VOL. 4 (2024)

ISSN 2952-2013 pp. 95-123

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

Diatopic variation in four B1 Spanish as a foreign

language student’s books

La variación diatópica en cuatro manuales de ELE de nivel B1

Sonia Almau Almau

University of Zaragoza (Spain)

Resumen:

En este trabajo se examinan cuatro manuales de espa-

ñol como lengua extranjera (ELE) de nivel B1 de norma

centro-norte peninsular pertenecientes a diferentes edi-

toriales con el objetivo de investigar la inclusión de la va-

riación diatópica en ellos. Para esto se ha llevado a cabo

un análisis cuantitativo en el que, a partir del número de

ejercicios de cada manual, se mide el porcentaje de apa-

rición de rasgos lingüísticos de variedades diferentes a

la centro-norte peninsular; además, se calcula el porcen-

taje de estos rasgos por niveles lingüísticos (fonético-fo-

nológico, morfosintáctico, léxico-semántico y pragmáti-

co) y por destrezas en las que se trabajan (comprensión

escrita, expresión e interacción escritas, comprensión

auditiva y expresión e interacción orales), o bien por tipo

de ejercicio. En deﬁnitiva, este análisis nos permite de-

terminar cuáles son los rasgos lingüísticos pertenecien-

tes a otras variedades que tienen una mayor presencia

en los manuales, en qué actividades comunicativas de la

lengua se introducen, así como cuál es la variedad peri-

férica que predomina en cada manual.

Palabras claves:

Análisis de manuales, enseñanza de las variedades dia-

tópicas en español como lengua extranjera (ELE), varie-

dades diatópicas del español.

Fecha de aceptación: 06 de septiembre de 2024

Abstract:

This paper examines four Spanish as a Foreign Langua-

ge (SFL) B1 level textbooks from different publishers

based on the central-northern peninsular standard, with

the aim of investigating the inclusion of diatopic varia-

tion in them. For this purpose, a quantitative analysis was

carried out in which, based on the number of exercises

in each textbook, the percentage of linguistic features

from varieties other than central-northern peninsular is

measured. Additionally, the percentage of these featu-

res is calculated by linguistic level (phonetic-phonolo-

gical, morphosyntactic, lexical-semantic and pragmatic)

and by the skills they are practiced in (reading compre-

hension, written expression and interaction, listening

comprehension and oral expression and interaction)

or by exercise type. Ultimately, this analysis allows us to

determinate which linguistic features from other varie-

ties are most present in the textbooks, in which com-

municative language activities they are introduced, as

well as which peripheral variety predominates in each

textbook.

Keywords:

Diatopic varieties of Spanish, Spanish geographic va-

riations teaching in Spanish as a foreign language, stu-

dents’ books analysis.

Fecha de recepción: 03 de julio de 2024

Diatopic variation in four B1 Spanish as a

foreign language student’s books

La variación diatópica en cuatro manuales de ELE

de nivel B1

Sonia Almau Almau

University of Zaragoza (Spain)

Contacto:

sonialmau@gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 97 ]

The bibliography on linguistic variation in the teaching of Spanish as a foreign language (hereafter

ELE) has increased considerably over the past twenty-ﬁve years. The theoretical interest of scholars

working in this ﬁeld has driven the application of research ﬁndings to practice, which explains the

progressive inclusion of linguistic variation features in ELE materials and textbooks, as well as the

emergence of the Pan-Hispanic SIELE exam (International Spanish Language Assessment Service),

which incorporates prestigious variants from across the Hispanic world.

The relationship between teachers and textbooks, as well as other resources, is very close. The in-

ﬂuence that materials have on teachers, and the search they undertake for additional resources,

creates a mutual need for improvement. Increasingly, teachers are concerned with presenting the

linguistic reality of Spanish in the classroom. However, unfortunately, it is still common to see ELE

teachers who “correct” students for using perfectly valid forms, simply because they do not belong

to the teacher’s own linguistic variety or the region in which they are teaching.

Another dilemma faced by ELE teachers is deciding which language model to teach and which fea-

tures from other varieties to introduce into the classroom. If the textbooks they use are consistent

with the issue of linguistic variation in their underlying approach, teachers have invaluable support

on which they can rely and continue to build. However, the publishing market is vast, and textbooks

approach the issue of variation in different ways. In this regard, we believe that the way variation is

treated in materials can serve as a stimulus for teachers’ curiosity. Often, this leads them to feel the

need to train further in this area in order to explain what the materials present, make small adjust-

ments, or even go beyond what the textbook offers and add more information. In fact, among the

ﬁve most relevant future challenges, Andión (2023, p. 581) highlights the need to “train and update

ELE teachers” regarding the varieties of Spanish.

Against this backdrop, the idea arises of attempting to objectively determine how linguistic varieties

are represented in some ELE textbooks created in the Iberian Peninsula, though limited in scope to

diatopic variation. This will provide a starting point for observing the evolution of the incorporation

of geolectal features in subsequent editions. To examine and measure the inclusion of features from

varieties other than the central-northern Peninsular Spanish in these textbooks, we conducted two

analyses: a qualitative one (which, due to space constraints, we cannot include in this article) 1 and a

quantitative one.

The qualitative analysis provides the data for carrying out the quantitative analysis, in which, based

on the number of exercises in each textbook, we measure the percentage of occurrences of linguistic

features belonging to other varieties (different from central-northern Peninsular Spanish) in each stu-

dent book, the percentage of features by linguistic levels (phonetic-phonological, morphosyntactic,

lexical-semantic, and pragmatic), and by the skills being practised (reading comprehension, writing,

listening comprehension, and speaking and interaction) 2, or by exercise type. Finally, we determine

which variety—other than central-northern Peninsular Spanish—predominates in each textbook.

1. Introduction

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 98 ]

The concept of “standard” is closely related to social issues, as opposed to “general language,”

which refers to all the linguistic elements common to all varieties of a given language (Moreno, 2010,

p. 39) 3. Among the characteristics that Demonte (2003, pp. 10-17) cites to deﬁne what constitutes

standard Spanish are the similarity between written and spoken language, the complementarity of

various—usually moderate—pronunciations, the globalisation and standardisation of Spanish voca-

bulary, and the strong normative tradition in the ﬁeld of grammar, where syntactic variation is pre-

sent in certain constructions involving Categories without lexical meaning. In short, what has been

termed the “standard language” is a functional type of language—as Coseriu (1981, p. 13) referred to

it—that is recorded in dictionaries, grammars, etc., by academic institutions of a linguistic community,

often with a descriptive and/or prescriptive character. We use the conjunction “and/or” because, like

Demonte (2003, p. 3), we believe that drawing the line between descriptive grammar and prescripti-

ve grammar in the case of Spanish is very difﬁcult, as is the challenging task of deﬁning what belongs

to the norm and what to variation. The author’s words clearly highlight this complexity (Demonte,

2003, pp. 6-7):

The relationship between norm and descriptive grammar, and between norm and variation, is not

well established in the Hispanic world, probably because that relationship is not easily accessible,

or because deﬁning relative spaces cannot be done between entities of different ranks: a syste-

matic object of linguistic rank: grammar; an object reﬂecting external (social and historical) and

internal pressures on the language: dialectal variation; and a purely cultural object that reﬂects

the power of linguistic elites: the grammatical norm

As Frago (2002) explains, Spanish norms are difﬁcult to deﬁne because they all possess features of

the common language, and the differences that exist between varieties are often gradual. Among

the distinguishing features mentioned by this author are: “seseo vs. ceceo, seseo or ceceo vs. dis-

tinction, yeísmo vs. distinction of palatals, aspiration or loss of /-s/ vs. retention of this consonant,

leísmo vs. distinction between lo/le, exclusive or highly preferred use of the simple past vs. the use

of both the simple and compound past, etc.” However, as he notes, these distinguishing features are

few, and their occurrence in one variety or another is not always useful for establishing the bounda-

ries between norms. For this reason, he concludes with something that we ﬁnd crucial: the concept

of linguistic norm is useful, as long as the convention that formulates it is not abusively imposed upon

the linguistic reality itself (2002, p. 65).

