A Comparative Analysis of Declarative Sentences in the Spontaneous Speech of Two Puerto Rican Communities

Abstract

This paper applies the Autosegmental Metrical (AM) model of intonation phonology and the Spanish Tones and Break Indices (Sp_ToBI) annotation conventions to compare the intonational contours of declarative sentences in two varieties of Puerto Rican Spanish: (1) San Juan Spanish, spoken in the capital city of San Juan, and (2) Loíza Spanish, an Afro-Hispanic vernacular spoken in Loíza. The geographical proximity between these two municipalities entails constant contact within a shared linguistic space. However, speakers from San Juan perceive Loíza as a municipality that has its own peculiar way of speaking. The acoustic and phonological analysis was carried out with PRAAT to verify whether pitch accents coincide in the spontaneous speech of the two analyzed varieties. The data we examined contain an overall predominance of the bitonal pitch accents L*+H and L+<H* in San Juan Spanish, and L+H* in Loíza Spanish. Findings show both similarities and differences within the two speech communities, as well as with intonational patterns in other (Afro-)Hispanic varieties. These results provide new information on spontaneous declarative intonation in (Afro-)Puerto Rican Spanish by offering a new perspective on the origin of a set of the prosodic phenomena found in these two varieties.

Full text

Citation: Visconte, Piero, Sandro
Sessarego, and Rajiv Rao. 2024. A
Comparative Analysis of Declarative
Sentences in the Spontaneous Speech
of Two Puerto Rican Communities.
Languages 9: 90. https://doi.org/
10.3390/languages9030090
Academic Editors: Timothy L. Face
and Meghan Armstrong
Received: 18 October 2023
Revised: 15 February 2024
Accepted: 21 February 2024
Published: 8 March 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
languages
Article
A Comparative Analysis of Declarative Sentences in the
Spontaneous Speech of Two Puerto Rican Communities
Piero Visconte 1,* , Sandro Sessarego 1and Rajiv Rao 2
1Department of Spanish & Portuguese, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA;
sandrosessarego@austin.utexas.edu
2Department of Spanish & Portuguese, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53711, USA;
rgrao@wisc.edu
*Correspondence: visconte.piero@utexas.edu
Abstract: This paper applies the Autosegmental Metrical (AM) model of intonation phonology and
the Spanish Tones and Break Indices (Sp_ToBI) annotation conventions to compare the intonational
contours of declarative sentences in two varieties of Puerto Rican Spanish: (1) San Juan Spanish,
spoken in the capital city of San Juan, and (2) Loíza Spanish, an Afro-Hispanic vernacular spoken in
Loíza. The geographical proximity between these two municipalities entails constant contact within a
shared linguistic space. However, speakers from San Juan perceive Loíza as a municipality that has its
own peculiar way of speaking. The acoustic and phonological analysis was carried out with PRAAT
to verify whether pitch accents coincide in the spontaneous speech of the two analyzed varieties. The
data we examined contain an overall predominance of the bitonal pitch accents L*+H and L+<H* in
San Juan Spanish, and L+H* in Loíza Spanish. Findings show both similarities and differences within
the two speech communities, as well as with intonational patterns in other (Afro-)Hispanic varieties.
These results provide new information on spontaneous declarative intonation in (Afro-)Puerto Rican
Spanish by offering a new perspective on the origin of a set of the prosodic phenomena found in
these two varieties.
Keywords: autosegmental metrical; Sp_ToBI; declarative intonation; San Juan Spanish; Loíza Spanish;
Spanish creole debate
1. Introduction
Navarro-Tomás is considered the pioneer of Hispanic phonology for leading the long
history of studies on Spanish intonation (Navarro-Tomás 1918,1944,1966), as well as for
intertwining intonation with the mastery of a language:
No se penetra enteramente en el dominio de una lengua mientras no se conoce la intimidad
de su entonación. (‘One does not fully penetrate the domain of a language until
one knows the intimacy of its intonation.’). (Navarro-Tomás 1966, p. 8)
His early descriptions of Spanish declarative intonation were accurate enough to be
used in more recent studies (Sosa 1999;Face 2002;Alvord 2010) to provide a consistent
picture of what neutral declarative intonation looks like in many varieties of Spanish.
However, for decades the study of the melodic aspect of language has been limited mainly
to differentiating between statements and questions, leaving aside the comparative analysis
between languages (Hernández-Rodríguez et al. 2014).
In search of desarrollar componentes fonético-fonológicos completos (‘developing complete
phonetic-phonological components’) (Prieto 2003, p. 18), Pierrehumbert (1980) proposed
in her research on English intonation a model that was able to make a principled dis-
tinction between the phonology of intonation and its phonetic realization (Arvaniti 2022).
This methodology, suitable both for recognizing and describing the suprasegmental and
prosodic features of the spoken chain and for facilitating the syntagmatic delimitation of
Languages 2024,9, 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9030090 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

Languages 2024,9, 90 2 of 22
intonational units, was called the Autosegmental Metrical (AM) model (Pierrehumbert 1980;
Ladd 2008).
In other words, Pierrehumbert was looking to connect the two subsystems of phonol-
ogy necessary for intonation: (1) an autosegmental level that represents the melodic part of
intonation and (2) a metric structure that represents prominence and phrasing. Since its in-
troduction, the model has undergone several improvements until it became the most widely
used theoretical framework for intonational studies (see Hualde 2003 for a description of
the AM in Spanish). Its labeling scheme is called Spanish Tones and Break Indices (Sp_ToBI), a
tool for the prosodic annotation of Spanish speech corpora that contains prosodic, phonetic,
and intonational information (Aguilar et al. 2009).
The declarative intonation of Spanish has been widely described, although some
varieties have received more attention than others. The analysis of new varieties of Spanish
“can provide insights into the phonological system of Spanish in general as well as into our
understanding of intonational phonology” (Alvord 2010, p. 3). This comparative study
analyzes the intonation patterns of two varieties of Puerto Rican Spanish (PRS) spoken
in the Área Metropolitana de San Juan (‘San Juan Metropolitan Area’) (AMSJ):
1
(1) San Juan
Spanish (SJS), the variety spoken in the capital city of San Juan; and (2) Loíza Spanish (LS),
an Afro-Hispanic vernacular spoken in the coastal municipality of Loíza (Visconte and
Sessarego 2022a,2022b) (Scheme 1).
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23
2022). This methodology, suitable both for recognizing and describing the suprasegmental
and prosodic features of the spoken chain and for facilitating the syntagmatic delimitation
of intonational units, was called the Autosegmental Metrical (AM) model (Pierrehumbert
1980; Ladd 2008).
In other words, Pierrehumbert was looking to connect the two subsystems of
phonology necessary for intonation: (1) an autosegmental level that represents the
melodic part of intonation and (2) a metric structure that represents prominence and
phrasing. Since its introduction, the model has undergone several improvements until it
became the most widely used theoretical framework for intonational studies (see Hualde
2003 for a description of the AM in Spanish). Its labeling scheme is called Spanish Tones
and Break Indices (Sp_ToBI), a tool for the prosodic annotation of Spanish speech corpora
that contains prosodic, phonetic, and intonational information (Aguilar et al. 2009).
The declarative intonation of Spanish has been widely described, although some
varieties have received more aention than others. The analysis of new varieties of
Spanish “can provide insights into the phonological system of Spanish in general as well
as into our understanding of intonational phonology” (Alvord 2010, p. 3). This
comparative study analyzes the intonation paerns of two varieties of Puerto Rican
Spanish (PRS) spoken in the Área Metropolitana de San Juan (‘San Juan Metropolitan Area’)
(AMSJ):
Error! Reference source not found.
(1) San Juan Spanish (SJS), the variety spoken in the capital
city of San Juan; and (2) Loíza Spanish (LS), an Afro-Hispanic vernacular spoken in the
coastal municipality of Loíza (Visconte and Sessarego 2022a, 2022b) (Scheme 1).
Scheme 1. San Juan and Loíza in the AMSJU (adapted from Feliciano-Astacio et al. 2019).
During the past few decades, a number of linguistic studies have focused on PRS
(Navarro-Tomás 1948 et seq.; Álvarez-Nazario 1974, 1982, 1990; López-Morales 1979, 1988;
Vaquero 1991; Morales de Walters 2000; Torres-González 2002; Carroll et al. 2015;
Guzzardo-Tamargo and Vélez-Avilés 2017; Guzzardo-Tamargo et al. 2018; González-
Rivera and Ortiz-López 2018; etc.). Nonetheless, only a few comprehensive works have
analyzed the intonational phonology of this Caribbean variety (Sosa 1999; Armstrong
2010, 2017; Hernández-Rodríguez et al. 2014).
Some comparative analyses have included varieties spoken by boricuas
Error! Reference source
not found.
and speakers of other languages, such as Papiamentu (Mauleón-Benítez 1974), as
well as other varieties of Spanish (Mexican, Colombian, Venezuelan, and Peninsular
Spanish) (Quilis 1985, 1989; Sosa 2003; Hernández-Rodríguez et al. 2014). However, we
are not aware of an intradialectal comparison that includes a variety of Spanish (such as
SJS) and an Afro-Hispanic variety (such as LS).
According to recent census data (US Census Bureau 2022), around 350 thousand
Puerto Ricans reside in San Juan, the main center of the AMSJ. Just miles from the capital
city sits Loíza, a municipality of less than 24 thousand residents (US Census Bureau 2022)
with a dense Afro-Caribbean population. More than 64% of the entire population self-
Scheme 1. San Juan and Loíza in the AMSJU (adapted from Feliciano-Astacio et al. 2019).
During the past few decades, a number of linguistic studies have focused on PRS
(Navarro-Tomás 1948 et seq.; Álvarez-Nazario 1974,1982,1990;López-Morales 1979,1988;
Vaquero 1991;Morales de Walters 2000;Torres-González 2002;Carroll et al. 2015;Guzzardo-
Tamargo and Vélez-Avilés 2017;Guzzardo-Tamargo et al. 2018;González-Rivera and
Ortiz-López 2018; etc.). Nonetheless, only a few comprehensive works have analyzed
the intonational phonology of this Caribbean variety (Sosa 1999;Armstrong 2010,2017;
Hernández-Rodríguez et al. 2014).
Some comparative analyses have included varieties spoken by boricuas
2
and speakers
of other languages, such as Papiamentu (Mauleón-Benítez 1974), as well as other varieties
of Spanish (Mexican, Colombian, Venezuelan, and Peninsular Spanish) (Quilis 1985,1989;
Sosa 2003
;Hernández-Rodríguez et al. 2014). However, we are not aware of an intradi-
alectal comparison that includes a variety of Spanish (such as SJS) and an Afro-Hispanic
variety (such as LS).
According to recent census data (US Census Bureau 2022), around 350 thousand Puerto
Ricans reside in San Juan, the main center of the AMSJ. Just miles from the capital city sits
Loíza, a municipality of less than 24 thousand residents (US Census Bureau 2022) with
a dense Afro-Caribbean population. More than 64% of the entire population self-define
as “Black” (Mayo-Santana and Negrón-Portillo 2007). This community is well known for
its strong Afro-Puerto Rican identity (Moya 2012), which makes this coastal municipality

Languages 2024,9, 90 3 of 22
considered throughout Puerto Rico as an enclave afropuertorriqueño (‘an Afro-Puerto Rican
enclave’) (Visconte, forthcoming).
At the linguistic level, Loiza’s speech has been stigmatized and belittled by San Juan
residents for presenting peculiar cases of phonetic variation (i.e., aspiration of /
R
/ in implo-
sive position: ba
h
co (barco) ‘boat’; conversion of /d/ > [
R
] and /
R
/ > [ð] in syllable-initial
position: aremá(además) ‘in addition’, ayura (ayuda) ‘help’; simplification or gemination of
consonant groups: corruto (corruptos) ‘corrupted’; loss of syllable-final /
R
/: cosé(coser) ‘to
sew’; etc.), bringing LS closer to other Afro-Hispanic Languages of the Americas (AHLAs)
and distancing it from SJS (Mojica-de León 2014;Visconte, forthcoming).
Due to their geographical proximity, San Juan and Loíza share a linguistic space
in which social differences play a fundamental factor. Previous studies have focused
on intonation as a stigma of discrimination and consequent marginalization of certain
Spanish-speaking linguistic communities (Cerrón-Palomino 2003;Tijoux and Retamales
2015;Hernandez-Rosete and Maya 2016). Concerning Puerto Rico, in a recent proposal on
linguistic attitudes Loíza has been defined as a region where se habla diferente (‘people speak
differently’) by speakers from San Juan (Mojica-de León 2014, p. 1274). The municipalities
of San Juan and Loíza represent the two extremes of poverty rates in Puerto Rico (US
Census Bureau 2022). LS is generally perceived by SJS speakers as a stigmatized vernacular.
This is likely due to the historical difficulties that place this Afro-Hispanic region at the
top of the ranks of poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, and crime throughout Puerto Rico
(Ungerleider-Kepler 2000;Visconte and Sessarego 2022a,2022b). In this regard, it is clear
the existence of apreciaciones subjetivas (‘subjective appreciations’) (Silva-Corvalán 1989,
p. 12) leads sanjuaneros to consider loiceños as speakers of a substandard dialect, while
evaluating the variety spoken in the capital city as the standard to follow. In Puerto Rico,
the AMSJ enjoys prestige compared with all other areas of Puerto Rico. As stated by
Moreno-Fernández (1998, p. 231):
Los hablantes distinguen a la variedad superior con funciones relacionadas con
el estatus, tales como la religión, el gobierno o la educación, de la variedad
inferior con funciones relacionadas con la solidaridad, el hogar y la intimidad.
Estas variedades pueden ser lenguas diferentes, dialectos de la misma lengua o
variedades funcionalmente distintas. (‘Speakers distinguish the prestige variety
with functions related to status, such as religion, government, or education, from
the stigmatized variety with functions related to solidarity, home, and privacy.
These varieties may be different languages, dialects of the same language, or
functionally distinct varieties.’)
The present study contributes to the work on the phonetics and phonology of
(Afro-)PRS
by considering similarities and differences between the intonational contours of SJS and LS.
Puerto Rican intonation (which often includes SJS) has usually been grouped under the
label “Caribbean Spanish” along with Dominican, Cuban, and coastal Venezuelan varieties,
with which it shares a series of phonological traits (Chela-Flores 1994;Willis 2003,2010;
Alvord 2010;Armstrong 2010). In this extended region, some segmental characteristics (i.e.,
weakening of /s/ in coda position, different degrees of neutralization of liquid consonants,
etc.) are considered quite innovative compared with Peninsular varieties of Spanish (Lipski
2008;Alvord 2010). On the other hand, apart from Lipski’s study (2007) of Afro-Cuban
bozal Spanish
3
, very little is known about the intonation systems of Afro-Caribbean Spanish
(which includes LS).
The goal of this paper is to describe and explain the main word-level intonational
patterns of spontaneous declarative sentences in SJS and LS, enlarging the existing literature
on (Afro-)Caribbean Spanish intonation, as well as providing a novel approach based on
spontaneous rather than controlled speech.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows: Section 2describes the AM theoretical
framework of intonational phonology and its transcription system (ToBI). It also provides
the data collection methodology and data analysis. Section 3discusses the results. Section 4
offers the concluding remarks by highlighting the most important findings.

