Dialect Contact: Lexical Availability as a

Brigham Young University
BYU ScholarsArchive
All Theses and Dissertations
2015-06-01
Dialect Contact: Lexical Availability as a Measure
of the Acquisition of Characteristics from Another
Dialect
Ross James Cairns
Brigham Young University - Provo
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
Part of the Spanish and Portuguese Language and Literature Commons
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation
Cairns, Ross James, "Dialect Contact: Lexical Availability as a Measure of the Acquisition of Characteristics from Another Dialect"
(2015). All Theses and Dissertations. Paper 5477.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations by an
authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [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
1. Who is more likely to accommodate their speech? Men or women?
2. If intrafamilial dialect contact does occur, in what contexts?
3. What, if any, are the factors that facilitate/encourage/underly accommodation?
In this study, I analyse the role of lexical availability in relation to intrafamilial dialect
contact. Regarding acquisition of D2 features, researchers have examined a number of
independent variables that correlate with it: age, gender, social network & identity, and length
of residency (LoR). Age, gender and length of residency are factors that explain themselves.
However, the study of an individual’s social network looks at their interaction (social circles,
i.e., work colleagues, friends outside of work, etc.) with residents native to the country in which
they now reside. Such will largely be the focus of the current study.
3
CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature
For the current study, it is important not only to be familiar with research in the field of
dialect contact but, in addition, to be up-to-date with studies conducted in lexical availability.
That said, a literature review will follow.
Dialect Contact
The study of interdialect contact is one area of linguistic research that does not abound
with data. However, existing studies provide important information relating to the factors that
influence interdialect contact and the ways in which it is manifest.
As previously mentioned, researchers in the field of dialect contact have primarily
focused on the reasons attributed why individuals alter their habitual way of speaking to that
of someone pertaining to another dialect region. Factors explaining this are potentially
numerous, however, the principal aspects can be narrowed down to the following: age, gender,
social network, social identity, and LoR.
According to Siegel (2010), the study of dialect contact has been divided up into three
main contexts: national, regional, and social. National dialect contact refers to situations where
two dialects converge due to someone relocating to another country where the same language
is spoken. An example of this would be either a Spaniard relocating to Mexico or vice versa.
Regional dialect contact alludes to an individual relocating but instead of relocating to another
country, the individual moves to another part of the country in which they currently reside. For
example, someone from Seville moving to Barcelona for work. The final context for dialect
contact is social. This context is defined as dialects coming in contact due to factors other than
geography. For example, gender and social networks, among others.
Next, Siegel (2010) delves deeper into the topic of dialect contact. He does this by
exploring dialect acquisition in two contexts: naturalistic and educational. A naturalistic setting
4
implies that an individual begins to acquire aspects of another dialect (D2) without any formal
instruction. That is, dialect contact occurs when someone relocates to another area with a
different dialect and, over time, the speech of that individual is noticeably influenced by the
D2. It has been noted that accommodation in this context is often ‘unintentional’.
An educational setting for dialect contact refers to contact in a formal setting. An example
of this is when children begin school. When starting, the probability of many children not
having been exposed to the standard variety of their language is high. Following contact with
the standard variety, children decide whether they want to align their speech with the standard
variety or retain their regional variety of speech.
Having identified settings in which dialect contact occurs, it is now necesary to mention
the important concept of linguistic accommodation. In his theory of accommodation, Giles
discusses the influence that an individual’s desire to feel part of a particular community has on
whether or not the individual accommodates speech patterns to sound more like those in the
community of interest. There are factors that can either speed up or slow down this process.
Factors that facilitate accommodation:
1. Comprehension issues
2. Phonological naturalness
Factors that impede accommodation:
1. Homonymic clashes
2. Phonotactic issues
3. Exaggerated prominence
The next section considers some of the independent variables that encourage/influence
D2 acquisition.
5
Age
The first, and possibly most significant factor in dialect convergence, is age. Much
research has been done in relation to the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH). It has been
determined that the age at which an individual is exposed to a new dialect will greatly
influence the level of accommodation. Additionally, second language acquisition (SLA)
studies confirm that age plays a pivotal role in the attainment of a native accent (Flege,
Munro, & MacKay, 1995a, Oyama, 1973, Long, 1990). Chambers (1992) adds evidence to
this claim in his study of six Canadian youth who relocated to England. In this study, the six
youngsters ranged in age from 9-17 and, in terms of adoption of British English vocabulary,
the youngest had the highest percentage whereas the oldest at had one of the lowest (p.692).
These findings support the notion that L2 acquisition is more easily facilitated at a younger
age. If this is the case for L2, it may apply to those who are exposed to a second dialect (D2).
Trudgill and Chambers (1994) mention two theories in connection with age and dialectal
accommodation. The first is the Lexical Theory Hypothesis, which states that if the
individual comes in contact with the D2 after the cut-off age (generally around 13-14 years of
age), dialect contact will mainly be a lexical process. The second, the Rule-Change
Hypothesis, asserts that if contact occurs before the cut-off point, the chances of acquiring
phonological aspects of the D2 are greater. Thus, it appears that age has an effect on the
acquisition of characteristics of another dialect. Tagliamonte and Molfenter (2007) reiterate
this claim:
People who move into a new community where the same language but a different
dialect is spoken must adapt a new set of linguistic rules in order to sound like their
peers. However, children appear to be the only sector of the population capable of
doing this successfully. (p.650)
6
However, Munro, Derwing and Flege’s (1999) account of Canadians in Alabama
showed a degree of dialect acquisition by adults. These scholars note that even trained
phoneticians had difficutly identifying these individuals as Canadian.
Length of Residence (LoR)
Another factor often reviewed in dialect contact studies is the length of residence (LoR)
in the new region. Whilst it may seem obvious that a longer LoR will result in greater degrees
of dialect assimilation, research relating to Hispanics in the U.S. (Otheguy & Zentella, 2012;
Montrul, 2004), has shown this factor not to be overly significant (Foreman, 2003; Stanford,
2007). While some studies do show LoR as being important (Rodríguez Cadena, 2001;
Pesqueira, 2008) others have shown mixed results (Trudgill, 1981; Berthele, 2002) with some
cases documenting particularly low percentages given the LoR (Kerswill, 1994; Omdal, 1994)
and others showing no statistically significant link between the two (Ivars, 1994; Omdal, 1994;
Wells, 1973).
Gender
Studies relating to gender have shown that dialect contact resulting in usage of D2
features is not significantly greater among men than women (Wells, 1973; Shokey, 1984).
When there have been differences, the higher degrees of prevalent D2 features have been linked
to secondary factors and not to intrinsic differences between men and women. This may be
considered surprising given that previous studies have demonstrated that women are
predominantly the driving force in terms of new language variation and change (Labov, 2010,
Otheguy and Zentella, 2012, Pesqueira, 2008; Woods, 2007) and are more aware than men of
elements such as prestige (Rys, 2007). In fact, it has been suggested that women do not actually
elect to implement prestigious terms but rather their use of particular linguistic features creates
new prestige norms (Milroy & Milroy, 1993; Labov, 2001).
7
Social networks/identity
The concept of social networks, first employed in sociolinguistics by Milroy (1987),
addresses the amount of interaction an individual has with others in his network. The amount
of contact that a person has with the D2 has also been shown to be an important element for
implementing aspects of the D2. If an individual relocates but manages to form part of a dense
social network made-up of people from the same dialect region as them, they are more likely
to retain D1 characteristics. On the other hand, if they do not and the network to which they
belong is lax, the chances of acquiring D2 features increases. Studies detailing the importance
of the individual’s position within their network in relation to their adoption, or not, of D2
characteristics have been conducted by various scholars (Payne, 1978; Labov, 2001).
Referring to Auer and Hinskens’s (2005) “identity projection model”, Drummond
(2013) suggests that “the desire to identify with a particular social group is enough for a
person’s speech to adopt or supress relevant language features, regardless of who the
interlocutor might be” (p.67).
As previously highlighted by Siegel (2010), dialect acquisition can occur
unintentially, however, the identity that an individual or group of people retains with respect
to the D1 can also affect their decision not to implement any features of the new dialect
(Escure, 1997).
Attitude/Motivation
The concept of attitude and motivation is another telling factor. The degree of positivity
or negativity the individual has regarding the D2 will greatly influence his/her decision to
embrace its features. It has been proposed that people project a particular identity towards the
people with whom they wish to identify (Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985). In relation to SLA,
some of the main reasons that hinder/aid L2 attainment according to Montrul (2008) are age,
motivation, input and previous linguistic knowledge. Motivation plays a vital part in one’s
8
ability to gain a high level of proficiency in a second language (Gardner, 1979, Gardner and
Smythe, 1975 Dixon et al., 2012).
Not surprisingly, the majority of sociolinguistic studies relating to dialect contact have
centred on phonological changes. This is no doubt due to the fact that other variables are harder
to identify and address. For example, the research that I have conducted so far on the subject
has shown me that studies into syntactic, lexical, and morphological effects of dialect contact
are scarce. That does not mean that none exist, however.
With respect to dialect contact and lexical manifestations, Potowski (2011), in her study
on ‘MexiRicans’ (Hispanic children with mixed marriage parents, that is, one parent from
Mexico, the other from Puerto Rico) in Chicago, found a strong correlation between the feeling
of identity and the vocabulary that they used. For example, if the children felt more Mexican
their vocabulary would reflect this as they would use Mexican words more often. The same
applies to those children who felt more Puerto Rican.
Zentella (2011), in her study of Hispanics in New York, concluded that an individual’s
decision to use a specific lexical item depended on three things: 1. Frequency with which it
occurred, 2. Semantic weight of the word, and 3. Desire to avoid homonyms. A couple of
studies on the syntactic effects of dialect contact show interesting data.
Chinnelato (2011), in his study of the use of usted in Mérida in Venezuela, found that
the participant of his study consciously accommodated her speech to use usted when speaking
with her close friend from Mérida, an area with high frequency use of usted. However, when
speaking with a close family member, she did not implement usted once.
However, as previously mentioned, there are many more studies available regarding
phonological changes that occur as a result of dialect contact and social pressure. (Aaron &
Hernández, 2007; Rodríguez Cadena, 2001; Alvord, 2006).
9
A common theme in all of these studies is that dialect contact and the degree of
implementation correlate, to some extent, with the relative prestige of the two dialects. In many
cases, accommodation seems to happen more easily when the D2 is considered more
prestigious than the D1.
Finally, some other linguistic factors that have been looked at, and considered pertinent
in studies of this nature, are salience (Trudgill, 1986), stigmatisation (Siegel, 2010; BortoniRicardo, 1985; Chambers, 1992), linguistic change (Bowie, 2000), phonetic distance
(Foreman, 2003), and phonological contrast (Trudgill, 1986).
Lexical Availability
Being able to identify the most common vocabulary items of a given community was the
driving force behind pioneer lexicon-statistical studies. On reflection, however, the major
downside to such research was that the focus was purely on frequency. (Alba, 2014). While
such studies were interesting in that they afforded the linguistic community an insight into
popular vocabulary words within a given speech community, they were problematic in that
they failed to identify lexical items which were highly frequent but only occurred in specific
contexts. Such studies were referred to as basic lexical research.
Lexical availability, on the other hand, refers to vocabulary the speaker has available to
them in specific communicative contexts (Sánchez Morales & Murillo Rojas, 1993) and is
measured through the use of vocabulary lists with the position the word occupies within those
lists indicating its availability to the speaker (González Martínez, 1999).
Since the initial lexical availability investigations by researchers such as Michéa (1953)
and Gougenheim (1967), studies now abound in the field, especially in the Spanish speaking
world (López Morales, 1973; Alba, 1996; Samper & Hernández, 1997; López Chavez, 1993).
The original idea to compose lists to measure lexical availability was proposed by Müller in
1968, however, mathematic formulae to correlate their position in the lists with their frequency
10
were not developed until 1983 (González Martínez & Orellana Ramírez, 2006) by Lorán and
López Morales and later in 1991 by López Chávez and Strassburger.
Lexical availability studies generally follow the same pattern: participants are given two
minutes to complete vocabulary lists on various areas of interest. The idea of providing the
research subjects with time limits was introduced by Mena Osorio in 1986 (Fernandez, 2002)
and has since been generally accepted as the standard method. In addition, another aspect
common to lexical availability studies is that of accounting for sociolinguistic factors, a
variable arising from López Morales’ (1979) study in Puerto Rico. An important aspect of
lexical availability studies is that they have provided comparisons between different dialect
regions as they highlight what words are most common in specific contexts for a particular
region. López Chávez (1993) notes in this regard:
“El análisis cuantitativo de la disponibilidad léxica de una comunidad dialectal dada nos da
una buena descripción de esta parcela de su norma léxica. Sin embargo, donde estos
estudios ofrecen su mejor y más valiosa contribución es en las comparaciones
interdialectales” (p.20).
