$RK93YNM

Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain:
dialect attrition and revitalization

of regional dialects of Spanish*
JUAN MANUEL HERNÁNDEZ-CAMPOY

and JUAN ANDRÉS VILLENA-PONSODA
Abstract
In any process of linguistic standardization, the promotion of one variety to

the status of standard triggers the devaluation of the other linguistic vari-
eties present within the boundaries of the nation state and impinges upon
their domains. Diachronically speaking, this process is a constant struggle
between the standard and the nonstandard varieties either to reach unifor-
mity and invariance, or to avoid compliance and maintain local values and
customs, always under the pressures of prestige of di¤erent kinds. The pres-
ent study accounts for certain aspects of the dialect contact maintained be-
tween the standard Castilian Spanish and nonstandard varieties in Spain.
This ongoing contact situation normally yields cases of, more often, dialect
obsolescence together with standardization and leveling, on the one hand,
or, conversely, and less often, survival processes of dialect maintenance, on
the other. Particular attention is paid here to dialect attrition and revital-
ization with reference to innovative regional dialects in Spain, including,
among others, Andalusian and Murcian varieties.1
1. Introduction: the two sides of standardization
1.1. Historical appraisal
In any process of linguistic standardization, the promotion of one variety

to the status of standard traditionally leads to the devaluation of the oth-
er linguistic varieties. This means that the development of the standard
may eventually lead to the authoritative extension of a class-based use of
language as an example of correctness, inducing perhaps even a majority
of native speakers to believe that their (dialectal) usage is incorrect (see
Milroy and Milroy 1985). Along with a process of prestige norm focus-
ing, there develops the association of the standard with the idea of
0165–2516/09/0196-197–0181 Int’l. J. Soc. Lang. 196-197 (2009), pp. 181–214

6 Walter de Gruyter DOI 10.1515/IJSL.2009.021
182 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda
correct, adequate, and aesthetic, on the one hand, and, of the non-
standard with that of incorrect, inadequate, and even unaesthetic, on the
other. Also, the rise of standard varieties is normally motivated by eco-
nomic, social, political, geographic, and historical circumstances, and is
related to such social practices as the nationalistic centralization of
states.
In the Iberian Peninsula, nation building and the creation and percep-
tion of a national identity have been a consciously planned project at the
level of the state in which language has deliberately played a prominent
role. In Spain, where Castile was established as the dominant power, Cas-
tilian Spanish, pretty much in the same way as English (see Hernández-
Campoy 2007), was used increasingly in situations of prestige and influ-
ence (the court, the church, and the army), in legal documents, in the
administration of the incipient Spanish state and its empire, and at that
time, in the prolific output of literary and artistic production (during the
Spanish Golden Age: Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Calderón, Quevedo, Gar-
cilaso, etc.). But it was not really until the eighteenth century that norma-
tive language policies were established with, in 1713, the creation of the
Spanish Royal Academy (Real Academia de la Lengua Española) to
standardize, fix, and create the norms of the national language, and with
its subsequent publications such as the first authoritative dictionary
(DRAE 1726–1739), the Ortografı́a for spelling norms (1741) and the
Gramática Castellana (1771). In 1768, Charles III decreed that the Castil-
ian language was to be used o‰cially throughout the kingdom both in
administration and education (Mar-Molinero 2000; Moreno-Fernández
2005, 2007).
The current rich mosaic of dialectal varieties in Peninsular Spanish is a
reflection of what at a given moment constituted a confluence of Latin-
based traditional dialects (especially Castilian, Aragonese, and Leonese),
earlier languages from other civilizations (Iberians, Carthaginians, Phoe-
nicians, Greeks, Romans, Visigoths, and Jews), and those varieties of Ar-
abic that remained following the reconquering of Spain from Arab rule
with the subsequent processes of Castilianization — i.e., the expansion
of Spanish features from Old Castile in north-central Spain from the
tenth century on (see Figures 1 and 2).
This means that, from a historical point of view, the standard Spanish
spoken in Spain was — and still is in fact — as much a dialectal variety of
Spanish as any other regional variety in Spain. What happened is that
Standard Spanish, to simplify somewhat, is descended from a mixture of
the Hispano-Romance or Latin-based Spanish dialects originally spoken
in the northern areas of the Iberian Peninsula — its source being mostly
Castilian Spanish — and is also a superposed variety of language that,
Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 183
Figure 1. The process of standardization of Castilian Spanish (from Hernández-Campoy and

Jiménez-Cano 2003, adapted from Zamora-Vicente 1960)
after having been modified through the centuries by learned people (courtly
people, scholars, writers, etc.), came to be regarded as the model for all
those who wished to speak and write well (see Menéndez-Pidal 1919;
López-Garcı́a 1985; Penny 1991, 2000; Moreno-Fernández 2005, 2007;
Garcı́a-Mouton 2006, 2007; or Villena-Ponsoda 2006a).
This superimposition of Castilian Spanish as part of the project of na-
tion building continued even in the twentieth century during the Franco
Figure 2. The mosaic of contemporary Peninsular Spanish dialects and languages
dictatorial regime (1939–1975), when it was used to maintain national

unity and strengthen ‘‘Spanishness’’ by neutralizing any separatist or dif-
fering tendencies and consequently extremely conservative centralizing
policies that resulted in the denial of linguistic rights: minority languages
were portrayed as inferior and inconsequential and the use of any non-
Castilian language was heavily suppressed, and even prohibited in public
(see Mar-Molinero 2000).
Since Franco’s death in 1975, Spain has been undergoing a process
of redefinition and reformulation through the establishment of internal
quasi-federal states and self-governing regions. One consequence of the
political, administrative, and social changes based on the claims of histor-
ical local nationalisms has been an increase in use and o‰cial status of
the ‘‘historic’’ local varieties. The recognition of the multilingual nature
of the Iberian Peninsula provided an impetus for the development of plu-
ralistic educational policies in those ‘‘historic’’ regions where more than
one native language variety was used (Catalonia and the Balearic Islands,
Valencia, the Basque Country and Navarra, and Galicia). In these com-
munities, where the minority language was in conflict with the majority
one, language planning programs with identity-building projects have
been designed by regional governments, but their experiences and results
vary widely (see Mar-Molinero 2000; Lasagabaster 2003). As a conse-
quence of the linguistic recognition of these ‘‘historic’’ regions, this pro-
cess has also somehow a¤ected those politico-administrative communities
whose varieties had not obtained the status of ‘‘languages,’’ such as As-
turian in Asturias or Fabla in Aragón. In these cases, there has been a
positive change in speakers’ perceptions of their own varieties (Garcı́a-
Mouton 2004).
1.2. Context and objectives
Contact and interaction between standard and nonstandard varieties has

historically meant convergence of the latter toward the former as a means
of resolving competition between them. Nevertheless, dialect attrition and
death through leveling of varieties has not been the only outcome. Dia-
lects may persist and even revitalize after periods of decay. The case of
innovative regional dialects of Spain, insofar as they are supported by re-
gional or local identity, clearly shows how divergence from the standard
variety is an alternative to leveling and homogenization.
In the following pages we will be considering the results of contact be-
tween standard Castilian Spanish and the nonstandard regional varieties
used in Spain. We will mainly focus on some of the varieties spoken in the
South of Spain (Andalusian and Murcian), but most of our observations
could be extended to the remaining nonstandard varieties of Spanish in
Spain, too. The main hypothesis is that there are two distinct, even con-
tradictory dialect processes taking place in central and southern Spain:
the first is a convergent trend toward the standard variety a¤ecting tran-
sitional (such as Murcian) and Eastern Andalusian regional dialects and
whose result is the formation of a leveled koine (español común ‘common
Spanish’); the second corresponds to the diachronically innovative diver-
gence of Western Andalusian that, far from attrition, is reinforcing its di-
vergent features and appears to be gaining prestige (sevillano, ‘Sevillian’).
Every regional dialect of Spanish derives from Spain’s common lan-
guage (Coseriu 1970), i.e., the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Castilian
Spanish. The standard language is based on northern varieties, which
have kept close to the medieval phonological system, whereas southern
varieties have undergone innovating changes (see Section 2). Convergence
toward the standard variety of Spanish among urban educated young
speakers is frequent in all regional dialects. Prestigious speech patterns
spread from Madrid right across the rest of the country. However, Anda-
lusian dialects and transitional varieties (e.g., Murcian, Extremaduran),
as well as southern varieties of Castilian (La Mancha in New Castile),
are — to di¤erent degrees — innovative divergent nonstandard varieties.
Therefore, educated speakers of these varieties, in particular Eastern An-
dalusians, tend to acquire or increase the frequency of use of some presti-
gious conservative traits (as the /s/–// distinction for seseo in Section 2,
or intervocalic /d/ maintenance for chiefly past participle endings -ado/
ido in Section 3); but, nevertheless, at the same time they maintain other
innovative features (open syllables, lenition of consonants). As a conse-
quence, the leveling of varieties does not lead to advergence — i.e., ap-
proximation to a dominant variety through the mere substitution of
forms (see Mattheier 1996: 33–35) — as might be expected, but rather to

