sign in sign up
<<
Home , Andalusians, Phonology

DIALECTAL VARIATIONS IN SPANISH : A LITERATURE REVIEW

Silvia Martinez, EdD, CAS, CCC-SLP Howard University Washington, DC

INTRODUCTION There are many linguistic differences between Spanish t is a well established ethical and procedural understanding speaking groups. Differences appear in , where the Ithat and diversity may not be the basis for Mexican ‘papalote’ and Puerto Rican ‘chiringa’ stand for ‘kite’, diagnosing communication problems in individuals. The or the more interesting case of using the verb ‘to bring’ by American Speech-Language and Hearing Association (1993) Salvadorans instead of the verb ‘to pick up’ such as in “Vine a states that “ A speaker of any language or may exhibit a traer la pizza.“ (I came to bring the pizza.) for the expected language disorder unrelated to his or her use of the native ”Vine a recoger la pizza.“ (I came to pick up the pizza.) at a dialect. An essential step toward making accurate assessments of pizza take out. Similarly, an example of linguistic with communication disorders is to distinguish between those aspects regard to may be found in . The verb of linguistic variation that represent regular patterns in the form ‘to have’ appears as ‘tenés’ (accented on the final ) speaker's dialect and those that represent true disorders in when accompanied by the second person singular informal speech and language (p. 2).” To effectively enforce this aim, pronoun ‘vos’ as in “¿ Tenés vos (pronoun optional) mi libro?” dialectal differences must be studied, identified and presented in (Do you have my book?). But, in , the same forums for clinicians to use. A prime example is the interest sentence, when accompanied by the second person singular placed on African American English. A corpus of research informal pronoun “tu”, would be “¿ Tienes tu (pronoun optional) relevant to African American English (Craig, Thompson, mi libro?”, or, when accompanied by the second singular formal Washington, & Potter, 2003; Green, 2002; Seymour, Bland- pronoun “usted”, would be “¿ Tiene usted (pronoun optional) mi Stewart, & Green, 1998; Washington & Craig, 1994, 2002) has libro?” Finally, in phonology the /s/ - depending on shown finite dialectal differences through descriptive of linguistic environmental constraints - may realize itself as [ S] in cultural, speech and language features. Studies have also Honduras, as [ R] in Mexico, or as [] in El Salvador. enhanced our knowledge of developmental characteristics of Unsurprisingly, such differences pose a challenge to clinicians AAE (Craig & Washington, 2004; Coles-White, 2004; Oeting & serving clients from Spanish speaking countries. McDonald, 2001), as well contrastive analysis procedures In keeping with these challenges, this article expands on the (McGregor, Williams & Hearst, 1991) between standard and information previously reported by Goldstein (1995, 2000), dialectal variations. All have been used to better serve clients regarding Spanish phonological . Goldstein, the source during prevention, assessment, treatment, and other service most used in our fields, has illustrated variations of Mexicans, delivery activities. Cubans, Dominicans and . To address the ever Validity in identifying persons with speech disorders is a increasing variety of Spanishes being encountered by clinicians challenge when dialectal variations are present. Speech- in the United States, information is being offered to include the Language Pathologists and Audiologists with Spanish speaking following countries: Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El clients face the similar challenges as those who address AAE Salvador. and other English dialects. The challenge may be fairly harder in the face of the large diversity of dialectal features of SPANISH Spanishes from Latin America present in the U. S. Origins. Lipski (1994) states that, in general, Spanish accents Demographically the largest groups of comprise are identified by both “suprasegmental and segmental phonetic Mexicans (58.5%), followed by Puerto Ricans (9.6%), Cubans traits” (p.9). These originated from a variety of variables such (3.5%), and Dominicans (2.2). Others include Central as, political boundaries, distribution of indigenous populations, Americans (4.8%), South Americans (3.8%) and Others social and geographic European origins of settlers, lack of (17.8%). Nevertheless, in spite of the rich diversity of features homogeneity of settlers, social/economic/political isolation and of Spanish, there is a paucity of information in the field of integration, and chronology of settlements. Therefore, Latin communication sciences and disorders describing dialectal American Spanish dialects cannot so readily be defined as one variations or clinical implications. would hope.