Lexical availability studies comparing different dialect regions (Alba, 1998; Alba, 2000;
López Chávez, 1995; Samper Padilla, 1998) show that, in spite of obvious phonetic differences,
the lexicon essentially demonstrates the closeness of Spanish spoken throughout the world. To
demonstrate this point, Alba (2000) points out that:
“Los datos anteriores muestran una compatibilidad léxica entre el dialecto dominicano y
los demás dialectos comparados, mayor que la que suele creerse y pregonarse. Al
considerar en conjunto los vocablos de los tres centros de interés, la coincidencia sobrepasa
el 60% en todos los casos” (p.121).
Furthermore, it has been suggested that lexical availability studies are not only useful for
identifying the most frequent lexical items of different regions and similarities between
11
countries but also for assisting academics to devise course curricula (López Morales, 1978;
Alba, 1995). Studies in the field of lexical availability have also provided valuable insight into
the influence of anglicisms in the Spanish speaking world (Alba, 1995; Alba 1999; López
Morales, 1999; Paredes, 2001, 2005). For example, Alba (1999) found that the density of
anglicisms in Dominican Spanish had increased from the time he performed his initial study
on the same topic a few years previously with those pertaining to higher socioeconomic classes
documenting more instances of anglicisms.
Providing a valuable overview of lexical availability research, Bartol Hernández (2006)
highlights the three main lines of investigation: López Morales’ important Panhispanic Project,
other lexical availability studies similar in nature but with different research criteria, and
finally, available lexicon research performed on students learning Spanish as a second language
(Benítez, 1994).
Panhispanic Project
The motive behind the Panhispanic Project by López Morales is summed up by Saralegui
and Tabernero (2008) in their contribution to the project for Navarre, Spain:
“El objetivo general de tales estudios es elaborar Diccionarios de Disponibilidad Léxica
para las diversas zonas del mundo hispánico, siguiendo criterios homogéneos que permitan
establecer comparaciones de tipo lingüístico, etnográfico y cultural, dibujar áreas de
difusión y servir de punto de partida para análisis posteriores.” (745).
To ensure the validity of the project, research participants are all in their last year of
high school (bachillerato). This is to reduce the likelihood of participants’ language being
contaminated by the accumulation of technical vocabulary associated with university
attendance. It also control the independent variables of age and cultural level of participants.
12
Contributions to the Panhispanic Project are many (Ahumada, 2006; Ávila Muñoz,
2006; González, 2002; Gómez Molina & Gómez Devís, 2004; Gómez Devís, 2003), each sudy
testing participants’ lexical availability on sixteen areas of interest.
Other lexical availability studies
Other studies in the field of lexical availability have taken into consideration additional
extralinguistic variables such as gender and social class (Ávila Muñoz & Villena Ponsoda,
2010; Echeverría, 1991; González Martínez & Orellana Ramírez, 1999; López Morales, 1979).
Regarding the educated norm and popular speech, research has shown that there is a generation
change that favours the use of standard over popular forms (Hernández Cabrera & Samper
Hernández, 2002).
Studies relating to gender show that women tend to have a richer
vocabulary than men and use fewer stigmatized forms (González Martínez & Orellana
Ramírez, 1999). Further studies highlight that the greatest differences between gender are seen
if special attention is paid to particular topics of interest (Garcia Domínguez, M. J., Marrera
Pulido, V., Pérez Martín, J. A., & Piñero Piñero, G. 1994). Pioneer studies by López Morales
in Puerto Rico highlight that the higher classes exhibit greater lexical availability (López
Morales, 1973, 1979).
Lexical availability among L2 learners of Spanish
There are various studies that focus on L2 language learners’ lexical availability in
Spanish (Carcedo González, 2000; Carcedo González, 1998; Samper Hernández, 2001, 2002).
However, it should come as no surprise to discover that lexical availability is greater among
students with a higher level of Spanish (Laserna, 2009, Kalan, 2015). This is supported by
studies carried out relating to school children immigrants living in Spain that show low results
for lexical availability (Jiménez-Berrio, 2013). An interesting study in Iceland showed that
Icelandic students of Spanish had lower levels of lexical availability than other students
learning Spanish as a second language (Magnúsdóttir, 2012).
13
Research Questions
Having reviewed the literature on dialect contact and lexical availability, I hypothesise the
following:
1. Men are more likely to accommodate their speech when the topic of interest is
considered female-related.
2. Women are more likely to accommodate their speech when the topic of interest is
considered male-related.
3. Intrafamilial dialect borrowing will be more evident among couples who have been
together longer.
14
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
Participants
The participants in this study consisted of ten married couples. They were native
Spanish speakers born outside of the U.S. Each member of the couple was born in a different
Spanish speaking country and had to have been married for at least five years. This was to give
sufficient time for substantial intrafamilial dialect contact to occur. Two couples’ results were
excluded from the findings as they had been married for less than five years. All participants
were bilingual Spanish/English speakers. A summary of the research participants can be found
in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Summary of Participants
Participant ID #
12
8
20
24
31
40
35
22
15
6
85
66
71
52
61
53
78
44
95
18
Sex
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
Country of Birth
Chile
Uruguay
El Salvador
Peru
Venezuela
Peru
Mexico
Argentina
Mexico
Venezuela
Guatemala
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Colombia
Ecuador
Mexico
Ecuador
Guatemala
El Salvador
Length of Marriage (years)
15
15
32
32
10
10
12
12
10
10
13
13
13
13
7
7
12
12
21
21
The participants in this study were recruited through word of mouth (referrals). Given
that the first couple interviewed knew more people that met the research criteria, the
15
aforementioned method employed was by far the easiest way in which to find more individuals
to participate in the study. Each individual that volunteered to assist the investigator in the
study did so knowing that there would be no financial remuneration for their participation.
Procedures
Data gathering. The data for the study were collected on five different days due to
the troublesome nature of coordinating a suitable time to meet with each research couple. Once
arranged, each session lasted around thirty minutes and was conducted by the researcher in
person. A brief explanation of the research topic and the purpose of each activity was provided
to the participants at the outset of the session. As little information as possible relating to the
purpose of the study was given to the participants in order to ensure original results. If any
further explanation was needed during the study, it was given in English in order to avoid
possible interference with participants’ responses.
Instruments. In this study there are three instruments: questionnaires, vocabulary lists,
and visual images of the objects of interest.
The first questionnaire’s sole purpose is to gather information on each participant, that
is, their name, where they are from, how long they have been married, etc. It took no longer
than five minutes to complete. Refer to Appendix A for more information.
Given the nature of the study, the idea behind the second questionnaire, found in
Appendix B, is to assist in determining reasons behind any potential instances where dialect
interference is evident. As a result, the questionnaire includes questions attempting to elicit the
individual’s thoughts on both their own dialect of Spanish and that of their spouse. For
example, the questionnaire includes questions such as “What do you think of your spouse’s
dialect of Spanish?” and “Do you think that you have acquired aspects of your spouse’s dialect
of Spanish. If so, why?”. If, in their responses to the lexical availability activities, any
individual provided evidence of dialect borrowing, the investigator referred to the
16
questionnaire to determine if there were any correlations between their use of vocabulary from
the other dialect and their opinion of that dialect. The questionnaire took no longer than ten
minutes to complete.
The vocabulary list activity required each participant to fill out six different vocabulary
lists on specific topics pre-selected by the researcher. Participants had two minutes to fill out
each column and the topics were chosen based on whether or not they were considered to be
male or female-related. The activity can be found in Appendix C.
The final procedure required each individual to note down their answers to a series of
images as they appeared on a computer screen. The decision to include each image was based
on the researcher’s knowledge that variation existed within the Spanish speaking world of the
lexical items chosen. The visual images utilised in this study are found in Appendix D.
Data Analysis
The overarching aim of lexical availability studies is to ascertain which lexical items
are most readily available to individuals. In order to test this, the traditional method of word
association was implemented. This method provides each participant two minutes to write
down every word that comes to their mind in relation to a specific topic provided by the
researcher (i.e. means of transport, food and drink, etc.). In total, there were six centres of
interest that the participants had to complete and can be seen below. The research subjects
were informed when the two minutes were over and they then proceeded to fill out the next
vocabulary list under the same conditions.
The reason attributed to limiting participant response time to two minutes was to ensure
that participants noted down the lexical items that were actually readily available in their minds.
If this had not been the case and more time had been allocated, it is very possible that
participants could have included words that were not necessarily the most readily available to
17
them as they would have had more time to delve into their memory. This reasoning is supported
in other research (Alba, 2014).
Every study that has contributed to the Panhispanic Project has used the same 16 centres
of interest, however, given that the nature of the current study is slightly different, only six
topics were chosen:
1. Means of transport
2. Food and drink
3. Clothing and accessories
4. Children
5. DIY
6. The kitchen and its utensils.
As the objective of the study is to show dialect interference depending on the topic of
conversation, two topics were chosen that are traditionally considered more associated with
women (clothing & accessories and food & drink), two that are generally associated with men
(means of transport and DIY), and finally, two topics that were considered neutral by the
research investigator (food & drink and the kitchen & its utensils). In order to show what a
completed vocabulary list activity would look like, an excerpt of one participant’s responses
can be found in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. Sample participant response to vocabulary list activity.
Medios de Transporte
Alimentos y Bebidas
Ropa y Complementos
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
tren
lancha
auto
bote
avión
helicoptero
yate
aeroplano
piernas
carne
pollo
arroz
porotos
lechuga
huevos
sal
pimienta
pan
18
pantalones
camisas
vestido
traje
pollera
caravanas
anillo
pulsera
lentes
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
camión
camioneta
omnibus
patines
coche
caballo
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
gaseosa
cerveza
ron
tequila
limonada
chorizo
palta
pepino
papa
boniato
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
polera
cinto
cartera
billetera
reloj
sandalias
chalas
buzo
chaleco
campera
In studies contributing to the Panhispanic Project, every participant response is
recorded and analysed. The most frequent words for each section are subsequently identified
and documented. The current study, however, does not follow this method.
Since the principal objective of this study is not to determine frequency or the most
common lexical items but rather to highlight instances of intrafamilial dialect interference, the
researcher reviewed each participant’s lists individually. For example, under column one
“medios de transporte” in Table 3.2, the research subject included two Spanish words for car
(in third and fourteenth position respectively). The data were analysed by monitoring instances
similar to the one just mentioned and identifying which words appear higher in each list. In
this particular case, the lexical item “auto” appears before “coche”. Now, if these responses
were given by a research subject native to Spain, it would be possible to claim that they were
being influenced by another dialect of Spanish. In addition, if a research subject from Spain
but married to a Uruguayan were to include a lexical item considered Uruguayan without
including a Peninsular Spanish word, this would also indicate the dominance of one dialect
over another.
In order to verify the data provided by the participants, reference was made to the Real
Academia Española’s online dictionary (www.rae.es) and the well-known Spanish-English
online bilingual dictionary SpanishDict (www.spanishdict.com).
19
Regarding the visual image response portion of the research, the principal investigator
analysed the data by recording participants’ responses and determined whether their answer
represented a word used in their own country, in that that of their spouse, or in another country
altogether. An example set of responses can be found in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3. Participant responses to visual image activity.
Image
Response
Car
Boot
Bus
Popcorn
Insect
Peach
Avocado
Beans
Glasses
Garden/Grass
Lawnmower
Muffin
Pen
Pavement
To take the bus
To speak
Coche
Cajuela
Microbus
Palomitas de Maíz
Pinacate
Durazno
Aguacate
Frijoles
Gafas
Pasto
Podadora
Panque
Lapicero
Banqueta
Abordando el Bus
Platicar
Again, both sources previously mentioned (www.rae.es and www.spanishdict.com)
were used to determine instances of dialect interference.
The questionnaire created was referred to in order to confirm any correlations between
a participant’s responses to the vocabulary lists and visual images. If, for example, a participant
showed no instances of dialect interference, the investigator would consult their responses to
the questionnaire to verify if their opinion of their spouse’s dialect of Spanish was negative or
positive. The same procedure was carried out when dialect interference was documented by
participants.
20
CHAPTER 4
Results
Overview
The total number of words provided by research participants in both the vocabulary
lists and the visual image responses totalled 2,472.
Vocabulary List Responses
As stated in chapter two, lexical availability studies generally focus on two things: the
frequency of lexical items and their position on vocabulary lists for specific topics. However,
the present study attempted to determine the influence of intrafamilial dialect contact using
lexical availability as the measure. Table 4.3 provides an overview of each participant’s
responses to the vocabulary list portion of the research, namely, the number of responses
given, the instances of possible dialect borrowing, and whether or not the instances occurred
when dealing with a male or female-related topic. It is important to note that, included under
the column “instances of dialect interference” in Table 4.3 are not only instances of dialect
accommodation for each participant and their spouse but also examples of another dialect
influencing the lexicon of participants. For example, if neither couple is from Mexico but a
Mexican word appears in their vocabulary list, it is counted here as an example of dialect
interference.
Table 4.1. Analysis of participants’ vocabulary lists responses.
Participant
ID#
Possible No. vs.
