1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. English World-Wide
  4. Volume 44, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 44, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0172-8865
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study considers the role of Spanish-to-English calques in a variety of English that has developed alongside Spanish in Miami (U.S.). Data were obtained from three sources: (1) a production experiment (translation task) conducted with two generations of Cuban Americans, (2) a perception experiment (acceptability task) conducted with Miami-based raters and raters from a national audience using Mechanical Turk, and (3) calques and related lexico-semantic phenomena culled from a corpus of sociolinguistic interviews conducted with Latinx college students. Results of the production task show that Spanish-dominant participants make robust use of calque expressions; second-generation participants use them less. Results of mixed linear effects regression analysis show that Miamians perceive of local expressions more favorably than national participants, though like national raters rank non-calque expressions more highly than calques. The approval of the Miami raters to the local expressions was driven primarily by six test items: (e.g. ).

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/eww.22036.car
2022-11-01
2023-12-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/eww.22036.car
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, Bridget L.
    1999 “Source-Language Transfer and Vowel Accommodation in the Patterning of Cherokee English /ai/ and /oi/”. American Speech741: 339–368.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1933 Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Boswell, Thomas
    1994 The Cubanization and Hispanicization of Metropolitan Miami. Miami: Cuban American National Council.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Buhrmester, Michael, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D. Gosling
    2011 “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?” Perspectives on Psychological Science61: 3–5. 10.1177/1745691610393980
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 [Google Scholar]
  5. Callesano, Salvatore, and Phillip M. Carter
    2019 “Latinx Perceptions of Spanish Language Variation in Miami: Dialect Variation, Personality Attributes, and Language Use”. Language and Communication671: 84–98. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.03.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carter, Phillip M., and Salvatore Callesano
    2018 “The Social Meaning of Spanish in Miami: Dialect Perceptions and Implications for Socioeconomic Class, Income and Employment”. Latino Studies161: 65–90. 10.1057/s41276‑017‑0105‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1057/s41276-017-0105-8 [Google Scholar]
  7. Carter, Phillip M., and Andrew Lynch
    2014 “Ideological Dimensions of Speech Perception in Bilingual Miami”. Paper presented atWorkshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Madison,.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2015 “Multilingual Miami: Current Trends in Sociolinguistic Research”. Language and Linguistics Compass91:369–385. 10.1111/lnc3.12157
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12157 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2018 “On the Status of Miami as a Southern City: Defining Language and Region through Demography and Social History”. InJeffrey Reaser, Eric Wilbanks, Karissa Wojcik, and Walt Wolfram, eds.Language Variety in the New South: Contemporary Perspectives on Change and Variation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 375–396.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Carter, Phillip M., Lydda López Valdez, and Nandi Sims
    2020 “New Dialect Formation through Language Contact: Vocalic and Prosodic Developments in Miami English”. American Speech951: 119–148. 10.1215/00031283‑7726313
     https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-7726313 [Google Scholar]
  11. Castellanos, Isabel
    1990 “The Use of English and Spanish Among Cubans in Miami”. Cuban Studies201: 49–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cerny, Jacob
    2009 “An In-Depth Phonetic Analysis of the Miami Dialect”. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Williams College.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Chambers, Jack K.
    2003 Sociolinguistic Theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Cowart, Wayne
    1997 Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Doernberger, Jeremy, and Jacob Cerny
    2008 “The Low Back Merger in Miami”. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics141: 11–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Drange, Eli-Marie D.
    2009 “Anglicismos en el lenguaje juvenil chileno y noruego: Un análisis comparativo”. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Bergen.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Ferguson, Charles, and John J. Gumperz
    eds. 1960 Linguistic Diversity in South Asia: Studies in Regional. Social. and Functional Variation. Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1997 Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Godinez, Manuel Jr., and Ian Maddieson
    1985 “Vowel Differences between Chicano and General Californian English?” International Journal of the Sociology of Language531: 43–58. 10.1515/ijsl.1985.53.43
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1985.53.43 [Google Scholar]
  20. de Groot, Annette M. B.
    1997 “The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation: Three Approaches”. InJoseph Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael K. McBeath, eds.Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 25–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gumperz, John
    1964 “Linguistic and Social Interaction in Two Communities”. American Anthropologist661: 137–153. 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00100
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00100 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hockett, Charles F.
