Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World [1 ed.] 9789004249493, 9781780529264

Citation preview

SPANISH IN BILINGUAL AND MULTILINGUAL SETTINGS AROUND THE WORLD

SPANISH IN BILINGUAL AND MULTILINGUAL SETTINGS AROUND THE WORLD

BY

GREGORY L. THOMPSON Brigham Young University, Utah

EDWIN M. LAMBOY The City College of New York – CUNY, New York

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2012

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012953489

ISBN 978-1-78052-926-4 (hardback) Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents

Acknowledgments

ix

Preface

xi

Chapter 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7.

1 1 9 14 15 20 27

1. What is Bilingualism? Language, Dialects, and Linguistic Varieties What is the ‘‘Standard’’? The Role and Importance of Culture Notions of Prestige, Identity, Attitudes, and Ideologies Languages and Dialects in Contact What are Bilingualism and Multilingualism? Factors that Promote (Bi/Multi)lingualism and How the Speaker and Society Face This 1.8. Maintenance, Shift, Assimilation, and Attrition 1.8.1. Sociolinguistic Perspective on Language Attrition 1.8.2. Language Attrition: Effects on Linguistic Elements of Speech 1.8.3. Language Attrition and Universal Grammar 1.9. Code-Switching 1.9.1. The Influence of Addressee on Code-Switching 1.9.2. Code-Switching as Distinctiveness 1.9.3. Code-Switching in the Schools 1.10. The Bilingual Child (L1 and L2) 1.10.1. Bilingual Delay or Bilingual Advantage? 1.11. Sociolinguistic Aspects of (Bi/Multi)lingualism References

Chapter 2. Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World 2.1. Looking Back: The Birth of a Spanish Language and a Spanish Nation

35 39 40 44 47 52 54 55 58 62 63 69 73 83 83

vi

Contents 2.2. Branching Off: Spanish in the Americas 2.3. National Languages in Spain 2.3.1. The Basque Country 2.3.2. Catalonia 2.3.3. Galicia 2.4. Indigenous Languages in Latin America 2.4.1. Mexico 2.4.2. Ecuador 2.4.3. Paraguay 2.5. Agency and Reaffirmation of Identity 2.6. Language Policy and Language Planning: General Considerations 2.6.1. Language Policy and Language Planning in Spain 2.6.2. Language Policy and Language Planning in Latin America 2.7. Education 2.7.1. Education in Spain 2.7.2. Education in Latin America 2.8. Important Cases and Communities in Danger 2.8.1. Palenquero 2.8.2. Guarani 2.8.3. Aymara and Quechua 2.8.4. Mayan 2.8.5. Garifuna 2.8.6. Equatorial Guinea 2.8.7. Islen˜o 2.9. Spanish in the Era of Globalization 2.10. The Growth of English as an International Language References

Chapter 3. Bilingualism in the United States 3.1. Historical Background 3.2. Demographic Data and the Current Situation of Hispanics in the United States 3.3. Hispanic Identity and Language in the United States 3.4. Bilingual Education in the United States 3.4.1. Historical Background 3.4.2. Bilingual Education Models 3.4.3. Criticism of Bilingual Education 3.5. Bilingual Spanish-Speakers 3.5.1. Prestige Dialect and Dialect Awareness 3.5.2. Expansion of the Bilingual Range

86 89 91 92 93 93 98 101 103 105 109 111 116 121 122 125 129 129 133 139 147 150 157 166 174 176 179 191 191 196 200 204 204 209 211 213 215 217

Contents 3.5.3. Language Maintenance and Identity 3.5.4. Biliteracy in the Heritage Classroom 3.6. English Only and English Plus 3.7. The Actual Growth of Spanish 3.8. Important Cases 3.8.1. Chicanos 3.8.2. Cubans 3.8.3. Dominicans 3.8.4. Puerto Ricans 3.8.5. Central Americans 3.8.6. South Americans References

vii 220 222 225 231 234 234 235 239 242 245 247 251

Appendices

259

About the Authors

273

Subject Index

275

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank many people who helped with this book. First, all of the editors and reviewers at Emerald Group Publishing for their insightful suggestions and revisions. Second, our research assistants Yasmin Garves, Jennifer Gil, Katie Harrison, Stephanie Pego, and Karina Perafan for their research and contributions. Third, our colleagues for their support. And finally, our families for their continued love and patience during this process. We would not be where we are today without you!

Preface Research and work into bilingualism is a growing field with numerous publications and areas of research. While extensive research has been done in this field, this book has been written to address not only general topics in bilingualism, but more specifically this book discusses bilingualism and multilingualism between Spanish and other languages in Europe, Africa, South America, and North America. It is divided into three major sections. The first section addresses and defines the major concepts related to bilingual and multilingual populations and contexts such as dialects, diglossia, prestige, identity, attitudes, psycholinguistic aspects, sociolinguistic aspects, bilingual children, and linguistic communities in danger. The second section addresses bilingualism and multilingualism in the Spanish-speaking world. It looks at topics such as Spanish in contact with other languages, contact of other majority and minority languages, the influence of indigenous languages, bilingual policies in these regions, the role of education, and cultural influences, to name a few. The final section covers bilingualism in the United States. It looks at the history of Spanish use and bilingualism in the United States, bilingual education and programs, the politics of bilingualism, movements against and for bilingualism, and the growth of the bilingual Hispanic communities in the United States. This book is based on current, state of the art research on bilingualism, language use, and language policies. It includes linguistic descriptions of the different influences that affect these bilingual and multilingual communities and activities that promote reader/student involvement and inquiry. It is hoped that this book will serve as an introduction to learners who are new to bilingual research as well as provide an in-depth description of bilingualism as it applies to the Spanish-speaking world. While it is not possible to cover all of the topics that fall under bilingualism and bilingual research, this book has described many of the most important research and data, especially as it applies to Spanish in bilingual and multilingual settings.

Chapter 1

What is Bilingualism?

1.1. Language, Dialects, and Linguistic Varieties The term language is used to refer to many different things that have one characteristic in common: they all relate in some way to communication. As most people understand it, language encompasses all the acts associated with verbal communication in all of its manifestations, including writing, which is considered a visual representation of the system we use to communicate and transfer meaning primarily in oral form. As a result, we talk about specific forms of speech and/or writing as different kinds of languages, as in academic language and good language. We also attribute specific linguistic and stylistic features to specific communities, professions, and media, creating terms such as street language, teacher language, and Internet language.1 In addition, when individuals have acquired more than one communication system we distinguish between first language and second language. Educators also emphasize the need to make a distinction between foreign language teaching, second language teaching, and heritage language teaching to account for the role that the language in question has or will have in the lives of those who are acquiring it through formal education.2 Language, however, does not always refer to this verbal communication system; take, for example, sign language, which has a more restricted meaning, that of a system of manual communication used by specific groups, specifically the deaf and the hard of hearing. Somewhat similar to sign language is the body language used by policemen, movie directors, and

1. See Fasold and Connor-Linton (2006), Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams (2010), Lyons (2002), and Yule (1996) for more uses of the word language. 2. Foreign language teaching refers to ‘‘formal classroom instruction outside of the geographical region where it is commonly spoken’’ (Shrum & Glisan, 2010, p. 12). If the language being taught is spoken within the particular geographical region, it is called second language teaching. Heritage language teaching, on the other hand, is concerned with the teaching of the home language of individuals who have migrated to a country where it is not spoken. (See Valde´s, 1997 for a discussion on the characteristics and academic needs of heritage language learners.)

2

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

people in general. These are gestures and signals used, consciously or unconsciously, to communicate messages to those around us. Furthermore, worker bees use a special type of communication that allows them to convey to the rest of the colony the location and quality of multiple food sources through movements, touch, and waggles. This form of communication has been called the language of bees.

Pause, reflect, and continue Make a list of other common uses of the word ‘‘language.’’ Are they similar to or different from the uses mentioned thus far? Why?

In linguistics, the scientific study of language, the term language has a more specific meaning and use. It refers to the biological ability to organize and transmit thoughts and ideas in a systematic manner.3 From this perspective, language is a faculty that defines human beings and human behavior.4 As such, language serves a key function in every society and every culture: language is the instrument with which human beings interact with one another; express their feelings, needs, and wants; and construct their lives as unified societies. It is also the medium used to describe cultural practices; pass on cultural perspectives from generation to generation; and, in the case of literature, folk songs, and other artistic forms of expression, create cultural products that identify groups of people.

Pause, reflect, and continue What makes the language of bees similar to or different from ‘‘language’’ as defined above?

3. For a thorough explanation of how language works and how the human brain computes it, see Pinker (2007). 4. In modern linguistics, all human beings have an innate potential to develop and use language (Chomsky, 1965). This line of thinking came to be, in part, as a response to the previous behaviorist notion that language development consists of a set of habits that can be acquired through conditioning (Skinner, 1957). Bickerton (1995) proposes yet another explanation for language as a human behavior. He claims that human intelligence and consciousness were derived from properties of language as language arose as a representational system and as an evolutionary adaptation. His ideas challenge definitions of language as a means of communication.

What is Bilingualism?

3

According to Chomsky (1965) and his followers, human beings are born with a language acquisition device that is activated once the child is exposed to contextualized language.5 This ‘‘activation’’ triggers a series of processes that allow the child to develop the grammar of the language (or languages, in the case of bilingual and multilingual communities), a set of underlying rules that allow the speaker to produce an infinite number of ‘‘correct’’ utterances.6 This grammar includes features that are common to all languages (known as principles) as well as features that are particular to the language or languages that the child is acquiring (known as parameters) (Chomsky, 1995; Chomsky, 1981).7 Among the features shared by all natural languages, also referred to as language universals,8 we find the following:

 all languages have a limited number of phonemes that can be described using the same set of features9  phonemes are combined to form words  all languages have two types of phonemes: vowels and consonants  the meanings of words can be explained using binary semantic values ([7human], [7animate], etc.)  the fact that a particular word has a particular meaning is purely arbitrary  words are combined according to specific syntactic rules  all languages allow for distinguishing between past, present, and future events  all languages change and evolve through time10  all languages allow for creating an infinite number of sentences using a finite number of rules

5. Chomsky’s (1965) language acquisition device is closely related to the notion of competence: the speaker’s knowledge of his language. The actual application of this knowledge is known as performance. Chomsky claims that ‘‘[t]he problem for the linguist, as well as for the child learning the language, is to determine from the data of performance the underlying system of rules that has been mastered by the speaker-hearer and that he puts to use in actual performance’’ (p. 4). 6. Chomsky (1980) later recognizes that overall competence in a language includes a pragmatic competence component. 7. In The Minimalist Program, Chomsky (1995) simplifies the theoretical framework he had put forth in Lectures on Government and Binding, but he retained the core concept of principles and parameters. 8. For a discussion of current ideas of language universals, see Christiansen, Collins, and Edelman (2009), Scalise, Magni, and Bisetto (2009), and Wohlgemuth and Cysouw (2010). 9. Phonemes are the minimal units in the sound system of a language. 10. Sapir (1921) referred to the tendency of languages to change as drift.

4

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Pause, reflect, and continue Do you think human language development is exclusively possible by this language acquisition device? Do you think there are other factors that play a part?

By its very definition, parameters vary from language to language. As one can imagine, there are numerous examples of parametric variation both within and across language families. One of these examples is the order of constituents in a sentence, that is, the order in which the subject (S), verb (V), and object (O) appear in a sentence. Languages like English, French, and Spanish are considered SVO languages, whereas languages like Fijian, Malagasy, and Tagalog (all in the Austronesian family) are considered VOS languages. As one would expect, other languages follow the SOV (e.g., Armenian, Bengali, and Navajo), VSO (e.g., Arabic, Scotch Gaelic, and Welsh), OSV (e.g., American Sign Language, Apurina˜, and Malayalam), and OVS (e.g., Klingon and some languages with case marking) word order. Another parametric variation feature is the possibility to omit certain pronouns when context, verb morphology, or other pragmatic devices allow the interlocutor to infer who or what the other interlocutor is referring to. Japanese, for instance, allows this ‘‘pronoun-dropping’’ not only in subject position, but also in most grammatical contexts. Chinese also has frequent pronoun-dropping features. On the other hand, most Romance languages (French is the exception) only allow deletion of subject pronouns. Most languages, however, are considered non pronoun-dropping languages, including English.

Pause, reflect, and continue Think of two languages that you speak, have studied, or know of and make a list of some of the parametric variation differences between them.

Language is considered a system of systems.11 To put into practice the ability to organize and transmit thoughts and ideas, and ultimately communicate something to somebody, individuals have to articulate and

11. See chapter I in Plotkin (2006) for an excellent explanation of why languages are considered systems of systems.

What is Bilingualism?

5

string together sounds (phonological system), create units with meaning (morphological system), and form well-structured phrases and sentences (syntactic system). At the same time, if communication is to be deemed effective, individuals have to comply with rules that govern meaning and share a common lexicon (semantic system). But this is not enough; it is equally important to say what is appropriate given the context, as well as to have the skills to say what we want to say without actually saying it if the circumstances call or allow for it (pragmatic system). The word language has another very important meaning: it refers to the specific code system used by a community of speakers, like Aymara, Korean, and Swahili.12 This code system consists of various subsystems. If you think about the features that allow you to say assuredly that you speak language X, be it English, Italian or any other language, you will most likely allude to features related to phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and perhaps pragmatics. All the speakers of the same language X in your neighborhood, your community, your country, and even the world share, if not all, most of the elements of each subsystem with you. Moreover, the knowledge that a speaker has of the particular language and its subsystems is abstract.13 In other words, it exists in the mind of the individual, and in the overwhelming majority of the cases, he or she is unable to talk about it, describe it, or qualify it in the way that linguists and students of linguistics like you are able or will be able to. Once a speaker ‘‘accesses’’ this knowledge and begins producing utterances that most speakers of the same language would consider ‘‘correct,’’ we are talking about a dialect.

Pause, reflect, and continue Refer to the list of parametric features you created. Can you say if these differences are phonological, morphological, syntactical, lexical, or pragmatic?

Related to the meaning just discussed above is the use of the word languages to categorize them into families. For example, Catalan, French,

12. Saussure was the first one to make the distinction between language as a general concept and language as a specific linguistic system. He called them langage and langue (in French), respectively. See a collection of his lectures in de Saussure (2011). 13. Languages are also recursive and productive because a speaker can produce an infinite number of utterances. This is the main difference between natural languages and animal languages.

6

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Italian, Portuguese, Provenc- al, Romanian, and Spanish belong to the Romance languages family because they have their roots in Latin, which in turn derived from Italic. English, on the other hand, belongs to the Germanic languages family (West Germanic, to be specific), as well as Dutch, German, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Swedish, to name a few. All of these languages, as well as those belonging to the Albanian, Anatolian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Hellenic, Indo-Iranian, and Tochanian families derived from the Indo-European language. According to Lewis (2009), 45.67% of the entire population of the world speaks an IndoEuropean language (see Appendix 1). Other language families are the AfroAsiatic (6.03%), the Altaic (2.34%), the Austro-Asiatic (1.74%), the Austronesian (5.93%), the Dravidian (3.74%), the Japonic (2.07%), the Niger-Congo (6.41%), the Nilo-Saharan (.64%), the Sino-Tibetan (21.13%), and the Tai-Kadai (1.35%).

Pause, reflect, and continue Choose three of the language families mentioned in Appendix 1 and find out at least three features that languages in each family have in common.

Speakers of the same language use different words and grammatical structures. These differences are readily noticeable when one visits different countries where the same language is spoken and even when one travels through different parts of the same country. This phenomenon is explained by the fact that languages vary regionally and also socially, a natural process that all languages go through.14 These varieties of a language are called dialects. For many people, those who speak the most prestigious variety of a given language actually speak the language while those who speak other less prestigious varieties speak a dialect. That is not the case. As explained before, language is an abstract notion that refers to the knowledge that members of a community of speakers have about the code system they employ. A dialect, on the other hand, is the acoustic manifestation of this knowledge,

14. The study of linguistic variation is relatively young. It began in the 1960s with William Labov’s (1966) seminal work: The Social Stratification of English in New York City, which redefined how linguists collect data and set the agenda for variationist sociolinguistics. His later works (Labov, 1968; Labov, 1972a) are still regarded as some of the most significant contributions to the field.

What is Bilingualism?

7

or, in other words, what we actually say when we apply this unconscious knowledge to communicate with others. Consequently, everybody speaks a dialect, not a language. It is a well-accepted fact that, the more speakers a language has, the more dialects it has. This is particularly evident when there are geographical barriers that separate groups of speakers and when there are clear divisions among social classes.

Pause, reflect, and continue How many dialects of American English can you identify? In your opinion, which one is more prestigious? Explain why.

Perhaps the most recognizable features of a country’s or region’s dialect are those we perceive by listening to someone from that country or region. These features constitute what is called an accent, a distinctive pronunciation pattern that distinguishes a group of speakers from others and one individual from another. It is common to hear that people from Y have an accent, when in fact all of us have a particular accent. In linguistics, the particular linguistic system of an individual speaker is called an idiolect, one’s very own dialect.

Pause, reflect, and continue How is this notion of accent different from the accent we perceive sometimes when speaking to a nonnative speaker of English?

Dialectal differences in lexicon are sometimes more difficult to elicit and detect, especially if we do not have the opportunity to have a conversation about a topic that would trigger the use of different words and phrases among a number of speakers. Nonetheless, we are all familiar with many examples in English, such as elevator-lift, apartment-flat, and soda-pop. Dialects are also defined by the grammatical structures that speakers of a language use. Again, in a given conversation with someone, we might not have the chance to hear many structures that are different from the ones we are accustomed to using or hearing. However, there are numerous examples that help illustrate some of the features that are particular to some of the dialects of English, like Do you wanna go with? I be tired, and I was after getting married (I had just gotten married in Irish English).

8

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Pause, reflect, and continue Can you identify any phonological, morphological, syntactical, and lexical differences between the various dialects of American English that you listed earlier?

We have established that dialects are different manifestations of languages, but in some cases this distinction between language and dialect is not as clear-cut due to political, national, and cultural reasons. Take, for example, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. As Austin (2008) explains, their inhabitants technically speak different languages, but they are generally able to understand each other (p. 7). In this case, these three countries have had such unique and distinct political systems, cultural achievements, and histories that it seems logical to say that each one has its own language. In contrast, the spoken forms of Cantonese, Mandarin, and the other so-called dialects of Chinese are not always mutually intelligible, but given the geographical distribution of their speakers, they continue to be called dialects, not languages (Austin, 2008, p. 7). As mentioned earlier, for some people the term dialect has a negative connotation. They associate it with a way of speaking that is ‘‘substandard’’ or less prestigious. This usually means speaking in a way that differs significantly from the written form of the language and with numerous phonological, morphological, and syntactic ‘‘alterations.’’ Unfortunately, the use of this so-called substandard manifestation of the language is generally attributed to the lower class and the less educated, which adds to the negative value associated with the word dialect. In other cases, the belief that this word somehow implies that the person speaks a less prestigious form of the language simply reflects the low prestige attributed to the specific group of which the speaker is a member. This group may be a sector of society, a particular social class, a region of a country, or even a country. For these reasons, it has become increasingly common to avoid using the term dialect in favor of the term linguistic variety (or just variety). In linguistics, no language variety has ‘‘incorrect’’ forms. The idea of ‘‘correctness’’ is based on subjective arguments that have nothing to do with the intrinsic value that a variety may or may not have. Also, those who single out specific forms as ‘‘incorrect’’ fail to take into account the real purpose of language (communication) and the fact that people use the linguistic forms that allow them to function in a particular community, not necessarily those that others think are ‘‘correct.’’ They also fail to recognize that languages and language varieties are not isolated from each other: they are used by the members of a speech community to communicate with one another, but also to communicate with members of other speech communities.

What is Bilingualism?

9

Variety also refers to the various forms of linguistic expression and style that can be identified given a series of variables like location, age, occupation, sex, register, and the like. In this sense, there are multiple varieties in a dialect (or variety); that is why in some cases it is more appropriate to speak of macro or microdialects and macro or microvarieties. Consider, for example, the macrovariety of Spanish spoken in Buenos Aires, Argentina. If we conducted a study that focused on the formal speech of women between the ages of 20 and 35 who work for the government, we would be dealing with a microvariety of Buenos Aires Spanish.

Pause, reflect, and continue Have you or anybody you know ever made a comment about the ‘‘correctness’’ of a particular language variety? What was this judgment based on?

1.2. What is the ‘‘Standard’’? As we have stated before, every language has multiple varieties that are equally valid for they serve the communicative needs of their speakers. In theory, no variety is better, more appropriate, or more acceptable than the others. Human beings use language to transmit meaning, make sense of the world, and establish social relationships with those around them, and no one can dispute that every single variety of a given language actually fulfills those goals. Although this is an unquestionable truth, the fact that every language has many different varieties sometimes leads to tensions and perceptions that make people favor one variety over the others, the variety that is known as the standard.15 The ‘‘Singlish debate’’ (Bokhorst-Heng, 2005) is a very interesting example that illustrates the tension that arises when people begin to explore issues related to linguistic standards. Singlish is a colloquial variety of English spoken in Singapore ‘‘accepted by some as an essential marker of Singaporean identity but deplored by others as a variety of English that puts Singapore and Singaporeans at a disadvantage because of its lack of international intelligibility’’ (Chng, 2008, p. 45). The local government has taken an anti-Singlish position through a campaign known as ‘‘Speak Good English Movement’’ that clashes with the pro-Singlish attitudes of most

15. See a discussion on the importance of the process of legitimization and its contribution to the standard language culture in Milroy (2001).

10

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Singaporeans (Chng, 2008; Wee, 2011) and ignores the reality of life in Singapore. According to Chng (2003, p. 57), the official goal of prioritizing Singapore’s economy is in conflict with the citizens’ personal desires, a situation in which power has not been manufactured via consent and consensus. Interestingly, the government has also shifted towards a discourse that asserts the economic value of the local mother tongues (Malay, Mandarin, and Tamil), what Wee (2008) calls ‘‘linguistic instrumentalism.’’16 This has resulted in a dual pragmatic view of language in which the mother tongues represent tradition and culture whereas English represents economy and technology. Many people consider the ‘‘standard’’ variety of a language the one that, in its spoken form, resembles the most the written language. In most cases, this variety has a pronunciation pattern that does not include many of the phonological processes that affect all natural languages, like neutralization and deletion. Morphosyntactically speaking, this variety adheres to the rules of word formation and word order that usually appear in grammar books, giving the impression that those who speak it, speak a variety unmarked by any sort of feature that could be considered different or too deviant from the norm. This notion of standard is problematic on several levels. First, languages and their varieties are primarily oral. When speaking, there is a level of spontaneity, reciprocity, and immediacy that is not present in most writing acts. When writing, an individual must adhere to a number of rules and conventions (orthography, punctuation, etc.) that simply do not concern us in most speaking acts. In addition, writing usually has a higher degree of formality and its purpose is to graphically represent what we would otherwise express verbally. Saying that the written language influences the spoken language suggests the opposite. Furthermore, in reality, there is no direct correspondence between how a person who supposedly speaks the ‘‘standard’’ variety speaks and the written representation of what he or she says. Speaking involves pausing, repeating, interrupting, and many other strategies that are not associated with writing. Also, when using an informal register, the tendency to use these strategies and integrate phonological, morphological, and syntactic features that are considered ‘‘nonstandard’’ increases. Language is too complex and flexible to be reduced to such artificial arguments.

16. Wee’s (2011) notion of linguistic instrumentalism is based on previous work by Giddens (1990) and Heller (1999a, 1999b). In particular, he draws upon Heller’s (1999a) observations that the process of globalization involves commodification of language (language as a commodity), pressures toward language standardization for international visibility, and valuing of local characteristics in order to project distinctness in global markets of culture and tourism.

What is Bilingualism?

11

In some countries, the language variety spoken in the capital city is the one considered the ‘‘standard.’’ That is the case in France, where Parisian French is regarded as the prestigious variety.17 Generally speaking, capital cities are the centers of cultural activity and political power from which information is disseminated. Mass media obviously plays a key role in this dissemination, and many people point to the variety spoken by television and radio personalities as ‘‘the model to be followed,’’ particularly the variety spoken by news broadcasters. The influence of capital cities goes hand-in-hand with economic status: in many countries, most people with money and power live in the capital city, where they can conduct their business, have access to cultural events, and, in some cases, participate in the political arena. This notion of standard is equally problematic. First, perceptions of what the standard is normally cut across regional boundaries. For this reason, it is almost impossible to define the standard of a particular country as the variety spoken by those who live within the limits of the capital city. Languages are permeable, and given the continuous flow of people who move to and from most capital cities, it is safe to say that the varieties spoken there are not homogeneous entities that remain static long enough for us to actually be able to define any of them as ‘‘the variety spoken in the capital city.’’ Furthermore, this era of globalization, in which even people who live in remote areas become consumers of information readily available through the Internet and other forms of media, has made city and national boundaries less relevant and well-defined. As a result, claiming that the variety spoken in the capital city is the national standard is becoming more and more difficult to substantiate.

Pause, reflect, and continue Do an informal survey to find what people think is the standard variety of English and why. Do the same for any other languages that you speak. What do your findings reveal?

People’s ideas of what the word standard means often help them categorize their environments in terms of membership and nonmembership. Socializing with others based on linguistic similarities is part of our human

17. Parisian French is also recognized as the standard in other countries where French is spoken, such as in the Sub-Saharan nations where French is the official language. In Frenchspeaking Canada, however, Quebecois is the ‘‘standard’’ variety.

12

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

experience and nature, even in situations of monolingualism and apparent non-variation, and these similarities are usually associated with speaking the standard. For most people, ‘‘the others,’’ the nonmembers of the group, speak a different form of the language commonly labeled ‘‘a dialect,’’ with the connotation that their speech is ‘‘nonstandard.’’ In fact, some people also apply the same reasoning when referring to the speech of peoples from developing countries, which shows that they are completely unable to differentiate between a language and a dialect or variety. The question of what constitutes the standard takes a critical dimension in the education field. This is an issue that educators, program developers, and authors of instructional materials have debated for decades. At the heart of the issue is the question of what variety of a language is better suited for instruction and language acquisition and what features of the favored variety should be included in the materials that educators and learners will use.18 As we all know, planning for language instruction and designing the instruments that will facilitate this instruction involve selecting from a huge repertoire of linguistic options (lexical items, grammar forms, etc.) and culturally rich stimuli (readings, art, realia, etc.); making these selections inherently entails favoring certain items over others, and in the majority of the cases, the notion of what the standard is and is not dictates, or at least informs, these decisions. Professionals in the education field, however, have tried for a long time now to choose items that would allow learners to function in a wide variety of settings with a variety of interlocutors to communicate a wide variety of meanings. This is true especially in the foreign language education field. The overwhelming majority of programs that prepare future language educators include courses that not only explore the issue of the standard and standardization, but also courses that train them to make sound decisions based on the language(s) they will teach, the student populations that they will most likely serve, and the resources available.19

18. McGroarty (1996) argues that this challenge ‘‘requires teachers to design and implement methods, materials, and activities which allow repeated use of many language varieties, including but not necessarily limited to the standard, in different communicative contexts.’’ She adds that ‘‘this diversification of opportunities to produce appropriate language forms and functions is equally important in second language y and native language literacy settings’’ (p. 25). 19. In the United States, organizations like NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education), which oversee the accreditation of teacher education programs, have adopted the standards proposed by ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) as the measure of the effectiveness of foreign language teacher education programs. These standards, prepared in 2002 by a special team of experts in second language acquisition and language teaching, were published as Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign

What is Bilingualism?

13

Despite the problems that defining and operationalizing the standard creates, providing a working definition is in line with the purpose of this book. Linguists have discussed for many years the existence of an implicit linguistic norm, a way of speaking that is valued by all societies that use a particular language. If we propose the notion of a linguistic norm as the foundation of what constitutes the standard, we are not necessarily excluding other varieties or making judgments about their value or appropriateness in any particular setting, and as discussed thus far, this is crucial. The standard may be, thus, a variety of a language that most, if not all, speakers of a language understand, a variety of the language that is the byproduct of formal education. As Silva Corvala´n (2001, p. 18) argues, schooling levels out some of the differences between language varieties precisely by imposing a linguistic norm. This definition permits us to discard notions of standard that are solely based on regional factors and really look at the core, the commonalities among language varieties spoken in multiple places.20

Pause, reflect, and continue Do you agree with this definition of ‘‘standard’’? Why? Do you think it is applicable to the foreign and second language field? Explain.

We are fully aware that the definition that we are adopting for the purpose of this book is as arbitrary as any other. In addition, since assuming

Language Teachers (available at http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket ¼ % 2fudOr9ZQCW0%3d&tabid ¼ 676). The accrediting organization–ACTFL relationship has been criticized by Osborn (2006), who, referring specifically to the situation in the state of Connecticut, says that preservice teachers ‘‘potentially see ACTFL not as a network of supportive colleagues and resources, but as an evaluative body that can ‘make or break’ a person’s entry into the profession’’ (p. 49). 20. Myers-Scotton (1988, p. 26) provides a set of ‘‘overlapping criteria for identifying the standard dialect of any language,’’ some of which we have discussed and rejected.  Used in written works of a serious nature (but not necessarily in all fiction or poetry).  Spoken by most ‘‘people of power and/or prestige,’’ with ‘‘power’’ and ‘‘prestige’’ defined by community norms. (Not all such people speak the standard dialect; many politicians are notable exceptions.)  Spoken by broadcasters on national radio or television network news programs.  Taught as a subject to native speakers in the public schools (although this criterion assumes the teacher recognizes the standard dialect and uses it).  Taught to students who study the language as a second language.

14

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

that there is ‘‘a standard’’ inevitably implies that other varieties are ‘‘nonstandard,’’ we would like to stress, once again, that no language variety is less logical or sophisticated than another; it is just different.

1.3. The Role and Importance of Culture Everything that exists in a culture also exists in the language spoken by the people associated with this culture. It would be difficult to conceive the existence of, say, a cultural artifact for which those who identify with it have not created a name. Does this mean that language is culture dependent or is it the other way around? This is not an easy question to answer because for most people language and culture simply go together. As Duranti (1997, p. 49) says, language is ‘‘a conceptual and social tool that is both a product and an instrument of culture.’’ Languages are transmitted from generation to generation within a cultural context. Also, the language learning process and the culture learning process are simultaneous. Environmental learning plays a key role in the human language, not just instinct or innate predispositions, as in animal communication systems. Although they go together, language influences culture. A simple example is what happens when people get together to converse. As Mannheim and Tedlock (1995, p. 2) claim, ‘‘cultures are continuously produced, reproduced, and revised in dialogues among their members.’’ These dialogues are sustained through language and they can potentially impact the way people and communities perceive the world. We could think of many moments in history when ideas changed and evolved thanks to interactions that took place through language. In addition, when conversing, people create a sense of community, the community where culture flourishes and where it is transformed. Think of all the paintings, songs, poems, plays, billboards, festivals, holidays, and other cultural practices and products that would not exist had people not had some sort of contact through language at a given moment in time. Language can also influence the way in which a society interacts with the rest of the world and portrays itself as its own cultural identity separate from the rest. Think of all the words and expressions used in different parts of the English-speaking world, like G’day, mate, Ya mon!, and That is brilliant, isn’t it?, and how we almost instantly can pinpoint the origin of the speaker (in this case, Australia, Jamaica, and Great Britain, respectively). Also, think about the world conflicts that have erupted partly because of linguistic differences, laws that have been passed for fear of the effect that other languages may have on a particular society, and attitudes that are molded based on how and what others speak. The opposite is also true: cultures influence languages. This is precisely what has happened through the evolution of languages and language

What is Bilingualism?

15

varieties. Take, for example, what is still happening in the republics of the former Soviet Union. During the communist era, most native languages were suppressed at the expense of Russian, but most of these republics have now readopted them. Russian is still widely spoken, but it is not recognized as a state language in any of the countries that form the commonwealth of independent states, with the exception of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Something similar happened after the Franco era ended in Spain in 1975 with Basque, Catalan and Galician. Another example is the language of the Zuni Native Americans, in which the difference between yellow and orange is not as relevant as for other cultures, so they do not have different words to refer to these colors. However, they do use different word roots to distinguish between things that are yellow as opposed to things that have become yellow. Finally, most languages used around the world today have integrated words related to technologies due to the impact that a handful of cultures have had in the last few decades.

Pause, reflect, and continue There is still some debate on whether Eskimos really have many words for different forms of ice and snow. If the argument were true, what would it tell us? And if it were false, would that provide substantial evidence to claim that culture does not necessarily influence language? Explain.

1.4. Notions of Prestige, Identity, Attitudes, and Ideologies As mentioned before, the perceived prestige that a language or variety has is based on extralinguistic factors.21 Every language and variety functions well as a means of communication for those who speak it, and communication between them is neither affected nor ruled by the features that some may consider ‘‘non-prestigious.’’ Therefore, from a linguistic point of view, no language or variety can be seen as more prestigious than another because attributing more or less prestige to them would imply overlooking the value that they have for the communities where they are spoken.

21. Mackey (1989) explains that prestige is often confused with function and status. He explains that the prestige of a language depends on its record (the past) while its function depends on what people actually do with it (the present). On the other hand, the status of a language depends on what people can do with it, its potential (the future) (p. 4).

16

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Despite this undeniable linguistic truth, numerous sociolinguistic studies have proved that there is a universal tendency to assign the same value, positive or negative, associated with a group of people to the language or language variety they speak (Milroy, 2012, p. 572). In other words, the prestige or lack thereof that a language or a variety has depends on how those making judgment perceive the people who use the particular language or variety as their communication code. This shows that attitudes do matter; they help shape our ideas of how others speak and condition how we assess the level of correctness, appropriateness, and value of their speech. Such is the case of Turks in Germany, the country with the biggest Turkish diaspora in the entire world.22 The general sentiment is that German and Turkish cultures do not complement each other, and Islamophobia may be playing a part in this rejection. These feelings have translated into a lack of acceptance and appreciation of the Turkish language. There have been attempts to create Turkish language schools, but some claim that this would impede integration. Likewise, many speakers of Spanish believe that most Spanish speakers from the Caribbean are not well educated and that their cultures are not as sophisticated as others, perhaps as a result of the precarious political and economic situation in the region — especially in Cuba and the Dominican Republic. These same individuals usually regard Caribbean Spanish as ‘‘substandard,’’ especially because ‘‘they eat up some of the letters.’’23 Ironically, it is not at all uncommon to hear speakers of one of the Caribbean varieties of Spanish make similar comments about the others, which further supports the veracity of the sociolinguistic statement made above.

Pause, reflect, and continue Unfortunately, the example of Turkish in Germany is not unique. Can you provide others? Are they caused by the same type of ideas? Explain.

Language helps define, mold, and transmit the culture of the people who live in a specific location at a certain period time. Interactions between individuals who live in the same community and their exchanges of meaning through language help them co-construct what we know as culture (Mannheim & Tedlock, 1995). But language has another key role in society: it determines how we characterize our own individual identities, our identity as a group, and our identity as a society to the rest of the world

22. See Avci and Kiris- ci (2008) for details about the dynamics of emigration from Turkey to Europe and the impact on host cities as well as on Turkey. 23. See Lipski (1994) for an overview of the features of these varieties of Spanish.

What is Bilingualism?

17

(Bucholtz & Hall, 2003; Mendoza-Denton, 2004; Norton, 2010). If we hear people around us speaking a language different from ours and we can identify it, most of us automatically relate those speakers to a country or group of countries, a history, a set of specific experiences, and a place in the world (in terms of political and economic status, well-known figures and celebrities, prominence in the news, etc.). What we are doing is assigning an identity (or identities), real or invented, based on a linguistic event. Needless to say, everything encompassed in this act of identity assignment may or may not mirror what the people having the conversation in this foreign language have accepted as their individual identities, the identity of their group, and the identity they want to project to nonmembers of their group. Language as a transmitter of aspects of our identity may serve different purposes. When people want to highlight the characteristics, behaviors, and ideologies that make them similar to their interlocutors, language works as a vehicle to signal and strengthen in-group relations (Gal, 1987; Romaine, 2000; Rothman & Rell, 2005). This is common among members of the same (sub)groups, which include social classes; relationships based on kinship, friendship, and similar activities; ethnicities; and nationalities. Milroy (2004, p. 549) calls an individual’s ‘‘aggregate of relationships contracted by others’’ a social network. In some cases, nonetheless, individuals feel the need to signal the opposite: that they perceive themselves as different from others, and, therefore, that they do not belong to the same group (or perhaps that they belong to a subgroup of the larger group). One of the ways in which these differences can be shown is through language (Cameron, 1995). In other situations, the person might not necessarily be signaling his or her position as an in-group or out-group member; instead, he or she may simply be manifesting one of multiple aspects of his or her identity (MyersScotton, 1988). It is important, however, to keep in mind that ‘‘language is not by itself the exclusive determiner of social grouping since language gets entangled with other indicators of group membership’’ (Nin˜o-Murcia & Rothman, 2008, p. 12). There are different ideas of how identities are constructed that vary on the place and role of language. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985), for instance, talk about acts of identity. They see identity as plural: depending on context, individuals’ linguistic behaviors change in order to show different forms of identity and manage the various social roles they have. Their ideas of norms, standards, and stereotypes do play a part in the nature of these contexts. Cameron (2001) sees identity as the result of doing something. From this point of view, our identities and attitudes are the products of our behavior, not the other way around. Similarly, Butler (1990) and Pennycook (2003) focus on the active nature of identity construction, but they conceptualize it as an act of ‘‘performativity.’’ This notion involves performing our identities through language, not using language based on our identities (cf. Liebkind, 1999). All in all, current notions of identity focus

18

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

on the idea that identity requires a continuous and evolving process of creation, recreation, negotiation, and renegotiation (Mannheim & Tedlock, 1995, p. 3).24 There are cases in which speaking (or not speaking) the language of the group does not correlate with identity. Let us consider the case of Hispanics in the United States. Many second, third, and fourth generation Hispanics of all origins claim to not speak Spanish fluently. Their knowledge and use of the language is limited, in many cases, to the home environment. In the most extreme cases, they can recognize and use a limited number of words and phrases associated with the homelands of their parents and grandparents, but their ability to successfully sustain conversations in the language and the possibility that they could teach Spanish to their children are practically nonexistent. These individuals function in a world where English is not just the dominant language; it is the only language used in the work environment, with friends and family, and to socialize in general. Nonetheless, study after study has shown that these second, third, and fourth generation Hispanics identify themselves as such and embrace their individual national labels (see, e.g., Lamboy, 2011; Zentella, 1997). Furthermore, the majority still celebrates holidays and other festivities from their motherlands. For them, not knowing Spanish does not have a negative effect on their identity as Hispanics from the United States; they see language and identity as two separate aspects of who they are.

Pause, reflect, and continue Think of the relationship between your own sense of identity and the language(s) that you speak. How would you describe it? If your parents speak/spoke a language that you do not speak fluently, do you identify yourself with the culture where it is spoken? Explain.

Issues of identity of second and foreign language learners, especially those acquiring a language in a country where it is spoken, are of particular interest to linguists. In fact, research in this area has gained significant momentum and has become a prominent area in the second language acquisition field. As Norton and Toohey (2011) explain, current theories of identity ‘‘highlight the diverse positions from which language learners are

24. This perspective reveals a constructivist approach to identity formation. See Hidalgo (2008) for a detailed discussion of primordialist, constructivist, and post-modern perspectives to explain language and identity formation.

What is Bilingualism?

19

able to participate in social life, and demonstrate how learners can, but sometimes cannot, appropriate more desirable identities with respect to the target language community’’ (p. 414). They add that individuals in a new linguistic setting sometimes assume identity positions that constrain their chances to use the language — be it by speaking, listening, reading, or writing — while other times they assume positions that do provide opportunities for more linguistic interactions and agency. This draws attention to the need to see language learners in a larger social context. Furthermore, the authors point out that, the more successful individuals are at assuming more powerful identities, the better their chances are of enhancing their language acquisition and the more access they have to practices and resources available in their specific settings (p. 415). This has very important implications for school administrators and teachers. In their discussion about Weedon’s (1997) poststructuralist work, Norton and Toohey say that ‘‘pedagogical practices have the potential to be transformative in offering language learners more powerful positions than those they may occupy either inside or outside the classroom’’ (p. 417). This is a call for educators to not only get to know learners at a deeper level, but also to understand the relationship between language and identity, and create a classroom environment where learners can discuss, explore, and experience different positions that they can later assume in real life. Norton’s (2001) work on imagined communities and imagined identities in second language acquisition also sheds light on the importance of learners’ ideas of what they and their communities will be like when they become functional users of the target language (TL) spoken in their new societies. As she claims, ‘‘There is a focus on the future when learners imagine who they might be, and who their communities might be, when they learn a language y . Such communities include affiliations, such as nationhood or even transnational communities, which extend beyond local sets of relationships’’ (p. 422). In her opinion, these communities may have a strong impact on how much learners ‘‘invest’’ in the TL and, consequently, how many symbolic and material resources they acquire and how much their cultural capitals increase in value. She goes further and says that not being aware of learners’ imagined communities and imagined identities ‘‘could hinder a teacher’s ability to construct learning activities in which learners can invest’’ (p. 422).

Pause, reflect, and continue How do you think language teachers can motivate students to start thinking about their imagined identities? What types of activities do you think would work best?

20

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

1.5. Languages and Dialects in Contact The term language and dialect contact refers to a situation in which two or more languages interact with each other via their speakers within the same geographical limits. This is a phenomenon that has been common throughout much of human history and has had an impact on hundreds of millions of people all over the world. In some cases, it has been the result of contact between peoples who speak different languages or varieties and have dealings with each other. This is the case in sub-Saharan Africa, a territory fragmented into numerous villages and towns. Also, in Switzerland, German and the local variety of French have influenced each other, whereas in Scotland, the same has occurred between English and the Scots language. In other cases, however, language contact has been caused by imperialism, migration, slavery, and wars, forces that have yielded conditions of social inequality. These are situations where emotions and perceptions are nothing but neutral (Thomason & Kaufman, 1988; Weinreich, 1953). Descriptions of the effects of language and language variety contact often to refer to issues of convergence and divergence.25 The term convergence, which derived from Giles (1973) speech accommodation theory, is ‘‘a strategy whereby individuals adapt to each other’s communicative behaviors in terms of a wide range of linguistic-prosodic-nonverbal features’’ (Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991, p. 7).26 Originally applied to describe the accent convergence that took place when an interviewee ‘‘converged’’ his or her accent to that of the interviewer in a sociolinguistic interview situation, the notion of convergence was later applied to language contact and language switching contexts.27 Languages do not have to be genetically related for language convergence to occur; the requirement is for languages to be in geographical proximity and have extensive contact so they can become similar in some way and form what is called a Sprachbund. The Balkan Sprachbund, for example, comprises Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Macedonian, Romani, and Romanian. Despite the fact that these languages do not

25. See Sankoff (2001) for a comprehensive discussion of the linguistic consequences of language contact. 26. Following Giles (1973) work, Trudgill (1983) describes the act of accommodation as ‘‘adjustments in pronunciation and other aspects of linguistic behavior in terms of a drive to approximate one’s language to that of one’s interlocutor, if they are regarded as socially desirable and/or if the speaker wishes to identify them with them and/or demonstrate good will towards them’’ (p. 143). 27. Some of the early studies include Beebe (1981), Welkowitz, Bond, and Felstein (1984), Gorter (1987), and Kontra and Gosy (1987).

What is Bilingualism?

21

come from the same Indo-European family, they share several signs of grammatical convergence, including future tense formation and infinitive avoidance. There is also evidence of a Meso-American, an Ethiopian, a South Asian, an Amerindian Pacific Northwest, and a Daly River area of Australia Sprachbund, among others (Heine & Kuteva, 2005, p. 173). Divergence (Bourhis & Giles, 1977), the opposite of convergence, is the strategy speakers use to accentuate speech and nonverbal differences and, in a way, distinguish themselves from others.28 This nomenclature has been used more recently to explain different linguistic phenomena around the world. For example, Boas (2009) uncovered a loss of the dative case in favor of accusative case among speakers of German in Texas. The author explains it as a case of dialect convergence caused by internal factors, a process that began when speakers of different German dialects came into contact during the first decades of German settlement in Texas (p. 369). Burnet’s (2006) study, on the contrary, revealed a different linguistic outcome; she argues that speakers of English in St. Stephen, Canada, a town on the border between Maine and New Brunswick, ‘‘show evidence of strong or growing resistance to American forms on nine of the 16 variables investigated’’ (p. 171).29 Based on her findings and on those of other studies, the author adds that ‘‘respondents in this area appear to be actively resisting assimilation or, put positively, asserting their identity in an aggressive, albeit subtle, manner’’ (p. 172). Numerous studies have focused on dialectal convergence and divergence, while others have discussed several different conceptualizations of how new dialects form (Britain & Trudgill, 1999; Trudgill, 1988; Trudgill, Gordon, Lewis, & Maclagan, 2000). For instance, in his study of six Canadian youngsters who moved to southern England, Chambers (1992) proposes eight principles of dialect acquisition.30 They are: 1. Lexical replacements are acquired faster than pronunciation and phonological variants

28. Bourhis and Giles (1977) and Bourhis, Giles, Leyens, and Tajfel (1979) are two of the first studies that used divergence as a mechanism to explain this phenomenon. 29. Some of the variables were the pairs wants out versus wants to go out, tap versus faucet, and pop versus soda, and the phonetic realization of anti- ([i] versus [aj]), lever ([ij] versus [e]), and progress ([o] versus [y]). 30. Chambers (1992) prefers to use the term acquisition instead of accommodation because he is a speaker of Canadian English, just like the six subjects interviewed in his study. As he explains, the interviewees did not have to accommodate to him in any direction. He adds that ‘‘the SEE [Southern England English] features that occurred in the subjects’ CE [Canadian English] dialects in this register could reasonably be considered irrepressible acquisitions rather than ephemeral accommodations’’ (p. 676).

22

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

2. Lexical replacements occur rapidly in the first stage of dialect acquisition and then slow down 3. Simple phonological rules progress faster than complex ones 4. Acquisition of complex rules and new phonemes splits the population into early acquirers and later acquirers 5. In the earliest stages of acquisition, both categorical rules and variable rules of the new dialect result in variability in the acquirers31 6. Phonological innovations are actuated as pronunciation variants32 7. Eliminating old rules occurs more rapidly than acquiring new ones 8. Orthographically distinct variants are acquired faster than orthographically obscure ones Since these principles apply unequally to various linguistic levels (i.e., lexical level, phonological level, etc.), Chambers emphasizes that they are not equivalent, although pronunciation variants are similar to phonology in terms of acquisition time. He also says that, based on his analysis, the principles are not mutually exclusive, and he cautions that ‘‘The work of unraveling their relative strengths poses a considerable challenge [for researchers]’’ (p. 702). The applicability and generalizability of these principles in other dialect contact situations remains to be investigated.33 Kerswill and Trudgill (2005) discuss five stages or processes for the birth of new dialects.34 The first one is mixing, which refers to the coexistence of dialectal features following the migration of people who speak mutually intelligible language varieties in a ‘‘linguistically ‘virgin’ territory’’ (p. 196). Next is leveling, characterized by the selection of forms found in the dialectal mix. Third is interdialectal development. According to the authors, this is when new forms not present in any of the varieties in the mix are developed. The fourth stage is reallocation, which occurs when left over variants survive as social class, stylistic, or allophonic variants of the new dialect. Finally, focusing is the process that takes place when the new variety acquires norms and stability. Since new dialect formation is never instantaneous, Kerswill

31. Categorical rules are those that allow for the realization of only one variant of a particular feature of a language or language variety. Variable rules, on the contrary, allow for multiple realizations or variants of the same feature. As Labov (1973) argues, variable rules explain variation. 32. A variant is one of the possible manifestations of a linguistic variable. For example, if we consider the pronunciation of syllable- and word-final /s/ in certain varieties of Spanish, the variants are retention ([s]), aspiration ([h]), and deletion ([Ø]). As Labov (1972b, p. 122) says, ‘‘[t]he study of social variation in language is simply one of many aspects of the study of variant linguistic structures.’’ 33. See Chambers (2002) for a discussion about dialect acquisition and mobility. 34. This was based on an earlier work by Kerswill and Williams (2000).

What is Bilingualism?

23

and Trudgill argue that ‘‘we can expect these stages to be characterized by a number of processes, both linguistic and social-psychological, which may be found in one or more of the chronological stages’’ (p. 197). They also claim that nonlinguistic factors and social divisions may determine the rapidity with which a new speech community is formed and the appearance of different sociolects. A model previously discussed in Trudgill (1988) and Trudgill et al. (2000) takes into account the generational factor in the stages of new dialect formation. The first stage, characterized by rudimentary leveling, is associated with first generation adult migrants who avoid marked forms to maintain intelligibility among all speakers, accommodate, and prevent being stigmatized. Extreme inter- and intra-individual variability and further leveling are the linguistic characteristics of the second stage, which involves first native-born speakers of the second generation. The third and last stage is evidenced in subsequent generations; it corresponds to the focusing, leveling, and reallocation stages proposed by Kerswill and Trudgill (2005). It is in this third stage that the new dialect appears, in which, as Kerswill and Trudgill say, ‘‘focusing may take several generations to occur, and, in some cases, it may never be completed’’ (p. 201). One of the most common results of language contact is known as borrowing, when a word or linguistic feature of a language is adopted by another. The borrowing is considered bidirectional if the most prestigious language — known as superstratum — borrows from the less prestigious language — known as substratum — and vice versa. If, on the other hand, only one of the languages adopts features from the other, the borrowing is unidirectional. The very nature of language makes unidirectional borrowing less common than bidirectional borrowing, and when that is the case, the substratum language is most likely the one doing the borrowing. There are many examples of lexical borrowing. The English language, just to reference one language, has adopted numerous words from French (e.g., annoy, local, precaution, and sample), Latin (e.g., agenda, census, via, and many words and roots related to medicine), Spanish (e.g., armada, conquistador, fiesta, and rodeo), and other languages. It has also created calques (translations of idioms or other phrases) such as worldview (from German) and it goes without saying (from French). Structural borrowings may affect the phonological, morphological, and syntactic systems of the borrowing language. Some examples from English include the final sound in words like camouflage and massage (from French); the prefix hyper-, as in hyperactive (from Greek); and the suffix -able, as in desirable (from Latin). Syntactic borrowing is rare. An example, although not from English, is the creation of a postposed definite article in Bulgarian due to the influence of Romanian.

24

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Linguistic borrowing is determined by several factors. For instance, if a language is considered more prestigious than another, known as a super/ substratal relation, borrowing tends to be unidirectional from the superstratum to the substratum language. Such is the case in contact situations between Spanish and many of the indigenous languages in Central and South America. However, if both languages are considered equally prestigious by their speakers, a situation known as adstratal relation, borrowing tends to be bidirectional. French, Dutch, and German, for example, are in adstratal relation in Belgium, where they are considered official languages. Intensity of contact is another key factor. When there is low intensity contact and there is limited interaction between the speakers of both languages, we might only see lexical borrowing. Structural borrowing, on the other hand, requires more frequent and consistent interaction. This high intensity contact is facilitated through interactions in social institutions that have traditionally homogenized diverse groups of peoples, such as schools.

Pause, reflect, and continue Based on the definition provided, what makes borrowing different from the code-switching that many bilingual speakers often do? Please explain.

Another possible result of language contact is the so-called language shift: when a group of speakers shifts from using a language that is usually considered less prestigious to using a language of high prestige. As one can imagine, this process takes time. A shift that is slow normally entails the use of both the substratum and the superstratum languages bilingually, a linguistic situation that may last several generations. Many peoples who have been conquered and colonized by more politically powerful nation states have experienced this type of shift. Some examples of communities that have shifted or are currently in the process of shifting slowly from one language to another include Belarus (from Belarusian to Russian); Carinthia, Austria (from Slovenian to German); French Flanders (from Dutch to French); Malta (from Italian to English); and Vietnam (from French to Vietnamese). In some cases, language shift has been fast and has only taken one generation. This type of shift has been exemplified by migrant groups that have rapidly become part of the fabric of the host nation and have assimilated the superstratum language fairly quickly. In these cases, the influence that the substratum languages leaves on the more prestigious language is modest because there is a short period of linguistic contact. For the most part, and with very few exceptions, this was the case of the

What is Bilingualism?

25

languages spoken by the immigrants who arrived in the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly German, Irish, and Italian.

Pause, reflect, and continue Do you think language shift is unavoidable? If not, what types of measures can a government or community takes to stop it? Give specific examples.

When three or more languages come into contact they sometimes become what is known as pidgin. A pidgin is a common code used specifically by people whose first languages are different but need to communicate in business and trading situations. It is always learned as a second language, so nobody speaks a pidgin as a native language (Nanda & Warms, 2010, p. 113). Most of the linguistic features of a pidgin come from the most prestigious language, partly because the speakers of the other languages have economic interest in being able to communicate with those who speak it. Also, pidgins have ample simplification of forms, especially when the languages in contact do not have many linguistic forms and structures in common. This has led some to believe that pidgins are oversimplified forms of multiple languages, when in fact they can be considered fully functioning communication systems (cf. Romaine, 1999). Some examples of pidgin languages are Krio (Sierra Leone), TokPisin (in Papua New Guinea), and Cameroonian (Cameroon). Amongst the main features of pidgin languages we find:  absence of embedded clauses (simple clausal structure)  preference for vowel-ending syllables  simplified verbal inflection (elimination of person, number, and tense markers)  SVO word order  absence of articles  use of separate words to indicate verb tense  use of reduplication to indicate plurality, superlatives, or to distinguish words

Pause, reflect, and continue Compare the Lord’s Prayer version in TokPisin with the English version. Papa bilongmipela Yu stap long heven.

26

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Nembilongyu i mas i stapholi. Kingdom bilongyu i mas i kam. Strongimmipela long bihainimlaikbilongyu long graun, olsemol i bihainim long heven. Givimmipelakaikaiinap long tude. Pogivimrongbilongmipela, olsemmipela i pogivimolarapela i mekimrong long mipela. Sambai long mipela long taimbilongtraim. Na rausimolgetasamtingnogut long mipela. Kingdom na strong naglori, em i bilongyutasololtaimoltaim. Tru.

When a pidgin is widely used and spread to the point that it is transmitted to new generations as their native language, it becomes a creole. This process is called creolization, a manifestation of another process called naturalization. Creolization involves, among other things, social and linguistic stabilization; the pidgin has to be able to transform into a lexically rich and morphosyntactically efficient communication system. Otherwise, the pidgin continues to be a language used primarily for interactions determined entirely by specific practical reasons, not by the communicative needs of an entire community. Creoles are grouped based on the superstratum language that served as the main contributor of lexical items and forms in the creation of the pidgin that eventually became a creole language. Here is a list of some of the creole languages spoken around the world: English-based creoles:  Belizean Creole — English, Miskito — a Native American language — and West African languages  Hawaiian Pidgin — English, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Japanese, and Portuguese  Jamaican Patois — English and West African languages  Miskito Coastal Creole (Nicaragua) — English, Miskito, and West African languages  Saramacaan (Suriname) — English, Dutch, and Portuguese French-based creoles:  Haitian Creole — French, African languages, and some Arabic, Spanish, Taino, Arawak, and English  Louisiana Creole — French, Spanish, African languages, and Native American languages

What is Bilingualism?

27

 French Guiana Creole — French, Brazilian Portuguese, Amerindian, and African languages Chinese-based creoles:  Singdarin (Singapore) — Mandarin, Engish, Malay, and other Chinese varieties Portuguese-based creoles:  Papiamento (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curac- ao) — Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, African languages, and Arawak  Sri Lanka Indo-Portuguese — Portuguese, Spanish, English, Dutch, Tamil, and Sinhalese Spanish-based creoles:  Chavacano/Chabacano (Philippines) — Spanish and Austronesian languages  Palenquero (San Basilio de Palenque and some parts of Barranquilla, Colombia) — Spanish and West African languages

Pause, reflect, and continue Explain what makes Jamaican English a variety of the English language and Jamaican Patois a creole language. Provide examples.

1.6. What are Bilingualism and Multilingualism? Given the understanding of what a language and dialect are from the initial introduction, it is important to understand and define what bilingualism is and how it is defined. There is no consensus on one definition that can be used to define what it means to be bilingual. When people are asked to define what it means to be bilingual, the general response is that it is a ‘‘person who speaks two languages.’’ While this appears to be an acceptable response, the notion of speaking two languages needs to be addressed to better understand this definition. Gottardo and Grant (2008) state, ‘‘The definition of bilingualism is complex and is influenced by multiple factors such as the age of acquisition of the second language, continued exposure to the first language (L1), relative skill in each language and the circumstances under which each language is learned’’ (p. 1). Many individuals believe that being bilingual more than just a passive knowledge and that for people to

28

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

consider themselves bilingual requires equal fluency in both languages. Huston (2002) believes that being bilingual necessitates having grown up from childhood with both languages and possessing the ability to move back and forth between them with great ease. When individuals grow up in both languages then they are able to not only speak the language but also understand and relate to the cultural aspects of language. Bloomfield (1933) states that to be truly bilingual one must have native-like control of both languages. Finally, Thiery (1978) raises the bar even higher stating, ‘‘A true bilingual is someone who is taken to be one of themselves by the members of two different linguistic communities, at roughly the same social and cultural level’’ (p. 146).

Pause, reflect, and continue How do you define bilingualism? What does it mean to you to be bilingual? Why is it problematic to set such a high bar when defining bilinguals?

With all of these different definitions about what bilingualism is, the following question then arises: How can we define what it means to be bilingual? In order to better comprehend what it means to be bilingual and using the different definitions previously mentioned, Grosjean (2010) proposes a classification that can help us to create a more accurate definition of this phenomenon. Grosjean suggests a definition of his own to counteract the standards set forth previously and allow for those who acquire a language later in life the possibility to call themselves bilingual. He states that daily use and not some artificial measure of fluency should be used to determine whether or not a person is bilingual. He proceeds to say that ‘‘bilinguals are those who use two or more languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives’’ (p. 4). Contradicting the notion of fluency, he focuses on the regular use of two languages and not the ability to use the languages or some measure of fluency. He also states that his definition also varies from many others because it includes both languages and dialects together in defining the bilingual. His third point regarding his definition is one that is adhered to in this book as well, which is that this definition of a bilingual applies to those who speak two or more languages. Since the use of the term multilingual often evokes the idea of three or more languages spoken by an individual, the term bilingual is used to discuss those who speak two or more languages including both bilingual and multilingual individuals. However, while insightful, this definition also raises other questions about the immigrant who only uses the new language(s) in his or her daily life but remains fluent in the first language (L1). It would be difficult to say that this

What is Bilingualism?

29

person is not bilingual though this may change over time due to language attrition. In addition, bilinguals use various aspects of their languages depending on a multitude of factors. When considering the bilingual status of an individual, we must take into account the four language modalities as well: speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Culture is often considered the fifth language modality. If bilinguals use both languages every day, but only use certain language modalities with one language and other modalities with their other language, are they bilingual? Baker (2011) states that bilingualism is multidimensional and needs to be analyzed looking at different dimensions. He lists eight dimensions to consider when defining exactly who is bilingual: ability, use, balance of two languages, age, development, culture, contexts, and elective bilingualism.

Pause, reflect, and continue Which of these eight dimensions are the most important in defining bilinguals? Which ones would you use to define your own ability? Why?

Each of these eight dimensions is described in some detail below based on the information from Baker (2011). The first dimension is that of ability. Bilingual fluency is one of the factors to consider when determining whether an individual is bilingual or not. Many industries want to know the capabilities of an individual in order to determine whether or not the person is able to speak with a wide variety of individuals and in varied communicative settings. Speakers are sometimes asked to report on their level of fluency with a simple question of ‘‘Are you bilingual?’’ What many individuals fail to realize is that much more needs to be taken into account to determine ability. Given that there are passive or receptive bilinguals who are able to understand and perform a wide range of activities that do not involve the production of the language, it is likely that these individuals would declare themselves not to be bilingual even though they have some bilingual ability that may be all that is needed in a certain industry. Most times when individuals declare themselves to be bilingual they are declaring themselves to be productive or active bilinguals. These are bilinguals who are able to speak and write in both languages and who also possess the passive skills necessary to be successful in either language. Even with the productive bilingual, care must be given in many parts of the world due to a large heritage language population who often possesses native-like speaking and listening skills but lack in the areas of reading and writing. Garcia (2009) introduces another dimension of bilinguals referring to the idea of emerging bilinguals as individuals who cannot yet declare their status as bilinguals. Since bilingualism is a continuum as opposed to a destination, emerging

30

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

bilinguals have initiated their journey towards a wide range of bilingual abilities and are thus in the process of developing one or more additional languages. It is possible to state that all bilinguals are emerging since the use and ability in a language is always in a state of flux.

Pause, reflect, and continue Why do the authors state that bilinguals are always in a ‘‘state of flux’’? Do you agree? Why or why not?

The second dimension mentioned is use. Baker (2011) defines use as the domains in which a speaker uses a language and/or the areas where a speaker feels most comfortable using the different languages. There are many different domains of language use such as home, work, school, community, religious, family, government, etc. A bilingual may vary his or her language use depending on the context in which the language is being used. Grosjean (2010) defines this as the complementarity principle. He states, ‘‘Bilinguals usually acquire and use their languages for different purposes, in different domains of life, with different people. Different aspects of life often require different languages’’ (p. 29). He continues stating that if a speaker used both languages with all people and in all contexts then what would be the purpose of being bilingual? The possibility of using two languages equally actually lessens the need to be bilingual. The separation of languages for different uses and different contexts is what positively contributes to the acquisition of multiple languages. For example, if someone has gone to Spanish-speaking church growing up and then is asked to talk about the doctrine and teachings of their faith in English, this will likely result in a great deal more effort than if asked to perform the same task in Spanish. Their use of Spanish in the religious domain would cause them some difficulty upon having to translate the information into English, even if the person were familiar with all of the vocabulary. The third aspect mentioned by Baker (2011) is that of the balance of the two languages within the speaker. This dimension of bilingualism is closely related to the previous dimension of use. Many bilinguals or multilinguals are able to carry out certain activities with greater fluency and proficiency in a particular language. This is oftentimes referred to as dominance. Dominance refers to the proficiency that an individual has to carry out some or all tasks in a particular language and in different settings. The problem with determining dominance refers back to the question of use. If one is dominant in certain domains of language use and not in others, this may limit one’s bilingual ability in certain settings. Bilinguals are often

What is Bilingualism?

31

dominant in one language over the other due to a greater number of domains where they are able to use that language. The notion of dominance is not permanent and can change over time. When individuals move from one country to another, they are initially dominant in their first language (L1), but with the passage of time that dominance is often replaced with the language of the area into which they have moved.

Pause, reflect, and continue What is your dominant language? How do you know this? What makes it more dominant than the other language(s) you speak? Why is it useful to determine language dominance?

The fourth dimension of bilingualism refers to the age at which multiple languages are learned or more precisely the age at which this learning begins. Though there is significant research on the topic of age of acquisition, critical period, simultaneous bilingualism, etc., there is still much debate as to the effect that late acquisition of a language has on one’s bilingual ability and what aspects of a specific language most benefit from early acquisition. In spite of this ongoing debate, there is a consensus that early acquisition is beneficial to learners and especially to certain linguistic features such as pronunciation. The fifth dimension is titled development. Again, similar to the areas of ability and balance of two languages, development defines the stage at which bilinguals find themselves. Are they beginning, improving, or declining? The sixth dimension is culture. This dimension is sometimes overlooked since many individuals give the importance to ability. The fact that a person is bilingual does not indicate that the person is bicultural as well. It is possible to have obtained a high level of fluency in a language and have very little cultural competency in that language. Some might argue that in order for individuals to consider themselves bilingual, they would need to have a certain level of cultural competence.

Pause, reflect, and continue Is it possible to be bilingual and monocultural? What types of situations would lead to this? Why is culture an important part of being bilingual?

The seventh dimension of bilingualism refers to the different contexts in which the bilingual lives. Baker (2011) states,

32

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World Some bilinguals live in bilingual and multilingual endogenous communities that use more than one language on an everyday basis. Other bilinguals live in more monolingual regions and network with other bilinguals by vacations, phone, text messaging and email, for example. Where there is an absence of a second language community, the context is exogenous. (p. 4)

Context also refers to whether the acquisition of a language is additive in nature, meaning that it comes at no cost to the other language(s) that is/are spoken, or if it is subtractive in nature, signifying the loss of one language in the process of learning the new one. The final dimension mentioned is that of elective bilingualism. The main characteristic of this dimension is the conscious choice to learn another language versus those who acquire a language due to the circumstances in which they find themselves. For example, one of the authors had an encounter with a homeless man living in Ceuta, Spain. The man was Moroccan by birth but spoke over 10 languages with different degrees of fluency. When asked as to the origin of this knowledge, he replied that while he had been raised in a multilingual environment, most of the languages he had learned through living and traveling all over Europe and Africa. This man had never studied at a university and it is likely that he had never finished any level of schooling, but he was fluent in many languages. He is what Baker (2011) refers to as a circumstantial bilingual (p. 4). Given the extensive discussion in this section as to what a bilingual is, it is equally important to dispel common misconceptions as to what bilinguals are not. Grosjean (2010) presents a series of myths that he believes are related to how bilingualism is perceived by many people. He enumerates these myths as the following: 1. Bilinguals are rare and have equal and perfect knowledge of their languages. 2. Real bilinguals have acquired their two or more languages in childhood and have no accent in either of them. 3. Bilinguals are born translators. 4. Switching between languages is a sign of laziness in bilinguals. 5. All bilinguals are also bicultural. 6. Bilinguals have double or split personalities. 7. Bilingualism will delay language acquisition in children and have negative effects on their development. 8. If you want your child to grow up bilingual, use the one person-one language approach. 9. Children being raised bilingual will always mix their languages (p. xv).

What is Bilingualism?

33

Pause, reflect, and continue Which of these myths do you believe? Why do you think that it is considered a myth? Why do these myths persist if they are not true?

These persistent myths cause many people to misunderstand bilingualism and question their own bilingual abilities. These negative myths can also discourage many second language learners who feel as though they are failures because they are not two monolinguals in one body. First, bilinguals are not particularly rare and in many countries form the vast majority of the population. Blake and Kramsch (2007) cite a series of surveys carried out in 2004 that found that over 50% of Europeans claimed to speak a second language; however, this number drops to only 30% in Britain. In 2005, during the Year of the Language in the United States, a similar survey was conducted and found that a mere 9% of US residents claimed to be bilingual. These authors go on to state, ‘‘If the statistics show that no more than 9% of Americans are willing to report that they speak a language other than English, this poor showing may be due in part to a national language ideology that considers speaking and using other languages as a slightly unAmerican activity’’ (p. 248). These were surveys of the perceptions of individuals as bilinguals which may have been lower than the actual percentage if residents of these countries believe the myths that bilinguals have no accent and speak both languages perfectly from childhood. It is rare to have a perfectly balanced bilingual who is equally competent in both languages in all domains. Haugen (1969) states, It is possible to keep the patterns of two (or more) languages absolutely pure, so that a bilingual in effect becomes two monolinguals, each speaking one language perfectly understanding the other and able to reproduce in one the meaning of the other without at any point violating the usage of either language? On the face of it one is inclined to say no. Hypothetically, it is possible just as a perfect straight line or perfect beauty or perfect bliss are theoretically possible, but in practice it is necessary to settle for less. (p. 9) Additionally, it is common for many bilinguals to learn their second and third and fourth languages past adolescence. While some very strong accents can impede comprehension of one’s speech, it is quite common for bilinguals to have an accent that identifies their L1 origin, especially those who acquired the language(s) in postadolescence (Flege, 1992). Grosjean (2010) states that accents are quite common in bilinguals citing the cases of celebrated writer

34

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Joseph Conrad, who spoke with a very strong Polish accent and yet mastered the English language, and that of Henry Kissinger, Nobel prize winner who spoke with a German accent while orating in perfect English. Grosjean declares, ‘‘There is no relationship between one’s knowledge of a language and whether one has an accent in it’’ (p. 78).

