J udeo -s PAnish dAtA . The Monastir data are derived from the Luria

5.3. J udeo -s PAnish dAtA . The Monastir data are derived from the Luria

(1930) interviews. Given that these interviews appear as a searchable document, we tabulated every token of ya. The Istanbul data were obtained through two methods: the irst consisted of interviews initiated through open-topic samples; the second consisted of a translation exercise in which the interviewer read some sentences in Turkish (41) and the informant translated them orally into Judeo- Spanish (42).

(41) Interviewer: Bu kadının uzgun olduğuna inanıyorum [Turkish] ‘I believe this woman is sad.’

(42) Informant: Esta mujer ya estó entendiendo ke está uzdjunlía [Judeo-Spanish] ‘I believe ya this woman is sad.’

Both sets of data in Istanbul were combined (romero 2009) and we counted every token of ya in the corpus. We found 56 instances of ya in Monastir Judeo- Spanish, of which 26 (46%) were modals. In Istanbul we found 25 instances of ya of which 15 (60%) were modals. The modal category was organized following the taxonomy outlined by González (1999). We tabulated the use of ya ay/ya ez ver- dad from the total tokens of ya in both Judeo-Spanish corpora for a further com- parison with the Peninsular Spanish cases of ya hay/ya es verdad in the davies

corpus. As we can see in the table below, both varieties of Judeo-Spanish present higher percentages of the two highlighted ya constructions.

MOdAL YA IN BASQUE SPANISH, ANdEAN SPANISH, ANd JUdEO-SPANISH

Old Spanish

ya ez verdad/

0% (0/25) vardá(d)

t Able 8. Percentages of ya ay and ya ez verdad in Old Spanish, Monastir, and Istanbul. Compare, for instance, the ya ay combination at 0.1% in Old Spanish to the

5% in Monastir and 28% in Istanbul. The differences between Monastir and Istan- bul are related to the fact that there is a higher degree of contact with Turkish in Istanbul than in Monastir. Conversely, for ya ez verdad, we found 9% in Monastir and 0% in Istanbul. In the Monastir data, we encountered sentences such as (43) and (44), where ya is used in combination with existential ay to place non-com-

parative afirmative emphasis on the predicate. (43)

In tu riinadu ya ay un ombri a Monastir ondi él ya ti lo puedi pri- siar il kavhayu kuántu vali. ‘Ya there is a man in your kingdom in Monastir who can appraise your horse.’

(44) Ya ay in las tierres di rome une manere di patus ki dispues qui luz digoyen, s’abolen. ‘Ya there is in the lands of Rome a type of duck that can ly after it has been beheaded.’

The ya ay combination above focalizes the afirmation of the predicate that follows. The speaker uses ya ay to emphasize the certainty of the subsequent predicate. For instance, in (43) the speaker knows or has seen the ‘man who can appraise the horse’. In (44) s/he asserts the existence of this ‘type of duck.’ Al-

though the description of such a creature in (44) depicts it as magical and surreal, the use of ya ay underscores the speaker’s commitment to the veracity of the proposition (i.e. that it exists). The same combination is found in the data from Istanbul and the Prince Islands:

(45) Ya ay munchos luguares para ir ayí kon los hóvenes, por muje- dades, munchos kafés i luguares.

‘Ya there are a lot of places to go out there with young people, for

INTErNATIONAL JOUrNAL OF LASSO, VOLUME 32, NUMBEr 1 (2013)

the crowds, lot of coffee shops and places.’ (46)

En sivdad ya ay arvolikos, arvolés chikos. ‘In the city, ya there are little trees, small trees.’

Again, the speaker’s use of ya ay serves to establish his/her relationship to the source of knowledge that would afirm the truth of the proposition. In (45), the speaker is emphasizing that these places exist and even that s/he has been there or has seen them. Likewise in (46), the speaker knows conidently that these trees are in the city because s/he has been aware of their presence. The function of ya ay in (43) to (46) resembles that of an evidential construction because it afirms or asserts the existence of its predicate. This function is parallel to the diachronic and retrospective evidential functions of the Turkish sufix –(I)mIş which also evalu- ates and emphasizes the truth of predicates. However, whether or not this function of ya ay is due to Turkish inluence will be discussed in the following section.

