAArrcchhiivvee
Theses and Dissertations
2015-06-01
DDiiaalleecctt CCoonnttaacctt:: LLeexxiiccaall AAvvaaiillaabbiilliittyy aass aa MMeeaassuurree ooff tthhee
AAccqquuiissiittiioonn ooff CChhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss ffrroomm AAnnootthheerr DDiiaalleecctt
Ross James Cairns
Brigham Young University - Provo
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
Part of the Spanish and Portuguese Language and Literature Commons
BBYYUU SScchhoollaarrssAArrcchhiivvee CCiittaattiioonn
Cairns, Ross James, "Dialect Contact: Lexical Availability as a Measure of the Acquisition of
Characteristics from Another Dialect" (2015). Theses and Dissertations. 5477.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5477
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please
contact [email protected], [email protected].
Dialect Contact: Lexical Availability as a Measure of the Acquisition
of Characteristics from Another Dialect
Ross James Cairns
A thesis submitted to the faculty of
Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Orlando Alba, Chair
Geoffrey Lynn Williams
David Eddington
Department of Spanish and Portuguese
Brigham Young University
June 2015
Copyright © 2015 Ross James Cairns
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
Dialect Contact: Lexical Availability as a Measure of the Acquisition
of Characteristics from Another Dialect
Ross James Cairns
Department of Spanish and Portuguese, BYU
Master of Arts
This study uses lexical availability as a way in which to measure the level of an
individual’s acquisition of the dialect of their spouse. Although lexical availability studies
are in abundance, to the author’s knowledge, this is one of the few, if not the only, type of
study that uses lexical availability to measure dialect contact.
Lexical availability studies attempt to determine the most readily available lexical
items in an individual’s lexicon. This study implemented standard methodologies in order to
determine whether dialect contact was more likely when specific topics were chosen. That is,
if the topic in question was considered a masculine topic, would the female spouse utilise the
spouse’s word and vice versa. Participants completed vocabulary lists on six different topics
of interest in addition to noting down their definition of a series of visual images that
appeared before them.
The conclusions highlight that, for this study at least, men are more likely to show
evidence of dialect contact if the topic under scrutiny is traditionally considered male-related.
The same is true for female participants, that is, the probability of their exhibiting dialect
interference is greater if the topic is considered female-related. The results also showed that,
in general, women are more likely to use their spouse’s vocabulary item. The length of time
that the couple had been married was not an overly telling factor.
Keywords: Spanish, Spanish language, lexical availability, dialect contact, accommodation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to give special thanks to Dr. Orlando Alba, my thesis chair, not only for
his expertise, but for guiding me along the way and providing valuable insight.
I would also like to thank the other members of my thesis committee, Dr. Lynn
Williams and Dr. David Eddington, for their invaluable feedback that helped to shape the
project.
In addition, my thanks go out to the research participants who sacrificed their time in
order to make this thesis possible.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Emilie, for her unconditional support and
sacrifice during what has been a very hectic period of our lives. Without you, this would not
have been possible.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF CHARTS .................................................................................................................. vii
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Review of Literature .................................................................................................................. 4
Dialect Contact....................................................................................................................... 4
Age ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Length of Residence (LoR) ................................................................................................ 7
Gender ................................................................................................................................ 7
Social networks/identity..................................................................................................... 8
Attitude/Motivation............................................................................................................ 8
Lexical Availability ............................................................................................................. 10
Panhispanic Project .......................................................................................................... 12
Other lexical availability studies ...................................................................................... 13
Lexical availability among L2 learners of Spanish.......................................................... 13
Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 14
Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 15
Participants ........................................................................................................................... 15
Procedures ............................................................................................................................ 16
Data gathering. ................................................................................................................. 16
Instruments. ...................................................................................................................... 16
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 17
iv
Results ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Overview .............................................................................................................................. 21
Vocabulary List Responses .................................................................................................. 21
Gender .............................................................................................................................. 22
Topic of Conversation...................................................................................................... 23
Years Married .................................................................................................................. 24
Visual Image Response ........................................................................................................ 25
Gender .............................................................................................................................. 26
Years Married .................................................................................................................. 27
Additional Findings ............................................................................................................. 28
Mexican influence. ........................................................................................................... 28