the development of a new leveled spoken variety that converges all cen-
tral and southern regional dialects of Spain. This new variety or español
común (‘common Spanish’) is gaining prestige in the media and may be
seen as a kind of koine of central and southern varieties. From a geo-
graphic point of view, it acts as a bu¤er between the national standard
— based on northern Castilian dialects (castellano) — and southern in-
novative varieties (andaluz, ‘Andalusian’ and, in particular, sevillano,
‘Sevillian’).
This new inter-regional leveled variety accepts southern innovative pat-
terns of pronunciation a¤ecting consonants in syllable-final position (see
Section 2), but adopts overt-prestigious traits from the north particularly
in syllable-initial position (see Sections 2 and 3). Thus, the español común
is an emerging transitional variety between the traditional northern (Ma-
drid) and southern (Seville) speech trends. The future spreading and so-
cial development of this variety beyond the areas where it is currently
spoken is unlikely; but the balanced blend of prestigious traits with un-
marked features leads us to believe that this new koine could be increas-
ingly used by most peninsular speakers as their spoken variety. In fact,
this variety could represent for Spanish something comparable to what
Estuary English is for British English (see Lillo 1999).
Nevertheless, not all southern varieties are actually converging in the
direction of this new leveled variety. The influence of Seville as the source
of innovations that have spread throughout Western Andalusia (Cádiz,
Jerez, and Huelva) since the Middle Ages determines maintenance and
even reinforcement both of phonological innovations and of the forma-
tion of a spoken regional standard based on the Seville urban dialect (sev-
illano or norma sevillana, the Seville variety or norm), which functions as
an alternative to the national standard in this area (in the sense that it
may be used in formal contexts and careful styles of planned discourse).
However, this regional prestigious trend has not gained ground in central
and Eastern Andalusia (Granada, Jaén, Córdoba, Málaga, or Almerı́a)
(see Figure 3).
As a result of these two processes, three di¤erent spoken varieties are at
stake: the traditional Castilian Spanish national standard (español están-
dar), the regional spoken standard (sevillano), and the emerging interdia-
lectal spoken variety (español común). In fact, these varieties correspond,
respectively, to three di¤erent historico-geographic domains: Castile, Sev-
ille, and Granada/Murcia.
In what follows we briefly explain the diachronic formation of regional
dialects in Spain (Section 2). In Section 3 we consider convergence and
divergence of southern regional dialects. After presenting the general con-
Figure 3. The Autonomous Community of Andalusia with its provinces and the Region of
Murcia with its main urban centers
figuration of the speech communities (Section 3.1), examples from East-

ern Andalusian and Murcian varieties show the extent to which conver-
gence toward the national standard and the subsequent adoption of main-
stream prestigious traits combines with the use of unmarked regional
patterns of pronunciation, giving rise to a leveled koine (Section 3.3). To
show the other side of the coin, Western Andalusia’s divergent patterns of
use are commented upon (Section 3.2).
2. Regional dialects of Peninsular Spanish: innovative and conservative

dialects
2.1. Diachronic development

The formation of regional dialects in Spain can largely be accounted for
by considering a few very general principles that have been constraining
Spanish phonology since the early Middle Ages. Regional dialects of
Spanish can be classified into two main groups (see Table 1): innovative
(I) and conservative (C), according to the constraints developed on syl-
lable structure and phonological inventories (Villena-Ponsoda 2008a;
Villena-Ponsoda and Vida-Castro 2004).2
On the one hand, innovative varieties underwent a set of latent phono-
logical changes, deletion of codas and simplification of the phonological
inventory (Moreno-Fernández 2004) as a consequence of dialect contact
and koineization during the period of resettlement of areas conquered by
Table 1. Di¤erences between innovative and conservative dialects of Spanish
Medieval Conservative Innovative Standard Gloss

Castilian dialects dialects
caça [ts] ’kaa [] ’ka s a []P[s ] caza [] ‘hunting’

casa [s÷ ] ’kas÷ a [s÷ ] ’ka s a []P[s ] casa [s÷ ] ‘house’
cacho [t§] ’kat§o [t§] ’ka§o [§] cacho [t§] ‘bit’
callo [·] ’ka˘ı ˇo, ’ka·o [ ˇ]P[·]
˘ı ’ka‰o [‰] callo [ ˇ]
˘ı ‘corn’
cayo [ ˇ]
˘ı ’ka˘ı ˇo [ ˇ]
˘ı ’ka‰o [‰] cayo [ ˇ]
˘ı ‘key’
caja [§] ’kaxa [x] ’kaha, ’ka [h]PØ caja [x] ‘box’
cada [d] ’ka¶a [¶] ’ka Ø cada [¶] ‘each’
las casas [-s] las÷ ’kas÷as÷ [s÷ ] la ’ka s a Ø las casas [s÷ ] ‘the houses’
esto [-s] ’es÷ to [s÷ ] ’eto Ø esto [s÷ ] ‘this’
leción [-n] le'jón [n] le’jõ Ø lección [n] ‘lesson’
the Christians from the Arabs and the subsequent mélange of people
(Penny 2000). Since the thirteenth century, coda deletion and onset sim-
plification led to open syllables, as well as to mergers between old Castil-
ian dental (ç, z, as in caça ‘hunting’ and pozo ‘pit, well’) and alveolar (s,
ss, as in casa ‘house’, poso ‘dregs’; cf. oso ‘bear’ and osso ‘I dare’) conso-
nants (the so-called southern ceceo and seseo; see below). These un-
marked options produced a series of chain shifts that are responsible,
among other changes, for the contemporary Andalusian dialect (Villena-
Ponsoda 2001).
On the other hand, conservative varieties did not undergo the above-
mentioned changes. They reinforce codas and maintain marked contrasts
between dental and alveolar consonants (ts, dz versus s, z), blocking and
even reversing every change likely to favor ease of pronunciation. Pro-
nunciation of the standard variety remains close to that of the conserva-
tive varieties, though some di¤erences exist (see Section 3.3): (i) a contrast
between /·/ and /˘ı ˇ/ coexists alongside a merger on /˘ıˇ/ (yeı́smo: callo–
cayo), but the latter is more frequent among urban young speakers; (ii)
consonant clusters (such as ['] in acción [a'’jon]) tend to be simplified
in conservative varieties to a wide range of realizations; and (iii) elision of
/d/ is gaining in frequency among urban speakers in informal styles (see
Table 1).
Andalusian dialects, as well as Canarian and Caribbean varieties, are
the most salient innovative varieties of Spanish. As can be seen in Tables
1 and 2, they show a simplified phoneme inventory as a consequence of
the above-mentioned mergers of old Castilian contrasts (Villena-Ponsoda
2001: 29–56).
As represented in Table 2, conservative dialects, firstly, maintain con-
trasts between dentoalveolar // or /l/ versus palatal /s/ or /·/, which
Table 2. Phonological inventories of conservative and innovative dialects of Spanish

(Villena-Ponsoda 2008b)
Conservative (C) Innovative (I)
Obstruents
Labial Dental Palatal Velar Labial Dental Palatal Velar
p t t§ k Tense p t t§ k
b d ˇ˘ı Lax b d ˇ˘ı
f s x Fricative f s h
Sonorant
m n m n
l · l
¸ lax ¸
r tense r
entails the use of apicoalveolar retracted [s÷ ] and lateral [·]; secondly, they
avoid fricatization [§] of palatal /t§/. Moreover, they use tense fricative
velar /x/ and restrain other changes a¤ecting consonants in onset posi-
tion (/d/ deletion, /x/ lenition to [h], /˘ı ˇ/ fricatization to [§], and so on
— see Table 1). On the other hand, innovative dialects allow the expan-
sion of these changes. As a result, innovative patterns of pronunciation
include the merger on / s / of dental /s/ and // (casa ‘house’ ¼ caza
‘hunting’) as well as palatal /˘ı ˇ/ and /·/ (rayar ‘to scratch’ ¼ rallar ‘to
grate’), fricatization of both tense palatal /t§/ ! [§] and lax palatal (ap-
proximant) /˘ı ˇ/ ! [‰] ([’ka§o], cacho ‘bit’, [’ka‰o] callo ‘corn’), as well as
lenition or even deletion of other consonants (/d/ ! ¶ ! Ø: [a’Blao] ha-
blado ‘spoken’, [ko’mio], comido ‘eaten’; /x/ ! h ! Ø: [ko’e] coger ‘to
take’, etc.).
The abovementioned merger on / s / of dental fricatives in words such
as caza and casa produced two di¤erent patterns of pronunciation: (i) sib-
ilant [s ] (caza [’kas a] and casa [’kas a]) with subsequent neutralization of
minimal pairs such as casa–caza; and (ii) nonsibilant [] (caza [’kaa] and
casa [’kaa]) with the same e¤ect. The first pattern is contemporarily
known as seseo (widespread in American Spanish and southern areas of
peninsular Spain and the Canary Islands) and the second as ceceo (usual
in rural Andalusia, less extended and socially stigmatized).3 In Section
3, these variants, among others, are discussed as examples of dialect
maintenance/attrition.
As for consonants in coda position, needless to say among innovatory
varieties open syllables are preferred and a strong reduction in the num-
ber of phonemes is a consequence of either neutralization — /r/ ¼ /l/ as
in [’a¸to] alto and harto ‘high’ and ‘fed up’; /p/ ¼ /k/ as in [’ato] acto
and apto ‘act’ and ‘apt’ — or deletion — [e’¶a] edad ‘age’, [ko’me] comer
‘to eat’, [krimi’na] criminal ‘criminal’. Furthermore, the remaining conso-
nants tend to aspiration and backing (-n > -Ð [ka’mjõÐ, ka’mjõ] camión
‘lorry’, etc.).
Syntagmatically, an ideal model of codaless syllable is becoming gener-
alized (los niños son listos [lo ’nio õ ’lito] ‘boys are clever’) and a¤ri-
cates tend to fricatization (un cachillo (de) pan pa(ra) comer [ũ ka’§i‰o
pã pa ko’me] ‘a little bit of bread to eat’). Systemically, there is a tendency
to produce a simpler inventory of consonants: (i) the conservative con-
trast between four fricatives (i.e., Med. Castilian: /f/ : /s / : /s÷ / : /§/;
Mod. Spanish: /f/ : // : /s/ : /x/) entails greater division and more dis-
tinctions within the articulation space than the innovative merger of these
phonemes: /f/ : / s / : /h/; and (ii) the lack of a palatal fricative favors
innovative fricatization of /t§/ ! [§] and /˘ı ˇ/ ! [‰]. An inventory avoid-
ing or at least hindering complex onset syllables (as in /t§/þ vowel)
underlies innovative varieties.
Other more advanced, mostly rural, minority patterns represent the
final result of the chain shifts responsible for the majority patterns
described above (Villena-Ponsoda 2001, 2008b): firstly, sibilant fusion
(/§/ ¼ /s / as in [’ras a] rasa, raza, racha ‘smooth’, (f ) ‘race’, ‘gust’); and
secondly, sibilant backing (/ s / ! [h] as in [’raha] rasa, raza ‘smooth’,
(f ) ‘race’), which pushes the aspirated variant [h] of /x/ to elision ([’ra]
raja ‘slit’). The final result is a remarkable simplification of the innovative
phonemic system with three fricatives (/f/ : /s / : /h/) for the fusion pat-
tern and only two for the backing pattern (/f/ : /h/) (Table 3).
2.2. Social variation and evaluation