A similar combination was found only in the Monastir data, ya + ez verdad ‘ya it is the truth’, with the same function as ya ay:

(47) Estu ki m’istás kuntandu ya ez verdad. D’ondi mi lu dipreves ki ez mintires?

‘This thing you are telling me ya it’s the truth. How can you prove that it’s lies?’

(48) Ya ez vardá ki ya istuvitis antiz dil egumen. ‘Ya it’s true that you were already before the abbot.’

In (47), the speaker emphasizes his/her afirmation of a previous comment. In fact, s/he is so sure of its truth value that s/he even encourages the listener to prove otherwise. In (48), the speaker is equally conident about the predicate and has irst-hand knowledge on the order of events (irst the listener was there, then the abbot came). Within the pragmatic domains of modal ya delineated by González (1999), both constructions are employed to emphasize already evoked informa-

tion without comparing or contrasting it. The ya constructions serve to frame the fact that the speaker shows control of the knowledge about the truth value of the information. Ya ay/ya ez verdad act as grammaticalized units intensifying the de- gree of conidence that the speaker transmits, an aspect that is closely related to the evidentiality system of Turkish.

A PPlying M ougeon et Al .’ s (2005) Methodology to J udeo - s PAnish ya . We shall now determine whether the linguistic feature in question developed as a result of contact with Turkish. In examining the range of ya in

133 monolingual Spanish varieties, we not only found instances of ya (h)ay in the

MOdAL YA IN BASQUE SPANISH, ANdEAN SPANISH, ANd JUdEO-SPANISH

davies (2002-) corpus (see Table 3), but we also discovered that this structure was prevalent in Old Spanish from the XIII-XV centuries. According to Bello (1908:105-06), Old Spanish had a tendency to emphasize the afirmative value of propositions, and so ya ay/ya ez verdad could be analogous structures in Ju- deo-Spanish which originated in the Peninsula before the Expulsion and the sub- sequent contact with Turkish. Based on this information, our irst hypothesis is that both structures are archaisms that have remained in Judeo-Spanish from Old Spanish.

However, following step 3, an alternative hypothesis arises. According to Mougeon et al. (2005), when two distant varieties of the target language which (a) are in contact with the same source language but (b) in distinct geographic locations share the same linguistic feature, this lends support to the position that the feature emerged through contact. In our case, we have two geographically distant varieties of Judeo-Spanish which have emerged during different histori- cal periods: Monastir from 1926-1927 and Istanbul from 2007-2009. From this reading, the use of ya ay/ya ez verdad can be argued to have emerged through Turkish/Judeo-Spanish bilingual communities since both structures are employed with pragmatic meanings that are similar to the ones in Turkish. However, more quantitative and pragmatic analysis is needed to corroborate the contact-induced position.

Applying step 4, we focus on the fact that Monastir has experienced less contact with Turkish than Istanbul for several reasons. First, Monastir (modern Bitola in the republic of Macedonia) is located in the Balkans and distant from Turkey proper. Second, bilingualism between Judeo-Spanish and Turkish appears to have occurred mostly among the men in the community, and therefore any di- rect Turkish inluence must have been incorporated gradually into Judeo-Spanish. Third, upon the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire in 1912, Turkish inlu- ence waned in Monastir, as Turks ceased to be the majority and many moved out of the Balkans. On the other hand, contact between Judeo-Spanish and Turkish in Istanbul occurs in the entire Sephardic community, men and women of all ages speak Turkish, which has been imposed as the oficial language for over a century.

6. c onclusion . Making the case for language change through contact can

be challenging because it requires substantive and empirical evidence. In many cases, what was originally deemed a linguistic innovation already existed in the replica language (Poplack & Levey 2010); in other cases it forms part of a larger process of internal change (Mougeon et al. 2005). By applying Mougeon et al.’s (2005) methodology we have been able to examine whether the features of modal ya can be considered language change as a result of language contact.