Languages 2024,9, 90 4 of 22
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Autosegmental Metrical (AM) Model and Its Annotation System (ToBI)
The AM model indicates a theoretical framework of intonation phonological structure
developed over the last three decades on the basis of empirical evidence of speech production
and perception (Arvaniti 2022). This theoretical framework proposes the analysis of into-
national pitch contours as sequences made by two types of phonologically distinctive tonal
units: pitch accents (PAs) and boundary tones (BTs) (Prieto and Roseano 2010). PAs indicate “the
tonal events anchored to a stressed syllable”, while BTs display “the tonal events anchored
to phrase-final edges” (Prieto and Roseano 2010, p. 218). The conjunction of an utterance’s
last PA and the following BT is called nuclear configuration, which typically contains the most
significant information conveyed by intonation (Prieto and Roseano 2010).
In addition to laying the foundation for the AM model, Pierrehumbert (1980) elabo-
rated the representation of intonation through the sequence of two types of basic tones,
(H)igh and (L)ow. Used individually, H and L indicate leveled PAs. When combined, H+L
indicates falling PAs, while L+H indicates rising PAs (McGory and Díaz-Campos 2002). H
and L may be accompanied by a series of symbols that complete the melodic curve (Table 1)
(Hernández-Rodríguez et al. 2014;Butera et al. 2020;Korfhagen et al. 2021;Arvaniti 2022).
Table 1. Summary of annotation conventions (adapted from Korfhagen et al. 2021, p. 159).
Symbols Description
H High tones corresponding to F0 peaks.
L Low tones corresponding to F0 valleys.
* References the tone most strongly associated with the stressed syllable.
+ Links two contiguous targets; thus, it indicates a multitonal pitch accent.
< Denotes posttonic peak alignment.
¡ Marks an upstep within the same ip, that is, a noteworthy rise in the F0 level from one H or L tone to the next.
!
Marks a downstep within the same ip, that is, a noteworthy scaling in the F0 level from one H or L tone to the next.
% It displays an association with the final edges of utterances (IP boundary).
– It defines an association with internal phrase boundaries (ip boundary).
The melodic curve has been labeled by Prieto (2003, p. 18) as an eje vertebrador entre
movimientos melódicos (‘backbone axis between melodic movements’) through which the
intonation is phonologically transcribed (Arvaniti 2022). Thus, it is possible to focus on
contrasting the elements of the melodic system, as claimed by Hualde (2003, p. 175):
El tipo de transcripción utilizado en el modelo AM se acerca más a una tran-
scripción fonémica que a una transcripción fonética, pues requiere un análisis
previo del sistema de contrastes empleado en la lengua. (‘The type of transcription
used in the AM model is closer to a phonemic transcription than to a phonetic
transcription, since it requires a prior analysis of the contrast system used in
the language.’)
This melodic curve structure allows understanding the system of tonally contrastive
elements of the language under analysis, recognizing the link between intonation and
stress. In Spanish, every word contains a lexically stressed syllable;
4
thus, almost every
word receives a PA (Alvord 2010). Stress determines the degree of acoustic prominence in
a syllable (Ladd 2008). Concerning Spanish, accent marks prominence in the syllables by
moving the fundamental frequency (F0) into or near the stressed syllable (Quilis 1993;Face
2003;Hualde 2009). These movements develop different levels of hierarchical organization
between the prosodic units (Table 2) (Gussenhoven 2004).

Languages 2024,9, 90 5 of 22
Table 2. Prosodic hierarchy (Gussenhoven 2004).
a. IP Intonational phrase
b. ip Intermediate phrase
c. PW Prosodic Word
d. F Foot
e. σSyllable
This study focuses on Prosodic Words (PWs) housed within two levels of prosodic
phrases (Prieto and Roseano 2010;Rao and Sessarego 2016). IPs are the basic units of
information, consisting of at least one PA, and demarcated by longer and easily noticeable
pauses at their left and right boundaries. One step further down the prosodic hierarchy
are the ips, shorter phrases within the IPs that do not always express full thoughts. One or
more PWs can be contained in ips (Sosa 1999;Nibert 2000;Beckman et al. 2002;Face 2002).
As claimed by Alvord (2010, p. 6):
When there is an intermediate phrase present, the end of the last intermediate
phrase will always correspond to the end of the intonational phrase, meaning that
the intermediate phrase tone and the intonational phrase tone will be adjacent to
one another.
Lastly, PWs are units associated with the main stress on content words (e.g., adjectives,
nouns, verbs, etc.) rather than function words (e.g., prepositions, clitics, etc.) (Quilis 1993;
Hualde 2002). Due to their close relationship with stressed words and syllables, PWs tend
to have PAs (Korfhagen et al. 2021). However, deaccented words—with no PA—can also
be produced, depending on the presence of certain variables, such as word length, word
frequency, and repetition in discourse (Rao 2009).
The Tones and Break Indices (ToBI) family of systems is the most well-known application
of the AM model of intonational phonology. It is based on several standard conventions
for defining and describing both PAs and BTs, as well as their associations with syllables
within the sentence. This results in a prosodic transcription that captures the phonological
contrasts observed in the intonation of the language under study (Beckman et al. 2002).
ToBI as a tool has been misinterpreted several times to the point that its creators have had
to explain that it is neither a substitute for the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) in
terms of intonation nor a system that is only applicable to English (Beckman et al. 2002).
5
The misunderstanding around the model (AM) and its application (ToBI) is reported by
Arvaniti (2022, p. 36):
It is not always clear that AM is a phonological model of intonational structure,
not a transcription, and that ToBI is a tool. [
. . .
] It is also reflected [
. . .
] as to
whether a level of phonetic transcription is needed in ToBI systems.
Despite this, the ToBI method seems to have gained appeal, especially given that it has
been used in several languages over the past few years (for Asian languages see Jun 2005;
Venditti 2005; and Wong et al. 2005; for Romance languages see Frota and Prieto 2015; etc.).
ToBI acronyms are usually prefixed with a code, which identifies the language they apply
to (i.e., Sp_ToBI for Spanish). Since its development in the early 1990s, there have been
various upgrades. As for Spanish, Sp_ToBI has already gone through some reformulations
in recent years (Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008;Prieto and Roseano 2010;Hualde and
Prieto 2015).
A number of proposals (Face and Prieto 2007;Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008;
Aguilar et al. 2009;Prieto and Roseano 2010;Santos 2021; etc.) have reported the inventory
of the most common PA accents of Spanish. Table 3accounts for the main Spanish PAs.
In the schematic representation, the middle third indicates the tonic syllable.