On the other hand, it is essential to consider the concept of standardisation of a language, a process

that occurs when a linguistic community decides to codify and accept a set of norms that deﬁne co-

rrect usage, primarily through a spelling system, a grammar, and a dictionary (Moreno, 1997, p. 10).

Standardisation, as a levelling element, promotes the unity of a language but eliminates the distinc-

tive features of different varieties. In the case of Spanish, as Moreno points out, we are dealing with

a case of monocentric standardisation, with a single academic norm, based on a multinormative

reality, and a polycentric prestigious norm 4. This polycentrism, the author notes, can lead to certain

conﬂicts, and he therefore advocates for the continuation of a standardisation that can serve as a

model in language teaching (Moreno, 2007, pp. 77-78).

2. Theoretical Foundations

2.1. Standard Language, Norm, and

Standardisation

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 99 ]

In short, we agree that it is more useful and practical to use a model with clear norms to guide stu-

dents in learning Spanish as a second language. We will not delve into issues related to academic

prescriptivism, or whether uniformity is preferable to variation, or other such considerations.

Teaching a second language is a complex process involving many agents and factors. The teacher is

often considered the central ﬁgure in the teaching-learning process, but it is important to recognise

that the teacher relies on activities, textbooks, audiovisual materials, etc., created by other people

and, in many cases, follows a programme that they did not design. Therefore, the teacher must be

guided by a programme that outlines objectives, determines and sequences content, and presents

a speciﬁc methodology and form of assessment. This programme, in turn, is the realisation of a cu-

rriculum that reﬂects clear conceptions of what language is and how it is learned 5.

To achieve this, it is essential to carefully select a linguistic model that directs language teaching.

In order to establish such a model, sociolinguistic and dialectal studies are necessary to deﬁne the

linguistic varieties and their characteristics, the prestige of certain usages, their use within speciﬁc

social groups, and so on. In other words, Sociolinguistics and Dialectology provide us with the ne-

cessary data to understand the real linguistic practices within a society.

On the other hand, comparative studies help us delineate what is common to most varieties of a

language, which Corder refers to as the common core (1973, p. 209) 6, characterising the previously

mentioned general language. From this, we can reach the concept of a neutral language, a version

stripped of all features resulting from its use in speciﬁc contexts. This neutral language becomes an

ideal linguistic model for teaching, though somewhat artiﬁcial due to its characteristics. As Corder

explains, it does not make sense to simplify the teaching programme to such a neutral language be-

cause it is an abstraction unsuited to practical teaching, where it is necessary to always teach langua-

ge in context (Corder, 1973, p. 209). As Moreno elaborates, Corder proposes bringing the shared

domain of most language varieties into the classroom and expanding it with information linked to

more speciﬁc situations (Moreno, 1997, p. 8).

Traditionally, the linguistic model followed in second language teaching has been the written lan-

guage, and it is no surprise that the concept of authority played a signiﬁcant role in linguistic con-

siderations. However, in contemporary language teaching methods, spoken language has gained

greater relevance, as learners are primarily interested in being able to communicate in a language

that is as authentic as possible. Of course, paying more attention to spoken language does not mean

devaluing the language or adopting colloquialisms or vulgar expressions. Therefore, it is important

that the linguistic model presents examples of both written and spoken language.

Moreover, Moreno speciﬁes that if the aim is to teach the most prestigious variety, students should

be instructed in the use of the prestigious norm. This refers to the linguistic features that constitute

the speech of the most educated or prestigious individuals in a community. This norm, which does

not necessarily coincide with the academic norm, is acquired through higher education and is pre-

dominantly urban (1997, p. 10). Lope (2001) explains that in each Spanish-speaking country, there is

a model norm, an ideal national norm, which is generally the prestigious norm of a major city or the

2.2. The Need for a Language Model in the

ELE Teaching-Learning Process

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 100 ]

capital. Lope extends this beyond national borders, asking whether there exists an ideal internatio-

nal norm—Spanish and American, a Hispanic norm. He answers afﬁrmatively, believing in the concept

of an ideal Hispanic norm that is dependent on a collective linguistic ideal, even though many Spa-

nish speakers may not be aware of it.

Moreno suggests that López’s (1998) prototype theory, when applied to teaching Spanish, may shed

some light. According to López (1998), the Spanish language is a prototypical mental category to

which its dialectal varieties belong, and López adds further insights (López, 1998, pp. 13-14, cited in

Moreno, 2007, pp. 64-65):

• Not all varieties of a prototype exhibit the same level of exemplarity.

• The boundaries between different varieties are blurred.

• Varieties do not share common characteristics but show some resemblance (as seen in differences

in address forms).

• The linguistic performance of an individual (especially if they are a foreigner) is judged in compa-

rison with the prototype.

• This judgment is made in a general way, without distinguishing between different linguistic levels.

According to Moreno, three key ideas emerge from applying prototype theory to language tea-

ching: the cognitive appreciation of language, the fact that some languages share the same attitude

towards the prototype while others do not, and the features that allow one variety to be considered

central or peripheral relative to the prototype. Of the three, we ﬁnd it relevant to highlight Moreno’s

clariﬁcation on the cognitive appreciation of language: that linguistic performance can indeed be

judged at different linguistic levels—and, in fact, this is what language teachers constantly do—so it is

possible to apply this theory to each linguistic level (Moreno, 2007, pp. 65-66). However, we agree

with Blanco (2005, p. 72) that while it is relatively easy to apply prototype theory to phonetic (with

features like seseo) and morphosyntactic levels (with features like the use of vosotros or ustedes), the

same does not hold true for the lexical level.

Andión also emphasizes the necessity of a practical and applicable linguistic model in the teaching

and learning process of Spanish as a second language, rather than one that remains abstract (2007,

p. 2). To construct this model, she proposes a formula that is both clear and coherent: EL2/LE =

STANDARD SPANISH + preferred variety + peripheral varieties (Andión, 2007, p. 2). In other words,

classroom instruction should use the standard language, select a preferred variety for the course,

and introduce some peculiarities from peripheral varieties.

In explaining this formula, Andión clariﬁes key concepts like standard, preferred variety, and peri-

pheral varieties. For her, standard or general language is deﬁned as:

A linguistic model that meets certain criteria: it provides the descriptive and usage tools for pro-

ducing and understanding any utterance, is stable, accessible to its speakers, and has a tradition...

The linguistic elements that constitute it must be core or common to its speakers (Principle of

Community) and relatively independent from speciﬁc contexts (Principle of Neutrality) (Andión,

2008a).

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 101 ]

The Principle of Community and the Principle of Neutrality are essential to Andión’s understanding

of the standard language. For example, she considers tú, usted, and ustedes to be part of the stan-

dard because they are both common and neutral, while vos and vosotros are not, as they are nei-

ther universally shared nor neutral (2007). She emphasizes that if a feature is not shared across all

varieties, it should not be introduced into the standard (2008b, p. 10). Andión uses a metaphor to

describe the standard as the trunk, the core, or the heart of the language (2008a). To complement

the trunk of the standard, she proposes adding a muscle, which is the preferred variety (2007, p. 4).

Andión deﬁnes a variety as a set of linguistic traits characteristic of a community, valid within a speci-

ﬁc geographical area, and that mark the accent of its speakers (2007, p. 4). Based on this, she deﬁnes

the preferred variety as that geolect of the standard, weighted within the curriculum of an EL2/ELE

course for which we are designing a linguistic model; it is the variety we have decided to present as

the primary model for learners’ production (Andión, 2007, p. 4). For instance, if the preferred variety

in a course is Castilian Spanish, students should be exposed to the use of vosotros, whereas if the

Rioplatense variety is chosen, the form vos will need to be addressed. Choosing the preferred va-

riety requires consideration of factors such as the target audience, course objectives, whether the

course takes place in a language immersion context, and whether it is a general or speciﬁc-purpose

course.

