Inter-generational contact and
variation in agreement in AfroBolivian Spanish DPs
Bangor University
10 January 2011
Manuel Delicado-Cantero
Sandro Sessarego
Australian National University
The Ohio State University
ESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism,
Bangor University
sessarego.1@osu.edu
manuel.delicado@anu.edu.au
1
Outline





Introduction
Socio-historical overview
Afro-Bolivian Determiner Phrase features
A Formal Analysis to account for Number
Agreement Variation in the DP
Conclusions
2
Introduction

This study evaluates variation in the number agreement system of
Afro-Bolivian Spanish, an Afro vernacular dialect deriving from what
was once a Spanish bozal (black slaves from Africa and their
descendants) language spoken in Los Yungas, Department of La
Paz, Bolivia.

Results indicate a case of cross-generational change, consisting of
the systematic substitution of stigmatized basilectal Afro-Bolivian
features with more prestigious High Bolivian Spanish ones. One of
the outcomes of this situation is the transition from one number
agreement system to another (and the consequent mix).

Our purpose is to shed light on the linguistic constraints regulating
number agreement and propose a theoretical framework capable of
accounting for the variation encountered.

Intra-speaker variation becomes the core in the research, thus
reclaiming previously disregarded phenomena –i.e., previously
considered as E-language phenomena (Adger and Trousdale
2007).
3
4
http://www.francescjosep.net/camino-a-los-yungas-definitivamenteuna-carretera-extrema/
5
Socio-historical overview

Afro-Bolivian Spanish is supposed to be the oldest
surviving Afro-Hispanic dialect in Latin America.

Its speakers are believed to be the descendents of
African slaves taken to the New World to work in Potosí
silver mines during the 16th century.

Africans started being used as slaves presumably
around the 18th century in Los Yungas, tropical valleys
in which they did agricultural work (Crespo 1976, Lipski
2006, 2008).
6
Socio-historical overview

Slavery was formally abolished in Bolivia in 1826,
reestablished in 1830, and abolished again in 1831.

However, until 1952, when the Land Reform took place,
Afro-Bolivians continued to be employed in Los Yungas
as slaves in haciendas.
7
Socio-historical overview

The most important North Yungas communities
containing high concentrations of Afro-Bolivians are
Tocaña, Mururata, Chijchipa, Coscoma, Dorado Chico
and Khala Khala.

In South Yungas the principal black community is
Chicaloma.

Both areas are mainly inhabited by Aymara-speaking
indigenous population.
8
Socio-historical overview

Black Yungueños in South Yungas have frequently
intermarried with Aymaras, speak Aymara and wear
traditional Aymara clothing. As a result, in this area only
a few of the traditional dialect features remain.

On the other hand, in North Yungas communities, AfroBolivians remain linguistically and culturally separate
from Aymaras; Afro-Hispanic speech still survives and is
used as intra-group language between the members of
the community.
9
Socio-historical overview

Typically, until 1952 black workers were not allowed to attend
school.

However, after that date, the hacienda system ended and
basic public education began to arrive in Afro-Yungueño
communities.

The study of Spanish at schools, the possibility of traveling
outside of Yungas, and the stigmatization attached to ABS
resulted in a gradual drop of the traditional dialect by AfroBolivians.

As a consequence, some features of this vernacular have
gradually been displaced by Highland Bolivian Spanish (HBS)
ones.
10
ABS DP features

Lipski (2006) points out features of ABS DP, including:
(a) lack of noun-adjective gender agreement:
1. La
fiesta
muy bonito
The.fem.sg party.fem.sg very beautiful.®.sg
`The very nice party’
(b) invariant plurals:
2. 100 mandarina
100 mandarin.Ø
`100 mandarins’
[HBS bonita]
[HBS 100 mandarinas]
(c) extra invariant plural definite article lu (‘the-pl’):
3. Lu
taza
[HBS las tazas]
The-pl cup.Ø
11
‘The cups’
Number variation inside the DP
(d) frequently, the retention of plural /s/ only on the
first element of plural DPs:
4. Mis abuelo
My.pl grandparent.Ø
‘My grandparents’
5. Las
cosa
The.pl thing.Ø
’The things’
[HBS mis abuelos]
[HBS las cosas]
12
ABS DP features

Lipski (2006) argues that DP features (gender, number)
percolate up from the noun to the determiner (Grimshaw
1991; 1997) and eventually to the post-nominal element.
 Cross-generationally,
no case of post-nominal gender
concord is found unless pre-nominal elements agree
(Lipski 2006: 35):
6. *un curva
ancha
[HBS una curva ancha]
a.Ø curve.fem.sg. wide.fem.sg
‘a large curve’(Lipski 2006)
13
Our Data

944 tokens were extracted from a corpus of recorded
interviews with the eldest speakers in the communities of
Tocaña and Mururata, North Yungas.