Pause, reflect, and continue What is your initial response to speakers who have a noticeable accent? Why do you feel this way? What can be done to limit unfair judgments of speakers’ ability in a language simply because they have an accent?

The third myth states that bilinguals are born translators. Expert translators receive extensive training and education to become adept at their profession. Some bilinguals are effective translators; however, this is often the result of practice in translating in their daily lives. The fourth myth deals with code-switching and is discussed at length in subsequent sections of this book. Code-switching can be both accidental and purposeful in nature; it serves a multitude of functions, both linguistic and social, and it is not the result of laziness on the part of the speaker. The fifth and sixth myths address the fact that being bilingual does not imply being bicultural. As previously mentioned, many individuals are fluent in the language with limited cultural knowledge, and being bilingual does not lead to a dual personality, just as being biracial does not result in a split personality. The last three myths mentioned by Grosjean (2010) address the acquisition of languages by children, who, if exposed to languages during their infancy, will not only be able to learn and separate the languages as they grow, but also reap many cognitive advantages from learning multiple languages. These child learners are discussed in detail later on in this chapter. Finally, the debate about bilingualism has led some to propose that the linguistic features present in the speech of bilinguals suggest that they suffer from some sort of alingualism or semilingualism due to ‘‘incomplete’’ acquisition of the languages spoken. These individuals are described as speakers who do not master one language or who have no native language. Nonetheless, Grosjean (2010) points out that, in his experience as a linguist, he has only found these cases to exist in aphasic bilingual patients who have suffered some sort of severe trauma. In actuality, the fear that many parents and educators have about this happening to their children and students if they continue to speak to them in a language other than the one common to a certain country or region is utterly unsubstantiated.

What is Bilingualism?

35

1.7. Factors that Promote (Bi/Multi)lingualism and How the Speaker and Society Face This Many significant factors exist that promote bilingualism in the world in which we live today. A simple survey of a class of advanced university students studying a second or foreign language provides a wide range of responses such as a desire to teach the language to others; plans on using the language in a certain profession or field; becoming a bilingual writer, actor, broadcaster, reporter, etc. Some students respond that their desire to learn the language stems from familial ties and cultural proximity. These individuals have and feel a connection with the target culture and people. Others have an ancestral connection that they are trying to reestablish by learning a language that their parents or grandparents spoke but never passed down to them. Lewis (2009)35 states that there are almost 7000 languages in the world today. While that number is impressive, it is important to note that the 94% world’s population speaks only 347 of these languages and even more telling is the fact that almost 80% of the world’s population speaks only 87 languages. While these numbers are accurate, they do not give the whole picture since many of these individuals are bilingual and use multiple languages in their everyday lives. The greatest linguistic diversity is found in Asia, where over 2200 languages are spoken, as well as in the Pacific, where the vast numbers of independent islands speak over 1300 different languages. Table 1.1 shows the top 10 languages according to the number of speakers of these languages as their first language (L1). If speakers of these languages as their L1 and L2 (second language) were counted, these percentages would change significantly. Given the great amount of languages and diversity, bilingualism is an almost expected result. One of the major factors in promoting bilingualism is language distribution within a country. If many languages coexist in a specific region then the motivation to interact and learn the languages of one’s neighbors and trading partners grows. The converse of this is also true, in that countries with many languages that are isolated by complex political and geographical boundaries may find it very easy to maintain their own language and culture with few bilingual speakers. In areas that share linguistic borders such as between Uruguay and Brazil, not only are bilingual populations created, but often new languages in contact are formed where semantic, phonetic, and syntactic structures are adopted by both countries to form an intelligible dialect composed of both languages. The aforementioned Pacific region is an example of an area where this

35. More can be found at http://www.ethnologue.com

36

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Table 1.1: Top ten languages according to number of first language speakers. Rank

Language

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Chinese Spanish English Arabic Hindi Bengali Portuguese Russian

9 10

Japanese German, Standard

Primary country China Spain United Kingdom Saudi Arabia India Bangladesh Portugal Russian Federation Japan Germany

Total countries 31 44 112 57 20 10 37 33 25 43

Speakers (millions) 1,213 329 328 221 182 181 178 144 122 90.3

Source: Adapted from Lewis (2009). Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/ distribution.asp?by ¼ size.

contact may not take place at all. Countries exist that are proximal to each other, but with a limited need for interaction, they remain relatively isolated and do not develop bilingual citizens. Another major factor in promoting bilingualism is the language policy of the different countries in which individuals reside. In Spain, during the government of Francisco Franco, regional languages were discouraged, banned, and were not permitted in the education system of the different regions. After his death and with the establishment of a new constitution in 1978, the other languages spoken throughout the Autonomous Communities of Spain are recognized with the status of co-official languages of the country. Due to this, Spain is a country with a large number of bilingual citizens.36

Pause, reflect, and continue What is the language policy of your country of origin? How has this affected the numbers of bilingual speakers in your country? What could be done to better promote bilingualism in this country and others?

36. This will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2.

What is Bilingualism?

37

Globalization has resulted in an increase in the movement of people between countries and regions. This has led to a greater number of people coming in contact with a wide range of languages. This can be seen in several populations in the United States. The large immigration of Cubans to south Florida has led to a bilingual community where the L1 and the L2 are maintained by a large percentage of the population. Given the high socioeconomic status of many of the Cubans in that area, speakers of other dialects of Spanish such as Colombians, Venezuelans, Dominicans, etc. also feel the need to maintain Spanish as they learn English or for the second generation of learners to acquire Spanish to be able to communicate with the larger population. Another area of the United States where this can be seen is in the Southwest. Here the reason for bilingualism has a lot to do with the vast numbers of immigrants, especially from Mexico, who continually arrive, replacing many of the passive bilinguals with monolingual speakers of Spanish who learn English as their second language. Abrams, Barker, and Giles (2009) cite the role that status plays in promoting bilingualism. They state that economic, social, and symbolic statuses play a key role in promoting bilingualism. Economic status is whether the languages can provide the speakers with financial gain. As previously mentioned, many students of language become bilingual because of the perceived gains from learning a certain second language. Social status can inspire individuals to learn another language, especially if their L1 is classified as having little social prestige or value. To ascend socially, many times it is necessary to acquire the language of prestige. Finally, symbolic status is more of what it means to the speaker. Bilinguals who feel a symbolic connection to a language will often be highly motivated to learn and study to become proficient bilinguals. The concepts of diglossia and bilingualism have always been interrelated, especially in terms of the different communities where these linguistic realities can be found. More and more, certain communities are becoming harder to define because of the increased role of certain minority languages in spheres previously dominated by what is considered to be the prestige language. The definition of diglossia37 has changed over the course of the last 50–60 years. Originally used in Greek to simply mean two languages, it has changed from that to mean two dialects of a language,38 and more recently Fishman (1980) stated that diglossia is two languages that coexist together in a community, each with a unique and separate function.

37. For a discussion of triglossia, see Batibo (2005). 38. See Ferguson (1959).

38

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Important to understanding diglossia is the fact that in almost all cases there exists a language that is the more prestigious language and one that has a lower perceived prestige. Since languages do not inherently possess these characteristics, it is the people of the communities that use these languages who assign the prestige and less prestige denomination to them. This denomination may very easily change in different regions and in different countries where the same two languages are used. Garcia (2009) questions the continued use of the term diglossia in today’s world and opts for the term transglossia. She perceives transglossia as the use of two or more languages within a community where the roles and domains of use of each of the languages is more nebulous than it would be in the classic case of diglossia. Referring back to the previous example of Spanish in south Florida, students may go to school and be taught in English but use Spanish in school to speak to their friends and teachers to then return home and speak English with their siblings and Spanish with their parents. These same bilinguals go to one store and use Spanish and then stop somewhere to eat where they employ only English. Trying to define the specific domains would be very complicated, and this would likely be a situation that Garcia would refer to as one of transglossia. The linguistic complexities of these types of communities makes them difficult to describe. This research into transglossia has been complicated to assimilate into the mainstream of sociolinguistics partly because the variability found in bi and multilingual speech communities is more extensive than that found in monolingual and majority-language communities (Mougeon & Nadasdi, 1998). Members do not share the invariant structural base typical of the communities described above, and speakers vary across continua of proficiency. Thus, research in describing a bilingual community involves a multitude of considerations in order to understand the underpinnings and social functions that occur. One must take into account social parameters and interindividual variation as well as produce major sampling in order to fully understand the community. Given the variety of individuals and social structures that exist in a bilingual and bicultural community, all of these factors can cause some methodological problems in order to fully consider all of the community variations (Selinker & Gass, 2001). Additionally, depending on the community in question, the promotion of another language can be additive or subtractive. If the community wants to maintain two or more languages then the acquisition of these languages will be ‘‘added’’ onto the other known languages. However, if the purpose of acquisition of another language is to have speakers acquire a prestige variety that will replace the L1, then this is subtractive bilingualism that results in language loss. These and many other factors can contribute to the promotion of bilingualism in the global world in which we now reside.

What is Bilingualism?

39

Pause, reflect, and continue How would you define your learning of more than one language? Has your context been additive or subtractive? How do you feel about the notion of transglossia?

1.8. Maintenance, Shift, Assimilation, and Attrition Given that this book is dedicated to the study of bi/multilingualism, this section studies both successful language communities as well as communities where languages are being lost. Around 80% of the world’s population speaks 83 languages and yet only .2% of the world’s population speaks over 3500 languages. This section studies the causes of attrition and language shift. Using the aforementioned notions of prestige, identity, attitudes, and ideologies, current trends in language change are detailed in communities with minority languages. In certain countries, there is great pressure from the society and/or government to assimilate to a particular language. These pressures are highlighted and supported using relevant examples of both success and failure in maintaining the second or third language. The field of second language acquisition (SLA) has always been concerned with the maintenance of languages. This overview provides readers with some of the research that has been done in a rapidly growing field of L1 attrition. As the world becomes increasingly globalized, languages will come in contact even more than in previous years. L1 attrition is a reality facing many groups and countries. Although research on L1 attrition is increasing, the need to resolve some important questions still remains. Conflicting research still needs to be clarified and reasons for attrition in some situations and not in others need to be explained. Though one of the main concerns of SLA is the loss of an L2, research over the past three decades has also started to look at how the acquisition of a second language may result in the loss of the L1. This loss of language is referred to as attrition.

Pause, reflect, and continue Have you lost a language? Are you in the process of trying to recover a language that you once were proficient in? What were the circumstances of this loss?

One definition of language attrition is the disintegration or loss of one’s ability to communicate in the language. Others define it as the loss of a

40

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

language or any part of a language by an individual or a speech community, and this attrition may occur as the result from aphasia, aging, or any social, catastrophic, or political reason (Freed, 1983). Waas (1999) identifies language attrition as being ‘‘intragenerational’’ and states that attrition is a case of language contact where one language ‘‘overpowers’’ another. She mentions that it commonly takes place due to migration to a new area where the former L1 is now an L2 and usually not the language of prestige. There are generally three sets or subfields that are looked at when talking about attrition. The first is L2 attrition. This is where a speaker learns a foreign language to some degree or other and loses the ability of meaningful communication in that language. The second type of attrition is brought about by some pathological cause. This would include, but not be limited to, Alzheimer’s, dementia, stroke, etc. The third type of attrition is L1 attrition. This is where a speaker’s ability to function in his or her native language has been lost (language loss) or it is progressively deteriorating toward loss. Kouritzin (1999) states that there are a number of terms that are related when looking at language attrition. The terms language loss, language shift, and language death are used when discussing language attrition and will be referred to throughout this section. Language loss refers to a speaker who cannot perform in the language as he or she could in the past. Language shift is defined as the change of the habitual or daily use of one language to that of another. Language death refers to the languages that are no longer used in schooling, government, and bureaucracy and lose their primary language function and their viability (Kouritzin, 1999, pp. 12–13). In this section, the different factors that contribute to and result from L1 attrition as well as the theories behind language attrition are examined. This section is divided into four different sections. First, the authors review the principal sociolinguistic influences on L1 attrition. Second, the authors consider the effect of attrition on the linguistic elements of speech. Third, L1 attrition is explained from the point of view of universal grammar (UG), and finally, a conclusion and recommendations are made for future research in the field of L1 attrition.

1.8.1.

Sociolinguistic Perspective on Language Attrition

Language is often seen as a representation of the identity of a person. Waas (1999) states that it is important to conserve languages in order to ‘‘preserve cultural diversity’’ (p. 3). One of the linguistic fields that deals with language attrition is that of sociolinguistics. Saville-Troike (1994) has done extensive research with language shift and attrition in children who are acquiring an L2. She has attributed attrition and shift to four dominant factors. First, the

What is Bilingualism?

41

age at which the child immigrates to the country has a direct influence on the speed of L1 attrition. Second, the nature and context of early socialization experiences (i.e., how the child interacts with the family and friends in the L1) are equally relevant. If the child is able to interact with family and friends in the L1, the child is more likely to experience a slower rate of attrition from L1 to L2. Third, the parents’ view of the role of the L1 in the L2 community and their attitude toward the L1 affect the rate of attrition. Parents who see the maintenance of the L1 as detrimental will transmit this to their children, causing incomplete acquisition or attrition of their L1. The fourth factor that affects the development or attrition of children’s L1 is the ‘‘disruption in extended family structure and residence patterns produced by immigration’’ (Saville-Troike, 1994, p. 3). Basically, this is a question of input; children who are taken from their native lands and brought to a country where their L1 is not the dominant language do not receive the input from society, friends, and extended family members that they would have if they had remained in their country. Several studies have found that when the parents are literate and involved in their children’s lives, the children tend to maintain their L1 (De Bot & Clyne, 1994; Wong Fillmore, 1991). The converse of this is also true, parents who are illiterate tend to be less concerned with the education of their children and thus their children are less likely to maintain their L1 (Kouritzin, 1999, p. 15). One might assume that the contrary would be true because literate parents are more likely to be fluent in the L2, but the fact that parents are educated somehow reflects in the pride that children feel toward their L1. One factor to consider is whether the illiterate parents care less about education or whether they feel a certain degree of incompetence in their ability to help their children. Also, parents with a certain educational level would be presented with more occupational possibilities where illiterate parents might be forced to spend more time away from home in more menial jobs requiring more hours to make a living. When parents have to work more, the children are often left alone or in the care of another sibling. Saville-Troike (1994) found this to be the case with migrant workers’ children in California. This resulted in an incomplete acquisition of the L1 and a more rapid rate of L1 attrition. Other factors that influence both adult and child learners are attitude, age, family size, and schooling. Some researchers feel that the present research in the field of L1 attrition has focused on the linguistic aspects and overlooked the sociolinguistic factors (McKay & Weinstein-Shr, 1993; Wong Fillmore, 1991). Language carries with it much more than just a medium of communication. Kouritzin (1999) states that language is implicated in ‘‘identity, relationships, culture, and aspirations, and transmitting information about events, activities, effective domains, tone, mood, the organization of society, the current state of knowledge, the means to evaluate that knowledge, and all other aspects of

42

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

the social world’’ (p. 15). Wong Fillmore (1991) points out that some of the consequences of attrition in families can be so severe that parents and children can lose the ability to meaningfully communicate together. This makes it impossible for the parents to convey their beliefs, values, and culture to their children. Hinton (1999) states that L1 attrition creates problems for children who ‘‘find themselves frustrated, unable to communicate effectively with relatives, alienated from peers in the old country, and humiliated in front of visitors at home’’ (p. 3). She goes on to quote one immigrant who stated, ‘‘My family and I still speak more English than Hindi at home. We have developed a sort of Hinglish, which often consists of a mixture of the two languages’’ (pp. 2–3).

Pause, reflect, and continue Do you know of any cases where parents and children cannot communicate due to language loss? What about grandchildren with their grandparents? How is this possible?

Another feature of language attrition is that of monostylism. This is defined by stating that language is a self-contained unit that consists of many different styles for the many different situations that one encounters in daily life (Dressler, 1991). Speakers are able to adapt the style of speech to the people and the circumstances that they encounter. With language attrition, the language that is attritioning is used in fewer and fewer situations and the focus of the usage is narrowed. In Appel and Muysken (1987), the example of a young man who speaks Breton is given. The young man uses Breton only when in informal situations and French in the formal ones. This young man would be ill equipped to deal with a situation where he was forced to use Breton in a formal setting. He would not have sufficient control over Breton to deal with the situation in a stylistically correct manner. The monostylism would further contribute to the narrowed focus of the language and lessen its value in the speech community and eventually lead to attrition and then loss. Landry and Allard (1996) state, ‘‘For minority group members, learning the majority group’s language often leads to what is known as subtractive bilingualism, i.e. the valuing, learning and development of competencies in a second language at the expense of competencies in one’s mother tongue’’ (pp. 445–446). Dixon (1989) divides the process of attrition that leads to loss in a series of five steps. Stage 1: A language is used as a first language for all of the daily activities by members of a given community; Stage 2: A language is used by some people in the community as their first language; Stage 3: Only a limited number of people use the language in the community (e.g., the

What is Bilingualism?

43

elderly, those who are isolated); Stage 4: No one in the community knows the original form of what was once the first language; and Stage 5: Everyone in the community speaks and thinks in a language other than that of what was once the L1. Though attrition is the process that is occurring throughout the five stages, the complete loss of the language at the end is often referred to as language loss, and if this language loss occurs among all speakers of the language, it is referred to as language death. In the development of a second language, there is a tendency for different patterns of dominance or strength, which is usually in relation to the domains in which the languages are used. With the balanced or coordinate bilingual, languages are typically used in different domains, but this does not lead to attrition except in cases where the role of one of the languages has drastically been altered, then it becomes much like L1 attrition. Other bilinguals may experience L1 attrition when immersed in the speech community. Seliger and Vago (1991) explain this by saying that ‘‘the domain relationships of the languages can change such that the host or first language is weakened by the increasing frequency of use and function in the second language’’ (p. 4). This modification of roles, where the L1 is now used less and less, is one of ‘‘the significant sociolinguistic variables in the advent and sustenance of first language attrition’’ (Seliger & Vago, 1991, p. 4). The authors continue by stating that the separation or relative isolation of the L1 speech community, as in the case of immigrants, can intensify and accelerate L1 attrition. Another important sociolinguistic factor according to Seliger and Vago (1991) is ‘‘the subordination or recessivism of L1 to L2 in the affective domains of language, such as prestige, social status, attitude, and degrees of acculturation’’ (p. 4). Schmidt (1991) analyzed several sociolinguistic factors that contribute to L1 attrition. She investigated Boumaa Fijian, a dialect of Taveuni Island in Fiji and Dyirbal, a northern Australian language. In the case of Boumaa Fijian, intermarriage, compulsory education, religion, media, increased communication with other dialects, and centralization in Suva have all contributed to the overall attrition. Compulsory education has contributed to attrition because all education is done in the standard Fijian dialect. The church services are also conducted in the standard variety with the canonical texts and prayer books written in the same. The major media are also in standard Fijian or English. Schmidt (1991) states, ‘‘the promotion of Standard Fijian and English creates the impression of Boumaa Fijian as a less prestigious code’’ (p. 115). Standard Fijian is now used as a lingua franca among many of the different villages. The urbanization of the island has also led to more contact with Standard Fijian, which is then carried back to their villages. Schmidt researched 20 Boumaa Fijian speakers whose task was to translate a set of 25 sentences from Standard Fijian into Boumaa Fijian. She found that the older speakers tended to maintain Boumaa Fijian more than the younger speakers. This is at par with other research that has

44

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

shown that older speakers tend to maintain a language that is attriting in the younger generations. If the L1 attrition continues, Boumaa Fijian may face language death in the future. In addition to Boumaa Fijian, Schmidt studied the Jambun aboriginal community and their native language of Dyirbal. Dyribal is a language that is in closing stages of L1 attrition and close to language death. Several factors have contributed to the decline of Dyribal: introduction of technology, absence of Dyribal literature, increased contact with white people, and compulsory English education. The Jambun aboriginal tribe was isolated until it came in contact with the Europeans who settled in Australia. Technology has subsequently been brought to many of the tribes and watching television in the evenings is one of the favorite pastimes of the tribe (Schmidt, 1991). No written texts exist in the Dyribal language, and the increased contact with Europeans has led to the adoption of English literature both in and out of the schools. Willemyns (1997) discusses how political change is often a significant factor in language attrition in certain communities. Many border changes occurred between the Germanicized and Romanicized territories in Europe through the 11th century. Because of these changes, Dutch has experienced language death in many of those areas. Willemyns distinguishes between the aforementioned ‘‘historical’’ loss of Dutch and current L1 Dutch attrition. The political power of France has ruled formerly Dutch Flanders since 1678 with the Treaty of Nijmegen. Presently, Dutch is on the verge of death in French Flanders, a northern part of France where Dutch was once the dominant language. Several generations of Dutch attrition have led to the current state where there are presently no monolingual speakers of Dutch in this region. Additionally, only a few older speakers still use Dutch on a daily basis. In addition, 82% of the parents of the region do not believe that it is worth it to pass Dutch on to following generations. On the other hand, 80% of the younger generation says that this is a shame, since they do see learning Dutch and having it passed on as worthwhile (Willemyns, 1997). These are often the signs of language attrition in its last stages just before loss. Willemyns declares, ‘‘Positive attitudes cannot possibly bring about any significant changes, indeed, because those who express them no longer possess the necessary competence to hand down the language’’ (p. 60). Dutch may die as a native language, but currently there is a resurgence of studying Dutch in high schools and at the university level.

1.8.2.

Language Attrition: Effects on Linguistic Elements of Speech

Though much of the research on speech communities attrition and loss deals with the sociolinguistic factors of learning, individual attrition and loss is

What is Bilingualism?

45

often looked at using a more linguistic criterion. According to Kouritzin (1999), some of the common questions asked deal with the parts of speech that have been lost and looks at the different features of language attrition and loss phonetically, morphologically, syntactically, metalinguistically, and affectively. Other studies have looked at how attrition has affected aspects such as productive skills, comprehension, circumlocution, retrieval difficulty, visual word recognition, letter writing, hesitation, and length of aspiration.

Pause, reflect, and continue What linguistic areas do you feel would be most affected at the beginning of language loss? What would be the final linguistic features to suffer loss?

Seliger and Vago (1991) question whether linguistic attrition is caused by a deep, systematic erosion or whether it is merely an online processing problem as hypothesized by Smith and Van Buren (1991). According to Seliger and Vago, neither of these factors are relevant nor are the factors of competence versus performance in their classification of linguistic errors. They investigated attrition in German and Hungarian L1 speakers who had learned English as their L2. For these speakers, their L2 English was now their dominant language and they were exhibiting signs of attrition in their L1. The most common syntactic strategy that they found was rule generalization. This is defined as the extension of an L2 rule to the L1 with some common extensions of L2 rules being agreement, tag questions, word order, and preposition stranding. One example of this is seen in the German speaker who stated Alleandere Leute hast du keine Zeitfu¨r (‘‘You have no time for all other people’’) instead of the proper Fu¨ralleandere Leute hast du keine Zeit. In German, preposition stranding is not permitted, and this example shows how the speaker is applying the English grammar that permits stranding. Semantic characteristics of the L2 are common in the L1. Two such types of semantic change due to attrition are meaning extension and loan translation. Semantic extension is defined where ‘‘the meaning of a word in L1 is generalized to include the meaning of another word in L1, on analogy to the range of meaning of the equivalent word in L2’’ (Seliger & Vago, 1991, p. 8). In other words, the meaning of one form of a word is amplified in the L1 to encompass another separate form in the L1 due to L2 influence. An example in Hungarian is tud (‘‘to know how to do something’’) and ismer (‘‘to know somebody’’), where only one word form tud is conserved with the dual meaning as in the learner’s L2, English, where only one form

46

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

exists for both meanings (to know). The second semantic change occurs with loan translations or calques. This is defined as transfer of an L2 phrase or idiomatic expression from the L2 to the L1 that results in an ungrammatical L1 structure. One example for the L1 Spanish learner of English would be tener un buen tiempo (to have fun) instead of the grammatically correct Spanish of pasarlo bien or divertirse. Studies in L1 attrition have also researched the effect of L1 attrition on the speaker’s lexicon and lexical access. Appel and Muysken (1987) state that many members from minority groups seem to have ‘‘word-finding problems’’ (p. 42). In one case, immigrant populations were investigated and it was found that the immigrants were inferior in their command of their native tongue and showed greater ease of expression in their L2, especially in regards to lexicon. Appel and Muysken go on to state, ‘‘The loss of lexical skills in the minority language goes hand-in-hand with another phenomenon, i.e. the process of relexification: words from the dominant language are replacing words in the minority language’’ (p. 42). Seliger (1985) purports that the language attriter creates new forms in the first language that did not exist before. In some ways, the speaker is creating a new system, not just losing control of a previously controlled system. In this way, language attrition is different from what is normally called forgetting (p. 19). Whereas meaning extension implies that the speaker still has at least one definition of a word, L1 attrition often implies inaccessibility to the necessary lexicon. ‘‘A language user’s store of lexical items, as well as their utility and adequacy, depends more on linguistic experience than do other areas of phonology, morphology, and syntax’’ (Andersen, 1982, p. 92). Hinton (1999) cites a Chinese-speaking student who expressed dismay over the fact that he was unable to explain to his parents what he was studying due to lexical deficiencies. He cited English interference as the source of his inability to communicate in his L1. In children, Saville-Troike, Pan, and Dutkova (1995) found that the influence of the L2 lexicon on the L1 appears ‘‘even within a few days or weeks of contact with English’’ (p. 129). The insertion of English words in the L1 may be a result of loss or gaps or ‘‘merely reduction in access or a matter of lexical choice’’ (p. 129). Code-switching or language mixing is frequently seen in bilinguals and does not necessarily reflect attrition, rather often it is a sign of highly fluent bilinguals. Seliger and Vago (1991) state that code-switching occurs in ‘‘predictable and describable conditions of language variation and can be controlled by the speaker’’ (p. 6). One of the ways to test whether code-switching is occurring with fluent bilinguals or whether it is the onset of attrition is through metalinguistic tests that require the learner to make grammaticality judgments on L1 sentences. The L1 sentences contain intermingled grammatical rules from the L2. Learner’s performance on these tests shows whether they have maintained a separation between the

What is Bilingualism?

47

two languages or whether they are attriting in the L1. Seliger and Vago further clarify this stating, ‘‘Mixing thus may remain an additional communication technique or strategy for the bilingual when in the company of other bilinguals with similar linguistic repertoires, or it may become a precursor stage for gradual language attrition or loss as the bilingual increasingly loses control of the conditions that constrain mixing’’ (p. 6). Aside from a certain degree of attrition in the lexical skills of minority groups, Dorian (1980) found that there was a change in the morphology of many speakers of a minority language. She observed that the morphology of the minority language often became a simplified version. She stated that ‘‘fluent speakers only apply general rules without knowing the exceptions’’ (Appel & Muysken, 1987, p. 43). The morphology of the speaker is also affected by the influence of the L2. L1 attrition causes a transfer of the L2 morphology into the L1, creating ungrammatical forms. One such example in German is y wenn du das zumirmachst (y when you do it for me). The speaker is using the English morphology where ‘‘to’’ must be added in the dative case, whereas in correct German y wenn du das mirmachst the indirect object mir is already inflected for the dative case. Saville-Troike et al. (1995) examined the integration of the L2 morphology into the L1 and found that although the participants in their study all showed some integration, the native language construction also played a significant role. Languages that were more structurally distinct showed less of an influence of the L2 on the L1 morphological features. Researchers have conflicting views on the amount of investigations done in the area of phonology. Pavlenko (2000) states, ‘‘To date, L2 influence on L1 is probably best researched and acknowledged in the areas of bilingual lexicon and phonology’’ (p. 179). Seliger and Vago (1991) affirm that phonology is one area of language attrition that has not received much attention. Much of the data is self-reported or consists of impressionistic studies where the listeners classify the speaker according to what they perceive. One study by Schmidt (1991) found that some of the principal differences between Boumaa Fijian and standard Fijian were phonological in nature. The Boumaa dialect includes the phonological feature of a glottal stop whereas the standard variety has a voiceless velar stop. As the standard variety of Fijian is adopted by more and more of the Boumaa Fijian speakers, the glottal stop is slowly being replaced by the voiceless velar stop. This phenomenon correlates with the attrition of Boumaa Fijian.

1.8.3.

Language Attrition and Universal Grammar

Language attrition can be analyzed by looking at the aspects of competence and performance as defined in UG. Ellis (1994) defines competence as ‘‘a

48

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

language user’s underlying knowledge of language, which is drawn on in actual performance’’ (p. 697). He continues by defining performance as ‘‘the actual use of language in either comprehension or production’’ (p. 718). Seliger (1985) defines attrition in part as the erosion in the linguistic performance of a first or primary language. Smith and Van Buren (1991) investigated the influence not only of the sociolinguistic factors but also the psycholinguistic status. They state that ‘‘it seemed important to know whether a given subject has lost or is even able to lose those kinds of underlying mental representations of his or her first language that may be referred to as L1 competence’’ (p. 17). Smith and Van Buren (1991) differentiate between knowledge and the online processing of knowledge in regards to L1 attrition. In other words, those who are losing their L1 may have knowledge of the language without the facility to employ the various mental operations necessary for speech production and speech recognition. The question arises as to whether attrition can occur to the point where one loses the knowledge that they have of a language or merely the ability to process that knowledge online. Smith and Van Buren state that as language loss begins, one’s L1 knowledge has not changed, rather one’s control of the knowledge, and this would distinguish between the competence that one never loses and the performance that does attrite. This is found in speakers who deviate from the native norms in some aspects of language, yet have native-like intuitions when asked to make acceptability judgments. The L1 learners still could have all of the syntactic forms and pragmatic properties of language and yet no facility to mentally manipulate these online. The main problem with this hypothesizing is that it is impossible to probe competence without involving performance mechanisms. Smith and Van Buren propose that the impossibility of the situation makes it logical to assume that attrition takes place at both competence and performance levels. They propose several theories as to how language attrition is related to competence. Restructuring is one way to explain language attrition. This restructuring does not have to be a result of the ease in processing in the L2 grammar as opposed to the L1, but rather an amplification of the parameters in the L1. One example of this can be found in the case of an L1 English speaker who is immersed in a Spanish-speaking community. English is a non-prodrop language whereas Spanish is a prodrop language. In English, non-prodrop is always observed, so an immigrant who is immersed in Spanish who originally would find the phrase Is beautiful unacceptable and It is beautiful acceptable would in time restructure the L1 parameter of non-prodrop to accept the prodrop form. This suggests that ‘‘the attrition of competence may be triggered by changes in the learner’s perception of the basic structure of his or her L1 grammar and not just by a tendency to ease the processing burden of an underused L1’’ (Smith & Van Buren, 1991, p. 20). Seliger and Vago (1991)

What is Bilingualism?

49

state that this is the opposite of ‘‘the natural tendency of human language grammars to seek the most parsimonious system of rules’’ (p. 12). Even in cases where the processing cost is greater in the L2, the speaker may find it beneficial and more productive to employ the structure of the dominant L2. The L2 model is the only one that the learner is exposed to, and by using the L1 grammar, the learner would need to switch between languages as opposed to a specified model where the same form is used in both. Input is another factor when looking at attrition studies. When measuring the degree of attrition, the relevance of input is controversial. In UG, input is important in the setting of language specific parameters and functions as a trigger to stimulate the activation of UG. However, once native proficiency is achieved, the parameters should not change and there is no need for continued input to evaluate learner hypotheses because they are fixed. Smith and Van Buren (1991) propose two reasons why attrition still occurs in spite of the perceived paradox between UG and attrition. They state that there are two possible candidates for language attrition: (1) L1 deprivation and (2) cross-linguistic influence from another language being acquired. Smith and Van Buren (1991) hypothesize about the situation where a man was stranded on a desert island. Here the man would have no opportunity to hear or read a language and no opportunity to speak, except in the case where he were to speak to himself. Three hypothetical assumptions for loss could occur in this situation: (1) the progressive loss of control, (2) the development of a new competence, and (3) the effect of the lack of input. The progressive loss of control suggests that atrophy of thought takes place where the level of language cognition decays due to lack of use, as a muscle would decay if not used regularly. A new competence could be formed due to atrophy regarding the relevant knowledge structures through lack of use. This new competence would start with a progressive loss of control and lead to ‘‘a structurally and functionally reduced (possibly pidginized) system’’ (p. 23). The third possible assumption is that the native speaker needs input not only to set the initial parameters, but also to maintain the L1. Though the contrived desert island setting is improbable, isolation and lack of input from one’s L1 is common to the L2 immigrant. When learning an L2, the cross-linguistic influence, while not accounting for many changes, can be a source of negative or competing input with the L1. This thus creates an inverse parallel relationship between acquisition, in the Chomskyan sense, and attrition where ‘‘in the one case the L1 environment is present but ignored (not treated as input) and in the other case the relevant L1 is simply environmentally absent’’ (pp. 23–24). Markedness may influence the degree and type of attrition and contribute to the resetting of language parameters. Certain parameters have specific structural preferences; those that are preferred are known as unmarked

50

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

features, and those that are not are marked features. The theory of markedness becomes relevant to attrition when considering White’s theory. White (1986) suggests that L2 learners apply the L1 parameters to the L2 in the initial stages. This correlates to markedness because the L2 learner assumes unmarkedness in features in the L2 that may or may not be unmarked but that are unmarked in the L1. The lack of negative evidence leads the learner to apply the L1 parameters and often mistakenly. The example ‘‘He doesn’t know who it belongs to,’’ while acceptable in English, would initially be considered as an unacceptable form in Hebrew. In time a ‘‘realignment’’ of parameters would take place in the English-speaking immigrant in Israel, causing the English speaker to now view the phrase ‘‘He doesn’t know to who(m) it belongs,’’ which is marked in English, as unmarked because of the influence of Hebrew.39 Seliger found this to be true in the reverse situation with Hebrew immigrants in an English-speaking environment whose Hebrew has attrited and now contains the normally unacceptable stranded prepositions. Core and periphery grammar are related to the theories on markedness. Ellis (1994) explains that core rules are ‘‘those that can be arrived at through the application of general, abstract principles of language structure’’ and ‘‘periphery rules are rules that are not governed by universal principles; they are idiosyncratic, reflecting their unique historical origins’’ (p. 319). Considering these definitions in regards to markedness, the core makes up the parts of unmarked speech such as basic word order. The periphery grammar only consists of marked aspects of speech such as the structure ‘‘the more y the more’’ in English. When L1 attrition begins, the periphery (marked) aspects of speech are first lost, and then the core (unmarked) aspects are next. If attrition leads to language loss, the core aspects of speech are eventually lost. As the learner loses the marked aspects of the L1, they are typically replaced by either similar unmarked aspects from the L2 or the marked aspects from the L2. The core grammar is maintained for a longer period of time, but in the advanced stages of L1 attrition, it is also lost or replaced.

Pause, reflect, and continue What do you see as the role of markedness in language loss? Have you noticed how markedness has affected your loss or acquisition of a second language?

39. See Selinger (1989) for a more detailed description of this aspect.

What is Bilingualism?

51

Seliger and Vago (1991) divided the development of the bilingual into three different stages according to the changing role of UG and the bilingual’s grammar: (1) compound I bilingualism, (2) coordinate bilingualism, and (3) compound II bilingualism. In the first stage, the bilingual bases the grammar on the L1, similar to White’s parameter setting as mentioned previously. In this first stage, transfer from L1 to L2 is the principal processing and acquisition theory. Errors found in these bilinguals, no matter the language background, show a considerable degree of heterogeneity. Seliger and Vago postulate that this may be the result of some innate principles of SLA applicable to all learners. The second stage, coordinate bilingual, is similar to the bilinguals who grow up learning two languages. These bilinguals have two different grammars or a separation of grammars that allows them to develop distinct rules for the two languages. Corder (1967) refers to the different processes in SLA as ‘‘restructuring’’ and ‘‘recreation.’’ Restructuring is defined as an adaptation of the L1 hypotheses to the L2 data. In this case, restructuring is similar to the idea of transfer but regarding rules, principles, parameters, etc. and not limited to lexical items. Recreation is the building of a separate system for the L2 independent of the L1 system. While the learner tests hypotheses from the L1 on the L2 during the restructuring process, a recreation of grammar occurs in areas where the L1 and the L2 do not overlap. The third and final stage of bilingual development is referred to as compound II. It is similar to compound I, except now the L1 bases its grammar on that of the L2. This is not an instantaneous process but rather a continuum of dominance and attrition that goes from almost equal use and control of the two languages to the extreme, where complete language loss occurs and the speaker no longer has any functional ability in the L1. The theories on the influence of UG in SLA are contingent on the fact that learners of an L2 who have already acquired their L1 still have access to UG. Felix (1996) conducted research on L2 learners and found that some of them had access to UG while it appeared as though others did not. She stated that while UG is present in L1, it must be triggered in L2. Although her study investigated L2 learners in the FL classroom, immersion in the L2 environment would provide the necessary triggers to reactivate a learners’ UG and possibly realign it. She refers to a distinct ‘‘mental biology’’ that each person possesses that determines which triggers will activate different learners L2 UG. In cases of immersion, the abundance of triggers from input, environment, output, etc. would provide the majority of learners with the necessary triggers to reactivate their UG. Though many empirical studies have been done on L1 attrition, Ginsberg (1986) was very critical of early L1 attrition research in an article he wrote analyzing the problems of research methodology.

52

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World My concern here is with the rationale of analytical strategy. Although I focus on this one project, the problems of interpretation and inference that I shall discuss arise quite generally in studies of language loss — indeed they are endemic to the most interesting, non-experimental studies in change in the social and behavioral sciences. (p. 19)

Others have noted the differences that have been recorded in the amount of attrition that occurs in subjects. De Bot and Clyne (1994) found in a 16year longitudinal study of Dutch immigrants in Australia that very little attrition had occurred, whereas Waas (1996) found large levels of attrition in German immigrants in Australia. These contradictory results reflect the need to continue investigating and researching L1 attrition with empirical studies.

1.9. Code-Switching Code-switching40 is defined as the alternating, or switching, of two different languages at the word, phrase, clause, or sentence level (Timm, 1993, p. 94). Coste (1997) defines code-switching as alternating between two languages in either oral or written expression. Oftentimes the word code-switching is used interchangeably with terms such as code-mixing, language switching, language alternation, etc., though each term has a slightly different meaning and use depending on the researcher. Appel and Muysken (1987) describe three different types of code-switches that are common in bilingual settings. (a) Tag-switches involve an exclamation, a tag, or a parenthetical in another language than the rest of the sentence. An example is ‘‘OYE, when y’’ at the beginning of the text. The tag or parenthetical serves as an emblem of the bilingual character of an otherwise monolingual sentence. That is why Poplack (1980) has named this type of switching emblematic switching. (b) Intrasentential switches occur in the middle of a sentence, as in ‘‘I started acting real CURIOSA.’’ This type of intimate switching is often called code-mixing. (c) Intersentential switches occur between sentences, as their name indicates (p. 118).

40. This section deals with code-switching, and given the focus of the text on both bilingualism and education policies, this section also focuses on code-switching in the educational setting.

What is Bilingualism?

53

Appel and Muysken (1987) refer to these different switches as the primary ones involved in code-switching, but there is also a fourth category that forms part of intersentential switches, and those are switches at the conversation or discourse level. These switches occur within the same conversation, but they are influenced by the stylistic features sought after in the two individual languages at a larger level.

Pause, reflect, and continue Which type of code-switches do you use the most? Why? If you do not code-switch, what are your reasons for not doing so?

In the 1960s and 1970s, the notion of eradication of code-switching was prevalent in language texts and still is today in many classrooms and among many different groups. This approach of eradication of an individual’s ‘‘familial’’ style ‘‘battered away at a very sensitive area — self-esteem’’ (Foster, 1982, p. 72). Successful application of the normative approach was thus analogous to the clinical situation wherein the ‘‘disease’’ is contained but the patient turns ‘‘comatose’’ (Foster, 1982, p. 72). Still others (Sa´nchez, 1981) stated that these bilinguals were alingual, that is, that they have no native language, no language at all (p. 92). Nevertheless, this initial approach in the elimination of the ‘‘familial’’ style of language use among the bilinguals was shown to be detrimental in the classroom and the home. Thus, researchers and educators alike have promoted the idea of building on the abilities that the bilinguals have and further developing their familial style as well as teach a more educational or standard style, creating students who are bidialectal. Conversational code-switches are used for a wide variety of reasons such as to clarify, to emphasize, to attract attention, to refer to a concept specific to one particular culture, or to bid for a conversational turn (Timm, 1993, p. 107). Research into code-switching has continued and authors such as Zentella (1997) have offered in-depth explanations regarding the grammar of code-switching and the rules that the majority of the speakers follow when switching between languages. She found that there are rules that are followed in code-switching as are in any dialect of a given language. Speakers who are more fluent are more skillful in manipulating the uses of the different languages, whereas those who are not as proficient lack the ability to employ many of the stylistic variations and manipulations that those who are skillful can. As previously mentioned, Grosjean (2010) declares that code-switching is not the result of laziness on the part of the speaker, but rather an effective tool in dealing with a multilingual population and establishing the identity of an individual.

54

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

1.9.1.

The Influence of Addressee on Code-Switching

The influence of addressee on code-switching can also be analyzed according to Bell’s model (1984) of language style as audience design. ‘‘At all levels of language variability, people are responding primarily to other people. Speakers are designing their style for their audience’’ (p. 197). If this is the case, it becomes even more important when more than one language is being used because if one is speaking to a monolingual then choosing the wrong language eliminates or highly limits communication. Bell continues further and minimizes the importance of topic or setting and argues that this type of variation presupposes variation according to addressee. He states, Speakers associate classes of topics and settings with persons. They therefore shift style when talking on those topics or in those settings as if they were talking to addressees whom they associate with the topic or setting. The basis of all shift according to nonpersonal factors lies then in audiencedesigned shift. (p. 181) This type of addressee style shift can also manifest itself in bilinguals in their imitation of other speakers who pertain to the category that they are mimicking. If a speaker associates English, Spanish, French, Swahili, or code-switching with a certain speaker they are imitating, he or she will use that style of speech to project what is the perceived talk of the person being mimicked. Not only are speakers likely to imitate their interlocutors in regards to their speech, but they are also likely to use language and style that is culturally appropriate for a given language. Ervin-Tripp (2001) supports this notion stating, It is possible that a shift in language is associated with a shift in social roles and emotional attitudes. Since each language is learned and usually employed with different persons and in a different context, the use of each language may come to be associated with a shift in a large array of behavior. (p. 56) A similar theory to the one espoused by Bell (1984) is that of accommodation theory proposed by Giles (1973). As explained before, in his accommodation theory, Giles states that speakers will converge linguistically toward the speech patterns that they believe to be characteristic of their speech partner in order to gain social approval. This is further represented in the intergroup model by Giles and Byrne (1982), which describes how intergroup uses of the language reflect the social and psychological attitudes of their speakers. The common notion is that

What is Bilingualism?

55

speakers will converge toward their addressee, but there is also the concept of divergence, where speakers will diverge from a certain group. This is often done through code-switching in order to establish an identity different from those non-code-switching individuals, monolinguals and bilinguals alike.

1.9.2.

Code-Switching as Distinctiveness41

Code-switching can be contrasted with other types of language use, making it unique from monolingual speech and bilingual speech with no code-switching. Not only can it be contrasted with other types of speech, but also there exists a great deal of variation within those who code-switch. Language proficiency is an important factor to consider in studying codeswitching. In monolingual speech, individuals are limited in the types of stylistic changes that they have by their experience and language. This also occurs with bilinguals who may have a greater degree of proficiency in one language, and this proficiency correlates with the stylistic repertoire that they have available. This is not the only factor of importance in the use of code-switching as style-shifting, but speakers must have achieved a certain level of fluency in order to effectively switch between languages.

Pause, reflect, and continue Do you use code-switching to establish yourself as a bilingual? Do you feel that you have the same stylistic repertoire in the different languages that you speak?

Irvine (2002) posits that different types of switches are ideologically mediated. Penny (2000) goes on to support this saying, ‘‘Thus, with choosing particular features of language with which to communicate, the speaker/writer places himself or herself at a particular position in a complex social matrix’’ (p. 7). The use of code-switching in speech is also used as a way to index social formations. The language that we choose places us in certain groups, categories, gives us a type of personae, defines different activities, and can even be used to define the institutional practices of an organization. Along this same line of thinking as Penny, Irvine (2002) states that code-switching is connected to aesthetics.

41. This idea of looking at code-switching as a system of distinctiveness is based on the work by Judith Irvine (2002), Style as distinctiveness.

56

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World Aesthetic systems are culturally variable and are organized around locally relevant principles of value, not all of which are conspicuously connected with sociological forces. Still, one of the things those principles of value do, whatever they may be in the particular case, is to motivate the consistency of stylistic forms. (pp. 23–24)

Often the aesthetic value of speech is defined by the speaker based on the ‘‘social space’’ in which he or she is found (Penny, 2000). Bourdieu (1984) refers to the aesthetics of social practices in his book on the lifestyle of people in France. He states, All practice is ‘‘conspicuous,’’ visible, whether or not it is performed in order to be seen; it is distinctive, whether or not it springs from the intention of being ‘‘conspicuous,’’ standing out, of distinguishing oneself or behavior with distinction. As such, it inevitably functions as a distinctive sign y The pursuit of distinction y which may be expressed in ways of speaking or the refusal of misalliances-produces separations intended to be perceived or, more precisely, known and recognized, as legitimate differences. (p. 204) Code-switching is also conspicuous, whether it is purposeful or not. Not only can it be heard by those around, but it also has the distinguishing ability to separate even bilingual speakers of the same two languages. Code-switching can be used to produce a separation from other speakers and is often the case as it is used in certain settings such as between two friends. It also has the distinct characteristic of defining a group of individuals and/or a population as possessing this particular skill. For example, in the Southwestern United States, a large Hispanic population exists that is both similar and distinct in many ways, one of which being the use of language. Among the members of this population, there are monolingual Spanish speakers, monolingual English speakers, bilingual speakers of both English and Spanish who do not code-switch, and bilingual speakers who do code-switch. The use of language and particularly code-switching, aesthetically or not, makes each of these groups distinct and can serve as a powerful marker of identity. Irvine (2002) comments, ‘‘I take it that style in speaking involve the ways speakers, as agents in social (and sociolinguistic) space, negotiate their positions and goals within a system of distinctions and possibilities’’ (pp. 23–24). Though Irvine refers to style in her statement, the same could be said for the use of code-switching. Much of the linguistic behavior in bilinguals who code-switch can be seen as a manner in which they negotiate

What is Bilingualism?

57

their roles and positions in a conversation and even in society. Codeswitching can also be used as a stylistic shift to accomplish defined goals. Bilingual business signs can be seen in which code-switching is used to identify the business as appealing to English speakers, Spanish speakers, and even those who code-switch. This use of code-switching by businesses is a very conscious effort to use stylistic devices to appeal to the widest audience possible.

Pause, reflect, and continue How do you use code-switching? What is the purpose behind your switches? If you were asked to explain why you switch, what would you respond?

One of the assumptions that can be made is that speakers who codeswitch have an understanding of code-switching and style-shifting at both a conscious and subconscious level. Often times, these speakers show a great deal of linguistic insecurity about their language use due to many in society condemning of the practice of code-switching. However, they are aware of different kinds of talk and language use. It is common to find that speakers who code-switch are unaware as to the quantity to which they switch yet realize that they do code-switch. Many acknowledge that this use forms part of their linguistic repertoire and are aware of the stylistic use of language, but not the degree to which it forms part of their identity or the quantity and frequency with which they code-switch. Another consideration for those individuals who code-switch is when to employ different languages and when to code-switch in their individual social groups, community, and family activities, as well as at work and in other settings. Specific relationships are defined by the decision to use one language over another or code-switch, and language choice forms part of how speakers express their own social position and interest. Irvine (2002) discusses how it is possible to see the principle of differentiation in the different levels of Javanese speech. The principal difference between these two speech levels was concerning the coarseness and refinement of the speech that was used. This use could also be studied by investigating the prosodic differences as well as some lexical alternants. She also states that the more ‘‘refined’’ version of Javanese speech employs the use of loan words and loan morphemes from Sanskrit sacred texts. The use of these words of both ancient and sacred origin increases the ‘‘refinement’’ of the Javanese speech. This provides evidence for the idea of code-switching as style-shifting where words or phrases are chosen from different languages to give speech the desired effect. In the case of Javanese,

58

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

the words or phrases come from ancient, sacred texts, whereas in the case of English-Spanish bilinguals, code-switching is between two different languages with some similar historical characteristics and present-day cognates. The question that is raised is how code-switching can be divided into different styles. English would be considered the higher form or the form of education, schooling, business, etc. in many cases; yet, as has already been mentioned, many businesses use Spanish to appeal to a different clientele. This means that Spanish could also be the highest form in certain settings such as with older individuals, with parents, with relatives, etc. Code-switching would be the last form used with friends, siblings, etc.

1.9.3.

Code-Switching in the Schools

Code-switching can take place in the community or in an educational setting. Cook (2001) contends that an approach to teaching wherein the teacher is able to use the L1 and TL concurrently through some form of code-switching creates an authentic learning environment where the learners acknowledge the influence of the L1 on the TL. Additionally, Cook argues that not only is it acceptable to code-switch in the classroom, but that it is the logical choice of behavior when the speakers and learners share two or more languages. Castellotti and Moore (1997) concur that code-switching can be an effective strategy to use within the classroom, but that the teacher needs to make a conscious choice as to when to employ such a strategy to control the random insertion of the L1 into the classroom dialogue. Aguirre (1988) states that language alterations or code-switching are predictable because of the diverse population of language learners that are found in the foreign language classroom.

Pause, reflect, and continue How would you feel if you entered into a classroom and found that the teacher was code-switching while teaching? How would you feel if this were a language class? Should code-switching be allowed? Why or why not?

Brice (2001) cites some of the concerns as well as several strategies from studies in bilingualism that support the dual language usage in the classroom setting. He deals mainly with children in the language classroom, but states, ‘‘In our experience, parents are generally supportive of dual

What is Bilingualism?

59

language use in classroom settings. When parents are told that using two languages seems to facilitate English learning, then their fears (about their child’s school success) are alleviated’’ (p. 13). Some of the strategies with which the L1 can be used in the foreign language classroom are reiteration, vocabulary checks, maintaining a flexible environment, native language appreciation, spontaneous language use, use of code-switching as economical instruction, flow of instruction, answering questions, and expanding vocabulary (pp. 13–14). Timm (1993) warns that all parents may not support the use of code-switching in the classroom and that if the parents are against this, they ‘‘would be horrified to know that their children were also being exposed to it at school’’ (p. 107). Ferguson (2003) cites three broad categories where previous research on code-switching (CS) in the classroom has occurred. 1. CS for curriculum access (to help pupils understand the subject matter of their lessons); 2. CS for classroom management discourse (e.g., to motivate, discipline, and praise pupils, and to signal a change of footing); 3. CS for interpersonal relations (e.g., to humanize the affective climate of the classroom and to negotiate different identities) (p. 39). Several studies have been done that support these categories. Concerning the use of code-switching for curriculum access, Martin (1999) found that the teacher in his study code-switched to ‘‘encourage and elicit pupil participation’’ and to ‘‘clarify the meaning of certain sections of text’’ (pp. 51–51). Martin refers to this process as ‘‘unpacking the meaning’’ (p. 53). U¨stu¨nel and Seedhouse (2005) found that they had similar results in their study: Teachers code-switched from English to Turkish in order to deal with procedural trouble, clarify meaning by providing the Turkish equivalent, encourage and elicit learner participation, elicit Turkish translation, check learner comprehension, and give metalanguage information. (p. 308) Ferguson (2003) states that the common point of these studies is to illustrate ‘‘the significant role of code-switching in providing access to English medium text and in scaffolding knowledge construction for pupils with limited English language resources’’ (p. 41). This would apply to other language combinations as well. Second is the use of code-switching for classroom management discourse. Goffman (1981) concludes that code-switching is often used to contextualize a shift of frame. According to Ferguson (2003), this type of code-switching is

60

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

used to shift away from lesson content and toward some ‘‘off-lesson’’ concern — to discipline a pupil, to attend to latecomers, to gain and focus pupils’ attention, for example. It may also demarcate talk about the lesson content from what we may refer to as the management of pupil learning, that is, negotiating task instructions, inviting pupil contributions, disciplining pupils, specifying a particular addressee, and so on (p. 42). Merritt (1992) found the use of code-switching as ‘‘an attention-focusing device’’ with which the teachers were able to draw the students’ attention to certain important aspects of language learning or redirect the attention of the language learners from one task to the start of a new topic. Again, in support of this notion, U¨stu¨nel and Seedhouse (2005) noticed that teachers in their study did indeed code-switch in order to deal with questions regarding classroom discipline and also to give feedback to students. The third use of code-switching mentioned is for interpersonal relations. Ferguson (2003) clarifies what he means by this as follows: In many classrooms, English (TL) indexes a more distanced, formal teacher-pupil relationship and the local language y a closer, warmer more personal one. To build rapport with individual pupils, create greater personal warmth and encourage greater pupil involvement, the teacher may, therefore, when the occasion is suitable, switch to the local language. (p. 43) U¨stu¨nel and Seedhouse (2005) conducted a study where they investigated the use of the L1 (Turkish) and the TL (English) in the EFL classroom. They looked at six different classes of EFL learners, all taught by native Turkish speakers. They video-recorded and audio-recorded the classes in order to capture the language usage in the classroom. They identified three main areas where code-switching is used by both the students and the teachers. First, the teachers would code-switch depending on the length of the pause after they had stated a question or when they were conversing with the students. Conversational pauses of around two seconds tended to elicit code-switching from the instructor. The second case where code-switching occurred was in order to prompt students to produce in the L2 either through explaining a context or helping them with a word or phrase. Finally, the third use of code-switching that the researchers found was when the teacher encouraged the students to code-switch into the L1. This teacher-induced code-switching was done when asking the students for a translation of an English word into Turkish or as a procedural use in order to help redirect the class either onto a new task or back onto the current task with which they had been working. U¨stu¨nel and Seedhouse, commenting on the notion of interpersonal relationships in their study, found that the

What is Bilingualism?

61

teachers code-switched to ‘‘express a Turkish idiom, comment on a social event in Turkey, and pass on personal information’’ (p. 309). However, they did not find any cases where the students code-switched to influence interpersonal relations. Code-switching as a tool in the classroom. According to Timm (1993, p. 107), teachers may find it more useful to accept code-switching in the classroom because this may help to relax the students and thus create an environment where the students will be better able to learn. He goes on to declare that code-switching in the classroom shares many of the same features as in conversational switches such as to clarify, to emphasize, to attract attention, to refer to a concept specific to one particular culture, or to bid for a conversational turn. Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) declare: Code switching represents another strategy teachers use to simplify their speech in order to accommodate the learner’s level of proficiency. We hypothesize that a few strategic uses of NL may introduce input modifications that affect the FL learning positively. (p. 423) While this appears to be quite simplistic, it must be understood that several factors need to be taken into account before the decision to codeswitch or not to code-switch is taken by the teacher, and also whether or not the teacher will be willing to accept code-switching among the students in the class. First, it is important that the teacher become informed as to what is codeswitching, and become familiar with some of the research that has been done to explain this phenomenon. Timm (1993) posits that many teachers still view code-switching as ‘‘random or chaotic,’’ and yet others see it as ‘‘interference’’ from another language — English in this case (p. 94). Educators should be cognizant that the more informal and casual the relationship, the more common code-switching is, and that these switches may be either conscious or subconscious. Barkin (1981) states that often times, when the switches are conscious, they are added for a humorous or dramatic effect. Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) point out that codeswitching is not always under the teacher’s control. In this regard, translation in response to a student’s request is significant, as the learner rather than the teacher motivates the use of the TL (pp. 422–423). Teachers need to also take into account their own personal attitudes. If a teacher regards code-switching in low esteem or looks at it as being wrong, they should not promote it in the classroom because their personal opinion may come through and thus negatively influence the students. Another important factor for a teacher is the way in which the program and institution look upon code-switching. If a policy of exclusive use of the TL

62

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

exists, then promoting code-switching in the classroom would confuse and disconcert the students. One of the concerns brought about by code-switching is the different situations in which a teacher favors one language as opposed to the other. The choice of one language over another by the teacher in certain situations can stigmatize or cause the other language spoken to be seen as a subordinate language. Studies have shown that English (the L1) is the language that is most often used to take control of the class in which codeswitching is permitted. So, if teachers always choose English to take control of the class or say things that are important, they consciously or subconsciously downplay the role of the TL and its importance in the classroom.

1.10. The Bilingual Child (L1 and L2) Growing up is hard enough as it is, but imagine what it is like for a bilingual child who has to develop, learn, and grow, while sorting and processing input from two different languages. Even more difficult is learning to understand, talk, or read in two languages before you have even mastered one. This is the challenging task faced by more than one in five school-age children in the United States who speak a language other than English at home (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2011). The bilingual child can simply be defined as a child with knowledge in both a native language and a second language, but there is much more that occurs behind the scenes of a developing bilingual. Timing, parenting, and education can prove themselves crucial in the learning process for any bilingual child. Developing two separate language systems can be a tricky task at times, but it is far from impossible. For instance, recent studies have shown that an initial proficiency in the native tongue (L1) can in turn enhance the process of second language (L2) acquisition. Meanwhile, other studies have shown that early childhood is the best time to obtain language skills compared to learning a second language in adulthood, which can come with greater difficulty (Hagen, 2008). Because the task of learning two languages at the same time during development seems so difficult yet so many children are able to accomplish it, childhood bilingualism has been the topic of some controversy. Should parents avoid teaching their children two languages until they have a better sense to sort out the two, or does bilingualism in fact give children an academic and cognitive advantage? Should schools teach developing bilingual immigrant children in their native language or in the language of their new culture and country?

What is Bilingualism?

63

1.10.1. Bilingual Delay or Bilingual Advantage? The so-called paradox of bilingualism is that while children seem to have an enhanced capacity for language learning and often master two languages effortlessly (at least compared to most adults), there remain many children who face difficulties at school and who seem delayed overall in their achievement in one or both languages as a result of their budding bilingualism (Petitto, 2001). If immigrant children are doing poorly in schools, as many education policies in addition to test scores and drop-out rates suggest, then why do several studies show evidence for a cognitive advantage for bilingual children (Bialystok, 1999; Bialystok & Majumder, 1998; Petitto, 2001)? Historically, the consensus seems to have been that bilingualism caused confusion in children due to the mixed signals of the two languages, and generally led to cognitive and academic delay (Cummins, 1979; Petitto, 2001). This sentiment stems largely from the unitary language system hypothesis, developed in the 1970s. The unitary language system hypothesis posits that there is only one system in the brain devoted to processing and storing language, and any foreign languages in addition to an individual’s native language are processed there (Leopold, 1970; Swain, 1972). Volterra and Taeschner (1978) suggest that a child’s organization of languages starts out in this one system in infancy, and only gradually develops into two separate systems for the two languages. The unitary language system hypothesis cites young children’s use of code-switching as evidence that they are linguistically confused, and its proponents argue that children tend to avoid learning translational equivalents because they see no need for the dual representation of a single object or concept. Cummins (1979) cites another research article in support of this, stating: Gonzalez (1977) suggests that y children may switch codes because they do not know the label for a particular concept in the language they are speaking but have it readily available in the other language. Because the languages are not separated, each acts as a crutch for the other with the result that the children may fail to develop full proficiency in either language. (p. 238) Cummins (1979) presents a different hypothesis with implications of a unitary system called the threshold hypothesis. In it he claims that there is a threshold of language comprehension and acquisition that must be met to avoid detriment to a child’s development in acquiring a second language and avoid the attrition of the L2. He argues that, especially for very young children in the earlier grades of schooling, exposure to two languages

64

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

can be damaging to the development of linguistic skills, including speaking and reading. While this notion of a unitary system has been popular historically and remains so even today, there is not much research to support it (Petitto, 2001). Cummins (1979) does claim, however, that this same unitary system can be a benefit to bilinguals once the threshold of competency has been met, and there is a great deal more support for this notion. In his linguistic interdependence hypothesis, he argues that linguistic skills and metalinguistic knowledge transfer between languages. That is, once a skill like reading has been acquired in the child’s native language, the child will have that basic skill in foreign languages and it will not need to be relearned. Krashen (1997) cites a number of studies that have demonstrated this principle of transfer between Chinese, Vietnamese, and Japanese to English, as well as Turkish to Dutch (Cummins et al., 1984; Hoover, 1982; Verhoeven, 1991). Because it has been so thoroughly researched, many people now take the idea of metalinguistic transfer for granted. In fact, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages states as if it were a given: ‘‘those who have learnt one language also know a great deal about many other languages without necessarily realising that they do. The learning of further languages generally facilitates the activation of this knowledge and increases awareness of it’’ (p. 170). Somewhat ironically, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages also seems to simultaneously affirm Cummins’ linguistic interdependence hypothesis while denying the unitary system hypothesis with the statement, As an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands y he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but builds up a communicative skill to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. (p. 4) Cummins (1979) additionally argues as part of the threshold hypothesis that at a certain level of L1 proficiency, bilingualism can lead to both cognitive and academic benefits like the aforementioned metalinguistic transfer. In fact, Cummins adds a second threshold level to his hypothesis to account for this notion. Providing further detail to the threshold hypothesis, Cummins differentiates between semilingualism, dominant bilingualism, and additive bilingualism. Semilingualism, which is below the first threshold, refers to the sort of ‘‘confused’’ state where children are not fully competent in either language. Dominant bilingualism, at the level above the first threshold, carries no delay, but neither does it bring an advantage. It occurs when the native language dominates and the second language is at a limited

What is Bilingualism?

65

proficiency level. Only once a child reaches additive bilingualism, Cummins claims, will he or she gain cognitive advantages, because the second threshold has then been surpassed. To summarize, Cummins believes that if a child has good L1 proficiency he or she can achieve good second language skills, but without it there will be a lack of abilities in both languages, which will lead to a delay.

Pause, reflect, and continue Do you accept the hypothesis that a certain threshold is needed to receive the benefits of being bilingual? Have you reached that threshold? How do you know?

Rather than the unitary language system that Cummins’ theories imply, many proponents of a bilingual advantage argue for the differentiated language systems hypothesis (Petitto, 2001). The differentiated language systems hypothesis holds that a bilingual’s two languages are processed in two different areas of the brain (Genesee, 1989). The fact that even young bilinguals are often able to attend to one language while ignoring another and can switch back and forth between languages provides evidence for two separate language systems (Petitto, 2001). To investigate the seeming paradox of child bilingualism, Petitto observed the linguistic behaviors of several age groups of developing bilinguals. The median ages of the groups of French-English and French-Langues des Signes Que´be´coise (Quebec Sign Language) bilinguals in the study were 1-year-old, 2 years 6 months, and 3 years 6 months. The children were observed in five different scenarios and parents were asked to fill out a questionnaire on their child’s ‘‘language milestones’’ (e.g., first word in each language, first 50 words, etc.) to obtain a representative picture of the children’s linguistic capabilities. First the children were observed speaking with their mother, whose native language was one of the child’s spoken languages. Interactions with the father, who spoke the other language, were also observed. Two experimenters, speaking one of the child’s languages each, also interacted with the child to control for the child’s familiarity with the language patterns of his or her parents. A multiple interlocutor condition was also used to see if the children would show sensitivity to different interlocutors’ native languages in a competitive setting. In collecting the data, the experimenter looked for the achievement of language milestones, vocabulary growth, presence of translational equivalents, sensitivity to addressee’s native language, and use of language mixing. Petitto (2001) acquired a multitude of interesting results from this study. First, based on the parents’ questionnaires, both types of bilinguals showed equivalent timelines of milestone achievements and normal vocabulary

66

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

growth as compared to monolingual standards. This indicates that, even at such a young age as 1-year-old, the children in this study did not show a delay as a result of their bilingualism. Even more interesting was the presence of translational equivalents in the children’s lexicons. Since the unitary language systems hypothesis predicted that children would avoid acquisition of translational equivalents, one can see how this result supports differentiated language systems. The bilingual children further showed some sensitivity to the native language of the addressee. Petitto reports that in addition to having different language patterns for their parents, y all children’s language choice changed yet again depending upon the specific language of each of the two novel experimenters. At the same time, children did not always address an adult exclusively in the adult’s language. Some children would alter the amount that they used one of their native languages to match the specific language of an addressee, but would still use their other language. Crucially, however, we found that the degree to which children did this was directly related to their parents’ mixing rates and/or to the children’s emerging preference for one of their two native languages y (p. 479) The inclusion of French-Quebec Sign Language bilinguals allowed researchers to come to a further conclusion in support of the differentiated language systems hypothesis. While code-switching in young bilinguals is often cited as evidence of the child’s confusion or lack of translational equivalents, Petitto (2001) found that the introduction of a different language modality (i.e., hands as opposed to mouth) allowed the FrenchQuebec Sign Language participants to demonstrate systematic language mixing. While these participants did use code-mixing to account for a lack of translational equivalents in some cases, they also frequently used both codes simultaneously, an alternative that is not available to bilinguals with two spoken languages. The study in all provided very unique and convincing evidence for the differentiated language systems hypothesis, even for very young and linguistically developing bilinguals. Petitto additionally offers this commentary on the issue of when it is appropriate to teach children a second language: ‘‘both the present study as well as recent brain imaging studies of adult bilingual cerebral organization42 suggest that the earlier the exposure the better’’ (p. 492).

42. See Klein, Milner, Zatorre, Evans, and Meyer (1995).

What is Bilingualism?

67

Pause, reflect, and continue What do you see as the future direction for bilingual research with children? What areas still need more research? If you were raised bilingual, what are some of the issues that you faced as a bilingual child?

