f97_a102_QNFTM.pdf

Geolinguistic patterns of diffusion in a Spanish Region:The case of the dialect of Murcia

Juan Manuel Hernndez-CampoyUniversity of Murcia

Departamento de Filologa InglesaFacultad de Letras

Campus de La MercedUniversity of Murcia

E-30071 Murcia (Spain)[email protected]

AbstractA paradigm whose existence is older than that of the covariation of linguistic and socialphenomena is the possible relationship between the regional transmission of linguisticphenomena and geographical factors. Nevertheless, its systematic observation and theapplication of models from human geography is rather recent and sporadic. In the same wayas the Region of Murcia has historically been a transition area of South-eastern Spain wheremany different cultures and civilizations have met, the Spanish spoken in Murcia is atransition variety, sharing features with Valencian Catalan, Castilian, Aragonese andAndalusian Spanish, and having a traditional characterisation as an eminently non-standardspeaking region. With all this in mind, the aim of this article is to show and analyse therelationship between the geolinguistic patterns of diffusion of the standard Castilian Spanishover the Murcian territory and the (increasingly) actual use of standard forms in thesetraditionally non-standard areas. The real presence or absence of some degree ofstandardisation as well as its intra-regional variation will reveal to us whether the detectedgeolinguistic patterns of linguistic uniformisation are applicable to the Region of Murcia.Key words: dialects in contact, vernacular varieties, language loyalty, standardisation,hierarchical/epidemic diffusion, geolinguistic patterns, gravity models, sociolinguistic patterns.

ResumoUn paradigma con existencia mis antiga c da covariacin de fenmenos lingsticos esociais a posible relacin entre a transmisin rexional dos fenmenos lingsticos e os fac-tores xeogrficos. Sen embargo, a sa observacin sistemtica e a aplicacin de modelos pro-cedentes da xeografa humana bastante recente e espordica. Do mesmo xeito que a rexinde Murcia historicamente foi unha rea de transicin no sueste de Espaa, onde numerosasculturas e civilizacins coincidiron, o espaol falado en Murcia tamn unha variedade detransicin que comparte trazos co cataln valenciano, casteln, aragons e andaluz, e mani-festa unha caracterizacin tradicional de rexin de fala eminentemente non estndar. Contodo isto en mente, o obxecto do presente artigo evidenciar e analizar a relacin entre os

Copyright Estudios de Sociolingstica 4(2) 2003, pp. 613-652

patrns xeolingsticos de difusin do espaol casteln estndar sobre o territorio murciano eo (posiblemente crecente) uso real de formas estndares nestas reas tradicionalmente nonestndares. A presencia ou ausencia real dalgn grao de estandarizacin xunto coa sa varia-cin intrarrexional revelaranos se os patrns xeolingsticos de uniformizacin lingsticadetectados son aplicables rexin de Murcia.Palabras clave: dialectos en contacto, variedades vernculas, lealdade lingstica, estanda-rizacin, difusin xerrquica/epidmica, modelos xeolingsticos, modelos de gravidade,modelos sociolingsticos.

1. Introduction1

A paradigm whose existence as a field of study is older than that of thecovariation of linguistic and social phenomena is the relationship between the spatialdiffusion of linguistic phenomena and geographical factors such as geographicalfeatures and communication networks. However, as Merinel Gerritsen (1988: 1574)and Britain (1991, 2002) point out, its systematic observation and the application ofmodels from Human Geography to improve the description and explanation of thegeographical distribution and behaviour of linguistic phenomena is rather recent (seeparticularly Trudgill, 1974; Chambers & Trudgill, 1980; Gerritsen & Jansen, 1980;Chambers, 1982; Bailey, Wikle, Tillery, & Sand, 1993; Breton, 1991; Britain, 1991,2002; Garca-Mouton, 1994; Boberg, 2000; or Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2003).

Geolinguistics is concerned with the relationships between language andgeography: the spatial study of language, or the study of language in its geographicalcontext, in addition to the social and cultural contexts. If the consideration of who talksto whom, when, how, and with what purpose is an important postulate in sociolinguisticresearch, in the same way, the study of aspects such as where that action is done from amacro-level, where a linguistic community is physically located and its possibleinteraction and relationship with others, and why linguistic innovations appear andspread to a centre A from a centre B and not from C, are of great relevance forgeolinguistic studies. It combines, as Britain (1991: 10-11) points out, the enormousnumber of data accumulated by traditional dialectologists, the methodological rigour ofLabovs Secular Linguistics and the expertise of social geographers with a moreprofound understanding of spatial networks and the diffusion of sociolinguisticinnovations. This dynamic dialectology, or geolinguistics, making use of time-incorporating geographical diffusion models and sociolinguistic and geographicaltechniques that permit the handling of gradient phenomena, may assist us inascertaining the geographical diffusion of linguistic features (Trudgill, 1983: 87).

JUAN MANUEL HERNNDEZ-CAMPOY

615

1 We are very grateful for comments on earlier versions of this paper to Juan Antonio Cutillas-Espinosaand Jos Mara Jimnez-Cano at the University of Murcia; David Britain at the University of Essex;and, crucially, the anonymous referees of Estudios de Sociolingstica, as well as the Editors, XonPaulo Rodrguez-Yez, Anxo M. Lorenzo Surez and Fernando Ramallo.

1.1. Diffusion and innovation

Diffusion is a process by means of which an innovation is communicatedthrough certain channels over time among the members of a social system (Rogers,1985: 5). In many ways, diffusion is a kind of social change since it occurs within asocial system with some alterations that take place in the structure and function ofthe social (linguistic) system. But also, at the same time, the systems socialstructure, with the roles of opinion leaders (core-peripheral members), changeagents, types of innovation-decisions, the local norms of diffusion, etc., togetherwith the consequences of innovation, highly condition the diffusion process.

There are two main types of diffusion: relocation diffusion, a change in thespatial location of a given feature without a corresponding increase in the number ofpeople possessing it, and expansion diffusion, a change in the spatial distribution ofa given feature with a corresponding increase in the total number of peoplepossessing it (see Bailey et al., 1993: 366). But the most usual type normally followsan expansion structure, which in turn can be: epidemic, hierarchical and contra-hierarchical. In the case of an epidemic/contagious expansion diffusion, the spreadtakes place in a centrifugal manner from the source location outwards in a patternclosely related to the neighbourhood effect because of considering the importance ofproximity and interaction between actual adopters and potential adopters (see Figure1). The wave-theory is founded on this type of diffusion, where some linguisticchanges are perceived spreading from a specific linguistic area, having maximumeffect on adjacent languages, and progressively less effect on languages furtheraway, reaching the proximate before the remote (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. Epidemic structure of diffusion (source: Abler, Adams & Gould, 1971: 390).

GEOLINGUISTIC PATTERNS OF DIFFUSION IN A SPANISH REGION

616

Figure 2. The wave model (I=Linguistic Innovation. Source: Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2003: 714).

Figure 3. Hierarchical structure of diffusion (source: Hernndez-Campoy, 1999a: 268).

Hierarchical/cascade expansion diffusion is a process in which thetransmission of a given phenomenon takes place through a system of ordered centresand step by step, primarily spreading in large central places horizontally betweencentres of the same level and vertically down the hierarchy to smaller central places(see Figure 3). In the case of contra-hierarchical expansion diffusion, thetransmission of innovations occurs from smaller (rural) to larger (urban) spacesrather than the contrary.

Given the existence of a hierarchical system of urban centres, at least in theindustrialised Western world, the most likely as well as frequent type of diffusion ofinnovations is hierarchically structured, as found in studies by Trudgill (1974, 1983,and 1986) in East Anglia and Brunlanes, or Callary (1975) in Illinois. Kloeke (1927)and Kurath (1949) also showed their inclination to this kind of hierarchical processwhen underlining the importance of cities in the diffusion of linguistic innovations.Generally speaking, this is due to, according to Trudgill (1995: 147-149), the


617

general economic, demographic and cultural dominance of town over country, and tothe structure of the communication network. Patterns of diffusion of linguisticinnovations having an epidemic (contagious) structure, contended by historicistlinguists through the Wave Theory, have also been found by Trudgill (1986) in thecase of spreads from London to East Anglia, or by Bailey, Wikle, Tillery & Sand(1993) in Oklahoma. But a combined structure (both epidemic and hierarchical), andeven a contra-hierarchical one are also feasible (see Bailey, Wikle, Tillery & Sand,1991, 1993). According to Bailey et al. (1993: 385), differing patterns of diffusionare significantly tied to the differing social meanings of the innovation, sincefeatures that diffuse hierarchically represent the encroachment and imposition ofexternal norms into an area, whereas innovations that spread contrahierarchicallyrepresent the reaffirmation and revitalization of traditional norms.

1.2. Geolinguistic principles

Any approach to the study of the patterns of geographical diffusion ofsociolinguistic innovations in the Region of Murcia should rely on the following sixgeolinguistic principles.

1.2.1. Principle I: Speaker and language

Both linguistic change and its subsequent diffusion must be assumed to start inspeakers themselves: The drama of linguistic change is enacted not in manuscriptsnor inscriptions, but in the mouths and minds of people (Wyld, 1927: 21). In fact, asJames Milroy (1992: 4) states, languages without speakers do not change, since it isspeakers, and not languages, that innovate (Milroy, 1992: 169). The fact that thespoken language is the principal scenario of language change is a truism to whichlinguists have not devoted enough attention. As Trudgill (1992b: iv) points out, it isspeakers who change languages with their everyday use in communicativeinteraction.