Languages 2024,9, 90 6 of 22
Table 3. Spanish PAs and their Sp_ToBI labels (adapted from Armstrong 2010;Prieto and Roseano
2010;Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Pitch Accents
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23
reformulations in recent years (Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
A number of proposals (Face and Prieto 2007; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008;
Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; remove for review; remove for review; Santos
2021; etc.) have reported the inventory of the most common PA accents of Spanish. Table
3 accounts for the main Spanish PAs. In the schematic representation, the middle third
indicates the tonic syllable.
Table 3. Spanish PAs and their Sp_ToBI labels (adapted from Armstrong 2010; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Pitch Accents
L* This accent is phonetically realized as a low plateau at the bottom of the speaker’s pitch range.
H* This accent is phonetically realized as a high plateau with no preceding F0 valley.
¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rise from a high plateau to an extra-high level.
Bitonal Pitch Accents
L+H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement during the stressed syllable with
the F0 peak located at/near the end of this syllable.
L+¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as rise to a very high F0 peak located in the accented
syllable. It contrasts with L+H* in F0 scaling.
L+<H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement in the stressed syllable with the
F0 peak located in the post-accentual syllables.
L*+H This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 on the accented syllable with a subsequent rise on a
post-accented syllable.
H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 fall from a high level within the accented syllable.
!H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as a fall from a relatively high tone produced which is
produced in a low (compressed) pitch range to a low target.
Tritonal Pitch Accents
L* This accent is phonetically realized as a low plateau
at the bottom of the speaker’s pitch range.
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23
reformulations in recent years (Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
A number of proposals (Face and Prieto 2007; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008;
Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; remove for review; remove for review; Santos
2021; etc.) have reported the inventory of the most common PA accents of Spanish. Table
3 accounts for the main Spanish PAs. In the schematic representation, the middle third
indicates the tonic syllable.
Table 3. Spanish PAs and their Sp_ToBI labels (adapted from Armstrong 2010; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Pitch Accents
L* This accent is phonetically realized as a low plateau at the bottom of the speaker’s pitch range.
H* This accent is phonetically realized as a high plateau with no preceding F0 valley.
¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rise from a high plateau to an extra-high level.
Bitonal Pitch Accents
L+H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement during the stressed syllable with
the F0 peak located at/near the end of this syllable.
L+¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as rise to a very high F0 peak located in the accented
syllable. It contrasts with L+H* in F0 scaling.
L+<H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement in the stressed syllable with the
F0 peak located in the post-accentual syllables.
L*+H This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 on the accented syllable with a subsequent rise on a
post-accented syllable.
H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 fall from a high level within the accented syllable.
!H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as a fall from a relatively high tone produced which is
produced in a low (compressed) pitch range to a low target.
Tritonal Pitch Accents
H*
This accent is phonetically realized as a high plateau
with no preceding F0 valley.
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23
reformulations in recent years (Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
A number of proposals (Face and Prieto 2007; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008;
Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; remove for review; remove for review; Santos
2021; etc.) have reported the inventory of the most common PA accents of Spanish. Table
3 accounts for the main Spanish PAs. In the schematic representation, the middle third
indicates the tonic syllable.
Table 3. Spanish PAs and their Sp_ToBI labels (adapted from Armstrong 2010; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Pitch Accents
L* This accent is phonetically realized as a low plateau at the bottom of the speaker’s pitch range.
H* This accent is phonetically realized as a high plateau with no preceding F0 valley.
¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rise from a high plateau to an extra-high level.
Bitonal Pitch Accents
L+H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement during the stressed syllable with
the F0 peak located at/near the end of this syllable.
L+¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as rise to a very high F0 peak located in the accented
syllable. It contrasts with L+H* in F0 scaling.
L+<H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement in the stressed syllable with the
F0 peak located in the post-accentual syllables.
L*+H This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 on the accented syllable with a subsequent rise on a
post-accented syllable.
H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 fall from a high level within the accented syllable.
!H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as a fall from a relatively high tone produced which is
produced in a low (compressed) pitch range to a low target.
Tritonal Pitch Accents
¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rise from a
high plateau to an extra-high level.
Bitonal Pitch Accents
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23
reformulations in recent years (Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
A number of proposals (Face and Prieto 2007; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008;
Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; remove for review; remove for review; Santos
2021; etc.) have reported the inventory of the most common PA accents of Spanish. Table
3 accounts for the main Spanish PAs. In the schematic representation, the middle third
indicates the tonic syllable.
Table 3. Spanish PAs and their Sp_ToBI labels (adapted from Armstrong 2010; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Pitch Accents
L* This accent is phonetically realized as a low plateau at the bottom of the speaker’s pitch range.
H* This accent is phonetically realized as a high plateau with no preceding F0 valley.
¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rise from a high plateau to an extra-high level.
Bitonal Pitch Accents
L+H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement during the stressed syllable with
the F0 peak located at/near the end of this syllable.
L+¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as rise to a very high F0 peak located in the accented
syllable. It contrasts with L+H* in F0 scaling.
L+<H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement in the stressed syllable with the
F0 peak located in the post-accentual syllables.
L*+H This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 on the accented syllable with a subsequent rise on a
post-accented syllable.
H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 fall from a high level within the accented syllable.
!H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as a fall from a relatively high tone produced which is
produced in a low (compressed) pitch range to a low target.
Tritonal Pitch Accents
L+H*
This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch
movement during the stressed syllable with the F0
peak located at/near the end of this syllable.
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23
reformulations in recent years (Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
A number of proposals (Face and Prieto 2007; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008;
Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; remove for review; remove for review; Santos
2021; etc.) have reported the inventory of the most common PA accents of Spanish. Table
3 accounts for the main Spanish PAs. In the schematic representation, the middle third
indicates the tonic syllable.
Table 3. Spanish PAs and their Sp_ToBI labels (adapted from Armstrong 2010; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Pitch Accents
L* This accent is phonetically realized as a low plateau at the bottom of the speaker’s pitch range.
H* This accent is phonetically realized as a high plateau with no preceding F0 valley.
¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rise from a high plateau to an extra-high level.
Bitonal Pitch Accents
L+H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement during the stressed syllable with
the F0 peak located at/near the end of this syllable.
L+¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as rise to a very high F0 peak located in the accented
syllable. It contrasts with L+H* in F0 scaling.
L+<H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement in the stressed syllable with the
F0 peak located in the post-accentual syllables.
L*+H This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 on the accented syllable with a subsequent rise on a
post-accented syllable.
H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 fall from a high level within the accented syllable.
!H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as a fall from a relatively high tone produced which is
produced in a low (compressed) pitch range to a low target.
Tritonal Pitch Accents
L+¡H*
This accent is phonetically realized as rise to a very
high F0 peak located in the accented syllable. It
contrasts with L+H* in F0 scaling.
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23
reformulations in recent years (Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
A number of proposals (Face and Prieto 2007; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008;
Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; remove for review; remove for review; Santos
2021; etc.) have reported the inventory of the most common PA accents of Spanish. Table
3 accounts for the main Spanish PAs. In the schematic representation, the middle third
indicates the tonic syllable.
Table 3. Spanish PAs and their Sp_ToBI labels (adapted from Armstrong 2010; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Pitch Accents
L* This accent is phonetically realized as a low plateau at the bottom of the speaker’s pitch range.
H* This accent is phonetically realized as a high plateau with no preceding F0 valley.
¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rise from a high plateau to an extra-high level.
Bitonal Pitch Accents
L+H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement during the stressed syllable with
the F0 peak located at/near the end of this syllable.
L+¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as rise to a very high F0 peak located in the accented
syllable. It contrasts with L+H* in F0 scaling.
L+<H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement in the stressed syllable with the
F0 peak located in the post-accentual syllables.
L*+H This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 on the accented syllable with a subsequent rise on a
post-accented syllable.
H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 fall from a high level within the accented syllable.
!H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as a fall from a relatively high tone produced which is
produced in a low (compressed) pitch range to a low target.
Tritonal Pitch Accents
L+<H*
This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch
movement in the stressed syllable with the F0 peak
located in the post-accentual syllables.
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23
reformulations in recent years (Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
A number of proposals (Face and Prieto 2007; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008;
Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; remove for review; remove for review; Santos
2021; etc.) have reported the inventory of the most common PA accents of Spanish. Table
3 accounts for the main Spanish PAs. In the schematic representation, the middle third
indicates the tonic syllable.
Table 3. Spanish PAs and their Sp_ToBI labels (adapted from Armstrong 2010; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Pitch Accents
L* This accent is phonetically realized as a low plateau at the bottom of the speaker’s pitch range.
H* This accent is phonetically realized as a high plateau with no preceding F0 valley.
¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rise from a high plateau to an extra-high level.
Bitonal Pitch Accents
L+H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement during the stressed syllable with
the F0 peak located at/near the end of this syllable.
L+¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as rise to a very high F0 peak located in the accented
syllable. It contrasts with L+H* in F0 scaling.
L+<H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement in the stressed syllable with the
F0 peak located in the post-accentual syllables.
L*+H This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 on the accented syllable with a subsequent rise on a
post-accented syllable.
H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 fall from a high level within the accented syllable.
!H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as a fall from a relatively high tone produced which is
produced in a low (compressed) pitch range to a low target.
Tritonal Pitch Accents
L*+H
This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 on the
accented syllable with a subsequent rise on a
post-accented syllable.
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23
reformulations in recent years (Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
A number of proposals (Face and Prieto 2007; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008;
Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; remove for review; remove for review; Santos
2021; etc.) have reported the inventory of the most common PA accents of Spanish. Table
3 accounts for the main Spanish PAs. In the schematic representation, the middle third
indicates the tonic syllable.
Table 3. Spanish PAs and their Sp_ToBI labels (adapted from Armstrong 2010; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Pitch Accents
L* This accent is phonetically realized as a low plateau at the bottom of the speaker’s pitch range.
H* This accent is phonetically realized as a high plateau with no preceding F0 valley.
¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rise from a high plateau to an extra-high level.
Bitonal Pitch Accents
L+H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement during the stressed syllable with
the F0 peak located at/near the end of this syllable.
L+¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as rise to a very high F0 peak located in the accented
syllable. It contrasts with L+H* in F0 scaling.
L+<H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement in the stressed syllable with the
F0 peak located in the post-accentual syllables.
L*+H This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 on the accented syllable with a subsequent rise on a
post-accented syllable.
H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 fall from a high level within the accented syllable.
!H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as a fall from a relatively high tone produced which is
produced in a low (compressed) pitch range to a low target.
Tritonal Pitch Accents
H+L*
This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 fall from
a high level within the accented syllable.
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23
reformulations in recent years (Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
A number of proposals (Face and Prieto 2007; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2008;
Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; remove for review; remove for review; Santos
2021; etc.) have reported the inventory of the most common PA accents of Spanish. Table
3 accounts for the main Spanish PAs. In the schematic representation, the middle third
indicates the tonic syllable.
Table 3. Spanish PAs and their Sp_ToBI labels (adapted from Armstrong 2010; Prieto and Roseano
2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Pitch Accents
L* This accent is phonetically realized as a low plateau at the bottom of the speaker’s pitch range.
H* This accent is phonetically realized as a high plateau with no preceding F0 valley.
¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rise from a high plateau to an extra-high level.
Bitonal Pitch Accents
L+H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement during the stressed syllable with
the F0 peak located at/near the end of this syllable.
L+¡H* This accent is phonetically realized as rise to a very high F0 peak located in the accented
syllable. It contrasts with L+H* in F0 scaling.
L+<H* This accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement in the stressed syllable with the
F0 peak located in the post-accentual syllables.
L*+H This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 on the accented syllable with a subsequent rise on a
post-accented syllable.
H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as an F0 fall from a high level within the accented syllable.
!H+L* This accent is phonetically realized as a fall from a relatively high tone produced which is
produced in a low (compressed) pitch range to a low target.
Tritonal Pitch Accents
!H+L*
This accent is phonetically realized as a fall from a
relatively high tone produced which is produced in
a low (compressed) pitch range to a low target.
Tritonal Pitch Accents
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23
L+H*+L This accent displays a rising–falling pattern within the stressed syllable.
1
1
This tritonal PA is also known as “circumflex tonal configuration” (Rao and Sessarego 2016, p. 49).
Spanish displays different degrees of complexity in the composition of its BTs
(Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015). In Table 4, the
schematic representations of the main monotonal Spanish BTs associated with the right
edge of an IP in declaratives are reported, with a simple change from % to–needed to
denote ip boundaries. The white rectangles represent stressed syllables and gray
rectangles represent final unstressed syllables.
Table 4. Spanish BTs and their Sp_ToBI labels (based on Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Boundary Tone
L% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a low or falling tone at the
baseline of the speaker.
!H% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a rising or falling
movement to a target mid-point.
H% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement
coming from a low or rising pitch accent.
2.2. Pitch Accents and Boundary Tones across the Varieties of Spanish
Thanks to the AM model and its ToBI transcription, as well as the use of software like
PRAAT 6.4.06 (Boersma and Weenink 2013) for the extraction of F0 contours from
recorded speech, in recent decades there has been an enormous increase in intonation
studies. As regards Spanish, the most studied intonational aspect is that of declarative
sentences, understood as uerances where no one part is highlighted more than another
part (Ladd 1980). The main characteristics of declaratives can be found in McGory and
Díaz-Campos (2002, p. 73):
In a prototypical declarative produced without any particular lexical emphasis,
there is a pitch accent on each content word, and every accent after the first is
downstepped relative to the preceding accent peak. Also, there is a fall to a low
pitch at the sentence boundary, after the last pitch accent. This gives an overall
impression of a gradually declining backdrop pitch range, a series of smaller
and smaller peaks ending with a final fall in pitch at the end of the uerance.
Navarro-Tomás (1918, 1944) was the first to describe declarative intonation in his
Manual de Entonación Española (‘Manual of Spanish Intonation’) by dividing its F0 contour
into (1) inflexión inicial (‘initial inflexion’), (2) cuerpo de la unidad enunciativa (‘body of the
F0 contour’), and (3) fin de la unidad (‘end of the uerance’). In his analysis, he observed
that the F0 frequency begins its rise near the beginning of the stressed syllable and
increases throughout, peaking in the next unstressed syllable.
In the literature, the placement of both PAs and BTs is of fundamental importance
when establishing an intonational contour, since they can appear in either nuclear (i.e.,
final) or prenuclear (non-final) position (Rao and Sessarego 2016). Regarding the former,
prior studies on declarative sentences in most Spanish dialects support the above-
L+H*+L This accent displays a rising–falling pattern within
the stressed syllable. 1
1This tritonal PA is also known as “circumflex tonal configuration” (Rao and Sessarego 2016, p. 49).

