Galician and Spanish in Galicia: Prosodies in contact

1 Galician and Spanish in Galicia: prosodies in contact Elisa Fernández Rei Instituto da Lingua Galega, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela Abstract The current study analyses the intonation of three types of utterances (broad focus statements, information-seeking yes-no questions and information-seeking whquestions) in Galician and Spanish, in order to research the effects on the intonation of the prolonged contact between these two languages in Galicia. The main aims are to detect possible hybridisation processes in the intonation of these varieties and determine whether the intonation behaviour is different depending on the language used or on the language profile of the speakers. To that end, this study presents an empirical study which analyses these three types of utterances in Spanish and Galician, produced by 22 informants with different linguistic profiles. The results indicate little variability in the intonation based on the initial and habitual languages of the speakers or the language in which they produce the corpus. However, the existence of some hybrid patterns in whquestions has been detected. The theoretical implications of these results will be discussed within the framework of hybridisation. Keywords: Intonation, Language contact, Galician Spanish. 1. Introduction Languages and language varieties sharing the same territory, as in the case of Galician and Galician Spanish (GS), undergo linguistic change as a result of contact. Thomason (2001) points out that these changes may occur at any level of the language. Thus, a language's prosodic system may also be affected by contact with another language (Bullock 2009, Colantoni and Gurlekian 2004, Elordieta 2003, Simonet 2011). Some of the works cited examine typologically and genetically closely related languages as in the case of Galician and GS (e.g. Spanish and Italian in Colantoni and Gurlekian 2004 or Spanish and Catalan in Simonet 2011), and find that prosodic change results from convergence, i.e. the process whereby two languages become more similar to each other following contact. In descriptions of contact between Galician and GS, however, it has often traditionally been maintained that GS adopts, fully or partially, the prosodic features of Galician (Castro 2003 and Pérez Castillejo 2012 and 2014, to mention only those with an empirical basis), implying that Galician intonation is hardly affected, if at all, by contact with GS, since a transfer process is posited in the direction from Galician to GS only. This appears to run counter to phenomena observed in the other components of Galician grammar where numerous studies draw attention to transfer from Spanish to Galician (see Dubert 2005, 290). Therefore, the intensity of contact has not produced the same outcome with respect to intonation, to judge from the findings of the earlier studies cited as well as impressionistic observations expressed in many others (e.g. Rojo 2004). The behaviour of intonation in GS, on the contrary, matches the pattern observed 2 at other levels of the language given that numerous instances of direct transfer of phonetic, grammatical or lexical peculiarities from Galician have been described (see Rojo 2004, 1093-1099), just as with intonation. The current study proposes analysing Galician and GS together, in order to determine the effects that this situation of long-term language contact may have on the intonation of both languages and in both directions (the effect of Galician on GS and GS on Galician). With this purpose, empirical data were collected through a Discourse Completion Task (see 4.2.2) with female Galician university students1 who were selected according to their sociolinguistic profile (first language and habitual language) as detailed below (see 4.2.1), in order to obtain a corpus recorded in Galician and Spanish. The data presented correspond to the intonation of broad focus statements, information-seeking yes-no questions and information-seeking wh-questions which were analysed in search of answers to the following questions: 1. What are the intonation characteristics of these utterances in Galician and GS? 2. Do speakers who speak both Galician and GS present distinct intonation patterns in each of these languages for these utterances? 3. Do speakers who only use one of these languages (Galician or GS) present different patterns for these utterances from those who habitually use both languages? The answer to the first question will make it possible to discover whether our data bear out the contention found in the literature that there is direct transfer of Galician intonation into GS, or on the contrary, convergence processes are underway so that we find patterns that are not those of Galician or those of Spanish, but rather a mixture of both. The answers to the second and third questions will tell us whether first language and the language habitually used are factors with a bearing on intonation of utterances under study, and whether speakers' degree of bilingualism affects intonation transfer or convergence. The article is organised in the following sections: section 2 deals with the historical context of language contact in Galicia and the important sociolinguistic changes undergone in recent decades, as well as the profiles of current speakers. Section 3 presents some theoretical aspects related to languages contact and intonation, concentrating on the concepts of direct transfer, convergence and hybridisation. Section 4 presents the experiment, methodology and results. Section 5 provides a discussion on the results obtained in the experiment and shows the main conclusions of this study. 