1.2.2. Principle II: Speaker, language and geography

Space is also important in determining the adoption of an innovation. Assumingthat language is where people are, the study of the spatial population distributionand the analysis of both population concentration and dispersion may reveal to uswhere languages are used. Similarly, from the perspective of the speakersgeographical mobility, assuming that language also goes where people go, thesuccess or failure of any process of diffusion of a given innovation will largelydepend on the extent of mobility of the adopter. In this sense, the analysis ofspatiality within the spectrum of language and geography, or the study of languagein its geographical context, particularly in the case of both social and geographicaldiffusion of linguistic innovations, is crucial to a further understanding of the


618

mechanisms of change, transmission and/or maintenance of linguistic forms (seeBritain, 1991, 2002; and Hernndez-Campoy, 1999a, 2000, forthcoming).

1.2.3. Principle III: Linguistic contact and conversational interaction

Assuming the fact that language is eminently and necessarily a socialphenomenon, linguistic change is a product of speaker-activity in social contexts(face-to-face interaction), which cannot thus be completely explained exclusivelyfrom the perspective of the properties of language systems themselves (J. Milroy,1992: 5). Linguistic contact, which takes place through speakers interaction inpredominantly conversational communicative contexts (spoken language), is thusinevitably necessary for the transmission of an innovation to occur. As Trudgill(1992a: 76) underlines, interpersonal contacts with face-to-face interactionbetween potential adopters will be essential for any process of diffusion (also seeTrudgill, 2002).

1.2.4. Principle IV: Social networks

The Social Network Theory (see L. Milroy, 1980; J. Milroy & L. Milroy, 1985)with acts of identity (group identity and solidarity) is of paramount importance indeveloping a theory of linguistic diffusion. Different studies (Labov, 1973; Wolfram,1971; or Lesley Milroy, 1980, for example) have demonstrated that people areinfluenced linguistically by members of the social networks to which they belong,acting membership as a linguistic norm-enforcement mechanism, and even withinthe same social group there may be linguistic differences very closely related to thecore/peripheral nature of its members: the speakers degree of adherence to thesocial network (core/peripheral nature) highly affects his or her structure of speechand also the possibility of adoption, and subsequent diffusion, or rejection of a giveninnovative linguistic feature in process of change.

Consequently, according to J. Milroy & L. Milroy (1985), it is the weak socialties rather than the strong social ties in the social network that provoke thetransmission of linguistic innovations in process of change because they i) require asmaller effort, ii) affect a wider range of individuals, iii) tend to escape fromvernacular speech norms, and iv) are most exposed to external pressures for change,such as the strength of contact with speakers from other different regional varieties.Regular mobility, high interaction, will inevitably lead to the weakening of ties tolocal communities, those speakers whose social contacts are class-heterogeneousbeing more likely to act as potential innovators (J. Milroy, 1992: 181).

1.2.5. Principle V: Linguistic accommodation and adoption

Accommodation is as essential for the transmission of innovations as face-to-face interaction between speakers is for accommodation to take place. At a micro-


619

level of interaction, and from a micro-sociolinguistic point of view, the geographicaldiffusion of a linguistic innovation has to be thought of primarily in terms of both theinnovating individuals and the process of face-to-face interaction (Trudgill, 1992a: 76).Giles (1973) theory of linguistic accommodation, with its convergence/divergenceprocesses, according to Trudgill (1986), can help very decisively to producelinguistic modifications in conversational face-to-face interaction between speakersof different dialect backgrounds, as well as even to facilitate the possible spread of alinguistic change. That is to say, linguistic accommodation to salient linguisticfeatures of other accents/dialects in face-to-face interaction is crucial in thegeographical diffusion of linguistic innovations. Providing attitudes are favourable,in face-to-face interaction speakers from different dialect/sociolect backgrounds willaccommodate each other linguistically by reducing dissimilarities between theirspeech models and by adopting others pronunciation features. In fact, diffusion canbe said to have taken place, presumably, on the first occasion when a speakeremploys a new feature in the absence of speakers of the variety originally containingthis feature (Trudgill, 1986: 40).

Broadly speaking, according to Rogers (1985), there are at least five factorsinfluencing the spread innovations as amplifiers or barriers: a) the phenomenonitself; b) communication networks; c) distance; d) time; and e) social structure.Whereas the work of Labov (1966, 1972, 1994) and Trudgill (1971, 1972) shows theimpact of (a) and (e), the work of Callary (1975), Lesley Milroy (1980) and JamesMilroy (1992) illustrate the influence of (b) on language change and diffusion.Trudgill (1974), Gerritsen & Jansen (1980), Pederson, McDaniel & Adams (1990,1991), Bailey, Wikle, Tillery & Sand (1991, 1993), and many other scholars haveemphasised the importance of factors (c) and (d); Britain (1991, 2002) in The Fensfocussed on (b) and (e), and Hernndez-Campoy (1996, 1999a, 1999b, 2003) andConde-Silvestre & Hernndez-Campoy (2003) on (b) and (c).

1.2.6. Principle VI: Exposure to the innovation and gravity models

The history of communications in a given area is largely responsible for thedistribution of isoglosses, as greater or lesser similarity of features between anygiven varieties implies stronger or weaker communication between their speakers(Penny, 2000: 82). In this way, the geographical diffusion of linguistic innovations,like any other innovations, depends not only on i) the physical location of dialectareas and ii) the natural features of the given region but also on: iii) demographicfactors, such as their relative population sizes and densities, communicationnetworking amongst urban centres (inter- and intra-areas), or the geographical aswell as social location of the innovation (innovating social group); and iv)sociolinguistic factors, such as the relative prestige of the varieties in contact, thelinguistic distance amongst those varieties, as well as the linguistic system itself as apossible resistance/accelerating factor of diffusion (barrier/amplifier).


620

In order to explain the reasons why a given innovation appears and spreads to acentre B from a centre A rather than from, for example, centre C, the gravity modelshave to be taken into account: i.e. the interaction between two centres with theirrelative influence on one another and two dependent parameters such as distance andpopulation size. This probabilistically-based macro-analytical model was borrowedfrom the Physical Sciences, particularly from Newtons law of universal gravitation,and adapted by the geographer Ravenstein, initially, and, later, the sociologistsStewart and Zipf. With Newtons law in mind, the geographers assumption is thatmovements of population, goods or information between two given centres dependnot only on their relative sizes, but also on the distance existing between them. Inthis way, the variables population size and distance were incorporated in order toquantify their interaction in the analysis of migrations. According to Goodall (1987:198), such model is:

an approach to summarizing in mathematical terms the essential nature of patternsof use of networks which relates interaction to the attraction or generating power ofthe nodes and the length or friction of the routes between them

Paraphrasing Newtons law, the movement between two cities (Mij) is directlyproportional to the product of the population sizes (Pi and Pj) and inverselyproportional to the square of the distance between them (Dij).

2. Objectives

With all this background in mind, and assuming that linguistic variation is notonly socially but also spatially conditioned, the aim of this study is to analyse theexistence of the relationship between, on the one hand, the geolinguistic patterns ofdiffusion of standard Castilian Spanish coming from central and northern Spainover the Murcian territory and, on the other, the (increasingly) actual use of standardforms in this traditionally non-standard region. The significant correlation ofgeolinguistic and sociolinguistic data would show, as Britain (1991, 2002) haspointed out, that geographically informed variationist linguistics can benefit fromthe insights and methodologies of human geography.

For this purpose, interaction indexes and potential exposure to innovation scoresobtained with the geolinguistic analysis (section 4.1.) will be correlated with theadoption of standard features from Castilian Spanish as measured with asociolinguistic (variationist) analysis (section 4.2.). The geolinguistic patterns ofdiffusion will be traced on the basis of the quantification of the intra-regional gravitymodels, as done by Trudgill (1974) in East Anglia and Brunlanes; Callary (1975) inIllinois; Britain (1991, 2002) in the Fens; Gerritsen & Jansen (1980) in Amsterdam;Hernndez-Campoy (1999a, 1999b) and Conde-Silvestre & Hernndez-Campoy


621

(2003) in the United Kingdom; Bailey, Wikle, Tillery, & Sand (1993) in Oklahoma;Boberg (2000) on the U.S.-Canada border; or Hernndez-Campoy (2003,forthcoming) in Murcia. This will provide us with the prediction of potential urbancentres that would hypothetically be reached by the standardisation process and thesequential order.

With these regards, the use of a reasoning founded on statistical data such aspopulation, distance, communications, connections, inter-urban status, etc.provided by human geography may be crucial to ascertain empirically the influenceof physical space (in addition to social, contextual and temporal spaces) in thediffusion of sociolinguistic innovations, and in this particular case, of the process ofstandardisation of Castilian Spanish. The actual speakers standard/non-standardperformance in Murcia will be obtained from the quantification of the use and/ornon-use of standard forms in geographically diverse samples of casual speech.

The measurement of the real presence or absence of some degree ofstandardisation and its intra-regional variation will tell us about the validity andaccuracy of the detected geolinguistic patterns of regional diffusion of CastilianSpanish. This, in turn, will shed light on the improvement and development of theapplication of the gravity models to sociolinguistic phenomena and situations.Ultimately, it will emphasise the convenience of considering the analysis ofspatiality in the study of the social and geographical diffusion of linguisticinnovations, as claimed by Britain (1991, 2002).

2.1. Area of study: The Region of Murcia

The region of Murcia is a single-province region located in South-easternSpain, lying between the regions of Valencia, Castile-La Mancha, Andalusia and theMediterranean, and covering some 11,000 square kms. The region has 1,115,068inhabitants (551,343 males and 563,725 females), most of them living in MurciaCity (the capital, with 349,040), Cartagena (175,628), and Lorca (69,930). Bothpolitically and administratively, Murcia is sub-divided into twelve standard regions,or comarcas (Huerta de Murcia, Mar Menor, Campo de Cartagena, BajoGuadalentn, Alto Guadalentn, Ro Mula, Noroeste, Valle de Ricote, Vega Media,Vega Alta, Oriental, and Altiplano), and there are 45 municipalities (see Figure 4).


622

Figure 4. Political and administrative division of Murcia Region and its mainmunicipalities.