Once the preferred variety is established, linguistic features from peripheral varieties must be se-

lected for classroom introduction. Andión deﬁnes peripheral varieties as geolects of the standard

different from the course’s central variety (2007, p. 5). She explains that introducing students to lin-

guistic traits from other varieties serves multiple goals, such as fostering intercultural awareness,

appreciating the linguistic and cultural richness of the language, and equipping learners with tools

to understand speakers from diverse geographic areas. In selecting traits from peripheral varieties,

Andión suggests focusing on three criteria: that they are sufﬁciently perceptible to the learner, that

they provide a worthwhile active or passive acquisition, meaning that knowing this feature is neces-

sary for communication, and that they have a sufﬁciently broad area of validity and relevance to justify

their inclusion in the learner’s input (2005, p. 8).

In conclusion, the teacher must seek a model which is real and which satisﬁes the needs and inte-

rests of the students 7, without abandoning the teaching of social and dialectal varieties - whether

in the teaching of LE or in the L1 - which will have to be carefully introduced and dealt with in class

according to the level and characteristics of the students, since, as indicated in the CEFR (2002, pp.

13-106), the study of different language varieties forms part of the development of the learner’s so-

ciolinguistic competence, which, together with linguistic competence and pragmatic competence,

make up communicative competence. Sociolinguistic competence encompasses all the knowledge

and skills required for proﬁciency in the social use of language 8.

The choice of one or other cultured norm will ultimately depend on the wide range of learning situa-

tions and contexts that may be encountered. It is clear that the speciﬁc situation in which the teacher

and learners ﬁnd themselves must be taken into account. If, for example, the classes are being taught

in a Spanish-speaking country or in a homogeneous environment, it is logical that the norm of that

2.3. Which norm to choose as

a language model

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 102 ]

community should be applied, since, among other reasons, the pupils can go out into the street and

test and put into practice what they are learning. In fact, enthusiasm and the desire to learn play a

very important role here, since a student who assimilates something new and is then able to unders-

tand it or even reproduce it in a real situation is encouraged to continue learning. Thus, if the Spanish

course takes place in Zaragoza (in the north of Spain), it is understandable that the central-northern

peninsular norm is used. However, it may be that the students are going to move for work or study

reasons to another Spanish-speaking area, where the norm is different. In this case, the teacher will

have to take the interests of his or her students very much into account 9.

On the other hand, as Andión (2008a, p. 21) points out, when the teacher’s variety does not coincide

with the preferred variety of the course, difﬁculties also arise which will have to be dealt with. We

agree with this author that, in this case, what is essential is that the teacher knows the variety he or

she is going to use in class, and, of course, it is not necessary for him or her to modify his or her norm

continuously in the classroom. Dare we say that this would be unnatural - very few people are bidia-

lectal - and confusing for the pupil. The most appropriate thing to do in these circumstances is for

the teacher to bring numerous samples of real input which exemplify this variety, as recommended

by the PCIC in its section on ‘Linguistic norm and varieties of Spanish’:

For the demonstration of the features of the varieties, real samples of spoken and/or written lan-

guage should be used - or at least samples which are plausible in their linguistic coherence -

and whose bearers are speakers of a medium and medium-educated socio-cultural level. Their

presence should be in appropriate proportion to the samples of the model of the variety being

described and the increase in language proﬁciency assumed with the level of study. Teachers are

recommended to take advantage, as far as possible, of the variety of accents and backgrounds of

speakers of Spanish in order also to demonstrate the validity of the model being described and

taught (common and neutral)

Teachers who realise the importance of taking real input from other varieties turn to textbooks in

search of material, but do not always ﬁnd good samples suitable for the different levels. This is espe-

cially true of listening comprehension activities, where some textbooks even use imitators of accents

and linguistic features. Gradually, publishers are becoming more professional in this area, but there

is still a lot of work to be done.

A constant concern of dialectology and linguistic geography in the Hispanic world has been the

establishment of a coherent dialectal division, particularly in the Americas. Some scholars, in an

attempt to deﬁne geolectal areas, have made proposals for the linguistic zoning of the South Ameri-

can continent. These proposals have not been without controversy, not only due to the methodolo-

gy used but also because of the scarcity (and sometimes unreliability) of the materials and linguistic

data used for this purpose 10.

For our study, we decided to adopt the zoning proposed by Moreno (2007, p. 38), who, in accordan-

ce with sociolinguistic criteria that give preponderance to urban centres and their cultured norms 11,

2.4. The dialectal division of Spanish

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 103 ]

distinguishes ﬁve major geolectal varieties for Hispanic America based on the linguistic uses of what

he considers ‘the most inﬂuential cities and territories’. These are as follows:

• A.1. A Caribbean area (represented by the uses of, for example, San Juan de Puerto Rico, Havana,

or Santo Domingo).

• A.2. A Mexican and Central American area (represented by the uses of Mexico City and other sig-

niﬁcant cities and territories).

• A.3. An Andean area (represented by the uses of Bogotá, La Paz, or Lima).

• A.4. A Río de la Plata and Chaco area (represented by the uses of Buenos Aires, Montevideo, or

Asunción).

To these ﬁve areas, Moreno (2007, p. 38) adds three more for the Spanish of Spain:

• E.1. A Castilian one (represented by the uses of cities like Madrid or Burgos).

• E.2. An Andalusian one (represented by the uses of Seville, Malaga, or Granada).

• E.3. A Canarian one (Las Palmas or Santa Cruz de Tenerife).

We consider this division appropriate as it is based on the cultured norms of large urban centres,

which are the norms that we should introduce into the classroom and therefore include in textbooks.

Furthermore, this division is more practical, as it reduces the American territory to broad areas with

speciﬁc characteristics, greatly simplifying the number of linguistic features, which would otherwise

lead to an endless variety of cases that would be difﬁcult to systematise.

As for the analysis methodology, we used a quantitative approach. We believe that deﬁning the

level is a key decision, and in this respect, we chose the intermediate level because we felt that we

could already observe features across all linguistic levels, not just in the lexicon. Finally, we opted

for the ‘Threshold Level’ (B1), as this is an intermediate stage in which learners develop their ability

to interact and be understood in a variety of situations and their ability to deal ﬂexibly with everyday

problems (CEFR, 2002, p. 37). Furthermore, level B1 has signiﬁcant importance in studies on second

language teaching methodology. Our aim is to examine how diatopic variation is treated in B1-level

textbooks and continue the research at the B2 level in the future to see if there is a coherent and

appropriate progression in the inclusion of variety.

In addition, we selected textbooks created in Spain that present the north-central Peninsular variety

as the preferred model. Our work, therefore, involves identifying linguistic features from American

varieties in these textbooks (including Mexican and Central American, Caribbean, Andean, Río de la

Plata and Chaco, and Chilean) as well as from Andalusian and Canarian varieties.

Based on the above, we selected four student textbooks. We decided to choose four textbooks

to avoid the unreliability that could arise from comparing only two or three, and we believed that

using books from different publishers would help demonstrate the representativeness of textbooks

with a north-central Peninsular variety that are currently used in the teaching of Spanish as a Foreign

Language (ELE). Another decisive factor was that the textbook must contain a complete B1 level,

3. Quantitative analysis

3.1. Analysis´s methodology

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 104 ]

without being divided into sub-levels (such as B1.1 and B1.2, for example), to avoid mixing criteria

and make the comparison between textbooks more realistic.

The four textbooks chosen were:

• Corpas, J., Garmendia, A., and Soriano, C. (2014). Aula Internacional 3. New edition. Barcelona:

Difusión (AI), Más ejercicios (AI+) 12.

• Equipo Nuevo Prisma (2015). Nuevo Prisma B1. Madrid: Edinumen (NP).

• Castro, F., Rodero, I., and Sardinero, C. (2014). Nuevo español en marcha 3. Madrid: SGEL (NEM).

