Covadonga Sanchez Alvarado | Winona State University (original) (raw)

Papers by Covadonga Sanchez Alvarado

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2018

This study investigates the acquisition of the constraints regulating subject position in the L2 ... more This study investigates the acquisition of the constraints regulating subject position in the L2 Spanish spoken by English native speakers and provides a representational account following the premises of the Multiple Grammars (MG) model. The acceptability of preverbal and postverbal subjects is compared considering different discursive contexts (i.e., broad focus, Verbal Phase [VP] focus, and subject focus). Three groups (i.e., native speakers, intermediate learners, and advanced learners), with 28 subjects each, took part in the study. Findings show that advanced speakers behave in a more nativelike manner than intermediate learners. Learners, nonetheless, are not capable of blocking the acceptability of preverbal subjects in those contexts in which native speakers disfavor them and show high productivity levels of underspecified L2 rules that lead them to accept postverbal subjects in infelicitous contexts (e.g., VP focus). These results are consistent with MG, the representation model proposed by Amaral and Roeper (2014), because an acquisition path can be described using simple rules with lexical or pragmatic restrictions, which may be targetlike. Optionality can be explained considering that L1 and L2 rules coexist and are never deleted, simply assigned different productivity levels or blocked.

Spanish was classified as a language that only exploits syntactic mechanisms to mark focus. Recen... more Spanish was classified as a language that only exploits syntactic mechanisms to mark focus. Recent experimental studies, nonetheless, have shown that speakers of different dialects are also able to use prosody to different degrees. This study aims to provide further understanding on the role played by prosody in the realization of focus in Spanish by looking at Asturian Spanish, a dialect in contact with another Romance language, Asturian. The data from a contextualized sentence completion task revealed that a phonological distinction between specific pitch categories (L+<H* vs. L+H*) cannot be established in this dialect, at least for the types of focus being elicited (i.e., informational/non-corrective vs. contrastive/corrective). Nonetheless, it also showed that speakers exploit different prosodic features (i.e., pitch range, alignment, and duration) to mark focus constituents, although their use differs as a result of that constituents' function. These findings provide further support for the consideration of languages and specific dialects in a continuum based on the degree to which they use prosody to mark focus and to explore more in detail the phonetic implementation of focal accents.

Posters by Covadonga Sanchez Alvarado

Boston University Conference on Language Development 42, 2017

Prosodic marking of focus (new information) in-situ is available both in American English (AE) (G... more Prosodic marking of focus (new information) in-situ is available both in American English (AE) (Gussenhoven 2004) and in Peninsular Spanish (PS) (Vanrell and Fernández-Soriano 2013). Nevertheless, the pitch categories employed differ (see table 1) and this affects the L2 acquisition process, as suggested by Mennen’s (2015) L2 Intonation Learning theory (LILt). The aim of the present study is to provide an account of the pitch categories used by intermediate and advanced learners of Spanish whose native language is AE, setting a comparison with those used by AE and PS speakers while testing the predictions from the LILt.
Semi-spontaneous speech was elicited using question-answer pairs. Participants (6 AE speakers, 6 PS speakers, 6 intermediate and 6 advanced Spanish learners) were asked to provide responses to three different question types (i.e. subject focus, VP focus and object focus) in two focus contexts (i.e. informational (IF) and contrastive focus (CF)). Three of these conditions were selected for the present analysis: informational subject focus (SFIF), contrastive subject focus (SFCF) and informational VP focus (VFIF). A total of 360 utterances (5 per condition and speaker) were transcribed using the ToBI systems for AE and PS: MAE_ToBI (Beckman et al 2005) and SP_ToBI (Hualde and Prieto 2015). Logistic regression models were fit to the data to determine whether speakers were producing target-like categories.
Results suggest that in the VFIF condition, MAE speakers produce H* while PS speakers produce L+<H*. In this context, learners at both proficiency levels seem to have incorporated the use of the target pitch accent L+<H*, showing no statistically significant differences when compared to PS speakers. In the SFIF condition, MAE speakers use both H* and L+H* while PS speakers use L+H* almost consistently. In this condition, learners show greater degrees of variability, alternating the target-like use of L+H* with the use of L+<H*, and thus overgeneralizing the use of the pitch accent found in VFIF contexts. The use of non-target-like pitch categories was significant for intermediate learners (p<0.05), but not for advanced learners. Finally, in the SFCF condition, MAE speakers use both H* and L+H* while PS speakers continue to use L+H*. Learners show a much more consistent use of the target-like category in this condition, with no statistically significant differences when compared to PS speakers.
Confirming Mennen’s (2015) predictions, these results suggest that sufficiently different categories, such as L+<H*, are easily acquired by learners. Furthermore, they show that form-meaning associations from the L1 (e.g. H* in AE) can be extended to newly acquired categories in the L2 (e.g. L+<H* in VFIF and SFIF). Conversely, sufficiently similar categories (e.g. L+H*) are successfully transferred to the L2 grammar to convey the appropriate meaning, even when variation is found in the L1. As found in previous studies (Henriksen et al 2010), and following the LILt, variability in the intonational patterns produced by L2 speakers is reduced with increased proficiency. Therefore, this study contributes to the understanding of the L2 intonational grammar, exploring the role of transfer, mental representations, and proficiency.