Actual No. of Responses Given
Instances of Dialect Interference
12
8
20
24
31
40
35
22
180/87
180/112
180/66
180/114
180/135
180/126
180/86
180/79
0
3 (polera, chalas, huincha)
0
1 (fustán)
1 (chupón)
4 (polera, caraota, chupón, trinche)
3 (auto, corpiños, chupete)
0
21
15
6
85
66
71
52
61
53
78
44
95
18
180/101
180/72
180/98
180/130
180/98
180/154
180/151
180/126
180/86
180/86
180/123
180/122
0
0
3 (tacuche, playera, pacha)
1 (polera)
3 (buseta, carroza, playera)
0
1 (chompa)
2 (mote, tina)
0
3 (achiote, aretes, chupón)
4 (micro, aretes, pacha, pichel)
4 (pepe, chiche, paila, aretes)
An analysis of Table 4.1 indicates that dialect interference was present among 65% of
the participants in the study. In order to follow the research hypotheses of this study, the data
in this section will be analysed taking into consideration instances of dialect contact
according three variables: gender, topic of conversation, and length of time married.
Gender
In chapter two, gender was shown not to be a significant factor when dealing with
dialect contact. When significant differences were found, such instances were reported as
being due to secondary factors and not gender directly. The results from this study show that,
whilst there were slightly more female participants displaying instances of dialect borrowing,
it is not enough to be considered significant. Table 4.2 illustrates this below.
Table.4.2. Dialect intereference according to gender.
Male
Female
Gender
46%
54%
From Table 4.2, it is possible to see that, in this study at least, women were marginally
more likely than men to use lexical items found in the dialect of their spouse. It is important
to point out that not all the examples of dialect contact provide evidence of dialect
interference between spouses. In some cases, participants would note down a lexical item
22
that was actually characteristic of a country other than that of their spouse. Examples such as
these are omitted from this point onwards but shall be discussed later.
Topic of Conversation
Given that two of the research questions attempt to determine whether or not dialect
interference is linked to topic of conversation, an essential part of this study was to document
the topics in which examples of dialect borrowing occurred. In Table 4.3, all instances of
dialect contact are displayed according to topic of conversation.
Table.4.3. Instances of dialect contact according to topic.
Participant
ID#
8
Participant
Gender
F
24
F
Masculine
1
(huincha)
-
40
F
-
35
M
71
M
61
M
53
F
1
(auto)
2
(buseta, carroza)
1
(chompa)
-
44
F
-
95
M
-
18
F
1
(auto)
Topic
Feminine
2
(polera, chalas)
1
(fustán)
2
(corpiños, chupete)
-
Neutral
1
(caraota)
-
-
-
1
(tina)
2
(achiote, chupón)
1
(pacha)
-
1
(aretes)
-
Chart 4.1.gives an indication of the contexts in which both male and female
participants documented instances of dialect borrowing.
23
-
Chart 4.1. Percentage of dialect contact according to topic of conversation.
These results provide some interesting reading. There is no clear tendency as to
which gender is found to be more influenced by the other, however, women had a slightly
higher number of occurrences as out of 16 instances, nine were provided by female
participants and the remaining seven by the male participants. However, the results do not
support the research hypotheses. According to the numbers from this part of the project,
topic of conversation shows a tendency for both men and women to utilise lexical items from
their spouse’s dialect. However, for female participants, borrowings were evident when the
topic was female-related rather than male-related. On the same note, male participants’
borrowings were prevalent when the topic was male-related. Rather than be influenced by
their spouse when talking about a topic normally associated with the gender of their spouse, it
appears, at least in this case, that the probability of men or women being influenced by their
spouse is greater when talking about topics traditionally associated with their own gender.
Years Married
The purpose of measuring this variable was to determine if the length of time married
played a significant part in a research subject’s use of their spouse’s lexical items. Table 4.4
permits an overview of this variable and whether or not it is telling.
24
Table.4.4. Number of instances according to years married.
Total No. of Instances
3
(polera, chalas, huincha)
3
(auto, corpiños, chupete)
3
(achiote, aretes, chupón)
2
(buseta, carroza)
1
(pacha)
1
(fustán)
1
(auto)
1
(caraota)
1
(chompa)
1
(tina)
Years Married
15
Participant ID#
8
12
35
12
44
13
71
21
95
32
24
21
18
10
40
7
61
7
53
The results here are similar to those for LoR in that, while it may be true in some
cases that longer length of time married yields more instances of dialect interference, this is
not always the case. In fact, those participants who had been married to their spouse longest
(#24, #95, #18) were those who displayed the least influence from their spouse.
Visual Image Response
Table 4.5 presents a general overview of the findings from this activity.
Table.4.5. Analysis of participants’ visual image responses.
ID#
Instances of Dialect Interference
From Spouse’s Dialect?
12
8
20
0
0
2
(grama, baúl)
0
2
Y&N
24
31
25
Y&N
40
35
22
15
6
85
66
71
52
61
53
78
44
95
18
(grama, pluma)
1
(pasto)
0
1
(aguacate)
0
2
(cajuela, podadora)
1
(zacate)
3
(cajuela, palta, pasto)
0
1
(podadora)
1
(esfero)
3
(cajuela, canguil, podadora)
0
2
(cajuela, canguil)
3
(banqueta, grama, auto)
3
(grama, platicar, gafas)
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y&N
A quick glance at Table 4.5 allows us to see that 65% of the participants showed signs
of being influenced by another dialect, but only 53% of them were directly influenced by the
dialect of their spouse.
Gender
Similarly to results for the vocabulary lists, women (61%) were more likely to show
evidence of dialect influence.
However, as previously stated, all instances above included examples of dialect
contact whether from their spouse or from elsewhere. Table 4.6 contains only data from
those participants directly affected by their spouse.
26
Table.4.6. Dialect interference directly related with spouse.
ID#
Instances of Dialect Contact
From Spouse?
20
2
(grama, baúl)
2
(grama, pluma)
1
(aguacate)
2
(cajuela, podadora)
1
(esfero)
2
(cajuela, canguil)
3
(grama, platicar, gafas)
Y&N
31
22
6
61
44
18
Y&N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y&N
When dealing only with influence directly from the spouse, the results are somewhat
closer (57% women, 43% men). However, the results for this section are similar to those for
the vocabulary lists in that women are still more likely to be influenced than men. That said,
the likelihood of women being influenced was slightly higher in this activity than in the
vocabulary lists. The reason for this is unclear, however, it could perhaps be attributed to the
quicker response time required. Whereas in the vocabulary lists, participants had two
minutes to write down as many lexical items as possible, the visual image response section
provided them with significantly less time to think and and this may have increased dialect
interference.
Years Married
Only participants that showed influence directly from their spouse’s dialect will be
analysed in this section. Table 4.7 has been included below to help visualise the results and
determine any correlations between years married and instances of borrowings.
27
Table.4.7. Instances of dialect interference according to years married.
Total No. of Instances
3
(grama, platicar, gafas)
2
(grama, baúl)
2
(cajuela, canguil)
2
(cajuela, podadora)
1
(aguacate)
1
(grama)
1
(esfero)
Years Married
21
32
12
10
12
10
7
The results in Table 4.7, whilst not conclusive, are at least descriptively interesting in
that the two participants exhibiting most instances of interference had been married the
longest. It also appears to show an overall correlation between the length of time married and
the number of occurrences of dialect intereference between the participants.
Additional Findings
The research carried out brought to light some information that was not foreseen prior
to conducting the investigation.
Mexican influence. At the beginning of this chapter, it was mentioned that participants
showed elements of dialect contact from dialects other than that of their spouse. It is now
important to include the relevant data for two reasons: 1. In Utah, the highest Hispanic
population is made up of Mexicans and 2. Since the participants in this study had resided in the
U.S./Utah for a significant period, the probability of their being influenced by Mexican Spanish
cannot be denied. Tables 4.8 and 4.9 list the information that was excluded from the research
findings earlier for both the vocabulary lists and visual image responses.
28
Table.4.8. Vocabulary lists. Instances of dialect interference from sources other than
participants’ spouses.
Participant ID#
40
Gender
F
85
M
66
F
95
M
18
F
71
M
31
M
No. of Instances
3
(polera, trinche, chupón)
3
(tacuche, playera, pacha)
1
(polera)
3
(aretes, pichel, micro)
3
(chiche, paila, aretes)
1
(playera)
1
(chupón)
The most salient finding is that, in the case of participants who exhibited instances of
dialect interference, at least 75% of those occurrences were linked to a dialect other than their
spouse’s. In addition, of all recorded instances, 73% were lexical items characteristic of
Mexico. This finding adds strength to the influence of the dominant Mexican population in
Utah.
Table.4.9. Visual image response. Instances of dialect interference from sources other
than participants’ spouses.
ID#
20
31
40
85
66
52
53
Instances of Dialect Contact
2
(grama, baúl)
1
(pluma)
1
(pasto)
1
(zacate)
3
(cajuela, palta, pasto)
1
(podadora)
3
(cajuela, canguil, podadora)
29
From Spouse’s Dialect?
Y&N
Y&N
N
N
N
N
N
95
3
(auto, grama, banqueta)
3
(gafas, grama, platicar)
18
N
Y&N
Particularly noteworthy is the fact that more than half of the 17 instances (65%) of
interference recorded were instances of borrowing from Mexican Spanish and not from the
dialect of the spouse.
Excluded data. As mentioned in chapter 3, two sets of data were omitted from the
initial findings as it transpired at the time of the interview that some couples did not meet the
research criteria, that is, they had been married for less than five years. However, in an attempt
to determine whether this criterion was relevant, a summary of these data is provided below in
Table 4.10.
Table.4.10. Instances of dialect contact for both activities by excluded couples.
Participant
ID#
Gender/Co
untry
Years
Married
Instances of Dialect Intererence
Vocab Lists
99
98
M/Mexico
F/Honduras
4
4
97
M/Mexico
3
96
F/Honduras
3
0
5
(achiote, elotes, chayote,
ayote, cachucha)
1
(auto)
3
(chicharos, aretes, chupón)
Visual Image
Response
0
3
(cofre, pasto,
banqueta)
1
(auto)
2
(pasto,
podadora)
Originally, it was decided that part of the research criteria would be that each
participant had to have been married for five years. The reason for this was to ensure enough
time for dialect contact to occur. However, the findings in Table 4.10 cannot be ignored
given that both female participants here displayed a higher number of instances of dialect
intereference than any other participant interviewed in this study. Another curious finding is
30
that, of the female participants analysed, all cases of dialect contact were directly related to
the Mexican dialect of their spouse. This could be due, as previously stated, to the strong
influence of Mexican Spanish in Utah. Furthermore, as reported by one of the participants
after being interviewed “hay que usar palabras mexicanas cuando hablas a un mexicano aquí
porque ellos no van a cambiar las palabras que utilizan así que somos nosotros quienes
tenemos que adaptar”. It can be assumed, then, that within the Mexican community in Utah,
there exists a strong sense of linguistic pride that radiates onto other Hispanic populations
resulting in the appearance of Mexican lexical items in their speech.
31
CHAPTER 5
Conclusions and Discussion
The Results
An in-depth overview of the research participants’ results was included in chapter 4,
however, the data collected provided unanticipated results. That dialect interference will
result from two dialects in contact goes without saying. However, it was expected that
evidence of any dialect interference from either spouse would occur in specific contexts,
namely, in male-related topics for female participants and vice versa. It was also assumed
that dialect interference would be more apparent among those couples who had been married
for longer. Nevertheless, the study produced results to the contrary. First, when the male
participants utilised vocabulary from their spouse’s dialect, they did this mostly when the
topic was one deemed to be male-related. Second, an even greater proportion of the women
participants showed evidence of dialect contact when talking about female-related topics.
Finally, length of time married did not yield telling results in both activities undertaken. In
the vocabulary lists, it was found that those participants that had been married the longest
were amongst the lowest ranking for instances of dialect contact, whereas, the visual image
response portion suggested that years married perhaps played a part in the number of times
dialect contact was apparent.
Overall, the most striking outcome of the study relates to the additional findings
included at the conclusion of chapter 4. Whilst it was anticipated that there would be some
influence from Mexican Spanish, it was not expected that it would have such an impact. In
the vocabulary list activity, the excluded results highlight that over 70% of the manifestations
of dialect contact involved lexical items characteristic of Mexican Spanish. The visual image
response also produced important results, with over 60% of pertinent vocabulary words
typifying Mexican Spanish. Thus it seems clear that the variety of speech utilised by the
32
majority will exert some influence over those in the minority. Examples such as these
support Siegel’s assertion included at the outset of this work that, in some instances, it
appears that this is a conscious action on the part of the individual – various participant
responses alluded to having a negative opinion of Mexican Spanish but still admitted to using
Mexican words as they had no other option – and in others the individual seems to be
unaware of their inclusion in their answers. The latter notion is clearly evidenced in a
conversation the researcher had with one research couple shortly before commencing the
tests. In response to my explanation of the purpose of the study, the Mexican spouse
exclaimed “ya, pero mi esposa no usa palabras mexicanas”, an opinion which was shared by
his Venezuelan wife. However, the visual image response section of the investigation
documented two instances in which the Venezuelan spouse did clearly note down two
Mexican lexical items.