• Cabrerizo, Mª A., Gómez, Mª L., and Ruiz, A. Mª (2015). Nuevo Sueña 2. Madrid: Anaya (NS) 13.

On the other hand, we chose Microsoft Excel to create the database for our work due to the versa-

tility of this tool, as it allows us to record any information we consider relevant, which is not possible

with other databases, where the parameters to be used are predeﬁned. In this way, we could include

data that we had not initially anticipated. Additionally, Excel’s calculation capacity helps us achieve

our objectives without the need for additional tools.

In terms of procedure, we organised the data by textbook, with the information from each textbook

recorded on a separate worksheet in Excel. Thus, there is a worksheet for Aula Internacional 3, one

for Nuevo Prisma B1, one for Nuevo Español en marcha 3, and one for Nuevo Sueña 2. We also

decided to separate the ﬁnal exercises section from Aula Internacional 3 (which corresponds to

the workbook), with its information appearing on another worksheet. Furthermore, other exercises

from self-assessments or independent sections (such as videos in Aula Internacional 3 or the recap

section in Nuevo Sueña 2, for example) were placed on separate worksheets labelled with the text-

book’s name followed by the word others. Lastly, we created a ﬁnal worksheet titled Data Summary,

where we made the necessary calculations to meet the proposed objectives.

The worksheets for each textbook (including the Más ejercicios section of Aula Internacional 3) fo-

llow the same scheme 14 and include the following information:

• Column A: Total number of exercises in each book.

• Column B: Theme (or unit).

• Column C: Section (this column is blank for Aula Internacional 3 and Más ejercicios because no

such division exists in these textbooks).

• Column D: Exercise.

• Column E: Subsection.

• Column F: Skill (CE: reading comprehension; CA: listening comprehension; EE: written expres-

sion; EO: oral expression; NA: none of the above).

• Column G: Type of exercise.

• Column H: Linguistic level (F: phonetic-phonological; M: morphosyntactic; L: lexical-semantic; P:

pragmatic).

• Column I: Linguistic feature (for example, verbal voseo or rehilado yeísmo).

• Column J: Linguistic variety (Río de la Plata and Chaco, Caribbean, Andean, Chilean, Mexican and

Central American, Andalusian, Canarian, undetermined, or open).

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 105 ]

• Column K: How a peripheral variety feature is introduced (through a mention, explanation, dialo-

gue, etc.).

• Column L: Cultural references.

• Column M: Other considerations (e.g., whether the same audio from another exercise is reused).

From Column S onwards, we list all the linguistic features (23 features) 15, where we record the total

number of occurrences. Next, we list whether each feature appears in each skill (in the following order:

CA, CE, EE, EO, NA). After this, we gather the number of features by linguistic level (F, M, L, P, open).

Finally, the worksheet concludes with a column (FX) indicating whether there is a peripheral variety in

the exercise, and the adjacent columns tally each variety (Río de la Plata and Chaco, Caribbean, An-

dean, Chilean, Mexican and Central American, Andalusian, Canarian, undetermined, or open)16.

Table 1. List of linguistic features extracted from the manuals

Phonetic-Phonological Level Traits 17 Features

Intonation and cadence 18 Vocal elongation in stressed vowels / Vocalic lengthening 19

Seseo

Ceceo

Rehilated yeísmo 20

Predorsal pronunciation of /s/

Aspiration of /s/ in syllable-ﬁnal position

Pharyngeal aspiration of /x/

Nasalization of vowels followed by nasals in syllable-ﬁnal position

Weakening of intervocalic /d/

Apicoalveolar pronunciation of /s/

Preservation of /s/ in syllable-ﬁnal position

Tense articulation of /x/

Depalatalization of /ɲ/

Weak pronunciation of intervocalic /ʝ/

Morphosyntactic Level Traits Features

Pronominal voseo Verbal voseo

Demonstratives “acá” and “allá”

Use of the indeﬁnite instead of the perfect tense

Prepositional usage

Adjectival adverbialization

Use of “ustedes” instead of “vosotros”

Lexical-Semantic Level Traits | Features

Lexicon from other varieties (different from the Central-Northern Peninsular variety) 21

Source: own elaboration

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 106 ]

To assess the number of occurrences of each linguistic feature, we initially thought that if a linguistic

feature appeared only in one part of an exercise, it would be considered as a fraction based on the

number of parts it had. However, after reviewing the divisions of each textbook, we changed our

approach. This was because some textbooks include sub-sections within each exercise while others

do not, leading to signiﬁcant variation in the number of exercises per textbook. Therefore, we deci-

ded to count the sub-sections of exercises as exercises in themselves when calculating the statistics.

This way, all the textbooks have a similar total number of exercises. Each occurrence of a feature

(from Table 1) or a peripheral variety is counted as one point if it appears in an exercise. It is possible

for different features and/or peripheral varieties to be found in the same exercise; in such cases, one

point is awarded for each feature and/or variety, despite it being a single exercise.

Based on the number of exercises in each textbook 22, we measured the percentage of occurrences

of linguistic features belonging to other varieties (different from Central-Northern Peninsular Spa-

nish) in each student book, the percentage of features by linguistic levels (phonetic-phonological,

morphosyntactic, lexical-semantic, and pragmatic), and by the skills being practised (reading com-

prehension, writing, listening comprehension, and oral expression and interaction), or by exercise

type. Finally, we determined which peripheral variety was predominant in each textbook.

Firstly, we examine the phonetic-phonological features (see Chart 1), which appear more prominent-

ly in AI and AI+, as these are the textbooks that present the highest percentages in a total of seven

features. Regarding intonation and cadence, we observed that the highest percentage is found in

AI (3.74%), followed by NP (3.49%), AI+ (3.32%), NEM (1.72%), and NS (0.54%). AI and AI+ lead in

lengthening of stressed vowels / vowel lengthening with 4.55% and 4.15%, respectively, followed

by NEM (2.94%), NP (2.79%), and NS (0%). In the feature predorsal pronunciation of /s/, AI (2.41%)

and AI+ (2.07%) also show higher percentages, with much lower percentages in NP (1.16%), NEM

(0.98%), and NS (0%). In aspiration of /s/ in ﬁnal syllable position, AI+ (3.73%) and AI (3.48%) also

have the highest values, while NP (2.33%), NEM (2.21%), and NS (0.73%) have lower values. Similarly,

we ﬁnd a higher occurrence of the feature pharyngeal aspiration of /x/ in AI (3.48%), followed by NP

(3.26%), AI+ (2.90%), NEM (1.47%), and NS (0.36%). In the feature nasalisation of vowels followed

by a nasal at the end of a syllable, AI+ (1.24%) shows the highest value, followed by AI (1.07%), with

much lower values in NEM (0.49%), NS (0.36%), and NP (0%).

Similarly, AI (0.53%) has the highest percentage for the feature weakened pronunciation of intervoca-

lic /ʝ/, followed by AI+ (0.41%), NEM (0.25%), NS (0.18%), and NP (0%). NP has a higher percentage

of occurrence in ﬁve features. For retracted /ʎ/, it shows a percentage of 2.79%, closely followed by

AI+ (2.49%) and AI (2.41%), with more disparate values in NEM (1.47%) and NS (0.36%). NP also has

a higher percentage in weakening of intervocalic /d/ (2.09%), while all the others have much lower

values: AI+ (0.83%), AI (0.80%), NEM (0.49%), and NS (0%). Similarly, the percentages of occurrence

of the feature apicoalveolar pronunciation of /s/ are not very signiﬁcant, with NP showing the highest

percentage (1.16%), followed by AI+ (0.83%), AI (0.27%), NEM (0.25%), and NS (0%). Another feature

with limited presence in the textbooks is the depalatalisation of /ɲ/, with NP at 1.16%, followed by AI

(0.53%), NEM (0.49%), and AI+ and NS with 0%.