2.2. The sociolinguistic situation of the Murcian dialect

In the same way as Murcia has historically been a transition area where manydifferent cultures and civilizations have met (Iberians, Carthaginians, Phoenicians,Greeks, Romans, Visigoths, Muslims, Jews, Castilians, Aragoneses, Catalans andGenoveses), the Spanish spoken in Murcia is a transition dialect, sharing features withValencian Catalan, Castilian, Aragonese and Andalusian Spanish. Its linguisticcharacterisation has traditionally been thus eminently non-standard, as the rest of


623

southern varieties of peninsular Spanish. This diversity of regional dialect featuresfound in the Murcian vernacular variety is thus simply a reflection of what at a givenmoment constituted a confluence of traditional dialects during the reconquest of Spainfrom the Moors and the subsequent processes of Castilianisation i.e. the expansion ofSpanish features from Old Castile in north-central Spain since the 10th century.

Therefore, Murcian Spanish, like Andalusian, can best be considered as asouthward extension of varieties originating in the centre-north of the IberianPeninsula. One of the most remarkable features of these two southern varieties is theloss of postvocalic consonants in final position (except -m and -n), and the aspiration(Andalusian) or regressive assimilation (Murcian) of consonant clusters in word-internal position (except -m, -n and -l). This categorical /s/ loss makes MurcianSpanish unlike those many other varieties of Spanish. And a similar situation isfound in the case of word-internal postvocalic /s/ regressive assimilation. Obviously,it does not mean to suggest that no native speaker of Murcian ever employs /s/, butwhen this does occur it is diastratically (socially) and/or diaphasically (stylistically)accompanied by many other features which make it clear that dialect-switching toStandard Castilian is occurring and that Murcian Spanish is no longer being spoken(see Hernndez-Campoy & Trudgill, 2002). Similar results were obtained inCutillas-Espinosas studies (2001a, 2001b).

Two consequences of the consonant deletion in pronunciation are the dramaticimpact on the synthetic morpho-syntactic structure of Spanish, apparently entailinga loss of grammatical information and an increase in ambiguity in Murcian Spanish.Postvocalic /s/ dropping in word-final position affects noun number and verb personmarking: in noun-phrases, /s/ is the plural-marker on articles, adjectives and nounsand and in verb forms, word-final /s/ is heavily involved in person-marking. As inAndalusian Spanish, diachronically speaking, the loss of consonants in postvocalicposition has also had dramatic consequences for the Murcian vowel system.Historical word-final /eC, oC, aC/ have become /, , /, and the same vocalicdevelopments have occurred word-internally in the case of vowels before assimilatedconsonants, which has led to an 8-vowel system (see Hernndez-Campoy &Trudgill, 2002), despite traditionally standard-centred descriptions:

/i/ /u//e/ /o/// //// /a/

However, Murcian Spanish diverges from Andalusian basically in the lack ofsome segmental phenomena such as aspiration or ceceo, as well as supra-segmental ones differences in intonation (see Monroy, 2002), for example.

In addition to these features concerning postvocalic consonant loss/assimilationand vowel alternation, cases of consonant permutation (neutralisation: l>r and r>l),intervocalic /d/ deletion (specially in words ending with the sequences -ado and -ido:


624

d>), or velarisation (ito>ico) and even palatalisation (ico>iquio) of diminutiveendings are among its most salient features which diverge from the StandardCastilian Spanish (see Lapesa, 1988; Zamora-Vicente, 1989; Alvar, 1996; Gmez-Ortn, forthcoming; or Hernndez-Campoy, forthcoming, for a full description; andMonroy, 2002 for a supra-segmental approach).

An interesting sociolinguistic aspect of this variety is its stereotype as theorchard pronunciation (el habla de la huerta), with connotations of ruralness, andeven its relative stigmatisation as bad speech for its own Murcian speakers: theSpanish spoken in Murcia has traditionally been associated with the vernacularworld of farmers working in the fertile plains irrigated by the River Segura.Likewise, as quantified by Laura Snchez-Lpez (1999, forthcoming), there is asense of stigmatisation of this variety among local speakers themselves, whoconsider it as an unaesthetic, incorrect and inadequate sub-standard one. In fact, incases of inter-dialect contact situations between Murcian and Castilian speakers ofSpanish, there is a tendency for the former to accommodate to the others prestigevariety except in cases of language loyalty to the local values, where there isdivergence rather than convergence.

Yet the particularly contradictory situation is that this overt view of their localvariety as bad speech is for public consumption only: despite Murcian speakersnegative value judgements towards their own variety, they do not abandon it entirely.In many ways, the local accent clearly has covert prestige (see Trudgill, 1972). Thisclearly reflects a love-hate relationship or, according to Jimnez-Cano (2001), asituation of linguistic schizophrenia that leads to linguistic masochism or evensadism due to a linguistic inferiority complex.

3. Methodology

3.1. Procedure

According to Mackey (1988), four basic stages must be followed in order toundertake a geolinguistic study to analyse the relationship between language andterritory: i) observation, ii) description, iii) interpretation, and iv) prediction. Firstly,the object of our observation must be decided: a language, a dialect, an accent, aparticular linguistic form, etc. Secondly, the unit of observation must be described interms of its identification, location, territorial segmentation, function and evolution.It is essential, according to Trudgill (1983: 53), to consider the plausibility ofcorrelating dialectologists data with preconceived geographical units, in the likemanner as geographers have done in their works: in the same way as the linguisticvariable, with the help of sociological theory and methods, can improve ourknowledge of the relationship between language and society,


625

the linguistic variable, together with a number of methodological and theoreticalinsights from human geography, can improve our knowledge of the relationshipbetween language and geography, and of the geographical setting of linguisticchange. (Trudgill, 1983: 52)

In this way, dialect maps have to be greatly improved by using geographicalcartographic techniques (see Hgerstrand, 1952): the landscape is uniformly dividedup into a number of areas, cells, and investigators have to calculate the percentage ofuse of a given linguistic feature in each cell, at given points in time, in the same wayas William Labov (1966) calculated percentages for different social class cells.

Figure 5. Dialect areas and main urban centres in Murcia Region.


626

In the case of the Region of Murcia, the uniform division of the landscape couldhave emulated the political and administrative subdivision into sub-regions, as seenin Figure 1, or even into municipalities. However, we adhered to the intra-dialectdivision proposed by Gmez-Ortn (forthcoming), which is obviously based onlinguistic grounds, and used his five main dialect areas of the Murcian territory ascells: Altiplano, Northwest, Guadalentn, Centre, and Coast (Figure 5). The 45municipalities were used (Central zone: 23; Altiplano zone: 2; Coast zone: 8;Northwest zone: 5; and Guadalentn zone: 7), with their relative population sizes,and the geographical distance between them.

Once sufficient descriptive information is at our disposal, different questionscan be raised from a geolinguistic perspective, such as the distribution of the unitof observation, as well as its power of attraction and influence through theapplication of gravity models, which we will deal with later in sections 4.1 and 5.For the second part of our study, the sociolinguistic (variationist) approach, insection 4.2, we focussed on intervocalic /d/ deletion as our linguistic variable, with1,772 occurrences analysed. Concerning the social and context variables, 50geographically diverse samples of casual speech (of 10-15 minutes each) fromage-graded male and female speakers belonging to the same ordinary social classspectrum were used. There were thus 10 samples recorded from the same amountof informants per zone: 3 from the gravity centre municipality and 7 from the restof the zone.

3.2. Data gathering

In order to carry out the geolinguistic analysis, data concerned with HumanGeography aspects of Murcia were obtained from different official statisticalservices, such as the Instituto Nacional de Estadstica (INE) and the Consejera dePoltica Territorial y Obras Pblicas de la Regin de Murcia.

In the sociolinguistic analysis, the linguistic data used for the quantification ofthe presence/absence of standard forms was obtained from a noncommercial corpusof local speech carry out between 1997 and 1999 (Regin de Murcia: Acentos,Hernndez-Campoy, 1999c).

4. Analysis

4.1. Geolinguistic analysis: Gravity models and geolinguistic patterns ofdiffusion

As mentioned in 1.2.6 (Principle VI), at the geolinguistic stage, three factors areof paramount importance in our study: i) the population size of the urban centresinvolved, be they affected or not by linguistic innovations, ii) the geographicaldistance amongst them, and iii) the linguistic distance, or linguistic similarity,


627

existing amongst the linguistic systems peculiar to those urban centres representingdialect areas.

4.1.1. Population Potential (PPI)

Regarding population size, population density, and its social distribution,innovations are more likely to arise in large, heavily populated cities that havehistorically been cultural centres, and to spread out hierarchically from there to othermoderately sized cities falling under the area of influence of the larger focal centre,thence to towns, and so on, until they ultimately and gradually reach the smallest andmost sparsely populated villages even though they are quite close to the originalfocal area of the innovation. Population, therefore, is an important ingredient ofdiffusion processes, since it implies that interpersonal contacts are a function ofpopulation size: the larger the population of a city, the more likely an individualfrom elsewhere is to come into contact with a speaker from that city (Trudgill,1992a: 76). In this sense, for example,

a speaker from Norwich [...] is 30 or 40 times more likely to meet a Londoner thanvice versa at a given time simply because the population of London is that muchbigger than the population of Norwich. (Trudgill, 1986: 40)

People living in densely populated areas are expected to come into contact moreeasily and more frequently than those living in sparsely populated areas.

From the point of view of Human Geography, every single urban centre can beclassified according to its inter-urban status (form, size, function, historicaltransformations, etc.), which implies the establishment of a hierarchy of centralplaces with regard to their demographic elements, area of influence, and flowsystems amongst the different settlements. At an inter-urban point level, not all citiesplay the same role nor have they the same importance, but rather they constitute ahierarchy in which demographic distance as well as functional distance have asignificant influence. The first is supplied with the difference in population sizeexisting amongst the different settlements, while the second is derived from the firstand determines the number of functions and activities provided by the urban centre.The difference in population size amongst the different settlements is cruciallyimportant in the organization into a hierarchy of urban nuclei (multicephaloussystem).