Not just content to disprove a bilingual delay, Bialystok (1993, 1998, 1999) in various research studies set out to find support for a linguistic and cognitive bilingual advantage. In her 1999 study, Bialystok gave monolingual and bilingual preschool children two problems that required the use of the cognitive process of attentional control. In order to test both linguistic and cognitive abilities, she used a verbal and nonverbal task. The verbal task was a ‘‘moving word’’ task, in which a word card was paired with one of two pictures. The experimenter first read a card to the child, and placed it under the corresponding picture. Then the child was distracted and the card was ‘‘accidentally’’ moved to the other picture, and the child was asked what the card said. The card was then replaced under the correct picture, and the child was asked for a final time to indicate what the word said. The second, nonverbal task was a ‘‘dimensional change card sort task.’’ The participants were given a set of cards with red and blue circles and squares, and were asked to sort them based on one of the dimensions (color or shape) and received a point for each card sorted correctly. They were then asked to switch dimensions (‘‘play the color game’’ or ‘‘play the shape game’’) and scored based on this new rule (p. 640). Bialystok (1999) found that the bilingual children performed better on both the verbal and nonverbal task, and noted that ‘‘the same children who could change their response through phases of the card sort task [adaptation] could maintain their response through trials of the moving word task [perseveration]’’ (p. 642). She concluded that bilingual children had more enhanced control abilities than their monolingual counterparts, as they performed better in tasks requiring high levels of attentional control. In another study, Bialystok and Majumder (1998) investigated the effect of degree of bilingualism on the bilingual advantage. Paralleling Cummins’ threshold hypothesis, the two researchers wondered if there would be a minimum proficiency required in both of the child’s languages in order to display advanced cognitive development. They studied English monolinguals, Bengali-English partial bilinguals (dominant bilinguals in Cummins’ terminology), and French-English balanced (additive) bilinguals in tasks of both attentional control and analysis. The tasks were fairly well-known Piagetian cognitive problems, and the results indicated that degree of bilingualism did have an effect on control of attention, but not on analysis. While both groups of bilinguals performed better on the linguistic task, only

68

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

the balanced bilinguals performed significantly better on nonverbal tasks of control. It appears that, in order to see the positive effects of bilingualism for nonlinguistic tasks, a level of proficiency greater than that of the partial bilinguals in the study is necessary. However, for cognitive analysis, neither the monolinguals nor the bilinguals showed any advantage. Another issue that needs to be considered in the debate on bilingual education is children’s ability to process language, particularly language sounds. Research has demonstrated that newborns have an incredible ability to differentiate phonemes of any language in the world, but the brain’s plasticity deteriorates with age beginning around 6 months of age for language discrimination (Kuhl, 2010). According to other sources, age 11 has been called the phonetic threshold after which it is difficult to differentiate and therefore produce certain sounds (Dalgalian, 1980; Hage`ge, 1996). This information would seem to imply a phonetic advantage for bilinguals, and it supports the idea that the earlier bilingual education starts, the better. The bilingual child is a complex individual who is learning and developing two languages. Furthermore, the two phonological systems of bilingual children interact to aid in the rate of acquisition. Bilingual children grow up with two different language systems and become aware of when each language is appropriate. Once the correct language has been determined, the child will elect the proper phonetics that must be spoken and a connection is established between the languages (Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010). Additionally, studies have shown that the native language of the bilingual child is of great importance. The mastery of the mother tongue has shown to help increase proficiency in second language acquisition and impact a child’s social and personal development. L1 development is also an important determinant of success in education and in the acquisition of a second language. There is a multifaceted relationship between these different areas as they relate to one another. It is believed that all bilingual children go through the same learning process and stages. Yazici, Ilter, and Glover (2010) conducted a study that analyzes bilingual Turkish children throughout several European countries in hopes to connect learning processes of bilingual children around the world. The study involved 30 Turkish children who live in Norway, Germany, and Austria. There were no bilingual programs offered at the preschool level; therefore, the children were only exposed to their native languages while in a home setting. However, since many of the parents were bilingual, many of the children were exposed to multiple languages in their homes. Additionally, the selection of the home language that children used varied from the native language to another language that was not the community language to some using the community language to interact with their family members. Two designated tests were used to assess the children’s abilities: the Descourdres Vocabulary Test

What is Bilingualism?

69

(DVT) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). Together, they analyzed the use of adjectives, infinitives, colors, and vocabulary knowledge. The PPVT consisted of the child identifying the meaning of a word by pointing to one of four pictures on the card. The results showed no significant difference between the Turkish children living in each European country where each child was learning a different second language outside of the home. Given the results of the study, the authors concluded that, while increasing the student’s competence in the second language was minimally beneficial to their L1 reading gains, focusing on improving the children’s L1 did have a direct impact on their reading ability in the L2. Ultimately, some parents were not aware of the importance of establishing a native language and that the lack of one can lead to identity and social problems. When children learn their native language, it develops their language skills and intellectual functioning, which then enhances the ability to learn a second language (Yazici et al., 2010).

Pause, reflect, and continue Have you seen how first language acquisition has helped in the acquisition of a second language in your lives or of people you know? Why is L1 acquisition in children so important to future success in a second language, especially in the acquisition of reading?

1.11. Sociolinguistic Aspects of (Bi/Multi)lingualism In our discussion about language varieties, we talked about linguistic variation based on geographical variations. As we move across towns, cities, and national borders, we often find differences in the way people speak, which exemplifies the evolving nature of dialects and languages in general. Furthermore, we discussed the key role that prestige plays in most linguistic settings. The notion of prestige is associated with people’s perceptions of what constitutes a ‘‘good’’ and a ‘‘bad’’ language or variety. These perceptions have nothing to do with the inherent value of a language or variety and, more often than not, everything to do with how people feel about those who speak the particular language or variety. But there is more to variation than regional differences and prestige. In any given linguistic community, individuals use languages and language varieties differently based on age, gender, economic status, educational attainment, class, and other social variables. In most cases, these differences are not created consciously and intentionally by the members of a group or subgroup, although individuals have the ability to show their desire to be

70

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

considered equal to and different from others through language. These differences are usually generated through frequent contact and interaction, which allows for the creation of what is called a speech community. Differences in language use, as well as the behaviors of different speech communities, is the main focus of study of the branch of linguistics known as sociolinguistics. Sociolinguists are concerned with more than linguistic variation caused by social variables. They also study attitudes towards languages and language varieties, the relationship between language and identity, the social practices that promote or inhibit bilingualism and multilingualism, and the differences between ‘‘standard’’ and ‘‘nonstandard’’ forms of languages and language varieties. Also, in terms of methodology, practice, and theoretical underpinnings, there is some overlap with disciplines such as sociology, ethnography, and anthropology. This overlap has caused debate among scholars, some of whom prefer to use the terms sociology of language, ethnolinguistics, and anthropological linguistics to describe the type of work they do. The bottom line is that all of these disciplines focus on various aspects of the relationship between language and society.43

Pause, reflect, and continue Do you think that age, gender, social class, and other social variables play a role in the levels of bilingualism that a community may attain? Explain why.

Given the enormous literature on sociolinguistics, it is impossible to paint a complete picture of the variation of languages and language varieties according to social variables. Therefore, for the purpose of illustrating the importance that these variables play on variation and on issues of prestige and identity, we will limit the discussion to age, gender, and socioeconomic background. Age is one of the most important factors in language variation (see Duszak & Okulska, 2010). Different age groups play different roles in society, and these roles have an effect on the opportunities individuals have to interact with others and on the value attributed to what they have to say. Young adults in their twenties and thirties, for example, focused on establishing themselves in their careers and as members of their own nuclear

43. See Van Herk (2012) for a ‘‘tour’’ of the major issues that define the field.

What is Bilingualism?

71

families, sometimes see the need to conform to more ‘‘correct’’ speech patterns that are normally associated with an educated upper-middle class and upper class. Adolescents, on the other hand, tend to create their own words and expressions in an effort to define themselves as a separate ideological social group, a so-called private speech. Take, for example, fresa speech in Mexican Spanish. Originally associated with self-centered, frivolous, and unintelligent young people from the upper class, the term has been recently used to describe not only a type of ‘‘affected’’ speech, but also a lifestyle. There are obvious gender differences in the way members of a speech community speak, like the fact that most women have a lower tone of voice than men. However, sociolinguistics is not interested in this variation caused primarily by biological differences. Instead, it is concerned with, for instance, why a man would typically not choose to describe something using the adjective darling whereas a woman — or at least some women — would. The key issue is why men and women sometimes choose different words or forms given the same communicative conditions and the same linguistic options, a phenomenon that may be explained in part by the social differentiation of genders that exists in most cultures (see Weatherall, 2002). In general, there is more tolerance for men to be more ‘‘innovative’’ with language and to use words and expressions that, according to the majority of speakers, are considered vulgar and rude. Consequently, and with some exceptions, men are usually the ones responsible for linguistic changes that lead to variation. In contrast, women are expected to use a more ‘‘proper’’ type of language, which translates into linguistic uses that are more aligned with what a speech community considers ‘‘standard’’ and ‘‘prestigious.’’ More often than not, these linguistic expectations are closely related to certain behavioral expectations imposed by society as a whole. The last social variable we will discuss is socioeconomic background (see Mallinson, 2010). In every society throughout the world, populations are stratified in social classes. This classification is normally based on household income, educational attainment, type of residence, and occupation, although each criterion can be considered separately. Most sociolinguistic studies take into consideration aspects related to socioeconomics and social stratification because it has been proven that they have an effect on how specific social groups speak, what is known as sociolects. They also have an effect on how their speech is perceived by outsiders. An example is naco speech, the opposite of the fresa speech described above. In Mexico, a naco is someone from the poorly educated lower social class. Just like fresa speech, naco speech is associated with a certain kind of behavior, in this case, with being ‘‘unsophisticated’’ and having bad manners.

72

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

In our discussion about prestige, we stated that, in most communities, the linguistic features that are considered more prestigious are usually those present in the speech of the upper-middle class and the upper class. This explains why, in some cases, the use of less prestigious variants of the same linguistic forms is limited to the lower social strata. One of the arguments that justify this phenomenon is that social stratification generally creates social boundaries within communities, especially in segregated large urban settings; these boundaries, in turn, promote distance among members of the community, and the lack of continuous interaction leads to linguistic variation. This argument sounds logical, but it does not account for all the cases of variation in all speech communities. First, social stratification forms a continuum in which classificatory lines are sometimes blurry. Members of a particular sociolect, for example, can live in the same type of residence and share the same income bracket; however, they may have very different occupations that determine how much interaction they have with members of other sociolects. Second, individuals in the same socioeconomic class do not necessarily live in the same neighborhoods. Therefore, the chances they have to cross class lines in their interactions with others may vary significantly, and this has an effect on their speech. Third, education is an equalizing force. In large cities where the local education system imposes the use of standardized curricula, students from different social backgrounds have somewhat similar educational experiences that may have an impact on language development. Access to higher education also serves as a leveling force. Despite these limitations, sociolinguists try to identify the most salient patterns of differentiation that distinguish the various social groups found in a community and explain why this variation occurs. It is important to say that social variables are not isolates that influence language separately; they usually interact with each other, complicating the analysis of the data collected by researchers. In addition, register does play a crucial role in linguistic variation. Context, familiarity with the interlocutor, and power impose a specific level of formality on each communicative act, and this level of formality determines the words and forms we use. As everyone would agree, we do not speak to the president of the United States the same way we speak to our best friend and confidant.

Pause, reflect, and continue Can you provide examples of sociolinguistic variation based on age, gender, and socioeconomic class in English and/or in other languages that you speak?

What is Bilingualism?

73

References Abrams, J., Barker, V., & Giles, H. (2009). An examination of the validity of the subjective vitality questionnaire. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(1), 59–72. Aguirre, A. (1988). Code switching, intuitive knowledge, and the bilingual classroom. In H. Garcia & R. Chavez (Eds.), Ethnolinguistic issues in education (pp. 28–38). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2002). Program Standards for the Preparation of foreign language teachers (initial level-undergraduate & graduate) (for K-12 and secondary certification programs). Yonkers, NY: ACTFL. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/files/public/ACTFLNCATEStandardsRevised713.pdf Andersen, R. (1982). Determining the linguistic attributes of language attrition. In R. Lambert & B. Freed (Eds.), The loss of language skills (pp. 83–118). London: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (1987). Language contact and bilingualism. New York, NY: Edward Arnold. Austin, P. K. (Ed.) (2008). One thousand languages: Living, endangered, and lost. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Avci, G., & Kiris- ci, K. (2008). Turkey’s immigration and emigration dilemmas at the gates of the European Union. In S. Castles & R. Delgado Wise (Eds.), Migration and development: Perspectives from the south (pp. 123–173). Geneva, CH: International Organization for Migration. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Barkin, F. (1981). Evaluating linguistic proficiency: The case of teachers in bilingual programs. In G. Valde´s, A. G. Lozano & R. Garcı´ a-Moya (Eds.), Teaching Spanish to the Hispanic Bilingual: Issues, aims, and methods (pp. 215–234). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Beebe, L. (1981). Social and situational factors affecting communicative strategy of dialect code-switching. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 32, 139–149. Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145–204. Bialystok, E. (1993). Metalinguistic awareness: The development of children’s representations of language. In C. Pratt & A. Garton (Eds.), Systems of representation in children: Development and use (pp. 211–233). London: Wiley. Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Development, 70(3), 636–644. Bialystok, E., & Majumder, S. (1998). Relationship between bilingualism and development of cognitive processes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 69–85. Bickerton, D. (1995). Language and human behavior. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Blake, R., & Kramsch, C. (2007). Perspectives volume: National language educational policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 247–283. Brice, A. (2001). Choice of language in instruction: One language or two? Teaching of Exceptional Children, 33(4), 10–16.

74

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Holt. Boas, H. C. (2009). Case loss in Texas German: The influence of semantic and pragmatic factors. In J. Barjdal & S. L. Chelliah (Eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case (pp. 347–373). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Bokhorst-Heng, W. (2005). Debating Singlish. Multilingua, 24, 185–209. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourhis, R. Y., & Giles, H. (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 119–135). London: Academic Press. Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., Leyens, J. P., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Psycholinguistic distinctiveness: Language divergence in Belgium. In H. Giles, R. N. St. Clair, W. Labov & R. Fasold (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 158–185). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Britain, D., & Trudgill, P. (1999). Migration, new-dialect formation, and sociolinguistic refunctionalization: Reallocation as an outcome of dialect contact. Transactions of the Philological Society, 97(2), 245–256. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2003). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 369–394). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Burnet, W. (2006). Linguistic resistance on the Maine-New Brunswick border. Canadian Journal of Linguistics [Revuew Canadienne de Linguistique], 51(2/3), 161–175. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge. Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London, UK: Routledge. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Castellotti, V., & Moore, D. (1997). Alterner pour apprendre, alterner pour enseigner, des nouveaux enjeux pour la classe de langue. Etudes de Linguistique Applique´e, 108, 389–392. Chambers, J. K. (1992). Dialect acquisition. Language, 68(4), 673–705. Chambers, J. K. (2002). Dynamics of dialect convergence. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(1), 117–130. Chng, H. H. (2003). ‘‘You see me no up’’ Is Singlish a problem? Language Problems & Language Planning, 27(1), 45–62. Chng, H. H. (2008). Beyond linguistic instrumentalism: The place of Singlish in Singapore. In P. K. W. Tan & R. Rubdy (Eds.), Language as commodity: Global structures, local marketplaces (pp. 57–69). London: Continuum International. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, NL: Foris Publications. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Christiansen, M. H., Collins, C., & Edelman, S. (Eds.). (2009). Language universals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

What is Bilingualism?

75

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423. Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–169. Coste, D. (1997). Alternances didactiques. E´tudes de Linguistique Applique´e, 108, 393–400. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K., Handscombe, J., Green, D., & Tran, C. (1984). Linguistic interdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese immigrant students. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: Research and application (pp. 60–81). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters (ED 249 793). Dalgalian, G. (1980). Proble´matique de l’e´ducation bilingu¨e. Actes du Colloque de Saint-Vincent, Val d’Aoste, sans e´diteur. De Bot, K., & Clyne, M. (1994). A 16-year longitudinal study of language attrition in Dutch immigrants in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 15(1), 17–28. de Saussure, F. (2011). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.), P. Meisel & H. Saussy (Eds.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Dixon, R. (1989). The original language of Australia. VOX, 3, 26–33. (As cited in Waas, M., 1999.) Dorian, N. (1980). Language shift in community and individual: The phenomenon of the laggard semi-speaker. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 25, 85–94. Dressler, W. (1991). The sociolinguistic and patholinguistic attrition of Breton phonology, morphology, and morphonology. In H. Seliger & R. Vago (Eds.), First language attrition (pp. 99–112). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Duszak, A., & Okulska, U. (2010). Age and language studies. In A. Duszak & U. Okulska (Eds.), Language, culture, and the dynamics of age (pp. 3–25). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ervin-Tripp, S. (2001). Variety, style-shifting, and ideology. In P. Eckert & J. Rickford (Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (pp. 44–56). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fabiano-Smith, L., & Goldstein, B. (2010). Phonological acquisition in bilingual Spanish-English speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 160–178. Fasold, R. W., & Connor-Linton, J. (2006). An introduction to language and linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Felix, S. (1996). Mental biology in second-language acquisition. Linguistics, 34(5), 139–158.

76

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: Functions, attitudes and policies. AILA Review, 16, 38–51. Fishman, J. (1980). Bilingualism and biculturalism as individual and as societal phenomena. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1, 3–15. Flege, J. (1992). Speech learning in a second language. In C. Ferguson, L. Menn & C. Stoel-Gammon (Eds.), Phonological development: Models, research, and application (pp. 565–604). Parkton, MD: York Press. Foster, W. (1982). A comparison of three current first-year college-level Spanish-fornative-speakers textbooks. The Bilingual Review, 22(5), 72–81. Freed, B. (1983). Language loss: Current thought and future directions. In R. Lambert & B. Freed (Eds.), The loss of language skills (pp. 1–6). London: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2010). An introduction to language (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Gal, S. (1987). Codeswitching and consciousness in the European periphery. American Ethnologist, 14(3/4), 637–653. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Genesee, F. (1989). Early bilingual development: One language or two? Journal of Child Language, 16, 161–179. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87–105. Giles, H., & Byrne, J. L. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multicultural and Multilingual Development, 3, 17–40. Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ginsberg, R. (1986). Issues in the analysis of language loss: Methodology of the language skills attrition project. In B. Weltens, K. De Bot & T. van Els (Eds.), Language attrition in progress (pp. 19–36). Holland, NL: Foris Publications. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Gonzalez, G. (1977). Teaching bilingual children. In Bilingual education: Current perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 53–59). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Gorter, D. (1987). Aspects of language choice in the Frisian-Dutch bilingual context: Neutrality and asymmetry. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 8, 121–132. Gottardo, A., & Grant, A. (2008). Defining bilingualism. Retrieved from http:// literacyencyclopedia.ca/index.php?fa ¼ items.show&topicId ¼ 236. Accessed on June 30, 2012. Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual life and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hage`ge, C. (1996). L’enfant aux deux langues. Paris, FR: E´ditions Odile Jacob.

What is Bilingualism?

77

Hagen, L. (2008). The bilingual brain: Human evolution and second language acquisition. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 43–63. Haugen, E. (1969). The Norwegian language in America: A study in bilingual behavior. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Heller, M. (1999a). Alternative ideologies of la francophonie. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(3), 336–359. Heller, M. (1999b). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography. London: Longman. Hidalgo, M. (2008). Indicators of bilingualism and identity: Samples from the Spanish-speaking world. In M. Nin˜o-Murcia & J. Rothman (Eds.), Bilingualism and identity: Spanish at the crossroads with other languages (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Hinton, L. (1999). Involuntary language loss among immigrants: Asian-American linguistic autobiographies. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/ databases/ERIC_Digests/ed436982.html. Accessed on October 19, 2001. Hoover, W. (1982). Language and literacy learning in bilingual education: Preliminary report. Cantonese site analytic study. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (ED 245 572). Huston, N. (2002). Losing north: Musings on land, tongue, and self. Toronto, CA: McArthur. Irvine, J. (2002). ‘Style’ as distinctiveness: the culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In P. Eckert & J. Rickford (Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (pp. 21–43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kerswill, P., & Trudgill, P. (2005). The birth of new dialects. In P. Auer, F. Hinskens & P. Kerswill (Eds.), Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European languages (pp. 196–220). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kerswill, P., & Williams, A. (2000). Mobility versus social class in dialect levelling: Evidence from new and old towns in England. In K. Mattheier (Ed.), Dialect and migration in a changing Europe (pp. 1–13). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Klein, D., Milner, B., Zatorre, R. J., Evans, A. C., & Meyer, E. (1995). The neural substrates underlying word generation: A bilingual functional-imaging study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 92, 2899–2903. Kontra, M., & Gosy, M. (1987). Approximation of the standard: A form of variability in bilingual speech. In A. R. Thomas (Ed.), Methods in dialectology (pp. 442–455). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kouritzin, S. (1999). The face(t)s of first language loss. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Krashen, S. (1997). Why bilingual education? ERIC Digest (ED 403101). Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/FullText/WhyBilingualEdKra shen.pdf Kuhl, P. (2010). The linguistic genius of babies [Video file]. Retrieved from http:// www.ted.com/talks/patricia_kuhl_the_linguistic_genius_of_babies.html Labov, W. (1968). A study of the non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

78

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Labov, W. (1972a). Language in the inner city: Studies in the black English vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (1972b). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (1973). The linguistic consequences of being a lame. Language in Society, 2(1), 81–115. Labov, W. (1996). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Lamboy, E. M. (2011). Language, Puerto Ricanness, and the new wave of Puerto Rican immigrants. In A. Corta´zar & R. Orozco (Eds.), Lenguaje, arte y revoluciones ayer y hoy: New approaches to Hispanic linguistic, literary, and cultural studies (pp. 140–161). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars. Landry, L., & Allard, R. (1996). French in South Louisiana: Towards language loss. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(6), 442–468. Le Page, R. B., & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Leopold, W. (1970). Speech development of a bilingual child: A linguist’s record. New York, NY: AMS Press. Lewis, M. P. (Ed.) (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (16th ed.). Dallas: SIL InternationalRetrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com Liebkind, K. (1999). Social psychology. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity (pp. 140–151). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lipski, J. M. (1994). Latin American Spanish. London: Longman. Lyons, J. (2002). Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mackey, W. F. (1989). Determining the status and function of languages in multinational societies. In U. Ammon (Ed.), Status and function of languages and language varieties (pp. 3–20). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Mallinson, C. (2010). Social stratification. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone & P. Kerswill (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 87–99). London: Sage. Mannheim, B., & Tedlock, D. (1995). Introduction. In D. Tedlock & B. Mannheim (Eds.), The dialogic emergence of culture (pp. 1–32). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Marrone, N. (1981). Espan˜ol para el hispano: Un enfoque sociolingu¨ı´ stico. In G. Valde´s & R. Garcı´ a-Moya (Eds.), Teaching Spanish to the Hispanic Bilingual: Issues, aims, and methods (pp. 69–79). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Martin, P. (1999). Bilingual unpacking of monolingual texts in two primary classrooms in Brunei Darussalam. Language and Education, 13(1), 38–58. McGroarty, M. (1996). Language attitudes, motivation, and standards. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 3–46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McKay, S., & Weinstein-Shr, G. (1993). English literacy in the U.S.: National policies, personal consequences. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 399–420. Mendoza-Denton, N. (2004). Language and identity. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 475–499). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

What is Bilingualism?

79

Merritt, M. (1992). Socialising multilingualism: Determinants of code-switching in Kenyan primary schools. Journal of Multilingualism and Multicultural Development, 13(1/2), 103–121. Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–555. Milroy, J. (2012). Sociolinguistics and ideologies in language history. In J.M. Herna´ndez Campoy & J. C. Conde (Eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics (pp. 571–584). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Milroy, L. (2004). Social networks. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill & N. SchillingEstes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 549–572). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Mougeon, R., & Nadasdi, T. (1998). Sociolinguistic discontinuities in minority language communities. Language, 74(1), 40–55. Myers-Scotton, C. (1988). Codeswitching as indexical of social negotiations. In M. Heller (Ed.), Code-switching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 151–186). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nanda, S., & Warms, R. L. (2010). Cultural anthropology. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Participation in education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-lsm-1.asp. Accessed on June 14, 2012. Nin˜o-Murcia, M., & Rothman, J. (2008). Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity. In M. Nin˜o Murcia & J. Rothman (Eds.), Bilingualism and identity: Spanish at the crossroads with other languages (pp. 11–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159–171). London: Pearson Education. Norton, B. (2010). Language and identity. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 349–369). Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters. Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching, 44(4), 412–446. Osborn, T. A. (2006). Teaching world languages for social justice: A sourcebook of principles and practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pavlenko, A. (2000). L2 influence on L1 in late bilingualism. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 175–205. Penny, R. (2000). Variation and change in Spanish. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pennycook, A. (2003). Global Englishes, rip slyme, and performativity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7, 513–533. Petitto, L. A. (2001). Bilingual signed and spoken language acquisition from birth: Implications for the mechanisms underlying early bilingual language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 28, 453–496. Pinker, S. (2007). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics. Plotkin, V. (2006). The language system of English. Boca Raton, FL: Brown Walker.

80

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Poplack, S. (1980). ‘Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en espan˜ol’: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618. Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 402–426. Romaine, S. (1999). The grammaticalization of the proximative in TokPisin. Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, 75(2), 322–346. Romaine, S. (2000). Language in society: An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rothman, J., & Rell, A. (2005). A linguistic analysis of Spanglish: Relating language to identity. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 1(3), 515–536. Sa´nchez, R. (1981). Spanish for native speakers at the university: Suggestions. In G. Valde´s (Ed.), Teaching Spanish to the Hispanic bilingual (pp. 91–99). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sankoff, G. (2001). Linguistic outcomes of language change. In P. Trudgill, J.K. Chambers & N. Schillings-Estes (Eds.), Handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 638– 668). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York, NY: Harcourt. Saville-Troike, M. (1994). Causes and consequences of language maintenance/shift in immigrant speech communities. Paper presented at the International Conference on Immigration, Language Acquisition and Patterns of Social Integration, Jerusalem, Israel. Saville-Troike, M., Pan, J., & Dutkova, L. (1995). Differential effects of L2 on children’s L1 development/attrition. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 14(1-2), 125–149. Scalise, S., Magni, E., & Bisetto, A. (Eds.). (2009). Universals of language today. Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Schmidt, A. (1991). Language attrition in Boumaa Fijian and Dyribal. In H. Seliger & R. Vago (Eds.), First language attrition (pp. 3–16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Seliger, H. (1985). Primary language attrition in the context of other language loss and mixing. Unpublished MS Queens College, City University New York. (As cited in Weltens, B., & Grendel, M., 1993.) Seliger, H., & Vago, R. (1991). The study of first language attrition: An overview. In H. Seliger & R. Vago (Eds.), First language attrition (pp. 3–16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Selinker, L., & Gass, S. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2010). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Silva Corvala´n, C. (2001). Sociolingu¨ı´stica y pragma´tica del espan˜ol. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Smith, M., & Van Buren, P. (1991). First language attrition and the parameter setting model. In H. Seliger & R. Vago (Eds.), First language attrition (pp. 17–30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

What is Bilingualism?

81

Swain, M. (1972). Bilingualism as a first language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Irvine, CA. Thiery, C. (1978). True bilingualism and second language learning. In D. Gerver & H. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 145–153). New York, NY: Plenum. Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Timm, L. (1993). Bilingual code-switching: An overview of research. In B. Merino, H. Trueba & F. Samaniego (Eds.), Language and culture in learning: Teaching Spanish to native speakers of Spanish (pp. 94–114). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. Trudgill, P. (1983). On dialect. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. Trudgill, P. (1988). Norwich revisited: Recent linguistic changes in an English urban dialect. English World-Wide: A Journal of Varieties of English, 9(1), 33–49. Trudgill, P., Gordon, E., Lewis, G., & Maclagan, M. (2000). Determinism in newdialect formation and the genesis of New Zealand English. Journal of Linguistics, 36(2), 299–318. U¨stu¨nel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Codeswitching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302–325. Valde´s, G. (1997). The teaching of Spanish to bilingual Spanish-speaking students: Outstanding issues and unanswered questions. In M. Cecilia Colombi & F.X. Alarco´n (Eds.), La ensen˜anza del espan˜ol a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teorı´a (pp. 8–44). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Van Herk, G. (2012). What is sociolinguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Verhoeven, L. (1991). Acquisition of literacy. Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquee (AILA) Review, 8, 61–74. Volterra, V., & Taeschner, T. (1978). The acquisition and development of language by the bilingual child. Journal of Child Language, 5, 311–326. Waas, M. (1996). Language attrition downunder: German speaker in Australia. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Waas, M. (1999). Language extinction: Taking note of language extinction. Applied Linguistic Forum, 18(2). Retrieved October 10, 2001 from http://www.colorado. edu/iec/alis/articles/langext.htm Weatherall, A. (2002). Gender, language, and discourse. New York, NY: Routledge. Wee, L. (2008). Linguistic instrumentalism in Singapore. In P. K. W. Tan & R. Rubdy (Eds.), Language as commodity: Global structures, local marketplaces (pp. 31–43). London: Continuum International. Wee, L. (2011). Language policy mistakes in Singapore: Governance, expertise and the deliberation of language ideologies. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 201–221. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). London, UK: Blackwell. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. New York, NY: Linguistic Circle of New York.

82

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Welkowitz, J., Bond, R. N., & Felstein, S. (1984). Gender and conversational time patterns as Japanese-American adults and children in same- and mixed-gender dyads. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 127–138. White, L. (1986). Markedness and parameter setting: Some implications for a theory of adult second language acquisition. In F. Eckmann, E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (Eds.), Markedness (pp. 301–328). New York, NY: Plenum. Willemyns, R. (1997). Language shift through erosion: The case of the FrenchFlemish ‘Westhoek’. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(1), 54–66. Wohlgemuth, J., & Cysouw, M. (2010). Rethinking universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Quarterly, 6, 323–346. Yazici, Z., Ilter, B. G., & Glover, P. (2010). How bilingual is bilingual? Mothertongue proficiency and learning through a second language. International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(3), 259–268. Yule, G. (1996). The study of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Chapter 2

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

2.1. Looking Back: The Birth of a Spanish Language and a Spanish Nation From a historical perspective, the development and diffusion of the Spanish language has been plagued by conflict and turmoil. In its origins, Castilian, which later evolved into what we know today as Spanish, was just one of the Hispano-Romance dialects spoken in the Iberian Peninsula, specifically in the Burgos area of southern Cantabria. Compared to the other varieties of Hispano-Romance speech, it was considered ‘‘abnormal’’ because it did not share many of the features that were common in most of those varieties. Nonetheless, Castilian had the greatest territorial and cultural success in the Christian Reconquest of the Peninsula from the Moors. As Penny (1991, p. 14) explains, ‘‘Castilian linguistic characteristics were carried south, southeast, and southwest, in part by movement of population, as Castilians settled in reconquered territories, and in part by adoption of Castilian features by those whose speech was originally different.’’ By 1035, Castile was declared a kingdom, and when Toledo was captured in 1085, the prestige of Castilian had already been noticed. ‘‘By the mid-thirteenth century, y Castilian had expanded to comprise something over half of the Peninsular territory and Castilian speech was on the way to displacing its competitor, Arabic and Mozarabic’’ (Penny, 1991, p. 14). The Reconquest ended in 1492 with the expulsion of the Moors from Granada. During the Reconquest, the Castilian dialect flourished in terms of its functionality and power. Alfonso X the Learned (1221–1284), the first king to rule over a somewhat unified Christian Spain, oversaw a major project to translate into Castilian an enormous amount of songs and scientific, legal, literary, and historiographical documents originally written in Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew. This gave Castilian a great deal of prestige over other

84

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Hispano-Romance dialects like Leonese and Aragonese, and the emphasis on ‘‘correctness’’ that was enforced by Alfonso X fostered the creation of a standard form of Castilian (Penny, 1991, p. 15). Sole´ (1992, p. 56) calls this the first act of ‘‘Hispanic linguistic nationalism.’’ Later, with the unification of the Aragon and Castile kingdoms in 1479, Castilian gained even more prominence in the region. Under Alfonso X’s reign, Castilian also became the language of administration. In such times of political instability, and by contrast with Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew, Castilian was considered a religiously neutral language, which led to more and more acceptance by the populus. All the documents issued by the Royal Chancery were written in a form of Castilian that showed an increasing level of correctness and linguistic consistency that was copied and imitated, which led to an eventual standardization (Penny, 1991, p. 16). Meanwhile, speakers of other Hispano-Romance dialects continued to use them. They did not yet consider themselves part of the Spanish ‘‘nation’’ that was emerging. However, by the end of the fifteenth century and beginning of the sixteenth century, Aragonese had significant influence from Castilian, and Leonese was associated with peasant speech. In this period, writers whose first language was not Castilian began to use this language as a vehicle for literary expression (Dı´ ez, Morales, & Sabı´ n, 1977, p. 1991). The year 1492 is also important for the development of Spanish because that was the year in which Antonio de Nebrija (1441–1522) published the first grammar of the Spanish language, the first of any Romance language, and the first Latin-Spanish dictionary. This was the first attempt in history to put together the rules that describe the usage of what we know today as Spanish and the first publications that elevated Castilian to the category of full-fledged language, a language of power that deserved an explanatory grammar. Nebrija’s work, however, is also relevant for political reasons. In the prologue of his grammar, he said: ‘‘Language has always been the companion to empire.’’2 This confidence in the strength of the Spanish language was echoed by Hernando de Talavera, who, when Queen Isabella of Castile questioned the usefulness of Nebrija’s grammar, intervened and said: ‘‘After Your Highness has subjected barbarous peoples and nations of varied tongues, with conquest will come the need for them to accept the laws that the conqueror imposes on the conquered, and among them will be our language.’’ Nebrija’s and Talavera’s words reflect the expansionist and

1. Cited in Mar-Molinero (2000, p. 21). 2. Cited in Nieto Jime´nez (1995, p. 10).

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

85

imperialistic thoughts of the time and clearly constitute an omen of things to come.3 Pause, reflect, and continue Could you think of other historical events that exemplify the relationship between language and empire that Nebrija alluded to? Were the sociopolitical conditions are similar to those in Spain at the end of the fifteenth century? It wasn’t until the eighteenth century that the idea of a well-centralized Spanish nation through a hegemonic view of Castilian was overtly put into action. This is the period of the Bourbon French-inspired centralization, characterized by repression of the peripheral regions and their rights. The other peninsular dialects were losing relevance; however, this was perceived as a necessary step in the formation of a uniform nation with a uniform language (Sigua´n, 1993, p. 254).5 The creation of the Real Academia Espan˜ola de la Lengua (Royal Academy of the Spanish Language) in 1713 reflects not only the role that the Bourbons played in this linguistic policy (The Real Academia was created in imitation of the Acade´mie Franc- aise), but also the desire to standardize the language as a means to promote linguistic nationalism. Decades later, in 1768, King Charles III declared via royal decree that Castilian must be the language used in both the administration and education (Sigua´n, 1993, p. 256).

Pause, reflect, and continue The Real Academia Espan˜ola de la Lengua’s motto is ‘‘Limpia, fija y da esplendor’’ (It cleanses, sets, and casts splendor). Based on what you already learned about languages and language varieties, what do you think about the RAE’s mission?

The nineteenth century was one of significant contrasts in terms of languages and identity in Spain. The early part of the century saw an interest 3. The omen, nevertheless, is only partly true if we consider that there are hundreds of Amerindian languages that have survived these imperialistic trends, although with extremely varying ethnolinguistic results. 4. Cited in Mar-Molinero (2000, p. 21). 5. According to Mar-Molinero (2000, p. 22), the Church and the army also played a key role in spreading the Castilian language. 6. Cited in Mar-Molinero (2000, p. 22).

86

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

in languages, cultures, and traditions, typical of the Romanticism movement of the period. This motivated many to look inward at the nation’s history and heritage, which gave Basque, Catalan, Galician, and the other local languages more visibility, at least in some circles of society. But this romantic view of languages was short-lived; the loss of the last Spanish colonies in 1898 revived the struggle for defining the nation’s identity, and Spanish became once again a symbol of unification and patriotic pride.7 By then, education (in Castilian, of course) had already reached the lower classes and was not just the language of an elite. Spain began the twentieth century as a backward country. It was totally impoverished and unindustrialized, which did not allow for the emotional and economic recovery that the nation so desperately needed. To make things worse, the first half of this century was plagued by political tensions that led to the dictatorships of Miguel Primo de Rivera (from 1923 to 1930) and Ferdinand Franco (from 1939 to 1975). As we will discuss later, these political regimes were characterized by centralism and discrimination against minority peoples and languages (MarMolinero, 2000).

2.2. Branching Off: Spanish in the Americas The third major event that took place in 1492 was Christopher Columbus ‘‘discovery’’ of the New World. This year marks the genesis of the transplantation of the Spanish language to the Americas and the moment when one of the most significant eras of language contact and bilingualism in human history began. According to Moreno Ferna´ndez (2006, p. 2), when the Europeans arrived, the geographic area that comprises modern Latin America had approximately 170 large linguistic families that included approximately 2,000 languages.8 These languages were spoken by between 10 and 45 million indigenous people. Aymara, Arahuaco, Araucano (or Mapuche), Chibcha, Nahuatl, Guarani, Mayan, and Quechua were the languages with the higher status as defined by number of speakers, sociopolitical organization, and cultural reach. It may be argued that, at the early stages of the cultural collision between the Spaniards and the indigenous people, Spain and the groups represented by these ethnographic

7. The authors of the ’98 Generation were instrumental in this redefinition of Spain as it headed toward the twentieth century. 8. There is no consensus among scholars on the number of Amerindian languages spoken at the time of Columbus’ arrival. Diamond (1993) argues that there were as many as 1,000 languages.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

87

concentrations had similar policies of political and linguistic domination.9 However, as Sa´nchez and Duen˜as (2002) explain, in the period immediately following the arrival of Spanish, there was no early spread official policy. Instead, Spanish was used as a lingua franca; it became a powerful tool for the expansion of the Christian faith.10 At the administrative level, the clash between these implicit policies forced Spanish rulers to make a series of official declarations to guarantee their supremacy in the face of such ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity (see discussion in Moreno Ferna´ndez, 2006). The intention was not necessarily to create a transoceanic sense of a plural nation that embraced both Spaniards and the conquered people; the purpose was to erase differences, evangelize, and make sure that there was a common understanding of the intended conquest and colonization enterprise, and language was considered the ideal instrument to make this happen. The first of such declarations was made by King Phillip II in 1570, who enacted a policy of bilingualism whereby the lenguas generales (general languages), Chibcha, Nahuatl, Quechua, and Tupi-Guarani were extended for education and evangelization purposes (Garcı´ a, 1999, 2011; Garcı´ a, Lo´pez, & Makar, 2010; Moreno Ferna´ndez, 2006). There was a change in discourse 26 years later, when the same king declared Spanish as the official language of administration and evangelization.11 This was the first official language policy that legitimized inequality and discrimination in the New World. The result was a polarized social structure: a Spanish-speaking elite representing the Crown (the minority) and the people speaking indigenous languages. This type of policy was later reiterated in 1782 when King Charles III made another decree declaring Spanish the official language of evangelization.

Pause, reflect, and continue Do you think evangelization justifies imposing one’s language? Look up some information about the relationship between state and religion throughout Spain’s history to inform your answer.

9. Urban (1991, p. 312) argues that the Incas maintained a policy of domination in which all subjects of the empire were expected to know Quechua. Those who did not, faced punishment. 10. Catalans and Galicians were not allowed to establish any sort of trading with the American colonies. This prevented Catalan and Galician from being transplanted as well (Mar-Molinero, 2000, p. 20). 11. However, according to Zavala (1996, pp. 70–71), the King added a note to the decree indicating that Indians could use their native languages and that they would be taught Spanish if they wished. The author also argues that orders would be conferred only on those who spoke the language of the indigenous people.

88

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Fortunately for the majority group (in this case, the speakers of indigenous languages), these ‘‘laws’’ were not applied and enforced consistently, in part because of the wide extension of the colonized territories and the remoteness of the locations where many of these people lived. For instance, in modern day Paraguay, these Castilianization decrees ‘‘fell upon deaf ears among the missionaries whose linguistic practices were heavily influenced by the Pentecostal tradition [because they] believed that true understanding of the word of God could only be achieved in the speaker’s first language’’ (Terborg, Garcia Landa, & Moore, 2007, p. 140). Terborg, Garcia Landa, and Moore also say that the combination of this belief and the shortage of Spanish speakers made this ‘‘an impractical policy and contributed to the fact that on achieving independence an estimated 80 percent of the population still spoke indigenous languages.’’ Likewise, during the colonial period, the Church used Quechua to educate, pacify, and evangelize the Indians and by the Spanish settlers to conduct business and secure their conquest (Haboud, 1998; Nin˜o-Murcia, 1988). These are examples of early bilingual and multilingual behaviors caused by linguistic contact in the Spanish empire. In contrast, Baldauf and Kaplan (2007, p. 7) claim that, by the end of the seventeenth century, the great majority of the indigenous population was able to understand Spanish. Thus, these official decrees had a more significant effect in some regions of the empire and on some populations than others. Spain’s assimilationist view backfired centuries later. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, Spanish was a central piece before, during, and immediately after the fight for independence. Simo´n Bolı´ var (1783– 1830), Jose´ de San Martı´ n (1778–1850), Agustı´ n de Iturbide (1783–1824), Tupac Amaru II (1738–1781), and the other libertadores (liberators) capitalized on the linguistic homogeneity of the time to unite forces, generate consensus, and get their messages across. This led to the end of political relations with Spain and the establishment of independent states. These new republics rejected all political and economic ties with Spain, but the Spanish-speaking elite simultaneously reinforced the use of Spanish rather than adopting an indigenous identity (Baldauf & Kaplan, 2007, p. 7).12 This posture had a significant effect on the growth in Spanish use; as Cienfuegos (2005, p. 170) says, in Mexico, by 1871, just 50 years after gaining its independence, Spanish went from being the language of a minority (10%) to being the first language of the majority (70%).

12. Baldauf and Kaplan (2007, p. 7) say that Paraguay is perhaps the exception, where accepting the coexistence of Spanish and the indigenous languages spoken there has never been an issue.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

89

This trend has continued and there have been many changes since. For instance, in the twentieth century, particularly in the second half, populations shifted from rural areas to more metropolitan centers. As a direct result of this urbanization, many speakers of indigenous languages have switched from being monolingual speakers of their languages to being bilingual speakers (with varying degrees of proficiency) or even monolingual speakers of Spanish. This posits a threat to many of these indigenous languages: if they lose their vitality and more and more speakers see more economic and cultural value in Spanish, they will not be able to pass them to future generations. On the other hand, many indigenous people who stay in rural areas and do not migrate to more urban areas are destined for a life of isolation, poverty, and discrimination. As Baldauf and Kaplan (2007, p. 19) indicate, the lack of access to public transportation does not allow these people to establish contact with outsiders and vice versa, a situation that, ironically, supports indigenous language maintenance.13

Pause, reflect, and continue So far, how would you compare the situation of indigenous people in Latin America with that of indigenous people in the United States and other parts of the world?

2.3. National Languages in Spain14 In Spain, there are approximately thirteen languages. As Table 2.1 shows, Spanish is the official national language, with 28,200,000 speakers, while Basque, Catalan, and Galician are also considered official languages of their respective autonomous communities. The information presented in this table is debatable. For instance, most people in Valencia and the Balearic Islands believe that the variety of Catalan they speak is different enough to be considered a separate language. This was particularly evident in the fact that the Valencians insisted on having the constitution and other official documents translated into Valencia´ (Valencian) arguing that they spoke a separate language and that they deserved the same rights as Basques,

13. The authors add that ‘‘the increasing use of technology (i.e., the introduction of mobile phones) may make integration into the wider community harder to avoid’’ (p. 19). 14. Most of the information provided in this section is in Mar-Molinero (2000).

90

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Table 2.1: Languages spoken in Spain.a Language

Number of speakers

Aragonese Asturian Basque Calo´ Catalan Sign Language Catalan-Valencian-Balear Extremaduran Fala Galician Aranese Gascon Spanish Spanish Sign Language Valencian Sign Language

11,000 100,000 580,000 40,000 18,000 11,200,000 200,000 10,500 3,070,000 3,800 28,200,000 102,000 (data not provided)

a

Source: Adapted name¼es).

from

Lewis

(2009)

(http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?

Catalonians, and Galicians (Mar-Molinero, 2000, p. 84). Also, depending on the definitions of language and dialect, Aragonese, Asturian, and Extremaduran are sometimes considered varieties of other peninsular languages and not languages per se. Furthermore, there are several languages associated with specific ethnic groups that live on the margins of society, like Calo´, also known as Gitano, Hispanoromani, and Iberian Romani, spoken by gypsies. Finally, many of these numbers are based on data that is quite outdated, so the numbers must be taken as rough estimations.

Pause, reflect, and continue Some say that the constitution translated into Valencian was almost identical to the Catalan version. What does that say about the definition of language and dialect (or variety)?

We will now turn our attention to the languages of the Basque Country, Catalonia, and Galicia. See Figure 2.1 for a map that shows the areas in which these languages are spoken.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

91

Figure 2.1: Basque-, Catalan-, and Galician-speaking regions of Spain. 2.3.1.

The Basque Country

Basque, also known as Euskera, is arguably the oldest language in Europe (Mar-Molinero, 2000, p. 45), a fact that adds to the symbolism that it has in Basque pride. Its origins are still unknown, but there is evidence that it does not belong to the Indo-European family of languages. It remained isolated for centuries in a mountainous region in the north of the Iberian Peninsula, including the period of Moor invasion. Spanish and the other Romance languages in the surrounding areas have had almost no influence on Basque, which adds to a clear sense of separate identity. In the nineteenth century, despite significant industrialization and a successful industry, there was very little interest in the language. The elite in

92

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

control of the local government and businesses was directly connected with what was happening in Madrid and was heavily Castilianized. Later there was a movement toward saving the culture of the Basque people, mainly among the rural population, and a nationalistic sentiment sprung up. However, these efforts were not successful enough to eliminate the stigma that Basque had as the language of a backward peasantry and a language with no literary tradition. This stigma, as well as the isolation of the region, was accentuated by the discriminatory measures taken by the political systems of the twentieth century.

2.3.2.

Catalonia

Unlike Basque, Catalan has had a positive reputation as a literary language since the Middle Ages. It was the language of the Catalan Empire that spread through parts of modern day France and Italy, and its prestige allowed it to be used in official and public life. This vitality came to an end with the push for state unification and the overpowering presence of Spanish, resulting in perceptions that the language was rustic. However, as a result of the romantic ideas of the nineteenth century, a revival took place. The Catalan people, frustrated with the political corruption in Madrid and inspired by a new sense of cultural awareness, began a movement to gain more political autonomy.15 At that time, like the Basque Country, Catalonia was going through a modernization and industrialization process, and this certainly fueled this new confidence in a separate and distinct cultural identity and language. The publication of Valentı´ Almirall’s Lo Catalanisme (Catalanism) in 1886 marked a milestone in this revival. His book explores the personality, psychology, and identity of the Catalan people, and it ‘‘identifies the Catalan language as the most prominent characteristic of being Catalan, which marks out the language as one of the principal ‘core values’ of Catalan nationalism’’ (Mar-Molinero, 2000, p. 4216). Later, in 1907, the Institut d’Estudis Catalans (Catalan Studies Institute) was created by Enric Prat de la Riba, President of the Diputacio´ de Barcelona (Deputy Office of Barcelona). This began a process of linguistic standardization that tried to

15. Mar-Molinero (2000, p. 13) argues that, whereas in the Basque Country interest in the local culture led to political action, the opposite happened in Catalonia and Galicia: political action led to cultural action. 16. Citing Conversi (1990) and Coversi (1997).

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

93

normalize the orthographic and grammatical rules of Catalan. All of this thriving Catalan political and cultural nationalism was sharply stopped by Primo de Rivera.

2.3.3.

Galicia

Galician has a long tradition of being a language used primarily in the home environment, a tradition that persists today. It reached a period of relative prestige that produced a significant number of literary pieces, mainly poetry, and its visibility grew with the recognition of the Camino de Santiago de Compostela (the Way of Saint James) as a major pilgrimage destination in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, Galician lost all of its prestige as Castilian rapidly dominated the region. It had no use in administrative life, and even the local clergy preferred to use Castilian. In Galicia, it took much longer than in Catalonia for cultural pride and nationalism to emerge. The European Romantic movement had some effect in the nineteenth century, but it wasn’t until the twentieth century that Galicians tried to organize as a political force. The results were not as noticeable as in the Basque Country and Catalonia.

Pause, reflect, and continue Based on what you just read, how would you ‘‘rank’’ these languages in terms of their vitality and potential to gain more use and prestige? Why? Please explain.

2.4. Indigenous Languages in Latin America The following is a list of general facts and data related to indigenous languages and people in Latin America (primarily from Lo´pez, 2009a, 2009b; Sichra, 2009):  In Latin America, there are over 650 indigenous people.  Latin America is one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse regions of the world.  About 20% of the living languages are on the verge of extinction.  Most indigenous people are concentrated in the Andean and Mesoamerican regions (approximately 90% of the total) of Bolivia, Peru, Colombia,

94













 

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Mexico, and Guatemala. In some areas of these countries and of other Latin American countries, the percentage of indigenous people could be as high as 95%. In Bolivia, the indigenous population constitutes 66% of the total; in Guatemala, 40%. In contrast, in El Salvador and Brazil, the indigenous populations are the minority (0.2% and 0.4%, respectively). All indigenous people are considered political and sociological minorities and regarded as subaltern communities (Spivak, cited in Lo´pez, 2009b, p. 3). The exercise of indigenous rights is hindered by racism, discrimination, and exclusion, and by the colonial policies that are still in effect. Migration has made indigenous communities and individuals more visible in cities and towns in all Latin American countries. They are no longer found exclusively in rural areas. Uniformed definitions of identity are being transformed to a more flexible understanding of identity in which being indigenous is more acceptable. The majority of indigenous communities are bilingual. Indigenous monolingualism is the exception, and it reaches 9.8% in Mexico, 12.4% in Bolivia (Sichra, 2009), and 14.3% in Ecuador. In contrast, indigenous monolingualism is much higher in Guatemala (43.6%) (Verdugo & Raymundo, 2009). Indigenous monolingualism is more common among women and children of preschool age. In the Vaupes River area of Colombia and Brazil, children may speak four or more indigenous languages when first registering in school (Stenzel, 2005). Likewise, individuals and families in other communities (e.g., Paraguay) may also know three or four languages to communicate with outgroup members, including Paraguayan Guarani and Spanish (Melia`, 1992).

According to some estimates, in Latin America there are over 700 different indigenous languages (Lo´pez & Sichra, n.d., p. 2). However, the numbers change depending on the source (cf. Lo´pez, 2009b, p. 3).17 Table 2.2 provides a country-by-country account of the approximate number of indigenous languages spoken, the five languages with most speakers, and the number of speakers.

17. According to Lewis (2009) (Ethnologue) (http://www.ethnologue.com/), the number is approximately 613. This source includes languages that are extinct.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

95

Table 2.2: Indigenous languages in Latin America.a Countryb

Number of indigenous languagesc

Argentina

22

Bolivia

36

Chile

7

Colombia

74

Costa Rica

6

Ecuador

20

El Salvador

3

Guatemala

51

Honduras

7

Five most widely spoken indigenous languagesd South Bolivian Quechua (855,000), Mapudungun (100,000), Santiago del Estero Quichuae (60,000), Central Aymara (30,000), Wichı´ Lhamte´s Vejoz (25,000) South Bolivian Quechua (2,780,000), Aymara (2,446,642), Central Aymara (1,790,000), North Bolivian Quechua (116,000), Eastern Bolivia Guarani (33,700) Mapadungun (200,000), Chilean Quechua (8,200), Rapa Nui (3,390), Huilliche (2,000), Central Aymara (900) Wayuu (135,000), Pa´ez (77,400), Northern Embera´ (49,700), Guambiano (23,500), Guahibo (23,000) Bribri (11,000), Cabe´car (8,840), Nga¨bere (5,090), Mele´ku Jaı´ ka (750), Boruca (5), Teribe (5) Chimborazo Highland Quichua (1,000,000), Imbabura Highland Quichua (300,000), Can˜ar Highland Quichua (100,000), Shuar (46,700), Loja Highland Quichua (30,000) Kekchı´ (12,300), Pipil (20), Lenca (no data provided) Central K’iche’ (1,900,000), Q’eqchi’ (400,000), West Central K’iche’ (250,000), Northern Mam (200,000), Central Kaqchikel (132,000) Garı´ funa (98,000), Mı´ skito (29,000), Pech (990), Sumo Tawahka (700), Tol (350)

96

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Table 2.2: (Continued ) Countryb

Mexico

Number of indigenous languagesc 230

Nicaragua

4

Panama

9

Paraguay

17

Peru

90

Venezuela

37

Five most widely spoken indigenous languagesd Yucatan Mayan (700,000), Eastern Huasteca Nahuatl (410,000), Western Huasteca Nahuatl (400,000), Central Mazahua (350,000), Central Huasteca Nahuatl (200,000) Mı´ skito (154,000), Garı´ funa (‘‘a few’’), Sumo-Mayanga (6,700), Rama (24) Nga¨bere (128,000), San Blas Kuna (57,100), Northern Ebera´ (10,500), Teribe (3,000), Woun Mew (3,000) Paraguayan Guarani (4,650,000), Mbya´ Guarani (16,400), Lengua (15,000), Nivacle´ (13,700), Pai Tavytera (15,000) Cusco Quechua (1,500,000), Ayacucho Quechua (900,000), Puno Quechua (500,000), Central Aymara (442,000), Huaylas Quechua (336,000) Wayuu (170,000), Warao (28,100), Yanomamo¨ (15,700), Piaroa (12,200), Guahibo (11,200)

a Source: Adapted from Lewis (2009) (http://www.ethnologue.com/country_index.asp? place¼Americas). b Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and Uruguay do not have any surviving indigenous languages. However, Lo´pez (2009a) claims that in the 2004 National Census 3.5% of the population in Uruguay defined themselves as of indigenous origin. He argues that this might be a new trend, the result of the wave of identity politics that permeates in Latin America. c In these tallies we did not include extinct languages, languages for which the source indicated that there were no known speakers, creoles, and other European and Asian languages that were brought to these countries and, in some cases, morphed into multiple varieties. Assuming that they are still alive, we did count languages for which the source indicated that there was an undetermined number of speakers. d Quechua and Guarani are considered macro languages. In this table we included the names of the specific varieties of these languages. e Quichua is the preferred word in some locations, especially in Ecuador, where it is considered a more modern version of Quechua, the language of the Incas. ‘‘Older speakers in the Central Provinces of Cotopaxi and Tungurahua, and in the province of Loja in the south, still refer to the language as inga’’ (King & Haboud, 2007, p. 43). In Spanish, the most widely word used is quechua.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

97

Pause, reflect, and continue Take another look at Table 2.2, specifically at the number of indigenous languages spoken in each country. Do you think there is a relationship between these numbers and the history of these countries? You may have to do some research to support your answer.

A quick analysis of the data presented in this table reveals several key issues. On the one hand, some languages like Quechua have millions of speakers. According to Lewis (2009), Quechua, a macro language that includes many varieties, is spoken by approximately 10,098,161 people in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.18 Guarani, another macro language, also has millions of speakers, approximately 4,926,984 (Lewis, 2009). Meanwhile, some languages have very small numbers of speakers; some even have one. But all of this information has to be evaluated carefully for several reasons. First, for some languages we do not have enough data to support whether or not they are still alive. Second, many of the original sources are extremely outdated. This includes information from censuses that were conducted twenty plus years ago.19 In such cases, and especially when languages have just a handful of speakers according to these sources, we cannot help but wonder what reality would reveal. Third, sources like Ethnologue sometimes provide a number of speakers that contrasts significantly with the number of members of the ethnic population. Both things are obviously different, but it would be beneficial to have more data in order to better understand the linguistic circumstances surrounding the specific language and ethnic group. Hence, it is almost impossible to provide a numerically accurate description of the status of any of these languages. Given the constraints and the intended scope of this book, it would be impractical to discuss the status of each indigenous language and group in each Latin American country. For this reason, we will now focus on three specific cases: Mexico, Ecuador, and Paraguay. This section will not only illustrate the complexity that characterizes the existence of indigenous languages within multilingual contexts in Latin America, but also will provide information on three of the most important indigenous languages in Latin America-Nahuatl, Quechua/Quichua, and Guarani-in terms of their

18. Lewis (2009) (Ethnologue) defines macrolanguage as ‘‘multiple, closely related individual languages that are deemed in some usage contexts to be a single language.’’ (https:// www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/introduction.asp#Macro). 19. For a discussion on the problems of census data, see Gynan (2007a, pp. 229–231).

98

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Figure 2.2: Map of the Mexica and Maya empires. numbers of speakers and visibility. This information will serve as a background for the discussion of linguistic policy and language education in Latin America. 2.4.1.

Mexico20

When the conquistadores arrived in Mexico in 1592, there were two major macro cultures: the Mexicas (or Aztecs), who occupied the central part of Mexico, from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, and the Mayas, whose civilization reached from Chiapas and Yucatan to Honduras (see Figure 2.2). The language of the Mexicas was Nahuatl, which served as lingua franca for communication and trade between numerous heterogeneous societies in the region.21 The Mayas spoke Mayan. Due to disease,

20. Most of the information provided in this section is from Baldauf and Kaplan (2007) and Terborg et al. (2007). 21. According to Terborg et al. (2007, p. 127), this role still continues today.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

99

the indigenous population of Mexico decreased significantly during the first century after the conquest: from 25.3 million in 1519 to 16.8 million in 1523, 2.6 million in 1548, 1.3 million in 1695, and 1 million in 1605 (Moreno Toscano, 1981, pp. 350–35122). This first century of contact was also devastating for many indigenous languages, as more than one hundred became extinct (Cifuentes, 1998, pp. 45–4623). Mexico is the Latin American country with the highest number of indigenous language speakers and the highest cultural diversity (Terborg et al., 2007, p. 117). Of all the languages spoken (approximately 230), only 28 have more than 10,000 speakers (Terborg et al., 2007, p. 135). Nahuatl, which has about 26 different varieties, is the most widely spoken indigenous language, with 1,448,936 registered speakers in 2004.24 It is spoken in the states of Guerrero, Puebla, Morelos, Veracruz, Michoaca´n, Hidalgo, and Nayarit (see Figure 2.3). Yucatan Mayan, on the other hand, has 800,291 speakers (compare to the 700,000 speakers reported by Lewis, 2009 and included in Table 2.2), and its speakers are distributed over the Yucatan Peninsula in the states of Yucatan, Campeche, and Quintana Roo.25 Zapotec, another major macro language of Mexico, and Mixteco have 452,887 and 446,236 speakers, respectively.26 They are spoken only in the state of Oaxaca. It has been very difficult to identify the languages and language families in Mexico’s linguistic ecology (Baldauf & Kaplan, 2007, p. 19). The number of families vary from 7 to 11 to 20.27 Furthermore, and to complicate things even more, many indigenous groups have pushed to rename their languages with the names used in the original languages. Thus, Otomı´ of the Mezquital Valley has become Hn˜ahn˜u, Huastecan has become Tenek, Mixtec has become N˜uu Savi, and Tarascan has become Pur’epecha. And there are cases of languages with two names: Ocuilteco is called Tlahuica (or Atzinca) by the citizens of San Juan Atzinco because of land disputes with the authorities in the main town of Ocuila´n. Indigenous languages are strong in rural areas of Mexico. Many of these communities live in isolation and depend on an agriculture-based economy.

22. Cited in Terborg et al. (2007, p. 119). 23. Cited in Terborg et al. (2007, p. 119). 24. According to INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadı´stica, Geografı´a e Informa´tica), cited in Terborg et al. (2007, p. 127). The website is no longer available. 25. According to INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadı´stica, Geografı´a e Informa´tica), cited in Terborg et al. (2007, p. 127). 26. According to INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadı´stica, Geografı´a e Informa´tica), cited in Terborg et al. (2007, p. 127). 27. Baldauf and Kaplan (2007, p. 19) believe that the estimate of seven is the most accurate.

100

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Figure 2.3: Distribution of the Nahuatl, Mayan, Zapotec, and Mixteco languages in Mexico.

However, there have been numerous cases of language death caused by lack of transmission from generation to generation. Terborg et al. (2007, p. 198) attribute this, in part, to the prevailing attitudes towards indigenous languages and their speakers in Mexico. They add that, when a speaker of an indigenous language acquires Spanish and speaks it with a recognizable accent, he or she is also subjected to discrimination based on negative attitudes. Mexico is also home to Afro-Seminole, an English-based creole with approximately 200 speakers in Coahuila, and Plautdietsch, also known as Low German or Mennonite German, with approximately 40,000 speakers concentrated in Chihuahua. In addition, there are two different varieties of Sign Language: Mexican Sign Language, with between 87,000 and

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

101

100,000 signers, and Yucatan Mayan Sign Language, with 16 signers (Lewis, 2009).

2.4.2.

Ecuador28

Despite not having nearly as many indigenous languages as Mexico, Ecuador’s linguistic situation is quite complex. Quichua, a macro language with nine varieties in Ecuador, is the most widely spoken indigenous language in the country. It is estimated that it has 2,233,000 speakers both in the highlands and in the lowlands (Cerro´n-Palomino, 198729) (see Figure 2.4). This compares to 120,000 in Argentina, 1,594,000 in Bolivia, 700 in Brazil, 4,402 in Colombia, and 4,402,023 in Peru.30 King and Haboud (2007, p. 47) warn us that estimates always ‘‘display great variation depending on the criteria of Indianness and the methodological procedures used by the researchers.’’31 Ecuadorian Quichua is spoken in nine of the ten highland provinces and in the Amazon Basin east of the Andes. It is divided into two subcategories: highland Quichua and lowland Quichua. Highland Quichua consists of six subvarieties: Caldero´n Highland Quichua, Can˜ar Highland Quichua, Chimborazo Highland Quichua, Imbabura Highland Quichua, Loja Highland Quichua, and Salasaca Highland Quichua. Lowland Quichua is subdivided into three subvarieties: Napo Lowland Quichua, Northern Pastaza Quichua, and Tena Lowland Quichua.32 Quichua usage patterns in urban settings is difficult to assess because there are no methods to determine ethnic affiliation and to discriminate between a person’s ethnic identification and their language knowledge (Baldauf & Kaplan, 2007, p. 10). Over time, the number of Quechua/Quichua speakers has declined in all the Andean countries. It went from 31% of the population in 1940 to17% in 1961 and 11% in 1982 (Von Gleich, 1998, p. 59133). Conversely, Spanish monolingualism has risen from 50% of the population in 1940 to 65% in

28. Most of the information provided in this section is from Baldauf and Kaplan (2007) and King and Haboud (2007). 29. Cited in King and Haboud (2007, p. 47). 30. Compare with the numbers provided by Lewis (Ethnologue) and included in Table 2.2. 31. This is particularly important because, ‘‘Given that Indian and Afroecuadorian people have traditionally inhabited rural areas, there is a tendency to confuse ruralness with Indianness and blackness’’ (King & Haboud, 2007, p. 48). 32. King and Haboud’s (2007, pp. 44–45) classification is slightly different. 33. Cited in King and Haboud (2007, p. 84).

102

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Figure 2.4: Quechua-speaking regions. 1961 and 72% in 1982 (p. 59134). The particular case of Quichua in Ecuador is illustrative of this decline. Baldauf and Kaplan (2007, p. 11) attribute this phenomenon to the fact that the implementation of new laws pro indigenous people that have been developed in recent years has been less than complete. Recognition of new rights for these populations has not been enough either.

34. Cited in King and Haboud (2007, p. 84).

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

103

Media Lengua is a mixed language (Spanish and Quichua) recently documented in Ecuador.35 With about 1,000 speakers, Media Lengua has Quichua morphology and syntax, and significant Spanish relexification. Some scholars believe that this is an interlanguage that Quichua speakers use as they shift toward Spanish (Muysken, 1979, 198136). Moreover, there are about 188,000 signers of Ecuadorian Sign Language (Van Cleve, 198637).

2.4.3.

Paraguay38

Guarani language in Paraguay is in a privileged position; almost since the beginning of the conquest and colonization of this territory in the sixteenth century, Guarani has benefitted from a series of historical and political events that favored its maintenance and contributed to its status in the country. This macro language has four identified varieties. According to Lewis (2009), Paraguayan Guarani has the highest number of speakers: 4,650,000.39 It is followed by Mbya Guarani (16,400 speakers), Ava Guarani (7,000 speakers), and Eastern Bolivian Guarani (2,530 speakers).40 Different varieties of Guarani are also spoken in Argentina (Mbya Guarani and Western Argentine Guarani), Bolivia (Eastern Bolivian Guarani and Western Bolivian Guarani), and Brazil (Mbya Guarani) (see Figure 2.5). Until recently, the number of speakers of Guarani had remained relatively constant. For instance, since 1950 until the mid-nineties, the Paraguayan population was approximately 40% Guarani monolingual, 5% Spanish monolingual, 50% Spanish-Guarani bilingual, and 5% other languages (Sole´, 1995, p. 12741). The numbers of Guarani monolinguals were significantly higher in rural areas (65.3% in 1992) compared to the numbers in urban areas (11.3% in the same year). In the departments of Caaguazu´, Caazapa´, Concepcio´n, Guaira´, and San Pedro, the figures were even higher, with over 80% of children ages 0 to 4 from Guarani monolingual households (Gynan, 2007a, pp. 236–237).

35. See Go´mez Rendo´n (2001) for a study of Media Lengua in the province of Imbabura. He claims that this is a relatively stable semi-creole used as a means of resistance toward assimilation and language shift. 36. Cited in King and Haboud (2007, p. 54). 37. Cited in Lewis (Ethnologue) (https://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code ¼ ecs). 38. Most of the information provided in this section is from Gynan (2007a) and Gynan (2007b). 39. Gynan (2007a, p. 221) estimates that the actual number of speakers is 3.6 million. 40. According to Gynan (2007a, p. 222), the main difference between Paraguayan Guaranı´ and the other varieties is that the former has more lexical influence from Spanish. 41. Cited in Gynan (2007a, p. 229).

104

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Figure 2.5: Guarani-speaking regions.

The census of 2002 revealed major demographic and linguistic changes. In the 10 year period between 1992 and 2002, monolingualism in Spanish doubled, whereas monolingualism in Guarani decreased slightly (from 40% of the population to 30%).42 Meanwhile, Spanish-Guarani bilingualism appears to be stable, but it shows signs of being in a dynamic stage (Gynan, 2007b, p. 285). Bilingualism increased in rural areas and decreased in urban areas, where Spanish continues to dominate. Moreover, the proportion of speakers of Spanish doubled in rural areas, while shift to Spanish monolingualism caused the decrease in bilinguals in the cities. Migration and low fecundity appear to be the two main factors responsible for these changes.

42. Gynan (2007b, p. 290) warns us that ‘‘the exclusion of the category of Spanish-Guarani bilingualism obscures the degree of communicativity that may exist between the urban and rural areas.’’

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

105

There are between 15 and 17 indigenous languages other than Guarani in Paraguay. The numbers of speakers are very small. Also, there are 166,000 speakers of Standard German and 38,000 speakers of Plautdietsch.

Pause, reflect, and continue Again, based on what you just read, how would you ‘‘rank’’ the main indigenous languages spoken in Mexico, Ecuador, and Paraguay in terms of their vitality and potential to gain more use and prestige? Why? Please explain.