2. Language contact and sociolinguistic speaker profiles 2.1 Historical and sociolinguistic context Linguistic contact is not a static situation, but one that varies over time, often owing to changing social, political or economic circumstances in the area concerned and among its inhabitants, shifts in the relative preponderance of different speech communities or language varieties, the political status of each language or other factors. Therefore, it is 1 It was decided only to interview women in order to avoid any variability that might possibly have arisen due to the sexual parameter. Of course, it would be interesting to complete the information through a study of data for male speakers. 3 necessary to take into account the situation of contact that affected Galician historically (Mariño 2008; Monteagudo 1999) because it explains how Galician and GS intonation patterns have arisen, but the substantial changes that have taken place in Galicia over the past forty years or so also need to be considered. Up until the 1980s2, a substantial majority of the population of Galicia spoke Galician at home, acquired Spanish outside the home and only used it when it was called for by specific communicative needs. There also existed a minority group whose first language was Spanish, and that was what they spoke in all contexts. Starting in the eighties, when the language normalization process commenced and Galician was officially recognised as one of the languages of Galicia, the presence of Galician in the media, schools and the administration, along with other important political and social developments dating back to the seventies, led to the emergence of new varieties of Galician besides the traditional ones (Regueira 2005, 82). Furthermore, as a consequence of increased mobility of the population due to improved means of transportation, migration and the appearance or development of urban and semi-urban areas, many dialectal and sociolectal varieties were brought into contact (Dubert 2002, Ramallo 2010). These economic, social, political and legislative changes over the last three or four decades have triggered striking sociolinguistic developments: 1. New groups of speakers have emerged who, even though their first language is Spanish, use Galician with relative ease (and in some cases even speak it exclusively) (Ramallo 2013). 2. There has been a considerable increase in bilingualism, as exemplified by the growing number of those who learnt to speak simultaneously in both languages (RAG 2016, 190). 3. In the conversations in which speakers do not share the same language, there is a greater tendency towards choosing only one of them (about 60%), but in about 20% of interactions each participant uses a different code, some speaking Galician and others Spanish (RAG 2016, 118 ff.). 4. The number of speakers in rural, traditionally very Galician-speaking areas whose first language is Spanish has increased, as a consequence of which there is a rise in the frequency of interactions between speakers whose first language is Galician and others for whom it is Spanish in areas which were formerly functionally monolingual. Thus, there has been an increase in the number of contact situations, although the extent of exposure to language contact of different groups of speakers still varies depending on their place of origin (rural, urban or semi-urban) and their socio-economic and socio-cultural standing. 2.2 The sociolinguistic profiles of Galician speakers and speakers of GS The above and other sociolinguistic developments have led some researchers to address questions about how to define the newly emerging speaker profiles. The most exhaustive classification of Galician speakers is that of Ramallo (2010), which is of interest because it is based on the sociolinguistic background of speakers rather than a 2 There is no 80's data. However, the sociolinguistic maps based on 1992 (RAG 1994 and 1995) and 2004 (RAG 2007 and 2008) data clearly show a downward trend. For example, in 1992, the initial language of 80.6% of the people over 65 was Galician (RAG 1994), whereas in 2004 only 35.7% of the population between 16 and 54 spoke Galician exclusively, or mostly as their initial language (RAG 2007). 4 description of the linguistic features characterizing each group, i.e. on pre-existing sociolects (cf. Dubert 2005, Regueira 2005). Ramallo posits eight categories, four of which are of speakers from Galician speaking home environments (traditional speakerhome language, traditional speaker-community language, hidden speaker in public and functional bilingual speaker) and four of speakers whose first language is Spanish (professional speaker, occasional or sporadic speaker, incidental speaker and new speaker). The groups that come closest to functional monolingualism in Galician are the traditional speaker-home language and new speaker groups; while the closest approach to functional monolingualism in Spanish is that of the incidental speakers. The other profiles are characterized by various degrees of bilingualism and, consequently, varying degrees of linguistic competence and use of each language. Let us note that these sociolinguistic categories or profiles do not imply that each one constitutes a separate language community in isolation from the others. Obviously, all of these groups come into mutual contact and interact frequently, so code-switching and even code-mixing are common (see Rodríguez Yáñez and Casares 2002-2003). In accordance with its process of historical conformation, GS is defined