Yet, according to the framework developed by the German geographer W.Christaller (1966) in his central place theory, this hierarchy of population sizessubsequently implies functional and spatial ones: the larger a city is, the higher thenumber of different activities and functions it monopolises, which, in turn, results ina wider area of influence that embraces other urban centres with a lower centrality(or accessibility) and functional range. Within this hierarchical system, urban centres


628

with smaller ranges will always resort to the services provided by those others with ahigher range. This fact implies, as Lacoste & Ghirardi (1983: 174) point out, that thehierarchy of urban nuclei depends on the unequal importance of the tertiary sectoractivities (services) they supply for their respective regions; hierarchy is thus theresult of an inequality of tertiary functions. In every tertiary-sector urban centre,some services will be intended for its own inhabitants, while others will additionallyembrace the surrounding areas, which will probably be less important and even ruralsettlements: the inhabitants living in the sphere of influence of a given urban fieldwill travel to a given city, or central place, rather than to another depending on theservices provided by that city. It is in this way that the city polarises space, and thatpolarization is shown through population, merchandise, and currency movements,which constitute the flow systems amongst different urban settlements withtransportation and communication networks as its own physical medium.

With this in view, and though intuitively predictable for a native of the region, inorder to select the 5 urban nuclei that are the gravity centres in their relative dialectareas in accordance with the existing intra-area hierarchies, we proceeded to obtaintheir population potential index (PPI). Its equation is as follows (see Hernndez-Campoy, 1999a or 1999b for further information about its description andapplication):

Population Potentiali =

The addition of all PP scores for every single urban place provided us with thefollowing indexes and percentages:

Table 1


629

POPULATION POTENTIAL INDEXES (PPI)CENTRAL Zone

Locality raw data relative data (%)

1 Abanilla 43988 2.24%2 Abarn 56685 2.89%3 Albudeite 52211 2.66% 4 Alcantarilla 138928 7.08%5 Alguazas 118343 6.03%6 Archena 75761 3.86%7 Beniel 63503 3.24%8 Blanca 51106 2.61%9 Campos del Ro 49043 2.50% 10 Ceut 91528 4.67%

n Pj

Dijj=1


630

11 Cieza 65803 3.36% 12 Fortuna 52701 2.69% 13 Las Torres de Cotillas 106283 5.42% 14 Lorqu 98765 5.04% 15 Molina de Segura 141937 7.24% 16 Mula 48153 2.46%17 Murcia 377645 19.26%18 Ojs 50291 2.56% 19 Pliego 35868 1.83% 20 Ricote 42406 2.16% 21 Santomera 68520 3.49% 22 Ulea 66134 3.37% 23 Villanueva de Ro Segura 65647 3.35%

COAST Zone

GUADALENTN Zone

NORTHWEST Zone

ALTIPLANO Zone

1 Cartagena 185361 38.42%2 Fuente lamo 32794 6.8% 3 Los Alczares 35969 7.46% 4 Mazarrn 28969 6% 5 San Javier 47278 9.8% 6 San Pedro del Pinatar 38246 7.93% 7 Torre Pacheco 57529 11.92% 8 La Unin 56334 11.68%

1 guilas 32175 14.86% 2 Aledo 12243 5.66% 3 Alhama de Murcia 25236 11.66% 4 Librilla 15117 6.98% 5 Lorca 76047 35.13%6 Puerto Lumbreras 22522 10.40% 7 Totana 33117 15.30%

1 Bullas 15873 16.31% 2 Calasparra 13723 14.10% 3 Caravaca 29127 29.92%4 Cehegn 23731 24.38% 5 Moratalla 14887 15.29%

1 Jumilla 22614 42.91% 2 Yecla 30092 57.09%

According to the PPI scores obtained (Table 1), the urban nuclei that wouldconstitute the gravity centre in their relative dialect areas are Murcia City (Centralzone), Cartagena (Coast zone), Lorca (Guadalentn zone), Caravaca de la Cruz(Northwest zone) and Yecla (Altiplano zone). They are also the central places in theirrelative dialect areas in accordance with the intra-areas hierarchy provided by humangeography studies (see Calvo Garca-Tornel, 1989: 89). In the case of Murcia City,Cartagena and Lorca, with indexes of 377,645 (19.26% in its zone), 185,361(38.42% in its zone) and 76,047 (35.13% in its zone) respectively, their populationpotential in relation to the rest of urban centres in their dialect areas is sufficientlypatent, convincing and even presumable. Murcia, with 349,040 inhabitants, in theCentral zone, is the capital of the Region of Murcia, constituting its historically mostimportant financial and cultural centre and the point of reference for the wholecommunications and transportation networks in the regional territory. With 175,628inhabitants, Cartagena, on its side, in the Coast zone, is the second most importantMurcian urban centre and the second industrial nucleus, especially withpetrochemistry, mining industry and shipyards; it has an important harbour, and isthe site of one of the principal Spanish navy bases. Lorca (69,930 inhabitants) is aninland town with a traditionally consolidated agricultural sector (dry-farmed cropsand pigs) and manufacturing industry (meat processing, construction raw materials,ceramics, etc.). Caravaca de la Cruz with 21,924 people is, basically, remarkablefor its both dry-farmed and irrigated crops of fruit and vegetable growing; and,finally, Yecla (28,522) also stands out because of its both dry-farmed and irrigatedcrops, especially with viticulture and viniculture industry, and timber manufacturing.

This hierarchy of urban centres implies that, at an intra-regional level,innovations or the processes of standardisation in our case are more likely to reachthe urban centres selected through the population potential quantification first, andsubsequently they will spread out into other inferior nuclei (with a lower populationpotential score index) of the same grid. Within the Central zone, for example, aninnovation coming from an outside dialect area will contact Murcia City before itreaches Molina de Segura, Lorqu, Santomera or Fortuna, and so on, until it arrivesin other immediately inferior centres (normally municipal districts). In any case,population, goods or information movements between two given cities depend notonly on their relative sizes, but also on communications as well as transportationnetworks and, crucially, the physical distance existing between them.

4.1.2. Interaction Potential (IPI)

As in any epidemic development, during the process of diffusion and adoptionof a given innovation, communication conceived in terms of social face-to-faceinteraction and mobility have a crucial influence. Regarding physical distance, theneighbourhood effect (see Rogers, 1985) restricts the potential adopters probabilityof interacting and thus of adopting innovations: the nearest to the source of


631

innovation the potential adopting unit is, the greater the possibility of being adoptedwill be. This is due to the fact that, other things being equal, people on averagecome into contact most often with people who live closest to them and least oftenwith people who live furthest away (Trudgill, 1992a: 76). Flow systems amongstthe different settlements, i.e., the inhabitants mobility within their geographicalspace, will provide a higher or lower exposure to innovations. The degree of mobilitydirectly affects urban centres, regions, and particularly their inherent characteristics,such as their extent of conservativeness or innovativeness.

By weighting the spatial interaction amongst the different urban centres, takinginto consideration both population size and distance, we were able to find out theactual flow of regional social communication, or at least to trace the most likelytendency. As pointed out in 1.2.3 (Principle III), this is ultimately fulfilled throughspeakers action, since both linguistic change and its subsequent diffusion start fromspeakers themselves. With the object of obtaining the spatial interaction index forthe 45 urban centres of the Region of Murcia, we made use of the gravity modelassumptions (see Hernndez-Campoy, 1999a or 1999b), whose formula and resultsare the following (Table 2):

Interaction Potentialij = K

Table 2


632

INTERACTION POTENTIAL INDEXES (IPI)CENTRAL Zone

Locality raw data relative data (%)

1 Abanilla 4.85 0.29% 2 Abarn 24.78 1.50% 3 Albudeite 2.40 0.15% 4 Alcantarilla 178.00 10.81% 5 Alguazas 68.80 4.18% 6 Archena 32.40 1.97% 7 Beniel 12.90 0.78% 8 Blanca 8.80 0.53% 9 Campos del Ro 3.00 0.18% 10 Ceut 36.50 2.22% 11 Cieza 33.50 2.03% 12 Fortuna 7.20 0.44% 13 Las Torres de Cotillas 91.96 5.58% 14 Lorqu 33.80 2.05% 15 Molina de Segura 234.80 14.25%

Pi.Pj

(Dij)2


633

COAST Zone

GUADALENTN zone

NORTHWEST zone

ALTIPLANO zone

1 Cartagena 93.40 5.67% 2 Fuente lamo 11.10 0.67% 3 Los Alczares 8.20 0.50% 4 Mazarrn 6.00 0.36% 5 San Javier 35.88 2.18% 6 San Pedro del Pinatar 19.48 1.18% 7 Torre Pacheco 42.67 2.59% 8 La Unin 29.58 1.80% TOTAL 246.31 14.95%

1 guilas 4.80 0.29% 2 Aledo 0.56 0.03% 3 Alhama de Murcia 15.60 0.95% 4 Librilla 5.81 0.35% 5 Lorca 22.90 1.39%6 Puerto Lumbreras 4.44 0.27% 7 Totana 15.53 0.94% TOTAL 69.64 4.23%

1 Bullas 5.70 0.35% 2 Calasparra 3.10 0.19% 3 Caravaca 12.60 0.76%4 Cehegn 11.00 0.67% 5 Moratalla 2.79 0.17% TOTAL 35.19 2.14%

1 Jumilla 4.58 0.28% 2 Yecla 3.82 0.23%TOTAL 8.40 0.51%

16 Mula 12.58 0.76% 17 Murcia 467.00 28.35%18 Ojs 0.96 0.06% 19 Pliego 3.11 0.19% 20 Ricote 1.63 0.10% 21 Santomera 18.43 1.12% 22 Ulea 4.41 0.27% 23 Villanueva de Ro Segura 5.91 0.36% TOTAL 1287.72 78.17%

Figure 6. The density of transportation provision (bus and train densities) for Murcia,Cartagena, Lorca, Caravaca and Yecla.

