Nominal Possession in Contact Spanish Spoken by Mapudungun/Spanish Bilinguals

Abstract

Possession has been scarcely studied in the variety of Spanish in contact with Mapudungun and in Chilean Spanish. In this contribution, we analyze the nominal possessive constructions found in a corpus of interviews with speakers from five communities: three Mapudungun–Spanish bilingual communities from the Araucanía Region, one Spanish monolingual rural community from the Bío Bío Region, and one Spanish monolingual urban community from the Araucanía Region. The possessive constructions found in the contact Spanish, rural Spanish, and urban Spanish varieties are analyzed and compared to describe the domain of possession and to propose some possible explanations from the perspective of language contact theory for the case of the Spanish spoken by bilinguals. From the corpus of transcribed interviews, nominal possessive constructions were selected, classified, described, and compared. Double possession with restrictive relative clauses, and unstressed possessive pronouns plus a prepositional phrase with genitive/specific value, showed a limited frequency of occurrence. These constructions are analyzed using the Code-Copying framework. This perspective accounts for the observed equivalencies between both languages in contact and the constructions emerging in the bilinguals’ speech. This work contributes to the documentation of the variety and, more generally, to the description of the expression of possession in the Latin American contact varieties of Spanish.

1. Introduction

Possession in the contact Spanish spoken in Latin America has received some attention in previous studies. The controversy, as it is common in the field of language contact, lies in whether the strategies through which possession is expressed have their roots in forms of old Spanish that have been preserved (Company and Huerta 2017b) or in the influence of Indo-American languages with different linguistic–typological strategies for marking possession.

This article joins the discussion with data from the variety of Spanish spoken by Mapudungun–Spanish bilinguals. The objective of this study is to analyze nominal possessive constructions found in this contact variety, with the purpose of documenting the occurrence of the phenomenon.

This work aims to document the expression of nominal possession in a variety of Spanish spoken by Mapudungun–Spanish bilinguals in the southern cone, identify the possessive constructions found in this variety, contrast them with the Spanish spoken by monolinguals, both urban and rural, and, finally, to put forward explanations for these constructions from the perspective of language contact. An analysis of a corpus of interviews from bilingual speakers is conducted in order to provide a characterization of the expression of nominal possession in this variety. With this, this article adds data to the documentation of cases that support the position that possession might be a permeable domain in Spanish spoken in contact situations.

In this work, an approach based on Code Copying is adopted. The domain of possession is first described from a typological perspective in the two languages in contact, Mapudungun and Spanish. Secondly, from the analysis of the interviews, cases of Code Copying are documented and compared with cases found in other varieties of Spanish from Latin America, such as Andean, Amazonian, and Mesoamerican Spanish, among others. In addition, cases emerge in the entire analyzed sample that also include rural and urban Spanish monolinguals. It must be noted that the explanations proposed herein are not based on the idea of contact-induced change in Spanish. Rather, the primary focus is on documenting the emergence of constructions in the speech of bilingual speakers associated with distinct features of contact varieties that could be explained by contact situations.

In Section 2, a typological description of nominal possession is presented. Then, the typological characteristics of nominal possession in Mapudungun, Standard Spanish, and contact varieties of Spanish are presented. In Section 3, the Code-Copying theory and the notion of typological distance as theoretical elements to explain the constructions reported here are introduced. In Section 4, the methodological aspects of this study are explained. In Section 5, the constructions found in Spanish–Mapudungun bilinguals and urban and rural Spanish monolinguals, along with their frequency of occurrence, are presented. In Section 6, the results are discussed. Finally, in Section 7, the main conclusions and projections of this study are stated.

2. Possession

Possession is a universal linguistic domain that has conventionalized forms of expression in all languages, although it is also sensitive to cultural specifications (Heine 1997). Seen from a semantic perspective, possession covers various types of relations, which can take different forms in the world’s languages. Thus, the relations expressed through possession can be (1) ownership (‘Rosa’s house’), (2) part–whole (‘the hand’s finger’), (3) kinship relationships (‘Rosa’s son’), (4) attributive relationship (‘Diego’s humor’), (5) establishment of orientation or location (‘the side of the street’), and (6) association (‘Diego’s gastroenterologist’) (Dixon 2010). The interlinguistic variation in this type of construction is evident and is related to the type of entity that works as the possessor or possessed (Henceforth R and D1).

Dixon (2010) and Aikhenvald (2013) understand possession from the semantic relations that can be covered by a nominal possession construction. The components of this type of construction are the possessor, expressed through names, pronouns, or noun phrases, and the possessed, which can be a noun or a noun phrase (Dixon 2010). Aikhenvald (2013) also states that certain linguistic categories show correlations with cultural values, social hierarchies, and their conceptualizations. As a result, she proposes three types of nuclear possession relations (A) ownership, (B) part–whole, and (C) kinship relations (consanguinity and affinity). Languages may use the same construction for A, B, and C, cover A and B with one construction and C with another, or have different constructions for all A, B, and C. These relations may follow the principle of grammatical iconicity (Haspelmath 2008) because relations B and C imply a strong link between referents. Thus, for example, the part can hardly be expressed without the whole, or, in kinship relations, one element cannot be defined without the other. Grammatical iconicity is basic to understanding alienable and inalienable possessions and how they are expressed in a language.

Aikhenvald (2013) identifies five strategies to mark the relation of possession: (i) word order in the NP; (ii) pertensive marker on D; (iii) genitive marker on D; (iv) marker on both; and (v) independent marking. Both the nature of R and D need to be known in order to understand the established relation and the marking alternatives in the language (Aikhenvald 2013, 2015; Dixon 2010). Thus, for example, when the juxtaposition strategy is used, there are two possibilities: in the first R precedes D, and in the second, D precedes R (Dixon 2010).