Results of research on linguistic variation have revealed di¤erences in the
use and social evaluation of the phonological variables commented upon
above. Certain innovative variants are widespread and fully accepted by
Table 3. Consonantal processes in innovative dialects of Spanish (source: Villena-Ponsoda

2001, 2008b)
urban educated speakers, whereas others are strenuously rejected as rural

or tough. Carbonero (2003) has established four di¤erent sets of features
according to their frequency of use and correlation with the speaker’s
education (Table 4).
(G)enerally accepted features are very frequent variants that can be
found in every area and are used by every speaker. (W)estern and
(E)astern features are used by everyone in geographically restricted areas:
the distinction of /s/-// (seseo); and /t§/ realization as [§] or [t§] are the
main isoglosses. Frequent but (R)ejected features (such as ceceo, /x/ de-
letion or deletion of /d/ in environments other than past participle, -ado,
-ada) are nonprestigious variants even among speakers from the most in-
novative areas. Finally, (M)inority features (such as sibilant fusion and
backing) connote rural, old, noneducated speakers and so are rejected by
urban speakers from every social class.
3. Dialect obsolescence and revitalization
3.1. The southern speech communities
The conflict between the standard and nonstandard varieties of Peninsu-

lar Spanish is particularly evident in the innovative areas, i.e., southern
Spain. But this situation of dialects in competition is also found in Castil-
ian, or Castilianized areas, such as León, Cantabria, Asturias, Aragón,
and New Castile (La Mancha), which were able to retain local features.
Southern innovative linguistic patterns lack overt prestige at the national
level and hence urban middle-class speakers tend to converge toward the
Table 4. Four types of phonological features in Andalusian Spanish (adapted from Carbon-
ero 2003); the bold line di¤erentiates between features accepted (above)/rejected
(below) by educated speakers: G ¼ generally accepted; W ¼ western; E ¼ eastern;
R ¼ frequent but rejected; M ¼ minority
G Coda lenition ’kasah, ’ka.hta casas, casta

No coda ’kasa, ’ka.ta casas, casta
· ¼ ˇ,
˘ı a¶o, a¶a ! a.o, a.a ˇa.o
ka’˘ı callado, cayado
Lenition of /x/ ! [h] ’kaha caja
/n/ ! [Ð] ’kas aÐ casan, cazan
W seseo ’kas a casa, caza
/t§/ ! [§] ’ka§a cacha
E /s/ : // distinction ’kas a/’kaa casa/caza
/t§/ ! [t§] ’kat§a Cacha
R ceceo ’kaa casa, caza

Elision of /x/ > [h] > Ø ’ka.a, ’ia caja, hija
i¶o, i¶a, e¶o ! i.o, i.a, e.o ko’mio, ’ia comido, ida
M Sibilant backing ’kaha casa
Sibilant fusion ’kas a casa, cacha
conservative models of use. The reason for this may be related to the fact
that the standard variety is based on northern conservative dialects, while
southern nonstandard varieties are innovative, and thus more divergent
from the standard than northern nonstandard ones. Although in this arti-
cle we are focusing on some of the southern cases, most of them can be
extrapolated to other geographic areas or cases not mentioned here.
Given that the distance between Andalusian dialects and the standard
variety, on the one hand, and between middle class and working-class
Andalusian sociolects, on the other, are greater than for any other vari-
ety, Andalusian speech communities should be defined as ‘‘divergent-
dialect speech communities’’ (J. Milroy 1992: 55–60), since: ‘‘[ . . . ] first,
the dialect is observed to be divergent from other dialects and, particu-
larly, from ‘mainstream’ norms of language [ . . . ]; second, the dialect ex-
hibits a great deal of internal variation.’’ (1992: 55).
Southern speech patterns, then, are conditioned not only by the speak-
er’s social status, but also by a combination of di¤ering levels both of in-
terdialectal contact (high or low) and social network density (dense or
sparse) (Trudgill 1996). Both factors interact with spatial e¤ects (such as
distance and size of interacting urban centers) as well as linguistic ones
(the relative degree of similarity between the linguistic systems in contact)
to mediate the likely linguistic ‘‘attraction’’ or influence of one place on
another (Britain 2002; Hernández-Campoy 1999, 2003a, 2003b, 2004).
The influence of Seville on its surrounding areas has been constant since
the Middle Ages, so that the Seville urban variety has become the basis
of a regional spoken standard (i.e., a relatively focused variety full of
regional-dialect traits and hence di¤ering considerably from the written
standard), which represents an innovative alternative to the spoken na-
tional standard in this area. Western Andalusian speakers use this variety
to perform functions that are accomplished by standard Castilian Spanish
in other areas (Carbonero 2003). This influence, however, does not reach
as far as the eastern areas of Andalusia, where there is not, however, any
cultural, political, or economical urban center able to play functions sim-
ilar to those carried out by Seville. Thus, eastern urban varieties (Gran-
ada, Málaga, Jaén, or Almerı́a) are not roofed by the Seville regional
standard (i.e., there is not such a superordinate variety) nor have a presti-
gious regional variety of their own (Villena-Ponsoda 2006b). Therefore,
they tend to converge toward the national standard. All this may be due
to historical di¤erences in the formation of both speech communities
(timing of the conquest of the area after Arab rule; the predominant
backgrounds of resettled speakers, etc.). The situation in transitional
areas, such as Murcia, is, mutatis mutandi, similar to that described for
Eastern Andalusian varieties.
As reflected in Figure 4, Western Andalusian speech communities show
a configuration near to what Auer (2005) considers as diaglossia, where
Figure 4. Configuration of varieties in Andalusian speech communities (Villena-Ponsoda

2008b) (S, standard; TD, tertiary dialect; RS, regional standard)
at least two varieties are placed between the national standard and the
local dialects. These varieties are: (i) the regional standard (RS), an urban
spoken variety that has resulted from the leveling of regiolects (see Auer
2005); and (ii) the tertiary dialect (TD), a diatopic variety derived from
the standard language by dialectalization (Coseriu 1970) and represented
here by the innovative features that are widely used (G). The western re-
gional spoken standard is formed from the (G) features along with the
western more salient traits (W) (see Table 4).
Eastern speech communities, however, show what may be called a
‘‘convergent continuum,’’ where it is di‰cult to di¤erentiate discrete vari-
eties from the tertiary dialect and the vernacular ones (Figure 4). The
eastern convergent variety tends to include this set of G features with
some prestigious traits shared with transitional regional dialects. This is
where the above mentioned español común is beginning to develop as a
koine (see Section 3.3).
3.2. Divergent varieties: the Seville regional standard
Patterns of pronunciation among Western Andalusian speakers reveal in-

novative underlying inventories and, what is most interesting, demon-
strate that divergent pronunciation is prestigious. Reduction of the medi-
eval Castilian contrast between coronal fricatives is relatively common in
western urban centers such as Seville or Jerez,4 while in eastern towns as
Granada or Málaga the use of this innovative pattern is much less fre-
quent. Moreover, if we consider the speech behavior of the most educated
speakers, divergent patterns are shown to have been accepted as the
mainstream norm in western towns, but not at all in the eastern ones.
Thus, with regards to the realization of dental fricatives, western and
eastern communities seem to be clearly separated (see Figure 5).
These divergent patterns are variable and include social and stylistically
conditioned uses (the so-called seseo, ceceo, and several local variants).
Though reduction of the coronal fricative contrast is fairly common in
both eastern towns (Granada and Málaga), it is obvious that this is not
a mainstream overt-prestigious feature in eastern speech communities,
since educated speakers strenuously reject it.
The innovative fricative realization of palatal /t§/ ! [§] and /˘ı
ˇ/ ! [‰]
follows similar patterns of use, as shown in Figure 6. Among Western
Andalusian speakers (Jerez), divergent unmarked variants such as frica-
tive [§] are actually broadly accepted, since educated speakers use it
nearly as much as the community in general. On the contrary, this variant
Figure 5. Patterns of use of the innovative phoneme inventory in four Andalusian towns — a
comparison between university graduates and the general population (source:
adapted from Villena-Ponsoda [2008b]: Seville (n ¼ 100; male ¼ 50, female ¼
50; see Carbonero 2003), Jerez (n ¼ 54; male ¼ 27, female ¼ 27; see Carbonero
et al. 1992), Granada (n ¼ 103; male ¼ 48; female ¼ 55; see Moya-Corral and
Wiedemann 1995), Málaga (n ¼ 119; male ¼ 44, female ¼ 75; see Villena-
Ponsoda 1996)
is scarcely used among eastern speakers, and strenuously rejected by the