Figure 7. Daily mechanised mobility indexes (source: C.A.R.M., 2000: 55).


634

In the light of the results shown in Table 2, as expected and in tune with thepopulation potential results, the hierarchy of dialect areas is maintained from theperspective of interaction potential, with the Central zone (46%) and particularlyMurcia City having the highest scores, which means that this area has, by large, agreater exposure establishing contact with innovations than the rest. The Coast zone,with Cartagena, has the second highest scores of interaction (37%). Theseinteraction potential characteristics are also recreated by public transportationprovision (bus and train densities) in Figure 6 (see also Serrano, 2001). And so doesthe measurement of daily mechanised mobility in the five dialect areas (C.A.R.M.,2000: 55) in Figure 7.

But, irrespectively of the dialect areas, focussing on the municipalities at aglobal regional level, there are localities, such as Molina de Segura, Alcantarilla andLas Torres de Cotillas (14.25%, 10.81% and 5.58% respectively), which despite notbeing the gravity centres of the Central zone show similar or even higherinteraction percentages than the gravity centres of other zones (Cartagena, 5.67%;Lorca, 1.39%; Caravaca, 0.76%; and Yecla 0.23%). There are also locations, such asAbanilla, Alguazas, Archena, Cieza, Lorqu, Fortuna, Santomera or Ulea, whichhave a considerably inferior range in the Central zone and, however, also showsimilar or even higher interaction percentages than the gravity centres of theGuadalentn, Northwest, and Altiplano zones. For example, the Alguazas urbancentre, with 6,933 inhabitants, shows a higher interaction index (4.18%) thanCaravaca (0.76%) in the Northwest zone, with 21,924 people, or than Lorca (1.39%)in the Guadalentn zone, with 69,930 inhabitants. Public transportation provisionsfor the routes Murcia-Alcantarilla, Murcia-Molina, Murcia-Santomera or Murcia-Cieza show a similar tendency: averages of 124, 80, 59 and 29 respectively.

This is due to the fact that interaction (communication) is a function thatdecreases with distance and population size. During the process of diffusion andadoption of innovations, like in epidemies, communication if understood as a socialface-to-face interaction act and proximity have a primary influence. The gradientprinciple is decisive, since the extent of influence from the source of innovation tothe nearest potential unit is inversely proportional to the distance between them anddirectly proportional to their size (range). Likewise, the neighbourhood effect,restricts the potential adopters probability of adopting innovations for being closelyrelated to distance: the nearest to the source of innovation the potential adopting unitis, the greater the possibility of being adopted will be. In this way, this interactiongravity model obtained suggests two basic types of relationships: given two urbancentres, i) the larger the population size of one or both centres is, the higher themovement between them will be; and ii) the more geographically distant urbancentres are, the lower the movement between them will be. This means that distancehas a frictional effect on mobility (see Bradford & Kent, 1977: 115). The Centralzone has a greater concentration of scarcely distant urban nuclei; its flow system


635

among its different settlements is exceptionally more dynamically active than in theother zones with less localities per square metre and consequently with moredistance among them.

4.1.3. Influence Potential (InfPI)

Yet distance does not have a linear relation to interaction, since the extent ofinfluence from the source of innovation to the nearest potential unit is inverselyproportional to the distance between them and directly proportional to their size(range). That is, communication (interaction) is a function that decreases withdistance and size. Thus, the gradient principle (see C. Clark, 1967 and W. Clark,1982), together with the possible neighbourhood effect, are decisive during thehierarchical irradiation of the innovative influences generated in the diffusion nucleiof a change, emphasizing the decreasing effect of innovations with distance andpopulation size.

Speaking in terms of probability, interaction between two given urban centrescan never be equal if they have different population sizes, since, it consists ofinfluence in each direction proportional to population size. Thus, as emphasised in4.1.1, population is an important ingredient of diffusion processes, since it impliesthat interpersonal contacts are a function of population size: people living in denselypopulated areas are expected to come into contact more easily and more frequentlythan those living in sparsely populated areas. In this way, innovations arisen inLondon, for example, are more likely to be successfully diffused than those inNorwich.

Therefore, a measure calibrating the influence of one urban centre on another isneeded. The degree of influence exerted and received by the different centres can bequantified with the influence potential formula (see Hernndez-Campoy, 1999a or1999b), with which, also taking into account interaction potential, an explicit modelof geographical distribution and diffusion of innovations can be developed.

Influence Potentialij = K

The definition of the influence potential both exerted (InfPIe) and received(InfPIr) of every single urban centre as the addition of its different individualinfluence potentials with respect to the rest of centres provided us with the followingresults (Table 3):


636

Pi.Pj Pi

Dijb.Pi+Pj


637

INFLUENCE POTENTIAL INDEXES (InfPI)

CENTRAL Zone

COAST Zone

Locality raw data relative data (%) raw data relative data (%)

Table 3

Influence exerted Influence received

1 Abanilla 0.81 0.10% 4.00 0.49% 2 Abarn 7.90 0.96% 16.70 2.03% 3 Albudeite 0.35 0.04% 2.00 0.24% 4 Alcantarilla 34.00 4.13% 144.00 17.49% 5 Alguazas 15.00 1.82% 53.80 6.53% 6 Archena 12.70 1.54% 19.60 2.38% 7 Beniel 1.30 0.16% 11.60 1.41% 8 Blanca 2.00 0.24% 6.70 0.81% 9 Campos del Ro 0.59 0.07% 2.41 0.29% 10 Ceut 10.90 1.32% 25.50 3.10% 11 Cieza 19.47 2.37% 14.00 1.70% 12 Fortuna 1.15 0.14% 6.10 0.74% 13 Las Torres de Cotillas 33.70 4.09% 58.25 7.07% 14 Lorqu 7.35 0.89% 26.45 3.21% 15 Molina de Segura 82.00 9.96% 152.80 18.56% 16 Mula 4.70 0.57% 7.80 0.95% 17 Murcia 425.00 51.63% 42.00 5.10%18 Ojs 0.07 0.01% 0.90 0.11% 19 Pliego 0.46 0.06% 2.65 0.32% 20 Ricote 0.21 0.03% 1.41 0.17% 21 Santomera 2.00 0.24% 16.37 1.99% 22 Ulea 0.74 0.09% 3.67 0.45% 23 Villanueva de Ro Segura 1.22 0.15% 4.69 0.57% TOTAL 663 80.61% 623 75.71%

1 Cartagena 70.7 8.5% 22.7 2.7%2 Fuente lamo 1.9 0.2% 9.1 1.1% 3 Los Alczares 1.4 0.1% 6.7 0.8% 4 Mazarrn 1.4 0.1% 4.5 0.5% 5 San Javier 15.5 1.8% 20.3 2.4% 6 San Pedro del Pinatar 7.2 0.8% 12.3 1.5% 7 Torre Pacheco 15.1 1.8% 27.4 3.3% 8 La Unin 3.4 0.4% 26.1 3.1% TOTAL 116 14% 129 15.7%


638

Focussing on dialect areas, and from a holistic point of view, in the same way aswith the IPIs obtained in 4.1.2., the fact that the Central zone shows almost the sameso high percentage of probability for both being influenced (75.7%) and influencing(80.6%) is due to its greater concentration of scarcely distant urban nuclei and itsmuch more active flow system. On the contrary, the Altiplano zone has the lowestdue to the frictional effect of distance.

Yet, focussing on municipalities, and from an atomistic perspective, the resultsshow a very similar situation to that offered by the results of the quantification of theinteraction potential of the 45 urban centres involved. Again, it is Murcia City(51.6%) that is, by far, the most influencing urban centre in the Region of Murcia,followed mainly by Molina de Segura (9.9%), Cartagena (8.5%), Alcantarilla(4.13%) and Las Torres de Cotillas (4.09%). In turn, incidently, Molina de Segura(18.5%), Alcantarilla (17.4%) and Las Torres de Cotillas (7.07%) show the greatestpotential to be influenced, whereas, by contrast, places from the Guadalentn,Northwest and Altiplano zones, together with others from the Central one(Villanueva, Abanilla, Ulea, Campos del Ro, Albudeite and Ojs), have a low oreven null potential for both influencing and being influenced by their mostimmediately surrounding localities.

Guadalentn Zone

Northwest Zone

Altiplano Zone

1 Bullas 1.6 0.19% 4 0.49% 2 Calasparra 0.8 0.10% 2.3 0.28% 3 Caravaca 6.6 0.81% 5.9 0.72%4 Cehegn 4.2 0.51% 6.8 0.83% 5 Moratalla 0.7 0.09% 2 0.24% TOTAL 14 1.71% 21 2.56%

1 Jumilla 1.75 0.21% 3.22 0.39% 2 Yecla 1.62 0.20% 2.19 0.27%TOTAL 3.37 0.41% 5.41 0.66%

1 guilas 1.6 0.19% 3.1 0.3% 2 Aledo 0.02 0.002% 0.5 0.07% 3 Alhama 4 0.4% 11.4 1.3% 4 Librilla 0.5 0.06% 5.2 0.6% 5 Lorca 13.3 1.6% 9.5 1.1%6 Puerto Lumbreras 0.7 0.09% 3.6 0.4% 7 Totana 4.9 0.6% 10.5 1.2% TOTAL 25.1 3.06% 44 5.3%

In the light of these data, results and hierarchical structure of transmission, themain routes followed by a given sociolinguistic innovation arisen or firstly arrived inMurcia City during the process of geographical expansion throughout the region canbe traced. With these regards, the degree of interaction amongst the different urbancentres provides us with a magnitude of the exposure to contact with innovations inthe process of diffusion. Thus, the route followed by the process of expansion ofCastilian Spanish would arrive in Murcia City earlier than in other Murcian places:any new forms (innovations or standard features from Castilian Spanish) areprobabilistically more likely to reach Murcia City before they reach, for example,Molina de Segura, and Molina before they do Ricote, or even Lorca or Cartagena,simply because of the neighbourhood effect. Likewise, any new forms (innovationsor standard features from Castilian Spanish) are probabilistically more likely to betransmitted from Murcia City (IPI 28.3%), to Fortuna (IPI 0.4%), for instance, thanvice versa. Among other reasons, because according to regional annual statistics(C.A.R.M., 1998) Murcia City has, for instance, a population density of 394 peopleper square metre (Fortuna: 44), a mail correspondence flow of 54,492 (Fortuna 355),an index of 374 telephone lines per one thousand inhabitants (Fortuna: 269), and anatural increase index of 1,570 (Fortuna: 36).