Information structure imposes changes in word order in Romance languages such as Spanish (Demonte... more Information structure imposes changes in word order in Romance languages such as Spanish (Demonte 1994) and Italian (Belleti 2001). In Spanish, as a result of pragmatic constraints, constituents introducing new information in discourse tend to appear in final position, where they receive prosodic prominence (Zubizarreta 1998). In addition, syntactic constraints impose the use of post-verbal subjects in broad focus statements with unaccusative verbs (Ocampo 1995). English speakers, on the other hand, use a fixed word order and modify the intonational contour in order to highlight new information (Vallduví and Engdahl 1996; Zubizarreta 1998). Previous studies (Hertel 2003; Lozano 2006; Domínguez 2007; Domínguez and Arche 2014, among other) have shown that only advanced speakers accept and produce post-verbal subjects in those contexts where they would be felicitous. The evidence on which type of constraint is acquired first is, nonetheless, conflicting. This study examines the acceptability of pre-verbal and post-verbal subjects in discursive contexts that have already been explored in previous studies (i.e. broad focus and subject focus) as well as in contexts that have not been considered before, as it is the case with VP focus. The hypothesis is that learners will overgeneralize and accept infelicitous word orders as a result of being unaware of the constraints regulating their use regardless of their type (i.e. syntactic or pragmatic) and their exposure to conflicting input (Domínguez and Arche 2014). Differences based on proficiency level are as well expected.
The task designed to test these hypotheses was an acceptability judgment task in which the same utterance, displaying either a pre-verbal or a post-verbal subject, was introduced as the answer to four different questions: one conveying broad focus, one conveying VP focus, one conveying subject focus, and a filler question (see example 1). Three different types of verbs were included: unaccusatives, unergatives and transitives, so as to consider syntactic differences. Participants were asked to rate the acceptability of the response given the question using a 5-point Likert scale. Using this design, participants are therefore considering one unique response in different contexts, instead of choosing one response over another, as in previous studies. In total, the task consisted of 18 items: 6 for each type of verb, half of them displaying pre-verbal subjects while post-verbal subjects were used in the other half. Two versions of the experiment were created so as to obtain data from each verb and each possible word order. The task was administered to three experimental groups, with 14 participants in each one of them: native speakers, advanced learners, and intermediate learners. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA’s and t-tests were run in order to determine where the significant differences resided.
Similarly to what previous studies have shown, advanced speakers behaved in a more native-like manner than intermediate learners, disfavoring post-verbal subjects in contexts of VP focus (see table 1), as well as in contexts of broad focus with unergative and transitive verbs; intermediate learners only did so with transitive verbs. Nonetheless, significant differences were still found between native speakers and advanced learners. In addition, non-native speakers did not block the acceptability of pre-verbal subjects in those cases where native speakers rejected them (e.g. in contexts of subject focus, especially with intransitive verbs). Differences on performance were not exclusively explained by the type of constraint involved, but also as a function of the syntactic category of the verb. Thus, these tendencies cannot be accounted for by L2 representation theories such as the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace and Filiaci 2006), which claims that purely syntactic constraints are acquired before those in the syntax-pragmatics interface. Instead, the Multiple Grammars theory (Amaral and Roeper 2012) can provide a better explanation, as it contemplates the possibility of learners’ having access to different “parallel rule-sets” and assigning different rates of productivity to those rules.

