Cover not available
Part of
Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond
Edited by Marco García García and Melanie Uth
[Studies in Language Companion Series 201] 2018
► pp. 131–172

Chapter 5
Prosodic nuclear patterns in narrow and broad focus utterances

Pragmatic and social factors in Central Mexican Spanish

| El Colegio de México
| IIFL-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
The main goal of this chapter is to discuss some of the nuclear pitch accents in the domain of broad and narrow foci in Central Mexican Spanish (CMS). Starting with a reconsideration of previous descriptions, the aim is to offer a unified vision of some of the main findings. It is hypothesized that focus marking is a phenomenon of variable and not categorical nature. Moreover, it is shown that focus marking competes with other pragmatic goals also using prosody as a relevant cue; and that focus marking is differentiated according to certain social, identity-related and stylistic factors. In this regard, we illustrate the variation of focus marking in different datasets, as well as the role of the expressive and the communicative functions of the foci. Intonational, pragmatic and sociolinguistic factor groups have been examined via up & down logistic regression models. Moreover, we show that the different tendencies of the observed intonational structures correlate with three speech styles and with some aspects of social stratification in CMS. Finally, the discussion presents a preliminary constraint model on focus domain marking in CMS that synthesizes some of the generalizations derived from the data.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Hypotheses
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Pitch accent distribution for BF and NF in CMS
  • 5.Interaction between foci and other pragmatic and discursive values in prosodic use
  • 6.Sociolinguistic correlates of focus pitch accents
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 28 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.201.05mar
References (67)
References
Aguilar Ruiz, Mary Carmen. 2012. La entonación del habla infantil de la ciudad de Puebla. BA thesis, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.Google Scholar
AMPER = Atlas Multimédia Prosodique de l’Espace Roman. <[URL]>; <[URL] > (31 March 2015).
Borràs-Comes, Joan, del Mar Vanrell, Maria & Prieto, Pilar. 2014. The role of pitch range in establishing intonational contrasts. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 44(1): 1–20.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation. In Linguistic Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed.), 108–121. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Language, Usage and Condition. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Language Change. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Hopper, Paul (eds). 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabrera Abreu, Mercedes & Vizcaíno Ortega, Francisco. 2010. Canarian Spanish intonation. In Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language, Pilar Prieto & Paolo Roseano (eds), 87–121. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. 2006. Variation as accessing ‘non-optimal’ candidates. Phonology 23: 337–385.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009a. Learning lexical indexation. Phonology 26: 109–145.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b. Phonological variation and lexical frequency. In Proceedings ot the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Anisa Schardl, Martin Walkow & Muhammad Abdurrahman (eds). Also in <[URL]>, ROA 952.
2009c. An integrated grammatical/non-grammatical model of phonological variation. In Current Issues in Linguistic Interfaces, Vol. 2, Young-Se Kang, Jong-Yurl Yoon, Hyunkyung Yoo, Sze-Wing Tang, Yong-Soon Kang, Youngjun Jang, Chul Kim, Kyoung-Ae Kim & Hye-Kyung Kang (eds), 267–294. Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Kawahara, Shigeto. 2013. Frequency biases in phonological variation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(1): 47–89.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Pater, Joe. 2011. The place of variation in phonological theory. In Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd. edn, John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de-la-Mota, Carme, Martín Butragueño, Pedro & Prieto, Pilar. 2010. Mexican Spanish intonation. In Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language, Pilar Prieto & Paolo Roseano (eds), 319–350. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