As there exist various markers for the possessive construction according to the nature of R, there are also other markers according to the nature of D. Dixon (2010) studies the semantic bases of names that work as D in a nominal possession construction and identifies two sets of nouns that assume this function. The first one, inalienable nouns, defines a strong relation with R. The second, alienable nouns, takes into account other types of less close relations.

In the following subsections, the different types of possessive constructions employed in Spanish and Mapudungun are presented, as well as the nonstandard possessive constructions documented in some Spanish varieties spoken in other Latin American regions. This comparison offers a wider perspective on the expression of possession both in the Spanish language and in this contact situation in particular.

2.1. Nominal Possession in Spanish

Table 1. Repertory of nominal possessive constructions in Spanish.

Types of Nominal Possessive Constructions
A: Noun phrase with article plus	Stressed possessive. El cabezaD suyaR (‘the his head’) Prepositional phrase with genitive value. La cabezaD de FelipeR (‘Felipe’s head’) Restrictive relative sentence. La cabezaD que tiene FelipeR (‘the head that Felipe has’) Stressed possessive plus prepositional phrase with genitive value. La cabezaD suyaR de élR (‘his head of his’)
B: Noun phrase consisting of a noun plus	Unstressed possessive. SuR tristezaD (‘his sadness’) Unstressed possessive plus a prepositional phrase with genitive value. SuR tristezaD de DiegoR (‘his sadness of Diego’) Restrictive relative clause. SuR tristezaD que tiene DiegoR (‘his sadness that Diego has’) Stressed possessive. SuR tristezaD suyaR (‘his sadness of him’) Stressed possessive and a prepositional phrase with genitive value. SuD tristezaR suyaR de élR) (‘his sadness his of him’)
C: Noun phrase with a noun	Preceded by a definite or indefinite article plus unstressed possessive. La/una suR casaD/una su casa (‘the/a his house’) (Huerta 2017a, p. 82) Introduced by definite or indefinite article plus unstressed possessive and a prepositional phrase. La/una suR casaD de MaríaR (the/a her house of María) (Huerta 2017a, p. 82)
D: NP with a noun and a demonstrative, numeral, or other indefinite plus an unstressed possessive	EstaD suR hijaD/dos sus hijas/algunas sus hijas (‘this his/her daughter’/‘two his/her daughters’/‘some his/her daughters’) (Huerta 2017a, p. 82)
E: Topic–comment structure	De san PedroR, suR cantarD; de tequila, su mezcal (‘of san Pedro, his singing; of tequila, his/her mezcal’)
F: Noun phrase with a noun and an unstressed possessive plus prepositional phrase with a 1st and 2nd person pronoun	MiR santoD de miR lo han celebrado, de mí mi papá es carnicero, de ti tu amigo es malo (‘my name day of mine has been celebrated’, ‘of me my dad is a butcher’, of you your friend is bad’) (Huerta 2017a, p. 82)
G: Noun phrase formed by definite or indefinite article plus stressed possessive	La mía, unos suyos (‘mine, some of theirs’) Plus a prepositional phrase with genitive value la suyaD de ustedR (yours of yours) (Huerta 2017a, p. 82).
H: Relative possessive cuyo (‘whose’)	RafaelR, cuyoR libroD (‘Rafael, whose book’) (Huerta 2017a, p. 82)
I: Noun phrase with noun plus comitative prepositional phrase	Una casa con seis ventanas (‘A house with six windows’)

Adapted from Huerta (2017a).

shows different types of nominal possessive constructions present in some varieties of Spanish. Those that correspond to groups B, C, D, and E are reported for some varieties of Spanish in contact with other languages. Huerta (2017a, p. 82) states that these schemes evidence a wide and complex grammar of possession in the language.

The expression of nominal possession in Spanish presents several schemes. For group A, it is observed that the first NP works as the possessed entity, while the possessor entity is introduced through different elements, as seen in (1), (2), (3), and (4). Meanwhile, group B expresses R in the first position as a determiner, while D works as the head of the NP. In this group, R is overcoded, since it appears in the possessed NP as a possessive determiner and then again as a prepositional phrase, (2) a specifying clause, (3) a possessive pronoun, (4) or a possessive pronoun followed by a prepositional phrase (5).

Groups C and D share some properties, although the difference lies in the use of articles for C and demonstratives, numerals, or indefinites for group D. It is also possible to observe the use of a construction with an article (definite or indefinite) or demonstrative, numeral or indefinite in determiner function, and possessive determiner that identifies the R to later index the nominal head that semantically expresses D. Specifically for C, a duplication of R also occurs by introducing a prepositional phrase following the head. The constructions of group E (Huerta 2017a) are caused by the topic–comment structure. Its organization sets R as a topic introduced by the preposition de (‘of’), while the structure that works as D is introduced by a possessive determiner.

For the purposes of this study, groups B, C, D, and E are of interest, since these forms are documented in previous research on Spanish in contact with indigenous languages in Latin America.

2.2. Nominal Possession in Mapudungun

In Olate et al. (2018), the different constructions that express nominal possession in Mapudungun are explored, specifically for property relations. In these relations, (A) the structure of the NP follows an (R- D) order as in (1). To express kinship relationships (C), the NP follows the same scheme (2). As for the part–whole relationship (B), it is expressed by a construction with the opposite order, as seen in (3):

(1)
HectorR	ñiR	kawelld
Hector	3.poss	horse
‘Hector’s horse’ (lit. ‘Hector his horse’) (Olate et al. 2018, p. 51)

(2)
KuanR	ñiR	deyad
Juan	3.poss	sister
‘Juan’s sister’ (lit. ‘Juan his sister’) (Olate et al. 2018, p. 51)

(3)
Pichuñd	üñümR
Feather	Bird
‘Bird feather’ (lit. ‘feather bird’) (Olate et al. 2018, p. 52)

The simultaneous existence of these two structures in the language can be exemplified by comparing (4a) and (4b) and analyzing (4c) below:

(4)
a.	Wakar	ñiR		lichid			b.	lichid	wakaR
	Cow	3.poss		milk				milk	cow
	‘The cow’s milk’ (lit. ‘the cow its milk’)							‘Cow milk’ (lit. ‘milk cow’)
c.	Iñcher	ta	ñiR		[chagülld	kuwür]d
	1sg		enp	1sg.poss	finger	hand
	(‘My finger’ (lit. ‘I my digit hand’ (finger))

Olate et al. (2018) observe structural differences between constructions (4a) and (4b), which can be inferred from the type of basic possessive relation they establish. In the first case, it is the property relation (A), i.e., ‘the milk belongs to the cow’, while in the second case, the possessive relation established is part–whole. It can also be observed that the order of the elements in the constructions is different, since in (4a) it is (R D), and in (4b), it is (D R).