INTErNATIONAL JOUrNAL OF LASSO, VOLUME 32, NUMBEr 1 (2013)

Step 3 Step 4 Basque Spanish

Step 1

Step 2

  Andean Spanish

  Judeo Spanish

  t Able

9. Measuring the three Spanish varieties for contact-induced change. Table 9 summarizes the indings on steps 1-4 in our three contact variet-

ies. The only variety that reads afirmatively for all four steps is that of Basque Spanish ya. The use of ya with new information in preverbal position is linked to the Basque afirmative preix ba- and has emerged through contact with Basque- Spanish bilinguals (González 1999). Conversely, in Andean Spanish, the use of duplicated ya to emphasize perfectivity cannot be considered an innovation in the traditional sense given that Spanish monolingual varieties also employ the double construction to emphasize perfectivity and with different constituents (from ad- verbs and verbs, to whole clauses), as attested in the davies corpus. Therefore, we argue that duplicated ya does not fulill step 2 since it can be found in non- contact varieties of Spanish and does not meet the criterion of step 4 as it is lim- ited to Quechua-Spanish bilingual speech communities. duplicated ya is a covert- induced innovation—experiencing an increased use of an already existing feature in Spanish—but not qualitative change.

The case of the ya ay and ya ez verdad constructions in Judeo-Spanish is more complex and cannot be attested in a straightforward manner. What is veriiable is an increase in the use of these constructions in two varieties of Judeo-Spanish, suggesting that they have acquired new pragmatic functions. In this case, we have linked the use ya ay/ya ez verdad with the pragmatic values of evidentiality in Turkish to emphasize the truth of a proposition. However, since the constructions already exist in Old Spanish, we cannot conidently postulate that this implies a

qualitative change in the use of a feature, but rather it constitutes a covert-induced change. An alternative hypothesis would state that the evidential readings of ya have been inluenced solely through contact given that two varieties of Judeo- Spanish in contact with Turkish have these structures. However, more evidence and a larger pragmatic and quantitative analysis are needed to corroborate this claim.

In some cases, the proposed innovations do not go beyond the speech of bilinguals. Issues of second language acquisition may be at play in the interpre- tation of the data. Further examination of the type of bilingual speakers is para- mount when reconstructing the genesis of contact-induced change (Van Coetsem 1988, Winford 2003). This is especially important as the dynamics between the

135 dominant and minority languages restrict the innovation to speech communities

MOdAL YA IN BASQUE SPANISH, ANdEAN SPANISH, ANd JUdEO-SPANISH

experiencing high levels of language attrition or pressures of language shift. The Judeo-Spanish informants in Monastir and Istanbul present two extreme cases of language shift. Whereas the Sephardic population of Monastir was predomi- nantly Judeo-Spanish monolingual, as bilingualism in Turkish was conined to

men in the community, Turkish-Spanish bilinguals in Istanbul are more dominant in Turkish, and most of the younger members in the community are Spanish semi- speakers at best.

As González observes, the appearance of innovations of ya in contact variet- ies can also be catalyzed by grammaticalization tendencies (cf. Traugott & könig 1991). In the case of the three varieties of Spanish, the temporal marker ya has

increasingly acquired modal functions inluenced by external factors (i.e. the fact that there are forms in the source language that have different modal functions), but also by ya becoming increasingly intersubjective and oriented to index subtle pragmatic nuances about the point of view of the speaker in the discursive context (Traugott & könig 1991, González 1999).

In all these contact situations, we need to also consider how the pragmatic complexiication of ya is triggered by both internal and semantic universal fac- tors. Internally, monolingual Spanish varieties have retained the modal functions of Latin iam. Moreover, the appearance of new modal values of ya in these con- tact varieties is also following universal grammaticalization tendencies in which temporal markers increasingly acquire more modal functions (Traugott & könig 1991, González 1999). However, in some contact Spanishes the use of modal ya is more specialized, an aspect triggered by the functional similarity between both languages and also by the pragmatic innovative values of the source language. For instance, the innovative modal ya in Basque Spanish with new information

follows a cline: adverb > discourse marker > modal marker > specialized modal marker. The same can be argued for Andean Spanish and Judeo-Spanish where duplicated ya reinforces perfectivity and ya ay/ya ez verdad connote evidentiality, respectively. Two such developments are further along the grammaticalization

cline and act more like verbal afixes than their original modal, discursive, and adverbial functions.