most educated.
As stated above, if we look at both patterns of pronunciation, di¤erent
and even opposed underlying norms seem to be operating in eastern and
western speech communities. Convergence toward the mainstream presti-
gious linguistic norms among eastern speakers reveal, to a certain extent,
their preference for conservative options, such as syllables with complex
onsets — [’t§o.t§o] chocho ‘senile’ opposed to [’§o.§o] — and marked pho-
nemic contrasts — as /s/–// ([’tas a] tasa ‘tax’ and [’taa] taza ‘cup’).
This convergent trend is relatively recent, at least for the less peripheral
areas of Eastern Andalusia (Granada, Málaga) as geolinguistic research
clearly reveals (Morillo-Velarde 2001). Western speakers, however, prefer
divergent phonetically unmarked options. As shown in Figure 7, gender
di¤erences in /t§/ fricatization reveal that divergent innovative patterns
are likely to be based on the western regional prestigious norms, while
Figure 6. Fricatization of palatal /t§/ in three Andalusian towns — a comparison between

university graduates and the general population (source: adapted from Villena-
Ponsoda 2008b)
Figure 7. Sex di¤erences in the use of /t§/ fricatization in three Andalusian towns (source:
Villena-Ponsoda 2008b)
the opposite seems to be true for eastern speakers. Empirical crosslinguis-

tic evidence (Labov 2001: 259–322) has demonstrated that female linguis-
tic behavior tends to favor standard variants, either through rejection of
prototypical male variants (stable variation) or through imitation of the
most prestigious uses (change from above). Data from Granada and Má-
laga confirm this principle and reveal female rejection of divergent pat-
terns, whereas those from Jerez seem to contradict them, since women in
Jerez use those divergent patterns ([§]) more than men. So the most likely
interpretation is that divergent patterns are prestigious in Jerez but not at
all in Granada and Málaga, where [§] and other vernacular features, such
as ceceo, are male vernacular markers.
3.3. Convergent varieties: the inter-regional koine
3.3.1. Eastern Andalusian. Dialect attrition among Eastern Andalu-

sian varieties does not necessarily lead to advergence. On the contrary,
convergence between dialects in contact in urban contexts seems to en-
hance the formation of an intermediate variety partially based on the
southern tertiary dialect (common, as said above, to a broad number of
southern varieties, including Western Andalusian), but also likely to ac-
quire new prestigious conservative features or increase the frequency of
use of those already in use. Even if this intermediate variety has not yet
been well defined nor completely described, it seems obvious that it
accepts southern innovative simplification of the pronunciation of conso-
nants in coda position, but refrains from similar processes in onset posi-
tion, and even accepts splits of mergers, due to the social prestige associ-
ated with the split and hence with the subsequent distinction of word
classes (particularly between /s/ and //). This entails convergence be-
tween, on the one hand, Eastern Andalusian dialects and, on the other,
transitional (Murcia, Extremadura) and southern Castilian varieties (La
Mancha). As the development of this new variety is being led by young
urban educated speakers, at least in Eastern Andalusian towns (Moya-
Corral and Wiedemann 1995; Villena-Ponsoda 1996, 2001), it will proba-
bly gradually be acquiring some social prestige and become an interdia-
lectal koine capable of playing social and stylistic functions that up to
now have been played by the national standard (español estándar).
The most striking feature of this variety is the social prestige associated
with the distinction of /s/–//, which enhances the split of the early
merger of old Castilian fricatives. The merged form has been the sole
variant in some of the eastern and central Andalusian varieties until re-
cently. Therefore, the acquisition of the standard prestigious distinction
Table 5. Phonological inventory of the convergent innovative Eastern Andalusian variety

(source: Villena-Ponsoda 2008b)
Convergent Eastern Andalusian
Obstruents
Labial Dental Palatal Velar
Tense p t t§ k
Lax b d ˇ˘ı
Nonsibilant fricative f h
Sibilant fricative s
is a change in progress from above led by young urban educated speak-

ers. As this change probably started in the 1950s (see Villena-Ponsoda
2001), the split operates on the innovative inventory of phonemes (see
Table 2), and thus both new contrasting phonemes are dental. Moreover,
they are distinguished as sibilant (strident) versus nonsibilant (nonstri-
dent). An intermediate phoneme inventory may be proposed to account
for these patterns of pronunciation (see Table 5).
As there is no palatal fricative, realizations of the a¤ricate /t§/ as the
continuant (fricative) [§] would be expected to occur frequently. However,
they are very unusual, because there appears to be a co-occurrence re-
striction between palatal [§] and sibilant [s ] (Villena-Ponsoda 2001). More-
over, the frequency of consonant elision in onset position (/x/, /d/; see
Section 2.1) tends to be restricted. In fact, although Granada and Málaga
show mean percentages of 54% for the /s/–// distinction, their respec-
tive use of the fricative variant [§] of a¤ricate /t§/ is 18% and 28%.
The use of the convergent inventory increases as the speaker’s educa-
tion is higher and age is younger, as shown in Figure 8. Urban university
graduates have accepted the convergent inventory, and educated speakers
born after 1970 use the /s/–// distinction pattern consistently.5
Together with these phonological features, some morpho-phonological
di¤erences show an increasing divergence of eastern innovative varieties
(Eastern Andalusian) from western ones (Western Andalusian), particu-
larly the use of verbal and nominal paradigms common to central and
northern dialects of Spain, which are distinct from Eastern Andalusian
varieties (see Table 6). On the one hand, eastern varieties delete any real-
ization of the number and person morpheme that is expressed by final
Figure 8. The e¤ect of age and education on the use of the convergent inventory in Granada
(n ¼ 103; education: 0 ¼ 42; 1 ¼ 42; 2 ¼ 19) and Málaga (n ¼ 119; educa-
tion: 0 ¼ 69; 1 ¼ 30; 2 ¼ 20); source: adapted from Moya-Corral and Garcı́a-
Wiedemann (1995) and Villena-Ponsoda (2008b)
Table 6. Verbal paradigms among innovative western and conservative eastern dialects of
Spanish
Western Eastern Andalusian Standard Gloss

Andalusian and Common Spanish
yo como (yo) como (yo) como ‘I eat’

tú come-Ø (tú) com-Ø (tú) comes ‘you eat’
él come (él) come (él) come ‘s/he, it eats’
nosotro comemo-Ø (nosotr) comem-Ø (nosotros) comemos ‘we eat’
ustede come-Ø, (vosotr) coméi-Ø (vosotros) coméis ‘you eat’
ustede coméi-Ø
ello come-Ø (ell) comen (ellos) comen ‘they eat’
/-s/ in the standard variety. This is true for noun phrases, where /s/ is
the plural marker on articles, adjectives, and nouns, as in Examples (1)
and (2):
(1) La/una/otra casa bonita
‘The/a/another nice house’
(2) Las/unas/otras casas bonitas
‘The/some/other nice houses’
Table 7. Simple present and past verbal paradigms in Castilian Spanish
Simple present tense:

2nd person singular (tú) com-es ‘you (familiar) eat’
(usted) com-e ‘you (polite) eat’
3rd person singular (él/ella) com-e ‘he/she eats’
Simple past tense:

1st person singular (yo) com-ı́a ‘I ate’
2nd person singular (tú) com-ı́as ‘you (familiar) ate’
(usted) com-ı́a ‘you (polite) ate’
3rd person singular (él/ella) com-ı́a ‘he/she ate’
And it is equally true for verb forms, where word final /s/ is heavily in-
volved in person marking, as in Table 7. In the case of verb phrases in
Western Andalusian varieties, however, they frequently tend to use pre-
fixed personal pronouns (tú come-Ø, él come-Ø, etc.) to mark person (see
Ranson 1991, 1992). Furthermore, they employ the 1st person plural pro-
noun ustedes instead of vosotros, the latter being the standard form in
Castilian Spanish. On the other hand, eastern varieties, as seen above,
use a verbal paradigm morphologically exactly like that of the standard
except that they drop final /-s/ — as part of the diachronic process
of word-final consonant loss.6 In this way, these varieties tended to adopt
a compensatory, more open realization of vowels before deleted /s/
with the preceding stressed vowel undergoing a process of vowel harmony
([’k m, ko’mm ]), so that 2nd and 3rd person forms (comes/come ‘you
c c
eat/she, he, it eats’) are distinguished by this di¤erence ([’k m] and c
[’kome], respectively).
As regards consonants in coda position, results from Vida-Castro’s
(2005) research on Málaga town reveal that, as expected, the probability
of coda retention (0.33) is lower than that of (0.67) because the dialect
of Málaga is one of the most innovative of all the innovative dialects of
Spanish (2005: 116–127). Nevertheless, the use of the sibilant [s ] variant is
very low (0.01), so that aspirated [h] allophones (0.32) convey the func-
tions (both grammatical and social) associated with [s] in conservative
dialects.
Although deletion is the most common variant, coda retention is fa-
vored by the most educated speakers (see Table 8). Syllables closed by
[h] before stops (lah.tapa, las tapas) are also the most likely realization,
particularly because aspiration tends to occur in the next syllable as an
aspirated [tÆ] or even as a dental a¤ricate [ts] (lah.tapa, la.thapa, la.tsapa,
las tapas) (see Colina 1997; Vida-Castro 2005: 49–86; Torreira 2006;
Moya-Corral 2007; Ruch 2006).
Table 8. Educational stratification of /s/ variants in Málaga (adapted from Vida-Castro 2005: 158–159)
No Elementary Secondary University Sig. Example Standard Gloss

education education education education
Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain

