<b>Linguistics attitudes and strong-R in Carambeí</b> - DOI: 10.4025/actascilangcult.v31i2.6429

  • Leticia Fraga UEPG
Keywords: linguistic attitudes, strong-R, Portuguese language – dialects – Carambeí

Abstract

Considering that Carambeí Township is fairly complex, both culturally and linguistically, this study intends to: a) survey the linguistic attitudes that the ‘Dutch’ reveal concerning the Dutch and Portuguese languages; b) analyze the variety of Portuguese spoken by the ‘Dutch’ of Carambeí regarding the use of strong-R; c) establish what sort of relationship takes place between linguistic attitudes and use of certain varieties of the strong-R in Portuguese. About the attitudes regarding the Dutch language, Groups 1M, 1F and 2Fa show positive attitudes, while Groups 2M, 2Fb, 3M and 3F show negative attitudes. Portuguese, on the other hand, elicits positive attitudes in the community as a whole. Regarding the use of strong-R, groups 1M and 1F use trill and tap; group 2M also uses trill and tap; Group 2Fa uses trill and tap and Group 2Fb uses fricative and trill. Groups 3M and 3F use only fricative. Finally, we can assume that specific attitudes contribute to the use of certain varieties of the strong-R.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Leticia Fraga, UEPG
Atualmente é professor adjunto da Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa. Tem experiência na área de Lingüística, com ênfase em Teoria e Análise Lingüística; Sociolingüística e Dialetologia; Lingüística Aplicada. Atua principalmente nos seguintes temas: pluralidade lingüística, crenças e atitudes lingüísticas; identidade; ensino de língua; variação lingüística; letramento. Currículo Lattes
Published
2009-10-06
How to Cite
Fraga, L. (2009). <b>Linguistics attitudes and strong-R in Carambeí</b&gt; - DOI: 10.4025/actascilangcult.v31i2.6429. Acta Scientiarum. Language and Culture, 31(2), 155-168. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascilangcult.v31i2.6429
Section
Linguistics

 

0.1
2019CiteScore
 
 
45th percentile
Powered by  Scopus

 

 

0.1
2019CiteScore
 
 
45th percentile
Powered by  Scopus