Languages 2024,9, 90 7 of 22
Spanish displays different degrees of complexity in the composition of its BTs (Aguilar
et al. 2009;Prieto and Roseano 2010;Hualde and Prieto 2015). In Table 4, the schematic
representations of the main monotonal Spanish BTs associated with the right edge of
an IP in declaratives are reported, with a simple change from % to–needed to denote ip
boundaries. The white rectangles represent stressed syllables and gray rectangles represent
final unstressed syllables.
Table 4. Spanish BTs and their Sp_ToBI labels (based on Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Boundary Tone
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23
L+H*+L This accent displays a rising–falling pattern within the stressed syllable.
1
1
This tritonal PA is also known as “circumflex tonal configuration” (Rao and Sessarego 2016, p. 49).
Spanish displays different degrees of complexity in the composition of its BTs
(Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015). In Table 4, the
schematic representations of the main monotonal Spanish BTs associated with the right
edge of an IP in declaratives are reported, with a simple change from % to–needed to
denote ip boundaries. The white rectangles represent stressed syllables and gray
rectangles represent final unstressed syllables.
Table 4. Spanish BTs and their Sp_ToBI labels (based on Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Boundary Tone
L% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a low or falling tone at the
baseline of the speaker.
!H% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a rising or falling
movement to a target mid-point.
H% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement
coming from a low or rising pitch accent.
2.2. Pitch Accents and Boundary Tones across the Varieties of Spanish
Thanks to the AM model and its ToBI transcription, as well as the use of software like
PRAAT 6.4.06 (Boersma and Weenink 2013) for the extraction of F0 contours from
recorded speech, in recent decades there has been an enormous increase in intonation
studies. As regards Spanish, the most studied intonational aspect is that of declarative
sentences, understood as uerances where no one part is highlighted more than another
part (Ladd 1980). The main characteristics of declaratives can be found in McGory and
Díaz-Campos (2002, p. 73):
In a prototypical declarative produced without any particular lexical emphasis,
there is a pitch accent on each content word, and every accent after the first is
downstepped relative to the preceding accent peak. Also, there is a fall to a low
pitch at the sentence boundary, after the last pitch accent. This gives an overall
impression of a gradually declining backdrop pitch range, a series of smaller
and smaller peaks ending with a final fall in pitch at the end of the uerance.
Navarro-Tomás (1918, 1944) was the first to describe declarative intonation in his
Manual de Entonación Española (‘Manual of Spanish Intonation’) by dividing its F0 contour
into (1) inflexión inicial (‘initial inflexion’), (2) cuerpo de la unidad enunciativa (‘body of the
F0 contour’), and (3) fin de la unidad (‘end of the uerance’). In his analysis, he observed
that the F0 frequency begins its rise near the beginning of the stressed syllable and
increases throughout, peaking in the next unstressed syllable.
In the literature, the placement of both PAs and BTs is of fundamental importance
when establishing an intonational contour, since they can appear in either nuclear (i.e.,
final) or prenuclear (non-final) position (Rao and Sessarego 2016). Regarding the former,
prior studies on declarative sentences in most Spanish dialects support the above-
L%
This boundary tone is phonetically realized
as a low or falling tone at the baseline of the
speaker.
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23
L+H*+L This accent displays a rising–falling pattern within the stressed syllable.
1
1
This tritonal PA is also known as “circumflex tonal configuration” (Rao and Sessarego 2016, p. 49).
Spanish displays different degrees of complexity in the composition of its BTs
(Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015). In Table 4, the
schematic representations of the main monotonal Spanish BTs associated with the right
edge of an IP in declaratives are reported, with a simple change from % to–needed to
denote ip boundaries. The white rectangles represent stressed syllables and gray
rectangles represent final unstressed syllables.
Table 4. Spanish BTs and their Sp_ToBI labels (based on Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Boundary Tone
L% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a low or falling tone at the
baseline of the speaker.
!H% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a rising or falling
movement to a target mid-point.
H% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement
coming from a low or rising pitch accent.
2.2. Pitch Accents and Boundary Tones across the Varieties of Spanish
Thanks to the AM model and its ToBI transcription, as well as the use of software like
PRAAT 6.4.06 (Boersma and Weenink 2013) for the extraction of F0 contours from
recorded speech, in recent decades there has been an enormous increase in intonation
studies. As regards Spanish, the most studied intonational aspect is that of declarative
sentences, understood as uerances where no one part is highlighted more than another
part (Ladd 1980). The main characteristics of declaratives can be found in McGory and
Díaz-Campos (2002, p. 73):
In a prototypical declarative produced without any particular lexical emphasis,
there is a pitch accent on each content word, and every accent after the first is
downstepped relative to the preceding accent peak. Also, there is a fall to a low
pitch at the sentence boundary, after the last pitch accent. This gives an overall
impression of a gradually declining backdrop pitch range, a series of smaller
and smaller peaks ending with a final fall in pitch at the end of the uerance.
Navarro-Tomás (1918, 1944) was the first to describe declarative intonation in his
Manual de Entonación Española (‘Manual of Spanish Intonation’) by dividing its F0 contour
into (1) inflexión inicial (‘initial inflexion’), (2) cuerpo de la unidad enunciativa (‘body of the
F0 contour’), and (3) fin de la unidad (‘end of the uerance’). In his analysis, he observed
that the F0 frequency begins its rise near the beginning of the stressed syllable and
increases throughout, peaking in the next unstressed syllable.
In the literature, the placement of both PAs and BTs is of fundamental importance
when establishing an intonational contour, since they can appear in either nuclear (i.e.,
final) or prenuclear (non-final) position (Rao and Sessarego 2016). Regarding the former,
prior studies on declarative sentences in most Spanish dialects support the above-
!H%
This boundary tone is phonetically realized
as a rising or falling movement to a target
mid-point.
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23
L+H*+L This accent displays a rising–falling pattern within the stressed syllable.
1
1
This tritonal PA is also known as “circumflex tonal configuration” (Rao and Sessarego 2016, p. 49).
Spanish displays different degrees of complexity in the composition of its BTs
(Aguilar et al. 2009; Prieto and Roseano 2010; Hualde and Prieto 2015). In Table 4, the
schematic representations of the main monotonal Spanish BTs associated with the right
edge of an IP in declaratives are reported, with a simple change from % to–needed to
denote ip boundaries. The white rectangles represent stressed syllables and gray
rectangles represent final unstressed syllables.
Table 4. Spanish BTs and their Sp_ToBI labels (based on Hualde and Prieto 2015).
Monotonal Boundary Tone
L% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a low or falling tone at the
baseline of the speaker.
!H% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a rising or falling
movement to a target mid-point.
H% This boundary tone is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement
coming from a low or rising pitch accent.
2.2. Pitch Accents and Boundary Tones across the Varieties of Spanish
Thanks to the AM model and its ToBI transcription, as well as the use of software like
PRAAT 6.4.06 (Boersma and Weenink 2013) for the extraction of F0 contours from
recorded speech, in recent decades there has been an enormous increase in intonation
studies. As regards Spanish, the most studied intonational aspect is that of declarative
sentences, understood as uerances where no one part is highlighted more than another
part (Ladd 1980). The main characteristics of declaratives can be found in McGory and
Díaz-Campos (2002, p. 73):
In a prototypical declarative produced without any particular lexical emphasis,
there is a pitch accent on each content word, and every accent after the first is
downstepped relative to the preceding accent peak. Also, there is a fall to a low
pitch at the sentence boundary, after the last pitch accent. This gives an overall
impression of a gradually declining backdrop pitch range, a series of smaller
and smaller peaks ending with a final fall in pitch at the end of the uerance.
Navarro-Tomás (1918, 1944) was the first to describe declarative intonation in his
Manual de Entonación Española (‘Manual of Spanish Intonation’) by dividing its F0 contour
into (1) inflexión inicial (‘initial inflexion’), (2) cuerpo de la unidad enunciativa (‘body of the
F0 contour’), and (3) fin de la unidad (‘end of the uerance’). In his analysis, he observed
that the F0 frequency begins its rise near the beginning of the stressed syllable and
increases throughout, peaking in the next unstressed syllable.
In the literature, the placement of both PAs and BTs is of fundamental importance
when establishing an intonational contour, since they can appear in either nuclear (i.e.,
final) or prenuclear (non-final) position (Rao and Sessarego 2016). Regarding the former,
prior studies on declarative sentences in most Spanish dialects support the above-
H%
This boundary tone is phonetically realized
as a rising pitch movement coming from a
low or rising pitch accent.
2.2. Pitch Accents and Boundary Tones across the Varieties of Spanish
Thanks to the AM model and its ToBI transcription, as well as the use of software
like PRAAT 6.4.06 (Boersma and Weenink 2013) for the extraction of F0 contours from
recorded speech, in recent decades there has been an enormous increase in intonation
studies. As regards Spanish, the most studied intonational aspect is that of declarative
sentences, understood as utterances where no one part is highlighted more than another
part (Ladd 1980). The main characteristics of declaratives can be found in McGory and
Díaz-Campos (2002, p. 73):
In a prototypical declarative produced without any particular lexical emphasis,
there is a pitch accent on each content word, and every accent after the first is
downstepped relative to the preceding accent peak. Also, there is a fall to a low
pitch at the sentence boundary, after the last pitch accent. This gives an overall
impression of a gradually declining backdrop pitch range, a series of smaller and
smaller peaks ending with a final fall in pitch at the end of the utterance.
Navarro-Tomás(1918,1944) was the first to describe declarative intonation in his
Manual de Entonación Española (‘Manual of Spanish Intonation’) by dividing its F0 contour
into (1) inflexión inicial (‘initial inflexion’), (2) cuerpo de la unidad enunciativa (‘body of the F0
contour’), and (3) fin de la unidad (‘end of the utterance’). In his analysis, he observed that
the F0 frequency begins its rise near the beginning of the stressed syllable and increases
throughout, peaking in the next unstressed syllable.
In the literature, the placement of both PAs and BTs is of fundamental importance
when establishing an intonational contour, since they can appear in either nuclear (i.e., final)
or prenuclear (non-final) position (Rao and Sessarego 2016). Regarding the former, prior
studies on declarative sentences in most Spanish dialects support the above-mentioned
results obtained by Navarro-Tomás, showing a pitch pattern that is characterized by a rise
in F0 in the stressed syllable (Prieto et al. 1995,1996;Alvord 2010).
6
Such sentences present
an L+<H* prosodic annotation, with the peak shifted to the following unstressed syllable
(peak displacement), and often a gradually dropping pitch (i.e., downstepping) throughout the
utterance (Prieto 1998). In addition, it has been displayed that both speech rate and syllable
structure, specifically open versus closed syllables, can affect prenuclear peak alignment
(Prieto and Torreira 2007). On the other hand, regarding the nuclear position, Rao (2009)
indicates that Romance languages typically follow the Nuclear Stress Rule (Chomsky and

Languages 2024,9, 90 8 of 22
Halle 1968) to indicate the prosodic hierarchy (Table 2), according to which “the rightmost
element of a prosodic domain is the most prominent” (Rao and Sessarego 2016, p. 48).
However, there are cases in which “word salience is often achieved through final lengthen-
ing, with F0 being reduced to a relative low (i.e., final lowering)” (Rao and Sessarego 2016,
p. 48). In such circumstances, a significant decrease in F0 (L) followed by a limiting tone
(L%) will be indicated by the L*L% contour.
When the nuclear position exhibits F0 peaks, they tend to shift leftward within the
stressed syllable and are phonetically marked as L+H*. This bitonal accent, besides being
identified in words featuring oxytonic stress (Llisterri et al. 1995;Hualde 2002), has been a
subject of discussion in various studies related to Afro- and other Spanish contact varieties
(Elordieta 2003;Colantoni and Gurlekian 2004;O’Rourke 2004,2005;Lipski 2007,2010;Hualde
and Schwegler 2008;Colantoni 2011;Michnowicz and Barnes 2013;Rao and Sessarego 2016,
2018;Sessarego and Rao 2016;Knaff et al. 2018;Butera et al. 2020;Korfhagen et al. 2021).
In other words, the alternation of PAs and BTs in Spanish seems to be diatopically
distributed as has been observed in several varieties (for an overview on Caribbean Spanish
see García-Riverón 1996;Sosa 1999;Willis 2003;Beckman et al. 2002;Armstrong 2010).
Nonetheless, it does not seem to be a universal pattern due to the presence of some
exceptions, such as the Argentine variety (Sosa 1999;Toledo 2000,2008;Colantoni and
Gurlekian 2004), whose declarative utterances “tend to show peak alignment with the
stressed syllable” (Alvord 2010, p. 34).
The AHLAs have also been reported to display a set of peculiar prosodic features
(Rao and Sessarego 2016,2018;Sessarego and Rao 2016;Knaff et al. 2018;Butera et al.
2020;Korfhagen et al. 2021). These contact vernaculars, although generally understandable
by speakers of other varieties of Spanish, have a series of segmental and suprasegmen-
tal characteristics that distinguish them from non-Afro-Hispanic dialects (i.e., multiple
high intonation peaks, stressed syllables at the end of the phrase with lengthened vowels,
etc.) (Lipski 2008). Regarding intonational contours, Afro-Hispanic vernaculars are distin-
guished from other non-Afro varieties by the use of L+H* as the most common word-level
target in both prenuclear and nuclear position (Rao and Sessarego 2016).
Unlike PAs, BTs appear to discern across the varieties of Spanish far less clearly. Indeed,
in many proposals the monotone L% is frequently the most attested, signaling the end of
broad-focus statements and an F0 suppression (Rao 2010;de-la-Mota et al. 2010). In terms
of pragmatics, this tone is significant since it denotes the finalization of a thought and
suggests a potential turn-taking strategy (Butera et al. 2020, p. 232):
Speakers of the majority of varieties tend to use the boundary tones of each
phrasal level to create a pragmatic distinction that helps facilitate communica-
tion of complete or incomplete thoughts, and thus, turn–taking strategies. In
declaratives, especially those that are neutral, the most widespread strategy is
the implementation of H– at the ip level to indicate “my thought has not been
fully articulated yet and I have more to say,” and the use of L% at the IP level to
convey “my thought is now complete and I am done talking for the moment.”
In the existing literature on intonation in Spanish, there is no research in the Puerto
Rican context that adopts an intradialectal comparative analysis, understood as two or
more varieties within a single dialect (in this case, PRS). This work adds to existing research
in the fields of Caribbean Spanish and Afro-Hispanic vernaculars by providing an analysis
of word-level declarative intonation of SJS and LS.
2.3. Methodology and Data Collection
Due to the comparative nature of this study, the research required a similar number
of older adult speakers born and residing in San Juan and Loíza. In this way, through
the researchers’ informal social networks, two participants were recruited for each variety
analyzed, for a total of four (Afro-)Puerto Rican men. At the time of the interviews,
which are part of a bigger not-yet-published corpus that includes both varieties (LS and
SJS), the informants were between 69 and 78 years old, all with a low educational level

Languages 2024,9, 90 9 of 22
(primary school) and had never lived outside their native municipality. The selection criteria
for the participants were aligned with existing assumptions in the field of variationist
sociolinguistics (Chambers and Trudgill 1998), according to which older people who have
never lived outside their place of origin are likely to preserve speech patterns that are more
representative of their community. Furthermore, it is traditionally assumed that women’s
speech tends to show a higher level of self-awareness and status compared with men’s
speech. For these reasons, the selection of two old, nonmobile, men with a low level of
education for each variety was meant to better analyze what might be understood as the
local vernacular variety for these two Puerto Rican communities.
This study represents a novel approach to intonation analysis, as most existing studies
are based on data collected in (semi-)controlled environments (i.e., laboratory settings) that
typically involve reading from a script. By analyzing spontaneous speech in naturalistic
environments, this proposal faces pragmatic complexities, such as emotion, the relationship
between interlocutors, the communicative context, and turn-taking strategies (Face 2003).
Despite these challenges, this choice reflects the everyday situation in which a wide range
of intonation contours occur naturally. For this reason, the corpus of oral speech was
compiled through semidirected sociolinguistic interviews carried out during the summers
of 2021 and 2022 in environments in which the informants expressed feeling comfortable
(their own homes, parks, and bars near their homes, etc.) to facilitate their spontaneity.
Topics related to both personal and family interests as well as the socioeconomic
situation in Puerto Rico were discussed, following up on questions with the purpose of
applying the concept of Tangential Shift (Labov 1984, p. 37). This allowed us to compile an
extensive oral corpus that later was used to identify a considerable number of declarative
sentences. The spontaneous speech minimized the Observer Paradox (Labov 1972) and 200
chunks of neutral declarative speech that perceptually sounded neutral or nonemphatic
were selected to then analyze through PRAAT (Boersma and Weenink 2013). The number
of declarative extracts is based on previous similar studies on other AHLAs’ intonation
patterns (Butera et al. 2020;Korfhagen et al. 2021). Some of these chunks contain multiple
IPs (corresponding with sentences), resulting in the total number of sentences subjected to
analysis being 359.
In order to identify and then select neutral statements, we extracted from our corpus
IPs delimited by longer and easily noticeable pauses at their left and right boundaries,
in which acoustic measures (i.e., F0, intensity, duration) were clearly higher than what is
estimated as a relative norm for each speaker (Rao and Sessarego 2016). Likewise, ips were
detected by tone reset, short pauses, and lengthening of the final syllable, as in Rao (2010).
We then proceeded with the assignment of the respective BTs on the right edge of each
natural declarative.
The nuclear configurations were analyzed according to their positions (non-IP-final
versus IP-final) in order to determine “whether or not our participants phonetically and
phonologically distinguished terminal and non-terminal junctures in speech” (Rao and
Sessarego 2016, p. 51). Next, peaks and valleys in fundamental frequency (F0) were
analyzed with respect to the stressed syllables. In doing so, it was possible to accurately
transcribe the PAs of each stressed word following the AM and Sp_ToBI conventions (Prieto
and Roseano 2010).
The data extracted from the four interviews with boricua speakers consist of a total
of 1003 stressed words from IPs and ips. PRAAT software (Boersma and Weenink 2013)
was used to individuate and select the declarative sentences to analyze. Subsequently,
BTs were marked and the syllabic division of the utterances was completed. Each file
includes two tiers, one containing the syllabic division and another comprising the labeling
operations according to the Sp_ToBI conventions (Prieto and Roseano 2010). Additionally,
each target speech string was reported in Excel sheets to identify a set of information
contained therein: stressed words; position (initial (I), middle (M), final (F)); stress pattern
(oxytone (O); paroxytone (P); proparoxytone (PP)); stressed syllable structure (opened (O);
closed (C)); PAs; and BTs. The entirety of the information is reported in Table 5.