When two semantic possession relations are expressed, for instance, kinship and ownership (my father’s house), the nominal possessive construction takes the form seen in (5).

(5)
Ta	ñiR	chawR/D	ñiR	rukaD
enp	1sg.poss	father	3.poss	house
‘My father’s house’ (lit. ‘my father his house’)

In (5), it is possible to observe two semantic relations of possession. The first one, which is property (‘his house’), is established between two referents, one animate (R) and the other one inanimate (D), while the second relation—which is kinship (‘my father’)—expresses a possessive link between a person (R) and an animate entity (D) that establishes a kinship relation. A proper noun cannot be used in this structure, which expresses a relationship of kinship and ownership (*tañi Diego ñi ruka); instead, a construction such as (1) is used. The expression of this double semantic relation is also possible for kinship, as observed in (6).

(6)
Ta	ñiR	ñukeD	ñiR	ñukeD
enp	1sg.poss	mother	3sg.poss	mother
‘My mother’s mother’ (lit. ‘my mother her mother’)

In (6) it can be noticed that the kinship relation is expressed twice through the same resources that were used in (5). However, as observed in (4c), where possessive relations of property (‘my finger’) and part–whole (‘finger of the hand’) are expressed, the resources employed are different. To express ownership, the possessive marker ñi is used, while to express part–whole relations, the juxtaposition with a D-R order is employed, which produces a combination of possessive strategies.

In

Table 2. Possessive relationships of Mapudungun.

Alienable: Ownership (A) and Kinship (C)	Inalienable: Part–Whole (B)
PedroR ñiR rukaD (‘Pedro’s house’)	iloD zañweR (‘pork meat’)
JuanR ñiR ñukeD (‘Juan’s mother’)	kalD ufisaR (‘sheep wool’)
FelipeR ñiR logkoD (‘Felipe’s head)	longkoD moyoR (‘Nipple’. Lit. head breast)

Adapted from Olate et al. (2018).

, the nuclear relations and the nominal possession constructions in Mapudungun for nominal possession are grouped2.

Following Aikhenvald (2013), Mapudungun presents two strategies for nominal possession: (1) The alienable relation is expressed through analytic structures, specifically a genitive mark (a possessive adjective/pronoun that precedes D). The reference of R can be additionally specified with a common or proper noun or emphasized/focalized with a personal pronoun, both placed before the other two elements. There is also a variation in this type of construction in which more than one semantic relation of possession can be expressed. In these cases, a double marking of possession occurs both in R and in D (tañi chaw ñi ruka ‘my father’s house’. Lit. ‘my father his house’; tañi ñuke ñi ñuke ‘my mother’s mother’. Lit. ‘my mother her mother’). (2) The inalienable relation generally has fewer formal construction marks and codes the part–whole relation by the juxtaposition of D and R in that specific order.

2.3. Possession in Contact Spanish s in Latin American

There are numerous studies on the expression of possession in the varieties of Spanish in contact with other languages in Latin America. They document different constructions that diverge from ‘standard forms’ and are usually associated with specific regions where Spanish is in contact with one or more indigenous languages.

The possessive constructions of Spanish presented in Table 1 (Section 2.1) are helpful in showing a contrast between the possessive structures of the standard language and those documented in the different studies of the contact varieties. The possessive constructions documented in some of these varieties of Spanish are shown in

Table 3. Main possessive constructions in the studies of contact Spanish.

Type of Construction	Variety	Examples	Source
B2	Andean Spanish Amazonian Spanish Mesoamerican Spanish	su hermano de mi prima esa era su lucha de mi abuelo su padre de Irma	Escobar (2012, p. 72) Napurí (2018, p. 201) Mora-Marín (2013)
E	Andean Spanish Chaco Spanish Amazonian Spanish	de Pedro su mujer; de mi papá su casa. de mi mi canasto de ti, tu mochila es más grande	Egido (2003–2004, p. 297) Gómez-Rendón (2008, p. 146) Falcón (2014, p. 107)
C1	Andean Spanish Mesoamerican Spanish Chaco Spanish	una mi prima mía una mi tacita de café la mi novia cue	Escobar (1992, p. 204) Mora-Marín (2013) Gómez-Rendón (2008, p. 146)
D	Chaco Spanish	aquel otro tu hermano está afuera	Gómez-Rendón (2008, p. 146)
B4	Mesoamerican Spanish	mi situación mía	Mora-Marín (2013)

. Although an exhaustive review of this category in these varieties is not the focus of this study, the purpose is to underline the various possessive constructions that have so far been documented. The most recurrent possessive structures, according to a hierarchy of appearance in the areas studied, are summarized below.

It can be observed that this phenomenon has a wide geographical distribution and occurs, at least, in the Andean, Amazonian, Chaco, and Mesoamerican regions. From a semantic perspective, it is observed that the documented constructions cover the spectrum of basic types proposed by Aikhenvald (2013): ownership, kinship, and part–whole relations.

