Portuguese spoken in São Paulo State: Urban life lexies

Portuguese spoken in São Paulo State: Urban life lexies Selmo Ribeiro Figueiredo Junior (Charles University, Prague) ABSTRACT This study unveils insights into the spatial and social distribution of Portuguese lexical forms, or lexies, pertaining to urban life in the interior of São Paulo State. These lexies were collected through oral responses from eighty participants, elicited by nine questions addressing variants for terms such as ‘traffic lights’, ‘speed bump’, ‘sidewalk’, ‘curb’, ‘traffic circle’, ‘plot of land’, ‘city bus’, ‘intercity bus’, and ‘asmall grocery store where one can also drink liquor at acounter’. The analysis examines whether these lexies establish themselves as predominant norms, indicated by both consistent spatial distribution and arelative frequency exceeding 50% across the localities surveyed. Out of the nine cases studied, eight meet this criterion, with the following overall relative frequencies: ‘semáforo’ 53%; ‘lombada’ 96%; ‘calçada’ 94%; ‘guia’ 84%; ‘rotatória’ 74%; ‘terreno (baldio)’ 79%; ‘ônibus’ (in the sense of ‘city bus’) 71%; ‘ônibus’ (in the sense of ‘intercity bus’) 51%. The ninth variant, ‘bar,’ nearly meets this standard as well, with arelative frequency of 41% just falling short of the minimum threshold. KEYWORDS Caipira dialect, geolinguistics, lexicon, Pluridimensional Dialectology, São Paulo State Portuguese DOI https://doi.org/10.14712/18059635.2024.1.2 1 INTRODUCTION This paper presents astudy of the urban life lexies of Portuguese spoken in Médio Tietê, aregion of São Paulo State. Such avariety of Portuguese is often referred to as the Caipira dialect, making primary reference to its countryside background (cf. Amaral, 1920). The framework adopted is Pluridimensional Dialectology (Radtke & Thun, 1996; Thun, 2000, 2005). The data were collected by means of asemanticlexical questionnaire developed by the National Committee of the Linguistic Atlas of Brazil (Comitê Nacional do Projeto ALiB, 2001). Nine (Q194-2021) of its questions were posed to volunteers in order to elicit lexies2 as answers, respectively meaning ‘traffic lights’ (Q194), ‘speed bump’ (Q195), ‘sidewalk’ (Q196), ‘curb’ (Q197), ‘traffic circle’ (Q198), ‘plot of land’ (Q199), ‘city bus’ (Q200), ‘intercity bus’ (Q201), and ‘asmall grocery store where one can also drink liquor at acounter’ (Q202). Atotal of 79 variants were gathered, ergo an average of 8.8 per dependent variable. These 1 “Q” stands for “question,” and “194 to 202” is the preserved, original numbering of the questions used in this study that are part of the questionnaire. 2 Pottier’s (1967, p.17) classical terminology is adopted here, who defines lexie as amemorized lexical unit that can be, more specifically, simple (e.g., house), compound (e.g., summerhouse), or complex (e.g., house of worship ‘church’). OPEN ACCESS 26 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2024 data were yielded by eighty volunteers living in ten localities representative of the region. The diatopic, diastratic, diagenerational, and diasexual dimensions were the independent variables controlled in the study.3 Except for the latter, they are put into correlation with the data, and geolinguistic charts show the results, which are then examined. Supported by the Cooperatio Program (Lingvistika) at Charles University, this article presents an original analysis of the data which Icollected (cf.Figueiredo Jr., 2019) under the auspices of the São Paulo Research Foundation— FAPESP (process numbers 2015/14038-5 and 2011/51787-5), the German Academic Exchange Service— DAAD (funding program number 57214225), and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel— CAPES (process number 0128-16-3/ 99999.000128/2016-03).4 2. LOCUS AND METHODOLOGY 2.1. LOCALITIES Ten municipalities (P1–P10) in São Paulo State were visited for data collection in 2016 and 2017 and, as such, constitute the research network, as shown in Figure 1. These localities belong to the Médio Tietê region, which is the cradle of the so- -called Caipira5 culture in the state. The oldest and newest localities, Tietê and Piracicaba, were founded in 1570 and 1766, respectively. The region was one of the first in Brazil to be colonized by the Portuguese, afact that makes its Portuguese one of the oldest varieties spoken in the country. Such historical relevance had been considered before the localities were defined as the research network. An important purpose is to capture the current synchronic state of the language, which may be compared to other synchronic states revealed by other studies. 2.2. INFORMANTS Eighty research subjects were interviewed. They were evenly divided into groups according to sex (female vs. male), age (18–36 vs. ≥55), and education (low vs. high edu3 Flydal (1951) created the terms diatopic (T1) and diastratic (T2) (along with others) for stylistics and the study of loanwords (Rona, 1970, p.201), and they have been adopted by many to deal with linguistic variation ever since (e.g., Coseriu, 1981), whereas the terms diagenerational (T3) and diasexual (T4) (and more) have been invented by analogy by unclear authorship. T1, T2, T3, and T4 denote linguistic variation based on spatial distribution (T1), social factors in general or differences in social classes or in education in particular (T2), age groups (T3), and sexes (T4). 4 Iacknowledge the support provided by the above-mentioned institutions and the valuable suggestions given by the anonymous reviewers of this journal. 