1. A corpus-based sociolinguistic analysis of subject pronoun placement in the Spanish of New York City _____________________
Rocío Raña Risso
Doctoral Program in Linguistics
Graduate Center, CUNY
Dissertation Committee Members:
Ricardo Otheguy, Gita Martohardjono, Virginia Teller

2. Organization of Presentation
Part I
Role of socio-demographic variables in subject pronoun placement in NYC
Whole corpus
Part II
Role of linguistic variables in subject pronoun placement in NYC
Subset corpus

3. Spanish in New York City: Contact or Continuity?
Spanish in NYC continuation of Latin America ways of speaking or affected by contact with English?
Linguistic feature used to analyze this question:
Placement of subject pronouns with regards to the verb
Why?
Contact: Mostly Categorical (English) vs. Variable (Spanish) Subject Pronoun Placement
Yo en la prepa era un haragán. [308 M] En la prepa era yo un haragán.
‘I was lazy in high school.’ ‘I was lazy in high school.’
Continuity: Regional Variability in Rates of Subject Pronoun Placement in Latin America
¿Tú me entiendes? [005 U] Te digo, era yo muy flojo. [308 M]
‘Do you understand me?’ ‘I’m telling you, I was very lazy’

4. Hypothesis 1: Continuity with Latin American Ways of Speaking
To support this hypothesis I need to establish:
Regional difference (Caribbean vs. Mainland) for subject pronoun placement in NYC
Maintenance of differences with time in NYC in first generation
Maintenance of differences in second generation

5. Hypothesis 2: Change with Contact with English
To support this hypothesis I need to establish:
More use of preverbal pronouns in speakers with excellent English proficiency than those with lower or no proficiency in English
Changes in subject pronoun placement with time in NYC in the first generation
More change in second generation

6. Hypothesis 3: Change with Contact with Other Dialects of Spanish Producing “Dialect Leveling”
To support this hypothesis I need to establish:
“Mainlanderization” of speech of Caribbeans with time in NYC
(Decrease in use of preverbal pronouns for speakers in contact with Mainlanders)
“Caribbeanization” of speech of Mainlanders with time in NYC
(Decrease in use of preverbal pronouns for speakers in contact with Caribbeans)

7. Dependent Variable: The Preverbal Rate
Three hypotheses explored using the Preverbal Rate which is
The percentage of verbs that appear with a
preverbal subject pronoun
(from all verbs with overt pronouns)
In Otheguy-Zentella corpus of sociolinguistic interviews with 139 Spanish-speaking New Yorkers (1 million + words)
Using statistical analysis with SPSS (correlations, anovas, multiple regressions)
With socio-demographic variables (region of origin, exposure, generation, English skills, education, SES)

8. Findings for the Whole Sample: Two Regions => Two Dialects Interacting in NYC
ANOVA
Preverbal rate by region of origin
N speakers
Preverbal rate
Caribbean 72 96
Mainlanders 67 92
139
F = 22.03
p < .001

9. Findings for the Whole Sample: No Change in First Generation => Continuity
ANOVA
Preverbal rate by exposure
N speakers
Preverbal rate
LAR immigrant newcomers 39 94
LAR established immigrants 75
NYR 25 97
139
F = 2.45
P < .09

10. Findings for the Whole Sample: Excellent English => More Preverbal Pronouns
ANOVA
Preverbal rate by English skills
N speakers
Preverbal rate
Eng. Less than excellent 94
Eng. Excellent 44 96
138
F = 8.38
p < .001

11. The Forces of Continuity and Change
Bivariate correlations between socio-demographic variables and preverbal rate:
Pearson correlations with Preverbal Rate
N speakers R P
Region
139
-0.37 **
English
137
0.24
Education
0.20 *
Generation
0.19
SES
136
0.17
Exposure
0.14 a
* = p < .05
** = p < .01
a = p < .10

12. Best Predictors of Preverbal Pronouns in the Whole Sample
Multivariate analysis with the preverbal rate:
MULTIPLE REGRESSION
Dependent variable: Preverbal rate
 Whole Sample
Standardized
R2 = .20** N
Beta P
Region
139
-0.35 **
English
138
0.19 *
SES
137
0.12
* = p < .05
** = p < .01
MULTIPLE REGRESSION
Dependent variable: Preverbal rate
 Whole Sample
Standardized
R2 = .20** N
Beta P
Region
139
-0.34 **
English
137
0.16 *
Education
0.14 a
** = p < .01
* = p < .05
a = p < .10