Languages 2024,9, 90 10 of 22
Table 5. Excel spreadsheet reporting the prosodic information related to the structure of María se llevó
el techo (‘[Hurricane] Maria took away the roof’).
# of Target
Item
Speaker’s
Initials
Stressed
Words Position Stress
Pattern
Stressed Syllable
Structure
Pitch
Accents
Boundary
Tones
31 #F4
María I O O L+<H*
llevóM O O L+H*
techo F P P L+(¡)H* L%
Out of the total count of 1003 stressed content words, only 27% exhibit the oxytone
stress pattern (271/1003), whereas 71% (712/1003) and 2% (20/1003) are identified as
paroxytone and proparoxytone, respectively. As suggested in prior proposals (Hualde
2002), the elevated number of non-oxytone content words implies that a high occurrence of
peak alignment within the stressed syllable (i.e., L+H* PA) should not be merely attributed
to stress pattern artifacts or a preference for early alignment in oxytones.
3. Results and Discussion
This section reports the main results of the analysis of declarative sentences in SJS and
LS, showing the existence of some similarities and some differences with the intonation
patterns across these two varieties (Table 6).
Table 6. The most common PAs in both SJS and LS (n= 1003).
Most Common
Pitch Accents
San Juan Spanish (SJS)
Participants
(n= 504)
Loíza Spanish (LS)
Participants
(n= 499)
M1 (n= 257) M2 (n= 247) M3 (n= 258) M4 (n= 241)
L+H* 21% (54/257) 21% (52/247) 53% (137/258) 51% (123/241)
L+<H* 31% (80/257) 34% (84/247) 15% (39/258) 17% (41/241)
L*+H 30% (77/257) 26% (64/247) 8% (20/258) 10% (24/241)
H+L* 10% (26/257) 8% (20/247) 17% (44/258) 16% (39/241)
Others (L*, H*) 8% (20/257) 11% (27/247) 7% (18/258) 6% (14/241)
Total 100% (257) 100% (247) 100% (258) 100% (241)
Our findings suggest that in SJS the most common intonational contours are L*+H and
L+<H* (Table 6, rows 2 and 3), as reported in previous studies on declaratives in Caribbean
Spanish (Willis 2010;Armstrong 2010). On the other hand, in LS the use of the L+H* contour
exceeds 50% (Table 6, row 1), in line with other studies on the AHLAs (Rao and Sessarego
2016,2018;Sessarego and Rao 2016;Knaff et al. 2018;Butera et al. 2020;Korfhagen et al. 2021).
The analysis below focuses on the distinction between prenuclear and nuclear posi-
tions, given that they often demonstrate variation in pitch accent distribution. Simultane-
ously, upcoming sections emphasize how the nuclear position involves a discussion of both
pitch accents and boundary tones (Table 7).
Table 7. Pitch accents in prenuclear position (n= 598).
Pitch Accent Frequency
San Juan Spanish (SJS)
(M1 + M2)
Loíza Spanish (LS)
(M3 + M4)
L+H* 19% (56/296) 53% (159/302)
L+<H* 29% (87/296) 12% (36/302)
L*+H 41% (120/296) 9% (28/302)
H+L* 4% (12/296) 17% (51/302)
Others (L*, H*) 4% (12/296) 6% (17/302)
Deaccented 3% (9/296) 3% (11/302)

Languages 2024,9, 90 11 of 22
3.1. Prenuclear Configurations
In prenuclear (i.e., non-final) position, the data presented here follow Armstrong (2010,
p. 156), according to whom “Puerto Rican Spanish strongly favors the prenuclear tonal
accent L*+H”. This author also stated that L*+H is “one of a series of intonational features
that these dialects [Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Canarian Spanish] share” (Armstrong
2010, p. 156). Especially with respect to Dominican Spanish, Armstrong claimed as follows:
Like Dominican Spanish, Puerto Rican Spanish also has a prenuclear rising pitch
accent characterized by a flat low tone throughout the accented syllable followed
by a rise in a posttonic syllable. This rise is heavily favoured in Puerto Rican
Spanish for broad focus statements. [
. . .
] a typical broad focus statement in
Puerto Rican Spanish, L*+H is characterized by a level low tone throughout the
stressed prenuclear syllable followed by a rising trajectory that occurs in the
posttonic syllable(s). In Puerto Rican Spanish, the flat low tone tends to continue
throughout the entire accented syllable. (Willis 2010, pp. 160–61)
In the prenuclear position, while Puerto Rican Spanish heavily favors L*+H, it is similar
to Dominican Spanish in that for the same sentence type, prenuclear pitch accents may
be focus-dependent (broad vs. narrow). Puerto Rican Spanish may distinguish between
L*+H in the prenuclear position for broad focus and L+<H* in the same position for narrow
focus, as previously shown by Willis (2010, p. 185) for Dominican Spanish.
In the present study, it is interesting to see how the two sanjuaneros speakers favor the
PA L*+H (41%) (Table 7, row 3). On the contrary, in afroloiceño speech, the most common
PA is L+H* (53%) (Table 7, row 1).
The alternation found in SJS between L*+H (41%) and L+<H* (29%) (Figures 1and 2)
has been the object of recent studies in other varieties of Spanish by a number of scholars
(Beckman et al. 2002;Willis 2003;Face and Prieto 2007;Armstrong 2010).
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23
Figure 1. Broad-focus statement Yo me la pasaba con mi abuelo (‘I used to spend time with my
grandfather’) in San Juan Spanish, showing L*+H prenuclear accent (data collected by the authors).
Figure 2. Broad-focus statement Toda la tierra allí para nosotros (‘All the land there for us’) in San Juan
Spanish, showing L+<H prenuclear accent (data collected by the authors).
7
.
Regarding Caribbean Spanish, high rates of the low rising tone L*+H have been
reported in San Juan speech, with an initial flat F0 valley along the accented syllable and
a subsequent F0 rise in the posonic syllable (Armstrong 2010, p. 162). Likewise,
Dominican speech has disclosed a majority use of L+<H*, showing a rising pitch
movement throughout the accented syllable, with the F0 peak located in the posonic
syllable (peak displacement) (Willis 2010, p. 128).
In the Puerto Rican intradialectal context analyzed in this study, it can be
summarized that in the prenuclear position a relevant alternation of post-peak alignment
is reflected in the SJS speakers, either at the beginning or in the middle of the posonic
syllable (L*+H), or throughout the laer (L+<H*) (Tables 1 and 2). This last contour, which
Figure 1. Broad-focus statement Yo me la pasaba con mi abuelo (‘I used to spend time with my
grandfather’) in San Juan Spanish, showing L*+H prenuclear accent (data collected by the authors).

Languages 2024,9, 90 12 of 22
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23
Figure 1. Broad-focus statement Yo me la pasaba con mi abuelo (‘I used to spend time with my
grandfather’) in San Juan Spanish, showing L*+H prenuclear accent (data collected by the authors).
Figure 2. Broad-focus statement Toda la tierra allí para nosotros (‘All the land there for us’) in San Juan
Spanish, showing L+<H prenuclear accent (data collected by the authors).
7
.
Regarding Caribbean Spanish, high rates of the low rising tone L*+H have been
reported in San Juan speech, with an initial flat F0 valley along the accented syllable and
a subsequent F0 rise in the posonic syllable (Armstrong 2010, p. 162). Likewise,
Dominican speech has disclosed a majority use of L+<H*, showing a rising pitch
movement throughout the accented syllable, with the F0 peak located in the posonic
syllable (peak displacement) (Willis 2010, p. 128).
In the Puerto Rican intradialectal context analyzed in this study, it can be
summarized that in the prenuclear position a relevant alternation of post-peak alignment
is reflected in the SJS speakers, either at the beginning or in the middle of the posonic
syllable (L*+H), or throughout the laer (L+<H*) (Tables 1 and 2). This last contour, which
Figure 2. Broad-focus statement Toda la tierra allípara nosotros (‘All the land there for us’) in San Juan
Spanish, showing L+<H prenuclear accent (data collected by the authors).7.
Regarding Caribbean Spanish, high rates of the low rising tone L*+H have been
reported in San Juan speech, with an initial flat F0 valley along the accented syllable and a
subsequent F0 rise in the posttonic syllable (Armstrong 2010, p. 162). Likewise, Dominican
speech has disclosed a majority use of L+<H*, showing a rising pitch movement throughout
the accented syllable, with the F0 peak located in the posttonic syllable (peak displacement)
(Willis 2010, p. 128).
In the Puerto Rican intradialectal context analyzed in this study, it can be summarized
that in the prenuclear position a relevant alternation of post-peak alignment is reflected in
the SJS speakers, either at the beginning or in the middle of the posttonic syllable (L*+H),
or throughout the latter (L+<H*) (Tables 1and 2). This last contour, which constitutes a
norm in many varieties of Spanish, is reported with very low percentages in LS, a variety
that instead favors the PA L+H* (Figure 3).
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23
constitutes a norm in many varieties of Spanish, is reported with very low percentages in
LS, a variety that instead favors the PA L+H* (Figure 3).
Figure 3. F0 contour in LS declarative (es)tá muy viejita (‘(she) is quite old’) (data collected by the
authors).
8
.
3.2. Nuclear Configurations
As far as the nuclear configurations (i.e., final) are concerned, PA frequencies were
examined separately based on whether they appeared in non-terminal ips (n = 239) or in
the IP-nuclear position (n = 359). The purpose of this distinction is to compare how
speakers used different tonal configurations to signal discourse junctures indicating the
continuation or completion of a thought at both the IP level and the non-IP-final level. By
analyzing PA frequencies in this way, it can be beer understood how speakers use tonal
paerns to convey different pragmatic meanings in their speech.
3.2.1. Non-Terminal Ips
The analysis of 239 non-terminal PA and ip BT configurations shows divergences in
the two Puerto Rican communities. Concerning PAs, L+H* is overwhelmingly the most
common PA in LS speech (Table 7, row 1), occurring in 64% (84/131) of tokens. On the
other hand, the nuclear accent H+L* slightly dominates the SJS data (48%) (52/108) (Table
8, row 2), with cases of progressive maximum decay (i.e., downstepping). In addition, SJS
presents high rates of L+H*, following Armstrong’s (2010) analysis.
Tab l e 8 . Pitch accent frequencies in ip-nuclear position when ips are at non-terminal junctures (n =
239).
Pitch Accent Frequency
San Juan Spanish (SJS)
(M1 + M2)
Loíza Spanish (LS)
(M3 + M4)
L+(¡)H* 37% (40/108) 64% (84/131)
H+L* 48% (52/108) 21% (27/131)
H* 9% (10/108) 10% (13/131)
L* 6% (6/108) 5% (7/131)
As far as BTs are concerned, L- is the most common configuration in LS (79%) (Table
9, row 1). Conversely, SJS data indicate a higher use of H-tone (62%) (Table 9, row 2),
Figure 3. F0 contour in LS declarative (es)támuy viejita (‘(she) is quite old’) (data collected by
the authors).8.