as a Spanish language variety having a Galician substratum. In the long-term language contact situation in Galicia, there has always been a minority of Spanish speakers, either from Castilian speaking territories, or Galicia natives, in close contact with the population that mostly spoke Galician (Mariño 2008). Although it is likely that the language shift process took place slowly throughout centuries, it was since the sixties, as a result of the socioeconomic changes referred to in section 2.1, that the language shift was accelerated and Spanish prominently began to spread socially and geographically (RAG 1994). Thus, GS becomes consolidated as the variety we know today when Galician speakers learnt to speak Spanish, chiefly for social and economic reasons, and decided to transmit it to their children because of an understanding that Spanish was necessary for upward mobility. Galicia is traditionally a land of emigrants where immigration is uncommon, so speakers of other varieties of Spanish did not make much of an impact on the variety of Spanish that emerged in Galicia. GS has therefore traditionally been considered a form of Spanish spoken with the phonetics, phonology and intonation of Galician (Rojo 2004). Now however, when a substantial number of speakers are beginning to exist who have acquired Spanish in the home (as second or third generation speakers), changes are starting to take place in GS where there is no longer a direct transfer of Galician phonology, syntax or morphology. Thus, the Galician features present in GS come to it via the variety of Spanish acquired by speakers at home, and many of the features that characterized the GS spoken by the first generation are disappearing. A good example to illustrate this is the vowel system of GS, which no longer has an inventory of seven vowels in functional opposition, although there are phonetic realizations of mid vowels with two degrees of aperture (Rojo 2004, 1093-1094); interestingly, second and third generation GS speakers who are starting to speak Galician in the public or even the private domain, sometimes for political and ideological reasons and sometimes motivated by professional concerns, present a five-vowel phonological system as in Spanish and find the seven-vowel system very hard to acquire (see Regueira and Fernández Rei, in press). The recent developments described above have obviously affected GS, and have had consequences for Spanish speakers in Galicia. Ramallo and O’Rourke (2014, 100) present a classification of speakers whose first language is Spanish in terms of their use of Galician, which is also useful as a way profiling GS speakers, grouping them into essential new speakers, functional new speakers, occasional new speakers and potential 5 new speakers. This classification is based on intensity of use of Galician on a scale from greatest (the essential new speakers) to least (potential new speakers). According to published data, only 5% of the population falls outside this classification of Galician speakers and new speakers; these are people who state that they are unable to understand spoken Galician. However, the percentage of people who say they can speak Galician "very well" or "quite well" is over 85% (Consello da Cultura Galega 2011) and the percentage of those who state that they use both languages is 58.2% (RAG 2008: 40). So the degree of bilingualism in present-day Galician society is clearly very high. 3. Galician and GS intonation 3.1 Language contact and intonation Two main processes affecting intonation are posited in studies of intonation and language contact: direct transfer and convergence (Roseano, Fernández Planas, ElviraGarcía and Martínez Celdrán 2015 review the main literature on the subject). Direct transfer is the mechanism whereby speakers, on account of defective learning of a second language, involuntarily transfer some prosodic features from their first language (L1) to their second language (L2). This prosodic transfer mechanism is the same as that habitually found when individuals learn a foreign language. In cases where an intonation pattern that is clearly the result of mixing the patterns of two different languages occurs, that is a case of convergence (referred to by some authors as fusion). In this paper, they will be referred to as hybrid patterns, in accordance with the hybridisation framework to be discussed below in 3.2. Roseano et al. (2015) suggest there may be a relationship between processes of prosodic change caused by contact and the sociolinguistic situations in which the processes occur. We will concentrate on those they call adult diglossia and diffuse bilingualism. In adult diglossia members of a community learn a language — let's call it B — as their first language (L1) and, at a later time in their socialization, learn a second language — A, the prestige language — which they use for certain communicative purposes (L2). In such situations, the prosody of L1 directly influences the prosody of L2 so there is direct transfer from L1 to L2. In contrast to this, in communities where there is the type of situation that they call diffuse bilingualism, all the members of the group can speak both language A and language B up to a native level, given that they have spoken them both from infancy, although their degrees of competence in each language are different. It is in this type of situation prosody of L1 and L2 are mixed as a result of the so-called convergence process (what Roseano et al. 2015 call fusion). As we have seen above (see section 2), the case of Galician is one of adult diglossia because Spanish was acquired as L2 outside the home in adulthood; that situation was maintained until the 1980s. Starting in that period, the spread of bilingualism occurred (not only among L1 Galician speakers but also through the bilingualism of L1 Spanish speakers), possibly turning Galicia into a case of diffuse bilingualism. Roseano et al. (2015) posit that in the situation of adult diglossia with a substantial demographic presence of the community whose L1 is language B (the non-prestige language), the prosodic transfer process that occurs is direct transfer from language B to language A; 6 then when most of the population has become bilingual (with all speakers having some degree of bilingualism), fusion starts to take place. 