5 Historically, the term Caipira denotes someone (or something) born, having originated, or simply living in rural areas of the Brazilian Southeast and Midwest regions, especially in São Paulo State. It is commonly associated with subsistence farming, itinerant travel, and sometimes landlessness. Details can be found in Candido (2010). OPEN ACCESS SELMO RIBEIRO FIGUEIREDO JUNIOR 27 cation). Low and high education were deemed to range from illiteracy to incomplete high school and from higher education at least started, respectively.6 Furthermore, all informants by the time of the data collection had been living in their respective locality for at least three-quarters of their lifetime, with their last five years of residence being uninterruptedly spent there too. Each locality was represented by eight interviewees from different profiles: four CaGI, CaGII, CbGI, and CbGII women, as well as four CaGI, CaGII, CbGI, and CbGII men. 2.3. MATERIALS The elicitation was conducted by means of an informant identification sheet, asemantic-lexical questionnaire, alaptop, alaser pointer, and an audio recorder. The identification sheet comprises fields of extralinguistic nature (age, sex, education, and address). The semantic-lexical questionnaire (best known among researchers through its Portuguese abbreviation “QSL”) has 170 questions and is amodified version derived from the 200-question original version made in 2001 by the National Committee of the Linguistic Atlas of Brazil Project (Comitê Nacional do Projeto ALiB, 20017). Although 6 For simplicity, and in accordance with the terminology used by the framework adopted here, the young age group is abbreviated as GI, the old age group as GII, low education as Cb, and high education as Ca. 7 The Linguistic Atlas of Brazil Project, conducted by its National Committee, is aimed at the creation of alinguistic atlas of Brazil from adialectological perspective. It involves Figure 1:Network of points (Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p.236) [my translation] OPEN ACCESS 28 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2024 the modified version has fewer questions, it keeps the original numbering unaltered to avoid difficulties in the cross-referencing usually performed in comparative works dealing with the same questionnaire. The laptop—utilized on the occasion to display slides in full screen illustrating referents (see Appendix) denoted by the questions as they were read out loud by the researcher—had afull HD 13.3” screen. Since the laptop was placed as close to the informants as possible, the researcher both moved the slides forward and pointed out specific parts of the images at adistance with the help of alaser pointer when necessary. The answers went into adigital voice recorder with astereo microphone, an audio rate of 128 kbps, and 75–17,000 Hz. 2.4. METHODOLOGY Once the researcher arrived in the localities, he looked for prominent people within the communities to help find volunteers who could fit into the predetermined profiles. As soon as they were found and accepted to participate, they were given information on the study and asked to give their informed consent in writing in accordance with the Nuremberg Code (1947), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Code of Ethics of the University of São Paulo (2001),8 Resolution No.466 of the Brazilian Ministry of Health (2012), and Declaration of Helsinki (2013). The interviews were conducted as soon as the informants had time and at places of their choosing (commonly at their own houses). Each interview kicked off with the identification sheet. It allowed me to collect extralinguistic information that Ilater used in correlation with linguistic data. After that, the questionnaire was orally conducted following the certitude-oriented technique (Figueiredo Jr., 2019), directly derived from Thun’s (2000) three-step technique.9 The latter consists of first posing the questions to collect spontaneous answers, secondly insisting (by restating the questions, regardless of answers possibly given in the previous step), and finally suggesting variants previously arranged so that the passive knowledge is also investigated. This technique is supposed neither to have its sequence altered nor to miss steps. The former departs from the latter by moving on to the next question after achieving aclear certitude of the informant in providing abeyond-doubt confident answer at any step. Such certitude comes either explicitly or contextually via inference and, as an answer, is named “relevance head” (RH) to be distinguished from other replies, relevance here being defined as the one given by certitude attitude. The charts ahead are built only upon RHs, unlike the tables, which allow for all responses. This technique increases speed significantly and favors contextually relevant responses (relevance here defined as the one given by certitude attitude), but it has adisadvantage in that it does not systematically elicit different levels (phonetic-phonological, morphosyntactic, etc.) of spoken Portuguese nationwide. Its first official publication is Cardoso et al. (2014). 8 This research had no obligation to go through any ethics committees at the University of São Paulo. Nevertheless, it was conducted under its ethics code. 9 For both areview of the techniques mentioned and apresentation of anew one, see Figueiredo Jr. et al. (2021). OPEN ACCESS SELMO RIBEIRO FIGUEIREDO JUNIOR 29 passive answers. However, the research aimed for active responses and to have these charted. Moreover, as mentioned before, alaptop and alaser pointer were utilized as elicitation aids. 2.5. QUESTIONS This article selects data concerning all the nine questions within the last semantic area—called “urban life”—of the questionnaire, in which they are numbered from Q194 to Q202. The questions in the questionnaire adopted here are divided into 14 “semantic areas” (which is the term used in the questionnaire) according to their referential proximity (or semantic affinity), as we see between “car” and “bus”, for instance, since both of them refer to types of vehicles. The areas are (1) landforms, (2) atmospheric phenomena, (3) celestial bodies and climate, (4) agropastoral activities, (5)fauna, (6)the human body, (7) life cycles, (8) social interaction and behavior, (9)religions and creeds, (10) children’s games and entertainment, (11) housing, (12) food and kitchen, (13) clothing and accessories, and (14) urban life. Ihave researched all of these areas across the same network of localities, and this paper—due to its spatial limit—randomly picks out only one of them, namely semantic area 14 with all of its questions, Q194–202. This numbering is kept here so that confusion is avoided and quick identification by QSL researchers is favored. Q194 Na cidade, oque costuma ter em cruzamentos movimentados, com luz vermelha, amarela everde? ‘What is the object with red, yellow, and green lights that usually stands at busy traffic intersections?’ Q195 Como se chama omorrinho atravessado no asfalto para os carros diminuírem avelocidade? ‘What is this narrow, raised area lying across aroad to force vehicles to slow down?’ Q196 Como se chama este caminho, por onde as pessoas andam, ao lado da rua? ‘What is the name of this path people walk on at the side of astreet?’ Q197 Como se chama oque separa o/a[calçada] da rua? ‘What does one call the sidewalk edge adjunct to astreet?’ Q198 Como se chama otrecho da rua ou da estrada que é circular, que os carros têm que contornar para evitar ocruzamento direto? ‘What name is given to acircular area where more than two roads join and vehicles must drive around?’ Q199 Como se chama aárea que é preciso ter ou comprar para se fazer uma casa na cidade? ‘What to call this plot on which ahouse is built?’ Q200 Como se chama acondução que leva mais ou menos quarenta passageiros efaz opercurso dentro da cidade? ‘What is the name of alarge vehicle that transports about 40 passengers within acity?’ Q201 Equando opercurso é entre cidades, como se chama? ‘What about the one traveling between cities?’ OPEN ACCESS 30 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2024 Q202 Como se chama um lugar pequeno com um balcão, onde se bebe [aguardente] eonde também se pode comprar alguma outra coisa? ‘What is this small establishment with acounter at which customers drink liquor and may buy other things?’ 3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS This section brings all the data collected through all the steps of the interview technique employed and analyzes them. It means that the total number of variants per locality varies. The answers to the questionnaire are presented both written in italics and individually enclosed by ‘‹›’ for clearer distinctiveness, especially in the running text, as opposed to mere mentions of linguistic forms in general, which are made distinct with italics only. No data are neglected, meaning that even one-occurrence variants—the so-called hapax legomena—are included, in accordance with the concerns and interests that characterize Pluridimensional Dialectology (Radtke & Thun, 1996; Thun 2000, 2005). 3.1. Q194 (‘WHAT IS THE OBJECT WITH RED, YELLOW, AND GREEN LIGHTS THAT USUALLY STANDS AT BUSY TRAFFIC INTERSECTIONS?’) Variants Total occurrences distributed across the network oflocalities Σ P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Q194 ‹semáforo› 1565466666 51 ‹farol› 7413223251 30 ‹sinal› 110214013013 16 ‹sinal de trânsito› 0000011100 3 ‹sinaleiro› 00001320421215 ‹sinaleira› 0001100010 3 Σ6 Table 1:Answers to Question 194 (Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p.1756) [my adaptation and translation] Table 1 displays the responses to Question 194 in relation to locality. From this point of view, ‹semáforo› has the most occurrences. The second place goes to ‹farol›. The next two—‹sinal› and ‹sinal de trânsito›—may be taken as avariant group by virtue of both sharing the noun phrase head sinal. This can also be said for the last two—‹sinaleiro› and ‹sinaleira›—because what distinguishes them is gender inflection (feminine -avs. masculine -o), which is thus grammatical rather than lexical. All locales show variation, and the greatest one—composed of five lexies in competition—is observed in Sorocaba (P5), Itu (P6), and Capivari (P9). Points 6 to 10 form, in great number, acontinuous and quantitatively uniform route of ‹semáforo›. The furthest point from such aroute within the network conOPEN ACCESS SELMO RIBEIRO FIGUEIREDO JUNIOR 31 cerned is Santana de Parnaíba (P1), where ‹farol› is more frequent than ‹semáforo›. When both ‹sinal› and ‹sinal de trânsito› are considered, their spatial distribution does not show quantitative parallel, except in Araçariguama (P3), Tietê (P8), and Piracicaba (P10), where these variants have respectively zero, one, and zero occurrences each. As for ‹sinaleiro› and its feminine counterpart ‹sinaleira›, the former is preferred, especially in Capivari (P9). Figure 2 has relevance heads (as defined earlier) geolinguistically charted. The four most frequent (groups of) variants from anon-correlational perspective are listed in descending order, the first of which gives its name to the chart. Further variants are indistinctly gathered under and represented by an empty circle symbol (all of them are explicitly presented in Table 1). The bar graph shows relative frequencies, and, to its right, one can see how the variants are diatopically distributed. Also note that the data are crossed with both diastratic (Cx) and diagenerational variables (Gy), as introduced earlier in simpler terms. The graph lets us notice that ‹semáforo› reigns among the young, whereas it competes more closely with ‹farol› among the old. The dominance of ‹semáforo› reaches its zenith among young speakers with high education, where 60% separate ‹semáforo› from second-place ‹farol›. This percentage is 50% when it comes to young individuals with low education. The only group in which ‹farol› achieves preference to other variants is that of old people