The types of constructions most commonly documented (in three of the four reviewed) correspond to B2 su tristeza de Diego (lit. ‘his sadness of Diego’) and E de Diego su tristeza de Diego (lit. ‘of Diego, his sadness’). It can be observed that B2 is a construction characterized by having a nominal head with an unstressed possessive determiner plus a prepositional phrase with a genitive value. Subsequently, the constructions labeled with the topic–comment structure (Huerta 2017a), type (E), documented in the Andean, Chaco, and Amazonian varieties, can be found. The construction of a nominal possession with a nominal head introduced by an article or another specifier plus an unstressed possessive and a genitive prepositional phrase corresponds to C1 La/una su casa/una su casa (‘the/a his house’). This construction has been documented in the Andean, Mesoamerican, and Chaco regions.

Moreover, there are nominal possession constructions formed by a noun plus a demonstrative, numeral, or other indefinite element plus an unstressed possessive (D) esta su hija (lit. ‘this his/her daughter’), which have been documented in Chaco. Finally, B4 su tristeza suya (lit. ‘his sadness of him’) is documented in Mesoamerican Spanish, and it is characterized by the presence of a noun with both an unstressed possessive and a stressed possessive.

One of the common characteristics of this set of structures is the double possession marking. Several authors have noticed this particularity, which they attribute to different factors. Escobar (2018) identifies that among the most controversial features of Andean Spanish is the redundant use of the third-person singular possessive determiner in Poss N de N constructions. This construction is the most commonly used among the speakers of this variety. Egido (2003–2004) also documents the existence of possessive constructions with double marking and classifies them into three types: (1) those that present a change in the order of the elements, (2) those that have possession markers, and (3) those with the possibility of combining the possessive adjective with a noun and a phrase. Falcón (2014, p. 108) points out that constructions with double marking of possession, both with personal pronouns in the prepositional group su casa de él (‘his house of him’), as well as with nominal groups su hermano de mi papá (lit. ‘his brother of my dad’), can currently be found in Latin America in colloquial speech in some areas of Mexico, Central America, and the Andean region.

Different explanations have been offered for these double-marking possessive structures. Some of them (Egido 2003–2004; Mora-Marín 2013; Escobar 2018) suggest that these constructions are the result of the influence of indigenous languages that are in contact with Spanish. Another explanation is that some of these constructions are the result of the retention in some regions of features from older stages of Spanish (Egido 2003–2004). It has also been suggested that these constructions are found in colloquial speech in different regions (Falcón 2014).

In this regard, Gómez-Rendón (2008) states that according to the system compatibility principle, Spanish as a fusional language can copy practically any form–meaning unit from any type of language since there are no morphological compatibility restrictions.

3. Brief Theoretical Discussion of Language Contact

The intense contact between the Spanish spoken in Latin America and the Indo-American languages has given rise to different varieties (Escobar 2000; Godenzzi 2007; De Granda 1994; Palacios 2005; Siemund 2008; Thomason 2001; Zimmermann 1995; Olate 2017). One of these varieties is the result of the process of contact between Mapudungun and Spanish. Historically, the contact between the Mapuche people and Spanish (and later Chilean) society experienced a crucial moment during the so-called Pacification of the Araucanía and the subsequent indigenous reduction period that forced Mapudungun speakers to adopt Spanish as the language of communication in the new contexts of interaction imposed by the colonizers (Olate 2017). In this scenario, bilingualism developed, as well as linguistic–structural phenomena in Spanish as a result of the contact between these two languages.

In this context of bilingualism, the Code-Copying theory proposed by Johanson (2008) can be useful to explain certain phenomena linked to language contact. The copy is a creative resource of the speaker that shows the interaction between two linguistic systems (related or not). This resource allows speakers to insert copies from a Source or Model Code (henceforth MC) into a Receiver or Basic Code (henceforth BC). It is not an exact replica of the model, since differences in contextual applicability, frequency, substance, or semantic content may occur.

In this dynamic process, the adaptation of the BC can occur through different types of inconsistencies that appear in the systems, known as adaptations, or the change in the BC on some of its levels, known as modifications (Johanson 2008; Olate 2017; Olate et al. 2019). This interactive process between BC and MC may take two directions: absorption or maintenance. In the first case, the speakers transmit copies from their L1 (Mapudungun, in this case) to their L2 (Spanish), which works as the BC, while in the second case, the copy is in the opposite direction.

Copies can be classified as global or selective. In global copies, an entire form is transferred from the MC to the BC, as in direct loanwords. In selective copies, an individual property of elements is transferred from the MC to the BC, originating copies of the semantic, combinatorial, material, or frequency type (Johanson 2008). This former type constitutes a relevant operating mechanism since it can adapt to various linguistic phenomena triggered by the contact situation that are centered on the speaker (Johanson 2002) and affect different linguistic domains.

3.1. Typological Distance in the Nominal Possession Strategies of Spanish and Mapudungun

According to the typological nature of the languages in contact, and the coding strategies of nominal possession, it is observed that the differences in the expression of the category are mainly related to the order of the elements at the NP level, the distribution of genitive marks, and the organization between R and D. As previously observed, Mapudungun has two strategies to express possessive content at the nominal level. In the first one, when an ownership or kinship relationship is established, the possessive marker ñi is used on D, as in (7).

(7)
HectorR	ñiR	kawellD
Héctor	3.poss	Horse
‘Hector’s horse’ (lit. Hector his horse/his horse of Hector) (Olate et al. 2018)

Mapudungun also presents an inalienable possessive construction that is used for part–whole relations. In these structures, the possession markers are not made explicit but a juxtaposition strategy in which D precedes R as in (8).

(8)
PichuñD	üñümR
feather	Bird
‘Bird feather’ (lit. feather bird)

When two possession relations are expressed, for example, kinship–ownership, kinship–kinship, or ownership–part–whole, the information is organized through the double possession strategy. In the kinship relation, the R marker appears before the D (ñi chaw (‘my father’)), while in the ownership relation, there is an R D scheme as well (ñi ruka (‘his house’), as in (9).