1 Canfield (1981), Cotton and Sharp (1988), Hualde (2005), Therefore, the tendency is to substitute this phoneme with [ ਫ], Lipski (1994), and Penny (2000), have described the origins of [x] and [h]. Hualde (2005) mentions the Mexican Spanish the American Spanish dialects. The starting point for many is to having the syllable onset cluster /tl/ (as in the revisit the Spanish dialects in spoken by the settlers at the chipotle) originating from the Nahualt, and a glottal stop time of colonization. There are two main dialects - in the broad between in word boundaries (“la anciana” (the old sense - from Spain and an extension of one of these dialects in woman) /l @ @nsi @n@/→[l @√ @nsi @n@]) in Paraguay influenced by the . From the Northern-Central Peninsular the Guarani language. Lipski (2007) has identified African Spanish, represented by the Castilian and more formal language language influences in Spanish speaking countries, although the (also known as the Madrid form), one can trace the deletion of original influences have for the most part disappeared. For final stop (“verdad” (true) /b ϯld @d/ → [b ϯld @]), the example, notes the final /r/ and /s/ deletion in some parts of deletion of /-d/ in participle –ado (“lavado” (washed) /l @b@dN/→ Bolivia, Paraguay, and the . He also [l @b@N]), and simplification of syllable-final consonant clusters notes the neutralization of the /d/ =[r] in the Dominican (“próximo” (next) /pr Nksim N/ = [pr Nsim N]). The southern Republic, , , , and . peninsular Spanish – which includes the Andalusian variety - Unsurprisingly, some non-Spanish European have tends to weaken or reduce some consonants. For example, the also impacted the phonological picture in the Americas. An aspiration or loss of final /s/ in , or before consonants example is Italian which has influenced the language in Buenos (“casas” (houses) /k @s@s/ = [k @s@]), velarization of final n / M/ Aires, . This dialect, known as Rioplantese Spanish is (“pan” (bread) /p @n/ = [pa M] and weakening of /t R/ (“escucha” characterized by a deletion or substitution with [h] of final /s/ except before consonant, deletion of final /r/ in verb infinitives (listen) / ϯskut R@/ = [ϯscu R@]). The variations from the Canary ϯ]), and substitution of /j/ forשϯr/ = [k ϯשquerer” (to love)/k ϯ“) Islands are similar to those of the southern features, because the original Canary Island settlers were from the southern Spanish /Ћ/ (“silla” (chair) /sij @/= [si Ћ@]). peninsula who maintained continued communication with the mainland. VARIATIONS The reflection of these dialects on specific geographical The in the Americas consists of five vowels regions of Spanish America is not quite discreet. That is, while sounds /i/, / ϯ/, /u/, /o/, and / @/. Most linguists will identify 18 the variations from the Canary Islands appear more overt in the consonant sounds: /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /g/, /t R/, /f/, /s/, /x/, /j/, //m/, Caribbean, the influence of the Castilian and Andalusian variations cannot be identified by specific regions per se /n/, / /, /l/, /r/, and / ɾ/. The /w/ may also be included (Nuñez- (Hualde, 2005). Different from the settling pattern of the Cedeño & Morales-Front, 1999), although some construe it as an in the United States which spanned starting English adoption. Nevertheless, it is found in words such as ɔ from the East toward the West, and in relatively a short time “huevo” (egg) /w ϯv /. There is one other consonant sound which with relatively homogenous individuals, Spanish colonization is open for debate. In there is a distinction between can best be described as spotted throughout the Latin American the letters “b” and “v”, but the majority of Spanish speakers does geography. That is, the upper class , were from the not make a distinction and therefore produce /b/ for both center of the Spanish government. They were responsible of the representations. Nevertheless, Hualde (2005) explains that New World administration of governments, fiscal and religious bilingual speakers may make the distinction if their other affairs. These settlers carried out the commands of the crown language does use it. He also explains and that there are from governing centers which were mostly found in high land countries where the phonological distinction is made as part of regions, most importantly Mexico and Peru. On the other hand, the “learning to read” process. For the intention of the work (in ) had been granted a monopoly of trade presented here, the total consonants described will be 19, with the new world (Penny, 2000). As a result, the majority including the /w/ and excluding /v/. settling in the low land trading regions such as coasts, was either When addressing phonological variations of languages, Andalusian, or from the Canary Islands (highly influenced by linguists are faced with the challenge of identifying, for the sake the Andalusians). Other settlers also included those of developing a model and describing phonological features, linguistically influenced by the Andalusians either in Spain or in from which standard to depart. Frequently, the standard is the long voyages to the new world. Therefore, the Castilians, identified by the empowered social strata and media formats, being at the center of the new world government maintained which in turn, are seen as more prestigious. For Spanish, the communication with Spain, whereas many Andalusian most prominent variation in the old world comes from Madrid communities (except those in the coasts) were isolated from the and in the new world from Mexico City. Mexico City has a rest of the settlers and the new world. Beyond settlement long-standing position in Latin American . First, for explanations each country’s Spanish variety may be influenced three hundred years it was the capital of New Spain, the Spanish by a diversity of indigenous languages, which include variations colonial territory which included the now Mexico, Central within themselves. For example, Boyd-Bowman (1960) states America, parts of South America up to , and US states that Quechua lacks /f/ in Ecuador, Peru and Colombia. (California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and