2.5. Agency and Reaffirmation of Identity There are numerous government agencies and community organizations that are responding to the imminence of language shift and language loss (see Hornberger, 1988 for an example in southern Peru). Such agencies and organizations are focused on understanding the situation of the languages spoken in their particular regions, revitalizing their use, promoting the creation of education programs, and working directly with the communities that speak them.43 In addition, speaking an indigenous language in both Spain and Latin America has become a symbol of ethnic pride and identity for many. If this becomes a pattern and minoritized languages are used as overt symbols of a common ethnic, cultural, and historical background (monolingually, bilingually, or multilingually), they will have a better chance of thriving. As Baldauf and Kaplan (2007, p. 26) say referring to indigenous languages in Latin America, this involvement points to a shift toward nonacceptance of the idea that, in order to have a voice and participation, indigenous people have to ‘‘conform to the social practices and structures of the majority.’’ At an international level, the United Nations has been instrumental in effecting change and motivating governments and official agencies to create and implement initiatives pro indigenous languages. First, a general notion of language rights was recognized in the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights back in 1966. This led to the creation of Article 27,

43. There are a number of organizations that promote collaboration among indigenous groups at a more global level (e.g., the Endangered Languages Fund, the Foundation for Endangered Languages, the Hanns Seidel Foundation, and Terralingua). They create awareness of similar challenges and support indigenous peoples and their languages. See Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) for a detailed overview.

106

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

which specifies that states with ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities shall not deny these minorities the right to enjoy their culture, practice and profess their religion, and speak their language (Huss, 1999, p. 50). This article has been in force since 1976. Second, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities of 1992 dictates that states must take the necessary measures to create positive conditions to enable minority groups to manifest their characteristics and develop their traditions, customs, religion, and language (see discussion in Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000, p. 533).44 More recently, in 1992, UNESCO put forth its Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, which was accepted in 1996. This is the most promising and far-reaching of all the declarations, and it is the first document that deals with universal language rights exclusively (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000, p. 533).45 Determining the role that local and indigenous languages play in the identities of Basques, Catalans, Galicians, and the various Amerindian groups in Latin America is not an easy task. However, at an individual and ingroup level, speakers of Basque, Catalan, Galician, and indigenous languages, for the most part, value their languages and consider them important parts of who they are. From a panhispanic perspective, which obviously takes into account the use of Spanish, the situation is more complicated given the multiplicity of languages that interact with Spanish, despite the fact that there are strong links that unite all speakers of Spanish. As Garcı´ a et al. (2010, p. 356) put it, ‘‘Part of the difficulty in defining Latin American ethnolinguistic identity stems from the contradiction between the real, mostly oral, pluralism of Latin America, and the official, mostly written posture, which constructs Latin Americans as sharing a common origin, history, and culture.’’ Thus, the messages that people get via government policies, legislature, and literature do not necessarily represent who they are, how they live, and how they use language, and this applies to Spaniards as well. The authors add that, despite the inability to define a single Latin American ethnolinguistic culture (as defined by Schiffman,

44. This declaration stipulates that these conditions must be facilitated unless the specific practices violate the law or are against international standards. 45. King and Haboud (2007, p. 61) discuss some of the shortcomings of this document. For instance, ‘‘there is a continued discontinuity and important distinction between the often abstract and unrealistic discussions of ‘rights’ in political discourse and those rights which have recognized legal status either internationally or nationally (personal communication, R.B. Kaplan, March 2003).’’ They also mention Skutnabb-Kangas’ (2000, p. 544) observation and argue that ‘‘educational language rights, in contrast to cultural rights, are not seen as inalienable and thus are subject to denial by individual states.’’

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

107

199646), there are three common characteristics: insistence on using Spanish (or Portuguese, in the case of Brazilians) as a marker of ethnolinguistic identity,47 a surface recognition of the regions’ multilingualism and of indigenous languages, and a recognition of the regions’ distinct linguistic identity from that of Spain (and Portugal) (p. 356).

Pause, reflect, and continue Given the low prestige that most indigenous languages have in Spanishspeaking countries and the fact that knowing Spanish leads to economic and social progress, how would you justify fighting for the maintenance of these languages? Is group pride and identity enough? (Consider what has happened with immigrant languages in the United States.)

As we discussed earlier, the relationship between Spanish and the Latin American indigenous languages is extremely complex. However, despite the linguistic, political, and socioeconomic uniquenesses of each region, there are a number of commonalities. Baldauf and Kaplan (2007, pp. 6–7) listed them,48 and we are including some of them here:  They all have Spanish as their official national language.  They all have significant numbers of long ignored indigenous languages.  They all have made recent attempts to correct the situation regarding indigenous languages.  They all have experienced internal and external migration.  They all demonstrate significant urbanization.

46. Schiffman (1996, p. 5) defines (ethno)linguistic culture as follows: ‘‘y the set of behaviors, assumptions, cultural forms, prejudices, folk belief systems, attitudes, stereotypes, ways of thinking about language, and religio-historical circumstances associated with a particular language. That is, the beliefs (one might even use the term myths) that a speech community has about language (and this includes literacy) in general and its language in particular (from which it usually derives its attitudes toward other languages) are part of the social conditions that affect the maintenance and transmission of its language.’’ 47. The authors add that this insistence on declaring Spanish and Portuguese symbols of their ethnolinguistic identity is in opposition to Anglo America. This position is different from the one taken by many Latin Americans living in the United States. 48. Baldauf and Kaplan (2007) based their list on the data presented by King and Haboud (2007); Haboud and King (2007); Terborg et al. (2007); Gynan (2007a); and Gynan (2007b). Although they refer specifically to the situation in Ecuador, Mexico, and Paraguay, we believe that it applies to most of the Latin American countries where Spanish is in contact with an indigenous language.

108         

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

They all have experienced substantial emigration. They all have experienced difficulty in gathering accurate demographic data. They all suffer from the dearth of qualified teachers of indigenous languages. They all suffer from administrative complications and resource shortages. They all suffer from conflicting ideologies concerning the suitability of indigenous languages for school contexts. They all suffer from disparate definitions and interpretations of interculturalism and bilingualism. They all experienced religious conversion into Christianity — particularly into Catholicism. They all have recently experienced greater recognition and respect for the languages, cultures, and linguistic rights of indigenous groups. They all have experienced a significant gap between policy and rhetoric, on the one hand, and reality, on the other.

So where are we today? Instead of attempting to provide conclusive arguments, we would like to point out three key issues that should inform the understanding of the current situation. First, indigenous languages are at risk. They have fallen trap to a globalized propensity to compete and let the more powerful win. For indigenous languages, and given the conditions described thus far and the policies that will be discussed in the next sections, competition is not fair. It is affecting not only minority languages, but also minority communities, which, as Crawford (1995, p. 22) says, are falling victim to ‘‘destruction of lands and livelihoods; the spread of consumerism, individualism, and other Western values; pressures for assimilation into dominant cultures; and conscious policies of repression.’’49 Second, conversations about minority languages must be framed within the notion that they are the minority because of issues of power, not necessarily because of low numbers of speakers (Byram, 1986; Nelde, Strubell, & Williams, 1996; Tollefson, 1991). Otherwise, we would fail to recognize that this ‘‘minoritization’’ translates into having few rights and privileges, and fewer opportunities to foster change (Hornberger & King, 1996). And finally, the ultimate goal should be what Fishman (1991) refers to as reversing language shift (p. 112). He argues that, for this reversal to take place, there have to be conditions for intergenerational language transmission and indigenous language use in everyday, informal life. To sum up, Spanish is the de facto language of the government and the majority language in both Spain and Latin America. The number of firstlanguage speakers of Spanish has grown tremendously in the last few decades and the language has been able to position itself as an important

49. Crawford’s (1995) statement refers to endangered Native American languages, but the same argument can be made about many other indigenous languages throughout the world.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

109

one in the international realm. In addition, Spanish is the lingua franca in many contexts where bilingualism or multilingualism with another language is the norm. This has given rise to Basque/Catalan/Galician-Spanish contact in Spain and indigenous languages-Spanish contact in Latin America. Of particular interest is the subordinate status that many of these languages have compared to Spanish, especially in Latin America, where there are between 40 and 50 million indigenous people (Lo´pez, 2006a, 2006b). This subordination has led to language switch in many people and communities and to language loss in the most extreme cases. As Hornberger (1998, p. 439) claims, ‘‘Indigenous and immigrant languages are under attack, around the world, subjected to seemingly irresistible social, political, and economic pressures.’’ If Dalby’s (2002) estimation that a language is lost every 14 days is actually true, languages with relatively few speakers and languages whose speakers have gone through the monolingual-bilingualmonolingual Spanish continuum may be in more danger than many believe. Nonetheless, ‘‘there is also accumulating evidence that language policy and language education can serve as vehicles for promoting the vitality, versatility, and stability of these languages’’ (Hornberger, 1998, p. 439).

Pause, reflect, and continue A long time ago, a history college professor in a country with no indigenous populations told his students that he did not understand why some people lamented the fact that there were no indigenous populations in their country. He argued that, if there were any, they would have had the same fate as other indigenous populations in Latin America. What is your reaction to his comment?

2.6. Language Policy and Language Planning: General Considerations Language policy and planning is a relatively young field in linguistics. It is concerned with how polities create policies and plan and implement interventions to manage bilingual and bicultural or multilingual and multicultural ecologies.50 It is also interested in how the state’s legal system supports and enforces these plans. In most cases, the process of planning and creating policy entails making judgments about and evaluating the status and function of two or more languages in a given setting, as well as making comparisons (what Coulmas, 2005 calls macro choices). Because the end result involves allocating certain roles to a certain language (or

50. For information about language ecologies and ecosystems, see Fettes (1997).

110

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

languages) and community (or communities), most likely than not a group (or some groups) within the society or state in question will be denied full participation in some of the linguistic spaces available. Policies may be influenced by a variety of external and internal factors, but states usually rationalize their implementation by alleging that they are for the good of the majority.51 Thus, language policy and planning, whichever comes first, is ‘‘the social glue through which y governments seek to bond y human fissures into a stable political and social whole’’ (Jacobs & Beer, 1985, p. 1). Historically, most language policy and language planning initiatives have been in the hands of the government and the establishment, which means that there has been little or no consultation.52 When this type of top-down, unilateral approach is executed, it gives rise to decisions that are made based on political and social concerns that more often than not have nothing to do with the lives and needs of the citizens and everything to do with creating a sense of uniformity through control and imposition (Hornberger, 1987, 1988).53 Newer paradigms of language policy and planning recognize this deficiency and advocate for more participation of the people who could potentially be affected. This means giving them the opportunity to express themselves as key participants in the process, a bottom-up approach that may lead to more communication between parties, a recognition of everyone’s point of view, local support, and hopefully consensus. This highlights the fact that language policy and planning is not just a linguistic process; individuals have to feel that their agendas can influence the outcomes and that they have a sense of agency throughout the process.54

51. For different perspectives on the focus of language planning and language policy, see Cooper (1989), Fettes (1997), Hornberger (2006), Ricento (2000), Ricento (2006), Schiffman (1996), Shohamy (2006), and Spolsky (2004). 52. Ricento (2000) identified three main historical phases in language planning and policy research. In the first one, work related to language planning was perceived as a politically neutral task focused on problem-solving, achieving unification, modernization, and efficient newly formed nation-states. In contrast, the second of these phases began to question the feasibility and neutrality of these goals. This corresponds to the period in which modernization policies in the developing world failed and when the notion of native speaker and diglossia were challenged. Finally, the third and current phase builds on lessons learned and is informed by critical theory and a language ecology perspective. It is concerned with the role of ideology in language policy, the maintenance of endangered languages and linguistic diversity, and support for universal linguistic human rights. 53. See Fishman (1994) for more criticism about common practices in language planning. 54. Pennycook (1998, p. 126) argues for the importance of understanding the specific nature of each language in each context. He says that ‘‘we can not assume that the promotion of local languages instead of a dominant language, or the promotion of a dominant language at the expense of a local language, are in themselves good or bad. Too often we view these things trough the lenses of liberalism, pluralism or anti-imperialism, without understanding the actual location of such policies.’’

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

111

Pause, reflect, and continue In his book Language planning and social change, Cooper (1989, p. 98) asks a key question that helps (or should help) explain and inform language policy and planning: What actors attempt to influence which behaviors of which people for what ends under which conditions by what means through what decision making process with what effect? Based on what you know and your own experience, could you explain language policy and planning in the United States (or in your country of origin)?

2.6.1.

Language Policy and Language Planning in Spain55

During Franco’s regime, Primo de Rivera’s conservative views on nation, identity, and language were taken to the extreme. From a political standpoint, he maintained almost no relationship with the rest of the world and focused on emphasizing Spain’s past glories as an imperial nation. He closed Spain’s doors to any kind of influence coming from the outside. In turn, the rest of the world responded by shunning the country and its ruler, which pushed Franco to develop his army and create a sense of ‘‘them’’ against ‘‘us.’’ One of the key ways in which Franco developed this false sense of ‘‘us’’ was by redefining the notion of national and linguistic identity. For him, it was crucial to maintain the ‘‘unity’’ of the country, and he was against anything that could potentially represent a menace, including all cultural and linguistic forms of diversity. Spanish became the strongest symbol of la patria (the nation) and the use of all minoritized languages was strictly forbidden because, in Franco’s opinion, they challenged his idea of one single Spain. Thus, Castilianization was once again an essential part of the political agenda, and a period of linguistic intolerance was instituted with official and undisputable support. This meant that only Spanish could be used in public spaces and in schools, and detractors were severely punished with strict fines and jail sentences. As a result, the local languages that had begun to flourish once again were suppressed, and those whose use was limited to a few linguistic domains or to small areas faced the possibility of ending up being mere relics of the past. ‘‘This conscious rejection of linguistic rights was achieved both through the overt denial in policies and legislation, but also through the manipulation of the public opinion’’ (Mar-Molinero, 2000, p. 79).

55. For more details, see Mar-Molinero (2000).

112

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Pause, reflect, and continue Is language really a unifying force, as Franco claimed of Spanish? If not, how would you argue in favor of the indigenous languages that we have already mentioned and discussed?

The situation improved in the 1950s and 1960s. Publications in languages other than Spanish began to appear and local languages began to be taught in private schools, but mostly as foreign languages. Also, these languages began to appear in public life, the media, and other activities, but generally to communicate about things that were deemed trivial and unsubstantial. In the regime’s view, such relaxation of the rules was not a threat because the overall attitude of the general population toward local languages was poor. However, this may have been an important factor in the preservation of these languages; they were passed through generations, although acquisition was affected by the sense of inferiority that had been instilled for decades. Toward the end of Franco’s years in power, restrictions and repression became the norm again. The year 1978 marks the transition to democracy and the modernization of Spain. This is the year when the new constitution was passed and endorsed in a national referendum. As a result, Spain declared itself a constitutional monarchy and a democratic state consisting of seventeen comunidades auto´nomas (autonomous communities).56 The December 29, 1978 Constitution also delineated a new linguistic policy in Article 3, whereby Spanish was declared the official language of the State and the local languages were declared official in the autonomous communities where they are used according to their own statutes. This policy has been controversial, especially because Basque, Catalan, Galician, and the other national languages are restricted to the communities where they are spoken.57 Also, the mandate that all Spanish citizens have a ‘‘duty’’ to know Spanish has generated heated debates and it has been put to the test numerous times.58 Finally, as Mar-Molinero (2000) argues, the use of the term lengua propia (own language) avoids the ambiguity in lengua nacional (national language) and the inferiority in lengua regional (regional language), while allowing the

56. Autonomous communities are also called historic nationalities. 57. Vernet i Llobet (1994) (cited in Mar-Molinero, 2000, p. 85) suggests that there are four underpinning constitutional principles in Article 3: differentiated treatment, impure territorialization, multilingualism, and officiality. He claims that the treatment of languages in Spain is unequal, with Spanish in one level and the ‘‘other’’ languages in another. 58. See Mar-Molinero (2000) for a detailed discussion.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

113

Table 2.3: Articles in Spain’s 1978 Constitution that recognize plurilingualism and pluriculturalism.a Article

Clauses

Article 3

1. Castilian is the official Spanish language of the state. All Spaniards have the duty to know it and the right to use it. 2. The other languages of Spain will also be official in the respective autonomous communities, in accordance with their statutes. 3. The richness of the linguistic modalities of Spain is a cultural patrimony that will be the object of special respect and protection.

Article 20

3. The law shall regulate the organization and parliamentary control of the means of social communication owned by the State or any public entity and shall guarantee access to those means by significant social and political groups, respecting the pluralism of society and the various languages of Spain.

Article 148

1. The Autonomous Communities may assume jurisdiction in the following mattersy 17) assistance to culture, research, and, as the case may be, for the teaching of the language of the Autonomous Community;y

a

Source: UNESCO (http://www.unesco.org/most/lnspain.htm).

law to distinguish these languages from the lengua oficial (official language) (87). Table 2.3 provides a list of the three clauses in Article 3 and two other articles that reinforce the notion of Spain as a plurilingual and pluricultural state.

Pause, reflect, and continue Do some research and investigate the similarities and differences between the comunidades auto´nomas in Spain, the states in the United States, and the states in the United States of Mexico.

Since then, Spain’s government has enacted several laws. The 1985 Regulatory Organic Law of the Right to Education decentralized educational

114

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

responsibility and involved the autonomous communities’ local governments and all sectors of society in a multilevel structure for making instructional and organizational decisions. Then, in 1990, the Organic Law on the General Organization of the Education System mandated that basic education be free and compulsory to the age of 16, as well as improvements in the quality of teaching. Other important laws include: the Organic Law on Participation, Assessment, and Governance of Institutions of Education (1995); the Organic Law on Quality of Education (2002); and the Organic Law of Education (2006), which strives to prepare Spain to compete with other countries in the European Union. Language planning initiatives to implement programs in Catalonia have been the most successful. The local government began immediately to raise public awareness and schools have been very active in a continuous design, redesign, and assessment of these programs. Catalan is vibrant and alive throughout the Autonomous Community, and it is common to see signs, notices, and billboards in the local language. These initiatives have been so successful that the 1996 census revealed that 94.9% of the population claims to understand Catalan, while 75.3% claims to speak it (Strubell & Romain, 199859). Both Catalan and Spanish are now considered official languages of Catalonia, as stipulated by its Statute of Autonomy (1979) (see Appendix 2 for a list of some of the legislations passed in Catalonia). Also, after a series of steps that took only four years, the Linguistic Normalization Law (1983) declared Catalan the language of instruction in primary and secondary schools. This law was not well-accepted by some sectors of the population, especially Spanish speakers with limited or no proficiency in Catalan. One of the best examples is Esteban Go´mez Rovira’s case (1994), who challenged the constitutionality of the law and its imposition of the Catalan language in the school system. Neither the Catalan High Court nor the Constitutional Tribunal agreed with Go´mez Rivera. Later, Law # 1/1998, known as the Law of Linguistic Policy, reaffirmed Catalan’s preeminence in the education system of Catalonia.

Pause, reflect, and continue One of Esteban Go´mez Rovira’s arguments was that children whose dominant language was Spanish would be at a disadvantage for having to acquire a new language. How do you feel about this argument?

59. Cited in Mar-Molinero (2000, p. 88).

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

115

Normalization in the Basque Country has been more difficult, especially because only a quarter of the population speaks Basque. However, bilingualism in Spanish and Basque has improved among the younger generation (Garmendı´ a, 199460). Also, other studies suggest that the local administration is working diligently to make sure that the use and competence in the language increases (Mar-Molinero, 2000, pp. 89–90). The Basque Country approved its Statute of Autonomy in 1979 (see Appendix 2). Since then, Basque and Spanish are official languages of Euskadi. In 1982, the Normalization Law on the Use of Euskera was passed. This law had a significant effect on the structure of bilingual programs in the autonomous community. Since then, Basque has spread geographically, especially in the North East region. However, in terms of its functionality, there is some work to be done, especially in areas where it has not been used, like technology and the sciences. Basque also needs to be equipped to be used in high functions in specific areas and at the university (Cobarrubias, 2008, p. 150). Meanwhile, the local government of Galicia, where 80% of the population reports having speaking skills in the local language and even more have receptive skills in it, has also tried to promote the prestige and use of the language. However, the fact that many parents want their children to speak Castilian weakens their desire to use Galician. Issues related to the low prestige of Galician are a huge concern in this autonomous community, more so than in the Basque Country and certainly Catalonia. Activity in language planning and policy in Galicia has been somewhat timid (see Appendix 2). Galician, their lengua propia (own language), was declared official in the Galician Statute of Autonomies (1981). The Linguistic Normalization Law of 1983, on the other hand, states that Galicians have the right and the duty to know the language. The effects of these legislations are not promising. Data shows that, because of the low benefits to learn Galician regardless of the policies and programs in place, ‘‘the younger and more educated someone is, the less likely they are going to speak it, which shows the importance of prestige in linguistic habitus’’ (Pavlou, 2010, p. 60).

Pause, reflect, and continue Based on what you just read, has the ranking you did in section 3 of this chapter changed? Why? Please explain.

60. Cited in Mar-Molinero (2000, p. 89).

116 2.6.2.

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World Language Policy and Language Planning in Latin America

In Latin America there has been a positive climate for the creation of inclusive language policies in recent decades.61 There has been a dramatic increase in indigenous power, as well as many unpredicted sociopolitical changes. The United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966; the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities of 1992; and UNESCO’s Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights of 1996 set the ground for more linguistic and ethnic freedom and rights in the region and abroad. There has also been a movement toward community organization that has been able to push for more participation and representation. Appendix 3 lists some of the legislations that recognize plurilingualism and pluriculturalism in Spanish-speaking Latin American countries with indigenous populations. A quick glance reveals that indigenous languages are official languages in only seven countries, while in the others they are either not recognized or labeled as part of the ‘‘national cultural heritage.’’ In addition, there is considerable difference in the number of laws that have been passed in these countries, which indicates the different levels of concern and commitment that governments throughout the region have had in the last decades. Furthermore, these legislations cover a spectrum that goes from simple recognition of the linguistic richness of the country to laws that dictate how bilingual literacy programs should be structured.

Pause, reflect, and continue Look at Appendix 3 and compare the legislations passed in Honduras and Guatemala. What would you say about their initiatives to preserve and protect indigenous languages? Is it fair to say that Honduras does not have the same level of commitment?

Ecuador is one of the countries where legislation has had a direct impact on indigenous languages and people. For example, Article 1 of the 1945 Constitution recognized Spanish as the official language, but it also declared

61. Yrigoyen Fajardo (2012) talks about three different phases in Latin America constitutionalism: assimilationist liberal constitutionalism (nineteenth century), integrationist social constitutionalism (twentieth century), and pluralist constitutionalism (twenty-first century). This third phase is characterized by its recognition of the cultural diversity in Latin America and by the will to establish rights and other protections for indigenous groups.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

117

that Quichua and the other indigenous languages belong to the cultural heritage of the country. Later, in 1979, in reforms to the previous constitution, the State accepted the use of all indigenous languages for literacy purposes. Likewise, Quechua and other indigenous languages are official, along with Spanish, in areas with large concentrations of indigenous people. In 1994, the Bolivian state passed an educational reform law that calls for bilingual intercultural education for all groups. This law stresses official recognition of all languages spoken in Bolivia and the need for mutual respect among all people. Also from 1994 is the Law of Popular Participation, which involves indigenous and community organizations in making decisions about education matters. Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru have had some similar experiences in terms of language policy. These changes have been motivated by a common set of goals that include integrating indigenous people into mainstream society (Minaya-Rowe, 198662) and by an almost simultaneous reaction to pressure from indigenous organizations and international lending institutions (Luykx, 200063). However, much of their successes can be attributed to inter-Andean cooperation, as in the collaboration in Programa de Formacio´n en Educacio´n Intercultural Bilingu¨e para los Paı´ses Andinos (PROEIB Andes) (Program for Professional Development in Bilingual Intercultural Education for the Andean Region), a program designed to support bilingual intercultural education across the Andes. These three nations also collaborated in the standardization of dialectal differences into one unified Quechua language.64 Language policy in Mexico has been more of the symbolic type.65 Politicians have historically used it to win votes from indigenous people, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the nation (Terborg et al., 2007, 173). Nevertheless, indigenous communities in Mexico have experienced several major achievements. First, in 1996 the federal government and the Eje´rcito Zapatista de la Liberacio´n Nacional (Zapatista Army for National Liberation) combined their proposals in a document called The

62. Cited in King and Haboud (2007, p. 62). 63. Cited in King and Haboud (2007, p. 62). 64. See Luykx (2004) for details on this contentious effort. 65. Warman (2003) argues that Mexico’s minority languages policy has fallen into three main styles: incorporation (of the indigenous people to the nation as a whole), integration (through educational policy and enhancement of social and cultural development), and participation (of government, indigenous groups, and NGOs to promote bilingual and bicultural education and tolerance).

118

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

San Andre´s Accord.66 Its main purpose was to end the asymmetric relationship between indigenous communities and mainstream society and to recognize the collective and individual political, judicial, social, economic, and cultural rights in the Constitution of the Rights of Indigenous Groups. It also ratified the right to bilingual and intercultural education of indigenous people. A few years later, the General Law for the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People (2003) was passed. It protects the linguistic rights of indigenous people and communities, and promotes the use and development of these languages. Both Spanish and indigenous languages are recognized as having equal status. It advocates for respect of interculturalism, multilingualism, diversity, and linguistic rights in middle and higher education institutions. It also mandated the creation of the National Institute for Indigenous Languages, charged with, among other things, preserving, teaching, and standardizing indigenous languages.67 Also from 2003 is the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples Law. This body is responsible for orienting, assessing, coordinating, and evaluating federal policy toward indigenous communities. Finally, the 2001–2006 National Development Plan included a National Reading Program to support the development of literacy materials in indigenous languages. Paraguay is a special case in terms of policy and nonpolicy. During the golden age of the Jesuits in Paraguay, they opposed to the teaching of Spanish and the encomienda system and created their own Christian communities (missions) where Guarani people could use their language freely. This fostered the maintenance of Guarani. The War of the Triple Alliance against Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina (1864–1870) also had a positive effect on Guarani the majority of the Spanish-speaking elite fled the country and there were fewer opportunities for language contact. The Guarani population remained virtually intact. In addition, the dictatorships of Jose´ Gaspar Rodrı´ guez de Francia (1814–1840) and Alfredo Stroessner (1954–1989) ‘‘looked after’’ the interests of the Guarani peasants in exchange for political support, which allowed them to continue living in isolated rural areas.68 In 1967, Spanish and Guarani were recognized as national languages in Article 5 of the Constitution, and in 1992, both were declared official languages. The 1992 Constitution is actually written in Spanish as well as in Guarani. In the post-Stroessner era, Spanish-Guarani

66. See Terborg et al. (2007, pp. 142-143) for more details. 67. See Terborg et al. (2007, pp. 143-145) for a detailed description of this law. 68. Gynan (2007a, p. 234) argues that the fact that education has been poorly funded, especially in the interior, has contributed to the lack of Spanish spread among the Guaranı´ population of Paraguay.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

119

bilingualism has been embraced, and as Zarratea (1995) claims, Spanish monolingualism has no support as a language ideology in Paraguay. The vitality and visibility of Guarani in Paraguay is certainly unique. Although Spanish is the major language of literacy, literacy education, and higher education, Guarani is used in many linguistic domains, including religious services, and there is even a doctoral program in Guarani at the National University. The status of its written form has grown thanks to the simplification of its orthography. ‘‘The language is used in radio and television programs, in special sections of national newspapers, for the names of streets and on business signs everywhere y, and a primary school curriculum has been developed to impart literacy in the language for its native speaking children’’ (Gynan, 2007a, p. 227). In Guatemala, a country where about 60% of the population is indigenous (Warren, 1998), the Ministry of Education established the Programa Nacional de Educacio´n Bilingu¨e (PRONEBI) (National Program for Bilingual Education) in 1985 to address the linguistic and cultural needs and demands of indigenous people (Garcı´ a et al., 2010, p. 366). This was the result of the emergence of Guatemala’s indigenous groups as a pan-Mayan force in the eighties. These initiatives were expanded after the 1996 Peace Accords that put an end to a civil war that deeply affected many civilian groups (p. 367). This led to the passing of the National Languages Law in 2003, which granted indigenous groups the right to their cultural identity. Writers and other intellectuals have also been involved in this fight. For instance, in Mayan areas of Guatemala and Chiapas, organizations such as Proyeto Lingu¨ı´stico Francisco Marroquı´n (Francisco Marroquı´ n Linguistic Project), the Tzotzil and Tzeltal Writing Workshop, and the Academia de las Lenguas Mayas (Mayan Languages Academy) have provided training in linguistics and encouraged writing in varieties of Mayan (Stearns, 2008, p. 122). There have been numerous gaps in the implementation of these types of programs. First, official policies and the discourse regarding the rights of indigenous people have not always been aligned with the actual execution of these programs. There is a discrepancy between what is needed and what is actually done. Second, despite the fact that most societies are in favor of preserving indigenous languages in Latin America, the overall attitudes toward indigenousness are generally rather negative (see Brambila Rojo, 200469). Third, the strategies applied in the teaching of indigenous languages are usually not well developed; they do not reflect advances in the second language acquisition and second language teaching fields. Fourth, in some

69. Cited in Terborg et al. (p. 146).

120

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

cases, most of the initiatives pro the maintenance of indigenous languages have come from nongovernment agencies and organizations (see Terborg et al., 2007, p. 93). Finally, and perhaps more important and more representative of the dynamics of language policy and planning in Latin America, policies of bilingualism and biculturalism have been used as an excuse to Castilianize indigenous groups and eliminate indigenous languages. This ‘‘one nation-one language’’ mentality reflects the fact that, ‘‘In both Spain and Latin America language has been deeply linked to nationhood’’ (Garcı´ a, 2011, p. 667).

Pause, reflect, and continue Why do you think there are so many gaps in the implementation of these programs? Explain.

Indigenous people still face numerous challenges. Many states have not recognized indigenous languages at the national level, and this policy perpetuates the stigma that they have had for centuries.70 But even if policies lead to legislation that protects indigenous groups and their languages, they would be utterly ineffective if the attitudes of the wider society and the economic status of indigenous groups do not change as well. Success requires both top-down and bottom-up action. Issues of prestige and identity must be taken into consideration as well (Hamel, 2008, p. 70). Also, there have to be discourse spaces for speakers of indigenous languages who migrate to urban centers to use their languages and teach them to their children. It is said that the future of indigenous languages will ultimately depend on how the local ecologies change as a result of migration, globalization, and other internal and external pressures (Haboud & King, 2007, p. 111). In sum, language policies and language planning in Latin America has had its share of successes and failures. On the one hand, there have been substantial shifts in policy that reflect greater recognition and respect for indigenous polities and languages, as evidenced by the number of bilingual intercultural education programs put in place. But on the other hand, the lack of knowledge of societal multilingualism and its sociolinguistic value in indigenous groups has yielded inadequate and culturally insensitive programs (Lo´pez, 2009b, p. 5). In the next section we will provide more details about how policy has defined education in Spain and in Latin America.

70. See King and Haboud (2007, p. 71) for a description of Pakari’s attempts to pass a provision to the Constitution of Ecuador regarding the use of indigenous languages at the national level.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

121

Pause, reflect, and continue Again, based on what you just read, has the ranking you did in section 4 of this chapter changed? Why? Please explain.

2.7. Education ‘‘Linguistic policies and educational policies, despite their close relationship, are not synonymous’’ (King & Haboud, 2007, p. 91). However, as we have discussed thus far, both are extremely important to understand the dynamics in any bilingual and multilingual community, and many times they work in unison. Furthermore, it is easier to comprehend why in certain polities education is the way it is if we are aware of the political climate that frames the education system. Before we continue, the statement by King and Haboud (2007) makes us think about four possible scenarios considering the variables linguistic policy and educational policy in plurilinguistic and pluricultural contexts (see Figure 2.6). First, a state may have a linguistic policy and an education policy (+LP, +EP) that inform each other. In this case, education would be a genuine and accurate reflection of how the state views and values the languages spoken by different groups of people and, at the same time, the education system would allow people to understand the importance of linguistic policy and prepare them to be active participants in the policymaking process. However, a state with disconnected linguistic and education policies would be exemplified by linguistic policies that are not implemented well-or not implemented at all-in its education system or linguistic policies

Education Policy (EP)

Linguistic Policy (LP)

+

-

+

-

+ LP, + EP

- LP, + EP

+ LP, - EP

- LP, - EP

Figure 2.6: Interplay between linguistic policies and education policies.

122

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

that do not reflect the progressive nature of the education practices in place. This situation would generate the gaps that we discussed earlier. Second, there may be an education policy in place and not a clear linguistic policy (  LP, +EP). In this case, schools would work independently of whatever is happening with regard to the government’s stand on language use and regulation. Third, a state may be more concerned with managing groups within society than with establishing any kind of sound education policy (+LP,  EP). This would be the case when governments are not concerned with the implications of a linguist policy on linguistic minorities and bilingual or multilingual groups in the school setting. Finally, when there is no type of policy (  LP,  EP) both society as a whole and education practices-if there is an education system-would flow in their own direction and at their own rhythm until there is a need for fundamental changes in the structure of the nation.71 Many of the examples we have given thus far fall in one of these four categories, as we will further explain in the next sections.

Pause, reflect, and continue Could you find an example of each of the four scenarios illustrated in Figure 2.6?

2.7.1.

Education in Spain

Education reforms in the Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia, and other autonomous communities began almost immediately after the 1978 Constitution was approved. The new legislation paved the way for a postFranco democratic nation and it granted each of the seventeen communities the freedom of jurisdiction over most of their internal affairs, conceptualizing Spain as a ‘‘state of autonomies.’’ As a result, the Basque Country and Catalonia approved their Statutes of Autonomy in 1979, and Galicia did the same in 1981. Their respective local languages (their lenguas propias) became official, along with Spanish, for the first time in the country’s long history of plurilingualism and pluriculturalism. Some years later, they also passed their own linguistic normalization laws, which stipulate the communities’ interpretation of how these linguistic rights will be reflected on their education systems. The late seventies and early eighties was certainly the single most important period for linguistic policy and planning in the nation.

71. This would be characteristic of nations with very weak political systems and with very limited resources.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

123

One of the many challenges that these autonomous communities faced in the implementation of these new legislations was their own linguistic realities. In the Basque Country, for example, proficiency in Euskera is relatively low (roughly a quarter of the population72), so the foundation to build on was not as strong. Most of the people in the middle and upper classes were already Castilianized. On the other hand, Galician had long been a language of the home, most widely used in rural areas. This posed a major problem because, if a language has low sociolinguistic value and prestige, it is very difficult to get the community, especially school-age children and their parents, to invest in acquiring it, and even more difficult to get them to use it vigorously in multiple spaces in their daily lives. Catalonia had it much easier. Internally, Catalan had already been recognized and accepted as a symbol of Catalonian pride and identity, so it was just a matter of setting the engines in motion and officializing what they had already been wishing for a long time. The teaching of Basque had begun in the 1960s in clandestine schools called ikastolas. This was a reaction to Franco’s hostility toward minoritized languages, which convinced many of the need to save the Basque language before it was too late (Tejerina, 199273). But it wasn’t until 1982, after the Basque Country published its linguistic normalization law, that the teaching of Euskera took off. Both Spanish and Euskera are required subjects in the school system. Parents and children are given three bilingual models to choose from. Model A offers a curriculum taught in Spanish with Basque as a subject, much like foreign languages are taught in schools throughout the United States. Model B is a dual language program that offers a curriculum taught roughly half and half in both languages. The languages are both media of instruction and subjects, and the model is primarily designed to make speakers of Spanish proficient in Basque. Lastly, Model D is the opposite of Model A: the curriculum is taught entirely in Basque, with Spanish as a subject. This model was originally proposed for monolingual speakers of Basque, but it has attracted a lot of Spanish speakers (MarMolinero, 2000, p. 162). Interestingly, since 1982 the number of students enrolling in Model A programs has decreased, while the number of students in the other two models has increased, showing signs that the use of the Basque language has increased as well (Artigal, 1993; Arzamendi & Genesee, 1997; Cenoz, 199874).75

72. According to Garmendı´ a (1994) (cited in Mar-Molinero, 2000, p. 89). 73. Cited in Mar-Molinero (2000, p. 161). 74. Cited in Mar-Molinero (2000, p. 163). 75. Enrollment in expanding adult Basque classes has also increased. See Mar-Molinero (2000, p. 164) for a list of references.

124

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

According to Cobarrubias (2008), Basque has also experienced a demographic and geographic growth. From 1991 to 2006, the demographic growth was 137,200 bilingual speakers who can use the language. Navarre, with a small percentage increase of 1.6%, has maintained its use, while in the Basque Autonomous Community, it increased by 6%. On the other hand, recent studies show that Basque language users tend to be concentrated in Gipuzkoa, Bizkaia (east of Bilbao), and Navarre (close to the Pyrenees). Catalonia’s Linguistic Normalization Law was passed on April 18, 1983. This law was the last piece in the transition from the teaching of Catalan as a subject, to teaching both Spanish and Catalan three hours a week plus one hour a week of another subject taught through Catalan, to full instruction in Catalan with Spanish offered as a subject. The law also stipulates that all Catalonian children, regardless of the language they speak upon enrolling in school, must become proficient in both languages and use them normally and correctly when they finish their basic studies. Likewise, Catalan must be used as the vehicle of expression in internal and external activities in educational centers. The implementation of this law has given way to two main issues. First, some claim that the law puts monolingual speakers of Spanish at a disadvantage. There has been some backlash questioning the legality and constitutionality of the law, but the judicial system has voted in favor of the local government on the basis that the clauses that guarantee Catalonia’s right to choose its lengua propia (own language) also give it the right to impose its language of education. Second, Catalonia, especially the city of Barcelona, is the preferred destination for many people who migrate from other parts of Spain in search of job opportunities. These are mostly individuals from rural areas whose first language is Spanish. In addition, Catalonia is the host city for many South American immigrants whose first language is also Spanish. Therefore, in order to attend to their linguistic needs, the government has had to institute immersion programs to allow these newcomers to function in a Catalan-only education system. The results of these programs have been positive (see Artigal, 1997).76 In Galicia, bilingual education began after the Linguistic Normalization Law was published in 1983. Since Galician had been considered a backward, rural language even in Galicia, changing people’s attitudes toward the language and its use in educational settings has been an uphill and slow struggle. This situation is worsened by the fact that the number of speakers of Galician is smaller than the number of speakers of Basque and Catalan. Furthermore, compared to the average level of development in the Basque

76. Wright (1999, pp. 34–35) presents a very compelling argument. She claims that the low birth rate of Catalonians and the continuous influx of Spanish-speaking immigrants may have a negative impact on the Catalan language.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

125

Country, Catalonia, and the rest of Spain, Galicia is an impoverished agricultural region that has not shared the same economic and industrial development growth (Sigua´n, 1988, p. 471). Despite this, roughly 50% of all school children in Galicia have been taught in Galician. Lack of support of the attempts to use Galician as the initial language of instruction for speakers of the language and to make use of it as the exclusive language of instruction has not allowed for this number to grow. Consequently, the government has decided that the parents who want their kids to attend programs taught in Galician must request it, which reflects the overall inactivity of nationalist movements in Galicia. All in all, the situation does not look promising. The Galician school system ‘‘tends to degalicianize Galician speakers because Castilian is the preferred language in schools’’ (Hermida, 2001, p. 127), which sends the message that the autonomous community’s language and culture are inferior. As Sigua´n (1988, p. 471) says, ‘‘While this situation continues, it is unlikely that Galician families will view education in Galician as a right that is worth claiming.’’ Galician is also in the middle of a heated debate on language standardization. Given the fact that Portugal emerged, in part, as the result of Galician migration to southern territories, and given Portugal’s literary tradition, it has been argued that Galician should adopt Portuguese as a model. But neither the Galicians nor the Portuguese have expressed interest in this measure. To conclude, bilingual education in Spain faces several challenges. These include: teachers’ low level of literacy skills in local languages, shortage of well-trained teachers, adequate materials, and the dominance of Spanish as the majority language of the State. In the Basque Country, other challenges include the difficulties that Spanish speakers have to learn the Basque language, which takes longer to master, and the lack of appropriate training in academic instruction (Arzamendi & Genesee, 1997, p. 163).

Pause, reflect, and continue In your opinion, what are some of the best education policies implemented in the Basque Country, Catalonia, and Galicia? Why? Please explain your answer.

2.7.2.

Education in Latin America

Early on in the history of Latin America, the education system was built to exclude the indigenous population. Later, since multilingualism was a difficult concept to understand, educational efforts focused on assimilating this population, including children and adults, and making them more

126

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

‘‘normal’’ (Lo´pez, 2009b, p. 5). These early policies saw diversity as an issue that had to be erased and sought to transform society through education, which meant imposing Castilianization and the ideology of the Spanishspeaking governing elite. That is the colonial mentality that determined how multilingualism and multiculturalism were dealt with in order to secure power and political hegemony. In more modern times there has been a shift toward education that empowers indigenous groups and creates a more balanced relationship between their language and Spanish and between their culture and that of mainstream society. Consequently, changes in policy have facilitated the development of numerous multilingual and multicultural literacy programs in indigenous communities throughout Latin America. These programs have had varying degrees of success. For example, the Puno Bilingual Education Project, one of the first major initiatives in all of Latin America, was created after Peru’s recognition of Quechua as an official national language in 1975. As Hornberger (1998, p. 443) explains, it served about 4% of the school-aged Quechua and Aymara population of Puno, Peru, in the eighties and developed the first set of bilingual materials to be used in elementary school in Latin America. In the nineties, this initiative served as a model for other similar programs in Latin America (Hornberger, 1988; Hornberger & Lo´pez, 1998; Lo´pez, 199677). Intercultural bilingual education in Spanish and Quechua (or in Spanish and in the group’s indigenous language) is mandatory in Ecuador since 1981. In the eighties, after Ecuador’s Center for Investigation of Indigenous Education (CIEI) created the Programa Nacional de Alfabetizacio´n (National Literacy Program) with a three-phased programmatic plan: literacy in Quichua, postliteracy in Spanish, and primary education (Krainer, 1996). Through the efforts of this program, a unified Quichua was developed. Unfortunately, the program was suspended after two years. Other programs were instituted after 1983, when Article 27 of the Constitution mandated that education be primarily in the indigenous language, with Spanish as the language of intercultural relations. The Direccio´n Nacional de Educacio´n Indı´gena Intercultural Bilingu¨e (National Office of Indigenous Intercultural Bilingual Education) was instrumental in organizing and administering schools where more than half of the population consisted of indigenous people. Later, through the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo (National Development Plan) (1980–1984), a national literacy plan was established. In Bolivia, the Education Reform Law of 1994 meant a deep transformation of the education system. All of Bolivia’s indigenous languages were introduced as means of instruction-starting with Quechua, Aymara, and

77. All cited in Hornberger (1998).

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

127

Guarani-along Spanish, and intercultural bilingual education was established. The number of experimental schools grew from 114 in the early nineties to 3,000 by 2002 (Nucinkis, 2006). Furthermore, a Master’s program was founded by PROEIB Andes and housed at the University of San Simo´n in Cochabamba. It is called the Program for Professional Development in Bilingual Intercultural Education for the Andean Countries, and it is sponsored by universities, ministries of education, and indigenous groups from six countries in South America. Hence, this law ‘‘constitutes the institutional cement for the construction of a new Bolivian state in which pluralism is seen as a resource and not a problem’’ (Hornberger, 1998, p. 44378).79 Meanwhile, in 1994, as a result of the reform of the Paraguayan educational system that began in 1991, the government created a program for the implementation of balanced two-way bilingual education. Originally designed to train children in literacy in their own languages and in Spanish, the program intended to reach total parity in both languages by the ninth grade. After a series of challenges, the program was reformulated from two-way maintenance to a transitional bilingual education (Gynan, 2007a, pp. 252–253). Today most public schools offer instruction in Guarani, but the teaching of this indigenous language has been unsuccessful because the majority of the Guarani-speaking population lives in extreme poverty and parents, most of whom are illiterate themselves, are less likely to be interested in schooling (Baldauf & Kaplan, 2007, pp. 30–31). Furthermore, language policy in Paraguay, and its implementation in the school system, has created a clear divide between Guarani and the rest of the national indigenous languages: the latter are not used as languages of education. In Mexico, students whose dominant language is an indigenous language get instruction and literacy training in their language before or as they transition to Spanish in intercultural bilingual education programs. The Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indı´genas (National Institute of Indigenous Languages) reports that there is an average of 64 nonregulated schools for indigenous students that provide instruction as well as opportunities to celebrate the students’ cultures and discuss problems of the community.80 Critics of such programs argue that, unfortunately, they tend to promote transition into Spanish. In Michoaca´n, Mexico, Hamel et al have used foreign language teaching methods to make the acquisition of P’urepecha more communicative. The

78. Citing Lo´pez (1995). 79. See Ruiz (1984) for a discussion of language policy with a ‘‘language as a resource’’ orientation. 80. Cited in Terborg et al. (2007, p. 164). The number of schools may have changed.

128

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

results have been promising (Hamel et al., 200481). Also in Mexico, the Instituto Nacional de Eduacio´n para Adultos (National Institute for Adult Education) developed a series of books for literacy skills to be used with indigenous people in 21 languages, including Chinanteca, Mayan, Nahuatl, Tlapaneca, and Zapotec (Terborg et al., 2007, p. 147). In addition, the Comisio´n Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indı´genas (National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples) created a series of programs with the intention of, among other things, promoting indigenous cultures, organizing indigenous women, promoting agreements with regard to justice, and developing programs for the Mayan communities in the Yucatan Peninsula (p. 153). Finally, in 2004 the Universidad Auto´noma de Me´xico (Autonomous University of Mexico) began offering elective courses to increase awareness of the plurilingual and pluricultural nature of the nation in the twenty-first century. This was called Proyecto Me´xico, Nacio´n Intercultural (Mexico, Intercultural Nation Project) (Del Val & Mendiza´bal, 200482). The effects that these programs and initiatives have had have been mixed. On the positive side, demand is high in Ecuador, and the impact that they have in the community and in the national context is substantial (King & Haboud, 2007, p. 65).83 However, despite all these shifts, many indigenous children are still excluded or have limited access to primary and secondary education. In fact, illiteracy in indigenous people 15 years of age or older reaches 12.9% in Nicaragua and 23.97% in Guatemala (Lo´pez & Hanemann, 2009). The situation is worse in Paraguay, where indigenous illiteracy reaches 38.9% and 44.2% among speakers of a Guarani family language.84 Also, in some cases, since programs for indigenous children are limited to elementary education, those who wish to continue their schooling beyond sixth grade must attend secondary schools where instruction is entirely in Spanish (Baldauf & Kaplan, 2007, p. 12). Furthermore, the everpresent issue of whether these programs facilitate transition to Spanish, the lack of adequate teaching materials, the teachers’ level of proficiency in the indigenous language, and the lack of adequate infrastructure are key concerns that must be addressed. As they look toward the future, those involved in intercultural bilingual education in Latin America have to deal with a number of challenges: poverty

81. Cited in Terborg et al. (2007, pp. 146–147). 82. Cited in Terborg et al. (2007, p. 162). 83. Nonetheless, the authors point out issues related to the training of qualified teachers, the limited use of the indigenous language in the classroom, and varying definitions of interculturality and bilingualism (p. 68). 84. The rate of illiteracy among monolingual Guarani speakers is three times higher than among bilinguals and Spanish monolinguals (Gynan, 2007a, p. 237). There are high rates of absenteeism and early dropout among Guarani monolinguals as well.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

129

rates, graduation rates, education in rural areas, effective and consistent implementation of policies, attitudes about languages and language learning, and current bilingual teaching methodologies.85 All of these pieces have to work together if they want education to really help indigenous people ‘‘reclaim the local and revitalize the indigenous’’ (Hornberger, 2010, p. 3).

Pause, reflect, and continue In your opinion, what are some of the best education policies implemented in Latin America? Why? Please explain your answer.

2.8. Important Cases and Communities in Danger 2.8.1.

Palenquero

Palenquero is said to be the only Spanish-based creole language that is still alive worldwide (Romero, 2007). In spite of the fact that it has been spoken for centuries, little is known about this language that is still spoken today by descendants of escaped slaves in the small village of Palenque de San Basilio in Colombia. The village’s population consists of about 2,500 to 3,000 people. Almost everyone in the village can understand and pronounce some words in Palenquero, but less than half of the people actually speak it on a daily basis (Schwegler, 1993).86

Pause, reflect, and continue What are some of the factors that may have contributed to the evolution of Palenquero from a pidgin to a creole language?

The notion of Palenquero originating from a Spanish pidgin has persisted for many years; however, a more careful look at the history of Palenquero reveals some facts that bring this origin into question or at the very least 85. Current methodologies in bilingual and multilingual education propose giving learners the chance to draw on all the points in the continua of biliteracy so they could experience full biliterate development (Hornberger, 1989, 1998). They also place significant value on translanguaging (Baker, 2000; Creese & Blackledge, 2011; Garcı´ a, 2009), and bilingual supportive scaffolding practices (Saxena, 2010). 86. Schwegler (1996) discovered that most of the adolescents of San Basilio de Palenque barely even understood Palenquero.

130

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

help to better understand how this language was formed. Sandoval, who lived in Cartagena, near where Palenquero is spoken, noted in 1627 that there were many slaves who had lived in Sao Tome who used a ‘‘highly corrupt and backwards’’ version of Portuguese (McWhorter, 2000, p. 17). The fact that there are lexical items from Portuguese in the Palenquero lexicon suggests that the slaves somehow knew or already spoke some form of Portuguese upon arrival in the New World since they could not have acquired these lexical items working under the Spanish who bought them. It is believed that if this is the case then it was outsiders who introduced Spanish into Palenquero sometime later after the slaves already spoke a form of Portuguese in order to be able to communicate with their slaves (McWhorter, 2000). The case of Papiamentu (or Papiamento), a creole language spoken on the Caribbean islands of Aruba, Bonaire, and Curazao, provides further support to the idea that Palenquero may have originated as a Portuguesebased pidgin. Both languages started off in slave communities that more likely than not acquired some form of this language to communicate with their Portuguese-speaking owners and traders, most of whom were from Brazil. As McWhorter (2000, p. 15) says, ‘‘The original status of Papiamentu as a Portuguese-based creole is strongly supported by the undeniably Portuguese items in its core lexicon.’’ Table 2.4 shows a comparison of some of the lexical and linguistic elements of speech between Palenquero, English, Portuguese, and Spanish. The table shows that even though Palenquero is similar to Spanish in many ways, it is more comparable to Portuguese. Not only has Palenquero been influenced by Portuguese and Spanish but also, according to Romero (2007, p. 2), ‘‘It was strongly influenced by the Kikongo language of Congo.’’ Kikongo was a language spoken by the slaves that were brought to and sold in the Americas, and some of its features are found in Palenquero. For example, as McWhorter (2000, p. 18) points out, Palenquero has a postponed anterior marker –ba (ele kele ba, ‘he wanted’) that is found in the Upper Guinea Portuguese creoles, which ‘‘suggests yet

Table 2.4: Comparison of lexical items between Palenquero, English, Portuguese, and Spanish.a Palenquero

English

Portuguese

Spanish

TEN ELE BAE

has he, she goes

tem ele vai

tiene e´l/ella va

a

Source: Adapted from Hualde & Schwegler (2008).

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

131

another link between Palenquero and West African coastal Portuguese pidgins.’’ McWhorter goes further and says that ‘‘Palenquero has Portuguese-derived core lexical items, idiosyncratic, structural correspondences with Sao Tomense itself, and strong interference from African languages spoken by slaves who were shipped via the Portuguese-owned depot Sao Tome’’ (p. 19). The traditional Palenquero language varies from both Portuguese and Spanish in that it lacks grammatical gender. This creates problems for students learning Palenquero as a second language, who tend to add -a (as in Spanish) to make feminine forms, as illustrated by the following examples from Lipski (2011, p. 10). un baba amaria ‘una barba amarilla’ ota manera de habla ‘otra manera de hablar’ suto e una sola generacion ‘somos una sola generacio´n’ esa muje a ta beyo ‘esa mujer es bella’ (p. 10) The author adds that ‘‘Hay una tendencia de efectuar ma´s concordancia femenina cuando el sustantivo nuclear se refiere a una persona (mujer) que cuando describe un objeto inanimado (puerta, casa)’’ (p. 12).87 Furthermore, Palenquero lacks definite articles, un is its only indefinite article, and adjectives are derived from the Spanish masculine form. Another key linguistic feature of Palenquero is its intonation. As Hualde and Schwegler (2008, p. 24) explain, there are three main differences between Palenquero and Spanish: (1) the systematic association in Palenquero of accented syllables with level H tones in declarative and interrogative sentences as well as both nuclear and prenuclear positions, (2) the frequent absence of final falls in declaratives with oxytonic endings, and (3) the downstep of final-phrase H tones to a level M tone. They go on to say that ‘‘The consistency with which accented syllables are realized with a high pitch, leads us to conclude that, at some point in the past, Palenqueros reinterpreted Spanish stress as requiring an association with a lexical H tone, as has been claimed for several English-lexicon creoles’’ (p. 26). Additionally, younger speakers may prefer an upstepped pitch for finalphrase critics compared to older speakers (Hualde & Schwegler, 2008; Lipski, 2010).

87. Translation — There is a tendency to carry out more feminine agreement when the nuclear noun refers to a person (woman) than when it describes an inanimate object (door, house), even though the data are not sufficient to establish definitive conclusions.

132

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

In general, there is not much being done today to preserve this language. As we said before, the population of Palenque de San Basilio is only about 3,000 and less than half of the population speaks the language. As with many languages that are at risk of dying, the elderly are the main speakers of the language and are those who are maintaining it, while the younger generation has opted for Spanish as their first language. As the older generation passes away, so does the hope for maintaining Palenquero. To illustrate this point, in 1998, only 10% of the population under 25 years of age spoke Palenquero (Romero, 2007), and until recently, the language was seen negatively and barely used in schools. In fact, according to Dieck (2000, p. 15), ‘‘En la propia escuela de Palenque, hasta hace apenas unos an˜os, los maestros reprimı´ an el uso de lo que, segu´n su opinio´n, era un espan˜ol mal hablado.’’88

Pause, reflect, and continue Why would the teachers’ views of the language as a form of poorly spoken Spanish contribute to the loss of the language? How can the elders in the town pass the language to the younger generation?

According to the people from Palenque, the biggest threat to their language’s survival is having direct contact with outsiders. Dieck (2000, p. 15) states, Alrededor de 1924, cuando comenzaron a emigrar palenqueros (en su mayorı´ a hombres) en busca de trabajo en los ingenios azucareros y la zona bananera, experimentaron la burla que sus compan˜eros de la misma regio´n, y tambie´n negros como ellos, les hacı´ an no solamente por hablar su idioma, sino por la manera de hablar espan˜ol.89 In addition, the people from the community have been ostracized and made fun of because of the way they speak. For example, Dieck (2000) and Romero (2007) found that some older Palenqueros even indicate that,

88. Translation — In the school in Palenque, as recently as a few years ago, the teachers restricted the use of what, according to their opinion, was poorly spoken Spanish. 89. Translation — Around 1924, when the Palenqueros started to migrate (the majority of which were men) looking for work in the sugar refineries and the banana zone, they experienced the ridicule of their workmates from the same region, and also blacks like themselves, who did it not only for speaking their language but also for the way they spoke Spanish.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

133

because of such experiences, they have tried to hide the practice of their language, especially when an outsider appears when they are having a conversation in Palenquero. This consistent negativity toward Palenquero does not support the revitalization of the language and increases its chances of disappearing. Nonetheless, in recent years some Palenqueros have realized that the language is an important part of their heritage, resulting in more positive feelings toward it and attempts to save it. Rutsely Simarra Obeso, a linguist that lives in Cartagena, is in charge of one of such attempts. She is compiling Palenquero lexicon to assemble a dictionary. Furthermore, in 2005, when the UNESCO declared that San Basilio de Palenque was a Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity, the feelings of pride with respect to the Palenquero language increased immensely (Lipski, 2011, p. 6). Finally, Lipski (2011) reports that, even though many students can only create short sentences in Palenquero, the active linguistic competence of this younger community is increasing. He states, Por un lado el activismo de los profesores de etnoeducacio´n ha resultado en la restauracio´n de unas palabras tradicionales que habı´ an caı´ do en desuso. Al mismo tiempo, los jo´venes aprendices introducen involuntariamente elementos morfosinta´cticos del castellano aun cuando intentan hablar enteramente en lengua. (p. 6)90

Pause, reflect, and continue How is it possible to change a people’s attitude toward a native language? How can people be taught to respect a language that does not benefit them economically?

2.8.2.

Guarani

Paraguay has two official languages (Spanish and Guarani). It is one of the few countries in South America and in the world known to have a relatively stable form of bilingualism (Romaine, 1995; Trudgill, 1995). In many countries that are bilingual, both languages are similar to one another or at

90. Translation — On the one hand the activism of ethnoeducation teachers has resulted in the restoration of some traditional words that had fallen into disuse. At the same time, the young apprentices unwittingly introduce morphosyntactic elements of Spanish even when they try to speak entirely in language.

134

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

least come from the same language families, but in the case of Paraguay, Spanish and Guarani are languages that are unrelated to each other, which is rarely seen (Choi, 2003). About 90% of the population in Paraguay knows Guarani; Paraguay offers an excellent example of diglosia where two languages coexist but are used and relegated to specific functions within the society. In addition, Guarani has a more coequal relationship with Spanish. It has national stature because ‘‘it is spoken by all segments of Paraguayan society, including government officials, teachers, professionals, business leaders, merchants, etc.’’ (Engelbrecht & Ortiz, 1983, p. 55). Paraguayans not only identify themselves with both languages, but the nation also depends on these languages for self and national development (Engelbrecht & Ortiz, 1983). However, it is important to emphasize that in Paraguay Spanish is favored over Guarani and used more widely in governmental and educational settings. It is seen as the language of prosperity and social ascent.

Pause, reflect, and continue Why do you think that it took so long for Guarani to be recognized as a co-official language? Why do you suppose that this is considered one of the countries with a relatively stable bilingual population?

Spaniards arrived in present-day Paraguay looking for mineral wealth, but soon found out that the complexity in traveling in and out of the area made this search very difficult. They also discovered that the wealth they were looking for was nowhere to be found. Nevertheless, the settlement kept growing, and because there were a very limited number of Spanish women, the Spanish men quickly began to both marry and father children with the Guarani women. Nickson (2009, p. 5) reveals, ‘‘Guarani rapidly became the language of the mestizo population that evolved from the miscegenation of conquistadores and indigenous women.’’ This intermarriage and mixing between Spaniards and the Guarani women produced the beginnings of bilingualism in Paraguay. Furthermore, as Choi (2003) states, the Jesuits played an important role in the development of bilingualism in Paraguay during the colonization of Paraguay. They used Guarani as their language of communication and for religious rituals in their mission villages called reducciones (p. 84). Between 1610 and 1767, Guarani was strongly encouraged among the population, and in 1624 a Jesuit by the name of Antonio Ruiz de Montoya wrote the first Guarani dictionary and grammar book (Choi, 2003; Nickson, 2009). As Carlin and Kerke (2010, p. 4) note, ‘‘The fact that this language has lexical documentation reduces the chances

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

135

of this language dying off.’’ Before this time, Guarani had no written language, but the Jesuits, especially Antonio Ruiz de Montoya, helped systematize the writing system through the use of Spanish orthography. He greatly contributed to its development with his two works titled Tesoro de la lengua guaranı´ and Arte y vocabulario de la lengua guaranı´. Written Guarani is now also found in books, booklets, pamphlets, and periodicals. According to Engelbrecht and Ortiz (1983, p. 58),

There is limited material available in newspapers, but it is now known that Guarani can be read in many popular newspapers such a La Nacio´n. Guarani has also expanded in the form of theater, for instance in poetry, narrative, and song.

Pause, reflect, and continue Why is there so little in the form of lexical documentation and grammars of many of the indigenous languages? What can be done to develop more of these resources?

Between 1814 and 1840, Paraguay’s president, Jose´ Gaspar Rodrı´ guez de Francia, put into practice a series of isolationist policies through which he reduced the spread of Spanish. Paraguay was cut off from communication with other countries, causing the delay in the country’s economic development and a greatly reduction in the number of Spanish-speaking traders who entered the country. He not only isolated his country from the rest of the world but also prohibited marriages with Spanish-born foreigners to prevent the spread of the Spanish language. Carlos Antonio Lo´pez, the dictator who followed Jose´ Gaspar Rodrı´ guez de Francia, did quite the opposite. He reinforced foreign relations, welcomed outsiders, and also pursued higher education in Spanish; he even banned the Guarani language in a few schools (Nickson, 2009). Throughout the years, Guarani has struggled as a language not due to a lack of speakers, but due to the thoughts of certain individuals toward the language. During the liberal period of 1870–1936, there was a negative attitude toward the Guarani language because it was regarded with disdain. In fact, Manuel Domı´ nguez, who served as vice-president from 1902 to 1904, referred to it as the great enemy of the cultural progress of Paraguay (Engelbrecht & Ortiz, 1983). This underlying racism toward the language came to an end in the 1920s, when Paraguay began to focus on improving

136

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

the lives of the poor population and Guarani began to be viewed in a more positive manner. According to Engelbrecht and Ortiz (1983, p. 57), A new sense of nationalism emerged, particularly during the Chaco war against Bolivia (1932–1935), which Paraguay won. Guarani was then associated with the new nationalism. This change of attitudes and the victory of the nationalist Colorado party in 1948 brought about the recognition of Guarani as a national language in the constitution of 1967. While the constitution of 1967 brought recognition of the value of Guarani as a national language, it did not become an official language until 1992, when it was recognized along with Spanish as one of the two coofficial languages of Paraguay. Compared to other indigenous languages, Guarani has been able to gain status and it has found its way into the educational system. Since there was a high percentage of Guarani speakers in the mid-1900s who had not attended school or who had not progressed further than the first grade, several important reforms were put in place. For instance, the 1973 Educational Reform mandated that Guarani be taught in the first three years of elementary education with the goal of enabling the learning of Spanish for students that knew only Guarani. Most of the students in rural communities entered elementary school only fluent in Guarani. This was the impetus for beginning bilingual programs that were created as a response to the serious educational difficulties encountered by rural, monolingual Guarani-speaking children as they attempted to learn Spanish, an unknown language for many of them, and to the idea that the first language should be learned to develop linguistic proficiency in the second language (Nickson, 2009). Unfortunately, this reform did not have many positive results as the goal was one of subtractive bilingualism where students were only studying the language in order to transition into Spanish. This changed in 1992 when the New Education Reform came into being. This reform required that both Spanish and Guarani be taught with the goal of mastering, understanding, and being skilled in both languages, thus creating competent bilinguals (Choi, 2003). Today Guarani is not only used in elementary schools but also in junior-high, as an elective or as a required course, depending on the area of the country. The purpose is not just to learn and understand the language, but to also encourage the study of Guarani as a ‘‘cultural subject.’’ Guarani is also taught in universities, especially in the capital of Asuncion. Even though most schools and programs focus more on teaching Spanish, the fact that Guarani is being taught demonstrates a proactive stance on maintaining and increasing the students’ proficiency in the indigenous language (Engelbrecht & Ortiz, 1983).

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

137

In a study conducted by Choi (2003), 279 students from two private schools and 341 students from two public schools in Asuncion, Paraguay, completed questionnaires in which they were asked to give opinions and reactions to issues that related to Spanish and Guarani. The students in the study were all taught Guarani in elementary school after the 1992 Education Reform. One of the questions that showed positive results from both groups asked the students if they wanted to learn to speak and write well in Guarani. A total of 72.4% from private schools and 85.6% from public schools answered that they would like to learn not only to speak Guarani but also to write it as well. In addition, most of the participants answered that it was important to preserve the language. When asked to explain why, they mentioned that Guarani was their identity, that it was the language of their ancestors, that it identifies them and makes them unique as Paraguayans, that Paraguay is known for its bilingualism, and that Guarani is the language of their homeland. Even the students that did not show an inclination or desire to learn the language still believed it was important to preserve it. They also expressed that it was part of their identity and culture, and they saw the language as having an important role in Paraguay. These positive opinions, together with the educational and governmental policies that support and promote the use of Guarani, may have a positive impact on its maintenance in the future.

Pause, reflect, and continue Why are positive attitudes toward a minority language not enough to maintain it? Some researchers say that positive attitudes toward minority languages are dangerous because it causes people to become complacent and not do anything to maintain them. Do you agree? Why or why not?

All of these positive factors are helping to maintain the use of Guarani not just orally, but in teaching the writing and the reading of the language as well. As Choi (2003, p. 89) states, ‘‘Guarani has been an oral language for many centuries, and it has a very brief history of being a part of the educational system, not only as a spoken language but also as a written one.’’ For example, in 1990, 29.4% of the students from private schools and 20% of students from public schools claimed that they did not write in Guarani (Choi, 2003), but only 10 years later these percentages decreased. The number of students who did not write in Guarani decreased from 29.4% to only 9.3% in private schools and from 20% to 5% in public schools. This indicates that in a 10-year span more students learned how to write in Guarani, which is considered to be a positive factor for a language and its

138

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

maintenance and growth. The parents also have a tremendous influence on their children and what language they prefer. Similar to the students, most of the parents indicated that it was important to preserve the Guarani language. However, upon further analysis of the study and the results, the parents’ responses were somewhat different when compared to their children and reflected their attitude toward the languages. For instance, in 2000, when they were asked what language they use with their children, 57.6% said Spanish, 3.9% said Guarani, and 38.5% said both Guarani and Spanish. The percentage of parents who only speak Guarani with their children may seem low, but a decade earlier 0% had provided the same answer. Choi (2003, pp. 89–90) explains this difference stating, ‘‘It should be mentioned once again that the 1990 study was conducted two years prior to Guarani being recognized as an official language.’’ While Guarani was used regularly in daily interactions, it was not until the mid-1990s that it was used by the media. It first appeared in a daily tabloid called Diario Popular, which aimed for an audience that was from the lower-income bracket. It was written in jopara, which is a mixture of colloquial Spanish and Guarani. There is also a ‘‘Teach yourself Guarani’’ course in the newspaper La Nacio´n that gets published weekly. Not only do the main four newspapers in Paraguay publish some content in Guarani, but now there are talk shows in which the host frequently communicates with the viewers in Guarani. In addition, there has been an advance of Guarani on the airwaves. During the dictatorship of Stroessner, all the radio stations were controlled by the dictator and the government, but as recently as 1961, ‘‘Guarani was allowed a daily airtime of fifteen minutes on Radio Paraguay’’ (Nickson, 2009, p. 15). Nickson goes on to state that the fact that Guarani rather than Spanish has emerged as the prime language on the airwaves is striking testimony to the role that community radio plays in giving voice to the poor’’ (pp. 15–16).

Pause, reflect, and continue What role does mass communication play in the maintenance of a language? Why is it so important?

