Resumen de Anti-homophony and rhizotony in the Spanish preterite
Speakers tend to avoid homophony that is problematic. While Spanish admits some homophony of 1SG and 3SG forms in three arrhizotonic tenses/moods (imperfect, past subjunctive, conditional), in two of the three rhizotonic tenses/moods (present indicative and preterite), the 1SG and 3SG contrast systematically. In the preterite, contrast (DĪXĪ ∼ DĪXIT) was lost in Old Spanish (dix[e] ∼ dix[e]) but subsequently restored (dije ∼ dijo). The development dix(e) dijo has been attributed to analogical extension of arrhizotonic –o, (cf. amó), with destressing. This article proposes that said extension is the result of anti-homophony (AH). Like analogical extension, AH improves form-function isomorphism yet applies primarily to higher-frequency forms. It is argued that AH targeted 1SG ∼ 3SG homophony selectively, affecting only verb forms without an explicit tense/mood marker (e.g., dixe ∼ dixe vs tenga ∼ tenga). This morphological restriction on AH explains why homophony persisted in four of the seven basic tenses (e.g., tenga ∼ tenga, tenía ∼ tenía, tendría ∼ tendría, tuviera [–se] ∼ tuviera [–se]). The modern pairs fui ∼ fue and di ∼ dio, which are the outcome of heavy competition, are shown to be a straightforward result of AH. In a broader perspective, the drive to distinguish 1SG and 3SG forms has brought about a “1–3 pattern” with a range similar to that of the N-pattern, in which stress is retained in certain paradigmatic cells in the absence of conditioning phonological factors. Destressing –o in forms like dijo and vino served to maintain the integrity of the 1–3 pattern as an organizing principle.