In conclusion, research analyzing language contact must avoid readily ascrib- ing language change to a source language. rather, the analysis of contact-induced

innovations would beneit from following the four-step approach set by Mougeon et al.’s (2005) study, as it methodically challenges the assumed change with ar- guments that require examining both internal and external sources through an historical linguistic lens.

INTErNATIONAL JOUrNAL OF LASSO, VOLUME 32, NUMBEr 1 (2013)

r eFerences

A ltAbev , M Ary . 2003. Judeo-Spanish in the social Turkish context: Language death, swan song, revival or new arrival? Istanbul: Isis.

A ltube ,s eber . 1929. Erderismos: Euskera X. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.

b AzzAnellA , c ArlA ; c ristinA b osco ; e MiliA c AlAresu ; A lessAndro g ArceA ; P urA g uil ; and A ndA r Adulescu . 2005. dal latino iam agli esiti nelle lingue romanze: verso una conigurazione pragmatica complessiva. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 12.49–82.

b ello ,A ndrés . 1908. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Paris: roger and Cher- noviz.

b enbAssA ,e sther , and A ron r odrigue . 2000. Sephardi Jewry: A history of the Judeo-Spanish community, 14th–20th centuries. Berkeley: University of California Press.

b erMeoko u dAlA . 2011. Euskara Bermeon. datu sociolinguistikoak. Online: http://www. bermeo-euskaraz.com/euskara-bermeon/datu-soziolinguis- tikoak.

b osQue ,i gnAcio . 1980. Sobre la negación. Madrid: Cátedra.

b osQue , i gnAcio . 1990. Sobre el aspecto en los adjetivos y en los participios. Tiempo y aspecto en español, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, 177-204. Madrid: Cát- edra.

c AMus -b ergAreche ,b runo . 2013. Ya como partícula airmativa en el castellano del País Vasco. De la unidad del lenguaje a la diversidad de las lenguas, ed. by José Francisco Val Álvaro and J. Mendivil Giro, 106-11. Zaragoza: Uni- versidad de Zaragoza.

c AttA ,J Avier . 1994. Gramática del quichua ecuatoriano. Quito: Abya-yala.

c errón -P AloMino , r odolFo . 1987. Lingüística quechua. Cuzco: Bartolomé de Las Casas.

c errón -P AloMino ,r odolFo . 1996. También, todavía y ya en el castellano andino. Signo y Seña 6.102-23.

c irizA ,M AríA del P uy . 2009. Corpus of Basque Spanish. Unpublished raw data.

c irizA ,M AríA d el P uy . 2009. Dialect divergence and identity in Basque Spanish. Urbana Champaign: University of Illinois dissertation.

d Avies ,M Ark . 2002-. Corpus del Español: 100 million words, 1200s-1900s. On- line: http://www.corpusdelespanol.org.

d elbecQue , n icole , and r icArdo M AldonAdo . 2011. Spanish ya: A conceptual pragmatic anchor. Journal of Pragmatics 43.1.73-98.

e scobAr ,A nnA M AríA . 2000. Contacto social y lingüístico: El español en contac- to con el quechua en el Perú . Lima: Pontiicia Universidad Católica del Perú.

MOdAL YA IN BASQUE SPANISH, ANdEAN SPANISH, ANd JUdEO-SPANISH

e usko J AurlAritzA . 2011. V Mapa sociolingüístico, departamento de educación, política lingüística y cultura. Online: http://www.euskara.euskadi.net/r59- 738/es/contenidos/ informacion/argitalpenak/es_6092/ikuspegi_sozio_lin- guis.html.

e usko i kAskuntzA . 2007. Identidad y cultura vascas a comienzos del siglo XXI. Bilbao: Eusko Ikaskuntza y Euskal kultur Erakundea.