2 Texas). Second, the Mexican media has become the Latin of English as a second language or the American media leader (television, news, soap operas, and skills necessary for learning to read English text. For example, movies). Cubans and Dominicans learning English may demonstrate For practical reasons dialectal variations are classified by interference problems when producing /d/ in final word positions political regions (i.e. Guatemala), geography (i.e. the Caribbean) of English words due to their dialectal constraints of final /d/ or social/economic strata. These classifications, (particular omission. For example, “sad” /s 8d→[s 8]. It would not be a country classifications), are the most useful when initially prediction for Mexicans to demonstrate interference problems addressing client needs. The organization of sounds using these when producing /d/ in final word positions of English words. parameters also mirrors the sociolinguist literature. For Research has mainly reported on the dialects of Mexicans and example, Hualde (2005) has proposed a classification by region populations from the Caribbean (Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo), based on nine phonological traits. It distinguishes between while Central Americans have been for the most part ignored. seven regions (Mexico, Central America, the Andean region, This represents a challenge to clinicians because the Paraguay, , and the River Plate region), while population in the United States uses a wide spectrum of Spanish acknowledging that each region also comprise variations. dialects. In fact, the speech and language differences of the Linguists have, as well, classified dialectal variations by more than 28.1 million (Census, 2003) Spanish speakers in the indigenous influences, topographical regions (low versus high United States (data from Puerto Rico excluded) comprises a lands), and phonological traits. A discussion of each of the representation of Spanishes from Mexico (64%), Puerto Rico classification systems is beyond the scope of this paper but is (9.0%), Cuba (3.4%), Dominican Republic (2.8%), Central worth noting since clinicians must be aware that within any America (7.6%), South America (5.5%), and others - such as classification there are many variations stemming from from Spain - (7.7%) (U. S. Census Bureau, 2003). the many influences at the core of diversity, including the Developmental information, assessment tools and therapy fluidity of national borders, immigration patterns, etc. materials presently available need to be supplemented with Latin-American Spanish variations mainly occur in information about dialectal variations of the Central American consonants. Hualde’s (2005) regional classification previously and other communities. alluded to, identified nine main phonological trait variations: Table 1 presents a list of dialectal variations by country. This aspiration of word and syllable final /s/, velarization of /n/, table expands on the information presented by Goldstein (1995, neutralization of final /l/ and /r/, deletion of intervocalic /-d-/, 2000), the source most used in the field. Goldstein addressed contrast between / K/ and / ô/, of / ô/, pronunciation Mexican, Cuban, Dominican and Puerto Rican dialects. of /trill r/, pronunciation of / w/, pronunciation of /t R/. Canfield Presently, with the ever increasing numbers of Spanishes in the (1981) has described phonological variations in Central United States, dialects from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, America. He states that Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Mexico, and Nicaragua have been included. Information for the Nicaragua appear to form a “linguistic unit” with respect to elaboration of this table comes from the few well cited sources phonology and because they share many characteristics. in the field of (Bjarkman & Hammond, ,In these three countries the substitution of /s/ → [ ׯ] may appear, 1989; Canfield, 1981; Cotton & Sharp, 1988; Goldstein, 1995 2000; Guitart, 1980; Hammond, 2001; Harris, 1980; Hualde, as would the substitution of /n/ → [ ֊] in final position. Still, 2005; Jorge Morel, 1978 ; Lipski, 1994; Penny, 2000; Saciuk, there are differences. For example substitution of /s/ → [h] in 1980; Scavnicky, 1980). The author has also contributed with final position only in Nicaragua. And finally, with respect to own observations. Guatemala, /s/ is always present in all positions. Goldstein (1995, 2000) summarized the literature on variations by manner AND ALLOPHONIC REALIZATIONS of articulation (stops, nasals, fricatives, liquids, glides and Dialectal variations were described in 19 consonants. As can affricates) of Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Dominicans. be seen in Table 1, the variations mainly occur as substitutions For example, he mentions the omission of /d/ in final word although omissions and additions do occur. Suprasegmental position by Cubans and Dominicans, the substitution of /b/ → variations may also be present. For example, /r/ may manifest [v] in initial word position by Mexicans, and the substitution of itself as [ 1], [h] or [r ].̆ Phonemes present a diversity of phonetic /n/ → [ ֊] in final word position by Cubans, Puerto Ricans and realizations intra and inter country, bound by phonetic context or Dominicans. These allophonic realizations in Spanish speaking word positions. Point in case is /d/ which is only omitted in populations are as equally important to recognize and consider intervocalic and word final positions in the Caribbean Islands of as the dialectal variations that occur in English. Just as with Cuba, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. Of all the English dialects, Goldstein and Iglesias (2001) demonstrated that when dialectal variations in Puerto Rican children were phonemes /s/, /r/ and / ɾ/ have the most reported variations. /s/ accounted for “… the number of consonant errors, the number of presented with 8, /r/ with 7, / ɾ/ with 6 realizations. errors within individual sound classes, and the percentage of The use of this table must take into account the following occurrence for phonological processes all decreased (p. 403).” dialectal phenomena: a) not all speakers of the country will Furthermore, dialectal variations may influence the production demonstrate the same dialectal variations, b) a speaker may not