de Jong, Kenneth. 1995. The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: Linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 491–504.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Campos, Manuel & Colina, Sonia. 2006. The interaction between faithfulness constraints and sociolinguistic variation: The acquisition of phonological variation in first language speakers. In Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 99], Fernando Martínez-Gil & Sonia Colina (eds), 424–446. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, 2: Complex and Derived Constructions, Kees Hengeveld (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12: 453–476.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Three ways of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87–100.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldhausen, Ingo & del Mar Vanrell, Maria. 2014. Prosody, focus and word order in Catalan and Spanish. An Optimality Theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP), 5–8 May, Cologne.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction Vol. I, rev. edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2002. Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In Speech Prosody 2002, Bernard Bel & Isabelle Marlien (eds), 47–57. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.Google Scholar
. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio & Prieto, Pilar. 2015. Intonational variation in Spanish: European and American varieties. In Intonational Variation in Romance, Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), 350–391. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Towards an international prosodic alphabet. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 7(1): 5, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 2002. Optimality-theoretic lexical functional grammar. In The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing: Formal, Computational and Experimental Issues [Natural Language Processing 4], Suzanne Stevenson & Paola Merlo (eds), 59–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Sahyang & Avelino, Heriberto 2003. An intonational study of focus and word order variation in Mexican Spanish. In La tonía: Dimensiones fonéticas y fonológicas, Estger Herrera, Z. & Pedro Martín Butragueño (eds), 357–374. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Kostakis, Andrew. 2010. Vestige theory: Sociolinguistic evidence for output-output constraints. Lingua 120: 2476–2496.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred 2007. Basic notions of information structure. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6: 13–55.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martín Butragueño, Pedro. 2004. Configuraciones circunflejas en la entonación del español mexicano. Revista de Filología Española 84: 347–373.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Proyección sintáctico-discursiva de la entonación circunfleja mexicana. In El español en América. Diatopía, diacronía e historiografía. Homenaje a José G. Moreno de Alba en su 65 aniversario, Concepción Company Company (ed.), 35–63. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
. 2011. Estratificación sociolingüística de la entonación circunfleja mexicana. In Realismo en el análisis de corpus orales: primer coloquio de cambio y variación lingüística, Pedro Martín Butragueño (ed.), 93–121. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
. 2014a. Fonología variable del español de México, Vol. I: Procesos segmentales. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
2014b. Prosodia fonética de enunciados representativos e interrogativos absolutos: elementos locales y globales. Estudios de Fonética Experimental 23: 125–202.Google Scholar
. 2015a. Hacia una prosodia basada en el uso: Actos de habla en el español mexicano. Normas 5: 97–115.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Acercamiento a la prosodia de los actos de habla expresivos. Datos del español de México. In Variación y diversidad lingüística. Hacia una teoría convergente, Esther Hernández & Pedro Martín Butragueño (eds), 259–349. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
. 2016. A veces lloro mis lágrimas. Acercamiento multivariable a la prosodia de los actos de habla expresivos en el español de México. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 63: 59–102.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming a. Historia de dos medidas: Contacto entonativo en la ciudad de México. In Contacto lingüístico, Julio Serrano & Ángeles Soler (eds). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
. Forthcoming b. Fonología variable del español de México, Vol. II: Prosodia enunciativa. México: El Colegio de México.
Martín Butragueño, Pedro & Lastra, Yolanda (coords.). 2011, 2012, 2015. Corpus sociolingüístico de la ciudad de México. México: El Colegio de México, 3 Vols.Google Scholar
Martín Butragueño, Pedro, Mendoza, Érika & Orozco, Leonor (coords.). In progress. Corpus oral del español de México.
