Perfect-Perfective Variation across Spanish Dialects: A Parallel-Corpus Study

Abstract

To analyze crossdialectal variation between the use of a Present Perfect form (Pretérito Perfecto Compuesto) and a Perfective Past form (Pretérito Indefinido) in Spanish, we make use of two converging methodologies: (i) parallel corpus research, where we compare different translations of the same text (Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone) into specific standardized written varieties of Spanish (Peninsular, Mexican, Argentinian), and (ii) an elicitation forced-choice task, where native speakers of each of the cities in which these standardized written norms are produced (Madrid, Mexico City, Buenos Aires) have to choose between the Pretérito Perfecto Compuesto and the Pretérito Indefinido as the most natural filler for a blank in contexts extracted from the novel. Results from these two tasks do not align completely. While the data from our parallel corpus work indicate a wider distribution of Perfect use in the Mexican translation than in the Peninsular and the Argentinian ones, the elicitation task shows that only the choices of the speakers of Madrid (Castilian Spanish) and Buenos Aires (Rioplatense Spanish) converge with their respective translations patterns. Since the distribution observed in the Mexican translation not only goes against the elicitation data, but also contradicts previous findings in the literature, we abandon it in further analyses. In the second part of the paper, through a detailed annotation of the Peninsular and Argentinian corpora, we show that the constraints allowing Perfect use in each of these standardized varieties respond only to some features previously advanced in the literature. While both dialects allow for experiential and resultative readings of the Pretérito Perfecto Compuesto, Castilian Spanish also prefers the use of this marker to locate an event in the hodiernal past. On the other hand, Rioplatense Spanish systematically defaults to the Pretérito Indefinido in these cases, displaying a more restricted distribution for the Perfect form. Both dialects also seem to exhibit a preference for the Pretérito Perfecto Compuesto in continuative contexts. Our work thus provides two crucial take-home messages: (i) understanding crossdialectal variation in written language is crucial for advancing crosslinguistic generalizations about tense-aspect phenomena; and (ii) combining parallel corpus and experimental methodologies can help us understand in a more thorough way the distribution of Perfect and (Perfective) Past forms across dialects.