3 Table 1. Spanish Phonological Dialectal Variations

Phoneme Allophonic Cuba Dominican El Guatemala Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Puerto realization Republic Salvador Rico Plosives /p/ [b ] [k] /b/ [ਫ] [v] [g]* /t/ [b] /d/ [ᾩ] [1] [ɾ] /k/ [g] /g/ [1] [] [M] Fricatives /f/ [џ] /s/ [] [R] [z] [k] [ׯ] [h] [1] [ʔ] /f/ [џ] /x/ [1] [h] [ħ] [χ] [F] /j/ [d Y] [1] Affricates /t R/ [R] [tj] Nasals /m/ [ŋ] [n]* /n/ [] [ŋ] [1] [m] // [j] /m/ [ŋ]

4 Liquids /l/ [r] [ł] [1] [i] /ɾ/ [ɾ] [1] [l] [ł] [s] [i] /r/ [χ] [ల] [r]̆ [r ]̥ [4] [Y] [s] [l] [h] [1] [ŋ] Glides /w/ [gw] Sources: Blackman & Hammond, (1989); Canfield, (1981); Cotton & Sharp, (1988); Goldstein, (2000); Guitart (1980); Hammond, (2001); Harris, (1980); Hualde, (2005); Jorge Morel, (1978); Penny, (2000); Saciuk, (1980); Scavnicky, (1980); * Martinez observations