(9)
Iñche	ta	ñiR	chawD/R	ñiR	rukaD
1sg	enp	3.poss	Father	3.poss	house
‘My father’s house’ (lit. my father his house)

Another form to express possession is the use of a nonfinite verb form, specifically, the suffix -l, which is a participle acting as an adjective (10):

(10)
Ta	ñiR	nie-l-chiR	futaD
enp	1sg.poss	have-nf-hort	husband
‘My husband’ (lit. ‘My husband that I have’)				(Ñanculef and Chandía, personal communication)

In (10), a redundant marking of possession mark can be observed. In these constructions, there is a co-occurrence of the possessive marker ñi and the nonfinite verb form niel (‘had/that have’) plus the suffix -chi that can be interpreted as a self-imposition, a wish, or a suggestion.

Spanish has a flexible pattern when it comes to generating possessive structures, i.e., it allows more than one construction to express similar meanings. When this structural organization is used, one should not be surprised by the wide inventory of possessive forms that appear when the language is used in the different sociolinguistic situations of Latin America.

3.2. Comparison of Spanish and Mapudungun

At a general level, a difference between Mapudungun and Spanish is related to the system of determiners in both languages. Spanish has a system of determiner articles with two values: definite and indefinite. In Mapudungun, on the other hand, there are no elements with these same values3. The structural difference that exists in the domain of nominal possession between Spanish and Mapudungun is shown in

Table 4. Comparative table of nominal possessive structures.

	Mapudungun	Contact Spanish	Standard Spanish
A	‘Feyr tañir chawd	Sur papád de élr	El papád de élr/sur papád
B	Pichuñd üñümR	Plumad pájaror	La plumad de pájaror
C	Tañir nielchir fütad	MiR esposod que tengor	MiR esposod El esposod que tengor

:

The distribution of R and D is different in both languages. If this form of organization has influenced the way in which possession is expressed in the contact variety, it should be similar to the patterns in column 2 (Contact Spanish). Specifically, the constructions produced in contact Spanish show the following:

• In the first example, it can be observed that this contact variety shows a redundant marking of R and a change in the organization of R and D. From a Code-Copying perspective, this can be considered a case of semantic and combinational selective copying where the semantic relation and its expression are close to the MC (Mapudungun). The other possibility (A) presents a double possession preceded by the possessive determiner on D and the genitive marker on R. Although it follows the D-R model of the BC (standard Spanish), this double possession construction is more similar to the MC. In the case above, in which two possession relations are expressed, the contact variety also produces a semantic and combinational copy of the model, positioning R as the head of the NP.
• The part–whole expression occurs through a juxtaposition strategy, which copies the MC combination into the contact variety. Such cases were not found in the corpus.
• Finally, the third one is a case of double marking of possession which is expressed by means of a relative clause with the possessive verb tener (to have) or the VP estar con (‘to be with (something/somebody)’), which in certain contexts can be interpreted as possessive. It can be seen that R is indexed twice in the NP of the D and again in the relative clause. This case can be considered as a selective semantic copy.

4. Research

4.1. Sample

The aim of this contribution is to explore the emergent nominal possessive constructions in the variety of contact Spanish spoken by Mapuche bilinguals and to compare them with the constructions used by Spanish monolinguals. To this end, a sample of 20 interviews was analyzed: 12 from bilingual Mapudungun–Spanish speakers in three territories of the Araucanía Region, Chile (Cruzaco, Isla Huapi and Loncoche Plom); 4 from monolingual rural Spanish speakers from the Bío Bío Region, Chile (Santa Fe de La Montaña), characterized by traditional Hispano-Chilean rural social practices with a minimum degree of contact and influence from Mapudungun; and 4 from monolingual urban Spanish speakers from Temuco, Chile, chosen for being the regional capital and the largest urban center in the Araucanía Region. These interviews with both rural and urban monolingual Spanish speakers serve as the standard of comparison for the analysis of contact Spanish.

The selection of Mapudungun speakers considered the inclusion criteria of being a bilingual Mapudungun–Spanish speaker. The participants self-reported Mapudungun as their mother tongue, and their use of this language is restricted to the interaction with nuclear family members and in some traditional ceremonies. At the community level, Mapudungun use occurs mainly among the elderly.

As already mentioned, the bilingual speakers come from 3 territories: Cruzaco, Huapi, and Loncoche Plom. These communities were selected based on the main Mapudungun dialectal zones. Cruzaco, a territory located 140 km from the city of Temuco, corresponds to the Peweñche or Andean variety. Loncoche Plom, a territory 14 km from Temuco, has a variety of central Mapuche. Isla Huapi represents the Lafkenche or coastal variety, and it is 100 km west of Temuco in the Budi Lake area. All these territories have a high density of Mapuche population.

Sociolinguistic factors such as age, education, and sex were also considered for the selection of participants. The number of male and female speakers in the sample is the same for each community. Regarding the education variable, only speakers who completed the primary education but not secondary or higher levels were considered. The reason for this is that various sociolinguistic studies have suggested that incomplete schooling might be a relevant factor in explaining the configuration of a contact variety (Thomason and Kaufman 1988). Finally, the age considered for participation in this study was 45 years or older. This decision was made since in various sociolinguistic studies it is reported that the generation older than 40 years is the one that most commonly speaks the Mapuche language (Olate 2017; Olate et al. 2019).

The same age range, sex, and educational variables were considered for the inclusion of monolingual Spanish speakers from both territories. The rural territory of Santa Fe de la Montaña is in the Bío Bío Region, 200 km north of Temuco. The urban monolingual speakers live in the city of Temuco, the regional capital of the Araucanía Region.

4.2. Corpus

The recorded interviews addressed interviewees’ life histories, descriptions of activities, and controversies around specific issues. All the nominal possessive constructions in them were selected, constructing a corpus of 1632 nominal possessive constructions: 1197 from bilinguals, 216 from rural Spanish monolinguals (Santa Fe de la Montaña), and 219 urban Spanish monolinguals (from Temuco). This selection criterion was established with the purpose of obtaining a sample that contained the different types of possessive constructions in the territories. Only nominal possessive constructions were considered, although a brief comment is given regarding the forms of external possession that remain to be addressed.