F eke , M Arilyn s uzAnne . 2004. Quechua to Spanish crosslinguistic inluence among Cuzco Quechua Spanish bilinguals: The case of epistemology. Pitts- burgh: University of Pittsburgh dissertation.

g Arrido ,J oAQuín . 1992. Expectations in Spanish and German adverbs of change. Folia Lingüística 26.3-4.357–402.

g Arrido , J oAQuín . 1993. Operadores epistémicos y conectores contextuales: diálogos hispánicos. Aproximaciones pragmalingüísticas al español, ed. by Henk Haverkate, kens Hegenveld and Gijs Mulder, 5-50. Amsterdam: rodopi.

g irón A lconchel ,J osé l uis . 1991. Sobre la consideración del adverbio ya como un ‘conmutador’. Revista Española de Lingüística 21.1.145–53.

g irón A lconchel ,J osé l uis . 2011. Tiempo y modalidad en los adverbios ya y aún (todavía) desde una perspectiva diacrónica: del Cantar de Mío Cid al Libro

de Buen Amor. Tiempo, espacio y relaciones temporales desde la perspectiva

de la lingüística histórica, ed. by Carsten Sinner, José Luis ramírez Luengo, and María Jesús Torrens Alvarez, 151-80. Logroño: Cilengua.

g onzález ,M AríA J osé . 1999. Immediate preverbal placement: A sociolinguistic analysis of Spanish in the Basque Country. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois dissertation.

g ül ,d eMet . 2009. Basic semantics of Turkish evidential. Semantics Archive. Online: http://www. semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mI0MTEyy/ICTL08_Corcu-Gul. pdf.

h Aboud , M Arlene . 2003. Quechua and Spanish in the Ecuadorian Highlands: The effects of long term contact . Quito: Pontiicia Universidad Católica del Ecuador.

h ock , h Ans h enrich , and b riAn J osePh . 1996. Language history, language change, and language relationship: An introduction to historical and com- parative linguistics. New york: Mouton de Gruyter.

h uAlde , J osé gnAcio i , and J on o rtiz d e u rbinA . 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. k oike ,d Ale . 1996. Functions of the adverbial ya in Spanish narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 25.267-79.

INTErNATIONAL JOUrNAL OF LASSO, VOLUME 32, NUMBEr 1 (2013)

k roon ,c Aroline , and r odie r isselAdA . 2002. Phasality, polarity, focality: A fea- ture analysis of the Latin particle iam. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16.65-

78. l AkA ,i tziAr . 1996. Euskara: The Basque language. Vitoria: Euskal Herriko Uni- vertsitatea. l ee ,t Ae y oon . 1997. Morfosintaxis amerindias en el español americano desde la perspectiva del quechua. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. l ewis ,c hArlton , and c hArles s hort . 1969. A Latin dictionary. Oxford: Claren- don Press. l ewis ,P Aul M.; g Ary

d. F ennig (eds.) 2014. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 17 th

iMons F. s ; and c hArles

ed. dallas: SIL International. l oPe b lAnch , J uAn . 1991. Estudios sobre el español de México. Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma de México. l uriA ,M Ax

A. 1930. A study of the Monastir dialect of Judeo-Spanish based on oral material collected in Monastir, Yugo-Slavia. New york: Instituto de las Españas.

M ougeon ,r AyMond ;t erry n AdAsdi ; and k Atherine r ehner . 2005. Contact-in- duced linguistic innovations on the continuum of language use: The case of French in Ontario. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8.2.99-115.

o ñederrA ,M iren l ourdes . 2001. La cabeza es para andar: sobre el español habla- do en zona vasca. Actas del V Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Len- gua Española, 263-73. Madrid: Gredos.

o ñederrA ,M iren l ourdes . 2004. El español en contacto con otras lenguas: es- pañol-vasco. Historia de la lengua española, ed. by rafael Cano, 1103-17. Madrid: Ariel.

P érez -r ioJA ,J osé A ntonio . 1987. Gramática de la lengua española, 6th ed. Ma- drid: Tecnos. P oPlAck ,s hAnA , and s tePhen l evey . 2010. Contact-induced grammatical change. Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, Vol- ume 1: Theories and methods, ed. by Peter Auer and Jürgen Erich Schmidt, 391-419. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

P reseeA . 2010-. Proyecto sociolingüístico para el estudio del español de España y América. Online: www.preseea.net. P rince , e llen . 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 223-55. New york: Academic Press. r indstedt ,c AMilA , and k Arl A ronsson . 2002. Growing up monolingual in a bi- lingual community. Language in Society 31.5.721-42.