with low education. It obtains arelative frequency of 42%, and its rival ‹semáforo› 32%. However, they both tie (35% each) among old speakers with high education. Figure 2:Chart of ‹semáforo› (Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p.319) [my translation] OPEN ACCESS 32 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2024 Both spatially and quantitatively, it must be said that ‹semáforo› establishes itself as an absolute norm, for it meets these two criteria: being present throughout the network—what is called regular distribution—and having an overall relative frequency greater than 50%. (One method for confirming this is to compute the arithmetic average of the four individual relative frequencies of ‹semáforo›, i.e., (35 + 75 + + 32 + 70) / 4 = 53%.) Additionally, it nearly becomes arelative norm—i.e., anorm defined as the same as the absolute norm except that it is related to aspecific participant profile, not to all profiles (cf. Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p.1955)—among young participants with low and high education. What prevents ‹semáforo› from becoming arelative norm is only that it does not occur in either the former group in Tietê (P8) or the latter in Santana de Parnaíba (P1) and Sorocaba (P5). 3.2. Q195 (‘WHAT IS THIS NARROW, RAISED AREA LYING ACROSS AROAD TO FORCE VEHICLES TO SLOW DOWN?’) Variants Total occurrences distributed across the network of localities Σ P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Q195 ‹lombada› 877888888878 ‹quebra- -molas› 2110010100 6 ‹guarda- -deitado› 1000000000 1 ‹obstáculo› 0010000000 1 ‹prefeito- -deitado› 0001000000 1 ‹tartaruga› 0000000100 1 Σ6 Table 2:Answers to Question 195 (Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p. 1757) [my adaptation and translation] Table 2 presents all the six responses to Question 195. Notice the great predominance of ‹lombada›, which is the exclusive form in all points, except Pirapora do Bom Jesus (P2) and Araçariguama (P3). The second most frequent variant, ‹quebra-molas›, has only six occurrences in the network. The remaining ones appear only once each. Among them, there is ‹obstáculo›. Since it simply means ‘obstacle’ on its face value, it illustrates—and reminds us of—the fact that there is avarying degree of contextsensitivity associated with lexies in concrete usage that specifies meaning. This is to be borne in mind. Moreover, notice that four localities present no variation, that is, no variant competition. They are: Sorocaba (P5), Porto Feliz (P7), Capivari (P9), and Piracicaba (P10). On the other hand, the greatest variation is displayed by three points: Santana de Parnaíba (P1), Araçariguama (P3), and Tietê (P8). Each of them has three variants in competition under the leadership of ‹lombada›. OPEN ACCESS SELMO RIBEIRO FIGUEIREDO JUNIOR 33 Figure 3 shows that ‹lombada› is both an absolute and relative norm for all the participant profiles. The other variants stand no chance. The forms ‹quebra-molas› and ‹obstáculo› individually have only a5% relative frequency among old speakers with high education, and ‹quebra-molas› has another 5% among young informants with low education. As far as ‹lombada›’s absolute diatopic hegemony is concerned, all localities are involved, except Santana de Parnaíba (P1), Pirapora do Bom Jesus (P2), and Araçariguama (P3). In the first and second of them, ‹quebra-molas› is also seen, and that on account of both the young with low education and old with high education groups’ usage, respectively. As for P3, ‹obstáculo› is recorded as ahapax legomenon produced by old speakers with high education. 3.3. Q196 (‘WHAT IS THE NAME OF THIS PATH PEOPLE WALK ON AT THE SIDE OF ASTREET?’) Table 3 exhibits the unquestionable supremacy of ‹calçada›. Its corresponding masculine augmentative, ‹calçadão›, barely appears. Since they differ in neither lexical nor semantic but rather morphological terms, they may be deemed one variant group.10 The second position in frequency is held by ‹passeio›. The remaining variants, when reckoned individually, have just one occurrence each. As agroup, ‹passeio›, 10 The form ‹calçadão› may also mean something else, but here it has the same reference as ‹calçada›. Figure 3:Chart of ‹lombada› (Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p. 543) [my translation] OPEN ACCESS 40 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2024 at least two participant profiles with two variants charted. Afact that connects P4, P6, and P7 is the feature that they, as neighbors to one another, lie in the network’s central area. 3.7. Q200 (‘WHAT IS THE NAME OF ALARGE VEHICLE THAT TRANSPORTS ABOUT 40 PASSENGERS WITHIN ACITY?’) Variants Total occurrences distributed across the network of localities Σ P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Q200 ‹ônibus› 6778766536 61 ‹circular› 21000201601219 ‹ônibus circular› 0000112201 7 ‹busão› 0100111111 7 ‹jardineira› 0000002120 5 ‹coletivo› 101000000023 ‹ônibus coletivo› 00100000001 ‹buzu› 0000010000 1 ‹condução› 1000000000 1 ‹ônibus de linha› 0000000100 1 ‹ônibus municipal› 0000000001 1 ‹transporte› 1000000000 1 Σ12 Table 7:Answers to Question 200 (Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p.1759) [my adaptation and translation] Note that grouping all the variants in Table 7 that either expressly or elliptically contain the form ‹ônibus› or some derivative of it within their respective noun phrases would be pointless, since almost all of them have it (exceptions are ‹jardineira›, ‹condução›, and ‹transporte›). So, it is preferable that agrouping criterion be something more plausible. Apossible one involves modifiers applied to ‹ônibus›. From this perspective, we can group ‹circular› and ‹ônibus circular›, for the former is originally amodifier, an adjective that has been substantivized and is actually functioning as anoun itself. The same