    1990 “Bring, Take, Come, and Go”. Journal of English Linguistics231: 239–244. 10.1177/0075424290023001‑219
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424290023001-219 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kroch, Anthony
    1989 “Function and Grammar in the History of English: Periphrastic do”. InRalph Fasold, and Deborah Schiffrin, eds.Language Change and Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133–172. 10.1075/cilt.52.09kro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.52.09kro [Google Scholar]
  24. Labov, William
    1972 Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 1991 “The Three Dialects of English”. InPenelope Eckert, ed.New Ways of Analyzing Sound Change. New York: Academic Press. 1–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 2008 “Mysteries of the Substrate”. InMiriam Meyerhoff, and Naomi Nagy, eds.Social Lives in Language: Sociolinguistics and Multilingual Speech Sommunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 315–326. 10.1075/impact.24.19lab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.24.19lab [Google Scholar]
  27. Leap, William L.
    1993 Native American English. University of Utah Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. López, Lydda
    2015 “Vowels in the 305: A First Pass at Miami Latino English”. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Florida International University.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. MacDonald, Marguerite
    1985 “Cuban-American English: The Second Generation in Miami”. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Florida.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 1988 “Fossilization and an Emerging Social Dialect”. Lenguas modernas151:115–124.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 1990 “Sociolinguistic Variation and the Multidimensional Model of Acculturation”. Romance Languages Annual11:677–681.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mahler, Sarah
    2018 “Monolith or Mosaic? Miami’s Twenty-First-Century Latino Dynamics”. Latino Studies161: 2–20. 10.1057/s41276‑018‑0117‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1057/s41276-018-0117-z [Google Scholar]
  33. Martín García, J.
    1998 “Los prefijos intensivos del español: Caracterización morfo-semántica”. ELUA. Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante121, 103–116. 10.14198/ELUA1998.12.07
     https://doi.org/10.14198/ELUA1998.12.07 [Google Scholar]
  34. Metcalf, Allan A.
    1974 “The Study of California Chicano English”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language21: 53–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Munzenrieder, Kyle
    2014 “Miami Slang Glossary: Pero Like, It’s Super-Definitive, Bro”. Miami New TimesApril 25, 2014. https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-slang-glossary-pero-like-its-super-definitive-bro-6528513
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Ortega-Santos, Iván
    2019 “Crowdsourcing for Hispanic Linguistics: Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a Source of Spanish Data”. Borealis81: 187–214. 10.7557/1.8.1.4670
     https://doi.org/10.7557/1.8.1.4670 [Google Scholar]
  37. Otheguy, Ricardo, Ofelia García, and Ana Roca
    2000 “Speaking in Cuban. The Language of Cuban Americans”. InSandra McKay, and Sau-ling Wong, eds.New Immigrants in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 165–188.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Preston, Dennis
    1984 “Take and Bring”. Word351: 177–186. 10.1080/00437956.1984.11435755
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1984.11435755 [Google Scholar]
  39. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2021 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. r-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Rankinen, Wil
    2014 “The Michigan Upper Peninsula English Vowel System in Finnish American Communities in Marquette County”. American Speech891: 312–347. 10.1215/00031283‑2848989
     https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2848989 [Google Scholar]
  41. Rodríguez Ponce, M. I.
    1999 “La competencia entre super- y mega- en español actual”. Anuario de Estudios Filológicos221: 359–371.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Sankoff, Gillian
    2002 “Linguistic Outcomes of Language Contact”. InPeter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes, eds.Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 638–668.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Schilling, Natalie
    2013 Sociolinguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511980541
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511980541 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schütze, Carson, and Jon Sprouse
    2013 “Judgment Data”. InRobert J. Podesva, and Devyani Sharma, eds.Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 27–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. “Shit Miami Girls Say... and Guys” 2012 Sh*t Miami Girls say. January 26 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtB29gJ6dLQ
     [Google Scholar]
  46. “Shit Miami Girls Say... and Guys Part 2” 2012 Sh*t Miami Girls say. February 1 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2OLJIbfTm8
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen
    1994 Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. New York: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Smead, Robert N.
    1988 “English Loanwords in Chicano Spanish: Characterization and Rationale”. Bilingual Review/Revista Bilingüe231: 113–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2000 “Phrasal Calques in Chicano Spanish: Linguistic or Cultural Innovation?” InAna Roca, ed.Research on Spanish in the U.S.Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 162–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Thomas, Erik R.
    2019 Mexican American English: Substrate Influence and the Birth of an Ethnolect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316162316
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316162316 [Google Scholar]
  51. Thomason, Sarah Grey
    2001 Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Terrence Kaufman
    1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520912793
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520912793 [Google Scholar]
  53. Toribio, Jacqueline
    2001 “Accessing Spanish-English Code-Switching Competence”. International Journal of Bilingualism51: 403–436. 10.1177/13670069010050040201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069010050040201 [Google Scholar]
  54. U.S. Census Bureau
    U.S. Census Bureau 1960 1960 Census. U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov/1960/census/data
     [Google Scholar]
  55. U.S. Census Bureau
    U.S. Census Bureau 2000 2000 Census. U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov/2000/census/data
     [Google Scholar]
  56. U.S. Census Bureau
    U.S. Census Bureau 2010 2010 Census. U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gove/2010/census/data
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Weinreich, Uriel
    1951 “Research Problems in Bilingualism, with Special Reference to Switzerland”. Ph. D. thesis, Columbia University.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Winford, Donald
    2003 An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/eww.22036.car
Loading
Spanish-influenced lexical phenomena in emerging Miami English
English World-Wide 44, 219 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.22036.car
/content/journals/10.1075/eww.22036.car
/content/journals/10.1075/eww.22036.car
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): calques; English; language contact; Miami; Spanish

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error