Languages 2024,9, 90 13 of 22
3.2. Nuclear Configurations
As far as the nuclear configurations (i.e., final) are concerned, PA frequencies were
examined separately based on whether they appeared in non-terminal ips (n= 239) or in the
IP-nuclear position (n= 359). The purpose of this distinction is to compare how speakers
used different tonal configurations to signal discourse junctures indicating the continuation
or completion of a thought at both the IP level and the non-IP-final level. By analyzing
PA frequencies in this way, it can be better understood how speakers use tonal patterns to
convey different pragmatic meanings in their speech.
3.2.1. Non-Terminal Ips
The analysis of 239 non-terminal PA and ip BT configurations shows divergences in
the two Puerto Rican communities. Concerning PAs, L+H* is overwhelmingly the most
common PA in LS speech (Table 7, row 1), occurring in 64% (84/131) of tokens. On the
other hand, the nuclear accent H+L* slightly dominates the SJS data (48%) (52/108) (Table 8,
row 2), with cases of progressive maximum decay (i.e., downstepping). In addition, SJS
presents high rates of L+H*, following Armstrong’s (2010) analysis.
Table 8. Pitch accent frequencies in ip-nuclear position when ips are at non-terminal junctures
(n= 239).
Pitch Accent Frequency
San Juan Spanish (SJS)
(M1 + M2)
Loíza Spanish (LS)
(M3 + M4)
L+(¡)H* 37% (40/108) 64% (84/131)
H+L* 48% (52/108) 21% (27/131)
H* 9% (10/108) 10% (13/131)
L* 6% (6/108) 5% (7/131)
As far as BTs are concerned, L- is the most common configuration in LS (79%) (Table 9,
row 1). Conversely, SJS data indicate a higher use of H-tone (62%) (Table 9, row 2),
resembling more common varieties of Spanish and indicating that the speaker is not yet
finished speaking.
Table 9. Boundary tone frequencies in ip-nuclear position when ips are at non-terminal junctures
(n= 239).
Boundary Tones Frequency
San Juan Spanish (SJS)
(M1 + M2)
Loíza Spanish (LS)
(M3 + M4)
L- 38% (41/108) 79% (103/131)
(!)H- 62% (67/108) 21% (28/131)
3.2.2. IP-Nuclear Configurations
Regarding the PA and BT configurations of 359 stressed content words at terminal
discourse junctures, our findings are reported, respectively, in Tables 10 and 11.
In LS data, L+H* turns out to be the dominant PA (70%) (Table 10, row 2), while
H+L* prevails in SJS speech (59%) (Table 10, row 2). Regarding the latter, many varieties
of Spanish, including Puerto Rican and Dominican Spanish, implement high tones in the
nuclear position (H* or (!)H+L*). As claimed by Armstrong (2010, p. 161):
The final pitch movement for broad focus statements within Sp_ToBI is charac-
terized by a fall throughout the accented syllable of the final word. This fall is
produced within a compressed pitch range and as a result, the high tone produced
within this compressed range is lower in the speaker’s range than we would
typically expect for a high tone. To reflect this, the fall within the nuclear tonic

Languages 2024,9, 90 14 of 22
syllable is labelled !H+L*, followed by a low boundary tone L%. Note that the
leading tone of this bitonal pitch accent is labelled as downstepped. In this case,
the diacritic (!) indicates the scaling of the high tone (the high is “lower” than
a typical high–in relationship to a preceding tone of the same category–). [
. . .
]
Similar phrase final falls are found for broad focus in Canarian Spanish.
Regarding BT, both Puerto Rican varieties show elevated percentages (more than 70%)
of the low sustained tone L% (Table 11, row 1). Concerning H%, our findings report an
unexpectedly high use of this high BT (Table 11, row 2). This configuration could be due to
the spontaneous nature of the participants’ speech; in fact, a previous study on an AHLA
generated a similar result (Butera et al. 2020).
Table 10. Pitch accent frequencies in IP-nuclear position (n= 359).
Pitch Accent Frequency
San Juan Spanish (SJS)
(M1 + M2)
Loíza Spanish (LS)
(M3 + M4)
L+H* 32% (54/168) 70% (134/191)
H+L* 59% (99/168) 16% (31/191)
H* 6% (10/168) 8% (15/191)
L* 3% (5/168) 6% (11/191)
Table 11. IP boundary configuration frequencies in IP-nuclear position (n= 359).
Boundary Tones Frequency
San Juan Spanish (SJS)
(M1 + M2)
Loíza Spanish (LS)
(M3 + M4)
L% 72% (121/168) 79% (151/191)
H% 28% (47/168) 21% (40/191)
In sum, LS data show high frequency of L- BT in both the ip-nuclear position—when
ips are at non-terminal junctures—and the IP-nuclear position. This Afro-Hispanic variety
commonly shows tonal contours like L+H*L- or L+H*L% (Figure 4). These combinations
differentiate LS from other varieties of Spanish, including SJS (Figure 5), in which “an H-
boundary tone would be expected, signaling that the speaker is not yet finished speaking
and has more to say” (Butera et al. 2020, p. 239).
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23
In sum, LS data show high frequency of L- BT in both the ip-nuclear position—when
ips are at non-terminal junctures—and the IP-nuclear position. This Afro-Hispanic variety
commonly shows tonal contours like L+H*L- or L+H*L% (Figure 4). These combinations
differentiate LS from other varieties of Spanish, including SJS (Figure 5), in which “an H-
boundary tone would be expected, signaling that the speaker is not yet finished speaking
and has more to say” (Butera et al. 2020, p. 239).
Figure 4. Broad-focus statement Puede ser mi deidad (‘She can be my deity’) in Loíza Spanish, showing
L+H*!H% final contour (data collected by the authors).
Figure 5. Broad-focus statement Encontré una imagen (‘I found an image’) in San Juan Spanish,
showing H+L*L% final contour (data collected by the authors).
9
.
Likewise, when F0 peaks are present, in SJS they are in the posonic syllable (L*+H
or L+<H*), while in LS they are typically pushed leftward into the stressed syllable (L+H*)
due to an upcoming phrase boundary (Colantoni and Gurlekian 2004; Lipski 2007, 2010;
Hualde and Schwegler 2008; Michnowicz and Barnes 2013; Rao and Sessarego 2016, 2018;
Sessarego and Rao 2016; Knaff et al. 2018; Butera et al. 2020; Koragen et al. 2021). In the
Figure 4. Broad-focus statement Puede ser mi deidad (‘She can be my deity’) in Loíza Spanish, showing
L+H*!H% final contour (data collected by the authors).

Languages 2024,9, 90 15 of 22
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23
In sum, LS data show high frequency of L- BT in both the ip-nuclear position—when
ips are at non-terminal junctures—and the IP-nuclear position. This Afro-Hispanic variety
commonly shows tonal contours like L+H*L- or L+H*L% (Figure 4). These combinations
differentiate LS from other varieties of Spanish, including SJS (Figure 5), in which “an H-
boundary tone would be expected, signaling that the speaker is not yet finished speaking
and has more to say” (Butera et al. 2020, p. 239).
Figure 4. Broad-focus statement Puede ser mi deidad (‘She can be my deity’) in Loíza Spanish, showing
L+H*!H% final contour (data collected by the authors).
Figure 5. Broad-focus statement Encontré una imagen (‘I found an image’) in San Juan Spanish,
showing H+L*L% final contour (data collected by the authors).
9
.
Likewise, when F0 peaks are present, in SJS they are in the posonic syllable (L*+H
or L+<H*), while in LS they are typically pushed leftward into the stressed syllable (L+H*)
due to an upcoming phrase boundary (Colantoni and Gurlekian 2004; Lipski 2007, 2010;
Hualde and Schwegler 2008; Michnowicz and Barnes 2013; Rao and Sessarego 2016, 2018;
Sessarego and Rao 2016; Knaff et al. 2018; Butera et al. 2020; Koragen et al. 2021). In the
Figure 5. Broad-focus statement Encontréuna imagen (‘I found an image’) in San Juan Spanish,
showing H+L*L% final contour (data collected by the authors).9.
Likewise, when F0 peaks are present, in SJS they are in the posttonic syllable (L*+H or
L+<H*), while in LS they are typically pushed leftward into the stressed syllable (L+H*)
due to an upcoming phrase boundary (Colantoni and Gurlekian 2004;Lipski 2007,2010;
Hualde and Schwegler 2008;Michnowicz and Barnes 2013;Rao and Sessarego 2016,2018;
Sessarego and Rao 2016;Knaff et al. 2018;Butera et al. 2020;Korfhagen et al. 2021). In the
ip boundaries (i.e., non-terminal juncture), H- BT are common in SJS (62%, Table 9), in line
with most Spanish varieties, while the LS data contain both L- and H-boundaries.
As for the IP boundaries (i.e., terminal juncture), the falling contour L% is by far the
most common in both LS and SJS, coinciding with F0 deletion. Furthermore, L% yields the
circumflex nuclear configuration L+H*L% (i.e., rise–fall), described by Sosa (1999) as the
tonema ascendente-descendente puertorriqueño (‘Puerto Rican rising-falling tone’), a typical
pattern “in declaratives with various emphatic pragmatic functions in some varieties of
Spanish” (Korfhagen et al. 2021, p. 161). This contour with the nuclear peak within the
stressed nuclear syllable, commonly found in San Juan (Sosa 1999), has been reported in
this study to also be quite frequent in LS.
The comparative analysis of PAs in the two Puerto Rican varieties shows similari-
ties and differences between their patterns, as well as in relation to other native varieties
of Spanish (Elordieta 2003;Colantoni and Gurlekian 2004;O’Rourke 2004,2005;Colan-
toni 2011;Michnowicz and Barnes 2013), including some Afro-Hispanic varieties (Rao
and Sessarego 2016,2018;Sessarego and Rao 2016;Knaff et al. 2018;Butera et al. 2020;
Korfhagen et al. 2021).
One noteworthy observation in LS and other contact Spanish varieties concerning
nuclear PWs is the prevalent use of the L+H* pattern and the near absence of the L+<H*
PA. This stands in contrast to most native (non-contact) varieties of Spanish, including
SJS, where L+<H* is the favored configuration (Rao and Sessarego 2016). While previous
studies have suggested that natural data exhibit more pitch alignment variations than
laboratory speech (Face 2003), the consistent occurrence of L+H* in prenuclear positions
across many Spanish contact varieties cannot be attributed solely to methodological issues.
It is well established that Spanish speakers often utilize peak alignment movement
to convey a pragmatic distinction between broad and narrow focus (Face 2002; among
many others). This involves phonologically displacing the peak along the horizontal axis.
In standard Spanish and SJS, a posttonic peak typically indicates broad focus, while a
tonic peak signals narrow focus or emphatic speech. In contrast, in LS and other contact

Languages 2024,9, 90 16 of 22
dialects, peaks consistently align with stressed syllables, rendering the aforementioned peak
alignment strategy ineffective for expressing emphasis. As a result of this phenomenon,
speakers of other varieties might perceive it as an overgeneralization of narrow focus or
emphatic speech, potentially explaining why people from San Juan anecdotally claim that
in Loíza se habla diferente (‘people speak differently’) (Mojica-de León 2014, p. 1274).
Intriguingly, L+H* is a configuration typically associated with nuclear positions in
many Spanish dialects, indicating prosodic heads and relative prominence in broad-focus
declaratives (Korfhagen et al. 2021). This same configuration is also employed in many
varieties of Spanish to convey emphasis in narrow-focus constructions (Hoot 2016;Beckman
et al. 2002). The relatively high frequency of L+H* across the board in LS begs the question
of why we find this PA in LS and not those that are more common in SJS, such as L*+H
and H+L*, which are conditioned by their positions (prenuclear and nuclear, respectively).
Interestingly, the same configuration has been detected for a number of other Spanish
contact varieties: other Afro-Hispanic vernaculars (Korfhagen et al. 2021), Spanish in
contact with Maya (Michnowicz and Barnes), with Veneto (Barnes and Michnowicz 2013),
with Quechua (O’Rourke 2004,2005), etc. Given the heterogeneous range of languages
involved in these contact scenarios, it is difficult to claim the existence of a specific substrate
effect to account for the common L+H* configuration. For this reason, in recent studies,
it has been suggested that, given the emphasis usually associated with this PA, it may
be perceived as more salient and thus easier to acquire in language contact contexts (Rao
and Sessarego 2016). In this regard, Michnowicz and Barnes (2013) as well as Barnes and
Michnowicz (2013) have proposed a Second Language Acquisition (SLA) process to account
for the prenuclear use of L+H* PA in Spanish varieties in contact with Veneto and Maya.
Our LS data could be taken to further support such a contact-based explanation, providing
a logical rationale for why various Spanish contact varieties with diverse substrates tend to
converge on similar prosodic patterns (see also Elordieta 2003 for Basque; Colantoni 2011;
Colantoni and Gurlekian 2004 for Italian).10
When examining configurations at the PW level within nuclear positions in LS and
SJS, it becomes evident that the L+H* PA is the most prevalent at both the ip- and IP-edges.
Typically, at the ip-edge, the L+H* configuration is favored in many Spanish dialects due
to the inhibitory effect of the BT on peak displacement. At the IP-edge, various Spanish
dialects resort to suppressing to L*, while others opt for circumflex contours with an L+H*
configuration (Rao and Sessarego 2016). In the case of LS and SJS, these varieties seem to
align more closely with dialects that favor L+H*. Furthermore, they lean towards the L%
IP BT to signify pragmatically that the speaker has concluded their speech, aligning with
normative Spanish practices.
It is noteworthy, however, to discover a significant presence of L- at non-terminal
junctures in LS, in line with many other AHLAs (Korfhagen et al. 2021). This implies
that the pragmatic strategy commonly employed in most Spanish varieties (including SJS)
to indicate that the speaker is not finished speaking (i.e., H- at the ip boundary) is not
as commonly present in this Afro-Hispanic dialect. Indeed, the frequent use of L- may
stem from a generalization of the preferred IP-level configuration to the lower level. This,
in essence, could be characterized as an instance of a copy-and-paste strategy (Rao and
Sessarego 2016,2018), where a prominent category (i.e., the terminal L tone) has been
extended to all other positions, specifically the non-terminal ip junctures.
Some scholars have posited that a set of specific prosodic patterns observed in Palen-
quero may be linked to a potential substrate effect, possibly originating from some Bantu
languages (Hualde and Schwegler 2008). Conversely, in alignment with recent proposals
on the nature of PA configurations in other AHLAs (Rao and Sessarego 2016;Sessarego
and Rao 2016), we would like to suggest that the prosodic patterns identified in LS could
be better explained as the result of more general contact-driven strategies, which may not
necessarily be tied to any particular substrate language (Korfhagen et al. 2021).
The replication and restructuring of phonological targets may be linked to the histori-
cal evolution of the Afro-Hispanic speech communities in Latin America, whose members