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Percentage of occurrence of linguistic

features in each textbook

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 107 ]

Lastly, a feature that only appears in NP with a percentage of 0.93% is ceceo, which we opted to

include given its relevance as a distinguishing feature in certain Spanish-speaking regions. NEM

shows the highest percentage of occurrence in three features. Noteworthy is seseo (5.15%), althou-

gh NP (4.88%), AI (4.81%), and AI+ (4.56%) follow closely behind, with NS showing a much lower

value (1.27%). NEM also shows higher results in preservation of /s/ in ﬁnal syllable position (2.94%),

although very close values are seen in AI+ (2.49%) and AI (2.14%), with smaller percentages in NP

(1.16%) and NS (0.18%). Finally, NEM also has a higher value in tense articulation of /x/ (1.23%), fo-

llowed by NS (0.54%), with the other textbooks showing a value of 0.

Figure 1. Percentage of Occurrence of Phonetic Traits in Different Spanish Textbooks

Legend

• Aula Internacional 3

• Aula Internacional 3 + Exercises

• Nuevo Prisma B1

• Nuevo Español en Marcha 3

• Nuevo Sueña 2

X-axis Labels

• Intonation and cadence

• Elongation of stressed vowels / Vocalic lengthening

• Seseo

• Ceceo

• Rehilated yeísmo

• Predorsal pronunciation of /s/

• Aspiration of /s/ in syllable-ﬁnal position

• Pharyngeal aspiration of /x/

• Nasalization of vowels followed by nasal in syllable-ﬁnal position

• Weakening of intervocalic /d/

• Apicoalveolar pronunciation of /s/

• Preservation of /s/ in syllable-ﬁnal position

• Tense articulation of /x/

• Depalatalization of /ɲ/

• Weak pronunciation of intervocalic /ʝ/

Y-axis Percentage (%)

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 108 ]

Figure 1. F-traits in each manual

Below, we present the percentages for the seven morphosyntactic features analysed (see Chart 2).

NP shows a higher percentage of occurrence of voseo, both pronominal (1.40%) and verbal (1.40%).

The pronominal voseo is only found in this textbook and in NEM (0.25%), while verbal voseo is so-

mewhat more represented: AI (1.34%), NEM (0.49%), and AI+ (0.41%). NP has more occurrences

of the feature use of ustedes instead of vosotros with only 0.47%, followed by NEM (0.25%) and NS

(0.18%). However, AI shows higher percentages for the features demonstratives acá and allá (0.27%),

followed by NEM with 0.25%, and in the use of the preterite instead of the present perfect (0.80%),

followed by NEM with 0.74% and NP with 0.70%. Similarly, AI is the only textbook where the features

adjectival adverbialisation and prepositional usage appear, although with very low representation

(both with a percentage of 0.27%). Although the occurrence of these two features is minimal, we

chose not to exclude them, as we believe they are representative phenomena of American varieties.

Regarding the feature, we have broadly termed lexicon from other varieties (see Chart 3), the fo-

llowing can be highlighted: NEM has the highest percentage (2.45%), closely followed by AI (2.41%),

and further behind, NP (1.63%), NS (1.45%), and AI+ (0.41%).

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 109 ]

Figure 2. M-traits in each manual

Figure 3. L-traits in each manual

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 110 ]

The data presented so far already give us a clear idea of which linguistic features are most signiﬁ-

cant in the textbooks. Indeed, it is the phonetic-phonological level features that have the greatest

presence, especially through the audio exercises. However, the chart that shows the percentages by

linguistic levels (see Chart 4) is even more illustrative. In AI, we identiﬁed 36 exercises where diatopic

variation is introduced, and of these, 63.89% occurred at the phonetic-phonological level, 30.56%

at the morphosyntactic level, and 25.00% at the lexical-semantic level (while there was no presence

at the pragmatic level, and 8.33% at the so-called open level). Similar data were observed for AI+

(which includes variation in 18 exercises), with 61.11% at the phonetic-phonological level, although

the percentages for the morphosyntactic level (11.11%) and the lexical-semantic level (5.56%) were

lower, as there were more open-ended exercises (22.22%) 23.

In NP (which introduces variation in 35 exercises), we also noted a high percentage at the phone-

tic-phonological level (77.14%) and similar percentages at the morphosyntactic (17.14%) and le-

xical-semantic (20%) levels, along with 11.43% at the open level. The highest percentage of varia-

tion at the phonetic-phonological level was found in NEM (81.48%). NEM also shows 14.81% at the

morphosyntactic level, 37.04% at the lexical-semantic level, and, notably, a 3.70% presence at the

pragmatic level. While this is a small percentage, NEM is the only textbook to introduce variation at

this level. Lastly, it is worth mentioning that NS (with 21 exercises that introduce variation) shows only

33.33% at the phonetic-phonological level, surpassed by 38.10% at the lexical-semantic level and

38.10% at the open level. This can be explained by the high number of exercises where variation is

introduced through tasks like internet research, preparing oral presentations, and so on.

Figure 4. Traits according to language levels

3.2.2. Percentage of occurrence of

features by linguistic levels

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 111 ]

It is logical that phonetic-phonological features are mainly found in exercises focused on Listening

Comprehension (LC), hence the percentage is often 100% in this skill. On the other hand, it is signiﬁ-

cant that morphosyntactic features also appear in LC exercises, such as the 100% occurrence of both

pronominal voseo and verbal voseo in NP (also 100% for verbal voseo in AI+), the 100% occurrence

of demonstratives acá and allá in AI and NEM, the 100% of “using the preterite instead of the perfect”

in NP and NEM, and the 100% of using ustedes instead of vosotros in NP and NS. Meanwhile, the oc-

currence of lexical items in this skill ﬂuctuates depending on the textbook: AI (33.33%), AI+ (100%),

NP (42.86%), NEM (20%), and NS (25%).

In Reading Comprehension (RC), it is typical for phonetic-phonological features to have low per-

centages, which indeed happens, except in NEM. This is because NEM includes many exercises

presented as LC but with the text transcribed so that the student both listens to and reads it at the

same time. More signiﬁcant is the 100% occurrence of using ustedes instead of vosotros in NEM,

the 100% occurrence of pronominal voseo in NEM, 80% of verbal voseo in AI and 50% in NEM, and

33% of using the preterite instead of the perfect in AI. Regarding the lexical features, discrepancies

arise again, although the most striking percentage is found in NEM (90%), followed by much lower

percentages in NS (50%), AI (44.44%), and NP (14.29%).

It is also logical that variation is not introduced in Writing (WE) exercises. However, if any percentage

is present, it is due to exercises where multiple skills are practised. The same applies to some activi-

ties where Oral Expression (OE) is practised, as seen with 40% of verbal voseo, 33.33% of using the

preterite instead of the perfect, and 22.22% of lexical items from other varieties in AI, which features

many exercises combining RC and OE skills. Nonetheless, there are isolated cases where this is due

to other factors, such as the case of ceceo in NP (25%), where there was an exercise where students

discussed this phenomenon and shared if they knew anyone who spoke with this feature. Lastly,

we do not ﬁnd signiﬁcant percentages in NA (None of the previous skills), indicating that variation

is usually introduced in exercises where basic skills are genuinely practised, and not in structural or

other types of exercises (such as, for example, a NP exercise where students had to complete sen-

tences using a colloquial word from Argentine Spanish, an exercise that would be part of the 42.86%

shown by the textbook in this lexical category).

We have already mentioned that the textbooks under review primarily present the central-northern

peninsular variety, but here we seek to examine which peripheral variety each textbook introduces

and determine which one is dominant (see Chart 6). AI is the textbook with the highest number of

exercises introducing diatopic variation, both in absolute terms (36) and relative terms (9.63%) (see

Chart 5). Of this percentage, slightly more than half (52.78%) corresponds to the Rioplatense and

Chaco varieties. In second place is the Caribbean variety with 22.22% of occurrences. The Mexican

and Central American variety is slightly less present (19.44%), the same percentage as the varieties

we were unable to determine. The Andalusian and Andean varieties are represented at 8.33% and

5.56%, respectively, while the Canarian and Chilean varieties have no presence. In AI+ (where the

number of exercises with variation drops to 7.47%), the Rioplatense and Chaco, and Caribbean va-

rieties remain dominant with very similar representation (50% and 22.22%), while the Andean and

3.2.4. Predominant peripheral

variety in each textbook

3.2.3. Percentage of features

by skill/type of exercise

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 112 ]

Andalusian varieties gain prominence, and the Chilean variety is introduced, each with a percentage

of 11.11%. However, the Mexican and Central American variety, as well as the Canarian variety, do

not appear, and the percentage of varieties we were unable to determine is higher (27.78%).