A second analysis compared the use of article determiners versus possessive determiners. This was carried out with the purpose of observing how widespread the use of possessive elements in contrast to definite articles is. For this, a complementary analysis was carried out based on a corpus of 2115 determiners, of which 1711 were definite articles and 404 possessive determiners.

4.3. Procedure and Analysis

From the list of possessive constructions, those considered to be characteristic of contact Spanish were analyzed, as well as the ones that appeared throughout the corpus. The analysis presented here is oriented towards exploring the form and function of the structures that were found.

5. Results

In this section, the results of our analysis are presented. First, the findings in the variety produced by bilinguals are presented and then it continues with the characteristic structures of all the varieties.

In

Table 5. Frequency of occurrence of nominal possessive constructions.

Construction	Bilinguals		Rural Monolingual	Urban Monolingual
Mi + N	807 (67.4%)		143 (66%)	141 (64.3%)
Tu + N	34 (2.8%)		3 (1.3%)	5 (2.2%)
Su + N	279 (23.3%)		31 (14.2%)	38 (17.3%)
N de N	Total N de N	77 (6.4%)	39 (18%)	36 (16.4%)
	Standard	(56 = 73%)	37 (17.1%)	35 (15.9%)
	Nonstandard doubled possession	(21 = 27%)	2 (0.9)	1 (0.04%)
Total: 1632		1197	216	219

, the frequency of the nominal possessive constructions found in the corpus is presented. The constructions are classified according to the types of possessive markers employed. The first three types correspond to possessive constructions consisting of 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-person possessive determiners. The last one corresponds to constructions that consist of a noun plus a prepositional phrase (N de N).

These N de N constructions include both standard Spanish forms and nonstandard forms, such as (11) and (12). In the nonstandard forms, the cases of redundant marking of possession with restricted relative clauses are included.

It can be observed that the frequency of occurrence, expressed in percentages, of nonstandard constructions is higher in bilingual speakers, reaching 27%. In contrast, it has a 0.9% and 0.04% frequency in rural and urban monolinguals, respectively. These frequencies suggest differences in the use of these constructions in bilinguals and monolinguals, both urban and rural. The reported constructions are presented in Section 5.1.

5.1. Description of Possessive Constructions of Bilingual Speakers

The main possessive constructions found in the corpus from bilingual speakers are presented below.

5.1.1. Double Possession with Restrictive Relative Clause

According to Company and Huerta’s (2017a) hypothesis, this phenomenon occurs in several regions of Latin America (Andean and Mexican Spanish) and has not yet been reported in Argentina, Uruguay, or Chile. The construction the authors allude to was indeed found in the analyzed corpus, although with a low frequency (11a–e):

(11)

a. Ese mi pequeño trabajo que tengo. (Lit. ‘that [is] my little job that I have’).

b. Mi hija que están conmigo. (Lit. ‘my daughter who are with me’).

c. Mi bendición que me dio mi diosito. (Lit. ‘my blessing that my god gave me’).

d. Mi esposo que tengo. (Lit. ‘my husband that I have).

e. Mi hija que tengo. (Lit. ‘my daughter that I have’).

5.1.2. Unstressed Possessive Plus a Prepositional Phrase with Genitive/Specific Value

Company and Huerta (2017a) also analyze this construction. As in the previous case, they report that these forms have not yet been documented in Argentina, Uruguay, or Chile. The analyzed corpus evidences the occurrence of this structure in the Spanish spoken by Mapudungun–Spanish bilinguals. However, these cases do not seem to be frequent. So, the construction indeed occurs and complies with the formal characteristics established by the authors (12a–c):

(12)

a. Mi año de mi juventud (Lit: ‘my year of my youth’).

b. Su papá de él (Lit: ‘his father of him’).

c. Mi animalito de mi papá (Lit: ‘my little animal of my father’).

d. Mi niñez de mi estudio (Lit. ‘my childhood of my study’).

e. De mi mi niñez (Lit. ‘my childhood of mine’).

5.1.3. Isolated Cases

Other Constructions

Other structures that were found only in the corpus of the bilinguals are the following (13a–b):

(13)

a. Mi finao mi padre (‘My late father’. Lit: ‘My late my father’).

b. Una madre mía (Lit: ‘A mother of mine’).

In the case of (13b), a Spanish construction that fulfills a restrictive and determinative function of the noun meaning (Huerta 2017b) is observed. Meanwhile, in (13a), there is a specification of what is possessed through a possessive determiner. In colloquial Spanish, in general, the expression is mi finao padre (‘my late father’), so there is a possibility of the replication of that structure that is not related to the contact situation.

5.2. Possessive Constructions in Spanish Spoken by Monolinguals and Bilinguals

In this section, some structures identified in all the groups and that are typical of colloquial oral Spanish are discussed. In the next section, the use of the possessive determiners mi, tu, su (my, your, his/her/their) and the article determiners el, la (the) from the samples is contrasted in order to observe their distribution in the corpus.

5.2.1. Frequency of Possessive Determiner vs. Article Determiner

Both the use of article determiners and the use of possessive determiners can be seen in

Table 6. Use of determiners of nominal possession.

Type of Community	Monolingual or Bilingual	Territory	art/det	pos/det	Pos det Rural vs. Urban	Total
RURAL	Bilingual	Maquehue	368 (79%)	100 (21%)	366 (21%)	468 (22%)
		Huapi	208 (68%)	100 (32%)		308 (15%)
		Cruzaco	335 (82%)	72 (18%)		407 (19%)
	Monolingual	La Montaña	400 (81%)	94 (19%)		494 (23%)
URBAN	Monolingual	Temuco	400 (91%)	38 (9%)	38 (9%)	438 (20%)
Total			1711 (81%)	404 (19%)		2115

. The most noteworthy result in this regard is the use of the possessive determiner in rural areas by both bilinguals and Spanish monolinguals.