Languages 2024,9, 90 17 of 22
often acquired Spanish as a second language in a non-tutored plantation context. In such a
distinctive setting, it is conceivable that the first generation of enslaved people acquiring
Spanish may have encountered communicative challenges. Despite closely converging
with Spanish in their L2 speech, certain aspects of this contact variety inevitably deviated
from the target language. This contact-driven restructuring process may have led more
emphatic/salient phonological targets to override other configurations carrying nuanced
pragmatic meanings. Overall, these findings indicate the presence of a set of restructured
phonological targets across PW, ip, and IP levels in LS. Thus, the observed overgeneral-
ization of L+H* and L-configurations in this dialect might be analyzed as the result of
contact-driven processes also common to many other AHLAs (Korfhagen et al. 2021).
4. Conclusions
In this paper, we have shown the most common word-level phonological targets
used in declarative constructions in two varieties of Puerto Rican Spanish: SJS, spoken in
Puerto Rico’s capital city, San Juan; and LS, spoken in the Afro-Hispanic community of
Loíza. The two municipalities share a geographic space known as el área metro(politana)
(‘the metro[politan]) area [of San Juan]’), which makes their contact frequent.
We examined PAs in both prenuclear and nuclear positions (non-IP-final versus IP-
final) through an analysis of F0 peaks and valleys associated with stressed syllables. In
doing so, it was possible to accurately transcribe the PAs of each stressed word following
the AM model and the Sp_ToBI conventions (Prieto and Roseano 2010).
At the level of F0 rising and falling, Loíza speech shows high levels of L+H* config-
urations in both prenuclear and nuclear positions, in line with other contact varieties of
Spanish (Elordieta 2003;Colantoni and Gurlekian 2004;O’Rourke 2004,2005;Colantoni
2011;Michnowicz and Barnes 2013). Conversely, SJS largely favors L*+H in the nuclear
position, and L+<H* in the prenuclear position, in line with recent studies on this Puerto
Rican variety (Armstrong 2010), and in other non-contact varieties of Spanish (Face 2002;
Hualde 2002;Prieto and Roseano 2010). Moreover, LS and SJS show disparities in falling
contours, with rare cases of progressive maximum decay (i.e., downstepping) in LS that are
instead more common in SJS (i.e., (!)H+L*).
At the IP level, both Puerto Rican communities preferred L%, which not only signals
the end of broad-focus statements and an F0 suppression (Rao 2010;de-la-Mota et al. 2010),
but also carries pragmatic value, since it denotes the finalization of a thought and suggests
a potential turn-taking strategy (Butera et al. 2020). On the other hand, for LS, we noted
an elevated frequency of L- at ip junctures, a pattern that aligns with other AHLAs and
diverges from many non-contact varieties of Spanish, where H- is more common to signal
the continuation of a thought.
Given the close similarities among LS, other AHLAs, and several other contact varieties
of Spanish across their PW, ip, and IP levels (in contrast with the results proceeding from
the analysis of SJS intonation), we suggested a contact-driven explanation, which supports
previous claims on the nature and origin of similar phenomena in other Spanish contact dialects
(Michnowicz and Barnes 2013;Barnes and Michnowicz 2013;Sessarego and Rao 2016).
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.V., S.S. and R.R.; methodology, P.V., S.S. and R.R.; formal
analysis, P.V. and R.R.; investigation, P.V.; resources, S.S.; data curation, P.V. and R.R.; writing—
original draft preparation, P.V., S.S. and R.R.; writing—review and editing, P.V., S.S. and R.R.; funding
acquisition, S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: We would like to thank the Humboldt Research Fellowship for Experienced Researchers
(PI: Sessarego) and the NSF Dynamic Language Infrastructure—NEH Documenting Endangered
Languages Program grant (Award Number 2212058, PI: Sessarego) for supporting our research on
the Afro-Hispanic languages of the Americas.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of The University of Texas at Austin
(IRB #2019-09-0010).

Languages 2024,9, 90 18 of 22
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The San Juan Spanish Corpus and the Loíza Spanish Corpus have not
been published yet. Please contact the authors for additional information.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the speakers who participated in this study, and the
anonymous reviewers who provided us with feedback on the first version of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
Notes
1
The concept of a Metropolitan Area includes a large population center (in the case of Puerto Rico, its capital San Juan), along with
adjacent communities (the municipalities of Guaynabo, Bayamón, Toa Baja, Cataño, Carolina, and Trujillo Alto) that have a high
degree of economic and social integration with their core (Puerto Rico Census Geography 2006).
2
The term boricuas refers to Puerto Ricans who were born and raised in the Puerto Rican archipelago (Real Academia Española 2022).
3The Spanish spoken in Cuba by the African-born enslaved people, who spoke Spanish as a second language.
4Except for prepositions, definite articles, and other function words.
5
Since one of its first uses was for the transcription of Mainstream American English (MAE) intonation (Beckman and Hirschberg 1994).
6
Many Peninsular and Latin American Spanish varieties follow L+<H* (García-Riverón 1996,1998 on Cuban Spanish; Sosa 1999 on
Peninsular Spanish; Willis 2003 on Dominican Spanish). On the other hand, Argentinian Spanish can be considered an exception
since “broad focus declarative utterances in this variety tend to show peak alignment with the stressed syllable” (Alvord 2010,
p. 34).
7
We acknowledge that it is plausible to transcribe the ip boundary following allías L-. Our selection is based on the fact that a
relative F0 mid-point rather than low point corresponds with this non-terminal juncture, likely due to the final stress on allí,
which does not allow for as much time for a full fall in F0. Additionally, we perceived that this fall is distinct from and less salient
than cases that we viewed as L- across the data set.
8
Given that estáand muy are both stressed words in Spanish, and thus potential anchoring sites for pitch accents, one could
suggest an alternative labeling scheme in which the former bears a pitch accent and the latter is deaccented. We have opted for
the opposite for two reasons: (i) in Rao’s (2009) hierarchy of deaccenting by grammatical category, verbs, especially those that are
high-frequency (e.g., estar), exhibit higher odds of being deaccented than adverbs; (ii) our perception of relative salience when
comparing the realization of the two items in this particular utterance.
9
We realize that our interpretation of the pitch accent sequence in encontréuna could be debated, since determiners like una have
often been classified as not carrying pitch accents. Our transcription is grounded in the following: (i) Oxytones have been
described as showing a tendency to display an early aligned (i.e., L+H*) pitch accent (Hualde 2002). (ii) Indefinite articles indeed
have been categorized as stressed items in previous literature (Quilis 1993), and in turn, can be seen as anchoring sites for pitch
accents. (iii) Our perceived relative salience of una in this instance is evidence in favor of it meriting a pitch accent.
10
Delving deeper into reasons for early aligned peaks in contact situations is outside the scope of the current paper but clearly
merits further investigation. This would require consulting bodies of literature on issues such markedness, for example, to
support a claim that early alignment of peaks is less marked than displacement, as well as studies in which data from substate
languages are also included as a direct point of comparison. We encourage pursuing such avenues in order develop a more
detailed understanding of the trends cited here.
References
Aguilar, Lourdes, Carme de-la-Mota, and Pilar Prieto. 2009. Sp_ToBI Training Materials. Available online: http://prosodia.upf.edu/
sp_tobi (accessed on 28 March 2023).
Alvord, Scott M. 2010. Miami Cuban Spanish Declarative Intonation. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 3: 3–40. [CrossRef]
Armstrong, Meghan E. 2010. Puerto Rican Spanish intonation. In Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. Edited by Pilar
Prieto and Paolo Roseano. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 155–89.
Armstrong, Meghan E. 2017. Accounting for intonational form and function in Puerto Rican Spanish polar questions. Probus 29: 1–40.
[CrossRef]
Arvaniti, Amalia. 2022. The Autosegmental-Metrical Model of intonational phonology. In Prosodic Theory and Practice. Edited by
Jonathan Barnes and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 25–63.
Álvarez-Nazario, Manuel. 1974. El elemento afronegroide en el español de Puerto Rico. San Juan: Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña.
Álvarez-Nazario, Manuel. 1982. Orígenes y Desarrollo del Español en Puerto rico: Siglos xvi y xvii. Río Piedras: Editorial de la Universidad
de Puerto Rico.

Languages 2024,9, 90 19 of 22
Álvarez-Nazario, Manuel. 1990. El habla Campesina del país: Orígenes y Desarrollo del Español en Puerto Rico. Río Piedras: Editorial de la
Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Barnes, Hillary, and Jim Michnowicz. 2013. Peak alignment in semi-spontaneous bilingual Chilipo Spanish. In Selected Proceedings of
the 6th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Edited by A. Carvalho and S. Beaudrie. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project,
pp. 109–22.
Beckman, Mary, and Julia Hirschberg. 1994. The ToBI Annotation Conventions. Available online: http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/
~tobi/ame_tobi/annotation_conventions.html (accessed on 1 June 2023).
Beckman, Mary, Manuel Díaz-Campos, Julia Tevis McGory, and Terrell Morgan. 2002. Intonation across Spanish, in the Tones and
Break Indices framework. Probus 14: 9–36. [CrossRef]
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2013. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. Available online: http://www.praat.org/ (accessed
on 2 October 2023).
Butera, Brianna, Rajiv Rao, and Sandro Sessarego. 2020. Afro-Peruvian Spanish Prosody: A Case of Contact–Induced Language
Change. In Spanish Phonetics and Phonology in Contact: Studies from Africa, the Americas, and Spain. Edited by Rajiv Rao. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 207–26.
Carroll, Kevin S. R. L., Rosita L. Rivera, and Kimberly Santiago. 2015. Questioning Linguistic Imperialism: Language Use and Needs in
a Puerto Rican Agriculture Program. In Transcultural Interaction and Linguistic Diversity in Higher Education. London: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 164–87.
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2003. Aspectos Sociolingüísticos, Pedagógicos y Gramaticales. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú.
Chambers, Jack K., and Peter Trudgill. 1998. Dialectology, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chela-Flores, Godsuno. 1994. Hacia un Estudio Fonetológico del Español de Venezuela. Caracas: Fondo Editorial Tropykos.
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Colantoni, Laura. 2011. Broad-focus declaratives in Argentine Spanish contact and non-contact varieties. In Intonational Phrasing in
Romance and Germanic: Cross-Linguistic and Bilingual Studies. Edited by Christoph Gabriel and Conxita Lleó. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 183–212.
Colantoni, Laura, and Jorge Gurlekian. 2004. Convergence and intonation: Historical evidence from Buenos Aires Spanish. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 7: 107–19. [CrossRef]
de-la-Mota, Carme, Martín Butragueño, and Pilar Prieto. 2010. Mexican Spanish Intonation. In Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish
Language. Edited by Pilar Prieto and Paolo Roseano. München: Lincom Europa, pp. 319–50.
Elordieta, Gorka. 2003. The Spanish intonation of speakers of a Basque pitch-accent dialect. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2: 67–95.
[CrossRef]
Estebas-Vilaplana, Eva, and Pilar Prieto. 2008. La anotación prosódica del español: Una revisión del Sp_ToBI. Estudios de Fonética
Experimental 17: 263–83.
Face, Timothy L. 2002. Intonational Marking of Contrastive Focus in Madrid Spanish. München: Lincom Europa, vol. 14, pp. 380–86.
Face, Timothy L. 2003. Intonation in Spanish declaratives: Differences between lab speech and spontaneous speech. Catalan Journal of
Linguistics 2: 115–31. [CrossRef]
Face, Timothy, and Pilar Prieto. 2007. Rising accents in Castilian Spanish: A revision of Sp_ToBI. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 6:
117–46. [CrossRef]
Feliciano-Astacio, Briselda E., Katrina Celis, Jairo Ramos, Farid Rajabli, Larry D. Adams, Alejandra Rodríguez, Vanessa Rodríguez,
Parker L. Bussies, Carolina Sierra, Patricia Manrique, and et al. 2019. The Puerto Rico Alzheimer Disease Initiative (PRADI): A
Multisource Ascertainment Approach. Frontiers in Genetics 10: 538. [CrossRef]
Frota, Sónia, and Pilar Prieto. 2015. Intonation in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
García-Riverón, Raquel M. 1996. Aspectos de la Entonación Hispánica. II. Análisis Acústico de Muestras del Español de Cuba. Cáceres:
Universidad de Extremadura.
García-Riverón, Raquel M. 1998. Aspectos de la Entonación Hispánica. III. Funciones de la Entonación en el Español de Cuba. Cáceres:
Universidad de Extremadura.
González-Rivera, Melvin, and Luis Ortiz-López. 2018. El español y el inglés en Puerto Rico: Una polémica de más de un siglo. Centro
Journal 30: 106–31.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guzzardo-Tamargo, Rosa E., and Jessica Vélez-Avilés. 2017. La alternancia de códigos en Puerto Rico. Preferencias y actitudes.
In Caribbean Studies: Language Contact, Creoles, and Multilingualism: Stigma, Creativity, and Resilience. Edited by Rosa E. Guzzardo-
Tamargo, Yolanda Rivera-Castillo and Don E. Waliceck. San Juan: Instituto de Estudios del Caribe, pp. 43–76.
Guzzardo-Tamargo, Rosa E., Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez, Elif F. Acar, and Jessica Vélez-Avilés. 2018. Attitudes in progress: Puerto
Rican Youth’s Opinions on Monolingual and Code-switched Language Varieties. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 40: 304–21. [CrossRef]
Hernández-Rodríguez, Sonia M., Hilton Alers-Valentín, and Jaime Soto-Barba. 2014. Análisis contrastivo de la entonación del español
bogotano y del español de San Juan en frases entonativas simples. Forma y Función27: 157–81. [CrossRef]
Hernandez-Rosete, Daniel, and Olivia Maya. 2016. Discriminación lingüística y contracultural escolar indígena en la Ciudad de México.
Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Ni´nez y Juventud 14: 1161–76. [CrossRef]