The interviews were conducted by letting the speakers
talk about any topic of their choice plus follow-up
questions:
 In line with the principle of Tangential Shift (Labov 1984:37),
the goal was therefore to attempt to reduce the Observer’s
Paradox (Labov 1972) as much as possible.
14
http://www.afropop.org/multi/feature/ID/862
Reuters: http://www.daylife.com/photo/0gsse0U2WZ0hc
15
Table 1
Grammatical status
Inflection
Non-inflectional
Percentage of deletion
64% (N=532)
30% (N=412)
• Functional Hypothesis (Kiparsky 1972: 195): phonological
elements loaded with a morphological plural value (e.g.
casa-s ‘house-s’) should be more resistant to deletion.
• However, our data show that the opposite is true for ABS
16
Syntax matters

Our results indicate that the rate of –s ‘omission’ is higher for
inflectional instances of –s (see Table 1)

Strictly phonological factors are playing only a limited role.

Supported by the occurrence of plural forms like lu dictador
[los dictadores] ‘the dictators’, lu varón [los varones] ‘the
males’ without the –e of the Spanish plural morpheme.

ABS –s plural marking variation is syntactic rather than
phonological.
17
Table 2
Grammatical category
Adjective
Noun
Determiner
.65
.55
.38
Table 2. Contribution of Grammatical Category to the Omission of Plural (s) (Log
likelihood = -287.688, Significance = 0.007, N=944)
Results agree with Lipsky’s works: more omission for
adjectives than for Ds
18
ABS DP features

Our data are in line with Lipski’s, but some cases seem
to contradict the pre-nominal to post-nominal percolation
order.
Number/gender disagreement on strong quantifiers
(despite highest position in the clause)
7. Todo las
all.Ø
the.fem.pl
cosa
bonita [HBS todas las cosas bonitas]
thing.fem.Ø pretty.fem.Ø
‘all the nice things’
19
A new approach

Percolation cannot account for the data

Formal analysis of variation based on feature
presence/absence (Adger & Smith 2005, Adger &
Trousdale 2007)

Minimalist program approach to agreement
20
A formal analysis

In the minimalist framework, agreement is conceived
as the result of valuation processes.

Number agreement involves the transmission or
sharing of features with (normally) nominal origin to
other lexical items (adjectives) or to functional elements
(determiners, quantifiers), thus accounting for internal
concord/agreement in the DP (Chomsky 2000, 2001,
2004; Frampton & Gutmann 2000; Carstens 2000)
21
Features in a formal analysis

The Minimalist Program distinguishes between
interpretable and uninterpretable features:
 Interpretable
features have an interpretation at LF or
SEM (e.g. tense on V).
Really meaningful
 Uninterpretable
features lack semantic import and
are present to trigger the necessary merger or
agreement operations during the derivation (e.g.
number on A)
Redundant information
22
Features in a formal analysis

The Minimalist Program distinguishes between valued
and unvalued features:
 Valued
features are those that possess a value of
the feature
 Unvalued
features are those which await valuation
23
Agree

Operation Agree
A probe lacking feature specification searches for a local –i.e. ccommanded– goal (inside its domain) to undergo agreement
(Chomsky 2000: 101, 134; Chomsky 2001: 12, 15)

Valuation/Interpretability biconditional (Chomsky 2001):
1. Uninterpretable features are unvalued
2. Interpretable features are valued
Therefore,
3. Uninterpretable features must be valued and deleted
24
http://www2.let.uu.nl/uil-ots/lexicon/
25
Feature sharing and multiple Agree



Feature sharing (Frampton and Gutmann 2000; Pesetsky and
Torrego 2004, 2007)
Multiple Agree (Hiraiwa 2001, Carstens 2001, Chomsky 2008: 142)
Necessary to account for multiple expression of a feature inside the
DP (as is the norm in Romance, for instance)
Agree (Pesetsky and Torrego 2007:4): valued vs. unvalued
(i)
An unvalued feature F (a probe) on a head H at syntactic
location  (F) scans its c-command domain for another
instance of F (a goal) at location  (F) with which to agree.
(ii)
Replace F with F, so that the same feature is present in both
locations.
26
Valuation process
Unvalued PROBE
Valued GOAL
Matching feature present
PROBE c-commands
GOAL
Result: same feature in
both categories
27
Possible feature specifications




uF [ ]: uninterpretable, unvalued feature
iF [ ]: interpretable, unvalued feature
uF [val]: uninterpretable, valued feature
iF [val]: interpretable, valued feature
28
Number features

Number agreement involves uninterpretable features of all
items except for Num. Num carries an interpretable feature
[num] (Picallo 2008, Pesetsky & Torrego 2007).