One result, not directly related to the research hypotheses, but interesting nonetheless
is that the women in this study showed more instances of dialect intereference than the men.
Out of 74 occurrences, 64% were produced by female research subjects.
Limitations
Initially, it was unclear as to how many eligible couples could be found in Utah,
therefore, no restriction was set as to where the research couples were from. That is, the only
stipulation was that each member of the couple was from a different Spanish speaking
country. In addition, no consideration was given to external circumstances that may have
influenced a participant’s speech such as previous residence or membership of a particular
social group. This study focused solely on each participant’s linguistic traits as they were at
the time of interview.
33
Recommendations for Further Research
To the researcher’s knowledge, there are no other studies similar in nature to the
present study. Therefore, various recommendations can be given.
First, during the data collection phase, it became apparent that in the areas of Salt
Lake and Utah County alone, there are substantially more couples that fit the research criteria
than originally anticipated. As a result, one obvious recommendation would be to increase
the sample size in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis and to test the results of
this pilot study.
Second, as previously stated, given the researcher’s preoccupation of lack of eligible
research participants, couples from various Spanish speaking countries were chosen to
participate. However, the data analysis would have been considerably easier if a criterion for
eligibility was that one member of the couple had to originate from Mexico, for example.
This would have facilitated the decision of visual images selected.
Third, no effort was made to determine the socioeconomic status of the participants.
Had this been done, it might have been possible to establish correlations between instances of
dialect interference and socioeconomic status.
Fourth, another possible criterion to include in future studies of this kind would be to
ensure that research participants had not resided in their spouse’s country before relocating to
the U.S.
Fifth, before conducting the research, certain topics were chosen as they were
considered male or female-related. However, one of the topics chosen, bricolaje, only
yielded one instance of dialect contact. Choosing a topic like that, is of course problematic as
it limits the chances of determining if there are, in fact, occurrences of dialect interference.
However, it must be noted that the principal reason for the lack of results in this section was
that, quite frankly, there is not a lot of variation in that particular topic. As a result, choosing
34
topics of conversation should be a carefully thought out process to ensure that vocabulary
contains variation in the Spanish speaking world. Also, whilst bricolaje – DIY in English – is
a well-known concept in the English speaking community, most native Spanish speakers, at
least those included in this study, are not familiar with the term in Spanish or English.
Therefore, thought must be given when choosing topics.
Finally, it was noted during the investigation that the longer the individual had resided
in the U.S. the harder it was for them to remember Spanish vocabulary. Therefore, rather
than set a minimum length of marriage criterion, future studies could include criterion for
LoR in the U.S. For example, it might be decided that a couple that has lived in the U.S. for
more than five years is ineligible to participate in the study. In addition, Chambers (1992)
noted that acquirers will make most of their lexical replacements within the first two years.
Therefore, removing a stipulation that research couples should be married for at least five
years is also a possibility in future research.
Contributions of the Study
As declared in the previous section, to the researcher’s knowledge, there are no other
studies with the same research aims as this project. Therefore, this study has provided a
platform for future studies of this kind. It has given an indication that length of time married
is not a particularly convincing factor in determining the level of dialect contact that is
present in an individual.
In addition, the data collected in this study can assist sociolinguists in continuing
similar research in other regions of the Spanish speaking world and attempting to link
instances of dialect contact measured through lexical availability studies to factors such as
socioeconomic status.
35
Appendix A
Preguntas básicas
1. ¿Cómo se llama?
2. ¿De dónde es usted?
3. ¿Cómo se llama su esposo/a?
4. ¿Cuánto tiempo lleva casado/a?
36
Appendix B
Opinion Questionnaire
1. ¿Qué opina usted del español de su esposo/a?
2. ¿Qué opina usted del español de su país?
3. ¿Piensa que su español es más elegante que el de su esposo/a? ¿Por qué?
4. ¿Piensa usted que ha adquirido aspectos del dialecto de su esposo/a?
5. ¿Cuáles aspectos ha adquirido y por qué?
37
Appendix C
Vocabulary Lists
Medios de
Transporte
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Alimentos y
Bebidas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
38
Bricolaje
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Appendix D
Visual Images
39
Appendix E
Participant Responses to Vocabulary Lists
Participant #61
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos
y Bebidas
Ropa y
Complement
os
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina
y sus
Utensilios
1 Ruta
1 Pimentón
1 Pantalón
1 Pañales
1 Martillo
1 Cernidor
2 Pasajero
2 Limón
2 Pantaloneta
2 Teta
2 Cinta
2 Olla
3 Chofer
3 Uva
3 Saco
3 Biberón
3 Pegamento
3 Salero
4 Pasaje
4 Parilla
4 Buso
4 Leche
4 Cerrucho
4 Sartén
5 Metro
5 Naranja
5 Chaqueta
5 Sueño
5 Llaves
5 Tapa
6 Bus
6 Manzana
6 Chamarra
6 Múscia
6 Puntillas
6 Cuchara
7 Avión
7 Mora
7 Chompa
7 Ropita
7 Guantes
7 Tenedor
8 Ticket
8 Fresa
8 Rompivientos
8 Medias
8 Desarmador
8 Cuchillo
9 Tiquete
9 Arándano
9 Camisa
9 Crema para
pañal
9 Destornillador
9 Taza
10 Equipaje
10 Mogolla
10 Camiseta
10 Chupo
10 Alicate
11 Ventanilla
11 Roscón
11 Calzoncillo
11 Silla de carro
11 Cegueta
10
Microondas
11 Molde
12 Azafata
12 Galleta
12 Boxer
12 Sonajero
12 Hombre solo
12 Molinillo
13 Baño
13 Rosca
13 Interior
13 Cuento
13 Clavos
13 Espátula
14 Transmilenio
14 Churro
14 Calzón
14 Audífonos
14 Metro
14 Guantes
15 Barco
15 Chocolate
15 Brasier
15 Osito
15 Nivel
15 Limpión
16 Carga
16 Maní
16 Tanga
16 Peluche
16 Regla
16 Picador
17 Maleta
17 Marañon
17 Falda
17 Patines
17 Pintura
17 Rallador
18 Ayudante
18 Watila
18 Medias
18 Mitones
18 Cinta
18 Licuadora
19 Gasolina
19 Maíz
19 Tenis
19 Cuadernos
19 Brocha
19 Cafetera
20 Combustible
20 Arracacha
20 Botas
20 Colegio
20 Rodillo
20 Nevera
21 Piloto
21 Yuca
21 Bolso
21 Tarea
21
21
22 Capitán
22 Yuca
22 Manilla
22 Mochila
22
22
23 Cobrador
23 Pescado
23 Cartera
23 Cartuchera
23
23
24 Espera
24 Tomate
24 Carriel
24
24
24
25 Aeropuerto
25 Zanahoria
25 Mochila
25
25
25
26 Tren
26
26 Sombrilla
26
26
26
27 Caballo
27
27
27
27
27
40
Participant #53
Medios de
Transporte
1 Tren
Alimentos
y Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus
Utensilios
1 Fréjoles
1 Zapatos
1 Teta
1 Madera
1 Vasos
2 Bus
2 Papas
2 Zapatillas
2 Chupón
2 Martillo
2 Copas
3 Trenaereo
3 Pan
3 Botas
3 Pañal
3 Jarros
4 Carro
4 Naranja
4 Sandalias
4 Juguete
4 Jarra
5 Moto
5 Pescado
5 Cinturón
5 Cobija
3 Clavo
4
Destornillador
5 Masquin
6 Motocicleta
6 Sandía
6 Cintillo
6 Medicina
6 Tornillo
6 Platos
7 Bicicleta
7 Conchas
7 Camisa
7 Tina
7 Brocha
7 Cucharón
8 Triciclo
8 Camarón
8 Pantalón
8 Shampoo
8 Pintura
8 Cuchareta
9 Avión
9 Plátano
9 Short
9 Jabón
9 Spray
9 Cuchillo
10 Avioneta
10 Guineo
10 Licra
10 Toalla
10 Alicate
10 Jabón
11 Patineta
11 Manzana
11 Saco
11 Camiseta
11 Focos
11 Esponja
12 Patines
12 Pollo
12 Chaleco
12 Sillas
12 Olla
13 Camión
13 Choncho
13 Chompa
13 Ventilador
13 Olleta
14 Ferrocarril
14 Tortillas
14 Gorra
14
14 Sartén
15 Barco
15 Chifles
15 Collares
15
15 Licuadora
16 Canoa
16 Queso
16 Anillos
12 Pantalón
13
Termómetro
14
Cortauñas
15 Crema
Rabo
16 Medias
16
16 Tostadora
17 Lancha
17 Leche
17 Pulseras
17 Goroo
17
17 Microonda
18 Velero
18 Coco
18 Medias
18 Chompa
18
18 Cocina
19 Paracaídas
19 Limón
19 Mallas
19 Compota
19
19 Cafetera
20 Trax
20 Arepas
20 Falda
20 Babero
20
20 Horno
21 Pasola
21 Mote
21 Bufanda
21 Cuna
21
21 Cuchara
22
22 Arroz
22 Guantes
22 Monitor
22
22 Tenedor
23
23 Empanadas
23 Gorro
23 Móvil
23
23
24
24
24 Sombrero
24
24
25
25
25 Vestido
25
25
26
26
26 Terno
26
26
27
27
27 Corbata
24 Muñeco
25 Mesa
Comer
26
Columpio
27
27
27
28
28
28 Calzoncillo
28
28
28
29
29
29 Calzón
29
29
29
30
30
30 Pañuelo
30
30
30
41
5 Taza
Participant #95
Medios de
Transporte
1 Camioneta
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Los
niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus
Utensilios
1 Camisa
1 Cuna
1 Taladro
1 Estufa
2 Pantalón
2 Pañales
2 Sierra
2 Vasos
3 Pantaloneta
3 Toallas
3 Serrucho
3 Tazas
4 Calcetines
4 Pegamento
5 Cinta
Adhesiva
6 Tornillos
5 Porcelana
6 Corbata
4 Ropa
5 Comida
de bebé
6 Nombre
4 Platos
6 Caballo
4 Frijoles
5 Plátanos
Fritos
6 Crema
7 Carreta
7 Queso
7 Saco
7 Juguetes
7 Clavos
7 Cucharas
8 Bicicleta
8 Chorizo
8 Traje
8 Pacha
8 Ollas
9 Patines
9 Azucar
9 Calzón
9 Pepe
8 Prensa
9
Desarmador
10 Camión
10 Sal
10 Brasier
10 Crema
10 Mezcla de
Pared
10 Mesa
11 Micro
11 Sandía
11 Aretes
11 Talco
11 Cemento
11 Sillas
12 Patineta
12 Manzana
12 Collar
12 Colcha
12 Ladrios
12 Refrigerador
13 Moto
13 Mango
13 Pendientes
13 Estroler
13 Arena
13 Gabinetes
14 Avión
14 Fresas
14 Bufanda
14 Piedras
14 Almacén
15 Tren
15 Uvas
15 Camiseta
14 Carriola
15
Portabebé
15 Manguera
15 Pichel
16 Barco
16 Tortillas
16 Calzoneta
17 Seguro
17 Lancha
17 Cilantro
17
18 Cayuco
18 Jamón
19 Balsa
20
2 Guagua
3 Carro
4 Auto
5 Burro
1 Agua
2 Fresio de
Ensalada
3 Arroz
Ropa y
Complementos
5 Zapatos
6 Tenedores
9 Sartenes
17
16
Fertilizante
17 Maquinas
17 Paletas
18
18
18 Brocas
18 Micro
19 Pimienta
19
19
19 Cadenas
19 Tostadora
20 Pollo
20
20
20 Cables
20
21
21 Carne
21
21
21 Alambres
21
22
22 Costillas
22
22
22
22
23
23 Camarón
23
23
23
23
24
24 Pescado
24
24
24
24
25
25 Yuca
25
25
25
25
26
26 Pupusas
26
26
26
26
27
27 Tomate
27
27
27
27
42
16 Cucharones
Participant #18
Medios de
Transporte
1 Auto
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
1 Martillo
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Quinoa
1 Gorro
1 Pepe
2 Moto
2 Arroz
2 Bufanda
2 Pacha
2 Clavo
2 Cucharón
3 Bicicleta
3 Frijoles
3 Blusa
3 Leche
3 Tornillos
3 Tenedor
4 Caballo
4 Mango
4 Camiseta
4 Babero
4 Tenazas
4 Cuchillo
5 Avión
5 Pasta
5 Sweater
5 Chiche
5 Pinzas
5 Espátula
6 Bus
6 Bananas
6 Pantalones
6 Gorro
6 Cadena
6 Olla
7 Camioneta
7 Piña
7 Shorts
7 Mantilla
7 Metal
7 Plato
8 Carreta
8 Sandía
8 Falda
8 Pañal
8 Cobre
8 Paila
9 Burro
9 Carne
9 Chaleco
9 Talcos
9 Alambre
9 Taza
10 Camello
10 Pescado
10 Zapatos
10 Pomada
10 Pega
10 Tazón
11 Scooter
11 Camarones
11 Tenis
11 Pintura
11 Estufa
12 Patineta
12 Pollo
12 Zapatillas
12 Brocha
12 Tostadora
13 Canoa
13 Puerco
13 Calzetas
11 Crema
12
Pantalones
13 Calzetas
13 Refri
14 Bote
14 Tortillas
14 Medias
14 Zapatos
15 Barco
15 Pan
15 Gafas
16 Crucero
16 Naranjas
16 Cadena
17
17 Galletas
17 Medalla
15 Protector
Solar
16
Mosquitero
17 Cuna
13 Lija
14
Espátula
18
18 Dulces
18 Broche
18 Almohada
19
19 Chocolate
19 Anillo
19 Toalla
20
20 Merengue
20 Pulsera
21
21 Jalea
21 Calzones
22
22 Mantequilla
23
24
15 Gallon
16
Recipiente
17 Bote
1 Cuchara
14 Tetera
15 Freidora
16
17
20 Shampoo
18 Focos
19
Lámpara
20
20
21 Jabón
21
21
22 Brasier
22 Agua
22
22
23 Queso
23 Arretes
23
23
23
24 Crema
24 Reloj
24
24
24
43
18
19
Participant #44
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Carro
1 Arroz
1 Vestido
1 Cuna
1 Martillo
1 Cuchara
2 Bus
2 Achiote
2 Zapatos
2 Biberón
2 Clavo
2 Cucharón
3 Buseta
3 Maduro
3 Pantalón
3 Pañal
3 Tornillos
3 Tenedor
4 Moto
4 Verde
4 Chaleco
4 Mono
4 Alicate
4 Cuchillo
5 Avión
5 Guineo
5 Saco
5 Babero
5 Pinzas
5 Cernidor
6 Tren
6 Fideo
6 Camisa
6 Serrucho
6 Olla
7 Barco
7 Papa
7 Falda
7 Tachuelas
7 Sartén
8 Veleta
8 Queso
8 Corbata
9 Bicicleta
9 Cola
9 Anillos
6 Chupón
7
Columpio
8
Imperdible
9 Talco
10 Burro
10 Papaya
10 Blusa
10 Bibidi
10 Pintura
10 Vajilla
11 Avioneta
11 Mango
11 Shorts
11 Teta
11 Madera
11 Licuadora
12
12 Mandarina
12 Collar
12 Coche
12 Cemento
12 Trapos
13
13 Choclo
13 Aretes
13
13
13 Jabón
14
14 Pan
14 Calzones
14
14
14 Jarrón
15
15 Alverjas
15 Calzoncillos
15
15
15
16
16 Habas
16 Pijamas
16
16
16
17
17 Ají
17 Sostén
17
17
17
18
18
18 Poncho
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
44
8
Destornillador
9 Metro
8 Jarra
9 Vasos
Participant #78
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus
Utensilios
1 Avión
1 Pollo
1 Camisa
1 Pañales
1 Pegamento
1 Sartén
2 Autobus
2 Harina
2 Corbata
2 Cuna
2 Martillo
2 Cuchara
3 Carro
3 Carne
3 Chamarra
3 Toalla
3 Tornillos
3 Cuchillo
4 Motocicleta
4 Pimienta
4 Bufanda
4 Cobija
4 Clavos
4 Tenedor
5 Bicicleta
5 Sal
5 Gorra
5 Chupón
5 Pintura
5 Cucharón
6 Tren
6 Lechuga
6 Camiseta
6 Biberón
6 Desarmador
6 Licuadora
7 Microbus
7 Tomate
7 Pantalón
7 Portabebé
7 Serrucho
7 Olla
8 Helicóptero
8 Cebolla
8 Calzón
8 Almohada
8 Cinta
8 Espátula
9 Tranvía
9 Pepino
9 Calcetines
9 Cajonera
9 Pala
9 Vaso
10 Aeroplano
11
Globoaerostático
12 Caballo
10 Pimiento
10 Blusa
10
10 Pico
11 Arroz
11 Aretes
11
11 Taladro
12 Canela
12 Anillos
12
13 Burro
13 Leche
13 Toallas
13
14
14 Azucar
14 Zapatos
14
12 Brocas
13 Cinta de
Medir
14 Espátula
10 Jarra
11
Termómetro
12 Molde
15
15 Mantequilla
15 Botas
15
15
15
16
16 Frijoles
16 Sandalias
16
16
16
17
17 Chile
17 Guarache
17
17
17
18
18 Manteca
18
18
18
18
19
19 Aceite
19
19
19
19
20
20 Limón
20
20
20
20
21
21 Cilantro
21
21
21
21
45
13
14
Participant #40
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Carro
1 Apio
1 Polo
1 Biberón
1 Martillo
1 Tenedor
2 Bicicleta
2 Tomate
2 Pantalón
2 Babero
2 Cuchillo
3 Moto
3 Sandía
3 Zapatos
3 Zapatos
4 Omnibus
4 Papaya
4 Zapatillas
4 Cuna
2 Clavos
3
Destornillador
4 Regla
4 Cucharita
5 Camioneta
5 Jugo
5 Medias
5 Carriola
5 Medidor
5 Vaso
6 Tractor
6 Naranja
6 Calzón
6 Asiento
6 Centímetro
7 Trailer
7 Melón
7 Sostén
7 Vaso
7 Serrucho
8 Camión
8 Brocoli
8 Collar
8 Pañales
8 Sierra
6 Plato
7 Tabla para
cortar
8 Sorbete
9 Taxi
9 Pan
9 Aretes
9 Talco
9 Lima
9 Pinzas
10 Avión
10 Torta
10 Anillos
10 Ropón
10 Pulidor
10 Cucharón
11 Bote
11 Caramelo
11 Camisa
11 Frasada
11 Tornillos
11 Trinche
12 Lancha
12 Chicle
12 Saco
12 Coche
12 Cables
12 Espátula
13 Canoa
13 Pizza
13 Abrigo
13 Andados
13 Tuercas
13 Sartén
14 Barco
14 Chocolate
14 Charpa
14 Triciclo
14 Sacatuerca
14 Ollas
15 Combi
15 Sandwich
15 Palera
15 Juguetes
15 Focos
15 Plancha
16 Tren
16 Chupetín
16 Calzoncillo
16
16 Parilla
17
17 Chicha
17 Reloj
17
17 Tazas
18
18 Gaseosa
18 Pulsera
16 Chupón
17
Videojuegos
18 Peluches
18
18 Cubiertos
19
19 Manzana
19 Aros
19 Botitas
19
19 Cortador
20
20 Plátano
20 Lentes
20
20
20 Bandeja
21
21 Jamón
21 Gafas
21
21
21
22
22 Pollo
22 Gorro
22
22
22
23
23 Carne
23 Boina
23
23
23
24
24 Tallarin
24 Sombrero
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
27
25 Leche
26
Mantequilla
27 Arroz
27
27
27
27
28
28 Caraota
28
28
28
28
29
29 Tacos
29
29
29
29
30
30 Cuy
30
30
30
30
26
46
3 Cuchara
Participant #31
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
1 Bicicleta
1 Merengada
2 Carro
2 Arepas
2 Falda
3 Moto
3 Cachapas
3 Camisa
4 Patines
4 Ensalada
4 Reloj
5 Avión
5 Parrilla
6 Barco
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Ollas
2 Gorra
2 Serrucho
2 Cuchillo
3 Mameluco
3 Metro
3 Tenedor
4 Pañal
4 Clavos
4 Cuchara
5 Terno
5 Andadera
5 Licuadora
6 Yogurt
6 Smokn
6 Coche
6 Cocina
7 Lancha
7 Queso
7 Zapatos
7 Chupón
5 Tornillos
6
Destornillador
7 Nivel
8 Ferri
8 Jamón
8 Franela
8 Tetero
8 Madera
8 Nevera
9 Bus
9 Pan
9 Chemise
9 Sonaja
9 Cincel
9 Microonda
10 Popuesto
10 Burrito
10 Blusa
10 Juguete
10 Mandarria
10 Mesa
11 Bote
11 Ceviche
11 Deportivos
11 Muñeca
11 Tenaza
11 Bandeja
12 Triciclo
12 Cerveza
12 Guarda Guantes
12 Carritos
12 Cegueta
12 Tostadora
13 Gandola
13 Ron
13 Interior
13 Perinola
13 Caladora
13 Vaso
14 Metro
14 Blumer
14 Yoyo
14 Taladro
14 Lavaplato
15 Sostén
15 Trompo
15 Compresor
15 Pelapapa
16 Guagua
14 Whiskey
15 Ponche de
Fruta
16 Limonada
16 Pantaleta
16
16 Alicate
17 Taxi
17 Lechón
17 Corbata
17
17 Pinza
18 Tico
18 Caraota
18 Collar
18
19 Trineo
19 Cambur
19 Cadena
19
18 Llave de
Tubo
19 Piqueta
16 Rayo
17 Ayudante de
Cocina
20
20 Lechosa
20 Lazo
20
20
20 Guantes
21
21 Parchina
21 Arete
21
21
21 Toallas
22
22 Sarcillo
22
22
22 Envase
23 Sortija
23
23
23 Extractor
24
22 Hallaca
23 Morir
Soñando
24 Mamón
24 Colita
24
24
24
25
25 Malteada
25 Short
25
25
25
26
26 Chicha
26 Bermuda
26
26
26
27
27
27 Traje de Baño
27
27
27
28
28
28 Suéter
28
28
28
29
29
29 Chaqueta
29
29
29
30
30
30 Braga
30
30
30
23
1 Cuna
Bricolaje
1 Martillo
15 Combi
1 Pantalón
Los niños
47
7 Horno
18 Batidora
19 Termómetro
Participant #35
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Caminar
1 Coca
1 Calzoncillos
1 Pañales
1 Tornillos
1 Platos
2 Bicicleta
2 Agua
3 Aguas
Frescas
2 Camisas
2 Chupete
2 Clavos
2 Vasos
3 Camisetas
3 Babero
3 Martillos
3 Cucharas
4 Autobus
4 Vino
4 Pantalones
4 Medias
5 Metro
5 Shorts
7 Tren
5 Cerveza
6 Carnes de
Res
7 Pollo
8 Barco
3 Auto
5 Entero
4
Desarmador
5 Grapas
5 Cubiertos
6 Medias
6 Juguetes
6 Podadora
6 Sartén
7 Traje
7 Cuna
7 Focos
7 Ollas
8 Pescado
8 Saco
8
8 Candiles
8 Mesa
9 Lancha
9 Mariscos
9 Sombrero
9 Mesa para
cambiar
9 Madera
9 Cuchillos
10 Patines
10 Arroz
10 Corbata
10 Monitor
10 Cemento
10 Lavaplatos
11 Monopatín
11 Fideos
11 Falda
11 Zapatos
11 Vidrio
11 Detergente
12 Motocicleta
12 Frijoles
12 Blusa
12 Broches
12 Varilla
12 Esponja
13
13 Lentejas