3.2 Hybridisation framework This account of prosodic transfer or convergence brought about by language contact is based on the idea of language varieties as differentiated entities (language A versus language B) conceived of as abstract entities characterized by their own grammar and definite boundaries. However, recently a hybridization model has appeared (Gugenberger 2013) which assumes varieties that are not conceived of as definite, discrete grammars; this approach focuses more on speakers and their linguistic repertory than on the grammar. Palacios (2011) puts forward a dynamic concept of grammar and language contact which considers that bilingual speakers take advantage of the resources and structures provided by the languages they know to express meanings and differentiate nuances: "the speaker exploits new communicative strategies and incorporates them into his day-to-day speech behaviour" (p. 20). Thus, in a language contact situation changes can involve any element of the language (provided there is intense, historically generalized contact), work in both directions, and bilinguals' competence is not the sum of the competences of monolinguals but something much more creative, which is thus able to flout putative restrictions on interference and borrowing (Palacios 2010). These studies also raise doubts about the concept of convergence that is generally used in contact linguistics for other grammatical, phonetic or lexical phenomena, questioning whether it is compatible with a hybridist, dynamic concept of language contact. It is common in the literature to see convergence and hybridization employed as virtual synonyms, given that it would seem that whether we speak of hybridization or of convergence we end up in the same place: two items are combined to form something new that is neither of them. But convergence refers to a process in which the identity of the two items that we start out from is maintained, whereas hybridization appears to consist of a process that gives rise to a third item while casting doubt on the existence, other than purely as an abstraction, of two perfectly differentiated items. This approach seems especially pertinent to the present study because, as we have observed, both the diversity of different speakers' profiles and the variety of daily interactions make necessary a theoretical framework that does not narrow down contact merely to two languages crossing paths, but takes into account a wide variety of available linguistic repertories. We are not dealing with a meeting of two abstract entities but with a variety of speakers with assorted linguistic backgrounds, varying linguistic competences and different attitudes and feelings about identity, who interact and have a range of linguistic repertories available to them. Thus, a language contact situation is not interpreted, in terms of hybridization, as an area of "contagion," but rather as a domain which favours speakers' contact with other repertories, who may use these resources as they see fit. 4. The experiment 4.1 Hypothesis 7 The theoretical frameworks set out in 3.1 and 3.2 allow us to make some predictions of the behaviour which we will find in the intonation of the utterances of the speakers we study in our experiment. The Roseano et al. (2015) model predicts that there will have been a traditional process of direct transfer of Galician prosody into GS during the adult diglossia stage, but sociolinguistic changes gave rise to a diffuse bilingualism which would have favoured the appearance of processes of prosodic fusion. As will be seen in 4.2, our informants were born in the 90s and represent a generation that grew up in diffuse bilingualism and, as a result, will show examples of hybrid patterns. If this prediction is correct, the answer to question 1 in section 1 ("What are the intonation characteristics of these utterances in Galician and GS?") will be that the intonations of Galician and GS present examples of hybridisation and that it will no longer be active direct transfer from Galician to GS. The hybridisation framework and the dynamic language contact model predict all those speakers that share this situation of linguistic contact between GS and Galician have a common repertory which they use in either of both languages. Therefore, it seems necessary to examine the behaviour of those speakers who state they are bilingual and those who say they are monolingual to find out whether this prediction is correct. If so, the answer to the second research question (“Do speakers who speak both Galician and GS present distinct intonation patterns in each of these languages for these utterances?”) will be they use the same intonational repertory independently on the language they are speaking. The answer to the third research question (“Do speakers who only use one of the languages (Galician or GS) present different patterns for these utterances from those who habitually use both?”) will be they could be different from those presented by bilingual speakers, since the resources these speakers will use will be only or mainly those of the language they speak. Thus, the hybridisation examples are expected to appear more frequently in bilingual speakers than in monolingual speakers. 