Excluded data. .................................................................................................................. 30
Conclusions and Discussion .................................................................................................... 32
The Results........................................................................................................................... 32
Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 33
Recommendations for Further Research .............................................................................. 34
Contributions of the Study ................................................................................................... 35
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 36
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 37
Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. 38
Appendix D .............................................................................................................................. 39
Appendix E .............................................................................................................................. 40
Appendix F............................................................................................................................... 60
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 65
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Summary of Participants ........................................................................................ 15
Table 3.2. Sample participant response to vocabulary list activity. ........................................ 18
Table 3.3. Participant responses to visual image activity. ...................................................... 20
Table 4.1. Analysis of participants’ vocabulary lists responses. ............................................ 21
Table.4.2. Dialect intereference according to gender. ............................................................ 22
Table.4.3. Instances of dialect contact according to topic. ..................................................... 23
Table.4.4. Number of instances according to years married. .................................................. 25
Table.4.5. Analysis of participants’ visual image responses. ................................................. 25
Table.4.6. Dialect interference directly related with spouse. .................................................. 27
Table.4.7. Instances of dialect interference according to years married. ................................ 28
Table.4.8. Vocabulary lists. Instances of dialect interference from sources other than
participants’ spouses. ............................................................................................................... 29
Table.4.9. Visual image response. Instances of dialect interference from sources other than
participants’ spouses. ............................................................................................................... 29
Table.4.10. Instances of dialect contact for both activities by excluded couples. .................. 30
vi
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 4.1. Percentage of dialect contact according to topic of conversation. ......................... 24
vii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
In today's world, relocating is as feasible as it ever has been. The ease with which
people can travel all over the world and the collaboration between nations have made it more
possible than ever to start afresh in a new country. This can be seen, for example, in the vast
number of British citizens who have emigrated to Canada and Australia or of Latin Americans
residing in Spain. Those who choose to relocate have to adapt to new cultures and social norms.
However, in the examples stated above, they share at least one thing with those in their new
place of residence: language. Being able to travel and settle in another city or country has
brought dialects of the same language into contact and, as a result, many speakers have
gradually acquired characteristics of the dialect spoken where they now reside (D2) and lost
some of their native dialect (D1). Needless to say, it is usually fairly obvious for even the most
casual observer to detect such accommodation in the speech patterns of relocated individuals.
This process of accommodation is not limited to individuals who relocate but can also
be witnessed in various other settings: in couples who speak the same language but are from
different countries or regions within the same country or within an individual’s social group if
the majority of such a group are from one country and the minority from another.
Jeff Siegel (2010), in his book on second dialect acquisition highlights an important
principle relating to dialect contact:
“One important aspect of second dialect acquisition (SDA) in naturalistic contexts that
distinguishes it from second language acquisition (SLA) is that it can be unintentional.
Since migrants to a new dialect area can continue to speak in their original dialect (D1)
and still be able to communicate, they may not try to learn the dialect of their new home
(D2). Nevertheless, they may unconsciously “pick-up” or acquire some features of the
D2 and use them in their speech.” (5).
1
If such changes may be either intentional or unintentional, a number of questions come
to mind. Does social pressure play a part? If no changes occur at all, is this due to the
individual's desire to retain his/her own identity? Does a person's age or gender have any
influence? Studies have shown that women have a higher propensity than men to utilise
educated/prestigious speech (Molina, 2006; Woods, 2007), whereas adolescents are usually the
quickest and most likely to adapt their speech (Molina, 2006). And if an individual’s social
network is crucial to dialect formation, as Parodi (2003) sensibly maintains, is it not likely that
length of time away from the place of origin is an influential factor in the acquisition of
characteristics of the D2? (Pérez Castillejo, 2013).
The majority of research relating to dialect contact attempts to study an individual’s
acquisition of characteristics of the D2 after having left the region of their D1 (Evans, 2004;
Munro, Derwing, & Flege, 1999; Pesqueira, 2008; Serrano, 2002). Consequently, a particularly
neglected area of research is that of intra-familial dialect contact. That is, the effects of dialect
contact between married/co-habitating couples who share the same native language but are
from different countries of origin. As indicated above, the likelihood of different dialects of
the same language coming into contact has increased significantly in recent years due to the
ever increasing ease of relocating and this trend will probably continue. Therefore, the
likelihood of couples from different dialect regions coming together will also rise. As a result,
it is important for the scholarly community to analyse the influence of intrafamilial dialect
contact and confirm whether or not causes associated with such contact are similar in nature to
those identified in research already conducted in this field of interest.
In this study, I investigate the extent to which intrafamilial dialect contact affects
binational Spanish-speaking couples living in Utah, and more precisely, whether it shows up
in the individual’s lexical availability. Some research questions that are important to this study
are:
2