13 Vestido
13 Triciclos
13 Puertas
13 Cepillo
14
14
14 Calcetines
14 Mecedora
14 Ventanas
14 Estufa
15
15
15 Corpiños
15 Cobija
15 Persianas
15 Microondas
16
16
16 Brasier
16
16 Refrigerador
17
17
17 Sombreros
17
18
18
18
16 Azulejo
17
Alfombra
18 Plantas
19
19
19
19 Bloques
19
20
20
20
20 Luces
20
6 Avión
48
4 Tenedores
17 Comida
18 Agua
Participant #22
Medios de
Transporte
1 Colectivo
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
1 Vino
1 Pollera
Los niños
1 Mamadera
Bricolaje
1 Martillo
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Cocina
2 Auto
2 Gaseosas
2 Pantalón
2 Chupete
2 Hacha
2 Microondas
3 Camioneta
3 Sidra
3 Remera
3 Pañales
3 Heladera
4 Tren
4 Milanesa
4 Chaqueta
4 Cuna
5 Barco
5 Zanhoria
5 Medias
5 Calcetines
6 Bicicleta
6 Papas
6 Vestido
6 Carriola
7 Ferri
7 Pollo
7 Polera
7 Carseat
3 Clavos
4 Cartadora
Pasto
5 Tenaza
6
Destornillador
7 Metro
8 Subte
8 Choclo
8 Chancletas
8 Sonajero
8 Lijadora
8 Sartén
9
9 Anana
9 Botas
9 Sacamocos
9 Motosierra
9 Cucharón
10
10 Manzana
10 Zapatilloas
10 Corralito
10 Tachuela
11
11 Ensalada
11 Camisa
11 Hamaca
11
12
12 Torta
12 Corbata
12
12
13
13 Banana
13 Jumper
13
13
10 Espátula
11 Molde de
Tortas
12 Lavadora de
Platos
13 Cubertera
14
14 Empanadas
14 Buso
14
14
14
15
15 Fideos
15 Collar
15
15
15
16
16 Sopas
16 Brazalete
16
16
16
17
17
17 Anillos
17
17
17
18
18
18 Aros
18
18
18
49
4 Cuchillos
5 Tendeores
6 Cucharas
7 Vasos
Participant #6
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Autobus
1 Pan
1 Franela
1 Cuna
2 Carro
2 Manzana
2 Camisa
2 Pañalera
1 Pega de
Madera
2 Martillo
3 Moto
3 Patilla
3 Chemi
3 Formula
3 Clavo
3 Vacija
4 Bicicleta
4 Cambur
4 Corbata
4 Tetero
4 Metro
4 Cubiertos
5 Camión
5 Harina Pan
5 Pantalón
5 Chupón
5 Escalera
5 Tenedor
6 Gandola
6 Salmón
6 Ropa Interior
6 Pañales
6 Cuchillo
7 Tren
7 Zanahoria
7 Collar
7 Monitos
7 Cuchara
8 Avión
8 Queso
8 Zarcillos
8 Camisetitas
6 Madera
7
Destornillador
8 Porcelana
9 Avioneta
9 Jamón
9 Anillos
9 Vestidos
9 Manguera
9 Cocina
10 Helicóptero
10 Melón
10 Zapatos
10 Toallitas
Mojadas
10 Pintura
10 Licuadora
11 Camioneta
11 Aguacate
11 Medias
11 Porta
Bebé
11 Potes
11 Tazas
12 Cadenas
12 Carriola
12 Alfombra
12 Copas
13 Chaquetas
13 Mamila
13
13 Ollas
1 Platos
2 Vasos
8 Cucharón
13 Lancha
12 Chile
Serrano
13 Leche
14 Cruzero
14 Limón
14 Falda
14
14
14 Colador
15
15 Almendras
15 Vestido
15
15
15 Bandejas
16
16 Tomate
16 Suéter
16
16
17
17 Cebolla
17 Sudadera
17
17
18
18 Pimentón
18 Cartera
18
18
16 Abrelatas
17 Tabla de
Cortar
18 Refractarios
19
19 Pepino
19 Cintillo
19
19
19
20
20 Piña
20
20
20
20
21
21 Huevos
21
21
21
21
22
22 Pimienta
22
22
22
22
23
23 Papa
23
23
23
23
24
24 Yuca
24
24
24
24
12 Barco
50
Participant #15
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Carro
1 Limón
1 Reloj
1 Juguetes
1 Martillo
1 Platos
2 Caminar
2 Naranja
2 Calcetines
2 Leche
2 Cinta
2 Vasos
3 Bicicleta
3 Manzana
3 Pantalones
3 Formula
3 Pinturas
3 Tenedores
4 Patineta
4 Melón
4 Camisas
4 Gerber
4 Desarmador
4 Cucharas
5 Rollerblades
5 Zanahoria
5 Cadenas
5 Sonajas
5 Taladros
5 Sartenes
6 Motocicleta
6 Plátano
6 Celular
6 Cunas
6 Cortadora
6 Licuadoras
7 Triciclo
7 Espinacas
7 Tenis
7 Pañales
7 Mesa
8 Avión
8 Celery
8 Zapatos
8 Toallitas
7 Pinzas
8 Bolsas de
Trabajo
9 Chamarras
9
9 Dados
9 Estufa
10 Sacos
10
10 Lavadoras
10 Refrigerador
11 Cinturón
11
11 Lavaplatos
14
11
9 Carne de
Res
10 Carne de
Puerco
11 Pescado
12
12 Frijoles
12 Lentes
12
13
13 Garbanzo
13 Gorras
13
11 Secadoras
12
Refrigerador
13 Luces
14
14 Lentejas
14 Sombreros
14
14
9 Tren
10 Automóvil
51
8 Freidora
12 Microondas
13 Sillas
Participant #20
Medios de
Transporte
1 Carro
Alimentos y
Bebidas
1 Zanahoria
Ropa y
Complementos
1 Abrigo
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y sus
Utensilios
1 Biberón
1 Pintura
1 Tenedores
2 Camión
2 Mango
2 Camisa
2 Sonajas
2 Martillo
2 Cuchillos
3 Bicicleta
3 Naranja
3 Pantalones
3 Pañales
3 Clavos
3 Platos
4 Autobus
4 Apio
4 Corbata
4 Pijamas
4 Medidor
4 Vasos
5 Caballo
5 Sandía
5 Calcetines
5 Juguetes
5 Mantel
6 Carreta
6 Limón
6 Zapatos
6 Carritos
6 Microonda
7 Suéter
7 Muñeca
5 Cables
6
Ventanas
7
Tornillos
8 Ropa Interior
8 Pelota
8 Bañeras
8 Horno
9 Corella
9 Libros
9
Cemento
9 Sillas
10
10 Cuentos
10
10 Ollas
11
11 Música
11
11
11
7 Jugo de
Tamarindo
8 Jugo de
Maracuya
9 Jugo de
Cereza
10 Jugo de
Zanahoria
11 Frijoles
12
12 Arroz
12
12
12
12
13
13 Carne
13
13
13
13
14
14 Cereal
14
14
14
14
15
15 Espagetti
15
15
15
15
7 Barco
8 Avión
9 Tren
10
52
7 Hornilla
Participant #24
Medios de
Transporte
1 Carro
Alimentos y
Bebidas
1 Carne
Ropa y
Complementos
1 Zapatos
Los niños
1 Juguetes
Bricolaje
1 Lámparas
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Platos
2 Bici
2 Pollo
2 Zapatillas
2 Libros
2 Tornillos
2 Cucharas
3 Patines
3 Tomate
3 Blusa
3 Pantalón
3 Plantas
3 Cuchillo
4 Pies
4 Pepino
4 Camisa
4 Camisetas
4 Luces
4 Taza
5 Bote
5 Fresas
5 Panty
5 Shorts
5 Cocinas
5 Vaso
6 Tren
6 Plátanos
6 Medias
6 Zapatillas
6 Tenedor
7 Patines
7 Fideos
7 Short
7 Escuela
8 Avión
8 Manzana
8 Bra
8 Vacunas
6 Neveras
7
Microondas
8 Martillos
9 Camión
9 Espinaca
9 Fustán
9 Edad
9 Llaves
9 Cocina
10 Taxi
10 Zanahoria
10 Enagua
10 Dientes
10 Fuego
11 Moto
11 Lechuga
11 Falda
11 Juegos
12
12 Papas
12 Blumer
12 Fútbol
10 Cajeras
11
Máquinas
12 Líquidas
13
13 Taquitos
13 Lavador
14 Pinturas
14 Depósito
15 Brochas
15 Colador
16
16 Sopa
16
16 Cortinas
16 Nevera
17
17 Tacosa
17
17 Tinas
17 Microondas
18
18 Frijoles
18
13 Piano
14 Boy
Scout
15 Verano
16
Vacaciones
17
Accidentes
18 Tenis
13 Limpieza
15
13 Refresco
14 Chicha
Morada
15 Arroz
18
19
19 Tallarines
19
19 Parque
20
20 Sandía
20
20
18 Puertas
19
Colgadores
20 Buzones
21
21 Uvas
21
21
21 Cintas
21
14
14 Corbata
15 Cartera
53
7 Servilletas
8 Jabón
11 Agua
12 Jugo
19
20
Participant #12
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Avión
1 Zapallo
1 Chaqueta
1 Pijama
1 Pintar
1 Cuchara
2 Auto
2 Papas
2 Chaleco
2 Camisón
2 Cepillo
2 Plato
3 Barco
3 Cebolla
3 Pantalón
3 Pañales
3 Lija
3 Servilleta
4 Bicicleta
4 Comino
4 Calcetines
4 Mantilla
4 Lima
4 Tenedor
5 Moto
5 Cilantro
5 Camisa
5 Calcetas
5 Brocha
5 Cuchillo
6 Patín
6 Perejíl
6 Vestón
6 Juguetes
6 Clavos
6 Servilletero
7 Alas Delta
7 Lechuga
7 Polera
7 Sonajeros
7 Martillo
7 Panera
8 Camión
8 Zanahoria
8 Zapatos
8 Babero
8 Serrucho
8 Juguera
9 Bus
9 Pepinos
9 Zapatillas
9 Colgantes
9 Goma
9 Colador
10 Caballo
10 Tomates
10 Aros
10
10 Lápiz
10 Tijera
11 Camello
11
11 Collar
11
11 Madera
11 Ollas
12 Cohete
12 Aceitunas
12 Lentes
12
12 Cerraduras
12 Sartén
13 Monopatín
13
13 Gorro
13
13 Aceite
14 Patines
14
14 Medias
14
14 Azucar
15 Skateboard
15
15 Calzón
15
13 Tornilla
14
Destornillador
15 Alicate
16
16
16 Sandalias
16
16
16 Pinzas
17
17
17 Corbata
17
17
17
18
18
18 Pulsera
18
18
18
19
19
19 Reloj
19
19
19
20
20
20 Anillo
20
20
20
54
15 Vasos
Participant #8
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
1 Tren
1 Carne
2 Lancha
3 Auto
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Pantalones
1 Pañales
1 Martillo
2 Pollo
2 Camisa
2 Toalla
2 Clavos
2 Sartén
3 Arroz
3 Vestido
3 Mamadera
3 Madera
3 Cuchara
4 Bote
4 Porotos
4 Traje
4 Andador
4 Pintura
4 Licuadora
5 Avión
5 Lechuga
5 Pollera
5 Coche
5 Lija
5 Olla a Presión
6 Helicóptero
6 Huevos
6 Caravanas
6 Osito
6 Pincel
6 Cafetera
7 Yate
7 Sal
7 Anillo
7 Pelele
7 Rodillo
7 Batidora
8 Aeroplano
8 Pimienta
8 Pulsera
8 Pelluche
8 Huincha
8 Medidor
9 Piernas
9 Pan
9 Lentes
9 Chupete
9 Tornillos
9 Espumadora
10 Camión
10 Gaseosa
10 Polera
10 Talco
10 Tenedor
11 Camioneta
11 Cerveza
11 Cinto
11 Gorrito
12 Omnibus
12 Ron
12 Cartera
12 Bañera
10 Nivel
11
Destornillador
12 Pala
13 Patines
13 Tequila
13 Billetera
13 Pico
14 Coche
14 Limonada
14 Reloj
15 Caballo
15 Chorizo
15 Sandalias
13 Teta
14 Asiento
de Auto
15
15 Alambre
13 Heladera
14 Lavadora de
Platos
15 Escoba
16
16 Palta
16 Chalas
16
16 Piedras
16 Pala
17
17 Pepino
17 Buzo
17
17 Plantas
17 Trapos
18
18 Papa
18 Chaleco
18
18 Flores
18 Esponja
19
19 Boniato
19 Campera
19
19 Abono
19
20
20 Fideos
20 Polerón
20
20
20
21
21 Agua
21 Remera
21
21
21
22
22 Vino
22 Cadena
22
22
22
23
23 Pate
23 Medalla
23
23
23
55
14 Tierra
1 Olla
11 Cuchillo
12 Cocina
Participant #52
Medios de
Transporte
1 Buseta
Alimentos y
Bebidas
1 Mora
Ropa y
Complementos
1 Zapatos
Los niños
1 Pañales
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus
Utensilios
1 Martillo
1 Estufa
2 Microbus
2 Marcacuya
2 Tennis
2 Tetero
2 Pegante
2 Nevera
3 Taxi
3 Guanabona
3 Pantuflas
3 Leche
3 Pinzas
3 Cuchillo
4 Tarifa
4 Mango
4 Camiseta
4 Chupo
4 Alicate
4 Cuchara
5 Carro
5 Ceruba
5 Chaqueta
5 Compota
5 Cerrucho
5 Tenedor
6 Tren
6 Fresa
6 Vestido
6 Cuna
6 Navaja
6 Plato
7 Bicicleta
7 Piña
7 Pantalon
7 Sonaja
7 Tijeras
7 Vaso
8 Moto
8 Papaya
8 Shorts
8 Panzelos
8 Cuchillo
8 Pasilla
9 Camión
9 Coco
9 Falda
9 Tina
9 Compresor de
Aire
9 Tabla para
Picar
10 Camioneta
10 Melocotón
10 Medias
10 Coche
10 Escoba
10 Olla
11 Auto
11 Durazno
11 Tacones