Nouns carry an uninterpretable valued feature for number
[unum: + pl] (Picallo 2008: 59; cf. Zamparelli 2008 for number
features)

Determiners and adjectives bear an uninterpretable feature
for number [unum: ], which is valued after probing and
matching the feature on N.

Unvalued features probe for valued features to agree with
(only unvalued Fs can be probes (Pesetsky & Torrego
2004/2007, Picallo 2008))
29
Formal syntactic variation





Adger & Smith (2005)
Certain uninterpretable features may be variably present in
one category but absent in another.
Being uninterpretable, they would have no semantic
repercussion, thus being equally legitimate for a convergent
derivation with different phonological outcomes
Variation is reduced to the specification of the uninterpretable
features in a derivation (Adger & Smith 2005: 161)
Underspecification of uninterpretable features
→ no-F [ ]

Complies with Brody’s (1997) Radical Interpretability
30
Sociolinguistic factors

Several (social) factors may affect the item selection:
 ease
of lexical access (probably linked to frequency
of use)
 speaker-hearer relationships
 social identity, etc.
(Adger & Smith 2005: 164)
31
A preview of the analysis

Certain uninterpretable features may be present in a
certain entry but absent in another:
8. Unos
amigos
uF[val]…. uF[val]
9. Unos amigo.Ø
uF[val].… no-F[ ]
32
ABS DPs
10.
a. [DP lus [NumP guaguas
jóvenes]]
 unum[+pl]……inum[+pl]……………...unum[+pl]
b. [DP lus [NumP guaguas
joven]]
 unum[+pl]……inum[+pl]….………….no-num[..]
c. [DP lus [NumP guagua
joven]]
 unum[+pl]…… no-num[..]..…..……..no-num[..]
‘The young kids’ (adapted from Lipski 2008: 93)
33
Crosslinguistic evidence
Other languages show impoverished agreement in DP

Amele (Corbett 2000: 137):
11.
a. Dana (uqa) hoia
man 3.sg came.sg
‘The man came’
b. Dana (ale) hosia
man 3.dual came.dual
‘The two men came’
c. Dana (age) hoiga
man 3.pl came.pl
‘The men came’
34
Other cases

Brazilian Portuguese (Braga 1977, Scherre & Naro 1998,
2006; Magalhães 2004; Simioni 2007, among others)

Colloquial French (Rowlett 2007: 19-20): loss of liaison

Cape Verdean Creole (Baptista 2007)
35
Locating [inum: +pl]

Several recent works point to the interpretability of [num]
on D:
1. Magalhães (2004): BP
2. Carvalho (2006): Uruguayan Spanish in contact with
Portuguese

Support:
 Abney (1987): DET as I
 Olsen (1989): German D carries all phi-features
 Longobardi (1994): [num] on D, not on N
36
Interpretable [num] on Num vs. N

NumP (Ritter 1991, 1995; Picallo 2008)

Hypothesis for variation:
1. Full redundancy [inum: ] on Num + valued on N
2. Only D: [inum: ] on Num, no-F on N + N-to-n-to-Num,
feature valued on D after Agree

Variation is located only on the featural content of lexical categories
(as expected for variation and change)

Partial valuation due to defective (i.e., missing) phi-feature (Bejar
2003: 61)

Ortmann’s (2000) Principle of economic plural marking
37
Variation in ABS DPs
10.
a. [DP lus [NumP [NP guaguas
jóvenes]]
 unum[+pl]……inum[+pl]……………...unum[+pl]
b. [DP lus [NumP [NP guaguas
joven]]
 unum[+pl]……inum[+pl]….………….no-num[..]
c. [DP lus [NumP [NP guagua
joven]]
 unum[+pl]……inum
no-num[..]..…..……..no-num[..]
‘The young kids’ (adapted from Lipski 2008: 93)
Feature [ + pl] (Zamparelli 2008)
38
Full agreement
39
Full agreement

Analysis based on Bernstein (1993), Picallo (2008): [num] on Num

Pesetsky & Torrego (2007) suggest that [inum: ] may actually be
always located in Num in Spanish