always exhibit all the dialectal characteristics, and c) speakers not, /d/ appears as the interdental [ C] in the medial position in may be able to code switch between dialects. Furthermore, this words. Exceptions are found in El Salvador, Honduras and table is not comprehensive because there may be more Nicaragua where it may also appear in the initial position of undocumented dialectal features and does not account for words, such as in “dado” (dice) /d @dN/→ [ C@CN]. It may also English influenced dialectal features in the United States. appear as [ 3] in rapid speech. In Puerto Rico and Mexico, /d/ Equally important is that while some countries share allophonic may disappear as in the word “lado” (side) /l @dN/→[l @N]. variations, use may not be the same. For example, one country Regarding the /g/ phoneme, it may be omitted or may appear as may have a rule of always omitting a phoneme while another country may only omit the phoneme based on specific phoneme the fricative [ ]. In El Salvador, it may adopt the characteristic boundaries (context) or word positions. Specifying rules by of the nasal following it, so that the word “ignorante” (ignorant) country is beyond this scope of this table. /ign Nr@nt ϯ/ is produced as [i Mnor @nt ϯ]. Plosives. The following phonemes manifest variations: /p/, The plosive variation shared by most countries was the /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, and /g/. /p/ may be voiced or may manifest itself /b/ →[ਫ]. It was shared by the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, as a [k]. Such is the case in the Dominican Republic where [k] [֙]→ /Guatemala Honduras and Nicaragua). Following was /g appears before another plosive as in “septiembre” (September) which was shared by the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, ϯ ϯ ϯ /s pti mbr / →[s Dkti Dmbr D]. /b/ may be softened to [ A] or [v] Guatemala Honduras. The country with fewer plosive variations as in the Dominican Republic where “habla” (talks) / @bl @/ may was Puerto Rico. appear as [ @Al@]. Another allophonic variation of the /b/ Fricatives. For the phonemes /s/, /f/, /x/, and /j/ there are phoneme is found in Puerto Rico in the word “abuela” variations reported. The realizations are all fricatives except for (grandmother) / @bw ϯl@/ →[agw Dl@] therefore becoming velar. one realization that is a plosive and another that is an affricate. /t/ and /k/ may assume a voiced nature when they borrow from The /s/ becomes the velar dental [ S], similar to a lisp, in El the voicing of a that may follow. With respect to the /d/ Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. Therefore, the phrase “las phoneme, three variations were documented. Most often than manos” (the hands) /l @s m @nNs/ is pronounced as [l @S m@nNS].

5 It becomes and alveolar [z] in some parts of Mexico when peso) /un p ϯsN/. The other two nasals, / / and /m/ both have one producing “los dados” (the dice) /l Ns d @dNs→ [l Nz d @dNz]. The  literature also mentions it becoming the postalveolar [ R], the substitution each. Instead of / / in Mexico some populations retroflex [ ≥] or the glottal plosive [ >]. When appearing before a may produce [nj] such as in “niño” (boy) /ni N/→[ninj N]. /m/, plosive it may be changed into a velar such as [k]. This is the on the other hand, will become [ M] in El Salvador. An example case in El Salvador where the word “estación” (station) of this phenomena is the word “himno” (hymn) /imn N/ becoming /ϯst @siNn/ may be produced as [ Dkt @si NM]. Finally, this phoneme [hi Mno]. may also be omitted or may present itself as an aspiration [h] in Three variations were shared by all countries /n/ →[], most countries. For example, in Honduras you may see “las [ŋ],[m]. Mexico only exhibited one nasal variation. semanas” (the weeks) /l @s s ϯm@n@s/ → [l @h s Dm@n@h] or Liquids. These three liquids have multiple realizations: /l/, “bolas” (balls) /b Nl@s/ → [b Nl@]. /r/, and, / ɾ/. /l/ may be omitted in Cuba as in “volcán” (volcano) The velar /x/ presented with five realizations. It may lose its /b Nlk @n/ →[b Nk@M], or may be a [r] in the Caribbean as in quality appearing as [ ], or it may be deleted. It may also “clavel” (carnation) /kl @bϯl/ →[kl @bϯr]. It may also be take stronger characteristics such as the uvular [χ]. A velarized [l ̴ ] in the Caribbean. In the Dominican Republic one pharyngeal [ ħ] and a glottal [h] have been observed in the can see the substitution of this phoneme for the vowel [i] in the Dominican Republic in the word “jugo” (juice) /hug N/ → word “maldad” (evil) /m @ld @d/ → [m @id @]. [ħug N]; [hug N]. /j/ may be omitted, or may manifest itself as the The flap / ɾ/ may appear as shortened, as [h], or omitted such ϯ palatal affricate [d Y] as in the case of “calle” (street) /k @j / as in “puerta” (door) /pw ϯrt @/→[pw ht @]; [pw t@]in Cuba. which may become [k @dYϯ] in Cuba. In El Salvador an Other realizations occur in Puerto Rico. “Mujer” (woman) omission may be observed when producing the following word: /muh ϯr/ would appear as [muh ϯl] and “puerta” /pw ϯrt @/ as ϯ ϯ “bella” /b j@/→[b @]. [pu ϯ4t@]. In Guatemala it may also be substituted for a [s]. Finally, the fricative /f/ has one variation. /f/ may be realized Finally, in Santo Domingo the flap at times may become a as the voiced [ ¨]. Such is the case in most of Central America →/kϯש@ vowel. For example, the word “parque” (park) /p →/NMשas demonstrated in the example “fueron” (went) /fw ϯ [p @ik ϯ]. [¨wDrNM]. The third liquid receiving various realizations is /r/. It may be Fricative allophonic variations shared by all countries were shortened, omitted or become aspirated [h]. It also loses its /x/ →[᭢]. The following was shared by all countries but voiced quality in the Dominican Republic when producing a Guatemala: /s/ →[h]. Mexico exhibited significantly more word such as “tierra” (dirt) [ti ϯr@̥̥ ]. In countries like Puerto variations than the rest of the countries. Affricates. The affricate /t R/ presents with the substitutions Rico it may also appear as a [l] or [ …] as in “barco” (ship) kN/→[b @lk N]; [b@…kN]. This phoneme is also substituted byש@ R] and [tj]. In Cuba one may observe the realization of the /b] fricative [ R] when producing a word such as “chorro” (jet of fricatives. For example, in Guatemala, [p @sk ϯ] may represent water) /t RNrN/→[RNrN]. In Puerto Rico the word “muchacho” the word “parque” /p @rk ϯ/, and in Puerto Rico, one prominent (young man) /mut R@tRN/ may become [mutj @tj N]. Guatemala, variation is the use of [ χ]̥̥ in words such as “carro” (car) /k @rN/→ Honduras, Mexico, and Nicaragua have no documented [k @χo].̥̥ Another fricative which may be carried in its place is [ Z]. variations of Africates. The realization most shared was /t Ѐ/→[Ѐ] The nasal [ M] occurs in its place in the Dominican Republic by all Caribbean countries. when producing a word such as “virgen” (virgin) Nasals . The nasals /n/, / /, and /m/ were reported with /birh ϯn/ →[bi MhϯM]. variations. /n/ is the only nasal that has multiple variations. It El Salvador and Nicaragua did not have any documented may be omitted or present itself as [ ], [ ŋ], or [m]. The variations for liquids. There were significant more variations omission of /n/ will force the preceding vowel to take a nasal seen in the Caribbean countries as compared to Guatemala, quality. Such is the case of “dicen” (they say) /dis ϯn/ →[dis ϯM] Honduras and Mexico. Glides. The /w/ phoneme has one reported substitution. It may in Puerto Rico where the [ ] will carry the nasalization as in be substituted by [gw] as in the proper “Wanda” [dis ]. The next three realizations happen in all countries. The /w @nd @/→[gw @Md@] in the Caribbean and in Mexico, but not in realization of [ ] makes the word “mancha” /m @nt R@/ in Puerto Central America.. There are no documented allophonic Rico become [m @tR@]. In Nicaragua, as in the other countries, variations in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. it may become [ M], especially in final position in words: “pan” (bread) /p @n/ →[p @M]. Finally, and mostly in the Caribbean, the /n/ may appear as [m], such as in [um p DsN] for “un peso” (one