4.2 Method 4.2.1 Informants The corpus described here contains data for twenty-two informants who are good representatives of the different sociolinguistic profiles identified above (see 2.2), and serves to study and compare intonation patterns in the varieties of Galician and Spanish used by these informants in order to confirm or refute our hypotheses. The informants were female university students who came from different geographical areas, in order to be able to compare them in terms of sociolinguistic profile (i.e. first language and habitual language). The informants underwent two preliminary tests, a written questionnaire through which to shortlist candidates and balance the sample, and secondly a recorded oral interview in which they spoke about their linguistic backgrounds, their language behaviour in daily interactions and their degree of exposure to the language that was their L2. Once selection was completed, the corpus described below was recorded with twenty-two students aged between 18 and 22. We classify the informants in terms of their sociolinguistic profiles in: Galician functional monolinguals (GM), functional bilinguals (BI), new speakers (NS) and Castilian functional monolinguals (CM). The labels used for each category were chosen taking into account informants' stated language behaviour, whence the qualification functional added to monolingual and bilingual. The motivation for the term "new speaker" (neofalante in Galician) is purely practical, given that this is the most 8 widespread and commonly used term by speakers themselves whose first language is Spanish but who speak mostly or exclusively in Galician (Ramallo 2013, Ramallo and O’Rourke 2014). The proposed categories appear to be the most representative ones in a typology of today's young speakers, but obviously do not cover the whole range of all speakers and are not completely discrete categories since the usage frequency of either language is gradual. The main parameters used were first language and language habitually spoken. In all events we tried to select informants who were prototypical of each category with the help of information obtained in their accounts of their linguistic background: (1) Galician functional monolinguals (GM): This group consisted of seven young women of rural or semi-urban origin whose first language is Galician and who speak Galician almost exclusively in their daily lives in a proportion that they themselves estimate at close to 100%. By their own account, they only speak Spanish when they go to a Spanish-speaking area or when visitors come who speak Spanish and do not understand Galician. They correspond approximately to Ramallo's (2010) falante tradicional (lingua familiar). (2) Castilian functional monolinguals (CM): In this group there are four young women from urban areas whose first language is GS, and who almost exclusively speak Spanish in a percentage that they estimate at close to 100%. They recognise that they can speak standard Galician but their use of it is very sporadic (in class, in certain limited interactions, etc.), but in their home and in their habitual surroundings they have little or no contact with Galician. They are called occasional speakers or potential speakers in Ramallo (2010). (3) Functional bilinguals (BI): Here there are five young women of rural or semi-urban origin whose first language is Galician and who speak both languages in their daily lives to varying extents which they estimate at around 50%. In most cases they speak Galician in their immediate environment and Spanish with Spanish-speaking co-workers or strangers. They belong to the type that Ramallo (2010) calls functional bilingual speakers. (4) New speakers (NS): These are six young women of urban or semi-urban origin whose first language is GS and who almost exclusively use Galician in their daily lives in a percentage they estimate at close to 100%. They only speak Spanish when they go to a Spanish-speaking area or when visitors come who speak Spanish and do not understand Galician; unlike the Galician monolinguals, however, they often keep up their Spanish with certain close family members, typically brothers or sisters, or sometimes one of their grandparents or parents. They fit what Ramallo and O’Rourke (2014, 99-100) call neofalantes esenciais. 4.2.2 The corpus A semi-spontaneous corpus based on a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) was recorded together with a Map Task, but only the utterances obtained in the DCT are discussed in the present article. The method employed to elicit data in the DCT was an interview in which informants were presented with different communicative situations and asked to utter in direct speech whatever they thought was the right thing to say in each context. A total of 53 communicative contexts were proposed to obtain 30 different types of utterances depending on the sentence type (declarative, interrogative, imperative ...) or according to their pragmatic or communicative meaning (echo-questions, confirmationseeking questions, vocative of insistence...). The current paper only analyses broad focus statements (3 utterances), information-seeking yes-no questions (2 utterances) and 9 information-seeking wh-questions (2 utterances). In all these cases we present the contexts where these