N 8 15 25 26 ANOVA
[s] 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.575 lasmesas las mesas ‘the tables’
e0.00 e0.02 e0.01 e0.02 lasalas las alas ‘the wings’
[h] 0.06 0.06 0.14 0.12 0.000 lahmes a las mesas ‘the tables’
e0.04 e0.3 e0.7 e0.7 lahala las alas ‘the wings’
Ø 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.81 0.001 lames a las mesas ‘the tables’
e0.16 e0.05 e0.10 e0.10 la ala las alas ‘the wings’
[h] þ [t] 0.84 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.023 lahtapa las tapas ‘the lids’
e0.22 e0.08 e0.07 e0.05 loh’tio los tı́os ‘the guys’
Ø þ [t] 0.14 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.021 laØtapa las tapas ‘the lids’
e0.22 e0.08 e0.07 e0.05 loØ’tio los tı́os ‘the guys’
201
Figure 9. Educational di¤erences in the use of four phonological variables in Málaga: mean
probability of /s/ : // distinction, coda maintenance, /x/ elision, and /t§/ ! [§]
fricatization
Figure 9 shows the e¤ect of the speaker’s education on the probability

of use of the variables outlined above: on the one hand, the /s/–// dis-
tinction and coda retention and, on the other, fricatization of /t§/ and de-
letion of /x/. The pronunciation of codas and the above-mentioned split
of the merger between medieval fricatives are favored by educated speak-
ers, whereas the use of coda deletion and palatal fricatives increase as the
speaker’s education decreases.
The interdialectal variety (common Spanish) outlined above is thus de-
veloping into a new leveled koine of varieties in Spain. This variety is
likely to be accepted as it blends a broad combination of linguistic, geo-
graphic, and social features: (i) central and southern dialects actually con-
verge to build up a leveled variety based on the innovative inventory; (ii)
this area includes economically disadvantaged (mostly rural) communities
contrasting with the industrialized north of Spain; and (iii) the phonolog-
ical repertoires of the di¤erent converging areas are closer. Moreover,
southern Castilian, Murcian, and Extremaduran varieties have been using
the prestigious phonemic contrasts (such as the /s/–// distinction),
which are now being acquired by Eastern Andalusian speakers. Con-
versely, innovative variants in coda position (such as /-s/ deletion) are
welcome among these intermediate varieties. In sum, the new koine seems
to show a well-integrated combination of linguistically natural and so-

cially prestigious traits, but only time will tell us about its fortune.
3.3.2. Transition regional varieties: Murcian. Due to its covert prestige

status (see Trudgill 1972), Murcian Spanish provides us with a good
example of dialect contact and attrition in Spain (see Sánchez-López
1999, 2004; Jiménez-Cano 2001; Cutillas-Espinosa 2001a, 2001b, 2004;
Hernández-Campoy 2003a, 2003b; Hernández-Campoy and Jiménez-
Cano 2003). Murcia is traditionally characterized as a predominantly
nonstandard-speaking region; and, like Andalusian Spanish, it can best
be considered as a southward extension of varieties originating in the
central-northern areas of the Iberian Peninsula.7 The Murcian variety is
a transitional regional dialect that shares features with Valencian Cata-
lan, Castilian, Aragonese, and Andalusian Spanish. As stated above (see
Section 2), the southern varieties of Spain are characterized as sharing a
series of phonetic features related to articulatory weakening or relaxation
that di¤erentiate them from the Standard pronunciation, which is closer
to northern patterns. The Region of Murcia, in the southeast, is inevita-
bly ‘‘su¤ering’’ the temptation of the standard prestige Castilian Spanish
dialect and is undergoing a process of standardization to the detriment of
features of the local vernacular variety.
With their longitudinal trend study (from 1975 to 2000) using two so-
cial groups (G1: Murcian politicians and G2: Murcian non-politicians)
and seven prominent features of the Murcian accent as variables,
Hernández-Campoy and Jiménez-Cano (2003) were able to detect and
measure the apparent process of standardization — i.e., the increase in
usage of standard Castilian Spanish forms from northern Peninsular
Spanish in the speech of the traditionally nonstandard-speaking Murcian
community. The results (Figures 10–12) showed a slow but steady pattern
of approximation to the standard Castilian Spanish prestige model, with
the subsequent attrition of local vernacular features: the greater the stan-
dardization, the greater the erosion of Murcian Spanish. This means that
the pronunciation of Murcian speakers was closer to the standard in the
year 2000 (81% standardization) than in 1975 (57%).8 Note, also, that al-
though the two social groups have di¤erent percentages of standard fea-
tures, their evaluation of the two variants (standard and nonstandard) is
exactly the same: both have changed their pronunciation in exactly the
same direction, increasing the percentage of high-status standard Castil-
ian Spanish forms in their speech.
The negative linear pattern shows a general tendency for the individual
variables to converge toward standard Castilian Spanish, though to dif-
ferent degrees. Among the variables considered in that study, there is a
Figure 10. Global progression by time cohort and group of the erosion of the local nonstan-
dard variety in Murcia (negative linear pattern): percentages of usage of non-
standard variants (local dialectal forms), ranging from 100% nonstandard to 0%
nonstandard
Figure 11. Diachronic progression of the process of standardization of Murcian Spanish

(Group 1: male politicians): percentage use of nonstandard variants (local dialec-
tal forms), ranging from 100% (nonstandard) to 0% (standard)
Figure 12. Diachronic progression of the process of standardization of Murcian Spanish

(Group 2: male non-politicians): percentage use of nonstandard variants (local
dialectal forms), ranging from 100% (non-standard) to 0% (standard)
group that is prone to standardization — the phonetic variables (r), (l ),

(d ), as well as consonant permutation and the grammatical variable
(para). Both (r) and (l ) refer to standard conservative pronunciation of
/r/ and /l/ in coda position ([ko’me¸] for comer or [krimi’nal] for crimi-
nal ) instead of their nonstandard innovative counterparts ([ko’m], [kri-
mi’næ]); consonant permutation describes the virtual switch between liq-
uid consonants in coda position ([ko’mel] comer, [so¸’¶ao], soldado); (d )
represents [¶] maintenance or elision in intervocalic position ([sol’¶a¶o] >
[sol’¶ao]); finally, (para) is a variable broadly extended in the Spanish-
speaking world, the contracted form [pa] being a vernacular alternative
to the standard [’pa¸a] of preposition para. However, there is another
group of variables that is rather reluctant to standardize — variables (s)
and consonant assimilation. The first one, (s), points to maintenance
(standard) or elision (nonstandard) of /s/ in coda position (casas:
[’kasas] > [’kasæ]), whereas the second (consonant assimilation) refers to
maintenance (standard) or simplification (nonstandard) of consonant
clusters (carne: [’ka¸ne] > [’kanne]). The nonstandard realization of these
features is part of the essentially southern characterization, common to
the group of innovative dialects (see Section 2.1) so deeply rooted within
the Murcian speech community that they are part of the local identity
there.
Postvocalic /s/, for example, has been studied in urban centers such as
Toledo (Calero 1993; Molina-Martos 1998), Las Palmas (Samper 1990),
Seville (Carbonero 2003; Guillén 1992), Jaén (Moya-Corral 1977), coastal
Granada (Garcı́a-Marcos 1987), Ciudad Real (Bedmar 1992), Getafe
(Martı́n-Butragueño 1991), Alcalá de Henares (Blanco-Canales 2004),
Málaga (Vida-Castro 2005), and Orán, in western Algeria (Moreno-
Fernández 1992, 1994), and in the provinces of Toledo, Ciudad Real
(Garcı́a-Mouton and Moreno-Fernández 1994), and Madrid (Molina-
Martos 2006). Features such as this can also be found in a good number
of locations studied for the Atlas Lingüı́stico (y etnográfico) de Castilla–
La Mancha (Garcı́a-Mouton and Moreno-Fernández 2003–2007) from
central Spain (New Castile: Ciudad Real, Cuenca Guadalajara, and Al-
bacete). In this region there is a much less apparent consciousness that
the area is a nonstandard-speaking one than is the case in Andalusia or
Murcia. Due to its geographic and linguistic transitional status between
the conservative patterns of the north (Old Castile) and the innovative
ones of the south (Andalusia) (see Section 1.2), the linguistic insecurity
of speakers varies depending on how near the north or the south they
come from. The studies carried out in La Mancha using rural adult
speakers allow us to witness how even informants with a low educational
level su¤er from the pressure of the standard. In contrast, both word-final
postvocalic /s/ and consonant assimilation among Murcian speakers
demonstrate resistance to standardization.
In fact, at least in Peninsular Spanish, according to Martı́nez-Martı́n
(1983), the process of regressive consonant assimilation of consonantal
clusters, such as -ds- (adscribir ‘assign’), -bs- (substracción ‘subtraction’),
-ks- (exponente ‘exponent’), -rs- (intersticio ‘interstice’), -ns- (constar
‘state/record/consist of ’), -st- (canasta ‘basket’), -sk- (esquimal ‘Eskimo’),
-rn- (carne ‘meat’), -rl- (Carlos), -kt- (contacto ‘contact’), -dk- (adquirir
‘acquire/purchase’), -d- (Magdalena), etc., which is a salient feature in
nonstandard Spanish varieties in the south, is described as a phenomenon
in the process of expansion in northern regions of Spain, which are appar-
ently standard Castilian Spanish-speaking areas (see Table 9).
The linguistic changes from nonstandard to standard usage captured at
a terminal stage in Murcia were the cases of intervocalic /r/ in the word
para and consonant permutation (r > l and r < l ). However, the standard
forms of the postvocalic (l ) and (r) variables in word-final position were
not well embedded until the mid-1990s; intervocalic /d/, at a fairly ad-
vanced stage of standardization, appears in an intermediate-high position
for both groups and behaves like a sociolinguistic marker. According to
Table 9. Regressive consonant assimilation in Murcian Spanish
Murcian Standard Castilian Gloss
[kæn’n] [ka¸’ne]P[ka¸’net] carnet ‘card/license’