In any case, the degree of similarity amongst the linguistic systems peculiar tothe different dialect areas also affect the process and pattern of diffusion conditioningthem and, consequently, theoretically, it might probably alter the ranking hereobtained. Regarding the linguistic system itself and the prior-existing linguisticsimilarity, the extent of compatibility of a given innovation having the inherentcharacteristics of a dialect variety will make the process of adoption easier or morecomplicated. A linguistic system can certainly have either a restraining (barrier) orstimulating (amplifier) effect on the adoption of a given innovation during the processof geographical diffusion (the unfavourable system theory). A sound change, bymeans of which X becomes Y, will spread geographically to other dialects, providingthere are no internal linguistic disorders caused, until it reaches the boundaries of adialect where the Y feature is already present; the diffusion will stop there since thecollapsing of Y1 and Y2 usages would induce ambiguity in the system (Gerritsen &Jansen, 1980: 30). In this way, quoting Trudgills words (1974: 234),

it appears to be psychologically and linguistically easiest to adopt linguistic featuresfrom those dialects or accents that most closely resemble ones own, largely, we canassume, because the adjustments that have to be made are smaller.

This is simply due to the fact that, for example, ... Norwich English is probablymore like that of Canterbury than that of Peterborough, for example, although this isa difficult thing to measure (Trudgill, 1974: 224). However, since the sub-dialectsof the Murcian region are phonologically very similar to each other, we did not take


639

into account the possible values of a linguistic similarity index and its formula, asinitially developed by Trudgill (1974).

4.2. Sociolinguistic analysis: Real degree of standardisation in Murcia

Having applied adaptations of the gravity model formula to obtain aninteraction potential index (IPI) and having established a hierarchy of intra-regionalurban centres playing roles in the process of diffusion of standard Castilian Spanish,our next step was to measure the actual use of standard (Castilian Spanish: centre-northern Spanish) and non-standard (Murcia Spanish: southern Spanish) forms inthis traditionally non-standard region. This would allow us to analyse any possiblerelationship between the geolinguistic patterns of diffusion of standard CastilianSpanish over the Region of Murcia quantitatively detected in 4.1 and the actualperformance of Murcian speakers in regard to standard versus non-standardperformance.

As described in 2.2, there are many linguistic features diverging from standardCastilian Spanish which are salient in Murcian accent. Some cases of consonantdeletion, such as postvocalic /s/, are so absolutely embedded within the Murcianspeech community that their use is not so much clearly subject to social and/orstylistic variation; in fact, its maintenance sounds utterly unnatural and is usually theresult of hypercorrection for linguistic insecurity reasons. There are others, such asnasal reinforcements (epenthesis), consonant permutation, simplification of stresseddiphthongs (apocope), vowel reduction and alteration, yesmo, metathesis,assimilation in consonant cluster, articulative intrusion (both epenthesis andprothesis), or syncope, which are usually regarded as vulgarisms by adherents to thestandard ideology (see J. Milroy, 2001) and may be considered as indicators theyare subject to social but not stylistic variation (see Jimnez-Cano & Hernndez-Campoy, forthcoming 2004, and Hernndez-Campoy & Jimnez-Cano, 2003).

At this stage now with the sociolinguistic approach, our variation analysisfocussed on intervocalic /d/ deletion, which specially affects words ending with thepast participle sequences -ado, -ada, -ido, and -ida in current standard (Castilian)Spanish.

Standard Castilian Non-standardacabado [AkaBaDo] [AkaBao]comido [komiDo] [komio]

According to Narbona, Cano & Morillo-Velarde (1998: 176), the deletion ofintervocalic /d/ is becoming a widespread phenomenon in casual speech ofpeninsular Spanish. Variable (d) in intervocalic position was studied by LynnWilliams (1987) in Valladolid, a city of Old Castile, where she found that it is in co-


640


641

variation with social and context factors. In many ways, it has a status as a marker,since it is subject to both social and stylistic variation, with a conscious use in thecase of the standard variant in formal contexts: whereas its maintenance ispreponderantly part of formal styles, its omission is the usual form in casual speech(see Penny, 1991; 2000).

In Murcia, variable (d) is also a marker. The difference lies in that intervocalic/d/ deletion in Murcia, as well as in Andalusia (see Narbona, Cano & Morillo-Velarde, 1998: 176-81), is both stylistically and socially more extended: the non-standard variant is consistently much more frequently found in formal situations andupper social classes in the Spanish of Murcia than in that of Old Castile. So, while inCastile the standard form prevails in usage, it is the non-standard variant thatpredominates in Murcian Spanish.

For the purpose of our study, we concentrated on instances of past participleendings with two variants of variable (d) being considered: the conservative form(variant [D]), which consists in its maintenance and is realised as a voiced interdentalfricative [D] due to its intervocalic position; and the innovating form (variant ),which refers to its omission in pronunciation.

Fifty geographically diverse samples of casual speech (of 10-15 minutes each)from age-graded male and female speakers belonging to the same social classspectrum were used. There were thus 10 samples recorded from the same number ofinformants per zone: 3 from the gravity centre and 7 from the rest of the zone. Thesamples included 1,772 occurrences of variable (d). Of these, only 14% (244) wererealised as the standard form from Castilian Spanish (variant [D]), and 86% (1,528)were deleted as in the non-standard usage (variant ). The results obtained aredisplayed in Table 4 and Figures 8-9.

PERCENTAGES OF USAGE: VARIABLE (d)

GRAVITY CENTRES

Municipality informants # % # %

Table 4

Gravity Centre Zone Standard form ([D]) Non-standard form ()

Murcia 3 Centre 18/44 41% 26/44 59%Cartagena 3 Coast 10/31 32% 20/31 68%Lorca 3 Guadalentn 6/42 14% 36/42 86%Caravaca 3 Northwest 2/40 5% 38/40 95%Yecla 3 Altiplano 2/46 4% 44/46 96%total (15 informants) 38/203 19% 164/203 81%


642

Figure 8. Gravity centres indexes.

DIALECT AREAS

dialect area informants # % # %

Zone Standard form ([D]) Non-standard form ()

Centre 3+7 126/572 22% 446/572 78%Coast 3+7 77/385 20% 308/385 80%Guadalentn 3+7 30/260 12% 230/260 88%Northwest 3+7 7/301 2% 294/301 98%Altiplano 3+7 4/254 2% 250/254 98%total (15+35=50 informants) 244/1772 14% 1528/1772 86%


643

Figure 9. Dialect areas (zones) indexes.

5. Correlation of results

As Table 4 shows above, and as far as variable (d) is concerned, the pattern ofgeolinguistic behaviour of the Murcian dialect areas and gravity centres obtained in4.1 largely coincides with the pattern of sociolinguistic behaviour of the Murcianspeech community. Table 5 is a summary of the different indexes contrasted. Itdisplays the linguistic (standardisation index) and extralinguistic (interaction,transportation and mobility indexes) results obtained for each gravity centre in thecontext of their relative dialect area with the geolinguistic (4.1) and sociolinguistic(4.2) analyses and their correlation.


644

From an atomistic point of view, considering localities, the presence of thestandard variant [D] is much higher in the capital of the region, Murcia City (41%),than anywhere else, and, in turn, this degree of standardisation is also higher in thegravity centres of their relative dialect areas, or zones. This fact allows us to predicta pattern of geographical diffusion of Castilian Spanish, the standard, throughout theregion of Murcia following a hierarchical structure which is similar to that obtainedusing the gravity models. After all, as stated in 4.1, at an inter-urban point level, notall cities play the same role nor have they the same importance, but rather theyconstitute a hierarchy in which demographic as well as functional and physicaldistances have a significant influence. The regional urban network hierarchy ofMurcia, with its different range levels and power of attraction, is overtly reflectedboth in the geolinguistic and sociolinguistic behaviour of the region and in itsdifferent dialect areas and gravity centres with different scores for variable (d). Infact, if considered from the point of view of a linguistic change in progress, thepattern of diffusion x > x/y > y is found in the use of variable (d) by the differentdialect areas and their relative gravity centres: whereas the Central zone and MurciaCity (core) are in a more advanced stage of development and show a clearervariability range in the use of both the local and the standard forms, on the otherhand, the others (periphery) are in the initial stages of the process and still exhibitcategorical uses of the local form, with much less or no variability present. If changegoes through a number of stages in the transition from a categorical use of onevariant to its categorical replacement by another, Murcia City is leading the adoption

CORRELATION OF RESULTS

Table 5

Gravity Centre

geolinguistic analysis

Interaction PotentialIndex (IPI)

centre centrezone zone

DailyMechanised

Mobility Index

Standardisation Indexfor variable (d)

Transportation provisionto/from Murcia City

(bus and train densities)

sociolinguistic analysis

Murcia City(Central)

Cartagena (Coast)

Lorca (Guadalentn)

Caravaca(Northwest)

Yecla (Altiplano)

28.35% 78.17% 1,188,384 41% 22%

5.67% 14.95% 60 427,766 32% 20%

1.39% 4.23% 52 297,872 14% 12%

0.76% 2.14% 32 118,863 5% 2%

0.23% 0.51% 16 108,699 4% 2%

of the standard form, with the other localities and dialect areas being moreconservative. A real-time analysis in 25 years time, for example, would be revealingto confirm this tendency detected.