139 r oMero ,r ey . 2008. Turkish word order and case in modern Judeo-Spanish spo-

MOdAL YA IN BASQUE SPANISH, ANdEAN SPANISH, ANd JUdEO-SPANISH

ken in Istanbul. Selected Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Spanish Socio- linguistics, ed. by Maurice Westmoreland and Juan Antonio Thomas, 157-61. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

r oMero , r ey . 2009. Corpus of Istanbulite Judeo-Spanish speech. Unpublished raw data. r oMero ,r ey . 2011a. Mainland vs. island: a comparative morphological study of Spanish-Turkish contact. Selected Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Span- ish Sociolinguistics, ed. by Jim Michnowicz and robin dodsworth, 50-56. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

r oMero ,r ey . 2011b. Issues of Spanish language maintenance in the Prince Is- lands. Lenguaje, arte y revoluciones ayer y hoy: New approaches to Hispanic linguistic, literary, and cultural Studies, ed. by Alejandro Cortazar and ra- fael Orozco, 162-87. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

r oMero , r ey . 2012. Spanish in the Bosphorus: A sociolinguistic study on the Judeo-Spanish dialect spoken in Istanbul. Istanbul: Libra. s AchAr ,h owArd . 1994. Farewell España: The world of the Sephardim remem- bered. New york: Vintage. s hAPPeck , M Arco . 2010. Corpus of Andean Spanish speech. Unpublished raw data. s hAPPeck ,M Arco . 2013. Ecuadorian Andean Spanish ya: contact, grammatical- ization, and discursivization. Grammatica et verba: Glamor and verve, ed. by Shu-Fen Chen and Ben Slade, 227-45. Ann Arbor, MI: Beech Stave Press.

s ilvA -c orvAlán ,c ArMen . 1986. Topicalización y pragmática del español. Revista Española de Lingüística 15.1.1-19. s ilvA -c orvAlán ,c ArMen . 1994. Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. New york: Oxford University Press. s oziolinguistikA k lusterrA . 2011. Hizkuntzen kale-erabileraren. Online: http:// www.soziolinguistika.org. t hoMAson , s ArAh

g. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Washington, d.C.: Georgetown University Press. t ovAr ,A ntonio . 1959. El euskera y sus parientes. Madrid: Minotauro. t rAugott , e lizAbeth c loss , and e kkehArd k önig . 1991. The semantics-prag- matics of grammaticalization revisited. Approaches to grammaticalization: Volume 1, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, 189-218. Am- sterdam: Benjamins.

t rudgill ,P eter . 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. New york: Oxford University Press. u rdiAles c AMPos ,J osé M illAn . 1973. Valures de ‘ya’. Archivum 23.149-99.

140

INTErNATIONAL JOUrNAL OF LASSO, VOLUME 32, NUMBEr 1 (2013)

u rrutiA ,h ernAn . 1995. Morphosyntactic features in the Spanish of the Basque Country. Spanish in Four Continents: Studies in Language Contact and Bilingualism, ed. by Carmen Silva-Corvalán, 243-59. Washington, dC: Georgetown University Press.

v An c oetseM ,F rAns . 1988. Loan phonology and the two transfer types in lan- guage contact. dordrecht: Foris. v Arol b ornes ,M Arie -c hristine . 1996. Inluencia del turco en el judeoespañol de Turquía. Sephardica: Hommage à haïm vidal séphiha, ed. by Winfried Busse and Marie Christine Varol Bornes, 213-37. Bern: Peter Lang.

v igArA t Auste ,A nA . 1992. Morfosintaxis del español coloquial. Madrid: Gredos. w ilk -r AcieskA , J oAnnA . 2012. Esbozo del estudio de las funciones semántico-

pragmáticas de ya. Estudios de Lingüística de la Universidad de Alicante 26.383-404.

w inFord ,d onAld . 2003. An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Black- well.

Ciriza Languages and Communication department University of North Texas at dallas dallas, TX 75241 [Maria.Ciriza-Lope@unt.edu]

Shappeck department of Teacher Education & Administration University of North Texas at dallas dallas, TX 75241 [Marco.Shappeck@unt.edu]

romero College of Humanities & Social Sciences University of Houston-downtown Houston, Texas 77002 [romerore@uhd.edu]