o Spanish: Estar + gerund (Está jugando) o English: To be + gerund (She is playing)

Drafts by Covadonga Sanchez Alvarado

The aim of the present study is to provide an account of the different strategies, both syntactic... more The aim of the present study is to provide an account of the different strategies, both syntactic and prosodic, employed by American English and Peninsular Spanish speakers in subject focus marking. Data obtained through parallel experimental designs revealed that prosodic marking of focus in-situ is possible in both languages both for informational and contrastive focus. Nonetheless, in the expression of contrastive focus Peninsular Spanish speakers increase the use of clefting while American English speakers exploit prosodic strategies like creaky voice. Differences in the pitch range implemented on focalized subjects were against the posed prediction. This study, nonetheless, contributes to the lacking cross-linguistic comparisons of these two languages and explores the interconnections between syntax and prosody.

Spanish was classified as a language that only exploits syntactic mechanisms to mark focus. Recen... more Spanish was classified as a language that only exploits syntactic mechanisms to mark focus. Recent experimental studies, nonetheless, have shown that speakers of different dialects are also able to use prosody to different degrees. This study aims to provide further understanding on the role played by prosody in the realization of focus in Spanish by looking at Asturian Spanish, a dialect in contact with another Romance language, Asturian. The data from a contextualized sentence completion task revealed that speakers exploit different prosodic features (i.e. scaling, alignment, and duration) to mark focus constituents. However, a phonological distinction between specific pitch categories (L+<H* vs. L+H*) cannot be established in this dialect at least for the type of focus being elicited. These findings provide further support for the consideration of languages and specific dialects in a continuum based on the degree to which they use intonation to mark focus.

Information structure imposes changes in word order in Spanish. As a result, constituents introdu... more Information structure imposes changes in word order in Spanish. As a result, constituents introducing new information in discourse tend to appear in final position, where they receive prosodic prominence. English speakers, on the other hand, modify the prosodic contour to mark the status of information. The constraints regulating the realization of focus constituents can be either syntactic (e.g. in the expression of broad focus with unaccusative verbs) or pragmatic (e.g. in the realization of subject focus). Given the cross-linguistic differences between English and Spanish, several studies have examined how production is affected by the L1. Using contextualized production and acceptability judgment tasks including question-answer pairs, these studies have shown that only advanced speakers accept and produce post-verbal subjects in contexts of s ubject focus, or in broad focus contexts with unaccusative verbs. In the present study, the acceptability of pre-verbal and post-verbal subjects is compared considering different discursive contexts (i.e. broad focus, VP focus, and subject focus) but presenting only one possibility (SV(O) or V(O)S). Three groups, of 14 participants each, took part of the study: native speakers, intermediate learners, and advanced learners. Using two-way repeated measures ANOVA's and paired t-tests, we were able to conclude that advanced speakers behave in a more native-like manner than intermediate learners, disfavoring post-verbal subjects in contexts of VP focus, as well as in contexts of broad focus with unergative and transitive verbs. Non-native speakers, nonetheless, are not capable of blocking the acceptability of pre-verbal subjects in those contexts where native speakers disfavor them (e.g. broad focus with unaccusative verbs and in contexts of subject focus). Furthermore, the results show that learners do not only favor the L1 rule; they also overgeneralize the L2 rule in infelicitous contexts. The findings are interpreted within the Multiple Grammars Model.