Martín Butragueño, Pedro & Velásquez, Eva. 2014. Prosodia basada en el uso. Proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y América. In Reunión del Proyecto Preseea, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brasil, July 14–19.Google Scholar
Martínez Celdrán, Eugenio & Fernández Planas, Ana Ma. (coords.). 2003–2016. Atlas Multimèdia de la Prosòdia de l’Espai Romànic. <[URL]>
Mendoza, Érika. 2014. La impresión de un tono. Estudio sociolingüístico de la entonación de Cuapiaxtla, Tlaxcala. PhD dissertation. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Michnowicz, Jim & Barnes, Hilary. 2013. A sociolinguistic analysis of pre-nuclear peak alignment in Yucatecan Spanish. In Selected Proceedings of the 15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Chad Howe, Sarah E. Blackwell & Margaret Lubbers Quesada (eds), 221–235. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Murrieta, Laura. 2016. Análisis experimental del umbral de percepción entonativa en el español del centro de México. BA thesis. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Olivar, Stefany. 2014. ¡Qué bien te ves!: Los patrones prosódicos en la ironía del español de México. BA thesis. Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, Erin. 2005. Intonation and Language Contact: A Case Study of Two Varieties of Peruvian Spanish. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John C. 2002. Analyzing Linguistic Variation, Statistical Models and Methods. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2009. Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33: 999–1035.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2002. Efectos de coarticulación tonal en choques acentuales. In La tonía: Dimensiones fonéticas y fonológicas, Esther Herrera & Pedro Martín Butragueño (eds), 187–218. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar & Roseano, Paolo. 2010. Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Röhr, Christine Tanja. 2013. Information status and prosody: Production and perception in German. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 17: 119–141.Google Scholar
Sagastuy, Paola R. & Fernández Planas, Ana Ma. 2014. La prosodia del español del centro de México en el marco del proyecto AMPER. Estudios de Fonética Experimental 23: 47–93.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Eric. 2012. Goldvarb Lion. A Multivariate Analysis Application. Toronto: University of Toronto: University of Toronto; Ottawa: University of Ottawa. <[URL]>
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2a., John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C. L. Yu (eds), 435–484. Oxford: Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serrano, Julio. 2014. Procesos sociolingüísticos en el español de la ciudad de México. Estudio en tiempo real. PhD dissertation, El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar, Stella, Antonio, Gili Fivela, Barbara & Prieto, Pilar. 2013. Prosodic manifestations of the effort code in Catalan, Italian and Spanish contrastive focus. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43(2): 195–220.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vida Castro, Matilde. 2004. Estudio sociofonológico del español hablado en la ciudad de Málaga. Condicionamientos sobre la variación de /-s/ en la distensión silábica. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
Villena Ponsoda, Andrés Juan, Antonio Moya, Juan, Ávila, Antonio & Vida, Matilde. 2003. Proyecto de investigación de la formación de dialectos (FORDIAL). Estudios de Lingüística de la Universidad de Alicante 17: 607–636.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin I. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Directions for Historical Linguistics, William Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds), 95–188. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Welby, Pauline. 2003. CreaFigures Script.praat [modified in 2009 by Rafèu Sichel-Bazin].Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Fliessbach, Jan, Nuria Martínez García & Melanie Uth
2024. The Production of Post-Lexical Prosodic Prominence in Yucatec Maya and its Perception by Speakers of Yucatecan Spanish. International Journal of American Linguistics 90:2 ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Martín-Butragueño, Pedro
2024. Chapter 6. Nuclear pitch accents in the assertive speech prosody of Acapulco, Mexico. In The Continuity of Linguistic Change [Studies in Language Variation, 31], ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo
Martín Butragueño, Pedro & Eva Patricia Velásquez Upegui
2023. Prosodia basada en el uso: Hacia el análisis de patrones sociolingüísticos y geolectales en dos estudios de caso. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 94 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Mendoza Vázquez, Erika
2023. Acentos nucleares de los enunciados aseverativos en el español de Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas. Estudio en tiempo real. Lingüística y Literatura 44:83 ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Uth, Melanie & Nuria Martínez García
2022. Circumflex Nuclear Configurations in Yucatecan Spanish as a Supraregional Feature: The Roles of Bilingualism and Gender. Language and Speech 65:4 ► pp. 833 ff. DOI logo
Mendoza Vázquez, Érika , Rodrigo Gutiérrez-Bravo & Pedro Martín Butragueño
2020. The prosodic properties of narrow information focus in Central Mexican Spanish: Pitch accents, de-emphasis and phrasing. Loquens 7:1 ► pp. e069 ff. DOI logo
Olivar Espinosa, Stefany
2020. La entonación de los enunciados aseverativos del español de contacto de hablantes bilingües de San Miguel Canoa, Puebla: una variedad del español mexicano. Anuario de Letras Lingüística y Filología 8:2 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.