utterances are delivered in a neutral manner, i.e. seeking to make a statement, obtain an affirmative or negative reply, or obtain a specific piece of information. Thus, we will omit utterances where the informants added pragmatic or expressive nuance. The utterances studied in this paper were obtained through the following contexts, adapted from IARI corpus (Prieto and Cabré 2007-2012, Prieto and Roseano 20092013) and from our AMPER corpus (Mairano 2011) (Table 1): Table 1. Types of utterances that are intended to elicit and proposed communicative situations (in Galician and in Spanish) Utterance Galician Spanish Broad focus statements You’re asked if you prefer pears or oranges. You reply oranges. Say what the woman in the photo is doing. You are doing the shopping with a flatmate. You are in the fruit shop and she does not know if to choose pears or oranges and you’re asked what Olalla will prefer. You reply that she prefers oranges. Informationseeking yes-no question You go into a shop where you’ve never been and ask if they have oranges. You go into a shop and ask if they have jam. You had to take your brother to the football field for a little while, but you're in a hurry. Ask a friend if he’ll take him. You're in the street and you ask somebody if they've got the time. Informationseeking whquestion You have to travel to Paris and want to buy a gift for a person you know little about and whom you want to impress. You want a friend of yours to advise you and ask him what he would bring back. Ask what time it is. A friend of yours rents houses and says that he has rented a house that hadn’t been rented for a long time. Ask him who rented it. You have walked up Guadarrama. When you get there, you come across a colleague and ask him what town he has left from. The recordings were made in Spanish and Galician, as follows: bilingual speakers (BI) and new speakers (NS) gave two interviews in separate sessions; monolinguals (CM and GM) gave one interview in the language they speak. In this way, we analysed 105 utterances in GS (7 situations x 15 informants) and 126 utterances in Galician (7 situations x 18 informants). 16 It is interesting to note that the intonation of Cantabria Spanish (López Bobo and Cuevas 2010) is intermediate between Galician and Castilian: it differs from Galician and resembles Castilian Spanish in that the nuclear tone is not associated with the whword, and from Castilian (the second Castilian Spanish pattern described) in that it ends in a low tone, as in Galician. 5. Conclusions In our experiment we selected a group of informants considering their linguistic competence and their use of the two contact languages of Galicia, Galician and GS. We collected data of their production in both Galician and GS for broad focus statements, yes-no questions and wh-questions. The results show a lack of variation in the intonation patterns for statements and yes-no questions: the former have a low nuclear tone and a global downward overall contour; yes-no questions present the so-called common pattern (a deep fall associated with the last stressed syllable and a prenuclear configuration in a high F0 level). These patterns appear in all the speakers, speaking Galician and Spanish regardless of their initial language or whichever their usual language. This homogeneity, especially in the case of yes-no questions, seems not to be due to Castilian, which is recognised as standard Spanish by Spanish speakers in Galicia (Regueira 2005), from which it differs noticeably. On the other hand, it is the same intonation that older speakers, of rural origin and without tertiary studies present (see Fernández Rei 2007 and Fernández Rei et al. 2005 for a description of this kind of Galician varieties). These results suggest, then, that these intonation patterns are autochthonous and originated in Galician, from where they were transferred directly to GS. We do not share Pérez Castillejo's view which assumes the existence of a variety of Spanish in Galicia that underwent a linguistic change consisting of the "elimination of a prosodic-pragmatic contrast" (Pérez Castillejo 2012: 263), since we would argue that the prosodic features which characterize the Madrid variety of Spanish were never present in GS, and such a language variety is therefore not the point of departure; we must start out from the Spanish spoken by Galicians whose first language was Galician and who had been functional monolinguals in Galician for centuries. Thus, it is not the case that the GS dialect in question presents that intonation pattern in informationseeking yes-no questions as a consequence of a linguistic change caused by contact with Galician; rather, that pattern is intrinsic to that variety of Spanish, having been present in it since its inception, being the result of a direct transfer from Galician. That will change, of course, if the pattern is modified as a result of contact with Spanish or with other varieties, or for any other reason. This direct transfer from Galician to GS seems no longer to be active, as is shown by the fact that some of our Galician speakers use the common intonation pattern for yes-no questions even though they come from areas where the Galician vernacular lacks that melody, such as the southwestern area or Costa da Morte (cf. the intonation patterns recorded for these areas in Fernández Rei and Escourido 2008). The common yes-no question pattern appears to operate as a standard pattern for these speakers. It also seems to be the standard pattern for GS given that all speakers use it when they speak GS (Fernández Rei 2016). The situation is different for whquestions: here there exists a different intonation pattern in GS from that generally found in Galician, although it competes with the latter. 