13. Differences between the Regions (Summary of Findings)
Caribbean:
Preverbal Rate: 96
Significant Variables:
English
SES
Education
Exposure
Generation
Highest R2 in Multiple Regressions: .22 (English & SES)
Evidence of Language Contact
Change begins strongly in 1st generation
Mainland:
Preverbal Rate: 92
Significant Variables:
Generation
No significant Multiple Regression
Evidence of Language Contact
Change begins in 2nd generation
No evidence of Dialect Leveling

14. Differences between the Pronoun Rate and the Preverbal Rate
(Otheguy & Zentella 2012)
More Overt Pronouns in Caribbean than in Mainland
Evidence of Language Contact
Change begins strongly in 1st generation
Evidence of Dialect Leveling
Preverbal Rate:
(The Present Study)
More Preverbal Pronouns in Caribbean than in Mainland
Evidence of Language Contact
Change begins in 1st generation for Caribbeans and in 2nd generation for Mainlanders
No evidence of Dialect Leveling

15. The Connection between the Pronoun Rate and the Preverbal Rate
The Null Subject Parameter
Comparison between Otheguy & Zentella (2012) results for Pronoun Rate and results for Preverbal Rate shows:
Increase in overt pronouns leads to increase in preverbal pronouns
Potential for Threshold Hypothesis:
Once threshold crossed for pronoun rate => Changes in preverbal rate
Evidence of parametric changes in internal grammar of speakers and NOT incomplete acquisition of Spanish grammar (Montrul 2004, 2008)

16. Conclusions with Preverbal Rate
Spanish in NYC mostly a reflection of Latin American ways of speaking
But evidence of language contact starting in 1st generation
Statistically significant differences between Caribbean and Mainland
Socio-demographic variables play big role in Caribbean but not in Mainland
Speakers with higher pronoun rates, also have higher preverbal rates
Speakers increase pronoun rate (1st generation), and later increase preverbal rate
(1st generation for Caribbeans and in 2nd generation for Mainlanders)
Possible Threshold Hypothesis connecting Pronoun and Preverbal Rates

17. PART II Role of linguistic variables in subject pronoun placement
Subset corpus of 22 informants

18. The Subset Corpus
Finite and non-finite verbs from interviewers and interviewees occurring with preverbal or postverbal pronoun were extracted
Verbs coded for 11 linguistic variables (1740 verb tokens)
Crosstabulations and regressions run in whole subset corpus and by region and exposure groups
Classification of Informants
Newcomer
Immigrant
NYR
Total by Region
Caribbean 4 3 11
Mainland
Total by Immigrant Generation 8 6

19. Main Claims in the Literature
Caribbean rigid SVO word order in questions (Morales 1986, Toribio 2000)
¿Qué número tú anotaste?
‘What number did you write down?’
Other varieties of Spanish V(S)O or VO(S) word order in questions (Toribio 2000, Zubizarreta 2001, Cuza 2013)
¿Qué número anotaste (tú)?
Variability in word order in non-finite verb constructions (Toribio 2000, Zagona 2004)
Ven acá, para nosotros verte | Ven acá para verte (nosotros)
‘Come here, for us to see you’

20. Internal Variables Dependent Variable:
Placement (preverbal, postverbal)
Independent Variables:
Finiteness (finite, non-finite verb)
Transitivity (transitive, intransitive, ditransitive verb)
Clause (main clause in simple sentence, main clause in complex sentence, subordinate clause, coordinate clause)
Subordinate (nominal, relative, temporal, gerundive and participial, infinitival clause type)
Relative (relativization of direct object, relativization of indirect object)
Phrase (declarative, non-declarative)
Interrogative (Yes/No question, wh question)
Wh-Question (bare wh, non-bare wh, indirect question)
Pronoun (yo, tú, él/ella, nosotros/as, vos, ellos/as, usted, ustedes, uno/a, unos/as)
Gender (masculine, feminine, not applicable)

21. Findings for the Whole Subset Corpus
LOGISTIC REGRESSION
Dependent: Placement
N = 424
R2 = .41
Rank
Variable
Wald
Sig
1st
Pronoun
49.52 **
2nd
Interrogative
15.68
3rd
Clause
13.07
4th
Transitivity
.01
5th
Phrase Type

22. Order of Factors for the Whole Subset
Variable factors that predict postverbal pronouns within the significant independent variables:
Variable and Constraints Exp(B)
Pronoun
Ustedes
Uno
Usted
Clause
Main Clause in Simple Sentence 1.38
Coordinate Clause 1.22
Interrogatives
Wh-Questions 2.24
Transitivity
Intransitive 4.97
Transitive
Phrase
Non-declarative sentences 1.24