No [inum: ] on N in Spanish

Carstens (2001: 154): N-to-n-to-Num, but not for morphological
reasons (no strong feature movement; cf. Alexiadou 2001)

Postnominal APs are located following Demonte (2008: 25, 27)

Agreement between APs and N feature sharing Num-A-N (Danon
2008)
40
Overt marking on D only
41
Overt marking on D only

Num carries valued [inum: ] from Lexical Array/Numeration
(Picallo 2008)

N movement forced by N-feature on n and Num (EPP or
categorial F; cf. Alexiadou 2001: 223)

Absence of [num] on A and N eliminates probing

[num] feature is overtly marked on D as affix (materialization
of [+ pl] in Spanish in the morphology component). No
relevant lexical item in Num for any –s to materialize (N is not
eligible; defective, underspecified for [num]).

Feature interpreted once in the chain, as needed (Brody
1997)
42
Restrictions on variation

Why not?
12. *[DP el
No-num[]
[NP guaguas
[+pl]
jóvenes]
[+pl]

Ds always c-command Num and thus, carrying
uninterpretable unvalued [num], probe for a goal for
agreement. Num carries the necessary features for
agreement.

Adjectives lower in the tree will require valued features
on N to be able to agree with N (via FS)
43
Lack of plural on Qs

Qs project above DP, and thus are not Ds (NP-based
analysis of Qs also accounts for lack of agreement: like
As)

They do not carry specification for [num], like As
13 [QP todo [DP lus
[NumP guagua
joven]]]
no-num[..] unum[+pl]…. no-num[..]..…..……..no-num[..]
all.Ø
the.pl
boy.Ø
young.Ø
‘All the young boys’

In keeping with Ortmann’s (2000) Principle of economic
plural marking
44
Semantic number marking

Numerals such as tres (three) carry inherent plural
features, thus licensing number on semantic grounds.
Maybe also for strong quantifiers such as mucho/todo.

Crosslinguistic evidence: Hungarian, Archi (Caucasus),
Kurdish, Huanca Quechua, etc. (cf. Ortmann 2000: 2523)
45
Conclusion

Difference in feature content in the items in the syntactic derivation
account for variation

Different phonological outputs correspond with one semantic
interpretation

Variation (like change) is located in the features (cf. Lightfoot 2006,
Roberts 2007 for change)

Intra-speaker variation can be formalized

Variation within the same community and even the same speaker
(‘dialect mixing’)

Our findings do not pretend to be categorical. Variation is a
component of human languages, and our results confirm this fact.
46
Selected references
Adger, D. & J. Smith. 2005. Variation and the Minimalist Programme. In Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social. Cornips,
L. & K. P. Corrigan (eds.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 149-178.
Adger, D. & G. Trousdale. 2007. Variation in English Syntax: Theoretical Implications. English Language and Linguistics 11:261-278.
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Adjective syntax and noun raising: Word order asymmetries in the DP as the result of adjective distribution. Studia
Linguistica 55.3: 217-248.
Carstens, V. 2000. Concord in Minimalist Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31.2: 319-355.
Carstens, V. 2001. Multiple Agreement and Case-Deletion: Against Φ-(In)Completeness. Syntax 4: 147-163.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Martin, R.,
D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language. Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1-52.
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structure Vol 3. Belletti, A. (ed).
Oxford: OUP. 104-131.
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Freidin, R., C. Otero and
M-L. Zubzarreta (eds). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 133-166.
Danon, Gabi. 2008. Definiteness spreading in the Hebrew construct state. Lingua 118.7: 872-906.
Demonte, V. 2008. Meaning-form correlations and adjective position in Spanish. Ms.
Frampton, J. & S. Gutmann. 2000. Agreement is Feature Sharing, ms. Available at <http://www.math.neu.edu/ling/>
Lipski, J. 2006. El dialecto afroyungueño de Bolivia: en busca de las raíces del habla afrohispánica. RILI 3.2: 137-166.
Lipski, J. 2008. Afro-Bolivian Spanish. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.
Ortmann, Albert. 2000. Where plural refuses to agree: feature unification end morphological economy. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47. 1-4: 249288.
Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego. 2004. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. Ms
Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of
features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. Karime, S. et al. (eds.). Amsterdam-Philadelphia.
John Benjamins. 262-294.
Picallo, M. C. 2008. Gender and number in Romance. Lingue e linguaggio VII.1: 47-66.
Poplack, S. 1979. Function and process in a variable phonology. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Zamparelli, R. 2008. On the interpretability of φ-features”. In The Bantu–Romance Connection. De Cat, C and K. Demuth (eds.), AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins. 167–199.
47