6 DISCUSSION unvoiced labiodental fricative [f]? Are these allophonic The dialectology of Spanish phonology is one that is very rich. variations of /b/ or /v/? As demonstrated in the table elaborated, there are documented Centeno, et. al. (2007) explain how critical it is to apply variations in all 19 consonant sounds in the eight countries ethnography and sociolinguistic approaches to speech and listed. The variations described are not comprehensive since language pathology, and audiology practices by accounting for there may be more that have not been documented in the variability across sociocultural contexts, appropriate methods literature. The variations appeared mostly as substitutions, but and diagnostic interpretations. Stone-Goldman, J. & Olswang, omissions and additions were also present. Furthermore, L. (2003) developed a method for using ethnographic methods suprasegmental features such as voicing and qualities for becoming more cultural sensitive and knowledgeable. have been documented. There were two phonemes sharing the Speech and language pathologists and audiologists can perform same allophonic realizations between all countries. These were these steps to gather phonological data of their community. The x/ →[᭢], and /n/ →[ْ], [ M], [m]. There were six phonemes that clinician becomes a participant observer, who gathers thick notes/ of behaviors of interest, in this case speech, phonemes, presented with only one variation. The phonemes with more , and usage. Eventually, this raw data is interpreted and /r/. The looking for patterns and themes that would comprise /ש/ variations were the fricative /s/ and the liquids latter presented with the most variations. Allophonic variations phonological rules of usage, leading to final conclusions. It is, may be numerous for one single phoneme. The /s/ phoneme had therefore, incumbent upon the clinician serving these eight variations. Six maintained their fricative manner of linguistically diverse populations to get skilled in this process in production and the other two changed into plosives. Meanwhile, order to enhance their service delivery. the allophonic variations occurred as dental, alveolar, ASHA (1985) has also offered alternatives because it is postalveolar, retroflex, velar and finally glottal. The phoneme /r/ obvious that no speech language pathologist may possess all the had ten variations. Four maintained their liquid nature, four knowledge and competencies related to servicing such culturally became fricatives and one became a nasal consonant (the tenth is and linguistically diverse caseloads. They suggest establishing an omission). Place of articulation of these realizations included relationships with consultants and culture brokers who offer velar, alveolar, postalveolar and glottal. information regarding linguistic norms. Cooperatives may be The scope of the present work was to elaborate a descriptive established to hire experts to serve linguistic communities. table of possible variations of phonemes. Nevertheless, it should Networks with university settings help to share resources being be noted that the realizations are to rules governed by developed and to establish research programs to continue finding context or word position of phonemes. Just as with the many out about dialectal differences. They also suggest establishing realizations of phonemes, rules governing these realizations may practicum and CFY sites to attract students and recent graduates vary within and between countries. Interestingly, Guitart (2005) with diverse linguistic competences. A final suggestion is to makes a distinction between radical and conservative dialects of establish interdisciplinary teams that include para-professionals Spanish. He states that the distinction between both is the and professionals with a different dialectal competence each. tendency for conservative dialects to stay stable and close to the In summary, with the rich diversity of Spanishes in the United written forms, while the radical dialects (such as the Spanish States, there is a need to look at language diversity more Andalusian and Caribbean dialects) tend to weaken and delete intently. It is not appropriate to think of Spanish speakers as a phonemes, particularly in the coda position of . homogenous group. Short lists pointing to broad Spanish This elaborated profile of Spanish dialectal differences points allophonic variations serve as a starting point for determining if to the need to become familiar with the linguistic variations there are communication disorders and/or for determining spoken by clients. While the documented variations in the therapeutic recommendations. Nevertheless, as has been shown, literature have served as guidelines to prevent discriminatory each dialectal variation of Spanish needs to be paid individual practices in assessment procedures, professionals should attention if one is to really understand the normal linguistic continue gathering data about the populations they serve. nature of one’s clients. Nevertheless, even though phonological Especially, since just as in English dialects, Goldstein and variations have been identified and explained, it is necessary to Iglesias (2001) have demonstrated that to identify true errors one describe the contextual boundaries and word positions governing must account for the dialect. Therefore, beyond the information allophonic realizations. Therefore further studies should seek to offered in scientific sources, the speech and language pathologist elaborate and support the existing data, specifically how it must depend on other sources in order to make sure that the relates to the job of the clinician. Similarly, other language information used is correct. For example, the issues previously parameters of Spanish should be addressed. Last, but not least, alluded to regarding the phonemes /w/ and /v/ are yet to be information about Spanish speakers in the US should continue to clarified. Should we consider the /w/ when assessing and when be disseminated related to dialectal differences, acquisition of offering treatment if it is not regarded a true Spanish phoneme?, dialectal features, English language interference in bilinguals, or Why is it that some will use /b/ even when presented with a and how do these dialects affect the acquisition and use of word that starts with the grapheme “v”, but when it appears English phonemes. between vowels will produce the bilabial fricative [ ਫ] or the