In the 1990s, there were four bestselling books that reflected on the Paraguayan character, which helped the spread of poetry and short stories in Guarani. Poetry began to be seen weekly in newspapers, which included themes on rural, erotic, historical or moral nature. Furthermore, in 2003, a ballad in Guarani, N˜orairo˜ n˜emombe’u ge´rra guasu´ro˜ guare, Guaranı´ n˜e’Bepu pjoappe (Ballad of battles of the War of the Triple Alliance), by

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

139

Carlos Martı´ nez Gamba, was awarded the annual national prize for literature (Nickson, 2009). Not only is Guarani beginning to be recognized and popularized in poetry and in literature but also in songs and advertisements. Words from the Guarani language are being used for names of shops and also in some Spanish songs. Little by little, Guarani is becoming frequently used in everyday life (Engelbrecht & Ortiz, 1983). Guarani’s phonology is quite different from that of Spanish and English. For example, whereas in English some vowels are weakened so that the stress can sound very strong, in Guarani all vowels are pronounced fully regardless of stress. Actually, weakening an unstressed vowel in Guarani may completely change the meaning of a word. Also, in Guarani, for the most part, the stress is in the last syllable, but if the stress is in another syllable, an acute accent is used. To conclude, the case of Guarani in Paraguay is certainly one of the most unique in the Spanish-speaking world. The majority of Paraguayans embrace the language, and this has had an impact on Paraguayan society and everyday life. The indigenous language is being taught in schools and even at the university level. Moreover, Guarani appears in newspapers, on the radio, and even in political speeches and political commentaries. Even though it seems that Spanish still dominates over Guarani, the fact that the language is still alive and that is widely used shows that the language is not going to die off anytime soon.

2.8.3.

Aymara and Quechua

Aymara and Quechua are two unique indigenous languages from Latin America. Both of these languages, while independent and unique, share many similarities. There are several countries in which these languages are spoken, that is, Bolivia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, and Colombia, but there are questions as to whether or not these languages are from the same language family or simply have been in contact and thus share many lexical and linguistic structures. This section focuses on the background of these two languages, how they interact with each other and other languages such as Spanish, and how they are used in the community.

Pause, reflect, and continue Are there languages in your community that are similar in nature? What are they and how are they similar? Why is it important for each language to have its own culture and people?

140

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Most Aymara and Quechua speakers reside in Bolivia and Peru. Bolivia currently has about 2 million Quechua speakers (30% of the population) and about 1.8 million Aymara speakers (about 25% of the population). Peru has the most Quechua speakers, which consist of about 4 million, with Aymara spoken by a smaller number of individuals with only about 600,000 speakers. Quechua is one of the official languages of both Bolivia and Peru while Aymara is an official language of Bolivia. Compared to other indigenous languages that have barely a couple of thousand of speakers left, Quechua and Aymara would seem to be relatively secure with millions of speakers, but they still are considered to be endangered. While the minority language in these countries is said to be Spanish, recently Spanish is being used much more, especially with the continued migration from the countryside to the city, and the indigenous languages are beginning to die off with the younger generation. Quechua began in a small area in a southern part of Peru. The Quechua tribes became part of the Incan Empire and Quechua eventually became the official language of the Inca. Ultimately, the empire began to expand and Quechua was spread over a wide area of South America. Aymara also began in Peru, but more toward the central part of Peru, and while both Aymara and Quechua started expanding about the same time (1,500 years ago), it is believed that Aymara may have started a couple centuries before. Upon arrival in the Americas, the Spaniards had encounters with both of these languages early on. Hardman (1981, p. 20) states, ‘‘The first case of contact between Spaniard and Aymara in the area came in 1533 from the military expedition into the territory by Diego de Almagro.’’ Until the period of independence, the Aymara people were treated almost as slaves by the Spaniards, as was the case with many of the indigenous people. It seems that there were two waves of languages expanding during this period of independence. Since both of these languages were expanding at the same time with first Aymara and then Quechua, the contact between these languages resulted in Quechua gradually replacing Aymara in many regions. Hardman (1981) states that today we can see that in some regions that were once Aymara speaking, Quechua is now the dominant indigenous language, for example, in the region of Cuzco. It is interesting to note that in Peru and Bolivia the dominant language of government and education is Spanish, but more people understand Aymara and/or Quechua than they do Spanish. In regard to education in these languages, many of the young children often go into school knowing either one of these two languages, but Spanish is the main spoken and taught language in the classrooms. In the past, the education system viewed these languages in a negative way, similar to the original feelings toward Guarani. Teachers typically opted to teach the

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

141

dominant language, causing the students to not learn Quechua or Aymara. Hornberger and Coronel-Molina (2004, p. 28) discussed this issue in great length in their research stating, Whereas education is an important avenue for social mobility and advancement, educational policies have long served to repress Quechua and Quechua speakers. Spanish has typically been the official language of schooling, and Quechua-speaking children face great disadvantages for speaking Quechua in school, a circumstance seemingly contributing to linguistic shame and language shift. For instance, it was found that children from Ecuador that attended nonbilingual schools communicated less often in the classroom and they were less excited about school. The reason that they were responding this way in school was because if they were to speak in Quechua they were either punished or made to feel ashamed of the language by their teachers (Hornberger & Coronel-Molina, 2004). Hardman (1981, p. 28) declares, ‘‘Recognition that the teaching of native languages is important in the plan of national integration has caused a change in attitudes toward Aymara and Quechua among some Hispanic speakers in the last 20 years.’’ From 1994 to 2003, Bilingual Intercultural Education (Educacio´n Intercultural Bilingu¨e, EIB) was a program that focused on developing language skills for indigenous children in rural areas. The EIB encouraged the use of indigenous languages in the classroom, ‘‘both as languages of instruction and as a subject to be studied alongside Spanish’’ (Heggarty & Pearce, 2011, pp. 194–195), and strived to reverse some of the early negative attitudes held by many toward these languages, especially in the educational system. The EIB is said to be one of the reasons for the stabilization in native language use among primary school children in rural areas, but ‘‘yother social and economic factors (especially rural to urban migration) encouraged shift to Spanish among the middle age bands’’ (Heggarty & Pearce, 2011, p. 195). In Peru, there is a program not only for Quechua speakers but also for Aymara speakers called El Proyecto Experimental de Educacio´n Bilingu¨e-Puno that began in the 1980s. This program is very similar to EIB in that Spanish and indigenous languages are taught in school. This program also promotes a positive self-image that allows the students to view themselves as Quechuas and Aymaras and also to value their languages. Lo´pez (1989, p. 62) describes this stating, ‘‘A partir de 1987y todos los nin˜os aymara-hablantes de la zona rural del departamento de Puno reciben textos escolares escritos en aymara y castellano y ven en ellos descritas las preocupaciones diarias de sus semejantes, sus fiestas, mitos

142

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

y leyendas.’’91 Having textbooks and a written form of these languages is an important factor not only for the education system but for their survival as well. Just like many other indigenous languages that have survived, they have been viewed negatively by society and their community, causing teachers to also scorn these languages. Fortunately, there are programs like the EIB that are being used to promote the use and education in these indigenous languages and help people to develop more positive attitudes toward the language and people who speak it (Lo´pez, 1989).

Pause, reflect, and continue Are there any programs in your community to preserve indigenous or heritage languages? How effective are these programs? If you are not aware of any, do some research to find out if any exist.

Aymara and Quechua speakers have changed over the years regarding their feelings toward their language. The pendulum has swung from seeing these indigenous languages as an important part of their identity, community, and culture to feeling shame over their use of these languages and their culture. The elders, men, women, and even children view and identify with these languages in dissimilar ways. Not only do these speakers view themselves differently depending on age, gender, etc., but also the geographical location of the speakers plays a key role in their perception as well. If these speakers live in the city or in the rural countryside, their perception of these native languages can change. In addition to rural and urban settings changing opinions as to the use of the languages, certain regions of their countries where these languages are spoken also perceive them differently from other regions. For example, in a longitudinal study from Ayacucho, Peru, parents from different generations were studied to see why they were not letting their children learn Quechua. It was found that older parents believed that they already knew the language through their grandparents and younger parents thought that Spanish was a more valuable language for their children (Hornberger & Coronel-Molina, 2004). These authors continue stating, ‘‘Quechua is overtly devalued by both the dominant society and by Quechua speakers themselves’’ (p. 15). It has also been documented that in Lima, Peru, there is a strong tendency for many

91. Translation — After 1987y all of the Aymara speaking children in the rural areas of the city of Puno receive scholarly textbooks written in Aymara and Spanish and they see in them descriptions of their daily concerns and those of their neighbors, their celebrations, myths, and legends.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

143

Quechua speakers to hide the fact that they know the language to prevent from being made fun of, to prevent jokes and vulgarisms. On the other hand, in Puno or Juliaca, Peru, the Aymara language is valued by men, women, and children especially when used in the familial context (Lo´pez, 1989, p. 57). In Ecuador, Quechua speakers tend to ‘‘value their language as part of their ethnic identity and as a means of communication among themselves’’ (Hornberger & Coronel-Molina, 2004, p. 15). HowardMalverde (1995) mentions that Aymara language still has a sturdy position in the highland of La Paz and Oruro, but it is the opposite in Northern Potosi since there is a ‘‘rapid displacement at the hands of Quechua’’ (p. 145). It was also discovered that around the highland of Puno, Peru, Quechua speakers seem to want to learn Spanish or become bilingual but at the same time they want to maintain their language. In his evaluation of the situation in Bolivia after Albo´ (1999) notes, ‘‘it is increasingly common for individuals to simultaneously belong to more than one cultural contextyOne can belong to the Aymara culture in some respects, and to the Bolivian in others’’ (cited in Hornberger & CoronelMolina, 2004, p. 17).

Pause, reflect, and continue Why do you think that some communities value their culture more than others? What makes an indigenous community successful in creating the desire to maintain their language and culture?

Traditionally, in the Altiplano, the herders and salt panners used Aymara, whereas Quechua was associated with maize growers, miners, and modernization (Howard-Malverde, 1995). The type of employment that an individual has plays a role in which language is used, but gender and age are also determining factors. Children and the older generations typically continue to use Quechua and a high amount of women are monolingual in indigenous languages especially in Peru and Bolivia. The young children that are monolingual in these languages typically decrease their use because they begin to learn the dominant language (Spanish) and view this language as more important and necessary for social advancement (Hornberger & Coronel-Molina, 2004). Many times people that belong to the indigenous minority do not have the same opportunities as the majority group. For instance, many of the members of the indigenous populations confront disadvantages in social, economic, and political positions. It is often found that members of the indigenous population attempt to avoid this social powerlessness by associating themselves with the majority and many times looking outside their communities for job opportunities. Hornberger and

144

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Coronel-Molina (2004) state that those members that try to associate themselves with the majority and those ‘‘who seek social mobility become dependent on the majority society and are not only cooped into that society, but try to make sure that their own children gain entry into it at as early an age as possible’’ (p. 19). As for the structure of these languages, we can see a few similarities since the two are mostly spoken in the same countries and have interacted with each other for over 1,000 years. In both, the Aymara and Quechua languages have three vowel phonemes and 26 consonant phonemes. Hardman (1981, p. 8) posits, ‘‘Compared to languages like Spanish and English, intonation plays a relatively small role in Aymara syntax, the functions performed by such contours as questions, exclamations and so forth, being performed by the syntactic suffixes.’’ An example in which intonation is important in the Aymara language is when hostility is felt from someone. In these situations, the Aymara speaker will change his or her intonation to one that is monotone. An example of morphology for Quechua is the connector suffix –ri. Heggarty and Pearce (2011, pp. 65–66) explains this stating, ‘‘This suffix was equated with the Spanish conjunction y (‘‘and’’) as used to mark the topic of a sentence, and tended to replace the native Quechua system of ‘‘discourse tracking.’’ In the Aymara language, there are four different types of suffixes: verbal, nominal, independent, and syntactic. ‘‘There is also a class of suffixes which changes verbs into nouns or nouns into verbs, which may be applied successively to form very complex words’’ (Hardman, 1981, pp. 9–10). In a study conducted by Liliana Sanchez (2003), participants that were bilingual in both Quechua and Spanish were given a task of story-telling. This study predicted using the Functional Interference Hypothesis that in ‘‘the mind of bilinguals who activate both languages constantly, interference in functional features results in syntactic changes in bilingual grammar’’ (p. 85). From the study, it was discovered that in some of the Quechua narratives there were some Spanish lexical borrowings for verbs and nouns. Howard-Malverde (1995, p. 152) also mentioned that in Northern Potosi, ‘‘the lexical influence on Quechua in this part of Bolivia comes from two directions: Aymara and Spanish.’’ There was also evidence that in the task that the participants were asked to complete, many of the bilingual participants had a tendency to code-switch between Quechua and Spanish (Howard-Malverde, 1995). It is believed that Aymara, Quechua, and even Spanish have borrowed words from each other. It is estimated that Quechua and Aymara have a shared vocabulary of about 25% to 30% (Howard-Malverde, 1995). When evaluating the impact of Spanish lexicon on indigenous languages, HowardMalverde (1995, p. 153) found: ‘‘(a) words may completely replace items in

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

145

the indigenous language, (b) they may use it to fill a lexical gap and (c) it may also co-exist with the indigenous item, making an alternative to it.’’ In another study, interviewees from urban and rural areas were given words and were asked to estimate decide to which language they belong. The people from urban areas responded that they thought that mixing Quechua with Spanish was positive because it was actually ‘‘refining’’ or ‘‘improving’’ the language (Howard-Malverde, 1995, p. 154). As for the people from rural areas, they seemed to speak more Quechua than Aymara, but in the task they were still able to recall plenty of Aymara vocabulary. Also, these respondents believed that in the Aymara translations, ‘‘any suggestion that a Spanish loanword could provide an alternative lexical resource was rejected’’ (Howard-Malverde, 1995, p. 155). In the tables below, we can find examples of Spanish borrowings into Aymara. The first table shows how the phonemic shape is imported even though the orthographic representation may differ (Hardman, 1981; Howard-Malverde, 1995) (Table 2.5). Not only are some words borrowed directly from Spanish but others are borrowed with slight modifications in meaning and/or in the pronunciation of the words. These are described as hybrid words with elements of both languages. Table 2.6 lists some examples of these words (Hardman, 1981; Howard-Malverde, 1995). Figures 2.7 and 2.8 show examples of the alphabets from both Aymara and Quechua. While there are some similarities between the alphabets, these are distinct languages that the people speak and for which written systems have been developed to represent the oral traditions that have survived for centuries.

Table 2.5: Loanwords from Spanish in Aymara. camisa capa casaca

kamisa kapa kasaka

(shirt) (cloak) (coat)

Table 2.6: Hybrid words from Spanish in Aymara. abrigo bolsillo corbata hilo

awriju wullsillu kurwata ilu

(overcoat) (pocket) (tie) (thread)

146

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Figure 2.7: Aymara alphabet.

Figure 2.8: Quechua alphabet.

Pause, reflect, and continue After carefully studying the alphabets of Quechua and Aymara, compare the similarities and differences between them. What are some other languages that share many features like these languages?

For many indigenous languages, it is difficult to expand to the different mediums of communication such as radio and television, but such has not been the fate for Aymara and Quechua. Spanish is dominant in both Peru and Bolivia, but fortunately Quechua is considered an official language as well. In recent years, Quechua has been used more and more often in the media. Hornberger and Coronel-Molina (2004, p. 33) found in their research, ‘‘Mass media now serve as a significant domain of status enhancement for Quechua.’’ Hornberger and Molina go on to state that in the 1970s and again in 2000, both Aymara and Quechua were in the daily newspaper of Bolivia, La Paz, in which the centerfold page Presencia included articles in both these languages. They also found that in 1975, in Peru, there were articles published in Quechua in the newspaper Cronicawan. Not only do these languages have a written form that is used in newspapers, but they are also used on the radio to keep communities

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

147

informed. Radio stations that broadcast in Quechua and Aymara are more popular than publications because these people tend to have a lower literacy rate than the monolingual Spanish speakers and it is more difficult to distribute these articles in the isolated regions where these communities are located. Since many people cannot read in these languages, the media and especially radio stations are a great medium to help maintain and teach a new generation Aymara and Quechua. This may also play as an important factor to help these languages survive longer (Swinehart, 2012). HCJB World Radio currently broadcast in Quechua I and Quechua II; they could be heard in Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru (Hornberger & CoronelMolina, 2004). These authors also found that this radio station also produces programs in Quito, Ecuador and in the United States using ‘‘shortwave from the Voice of the Andes in Ecuador’’ (p. 34). There is another radio broadcast called Radio Fides, which is transmitted in Spanish, but it does provide commercials and public service announcements in Aymara and Quechua. In Bolivia, Radio San Gabriel is considered to be ‘‘The voice of the Aymara people,’’ and it is the longest-running Aymara language radio station (Swinehart, 2012, p. 102). What makes this radio station beneficial to the maintenance of Aymara is that it is entirely broadcast in Aymara. The number of Aymara speakers who regularly engage with their language in written form is relatively small. Considering this range of Aymara language media, radio is arguably the format with the greatest reach among Aymara speakers and serves as an important field of discourse in which models of Aymara language circulate (Swinehart, 2012, p. 103). Aymara and Quechua are two of the most widely spoken indigenous languages in Latin America with millions of speakers. The fact that there are so many speakers of these languages and yet they are considered endangered may surprise many people. The reasoning for these languages beginning to die off is because Spanish is the language of prestige, government, and education. Fortunately, there have been programs implemented in schools so that students can become bilingual and maintain their heritage language. These educational programs and the fact that these languages have the opportunity to be on different mediums of communication have helped to raise awareness and maintain their use, which will hopefully reverse the cycle toward language loss.

2.8.4.

Mayan

Mayan is a language that is spoken in Northern Honduras, in the south to the mountains of Guatemala, in the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico, and in the west of the Yucatan peninsula. When it comes to the term

148

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

‘‘maya,’’ there are different meanings; one is that it refers to a language family and the other one is that it refers to its speakers. There are several Mayan languages and many different names for them. For example, the speakers in Guatemala have specific names for their languages, such as: Tzeltal, Mam, and Quiche. In Yucatan, Mexico there are about 1.2 million Mayan speakers, which is about 60% of the population. In Guatemala, it is said that about 50% of the population are Mayan Indians, most of which speak at least one Mayan language. Fischer and Brown (1996, p. 160) states, ‘‘Along with speaking, writing has become an increasingly important means by which Maya articulate an indigenous consciousness and gain an authoritative voice within wider spheres of influence.’’ To the Mayans, education is very important, and they believe that being able to master their language is a way in which they will be able to communicate with a worldwide network of scholars. Also, by gaining more knowledge and becoming more fluent in their language they can help establish an indigenous revitalization. Since Guatemala made Spanish its official language in 1965, there were a few laws to keep the indigenous groups integrated with the ‘‘national culture’’ (Fischer & Brown, 1996, p. 210). Fischer and Brown continues stating that the ‘‘Ley Orga´nica de Educacio´n’’ passed in 1965 ‘‘declared that education should be an instrument of community development ant that it should be integrated with other development sectors to promote cultural, economics, and social progress’’ (pp. 210–211). In 1984, the Programa Nacional de Educacio´n Bilingu¨e (PRONEBI) (National Program for Bilingual Education) was created. The program’s goal was to provide primary schools with bilingual education for the indigenous children. Fischer and Brown (1996) mentions that this program operates under a bilingual education model, ‘‘parallelism’’ in which both the Mayan language and Spanish are viewed and taught parallel to each other as a sort of dual immersion. PRONEBI is considered to be part of the revitalization of the Mayan language. Not only do these types of programs help to revitalize indigenous language, but also provide these communities with the necessary skills to carry out all of the major functions in both languages. Fischer and Brown continues stating, ‘‘Today, Maya identity and culture remain strong’’ (p. 87). Compared to many of the indigenous languages in that area and around the world, the Mayans place a great value on their language and work very hard to not only maintain it but help to develop more bilingual speakers. They believe that their language is part of their identity and their existence. Fischer and Brown (1996, p. 87) explains how the Mayan’s efforts to develop their language have been more than impressive. ‘‘The Maya’s maintenance of their culture has been realized without the help of the state and without resources that could have facilitated its development.’’ Fischer and Brown (1996, p. 151) adds that,

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

149

‘‘Mayan languages have lacked tools of literacy: there are no monolingual dictionaries, thesauri, style manuals, or reference grammars. Where any of these materials exist, they have been largely produced by foreign scholars for a scholarly audience.’’ Even though these materials exist, most of the time they are written in English or at the most in English and Mayan, thus limiting the Mayan only and the Spanish and Mayan speakers from accessing this research.

Pause, reflect, and continue Why do you think there is a lack of linguists and studies in the Mayan language? What can be done to promote more research that is published in this language? Why is it important to have studies published in the language?

As with any situation where languages are in contact with one another, the question needs to be posited as to ‘‘How does Spanish influence the Mayan language?’’ According to Bevington (1995), ‘‘The influence of Spanish on the Mayan language is strongest in the area of vocabulary.’’ This is a common area of influence between languages in contact and can be seen in many of the other indigenous languages already discussed in this book. With many languages, new items and ideas are introduced into a society, and when words do not exist for these terms them, words are borrowed from the language that is introducing the idea or item. There are many words that are considered authentic Mayan that are actually from Spanish origin. For instance, the word cow is wakax in Mayan, and it is thought to be an early adaption of the Spanish word vaca. These loan words have changed their pronunciation, so they are distinct from Spanish. Bevington (1995, pp. 15– 16) gives several examples in his article. He states, ‘‘a pronunciation change would be the word piitoo ‘whistle, flute’ with elongated vowels and rising pitch on the final syllable, from Spanish pito.’’ Furthermore, according to Fischer and Brown, the causes for bilingualism and language shift are not the same. ‘‘Bilingualism is often a pragmatic response to political and socioeconomic forces. Language shift, on the other hand, usually is brought about by significant proportions of parents speaking their second language to their offspring, a choice motivated by affective factors’’ (Fischer & Brown, 1996, pp. 16–167). Compared to several other indigenous languages such as Aymara and Quechua, the Mayan language does not have the same advantages when it comes to the media and radio stations. Even though each community must be given at least one radio transmitter to serve as a ‘‘means of ethnic expression and reproduction,’’ it is still not used (Fischer & Brown, 1996,

150

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

p. 42). Mayans in Guatemala sometimes refuse to do it, so they cannot express themselves in the mass media. Guatemala may have many Mayans and they must be guaranteed access to the mass media by law, but it is basically nonexistent. And when it comes to radio stations, the Mayan languages are mostly used for commercials, sermons and to sponsor political candidates. At the beginning of the 1990s, there was a radio station in which Pakal B’alam of Tecpan would talk for about fifteen minutes about the hieroglyph writings of the Mayans and Kaqchikel culture. ‘‘Also, Radio K’iche’ in Santa Cruz Quiche regularly includes information on the calendar and the writing system in its programming’’ (Fischer & Brown, 1996, p. 137). In spite of the limited radio programming that includes the Mayan language, at least it is still being used to communicate about religion, political aspects, and even some commercial advertising (Fischer & Brown, 1996).

2.8.5.

Garifuna

Formerly known as the ‘‘Black Caribs’’ (Palacio, 2006, p. 178), the Garifunagu of Central America and the Caribbean is a unique Amerindian group descendant from the Arawaks and Island Caribs of Central America and the Caribbean. The Arawaks were the civilization that Christopher Columbus encountered when he first made land on Watling Island in the Caribbean in 1492, on his voyage to discover the New World. Before Columbus’ arrival, however, the Arawaks and the Island Caribs would battle for land, migrating around the Greater and Lesser Antilles. In the course of these battles or raids on neighboring islands, the Caribs would take captive female Arawakens to be married to Carib men. This pattern over time produced what would become the Karifouna of Dominica, the Callinago of Saint Vincent, and the Garifunagu of Central America’s Honduras, Guatemala, Belize, and Nicaragua (Cayetano, 1993, p. 22). When Nancie Gonzalez (1997), author of the essay ‘‘The Garifuna of Central America,’’ was first introduced to a Garifuna group thriving in Livingston, Guatemala, she was surprised to learn that the community was as uncertain of their origins as modern day scholars were until very recently. Gonzalez learned over time that the Central American descendants had their original stronghold in the island of St. Vincent, in the Lesser Antilles, which in the early eighteenth century was a delegated refuge site for Caribs that could not be settled or colonized. In spite of this rule, there were some French clerics and farmers who secretly settled on the island and lived there harmoniously with the native Caribs. Additionally, the British were often bringing ships laden with black slaves by St. Vincent to nearby islands. Often times ships would be lost at sea and the Island Caribs would rescue and adopt

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

151

the surviving African slaves. Also, as aforementioned, the Island Caribs would make raids on neighboring islands and sometimes would also take captive African slaves. Eventually, escaped African slaves were completely assimilated into the Amerindian community, adopting the language and cultural traditions of their new community, marrying the Carib women, and producing what would become the Garifunago (pp. 200–202). During the seventeenth century, Britain and France attempted to claim the Caribbean islands, even though they were acknowledged as the property of Spain. With each attempt whether by British, French or Spanish forces, the Caribs repulsed the attempted colonization. In 1660 the French signed a peace treaty with the Caribs, but Britain was not satisfied by this action, and in 1763 broke the rule of neutrality concerning possession of St. Vincent and formally occupied the island (p. 202). For the next 30 years the Caribs and the French settlers on the island aligned forces to oppose Britain. Although the Caribs had the advantage of knowing their land and were excellent fighters both on land and at sea, they could not match the sheer number of soldiers that Britain could supply (Cayetano, 1993, p. 22). On June 10th 1796, the French forces surrendered to the British, but not before the Island Caribs lost their paramount chief of Joseph Chatoyer, in battle. Weakened by both losses, the Caribs retreated into the forest using guerilla tactics but were further defeated by the probable diseases of small pox and yellow fever that the British forces had inadvertently introduced into the formerly protected island. This battle between the Caribs of St. Vincent and the British caused a great migration and scattering of the Black Caribs’ roots. After the Caribs surrendered in 1797, the British began the practice of racist discrimination against the Garifunagu people that has followed them across Central America. Due to the slow but steady Africanizing of the Island Caribs by escaped or rescued slaves, gradually the community on St. Vincent exhibited more of their black relatives’ features than the prior ‘‘Yellow Caribs,’’ as the Islanders were known. The British interpreted this variance in appearance among the Caribs as a reflection of attitudes and behaviors. In short, the British allowed the lighter skinned Caribs to remain on St. Vincent under new British control believing that they had been manipulated and led astray by their darker brothers who were naturally evil and deviant (p. 203). Families were torn apart in this racist process, and in the end 4,000 Black Caribs were forcibly evacuated from the island and sent to the island of Balliceaux, where it is estimated that at least half the population perished. The 2,000 Black Caribs that survived the deportation from their homeland in St. Vincent were finally brought to Roata´n, the largest of Honduras’ bay islands (Saunders, 2005. For a time they languished here in their new setting as it was ill equipped to support them but they petitioned the local Spanish authorities for permission to migrate to

152

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

the mainland. This pattern of migration, although it begun so violently, has come to characterize the resilience of the Garifunagu in how, no matter the lengths and motives for their relocation, they have managed to not only survive, but to keep their language and culture alive as well.

Pause, reflect, and continue What are communities with a similar history as to the Garigunagu? Describe at least one additional community and their common history.

Today the Garifunagu are found in communities all across the Atlantic coast of Central America, in New York City and Los Angeles in the United States, and in pockets of the Caribbean. Despite the passage of many years, it has only been in the last few decades that community life for the Garifunagu has truly begun to change. Originally communities would be organized into small groups, all living very close to each other near the coast, but with each having its own respective chief. These communities were located close to European markets so they could trade goods with settlers, particularly produce from their agricultural practices and fish, as the Garifunagu are excellent boatmen (Palacio, 2006). Aside from these forms of labor, the men would often also take work as hired laborers for various trades such as wood logging and banana farming, sometimes leaving their families behind for months or years at a time (Gonzalez, 1988). In the absence of husbands, families would bind together, creating very close social circles in the community, with friends and relatives often cohabitating and helping with the rearing of the children. This last fact is especially important to note, as in the Garifuna culture it has always been the women’s job to teach the young the language and traditions of their people, giving the women the status as the head of household. Children would be taught such classic skills as how to weave baskets and how to grind cassava tubers through the baskets to create flour for their areba, cassava bread (Gonzalez, 1988, p. 100). Other foods that are ancient components of the Garifuna culture are fish, maize, and sweet potatoes. The life of the Garifunagu has revolved around migration since the demands of market and the supply of goods dictated how long they would inhabit an area. Also, as mentioned in the previous section, Cayetano (1993) states that their racist deportation from St. Vincent created a false reputation of the Garifunagu being untrustworthy and troublesome, a reputation that they have had to fight against as well. This reputation has caused the Garifunagu much heartbreak and stress in developing new homelands in Central America, a topic that Joseph O. Palacio studies in his essay ‘‘Cultural identity among rural garifuna migrants in Belize City,

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

153

Belize.’’ Palacio (2006) notes how the Garifuna community in Belize has had to subtly change the identity they put forth for in public to avoid invoking this reputation. One example of this reality would be that in the early nineteenth century the Garifunagu were actually banned from remaining in the then settlement of Belize, being given 48 hours to evacuate or face pursuit and arrest (Palacio, 2006). Particularly, Palacio studies how the Garifuna language has lost strength due to its strong association with the population being outsiders and also linked to the negative reputation given to them by different communities. Having African heritage, the Garifunagu could pass themselves off as Creole if they keep their mother tongue silent. Palacio discusses how this has led to a cultural identity based more on the traditions of food, music and dance, and ritual practices than in native language. Some examples of this shift can be seen in the now popular punta rock dancing that the Garifunagu perform at celebrations. Parents that Palacio spoke to explained that they first started using a creolized hybrid to protect their families from abuse and in order to obtain work in Belize City. Over time, however, the creolized language became the primary tongue used at home and taught to children outside of the villages (p. 189). This last notation on the village in comparison to the city is a very important element of Garifuna identity and their community life that has adapted over time. The village is what the Garifunagu consider the traditional living settlement of their people, generally situated in rural areas preferably near water. In the village, families will live in consanguineal houses, meaning that all inhabitants were connected by marriage or kinship. In contrast, Palacio (2006, p. 191) describes how ‘‘the relative openness of visiting and extending household services that took place in the village was limited in the city.’’ Since there was a large family pool to draw upon in the village life, children were assured a very good education in their cultural traits. For example, in the village of Barranco that Palacio used for his research, the education offered for both Garifuna cultural traditions and in general academia have produced some of the best teachers in all of Belize. However, in the past 50 years, as development moves toward the major cities and the economy has fluxed, work has become too scarce for the young to remain in the village of Barranco. The community habits that helped preserve the language have forced the Garifunagu to move to survive. Of family members living outside the villages, two-thirds of those who were interviewed by Palacio said they send money back home to support their older relatives. Half of those interviewed said they missed the cultivation and eating of traditional foods, but three-quarters also admitted that the village was dying due to lack of opportunities (Palacio, 2006). Ironically though, at least half of those interviewed strongly stated that they plan to return to the village when they retire someday, showing how the Garifunagu are still strongly attached to their cultural identity as a people.

154

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Pause, reflect, and continue Why do you think many of these people plan on returning to their home village after they retire? What is the likelihood of this happening? What can be done to keep these communities together so that the language and culture are not lost?

The migratory process of the Garifunagu and their negative reputation has influenced how their language has developed and has evolved through the centuries. Although the Garifuna language is comprised of 45% Arawaken words, it is also 25% Carib, 15% French, 10% English, and 5% Spanish (Corte´s, 2004, p. 21). Most Garifunagu are bilinguals because Garifuna has never reached a national level, so the community members must learn the government or superstrate language of their demographic area. Part of the reason their language has never become a national language is their constant migration and dispersion over many different countries and regions. In Nicaragua, this adaptation may be seen the most clearly; Spanish is mostly used by the Garifunagu communities with Garifuna only seen in ancient songs and rituals (Corte´s, 2004). In addition to the community pressures and dispersion of the Garifunagu communities, another predilection toward the use of Spanish among Garifuna communities came from the early work of Spanish missionaries in the late eighteenth century who brought not only Christianity to the people, but also the Spanish language and culture as well. Cayetano (1993) provides some examples of lexical items from Spanish that have been slightly modified to match the Garifuna pronunciation and structure. The following examples list the Spanish first, Garifuna second, and English translation third: badea [badia] ‘watermelon,’ vacazo [bagasu] ‘cow,’ vino [binu] ‘wine,’ zapato [sabadu] ‘shoe,’ padre [fadiri] ‘father’/ ‘priest,’ palma [faluma] ‘coconut,’ sal [salu] ‘salt,’ aracabuz [aragabusu] ‘gun,’ and bandera [fanidira] ‘flag’ (p. 28). For the majority of these words, the similarity is initially evident, but for some it is more necessary to understand the system of pronunciation for Garifuna. Cayetano (1993) wrote a book entitled Garifuna History, Language and Culture that provides a very simple yet comprehensive description of the Garifuna language. Cayetano explains that Garifuna has 20 phonemes (/b, p, d, t, g, k, s, f, cˇ, h, m, n, l, r, i, e, a, o, u, y/) and that all are very close to an English pronunciation except for /cˇ/ that varies between the sounds ‘‘ch’’ and ‘‘sh’’ (p. 16). The vowels though have continental values as in Spanish, with unstressed vowels being relatively weak and often unvoiced in word-final position (p. 17). Some peculiarities of the language and expression of letters can be seen in ‘j’ pronounced as [h], ‘qu’ pronounced /k/, and ‘n’

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

155

pronounced as a nasalized ‘y.’ These aforementioned examples show the similarities between Spanish and Garifuna while at the same time emphasizing some notable differences. Cayetano goes on to explain that, in terms of writing in Garifuna, the best orthographical template would be Spanish due to spelling ease and consistency. Cayetano (1993) states that, aside from the similarities between Garifuna and Spanish, the language of the Garifunagu also shares loan words with French and English. Some French loan words are as follows (French first, Garifuna second, English Translation third): mouton [mudu] ‘sheep,’ leglise [ligilisi] ‘church,’ abatisera [badise/abastera] ‘baptize,’ marier [amarieda] ‘marry,’ table [dabula] ‘table,’ tasse [tasu] ‘cup’, and cabane [gabana] ‘bed’ (p. 29). Some English loan words in Garifuna are also as follows: ‘pipe’ [faifa], ‘beg’ [ebgira], ‘follow’ [afalara], ‘thank’ee’ [etegira], ‘to preach’ [apurichiha], ‘find’ [afaira], ‘to dine’ [adinara], and ‘pencil’ [pencili] (p. 30). One difficulty in the modern use of Garifuna in larger settings is that the language had no written component or established grammar until the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, when scholars first began to study Garifuna linguistics closer. This is a common theme seen in many of the other indigenous languages already mentioned in this text. Some elements of the language that have been recognized is that Garifuna is largely based on gender semantics, meaning that a word does not have its gender determined by its ending but by its societal, symbolic meaning. Munro (1998) studied this characteristic of the language in her essay ‘‘The Garifuna gender system.’’ She provides examples of how words for containers, vehicles, trees, clothing, material, cutting instruments, domesticated plants and fruits, and guns are feminine. Conversely, words for piercing instruments, body parts, body products, and wild plants are thought of as masculine (p. 443). The gender nuances of Garifuna can be traced back to the Garifunagu ancestors who established the gender paradigms. Cayetano (1993) explains that while initially the Arawakan women stolen by the Carib raiders used their own language among themselves and with their children, they could intelligibly understand and respond to their Island Carib husbands in their own native tongue, and vice versa. As the Arawakans and Caribs interbred, their offspring naturally grew up hearing the mixture of these two languages, which ultimately led to the gender oriented Garifuna. The situation earlier described by Palacio (2006) of the Garifunagu of Belize is only one example of how the Garifuna culture has suffered in some regards but learned to revive and reinvent itself. In Belize, the Garifuna have six main communities, with the largest populations being in Dangriga and Belize City, where the Garifunagu began their revival movement in the 1970s. Some aspects of the revival were the reinstitution

156

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

of Garifuna first name over Christian names, adamant use of the term ‘‘Garifuna’’ over ‘‘Black Carib,’’ the encouragement of reconnecting with one’s roots, and the appropriation of artifacts as home de´cor to remind the community members of their heritage. The revival was led by the National Garifuna Council, their main cultural institution, which was created in 1991. One of the biggest country wide shows of influence the Council has produced is an official country wide holiday practiced around November 19 to mark the historical first arrivals of Garifunagu into Belize. The Council also collaborated with the Toledo Maya Council to found the Caribbean Organization of Indigenous Peoples. Another cultural group encouraging Garifuna pride is the Warigabaga Dance Group, as music has become the newest and strongest cultural identifier for the Garifuna. Another entertainment based effort that is aiding the awareness of Garifuna pride and culture is new radio programs in Garifuna that are played for a half hour or more various times a week in both Belize and Honduras (Cayetano, 1993).

Pause, reflect, and continue What cultural or linguistic organizations exist in your community to preserve indigenous or endangered languages? How effective are they? What other types of ways can be used to preserve languages?

In Honduras, there have been similar preservation efforts to make Garifunagu proud of their heritage again. Trujillo is the largest Garifuna community there, the initial site the Garifunagu migrated to after leaving Roata´n. Now the people have set up dozens of communities throughout the country. Cayetano (1993) states that two very popular cultural organizations are the Teatro Garı´funa Loubavagu and the Garı´funa Ballet Folclo´rico Garı´funa de Honduras, both of which promote the cultural practices of Garifuna society in music and dance. The Organizacio´n Fraternal Negra Honduren˜a (OFRANEH), created in 1978, is also working in Honduras to help the Garifunagu to keep the lands promised to them in the nineteenth century by the Honduran government and to help the Garifuna gain further recognition and funds worldwide. In 2001, the OFRANEH received recognition by UNESCO when it was included in the list of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. In Guatemala there are several Garifuna associations. Although community and career life has changed for the Garifunagu, they continue to adapt to the changing world and celebrate their heritage as an Amerindian people today.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World 2.8.6.

157

Equatorial Guinea

Situated on the western coast of Africa, Equatorial Guinea is perhaps best known by linguistic scholars for being the only sub-Saharan Spanishspeaking nation. The small country’s boundaries are spread out, with a mainland known as Rio Muni that is bordered by Cameroon in the North, Gabon in the East and South, and the Gulf of Guinea along the West, and the islands of Corisco, and Elobey Grande, Elobey Chico. There are also two more interior islands: of Annobon, where a creolized Portuguese is spoken, and Bioko, formerly known as Fernando Poo, which is home to the indigenous Bubi people. The country has two capitals: Bata is the capital of the mainland, and Malabo is the capital of Bioko, the closest island to Rio Muni at 32 kilometers at its closest point. The indigenous population of Equatorial Guinea is influenced by its sprawling borders. There are roughly 500,000 people living in the country, and generally seven different indigenous groups with their own distinctive languages: Bubi, Benga, Combe, Buseke, Balengue, Bujeba, and Fang (CIA, 2012). Francisca Montaraz Olivas (1995, p. 209), author of the essay ‘‘La identidad cultural de Guinea Ecuatorial tras el colonialismo,’’ documented that the Bubi language was spoken on Bioko, while Benga was used on Corisco and the Elobeys. Combe is used on the border of Cameroon, in the south of Bata, and on the River Benito area. Additionally, she documented that Bujeba was spoken in the north and south of Bata and along the southern area of the Benito River, and that the Fang language, considered the maternal language of the ruling class, had the widest range of common use (p. 209). Fang was present in the entire interior region of Rio Muni and has since extended to the coastline (Montaraz, 1995). Montaraz also noted that the language of Balengue was used between Bata and Gabon but had already suffered loss by increased use of Fang, and that the Buseke language was already in the stages of extinction in its limited use along the north of Bata and the south of the Campo river. More recent studies (Lipski, 2002) of some of the indigenous language still in active use today and their language contact will be addressed later in this chapter.

Pause, reflect, and continue Given the plethora of languages spoken in this region, how is it determined which language is the main one? What happens in communities where many languages exist? Can they all survive? Why or why not?

158

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

The unique development in Equatorial Guinea is that of Spanish bilingualism alongside several indigenous, African languages. This transition began in 1778 when Spain was ceded the territories from Portugal in the Treaty of El Prado. However, Spain did not actually begin true colonization of the new territory until the early 1900s (Montaraz, 1995). In the lapse of time between the acquisition of the country and the first Spanish settlement, the colony experienced relatively few large scale changes. The most significant early change Equatorial Guinea experienced would be how the smaller island of Corisco became an important supply station in the slave trade from Africa to Europe and the Americas in the nineteenth century (Sundiata, 1990). The slave business brought outsiders to the once secluded country, particularly a heavy influx of Nigerian workers, later in the century as illegal labor trafficking flourished (Sundiata, 1990). Although Spanish explorers attempted to colonize the islands of Annobon and Bioko for the same purpose, the native Annobonese proved to be too hostile to allow stable expansion and Bioko’s climate and geography too wild and erratic to be easily converted for immediate use. Later, Bioko cultivated palm oil and cocoa rather successfully for trade, but even in this endeavor the natives resisted taking part in the business of the exportation of these products. Sundiata (1990) describes that in the greater history of Equatorial Guinea, the native population was never relied upon to provide labor for business because of their meager population sizes and their general resistance to assimilation. In comparison, if the taming of the country’s islands were considered difficult, then the mainland of Rio Muni was nearly impossible. Still today the majority of the mainland is made up of dense tropical rain forests and with a rather underdeveloped roadway system, making penetration into the interior of the country a serious undertaking (Lipski, 1985). Due to these conditions, the majority of the native populations in the 19th and 20th centuries were unaware of Spain’s ownership of the country. The lack of a strong and early Spanish influence in Equatorial Guinea was supplemented by another country’s presence though. In 1817, Spain signed the Anglo-Saxon Treaty with Britain, agreeing to suppress any slave business north of the equator and with a standing promise to eliminate their own slave practices by 1820 (Sundiata, 1990). This treaty additionally allowed Britain access to the island of Bioko, where they set up an antislaving station and in effect established the first real colony in Equatorial Guinea of Malabo since its discovery by the Portuguese explorer Fernando Poo in the fifteenth century, from whom the island of present day Bioko received its name. It is this early introduction to English that in part gave rise to one of the most popular dialects in the country: pidgin English, also known as pichi, pichinglis, and broken-ingles (Lipski, 1992). The British antislave tribunal on Bioko also introduced new elements to the Bubi culture

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

159

and in a large context all of Equatorial Guinea through the encouraged migration of new ethnic groups to the island such as freed slaves from Cuba, Liberia, and Sierra Leone (Lipski, 1985). The Cuban immigrants added some new words to the Spanish lexicon, while immigrants from the last two groups perpetuated the rising use of pidgin English that already existed in some variation in their home countries (Lipski, 1992). Britain’s presence on Bioko, however, did not last forever. In the late nineteenth century, Spain began sporadic attempts to colonize the territory they had long sat upon. The British traders and Baptist missionaries on Bioko, who are accredited with recording the earliest written form and grammar of the indigenous languages on Equatorial Guinea, were expelled and Spanish Jesuits put in their place (Sundiata, 1990). Ibrahim Sundiata, author of the book Equatorial Guinea: Colonialism, State Terror, and the Search of Stability, discusses the changes that rapidly took place in the early twentieth century in Equatorial Guinea with haphazard attempts at Spanish imperialism. Sundiata explains how from 1900 to when Francisco Franco came to power in Spain in 1936 there were more than 99 changes in the governship (p. 30). This was in contrast to the quick and decisive actions of the period after Franco was installed. Radical changes to the lives of these indigenous groups came with the introduction in the 1920s of the idea of emancipados, or assimilated Africans. Emancipados were under European law and had converted to Christianity. Given the strong emphasis placed on religious conversion, these individuals would be educated and given important benefits like property rights (Sundiata, 1990). Nonassimilated Africans operated under the Patronato rule created in 1904, which made them semi-minors. The first indigenous group to fall under Spanish rule was the Bubis of Bioko in 1904 after their last head chief/priest, known as a Moka, died in resistance efforts. For the remainder of the indigenous groups living in interior of Rio Muni, their resistance lasted longer into the midnineteenth century but was eventually quelled. The Spanish created an overload chief system for the indigenous tribes, where one chief would rule a larger area with a colonial guard to maintain colonial authority (Sundiata, 1990). Except for the institution of Spanish as the official language in the country, little had actually changed to eradicate the indigenous languages and people of Equatorial Guinea. Ironically, however, this luck changed violently after the country actually received its independence from Spain in 1968 and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea was created. The first general elections produced the infamous ‘‘president’’ and dictator Francisco Macı´ as Nguema, who would rule over the country for 11 years. Prior to Nguema’s reign, Equatorial Guinea’s Bioko had the highest literacy rate on the continent and one of the richest per capita, with an income of $800 (Lipski, 1992). Montaraz (1995, p. 204) describes how the state of Equatorial Guinea

160

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

in the early twentieth century gave it the name ‘‘the pearl of Africa,’’ but by the time Nguema was usurped in a coup by his nephew, Teodoro Obiang, large scale damages had been inflicted on the country. In 11 years Nguema religiously persecuted all non-Catholics, including native Guinean groups practicing indigenous belief systems; destroyed the roadways and public works that had existed, and exiled, jailed and murdered at least 1/2 of the country’s population (Lipski, 2002, p. 70). He also prohibited the use of Spanish in both civil and corporate life. The prohibition of Spanish had deeper impacts than just changing the national language. Since schools taught lessons in Spanish and it was used as the language of intercommunication for differing tribes, the education and development of the people of Equatorial Guinea stagnated during Nguema’s reign. When the dictator finally was deposed by the current president in 1979, Equatorial Guinea was considered one of the least developed countries in the world (Sundiata, 1990).

Pause, reflect, and continue What other countries have suffered under the rule of a dictator or military leader? Other Spanish-speaking countries? Have they been able to recover like Equatorial Guinea? Why or why not?

Since Obiang came to power in Equatorial Guinea, the country has begun to move forward industrially. Some examples of this are the recent discovery of oil in the country in 1995, with further reserves having been found since these initial discoveries (CIA, 2012). This discovery pulled the country out of its ranking as one of the least developed and poorest countries in the world, though the wealth of the country is very unequally distributed. One positive change that Lipski (2002) noted under Obiang is how the illiteracy rate has dropped from 73% to 13% and the number of primary school students has increased from 65,000 to being well over 100,000 (p. 73). Nonetheless, a century of misrule and government abuse has affected the indigenous communities of Equatorial Guinea in different ways. The CIA world factbook for 2011 states that the population of the country is 85.7% Fang, 6.5% Bubi, 3.6% Mdowe/Combe, 1.6% Annobon, 1.1% Bujeba, with a 1.4% ‘‘other.’’ These figures correspond with what Lipski (2002) and other scholars have outlined about the country in that Fang is the predominant language that began in Rio Muni, but which has since migrated to even the outer islands like Bioko. Fang has seen a marked increase in use and preference due to Nguema’s reign, in which the dictator deposed Spanish only to attempt to make Fang the new national language.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

161

However, it is the revival system that the Fang implemented beginning in the 1930s that has helped its survival. Unlike the other indigenous languages of the country, the Fang are originally from Cameroon and Gabon, but with the decline of traditional village life they have become a very widespread ethnic group. To remedy this cultural loss in the twentieth century, the Fang created the idea of a panFang unity called the Alor Ayong movement (Sundiata, 1990). In this movement, mythical and religious stories of the history of their people were recorded and propagated to help create binding ties among all members. Other elements of their culture are still heavily emphasized today too, such as the practice of double exogamy, meaning they do not allow marriages between persons belonging to common father’s or mother’s clans (Sundiata, 1990). This tradition ensures that offspring will travel and propagate new regions of the country, thereby keeping the Fang identity growing and dynamic. In terms of other facets of the Fang culture such as music, dance, diet, and societal interaction, Sundiata has recorded various examples. He explains that their dietary practices still include the ancient cultivation of yucca, yams, peanuts, malanga, and plantain. Also, cultural expression through music and dance are still very popular today. The Fang play the mvet, which is a ‘‘type of zither made from calabash and has a palm stem and strings made from plant fibers,’’ and dance at celebrations the abira, balele, or for females, the onxilla to invoke or exorcise spirits (Sundiata, 1990, p. 120). The Fang set a heavy emphasis on the importance of ancestral ties and in a way that gave them the incorrect image of being cannibals. The Fang practice necrophagia which means they consume parts of a cadaver to absorb the qualities of the ancestor (Sundiata, 1990). Some daily rituals that govern the life of the Fang in present society and help maintain native language use in their groups are the fact that masses, official announcements, and speeches are now often also delivered in Fang (Lipski, 2002). Another sociocultural element of the Fang identity that is outside of artistic expression is the aba´. An aba´ is a part of what standard society would consider a common court or gathering house, but this particular section is reserved for only the men of the tribe and is decorated with hunting and war trophies the group has earned, creating a sphere that would encourage the young to identify with their people and continue using their native language (Sundiata, 1990). The Bubi, who are the second largest majority in the country, make greater use of their religious beliefs as a component of preserving their identity than relying on the impact of other sociocultural practices. Although heavily Hispanicized, as Sundiata (1990, p. 123) refers to it, by the Spanish Catholic missionaries, traces of ancient Bubi religious beliefs can be seen in how they decorate their village and the beliefs that order their daily lives. Some examples are how amulets of such items as sheep

162

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

tails, skulls, animal bones and feathers, and marine shells can be found hanging at the entrance of their villages. These amulets are part of their ancestral worship, like the Fang, and are usually seen next to a special tree called the iko, which they believe guards them against malevolent spirits. Even in the face of Franco’s religious persecution and at the loss of their last high priest during colonization, the Bubi still retain these religious practices, especially in some rural areas where travelers would encounter individuals who do not speak or understand absolutely any Spanish (Lipski, 2002). In general, Equatorial Guinea has in recent years undertaken some measures to promote and ensure the survival of the indigenous tribes of the country. In Malabo, there is a rudimentary cast for a national museum and Bata has an established art museum housing works of Leandro Mbomio, an internationally recognized, native Guinean sculptor and artist. Also in the arts, the country has seen a rising amount of native Guinean literature being produced, with one of the more notable works being Las tinieblas de tu memoria negra by Donato Ndong-Bidyogo. Ndong is also editor of the Africa 2000, a historical and cultural magazine put forth by the created Centro Cultural Hispano Guineano of the mid 1980s (Sundiata, 1990). The Centro also created a Guinean library in Malabo. Additionally, another effort that undoubtedly has helped in some small part to create a sociocultural use of Guinean native languages are two government sponsored radio programs for a few hours every day in the most popular indigenous tongues like Fang, Bubi, and Combe (Lipski, 2002). Lipski also provides data in his research on the comparison in use between Spanish and the indigenous languages in the country. He says, ‘‘it is safe to affirm that few Equatorial Guineans are true native speakers of Spanish, in the sense of Spanish being spoken naturally in the first years of the home environment’’ (p. 71). Despite past persecutions and the sheer number of vernaculars spoken in the country, the general population has a wonderful grasp of Spanish along with the native languages. Guineans today still prefer to use the language they were born with, especially in the midst of a group of same language speakers. Lipski discusses how even in such cases like governmental functions where the status of Spanish as the national language should superstrate all others, Guineans will freely slip into using their native tongue. In site of this preference for the use of their mother tongue, when traveling abroad native Guineans often will use Spanish as a means of revealing their national identity. This fact, perhaps better than all others provided, describes how the colonization of Equatorial Guinea remains alive still today in its native people. One of the most comprehensive and in depth studies of the Spanish spoken in Equatorial Guinea is available in the book The Spanish of Equatorial Guinea: The dialect of Malabo and its implications for Spanish

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

163

dialectology by Lipski (1985). The field data for Lipski’s conclusions were collected in the late twentieth century, so samples and trends of usage may have fluctuated since; but the conclusions to which he arrived still reveal how unique the colonization of Equatorial Guinea has been in comparison to Spain’s other conquests and how this historical development has greatly influenced the usage and form of Spanish spoken in the country. Principally, the Spanish of Equatorial Guinea is not a dialect of Spanish but standard Spanish. The language level of Spanish spoken in Equatorial Guinea is identifiably the same as what a Spanish born, middle class educated speaker would produce in the mainland of the country (Lipski, 1985, p. 12). This rare occurrence is born from the fact that originally Spanish Guinea was colonized not by small rural farmers recruited by the government and enticed to colonize the new territory for land, but rather by middle class governmental individuals. The mind set of these two variable colonizers was different as well. Those Spaniards who traveled to and even set up a life in Spanish Guinea never lost contact with Spain or identified as anything other than Spanish even through many generations, and so the isolation necessary for a creolized language to appear was never available. An example of this is how ser and estar are used correctly and not combined (Lipski, 1985). Consequently, the Spanish taught and used by the indigenous population reflected the reinforcement they received from society and it never took on its own dialect through error and misuse, although code switching in conversation and loan words do appear (Lipski, 1985, 2002). The most distinguishing feature of Guinean Spanish is in its phonetic variations, while its morphology shows little changes. One grammatical variation is the partial neutralization of the familiar and formal second pronouns singular pronoun tu´ and usted, such as seeing the pronoun usted followed by the informal tu´ verb conjugation. Lipski (1985) describes that speakers he encountered would switch between using these forms correctly and incorrectly without any hesitation or evidence that they were aware of the errors committed. Another nuance of Guinean Spanish that can be at least partially attributed to this aforementioned grammatical feature is that Guinean Spanish often shows a redundancy of subject pronouns. This is very similar to what can be found and heard in the Caribbean, parts of Latin America, and Andalusia (Lipski, 1985). Lipski explains this pronoun and verb accordance confusion with the fact that early Spaniards use of tu´ when addressing Guineans was never understood in its sociolinguistic semantics, so they learned the two pronouns as somewhat interchangeable (p. 20). Other minor errors that may delineate Guinean Spanish are the similar verb confusion of the ustedes form, the instability of using the subjunctive tense over the indicative, and some minor gender errors (Lipski, 1985).

164

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Pause, reflect, and continue How is it possible to be a native speaker and still have ingrained errors in one’s speech? Are there examples of this in your language use? What are some examples common in your L1 and L2?

Particular phonetic tendencies of Guinean Spanish do reveal the African roots of the country’s native speakers. For example, the vowel /a/ is generally expressed in a more anterior position than in Peninsular Spanish dialects, sometimes becoming /ae/ and /o/. This results in more allophonic variation with the sound forming a more open /o/ in the middle of a word, but when in word-final position, it creates a shorter /o/ that other dialects regularly use (Lipski, 1985, p. 33). Lipski also found that diphthongs are also somewhat unstable in pronunciation, partly due to the slow gait at which Spanish is spoken by Guineans, but resulting in falling diphthongs that reduce the pronunciation to simple vowels, for example, aceite become asete and Europa becomes uropa (p. 33). Another one of the more noticeable differences between Guinean Spanish and its Peninsular model is the pronunciation of /y/ in that the former weakens it considerably to the point of almost no audible friction, and it is sometimes elided in contact with /i/, such as in silla [sia] ‘chair.’ This characteristic is explained by the fact that none of the indigenous languages of Equatorial Guinea have a semi consonantal /y/. African influenced pronunciations are also heard in the consonant /b/, /d/, and /g/ in their uniformly occlusive articulation that Lipski calls a ‘‘staccato rhythm’’ (p. 35). Particularly with the consonant /b/, phonetic variation occurs due to Fang, Bubi, and Annobonese containing the phoneme /v/. The fact that this phoneme exists leads to confusion in pronunciation and spelling with the phone /b/ in Guinean Spanish (Lipski, 1985). Similarly to this, the /n˜/ does not exist in native Guinean language, so ~ and in a in Guinean Spanish it can become nasalized semivowel [y] ~ (p. 40). One final African weakened hiatus, such as sen˜or becoming seor influenced change is also how the two phonemes /r/ and /ɾ/ are regularly morphed into tap [ɾ] since there is no trill /r/ or distinction in the native languages. Spanish in Equatorial Guinea is considered the lingua franca for interethnic communication, but was also recently joined in its governmental status by French and Portuguese, now having co-official status as the national languages (CIA, 2012). Other languages exist throughout the country that still go unrecognized by the government, although they have been aware of their prominence and growing popularity since the country’s first colonization.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

165

Begun on the island of Bioko, Pidgin English has quickly spread all across Equatorial Guinea and its usage has actually begun to usurp the role of Spanish. Lipski (1992) records in his research how even native Guineans will often use pidgin English rather than their own indigenous language even when speaking to a fellow group member. However, despite these surprising developments with pidgin English, the national government refuses to acknowledge its status as a semi-national language or even as an indigenous language. Unlike the indigenous languages that receive some featured air time on the radio, pidgin English is heard everywhere yet denied by many who use it (Lipski, 1992). The endurance of pidgin English in the modern country can be attributed to the mental kinship that many native Guineans, particularly from Bioko, still feel with present-day Britain. Although Spain had ownership of Equatorial Guinea, it was British forces that first built a colony and capital on the territory and began to make contact with the natives, providing education and development. Lipski explains in his essay that even today many Guineans look to England as an example of how to educate their children, sending them away to schools in Europe if possible. Despite pidgin English’s close bonds with Britain, the language spoken in Equatorial Guinea is far from being intelligibly understood as simple, bad English. Some characteristics of the language are the use of fo [for] as both a complentizer and locative preposition such as hearing ‘‘mi lub de English fo breaking de chains and bringing me to dis place’’ and ‘‘God send mi fo hell, Jesus live fo heaven’’ (Lipski, 1992, p. 42). Additionally, as illustrated in the last example, pidgin English uses mi [me] as a subject pronoun (p. 42). Some other unique phonetic elements of the language are how ‘‘be’’ is used as a copula and ‘‘too much’’ is used as an intensifier, for example, saying ‘‘de Spanyar man be no good; be bad too much’’ (p. 43). Some elements of the language also show how it has been influenced by Spanish though, such as in how the word ‘‘to know’’ is sabi, similar to the Spanish saber (p. 43). Equatorial Guinea seems to be adaptable to whatever currents life creates there, whether in linguistic, religious, or political developments; of course, one must wonder how far this can be pushed. The indigenous languages of the country survive, which is wonderful, and Spanish continues as a means of education. At the action of current president Obiang, however, the country did join the Central African Franc in 1986, so one will have to watch to see whether French joining the world of commerce and government will alter the linguistic status of the country on a native level. In reference to Obiang as well, though the president did help relieve Equatorial Guinea of its past dictator Nguema, the new president has followed in some of the patterns of his former uncle. Obiang is currently in the midst of his 4th consecutive seven year long term as president, and the manner of democratic elections carried out during his terms has been highly criticized and

166

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

questioned for fraudulence (Smoltczyk, 2006). Mentioned previously in the cultural section, the famous writer, Ndong, wrote criticism of Obiang in 1992 and subsequently a threat was made on his life that sent the native writer into exile in Spain. The list of grievances with the current president can only begin here as the country itself is now the richest per capita in all of Africa due to the oil boom. In spite of this wealth, it is still on the list of the US pariah states and the population has dropped significantly over the years (Smoltczyk. 2006). Although indigenous tribes such as the Bubis are not being openly persecuted and killed as during Nguema’s reign, much remains to be seen in how the future of Equatorial Guinea will be decided.

2.8.7.

Islen˜o

Since the late eighteenth century there has lived a unique Spanish community in the United States, mainly dominating the Delacroix Island region of Louisiana, whose seclusion from the outside world allowed their small culture to flourish. This group of people, establishing their communities around the bayous and inlets east of New Orleans, are known as the ‘‘Islen˜os’’ or Islanders in English (MacCurdy, 1950, p. 19). Of Spanish origin, the ethnic heritage of the original Islen˜os is traced back to the Canary Islands, situated off the northwest coast of Africa. The Islands were first colonized by Spain in the 15th century and were an ideal refueling station for ships bound for the new world. Similarly, the history of Louisiana has Spanish roots, as Hernando de Soto, a Spanish explorer, discovered the Mississippi River in 1541. Although France initially claimed the territory in 1682, Louis XV gifted the island of New Orleans and all lands west of the Mississippi River to his cousin, Charles the III of Spain, in 1762 (MacCurdy, 1950, p. 19). In less than two decades after Louisiana’s legal transfer to Spain, a fleet of ships set sail for the new world off the Canary Islands of Tenerife, Gran Canaria and Lanzarote. The hasty transportation of Spanish Canarians to the new Louisiana (LA) property was motivated by the American Revolutionary War. British powers in West Florida were in close proximity to the newly acquired Spanish colony of Louisiana. Fearing an attack, Spain sought to secure their property through a population increase that could defend it. The Spanish standards of sending natives to LA soon opened up to accepting those who at least spoke the Spanish language or resented British power, thus producing Islen˜o, Galician, Andalusian, Cuban, Italian, French, and German immigrants sailing to LA (Risley, 1995). Not all the ships originally planned for Louisiana actually made it to the New World. Whether due to illnesses at sea, storms, or disturbances with Britain, it is recorded that at least four Spanish Canarian ships made a stop

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

167

in Cuba before reaching Louisiana, and that three of the four were detained there for up to four years. Additionally, one ship bound for LA, the San Pedro, unexpectedly changed course to Venezuela during its travels and never reached the new settlement (Risley, 1995). These navigational occurrences help to explain the small minorities of Islen˜o populations found in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and greater Latin America, although the largest and best documented Islen˜o community is still the Louisiana settlements. For the ships that did arrive in Louisiana as planned, the Islen˜os aboard soon realized that life in the marshes was not the sanctuary they had been promised. The Islen˜os had left the Canary Islands due to catastrophes at home during that time, such as epidemics, drought, a plague of locusts from Africa, and subsequent crop failures (Risley, 1995). However, the areas selected for Islen˜o colonies in LA frequently experienced diseases that decimated populations, in addition to flooding, hurricanes, and tornadoes that ruined crops and destroyed homes. Out of the four original Spanish Louisiana colonies of Galveztown, Barataria, Valenzuela, and St. Bernard Parish that were established, the first two remained completely dependent on rations from Spain, and the third eventually succumbed to storm damage. It is the area of Terre-aux-Boeufs in French, or Tierra de los Bueyes in Spanish (Land of the Oxen), in St. Bernard Parish that the Islen˜os came to occupy in 1779 and where they went on to thrive in learning the trades of trapping, fishing, training oxen, farming, and commerce. The populations from the other three failed communities flocked to St. Bernard Parish as a safe haven. It is the resilience of the Islen˜os in adapting to changes in lifestyle and their practice of strong communal bonds, with extended families inhabiting one plot of land, that originally helped them survive the transition from their home in the Canary Islands (Risley, 1995). These same values of life practiced over a century became part of what has defined the Islen˜o culture, such as their dedication to hard work, their suspicion of outsiders, and the importance of language as a key component of their identity. These traits allowed their culture to grow in the secluded marshes of St. Bernard away from the influence of foreigners. As previously mentioned, there were particular trades that the Islen˜os adapted to and in which they quickly excelled. The great majority of the prosperity that the Islen˜os experienced in the St. Bernard Parish area was due to the resources that the Gulf of Mexico provided in the ways of fishing for oysters, shrimp, crab, and other larger fish. The second main opportunity for income in Louisiana for the Islen˜os was in trapping. During the nineteenth century, the Islen˜os made the most of their natural surroundings trapping otters, minks, raccoons, along with hunting alligators. It was later in the 1900s, however, that the Islen˜os discovered one of their more profitable trades in trapping, the fur of muskrats (Risley, 1995).

168

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Regardless of all of the other challenges, the ability of these Canarian people who were accustomed to a tropical, dry climate with different methods of agriculture to adapt to the lifestyles of a marshland is impressive. However, these modifications in work and lifestyle also helped to develop the strategies that allowed their culture to solidify. For example, the new trade of fishing and trapping that the Islen˜os practiced necessitated that small groups work long hours together and build strong relationships. A father and son might go out fishing for days at a time during the peak season to bring in a substantial haul, and this aided the preservation of the Islen˜o language in familial and social use. Trapping was an even deeper cementation of identity-language ties, as the hunting of muskrats, nutria, and other game was deemed a man’s sport that fathers and sons would carry out; yet the women accompanied the family on trips to prepare meals and clean the skins retrieved. Quite literally, hunting and fishing provided for the family’s sustenance and also preserved their cultural dialect through daily reinforcement. Additionally, since the Islen˜os depended on their natural surroundings as a means for survival, it contained the community to a smaller radius of land, discouraging subsequent generations from venturing far from where they were born. Guillotte (1982, p. 78) notes in his essay ‘‘The masters of the marshes’’ that Islen˜o children who were exposed to this sort of an upbringing were more likely to retain and use the Islen˜o language for the rest of their lives. This lifestyle of being rooted to the Earth only further accentuated the already secluded life that the Islen˜o population maintained in St. Bernard Parish. Traditionally, the Islen˜o people were wary and suspicious of outsiders, which combined with their chosen field of work provided for a century of near isolation in which their culture could establish itself uninfluenced. Also, roads leading to their region of the lower bayous were not well established in the nineteenth century, although there were some water ways that could be used for the necessary transportation. The lack of easy travel though discouraged outside settlers from reaching the Islen˜o territory, and the Islen˜os visited New Orleans only for occasional trade in the markets. The community was large enough to provide wives for the population and they were naturally guarded toward anyone who did not speak the Spanish language. Those who did discover the St. Bernard Parish community, which most often were sailors docking on the gulf coast, were surprised to discover the divergent form of Spanish yet were quickly assimilated into the community, adopting the Islen˜o dialect (Guillotte, 1982). The tendency of the Islen˜os to favor their own language over that of outsiders did not mean that they were monolingual. As the territory of Louisiana returned to France in 1800, the Islen˜os began to interact and learn the language in the markets of New Orleans. Gradually later in the nineteenth century, the Islen˜os would regularly teach their children French

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

169

and some English, as the education in schools was conducted in the former. For these reasons, one may find particular lexical items of the Islen˜o dialect adopted from French and English. John Lipski (1990, p. 70) describes in his book The Language of the Islen˜os how the Islen˜os had to assimilate a variety of new terms to describe experiences found in the New World, experiences for which their language did not have words, such as the word for bayou: bayule. The movement toward literacy is an important developmentary step in the history of the Islen˜os because the Canary Islands in the eighteenth century and even as recently as the late twentieth century had ‘‘considerable levels of illiteracy’’ (p. 4). The Islen˜o dialect is based on oral tradition and did not keep written records until the twentieth century, which is one characteristic that has affected the development of this dialect in its sociolinguistic patterns. However, the reason why French and English did not derail the Islen˜o culture and development in the nineteenth century, unlike the influence that foreign languages has today, is because of the isolation that the community maintained then in the marshes.

Pause, reflect, and continue Which other communities have maintained their language due to isolation? How are these communities being affected today? What would happen to your speech if you suddenly found yourself with no one else to speak to?