process is seen with ‹coletivo› and ‹ônibus coletivo›. Table 7 exhibits 12 variants, led far and away by ‹ônibus›. Then come ‹circular› and ‹ônibus circular›, both reckoned as one variant group by virtue of the former obviously having the noun phrase head ônibus tacitly understood, which is enforced by two facts. First, circular is primarily an adjective. Second, the sample does not show another noun to form the noun phrase at issue other than ônibus. The next variant is ‹busão›, morphologically comprehended either as aresult of both apheresis and augmentative suffixation applied to ônibus or as aresult of just augmentative suffixation applied to the English word bus (which is short for omnibus; cf. Onions, 1982 [1966], p.129). The form ‹jardineira› is up next from Table 7 and occurs in quantitative similarity to ‹busão›, which may be perceived as aslang. The lexies ‹coletivo› and ‹ônibus coletivo› OPEN ACCESS SELMO RIBEIRO FIGUEIREDO JUNIOR 41 come as avariant group. Again, the noun ônibus is implicitly understood in the former alternative, along with the explicit lexie coletivo, which primarily belongs to adjective category. The remainder is made up of five hapax legomena. The first of them, ‹buzu›, merits abrief note. It is aslang word often associated with metropolitan-suburban low-educated youth, and its spatial distribution in Brazilian territory is yet to be dialectologically revealed and backed up by large data.12 Diatopically, ‹ônibus› is omnipresent across the network of localities. The variant group constituted by ‹circular› and ‹ônibus circular› fails to occur in Araçariguama (P3) and São Roque (P4). The form ‹busão› manifests itself in aone-occurrence series throughout the network, except at three sites: Santana de Parnaíba (P1), Araçariguama (P3), and São Roque (P4). By contrast, ‹jardineira› is recorded only in three points: Porto Feliz (P7), Tietê (P8), and Capivari (P9). The variant group consisting of ‹coletivo› and ‹ônibus coletivo› occurs only in Santana de Parnaíba (P1) and Araçariguama (P3). The remainder of the forms have one occurrence each in different locations, except ‹condução› and ‹transporte›, which are both seen in Santana de Parnaíba (P1). São Roque (P4) has no variation due to the occurrence of just ‹ônibus›. On the other hand, the greatest variation, made up of six lexies, is recorded in Tietê (P8). This time, the first three variants (as listed in Figure 8) are not grouped. The intent is to observe how the presumed underlying full expression ônibus circular comes into utterance and then capture its distribution. This measure thus presupposes that 12 The Linguistic Atlas of Brazil Project does provide for such apurpose, but its publication (cf. Cardoso et al., 2014) does not contain Q199 results. Figure 8:Chart of ‹ônibus› [Q200] (Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p. 322) [my translation] OPEN ACCESS 42 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2024 both ‹ônibus› and ‹circular› are concrete realizations of ônibus circular licensed by the principle of context-sensitivity. With this considered, Figure 8 shows that ‹ônibus› is an absolute norm, and its power finds its pinnacle in São Roque (P4), where it reigns in its fullest expression, as all profiles use it and there are no competitors. The form ‹circular› holds the second most frequent variant position, and the old speakers are the ones to utilize it in aquantitatively significant way, with over 15%, whereas the young use it at arate of just 5%. The second position among the young is divided by two lexies, ‹ônibus circular› and ‹busão›, the former being preferred by individuals with high education and the latter by those with low education. With the aid of the enlarged map in Figure 8, one sees that the pairing of ‹ônibus› and ‹circular› is concentrated within the group with low education, especially among its old individuals. The pairing of ‹ônibus› and ‹ônibus circular› happens more frequently among young informants. Lastly, the pairing of ‹ônibus› and ‹busão› is found among young speakers. As for the places in the network where variation is more intense in general, they are Santana de Pirapora do Bom Jesus (P2), Araçariguama (P3), Sorocaba (P5), Itu (P6), Porto Feliz (P7), and Tietê (P8). 3.8. Q201 (‘WHAT IS THE NAME OF ALARGE VEHICLE THAT TRANSPORTS ABOUT 40 PASSENGERS BETWEEN CITIES?’) Question 201 received the greatest number of variants among the questions dealt with in this article. As Table 8 shows, 17 answers were collected. Since many of them contain ônibus, this noun is not taken as acriterion for grouping variants. With this considered, the most frequent response is ‹ônibus›, present in all localities, though less strongly in Santana de Parnaíba (P1), Araçariguama (P3), Capivari (P9), and Piracicaba (P10). Then comes ‹ônibus intermunicipal›, absent at four sites: Santana de Parnaíba (P1), Pirapora do Bom Jesus (P2), São Roque (P4), and Itu (P6). The variant group formed by ‹circular› and ‹ônibus circular› holds the third position in frequency. It appears in half of the network: Santana de Parnaíba (P1), Araçariguama (P3), Tietê (P8), Capivari (P9) andPiracicaba (P10). The forms ‹busão› and ‹ônibus de viagem› have five occurrences each and occur in the same locales, except Araçariguama (P3), where ‹ônibus de viagem› is recorded, but not ‹busão›. The complex lexie ‹ônibus interurbano› has atotal of three occurrences that are distributed among Itu (P6), Capivari (P9), and Piracicaba (P10). The next three—‹ônibus municipal›, ‹ônibus rodoviário›, and ‹ônibus urbano›—occur twice each over the network. The remaining variants are seven hapax legomena that roughly cluster in the first half of the points (P1–P5). More precisely, the places are Santana de Parnaíba (P1), Pirapora do Bom Jesus (P2), Araçariguama (P3), and Sorocaba (P5). Excluding P1 and P5, these variants