NP has a similar number of exercises introducing variation as AI (35) and a percentage of inclusion of

8.14%, with a notable predominance of the Rioplatense and Chaco (62.86%) and Andean (48.57%)

varieties, while other varieties have lower inclusion (Andalusian at 8.57%, Mexican and Central Ame-

rican at 5.71%, and both Caribbean and Canarian at 2.86%), and the Chilean variety is absent. The

percentage of varieties we could not classify is 11.43%. Lastly, the category labelled open, which

refers to exercises where students are asked to search for information about the Hispanic world wi-

thout specifying a country or variety, accounts for 5.71%.

NEM ranks third in terms of variety inclusion, with a total of 27 exercises and a percentage of 6.62%.

In this case, the most represented variety is the Mexican and Central American variety, at 33.33%, fo-

llowed closely by the Rioplatense and Chaco (29.63%) and Caribbean (22.22%) varieties. The Chilean

variety is represented at 7.41%, while the Andean, Canarian, and Andalusian varieties are minimally

included, each at 3.70%. The percentage of undetermined varieties is slightly higher, at 11.11%.

Lastly, NS is the textbook with the least variety inclusion, with a total of 21 exercises where some fea-

ture appears, accounting for a percentage of only 3.81%. In this case, the highest percentage is for

those varieties we were unable to determine, at 52.38%, followed by the open category (28.57%),

since many exercises invite the student to explore the Hispanic world. The most represented de-

termined varieties are the Andean, Mexican and Central American, and Canarian varieties, each at

14.29%, followed by the Rioplatense and Chaco, and Andalusian varieties at 9.52%, and the Chilean

variety at 4.76% 24.

Figure 5. Exercises with diatopic varieties in each manual

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 113 ]

Figure 6. Percentages of occurrence of each variety in the exercises with variation

The quantitative analysis shows that AI is the textbook with the highest percentage of exercises in-

corporating diatopic varieties, compared to the total number of exercises, with 28.88% more than

its companion, AI+, 18.26% more than NP, 45.45% more than NEM, and 152.56% more than NS. NS,

in particular, introduces very few identiﬁable varieties and also features a considerable number of

open-ended exercises where the treatment of variation will depend somewhat on the guidelines

provided by the teacher for these types of activities.

Regarding the analysed features, the textbooks tend to include traits such as seseo (the lack of dis-

tinction between /s/ and /θ/), intonation and cadence, aspiration of /s/ in the ﬁnal syllable position,

pharyngeal aspiration of /x/, rehilated yeísmo (using a sound similar to the French j or English zh for

/ʝ/), preservation of /s/ in the ﬁnal syllable position, and, of course, lexicon from other varieties. It is

also notable that all the textbooks —except NS— include features such as vowel lengthening (lengthe-

ning of stressed vowels), pre-dorsal articulation of /s/, weakening of intervocalic /d/, apicoalveolar

articulation of /s/ (a peninsular feature), verbal voseo, depalatalisation of /ɲ/ (replacing it with /n/

or /ni/), and the use of the preterite instead of the perfect. Although the latter two features do not

appear in AI+, they can be found in the main AI textbook.

Other features that appear in all textbooks —except for NP— include nasalisation of vowels followed

by a nasal at the end of the syllable and weakening of intervocalic /ʝ/. However, it is striking that

neither AI nor AI+ includes the use of ustedes instead of vosotros, something that is present in the

other textbooks. Additionally, tense articulation of /x/ has only been introduced in NEM and NS. Pro-

nominal voseo exercises are mainly found in NP, while demonstratives such as acá and allá appear

3.2.5. Interpretation of the Results

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 114 ]

almost as an afterthought in AI and NEM. Other features only appear in speciﬁc textbooks, although

it is worth highlighting the inclusion of ceceo in NP, which is covered in four exercises.

When comparing which skills the diatopic varieties are introduced through (see Graph 7), we ob-

serve that all textbooks primarily use audio exercises as the main resource for including geolectal

variation. Secondly, though with a signiﬁcant gap, AI, NEM, and NS introduce the variety more often

through reading comprehension exercises, while NP incorporates it through other types of exercises

(labelled as NA, or None of the previous skills). In AI+, the second most common skill in which varie-

ties are introduced is oral expression (OE). As seen in the following graph, it is clear that there is no

need for a more detailed analysis, as any given textbook uses only two skills to present over 90% of

the diatopic varieties.

Figure 7. Percentages by skill in each manual with respect to the total number of exercises with diatopic variation present

Continuing with our comparison, it is striking that all the manuals, except NS, have clearly opted

for the phonological phonetic level to introduce the diatopic varieties. NS distributes more evenly

among the lexical-semantic exercises, those of the open type, and somewhat less among those of

the phonetic-phonological level. A striking result is that no manual has taken into consideration the

pragmatic level, except for NEM. AI included more features at the morphosyntactic level in second

place, while NEM and NP did so at the semantic lexical level and AI+ at the open level.

Finally, it is signiﬁcant to compare the varieties that each manual has introduced. All have taken into

account Rioplatense and Chaco, Mexican and Central American (except AI+), Andean and Andalu-

sian. Curiously, all the manuals have dealt with the Caribbean variety except NS. The Chilean variety

does not appear in NP or AI (although it can be found in AI+). The Canary Island variety is found in

NP, in NS and in NEM, the latter being the only manual that has presented (to a greater or lesser

extent) as many varieties as the rest of the manuals combined. As for open exercises that can lead

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 115 ]

the student to ﬁnd some diatopic variety, NS, NEM and AI+ are the only ones that have used them.

Likewise, we have to admit that in all the manuals there have been varieties that we have not been

able to determine.

Next, we present an analysis of all the manuals studied as a whole, in order to ﬁnd out what the

current trend is in terms of which varieties are preferred to be shown, at which linguistic level they

tend to appear and which features are the most frequently shown (see Figure 8). If we count all the

appearances of varieties in the manuals as a whole (184 appearances of varieties in 137 exercises),

we obtain that the preferred variety would be the River Plate and Chaco varieties, with a third of all

appearances. In addition, the Andean would follow with 14% and the Mexican and Central Ameri-

can, with 11%, the same as the Caribbean. Unidentiﬁable varieties accounted for 16%. On the other

hand, the Andalusian (6 %), Chilean (3 %) or Canary Island (3 %) varieties are barely introduced, be-

ing relegated to occasional appearances.

Figure 8. Percentage of overall occurrence of diatopic varieties

Likewise, we would like to point out that all the manuals have opted for the majority introduction

of diatopic varieties at the F level, except for NS, which has tended to distribute these appearances

equally at the L and F levels and in open exercises. No manual has given importance to these varie-

ties at the P level (except occasionally NEM). If we consider all the manuals as a group, we see this

trend:

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 116 ]

Figure 9. Percentage of overall occurrence of features of each linguistic level

Likewise, and as Figure 10 shows, we can conclude that all the manuals analyzed together have

introduced varieties in a generalized way in CA type exercises, 86% (451 appearances of traits with

variety out of a total of 525 traits in 137 exercises), far behind the next skill, CE, which, although it

only reﬂects 8% (44 appearances of traits), has been more used to make known diatopic varieties

than the sum of the remaining skills together, each one with 2%.