7 REFERENCES American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2003). American English Jorge Morel, E. (1978). Aportación a la lingüística del Caribe e Hispano Dialects [Technical Report]. Available from www.asha.org/policy . America. Santo Domingo: Editora Taller.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1985). Clinical Kayser, H. (1995). Bilingual Speech-Language Pathology: An Hispanic . Management of Communicatively Handicapped Minority Language San Diego, Delmar. Populations [Position Statement]. Available from: www.asha.org/policy. Lipski, J. M. (2007). El Lenguage Afromexicano en el Contexto de la Bjarkman, P. C. & Hammond, R. M, (Eds.) (1989). American Spanish Lingüística Afrohispánica. http://www.personal.psu.edu/jm134/afromexx.pdf. Pronunciation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lipski, J. M. (1994). Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman. Boyd-Bowman, P. (1953). Sobre la pronunciación del español en el Ecuador. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, 7, 221-233. McGregor, K. K., Williams, D. & Hearst, S. (1997). The Use of Contrastive Analysis in Distinguishing Difference From Disorder: A Tutorial. American Canfield, D.L. (1981). Spanish Pronunciation in the Americas. Chicago: The Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 6, 45-56. University of Chicago Press. Nuñez-Cedeño, R. & Morales-Front, A. (1999). Fonología Generativa Centeno, J., Anderson, R., Restrepo, M., Jacobson, P., Guendouzi, J., Müller, N., Contemporánea de la Lengua Española. Washington, DC: Georgetown Ansaldo, A. & Marcotte, K. (2007, July 17). Ethnographic and Sociolinguistic University Press. Aspects of Communication: Research-Praxis Relationships. The ASHA Leader. Oeting, J. B. & McDonald, J. L. (2001). Nonmainstream dialect use and specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, Cotton, E. G. & Sharp, J. M. (1988). Spanish in the Americas. Washington, DC: 44, 207-223. Georgetown University Press Penny, R. (2000). Variation and Change in Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge Craig, H, K., Thompson, C. A., Washington, J. & Potter, S. (2003). University Press. Phonological features of child African American English. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 46, 623-635. Saciuk, B. (1980). Estudio comparativo de las realizaciones fonéticas de /y/ en dos dialécticos del Caribe hispánico. In Scavnicky, G. E. Dialectología Craig, H. K. & Washington, J. A. (2004). Grade-related changes in the Hispanoamericana. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. production of African American English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 450-463. Scavnicky, G. E. (1980). Dialectología Hispanoamericana. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Coles-White, D. (2004). Negative concord in child African American English: Implications for specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, Seymour, H., Bland-Stewart, L., & Green, L. J. (1998). Differences versus and Hearing Research, 47, 212-222. deficit in child African-American English: Language, Speech, and hearing Services in Schools, 29, 96-108. Cotton, E. G. & Sharp, J. M. (1988). Spanish in the Americas. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Stone-Goldman, J. & Olswang, L. (2003, March 18). Learning to Look, Learning to See : Using Ethnography to Develop Cultural Sensitivity. The Goldstein, B. (1995). Spanish . In Kayser, H. ASHA Leade r. Bilingual Speech-Language Pathology: An Hispanic Focus. San Diego, Delmar. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2003). The Hispanic Population in the U.S: March 2002: Current Population Report. Available from : Goldstein, B. (2000). Cultural and linguistic diversity resource guide for speech- http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-545.pdf. language pathologists. San Diego, CA: Singular. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2006). Hispanics in the United States. Goldstein, B. and Iglesias, A. (2001). The effect of dialect on phonological Available from: analysis: Evidence from Spanish-speaking children. American Journal of http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/files/ Internet_H Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 394-406. ispanic_in_US_2006.pdf