do not co-occur. Note that none of them are documented in no less than six localities (those not mentioned). Moreover, there is no locale without variation. By contrast, two points—Santana de Parnaíba (P1) and Capivari (P9)—exhibit the greatest variation in the case, which comprises seven variants. One of them merits abrief note. ‹Cometa®›—as opposed to cometa ‘comet’—is so written to denote that it primarily refers to atransport company whose popularity seems to lend its name to serve sometimes as another synonym of the items listed in Table 8. OPEN ACCESS SELMO RIBEIRO FIGUEIREDO JUNIOR 43 What has been said about Figure 8 in connection with the decision not to group the variants applies here to Figure 9. With this considered, ‹ônibus› emerges as an absolute norm. It does not come close to being arelative norm, except among young speakers with high education, inasmuch as ‹ônibus› fails to be used by them in only one locality, Piracicaba (P10). The profile making the most use of ‹ônibus› is that of young individuals with high education. In the matter of ‹ônibus intermunicipal›, it appears in notable numbers within all informant groups, excluding young individuals with low education, among whom ‹ônibus intermunicipal› does not occur. The complex lexie ‹ônibus de viagem› is not spoken by the old, and most of the young who speak it have low education. As for ‹circular›, it is not spoken by individuals with high education, and those who have low education who speak it most are the old. Another fact indicated by Figure 9 that deserves attention is the relatively high rate of forms other than the four explicitly cited on the chart within the four participant profiles. The highest profile percentage, 32%, is found among old participants with low education. It is so high among them that it comes quite near the absolute norm’s relative frequency, 37%. When diatopically compared to its three charted competitors, ‹ônibus› exerts complete dominance in two points: São Roque (P4) and Itu (P6). The pairing of ‹ônibus› Variants Total occurrences distributed across the network of localities Σ P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Q201 ‹ônibus› 2626476512 41 ‹ônibus intermunicipal› 0020101144 13 ‹circular› 101000012167 ‹ônibus circular› 00000001001 ‹busão› 1000000211 5 ‹ônibus de viagem› 1010000111 5 ‹ônibus interurbano› 0000010011 3 ‹ônibus municipal› 0001100000 2 ‹ônibus rodoviário› 0011000000 2 ‹ônibus urbano› 0000001010 2 ‹coletivo› 1000000000 1 ‹Cometa®›0010000000 1 ‹condução› 0100000000 1 ‹executivo› 1000000000 1 ‹micro-ônibus› 0000100000 1 ‹ônibus de carreteira› 0000100000 1 ‹ônibus de luxo› 1000000000 1 Σ17 Table 8:Answers to Question 201 (Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p. 1760) [my adaptation and translation] OPEN ACCESS 44 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2024 and ‹ônibus intermunicipal› occurs in two adjacent locales, Porto Feliz (P7) and Tietê (P8), within their group with high education. The pairing ‹ônibus› and ‹ônibus de viagem› is recorded at two sites distant from each other, Araçariguama (P3) and Piracicaba (P10), spoken by the young. The other pairings only happen once each. 3.9. Q202 (‘WHAT IS THIS SMALL ESTABLISHMENT WITH ACOUNTER AT WHICH CUSTOMERS DRINK LIQUOR AND MAY BUY OTHER THINGS?’) By looking at Table 9, one can tell that the top two items are in closer competition for the first position in frequency than any other, being ‹bar› somewhat preferred to ‹boteco›. Then comes ‹armazém›, which, unlike the previous ones, is not present throughout the network of points. It fails to occur in Araçariguama (P3) and Piracicaba (P10). Up next is the variant group formed by ‹venda› and ‹vendinha›. The latter is amere diminutive of the former, hence not being adifferent lexical item. As agroup, they are not represented in Pirapora do Bom Jesus (P2), Araçariguama (P3), Itu (P6), and Porto Feliz (P7). The alternative ‹mercearia› comes next and is not seen only in P2 and P7. The simple lexie ‹balcão› is half-present and half-absent over the network. The forms ‹bodega›, ‹botequim›, ‹adega›, and ‹empório› each have two to three appearances in different localities. The last three variants—‹mercadinho›, ‹mercado›, and ‹quitanda›—share the fact that they have only one occurrence each in the network. As Figure 10 allows us to infer, ‹bar› is close to being an absolute norm. It does have regular distribution in its favor, but its overall relative frequency (41%) falls below the minimum rate required (>50%). As alogical consequence, neither is it arelative Figure 9:Chart of ‹ônibus› [Q201] (Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p. 323) [my translation] OPEN ACCESS SELMO RIBEIRO FIGUEIREDO JUNIOR 45 Variants Total occurrences distributed across the network of localities Σ P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Q202 ‹bar› 2 4 6 6 4 5 3 5 4 6 45 ‹boteco› 2426333166 36 ‹armazém› 2201115140 17 ‹venda› 10011002331112 ‹vendinha› 0000000100 1 ‹mercearia› 2011210111 10 ‹balcão› 1100110001 5 ‹bodega› 0000010012 4 ‹botequim› 1002000010 4 ‹adega› 0010000200 3 ‹empório› 0001001001 3 ‹mercadinho› 001000000012 ‹mercado› 00010000001 ‹quitanda› 0100000000 1 Σ14 Table 9:Answers to Question 202 (Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p.1761) [my adaptation and translation] Figure 10:Chart of ‹bar› (Figueiredo Jr., 2019, p.324) [my translation] OPEN ACCESS 46 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2024 norm. Be that as it may, ‹bar› has asignificant 60% among young informants with low education and, with lower values, is nevertheless the most preferred individual variant by both the old with low education and the young with high education. As for the old with high education, they evenly alternate between ‹bar› and ‹boteco›. Speaking of ‹boteco›, it is used virtually only by informants with high education. The