Conference Presentations by Covadonga Sanchez Alvarado

Current Approaches to Spanish and Portuguese Second Language Phonology, 2020

48th ANNUAL MEETING OF THE LINGUISTIC ASSOCIATION OF THE SOUTHWEST, 2019

Hispanic Linguistics Symposium 2019, 2019

Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 2018

Numerous studies have explored the role of intonation in the perception of a foreign accent (Munr... more Numerous studies have explored the role of intonation in the perception of a foreign accent (Munro, 1995; Van Maastricht et al., 2016). The goal of this study is to examine how L2 intonation is interpreted by native speakers, considering how successful learners are at communicating intended meanings.
Intonation is used to convey both paralinguistic and linguistic meanings. Nonetheless, the form-meaning associations need not be the same cross-linguistically (Cruz-Ferreira, 1987; Estebas-Vilaplana, 2014). Intonational strategies are used both in American English (AE) and Peninsular Spanish (PS) to introduce new information in discourse, in other words, for focus marking. In a previous production study using ToBI labelling (Beckman et al., 2005; Hualde and Prieto, 2015) to account for the intonational realization of subjects in AE, PS and L2 Spanish, it was found that PS speakers use L+<H* (a rise with a late peak) in broad focus contexts and L+H* (a rise with an early peak) when the subject is narrowly focused. AE speakers use H* (a high plateau) in broad focus and both H* and L+H* in narrow focus. Spanish learners whose L1 is AE use L+<H* in broad focus contexts and L+H* in cases of contrastive focus, but extend the use of L+<H* to contexts of informational focus, that is, when answering a wh-question such as who found a wallet? These results suggest that both transfer and universal developmental patterns occur in the acquisition of intonational categories, supporting the predictions from the L2 Intonation Learning theory (LILt) proposed by Mennen (2015).
Utterances with informational and contrastive narrow focus produced by PS speakers, learners abroad (AL) and learners in the US (UL) were paired with questions eliciting the same or a different type of focus, for a total of 192 question & answer pairs, to create an acceptability judgment task. 20 PS speakers were recruited to take part in this task, which required them to rate how natural the response sounded, given the question posed, using a 5-point Likert scale (see figure 1). Raw acceptability ratings for question & answer pairs featuring answers with informational and contrastive subject focus were analyzed using generalized additive models.
Results from this task indicate that PS speakers deemed answers provided by other PS speakers in contexts of informational subject focus as significantly more acceptable than those provided by AL (p<0.001) and UL (p<0.001) which, interestingly, were found as most acceptable when paired with questions asking about the verbal phrase (VP) (see table 1). Although not statistically significant, this is an interesting pattern since the pitch accent that was employed by both groups of learners in this context, L+<H*, is found in VP focus contexts in PS. Answers produced with contrastive subject focus (see table 2) were accepted to a similar extent in informational subject focus contexts as well, which is not surprising considering that the target pitch accent, L+H*, was used by all three groups. Nonetheless, PS speakers were still found to produce more acceptable answers than AL (p<0.001) and UL (p<0.001).
These findings suggest that native speakers are fairly sensitive to non-native intonation. As a result, they consistently judge L2 speakers as producing less acceptable answers, even when the response features a target-like phonological category. The specific phonetic implementation of focal and post-focal material should be further considered in order to determine which factors contribute the most to the perceived unacceptability of these answers. Nonetheless, this study also shows how the pragmatic meaning may be completely missed by native speakers considering solely the use of non-target-like categories in L2 speech. Thus, in addition to contributing to the perception of a foreign accent, the use of non-native intonation can result in the miscommunication of the intended meaning. Furthermore, this work provides evidence for the benefits of using ToBI labelling to account for form-meaning associations in L2 grammars.