Green, L. (2002). African American English: A linguistic introduction. Valentín-Márquez, W. (2006). El Debilitamiento de /-s/ y la Construcción Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Lingüística de Identidades Sociales en Puerto Rico. Paper presented at the Third International Workshop on Spanish , Temple University Guitart, J. (2005). Sociophonetic Knowledge of Spanish and Control of . (Philadelphia, PA), April 6-9, 2006. In Sayahi, L. & Westmoreland, M. Selected Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press Washington, J. & Craig, H. (1994). Dialectal forms during discourse of poor, urban, African American preschoolers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Guitart, J. (1980). Aspectos del consonantismo habanero: Reexamen Research, 37, 816-823. descriptivo. In Scavnicky, G. E. Dialectología Hispanoamericana. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Washington, J. A. & Craig, H. K. (2002). Morphosyntactic forms of African American English used by young children and their caregivers. Applied Hammond, R. M. (2001). The Sounds of Spanish: Analysis and Application. , 23, 209-231. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. About the Author: Silvia Martinez, EdD, CCC-SLP is a Harris, J. W. (1980 ). Spanish Phonology. Cambridge: The MIT Press . faculty member in the Department of Communication Sciences Hualde, J. I. (2005). The Sounds of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge and Disorders at Howard University, Washington, DC 20859 E- University Press. mail: [email protected].

8

9