Languages 2024,9, 90 20 of 22
Hoot, Bradley. 2016. Narrow presentational focus in Mexican Spanish: Experimental evidence. Probus 28: 335–65. [CrossRef]
Hualde, JoséIgnacio. 2002. Intonation in Spanish and the other Ibero-Romance languages. In Romance Philology and Variation. Edited
by Caroline Wiltshire and Joaquim Camps. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 101–15.
Hualde, JoséIgnacio. 2003. El modelo métrico y autosegmental. In Teorías de la Entonación. Edited by Pilar Prieto. Barcelona: Ariel.
Hualde, JoséIgnacio. 2009. Unstressed words in Spanish. Language Sciences 31: 99–112. [CrossRef]
Hualde, JoséIgnacio, and Armin Schwegler. 2008. Intonation in Palenquero. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 23: 1–31. [CrossRef]
Hualde, JoséIgnacio, and Pilar Prieto. 2015. Intonational variation in Spanish. In Intonation in Romance. Edited by Sónia Frota and Pilar
Prieto. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 350–91.
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2005. Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knaff, Cassandra, Sandro Sessarego, and Rajiv Rao. 2018. Future directions in the field: Aspects of Afro-Hispanic prosody. Lingua 202:
76–86. [CrossRef]
Korfhagen, David, Rajiv Rao, and Sandro Sessarego. 2021. Declarative intonation in four Afro Hispanic varieties: Phonetic analysis
and implications. In Aspects of Latin American Spanish Dialectology: In Honor of Terrell A. Morgan. Edited by Manuel Díaz-Campos
and Sandro Sessarego. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 155–80.
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, William. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Language in Use. Edited by John Baugh and
Joel Scherzer. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, pp. 84–112.
Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational Phonology, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lipski, John. 2007. Castile and the hydra: The diversification of Spanish in Latin America. Paper presented at the Conference on
Iberian Imperialism and language evolution in Latin America, Chicago, IL, USA, April 13.
Lipski, John. 2008. Afro-Bolivian Spanish. Frankfurt am Main and Madrid: Iberoamericana Vervuert.
Lipski, John. 2010. Pitch polarity in Palenquero. In Romance Linguistics. Edited by Sonia Colina, Antxón Olarrea and Ana Maria
Carvalho. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 111–27.
Llisterri, Joaquim, Rafael Marin, Carme de-la-Mota, and Antonio Ríos. 1995. Factors affecting F0 peak displacement in Spanish. Paper
presented at the Eurospeech ’95 Proceedings, 4th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Madrid,
Spain, September 18–21, pp. 2061–64.
López-Morales, Humberto. 1979. Velarización de /rr/ en el español de Puerto Rico: Índices de actitud y creencias. In Dialectología y
Sociolingüística: Temas Puertorriqueños. Edited by Humberto López-Morales. Madrid, Miami, New York and San Juan: Hispanova,
pp. 107–30.
López-Morales, Humberto. 1988. Bilingüismo y actitudes lingüísticas en Puerto Rico: Breve reseña bibliográfica. In Studies in Caribbean
Spanish Dialectology. Edited by Robert Hammond and Melvyn C. Resnick. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,
pp. 66–73.
Mauleón-Benítez, Carmen C. 1974. El español de Loíza Aldea. Madrid: Ediciones Partenón.
Mayo-Santana, Raúl, and Mariana Negrón-Portillo. 2007. La Esclavitud Menor: La Esclavitud en los Municipios del Interior de Puerto Rico en
el siglo XIX: Estudio del Registro de Esclavos de 1872. Río Piedras: Universidad de Puerto Rico.
McGory, Julia T., and Manuel Díaz-Campos. 2002. Declarative Intonation Patterns in Multiple Varieties of Spanish. In Structure,
Meaning, and Acquisition in Spanish: Papers Selected from the 4th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Edited by James F. Lee, Kimberely
L. Geeslin and J. Clancy Clements. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 73–92.
Michnowicz, Jim, and Hilarry Barnes. 2013. A sociolinguistic analysis of pre-nuclear peak alignment in Yucatan Spanish. In Selected
Proceedings of the 15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Edited by Chad Howe, Sarah Blackwell and Quesada Lubbers. Margaret
and Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 221–35.
Mojica-de León, Carla M. 2014. Una Mirada Hacia Las Actitudes lingüísticas En Puerto Rico. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies
(BeLLS) 5: 1249–315. Available online: https://bells.uib.no/index.php/bells/article/view/693 (accessed on 15 August 2023).
Morales de Walters, Amparo. 2000. El español de Puerto Rico en su contexto caribeño. Revista de Estudios Hispánicos 27: 349–59.
Moreno-Fernández, Francisco. 1998. Principios de Sociolingüística y Sociología del Lenguaje. Barcelona: Ariel.
Moya, JoséC. 2012. Migración africana y formación social en las Américas, 1500–2000. Revista de Indias 72: 321–48. [CrossRef]
Navarro-Tomás, Tomás. 1918. Manual de Pronunciación Española. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Históricos.
Navarro-Tomás, Tomás. 1944. Manual de Entonación Española. New York: Hispanic Institute in the United States.
Navarro-Tomás, Tomás. 1948. El español en Puerto Rico: Contribución a la Geografía Lingüística Hispanoamericana. Río Piedras: Universidad
de Puerto Rico.
Navarro-Tomás, Tomás. 1966. Métrica Española: Reseña Histórica y Descriptiva. New York: Las Americas Publishing Co.
Nibert, Holly J. 2000. Phonetic and Phonological Evidence for Intermediate Phrasing in Spanish Intonation. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA.
O’Rourke, Erin. 2004. Peak placement in two regional varieties of Peruvian Spanish intonation. In Contemporary Approaches to Romance
Linguistics. Edited by Julie Auger, J. Clancy Clements and Barbara Vance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 321–41.
O’Rourke, Erin. 2005. Intonation and Language Contact: A Case Study of Two Varieties of Peruvian Spanish. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA.

Languages 2024,9, 90 21 of 22
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Prieto, Pilar. 1998. The scaling of the L values in Spanish downstepping contours. Journal of Phonetics 26: 261–82. [CrossRef]
Prieto, Pilar. 2003. Teorías de la Entonación. Barcelona: Ariel.
Prieto, Pilar, and Francisco Torreira. 2007. The segmental anchoring hypothesis revisited: Syllable structure and speech rate effects on
peak timing in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 35: 473–500. [CrossRef]
Prieto, Pilar, and Paolo Roseano. 2010. Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. München: Lincom.
Prieto, Pilar, Chilin Shih, and Holly Nibert. 1996. Pitch downtrend in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 24: 445–73. [CrossRef]
Prieto, Pilar, Jan van Santen, and Julia Hirschberg. 1995. Tonal alignment patterns in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 23: 429–51. [CrossRef]
Puerto Rico Census Geography. 2006. Geografía Censal Puerto Rico. Junta de Planificación Económica y Social. Oficina del Censo.
Available online: http://gis.jp.pr.gov/Externo_Econ/Publicaciones%20Sociales/Otras/Geografia_Censal_Puerto_Rico-2000
_(Oct-2006).pdf (accessed on 27 July 2023).
Quilis, Antonio. 1985. Entonación dialéctica hispánica. LEA 7: 145–90.
Quilis, Antonio. 1989. La entonación de Gran Canaria en el marco de la entonación española. LEA 7: 55–87.
Quilis, Antonio. 1993. Tratado de Fonología y Fonética Españolas. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.
Rao, Rajiv. 2009. Deaccenting in spontaneous speech in Barcelona Spanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 2: 31–75. [CrossRef]
Rao, Rajiv. 2010. Final lengthening and pause duration in three dialects of Spanish. In Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Laboratory
Approaches to Spanish Phonology. Edited by Marta Ortega-Llebaria. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 69–82.
Rao, Rajiv, and Sandro Sessarego. 2016. On the intonation of Afro-Bolivian Spanish declaratives: Implications for a theory of
Afro-Hispanic creole genesis. Lingua 174: 45–64. [CrossRef]
Rao, Rajiv, and Sandro Sessarego. 2018. Intonation in Chota Valley Spanish: Contact-induced Phenomena at the discourse/phonology
interface. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 11: 163–92. [CrossRef]
Real Academia Española. 2022. Diccionario de la Lengua Española, 23.ª ed. [online version 23.7]. Available online: https://dle.rae.es
(accessed on 23 September 2023).
Santos, Mayra. 2021. Entoação e pragmática de perguntas totais em corpus conversacional e espontâneo davariedade de Porto Rico.
Bachelor’s thesis, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil.
Sessarego, Sandro, and Rajiv Rao. 2016. On the simplification of a prosodic inventory: The Afro-Bolivian Spanish case. In Inquiries in
Hispanic Linguistics. Edited by Alejando Cuza, Lori Czerwionka and Dan Olson. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, pp. 171–90.
Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1989. Sociolingüística: Teoría y Análisis. Madrid: Alhambra.
Sosa, JoséMaría. 1999. La Entonación del Español: Su Estructura Fónica, Variabilidad y Dialectología. Madrid: Cátedra.
Sosa, JoséMaría. 2003. La notación tonal del español en el modelo Sp_ToBI. In Teorías de la Entonación. Edited by P. Prieto. Barcelona:
Ariel, pp. 155–84.
Tijoux, María Emilia, and Hugo S. Retamales. 2015. Trayectorias laborales de inmigrantes peruanos en Santiago: El origen de excepción
y la persistencia del “lugar aparte”. Latin American Research Review 50: 135–53. [CrossRef]
Toledo, Guillermo A. 2000. H en el español de Buenos Aires. Langue et Linguistique 26: 107–27.
Toledo, Guillermo A. 2008. Fonología entonativa: Los acentos tonales finales de frase entonativa intermedia (ip T*) frente al tono de
frontera (H-) en discursos y textos leídos en el español de Buenos Aires. Language Design 2: 129–36.
Torres-González, Roamé. 2002. Idioma, Bilingüismo y Nacionalidad: La Presencia del Inglés en Puerto Rico. Doctoral dissertation,
Universidad de Puerto Rico, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico.
Ungerleider-Kepler, David. 2000. Las Fiestas de Santiago Apóstol en Loíza: La Cultura afro-Puertorriqueña ante los Procesos de Hibridación y
Globalización. San Juan: Editorial Isla Negra.
US Census Bureau. 2022. 2022 Census of Population and Housing. Available online: https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2022/cph-1-
53.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2023).
Vaquero, María. 1991. El español de Puerto Rico en su contexto antillano. In El Español de América. Edited by César Hernández-Alonso
and Leticia Castañeda San Cirilo. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Cultura y Turismo, pp. 117–39.
Venditti, Jennifer. 2005. The J_ToBI of Japanese intonation. In Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Edited by
Sun-Ah Jun. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 172–200.
Visconte, Piero, and Sandro Sessarego. 2022a. Loíza Spanish and the Spanish Creole Debate: A Linguistic and Sociohistorical Account.
In Social and Structural Aspects of Language Contact and Change. Edited by B. Migge and S. Gooden. Berlin: Language Science Press,
pp. 183–212.
Visconte, Piero, and Sandro Sessarego. 2022b. Some Remarks on the Origins of Afro-Puerto Rican Spanish. Borealis–An International
Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 11: 77–93. [CrossRef]
Visconte, Piero. Forthcoming. El español afropuertorriqueño de Loíza. In Afro-Iberian Languages: Contact and Sociohistory/Línguas
Afro-Ibéricas: Contato e Sócio- História/Lenguas Afro-Ibéricas: Contacto y Sociohistoria. Contact and Multilingualism Series; Edited by
L. Lamberti and A. L. Agostinho. Berlin: Language Science Press (LSP).
Willis, Erik W. 2003. The Intonational System of Dominican Spanish: Findings and Analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA.

Languages 2024,9, 90 22 of 22
Willis, Erik W. 2010. Dominican Spanish Intonation. In Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. Edited by Pilar Prieto and
Paolo Roseano. München: Lincom Europa, pp. 123–53.
Wong, Puisan, Richard G. Schwartz, and James J. Jenkins. 2005. Perception and production of lexical tones by 3-year-old, Mandarin-
speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 48: 1065–79. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.