Hispanic Linguistics, 2017

Experimental and Theoretical Advanced in Prosody 4, 2018

The goal of the present study is to provide a cross-linguistic comparison of the pitch range valu... more The goal of the present study is to provide a cross-linguistic comparison of the pitch range values that characterize the implementation of the focal accent L+H* in American English (AE) and Peninsular Spanish (PS) in contexts of informational (IF) and contrastive (CF) subject focus (Gussenhoven 2008). Furthermore, its realization in the L1 and the L2 of AE speakers learning Spanish will be examined to explore the role of transfer (Mennen 2015).
The pitch category L+H* exists in both AE (Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg 1990) and PS (Hualde & Prieto 2015) as a focus marker. Nonetheless, there are no direct comparisons addressing whether the realization of this category and the language-specific nature of the ToBI conventions followed in previous analyses obscures cross-linguistic comparisons. Speakers of British English use a wider pitch range than PS speakers (García-Lecumberri 1995) and Spanish-speaking learners of English also tend to use a narrower pitch range than English monolinguals, which has been explained as a result of transfer from the L1 (Ortega-Llebaria & Colantoni 2014). However, there is also evidence for a universal pattern of development such that learners tend to use a narrower pitch range in the L2 even when their L1 is characterized by the use of a wider pitch range (Busà & Urbani 2011). This study aims to confirm whether AE speakers transfer their wider pitch range to their L2 Spanish (especially in contexts of CF, where L+H* is more likely to appear in AE) or if, on the other hand, they produce a narrower pitch range, following a more universal pattern of development. Learners with more experience abroad are expected to better approximate native parameters when conveying both IF and CF.
120 semi-spontaneous realizations of SVO sentences with different focus structures were elicited using a Question and Answer task that simulated a conversation. Four groups of 12 participants took part in the study: PS speakers, AE monolingual speakers, and intermediate learners of Spanish either in the US (UL) or abroad in Spain (AL). Utterances displaying either IF or CF subject focus were annotated using ToBI labelling conventions: MAE_ToBI (Beckman et al 2005) for English and Sp_ToBI for Spanish (Hualde & Prieto 2015). The present analysis is based on the comparison of pitch range values (in semitones) extracted from the realizations of L+H* in subject position across the four groups and in both languages (141 utterances with IF and 210 with CF). L+H* was consistently used by PS speakers. In English, speakers used either L+H* and H*, even for contrastive focus. In L2 Spanish, learners were much more target-like in utterances with contrastive focus, using L+H* as often as PS speakers (see table 1).
Results from a Generalized Additive Mixed Model suggest that L+H* is implemented differently in AE and PS: the pitch range values obtained for PS are significantly lower than those of AE (p<0.001). Interestingly, both groups of learners implemented L+H* within a significantly narrower pitch range in their L2 than in their L1 (p<0.001). No significant differences were found based on the context of learning and, for both groups, the realizations of L+H* in Spanish were not significantly different from those of PS native speakers in terms of pitch range.
These findings suggest that cross-linguistic differences can be overlooked if ToBI conventions alone are considered. In the present study, a phonetic analysis has contributed to the identification of differences in the implementation of L+H* in AE and PS. Furthermore, L2 speakers of Spanish were shown to have two different versions of L+H* in their tonal inventories: one with an expanded pitch range for English and one with a narrower pitch range for Spanish. No differences based on experience abroad were found but individual differences should be further explored. Without a longitudinal study, nonetheless, it is impossible to conclude whether their native-like implementation of L+H* is the result of learning or just a consequence of a universal pattern of development for L2 intonational grammars (Mennen 2015).

References
Beckman, M. E., Hirschberg, J., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2005). The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In S.-A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
García-Lecumberri, M. L. (1995). Intonational signalling of information structure in English and Spanish: a comparative study. University of London.
Grazia Busà, M., & Urbani, M. (2011). A CROSS LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF PITCH RANGE IN ENGLISH L1 AND L2. In Proc. 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII) (pp. 380–383). Hong Kong.
Gussenhoven, C. (2008). Notions and subnotions in information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55(3), 381–395. http://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.11
Hualde, J. I., & Prieto, P. (2015). Intonational Variation in Spanish: European and American varieties. In S. Frota & P. Prieto (Eds.), Intonational variation in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mennen, I. (2015). Beyond segments: towards a L2 intonation learning theory. In E. Delais-Roussarie, M. Avanzi, & S. Herment (Eds.), Prosody and Languages in Contact (pp. 171–188). Singapore: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45168-7
Ortega-Llebaria, M., & Colantoni, L. (2014). L2 English Intonation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(2), 331–353. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000011
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Intentions in communication.