A foreigner listening to the Islen˜o language of St. Bernard Parish may be able to ascertain particular words and their origins, yet the language undeniably belongs to the Canary Islands. Unlike standard Spanish, Islen˜o has a wide range of differences in phonetic pronunciations and variations, in addition to the readjustment of morphological structuring. Also, the actual lexicon of the Islen˜o is purely Canarian, though a handful of words can be derived from neighboring groups that marginally influenced the language. The consonant sounds that offer the least variation from standard Spanish are the stops /p/, /t/, and /k/, which, when put in an implosive ordering such as in septiembre, inevitably lose the /p/ pronunciation and result in setie´mbre (Lipski, 1990, p. 14). The consonant sounds /b/ and /d/ follow Spanish standards with almost routine regularity in how /b/ is occlusive in the phrase-initial and post-nasal position, but becomes fricative [b] otherwise. The pronunciation of fricative [b] as [v] is quite common among speakers as well, although research concludes that it is an unconscious effort (p. 15). The phoneme /d/ is similar to /p/, /t/, and /k/ in that it is also elided in the wordfinal position and usually intervocalic /d/ as well, morphing usted into uhte

170

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

(you) and puedo into pue´o (I can). The phonemes /g/, /f/, and /x/ also do not show any radical deviations from standard Spanish or its well-known dialects. Some areas of dissention in the Islen˜o dialect finally begin to present themselves in how the phoneme /cˇ/ that is given a fricative pronunciation unlike the affricative pronunciation of standard Spanish. Interestingly as well, the anterior pronunciation of [ts] or [tc], that is used in the Canary Islands, makes no appearance in the Islen˜o dialect. The consonant /y/ as well has experienced what Lipski (1990) refers to as ‘‘phonological erosion’’ (p. 18) in that, although the Canary Islands use the palatal lateral phoneme /l/, the Islen˜o dialect omits it, and in absolute initial position /y/ only receives a partial tendency toward the affricate variant [ɾ] (p. 17). Lipski also mentions another area of phonological difference between Islen˜o and standard Spanish, and it is the metathesis of certain sounds or syllables as in madre becoming marde (mother), padre becoming parde (father), drumı´ (dormir), and ehto´gamo (esto´mago) (p. 29). Various other examples of misidentification in the Islen˜o language have led to its habitual characteristics, caused by the lack of contact between Islen˜o and its superstrate languages (Canary Island Spanish and standard Spanish). Although Islen˜o is brought over from the Canary Islands and still maintains many of the same lexical items and pronunciations heard in the modern Canary Islands, it is still a dialect of Spanish. Lipski (1990) noted in his study of the St. Bernard Parish community that the Islen˜os understood mainland Spanish and likewise travelers from Spain could more-or-less intelligibly understand their Canarian relatives. This mutual understanding reflects how Islen˜o is built upon some archaic forms of Spanish. Some examples of archaic elements found in the dialect are the use of haiga rather than haya to say ‘‘may there be’’, truje/trujo in place of traje/trajo to express ‘‘I/he brought;’’ vide,vido instead of vi,vio to say I/he saw; and ha/hamos rather than he/hemos to express ‘‘I/we have’’ (Lipski, 1990, p. 37). An example of one pronominal morphological trait that the Islen˜os inherited from ancient Spanish is the use of naide/naiden/nadien to say ‘‘nobody’’ instead of the modern employment of nadie (p. 38). The archaic forms employed in Islen˜o are also found in other rural areas of the Hispanic world and reveal the sociocultural and linguistic levels of its users. The Islen˜o dialect does share morphological features with other dialects of Spanish too. As mentioned previously, lexical items of French were borrowed to help describe the Islen˜os’ new surroundings in the marsh, such as fruı´ (to scrub floors), tanta (aunt), lacre (inland lake) and viaje (time, occurrence) (Lipski, 1990, p. 81). Similarly, the Islen˜os also share a linguistic heritage with Caribbean Spanish, Galician, and Andalusian forms. The proximity of Louisiana to the Caribbean and the influx of regular maritime

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

171

sailors to the ports of LA brought various influences on the Islen˜o language. Some lexical Caribbean Spanish terms that Islen˜o adopted were jaiba (crab), caima´n (alligator), teguro´n (shark), matungo (tom cat, man who chases — especially married — women), and macaco (monkey, ape). In terms of Caribbean pronunciations, morphological, and syntactic features in the Islen˜o dialect, there are various similarities as well. Lipski states that some examples are the ordering of ‘‘an infinitive with a nominal subject following a preposition, instead of the more usual construction involving que and a subjunctive form’’ (p. 43). A second morphological, characteristic between Caribbean Spanish and Islen˜o is the redundant usage of subject pronouns such as yo, tu´, usted, nosotros to compensate for the effacement of certain verb systems expressed orally. Lipski, who studied the St. Bernard Parish in the late twentieth century, hesitantly also attributes this quality to the fact that the Islen˜o language was already in serious decline, labeled as vestigial, and difficult to study purely.

Pause, reflect, and continue How does Islen˜o grammar compare to other varieties of Spanish in the United States? Have you heard these vocabulary works and/or seen these linguistic structures in other dialects of Spanish?

The Islen˜o relationship with Galician Spanish and similar Portuguese forms has also influenced the language. The alterations from standard Spanish to the Islen˜o dialect’s nominal morphology are traced back to Portugal’s original influence in the Canary Islands. In Islen˜o, the changes present themselves in such words like el costumbre (custom), la sarte´n (frying pan), el miel (honey), la color (color), and el mar (sea) (p. 37). A phonological characteristic from Galicia, and also Andalusia, focusing on the variably behavior of word-final /n/ is also present in the Islen˜o language. As Lipski explains, the word-final /n/ is velarized in phrase final position, such as in muy bien (very well), although the velar nasal is frequently omitted leaving in its place a nasalized vowel [V]. Additionally, in cases where wordfinal /n/ is velarized, word-final prevocalic /n/ is also velarized, such as in bien hecho (well done) (p. 23). This final characteristic is not found in categorical use in the Canary Islands or Spain, save for in Galicia, where it is used as a rule. The final and most definitive influence a Spanish dialect has had on the Islen˜o language is that of Andalusia, in the southern region of Spain. Research has shown that Andalusian Spanish comprises a sizeable percentage of the Islen˜o language as compared to its Canarian roots (Lipski, 1990, p. 32). Among these common features are particular

172

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

consonantal and vocalic reduction and neutralization and some morphological structures. One example of these similarities is the vocalic modification of lowering and centering of the dipthong ei to ai, creating some examples that Lipski recorded such as seisWsais ‘‘six’’ and leyWlay ‘‘law’’ (p. 19). Another element of the Islen˜o dialect that shares vocalic modification with Andalusia is the aspiration or almost complete deletion of word-final prevocalic /s/, although in some rare cases the retention of /s/, as [s] is still evident. Additionally, in consonantal behavior, /l/ and /r/ in syllable-final position receive partial to total neutralization. Lipski notes that the phonetic results of these consonantal changes display [l], [r], [Ø], and [h], creating such effects as vuelta [vue´rta] ‘‘turn,’’ puerta [pue´lta] ‘‘door,’’ and gobierno [gobie´hno] ‘‘government’’ (p. 28). Today the Islen˜o dialect and the community of St. Bernard’s Parish are in a state of decay, with the language classified as vestigial by Lipski (1990), in that it is a trace of the past that is no longer existent (p. 12). In 1990, when Lipski produced his comprehensive study of the Islen˜os, he predicted that within the next few decades the culture of the Islen˜os in Louisiana will have completely succumbed to their assimilation into the greater outside world and the use of English as a primary language over their own dialect (p. 97). The history of the Islen˜os explained earlier offers a vantage point to understand how the outside world’s development ultimately produced the catalysts that have permanently changed the Islen˜o community. One of the first large scale changes to the St. Bernard Parish area that affected the Islen˜o sociolinguistic culture was the development of new road ways connecting the marshes to the town of New Orleans, roughly 25 miles away (MacCurdy, 1950). With the construction of roads in the early twentieth century, a new influx of American travelers was brought into contact with the Islen˜os, which began the transition from Islen˜o as the superstrate language to English. As Guillotte (1982) mentions, the Islen˜os in the mid-nineteenth century were actually trilingual in Spanish, French, and English, but always maintained Spanish as the language of choice in their community (p. 75). Currently, the reverse situation has occurred, and today most Islen˜os younger than 50 cannot even be deemed bilingual in Spanish or English, but only semi-speakers at best (Guillotte, 1982). The construction of roads was not the only source of transportation that fractured Islen˜o culture. In the same way that the Islen˜os valued their seclusion, they deeply respected and depended on nature to provide for their livelihood. As roads developed, the first major shipping channel, the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, was also created in the 1950s (Guillotte, 1982). A shipping channel brought the practice of commercial fishing into Islen˜o life for the first time. As inland estuaries and soil were destroyed by the intrusion of salt water through the channel, the Islen˜os were

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

173

simultaneously losing their previously private fishing and trapping grounds, along with the cultivation of agriculture being affected (Risley, 1995). In addition to the toll these changes wrecked on the Islen˜o people in means of their physical needs, it also disrupted the core habits of their community life. As Martin Risley explains in his dissertation, ‘‘Enduring Heritage: A Historical Study of the Islen˜os of Louisiana,’’ the Islen˜os took care of the land and waters to the extent that if a community member violated certain codes, such as hunting before a preordered time, he would be warned or have his hunting weapons confiscated. After a century of developing codes to live by, the Islen˜os became displaced from their homes in the span of a few decades. Losing their fishing and trapping grounds also meant that the family traditions practiced in this work eliminated a crucial social element of their language. Another element that was beyond the control of any group and probably had the most significant influence in the decline of Islen˜o were the natural disasters that began to strike the St. Bernard Parish community in the early twentieth century. Beginning with a hurricane in 1915 and hurricane Betsy in 1965, followed by hurricane Juan in 1985, and the most recent hurricane, Katrina, in 2005, the Islen˜os have had to evacuate and in some cases abandon their homes due to the damage left by these storms. Cole (1991), who studies the changes the Islen˜o community has dealt with due to weather phenomena, describes how the hurricanes, similar to the roads and shipping channel, created reasons for the Islen˜os to branch out into greater Louisiana from their formerly isolated community (p. 318). Many families began to leave the Parish to find new jobs elsewhere as the muskrat population hit a first time low, most likely from overhunting, in the late twentieth century. The shipping channel created near the community also provided an easy avenue by which hurricanes could enter the inlets of the community deeper than ever before (Guillotte, 1982). As the Islen˜o daily life changed in the roles of work, another new force entered their communities to further splinter the family unit tradition. In 1920, the first public school was opened in St. Bernard Parish. However, unlike the earlier education delivered in both French and Spanish, teachers in these new schools demanded complete instruction and reciprocation in English. One Islen˜o woman remembers being slapped in the face by a teacher for using her native language in the classroom (Guillotte, 1982, p. 87). For the first since public education was instituted, Islen˜o parents were teaching their children English as a first language to prepare them for schooling. The outside world had now fully infiltrated Islen˜o life by dismantling the sociocultural behaviors that supported the language. Cole (1991) discusses in her study that by identifying how the Islen˜o language was compromised by outside influences, it may also have been restrengthened. She lists several activities the St. Bernard Parish community

174

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

has put into effect to help restore the language and culture in their everyday life. She explains throughout her essay that language maintenance depends on the minority group’s consciousness of the dialect’s state, the number of speakers available to use the language actively, and the number of institutional resources from which all can learn. So far the Islen˜os have shown awareness of the precarious state of their language by creating the Spanish Heritage & Cultural Society (SHCS), which organizes Islen˜o holidays and museum tours to celebrate their cultural history (Cole, 1991). The SHCS also operates as a symbol of the Islen˜o fight for preservation, creating an atmosphere where speakers may gather to use the language, and that blatantly creates a professional use of the language again. Many of the families that left the Parish area are also being found in the neighboring areas through a promoted interest in genealogical tracing, provided for free by the SHCS. In this way, the past importance placed on strong, small family units living together was reintroduced. Addressing the institutional resources Cole (1991) mentions, the Islen˜os now offer informal summer classes in the language to help semi-speakers, those who are less than bilingual but show greater proficiency than complete nonnative speakers. In these classes, speakers are taught the rules of the Islen˜o language, both orally and written for the first time, in a nonjudgmental setting. Professor Antonio Gonzalez leads the classes in Islen˜o and notes how third generation Islen˜os speak English among themselves but respond to their elders in Spanish (Cole, 1991). The promotion of the written Islen˜o also coincides with a very sacred element of the culture being recorded, so as not to be lost in the fading oral traditions of the past. The Islen˜o culture practices de´cimas, which are songs of 10 stanzas describing heroic and memorable events in the community. These songs date back to sixteenth-century Spain, and for an oral culture such as the Islen˜os, they hold a wealth of information regarding their past that could be used to teach the younger generation and reignite an interest in the culture.

Pause, reflect, and continue What are some other ways to get the younger generation excited about learning a language that is simply part of one’s culture with limited practical value?

2.9. Spanish in the Era of Globalization Globalization, a political, economic, social force that accentuates commonalities and tries to erase (or, at least, ignores) differences among people in

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

175

vast geographical areas, ‘‘is both a constructive and a destructive phenomenon, both a unifying and a divisive one’’ (Fishman, 1991, p. 6). On the one hand, communications, sharing of goods and services, and media have been enhanced thanks to globalization. In fact, many aspects of our current lifestyles are possible because of this process of globalization. Furthermore, globalization has generated a movement toward wider recognition of minority language rights (King & Haboud, 2007, p. 61).92 However, when it comes to indigenous languages and the behaviors of their speakers, globalization has had a negative impact. It implies a process of cultural erosion that, in the name of accepting that we live in one world and through aggressive marketing of dominant-language media, endangers ‘‘small’’ cultures and languages (Hamelink, 2000; Phillipson, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). And it is difficult for languages that are already ‘‘small’’ because of their reduced use, vitality, and number of speakers to endure these influences.

Pause, reflect, and continue Is it possible to say that globalization has also had a negative influence on cultural and linguistic practices in the United States? And how about in your country of origin? How would you compare the impact of these influences in both countries?

Conversely, globalization has had a positive effect on Spanish. In countries where this language and other indigenous languages are spoken, knowledge of this language is still considered a ticket to socioeconomic benefits and success, and the United States, where Spanish is the language of the largest minority group, is not the exception. A sign of the global growth that Spanish has experienced is the fact that it is the first language to reach the 300,000,000 speakers mark, and today, only Chinese has more first language speakers. Spanish will be one of the great regional languages in the future (Moreno de Alba, 2003, pp. 37–44), and ‘‘Spanish in the world, and even in the United States, has started to acquire status as a global language’’ (Garcı´ a, 2011, p. 667).

92. Haboud (2001) (cited in King & Haboud, 2007) has proposed the word minoritized instead of minority to capture the imbalance created by the imposition of the superstratum language by traditional language policies in linguistic contact situations.

176

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

2.10. The Growth of English as an International Language English is not the most widely spoken language in the world, but it is the undeniable world language (Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Crystal, 1997; Graddol, 1997). For being the official language of one of the world’s biggest and most influential countries, the United States, it represents power and dominance in the political, economic, and social realms.93 Globalization has contributed to the worldwide spread of English, resulting in the localization (or glocalization) of other languages, as is the case with French (see, e.g., Chaudenson, 2008).94 Moreover, the need of professionals in certain fields to access information, communicate with individuals from different parts of the world, and share their knowledge (as in academia) has also favored the use of English as a common denominator for many (Palmer, 2004). In his discussion about bilingualism in the modern world, Baker (2001, pp. 416–437) mentions some of the ways in which English has had a significant global impact. We summarized some of them here:  Mass media: Mass communications, especially television, have created a ‘‘global village’’ that consumes news, sports and culture. As the country with the largest television industry in the world, the United States produces an immense number of programs in the English language that reach millions of people, mainly through cable and satellite services. This has contributed to the development of bilingualism and multiculturalism in many communities, and to an awareness of other cultures and lifestyles. However, it is argued that this overexposure to English via television has caused the penetration of the language into other languages like Japanese and French, causing some concern. Also, other cultures may feel passe´ and backward due to the prestige assigned to English.  Information technology: The technological advances of the last few decades have also contributed to the spread of the English language. Most of the information on the Internet and many commercially-available computer programs, digitized encyclopedias, and CDs are in English. Also, over 150 million people from all regions of the world access the Internet in English. Thus, for many, English is the language associated with high prestige, while the minority language is the language of the ‘‘here and now’’ (home, family, and community). This creates different tiers in society: those with access to modern forms of communication and those who do not.

93. Phillipson (1992) refers to this type of asymmetrical relationship between languages as linguicism. 94. The term glocalization is also used to describe the practices of international companies that distribute their products globally but also tailor them to suit the needs and taste of local markets.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

177

 Economic advantage: In many countries, speaking a second or foreign language gives people an economic edge, and English is the preferred language to serve this purpose. Many companies with dealings in the United States and in other countries conduct business in English, giving the language a sort of economic lingua franca status.95 Conversely, some sectors of the business world recognize that the United States also needs to produce a work force with the ability to communicate in a foreign language.  Tourism: Conditions for traveling around the world have improved; increasing ease and more leisure time and disposable income allow many people from many developed countries to travel to many different destinations. This ‘‘mass tourism’’ generates seasonal employment for locals who, in many cases, communicate with tourists in English.

Pause, reflect, and continue As a speaker of English, are you contributing to the spread of the language in the ways described by Baker? Please explain.

The influences described above and the flow of migration from Spanish-speaking countries to English-speaking countries, primarily the United States, have left a mark in the Spanish of Spain and many Latin American countries. Borrowing of lexical items, especially those related to technology and popular culture, is common and expected (Ballman, 2008; Pratt, 1980). This borrowing does not necessarily lead to bilingualism or multilingualism, but it certainly reflects the effects of the situation described by Baker (2001). Of more significant relevance is the influence that English has or may have in the linguistic system of Spanish. Take, for instance, what is happening in Quito, Ecuador. In Ecuador, English is highly regarded as a tool for social climbing and it is widely used for international communication, and in Quito, some phonetic characteristics of English, like the retroflex /r/, are associated with high status, prestige, and wealth.96 This compares to the attitudes toward the sibilant /r/, which is associated with rural, uneducated speakers from indigenous communities.

95. Garcı´ a and Otheguy (1994) argue that the opposite is also true in the United States, where many small and medium-sized businesses require knowledge of a language other than English to have a competitive edge. 96. In a study conducted in 2002 by Facultad de Comunicacio´n, Lingu¨ı´ stica y Literatura of the Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica del Ecuador, Quito (cited in King & Haboud, 2007, pp. 82–83).

178

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Discussions about the influence of English in the Spanish language tend to be adamantly polarized. For example, some scholars cringe at the thought that English-like structures like Elı´as resucita al muchacho despue´s de haber sido rogado por su madrey (‘‘Elias brings the boy back to life after being begged by his mothery’’) may one day be considered ‘‘standard’’ in Spanish (Lorenzo, 1996), while others see this as part of a natural process that languages go through (Pountain, 1999).97 Regardless of which side of the argument one is on, it is essential to understand and recognize that languages evolve over time. The positive value and high prestige associated with English is also evidenced by the number of education systems that offer or require English courses in public schools. In Puerto Rico, for example, English is a required subject in elementary, middle, and high school. It is also included as a general education requirement of most majors in most universities and colleges.98 In Mexico, on the other hand, students at the secondary level choose between English, French, German, and Italian, and English is chosen most frequently by students. The first two years focus on listening, speaking, reading, and writing, while reading comprehension is emphasized in the third year.99 In the last few decades there has also been a proliferation of international schools. In fact, by 1998 there were more than 850 international schools in over 90 countries (de Mejı´ a, 2002, p. 15). American overseas schools that offer education conducted mainly in English are in this category. These schools were originally started to educate the children of English-speaking business people, missionaries, expatriates, and diplomats (Rabbitt, 1994); however, they now serve a large number of host country nationals, many of whom stay together from preschool through high school. The curriculum is rigorous and the immersion setting should have a positive impact on the students’ proficiency in English, but the results have been mixed (Rojas, 1999; Spezzini, 2005). Furthermore, the demand for private bilingual schools has also grown. In these schools, the amount of instructional time spent in English and in Spanish varies, but the 50–50 formula seems to be the preferred one (see de Mejı´ a, 2005; Ordo´n˜ez, 2005; Simpson, 2005). Access to these schools is usually exclusive to the children of upper-middle

97. Elı´as resucita al muchacho despue´s de haber sido rogado por su madrey is a passive voice construction. Most grammars point out that, in general, passive voice is less productive in ‘‘standard’’ Spanish than in English. 98. Puerto Rico, a U.S. commonwealth, has very strong political, economic, and social ties with the United States. See Torres-Gonza´lez (2001) for a study on the influence of the English language on Puerto Rican Spanish. 99. See Terborg et al. (2007) for a discussion.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

179

and upper-class families that can pay for private education. This has led some to talk about an ‘‘elite bilingualism’’ phenomenon that further accentuates already fragmented social structures in many Spanish-speaking countries (de Mejı´ a, 2002, 2008; He´lot & de Mejı´ a, 2008).

Pause, reflect, and continue What do you think are the real social, economic, political, and educational implications of this so called elite bilingualism? Please explain.

Notwithstanding the great influence of the English language, Spanish also has a high status in the modern world. It has a strong cultural presence, it has huge economic potential, and it is one of several official languages used by international organizations like the United Nations, the World Health Organization, UNESCO, NATO, and the EU (Stewart, 1999).100

References Albo´, X. (1999). Iguales aunque diferentes: Hacia unas polı´ticas interculturales y lingu¨ı´sticas para Bolivia. La Paz: Ministerio de Education, UNICEF and CIPCA. Artigal, J. M. (1993). Catalan and Basque immersion programmes. In H. Baetens Beardsmore (Ed.), European models of bilingual education (pp. 30–54). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Artigal, J. M. (1997). The Catalan immersion program. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 133–150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Arzamendi, J., & Genesee, F. (1997). Reflections on immersion in the Basque Country. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 151–166). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Baker, C. (2000). The care and education of young bilinguals: An introduction for professionals. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baldauf, R. B., & Kaplan, R. B. (2007). Language policy and planning in Ecuador, Mexico, and Paraguay: Some common issues. In R. B. Baldauf & R. B. Kaplan

100. However, the European Union (EU) uses primarily three languages: French for administrative purposes, English for oral communication, and German for being the most widely used among the countries in the union. Let us remember too that many languages like Welsh, Catalan, Breton, and Frisian are not official languages of the EU (Mar-Molinero, 2000, pp. 185–186).

180

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

(Eds.), Language planning and policy: Latin America. (Vol. 1: Ecuador, Mexico, and Paraguay, pp. 6–38). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ballman, T. L. (2008). ¿Por que´ usan frases como ‘hacer clic’ y ‘el parking’ en espan˜ol? In J. D. Ewald & A. Edstrom (Eds.), El espan˜ol a trave´s de la lingu¨ı´stica: Preguntas y respuestas (pp. 121–131). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Bevington, G. L. (1995). Maya for travelers and students: A guide to language and culture in Yucatan. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Brambila Rojo, O. F. (2004). Las actitudes sociolingu¨ı´ sticas y la ensen˜anza de lenguas indı´ genas: Un estudio de caso. Sintagma, 4, 24–37. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (1986). Schools in ethnolinguistic minorities. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 97–106. Carlin, E., & Kerke, S. (Eds.). (2010). Linguistics and archaeology in the Americas: The historization of language and society. Leiden, NL: Brill. Cayetano, S. R. (1993). Garifuna history, language & culture of Belize, Central America & the Caribbean. Belize: Sebastian R. Cayetano. Cenoz, J. (1998). Multilingual education in the Basque Country. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 175–192). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Central Intelligence Agency. (2012). The world factbook. Retrieved from https:// www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/. Accessed on July 9, 2012. Cerro´n-Palomino, R. (1987). Lingu¨ı´stica quechua. Cusco, PE: Centro de Estudios Rurales Andino Bartolome´ de las Casas. Chaudenson, R. (2008). On the futurology of linguistic development. In C.B. Vigouroux & S. S. Mufwene (Eds.), Globalization and language vitality: Perspectives from Africa (pp. 171–190). London, UK: Continuum International. Choi, J. K. (2003). Language attitudes and the future of bilingualism: The case of Paraguay. International Journal of Bilingual Education And Bilingualism, 6(2), 81–94. Cienfuegos Salgado, D. (2005). Polı´ticas y derechos lingu¨ı´sticos. Mexico City, MX: Porru´a. Cifuentes, B. (1998). Historia de los pueblos indı´genas en Me´xico: Letras sobre voces. Mexico City, MX: CIESAS. Cobarrubias, J. (2008). History of the ‘normalization’ of Basque in the public administration sphere. In G. Totoricagu¨en˜a & I. Urrutia (Eds.), The legal status of the Basque language today: One language, three administrations, seven different geographies, and a diaspora (pp. 135–164). Donostia, ES: Eusko Ikaskuntza. Coles, F. (1991). The Islen˜o dialect of Spanish: Language maintenance strategies. In C. Klee & L. Ramos-Garcı´ a (Eds.), Sociolinguistics of the Spanish-speaking world: Iberia, Latin America, United States (pp. 312–328). Tempe, AZ: Bilingual Press. Conversi, D. (1990). Language or race? The choice of core values in the development of Catalan and Basque nationalisms. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 13(1), 50–70. Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Corte´s, A. (2004). Tradiciones de Guatemala. Guatemala: Talleres de Candal.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

181

Coulmas, F. (2005). Changing language regimes in globalizing environments. International Journal of Sociological Linguistics, 175–176, 3–15. Coversi, D. (1997). The Basques, the Catalans, and Spain: Alternative routes to nationalist mobilisation. London, UK: Hurst. Crawford, J. (1995). Endangered Native American languages: What is to be done, and why? The Bilingual Research Journal, 19(1), 17–38. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1196–1208. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dalby, A. (2002). Language in danger: How language loss threatens our future. London, UK: Penguin. de Mejı´ a, A. M. (2002). Power, prestige and bilingualism. International perspectives on elite bilingual education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. de Mejı´ a, A. M. (2005). Bilingual education in Colombia: Towards an integrated perspective. In A. M. de Mejı´ a (Ed.), Bilingual education in South America (pp. 48–64). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. de Mejı´ a, A. M. (2008). Enrichment bilingual education in South America. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Bilingual education. Volume 5 of the Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 323–331). New York, NY: Springer. Del Val, J., & Mendiza´bal, E. (2004). Proyecto docente Me´xico, nacio´n multicultural. Mexico City, MX: UNAM. Diamond, J. (1993). Speaking with a single tongue. Discover Magazine, February 1, pp. 78–85. Retrieved from www.discovermagazine.com/1993/feb/ speakingwithasin177/ Dieck, M. (2000). La negacio´n en palenquero: Ana´lisis sincro´nico, estudio comparativo y consecuencias teo´ricas. Frankfurt am Main, DE: Vervuert. Dı´ ez, M., Morales, F., & Sabı´ n, A. (1977). Las lenguas de Espan˜a. Madrid, ES: Ministerio de Educacio´n. Engelbrecht, G., & Ortiz, L. (1983). Guarani literacy in Paraguay. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 42, 53–67. Fettes, M. (1997). Stabilizing what? An ecological approach to language renewal. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Teaching indigenous languages (pp. 301–318). Flagstaff, AZ: Center for Excellence in Education. Fischer, E. F., & Brown, R. M. K. (1996). Maya cultural activism in Guatemala. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, Institute of Latin American Studies. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. A. (1994). Critiques of language planning: A minority languages perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 15, 91–99. Garcı´ a, O. (1999). The forging of a Latin American ethnolinguistic identity: Between the written and the oral world. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity (pp. 226–243). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

182

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Garcı´ a, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Garcı´ a, O. (2011). Planning Spanish: Nationalizing, minoritizing, and globalizing performances. In M. Dı´ az-Campos (Ed.), The handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics (pp. 667–685). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Garcı´ a, O., Lo´pez, D., & Makar, C. (2010). Language and identity in Latin America, In J.A. Fishman, & O. Garcı´ a, (Eds.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity: Disciplinary and regional perspectives. (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 353–373). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Garcı´ a, O., & Otheguy, R. (1994). The value of speaking a LOTE in US business. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 532, 99–122. Garmendı´ a, C. (1994). El proceso de normalizacio´n lingu¨ı´ stica en el Paı´ s Vasco: Datos de una de´cada. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 109, 97–109. Go´mez Rendo´n, J. (2001). La deixis pronominal en media lengua: Comunidades de El Topo y Casco, Valenzuela. Unpublished dissertation. Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Ecuador, Ecuador. Gonzalez, N. (1988). Sojourners of the Caribbean. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Gonzalez, N. (1997). The Garifuna of Central America. In S. Wilson (Ed.), The indigenous people of the Caribbean (pp. 197–205). Gainsville, FL: The University Press of Florida. Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London, UK: British Council. Guillotte, J., III. (1982). Masters of the marsh: An introduction to the ethnography of the Islen˜os of Lower St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, with an annotated bibliography. New Orleans, LA: University of New Orleans. Gynan, S. N. (2007a). Language planning and policy in Paraguay. In. R. B. Baldauf& R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Language planning and policy: Latin America (Vol. 1: Ecuador, Mexico, and Paraguay, pp. 218–283). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gynan, S. N. (2007b). The language situation in Paraguay: An update. In. R. B. Baldauf & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Language planning and policy: Latin America (Vol. 1: Ecuador, Mexico, and Paraguay, pp. 284–301). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Haboud, M. (1998). Quichua y castellano en los Andes ecuatorianos: Los efectos de un contacto prolongado. Quito, EC: Abya-Yala. Haboud, M., & King, K. A. (2007). Ecuadorian indigenous language and education policy and practice: Recent challenges and advances. In R. B. Baldauf, R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Language planning and policy: Latin America (Vol. 1: Ecuador, Mexico, and Paraguay, pp. 105–114). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hamel, R. E. (2008). La globalizacio´n de las lenguas en el siglo XXI entre la hegemonı´ a del ingle´s y la diversidad lingu¨ı´ stica. In D. da Hora & R. Marques de Lucena (Eds.), Polı´tica lingu¨ı´stica en Ame´rica Latina (pp. 45–77). Joa˜o Pessoa, BR: Ide´ia. Hamel, R. E., Brumm, M., Carrillo Avelar, A., Loncon, E., Nieto, R., & Silva Castello´n, E. (2004). ¿Que´ hacemos con la Castilla? La ensen˜anza del espan˜ol

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

183

como segunda lengua en un currı´ culo intercultural bilingu¨e de educacio´n indı´ gena. Revista Mexicana de Investigacio´n Educativa, 20, 87–107. Hamelink, C. J. (2000). Human rights: The next fifty years. In R. Phillipson (Ed.), Rights to language: Equity, power, and education (pp. 62–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Hardman, M. J. (1981). The Aymara language in its social and cultural context: A collection of essays on aspects of Aymara language and culture. Gainesville, FL: University Presses of Florida. Heggarty, P., & Pearce, A. J. (2011). History and language in the Andes. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. He´lot, C., & de Mejı´ a, A. M. (Eds.). (2008). Forging multilingual spaces: Integrated perspectives on majority and minority bilingual education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hermida, C. (2001). The Galician speech community. In M. T. Turell (Ed.), Multilingualism in Spain: Sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic aspects of linguistic minority groups (pp. 110–140). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hornberger, N. H. (1987). Bilingual education success, but policy failure. Language in Society, 16(2), 205–226. Hornberger, N. H. (1988). Bilingual education and language maintenance: A southern Peruvian Quechua case. Berlin, DE: Mouton. Hornberger, N. H. (1989). Continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 271–296. Hornberger, N. H. (1998). Language policy, language education, language rights: Indigenous, immigrant, and international perspectives. Language in Society, 27, 439–488. Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 24–41). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Hornberger, N. H. (2010). Multilingual education policy and practice: Lessons from indigenous experience. Center for Applied Linguistics Digest, January 2010, pp. 1–4. Retrieved from www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/Multilingual EducationFinalWeb.pdf Hornberger, N. H., & Coronel-Molina, S. M. (2004). Quechua language shift, maintenance, and revitalization in the Andes: The case for language planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 16, 9–67. Hornberger, N. H., & King, K. A. (1996). Language revitalization in the Andes: Can the schools reverse language shift? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(6), 427–441. Hornberger, N. H., & Lo´pez, L. E. (1998). Policy, possibility, and paradox: Indigenous multilingualism and education in Peru and Bolivia. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 206–242). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Howard-Malverde, R. (1995). ‘Pachamama is a Spanish word’: Linguistic tension between Aymara, Quechua, and Spanish in Northern Potosı´ (Bolivia). Anthropological Linguistics, 37(2), 141–168.

184

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Hualde, I., & Schwegler, A. (2008). Intonation in Palenquero. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 23(1), 1–31. Huss, L. (1999). Reversing language shift in the far north. Linguistic revitalization in northern Scandinavia and Finland. Uppsala, SE: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Jacobs, J. E., & Beer, W. R. (1985). Introduction. In W. R. Beer & J. E. Jacobs (Eds.), Language policy and national unity (pp. 1–19). Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld. King, K. A., & Haboud, M. (2007). Language planning and policy in Ecuador. In R. B. Baldauf & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Language planning and policy: Latin America (Vol. 1: Ecuador, Mexico, and Paraguay, pp. 39–104). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Krainer, A. (1996). Educacio´n intercultural bilingu¨e en el Ecuador. Quito, EC: AbyaYala. Lewis, M. P. (Ed.) (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (16th ed.). Dallas: SIL International. Lipski, J. (1985). The Spanish of Equatorial Guinea: The dialect of Malabo and its implications for Spanish dialectology. Tu¨bingen, DE: Niemeyer. Lipski, J. (1990). The language of the Islen˜os: Vestigial Spanish in Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. Lipski, J. (1992). Pidgin English usage in Equatorial Guinea (Fernando Poo). English World-Wide, 13(1), 33–57. Lipski, J. (2002). The Spanish of Equatorial Guinea: Research on la Hispanidad’s best-kept secret. Afro Hispanic Review, 21(1-2), 70–97. Lipski, J. (2010). Pitch polarity in Palenquero: A possible locus of H tone. In S. Colina, A. Olarrea & A. Carvalho (Eds.), Romance Linguistics 2009 (pp. 111– 127). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Lipski, J. (2011). El ‘‘nuevo’’ palenquero y el espan˜ol afroboliviano: ¿Es reversible la descriollizacion? Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 1–16.) Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Lo´pez, L. E. (1989). Problema´tica sociolingu¨ı´ stica y educativa de la poblacio´n aymara-hablante en el Peru´. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 77, 55–67. Lo´pez, L. E. (1995). La educacio´n en a´reas indı´genas de Ame´rica Latina: Apreciaciones comparativas desde la educacio´n bilingu¨e intercultural. Guatemala: Centro de Estudios de la Cultura Maya. Lo´pez, L. E. (1996). Donde el zapato aprieta: Tendencias y desafı´ os de la educacio´n bilingu¨e en el Peru´. Revista Andina, 14, 295–342. Lo´pez, L. E. (2006a). Cultural diversity, multilingualism and indigenous education in Latin America. In O. Garcı´ a, T. Skutnabb-Kangas & M. E. Torres-Guzma´n (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and globalization (pp. 238–261). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lo´pez, L. E. (2006b). De resquicios a boquerones. La educacio´n intercultural bilingu¨e en Bolivia. La Paz, BO: Plural Editores/PROEIB Andes. Lo´pez, L. E. (2008). Top-down and bottom-up: Counterpoised visions of bilingual intercultural education in Latin America. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Can schools

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

185

revitalize languages? Policy and practice on four continents (pp. 42–65). New York, NY: Palgrave. Lo´pez, L. E. (2009a). Pueblos, culturas y lenguas indı´ genas en Ame´rica Latina. In I. Sichra (Ed.), Atlas sociolingu¨ı´stico de pueblos indı´genas en Ame´rica Latina (Vol. 1, pp. 21–99). Quito, EC: AECID/FUNPROEIB/UNICEF. Retrieved from www.proebiandes.org/atlas/tomo_1.pdf. Lo´pez, L. E. (2009b). Reaching the unreached: Indigenous intercultural bilingual education in Latin America. Report 2009 for the Education for All Monitoring Report, UNESCO, 2010. Retrieved from unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/ 001866/186629e.pdf Lo´pez, L. E., & Hanemann, U. (Eds.). (2009). Alfabetizacio´n y multiculturalidad. Miradas desde Ame´rica Latina. Guatemala: UIL-UNESCO/ PACE-GTZ. Lo´pez, L. E., & Sichra, I. (n.d.). Intercultural bilingual education among indigenous peoples in Latin America. PROEIB Andes. Retrieved from bvirtual.proeibandes.org/bvirtual/docs/Indigenous_bilingual_education.pdf Lorenzo, E. (1996). Anglicismos hispa´nicos. Madrid, ES: Gredos. Luykx, A. (2000). Diversity in the New World order: State language policies and the internationalization of Quechua. [Presentation]. Paper presented at the II Spencer Early Career Institute in Anthropology and Education. Chicago, IL. Luykx, A. (2004). The future of Quechua and the Quechua of the future: Language ideologies and language planning in Bolivia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 167, 147–158. MacCurdy, R. (1950). The Spanish dialect in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico University. Mar-Molinero, C. (2000). The politics of language in the Spanish-speaking world: From colonization to globalization. New York, NY: Routledge. Matsukawa, K. (2009). Choice of voice in Maya hieroglyphic writing. Written Language and Literacy, 12(2), 237–257. McWhorter, J. H. (2000). The missing Spanish creoles: Recovering the birth of plantation contact languages. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Melia`, B. (1992). La lengua guaranı´ del Paraguay: Historia, sociedad y literatura. Madrid, ES: Mapfre. Miley, T. J. (2006). The constitutional politics of language policy in Catalonia, Spain. Adalah’s Newsletter, October 29, pp. 1–4. Retrieved from www.adalah.org/ newsletter/eng/oct06/ar1.pdf Minaya-Rowe, L. (1986). Sociocultural comparison of bilingual education policies and programmes in three Andean countries and the United States. Journal of Multilingual Multicultural Development, 7, 467–477. Montaraz Olivas, F. (1995). La identidad cultural de Guinea Ecuatorial tras al colonialismo. Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages Bulletin, 7(1-2), 203–214. Moreno de Alba, J. G. (2003). La lengua espan˜ola en Me´xico. Mexico City, MX: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica.

186

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Moreno Ferna´ndez, F. (2006). La diversidad lingu¨ı´ stica de Hispanoame´rica: Implicaciones sociales y polı´ ticas. Real Instituto Elcano, March 23. Retrieved from www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano/Imprimir?WCM_GLOBAL_ COTEXT ¼ /elcano/Elcano-es/Zonas_es/ARI38-2006 Moreno Toscano, A. (1981). El siglo de la conquista. In Centro de Estudios Histo´ricos (Ed.), Historia general de Me´xico (Vol. 1). Mexico City, MX: El Colegio de Me´xico. Munro, P. (1998). The Garifuna gender system. In J. Hill, P. J. Mistry & L. Campbell (Eds.), Trends in linguistics: The life of language (pp. 43–462). Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter. Muysken, P. (1979). La mezcla de quechua y castellano. El caso de la ‘media lengua’ en el Ecuador. Lexis, 3, 41–56. Muysken, P. (1981). Half-way between Spanish and English: The case for relexification. In A. Highfield & A. Valdan (Eds.), Historicity and change in creole settings (pp. 52–78). Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma. Nelde, P., Strubell, M., & Williams, G. (1996). Euromosaic: The production and reproduction of the minority language groups in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Nickson, R. (2009). Governance and the revitalization of the Guarani language in Paraguay. Latin American Research Review, 44(3), 3–26. Nieto Jime´nez, L. (1995). La polı´ tica lingu¨ı´ stica en el renacimiento espan˜ol. Letras, 31-35, 5–29. Nin˜o-Murcia, M. (1988). Construcciones verbales del espan˜ol andino: Interaccio´n quechua espan˜ola en la frontera colombo–ecuatoriana. Unpublished dissertation. University of Michigan, Michigan. Nucinkis, N. (2006). La EIB en Bolivia. In L. E. Lo´pez & C. Rojas (Eds.), La EIB en Ame´rica Latina bajo examen (pp. 25–110). La Paz, BO: Plural/PROEIB Andes. Ordo´n˜ez, C. L. (2005). EFL and native Spanish in elite bilingual schools in Colombia: A first look at bilingual adolescent frog stories. In A. M. de Mejı´ a (Ed.), Bilingual education in South America (pp. 116–141). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Palacio, J. (2006). Cultural identity among rural Garifuna migrants in Belize City, Belize. In M. Forte (Ed.), Indigenous resurgence in the contemporary Caribbean (pp. 177–196). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Palmer, J. C. (2004). El ingle´s como lengua global: Imperialismo cultural, lenguas de especialidad y repercusiones socioecono´micas. In I. Fortanet, J. C. Palmer & S. Posteguillo (Eds.), Linguistic studies in academic and professional English (pp. 33–46). Castello´ de la Plana, ES: Universitat Jaume I Press. Pavlou, A. (2010). Linguistic habitus and language policy in the Iberian Peninsula. De´but: The Undergraduate Journal of Languages, Linguistics, and Area Studies, 1(2), 56–67. Retrieved from: www.llas.ac.uk/resourcedownloads/3088/pavlou1.pdf. Penny, R. (1991). A history of the Spanish language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London, UK: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

187

Phillipson, R. (Ed.) (2000). Rights to language: Equity, power, and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Pountain, C. J. (1999). Spanish and English in the 21st century. Donaire, 12, 33–42. Retrieved from: webspace.qmul.ac.uk/cjpountain/spaneng.pdf Pratt, C. (1980). El anglicismo en el espan˜ol peninsular contempora´neo. Madrid, ES: Gredos. Rabbitt, M. (1994). The teaching overseas information handbook. Princeton, NJ: International Schools Services. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 196–213. Ricento, T. (2006). Americanization, language ideologies, and the construction of European identities. In C. Mar-Molinero & P. Stevenson (Eds.), Language ideologies, policies and practices: Language and the future of Europe (pp. 44–57). London, UK: Palgrave. Risley C. (1995). Enduring heritage: A historical study of the Islen˜os of Louisiana. Unpublished dissertation. Millsaps College, Jackson, MS. Rojas, V. P. (1999). International schools: The challenges of teaching languages overseas. Learning Languages, 4(2), 16–20. Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Romero, S. (2007). A little-known language survives in Colombia. The New York Times, October 17. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/ 10/17/world/americas/17iht-journal.4.7931645.html?_r ¼ 1. Accessed on June 19, 2012. Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8, 15–34. Sa´nchez, L. (2003). Quechua-Spanish bilingualism: Interference and convergence in functional categories. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Sa´nchez, A., & Duen˜as, M. (2002). Language planning in the Spanish-speaking world. Current issues in language planning, 3(3), 280–305. Saunders, N. (2005). The peoples of the Caribbean: An encyclopedia of archeology and traditional culture. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Saxena, M. (2010). Reconceptualizing teachers? Directive and supportive scaffolding in bilingual classrooms within the neo-Vygotskyan approach. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 7(2), 2040–3666. Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Schwegler, A. (1996). Chi ma nkongo: Lengua y rito ancestrales en El Palenque de San Basilio (Colombia). Madrid: Iberoamericana. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York, NY: Routledge. Sichra, I. (Ed.) (2009). Atlas sociolingu¨ı´stico de pueblos indı´genas en Ame´rica Latina (Vol. 1). Quito, EC: AECID/FUNPROEIB/UNICEFRetrieved from: www. proebiandes.org/atlas/tomo_1.pdf. Sigua´n, M. (1988). Bilingual education in Spain. In C. Bratt Paulston (Ed.), International handbook of bilingualism and bilingual education (pp. 449–473). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Sigua´n, M. (1993). Multilingual Spain. Amsterdam, NL: Swets & Zeitlinger.

188

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Simpson, J. M. (2005). A look at early childhood writing in English and Spanish in a bilingual school in Ecuador. In A. M. de Mejı´ a (Ed.), Bilingual education in South America (pp. 99–115). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education-or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Smoltczyk, A. (2006). Rich in oil, poor in human rights: Torture and poverty in Equatorial Guinea. Spiegel Online International, August 28. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/rich-in-oil-poor-in-human-rights-tortureand-poverty-in-equatorial-guinea-a-434691.html. Accessed on July 12, 2012. Sole´, C. A. (1992). Alfonso el Sabio e Isabel de Castilla: Dos monarcas, dos ideales lingu¨ı´ sticos. Boletı´n de la Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Espan˜ola, 8, 51–66. Sole´, Y. R. (1995). Language, nationalism, and ethnicity in the Americas. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 116, 111–137. Spezzini, S. (2005). English immersion in Paraguay: Individual and sociocultural dimensions of language learning and use. In A. M. de Mejı´ a (Ed.), Bilingual education in South America (pp. 79–98). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Statute of Autonomy. (1979). Retrieved from http://www.gencat.cat/generalitat/eng/ estatut1979/index.htm?vm ¼ r Stearns, P. N. (2008). The Oxford encyclopedia of the modern world (Vol. 4). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stenzel, K. (2005). Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon, revisited. [Presentation]. Paper presented at the II Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America. Austin, TX. Stewart, M. (1999). The Spanish language today. New York, NY: Routledge. Strubell i Trueta, M., & Romani, J. M. (1986). Perspectives de la llengua catalana a l’a`rea barcelonina (comentaris a una enquesta). Barcelona, ES: Generalitat de Catalunya. Sundiata, I. (1990). Equatorial Guinea: Colonialism, state terror, and the search for stability. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Swinehart, K. F. (2012). Metadiscursive regime and register formation on Aymara radio. Language & Communication, 32(2), 102–113. Tejerina, B. (1992). Nacionalismo y lengua. Madrid, ES: CIS. Terborg, R., Garcia Landa, L., & Moore, P. (2007). Language planning in Mexico. In R. B. Baldauf & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Language planning and policy: Latin America (Vol. 1: Ecuador, Mexico, and Paraguay, pp. 115–217). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London, UK: Longman. Torres-Gonza´lez, R. (2001). Idioma, bilingu¨ismo y nacionalidad: La presencia del ingle´s en Puerto Rico. San Juan, PR: University of Puerto Rico Press. Trudgill, P. (1995). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. London: Penguin Books.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Hispanic World

189

Urban, G. (1991). The semiotics of state-Indian linguistic relationships: Peru, Paraguay, and Brazil. In G. Urban & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Nation-states and Indians in Latin America (pp. 307–330). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Van Cleve, J. (Ed.) (1986). Encyclopedia of deaf people and deafness. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Verdugo, L., & Raymundo, J. (2009). Alfabetizacio´n de jo´venes y adultos indı´ genas en Guatemala. In L. E. Lo´pez & U. Hanemann (Eds.), Alfabetizacio´n y multiculturalidad. Miradas desde Ame´rica Latina (pp. 181–236). Guatemala: UIL-UNESCO/PACE-GTZ. Vernet i Llobet, J. (1994). La regulacio´n del plurilingu¨ismo en la administracio´n espan˜ola. In A. Bastardas & E. Boix (Eds.), ¿Un estado, una lengua? La organizacio´n polı´tica de la diversidad lingu¨ı´stica (pp. 115–141). Barcelona, ES: Octaedro. Von Gleich, U. (1998). El impacto lingu¨ı´ stico de la migracio´n: ¿Desplazamiento, cambio o descomposicio´n del quechua? In S. Dedenback-Salazar Sa´enz, C. Arellano Hoffman, E. Ko¨nig & H. Pru¨mers (Eds.), 50 an˜os de estudios americanistas en la Universidad de Bonn. Nuevas contribuciones a la arqueologı´a, etnohistoria, etnolingu¨ı´stica y etnografı´a de las Ame´ricas (pp. 679–702). Markt Schwaben, DE: Verlag Anton Saurwein. Warman, A. (2003). Los indios mexicanos en el umbral del milenio. Mexico City, MX: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica. Warren, K. B. (1998). Indigenous movements and their critics: Pan-Mayan activism in Guatemala. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wright, S. (1999). Catalonia: The geographical and historical context of the language question. In S. Wright (Ed.), Language, democracy, and devolution in Catalonia (pp. 39–47). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Yrigoyen Fajardo, R. Z. (2012). El horizonte del constitucionalismo pluralista: Del multiculturalismo a la descolonizacio´n. In C. Rodrı´ guez Garavito (Ed.), El derecho en Ame´rica Latina: Un mapa para el pensamiento jurı´dico del siglo XXI (pp. 139–159). Mexico City, MX: Siglo Veintiuno. Zarratea, T. (1995). Marco jurı´ dico de las lenguas en el Paraguay. [Presentation]. Paper presented at the Seminario Nacional de Bilingu¨ismo y Polı´ ticas Lingu¨ı´ sticas. Asuncio´n, PY. Zavala, S. A. (1996). Poder y lenguaje desde el siglo XVI. Mexico City, MX: Centro de Estudios Lingu¨ı´ sticos y Literarios.

Chapter 3

Bilingualism in the United States

3.1. Historical Background The Spanish language has a long and persistent history in the United States of America. It began with Juan Ponce de Leo´n (1460–1521), former governor of the island of San Juan Bautista, who arrived in Florida in 1513 in search of the fountain of youth. He was followed by Pa´nfilo de Narva´ez (1478–1528), who also landed in Florida in 1528, and Hernando de Soto (c. 1496/1497– 1542), who led his army from Florida to territories in the west such as Oklahoma and ‘‘discovered’’ the Mississippi River. Years later, Francisco Coronado (1510–1554) departed from Mexico, crossed the Rio Grande, and in the early 1540s explored territories in present-day New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. These early explorations did not lead to actual colonization until the Spanish felt threatened by the English, French, and Russian presence in the newly claimed land. As a result, Saint Augustine was founded in 1565 as a post. Then, in 1598, Juan de On˜ate (1550–1626) settled in the upper Rio Grande valley, where Santa Fe was later founded in 1609. In the eighteenth century, more settlements were established in California, and in Texas, San Antonio was founded in 1718 in an attempt to stop the French from expanding their control beyond Louisiana. In the occupation stage between 1776 and 1834, there were approximately 100,000 Hispanics living in the New Spain colonies that later became states of the United States (Herna´ndez, 1994, p. 18). As Table 3.1 shows, most of them lived in Louisiana (30,000) and New Mexico (25,000), followed by Florida (15,000), California (15,000), Texas (10,000), and Arizona (5,000). In relation to the vastness of the acquired territories, the colonial population was small, and they could not stop the Americans’ expansion. They took over Louisiana in 1803, only 40 years after Spain had acquired it from France. While many Hispanics moved to other colonies, others remained and blended with people of French origin, resulting in a creole identity that has lasted for centuries. Then, in 1819 the Americans took over Florida. Most Hispanics migrated to Cuba and Spain, but many others stayed. In the California, Colorado, and Texas regions of the Southwest, Native Americans had integrated to the mestizo Hispanic society with relative ease

192

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Table 3.1: Estimated population of New Spain colonies that were later conquered by the United States (1776–1800)a. New Spain coloniesb Arizona California Florida Louisiana New Mexico Texas Total

Population 5,000 15,000 15,000 30,000 25,000 10,000 100,000

a

Source: Adapted from Herna´ndez (1994, p. 18). (The author gathered these data from Nadal Oller (1976), the US Bureau of the Census (1975), and Centro de Estudios Econo´micos y Demogra´ficos (1981).) b Colorado, Nevada, and Utah are not included because they had Spanish settlements after 1800.

by the beginning of the nineteenth century. In contrast, in Arizona and New Mexico, some of the Native populations had not been conquered by Spain (Herna´ndez, 1994, p. 19). In general, the population was small, but it grew significantly after Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, when the Mexican authorities encouraged people to populate the northern territories. A Chicano identity flourished, but after a series of tense political conflicts between the United States and Mexico, and the creation of the Republic of Texas in 1836, the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty of 1848 forced hundreds of thousands of Hispanics to become a minority in a new expanded country that included their former lands.

Pause, reflect, and continue Try to explain the linguistic repercussions that the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty had for monolingual speakers of Spanish in the territories ceded to the United States.

Table 3.2 shows the estimated Hispanic population of the newly unionized states and territories in 1850. In 50 years, the entire Hispanic population doubled to 200,000, which indicates that it grew steadily and consistently. The state with the biggest growth was Texas, where Hispanics constituted 28.2 percent of the entire population. New Mexico, where 96.8 percent of the entire population was Hispanic, also experienced a significant growth.

Bilingualism in the United States

193

Table 3.2: Estimated Hispanic population of former Spanish and Mexican colonies that became part of the United States (1850)a. States and territoriesb Arizona California Colorado Louisiana New Mexico Texas Total

Population 5,000 20,000 5,000 50,000 60,000 60,000 200,000

a

Source: Adapted from Herna´ndez (1994, p. 20). The author gathered these data from Moore and Cuellar (1970), Acun˜a (1988), the US Bureau of the Census (1975), and Centro de Estudios Econo´micos y Demogra´ficos (1981). b There is no data for Florida, Nevada, and Utah.

Nonetheless, less than 1 percent of the entire population of the United States was Hispanic. They were ‘‘simply ignored or considered by Anglo Americans as a residual fragment, compared with the vast amount of land acquired and its seemingly boundless resources’’ (Herna´ndez, 1994, p. 20). As Herna´ndez (1994, p. 21) explains, the decades that followed were not favorable for Hispanics in the United States. They were culturally alienated and most lived in poverty. Everything Hispanic was associated with backwardness, and education in Spanish was denied. The few who had access to education in English were not in a much better situation due to lack of societal opportunities to advance. All these factors gave way to a negative self-image fueled by Anglo pressure and their restriction of Hispanics to the bottom of society (Moore & Cuellar, 1970; Vigil, 1980). ‘‘Forced to keep to themselves, Hispanics blended their culture with Anglo values in a self-directed defiance to the conquest of mind and affirmed an American identity distinct from Anglo’’ (Herna´ndez, 1994, p. 21).

Pause, reflect, and continue Do you think that the situation described in the previous paragraph still persists today? If so, please explain. If not, what has changed and why?

Despite these conditions, the Hispanic population in the United States increased to nearly two million by 1910. Hispanics were almost 2 percent of the entire United States population, making them the second largest

194

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Table 3.3: Hispanic population in the United States (1910)a. State

Population

Percentage of Hispanic population in the United States

Arizona California Colorado Florida Louisiana New Mexico New York Texas Other states

98,954 112,219 6,984 142,742 85,050 123,820 26,341 1,059,127 87,980

5.7% 6.4% 0.4% 8.2% 4.9% 7.1% 1.5% 60.8% 5.0%

Total

1,743,217

100%

a

Source: Adapted from Herna´ndez (1994, p. 23). The author gathered these data from the US Bureau of the Census (1913).

minority group in the country. Texas had the largest concentration (1,059,127), where 60.8 percent of all Hispanics lived. Next was Florida (142,742), with 8.2 percent of the entire Hispanic population, followed by New Mexico (123,820), with 7.1 percent. (See Table 3.3.) Of all Hispanics, the great majority (72.1 percent) were native of native parentage (1,256,627); 269,120 (15.4 percent) were foreign born, and 217,470 (12.5 percent) were native of foreign parentage (Herna´ndez, 1994, p. 23). The first half of the twentieth century saw significant changes in the Hispanic population. Many Hispanics began to move to areas that had not had a strong Hispanic presence and create Hispanic barrios throughout major metropolises. That was the case in New York City, where Cubans, Dominicans, and Puerto Ricans formed the first Hispanic communities in the city attracted by the opportunity to work in cigar factories and the garment industry.1 Also, during the years of the Great Depression, more than a million Mexicans moved to California and the north-central states. By 1940, one out of every three Hispanics were of Mexican origin, number that increased even more during World War II, when Mexicans were recruited to work in factories. This increase in population also allowed for

1. In the 1950s, about a third of the population of Puerto Rico moved to New York City and other northern cities (Herna´ndez, 1994, p. 25).

Bilingualism in the United States

195

Hispanics of different descents to live together in the same communities and develop a sense of Latino peoplehood (Padilla, 1985).

Pause, reflect, and continue Are most Hispanic still segregated in primarily Hispanic communities? What could be considered some of the advantages and disadvantages of this trend?

The second half of the twentieth century and the first years of the new millennium were marked by migration that was fostered by political instability in several countries of the Spanish-speaking world. For instance, even before Fidel Castro’s takeover of Cuba’s government, Cubans began to migrate in large numbers, primarily to south Florida. This migration has gone through different stages depending on the phases of the Cuban revolution (Boswell, 2000, p. 140). One of these stages and perhaps the most politically controversial was the mass migration of 1980 known as the Mariel boatlift.2 Also, many Nicaraguans came escaping the Sandinista regime in their country, while many Salvadorans and Guatemalans who migrated to this country did so fleeing from devastating civil wars. More recently, the number of Venezuelans arriving in the United States has increased due to what some consider Ce´sar Cha´vez’s socialist policies. Herna´ndez’s (1994) description of the current situation of Hispanics in the United States is not all that encouraging. Despite major progress in their socioeconomic status and the positive effects of their community organizations, they are not viewed as equals by the members of the mainstream society. To add to this, he claims that most Hispanics come from a subordinate background in their homelands to continue living in subordination in the United States. They are geographically concentrated and segregated, and they suffer from structural limitations in occupation and employment that limit their ability to overcome income deficiencies and eventually increase their potential for social mobility.

Pause, reflect, and continue What is your reaction to Herna´ndez’s assertion?

2. It is estimated that by September 26, 1980, when Fidel Castro lifted the Mariel boatlift, about 125,200 Cubans had fled to the United States (Hastedt, 2004, p. 303).

196

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

3.2. Demographic Data and the Current Situation of Hispanics in the United States There are approximately 50.7 million Hispanics in the United States (Motel & Patten, 2012). It is the nation’s largest minority group, with 16.4 percent of the population.3 Of all Hispanics, 33 million, or nearly two-thirds (65 percent), are of Mexican origin (see Table 3.4). The second largest Hispanic origin group, Puerto Ricans, constitute 9 percent (4.683 million) of the entire Hispanic population. They are followed by Cubans (1.884 million), Salvadorans (1.827 million), Dominicans (1.509 million), Guatemalans (1.108 million), Colombians (972 thousand), Hondurans (731 thousand), Spaniards (707 thousand), Ecuadorians (665 thousand), and Peruvians (609 thousand).4

Pause, reflect, and continue Based on what you know about immigration in the United States and about these Hispanic groups, how would you explain these numbers?

In terms of the regions and counties where some of the largest subgroups are geographically concentrated, Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans are largely concentrated in the Los Angeles County (California), where 9 percent of the entire Hispanic population resides. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, on the other hand, are concentrated in the Bronx County (New York), while Miami-Dade County (Florida) has the largest Cuban, Colombian, Honduran, and Peruvian populations. Ecuadorians are also largely concentrated in New York (in Queens County). Of all these groups, Cubans are the most concentrated; 48 percent of them live in the MiamiDade County area.5

3. In contrast, non-Hispanic blacks represent 12.3 percent of the population. They are the nation’s second largest minority group. Non-Hispanic Asians rank third with 4.7 percent (Motel & Patten, 2012). 4. The data provided by Motel (2012) also report that there are 1,567,169 people included in the ‘‘All Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino’’ category while there are 31,260 in the ‘‘Other Central American’’ category and 26,594 in the ‘‘Other South American’’ category. 5. The Pew Hispanic Center also reports the following facts:  Cubans have the highest median age (40 years) while Mexicans have the lowest (25 years).  Salvadorans are the least likely to have a college degree (7 percent) while Colombians have the highest (32 percent).  Dominicans have the lowest annual median household income (34,000) while Ecuadorians have the highest (50,000).

Bilingualism in the United States

197

Table 3.4: United States Hispanic population (2010)a. Originb

Population

Percentage of Hispanics

Mexicans Puerto Ricans Cubans Salvadorans Dominicans Guatemalans Colombians Hondurans Spaniards Ecuadorians Peruvians Nicaraguans Argentineans Venezuelans Panamanians Chileans Costa Ricans Bolivians Uruguayans Paraguayans

32,915,983 4,682,531 1,883,599 1,827,290 1,509,060 1,107,859 972,334 730,954 707,135 664,781 609,360 376,747 239,509 238,779 174,458 139,480 127,575 112,028 63,784 21,301

64.9 9.2 3.7 3.6 3.0 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

a

Source: Pew Hispanic Center tabulations of the 2010 American Community Survey (in Motel, 2012). b A different report by Lopez & Dockterman (2011) focuses on the top 30 metropolitan areas of the United States and places Spaniards in eighth place with 635 thousand. The data in this table reflects an overall increase in most Hispanic origin groups.

Pause, reflect, and continue What are some of the things that attract these Hispanic groups to the specific states and cities where they are concentrated?

The U.S. Census Bureau (2011a) reports that in 2010, 27.8 percent of Hispanics lived in the state of California, 18.7 percent in Texas, 8.4 percent in Florida, 6.8 percent in New York, 4 percent in Illinois, and 3.8 percent in Arizona. The Hispanic population grew in all 50 states and in the nation’s capital. In eight states it more than doubled from 2000 to 2010 (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee). South Carolina experienced

198

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

the fastest growth: from 95,000 to 236,000 (146 percent). Furthermore, Hispanics in New Mexico account for 46 percent of the state’s population, the highest proportion for any state. Los Angeles is the place with the highest proportion of Hispanics (97 percent of the total population).6 In terms of economics, 26.3 percent of Hispanics work within service occupations.7 This compares to 14.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Also, 18.6 percent of Hispanics work in managerial or professional occupations in comparison to 39.6 percent of whites. In 2010, the average Hispanic family median income among full-time, year-round workers was $37,359, compared to $54,620 for non-Hispanic white families. Furthermore, 26.6 percent of Hispanics live at the poverty level in comparison to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites. In addition, in terms of educational attainment, 61 percent of Hispanics have a high school diploma, compared to 90 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Hispanics with a bachelor’s degree make up 12.6 percent of the entire Hispanic population in comparison to 31 percent of non-Hispanic whites. The long-time pattern of immigration as the main contributor to the increase in the Hispanic population remains strong, but it was not the main factor in the growth registered from 2000 to 2010. Data show that births are now the key contributor (Passel, Livingston, & Cohn, 2012). Hispanics account for 26.3 percent of the population younger than age 1, and minorities in general account for 50.4 percent of this population.8 Moreover, most of the increase from 2000 to 2010 in the nation’s growth was accounted for by Hispanics (56 percent); all racial and ethnic minorities combined accounted for 91.7 percent of this growth.9 The fact that Hispanics have the youngest median age (27.6) is motivating this growth because they are more likely to be having and raising children. Also, a quarter of Hispanic women are in the prime child-bearing ages of 20 and 34 (compared to 19 percent of non-Hispanic white women). In general, Hispanics also have a higher total fertility rate (the number of children the average woman predicts she will have in her lifetime): 2.4 (compared to 1.8 for non-Hispanic white women). Based on these data, non-Hispanic whites are expected to become the minority of the population by 2050 (Passel & Cohn, 2008), and it is .

6. Outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 7. Economic and educational attainment data is from the Office of Minority Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/browse. aspx?lvl ¼ 2&lvlID ¼ 54). 8. A minority is ‘‘anyone who is not a single-race non-Hispanic white’’ (Passel et al., 2012). 9. From April 2010 to July 2011, minorities accounted for 93.3 percent of the United States population growth (Passel et al., 2012).

Bilingualism in the United States

199

projected that Hispanics will continue to account for most population growth.

Pause, reflect, and continue In the United States there are more immigrants from Mexico alone than any country in the world has from all countries of the world. However, according to a report released by the Pew Hispanic Center, migration from Mexico to the United States has come to a standstill and it may have reversed. Could you explain why? How can this phenomenon change the profile of the Hispanic population in this country?

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, from 2000 to 2010 the ten major Hispanic groups changed in the following ways (Motel & Patten, 2012):  The foreign-born share decreased from 40 percent to 37 percent.  The share holding United States citizenship increased from 71 percent to 74 percent.  The share with a college degree increased from 10 percent to 13 percent.  Median household income decreased from $43,100 to $40,000.  The share living in poverty went from 23 percent to 25 percent.  Hispanic population growth accounted for more than half of the overall population growth (Passel, Cohn, & Lopez, 2011).  Nearly half (47 percent) of the nation’s 40 million immigrants is of Hispanic origin. The growth in the Hispanic population of the United States and the imminence of its numerical strength has not been well accepted by some. For instance, Huntington (2004) has raised several concerns regarding Hispanic immigration. He claims that ‘‘The extent and nature of this immigration differ fundamentally from those of previous immigration, and the assimilation successes of the past are unlikely to be duplicated with the contemporary flood of immigrants from Latin America.’’ He sees this as a direct result of certain practices that characterized America in the twentieth century, including the popularity of multicultural and diversity doctrines; the rise of group identities that are not based on national identity; and the growing number of immigrants with dual national allegiances, nationalities, and languages. In his opinion, this threat to national uniformity has to be addressed, or else the United States will end up being a country with ‘‘two peoples with two cultures (Anglo and Hispanic) and two languages (English

200

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

and Spanish).’’ He also points out various specific features that make Mexican immigration unique, which may potentially split the United States into two completely different regions, among them, contiguity, illegality, regional concentration, historical presence, language, intermarriage, and identity.

Pause, reflect, and continue What is your opinion about Huntington’s comments?

3.3. Hispanic Identity and Language in the United States Most Hispanics in the United States (51 percent) define their identity by their family’s country of origin. That is, they prefer to use terms like Mexican, Bolivian, and Cuban, and not the government-imposed panethnic terms Hispanic and Latino (Taylor, Lopez, Hamar Martı´ nez, & Velasco, 2012).10 This rejection to labels that are used to homogenize such a diverse ethnic group seems to be connected to the idea that Hispanics in this country do not share a common culture (69 percent of surveyed Hispanics). Conversely, 24 percent claim that they use the terms Hispanic and Latino, while 21 percent describe themselves as simply American.

Pause, reflect, and continue What does this preference say about Hispanic cultures in general and about Hispanics in the United States in particular?

According to Taylor et al. (2012), 38 percent of all Hispanics claim to be dominant in Spanish, 38 percent claim to be bilingual, and 24 percent are English dominant.11 Also, 82 percent of Hispanic adults claim to speak Spanish and 95 percent believe in the importance of teaching the language to future generations. However, the linguistic reality of this population attributes great importance to learning and speaking English. More than

10. This preference decreases in the second, third, and subsequent generations (Taylor et al., 2012). 11. These data, presented in Taylor et al. (2012), are based on the findings of the 2011 National Survey of Latinos. It was conducted by Social Science Research Solutions for the Pew Hispanic Center.