Figure 10. Percentage of overall occurrence of traits for each skill

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 117 ]

In the following graph (see graph 11) we can see that the feature that appeared most frequently in

the manuals (of the 525 total appearances of features) was seseo (16%), followed by tonic vowel

lengthening / vowel lengthening and intonation and cadence (10% both). Aspiration of /s/ in sylla-

ble ﬁnal position and pharyngeal aspiration of /x/ (both with 9 %) were also representative features.

With all the above features, the rehyphilated yeism, the preservation of /s/ in syllable-ﬁnal position

and the lexicon of other varieties (with 7% each), 75% of the appearances are reached. Although the

predorsal pronunciation of /s/ appeared in 5 % of the occasions, the rest of the features fall below 3

%, and are not reﬂected in the graph for clarity.

Figure 11. Percentage of overall occurrence of each trait

Linguistic variation, which linguists see as a great resource they can analyse and describe, becomes

a signiﬁcant challenge in the ﬁeld of teaching Spanish as a Foreign Language (ELE) when teachers

question which linguistic manifestation or language variety is best to systematically bring into the

classroom, and what criteria they should follow to make an appropriate and useful choice for their

students. Additionally, they wonder which elements from other varieties they should include in their

teaching practice. In this regard, the training of Spanish teachers in different varieties is essential, as

well as the availability of textbooks in the publishing market that introduce variation coherently.

This study presents the main results from the empirical research we conducted with the aim of analy-

sing the inclusion of geolectal variation in four B1-level textbooks created in the Iberian Peninsula.

The quantitative analysis of these textbooks reveals that, overall, geolectal variation is introduced

4. Conclusions and Future Lines of Study

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 118 ]

primarily through phonetic-phonological features —among which seseo, vowel lengthening, and in-

tonation and cadence stand out— mainly through listening comprehension activities. The analysis

also shows that the most included varieties are Rioplatense and Chacoan.

The future lines of study we propose would follow three distinct paths, and two additional parallel

studies could also be carried out, all continuing with the same research methodology. Firstly, it would

be interesting to continue the linguistic analysis of later editions of the textbooks already studied.

Furthermore, other B1 textbooks from different publishers could be examined to gain a broader

perspective on how diatopic variation is incorporated into current ELE methods in Spain. A third

line of research could involve studying the same textbooks already analysed, but at the B2 level, to

observe which linguistic features are included and which peripheral varieties predominate. Through

these three studies, we would gain a comprehensive understanding of how peripheral varieties are

treated in textbooks based on the central-northern Peninsular variety, as well as determine whether

any signiﬁcant changes have occurred over time in later editions.

As a parallel line of research, the inclusion of the cultural component could be studied, something

we have already documented in our database but have not subjected to statistical analysis, as it was

outside the scope of our objectives. Finally, it would be worth exploring the possibility of analysing

textbooks created in the Americas to see which variety predominates and how variation is addres-

sed (which linguistic features are introduced and how this is implemented). All of this would provide

a broad view of the current situation regarding the treatment of geolectal variation in ELE teaching,

which could serve as a good starting point to raise awareness among textbook creators and teachers

about the need to move beyond the “local bubbles” in which we teach, in order to expose students

to the complex and rich reality of the Spanish language.

1. It is important to note that the previous list includes features that are also characteristic of the Cen-

tral-Northern Peninsular variety, such as the apico-alveolar pronunciation of /s/, the retention of /s/

in syllable-ﬁnal position, and the tense articulation of /x/. However, these are features that distinguish

and identify certain varieties in contrast to others, which display different characteristics, which is

why they have been considered in this study.

2. These prosodic features are characteristic of certain varieties such as Mexican, Rioplatense, and

Chilean, for example.

3. We initially differentiated between them, but for operational reasons, we have grouped them

together. The vowel lengthening found in a Cuban speaker is not the same as the lengthening of

stressed vowels observed in the Rioplatense variety, to cite two clear examples.

4. We start from the idea that yeísmo is already dominant in most varieties and that only a few areas

still maintain the distinction between /ʝ/ and /ʎ/.

5. To deﬁne the lexical variety, we consulted the geographic markings in academic works—Dicciona-

rio de la lengua española and Diccionario de americanismos—, the Nuevo Diccionario de americanis-

Notes

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 119 ]

mos e indigenismos (Morínigo, 1998), as well as dictionaries, glossaries, and thesauruses from more

speciﬁc geographical areas (for example, Chuchuy and Hlavacka, 1993).

6. The qualitative analysis not only allows us to explain in detail the linguistic features and cultural

references that each textbook introduces, but also to comment on how they are incorporated: both

the strengths and the shortcomings and inaccuracies we observe in how their inclusion has been

carried out.

7. In editions of textbooks published after 2021, it will also be necessary to analyze mediation, as we

believe that the authors will include mediation activities following the guidelines of the CEFR Com-

panion Volume (2020).

8. Gutiérrez (2001) makes a strong statement linking the concept of norm to that of standard langua-

ge: The notion of standard language is generated as a sociolinguistic reality, which can and should

become the reference point for all normative studies.

9. Paredes (2023: 541-545) also addresses all these aspects.

10. In relation to all the points discussed earlier, Corder explains that teaching a language must con-

sider three clear levels: political, linguistic and sociolinguistic, and psycholinguistic and pedagogical

(1973: 11-15).

11. Moreno translates this as shared domain (1997: 8).

12. After all, students are the driving force guiding the teaching-learning process, and we must not

lose sight of the large number of ELE (Spanish as a Foreign Language) students around the world. In

2022, nearly 24 million people studied Spanish as a foreign language (Instituto Cervantes: 5).

13. For more on sociolinguistic competence, see CEFR (2002: 116-119).

14. If teaching takes place outside a learning context, Andión indicates, the needs and expectations

of the students become decisive (2008a: 20 and following). This author explains that the norm can

be chosen based on the student’s prior knowledge, or by considering the proximity of the country

in which we are located to a Spanish-speaking country, or even thinking about economic, historical,

or other types of ties (Andión, 2008a: 21).

15. The main proposals for dialectal division are collected in Moreno (1993). In any case, the general

trend we observe in these proposals is to use elements from the phonetic-phonological level and/or

from morphology and lexicon. These types of proposals entail intrinsic methodological problems:

in the phonetic ﬁeld, it is difﬁcult to select the linguistic features according to which the division will

be made, while the use of lexicon sometimes intertwines with extralinguistic issues.

16. Other authors, such as García, argue for the need to also apply a geolinguistic methodology that

takes into account data collected from rural areas (García, 2001) and the importance of conducting

ﬁeldwork not only in urban areas but also in rural zones.

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 120 ]

17. In our study, we analyze the More Exercises section of the Aula Internacional textbook. This sec-

tion corresponds to the workbook of other textbooks, which we have not studied. Therefore, the

data are presented separately from the main textbook.

18. From now on, we will refer to the different textbooks using the abbreviations we have indicated

in parentheses in this paragraph.

19. The pages labeled others do not follow the same scheme, although we saw that it was unneces-

sary because the data obtained were scarce and insigniﬁcant.

20. The selection of linguistic features was not predetermined before analyzing the textbooks; ra-

ther, based on the data obtained, we made a count of the features. The Catálogo de voces hispáni-

cas (2010) was of great help in their identiﬁcation.

21. Of all the features, the phonetic-phonological ones were the most difﬁcult to determi-

ne. This required us to repeatedly listen to the audio recordings, and we thought it would

be best to contact the publishers to ﬁnd out which varieties had been included in the recor-

dings, thus ensuring the validity of our analysis. We believed that perhaps in some supplemen-

tary material to the student’s textbook, or in some other accessible resource for teachers, the-

re might be a record specifying the origin of the people who recorded the audios. However,

after writing to the publishers asking about this, we only received vague replies from two of them.

It is important to note that the previous list includes features that are also characteristic of the Cen-

tral-Northern Peninsular variety, such as the apico-alveolar pronunciation of /s/, the retention of /s/

in syllable-ﬁnal position, and the tense articulation of /x/. However, these are features that distinguish

and identify certain varieties in contrast to others, which display different characteristics, which is

why they have been considered in this study.