11 Silla de
Seguridad
11 Lija
11 Cacerola
12 Chiva
12 Somdia
12 Sandalias
12 Juguetes
12 Pintura
13 Patines
13 Papa
13 Botas
13 Ropa
13 Pinceles
14 Motocicleta
14 Cebolla
14 Cinturon
15 Bus
15 Queso
15 Calzones
14 Remedios
15
Termómetro
14 Madera
15 Pistola de
Aire
12 Cuchara de
Pollo
13 Trapo
14 Jabon
15 Esnopajo
16
Transmitenso
17 Transvia
16 Jamon
16 Brasier
16 Copitos
16 Linterna
17 Huevos
17 Cachucha
17 Tollcos
18 Bote
18 Pan
18 Sombrero
18 Shampó
19 Varco
19 Leche
19 Aretes
19 Crema
17 Aceite
18
Desengrasante
19 Tornilla
16 Escorridor
del Losa
17 Losa
18 Olla
Express
19 Licuadora
20 Avioneta
20 Jalea
20 Collar
20 Perfume
20 Puntilla
20 Batidora
21 Avión
21
Marmelada
21 Anillo
21 Toalla
21 Extension
Electrica
21 Bandeja
22 Helicóptero
22 Mayonesa
22 Saco
22 Chaqueta
22 Cargador
22 Horno
Microndas
23
23 Galletas
23 Chaleco
23 Silla para
Comer
23
23 Lava Platos
24
24 Arroz
24 Pijama
24 Cereal
24
24 Cajón
25
25 Aceite
25 Sudadera
25 Frutas
25
25
26
26 Bananas
26 Camisa
Ombliguera
26 Cepillo
26
26
27
27 Patilla
27 Vestido de
Baño
27 Vestidos
27
27
28
28 Pijamas
28
28
29
29 Caminador
29
29
30
30
30
30
28
29
30
28 Crema de
Leche
29 Lechera
30 Leche
Evaporada
56
Participant #71
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
1 Bus
1 Lucuma
2 Camion
3 La Chancha
4 Rompe
Huesos
5 La Guagua
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Gorra
1 Pañales
1 Pala
1 Tenedor
2 Palta
2 Bufanda
2 Coche
2 Serrucho
2 Cuchra
3 Chizirolla
3 Calzones
3 Gorrita
3 Rartillo
3 Cuchillo
4 Uva
4 Sosten
4 Pijamas
4 Clavos
4 Ollas
5 Lentejas
5 Pisana
5 Guantes
5 Escuadra
5 Tabla de Picar
6 Buseta
6 Porotoz
6 Calcetines
6 Caminador
6 Gato
6 Platos
7 La Yegua
7 Garbanzos
7 Zapatos
7 Locion
7 Pacanca
7 Colador
8 Taxi
8 Horchata
8 Camisas
8 Azaon
9 Colectivo
9 Zapallo
9 Poleras
9 Tijeras
10 Coleto
10 Mani
10 Berrudas
8 Colonia
9 Toallas
Huredas
10 Cuchillo
8 Tijeras
9 Afilador de
Cuchilla
10 Loba Bajidlas
11 La Burra
11 Manzanas
11 Short
11 Cortadora
de Pasto
11 Cortadora
de Pasto
12 El Troley
12 Peras
12 Chalas
12 Repizas
12 Repizas
12 Cucharon
13 Pullman
13 Platano
13 Correa
13 Pegarento
13 Regarento
13 Refrigerador
14 La Carreta
14 Lechuga
14 Chaleco
14 Duct Tape
14 Duct Tape
14 Expriridor
15 La Carroza
15
15 Poncho
15 La Gotita
15 La Gotita
16
16
16 Pasa Montañas
16 Pintura
16 Pintura
17
17
17 Corbata
17 Brochas
17 Brochas
15 Abrelatas
16 Copas de
Redir
17 Rallador
18
18
18 Playera
18
18
18 Vasos
57
10 Cuchillo
11 Ensaladera
Participant #85
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
1 Motocicleta
1 Carne
1 Short
1 Diaper
2 Bicicleta
2 Pollo
2 T-shirt
2 Formula
3 Carro
3 Pescado
3 Pantalones
4 Tren
4 Arroz
5 Avión
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
2 Tenedor
3 Palma
1 Martillo
2
Desarmador
3 Alicate
4 Camisas
4 Carros
4 Tornillos
4 Platos
5 Fideos
5 Camisetas
5 Muñecas
5 Clavos
5 Sartén
6 Caballo
6 Frijoles
6 Medias
6 Peluches
6 Madera
6 Copal
7 Lancha
8 Moto de
Nieve
7 Cebolla
7 Calzoncillos
7 Gorras
7 Cemento
7 Estufa
8 Ajo
8 Reloj de Mano
8 Zapatos
8 Ladrillos
8 Horno
9 Cuatri Moto
9 Naranja
9 Cincho
9 Shorts
9 Tubos
10 Scuter
10 Mango
10 Tacuche
10 Chamarras
10
Lavamanos
9 Horno de
Microonda
10 Tabla de
Cortar
11
11 Piña
11 Playera
Deportiva
11 Cuna
11 Ducha
11 Olla
12
12 Zanahoria
12 Medias de
Mujer
12 Medias
12 Lenolium
12 Cucharón
13
13 Tomate
13 Brasier
13 Compotas
13 Reglas
13 Licuadora
14
14 Ajete
14 Vestido
14 Polvo de
Niños
14 Metros
14 Procesadora
de Comida
15
15 Tuna
15 Falda
15 Leche
16
16 Salmón
16 Calzón
16
17
17 Clavo
17
17
18
18 Pimienta
18
19
19 Tomillo
20
21
22
1 Cuchara
3 Cuchillo
15 Molino de
Granos
16
18
15
Engrapadora
16 Insulación
17
Ventilador
18 Filtros
19
19
19 Piedras
19
20 Laurel
20
20
20 Tierra
20
21 Aceite
22 Sazón de
Pollo
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
58
17
18
Participant #66
Medios de
Transporte
Alimentos y
Bebidas
Ropa y
Complementos
Los niños
Bricolaje
La Cocina y
sus Utensilios
1 Taxi
1 Carne
1 Gorra
1 Pañales
1 Pegamento
1 Vaso
2 Trufi
2 Pasta
2 Camisa
2 Zapatos
2 Zerrucho
2 Plato
3 Micro
3 Pollo
3 Falsa
3 Cuna
3 Medidora
3 Cucharra
4 Bus
4 Pezcado
4 Pantalones
4 Wamzies
4 Regla
4 Tenedor
5 Flota
5 Tomate
5 Zapatos
5 Babero
5 Reloj
5 Cuchillo
6 Camion
6 Cebolla
6 Tennis
6 Sonajera
6 Sierre
6 Copas
7 Carro
7 Frijoes
7 Zapatos
Deportivos
7 Juguetes
7 Clavos
7 Place Matt
8 Limusina
8 Salchichas
8 Chamarra
8 Gerber
8 Tornillos
8 Cuchillo de
Mesa
9 Carreta
9 Lechuga
9 Blusa
9 Martillos
9 Salero
10 Trufi Carro
10 Arbejas
10 Fustan
11 Gondola
11 Miel
11 Sosten
12 Camioneta
12 Arroz
12 Calzan
13 Tren
13 Azucar
13 Pantalon de
Nieve
14 Avion
14 Cacao
15 Avioneta
9 Toallas
Huinedas
10 Potty
Training
11 Moises
12
Frazadita
10
Destornillador
11 Saca Clavos
10 Azucarrero
11 Cremero
12 Combo
12 Batidora
13
Biberones
13 Cuchilla
13 Secador de
Platos
14 Chompa
14 Gorrita
14 Tape Scotch
15 Marreqarina
15 Chulo
15 Baby Oil
15 Escoba
16 Bote
16 Leche
16 Abrigo
17 Canoa
17 Huevos
17 Bufanda
16 Baby
Lotion
17 Car Sit
18 Balsa
18 Queso
18 Pantaloneta
18 Muñecas
19
19 Pan
19 Polera
20
20 Pudin
14 Tenedor de
Ensalada
15 Cucharilla de
Postre
16 Saca Basurra
16 Cucharon
17 Corta Vidrio
18 Regla
Metalica
17 Olla
19 Ganchas
de Pañal
19 Hilo
19 Sarten
20 Polo
20 Zepillo
20 Hido de Odor
para Medir
20 Olla Plana
18 Bandeja
21 Faja de Vestido
21
21 Mantel
21 Cacerloa
22
21 Maiz
Cocido
22 Puerco
22 Media Nylon
22
22
23
23 Harina
23
23
23
24
24 Leche
24
24
24
22 Fuslero
23Aplastador de
Papa
24
21
59
Appendix F
Participant Responses to Visual Image Activity
ID#
12
8
20
Auto
Auto
Carro
Maletero
Maletero
Baúl
Bus
Omnibus
Autobus
Palomitas de Maíz
Palomitas de Maíz
Palomitas de Maíz
Cucaracha
Cucaracha
Escarabajo
Durazno
Damasco
Durazno
Palta
Palta
Aguacate
Porotos
Porotos
Granos
Lentes
Lentes
Lentes
Jardín
Pasto
Grama
Cortadora de Pasto
Cortadora de Pasto
Máquina de Cortar
Queque
Bizcocho
Pan Dulce
Lapicero
Lapicera
Lapicero
Acera
Vereda
Andén
Tomar el Bus
Tomar el Omnibus
Subir el Autobus
Conversar
Conversar
Conversar
Image
60
24
31
40
35
Carro
Carro
Carro
Carro
Maletero
Maleta
Maletera
Cajuela
Autobus
Autobus
Omnibus
Autobus
Maíz
Cotufa
Pocor
Palomitas de Maíz
Insecto
Escarabajo
Cucaracha
Escarabajo
Durazno
Durazno
Durazno
Durazno
Palta
Aguacate
Palta
Aguacate
Granos
Granos
Porotos
Legumbres
Lentes
Lentes
Lentes
Lentes
Grama
Grama
Pasto
Zacate
Máquina de Cortar
Cortadora de Grama
Cortadora de Pasto
Cortadora
Dulce
Ponqué
Quequito
Panecito
Lapicero
Pluma
Lapicero
Pluma
Acera
Acera
Vereda
Banqueta
Tomar el Autobus
Montar el Autobus
Tomar el Bus
Subir el Camión
Conversar
Socializar
Conversar
Platicar
61
71
52
44
78
Auto
Carro
Carro
Carro
Portamaletas
Baúl
Cajuela
Cajuela
Bus
Bus
Bus
Camión
Palomitas
Maíz Pira
Canguil
Palomitas
Escarabajo
Bicho
Escarabajo
Escarabajo
Durazno
Durazno
Durazno
Durazno
Palta
Aguacate
Aguacate
Aguacate
Legumbres
Granos
Fréjol
Legumbres
Lentes
Gafas
Lentes
Lentes
Pasto
Jardín
Césped
Jardín
Cortadora de Pasto
Podadora
Cortadora de
Césped
Podadora de Césped
Queque
Pastel
Pastelillo
Quequi
Lápiz
Lapicero
Esferográfico
Pluma
Vereda
Acera
Vereda
Banqueta
Tomar el Bus
Subirse al Bus
Coger el Bus
Tomar el Camión
Socializar
Hablar
Conversar
Socializar
62
18
95
61
53
Carro
Auto
Carro
Auto
----
Baúl
Baúl
Cajuela
Bus
Camioneta
Bus
Bus
Palomitas de Maíz
Popuropo
Maíz Pira
Canguil
Insecto
Ron Ron
Cucarrón
Cucaracha
Melocotón
Durazno
Durazno
Durazno
Aguacate
Aguacate
Aguacate
Aguacate
Granos
Frijoles
Frijol
Fréjol
Gafas
Anteojos
Lentes
Lentes
Grama
Grama
Jardín
Césped
Cortadora de Grama
Cortadora de
Césped
Cortadora
Podadora
Pastelito
Cubilete
Muffin
Muffin
Lapicero
Lapicero
Esfero
Esfero
Acera
Banqueta
Acera
Vereda
Tomar el Bus
Subir al Bus
Agarrar el Bus
Subirse al Bus
Platicar
Platicar
Charlar
Conversar
63
22
15
6
85
66
Auto
Volswagen
Carro
Carro
Carro
Baúl
Cajuela
Cajuela
Baúl
Cajuela
Colectivo
Automovil
Autobus
Autobus
Autobus
Pororo
Palomitas
Cotupas
Palomitas
Pipocas
Cascarudo
Escarabajo
Bicho
Cucaracha
Bicho
Durazno
Durazno
Durazno
Melocotón
Durazno
Aguacate
Aguacate
Aguacate
Aguacate
Palta
Granos
Semillas
Granos
Frijoles
Porotos
Lentes
Lentes
Lentes
Anteojos
Lentes
Pasto
Jardín
Jardín
Zacate
Pasto
Cortadora de
Cesped
Podadora
Podadora
Cortadora de
Pasto
Cortadora de
Pasto
Torta
Panecillo
Ponque
Pastelito
Pastel
Lapicera
Pluma
Lapicero
Lapicero
Bolígrafo
Vereda
Banqueta
Acera
Acera
Acera
Tomar el
Colectivo
Subir el
Transporte
Subir el
Autobus
Tomar el
Autobus
Subirse al
Micro
Charlar
Conversar
Conversar
Platicar
Hablar
64
Bibliography
Aaron, J. & Hernández, J. E. (2007). Quantitative evidence for contact-induced
accommodation: shifts in /s/ reduction patterns in Salvadorean Spanish in Houston.
In Potowski, K and Cameron, R (eds.), Spanish in contact: policy, social, and
linguistic inquiries, 329-244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ahumada, I. (2006). El léxico disponible de los estudiantes preuniveristarios de la provincia
de Jaén. Jaén: Universidad de Jaén.