17 Comparing it with Madrid Spanish, it looks like a hybrid pattern since it does not replicate the Madrid contour exactly, but resembles it in the boundary tone, while keeping the nuclear tone on the whword and having pitch contour associated with the interrogative element as in Galician. In the case of whquestions, then, the language being spoken appears to be more decisive than either the first language or the habitual language: neither new speakers nor bilinguals use a rising final intonation when speaking Galician, only when they speak Spanish. The hypotheses that we formulated in our experiment predicted that we would find examples of hybrid patterns, that there would be no difference in behaviour depending on the language in which they were spoken and that hybridisation instances would appear more frequently in bilingual speakers than monolingual speakers. The only hypothesis that is confirmed is that we find some examples of hybridisation, although they are not very abundant (only 12 of a total of 172 utterances analysed). The other two hypotheses are not confirmed, because our data show a different behaviour depending on the language used and the few existing hybridisation examples appear in both monolingual and bilingual speakers. So we can answer the questions raised in section 1: 1. What are the intonation characteristics of these utterances in Galician and GS? Galician and GS intonation patterns are very similar in broad focus statements and yes-no questions, but there are certain differences in whquestions where we have documented hybrid patterns in GS that are convergent with Madrid Spanish. 2. Do speakers who speak both Galician and GS present distinct intonation patterns in each of these languages for these utterances? Yes, in the case of whquestions, but not in the case of broad focus statements and yes-no questions. 3. Do speakers who only use one of these languages (Galician or GS) present different patterns for these utterances from those who habitually use both languages? Bilinguals do not present differences from monolinguals who share the same L1, that is to say, when new speakers speak GS, which is their L1, they do not differ from monolingual Spanish speakers, and when bilinguals speak Galician, their L1, they behave just like monolingual Galician speakers. Lastly, the data do not confirm predictions about hybridization by providing evidence that the Galician and GS repertories are both available for use in either of the language. On the contrary, in the case of whquestions speakers choose different repertories depending on which language they are speaking. There is also nothing to indicate that the bi-directionality predicted by Palacios (2010) is taking effect, nor is Colantoni and Gurlenkian's (2004) forecast confirmed, according to which bilinguals will exhibit tone patterns that differ from those of monolinguals in either language. It might be that such processes of hybridization or convergence are at such an early stage that it is still hard to recognise any variation that represents evidence of their existence. Naturally we also cannot rule out completely the possibility that the task the speakers were carrying out somehow had an influence, the consequence of which might have been a certain degree of levelling of their language varieties. Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to Alba Aguete for her help with collection of the Spanish corpus. I also want to thank the informants, most of whom were Philology Faculty students, for their patience. And finally, I am very grateful to Francisco Dubert 18 García, Gabriel Rei-Doval and two anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and their many valuable comments and suggestions. All errors remain mine. This study has received financial support from the Xunta de Galicia and the European Union (under the grant GRC2013/40) and from the projects Cambio lingüístico en gallego (FFI2012-33845) and Contacto y cambio lingüístico en gallego (FFI201565208-P), financed by the Ministry of Economy and Competitivity. References Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2018. “Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program].” Version 6.0.37, retrieved 3 February 2018 from http://www.praat.org/ Bullock, B. 2009. “Prosody in Contact in French: A Case Study from a Heritage Variety in the USA.” International Journal of Bilingualism 13: 165-194. Carballo Calero, Ricardo. [1966] 19797. Gramática elemental del gallego común. Vigo: Galaxia. Castro, Obdulia. 2003. “Pitch accent in Galician Spanish.” In Selected Proceedings of the First Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, ed. by L. Sayahi, 43-52. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Colantoni, L., and J. Gurlekian. 2004. “Convergence and Intonation: Historical Evidence from Buenos Aires Spanish.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 107–119. Consello da Cultura Galega. 2011. O idioma galego na sociedade. A evolución sociolingüística 1992-2008. Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega. Dubert, Francisco. 2002. “Os sociolectos galegos.” Cadernos de lingua 24: 5-27. Dubert, Francisco. 2005. “Interferencias del castellano en el gallego popular.” Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 82(3): 271-291. Elordieta, Gorka. 2003. “The Spanish Intonation of Speakers of a Basque Pitch-accent Dialect.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2: 67-95. Estebas, Eva, and Pilar Prieto. 