22. These prosodic features are characteristic of certain varieties such as Mexican, Rioplatense, and

Chilean, for example.

23. We initially differentiated between them, but for operational reasons, we have grouped them

together. The vowel lengthening found in a Cuban speaker is not the same as the lengthening of

stressed vowels observed in the Rioplatense variety, to cite two clear examples.

24. We start from the idea that yeísmo is already dominant in most varieties and that only a few areas

still maintain the distinction between /ʝ/ and /ʎ/.

25. To deﬁne the lexical variety, we consulted the geographic markings in academic works—Diccio-

nario de la lengua española and Diccionario de americanismos—, the Nuevo Diccionario de ameri-

canismos e indigenismos (Morínigo, 1998), as well as dictionaries, glossaries, and thesauruses from

more speciﬁc geographical areas (for example, Chuchuy and Hlavacka, 1993).

26. Notably, Nuevo Sueña 2 (NS) is the textbook with the most exercises, with a total of 551, conside-

ring it only has 10 units, two fewer than the other textbooks. It is true that the sum of the exercises in

Aula Internacional 3 (AI) from the main textbook, which amounts to 374 (the lowest number among

all the textbooks if only this part is considered), and the exercises from the ﬁnal section titled “more

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 121 ]

exercises” (AI+) (which are 241), gives a total of 615 exercises. Recall that this section corresponds to

the workbook of other textbooks, which we have not analyzed. For this reason, we decided to count

it separately. Finally, both Nuevo Prisma B1 (NP) and Nuevo Español en marcha 3 (NEM) present a

similar number of exercises: the former has 430, and the latter 408, to which 57 exercises from the

ﬁnal Annexes could be added.

27. The sum of the percentages of the phonetic-phonological, morphosyntactic, lexical-semantic,

pragmatic levels, and the open category exceeds one hundred percent since there are exercises

that introduce features at more than one level. To give just one example, in 36 AI exercises where

this textbook presents diatopic varieties, 46 indications of different levels appear. The same happens

with the other textbooks.

28. The sum of the percentages of the Rioplatense, Chaco, Caribbean, Andean, Chilean, Mexican

and Central American, Andalusian, and Canary Island varieties, and the undetermined and open ca-

tegories may add up to more than one hundred percent since we are talking about the percentage

of appearance of each of these varieties in the exercises that introduce diatopic variation, and many

of these exercises introduce more than one variety at the same time.

Andión, Mª A. (2005). Las variedades del español en América: una lengua y 19 países. Apuntes para

profesores de E/LE. Consejería de Educación de la Embajada de España en Brasilia.

____ (2007). Las variedades y su complejidad conceptual en el diseño de un modelo lingüístico para

el español L2/LE. Revista Estudios de Lingüística (ELUA), 21, 21-33. https://rua.ua.es/dspace/bits-

tream/10045/9930/1/ELUA_21_02.pdf, citado con las páginas del pdf, 1-13.

____ (2008a). Modelo, estándar y norma…, conceptos aplicados en el español L2/ LE. Revista Espa-

ñola de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 21, 9-25.

____ (2008b). La diversidad lingüística del español: la compleja relación entre estándar, norma y va-

riedad. En A. Moreno (Ed.), Actas del VIII Congreso de Lingüística General. El valor de la diversidad

[meta]lingüística [CD-Rom]. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

____ (2023). Las variedades en la enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera o segunda lengua.

En F. Moreno-Fernández y R. Caravedo. (eds.). Dialectología hispánica: The Routledge Handbook

of Spanish Dialectology (pp. 575-585). Routledge.

Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2010). Diccionario de americanismos. Santillana.

Blanco, C. (2005). Diversidad léxica del español y destrezas del profesor de ELE. Eunsa.

Chuchuy, C. y Hlavacka, L. (1993). Nuevo diccionario de argentinismos, vol. 2 del Nuevo diccionario

de americanismos. Instituto Caro y Cuervo.

Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Penguin.

Coseriu, E. (1981). Los conceptos de “dialecto”, “nivel” y “estilo de lengua” y el sentido propio de la

dialectología. Lingüística Española Actual, 3(1), 1-32.

References

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 122 ]

Demonte, V. (2003). La esquiva norma del español. Sus fusiones y relaciones con la variación y el

estándar. En: Simposio “Variación e Prescrición”. Santiago de Compostela. http://www.lineas.cchs.

csic.es/lycc/sites/lineas.cchs.csic.es.lycc/ﬁles/norma_0.pdf.

Frago, J. A. (2002). Textos y normas. Comentarios lingüísticos. Gredos.

García, P. (2001). La división dialectal del español de América: reﬂexiones y propuesta de trabajo.

Actas del Congreso Internacional de la Lengua Española de Valladolid. http://congresosdelalen-

gua.es/valladolid/ponencias/unidad_diversidad_del_espanol/2_el_espano l_de_america/.

Gutiérrez, S. (2001). Perﬁles y dimensiones en el concepto de norma (las otras normas). En: II Con-

greso Internacional de la Lengua Española. El español en la Sociedad de la Información. https://

congresosdelalengua.es/valladolid/paneles-ponencias/unidad-diversidad/gutierrez-s.htm.

Instituto Cervantes (2006). Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes: niveles de referencia para el espa-

ñol (PCIC). Madrid: Editorial Biblioteca Nueva, S. L., 3 tomos. http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/

biblioteca_ele/plan_curricular/default.htm.

____ (2022). El español: una lengua viva. Informe 2022. Departamento de Cultura Digital. https://cvc.

cervantes.es/lengua/espanol_lengua_viva/pdf/espanol_lengua_viva_2022.pdf.

Lope, J. M. (2001). La norma lingüística hispánica. En: II Congreso Internacional de la Lengua Es-

pañola. El español en la Sociedad de la Información. https://congresosdelalengua.es/valladolid/

paneles-ponencias/unidad-diversidad/lope-jm.htm.

López, Á. (1998). Los conceptos de lengua y dialecto a la luz de la teoría de prototipos. La Torre. Re-

vista de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, 3, 7-19.

MCER-Consejo de Europa (2020). Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas: aprendiza-

je, enseñanza, evaluación. Volumen Complementario. Servicio de publicaciones del Consejo de

Europa. www.coe.int/lang-cefr.

____ (2002). Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas: aprendizaje, enseñanza, evalua-

ción. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte & Anaya. http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/

marco/.

Moreno, F. (1993). La división dialectal del español de América. Universidad de Alcalá.

____ (1997). ¿Qué español hay que enseñar? Modelos lingüísticos en la enseñanza de

español/LE. Cuadernos Cervantes, 14, 7-15.

____ (2007). Qué español enseñar. 2ª ed. Arco Libros.

____ (2010). Las variedades de la lengua española y su enseñanza. Arco Libros.

Moreno, F. (dir.) (2010). Catálogo de voces hispánicas. Con la col. de Jairo Javier García Sánchez.

Instituto Cervantes. http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/voces_hispanicas/.

Morínigo, M. A. (1998). Nuevo diccionario de americanismos e indigenismos. Claridad.

Paredes, F. (2023). Normas y variación dialectal. En F. Moreno-Fernández y R. Caravedo. (eds.). Dia-

lectología hispánica: The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Dialectology (pp. 539-549). Routledge.

Real Academia Española (2014). Diccionario de la lengua española. 23ª ed. Espasa.

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v4.8180

[ 123 ]

Cabrerizo, M.ª A., Gómez, M.ª L. y Ruiz, A. M.ª (2015). Nuevo Sueña 2. Anaya.

Castro, F., Rodero, I. y Sardinero, C. (2014). Nuevo Español en marcha 3. SGEL.

Corpas, J., Garmendia, A. y Soriano, C. (2014). Aula Internacional 3. Nueva edición. Difusión.

Equipo nuevo Prisma (2015). Nuevo Prisma. B1. Edinumen.

Analyzed manuals