From a holistic perspective, considering the five different dialect areas, thepresence of the standard variant is higher in Central zone (22%), where there ismuch flux because of being most densely populated, having a greater concentrationof urban and industrialised areas (see Gonzlez-Ortiz, 1999: 98), and having a muchlarger transportation provision as well as mechanised mobility (Figures 6 and 7).Population is an important ingredient of diffusion processes, since it implies thatinterpersonal contacts are also a function of population size: people living in denselypopulated areas are expected to come into contact more easily and more frequentlythan those living in sparsely populated areas. Additionally, following the gradientprinciple and the friction of distance, the greater concentration in this area provokesa higher neighbourhood effect, which has an impact on mobility (interaction) and onthe extent of exposure to contact with the local focal area (Murcia City).

Obviously, any alteration of the models of diffusion would take place,ultimately, provided that dramatic demographic, economic, politic or evengeographical changes are produced, or simply, provided that attitudinal and linguisticfactors are sufficiently favourable to allow it.

6. Conclusion

Our geolinguistic analysis displays geographically different degrees ofinteraction potential and exposure to contact with innovations. On the other hand, thesociolinguistic analysis exhibits geographically different magnitudes of usage of thestandard feature under research which significantly match the geolinguistic results(see Table 5). This correlation of geolinguistic and sociolinguistic patterns oflinguistic behaviour shows how local features, such as the deletion of intervocalic/d/, are being eroded by the process of standardisation of Castilian Spanish followinga hierarchical structure of diffusion based on city size and distance from larger tosmaller urban centres, though proportionally depending on the frictional effect ofdistance (gradient principle).

The use of standard Castilian Spanish is spreading gradually and consistently inMurcia region. But this expansion of standardisation coming from central-northernSpain is not being geographically homogeneous but rather hierarchically,demographically and geographically selective and ranked. As Table 4 and 5 shows,Murcia City and its dialect area are particularly undergoing this process ofstandardisation at a greater extent and higher rate than the rest of localities.Furthermore, once illiteracy has dramatically decreased during the last twenty-fiveyears and given the so close relationship between spelling and pronunciation inSpanish, orthography is playing a crucial competing influence in favour of the


645

standardisation process of the non-standard areas. However, the results obtained inother studies, such as Cutillas-Espinosa (2001a and forthcoming) or Hernndez-Campoy & Jimnez-Cano (2003) are prognosticating that, given the situation ofcovert prestige the Murcian speech enjoys (seen in 2.2) and, ultimately, languageloyalty, this fact does not mean that this local accent will disappear as a result of theincreasingly Castilianisation of the region. Despite the negative social connotationsand value judgements of Murcian speakers themselves towards their own localpronunciation, with a simultaneously love and hate relationship, there would neverbe a complete language shift process in this area, as it is highly unlikely that theywould ever abandon it. Standard features will be possibly gradually introduced asin fact they are in the linguistic behaviour of the Murcian speech community,because, after all, it is the national standard variety which enjoys overt prestige; butthe loyalty to the local idiosyncrasy and community pressures seem to stronglyfavour the survival, in terms of maintenance, of the dialect of Murcia, or, at least, ofits most salient features. These factors will probably consolidate a situation ofbidialectalism with diglossic characteristics, in which the Murcian vernacularfeatures will be associated with informal contexts and Castilian Spanish, theStandard, with formal ones.

The correlation of the adoption of standard features and interaction scores hassuccessfully been detected and shown quantitatively, which had traditionally beenunnoticed, at least empirically. This means that the use of a reasoning founded onstatistical data such as population, distance, communications, connections, inter-urban status, etc. provided by Human Geography may be crucial to ascertainempirically the influence of physical space (in addition to social, contextual andtemporal spaces) in the diffusion of sociolinguistic innovations, and, in thisparticular case, of the process of standardisation. Likewise, the significantcorrelation of geolinguistic and sociolinguistic data shows that geographicallyinformed variationist linguistics can benefit from the insights and methodologies ofhuman geography. Thus, we must insist on the convenience of completing acombined approach to the phenomena of diffusion of language change from diverseperspectives, amongst which the sociolinguistic (variationist) and geolinguistic onesmust not be absent. These approaches are, as Trudgill (1992a) states, entirelycomplementary treatments focussed on the same object of study: variation andlanguage change phenomena.

As stated in Hernndez-Campoy (1999b and 2003), the models of analysis ofdiffusion developed in human geography have both advantages and disadvantages.According to Gerritsen (1988: 1589), the most important advantage of the use ofhuman geographical models for dialect geographical purposes is that it preventsgiving ad hoc explanations, since it requires from the researcher the determinationof i) the factors causing a diffusion, and ii) the presence of those factors in thediffusion area and not where the phenomenon did not spread; i.e, not only to


646

describe the geographical distribution of linguistic features but also to explain thisdistribution: why linguistic innovations appear and spread to a centre A from a centreB and not from centre C. In this way, as Trudgill (1974) states, we will be able tounderstand, more accurately, the sociolinguistic mechanisms that lie behind thegeographical distribution of linguistic innovations. According to Hard (1972: 58),these simulation models are useful to verify hypotheses about the causes of adiffusion process, accepting or rejecting them, since they can at best show that agiven explanation is or is not highly probable. For their part, Trudgill (1974) andChambers & Trudgill (1980) go further and make a greater defence of the models;these sociolinguists consider not only they are useful in that they allow theresearcher to verify or invalidate hypotheses about the origins of a diffusion but alsohave a heuristic value, since, in cases where the model does not work, the researchernecessarily has to find out the reasons and explain them.

It could be true that these probabilistic models of macroscopic analysis arecharacterized by a deterministic approach, involving a specification of therelationship between diffusion and its explanatory variables; it could also be true thatthey are specifically designed for predicting and raking diffusion flows and theinfluence potential of urban centres but only under restricted assumptions, as Jones(1990: 199) states in the case of probabilistic models for migration. In fact, asunderlined earlier, although people are not molecules, they can be regarded aspredictable in their aggregate behaviour on the basis of mathematical probability(Jones, 1990: 189). In their search for empirical regularities in aggregate data,holistically, they offer general tendencies that, atomistically, however, do not have tocoincide with particular phenomena. But, a real-time contrast between two models,for example, though obtained through aggregate data, may provide us with a widerperspective for perceiving how diffusion patterns change as the importance of urbancentres and prestige of local dialects vary from period to period throughout thehistory of a given language, and ultimately for a better understanding of themechanisms of diffusion.

Yet linguistic diffusion is not simply a by-product of geographical anddemographic attributes, but also face-to-face interaction between the speakers of theurban centres in question, local social networks and the social as well aspsychological meanings attached to different dialect forms can drastically affect theprocess of diffusion, or rather sociolinguistic diffusion. Although the geolinguisticgravity models often give adequate statistical explanation for the volume, distanceand direction of geographical diffusion flows by submitting aggregate data tomacroscopic analysis, however, they do not manage to reveal to us anything at amicroscopic level of analysis (micro-sociolinguistics): i) in which particular socialgroup the innovation arose (the diffusing social group); ii) the profile of potentialdiffusers and adopters; iii) the reasons leading speakers to adopt or reject aninnovation; as well as iv) the extent to which overt prestige or covert prestige might


647

or might not be involved. An approach to these diffusion phenomena from themicro-sociolinguistic level of interaction is thus also necessary, since there are alsoattitudinal factors that may stimulate or retard the adoption of innovations and itssubsequent transmission both geographically and socially. The arbitrary andsubjective nature of social attitudes towards the prestige of language or dialectvarieties is largely an originator of changes in linguistic systems; and, in turn, somelinguistic systems will offer more resistence to an innovation than others not simplyfor purely linguistic but also extra-linguistic (attitudinal) reasons.

In any case, there is no room for doubt that, regardless of their preciseevidencing and explanatory power, the geolinguistic approach to linguistic diffusionprocesses developed with models adopted and adapted from human geography isconsiderably much well-founded than that of traditional dialectology: as Wolfram &Schilling-Estes (1998: 145) point out, they often provide a better picture of dialectdiffusion than a simple wave model, since the wave models consideration of onlydistance and time in accounting for linguistic diffusion was excessively and naivelysimplistic. Obviously, as Gerritsen (1988) states, this supplementary evidencing andexplanatory value has a price to pay, which is its inconveniences: i) the need tocollect and work with data unfamiliar to linguists, such as population sizes,distances, communications, (air, land and sea) connections, physical geographicalaspects, etc.; ii) quantification of data; and iii) the division of the landscape intoareas of uniform size and shape (grids or cells); in addition to iv) the obtainment ofsociological and linguistic data for each cell under regard.

Until very recently, the concepts of space and spatiality, or the spatialproperties, and their, on the other hand, necessary integration within the socialtheory have performed a role as scarcely emphasized as marginal in the evolution ofthe sociological thought. Time, in terms of historical developments, has always beenconsidered as the main context unit for social theory, while space, on the contrary,has been a secondary dimension. History was elevated to an explanatory categoryfor social reality since this second was considered as the result of a givendevelopment, and, thus, the descriptions of such a development from its very originswas absolutely crucial to understand reality (Dilthey, 1883). Both linguistics has notbeen exempted from these historicist conceptions. Time and historical developmentshave traditionally constituted the models of analysis in historical linguistics, with itswave theory, and in comparative philology, with its family-tree theory, for example.Accordingly, with the incorporation of the geo- into sociolinguistics as claimed byBritain (1991, 2002), concepts such as space and spatiality are gaining moreprominence both theoretically and methodologically in the study of the transmissionand maintenance of linguistic forms, together with the social and contextualdimensions.