Bilingualism in the United States

201

Table 3.5: Hispanic population proficient in English by origin (2010)a. Origin Puerto Rican Mexican Colombian Peruvian Cuban Dominican Ecuadorian Salvadorian Honduran Guatemalan All Hispanics

Percentage of population proficient in English 82% 64% 59% 59% 58% 55% 50% 46% 42% 41% 65%

a

Source: Pew Hispanic Center tabulations of the 2010 American Community Service (adapted from Motel & Patten, 2012).

half of Hispanics born in the United States (51 percent) are English dominant. In addition, 87 percent say that adult Hispanic immigrants should learn English to be successful in this country. Motel and Patten (2012) provide a breakdown of proficiency in English among the members of the ten major Hispanic groups (ages 5 and over) in the United States (see Table 3.5). The numbers reflect the answers provided by those individuals who claimed to speak English at home or to speak English very well in 2010. Of all groups, Puerto Ricans are the most proficient (82 percent), followed by Mexicans (64 percent), Colombians (59 percent), and Peruvians (59 percent). Furthermore, approximately two-thirds of all Hispanics ages 5 and over speak English in the home environment or at least claim to speak it very well. Proficiency and use of Spanish and English varies across generations and place of birth lines. In general, the trend is for the first generation to be Spanish dominant. English proficiency and use increases in the second generation, and the third generation is primarily English dominant (Lamboy, 2004; Portes & Schauffler, 1994; Schmidt, 2000; Taylor et al., 2012). Likewise, foreign-born Hispanics tend to be more proficient in Spanish and less proficient in English than the native born. Taylor et al.’s (2012) findings confirm this phenomenon. Among the first-generation interviewees, 61 percent say they are Spanish dominant, 33 percent say they are bilingual, and 6 percent say they are English dominant. The opposite happens among members of the third and higher generations: 1 percent is

202

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Table 3.6: Language preferences by generations in three linguistic domainsa. Generations

Linguistic domains When listening to music MS

B

ME

When watching TV MS

B

ME

When thinking MS

B

ME

First 49% 31% 18% 40% 34% 25% 65% 18% 15% Second 18% 26% 54% 12% 17% 69% 18% 18% 63% Third and higher 10% 16% 74% 5% 11% 83% 13% 7% 80% MS ¼ Mostly Spanish; B ¼ Both Spanish and English (equally); ME ¼ Mostly English. a Source: Pew Hispanic Center, 2011 National Survey of Latinos (adapted from Taylor et al, 2012).

Spanish dominant, 29 percent is bilingual, and 69 percent is English dominant. The second generation is the transition stage in which a movement toward more and more use of English is clearly evident: 8 percent is Spanish dominant, 53 percent is bilingual, and 40 percent is English dominant. Table 3.6 further illustrates this trend. It includes data on language use across generations when listening to music, watching TV, and thinking. Once again, movement toward more use of English is evidenced by the preferences of members of the second, third, and subsequent generations.

Pause, reflect, and continue Based on the information above, how would you describe the linguistic situation of Hispanics in the United States? What do you think are their chances of maintaining the Spanish language in this country?

One of the main features of Spanish in the United States, even among educated people, is the influence of English. As we explained in Chapter 1, when languages are in contact in a given multilingual and multicultural setting, normally these languages ‘‘borrow’’ terms from each other, especially the substratum language. Lexical borrowing is considered superficial because it does not affect the structure of the language per se. If, on the other hand, this contact situation leads to an alteration of the phonological, morphological, or syntactic system, we would be talking about structural changes.

Bilingualism in the United States

203

Many speakers of Spanish in the United States use English words to refer to things for which Spanish already has words. These are called loans. Loans usually require morphological and orthographic modifications to make the word ‘‘fit’’ the word formation rules of Spanish. Take, for example, the word lonche (from English ‘‘lunch’’); since Spanish does not allow for words to end in ch, speakers of Spanish have adapted it by adding a paragogic -e. Furthermore, in the case of nouns like lonche, grammatical gender is also assigned, masculine in this case (el lonche).12 Other examples of loans are el bil, el breik, cuitearse, dostear, el frı´ser, la marqueta, la misinterpretacio´n, el pari, parquear, puchar, rilesteit/rilistait/rilisteit, el rufo, los taxes, la troca, and la yarda.13 Many Spanish words are similar to English words that have a different meaning, and speakers of Spanish sometimes use the Spanish word with the English meaning. These are called semantic extensions. One of the most common examples is aplicar. In Spanish, the word means ‘‘to apply a theory or body of knowledge,’’ as in aplicar la fo´rmula matema´tica (‘‘to apply the mathematical formula’’). However, since English has a similar word (to apply), and due to language contact, many speakers use the word aplicar meaning ‘‘to apply for a job or for school.’’ Other common examples of semantic extension include la aplicacio´n (la solicitud), la carpeta (la alfombra), la escuela (la universidad), la librerı´a (la biblioteca), moverse (mudarse), el papel (la monografı´a/el ensayo), realizar (darse cuenta de), and registrarse (matricularse). When speakers of Spanish in the United States use word-for-word translations of certain structures and idiomatic phrases, we are dealing with what is called a calque. Most calques involve changing or modifying the meaning of one or more words in the phrase, and they are considered examples of structural borrowing because they alter the syntax of the language. For example, in ‘‘standard’’ Spanish, the act of calling back when you miss a phone call is simply llamar, but it is rather common to hear llamar para atra´s, llamar patra´s, or devolver la llamada. These are all ‘‘standard’’ Spanish words, but prescriptive rules do not allow them to be used together to convey this specific meaning. Also, notice that the combination para atra´s (often contracted as patra´s), which is normally used to refer to spatial movement, acquires a new meaning in this calque. Other examples are correr para (postularse para [un puesto] — from ‘‘to run for’’), en tiempo (a tiempo — from ‘‘on time’’), llevar para atra´s/patra´s (devolver — from ‘‘to take back’’),

12. See discussion in Silva-Corvala´n (2001, pp. 282–290). 13. Note that these are not examples of code-switching because the loan words are adapted according to the word formation rules of the Spanish language.

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

204

no son tus negocios (no es asunto tuyo — from ‘‘that is none of your business’’), tener un buen tiempo (divertirse — from ‘‘to have a good time’’), tomar ventaja (sacar ventaja — from ‘‘to take advantage’’),14 and trabajar duro (esforzarse/esmerarse — from ‘‘to work hard’’).

Pause, reflect, and continue How would you explain the following cases of Spanish-English contact?     

cruzar el mensaje viaje redondo atender (la universidad) mayor (dirigente polı´ tico en una localidad) tienda de grocerı´as

3.4. Bilingual Education in the United States 3.4.1.

Historical Background

Bilingual education has existed in the United States in different forms and with different purposes for centuries.15 The wide variety of Native American languages that were already spoken in this country before colonial times and the migration waves that have historically attracted sizable numbers of immigrants have promoted a long-lasting coexistence of English and other languages in this land. This symbiotic linguistic relationship has not been easy at times; most Native American languages have been institutionally repressed, and more recently, a national reaction to the fatal events of September 11, 2001 has had a direct impact on Americans’ attitudes toward foreignness, including foreign languages and bilingual education. In the eighteenth century there were private schools that offered bilingual education to speakers of French, German, and Scandinavian. They were

14. Aprovecharse de is also considered ‘‘standard.’’ 15. Baker & Prys Jones (1998, pp. 545–549) talk about four overlapping periods of bilingual education in the United States. First, the permissive period lasted until World War I. In this period, ‘‘linguistic diversity was generally accepted and the presence of different languages was encouraged’’ (p. 545). Second, in the restrictive period that lasted from the 1920s to the 1960s, bilingualism and bilingual education were institutionally repressed. Third, the opportunist period was characterized by an interest in bringing back bilingual education. It coincided with the Civil Rights movement. Finally, the current period is the dismissive period.

Bilingualism in the United States

205

mainly administered by local parishes, and English was taught as a subject. However, it wasn’t until 1839 that the first official bilingual education law was adopted in Ohio. It gave parents the right to request English-German education for their children. A few years later, in 1847, Louisiana passed a similar law that authorized English-French instruction, whereas in 1850 New Mexico did the same for English-Spanish instruction. In other parts of the United States, instruction in English and languages like Cherokee, Czech, Italian, and Polish was implemented, although without state endorsement. By the end of the nineteenth century, about a dozen states had passed bilingual education laws.

Pause, reflect, and continue Do some research about German migration in the nineteenth century in order to explain the linguistic vitality that the German language had in the United States.

The beginning of the twentieth century was characterized by palpable contradictions. On one hand, almost 4 percent of all the children in elementary school (approximately 600,000) were getting all or part of their instruction in German, the unquestionable dominant minority language at the time. On the other hand, President Theodore Roosevelt was declaring that there was only room for one language in the United States, the English language, and questioning the allegiance to the country of those who claimed to be Americans and something else (King, 1997). This antiimmigrant sentiment grew after World War I, when the loyalty of nonEnglish speakers, especially German speakers, was feared, which resulted in the implementation of English-only instruction laws and a shift against bilingual education. By the mid-twenties, most bilingual education programs had been dismantled and Americanization through education was in full force.16 These language restriction measures also served to deter worker solidarity and to project an image of the United States as an exclusively

16. This education policy was challenged at the Supreme Court. In 1923, in Meyer v. Nebraska (262 U.S. 390) the Court determined that a law enacted in 1919 that prohibited instruction in a foreign language violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Tollefson, 2002). Then, in 1927, in Farrington v. Tokushige (273 U.S. 284), it ruled against a law that prohibited foreign language instruction without a permit in schools in Hawaii alleging that it violated the Fifth Amendment (Cordasco, 1976; Del Valle, 2003; Tollefson, 2002). Also, the Mo Hock Ke Lok Po v. Stainback case of 1949 reaffirmed that parents have the right to choose their children’s language of instruction (Cordasco, 1976; Del Valle, 2003).

206

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Anglo nation (Crawford, 1998). Consequently, in the mid-twentieth century, language diversity reached its lowest level in the United States (Crawford, 2004, p. 59).

Pause, reflect, and continue Can you give other examples of how sociopolitical events can determine linguistic attitudes and policies?

The 1960s was a period of intense social activism and community organization that led to several legislations that positively impacted bilingual education.17 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination, and its Title VI dictated that funds could be withheld from school districts that discriminated students based on race, color, or national origin and did not create the necessary conditions for integration (Del Valle, 2003; Urban & Wagoner, 2003). Four years later, the Bilingual Education Act (1968) allocated federal funding to encourage and support initiatives in local school districts to integrate instruction in native languages.18 Most states throughout the country enacted education laws and laws decriminalizing the use of languages other than English in the classroom. Also, many transitional bilingual education programs were designed to teach students in their native tongue and facilitate their transition into mainstream education. This act was later amended in 1974, when bilingual education programs were explicitly defined, goals were identified, and means to measure success were proposed. As Nieto (2009) argues, ‘‘The Bilingual Education Act has been considered the most important law in recognizing linguistic minority rights in the history of the United States’’ (p. 63). The Bilingual Education Act was reinforced in 1974 in the Lau v. Nichols case (414 U.S. 563, 565). It reaffirmed that the responsibility to make sure that students whose first language is not English succeed was on the school boards, not on the parents. A year later, the Office of Civil Rights released a series of guidelines (the Lau Remedies) to promote transitional bilingual programs.

17. Some of these organizations were the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). See Nieto (2009, p. 63) for more details. 18. This act is also known as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Crawford, 1989).

Bilingualism in the United States

207

The presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981–1988) was not favorable for bilingual education. It perceived non-English speaking communities as ‘‘risky’’ for the nation, and education legislation focused on ‘‘the basics’’ (Crawford, 1989; Nieto, 2009). This mentality was partly based on the reports provided by Baker and de Kanter (1981, 1983), which depicted bilingual education as ineffective and incapable of attending to the needs of language minority students. As a result, the Lau Remedies were discontinued. However, in the early nineties, the climate favored bilingual education again; the Improving America’s Schools Act (1994) recognized the value of bilingual ability and multicultural skills, and many two-way bilingual programs were established (Crawford, 2004). Table 3.7 provides a list of other important legislations and litigations.

Pause, reflect, and continue The Keyes v. District No. 1 (Denver) case discussed the bilingual education issue in light of the segregation issue. Do you see a relationship between them? Please explain.

In the last couple of decades we have seen a growing antibilingual education trend. For instance, in 1998, California adopted Proposition 227, putting an end to all bilingual education programs in the state. In 2000, Arizona approved a similar proposition (Proposition 203), and in 2002, Massachusetts, where the first transitional education program in the nation was mandated in 1969, adopted a law that mandated the creation of sheltered English immersion programs to teach English and content in English.19 Students could be in this program for only one year. Moreover, George W. Bush’s 2002 No Child Left Behind Act further promoted English-only instruction by implementing the use of high-stakes exams as the main measure of student progress.

Pause, reflect, and continue Do some research on the No Child Left Behind Act. What is your opinion about it?

19. Interestingly, Colorado voted against an anti-bilingual education amendment (Amendment 31) in 2002, the same night that Massachusetts voters approved a sister initiative.

208

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Table 3.7: Some of the legislations and litigations that impacted bilingual education in the United Statesa. Legislations

Descriptions

National Act of 1906

 Required immigrants to speak English to become naturalized

Amendments to the Nationality Act – 1950

 Required English literacy for naturalization

Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483) – 1954

 Overruled the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)  Declared that separation of negro and white students is unconstitutional  Declared everyone’s right to equal educational opportunities

National Defense Education Act of 1958

 Promoted foreign language learning

May 25, 1970 Memorandum

 The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare indicated that denying access to education based on a student’s limited English proficiency is illegal

Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974

 Included definitions of what is considered denial of equal educational opportunity, including ‘‘the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by students in an instructional program’’

Keyes v. District No. 1, Denver, CO – 1976

 Determined that bilingual education was compatible with desegregation

Civil Rights Language Minority Regulations of 1980

 Regulated identification, assessment, services, and exit of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students  Regulated that bilingual instruction must be given by qualified teachers

Bilingualism in the United States

209

Table 3.7: (Continued ) Legislations

Descriptions

Castan˜eda v. Pickard – 1981

 Declared that programs for LEP students must have a pedagogically sound plan, sufficient qualified staff to implement the plan, and a system to assess the planb

Idaho v. Migrant Council – 1981

 Declared that Idaho’s State Department of Education was legally responsible for monitoring the implementation of programs for LEP students

Denver v. School District No. 1, Denver, CO – 1983

 Evaluated the district program for LEP students using the Castan˜eda v. Pickard decision

U.S. English – 1983

 Launched a movement whereby the role of English in law, society, and education became center stage

Teresa P. v. Berkeley Unified – 1987

 Evaluated the district program for LEP students using the Castan˜eda v. Pickard decision

Illinois v. Go´mez – 1987

 Declared that the State is responsible for establishing and enforcing guidelines for implementing language remediation programs  Mandated establishing requirements for the reclassification of students from LEP to FEP (Fluent English Proficient)

a

Source: Adapted from Baker (2011, pp. 196–198). The outcome of this case did not include a mandate for programs to meet these standards; it only required taking the appropriate steps to overcome language barriers.

b

3.4.2.

Bilingual Education Models

Different types of bilingual education programs vary according to the role of the majority and minority languages in the classroom and the goals of language instruction. The most common distinction is between maintenance

210

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

and transitional bilingual education programs (Fishman, 1976; Hornberger, 1991). The former recognize the language(s) and the culture(s) that the student brings to the classroom and their goal is for the student to develop his or her proficiency in the minority language while acquiring the majority language. The student’s identity and the identity of his or her ethnic community are strengthened. On the other hand, the latter have as their main purpose fostering acquisition of the majority language as rapidly as possible in order to assimilate the student into mainstream society. They vary in the amount of L1 instruction provided and the duration of the program, but the aim is the same: monolingualism in the majority language. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that maintenance programs are often allied to transitional bilingual education programs in which the learners gradually move toward full instruction in the majority language. Examples can be found in the United States, where, until recently, transitional bilingual education in Spanish and English was widely available. A more refined classification includes the following types of programs:20

 Immersion programs: Their goal is to promote additive bilingualism for majority language speakers. They are highly valued, and the best known ones are the French immersion programs for English-speaking children in Canada. Teaching is provided in the L2, but the teacher knows and may use both languages.  Submersion programs: In these programs, linguistic minorities are taught through the majority language with minimal or no support to enable learners to neither understand the language of instruction nor access the curriculum content. Very often, the minority languages and cultures are not highly valued by the majority group.  Submersion with pull-out classes: These are submersion programs that add pull-out classes where the student learns the majority language (like ESL classes in the United States). Although the goal of these classes is to keep the student in mainstream schooling, he or she may be perceived as an outcast by other students and also miss the content being taught while he or she is in a separate class.  Sheltered content instruction: A variation of submersion with pull-out classes whereby the student is taught content through a simplified version of the majority language. It requires tailoring the instructional materials to match the linguistic level of the learner.

20. For a more detailed classification, see Mackey (1970).

Bilingualism in the United States

211

 Mainstream education with foreign language instruction: This type of ‘‘bilingual’’ education is typical of the United States and many other countries. The student takes his or her education in the majority language and learns a minority language as a subject. Students rarely develop the proficiency needed to communicate effectively in the L2.  Heritage language education: The home, ethnic, or heritage language is protected and used as medium of instruction in school. The aim is bilingualism; the student develops his or her proficiency in the minority language while he or she also develops proficiency in the majority language.  Dual language or two-way bilingual education: When approximately the same number of speakers of two different languages (the majority language and a minority language) are in the same classroom, both languages are used for learning and instruction, and the goal is for learners to be biliterate, balanced bilinguals and multicultural. In general, instruction is conducted in each language 50 percent of the time.

Pause, reflect, and continue In your educational experience, have you been in a program designed according to the guidelines of any of these models? What was it like? What were the goals? Was it successful?

3.4.3.

Criticism of Bilingual Education

There has always been a heated debate regarding the effectiveness of bilingual education in the United States. One of the strongest arguments that those against it make is that there is a marked achievement gap between English Language Learners (ELLs) and non-ELLs, an argument that has been continuously used to justify the assimilation of minority groups and the concomitant Anglicization. According to Baker (2011, p. 199), bilingual students do tend to perform below the norm, but the results are often tainted by the fact that politicians and the press usually overextend the argument to fit their agendas. In fact, these perceptions are so widely held that many believe that by addressing the language difference among Latino students we would solve the education crisis (Ga´ndara & Contreras, 2009, p. 121). However, as Baker (2011) argues, the situation of ELLs and explanations of their underachievement are rather complex; he suggests (citing EALAW, 2003) that they may be the result of the interplay between factors such as majority language competence, socioeconomic background, poverty and material home conditions, racism, gender, school attendance, parental

212

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

encouragement and assistance, and the quality of teachers and school. He goes further and considers the most typical explanations, followed by counterarguments (pp. 200–204). Here is a brief summary:  Bilingualism of the child: In reality, this may be the cause only when both languages are not sufficiently developed. When they are well developed, bilingualism is likely to lead to advantages, not to disadvantages.  Lack of exposure to the majority language: This leads some to believe that the solution is mainstreaming and transitional bilingual education to ensure a fast conversion to the majority language.21 Nonetheless, the solution should be to provide education in the mother language, which helps improve fluency in the majority language.  Mismatch between home and school: Proponents of this argument claim that the home environment should resemble that of the school, which implies the use of the same language and cultural similarities. However, the school system should be pluralistic and flexible enough to include the home language and culture.  Socioeconomic factors: Some scholars have proposed that many immigrants live in deplorable conditions that do not facilitate academic success in school, conditions that take the blame away from the victim. Nonetheless, Baker (2011) cautions us and explains that different language minorities in similar socioeconomic conditions may do differently in school, which emphasizes the importance of different ideologies and orientations. Also, he suggests that underachievement cannot be linked to one single factor.  Type of school: As we explained earlier, there are different types of bilingual education programs; some are ‘‘weak,’’ while others are ‘‘strong.’’ Those that seek to suppress the home language as quickly as possible do not allow children to attain as much as those that respect and value plurilingualism and pluriculturalism.  Quality of education: This is another complex factor that cannot explain underachievement by itself. ‘‘Diminishing and eradicating underachievement

21. Nieto (2009, pp. 61–62) discusses two effects of the imposition of English and the overall Anglicization that has characterized the education system in this country. First, it has generated feelings of frustration among immigrant students who have to abandon their language and linguistic practices. These students end up being alienated from their families and communities with less access to the mainstream and they also end up assigning a negative value to their native languages and to themselves. Second, since the curricula and pedagogy do not reflect their previous experiences and their pasts, many do extremely poorly in school, which explains the high dropout rates among these students. As the author explains, their realities have been forgotten and silenced, and he argues that ‘‘the U.S. government has had a fundamental role in promoting the conformity into Anglicization standards’’ (p. 62).

Bilingualism in the United States

213

depends on the process of classroom activity, not just on a style of education’’ (Baker, 2011, p. 203).  Real learning difficulties: Many times, bilingual children are erroneously diagnosed as having learning difficulties when in fact they are just having difficulties acquiring the majority language. However, more often than not, the problem is in the school or in the education system, which are often demotivating and do not foster positive attitudes.

Pause, reflect, and continue Are you convinced by Baker’s (2011) arguments? Why? Please explain.

3.5. Bilingual Spanish-Speakers ‘‘He who speaks two languages is worth two men.’’ Heritage speakers, native speakers, bilinguals, minority language speakers, ethnic speakers, and home background speakers are all terms that are or have been used in the description of learners who have varying degrees of bilingualism that has been acquired in the home environment. The term heritage speaker is used to refer to these individuals, but as can be shown through the current research, even the definitions used to describe these learners can be problematic. Heritage learners (HLs) are most commonly defined today using a definition by Valde´s (2000), The term heritage speaker is used to refer to a student of language who is raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken, who speaks or merely understands the heritage language, and who is to some degree bilingual in English and the heritage language (p. 1). As can be seen by the ambiguity and compass of this definition, HLs are a large and varied group both linguistically and culturally, ranging from the native speaker of Spanish to the receptive bilingual with minimal skills in Spanish. Fishman (2001) further complicates the issue of defining HLs by stating that heritage languages are those languages other than English that have a particular family relevance to the learner (p. 81). This definition broadens the scope of what one might consider a heritage learner by including individuals who may have no functional ability in a language at all. Lynch (2003) defines a heritage learner as ‘‘someone born and educated in the United States, whose family members use Spanish restrictedly’’ (p. 30). In spite of this ambiguity, there is a large population of HLs who

214

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

share many linguistic and cultural characteristics that need to be considered in HL pedagogy.

Pause, reflect, and continue Are you a heritage speaker of a language? Why or why not? How would you change the definitions previously given? Is there someone being left out of the aforementioned definitions?

Concerns about the teaching of Spanish for Heritage Learners (SHL) arose as early as the 1930; recently, however, there has been a resurgence of interest in SHL due to the ever-increasing number of immigrants and the ever-increasing numbers of Hispanic bilinguals in high schools and in universities in the United States, as elsewhere as well (Lewelling and Peyton, 1999, p. 1). According to the 1990 census, the number of Spanish-speaking age school children grew 41.4 percent from the 1980 census, and as of the 2000 census, Hispanics have become the largest minority, surpassing African-Americans. The growth of Hispanics from the 2000 census to the 2010 census is 43 percent, with Hispanics making up over 56 percent of the growth in the United States (2010 Census). This drastic increase has called for more of a focus on materials and methods for teaching these students, but they have been neglected especially at the university level (Pino, 1997). This influx of students has caused many schools and universities to implement new programs to more adequately place these students who do not fit into the ‘‘typical’’ Spanish as a second language classroom. Many problems have resulted from these attempts, and there are still today many different theories as to the most effective way to educate these bilinguals in the Spanish. A common problem that results in a SHL class is the diversity that one finds between speakers who have almost native-like abilities and those who fall into the category of transitional or receptive bilinguals, whose abilities are much more limited (Pino, 1997). Carreira (2003) states, ‘‘The diversity of academic experience and the range of Spanish language proficiency levels represented among U.S. Hispanics constitute one of the biggest challenges facing teaching of Spanish as a heritage language’’ (pp. 51–2). Trying to appeal to this variety of a student base has perplexed many educators who struggle to teach these classes with limited materials and training. This section addresses the four areas of research that Guadalupe Valde´s (1995) proposes for the development of the profession of heritage language teaching and the pedagogical implications of these areas for the heritage classroom. First, the concept of dialects and what constitutes the notion of

Bilingualism in the United States

215

prestige amongst speakers is analyzed, as well as how this can be acquired. Second, the author explores how heritage learners can expand their bilingual range. Third, a summary of research carried out on how the linguistic and social identity of the heritage speaker is important in Spanish language maintenance. Fourth, the role of biliteracy in the heritage classroom is addressed. 3.5.1.

Prestige Dialect and Dialect Awareness

Research into the teaching of dialect and dialect awareness has, by far, received the most attention from researchers of SHL. The current methodology among many of the SHL instructors is the thought that, instead of the eradication of the informal dialect, the instructors can present and teach the students a second dialect. This second dialect would be a more formal one that can be used in different situations than the informal home one. Many SHL instructors have embraced this concept and yet there are others who are dubious as to whether this can be achieved. There is also the idea that even though teachers go to great lengths to let the students know that their dialect is not bad, there is still the presumption that something is wrong with what they are saying and that this needs to be corrected. ‘‘We may have to admit that we are simply eradicators in disguise and that we do believe that there is a right and a wrong kind of Spanish (Lozano, 1981, p. 94). There are also many educators who spend the whole class trying to instill in the students the standard forms and, Valde´s (1981) states that this adds very little to the overall growth of the student’s abilities in the language. The realization by the students that they are committing an error is not enough to change their speech and, as stated by Sole´ (1981), ‘‘resultarı´ a igualmente limitado e insatisfactorio’’22 (p. 25). Valde´s (1981) proposes several different approaches to the idea of teaching a standard dialect. One of them is the idea that of where attention is devoted to increasing oral command in the language, to writing, to composition, to creative use of the language, to reading skills, and to expand a student’s domain where one normally would use their dominant language (in this case English) and teach them these skills in those areas in Spanish (Valde´s, 1981). Such teaching would be difficult because of the fact that the course would have to be tailored to the individual needs of the students because of the aforementioned problem of the many different levels of speakers in the classroom. Other teachers do not share this view that bidialectalism cannot be taught; they believe that, by using some of the same teaching techniques, it

22. Translation-would result equally limited and unsatisfactory.

216

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

can effectively be taught and that they can help students to have both a formal and an informal dialect. ‘‘Teaching bilingual students is a clear-cut case of informal language versus standard language’’ (Ferna´ndez, 1981, p. 105). Even though Ferna´ndez states this, she also points out that teaching different dialects to students can be very difficult, especially since there is a lot of interference from the first dialect and the fact that they do not have very many opportunities to use the formal dialect outside the classroom. If the teacher is able to help the students accept their dialect and convince them that they can learn another dialect, then the teacher has been successful (Ferna´ndez, 1981). It is also important to note that people who are bilingual or multilingual are able to manipulate a number of varieties of one or more languages ranging from formal to informal usage. If this is the case, then the acquisition of a second dialect is very plausible, and if it can be learned, it can be taught (Lozano, 1981). Martinez (2003) proposes the critical based dialect awareness (CBDA). He states, ‘‘Our pedagogical task is to help the learner develop an ‘internal monitor’ to assist in avoiding stigmatized features under certain social conditions’’ (p. 3). He goes on to say that ‘‘the entire notion of standard and vernacular dialects is really much more of a social issue’’ (p. 3). He also says, ‘‘I worry that when we ask students to ‘model’ the speech of the socially prestigious groups, we are implicitly saying that their own language is somehow not good enough to get on in society’’ (p. 3). The point is also central to the argument of Villa (1996). Villa denounces the notion that there is one ‘‘standard’’ dialect or register that can and should be taught to the students. He contests that most students do not have the ‘‘basic material to be corrected’’ and should thus be taught the community dialect regardless of whether or not it is a ‘‘prestigious’’ or ‘‘standard’’ variety (p. 195). Villa goes on to say that many fields require knowledge of the community variety of Spanish such as health care, banking, education, etc. However, what he fails to mention is that many of those jobs also require knowledge of a ‘‘standard’’ variety of Spanish as well. Every speaker of a language has a variety of dialects that they employ on a daily basis. Gutierrez (1997) declares, ‘‘Teachers must learn that dialect refers to any given variety of a language shared by a group of speakers’’ (pp. 34–35). Monolinguals, bilinguals, multilinguals all use a variety of dialects based on both style shifts as well as shifts to establish identity, in speaking to different addressees, etc.

Pause, reflect, and continue How do you use your different registers and dialects of your L1 and L2 on a daily basis? Do you believe that bidialectalism can be taught? Why or why not?

Bilingualism in the United States

217

Cook (1999) argues that educators and researchers need to convince the HLs that ‘‘they are successful multicompetent speakers, not failed native speakers’’ (p. 204). Martinez (2003) addresses this concern after acknowledging, ‘‘The selection of a prestige variety is always an issue of power and control’’ (p. 7). He posits that, while this is the case, the construction of the model ‘‘language ¼ power’’ is merely an arbitrary social creation that changes and can be changed. The HLs need not see their language as inferior and themselves as less than the sum of their parts, but rather through education HLs can come to understand themselves and society. This very experience is empowering to the HLs and can lessen linguistic and cultural insecurity. Educators also must realize that these students would also be ostracized in their own communities if they stopped speaking the way friends and family did, meaning that the need exists to maintain and expand dialectal varieties of Spanish (Gutierrez, 1997). Villa (1996) posits that current research shows that U.S. Spanish ‘‘may be gaining international prestige’’ (p. 196). This prestige that he cites tends to be among other Hispanics of the lower socioeconomic status who imitate this variety to have some in-group identity with the majority speakers of Spanish in the United Status. Notwithstanding, the education of the HLs will not take the place of a better informed society where these concepts may still not be understood. HLs must be cognizant that while they understand the role of language and dialect, many people continue to see their language as inferior and impure.

3.5.2.

Expansion of the Bilingual Range

One way to start to help students to expand their bilingual range is through teaching them that many of their struggles are shared by monolinguals. Many examples exist in monolingual English speech that can be used to show HLs that different types of language are used in diverse settings. Recently enrolled freshman in the university setting often find themselves lacking the formal academic style in both speech and writing. They must be taught these styles just as HLs need to be taught. Martinez (2003) states that when HLs become aware that dialects naturally form part of every speaker’s repertoire, ‘‘It allows them to detach emotion and prejudice from the perception of dialects and look at them as self-contained systems of human communication’’ (p. 4). In addition, he goes on to declare that by helping students become aware of the ‘‘arbitrary nature of the entire linguistic market’’ then they can realize ‘‘how to make the market work to their advantage’’ (p. 6). When HLs are empowered with this knowledge, they no longer feel inferior regarding language usage but realize that they have an advantageous linguistic ability that is not accessible to either monolingual Spanish speakers or monolingual English speakers.

218

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Pause, reflect, and continue How do monolinguals increase their range of speech and situational awareness of which language to use in different settings and with different speakers? How is it similar to the struggles that HLs face?

Garcı´ a and Torres-Ayala (1991) found in their study that study abroad was helpful to the learners in many ways such as speaking, greater selfesteem, vocabulary, etc. However, their study was limited to certain elite heritage speakers and more needs to be done with those who are not the elite students but more traditional members of society who make up the heritage population. Additionally, heritage learners are present in many study abroad programs that are designed for second language learners. Program designers need to consider what can be done during study abroad to include these learners and make more advantageous use of their time abroad. Code-switching is another area where work can be done to help expand the student’s bilingual range. Though many times teachers see code-switching as an error or lack of linguistic or lexical knowledge, often times other factors are involved that need to be understood before ‘‘error correction’’ is needed. Code-switching in the classroom shares many of the same features as in conversational switches such as to clarify, to emphasize, to attract attention, to refer to a concept specific to one particular culture, or to bid for a conversational turn (Timm, 1993, p. 107). Kirschner (1984) expands on this notion of conversational switch through his studies of speakers who grew up with both languages, heritage learners, and second language learners of Spanish and found a correlation between code-switching and style shifting. Nevertheless, still many other researchers question the notion of codeswitching as style-shifting. Ramat (1995) comments, ‘‘I take CS (codeswitching) as being different in nature from monolingual ‘style-shifting’’’ (p. 46). Romaine (1989) focused on the similarities between these two types of shifts by stating that monolingual style-shifting and code-switching may be seen as equivalent with respect to the social meanings they can convey. Kirschner and Romaine conclude that code-switching is a form of style-shift. If this is the case, this type of style-shift should be identified as such by teachers and researchers and not assumed to be an error.

Pause, reflect, and continue Would you define code-switching as style-shifting? Why or why not? How do you consciously use code-switches? What is your perception of those who code-switch? Why?

Bilingualism in the United States

219

Other authors have pointed out other questions that also must be asked by those teaching in the SHL classroom. Merino and Samaniego (1993) declare that it is important to be aware of the fact that sometimes the dialect variants that are used in one community cannot be distinguished from the type of developmental errors that all learners of a languages will make (p. 117). Such variants as fuites or fuistes for the standard fuiste have been shown to exist in monolingual communities and are quite common in rural Spanish-speaking communities around the world. These authors continue stating that the questions of where one’s speech variant comes from, whether it is from one’s family, from one’s community, or whether it is an interim stage in Spanish acquisition, should be determined by the teacher before deciding whether or not to correct a speaker’s oral production (p. 117). Where it is found that students lack the lexical knowledge to produce monolingual Spanish, the teacher can then work on the expansion of the student’s vocabulary. Marrone (1981) includes as part of the course a segment on codeswitching. She lets her students code-switch for the first part of the course and even allows them to use a minimal amount of English if they cannot get an idea across in Spanish. During this time, she has them focus on what they are saying and what forms they are using to express themselves. After this she tells them that both languages are self-sufficient and has them put forth an effort to use just Spanish in the classroom. Another activity that is done with this same group is that they are to listen to the Spanish on the radio, on the television, in their neighborhoods and in their homes for examples of code-switching and then write them down and identify them as loan words, calques, etc. They share this list with their classmates and talk about why this occurs and the reason behind switching (p. 77). This helps to promote understanding of the process, which in turn can be used in helping the student become more cognizant as to their speech patterns. Martinez (2003) states that while researchers and educators declare that all languages are equal and all dialects are equal, they may, in reality, be leading heritage speakers to develop ‘‘a feeling of inferiority about their heritage language’’ (p. 5). This insecurity reflects in their ability to learn language and can even cause many of the learners to reject their culture and language. When one is told that the culture and, in this case, language that one uses and pertains to is inferior and this occurs over an extended period of time, HLs deny pertaining to such a group. Wang and Green (2001) say that HLs use English as their ‘‘badge of identity’’ and these students make enormous efforts to sound ‘‘American’’ (p. 174). They continue stating, ‘‘Many have adopted society’s negative attitudes toward their own heritage group and refuse to be identified as members of it, even when others have identified them as such’’ (pp. 174–5). While educational facilities can help in changing attitudes and forming positive identities, Wang and Green (2001)

220

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

affirm that schools have very little to do with identity formation and that communities need to become involved in promoting and teaching heritage languages. Until students can appreciate their culture and remove the negative stereotypes that they have about their language, the expansion of HLs bilingual range will be very difficult.

3.5.3.

Language Maintenance and Identity

One study that offers both positive and troubling information on Hispanics in the United States was done by Garcı´ a (1995). In her study, she attempted to study whether loss of Spanish correlated with increases in income and what was the effect of being English monolingual on the income of Hispanics. She found that Puerto Ricans and Mexican Americans who were bilingual made 20% less than those who were English monolinguals. She states that this result ‘‘seems to confirm the belief that poverty among Latinos is a direct result of their inability to relexify’’ (p. 154). However, it is important to point out that this study is now over 17 years old and likely changes are occurring that would prove that educated bilinguals may very well have some economic advantages over monolinguals. Gutierrez (1997) cites that many Hispanics are ‘‘disadvantaged by the negative attitudes toward their speech — attitudes that derive from their relatively low social status and associations in people’s (teacher’s) minds’’ (p. 35). The only group that showed no significant effect was the Cuban-American population from Dade County Florida. Garcı´ a (1995) states that several characteristics positively affect Cuban-Americans such as less markedness, absent homeland, more socioeconomic power, and instrumentality for communication in Dade County (p. 154). She goes on to state, ‘‘When minority language is not viewed as a suspicious characteristic that must be eradicated, but as a resource with which to negotiate, English monolingualism has no effect whatsoever on income’’ (p. 156). She concludes by stating that ‘‘the myth of the link between English monolingualism and economic success must be rejected’’ (p. 157). Though she proved that this is not a myth in her study, it does not have to continue to be a reality. Monolingual Anglos are too often the ones making the decisions for the minorities who have far too little in the form of power and influence in the community. Efforts must be made to increase the reputation and social organization of the other Hispanic groups in the United States. This will be hard with the constant influx of learners from a low socioeconomic and educational level. Regarding identity, Giles and Byrne (1982) bring to the forefront the issue of intergroup identity and how this affects HLs. They state, ‘‘A certain speech style or language can often be a salient cue for inter-ethnic

Bilingualism in the United States

221

categorisation, an important dimension of ethnic identity, and an ideal medium for facilitating intragroup cohesion’’ (p. 17). This in-group identity is an important part of the Hispanic culture due to the traditionally close family relationships and contact with these members. They go on further to declare that if ethnic group membership is important to the individual, then the style of speech that an individual uses will attempt to reflect that of those who are members of this group. In this way, the once stigmatized or y‘‘inferior’’ varieties of language are now ‘‘proudly heralded within that group as symbols of cultural pride’’ (p. 21). HLs need to see examples of competent and proficient individuals from their ethnic group, and this will help them develop an in-group identity. To bring about this change, Giles and Byrne suggest that the more a group has ‘‘economic and political control over its destiny, high social status, a strong tradition and history which is the source of pride to the group, and an ethnic speech style which is highly valued (or even of international status), the more vitality that group is said to have’’ (p. 23). This is central in promoting the development of individuals within a group; however, if the social comparisons within the ethnic group are negative then that can lead to disassociation and rejection of the group. The rejection of identity is just one of the reasons the HLs decide not to participate in the HL classroom. Many HLs think that these classes are for native speakers of Spanish. The nomenclature ‘‘native speaker,’’ which is still used by many people to refer to HLs, has deceived many learners into believing that such classes are for the native or near-native speaker of Spanish. The paradigm shift to terminology such as ‘‘heritage learner’’ is helpful in avoiding this confusion; however, Baker and Jones (1998) state that this term could be associated with the past more than the future and the antiquated more than the modern. ‘‘The danger is that the heritage language becomes associated with ancient cultures, past traditions and more primitive times’’ (p. 509). By giving this impression, they comment that these notions detract from a ‘‘modern, international language that is of value in a technological society’’ (p. 509). Gonza´lez Pino & Pino (2000) found in a series of studies that HLs ‘‘lacked the confidence in their heritage language skills, had little understanding of their linguistic and curricular needs, had internalized negative societal attitudes toward their society and culture, and did not want to be segregated into the heritage language track’’ (pp. 29–32). This insecurity is due in large part to the fact that there is a relationship between language and social identity. However, Lippi-Green (1997) states, ‘‘We do not, cannot under our laws, ask people to change the color of their skin, their religion, their gender, but we regularly demand of people that they suppress or deny the most effective way they have of situating themselves in socially in the world’’ (p. 63). What she is referring to is the suppression of language. Many times this suppression is not done legally, even though many would argue

222

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

that Proposition 227 in California and Proposition 203 in Arizona are legal forms that suppress the bilingual nature of individuals. So the question of why HLs do not enroll in SHL classes is indeed a multifaceted one that addresses deep psychological concerns regarding identity, culture, and society or more practical issues such as training academic counselors, explaining curriculum goals, and defining heritage learners.

Pause, reflect, and continue How does HLs’ insecurity compare to that of second language learners? Why is it important to make a distinction between these two groups?

While the aforementioned areas are of concern to the majority of HLs, Valde´s (1997) points out that some HLs resist giving their language ‘‘away casually to the children of the powerful’’ (p. 393) in situations where the classes include both Anglo and Hispanic HLs. This relates to the political question of where does ethnicity lie in the realm of the heritage speaker. Does a heritage learner need any functional ability in the language at all to be a heritage learner? Is it more a question of ancestry or a question of linguistic ability? If it is ancestry, what about the Anglo student who was raised almost exclusively by a native Spanish-speaking nanny or who was taught Spanish by Spanish-speaking parents of Anglo decent? Is this individual a heritage speaker or must there be some ‘‘blood’’ or ‘‘cultural’’ connection? According to the definition by Valde´s (2001), these individuals would be heritage learners. Nevertheless, she goes on to declare, ‘‘It is the historical and personal connection with the language that is important and not the actual proficiency of individual speakers’’ (Valde´s, 2001 p. 38). Fishman (2001) refers to familial ties to the language as defining the heritage language speaker, so individuals who have no ethnic ties to the culture do not qualify as heritage learners even if they share linguistic characteristics of HLs. These are just a few of the problems that result in the categorization of HLs. Nonetheless, one could say that linguistically all of these students would benefit more from a class designed for HLs than the traditional FL classroom because their language needs are similar.

3.5.4.

Biliteracy in the Heritage Classroom

The final area that Valde´s (1995, 2001) proposes for the development of the heritage language profession is biliteracy in the classroom. ‘‘As compared to

Bilingualism in the United States

223

the teaching of the standard language or the expansion of bilingual range, the transfer of literacy skills appears to be a far more straightforward goal’’ (Valde´s, 1995, p. 317). She asserts that many advances are being made in this area in bilingual and foreign language education; what is missing from this theory is a more precise focus on how it applies to the HL classroom. Peale (1991) outlines several areas where literacy in Spanish and English is beneficial. He asserts that literacy skill development in HLs has a ripple effect in both English and Spanish development. He observes that in HLs, as ‘‘their vocabulary improves in English as well as in Spanish; they score higher in reading achievement, and their reading comprehension improves in English and in Spanish; their cultural awareness and self-concept are enhanced and raised’’ (p. 449). The interrelatedness of issues such as literacy, identity, and performance provide even more of an impetus for developing these skills in the HL class. Cummins (1984) also found that language skills can be transferred across languages in a way that facilitates the acquisition of first language skills in the second language. Villa (1996) expresses his doubt as to ultimate attainment of SHL programs. ‘‘Students may not be able to master a formal written variety of Spanish during the time they participate in those programs’’ (p. 197). He goes on to declare, ‘‘It would appear feasible to instruct SNS students to write an ‘acceptable’ prose, one relatively free from the ‘interference’ of the spoken standard’’ (pp. 197–8). Villa is not the only one who is concerned about the effectiveness of literacy teaching in the SHL classroom. Hidalgo (1993) questions whether ‘‘the objectives proposed up until now by those of us who teach Spanish — mastery of literacy language — are realistic and can be attained within the framework of our academic programs’’ (p. 89). Determination needs to be made as to what the goals for the HLs are in regards to literacy. Teachers need to have clear what are the goals for the level that they are teaching with the realization that ‘‘Not all SNS students will be writers for major Latin American newspapers, literary journals, and the like’’ (Villa, 1996, p. 198). Educators also need not limit those students who do strive to become such and in higher levels classes need to be directed toward such development. Schwartz (2003) cites research that shows that heritage learners are usually more proficient in oral skills than in literary skills. She continues saying, ‘‘Thus it is the process of ‘composing’, finding the right words and arranging them in sentences and paragraphs in such a way that they accurately reflect the thought of the writer in a manner consistent with the norms of the language, that is usually the most troublesome for many of our heritage students’’ (p. 235). Contradictory studies have looked at how revisions are made by second language learners. Raimes (1987) and Zamel (1983) found that ESL learners made not only superficial changes but also global changes related to content in revising their work. New (1999) found the opposite with FL learners in that the changes that they made to their

224

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

compositions were strictly ‘‘changes in form rather than content’’ (p. 92). The differences in these studies could be due to dissimilarities between ESL and FL learners or individual variation. Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1996) found that ESL students viewed writing as more of a process whereas FL learners perceived it as grammar practice. Gascoigne Lally (2000) proposes that students benefit from prewriting in their L1. This needs more research as many teachers have seen the results of word-for-word translation between languages, making the speech unintelligible. In Schwartz’s study, the most successful participant went through this process to produce her paper. This may be explainable in that this HL was proficient in speaking and thus able to start in English and then correctly translated to Spanish based on what ‘‘sounded correct.’’ Schwartz concludes her article offering several suggestions on how to implement the teaching of writing in the HL classroom. She suggests that the teaching of writing strategies, awareness training, and content revision as opposed to superficial revision, vocabulary expansion, dictionary use training, etc., are all useful techniques for the heritage classroom. Finally, Colombi (2003) advocates the teaching of heritage literacy within the framework of Halliday’s (1978, 1994) genre and functional grammar theory. Halliday states that in this framework language is formed in a social context while at the same time constructing a social context. Martin (1984) defines genre as a social process, sequential and with a clear purpose in which people interact with other members of the culture. Colombi offers some pedagogical suggestions as to how to implement this in the classroom: development of academic discourse, deconstructing of relevant genres, revision, and editing of text. She concludes stating, ‘‘Este marco teo´rico hace explı´ citas las caracterı´ sticas discursivo-sema´nticas y le´xico-gramaticales de los textos permitie´ndoles a los estudiantes un conocimiento ma´s claro y accesible que rompe con los mitos acerca de la dificultad de aprender a escribir’’ (p. 91).23 While Colombi investigated the writing of an advanced speaker, this theoretical framework also needs to be applied to less advanced heritage learners. Lynch (2003) advises that future research should ‘‘investigate the social networks of those HL speakers who demonstrate greater and lesser degrees of language proficiency, yet who may reflect quite similar sociocultural backgrounds or perhaps even be members of the same networks’’ (p. 35). Such an investigation would be helpful not only in finding which strategies

23. Translation – This theoretical framework makes explicit the discourse-semantic and lexicalgrammatical characteristics of the texts thus offering the students a clearer and more accessible knowledge that breaks down the myths about the difficulty of learning to write.

Bilingualism in the United States

225

had worked in the education of the heritage learner, but also what types of community and social influences were the most effective in helping the student. Issues such as identity, socialization, Spanish exposure, etc. could all be categorized and contrasted with unsuccessful HLs from similar social networks. Lynch also asserts that the grammar focus of the HL classroom should change to a more communicative approach to language learning. He states that instruction should be related to the subjects that are important to HLs such as immigration, feminism in Latin America, etc. What he fails to consider is the fact that many of the lower level students do not have the vocabulary or the grammatical structure to converse entirely in Spanish about such issues. Grammar instruction needs to continue to form part of HL learning but as with all pedagogy it should be interactive, integrative, and contextualized for the HLs. Valde´s (1995) states that HL instruction ‘‘has developed multiple practices and pedagogies that are not directly based on coherent theories about the kinds of language learning with which they are concerned’’ (p. 308). Much of what has been done lacks a specific theoretical basis upon which the research and studies have been done. This lack of empirical research and theoretical development threatens the validity of curricular development and improvement in the field of HL research and teaching. In addition, interdisciplinary research with HLs needs to focus on areas developing curriculum between the FL classroom and the HL classroom. Research can investigate how the relations between these learners can be mutually beneficial. The profession of heritage language teaching is continuing to grow and future research will help us to better be able to teach the growing heritage population.

3.6. English Only and English Plus English Only and English Plus are two movements that emerged within the United States regarding the issue of English becoming the official language of the country. The English Only movement pushes for the strict use the English language in various aspects of American society, more specifically in government and federal uses of. In response to the English Only movement, the English Plus movement was created to promote the use of different languages and teach the importance of linguistic diversity. Many different views and opinions exist about the English Only and English Plus movements that are currently a polemic topic among citizens and at federal and state levels. Past and present research has indicated the steady growth of linguistic diversity within the United States and especially with Spanish language

226

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

speakers. Many people are unaware of the benefits and consequences that each movement ensues, and this section aims to thoroughly examine the opposing movements of English Only and English Plus and how each could affect communities across the United States. Support from previous studies will be used to draw conclusions about the movements, more specifically between the English and Spanish languages. The research is supported with past and current statistics about the movements through various surveys from 1980 to the present day. Additionally, this section will explore the beneficial effect of the English Plus movement within the education system. With the creation of special programs such as English as a Second Language (ESL), Spanish for Heritage Speakers, and Dual-Language Enrichment, ways have successfully been created to promote multilingualism during an age of English Only laws. Linguistic diversity presents itself as a contemporary characteristic of the United States culture, a quite controversial one for the matter. The clashing of these two movements seems imminent, and the constant changing opinions in American society will forever play a role in legislation, education, and politics. The early beginnings of the English Only movement date back to the 1980s in the United States. Due to the influx of immigrants on the west coast of the United States, California was among the first states to declare English as the official language (Piatt, 1990) in order to preserve unity. This action soon ignited a nation-wide debate about the establishment of an official language. It is known that the United States of America is one of the few countries that does not declare an official language and instead has left this decision up to the legislation and people of each state.

Pause, reflect, and continue Why do you think that the United States does not have an official language? What effect would this have on the country and society? Why?

One of the concerns about English Only is that those with little proficiency in English would lose access to many public programs and governmental support due to their inability to communicate with the individuals who run different organizations. Ultimately, several issues have been brought up about the English Only movement and the official language debate, including freedom of language, multiculturalism, and bilingual education. As a result, those who oppose English Only beliefs have brought about the creation of the English Plus movement, whose supporters believe in promoting cultural and linguistic diversity within the United States. They

Bilingualism in the United States

227

believe that viewing multilingualism as beneficial can help enrich our society culturally and linguistically, as well as improve our economy. The main focus of the English Plus movement is that all people within society have reasonable public access to improve their proficiency in the English language as well as their native or additional languages. English Plus promotes access to education for all individuals regardless of their level of proficiency, as well as access to documents and services in languages other than English. Although there are many different minority languages that are spoken within the United States, the main focus has shifted toward the Spanish language. The number of Hispanics in the United States is continuously on the rise with each upcoming year. According to the US Census of 2010, the number of Hispanics reached 50.5 million, making them the fastestgrowing minority group in the United States. Of the 50.5 million Spanish speakers, 76 percent of them report speaking Spanish in their homes. The fact that this population is using their native language in the home has led them to suffer various forms of discrimination, which have resulted in the elimination of bilingual education programs in areas where large numbers of Hispanics live, leaving many with little to no access to English education programs. We now analyze some important factors that influence English Only and English Plus movements in the United States, which include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Government policies and English Only creations within state legislations 2. English Only and English Plus beliefs toward bilingual education 3. Personal opinions and views, including willingness and motivation of limited English proficiency persons to learn English 4. Availability of public resources and access to adequate language support The issue of linguistic diversity has been a common topic of discussion in the history of the United States. Since the 1980s, the popularity of this topic has steadily increased due to the influx of non-English speaking immigrants. In 1981 a bill was proposed by Senator Samuel Hayawaka from California to amend the U.S. Constitution, which would have made English the official language of the United States. Hayakawa launched the bill because he felt, ‘‘deeply concerned by the specter of a country divided along linguistic and cultural lines’’ (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). The bill was quickly dropped and did not gain much support from the citizens at the time, but Senator Hayakawa and John Tanton subsequently went on to create the organization U.S. English in 1983. The organization stands for the support of making English the official language of the United States (Mora & Da´vila, 2002).

228

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Pause, reflect, and continue Some individuals find the English Only movement to be racist and discriminatory. Why do you think they perceive them this way? Are there other reasons for having a national language? What are they?

Since the denial of this bill, many bills have been brought into state legislature ruling throughout the United States. Since 1981, sixteen different amendments have been introduced to amend the constitution, each with limited success. Although the Senate assembled several times to vote on the English Language Amendment, it never reached a vote in Congress (Lewelling, 1997). Some English Only laws have been passed at the state level and some have not; it is an issue that state legislations have greatly debated throughout the past two decades. To date, 31 states within the United States have declared English as the official language. According to the official website of the U.S. English organization, declaring English as an official language signifies ‘‘that official government business at all levels must be conducted solely in English. This includes all public documents, records, legislation and regulation, as well as hearings, official ceremonies and public meetings.’’ Furthermore, the Bilingual Education Act was altered so that the word ‘bilingual’ no longer appears in legislation to promote nation-wide unity under one language. Also details of the benefits of bilingual education and bilingualism no longer exist (Coles-Ritchie & Lugo, 2010). Additionally, supporters of English Only legislation believe it helps contribute into the American ‘‘melting pot’’ and strengthens opportunities of language minorities (Mora & Da´vila, 2002, p. 906). As with any movement, there are two sides to each, supporting and opposing. As mentioned, in the late 1980s the English Plus organization was created with opposing views of the English Only movement. Supporters of English Plus argued that making English the official language of the United States would infringe on the citizen’s civil rights and more importantly still, that this legislation could be used to heighten discrimination against language minorities. In 1987, English Plus supporters created an organization called the English Plus Information Clearinghouse (EPIC). EPIC’s main purpose was to provide a centralized source of information pertaining to language rights and policies. EPIC strongly believes that there are alternatives to making English the official language and strongly rely on what the Founding Fathers believed when creating the United States (Lewelling, 1997). Lewelling goes on to state that the Founding Fathers of this country did not create an official language nor did they want to create one; their reasons included ‘‘a belief in tolerance for linguistic diversity

Bilingualism in the United States

229

within the population, the economic and social value of foreign language knowledge and citizenry, and a desire not to restrict the linguistic and cultural freedom of those living in the new country’’ (p. 2). The push for English Only laws exists in several different areas of society, including the desire to declare English as the official language of the workplace. Acts have been proposed to ensure that only English is spoken in this setting. In 2009, the Common Sense English Act was introduced to require employees to speak English in the workplace. The act stirred up controversy in that it was seen as a violation of civil rights that would discriminate against those who are limited in English proficiency and eliminate them from participating in certain jobs that they are entitled to and for which they were competent. In the end, the act died and was not passed, but it serves as an example of how language diversity is being approached within the workplace.24

Pause, reflect, and continue What is the risk of declaring English the official language of the workplace? Why is it discriminatory? What other problems could it lead to?

Also, there have been movements toward eliminating bilingual ballots in federal elections. The American Elections Act of 2008 determined to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1964, which declares that voting ballots and other materials could be provided in languages other than English. Yet again, it was determined that this act clearly violated non-English speaking U.S. citizen’s civil rights, infringing on their right to vote under the 14th Amendment.25 It seems as if there is an abundance of laws and legislation that are aimed to create English as the official language in the United States. More often than not, these legislations soon die and are rejected due to the violation of civil rights. Another area where this debate continues is the education field. For many years, programs such as English as a Second Language (ESL) and Spanish for Heritage Speakers (SHS) have supported education for limited English proficiency persons. With many years of success, students have

24. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1588 25. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr5971

230

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

picked up the English language and become competent and productive members of society in the United States. Due to constant changes in state legislations and the tensions generated by the English Only movement, it is difficult to create these programs, but there are some success stories. After several years of research, Coles-Ritchie and Lugo (2010) were able to create a heritage learners program in their secondary school by using a top-down approach with district officials. To their benefit, some administrators were very supportive of their program and it is important to note that this may not always be true in different circumstances and that several factors will come into play. Coles-Ritchie and Lugo’s research showed how they were able to create a Spanish Heritage Speaker program with the main goal of helping heritage learners to be able to speak, read, and write in their native language. Their support stemmed from second-language acquisition theory, which states that developing a student’s reading and writing in their heritage language will increase their ability to read and write more proficiently in English. The English Plus movement has adamantly supported bilingual education. Lewelling (1997) declares, ‘‘The English Plus movement is based on the belief that all U.S. residents should have the opportunity to become proficient in English PLUS one or more other languages’’ (p. 2). Essentially, they support the education of citizens in English as well as another language such as Spanish. Similar to the study previously mentioned by Coles-Ritchie and Lugo (2010), English Plus considers, that in order to grasp a complete understanding of the English language, learners first need to understand their native language. As Lewelling (1997) indicates, ‘‘Successful bilingual education programs actually result in faster acquisition of English. Content matter taught in the native language can be transferred to the second language’’ (p. 4). In contrast, English Only supporters view bilingual education as a means to promote native languages with lack of emphasis on the English language, although successful bilingual education programs have been created with highly effective results. An additional sector that English Only and English Plus movements have an effect on is the community and public services. It is different from education in that not all limited English proficiency persons are seeking education or have already received an education in their native language. Yet again, the question arises if they are presented access to reasonable and affordable public services by the government to learn the English language. This has remained a hot topic in today’s United States. A recent study suggests that there can be many challenges to providing public services to linguistic minorities under English Only legislation. Aka and Deason (2011) strongly agree that English Only laws restrict limited English proficiency persons from having equal access to public goods and services. (p. 292)

Bilingualism in the United States

231

3.7. The Actual Growth of Spanish The growth of Spanish in the United States of America has reached an alltime high. The Spanish language continues to grow in numbers making the United States the second largest Spanish-speaking country in the world. The amount of Hispanics and Latinos are also on the rise consisting of 16 percent of the U.S. population and are expected to reach 24.4 percent by 2050 (U.S. Census 2010). There are several factors that contribute to the growth of Spanish in the United States and these factors will be analyzed in this section. As discussed before, the Spanish language and culture has been a part of American history since the beginnings of the United States. The term Hispanic was created to designate the Spanish as separate peoples, and this occurred at a time in history when many Latin American countries were fighting for their independence from Spain. The Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War took place in the following centuries and this ultimately helped to shape the relations between North and Latin Americans (Cervantes-Rodrı´ guez & Lutz, 2003). Acknowledging the United States history with the Spanish language helps gain a better understanding of how English and Spanish have interacted with one another throughout time. With the increase in number of Hispanic immigrants, Spanish is becoming more popular not only in conversation, but also in literature, public services, and entertainment. It does not take long to encounter the Spanish language in America; one simply can turn on the television or radio and hear the language being spoken. The goal of this section is to analyze the growth of the Spanish language in several areas of society within the United States. The areas of society discussed will include the following: 1. Geographical — the effect that a geographical location plays in the influence of the Spanish language 2. Organizational — the growth of businesses, legal services, and hospitals that offer services in the Spanish language 3. Educational — the growth of schools and educational programs that offer instruction in Spanish as a foreign language 4. Social — growth of Spanish in the area of entertainment, television, radio, and literature Pause, reflect, and continue How do you see this growing population influencing the culture and society of the United States? How do you see the United States in 40 years in regards to the linguistic and cultural composition?

232

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

An area of increasing importance in the United States is the political power that the Hispanic population has gained as it has continued to grow. Given the large numbers of Hispanics in certain key states, more and more politicians are attempting to gain the trust and vote of these individuals. An area of controversy in the political sector that could drastically alter the actual growth of Spanish is the debate over immigration laws. In recent years, illegal immigration has been at an all-time high, especially along the U.S.-Mexico border, which leaves many illegal aliens unaccounted for in the United States population. Another area that has an effect on the growth of Spanish in the United States are organizations. They can include, but are not limited to, local businesses, legal services, hospitals, and restaurants. It is common to observe Spanish being spoken in most of these areas in today’s world. One can simply drive down the street and see a billboard in Spanish or even a local business sign that says ‘‘Se habla espan˜ol.’’ By perusing the TV channels, one can encounter a multiplicity of programs that are offered exclusively in the Spanish language. It is also common for public facilities to offer services in Spanish as well as English. For example, when visiting a hospital it is not rare to see signs both in English and Spanish. Often doctors and nurses are taught the basics of medical Spanish in order to communicate with Hispanic patients. From the point of view of a medical professional, it is important to put patients at ease regardless of their ethnic background. With Hispanics making up the top minority in the United States, the chances of encountering a Spanish speaker are high. Veltman (1988) states that it is both practical and compassionate to offer services in their own language. Educational matters also play a big role in supporting the growth of Spanish. Most public schools throughout the United States begin Spanish education in primary schools as an elective. A program called Foreign Languages in the Elementary Schools teaches minority languages for 30 to 50 minutes a day about 3 to 4 times a week. Although only 25 percent of elementary schools in the United States offer this program, the majority of them teach the Spanish language (Potowski & Carreira, 2010). In most secondary and postsecondary public institutions, there is a foreign language requirement that has to be met in order to graduate and continue on to study at a university. Spanish has become the top choice of students when electing a foreign language and has become the most widely taught non-English language. Potowski and Carreira (2010) found that in 2000, 69 percent of high school foreign language students were studying Spanish. Additionally, heritage speaker and bilingual education programs have been developed to encourage proficiency in both English and Spanish for those students of Hispanic descent. Heritage speaker programs differ from that of foreign language programs in the type of students that are enrolled. Heritage

Bilingualism in the United States

233

speakers are students that have grown up around the Spanish language but lack reading and writing skills. On the other hand, bilingual programs have been introduced to students as young as primary school, and there have been great success rates. The most successful model is two-way education, in which students are taught 50% in English and 50% in Spanish. The program is at its most successful when carried out over a period of several years (Rennie, 1993).

Pause, reflect, and continue Do you agree with this author that the most successful programs are offered half the time in Spanish and half the time in English? What are the benefits of such programs? What are some of the challenges?

The social impact of the growth of Spanish in the United States of America can be observed in almost every state. Social influences can be observed via television, radio, literature and entertainment. Within the several past decades, Spanish television networks have grown in size, providing programs to millions throughout the United States, and Spanish radio stations that are no longer on AM radio but have expanded to the mainstream FM radio stations. Spanish literature has also made an introduction into entertainment magazines and books. The growth of Spanish television in the United States is more prominent than ever, with popular companies such as Telemundo, Galavision, and Univision. At one point, the fifth most popular network in the United States was actually in Spanish, Univision, based out of Los Angeles. Univision is the most prominent Spanish network in the United States and reaches about 92 percent of Hispanic families. Univision airs programs from Venezuela, Mexico, and other Latin American countries and is able to reach a wide variety of Spanish communities. What makes Spanish television unique is that it contains the typical programs that Hispanics have been accustomed to, such as telenovelas (soap operas), noticias (news), game shows, and sports (especially soccer). The cultural factors in Spanish television are extremely important to its viewers and are in key to the type of customers they hope to attract. Culture and customs greatly vary within Latin American countries; if the types of programs are not selected carefully according to the Spanish communities, it determines whether programs will fail or succeed. Spanish television is predicted to evolve into the digital world with increased specializations in targeting specific communities of Hispanics. It is evident that the growth and popularity of Spanish-language television reflects the changing demographics of the United States (Pavlik & Pavlik, 1998).

234

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

3.8. Important Cases 3.8.1.

Chicanos

The term Chicano/a is used to refer to the Mexican-American population and especially those who were born in the United States of Mexican parents. This term is often used to refer to all individuals of Mexican descent whether they were born here or in Mexico. The origin of this term is debated by many scholars and no conclusive determination has been made. Gonza´lez (1996) traces the roots of the use of the word Chicano to its earliest use in 1911. The presence of the Mexican communities in the United States is due in large part to the fact that the ‘‘massive territorial expansions of the 19th century absorbed several established Spanish speech communities’’ (Lipski, 2011, p. 253). According to Lipski (2011), the 1848 Mexican-American War incorporated all of the estimated 80,000 Spanish speakers into the expanding U.S. territory and gave rise to the popular saying among these Mexicans, ‘‘We didn’t cross the border; the border crossed us’’ (p. 253). This conquest resulted in a large increase in the number of Mexicans in the United States and the subsequent Mexican Revolution resulted in the first mass immigration to the United States that continues to this day. The Mexican origin population makes up large segments of the Southwest, but in recent years has been expanding to all parts of the United States, with some of the largest percentage growth being found in the southern part of the United States, including states such as Arkansas, Georgia, and the Carolinas. In spite of this growth, the bulk of the population can still be found along the border with Mexico in states such as Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. While some researchers state that this population speaks Spanglish (Stavans, 2000), others refute this notion and simply declare that the resultant Spanish from these groups is due to the Spanish language being in contact with English (Lipski, 2007).

Pause, reflect, and continue In your own words, how would you describe the linguistic situation of Chicanos in the United States?

3.8.1.1. Chicano Spanish in the United States Phonology and phonetics  Strong consonantization  Nasalization of vowels

Bilingualism in the United States      

235

Lack of aspiration of the /s/ Lack of velarization of the /n/ Aspiration or light pronunciation of the /x/ Diptongization of hiatus Instability in the weak vowels Intervocalic palatal /j/ is articulated with minimal constriction

Morphology    

Limited use of the subjunctive Preference of ser over estar in obligatory contexts Formation of calques from English with a Spanish pronunciation Formation of verbs for English words by adding-ear

Syntax  Intra- and intersentential code-switching  Syntactic extension of phrase and structures from English Lexicon elote (corn on the cob) padre (cool) camion (bus) chamba (work) chango (monkey) guajalote (turkey) Que´ onda? (How’s it going?) chulear (to complement someone) cacahuate (peanut) huarache (sandal) petaca (suitcase)

?

3.8.2.

Cubans

There has been a significant Cuban presence in the United States since the nineteenth century (Garcı´ a & Otheguy, 1988). However, as we discussed earlier, Fidel Castro’s rise to power in 1959 was the main factor that contributed to massive migration of Cubans to the United States. The first waves of immigrants consisted primarily of members of the middle- and upper-class who came escaping from Castro’s policy of wealth redistribution. Most were well educated and had work skills, which allowed them to settle relatively quickly in the Miami-Dade County area of Florida and

236

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

prosper. In the 1980s, however, a more recent wave of Cuban immigrants (the Marielitos) consisted of mostly poor, uneducated, and socially undesirable people that the Castro regime allowed to leave the Island nation. As a result, the Cuban population increased by 27 percent from the 1960s to the 1980s (Gynan, 1987, p. 178). Many of the Marielitos established in south Florida, but others headed North to New Jersey and New York. U.S. population of Cuban origin increased by 44 percent from 2000 to 2010, growing from 1.2 million to 1.8 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011b). Cubans make up roughly 4 percent of the total Hispanic population in the country and they are the largest Hispanic group in the state of Florida, with a population of 1.2 million. Other states with large concentrations of Cubans are California (88,607), New Jersey (83,362), New York (70,803), and Texas (46,541). In addition, 60.1 percent of Cubans are foreign born compared to 38.1 percent of Hispanics (Pew Hispanic Center, 2010). Thanks to the economic power that Cubans have achieved in southern Florida, Spanish enjoys a high prestige that it does not have in any other part of the United States (Bean & Tienda, 1987). Garcı´ a (1995) attributes this to the fact that Spanish speakers in this area, most of whom are Cuban-Americans, have a higher level of income and education, which makes the language less marked. In addition, she argues that CubanAmericans are more often considered white than other Hispanic groups, making it possible for Spanish speakers to push for equal treatment. Furthermore, due to the political situation that characterizes this Hispanic group in the United States, ‘‘the Anglo majority views these speakers of Spanish with less suspicion than those who still hold political allegiances to their homelands’’ (p. 155). This makes it possible for the majority to negotiate for treatment equality of these Spanish speakers.26 But perhaps the most important factor is the fact that Spanish in Dade County is the language of the most powerful companies owned by Spanish speakers in the United States, which also benefits the majority. The following facts help put Garcı´ a’s comments in perspective27:  24 percent of Cubans aged 25 and older have at least a bachelor’s degree (compared to 13 percent of all U.S. Hispanics).

26. Garcı´ a (1995) talks about ‘‘a dynamic cycle in which the language minority pushes for equality of treatment by emphasizing the decreased markedness of Spanish, the majority responds by entering the negotiation accepting the decreased foreignness of Spanish, the minority engages the majority in negotiation by focusing on the socioeconomic power of Spanish, and finally the minority continues to define Spanish as a resource for intraethnic communication’’ (pp. 155–56). 27. From the Pew Hispanic Center (2010).

Bilingualism in the United States

237

 The median annual personal income for Cubans ages 16 and older was $25,000 in 2010 (compared to $20,000 for all Hispanics).  The share of Cubans who live in poverty (18 percent) is below the 25 percent share among all Hispanics. Cuban-Americans have been often described as the greatest Spanish monolingual Hispanic group in the United States (Portes & Rumbaut, 1996). This is usually attributed to the visibility and vitality of the Spanish language in Miami-Dade County (where most Cubans and CubanAmericans are concentrated). Another contributing factor is the fact that Cubans are older than the overall U.S. Hispanic population, and many of them have been able to function for decades in communities where Spanish use is highly regarded. Nonetheless, the younger generations are shifting to English as their primary language (Ferna´ndez, 1987; Sole´, 1980, 1982; Sole´, 1987). This is something that Bean & Tienda (1987) predicted decades ago when they said that in this group ‘‘English will become the dominant language both within and outside the household’’ (p. 93).