form ‹armazém› is spoken virtually only by two interviewee groups, the young with high education and the old with low education. The simple lexie ‹mercearia› is exclusively spoken by speakers with low education in the sample. For the rest, note that the other variants represented by an empty circle achieve important rates, meaning that variation as to Question 202 is very intense. Such other variants, when combined, even outnumber every variant of the four charted lexies among old informants with high education. No localities are under the dominance of just one variant. Intense variation is hence observed in terms not only of frequency but also of spatial distribution. There are some copious pairings. That of ‹bar› and ‹boteco› comes about in Pirapora do Bom Jesus (P2), Araçariguama (P3), São Roque (P4), Itu (P6), Capivari (P9), and Piracicaba (P10) and is very prevalent among those with high education. The pairing of ‹bar› and ‹mercearia› occurs in Araçariguama (P3), Sorocaba (P5), Tietê (P8), and Capivari (P9), and is exclusive to the speakers with low education, with prevalence among the young. Another noteworthy pairing is that of ‹bar› and ‹armazém›. Its occurrences are located south of the Tietê River; to wit, in São Roque (P4), Itu (P6), and Porto Feliz (P7). The participant profile more inclined to yield it seems to be that of the old with low education. 4 CONCLUSIONS This section summarizes the main findings laid out in this article. All variants are brought up. However, consistently with previous sections, the analytical focus is on the cited ones in the charts. These are the most frequent ‘relevance heads’ (as defined in the methodology section). With such acaveat in mind, let us begin with the lexies as answers to Question 194 (‘What is the object with red, yellow, and green lights that usually stands at busy traffic intersections?’). Six of them were collected: ‹semáforo›, ‹farol›, ‹sinal›, ‹sinal de trânsito›, ‹sinaleiro›, and ‹sinaleira›. Analytically, the third and fourth ones were deemed to be avariant group, and so were the last two. This decision was based on their sharing the same stem as the noun phrase head. The form ‹semáforo› is most often spoken by the young, while the old prefer ‹farol›. Be that as it may, ‹semáforo› is an absolute norm, i.e., aform with both regular distribution (occurrence throughout the network of localities investigated) and arelative frequency greater than 50%. Question 195 (‘What is this narrow, raised area lying across aroad to force vehicles to slow down?’) also got six variants as responses: ‹lombada›, ‹quebra-molas›, ‹guardadeitado›, ‹obstáculo›, ‹prefeito-deitado›, and ‹tartaruga›. The first two attained some significant values, whereas the others had only one occurrence each, afact that then makes them hapax legomena. The form ‹lombada› is so strong that it makes it not only OPEN ACCESS SELMO RIBEIRO FIGUEIREDO JUNIOR 47 an absolute norm but also arelative one for all four participant profiles, meaning that this variant is present within every profile throughout the network. As for the compound lexie ‹quebra-molas›, it appears only timidly, solely among the old with high education and the young with low education. Seven variants were elicited by Question 196 (‘What is the name of this path people walk on at the side of astreet?’): ‹calçada›, ‹calçadão›, ‹passeio›, ‹passarela›, ‹passatório›, ‹espaço para pedestre›, and ‹pista de caminhada›. The first two constitute avariant group (G1), and so do the three that follow (which can be referred to as passgroup, or G2). G1 is an absolute norm (with virtual hegemony across the network) in general and arelative norm for the old with high education and the young with high and low education in particular. G2 is used only by old participants with low education. Atotal of three variants were used to reply to Question 197 (‘What does one call the sidewalk edge adjunct to astreet?’): ‹guia›, ‹sarjeta›, and ‹meio-fio›. The first manifests itself as being both an absolute and relative norm for all four participant profiles. The other two lexies occur in ‹guia›’s shadow in terms of relative frequency. The form ‹sarjeta› is mostly found among the old individuals, and ‹meio-fio› seems to be indifferent to participant profiles. Question 198 (‘What name is given to acircular area where more than two roads join and vehicles must drive around?’) received nine variants as responses: ‹rotatória›, ‹balão›, ‹retorno›, ‹contorno›, ‹rótula›, ‹trevo›, ‹círculo›, ‹redonda›, and ‹retunda›. The first is an absolute norm, and its usage appears to be in the following relationship: the younger and more educated, the more speakers utter the norm mentioned. Additionally, ‹rotatória› is arelative norm among young interviewees with high education. On the other hand, the opposite profile—i.e., the old one with low education—displays the most intense variation, which is forged by the charted variants ‹rotatória›, ‹retorno›, and ‹contorno›. The form ‹retorno› is spoken only by individuals with low education in the sample. As for Question 199 (‘What to call this plot on which ahouse is built?’), it is the case of five variants: ‹terreno›, ‹terreno baldio›, ‹lote›, ‹lote de terreno›, and ‹bloco›. Analytically, they correspond to three, as in ‹terreno (baldio)› (G1), ‹lote (de terreno)› (G2), and ‹bloco›. G1 is an absolute norm and, among young informants with low education, is arelative one that gives other variants no room. Among the other participant profiles, variation arises through the competition mainly between G1 and G2. Spatially speaking, Capivari (P9) is astage for the complete dominance of G1, while especially São Roque (P4), Itu (P6), Porto Feliz (P7) are astage for noteworthy variation. (P4, P6, and P7 are neighbors to each other and lie in the network’s central area, and this fact has its importance, too.) In