648

Bibliographical references

Abler, R., J.S. Adams & P. Gould (1971). Spatial Organization: The GeographersView of the World. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Alvar, M. (ed.) (1996). Manual de Dialectologa Hispnica: el Espaol de Espaa.Barcelona: Ariel.

Bailey, Ch.-J. (1973). Variation and Linguistic Theory. Arlington: CAL.Bailey, G., T. Wikle, J. Tillery & L. Sand (1991). The Apparent Time Construct.

Language Variation and Change 3, 241-64.Bailey, G., T. Wikle, J. Tillery & L. Sand (1993). Some Patterns of Linguistic

Diffusion. Language Variation and Change 5, 359-90.Boberg, C. (2000). Geolinguistic Diffusion and the U.S.-Canada Border.

Language Variation and Change 12, 1-24.Bradford, M.G. & W.A. Kent (1977). Human Geography: Theories and Applications.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Breton, R.J.L. (1991). Geolinguistics: Language Dynamics and Ethnolinguistic

Geography. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Britain, D. (1991). Dialect and Space: A Geolinguistic Analisis of Speech Variables

in the Fens. Colchester: University of Essex (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis).Britain, D. (2002). Space and Spatial Diffusion. In J.K. Chambers, P. Trudgill & N.

Schilling-Estes (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change.Oxford: Blackwell, 603-37.

Callary, R.E. (1975). Phonological Change and the Development of an UrbanDialect in Illinois. Language in Society 4, 155-69.

Calvo Garca-Tornel, F. (1989). Geografa Humana de Murcia. Barcelona: Oikos-Tau.

C.A.R.M. (1998). Regin de Murcia en Cifras 1998. Murcia: Consejera deEconoma y Hacienda (Direccin General de Economa y Estadstica).

C.A.R.M. (2000). Plan Integral de Transportes de Viajeros de la ComunidadAutnoma de la Regin de Murcia: Informe sobre la Movilidad en laComunidad Autnoma. Murcia: Consejera de Poltica Territorial y ObrasPblicas (Direccin General de Transportes y Comunicaciones; andCONSULTRANS, S.A.).

Chambers, J.K. (1982). Geolinguistics of a Variable Rule. Discussion Papers inGeolinguistics 5, 1-17.

Chambers, J.K. & P. Trudgill (1980). Dialectology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Christaller, W. (1966). Central Places in Southern Germany. New York & London:Prentice-Hall.

Clark, C. (1967). Population Growth and Land Use. London: MacMillan.Clark, W. (1982). Recent Research on Migration and Mobility. A Review and

Interpretation. Progress in Planning 18, 1-56.


649

Conde-Silvestre, J.C. & J.M. Hernndez-Campoy (2003). Modern GeolinguisticTenets and the Diffusion of Linguistic Innovations in Late Middle English.Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 37 [in press].

Cutillas-Espinosa, J.A. (2001a). Variacin sociolingstica: evolucin de los rolesde gnero en Fortuna (Murcia). In I. de la Cruz, C. Santamara, C. Tejedor& C. Valero (eds.), La Lingstica Aplicada a finales del siglo XX. Ensayos yPropuestas. Alcal de Henares: Universidad de Alcal, 685-92.

Cutillas-Espinosa, J.A. (2001b). Variacin estilstica en los medios de comunicacin:una aproximacin contrastiva a la teora del diseo de la audiencia. In A.I.Moreno Fernndez (ed.), Perspectivas recientes sobre el discurso. Len:Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Len y AESLA, 19 pages.

Cutillas-Espinosa, J.A. (forthcoming). Variacin Genrica, Edad y PrestigioEncubierto en Fortuna (Murcia). In J.M. Jimnez-Cano (ed.)[forthcoming].

Dilthey, W. (1883). Introduccin a las Ciencias del Espritu. Ensayo de unaFundamentacin del Estudio de la Sociedad y de la Historia. Madrid:Revista de Occidente. [Spanish version translated in 1956 by Julin Marasand prologued by Ortega y Gasset; reprinted in 1980 by Alianza Editorial].

Garca-Mouton, P. (ed.) (1994). Geolingstica: Trabajos Europeos. Madrid: CSIC.Gerritsen, M. (1988). Sociolinguistic Developments as a Diffusion Process. In U.

Ammon, N. Dittmar & K.J. Matheier (eds.), Sociolinguistics: AnInternational Handbook of the Science of Language and Society (vol 2).Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1574-91.

Gerritsen, M. & F. Jansen (1980). The Interplay of Dialectology and HistoricalLinguistics: Some Refinements of Trudgills Formula. In P. Maher (ed.),Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of Historical Linguistics.Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 11-38.

Giles, H. (1973). Accent Mobility: A Model and Some Data. AnthropologicalLinguistics 15, 87-105.

Gmez-Ortn, F. (forthcoming). El Dialecto Murciano y sus Variedades. In J.M.Jimnez-Cano (ed.) [forthcoming].

Gonzlez-Ortiz, J.L. (1999). Geografa de la Regin de Murcia. Murcia: ComunidadAutnoma de la Regin de Murcia (Consejera de Educacin y Cultura).

Goodall, B. (1987). The Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography. Harmondsworth:Penguin Books.

Hgerstrand, T. (1952). The Propagation of Innovation Waves. Lund Studies inGeography, Series B: Human Geography 4. Lund: Gleerup.

Hard, G. (1972). Ein geographisches Simulations-modell fr die rheinischeSprachgeschichte. In E. Ennen & G. Wiegelmann (eds.), Festschrift MatthiasZender, Studien zur Volkskultur, Sprache und Landesgeschichte. Bonn, 25-59.

Hernndez-Campoy, J.M. (1996). Modelos de Difusin Geogrfica de las


650

Innovaciones Sociolingsticas en los Acentos del Reino Unido. Murcia:Universidad de Murcia (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis).

Hernndez-Campoy, J.M. (1999a). Geolingstica: Modelos de InterpretacinGeogrfica para Lingistas. Murcia: Servicio de Publicaciones de laUniversidad de Murcia (SPUM).

Hernndez-Campoy, J.M. (1999b). Geolinguistic Models of Analysis of the SpatialDiffusion of Sociolinguistic Innovations. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 34,7-42.

Hernndez-Campoy, J.M. (1999c). Regin de Murcia: Acentos (3 CDs). Murcia.Unpublished digitalised material.

Hernndez-Campoy, J.M. (2000). La Incidencia de lo Extralingstico sobre loIntralingstico: El caso del Barco de Vapor y el Fenmeno del Rotacismo enNueva York. Paper presented at the XVIII National Conference of theSpanish Association of Applied Linguistics (AESLA), Universidad Centralde Barcelona, May 2000, 15 pages.

Hernndez-Campoy, J.M. (2003). Exposure to Contact and the GeographicalAdoption of Standard Features: Two Complementary Approaches.Language in Society 32(2), 227-55.

Hernndez-Campoy, J.M. (forthcoming). Requisitos Terico-metodolgicos para elEstudio Geolingstico del Dialecto Murciano. In J.M. Jimnez-Cano (ed.)[forthcoming].

Hernndez-Campoy, J.M. & P.J. Trudgill (2002). Functional Compensation andSouthern Peninsular Spanish /s/ Loss. Folia Linguistica Historica XXIII,141-67.

Hernndez-Campoy, J.M. & J.M. Jimnez-Cano (2003). Broadcasting Standardisation:Analysis of the Linguistic Normalisation Process in Murcia Based on RadioRecordings. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(3), 321-47.

Jimnez-Cano, J.M. (2001). La enseanza de la lengua espaola en contextodialectal. Algunas sugerencias para el estudio del caso murciano. In M.I.Montoya Ramrez (ed.), La lengua espaola y su enseanza. Granada:Universidad de Granada, 27-53.

Jimnez-Cano, J.M. (ed.) (forthcoming). Estudios Sociolingsticos del DialectoMurciano. Murcia: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia.

Jimnez-Cano, J.M. & J.M. Hernndez-Campoy (forthcoming, 2004). Quantifyingthe standardisation process in a non-standard local community: The case ofMurcia. Spanish in Context 1(1), 62-92.

Jones, H. (1990). Population Geography. London: PCP.Kloeke, G.C. (1927). De Hollandsche Expansie in de Zestiende en Zeventiende

Eeus. Gravenhage: Njhoff.Kurath, H. (1949). A Word Geography of the Eastern United States. Ann Arbour, MI:

University of Michigan Press.Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington,


651

D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.Labov, W. (1973). The Linguistic Consequence of Being a Lame. Language in

Society 2, 81-115.Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Oxford:

Blackwell.Lacoste, Y. & R. Ghirardi (1983). Geografa General: Fsica y Humana. Barcelona:

Oikos-Tau.Lapesa, R. (1988). Historia de la Lengua Espaola. Madrid: Gredos. [9th edition].Mackey, W.F. (1988). Geolinguistics: Its Scope and Principles. In C.H. Williams

(ed.), Language in Geographic Context. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 20-46.

Milroy, J. (1992). Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell.Milroy, J. (2001). Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization.

Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(4), 530-55.Milroy, J. & L. Milroy (1985). Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker

Innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21, 339-84.Milroy, L. (1980). Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell. [2nd edition,

1987].Monroy, R. (2002). El sistema entonativo del espaol murciano coloquial. Aspectos

comunicativos y actitudinales. Estudios Filolgicos 37, 77-101.Narbona, A., R. Cano & R. Morillo-Velarde (1998). El espaol Hablado en

Andaluca. Barcelona: Ariel.Pederson, L., S. McDaniel & C. Adams (1990). Linguistic Atlas of the Gulf States.

Volume 4: Regional Matrix. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Pederson, L., S. McDaniel & C. Adams (1991). Linguistic Atlas of t

f97_a102_QNFTM.pdf

Documents

Transcript of f97_a102_QNFTM.pdf