Adding the percentages of both rural communities (monolingual and bilingual), a 21% use of this resource is observed, which more than doubles the percentage for the urban area (9%). Further research is necessary on this topic; however, these data allow us to hypothesize that the use of the possessive determiner is more frequent in rural areas, which leads us to two issues:

• The relevance of R in rural varieties and the identity relationship between R and D.
• These are widely attested characteristics of the Spanish spoken in rural areas in Chile.

5.2.2. Use of su or sus (His/Her) with Characterizing or Stereotyped Interpretation

In the varieties of Spanish analyzed, constructions such as those shown in (13a–k) occur:

(13)

a. Son sus treinta metros (de cosecha) (rural monolingual).

b. Cuando les va bien, sus varios kilos y tienen plata (rural monolingual).

c. Uno también tiene su dignidad (urban monolingual).

d. Es que el hombre tiene su simpatía (urban monolingual).

e. Claro que tiene sus buenos contactos (urban monolingual).

f. Uno igual tuvo sus choques (urban monolingual).

g. En la semana sacan -tener… sus diez por ahí (rural bilingual).

h. Así a los lejos, pegan su bajada acá (rural bilingual).

i. caballo así, se paraba así con su comedera (rural bilingual).

j. Quizás tenía sus 18, 19 años (rural bilingual).

k. y a ganar su platita (rural bilingual).

l. Le daban su plato de sopa (rural monolingual).

Picallo and Rigau (2017, p. 272) call these uses characterizing or stereotyped interpretation. They state that they occur to intensify (1) the expression of the possession of a characteristic element or (2) the habitual relationship with an object or product. They are used as an emphatic expression in oral and familiar or popular speech. In our analysis, it is observed that this feature occurs in all the communities studied.

5.2.3. External Possession

Another phenomenon that appears in the sample is the duplication of R in constructions with external possession. Although this phenomenon is not the focus of this study, there are some possible reflections on the matter. In (14a–e), the cases of duplication of R are shown.

(14)

a. Se había fracturado su manito (rural monolingual).

b. Le limpia su naricita (rural monolingual).

c. Le corría su nariz (rural monolingual).

d. Se le veía en su cara (urban monolingual).

In the examples in (14), the duplication of R from prototypical possessive relationships involving ownership, kinship, and part–whole can be observed. The latter two tend to be expressed as inalienable relations. In the Hispanic literature, this phenomenon is also known as the case of the possessive dative (Ortiz 2017).

External possession is a mechanism linked to valence change operations and is considered a productive resource available in languages (Ortiz 2017). The expression of the possessive dative involves an increase in verbal valence and the indexing of an indirect or secondary object in the predicative structure.

As seen in (14a), the R is marked through the reflexive se to indicate that the entity involved is both the agent and by a possessive determiner, while the direct object is the D. On the other hand, in (14b–d), the semantic relation between R and D is marked through the expression of R as an argument of the construction, the dative le, while the direct object is the possessed entity. It is interesting that R is duplicated through the possessive determiner in the NP that works as D in these cases. The result of this duplication is the preeminence of R.

In the reported cases, the emphasized relation of possession is part–whole, which is prototypically inalienable. The reasons that motivate the use of this construction with duplicate R like the one of the standard Spanish se fracturó la mano (he/she broke his/her hand’) is to grant relevance to R over D and, cognitively, the animate/human entity stands out over the inanimate entity (Ortiz 2017). The presented cases show that, among part–whole relations, those found in body part terms are the most common ones, establishing R as the whole and the body part as D.

These cases occur predominantly in the speech of interviewees from rural communities. However, they are also found in an interviewee from the urban community.

5.2.4. Possession and Sociolinguistic Trajectories

It is necessary to consider the sociolinguistic trajectories of the speakers because, particularly in the case of the monolingual interviewees from urban Temuco, a relationship between them and bilingual rural communities is noticed. This is an issue that involves dynamics of family relations and migratory processes that have facilitated abundant interactions between the members of urban and rural bilingual communities, thus allowing the circulation of linguistic resources of the Spanish language in contexts of bilingualism.

The sociolinguistic trajectories of speakers may be important when it comes to understanding the linguistic relations and similarities between the linguistic–communicative repertoires of urban monolinguals, rural bilinguals, and monolinguals living in communities with social bilingualism. Thus, for example, among the expressions of one of the participants (TcoM_4) who meets the characteristics of the trajectories mentioned, it was possible to find the following examples: donde la mi otra empleadora que tuve (lit. at my other employer’s (home) I had’) and se le veía en su cara (‘you could see it in his face.’). Shared features with the bilingual speakers are observed, which are reinforced when exploring the content of the interview, showing a link between the interviewee and rural bilingual communities.

6. Discussion

6.1. On Double Possession with Restrictive Relative Clause in Bilingual Spanish

The frequency of occurrence of this structure in the history of Spanish is low. It is considered marked due to its syntactic, lexical–semantic restrictions, and its specialized pragmatic value. The construction is characterized by the duplication of the R through a restrictive relative clause, an enclitic that appears in the relative clause or through a lexical, pronominal, or nominal referent (Company and Huerta 2017a, p. 204).

At the semantic level, the construction is characterized by selecting human entities as R, which operate as the subject of the sentence that contains the duplicated possessive structure (Company and Huerta 2017a). In this case, this tendency is observed in (11a), (11d), and (11e). However, in constructions (11b) and (11c), the subject of the relative clause is the possessed mi hija (‘my daughter’) and mi diosito (‘my dear god’). It is in (11c) where the external possession and the occurrence of two abstract D entities, mi bendición (‘my blessing’) and mi diosito (‘my dear god’), both notions conceptually related, can be seen operating.