[’tætto] [’takto]P[’ta'to] tacto ‘tact/sense’
[ækki’¸i] [a¶ki’¸i¸] adquirir ‘buy/acquire’
Table 10. Di¤erences in the percentage of use of variants of intervocalic /d/ in the linguistic
environment /stressed vowel_vowel/ in six Spanish-speaking towns (source:
adapted from Samper 1990: 258); between tense [¶] and deleted (Ø) variants, a
non-tense, lenited, or intermediate variant is distinguished
Deletion Lenition Maintenance
Panama 20 12 68
Caracas 12 67
San Juan 21 53 26
Las Palmas 30 32 38
Granada** 64
Malaga*** 33.1 5.8 61.2
** only for some environments

*** only university graduates
Narbona et al. (1998: 176), the deletion of intervocalic /d/ is becoming a

widespread phenomenon in the casual speech of peninsular Spanish. This
variable was also studied by Williams (1987) in Valladolid, a city of Old
Castile, where she found that it is subject to both social and stylistic vari-
ation, with a conscious use of the standard variant in formal contexts (see
Penny 1991 and 2000). Similar patterns have been found in Toledo
(Molina-Martos 1998, 2001), Alcalá de Henares (Blanco-Canales 2004),
Getafe (Martı́n-Butragueño 1991), and Barcelona (Turell 1996). In Ma-
drid, for example, the loss of intervocalic -d- in the masculine past parti-
ciple ending (-ado > -ao) is a widespread feature in the informal speech
of both male and female educated speakers (Garcı́a-Mouton 2003: 78),
whereas in formal contexts the intervocalic -d- is maintained. Neverthe-
less, the loss of the feminine past participle ending (-ada > -á) is stigma-
tized and considered as vulgar. Results from ongoing research in Málaga
(VUM 2007), included in a major coordinated study of five Spanish
towns (Alcalá de Henares, Lleida, Valencia, Las Palmas, Granada, and
Málaga), show that /d/ deletion is a well-accepted feature (33.1%)
among Málaga university graduates (n ¼ 24) in the linguistic environ-
ment of /stressed vowel_vowel/ (see Table 10). However, if only past
participle endings are considered, percentages of deletion markedly
increase (89%). Deletion of /d/ is more frequent, as expected, in collo-

quial, nontechnical, casual registers and among male speakers. Never-
theless, unexpectedly, younger educated speakers in Málaga lead /d/
deletion, so that the more widespread view that it is a stable sociolinguis-
tic marker is not supported by this evidence.
Samper (1990) conducted the phonological research on the variety of
Las Palmas, where he also presents data from a number of other urban
centers. It has frequently been assumed that /d/ deletion was a stable
marker in Spanish, used mostly by old, noneducated male speakers. This
assumption is based on the studies referred to in Table 10. However, our
data from Málaga and those from Granada (Moya-Corral p.c.) show that
young educated speakers under the age of 35 delete /d/ (34%) more than
older people (35–54 years: 21%; over 54 years: 22%). These results do not
definitively support the hypothesis of an ongoing change led by young
educated speakers, but certainly question traditional assumptions.
As mentioned above, the variable (d ) is also a marker in Murcia. The
di¤erence with other areas lies in that intervocalic /d/ deletion in Murcia,
as well as in most of Andalusia (see Narbona et al. 1998: 176–181), is
both stylistically and socially more extensive: the nonstandard variant is
consistently much more frequently found in formal situations and upper
social classes in the Spanish of Murcia than in Old Castile. Similar pat-
terns have been found in Las Palmas (Samper 1990), Córdoba (Uruburu
1994), coastal Granada (Garcı́a-Marcos 1987), Almerı́a (Garcı́a-Marcos
and Fuentes-González 1996), and Cáceres (Paredes 2001).
4. Conclusion
In this article we have been examining the consequences of contact be-

tween standard Castilian Spanish and nonstandard regional varieties
spoken in Spain, with special attention given to the varieties spoken in
the south of Spain (Andalusian and Murcian). Contact and interaction
between standard and nonstandard varieties has historically meant con-
vergence of the latter toward the former as a means of resolving com-
petition between them. Nevertheless, dialect attrition and death through
leveling of varieties has not been the only outcome. Dialects may persist
and even revitalize after periods of decay. The case of regional dialects of
Spain clearly shows how divergence from the standard variety, as it is
supported by regional or local identity, is an alternative to leveling and
homogenization.
This ongoing contact situation normally yields cases of, more often, di-
alect obsolescence together with standardization and leveling, on the one
hand, or, conversely, and less often, survival processes of dialect mainte-
nance, on the other. The accounts seen here of the conflict between the
standard Castilian Spanish and nonstandard varieties in Spain demon-
strate that this contact has normally yielded examples of dialect obsoles-
cence together with standardization and leveling, on the one hand, but
occasionally has led to survival processes of dialect maintenance, on the
other. As far as the former is concerned, Andalusian dialects show both
sides of the same coin: while divergent western varieties tend to persist,
developing a regional standard based on the Seville variety, contrarily
convergent eastern varieties are likely to accept mainstream prestigious
features and approximate central and peripheral dialects, building up a
new leveled koine (‘‘common Spanish’’). As far as dialect maintenance is
concerned, Murcian varieties, given they are closer to the standard pro-
nunciation than Andalusian ones within the dialect continuum, are more
likely to converge and undergo leveling. But this is true only at a superfi-
cial level, since, as shown, systemic as well as attitudinal reasons prevent
some vernacular features from disappearing. These features are those
which characterize the southern tertiary dialect, and form the basis of
the new koine.
Universidad de Murcia
Universidad de Málaga
Notes
* We would like to thank Pilar Garcı́a-Mouton for her fruitful comments and suggestions.
We are indebted to the editors of this volume for their critical revision and helpful com-
ments which have very much informed our thoughts on this topic, though we alone are
responsible for the manner and content of this article.
1. Some of the results and data this article deals with are based on the DGICYT (Direc-
ción General de Investigación Cientı́fica y Tecnológica) Research Project on the Malaga
Urban Spanish (MUS-Project; HUM2004-06052-c06-02/filo), which benefits also from
FEDER (Fonds Européen de Développement Régional) funds.
2. See Villena-Ponsoda (2001, 2008a) and Villena-Ponsoda and Vida-Castro (2004) for an
interpretation of these general principles constraining the pronunciation of Spanish since
the early Middle Ages within the framework of Optimality Theory.
3. See Penny (1991, 2000), Villena-Ponsoda (2001), Villena-Ponsoda et al. (1995), and
Trudgill and Hernández-Campoy (2007). For the study of seseo in Murcia and Alicante,
see Grandal-López (1999) and Abad-Merino (2004). For the study of Andalusian seseo
and ceceo, see Moya-Corral and Wiedemann (1995), Martı́nez-Moya and Moya-Corral
(2000), Villena-Ponsoda (2000, 2005).
4. Though this reduction occurred in the Middle Ages, it is frequently referred to as /s/ ¼
// reduction, as the standard /s/–// contrast is taken as an anachronic reference.
5. E¤ects for Málaga: ANOVA: R 2 ¼ 0:342; intergroup e¤ects: interaction ¼ not signifi-
cant; education: F ¼ 11:792 (2), sig. P < 0:001; age ¼ not significant. Significance scores
for Granada are not available.
6. Diachronically speaking, the loss of any consonant (except -m and -n) in word-final po-
sition has had dramatic consequences for the Eastern Andalusian and Murcian vowel
systems. Historical word-final /eC, oC, aC/ have become /, , æ/, and the same vo-
c
calic developments have occurred word-internally in the case of vowels before assimi-
lated consonants (see Hernández-Campoy and Trudgill 2002).
7. See Lapesa (1980 [1942]), Zamora-Vicente (1960), Penny (1991), Alvar (1996), Gómez-
Ortı́n (2004), Hernández-Campoy (2003a, 2003b, 2004), Hernández-Campoy and
Trudgill (2002), Hernández-Campoy and Jiménez-Cano (2003), and Jiménez-Cano and
Hernández-Campoy (2004) and Monroy-Casas (2002) for a suprasegmental approach.
8. The geolinguistic and variationist sociolinguistic studies carried out in Hernández-
Campoy (2003a, 2003b) showed that the use of standard Castilian Spanish features is
spreading gradually and consistently across the Murcian region and among the di¤erent
Murcian social substrata to the detriment of local southern linguistic features. Geolingu-
istically speaking, this slow but steady erosion of local features under pressure of stan-
dardization follows a hierarchical structure of di¤usion, from larger to smaller urban
centers: Murcia City, in particular, is undergoing this process of standardization to a
greater extent and at a higher rate than other parts of the region. Since illiteracy has dra-
matically decreased over the last twenty-five years, and given the close relationship be-
tween spelling and pronunciation in Spanish, orthography is playing a crucial role in
favor of the standardization process in the nonstandard areas.
References
Abad-Merino, Mercedes. 2004. Apuntes históricos y nuevas perspectivas en torno al seseo

