@article{UthBlestelSanchezMoreano2024,
  author    = {Uth, Melanie and Blestel, {\´E}lodie and S{\´a}nchez Moreano, Santiago},
  title     = {Labialization of final nasals},
  series = {Forma y funci{\´o}n},
  volume    = {37},
  journal   = {Forma y funci{\´o}n},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas},
  address   = {Bogot{\´a}},
  issn      = {2256-5469},
  doi       = {10.15446/fyf.v37n1.104644},
  pages     = {1 -- 25},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {Comparamos la labializaci{\´o}n no asimiladora de nasales finales en espa{\~n}ol en tres corpus de espa{\~n}ol americano (mexicano, colombiano y paraguayo). Si bien es conocida la labializaci{\´o}n no asimiladora en espa{\~n}ol yucateco, es en gran parte desconocida en otras regiones de habla hispana, por lo que a menudo se atribuye a la influencia maya. Ahora bien, se han se{\~n}alado casualmente h{\´a}bitos de pronunciaci{\´o}n similares tanto en Paraguay como en Colombia. Comparando emp{\´i}ricamente la labializaci{\´o}n en tres corpus constituidos sobre la misma base metodol{\´o}gica, concluimos que la evidencia a favor del contacto ling{\"u}{\´i}stico es como mucho sumamente indirecta. Independientemente de esto, encontramos que la diferencia m{\´a}s marcada es que la tasa de labializaci{\´o}n parece ser determinada por la duraci{\´o}n de la pausa subsiguiente en los datos de la pen{\´i}nsula yucateca, mas no en aquellos de Colombia y Paraguay. Argumentamos que es cierto que el contacto puede eventualmente haber desencadenado el desarrollo de este rasgo en el espa{\~n}ol yucateco, puesto que el espa{\~n}ol actual casi no conoce nasales labiales finales, pero el maya s{\´i}. Sin embargo, el perfil ling{\"u}{\´i}stico (hablantes monoling{\"u}es vs. biling{\"u}es) no tiene ning{\´u}n efecto en nuestros datos yucatecos y paraguayos, y en el total de nuestros datos tampoco encontramos evidencia en favor de la hip{\´o}tesis que el contacto ling{\"u}{\´i}stico hubiera jugado un rol (importante) en el desarrollo de las labiales nasales en las tres variedades.},
  language  = {es}
}
@article{AuhagenUth2022,
  author    = {Auhagen, Christopher Patrick and Uth, Melanie},
  title     = {Variation of relative complementizers in Yucatecan Spanish},
  series = {Languages},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Languages},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2226-471X},
  doi       = {10.3390/languages7040279},
  pages     = {16},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The starting point of this article is the occurrence of determiner-less and bare que relative complementizers like (en) que, '(in) that', instead of (en) el que, '(in) which', in Yucatecan Spanish (southeast Mexico). While reference grammars treat complementizers with a determiner as the standard option, previous diachronic research has shown that determiner-less complementizers actually predate relative complementizers with a determiner. Additionally, Yucatecan Spanish has been in long-standing contact with Yucatec Maya. Relative complementation in Yucatec Maya differs from that in Spanish (at least) in that the non-complex complementizer tu'ux ('where') is generally the only option for locative complementation. The paper explores monolingual and bilingual data from Yucatecan Spanish to discuss the question whether the determiner-less and bare que relative complementizers in our data constitute a historic remnant or a dialectal recast, possibly (but not necessarily) due to language contact. Although our pilot study may not answer these far-reaching questions, it does reveal two separate, but intertwined developments: (i) a generally increased rate of bare que relative complementation, across both monolingual speakers of Spanish and Spanish Maya bilinguals, compared to other Spanish varieties, and (ii) a preference for donde at the cost of other locative complementizer constructions in the bilingual group. Our analysis thus reveals intriguing differences between the complementizer preferences of monolingual and bilingual speakers, suggesting that different variational patterns caused by different (socio-)linguistic factors can co-develop in parallel in one and the [same] region.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{AuhagenUth2022,
  author    = {Auhagen, Christopher Patrick and Uth, Melanie},
  title     = {Variation of relative complementizers in Yucatecan Spanish},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Philosophische Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Philosophische Reihe},
  issn      = {1866-8380},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-58437},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-584375},
  pages     = {18},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The starting point of this article is the occurrence of determiner-less and bare que relative complementizers like (en) que, '(in) that', instead of (en) el que, '(in) which', in Yucatecan Spanish (southeast Mexico). While reference grammars treat complementizers with a determiner as the standard option, previous diachronic research has shown that determiner-less complementizers actually predate relative complementizers with a determiner. Additionally, Yucatecan Spanish has been in long-standing contact with Yucatec Maya. Relative complementation in Yucatec Maya differs from that in Spanish (at least) in that the non-complex complementizer tu'ux ('where') is generally the only option for locative complementation. The paper explores monolingual and bilingual data from Yucatecan Spanish to discuss the question whether the determiner-less and bare que relative complementizers in our data constitute a historic remnant or a dialectal recast, possibly (but not necessarily) due to language contact. Although our pilot study may not answer these far-reaching questions, it does reveal two separate, but intertwined developments: (i) a generally increased rate of bare que relative complementation, across both monolingual speakers of Spanish and Spanish Maya bilinguals, compared to other Spanish varieties, and (ii) a preference for donde at the cost of other locative complementizer constructions in the bilingual group. Our analysis thus reveals intriguing differences between the complementizer preferences of monolingual and bilingual speakers, suggesting that different variational patterns caused by different (socio-)linguistic factors can co-develop in parallel in one and the [same] region.},
  language  = {en}
}