Regarding the pragmatic level, Company and Huerta (2017a) state that the speaker perceives the relationship between R and D as an inherent, inalienable bond in certain communicative situations, which is interpreted as an inseparable relation between R and D. This use of possessives is established when D is an important entity and close to the background of R. This fact makes a difference between constructions that use article determiners versus possessive determiners, which demonstrates the importance of D for R.

From the perspective of language contact, it could be assumed that it is a selective semantic copy that includes both semantic and pragmatic meanings. In this case, there is a replication of the redundancy in R marking, which emphasizes R based on Mapudungun’s R-D scheme, as seen in (9).

In this example, in

Table 7. Comparative of redundant marking of R in restrictive relative clauses.

Tañir wentrud tañir nield Mir esposod que tengor (Lit. mi esposo mío tenido) (‘my husband that I have’. Lit. ‘my husband my had’)	Model code (Mapudungun)
	Redundance in the marking of R by means of the possessive marker tañi in the SN and tañi in the nonfinite verbal phrase nie-l (‘had/I have’).
	Basic Code (Contact Spanish)
	Copy of the possessive redundance feature by means of a restrictive relative clause.

, a redundant R is observed in the doubled occurrence of tañi before the nonfinite form of the verb nie- ‘to have’.

The pragmatic solution and the semantic–pragmatic motivation of the possessive structure of Mapudungun are not incompatible. On the one hand, the management of information and the inherent relation is a possibility that is enhanced with the expressive strategies given in the contact language. On the other hand, a pattern is clearly observed in Mapudungun’s construction that can be replicated in Spanish, resulting in a duplication of the R, which reflects a strong relation between R and D.

6.2. On Unstressed Possessive Plus a Prepositional Phrase with Genitive/Specific Value

Company and Huerta (2017a, pp. 184–203) mention that duplicated possession constructions are characterized by low complexity in the structure of the phrase and by their rejection of both quantification and the coordination of R and D.

At the discursive level, D and R are information that is already known, the latter being primary topics as they are the main characters in the story. For Company and Huerta (2017a, pp. 193–94), the property (+determined) is a defining property of the construction, because if R is not determined, the construction ceases to be possessive and is interpreted as specifying, as in (12a): mi año de mi juventud (lit: ‘my year of my youth’) vs. mi(s) año(s) de juventud (lit. ‘my youth year(s)’).

The pragmatic–communicative motivation is constituted as an important factor for the use of double possession in Spanish. The construction emerges when, from the perspective of the speaker, an intrinsic or inherent relationship is established between R and D. Consequently, R is a relevant entity, while D is at a level closer to the domain of the first one and is an important part of it. There is an iconic effect of identification between the two of them.

A process of semantic selective copying that is applied to the constructions of Spanish is observed. This copy creates patterns such as the ones presented in (12). The influence of the semantic–pragmatic scheme of the nominal possession of Mapudungun (see

Table 8. Comparative of the redundant marking of R in nominal possessive constructions with a prepositional phrase.

(Lit. ‘Hisr fatherd of himr’)	Model Code (Mapudungun)
	R is marked twice by means of the possessive pronoun fey (‘he’) and the possessive marker tañi (his).
	Basic Code (Contact Spanish)
	Copy of the redundance in the marking of the possessor marking it in the possessed NP su papá (‘his father’) and in the possessed NP de él (lit. ‘of him’).

), where R is prominent and redundant, as seen in tañi chaw ñi ñawe (‘my father’s daughter), is a crucial factor for the occurrence of the copy.

Again, both solutions are not incompatible. On the contrary, they are complementary, and the form–content motivation of the nominal possession in Mapudungun is clearly pragmatic–communicative. In other words, it is an inherent relation that generates an iconic effect of identification between R and D, where the representation of the holder is emphasized.

7. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to explore the emergent possessive nominal constructions attested in the variety of contact Spanish spoken by Mapudungun–Spanish bilinguals and to compare them with those in monolingual Spanish-speaking groups. In order to achieve this, the constructions of the Spanish spoken in Mapudungun–Spanish bilingual communities were analyzed, and certain uses that seemed to be particular to this variety were documented. In addition, common constructions that appear in the three varieties of Spanish included in this sample were reported. In this regard, two types of over-specified constructions were observed in the variety of contact Spanish that were also observed in other contact areas where Spanish and Indo-American languages are in contact.

It was also observed that these constructions of duplication of R can be copies projected from Mapudungun by the speaker, a strategy that is reinforced based on the intrinsic or inherent relationship between R and D in the nominal structure. It should be noted that these forms of duplicate possession have been described in other areas of Latin America but have not yet been documented in Chile.

In addition, some general structures are also documented, such as the use of ‘su’ as a stereotype and the duplication of R in constructions involving external possession. These forms appear throughout the corpus and are characteristic of colloquial and rural oral Spanish.

From a dialectological perspective, the varieties analyzed in this article are rooted in specific areas of central–southern Chile, more specifically in the Los Ángeles area in the Bio Bio Region and the Araucanía Region. These constructions are registered in all the varieties of the language and are considered to be characteristic of colloquial and rural Spanish (Picallo and Rigau 2017).

For the situation of the contact variety, it has been shown that the reported structures do not present a significant frequency of occurrence, as has been demonstrated in other studies on grammatical features in this variety, i.e., possession features in contact Spanish have limited conventionalization.

Furthermore, it was observed that there are specific conditions that facilitate the change or modification of the variety. These changes enrich the inventory of possessive forms that speakers have. The specific conditions are determined by specific situations of bilingualism that occur in contexts within communities. Rather than being a specific variety of the language, it might correspond to the repertories of bilingual speakers with common characteristics scattered across communities being transferred to other types of speakers who may or may not be bilingual. This former process is relevant when considering the appearance of bilingual constructions in the sample of urban monolingual speakers. The latter speakers probably share communicative dynamics with the bilingual speakers in their territories, and it most likely occurs in situations of movement between the countryside and the city, family interactions, or other forms of contact with bilingual communities.