de Cartagena: Las Ordenanzas de 1738. Tonos Digital 8. 167–183.
Alvar, Manuel (ed.). 1996. Manual de Dialectologı́a Hispánica: El Español de España. Barce-
lona: Ariel.
Auer, Peter. 2005. Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/
standard constellations. In Nicole Delbecque, Johan van der Auwera & Dirk Geeraerts
(eds.), Perspectives on variation: Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative, 7–42. Berlin &
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bedmar, Marı́a Jesús. 1992. Progresión de soluciones aspiradas de -s implosiva en la provin-
cia de Ciudad Real. Actas del II Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española
2. 61–70.
Blanco-Canales, Ana. 2004. Estudio sociolingüı́stico de Alcalá de Henares: Análisis fonético
de una red social de Alcalá de Henares. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad.
Britain, David. 2002. Space and spatial di¤usion. In J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Na-
talie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 603–637. Ox-
ford: Blackwell.
Calero, Marı́a Ángeles. 1993. Estudio sociolingüı́stico del habla de Toledo. Lérida: Pagés.
Carbonero, Pedro. 2003. Estudios de sociolingüı́stica andaluza. Sevilla: Universidad Pagés.
Carbonero, Pedro, José Luis Álvarez, Joaquı́n Casas & Isabel Maria Gutiérrez. 1992. El
habla de Jerez. Estudio sociolingüı́stico. Jerez: Ayuntamiento.
Colina, Sonia. 1997. Identity constraints and Spanish resyllabification. Lingua 103. 1–23.
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1970. ‘‘Historische Sprache’’ und ‘‘Dialekt’’. In Joachim Göschel, Pavle
Ivic & Kurt Kehr (eds.), Dialekt und Dialektologie, 106–122. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Cutillas-Espinosa, Juan Antonio. 2001a. Variación sociolingüı́stica: Evolución de los roles
de género en Fortuna (Murcia). In Isabel de la Cruz, Carmen Santamarı́a, Cristina Teje-
dor & Carmen Valero (eds.), La lingüı́stica aplicada a finales del siglo XX: Ensayos y pro-
puestas, 685–692. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá.
Cutillas-Espinosa, Juan Antonio. 2001b. Variación estilı́stica en los medios de comunica-
ción: Una aproximación contrastiva a la teorı́a del diseño de la audiencia. In Ana Isabel
Moreno Fernández & Vera Colwell (eds.), Perspectivas recientes sobre el discurso. León:
University of León & AESLA.
Cutillas-Espinosa, Juan Antonio. 2004. Variación genérica, edad y prestigio encubierto en
Fortuna (Murcia). Tonos Digital (www.tonosdigital.com) 8. 147–165.
Garcı́a-Marcos, Francisco. 1987. El segmento fónico vocal þs en ocho poblaciones de la
costa granadina: Aportación informática, estadı́stica y sociolingüı́stica al reexamen de la
cuestión. Epos: Revista de Filologı́a 3. 155–180.
Garcı́a-Marcos, Francisco & Antonio Fuentes-González. 1996. Mecanismos de prestigio y
repercusión sociolingüı́stica. Almerı́a: Universidad de Almerı́a.
Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar. 2003. Ası́ hablan las mujeres: Curiosidades y tópicos en el uso feme-
nino del lenguaje. Madrid: La esfera de los libros.
Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar. 2004. Sur la dialectologie espagnole. In Jean Le Dû & Nelly Blan-
chard (eds.), La Bretagne linguistique 13: Dialectologie et géolinguistique, 331–339. Brest:
Université de Bretagne.
Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar. 2006. El castellano hoy: Sus principales rasgos lingüı́sticos: Varie-
dades del español hablado en España: Teorı́a y práctica. In Elena de Miguel (ed.), Las
lenguas españolas: Un enfoque filológico, 151–174. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y
Ciencia.
Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar. 2007. Lenguas y dialectos de España. Madrid: Arco Libros.
Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar & Francisco Moreno-Fernández. 1994. Atlas lingüı́stico (y etnográ-
fico) de Castilla–La Mancha: Materiales fonéticos de Ciudad Real y Toledo. In Pilar
Garcı́a-Mouton (ed.), Geolingüı́stica: Trabajos europeos, 111–153. Madrid: CSIC.
Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar & Francisco Moreno-Fernández. 2003–2007. Atlas lingüı́stico y etnog-
ráfico de Castilla–La Mancha. Alcalá: Universidad de Alcalá, www.uah.es/otrosweb/
alecman.
Gómez-Ortı́n, Francisco. 2004. El dialecto murciano y sus variedades. Tonos Digital 8. 7–
26.
Grandal-López, Alfonso. 1999. Sobre el origen del seseo cartagenero. Estudios de Lingüı́stica
de la Universidad de Alicante 13. 269–279.
Guillén, Rosario. 1992. Una cuestión de morfosintaxis: Realización en andaluz de la /s/ fi-
nal de palabra seguida de vocal. Anuario de Estudios Filológicos 15. 135–153.
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel. 1999. Geolingüı́stica: Modelos de interpretación geográ-
fica para lingüistas. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel. 2003a. Exposure to contact and the geographic adoption
of standard features: Two complementary approaches. Language in Society 32. 227–255.
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel. 2003b. Geolinguistic patterns of di¤usion in a Spanish
region: The case of the dialect of Murcia. Estudios de Sociolingüı́stica 4. 613–652.
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel. 2004. Requisitos teórico-metodológicos para el estudio
geolingüı́stico del dialecto Murciano. Tonos digital (www.tonosdigital.com) 8. 269–326.
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel. 2007. The fight of nonstandardness under standard pres-
sures. In Andreas Papapavlou & Pavlos Pavlou (eds.), Sociolinguistic and pedagogical di-
mensions of dialect in education, 50–77. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & José Marı́a Jiménez-Cano. 2003. Broadcasting stan-
dardisation: An analysis of the linguistic normalisation process in Murcia. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 7. 321–347.
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Peter Trudgill. 2002. Functional compensation and
southern peninsular Spanish /s/ loss. Folia Linguistica Historica 23. 141–167.
Jiménez-Cano, José Marı́a. 2001. La enseñanza de la lengua española en contexto dia-
lectal: Algunas sugerencias para el estudio del caso murciano. In Maria Isabel Montoya
Ramı́rez (ed.), La lengua española y su enseñanza, 27–53. Granada: Universidad de
Granada.
Jiménez-Cano, José Marı́a & Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy. 2004. Quantifying the
standardisation process in a non-standard local community: The case of Murcia. Spanish
in Context 1. 67–93.
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lapesa, Rafael. 1942/1980. Historia de la lengua Española. Madrid: Gredos.
Lasagabaster, David. 2003. Trilingüismo en la enseñanza: Actitudes hacia la lengua minorita-
ria, la mayoritaria y la extranjera. Lleida: Milenio.
Lillo, Antonio. 1999. El Inglés del Estuario y las innovaciones fonéticas del habla londi-
nense. Atlantis 21. 59–77.
López-Garcı́a, Ángel. 1985. El rumor de los desarraigados: Conflicto de lenguas en la Penı́n-
sula Ibérica. Barcelona: Anagrama.
Mar-Molinero, Clare. 2000. The politics of language in the Spanish-speaking world. London:
Routledge.
Martı́n-Butragueño, Pedro. 1991. Desarrollos sociolingüı́sticos en una comunidad de habla.
Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid dissertation.
Martı́nez-Martı́n, Miguel. 1983. Fonética y socioligüı́stica en la ciudad de Burgos. Madrid:
CSIC.
Martı́nez-Moya, Marı́a & Juan Antonio Moya-Corral. 2000. Reacciones actitudinales
hacia la variación dialectal en hablantes granadinos. Lingüı́stica española actual 22. 137–
160.
Mattheier, Klaus. 1996. Varietatenkonvergenz: Überlengungen zu einem Baustein einer
Theorie der Sprachvariation. Sociolinguistica 10. 1–31.
Menéndez-Pidal, Ramón. 1919. Orı́genes del español: Estado lingüı́stico de la Penı́nsula Ibér-
ica hasta el siglo XI. Madrid: Gredos.
Milroy, James. 1992. Language variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of
English. Oxford: Blackwell.
Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1985. Authority in language: Investigating language prescrip-
tion and standardisation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Molina-Martos, Isabel. 1998. La fonética de Toledo: Contexto geográfico y social. Alcalá de
Henares: Universidad de Alcalá.
Molina-Martos, Isabel. 2001. Geografı́a y estratificación social de un cambio fonético: La
-d- en español peninsular. Verba 28. 81–98.
Molina-Martos, Isabel. 2006. Innovación y difusión del cambio lingüı́stico en Madrid. Re-
vista de Filologı́a Española 86. 127–149.
Monroy-Casas, Rafael. 2002. El sistema entonativo del español murciano coloquial. Aspec-
tos comunicativos y actitudinales. Estudios Filológicos 37. 77–101.
Moreno-Fernández, Francisco. 1992. El español de Orán: Notas históricas, dialectales y
sociolingüı́sticas. Revista de Filologı́a Española 71. 5–35.
Moreno-Fernández, Francisco. 1994. Debilitamiento de -s en el español de Orán: Análisis de
sus contextos fónicos. Boletı́n de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española: 2
época 1. 91–111.
Moreno-Fernández, Francisco. 2004. Cambios vivos en el plano fónico del español: Varia-
ción dialectal y sociolingüı́stica. In Rafael Cano (ed.), Historia de la Lengua Española,
973–1009. Barcelona: Ariel.
Moreno-Fernández, Francisco. 2005. Historia social de las lenguas de España. Barcelona:
Ariel.
Moreno-Fernández, Francisco. 2007. Social remarks on the history of Spanish. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 184. 7–20.
Morillo-Velarde, Ramón. 2001. Sociolingüı́stica en el ALEA: Variable generacional y cam-
bio lingüı́stico. Estudios de Lingüı́stica 15. 13–49.
Moya-Corral, Juan Antonio. 1977. La pronunciación del español en Jaén. Granada: Univer-
sidad de Granada.
Moya-Corral, Juan Antonio. 2007. Noticia de un sonido emergente: La africada dental
procedente del grupo -st- en Andalucı́a. Revista de Filologı́a de La Laguna 25. 457–467.
Moya-Corral, Juan Antonio & Emilio Wiedemann. 1995. El habla de Granada y sus barrios.
Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Narbona, Antonio, Rafael Cano & Ramón Morillo-Velarde. 1998. El español hablado en
Andalucı́a. Barcelona: Ariel.
Penny, Ralph. 1991. A history of the Spanish language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Penny, Ralph. 2000. Variation and change in Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peredes, Florentino. 2001. El habla de la Jara. Los sonidos (Estudio sociolingüı́stico). Alcalá
de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá de Henares.
Ranson, Diana. 1991. Person marking in the wake of /s/ deletion in Andalusian Spanish.
Language Variation and Change 3. 133–152.
Ranson, Diana. 1992. Nominal number marking in Andalusian Spanish in the wake of /s/
deletion. Hispanic Studies 4. 301–327.
Ruch, Hanna. 2006. El fenómeno de la africada [ts] < /-st-/ en el andaluz: Aspectos fonéti-
cos y sociolingüı́sticos. Zurich: Universität Zürich term paper.
Samper, José Antonio. 1990. Estudio sociolingüı́stico del español de Las Palmas de Gran
Canaria. Las Palmas: La Caja de Canarias.
Sánchez-López, Laura. 1999. El habla de los vendedores de El Corte Inglés de Murcia: Estu-
dio sociolingüı́stico. Murcia: Departamento de Lengua Española y Lingüı́stica General,
Universidad de Murcia minor thesis.
Sánchez-López, Laura. 2004. El habla de los vendedores de El Corte Inglés de Murcia: Es-
tudio Sociolingüı́stico. Tonos digital (www.tonosdigital.com) 8. 117–146.
Torreira, Francisco. 2006. Coarticulation between aspirated -s and voiceless stops in Span-
ish: An interdialectal comparison. In Nuria Sagarra & Jacqueline Almeida (eds.), 113–
120. Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Sommerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Trudgill, Peter. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English
of Norwich. Language in Society 1. 179–195.
Trudgill, Peter. 1996. Dialect typology: Isolation, social network and phonological structure.
In Gregory Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schi¤rin & John Baugh (eds.), Towards a
social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov: Volume 1, 3–22. Amsterdam
& Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Trudgill, Peter & Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy. 2007. Diccionario de sociolingüı́stica.
Madrid: Gredos.
Turell, Maria Teresa. 1996. El contexto de la variación lingüı́stica y su aplicación al estudio
del morfema español — ADO. In Francisco Gutiérrez-Dı́ez (ed.), El español, lengua inter-
nacional (1492–1992), 639–654. Murcia: Compobell.
Uruburu, Agustı́n. 1994. El tratamiento del fonema /-d-/ en posición intervocálica en la len-
gua española hablada en Córdoba (España). La linguistique, revue de la societé interna-
tionale de linguistique fonctionnelle 30. 85–104.
Vida-Castro, Matilde. 2005. Estudio sociofonológico del español hablado en la ciudad de Má-
laga: Condicionamientos sobre la variación de /-s/ en la distensión silábica. Alicante: Uni-
versidad de Alicante.
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 1996. Convergence and divergence in a standard–dialect
continuum: Networks and individuals in Malaga. Sociolinguistica 10. 112–137.
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2000. Identidad y variación lingüı́stica: Sistema y sı́ntoma
en el español andaluz. In Georg Bossong & Francisco Báez de Aguilar (eds.), Identi-
dades lingüı́sticas en la España autonómica, 107–150. Frankfurt & Madrid: Vervuert &
Iberoamericana.
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2001. La continuidad del cambio lingüı́stico: Tendencias con-
servadoras e innovadoras en la fonologı́a del español a la luz de la investigación sociolingüı́s-
tica urbana. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2005. How similar are people who speak alike? An interpre-
tive way of using social networks in social dialectology research. In Peter Auer, Frans
Hinskens & Paul Kerswill (eds.), Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European
Languages, 303–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2006a. The Iberian Peninsula. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert
Dittmar, Klaus Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Soziolinguistik/Sociolinguistics: An
international handbook of the science of language and society: Volume 3, 2nd edn., 1802–
1810. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2006b. Andaluz oriental y andaluz occidental: Estandariza-
ción y planificación en ¿una o dos comunidades de habla? In Ana Maria Cestero, Isabel
Molina & Florentino Paredes (eds.), Estudios sociolingüı́sticos del español de España y
América, 233–254. Madrid: Arco/Libros.
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2008a. La formación del español común en Andalucı́a. Un
caso de escisión prestigiosa. In Esther Herrera & Pedro Martı́n Butragueño (eds.), Fonolo-
gı́a instrumental: Patrones fónicos y variación. México: El Colegio de México.
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2008b. Sociolinguistic patterns of Andalusian Spanish. Inter-
national Journal of the Sociology of Language 193/194. 139–160.
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés, José Sánchez-Sáez & Antonio Ávila-Muñoz. 1995. Modelos
probabilı́sticos multinomiales para el estudio del seseo, ceceo y distinción de /s/ y //:
Datos de la ciudad de Málaga. Estudios de Lingüı́stica de la Universidad de Alicante 10.
391–435.
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés & Matilde Vida-Castro. 2004. The e¤ect of social prestige on
reversing phonological changes: Universal constraints on speech variation in Southern
Spanish. In Britt-Louise Gunnarsson, Lena Bergström, Gerd Eklund, Sta¤an Fidell, Lise
Hansen, Angela Karstadt, Bengt Nordberg, Eva Sundergren & Mats Thelander (eds.),
Language variation in Europe: Papers from the 2nd International Conference on Language
Variation and Change in Europe (June 2003), 432–444. Uppsala: Department of Scandi-
navian Languages, Uppsala University.
VUM. 2007. Variación de /d/ intervocálica en Málaga, preliminary report. Málaga: Univer-
sidad de Málaga.
Williams, Lynn. 1987. Aspectos sociolingüı́sticos del habla de la ciudad de Valladolid. Valla-
dolid & Exeter: University of Valladolid & University of Exeter.
Zamora-Vicente, Alonso. 1960. Dialectologı́a Española. Madrid: Gredos.
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access an