turn, Question 200 (‘What is the name of alarge vehicle that transports about 40 passengers within acity?’) got twelve variants as answers: ‹ônibus›, ‹circular›, ‹ônibus circular›, ‹busão›, ‹jardineira›, ‹coletivo›, ‹ônibus coletivo›, ‹buzu›, ‹condução›, ‹ônibus de linha›, ‹ônibus municipal›, and ‹transporte›. The lexies from ‹buzu› to ‹transporte› are hapax legomena. As for ‹ônibus›, it is an absolute norm, and its strength is particularly noticeable in São Roque (P4), where it reigns without competitors among all the participant profiles. The form ‹circular› holds the second most frequent OPEN ACCESS 48 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2024 one, chiefly owing to old speakers. Putting aside the absolute norm, the young prefer ‹ônibus circular› and ‹busão› in alternation instead of ‹circular›. Among such participants, the alternative ‹ônibus circular› is favored among the ones with high education, and ‹busão› among the ones with low education. Lastly, let it be said that variation as to Question 200 is more intense in Santana de Pirapora do Bom Jesus (P2), Araçariguama (P3), Sorocaba (P5), Itu (P6), Porto Feliz (P7), and Tietê (P8). By receiving seventeen lexies as individual replies, Question 201 (‘What about the one traveling between cities?’) is the one to display the greatest number of variants in the sample. They are: ‹ônibus›, ‹ônibus intermunicipal›, ‹circular›, ‹ônibus circular›, ‹busão›, ‹ônibus de viagem›, ‹ônibus interurbano›, ‹ônibus municipal›, ‹ônibus rodoviário›, ‹ônibus urbano›, ‹coletivo›, ‹Cometa®›, ‹condução›, ‹executivo›, ‹micro-ônibus›, ‹ônibus de carreteira›, ‹ônibus de luxo›. What has been said about variant grouping in connection with the previous question (involving the lexie ‹ônibus›) also applies here. The simple lexie ‹ônibus› is an absolute norm, which is mostly used by young people with high education and exerts full dominance in São Roque (P4) and Itu (P6). As for the complex lexie ‹ônibus intermunicipal›, it is quite well spread among all the informant groups, except the young one with low education, where such avariant does not occur. The complex lexie ‹ônibus de viagem› is not spoken by the old, and the young who use it most have low education. The simple lexie ‹circular› is not employed by informants with high education, and the speakers with low education who employ it most are the old. Lastly, answers to Question 202 (‘What is this small establishment with acounter at which customers drink liquor and may buy other things?’) are presented. Fourteen simple lexies were recorded: ‹bar›, ‹boteco›, ‹armazém›, ‹venda›, ‹vendinha›, ‹mercearia›, ‹balcão›, ‹bodega›, ‹botequim›, ‹adega›, ‹empório›, ‹mercadinho›, ‹mercado›, and ‹quitanda›. Such agreat number of variants, along with their not inconsiderable relative frequencies and wide spatial distribution, constitute afactor not that conducive to the emergence of an absolute norm. Nonetheless, ‹bar›—one of the four more closely examined in accordance with the previously exposed criteria—was nearly there, with the young as its primary speakers. The form ‹boteco› is utilized virtually only by informants with high education, and ‹armazém› by both the young with high education and the old with low education, whereas ‹mercearia› is uttered exclusively by individuals with low education. REFERENCES Amaral, A. (1920). Odialeto caipira. São Paulo: Anhembi. Candido, A. (2010). Os parceiros do rio Bonito. Estudo sobre ocaipira paulista eatransformação dos seus meios de vida. 11.ed. Rio de Janeiro: Ouro sobre Azul. Cardoso, S.A.M.S. et al. (2014). Atlas Linguístico do Brasil. Vol.2. Londrina: Eduel. Comitê Nacional do Projeto ALiB (2001). Atlas Linguístico do Brasil: questionários 2001. Londrina: Eduel. Coseriu, E. (1981). Los conceptos de ‘dialecto’, ‘nivel’ y‘estilo de lengua’ yel sentido propio de la dialectología. Lingüística española actual, 3, 1–32. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperación. OPEN ACCESS SELMO RIBEIRO FIGUEIREDO JUNIOR 49 Figueiredo Jr., S.R. (2019). Atlas linguístico pluridimensional do português paulista: níveis semântico-lexical efonético-fonológico do vernáculo da região do Médio Tietê [Doctoral dissertation, University of São Paulo]. https:// www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/8/8142/ tde-12072019-155328/en.php Figueiredo Jr., S.R., Margotti, F.W., SantiagoAlmeida, M.M., & Nascimento, J.F. (2021). Metodologia geolinguística: agentes em geral etécnicas de inquérito semântico-lexical em específico. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos, 63(0), 1–16 (e021010). Flydal, L. (1951). Remarques sur certains rapports entre le style et l’état de langue. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, 16, 240–257. Onions, C.T. (Ed.). (1982 [1966]). The Oxford dictionary of English etymology. Oxford / New York: Clarendon Press / Oxford University Press. Pottier, B. (1967). Présentation de la linguistique. Fondements d’une théorie. Paris: Klincksieck. Radtke, E., & Thun, H. (1996). Neue Wege der romanischen Geolinguistik: eine Bilanz. In E.Radtke, & H.Thun (Eds.), Akten des Symposiums zur empirischen Dialektologie (pp.1–24). Kiel: Westensee-Verl. Rona, J.P. (1970). Astructural view of sociolinguistics. In P.L.Garvin (Ed.), Method and Theory in Linguistics (pp.199–211). The Hague / Paris: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872521.199. Thun, H. (2005). Adialetologia pluridimensional no Rio da Prata. In A.M.S.Zilles (Ed.), Estudos de variação linguística no Brasil eno Cone Sul (pp.63–92). Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS. Thun, H. (Ed.). (2000). Atlas lingüístico diatópico ydiastrático del Uruguay. Vol.1. Kiel: Westensee-Verl. Selmo Ribeiro Figueiredo Junior Faculty of Arts, Charles University nám. J.Palacha 2, 110 00 Prague 1, CZ ORCID-ID: 0000-0001-8367-0306 [email protected] OPEN ACCESS