Alba, O. (1995). Léxico disponible de la República Dominicana. Santiago de los Caballeros,
Dominican Republic: Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra.
Alba, O. (1995). El español dominicano dentro del contexto americano. Santo Domingo,
Dominican Republic: Librería La Trinitaria.
Alba, O. (1998). Variable léxica y dialectología hispánica. La Torre, 7-8, 299-316.
Alba, O. (1999). Densidad de anglicismos en el léxico disponible de la República
Dominicana, en Samper Padilla et al. (eds.). Actas del XI Congreso Internacional de
la ALFAL. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria,
Tomo II, pp.853-865.
Alba, O. (2000). Variable léxica y comparación dialectal, en Nuevos aspectos del español en
Santo Domingo. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, pp.99-132.
Alba, O. (2014). Observación del Cambio Lingüístico en Tiempo Real: El nuevo léxico
disponible de los dominicanos. Santo Domingo: BanReservas.
Auer, Peter & Frans Hinskens. 2005. The role of interpersonal accommodation in a theory of
language change. In Auer. P, Hinskens. F, & Kerswill. P (Eds.), Dialect change: The
convergence and divergence of dialects in European languages, (pp.335-357)
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
65
Ávila Muñoz, A. (2006). Léxico disponible de los estudiantes preuniversitarios de Málaga.
Málaga: Universidad de Málaga.
Ávila Muñoz, A. & Villena Ponsoda, J. (2010). Variación social del léxico disponible en la
ciudad de Málaga. Diccionario y análisis. Málaga: Editorial Sarría.
Bartol Hernández, J. (2006). La Disponibilidad Léxica. Revista Española de Lingüística 36,
379-390.
Benítez, P. (1994). Léxico real/léxico irreal en los manuales de español para extranjeros, en
Actas del II Congreso de ASELE. Málaga: ASELE.
Berthele, R. (2002). Learning a second dialect: A model of idiolectal dissonance.
Multilingua 21, 327-44.
Bortoni-Ricardo, S. M. (1985). The Urbanization of Rural Dialect Speakers: A
Sociolinguistic Study in Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowie, D. (2002). The effect of geographic mobility on the retention of a local dialect. (PhD
dissertation), University of Pennsylvania: USA.
Cabrera, C. E. H., & Hernández, M. S. (2002). Léxico disponible, norma culta y norma
popular. Archivo de filología aragonesa 59, 1341-1358.
Carcedo González, A. (1998). Sobre las pruebas de disponibilidad léxica para estudiantes de
español como lengua extranjera. RILCE 14(2), 205-224.
Carcedo González, A. (2000). Disponibilidad léxica en español como lengua extranjera.
Turku: Turun Yliopisto.
Chambers, J. (1992). Dialect Acquisition. Language, 68(4), 673-705.
Chinellato, A. A. (2011). Contacto y acomodación dialectal en la ciudad de Mérida: Un
estudio de caso. Lengua y Habla, 15(1), 148-154.
66
Dixon, L, Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J., Wu, S., Su, J., Burgess-Brigham, R., Gezer, M. U. & Snow,
C. (2012). What We Know About Second Language Acquisition: A Synthesis From
Four Perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5-60.
Drummond, R. (2013). The Manchester Polish STRUT: Dialect Acquisition in a Second
Language. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(1), 65-93.
Echeverría, M. (1991). Crecimiento de la disponibilidad léxica en estudiantes chilenos de
nivel básico y medio. En López Morales. H (ed.), La enseñanza del español como
lengua materna, (pp.61-78). Río Piedras: Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Escure, G. (1997). Creole and dialect continua standard acquisition processes in Belize and
China (PRC). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Evans, B. (2004). The role of social network in the acquisition of local dialect norms by
Appalachian migrants in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Language Variation and Change,
16(02), 153-167.
Fernández, A. M. (2002). Lexical Availability in Santa Fe, Argentina: Socioeconomic
Variation (Doctoral dissertation), Brigham Young University: USA.
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995a). Factors affecting degree of perceived
foreign accent in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97,
3125–3134.
Foreman, A. (2003). Pretending to be someone you’re not: A study of second dialect
acquisition in Australia. (PhD thesis). Monash University: Australia.
Garcia Domínguez, M. J., Marrera Pulido, V., Pérez Martín, J. A., & Piñero Piñero, G.
(1994). Estudio de la disponibilida léxica en Gran Canaria. La variable geográfica y
el tipo de educación. REALE: revista de estudios de adquisición de la lengua
española 2, 65-72.
67
Gardner, R. C. (1979). Social psychological aspects of second language acquisition. In H.
Giles and S. Clair (eds) Language and Social Psychology. (pp.193-220). Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Gardner, R. C & Smythe, P. C. (1975). Second Language Acquisition: A Social
Psychological Approach.
Gomez Devís, B. (2003). La disponibilidad léxica de los estudiantes preuniversitarios
valencianos: metodología, análisis sociolingüístico y aplicaciones. (Tesis doctoral).
Universidad de Valencia: España.
Gómez Molina, J. R. & Gómez Devis, B. (2004). La disponibilidad léxica de los estudiantes
preuniversitarios valencianos. Estudio de estratificación sociolingüística. Valencia:
Universitat de Valencia.
González Martínez, A. (1999). Andalucismos del Léxico Disponible de la provincia de
Cádiz. Tavira 16, 181-193.
González Martínez, A. (2002). La disponibilidad léxica de los alumnos preuniversitarios de
la provincia de Cádiz. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz.
González Martínez, A. & Orellana Ramírez, P. (1999). El comportamiento de la variable
sexo en el léxico disponible de Cádiz. Revista de Estudios de Adquisición de la
Lengua Española (REALE) 11, 65-75.
González Martínez, A., & Orellana Ramírez, P. (2006). Anglicismos en el léxico disponible
de la provincia de Cádiz (España). Boletín de Lingüística 18(25), 3-21.
Ivars, A. (1994). Bidialectalism and identity. In Nordberg (ed.), pp. 203-22.
Jiménez-Berrio, F. (2013). Léxico disponible de inmigrantes escolares no hispanohablantes.
Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra.
Kalan, M. Š. (2015). Disponibilidad léxica en diferentes niveles de español/lengua
extranjera. Studia Romanica Posnaniensia, 41(1), 63-85.
68
Kerswill, P. (1994). Dialects Converging: Rural Speech in Urban Norway. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Labov, W. (2010). Principles of Linguistic Change. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wil
ey.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/doi/10.1002/9781444327496.ch9/pdf.
Laserna, M. S. S. (2009). La variable ‘nivel de español’en el léxico disponible de los
estudiantes de español como lengua extranjera. Pragmalingüística 17, 140-153.
Long, M. H. (1990). Maturational Constraints on Language Development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 12(3), 251-285.
López Chávez, J. (1992). Alcances panhispánicos del léxico disponible. Lingüística 4, 26124.
López Chávez, J. (1993). El léxico disponible de escolares mexicanos. Mexico City:
Alhambra Mexicana.
López Chávez, J. (1995). Léxico fundamental panhispánico: realidad o utopía. In Actas del
III Congreso Internacional sobre el Español de América, tomo II, (pp.1006-1014).
Santiago de Chile; Universidad Católica de Chile.
López Morales, H. (1973). Disponibilidad léxica de los escolares de San Juan.San Juan de
Puerto. (Unpublished book).
López Morales, H. (1978). Frecuencia, disponibilidad y programación curricular, en López
Morales, H. (ed.): Aportes de la lingüística a la enseñanza del español como lengua
materna, número especial del Boletín de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua
Española (BAPLE) 6(1).
López Morales, H. (1979). Dialectología y sociolingüística. Temas puertorriqueños.
Madrid: Hispanova de Ediciones.
69
López Morales, H. (1999). Anglicismos en el léxico disponible de Puerto Rico, en Ortiz
López, Luis A. (ed.): El Caribe hispánico: perspectivas lingüísticas actuales.
Homenaje a Manuel Álvarez Nazario. Frankfurt-Madrid: Vervuert Iberoamericana,
pp.147-170.
Magnúsdóttir, S. (2012). Disponibilidad léxica en alumnos de español como lengua
extranjera: Estudio sobre el léxico disponible en alumnos ELE en la secundaria en
Islandia. Retrieved from
http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/12744/31050/3/Sigr%C3%BAn_Magn%C3%Bas
d%C3%B3ttir.pdf.
Mena Osorio, M. (1986). Disponibilidad léxica infantil en tres niveles de enseñanza básica.
(Unpublished master’s thesis), Universidad de Concepción: Concepción, Chile.
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and Social Networks (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (1993). Mechanisms of change in urban dialects: The role of class,
social network, and gender. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 3, 57-77.
Molina, I. (2006). Innovación y difusión del cambio lingüístico en Madrid. Revista de
Filología Española, 86(1), 127-149.
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of
morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125142.
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
Morera, L. E. (2003). Lenguas en contacto y disponibilidad léxica: la situación lingüística e
intercultural de Ceuta y Gibraltar. Linred: lingüística en la Red, (1), 10.
Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Flege, J. E. (1999). Canadians in Alabama: a perceptual
study of dialect acquisition in adults. Journal of Phonetics, 27(4), 385-403.
70
Omdal, H. (1994). From the valley to the city: Language modificiation and language
attitudes. In Nordberg (ed.), pp. 116-48.
Otheguy, R. & Zentella, A. C. (2012). Spanish in New York: language contact, dialect
leveling, and structural continuity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oyama, S. (1973). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a second language. (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation). Harvard University: USA.
Paredes, F. (2001). Disponibilidad léxica en alumnos de enseñanza secundaria de Alcalá y su
comarca: resultados generales, en De La Cruz, I et al (eds.), La Lingüística aplicada a
finales del siglo XX. Ensayos y propuestas. Actas del XT/II Congreso AESLA. Alcalá
de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá, tomo II, pp.721-728.
Paredes, F. (2005). El campo léxico de los colores: convergencias y divergencias en grupos
sociales de Madrid, en Memorias del XIV Congreso Internacional de ALFAL.
Monterrey (México): Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.
Parodi, C. (2003). Contacto de dialectos del español en Los Angeles. Ensayos de lengua y
pedagogía, 23-38.
Payne, A. (1978). The acquisition of the phonological system of a second dialect. (PhD
dissertation), University of Pennsylvania: USA.
Pérez Castillejo, S. (2013). Convergencia en una situación de contacto de dialectos
peninsulares en EEUU. Spanish in Context, 10(1), 1-29.
Pesqueira, D. (2008). Cambio fónico en situaciones de contacto dialectal: El caso de los
inmigrantes bonaerenses en la ciudad de México. In Herrera, E & Butragueño, P. M
(Eds.), Fonología instumental: patrones fónicos y variación (pp.171-189). México
D.F: Colegio de México.
Potowski, K. (2011). Intrafamilial Dialect Contact. The Handbook of Hispanic
Sociolinguistics, 579-597.
71
Rys, K. (2007). Dialect as a second language: Linguistic and non-linguistic factors in
secondary dialect acquisition by children and adolescents. (PhD dissertation), Ghent
University: Belgium.
Samper Hernández, M. (2001). Disponibilidad léxica en español como lengua extranjera.
(Tesina de licenciatura inédita). Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.
Samper Hernández, M. (2002). Disponibilidad léxica en alumnos de español como lengua
extranjera. Málaga: ASELE.
Samper Padilla, J. A. (1999). Léxico disponible y variación dialectal: datos de Puerto Rico y
Gran Canaria. In Estudios de lingüística hispánica: homenaje a María Vaquero (pp.
550-573). San Juan, Puerto Rico: Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Sánchez Morales, V. & Murillo Rojas, M. (1993). Campos semánticos y disponibilidad
léxica en preescolares. Revista Educación 17(3), 15-25.
Saralegui, C., & Tabernero, C. (2008). Aportación al proyecto panhispánico de léxico
disponible: Navarra.
Serrano, J. (2002). Dialectos en Contacto: Variación y Cambio Lingüístico en Migrantes
Sonorenses. (tesis doctorado), Colegio de México: Ciudad de México.
Shokey, L. (1984). All in a flap: Long-term accommodation in phonology. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 46, 87-95.
Siegel, J. (2010). Second dialect acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stanford, J. N. (2007). Dialect contact and identity: A case study of exogamous Sui clans.
(PhD dissertation), Michigan State University: USA.
Tagliamonte, S. A. & Molfenter, S. (2007). How’d You Get That Accent?: Acquiring a
Second Dialect of the Same Language. Language in Society, 36(5), 649-675.
Trudgill, P. (1981). Linguistic accommodation: Sociolinguistic observations on a
sociopsychological theory. In Masek, C. S., Hendrick. R., and Miller. M. (Eds.),
72
Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behaviour, (pp.218-37). Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Community.
Woods, N. J. (2007). The formation and development of New Zealand English: Interaction
of gender-related variation and linguistic change. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1(1),
95-125.
Zentella, A. C. (2011). Spanish in New York: Language Contact, Dialectal Leveling, and
Structural Continuity. Oxford Scholarship Online.
73