$RK93YNM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

$RK93YNM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain:

dialect attrition and revitalization

JUAN MANUEL HERNÁNDEZ-CAMPOY

In any process of linguistic standardization, the promotion of one variety to

1. Introduction: the two sides of standardization

1.1. Historical appraisal

In any process of linguistic standardization, the promotion of one variety

0165–2516/09/0196-197–0181 Int’l. J. Soc. Lang. 196-197 (2009), pp. 181–214

Figure 1. The process of standardization of Castilian Spanish (from Hernández-Campoy and

Figure 2. The mosaic of contemporary Peninsular Spanish dialects and languages

dictatorial regime (1939–1975), when it was used to maintain national

1.2. Context and objectives

Contact and interaction between standard and nonstandard varieties has

forms (see Mattheier 1996: 33–35) — as might be expected, but rather to

ﬁguration of the speech communities (Section 3.1), examples from East-

2. Regional dialects of Peninsular Spanish: innovative and conservative

2.1. Diachronic development

Table 1. Di¤erences between innovative and conservative dialects of Spanish

Medieval Conservative Innovative Standard Gloss

caça [ts] ’kaa [] ’ka s a []P[s ] caza [] ‘hunting’

Table 2. Phonological inventories of conservative and innovative dialects of Spanish

Conservative (C) Innovative (I)

Labial Dental Palatal Velar Labial Dental Palatal Velar

b d ˇ˘ı Lax b d ˇ˘ı

2.2. Social variation and evaluation

Table 3. Consonantal processes in innovative dialects of Spanish (source: Villena-Ponsoda

urban educated speakers, whereas others are strenuously rejected as rural

3. Dialect obsolescence and revitalization

3.1. The southern speech communities

The conﬂict between the standard and nonstandard varieties of Peninsu-

G Coda lenition ’kasah, ’ka.hta casas, casta

R ceceo ’kaa casa, caza

Figure 4. Conﬁguration of varieties in Andalusian speech communities (Villena-Ponsoda

3.2. Divergent varieties: the Seville regional standard

Patterns of pronunciation among Western Andalusian speakers reveal in-

is scarcely used among eastern speakers, and strenuously rejected by the

Figure 6. Fricatization of palatal /t§/ in three Andalusian towns — a comparison between

the opposite seems to be true for eastern speakers. Empirical crosslinguis-

3.3. Convergent varieties: the inter-regional koine

3.3.1. Eastern Andalusian. Dialect attrition among Eastern Andalu-

Table 5. Phonological inventory of the convergent innovative Eastern Andalusian variety

Convergent Eastern Andalusian

Labial Dental Palatal Velar

is a change in progress from above led by young urban educated speak-

Western Eastern Andalusian Standard Gloss

yo como (yo) como (yo) como ‘I eat’

Table 7. Simple present and past verbal paradigms in Castilian Spanish

Simple present tense:

Simple past tense:

No Elementary Secondary University Sig. Example Standard Gloss

Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain

Figure 9 shows the e¤ect of the speaker’s education on the probability

to show a well-integrated combination of linguistically natural and so-

3.3.2. Transition regional varieties: Murcian. Due to its covert prestige

Figure 11. Diachronic progression of the process of standardization of Murcian Spanish

Figure 12. Diachronic progression of the process of standardization of Murcian Spanish

group that is prone to standardization — the phonetic variables (r), (l ),

Table 9. Regressive consonant assimilation in Murcian Spanish

Murcian Standard Castilian Gloss

[kæn’n] [ka¸’ne]P[ka¸’net] carnet ‘card/license’

Deletion Lenition Maintenance

** only for some environments

Narbona et al. (1998: 176), the deletion of intervocalic /d/ is becoming a

increase (89%). Deletion of /d/ is more frequent, as expected, in collo-

[kæn’n] [ka¸’ne]P[ka¸’net] carnet ‘card/license’