2010. “Castilian Spanish Intonation.” In Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language, ed. by Pilar Prieto, and Paolo Roseano, 17-48. Munich: Lincom. Fernández Rei, Elisa. 2007. “On the Transcription of Galician Intonation.” Paper in Third Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia (PaPi) Conference. Braga, Portugal. Fernández Rei, Elisa. 2016. “Dialectal, Historical and Sociolinguistics Aspects of Galician Intonation.” Dialectologia, Special Issue VI. Fernández Rei, Elisa, and Ana Escourido. 2008. “La entonación de las interrogativas totales a lo largo de la costa gallega.” In La variation diatopique de l’intonation dans le domaine roumain et roman, ed. by Adrian Turculet, 151-166. Iasi: Editura Universitatii Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Fernández Rei, Elisa, Ana Escourido, Maruxa Caamaño, and Luís Xuncal. 2005. “A entoación dunha fala de Santiago: fronteira prosódica entre suxeito e predicado.” Estudios de Fonética Experimental XIV: 141-165. 19 Gugenberger, Eva. 2013. “O cambio de paradigma nos estudos sobre contacto lingüístico: pode ser útil o concepto de hibrididade para a lingüística e a política de linguas en España?” In Contacto de linguas, hibrididade, cambio: contextos, procesos e consecuencias, ed. by Eva Gugenberger, Henrique Monteagudo, and Gabriel Rei-Doval, 17-47. Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega/Instituto da Lingua Galega. López Bobo, M. Jesús, and Miguel Cuevas Alonso. 2010. “Cantabrian Spanish Intonation.” In Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language, ed. by Pilar Prieto, and Paolo Roseano, 49-85. Munich: Lincom. Mairano, Paolo (ed.). 2011. Intonations Romanes. Géolinguistique 4 (hors-série). Mariño Paz, Ramón. 2008. Historia de la lengua gallega. Munich: Lincom. Monteagudo, Henrique. 1999. Historia social da lingua Galega. Vigo: Galaxia. Palacios, Azucena. 2010. “Algunas reflexiones en torno a la Lingüística del Contacto. ¿Existe el préstamo estructural?” Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana 1(15): 33-55. Palacios, Azucena. 2011. “Nuevas perspectivas en el estudio del cambio inducido por contacto. Hacia un modelo dinámico del contacto de lenguas.” Lenguas Modernas 38: 17-36. Pérez Castillejo, Sonia. 2012. “Estudio sociofonético de los tonemas de las interrogativas absolutas en el castellano de Galicia.” ELUA 26: 235-268. Pérez Castillejo, Sonia. 2014. La entonación del español de Galicia desde una perspectiva sociofonética. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation. University of Minnesota. Prieto, Pilar, and Cabré, Teresa (coords.). 2007-2012. Atles interactiu de l'entonació del català. http://prosodia.upf.edu/atlesentonacio/ (10-05-2014). Prieto, Pilar, and Paolo Roseano (coords.). 2009-2013. Atlas interactivo de la entonación del español. http://prosodia.upf.edu/atlasentonacion/ (07-04-2019). Ramallo, Fernando. 2010. “Cara a unha tipoloxía sociolingüística dos falantes de galego.” In Educación e linguas en Galicia, ed. by Bieito Silva, Xusto Rodríguez, and Isabel Vaquero, 15-37. Santiago: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Ramallo, Fernando. 2013. “Neofalantismo.” In Contacto de linguas, hibrididade, cambio: contextos, procesos e consecuencias, ed by Eva Gugenberger, Henrique Monteagudo, and Gabriel Rei-Doval, 245-258. Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega. Ramallo, Fernando, and Bernadette O’Rourke. 2014. “Perfiles de neohablantes de gallego.” Digithum 16: 98-105. RAG [REAL ACADEMIA GALEGA] (ed.). 1994. Lingua inicial e competencia lingüística en Galicia. A Coruña: RAG. RAG [REAL ACADEMIA GALEGA] (ed.). 1995. Usos lingüísticos en Galicia: compendio do II volume do mapa sociolingüístico de Galicia. A Coruña: RAG. RAG [REAL ACADEMIA GALEGA] (ed.). 2007. Mapa sociolingüístico de Galicia 2004. Vol. I: Lingua inicial e competencia lingüística en Galicia. A Coruña: RAG. RAG [REAL ACADEMIA GALEGA] (ed.). 2008. Mapa sociolingüístico de Galicia 2004. Vol. II: Usos lingüísticos en Galicia. A Coruña: RAG. 20 RAG [REAL ACADEMIA GALEGA] (ed.). 2016. Lingua e sociedade en Galicia. A evolución sociolingüística 1992-2013. A Coruña: RAG. Regueira Fernandez, Xosé Luís. 2005. “Estándar oral.” In Norma lingüística e variación. Unha perspectiva desde o idioma galego, ed. by Rosario Álvarez, and Henrique Monteagudo, 69-96. Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega/Instituto da Lingua Galega. Regueira, Xosé Luís and Elisa Fernández Rei. In press. “The Spanish sound system and intonation in contact with Galician.” In Spanish phonetics and phonology in contact: Studies from Africa, the Americas, and Spain, ed. by Rajiv Rao. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Rodríguez Yáñez, Xoán Paulo, and Hakan Casares Berg. 2002-2003. “The Corpus of Galician / Spanish Bilingual Speech of the University of Vigo: Codes tagging and automatic anotation.” Sociolinguistic Studies 3 (2) & 4 (1): 358-382. Rojo, Guillermo. 2004. “El español de Galicia.” In Historia de la lengua española, ed. by Rafael Cano, 1087-1101. Barcelona: Ariel. Roseano, Paolo, Ana Ma. Fernández Planas, Wendy Elvira-García, and Eugenio Martínez Celdrán. 2015. “Contacto lingüístico y transferencia prosódica bajo una perspectiva diacrónica: El caso del alguerés.” Dialectologia et Geolinguistica 23(1): 95-123. Simonet, Miquel. 2011. “Intonational Convergence in Language Contact: Utterancefinal F0 Contours in Catalan-Spanish Bilinguals.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41: 157-184. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh, UK/Washington, DC: Edinburgh University Press/Georgetown University Press.