Tone and Intonation in Europe, 2016

1 st Symposium on Intonation & Tone in the Spanish-Speaking World, 2014

XLII Linguistic Association of the Southwest Conference, New Brunswick, NJ, 2013

The Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (FTFA), proposed by Schwartz and Sprouse, states that th... more The Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (FTFA), proposed by Schwartz and Sprouse, states that the initial state of second language acquisition is the final state of the L1 at which all the properties of the L1 are available to the learner (White, 2003). The theory of Multiple Grammars (Amaral and Roeper, 2012), being one of the theories that follow the steps of FTFA, posits that speakers then have access to different “parallel rule-sets” to which different rates of productivity are assigned based on rules available to them. It also claims that rules are not deleted but their productivity might be blocked. Therefore, it is predicted that the productivity of the L1 rules will prevent learners from blocking ungrammatical readings in their target language.
One grammatical aspect that can be considered from a Multiple Grammars perspective is the use of the present progressive. Future readings with present progressive constructions are allowed in English, but not in Spanish (Quirk, 1985; Copley, 2009; RAE, 2009). This study has two goals: (1) examine the acceptability of future readings by L1 English L2 Spanish speakers (see examples 1-2); (2) determine whether these readings are influenced by lexical aspect, by comparing activity (example 3) and accomplishment verbs (example 4). Previous studies (Robinson, 1994; Muñoz and Gilabert, 2011; Gabriele and Canales, 2011) have looked at L1 Spanish L2 English speakers’ production and acceptability of future readings depending on the verb type.
The questions that guide this study are: (1) will native speakers of English learning Spanish block the interpretation of future readings? (2) If there is an extension of future readings with present progressive constructions, will this be more visible with activity or accomplishment verbs? The hypothesis is that learners will allow for future interpretations in a considerable amount of cases and that the future interpretation of activity verbs will be blocked less often than that of accomplishments, due to the tendency of activities to express progressivity. In order to test this hypothesis, an experiment consisting of a picture-matching interpretation task was run with a total of 24 intermediate speakers of Spanish. The answers provided were compared with those of native speakers.
The results obtained show that L2 speakers accept future readings significantly more often than native speakers not only with activity verbs (p= 0.0007) but also with accomplishments (p=0.003). On the other hand, no statistical difference was found in the acceptability rates between activities and accomplishments, being that both were accepted by approximately 70-80% of the non-native speakers (see figure). This suggests that the rules that are productive in their L1 remain so in their second language. Therefore, speakers at this level of proficiency fail to assess the productivity of the rules governing the use of the present progressive in the target language. In respect to lexical aspect, neither of the two categories considered seem to play any crucial role in this matter, since both favor the acceptability of future readings.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2018

Boston University Conference on Language Development 42, 2017

o Spanish: Estar + gerund (Está jugando) o English: To be + gerund (She is playing)

Spanish was classified as a language that only exploits syntactic mechanisms to mark focus. Recen... more Spanish was classified as a language that only exploits syntactic mechanisms to mark focus. Recent experimental studies, nonetheless, have shown that speakers of different dialects are also able to use prosody to different degrees. This study aims to provide further understanding on the role played by prosody in the realization of focus in Spanish by looking at Asturian Spanish, a dialect in contact with another Romance language, Asturian. The data from a contextualized sentence completion task revealed that speakers exploit different prosodic features (i.e. scaling, alignment, and duration) to mark focus constituents. However, a phonological distinction between specific pitch categories (L+<H* vs. L+H*) cannot be established in this dialect at least for the type of focus being elicited. These findings provide further support for the consideration of languages and specific dialects in a continuum based on the degree to which they use intonation to mark focus.

Current Approaches to Spanish and Portuguese Second Language Phonology, 2020

48th ANNUAL MEETING OF THE LINGUISTIC ASSOCIATION OF THE SOUTHWEST, 2019

Hispanic Linguistics Symposium 2019, 2019

Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 2018

Hispanic Linguistics, 2017

Experimental and Theoretical Advanced in Prosody 4, 2018

Tone and Intonation in Europe, 2016

1 st Symposium on Intonation & Tone in the Spanish-Speaking World, 2014

XLII Linguistic Association of the Southwest Conference, New Brunswick, NJ, 2013