23. Findings for the Regions in the Subset Corpus
Similarities
Both regions have more postverbal pronouns in :
Simple sentences than any other type of sentence
Non-declarative than declarative sentences
Wh than Yes/No questions.
More pronouns before than after verbs
(except wh and ustedes for Mainlanders, which are approx. equal)
Differences
Percentage of postverbal pronouns is larger in Mainlanders than Caribbeans in each variable
Verbal transitivity triggers variation in Mainland but not Caribbean

24. Variation in Questions in Both Regions
Caribbean Spanish is not as rigidly SVO as claimed in literature
Mainland Spanish is not as rigidly VSO as claimed in literature:
Pronoun Placement by Interrogative
Cross-tabulation
CARIBBEAN
MAINLAND
N = 358
N=66
Yes/No Question
Wh-Question
Preverbal
95%
79%
68%
46%
Postverbal 5%
21%
32%
54% NS
Sig. **

25. Questions by Informants per Region
Caribbean – Postverbal
¿En qué ha trabajado ella? (096 U – Interviewer)
‘What has she worked on?
Caribbean – Preverbal
¿Tú sabes hasta qué curso llegó él? (234 U – Interviewer)
Do you know up to which grade he completed?’
Mainland – Preverbal
Yo me pongo a pensar cómo él vino a un… a un país extraño. (326E)
I wonder why he came to a … foreign country.
Mainland – Postverbal
¿Y el día lunes, eh… están solos ellos? (326E - Interviewer)
And on Mondays, eh… are they alone?

26. Variable Hierarchy for the Regions
LOGISTIC REGRESSION
Dependent: Placement
CARIBBEAN
MAINLAND
N = 358
N = 646
R2 = .38
R2 = .21
Rank
Variable
Wald
Sig
1st
Pronoun
34.59 **
16.29
2nd
Interrogative
12.47
Gender
16.06
3rd
Clause
9.63
15.3
4th
Phrase
7.93
5th
Transitivity
4.58 a

27. Constraint Hierarchy in the Regions
Summary of variables and factors favoring postverbal placement by region
VARIABLES
FACTORS
Caribbean 1
Pronoun
(1) ustedes, (2) uno, (3) usted 2
Interrogative
(1) wh-question 3
Clause
(1) simple sent. 4
Phrase
(1) non-declarative
Mainland
(1) ustedes, (2) usted, (3) uno, (4) tú, (5) yo
Gender
(1) unmarked
(1) simple sent, (2) coordinate cl., (3) subordinate cl. 5
Transitivity
(1) intransitive, (2) transitive

28. Summary of Findings for the Regions
More internal variables and constraints affecting pronoun placement in Mainland than Caribbean.
But, still 4 ranked and distinct variables and 6 ranked and distinct factors predicting postverbal subject pronouns in Caribbean.
More similarities than differences:
Variables and constraints favoring postverbal subject pronouns in Caribbean also favor postverbal pronouns in Mainland.
No word order rigidity in either region (i.e. variation in both regions)

29. Continuity and Change: The LAR Groups
LOGISTIC REGRESSION
Dependent: Placement
N = 95
N = 105
R2 = .60
R2 = .56
IMMIGRANT NEWCOMERS
ESTABLISHED IMMIGRANTS
Rank
Variable
Wald
Sig
1st
Pronoun
12.06 **
5.06
2nd
Interrogative
3.05 *
2.97 a
3rd
Transitivity
1.70
Clause
.95
4th
.03
.21
5th
Phrase

30. Continuity and Change: All Groups
LOGISTIC REGRESSION
Dependent: Placement
N = 492
N = 709
N = 207
R2 = .19
R2 = .13
R2 = .24
IMMIGRANT NEWCOMERS
ESTABLISHED IMMIGRANTS
NYR
Rank
Variable
Wald
Sig
1st
Pronoun
13.09 *
29.72 **
Clause
1.30
2nd
Phrase
12.59
14.68
Transitivity
1.08
3rd
5.30
.19
.86
4th
.53
.16

31. Conclusions for Continuity and Change in Subset Corpus
Changes start in first generation with variable hierarchies adjustments , and continue in second generation.
Pronoun remains significant in first generation but loses significance and ranking in second.
Clause and Transitivity occupy 3rd - 4th place in Newcomer group, 2nd - 3rd in the E. Immigrant group, and 1st - 2nd in NYR group.
No variables significant in second generation

32. In Sum
2nd generation speakers less and less motivated by same linguistic or social factors to place subject pronouns postverbally
More influenced by English than 1st generation speakers
Social and linguistic variables indicate 2nd generation internal grammar different from 1st generation
Traces of Latin American roots in 2nd generation but different speech community that speaks different dialect of Spanish