Pause, reflect, and continue In your own words, how would you describe the linguistic situation of Cubans in the United States?

3.8.2.1. Cuban Spanish in the United States28 Cuban Spanish in the United States shares most of the features of Cuban Spanish in the homeland. It also shares many characteristics with other varieties of Caribbean Spanish. Some of these features vary sociolinguistically. Phonology and phonetics  Strong /y/ that tends to resist effacement; it is sometimes pronounced as the English j in phrase-initial position.  /x/ (the jota) is a weak aspiration ([h]) that is often elided.  /n/ in phrase-final and word-final prevocalic position is often velarized to [F] (as in English bang).

28. Adapted from Lipski (2008, pp. 111–113).

238

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

 Neutralization of phrase-final and word-final /l/ and /r/ (cormo for colmo and velde for verde).29  Gemination of preconsonantal /l/ and /r/ (vovvı´ for volvı´ and hatto for harto), primarily among Cubans from rural central provinces.  Syllable-final and word-final /s/ is aspirated ([h]) (cohta for costa); it is usually elided before a pause (Tu´ viene for Tu´ vienes). Morphology  Use of tu´ in contexts in which usted would be more commonly used.  Diminutives in -ico when there is a t in the stem of the word (pata W patica). Syntax

?

 Non-inversion of subject and verb in questions, as in Co´mo tu´ esta´s? (‘‘How are you?’’).  Use of ma´s in phrases like ma´s nada (‘‘nothing else’’), ma´s nadie (‘‘nobody else’’), and ma´s nunca (‘‘never again’’).  Lexical subjects before infinitives, especially after the preposition para, as in Mis padres trabajan mucho para yo poder ir a la universidad (‘‘My parents work a lot so I could go to college’’). Lexicon30 bitongo (wealthy and spoiled) biyaya (very smart) chucho (light switch) dar can˜ona (to play a dirty trick or to make a dangerous move while driving) de botella (for free) estar en la fua´cata (to be very poor or broke) fajarse (to fight) fotuto (automobile horn) fruta bomba (papaya) guajiro (peasant) jimaguas (twins)

29. Lipski (2008) says that the pronunciation of phrase-final /r/ as [l] is more characteristic of Cubans who arrived during and after the Mariel boatlift. He also says that more recent immigrants from the easternmost provinces have higher rates of /l/ and /r/ neutralization (pp. 111–112). 30. Adapted from Lipski (2008) and Martı´ nez (1999).

Bilingualism in the United States

239

ma´quina (automobile) n˜a´ngara (communist) pedir botella (to hitch hike) picudo (or picu´o) (pretentious) pillo (mischievous) 3.8.3.

Dominicans

Most like Cubans, Dominicans have lived in the United States since the nineteenth century. However, Dominican migration to this country did not take off until much later. In 1961, motivated by the assassination of General Trujillo (1891–1961) and the end of a dictatorship that lasted 31 years, the United States Consulate facilitated the acquisition of visas. The main goal was to prevent the Dominican Republic from following the steps of Cuba, and this political move promoted the migration of thousands of Dominicans. This migration peaked in the 1970s, when the country was in poor economic conditions, and it continued steadily in the 1980s. Most of these Dominicans were from small, rural areas in the Cibao region and from the lower middle class of Santo Domingo and Santiago. Dominican migration has reached unprecedented numbers in recent decades, and the demographics of the migrant population have changed dramatically. For instance, the Migration Policy Institute (2004) reports that an average of 20,000 permanent immigrants were admitted each year between 1998 and 2000 (p. 1). In the same period, over 200,000 temporary immigrants were admitted each year.31 Over 40 percent of all foreign born Dominicans in the United States arrived between 1990 and 2000, period in which the Dominican population grew by 89 percent. Most Dominicans have settled in New York (674,787), in the Washington Heights area of Manhattan’s Upper West Side and in the Bronx County. The state with the second largest concentration of Dominicans is New Jersey (197,922), followed by Florida (172,451). Other states in the Northeast with large concentrations of Dominicans are Massachusetts (103,292) and Pennsylvania (62,348). Many Dominicans live in homogeneous neighborhoods, duplicating the settlement patterns of Puerto Ricans and other Hispanic groups (Lipski, 2008, p. 135). In addition, many of them go back and forth between the United States and the Dominican Republic, and their influence on the economy and cultural life of the Dominican Republic is quite substantial.

31. The report also says that about 109,000 Dominican foreign born in the U.S. are undocumented (p. 1).

240

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

According to the 2010 census, the Dominican population is one of three of Hispanic origin that surpassed the one million mark since 2000, with 1.4 million.32 Of all Dominicans ages 25 and older, 15 percent have obtained at least a bachelor’s degree. This number is higher than the number for the overall Hispanic population (13 percent). Also, the median annual personal income for Dominicans ages 16 and older was $20,000 in 2010. This is the same as the earnings of all Hispanics combined. The share of Dominicans who live in poverty is also similar to that of all Hispanics: 26 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Until recently, the number of studies focusing on the sociological and linguistic aspects of the Dominican diaspora in the United States had been extremely limited (see, for example, Garcı´ a, Evangelista, Martı´ nez, Disla, & Paulino, 1988). This had to do, in part, with the fact that Dominicans used to be grouped with other Hispanic/Latino groups and that they did not become a numerically powerful population until the 1980s. This has changed and the number of studies has grown exponentially in relation to the growth of this population (Bailey, 2002; Garcı´ a & Otheguy, 1997; Toribio, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006). There is evidence that, like most Hispanic origin groups, Dominicans incorporate linguistic features that reveal rapid dialect leveling and absorption of English words and phrases (Lipski, 2008, p. 138).

Pause, reflect, and continue In your own words, how would you describe the linguistic situation of Dominicans in the United States?

3.8.3.1. Dominican Spanish in the United States33 The features of Dominican Spanish in the United States are similar to those of Dominican Spanish in the Dominican Republic.34 Also, like Cuban Spanish, Dominican Spanish has many of the features that characterize other varieties of Caribbean Spanish.

32. The Salvadoran and Guatemalan populations are the other two, with 1.6 million and 1 million, respectively. 33. Adapted from Lipski (2008, pp. 136–138). 34. The Dominican Republic can be divided into three (Lipski, 2008, p. 136) or four (Canfield, 1981, p. 47) dialectal zones.

Bilingualism in the United States

241

Phonology and phonetics  Strong /y/ that is often pronounced as the English j in phrase-initial position.  /x/ (the jota) is a weak aspiration ([h]).  /n/ in phrase-final and word-final prevocalic position is often velarized to [F] (as in English bang).  Neutralization of phrase-final and word-final /l/ and /r/ (cormo for colmo and velde for verde); /r/ is more frequently affected; in nearly the entire northern part of the country, vocalization occurs at the vernacular level (aigo for algo and caine for carne).  Elision of intervocalic /d/, especially in the suffix -ado (cansao for cansado).  Syllable-final and word-final /s/ is aspirated ([h]) and frequently elided (ehta´ or eta´ for esta´). Morphology  Plurals formed with se instead of s (muje´rese for mujeres). Syntax

?

 Non-inversion of subject and verb in questions, as in Co´mo tu´ esta´s? (‘‘How are you?’’).  Lexical subjects before infinitives, as in Despue´s de yo terminar, y (‘‘After I finish,y’’).  Redundant subject pronouns, as in Si tu´ lo haces, tu´ te vas a beneficiar (‘‘If you do it, you will benefit from it’’).  Use of ello in structures that do not have a subject, as in Ello hay pan caliente (‘‘There is hot bread’’).  Reduplication of no in postposed position, as in Yo no tengo hambre no (‘‘I am not hungry’’). Lexicon35,36 buen(a) mozo(a) (good looking, attractive) busu´ (bad luck) can (party) fucu´ (bad luck or evil spirit)

35. Adapted from Lipski (2008) and Martı´ nez (1999). 36. Dominicans and Puerto Ricans share several terms like china (orange), guagua (bus), habichuela (bean), and mofongo (dish with mashed plantains).

242

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

guandul (pigeon pea) mangu´ (dish made with mashed plantains) man˜e´ (Haitian-derogatory) tutumpote (rich, powerful individual) vı´veres (grocery store) 3.8.4.

Puerto Ricans

Soon after Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States after the SpanishAmerican war of 1898, Puerto Ricans began to migrate to the mainland. In the first decades of the twentieth century, Puerto Ricans could be found in different parts New York City, especially in East Harlem and in the Lower East Side.37 They came looking for better job opportunities, and most of them worked in the garment and cigar industries. Others went to Hawaii, attracted by the opportunity to work in sugar cane fields. However, Puerto Rican migration did not take off until the latter years of World War II. The economic situation of the Island had improved slightly thanks to the industrialization stimulated by the U.S. government, but the cost of living increased as well, and that motivated many Puerto Ricans to move to the mainland. There was high demand of unskilled workers in the growing garment industry and in farms, and many Puerto Ricans responded to the recruitment efforts. The population grew, and soon they found themselves living in declining areas within industrialized cities of the Northeast. They experienced severe discrimination and economic hardship, and suffered from crude racial and linguistic prejudice, which pushed them to live concentrated in neighborhoods like El Barrio (Spanish Harlem). As reported earlier, Puerto Ricans are the second largest Hispanic origin group in the United States. In fact, there are more Puerto Ricans living in the mainland than in the homeland. Most still live in New York, where there are 1,070,558 Puerto Ricans. Florida is the state with the second largest concentration of this population (847,550). It grew significantly in the last few decades and Florida is now the preferred destination of Puerto Ricans coming from the Island (Duany & Matos-Rodrı´ guez, 2006; Lamboy, 2011). In third place is New Jersey, with 434,092 Puerto Ricans, followed by Pennsylvania (366,082) and Massachusetts (266,125). The majority of Puerto Ricans living in the United States (3.2 million) were born in the mainland whereas one third (1.4 million) were born in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans born in the homeland are also considered native

37. Interestingly, the Lower East Side is known as Loisaida, a name that resembles the way in which many Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics with limited English proficiency used to call this Manhattan neighborhood.

Bilingualism in the United States

243

born because they are U.S. citizens by birth. Of all Puerto Ricans 25 and older, 16 percent have at least a bachelor’s degree, 3 percent more than all Hispanics combined. On the other hand, the median annual personal earnings for Puerto Ricans ages 16 and older were $25,000 in 2010. Finally, the share of Puerto Ricans who live in poverty (27 percent) is higher than the share of all Hispanics (25 percent). The linguistic situation of Puerto Ricans in the United States has been amply studied. Scholars have documented a fluid status hierarchy due to the lack of a well-established elite that can point to an ‘‘ancient and honorable’’ Puerto Rican past in the city (Hayden, 1966), a high probability of Spanish language regeneration among Puerto Rican adults (Garcı´ a et al, 1988; Pedraza, 1985; Zentella, 1982), code-switching (Poplack, 1980), and identification as Puerto Ricans regardless of language choice (Zentella, 1990). More recent studies have focused on bilingual discourse markers (Torres, 2002), generational differences (Lamboy, 2004), subject pronouns (Flores-Ferra´n, 2004), and MexiRicans (Potowski & Matts, 2008), among other things.

Pause, reflect, and continue In your own words, how would you describe the linguistic situation of Puerto Ricans in the United States?

3.8.4.1. Puerto Rican Spanish in the United States38 Puerto Rican Spanish in the United States has many of the features of Puerto Rican Spanish in the mainland, but it also has a lot of lexical and syntactic influences from English. It also shares many of the linguistic features of Cuban and Dominican Spanish. Phonology and phonetics  /y/ is often pronounced as the English j in word-initial and phrase-initial position.  /x/ (the jota) is a weak aspiration ([h]).  /n/ in phrase-final and word-final prevocalic position is often velarized to [F] (as in English bang).  Neutralization of syllable-final /l/ and /r/ (cormo for colmo and velde for verde), especially the change of /r/ to [l]; it is highly stigmatized.

38. Adapted from Lipski (2008, pp. 123–126).

244

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

 Intervocalic /d/ is weak, and it is often elided in the suffix -ado (cansao for cansado).  Syllable-final and word-final /s/ is aspirated ([h]) or elided (ehta´ or eta´ for esta´).  A velarized trill /r/ that sounds like the Spanish jota or the French uvular /R/ (caRo for carro and Ra´pido for ra´pido); it is more common among people from the interior highlands and the western part of the island.  /t / (represented by the digraph ch) is often pronounced [ ] (as in English shake). Syntax

?

 Non-inversion of subject and verb in questions, as in Co´mo tu´ esta´s? (‘‘How are you?’’).  Lexical subjects before infinitives, especially after para, as in Para yo hacer eso tengo que estar loca (‘‘I have to be crazy to do that’’).  Retention of subject personal pronouns, especially yo, tu´, and usted.  Evolving use of the subjunctive (the indicative-subjunctive distinction is maintained, though).  Syntactic calquing and loan translations due to English influence, as in llamar para atra´s/pa’tra´s (‘‘to call back’’), Co´mo te gusto´y? (‘‘How did you likey?’’), and saber co´mo + infinitive (‘‘to know how to + infinitive’’).

?

Lexicon39 ¡Ay, bendito! (Oh, goodness!) chavos (money) chiringa (kite) escrachao (ruined or broken) gufear (to goof around) janguear (to hang out) mahones (jeans) motora (motorcycle) pantallas (earrings) pastel (meat patty made with crushed plantains) picho´n (bird) tapo´n (traffic jam) zafaco´n (waste basket or trash can)

39. Adapted from Lipski (2008) and Martı´ nez (1999).

Bilingualism in the United States 3.8.5.

245

Central Americans

Central Americans have continually increased in number over the last decade. In the 2000 census, they made up roughly 5 percent of the Hispanic population and in the 2010 census they had increased 137 percent to almost 8 percent of the Hispanic population. This increase was one of the largest of any of the Hispanic groups over the last decade. The majority of the Central Americans come from El Salvador (1,648,968) and then Guatemala (1,044,209), with smaller numbers from Honduras (633,401), Nicaragua (348,202), Panama (165,456), and Costa Rica (126,418). The two groups that showed the largest growth were the Hondurans, at over 190 percent increase from the last census, and the Guatemalans, with a growth of over 180 percent. This large increase is due in large part to some of the instability in many of the Central American countries and the struggling economies in many regions. However, even more of a factor in the growth of the Central American population has resulted from the fact that the familial units that arrived in the 1980s and established themselves have reached out to their relatives, and this has resulted in the growth of communities where large concentrations from these countries reside (Lipski, 2008).

Pause, reflect, and continue Do some research in order to explain why migration from certain Central American countries to the United States has been so limited and why other countries have large populations representing them in the United States.

The Spanish spoken in Central America shows significant variation in all linguistic aspects, and speakers of these varieties of Spanish in the United States also show this variation. In spite of the large variation that can be found among the Central Americans, they do vary less than the South American region due mainly to the more limited geographical size and the fact that certain areas were largely populated by the Spanish and mestizo population after the extermination of most of the indigenous population. In the northern part of Central America, the native population has affected the Spanish spoken in these regions, thus resulting in greater variation than in other areas of Central America. Lipski (2008) states that this variation in speech is due in large part to the economic disparities between regions and between the rural and urban communities. He goes on to declare that Central America is one of the regions that remains the least studied by

246

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

linguists, and only recently has there been an increase in studies of speakers of this region. Some of the linguistic variations are given below. Phonology and phonetics40  /x/ (the jota) has a weak pronunciation in most people from Central America, with some speakers aspirating ([h]) this sound.  Yeı´ smo (merge of /l/ and /y/) in all speakers from Central American countries.  Weak pronunciation of the /y/ in contact with the /i/ and the /e/ in most Central American countries. The /y/ often disappears in such words as milla (‘mile’).  /n/ in phrase-final and word-final prevocalic position is often velarized to [F] (as in English ping) in the majority of speakers from Central America.  Preference for the fricative /r/ in speakers from Costa Rica and Guatemala. This /r/ is similar to the pronunciation of the /r/ in the United States and sounds like the /s/ in measure.  Syllable-final and word-final /s/ is aspirated ([h]) or elided (ehta´ or eta´ for esta´) in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Panama, as well as in the coastal regions bordering the Caribbean in all of Central America. Morphology  In Costa Rican Spanish, the diminutive form in -ico is so common that Costa Ricans have received the nickname Ticos based on their frequent use of the diminutive.41 Syntax  Voseo42 (use of the pronoun vos instead of or along with the second person singular pronoun tu´). As in certain regions of South America, pronominal voseo is also found in Central America. In other cases, tu´ is used with the vos verb forms (verbal voseo).

40. Many of these characteristics come from the work of John Lipski (2008), Varieties of Spanish in the United States. 41. This use of the diminutive is found among speakers from other Central American countries, but not to the same degree as in Costa Rica. 42. While the voseo is used extensively in Central America, its use has been found to diminish amongst speakers of the Central American variety of Spanish after a period of time in the United States.

Bilingualism in the United States

247

Lexicon43 The following words are ones that are found among speakers from the main countries represented in the United States. andar (to carry on one’s person) barrilete (kite) bayunco (clumsy, worthless) bolo (drunk) chele (blond, fair-skinned) chucho (dog) cipote (small child) guaro (liquor) pisto (money)

Pause, reflect, and continue Take another look at the list of words above. What are some of the semantic domains that foster the use of more localized words?

3.8.6.

South Americans

Considered as a group, South Americans constitute roughly 6 percent of the entire Hispanic population of the United States. Of those, Colombians are the most widely represented Hispanic origin group, with close to a million (972,334). They have the highest level of educational attainment of all Hispanics ages 25 and older: 32 percent of them have at least a bachelor’s degree compared to 13 percent of all Hispanics living in the United States. Also, the median earnings for Colombians ages 16 and older were $25,000 in 2010 whereas those for all Hispanics were $20,000. In addition, compared to the share of the U.S. population and the general Hispanic population that lives in poverty in this country (15 percent and 25 percent, respectively), Colombians are doing better with just 13 percent. Other Hispanic origin groups from South America that are well represented in the United States are Ecuadorians (664,781), Peruvians (609,360), Argentineans (239,509), and Venezuelans (238,779). The Chilean (139,480), Bolivian (112,028), Uruguayan (63,784), and Paraguayan (21,301) populations

43. See Lipski (2008) for additional examples.

248

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

are significantly less represented, especially when compared to the Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Salvadoran, Dominican, and Guatemalan populations.

Pause, reflect, and continue Do some research in order to explain why migration from certain South American countries to the United States has been so limited.

The Spanish spoken in South America shows significant variation in all linguistic aspects, and speakers of these varieties of Spanish in the United States also show this variation. In the previous chapter, for instance, we discussed some of the linguistic features of bilinguals who speak Spanish and an indigenous language like Quechua/Quichua. The following list provides a general idea of some of the most salient features that characterize the Spanish used by Hispanics from South America in the United States.44 Phonology and phonetics  /x/ (the jota) is a weak aspiration ([h]) in some countries (Venezuela) and in some regions (Atlantic coast of Argentina, southern Chile, central and Caribbean coastal Colombia, and central coast and Amazonian lowlands of Peru)  Yeı´ smo (merge of /l/ and /y/) in most countries, except in Bolivia, in rural areas of southern Chile, in Northeast Argentina, in the Colombian and Peruvian Andes, in the extreme north-central region of Ecuador, and in Paraguay.  In Buenos Aires and in the southern coast of Argentina, /y/ is pronounced as the s in the English word measure (known as zheı´smo) or, less frequently, as the sh in ship (known as sheı´smo).  Syllable-final and word-final /s/ is aspirated ([h]) or elided (ehta´ or eta´ for esta´) in Argentina, Bolivia (in the lowland llanos), Chile, coastal Colombia, coastal Ecuador, Paraguay, central coast and Amazonian lowlands of Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.45  Intervocalic /d/ is weak, and it is often elided in the suffix -ado (cansao for cansado) in Bolivia (altiplano highlands), Chile, Colombia (Caribbean coast), coastal Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

44. Adapted from Lipski (1994). 45. In the central highlands of Colombia, aspiration of /s/ occurs in word-initial position (nojotros for nosotros).

Bilingualism in the United States

249

 /n/ in phrase-final and word-final prevocalic position is often velarized to [F] (as in English bang) in coastal Colombia, Ecuador (coast and central highlands), Andean Peru, and Venezuela.  Neutralization of syllable- and word-final /l/ and /r/ is common in Chile and Colombia (Caribbean coast).  Assibilation of phrase-final /r/ in Northwest Argentina, Bolivia (altiplano highlands), Chile, and Andean Peru.  Assibilation of /rr/ in Bolivia (altiplano highlands), Ecuador (central highlands), and Andean Peru.  In Colombian Spanish (except among Colombians from the Narin˜o region) and in Andean Venezuela, /b/, /d/, and /g/ are pronounced as plosives and not as fricatives, mostly after consonants ([pelig o] instead of [peli o] and [dezde] instead of [dezje]). Morphology  In Colombian and Venezuelan Spanish, the diminutive form in -ico is common when there is a t in the stem of the word (pata W patica).  In Colombian Spanish, diminutives can be added to verbs in the gerund form (corriendito), prepositional phrases (juntico), and adverbs (ahorita). There are also cases of double diminutives (ahoritica). Syntax  Voseo (use of the pronoun vos instead of or along with the second person singular pronoun tu´), with extreme regional and sociolinguistic variation, in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia (Cauca Valley and Paisa region), Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela (in Zulia and in some parts of Falco´n and Trujillo). In some cases, vos is used with its corresponding verb forms (vos canta´s/bebe´s/vivı´s, vos canta´is/bebe´is/vivı´s, or a combination of different forms). This is known as pronominal voseo. In other cases, tu´ is used with the vos verb forms (verbal voseo).46  In Bogota´, Colombia: use of usted with friends and family members.  In Andean Spanish there is loı´smo (use of lo as an indirect object pronoun), as in Lo dicen adio´s (‘‘They tell him/her goodbye’’); doubling of direct object, with lo as the most frequently used pronoun, as in Yo lo conseguı´ la caja (‘‘I got the box’’); and use of possessives and de phrases to indicate possession, as in su libro de e´l (‘‘his book’’).

46. See De Jonge and Nieuwenhuijsen (2012) for a detailed discussion of voseo and other forms of address in Spanish.

250

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

 Leı´smo (use of le as a direct object pronoun), as in Le amo mucho (a e´l) (‘‘I love him a lot’’) in Ecuador and Paraguay.  Use of overt subjects with infinitives in Venezuela.

Lexicon aporrear (to fall – Colombia) arrecharse (to get angry – Venezuela) bau´l (car trunk – Argentina) berraco (awesome – Colombia) berraquera (the greatest thing – Colombia) cambur (banana – Venezuela) caraotas (black beans – Venezuela) catire(a) (fair-skinned and fair-haired – Venezuela) chamo(a) (boy/girl – Venezuela) chimbo (evil spell – Ecuador) choclo (corn on the cob – Peru) chompa (sweater – Peru) chun˜o (dessicated frozen potato – Bolivia) corotos (belongings – Venezuela) emputado (very angry – Colombia) frutilla (strawberry – Argentina and Chile) gafo (stupid – Venezuela) guagua (baby, small child – Chile and Ecuador) jachu (police officer – Bolivia) jojoto (corn on the cob – Venezuela) mariconadas (joke around – Colombia) mojonero (liar – Venezuela) pibe (boy – Argentina) pisco (brandy made with grapes – Peru) pollera (skirt – Argentina) poroto (bean – Argentina and Chile) poto (buttocks – Chile) remera (t-shirt – Argentina)

Pause, reflect, and continue Take another look at the list of words above. What are some of the semantic domains that foster the use of more localized words?

Bilingualism in the United States

251

References Acun˜a, R. (1988). Occupied America: The history of Chicanos. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Aka, P., & Deason, L. (2011). Culturally and linguistically competent public services in an era of English-Only laws. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(5), 291–306. Bailey, B. (2002). Language, race, and negotiation of identity: A study of Dominican Americans. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C., & Prys Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, K., & de Kanter, A. A. (1981). Effectiveness of bilingual education: A review of literature. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation. Baker, K., & de Kanter, A. A. (1983). Bilingual education: A reappraisal of federal policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press. Bean, F. D., & Tienda, M. (1987). The Hispanic population of the United States. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Boswell, T. D. (2000). Cuban Americans. In J. O. McKee (Ed.), Ethnicity in contemporary America: A geographical appraisal (2nd ed., pp. 139–180). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Carreira, M. (2003). Profiles of SNS students in the twenty-first century. Pedagogical implications of the changing demographics and social status of U.S. Hispanics. In A. Roca & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States (pp. 51–77). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Centro de Estudios Econo´micos y Demogra´ficos. (1981). Dina´mica de la poblacio´n de Me´xico (2nd ed.). Mexico: El Colegio de Me´xico. Cervantes-Rodrı´ guez, A. M., & Lutz, A. (2003). Coloniality of power, immigration, and the English-Spanish asymmetry in the United States. Nepantla: Views from the South, 4(3), 523–560. Coles-Ritchie, M., & Lugo, J. (2010). Implementing a Spanish for heritage speakers course in an English-only state: A collaborative critical teacher action research study. Educational Action Research, 18(2), 197–212. Colombi, M. C. (2003). Un enfoque funcional para la ensen˜anza del ensayo expositivo. In A. Roca & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States (pp. 78–95). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185–209. Cordasco, F. (1976). Bilingual schooling in the United States: A sourcebook for education personnel. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services.

252

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Crawford, J. (1998). Anatomy of the English-Only movement: Social and ideological sources of language restrictionism in the United States. In D. A. Kibbee (Ed.), Language legislation and linguistic rights (pp. 96–141). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. De Jonge, B., & Nieuwenhuijsen, D. (2012). Forms of address. In J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea & E. O’Rourke (Eds.), The handbook of Hispanic linguistics (pp. 247– 262). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Del Valle, S. (2003). Language rights and the law in the United States. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Duany, J., & Matos-Rodrı´ guez, F. V. (2006). Puerto ricans in orlando and central Florida. Policy Report 1, No. 1. New York, NY: Centro de Estudios Puertorriquen˜os, Hunter College, CUNY. English as an Additional Language Association of Wales (EALAW). (2003). The achievement of ethnic minority pupils in Wales. An EALAW research report for the Welsh Assembly Government. Retrieved from http://www.learn-ict.org.uk/ projects/inclusion/swansea_inc/handbook/wag_docs/EALAW_The_Achievment_ of_Ethnic_Minority_Pupils_in_Wales.pdf?vm¼r Ferna´ndez, M. (1987). Spanish language use among Cuban Americans of the first and second generation in West New York. [Unpublished dissertation]. The City College of New York, School of Education, New York, NY. Ferna´ndez, R. (1981). Teaching the bilingual student: What works and what doesn’t. In G. Valde´s, A. G. Lozano & R. Garcı´ a-Moya (Eds.), Teaching Spanish to the Hispanic bilingual: Issues, aims, and methods (pp. 100–105). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fishman, J. (2001). 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States. In J. Peyton, D. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 81–97). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Publishing Co. Fishman, J. A. (1976). Bilingual education. An international sociological perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Flores-Ferra´n, N. (2004). Spanish subject personal pronoun use in New York City Puerto Ricans: Can we rest the case for English contact? Language Variation and Change, 16, 49–73. Ga´ndara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Garcı´ a, O. (1995). Spanish language loss as a determinant of income among Latinos in the United States: Implications for language policy in schools. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp. 142–160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Garcı´ a, O., Evangelista, I., Martı´ nez, M., Disla, C., & Paulino, B. (1988). Spanish language use and attitudes: A study of two New York City communities. Language in Society, 17, 475–511.

Bilingualism in the United States

253

Garcı´ a, O., & Otheguy, R. (1988). The language situation of Cuban Americans. In S. L. McKay & S. C. Wong (Eds.), Language diversity: Problem or resource? A social and educational perspective on language minorities in the United States (pp. 166–192). New York, NY: Newbury House. Garcı´ a, O., & Otheguy, R. (1997). No so´lo de esta´ndar vive el aula: Lo que nos ensen˜o´ la educacio´n bilingu¨e sobre el espan˜ol de Nueva York. In M. C. Colombi & F. X. Alarco´n (Eds.), La ensen˜anza del espan˜ol a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teorı´a (pp. 156–174). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Garcia, M., & Torres-Ayala, V. (1991). Immersion for native speakers – the UCLAGuadalajara program. Hispania, 74(2), 439–445. Gascoigne-Lally, C. (2000). The effect of keyboarding on the acquisition of diacritical marks in the foreign language classroom. The French Review, 73, 899–907. Giles, H., & Byrne, J. (1982). An inter-group approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multicultural and Multilingual Development, 3, 17–40. Gonza´lez, F. (1996). Spanish loanwords in the English language. A tendency towards hegemony reversal. Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter. Gonza´lez Pino, B., & Pino, F. (2000). Serving the heritage speaker across a five-year program. ADFL Bulletin, 32(1). Gutierrez, J. (1997). Teaching Spanish as a heritage language: A case for language awareness. ADFL Bulletin, 29(1), 33–36. Gynan, S. N. (1987). La nueva polı´ tica en los Estados Unidos: Propo´sitos y motivos. In T. A. Morgan, J. F. Lee & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Language and language use: Studies in Spanish (pp. 175–193). New York, NY: University Press of America. Halliday, M. (1994). Introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Hastedt, G. (2004). Encyclopedia of American foreign policy. New York, NY: Facts on File. Hayakawa, S., & Hayakawa, A. (1990). Language in thought and action (5th ed). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hayden, R. G. (1966). Some community dynamics of language maintenance. In J. A. Fishman, V. C. Nahirny, J. E. Hoffman & R. G. Hayden (Eds.), Language loyalty in the United States (pp. 190–205). The Hague, NL: Mouton. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analysis of students response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 287–308. Herna´ndez, J. (1994). Hispanics blend diversity. In N. Kanellos, F. M. Padilla & C. Esteva Fabregat (Eds.), Handbook of Hispanic cultures in the United States: Sociology (pp. 17–34). Houston, TX: Arte Pu´blico. Hidalgo, M. (1993). The teaching of Spanish to bilingual Spanish-speakers: A ‘problem’ of inequality. In B. Merino, H. T. Trueba & F. A. Samaniego (Eds.), Language and culture in learning: Teaching Spanish to native speakers of Spanish (pp. 82–93). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc. Hornberger, N. H. (1991). Extending enrichment bilingual education: Revisiting typologies and redirecting policy. In O. Garcı´ a (Ed.), Bilingual education:

254

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

Focusschrift in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman (Vol. 1), pp. 215–234). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Huntington, S. (2004, March 1). The Hispanic challenge. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/03/01/the_hispanic_challenge?page ¼ 0,0 King, R. D. (1997, April). Should English be the law? The Atlantic Online, 279(4). Retrieved from www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97apr/english.htm Kirschner, C. (1984). Style-shifting and the Spanish-English bilingual. Hispanic Linguistics, 1(2), 273–282. Lamboy, E. M. (2004). Caribbean Spanish in the metropolis: Spanish language among Cubans, Dominicans, and Puerto Ricans in the New York City area. New York, NY: Routledge. Lamboy, E. M. (2011). Language, Puerto Ricanness, and the new wave of Puerto Rican immigrants. In A. Corta´zar & R. Orozco (Eds.), Lenguaje, arte y revoluciones ayer y hoy: New approaches to Hispanic linguistic, literary, and cultural studies (pp. 140–161). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lewelling, V. (1997). Official English and English Plus: An update. ERIC http:// eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED406849.pdf Lewelling, V., & Peyton, J. (1999). Spanish for native speakers: Developing dual language proficiency [Abstract]. Eric Digest, 1–5. Retrieved December 9, 1999, from http://www.cal.org/public/heritage.htm Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent. New York, NY: Routledge. Lipski, J. (2007). Spanish, English, or Spanglish? Truth and consequences of U.S. Latino bilingualism. In N. Echa´vez-Solano & K. C. Dworkin y Me´ndez (Eds.), Spanish and empire (pp. 197–218). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Lipski, J. (2011). English and Spanish in the United States: Language and immigration. In J. Otero Roth & P. Powell-Douglas (Eds.), Word for word: The social, economic and political impact of Spanish and English (pp. 251–255). Madrid, ES: Santillana. Lopez, M. H., & Dockterman, D. (2011, May 26). U.S. Hispanic country of origin counts for nation, top 30 metropolitan areas. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/05/26/us-hispanic-country-of-origin-countsfor-nation-top-30-metropolitan-areas/ Lozano, A. G. (1981). Teaching standard versus non-standard Spanish. In R. St. Clair, G. Valde´s & J. Ornstein-Galicia (Eds.), Social and educational issues in bilingualism and biculturalism (pp. 93–101). Washington, DC: University Press of America, Inc. Lynch, A. (2003). Toward a theory of heritage language acquisition. Spanish in the United States. In A. Roca & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States (pp. 25–50). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Mackey, W. F. (1970). A typology of bilingual education. Foreign Language Annals, 3, 596–608. Marrone, N. (1981). Espan˜ol para el hispano: Un enfoque sociolingu¨ı´ stico. In G. Valde´s, A. G. Lozano & R. Garcı´ a-Moya (Eds.), Teaching Spanish to the Hispanic bilingual (pp. 69–80). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bilingualism in the United States

255

Martin, J. (1984). Language, register and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Language studies: Children writing reader. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Martı´ nez, A. (Ed.) (1999). Multicultural Spanish dictionary. Rockville, MD: Schreiber. Martinez, G. (2003). Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1). Retrieved April 12, 2012 from http://www.international.ucla.edu/languages/ heritagelanguages/journal/article.asp?parentid ¼ 3621 Merino, B., & Samaniego, F. A. (1993). Language acquisition theory and classroom practices in the teaching of Spanish to the native Spanish speaker. In B. Merino, H. T. Trueba & F. A. Samaniego (Eds.), Language and culture in learning: Teaching Spanish to native speakers of Spanish (pp. 115–123). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc. Migration Policy Institute. (2004, September). The Dominican population in the United States: Growth and distribution. Retrieved from www.migrationpolicy. org/pubs/MPI_Report_Dominican_Pop_US.pdf Moore, J. W., & Cuellar, A. (1970). Mexican Americans. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mora, M., & Da´vila, A. (2002). State English-only policies and English-language investments. Applied Economics, 34, 905–915. Motel, S. (2012). Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2010. (2012, February 21). Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from www.pewhispanic.org/2012/ 02/21/statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-in-the-united-states-2010/ Motel, S., & Patten, E. (2012, June 27). The 10 largest Hispanic origin groups: Characteristics, ranking, top counties. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/06/27/the-10-largest-hispanic-origin-groupscharacteristics-rankings-top-counties/ Nadal Oller, J. (1976). La poblacio´n espan˜ola: Siglos XVI a XX (4th ed). Barcelona, ES: Ariel, Espluguews de Llobregat. New, E. (1999). Computer-aided writing in French as a foreign language: A qualitative and quantitative look at the process of revision. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 81–97. Nieto, D. (2009). A brief history of bilingual education in the United States. Perspectives on Urban Education, 6(1), 61–72. Retrieved from www.urbanedjour nal.org/sites/urbanedjournal.org/files/pdf_archive/61-72–Nieto.pdf. Padilla, F. M. (1985). Americans and Puerto Ricans in Chicago. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Passel, J., & Cohn, D. (2008, February 11). U.S. population projections: 2005-2050. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/02/11/ us-population-projections-2005-2050/ Passel, J., Cohn, D., & Lopez, M. H. (2011, March 24). Census 2010: 50 million Latinos: Hispanics account for more than half of nation’s growth in past decade. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/03/24/ hispanics-account-for-more-than-half-of-nations-growth-in-past-decade/ Passel, J., Livingston, G., & Cohn, D. (2012, May 17). Explaining why minority births now outnumber white births. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://

256

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-out number-white-births/ Pavlik, J. V., & Pavlik, J. O. (1998). It’s booming: Spanish-language TV in the USA. Television Quarterly, 29(4), 18–23. Peale, C. G. (1991). Spanish for native speakers (and other ‘‘native languages’’) in California’s schools: A rationale statement. Hispania, 74, 446–451. Pedraza, P. (1985). Language maintenance among New York Puerto Ricans. In L. Elı´ as-Olivares, E. A. Leone, R. Cisneros & J. R. Gutie´rrez (Eds.), Spanish language use and public life in the USA (pp. 59–71). Berlin, DE: Mouton. Pew Hispanic Center. (2010, April 22). Hispanics of Cuban origin in the United States, 2008. Retrieved from pewhispannic.org/files/factsheets/60.pdf Piatt, B. (1990). Only English? Law and language policy in the United States. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Pino, C. (1997). Teaching Spanish to Native Speakers: A New Perspective in the 1990’s [Abstract]. ERIC/CLL News Bulletin, Article 2, 1–4. Retrieved January 12, 1999, from http://www.cal.org/heritage Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en espan˜ol: Towards a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Schauffler, R. (1994). Language and the second generation: Bilingualism yesterday and today. International Migration Review, 28, 640–661. Potowski, K., & Matts, J. (2008). MexiRicans. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 7, 137–160. Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439–469. Ramat, A. (1995). Code-switching in the context of dialect/standard language relations. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages: Crossdisciplinary perspectives on code-switching (pp. 45–67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Schmidt, R. (2000). Language policy and identity politics in the United States. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Schwartz, A. (2003). No me suena. Heritage Spanish speakers writing strategies. In A. Roca & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States (pp. 235–256). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Silva-Corvala´n, C. (2001). Sociolingu¨ı´stica y pragma´tica del espan˜ol. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Sole´, C. (1980). Language usage patterns among a young generation of CubanAmericans. In J. E. Blansitt & R. Teschner (Eds.), Festschrift for Jacob Ornstein (pp. 274–281). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Sole´, C. (1982). Language loyalty and language attitudes among Cuban-Americans. In J. A. Fishman & G. Keller (Eds.), Bilingual education for Hispanic students in the United States (pp. 254–268). New York, NY: Columbia University Teachers College Press.

Bilingualism in the United States

257

Sole´, Y. (1981). Consideraciones pedago´gicas en la ensen˜anza del espan˜ol a estudiantes bilingu¨es. In G. Valde´s, A. G. Lozano & R. Garcı´ a-Moya (Eds.), Teaching Spanish to the Hispanic bilingual (pp. 21–29). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sole´, Y. R. (1987). La difusio´n del espan˜ol entre mexicano-americanos, puertorriquen˜os y cubano-americanos en los Estados Unidos. In T. A. Morgan, J. F. Lee & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Language and language use: Studies in Spanish (pp. 161–174). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Stavans, I. (2000). Spanglish para millones. Madrid, ES: Coleccio´n Apuntes de Casa de Ame´rica. University Press of America. Taylor, P., Lopez, M. H., Hamar Martı´ nez, J., & Velasco, G. (2012, April 4). When labels don’t fit: Hispanics and their views of identity. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/when-labels-dontfit-hispanics-and-their-views-of-identity/ Timm, L. (1993). Bilingual code-switching: An overview of research. In B. Merino, H. T. Trueba & F. A. Samaniego (Eds.), Language and culture in learning: Teaching Spanish to native speakers of Spanish (pp. 94–114). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc. Tollefson, J. W. (2002). Introduction. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 3–15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Toribio, A. J. (2000). Language variation and the linguistic enactment of identity among Dominicans. Linguistics, 38, 1133–1159. Toribio, A. J. (2001). Minimalist ideas on parametric variation. In M. Hirotari, A. Coetzle, N. Hall & J. Y. Kim (Eds.), North East Linguistic Society (vol. 30, pp. 627–638). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts GLSA. Toribio, A. J. (2002). Focus on clefts in Dominican Spanish. In J. Lee, K. Geeslin & J. C. Clements (Eds.), Structure, meaning, and acquisition in Spanish (pp. 130–146). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Toribio, A. J. (2003). The social significance of language loyalty among Black and White Dominicans in New York. The Bilingual Review/La Revista Bilingu¨e, 27(1), 3–11. Toribio, A. J. (2006). Linguistic displays of identity among Dominicans in national and diasporic settlements. In C. Davies & J. Brutt-Griffler (Eds.), English and ethnicity (pp. 131–155). New York, NY: Palgrave. Torres, L. (2002). Bilingual discourse markers in Puerto Rican Spanish. Language in Society, 31(1), 65–83. US Bureau of the Census. (1913). Thirteenth census of the United States, 1910. Vol. 1: Population: General report and analysis. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. US Bureau of the Census. (1975). Historical statistics of the United States, colonial times to 1970, bicentennial edition, part 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. US Census Bureau. (2011a, May). The Hispanic population: 2010. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf

258

Spanish in Bilingual and Multilingual Settings Around the World

US Census Bureau. (2011b, May 26). 2010 census shows nation’s Hispanic population grew four times faster that total U.S. population. Retrieved from 2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn146.html Urban, W., & Wagoner, J. (2003). American education: A history. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Valde´s, G. (1981). Language development versus the teaching of the standard dialect. Teaching standard versus non-standard Spanish. In R. St. Clair, G. Valde´s & J. Ornstein-Galicia (Eds.), Social and educational issues in bilingualism and biculturalism (pp. 46–62). Washington, DC: University Press of America, Inc. Valde´s, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languages as academic subjects: Pedagogical and theoretical challenges. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 299–328. Valdes, G. (1997). The teaching of Spanish to bilingual Spanish-speaking students: Outstanding issues and unanswered questions. In M. C. Colombi & F. X. Alarcon (Eds.), La ensen˜anza del espan˜ol a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teoria (pp. 93–101). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Valde´s, G. (2000). Introduction. In Spanish for native speakers. AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers K-16, Vol. 1 (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Harcourt College. Valde´s, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. Peyton, D. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37–80). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Vigil, J. D. (1980). From Indians to Chicanos: A sociocultural history. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Villa, D. J. (1996). Choosing a ‘‘standard’’ variety of Spanish for the instruction of native Spanish speakers in the U.S. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 191–200. Wang, S., & Green, N. (2001). Heritage language students in the K-12 education system. In J. Peyton, D. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 167–196). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165–187. Zentella, A. C. (1982). Spanish and English in contact in the United States: The Puerto Rican experience. Word, 33, 41–57. Zentella, A. C. (1990). Returned migration, language, and identity: Puerto Rican bilinguals in dos worlds/two mundos. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 84, 81–100.

Appendices Appendix 1: Major language families of the world Language family

Number of speakers Count

Countriesa

Percent

Afro-Asiatic (353 languages)

359,495,289

6.03

Altaic (64 languages)

139,525,936

2.34

Austro-Asiatic (169 languages)

103,703,873

1.74

Austronesian (1231 languages)

353,585,905

5.93

Algeria, Bahrain, Cameroon, Chad, Cyprus, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, China, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, Russian Federation, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, Viet Nam Brunei, Cambodia, Chile, China, Cook Islands, East Timor, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Indonesia, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mayotte, Micronesia, Myanmar, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New

260

Appendices

Language family

Number of speakers Count

Countriesa

Percent

Dravidian (84 languages) Indo-European (426 languages)

222,682,3.74

3.74

2,721,969,619

45.67

Japonic (12 languages) Niger-Congo (1510 languages)

123,090,950

2.07

382,257,169

6.41

Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Taiwan, Thailand, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Wallis and Futuna India, Nepal, Pakistan Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela Japan Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Coˆte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,

Appendices Language family

Number of speakers Count

Nilo-Saharan (198 languages)

38,257,502

Sino-Tibetan (445 languages)

1,259,227,250

Tai-Kadai (90 languages)

80,278,295

261

Countriesa

Percent

0.64

21.13

1.35

Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mayotte, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Thailand, Viet Nam China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Viet Nam

a In Ethnologue, Lewis (2009) lists only some of the countries for each main language family. Source: Adapted from Lewis (2009); http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/distribution.asp? by ¼ family.

262

Appendices

Appendix 2: Some legislations that recognize plurilingualism and pluriculturalism, and dictate the status of indigenous languages in the Basque Country, Catalonia, and Galicia Autonomous Community

Legislation

Basque Country

 Basque Statute of Autonomy: Declared Basque one of the official languages of the Basque Country, along with Spanish — 1979  Creation of the Advisory Council of the Basque Language — 1982  Law 10/1982: Normalization Law on the Use of Euskera: Decrees that Euskera and Spanish should be compulsory subjects from pre-K to pre-university studies; establishes three models of bilingual education: A — for Spanish speakers, with Basque as a subject; B — 50/50 Spanish and Basque; and D — totally in Basque with Spanish as a subject — 1982  Decree of the Department of Education and Culture: Regulates the use of both official languages in education, excluding higher education — 1983

Catalonia

 Decree #1443/75: Allows ‘‘native languages’’ to be taught as voluntary subjects in schools — 1975  Royal Decree #2092/1978: Mandates that Catalan be a compulsory subject in all schools to be taught three hours per week, with schools wanting to move to a program mostly taught in Catalan having to offer at least five hours of Spanish — 1978  Catalan Statute of Autonomy: Declares Catalan the lengua propia (own language) of Catalonia; the Community is responsible for guaranteeing normal and official use of both Catalan and Spanish; mandates that Catalan be used for teaching more than one subject — 1979  Decrees #142/80 and 153/80: Authorize the inclusion of Catalan as an obligatory subject matter in all elementary and secondary schools; permits some schools to use Catalan as the language of instruction — 1980

Appendices Autonomous Community

263

Legislation  Decree #248/82: Makes three hours a week of both Catalan and Spanish compulsory, plus one hour a week of another subject taught in Catalan — 1982  Decree #7/1983 (Articles 14–20): Linguistic Normalization Law: Declares Catalan the language of instruction at all levels; children have the right to receive their elementary education in their usual language; Catalan and Spanish are compulsory subjects at all levels and grades of non-university education; children should not be separated for reasons of language — 1983  Catalan High Court defended the Normalization Law — 1994  Decree 337/1994: The Constitutional Tribunal upheld the decision made by the Catalan High Court — 1994  Law #1/1998: Law of Linguistic Policy: Establishes that Catalan is Catalonia’s lengua propia (own language) and that it distinguishes it as a people; Spanish is also protected as an official language; declares Catalan the language of instruction at all levels — 1998  Organic Law on Education: Mandates that schools and school administrators promote the European demands, develop intercultural education programs, and pay more attention to the needs of special learners — 2006

Galicia

 Galician Statute of Autonomies: Recognizes both Galician and Spanish as official languages of Galicia — 1981  Linguistic Normalization Law: Declares that all Galicians have the right to know Galician and the duty to use it as symbol of their collective personality — 1983

Source: Cobarrubias (2008), Mar-Molinero (2000), Miley (2006), and Pavlou (2010).

264

Appendices

Appendix 3: Some national legislations that recognize plurilingualism and pluriculturalism, and dictate the status of indigenous languages in Spanishspeaking Latin America Country

National legislations and dates

Argentinaa

 Law #233313 (Article 27): Approved the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) — 1986  Law #23849 (Articles 29 and 30): Approved the Convention on Children’s Rights (CCR) — 1990 (ratified)  Law #24071 (Articles 28 and 30): Approved the International Labour Organization’s Convention (No. 169) Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (C169CITP) — 1992 (ratified)  Constitution of Argentina (Article 75): Recognizes the ethnic and cultural preexistence of indigenous peoples — 1994  Law #26206 (Article 11): National Educational Law: Guarantees respect toward indigenous languages and cultures — 2006

Bolivia

 Law 1152: Approved the CCR — 1990  Law #1257: Approved the C169CITP — 1991  Law #1565 (Article 6): Education Reform Law: Gives indigenous peoples the right to participate in matters related to education policy — 1994  Supreme Decree #25894 (Articles 1, 2, and 3): Recognizes indigenous languages as official — 2000  Law #3204 (Article 1): Be´siro Language: Intangible Cultural Heritage — 2005  Law #3603 (Article 1): Declares the Tsimane (ChimaneMosetene) language Intangible Cultural Heritage — 2007  Law #3760 (Articles 13 and 14): Approved ICCPR as law — 2007 (later modified by Law #3897 in 2008)  Political Constitution of Bolivia (Article 5): Recognizes Spanish and all indigenous languages as official languages of Bolivia — 2009  Supreme Decree #29894 (Article 115): Organizational Structure of the Executive Power of the Plurinational State: Mandates the implementation of programs for the teaching of indigenous languages — 2009

Appendices Country

265

National legislations and dates

Chilea

 Supreme Decree #778: Joined the ICCPR — 1976  Supreme Decree #830: Approved the CCR — 1990  Law #19253 (Article 28): Establishes norms for the protection, promotion, and development of indigenous peoples and created the National Corporation for Indigenous Development — 1993  Supreme Decree #236: Approved the C169CITP — 2008

Colombia

 Law #74: Approved the ICCPR — 1968 (ratified)  Decree #1142 (Article 9): Mandates literacy education in the indigenous language along with gradual acquisition of Spanish — 1978  Decree #473 (Articles 4 and 5): Protects and promotes conservation of the native populations’ cultural heritage — 1986  Law #12: Approved the CCR — 1991 (ratified)  Law #21: Approved the C169CITP — 1991 (ratified)  Political Constitution of Colombia (Article 10): Declares Spanish as the official language of Colombia; ethnic languages and dialects are also recognized as official in their territories; declares that education in communities with their own linguistic traditions must be bilingual — 1991  Law #115 (Articles 21, 56, and 57): Education General Law: Mandates bilingual education in grades 1–5 — 1994  Law #580 (Article 4): Recognizes the values, symbols, and cultural manifestations of Colombia — 2000  Law #397 (Articles 70, 71, and 72): Dictates norms on cultural heritage and the promotion of culture; created the Culture Ministry — 1997 (later modified by Law #1185/08 [Article 1] in 2009)

Costa Ricaa

 Political Constitution of Costa Rica (Article 76): Declares Spanish the official language; the State commits to protecting the maintenance and development of the national indigenous languages — 1949 (later modified by Law #7878 [Article 76] in 1999)  Law #4229: Approved the ICCPR — 1968  Law #7184: Approved the CCR — 1990  Law #7316: Approved the C169CITP — 1992

266

Appendices

Country

National legislations and dates  Decree #22072-MEP (Articles 2, 5–7, and 9): Created a subsystem for the education of indigenous peoples — 1993  Executive Decree #22073 (Article 2): Recognizes the Academia Costarricense de la Lengua (Costa Rican Language Academy), charged with promoting knowledge of indigenous languages — 1993  Law #7623 (Articles 1 and 7): Defends Spanish and the aboriginal languages of Costa Rica — 1996  Law #7941 (Article 2): Crated the Colegio Universitario Limo´n (Limo´n University) to offer degrees related to the development of indigenous languages — 1999

Ecuador

   

El Salvadora

 Decree #2709: Approved the C169CITP — 1958  Decree #27: Ratified the ICCPR — 1979  Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador (Article 62): Recognizes Spanish as the official language of El Salvador and indigenous languages as part of the cultural heritage — 1983  Legislative Decree #487: Approved the CCR — 1990

Decree #37: Approved the ICCPR — 1969 Legislative Resolution: Approved the CCR — 1990 Legislative Resolution: Approved the C169CITP — 1998 Decree #1527 (Articles 8 and 9): National Plan for Human Rights of Ecuador — 1998  Law #100R.0.737 (Article 36): Dictates that children may be given a name from an indigenous language — 2003  Agreement #289 (Articles 1–4): Mandates, among other things, the use of indigenous languages in the development of materials to be used in bilingual education programs and the promotion of indigenous languages in general — 2006  Political Constitution of Ecuador (Articles 2, 16, 29, 347, and 379): Declares Spanish the official language of Ecuador; Spanish, Quichua, and Shuar are official languages of intercultural relations; the other indigenous languages are official in the areas where they are used; guarantees intercultural bilingual education in the indigenous language, with Spanish as the language of intercultural relations — 2008

Appendices Country

267

National legislations and dates  Law #513 (Articles 3, 37, and 44): Special Law for the Protection of El Salvador’s Cultural Heritage: indigenous languages are included as part of the cultural heritage — 1993

Guatemalaa

 Political Constitution (Articles 18, 58, 66, and 143): Declares Spanish the official language of Guatemala and indigenous languages as part of its cultural heritage; recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples — 1985  Decree #43-86 (Articles 5 and 16): Literacy Law: Recognizes linguistic pluralism as a mean to adapt literacy education according to cultural and regional characteristics — 1986  Government Agreement #1046-87 (Articles 1 and 2): Mayan Languages: Institutes the alphabets of 21 varieties of Mayan as official instruments for writing and pronunciation — 1987  Legislative Decree #27-90: Approved the CCR — 1990 (ratified)  Decree #12-91 (Articles 1 and 93): National Education Law: Defines education in Guatemala as multilingual, multiethnic, and pluricultural — 1991  Government Agreement #137-91 (Articles 3 and 35): Ruling of the Literacy Law: Mandates the use of indigenous languages for literacy development — 1991  Legislative Decree #9-92: Approved the ICCPR — 1992 (ratified)  Government Decree #726-95 (Article 4): Created the Office of Intercultural Bilingual Education — 1995  Legislative Decree #9-96: Approved the C169CITP — 1996 (ratified)  Legislative Decree #42-2001 (Article 41): Law for Social Development: Linguistic, ethnic, and cultural diversity are included in this law that prevents discrimination in the media — 2001  Decree #19-2003 (Articles 1–26): National Languages Law: Mayan, Garifuna, and Xinca can be used publicly without restrictions; grants indigenous groups the right to their cultural identity — 2003

268

Appendices

Country

National legislations and dates  Government Decree #526 (Article 2): Created the Viceministry of Bilingual and Intercultural Education — 2003  Government Agreement #20-2004 (Article 1): Declares that the Department of Education is an institution that incorporates and reflects Guatemala’s multiethnic, multilingual, and pluricultural character — 2004  Government Agreement #22-04 (Articles 1, 3, and 4): Establishes a set of principles related to equality, unity, respect, and additive bilingualism; commits to generalize bilingual, multicultural, and intercultural education in the nation’s education system — 2004  Government Decree (Article 3): Declares that the Department of Culture and Sports must be sensitive to the needs of indigenous peoples — 2008

Hondurasa

   

Mexicoa

 Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (Article 2): Gives indigenous peoples the right to preserve and enrich their languages — 1917  Senate approved ICCPR — 1980  Senate approved CCR — 1990  Senate approved C169CITP — 1990  Law for the Protection of Girls, Boys, and Adolescents (Article 37): Declares that girls, boys, and adolescents from indigenous groups should have the right to enjoy their language, culture, and religion, among other things — 2000  The General Law on the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Articles 1–25): Recognizes indigenous languages as national languages — 2003

Nicaragua

 Decree #255: Approved the ICCPR — 1980

Decree #75: Approved the CCR — 1990 Decree #26-94: Ratified the C169CITP — 1994 Decree #64-95: Approved the ICCPR — 1995 Decree #220 (Article #2): Law for the Protection of the Nation’s Heritage Culture: Included indigenous languages — 1997

Appendices Country

269

National legislations and dates  Decree #571 (Articles 1–4): Law on Language Education in the Atlantic Coast: Guarantees preschool and elementary education in grades 1–4 in Miskita and English — 1980  Political Constitution (Articles 11, 90, 91, 121, 180, and 197): Recognizes Spanish as the official language; indigenous languages are official in some cases — 1986  Law #28 (Articles 5, 8, 11, and 44): Declares Spanish the official language of the State; the languages of the Atlantic coast communities are official in the autonomous regions — 1987  National Assembly Decree #324: Approved the CCR — 1990  Law #162 (Articles 1–6, 10–15, and 21–25): Reiterates that Spanish is the official language of the State; the languages of the Atlantic coast communities are official in the autonomous regions — 1993  Law #185 (Article 5): Recognizes Spanish as the obligatory language in job relations; the languages of the Atlantic coast communities may be official languages in job relations that take place in the autonomous regions — 1996  Law #582 (Article 41): General Law of Education: Gives the autonomous regions of the Nicaraguan Caribbean coast the right to make decisions about education based on their multiethnic, multilingual, and pluricultural needs and wishes — 2006 (modified by the Law #597 later that year)

Panamaa

 Law #47 (Article 80): Organic Education Law: Facilitates the dissemination of literature written in Spanish and indigenous languages by national authors — 1946 (later modified in 1995)  Cabinet Decree (Articles 23 and 26): Approved the International Labour Organization’s Convention (No. 107) Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples — 1971  Political Constitution (Articles 84 and 86): Recognizes indigenous languages as special and promotes the development of bilingual literacy programs — 1972 (changes were made in 1978, 1983, 1993, 1994, and 2004)  Law #14: Approved the ICCPR — 1976

270

Appendices

Country

National legislations and dates  Law #15: Approved the CCR — 1990 (ratified)  Law #3 (Articles 5 and 64): Charges the Commission on Indigenous Affairs with proposing laws that would facilitate the study, maintenance, and transmission of indigenous languages — 1995  Law #20 (Article 53): Recognizes the languages, cultures, and traditions of the Ngo¨be-Bugle´ peoples — 1997  Executive Decree (Article 102): The Department of Culture and Education is charged with promoting and developing bilingual and intercultural education plans, programs, and projects — 1999

Paraguay

 Law #57: Approved the CCR — 1990 (ratified)  Law #5/92: Approved the ICCPR — 1992  National Constitution (Articles 18, 140, and 77): Recognizes Spanish and Guarani as official languages and Paraguay as a pluricultural and bilingual country — 1992  Law #68 (Articles 1 and 2): Declares that the teaching of Spanish and Guarani is obligatory in elementary, secondary, and higher education — 1992  Law #234: Approved the C169CITP — 1993 (ratified)  Law #1264 (Articles 9, 11, and 31): General Education Law: Promotes the creation of bilingual programs — 1998

Peru

 Law Decree #22128: Approved the ICCPR — 1978  Departmental Resolution: Officialized the Quechua and Aymara alphabets, as well as their orthographic and punctuation norms — 1985  Legislative Resolution #25278: Approved the CCR — 1990  Political Constitution (Articles 19, 17, and 48): Declares Spanish, Quechua, Aymara, and the other aboriginal languages official languages of the State; gives everyone the right to their ethnic and cultural identity — 1993  Legislative Resolution: Approved the C169CITP — 1993  Law #27558 (Article 15): Law on the Fostering of Education for Girls and Adolescents in Rural Areas: Mandates that bilingual and intercultural teachers be respectful of indigenous languages and pay special

Appendices Country

271

National legislations and dates attention to girls and adolescents in the introduction of Spanish as a second language — 2001  Law #28044 (Article 6, 20, and 38): Education General Law: Declares that ethic and civic education must be taught in Spanish and all the official languages; mandates bilingual intercultural education and literacy in indigenous languages — 2003  Law #28106 (Article 1–2 and 4–6): Recognizes Spanish and all the indigenous languages considered in the ‘‘Linguistic and Cultural Patrimony of Peru, Linguistic Families and Peruvian Languages’’ Map as official — 2003  Supreme Decree #013-2004-ED (Articles 55, 67, and 72): Mandates and regulates bilingual intercultural education and encourages school drop-out prevention, especially in rural indigenous communities — 2004

Uruguayb

 Law #13751: Approved the ICCPR — 1970  Law #16137: Approved the CCR — 1990

Venezuela

 Law approving the ICCPR — 1977 (ratified in 1978)  Law approving the CCR — 1990  Decree #1635 (Article 6): Guarantees civil and military protection to many aspects of indigenous life, including their land, their culture, and their language — 1991  Organic Law for the Protection of Children and Adolescents (Article 36): Declares that all minority children and adolescents have the right to their culture, religion, and language — 1998  Political Constitution of 1999 (Articles 9 and 119): Recognizes Spanish and indigenous languages as official and recognizes the existence of indigenous peoples and communities — 1999  Law #41: Approved the C169CITP — 2000  Decree #1795 (Articles 1–3): Establishes that it is obligatory to use indigenous languages in schools located in indigenous habitats — 2002  Organic Law on Indigenous Peoples and Communities (Article 94): Recognizes the officiality of indigenous languages and declares them cultural heritage of the nation — 2005

272

Appendices

Country

National legislations and dates  Organic Education Law (Article 6): Mandates the use of indigenous languages in bilingual intercultural programs — 2009

a

Countries where indigenous languages are not recognized as official languages of the state. There are no indigenous groups in Uruguay. Source: Adapted and translated from Databank on Indigenous Legislations, Inter-American Development Bank (http://www.iadb.org/Research/legislacionindigena/leyn/byvariable_topic.cfm?topic ¼ 8&mark ¼ 1&Language ¼ English). b

About the Authors

Gregory L. Thompson received both his BA and MA from Brigham Young University and his PhD from the University of Arizona in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching. He worked as an Assistant Professor of Spanish at the University of Central Florida until 2012, where he taught classes on Spanish phonetics, bilingualism, applied linguistics, as well as Spanish classes focusing on the development of language skills in the areas of conversation, composition, and grammar. He currently is an Assistant Professor of Spanish at Brigham Young University, where he works in the Spanish pedagogy section. His publications have appeared in Hispania, Academic Exchange Quarterly, as well as in other journals. He has published articles relating to teacher and student language use in the Spanish FL classroom, teacher evaluations in the FL classroom, heritage language teaching, teacher development in study abroad programs, and service learning in the language classroom. He also has published a book titled Intersection of Service and Learning: Research and Practice in the Second Language Classroom. He is currently investigating Spanish heritage students in service learning classes as well as research into code-switching in the FL classroom. Edwin M. Lamboy received his BA from the University of Puerto Rico in Rı´ o Piedras, his MA from Lehman College (CUNY), and his PhD from The Pennsylvania State University. He is an Associate Professor at The City University of New York (CUNY), where he directs the Secondary Spanish Education Program and teaches courses on teaching methodology, Spanish grammar and its pedagogy, curriculum, and Spanish linguistics. Previously, he taught at Montclair State University, where he directed the Spanish Basic Language Program for seven years, and the University of Central Florida, where he taught classes on Spanish linguistics. His publications include Caribbean Spanish in the Metropolis: A Study of the Spanish Language among Cubans, Dominicans, and Puerto Ricans in the New York City Area; Temas, a textbook used to teach elementary Spanish; and several articles on Spanish in the United States, the teaching of Spanish to heritage learners, and Puerto Rican identity. He is also the co-editor of Galerna: Revista Internacional de Literatura.

Subject Index accent, 7, 20, 32–34, 100, 139 Alfonso X the Learned, 83 alingualism, 34 Arahuaco, 86 Araucano, 86 Argentina, 9, 95, 97, 101, 103, 118, 139, 248–250 Arizona, 191–194, 197, 207, 222, 234 assibilation, 249 aspiration, 22, 45, 172, 235, 237, 241, 243, 248 Aymara, 5, 86, 95–96, 126, 139–147, 149 Basque(s), 15, 86, 89, 91–92, 106, 109, 112, 115, 122–125 Basque Country, 90–93, 115, 122–123, 125 biculturalism, 120 bidialectalism, 215–216 Bilingual Education Act, 206, 228 bilingual education, 68, 119, 124–128, 148, 204–212, 226–228, 230, 232 immersion, 124, 178, 210 maintenance, 127 pull out, 210 sheltered content instruction, 210 submersion, 210 transitional, 127, 206, 210, 212 dual immersion, 148 two way, 127, 207, 211

bilingualism, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27–39, 41–43, 45, 47, 49, 51–53, 55, 57–59, 61–71, 83, 85–87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103–105, 107–109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119–121, 123, 125, 127–129, 131, 133–137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157–159, 161, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 175–177, 179, 191, 193, 195, 197, 199, 201, 203–205, 207, 209–213, 215, 217, 219, 221, 223, 225, 227–229, 231, 233, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243, 245, 247, 249 additive, 64, 65, 67, 210 as a multidimensional phenomenon, 29 compound I, 51 compound II, 51 coordinate, 43, 51 definition of, 27 dominant, 64, 67 factors that promote, 35 simultaneous, 31 bilingual children, 63, 66–68, 213 bilinguals, 28–34, 37–38, 43, 46–47, 51, 53–56, 58, 64–68, 104, 128, 136, 144, 154, 211, 213–214, 216, 220, 248 additive, 67 balanced, 33, 68, 211 circumstantial, 32

276

Subject Index

emerging, 29 misconceptions of, 32 passive or receptive, 29 productive or active , 29 subtractive, 38, 42, 136 biliteracy, 129, 215, 222 Bolı´ var, Simo´n, 88 Bolivia, 93–95, 97, 101, 103, 117, 126, 136, 139–140, 143–144, 146–147, 248–250 borrowing, 23–24, 177, 202–203 definition of, 23 lexical, 23, 24, 144, 202 structural, 23, 24, 203 Bourbons, 85 Brazil, 35, 94, 97, 101, 103, 118, 130 California, 41, 191–194, 196–197, 207, 222, 226–227, 234, 236 calque, 203 Castilian, 83–86, 93, 113, 115, 125 development of, 83 Castilianization, 88, 111, 126 Castro, Fidel, 195, 235, 236 Catalan(s), 5, 15, 86, 89, 92–93, 106, 109, 112, 114, 123, 124 Catalonia, 90, 92–93, 114–115, 122–125 Central America(ns), 150–152, 245–247 Chibcha, 86–87 Chicano, 192, 234 Chile, 95, 139, 248–250 code-switching, 24, 34, 46, 52–63, 66, 203, 218–219, 235, 243 and distinctiveness, 55–58 and the addressee, 54–55 definition of, 52 in the schools, 58–62 intersentential, 235 intrasentential, 235

Colombia, 27, 93–95, 97, 101, 129, 139, 248–250 Colombian(s) , 37, 196, 204, 247, 248, 249 Colorado, 136, 191, 193–194, 207 Columbus, Christopher, 86, 150 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, 64 competence, 3, 31, 44–45, 47–49, 69, 115, 133, 211 complementarity principle, 30 consonantization, 234 convergence, 20–21 Costa Rica, 95, 197, 245–246 creole, 26–27, 100, 103, 129–130, 153, 191 creolization, 26 critical based dialect awareness, 216 critical period, 31 Cuba, 16, 159, 167, 191, 195, 239 Cuban(s) culture, 2, 9–10, 14–16, 18, 29, 31, 35, 41–42, 53, 61–62, 92, 106–107, 113, 125–126, 137, 139, 142–143, 148, 150, 152, 154–156, 158, 161, 166–169, 172, 174, 176–177, 193, 200, 210, 212, 218–222, 224, 226, 231, 233 de Iturbide, Agustı´ n, 88 de San Martı´ n, Jose´, 88 Descourdres Vocabulary Test, 68 dialect acquisition, 21, 22 awareness, 215–217 birth, 22 contact, 20, 22 definition of, 6 standard, 13, 215, 216 differentiated language systems hypothesis, 65–66 diglossia, 37–38, 110

Subject Index diptongization, 235 divergence, 20–21, 55 dominance, 30–31, 43, 51, 125, 176 Domı´ nguez, Manuel, 135 Dominican(s) , 196, 196, 239–242 Dominican Republic, 16, 96, 239–240 Ecuador, 94–97, 101–103, 105, 107, 116–117, 120, 126, 128, 139, 141, 143, 147, 177–178, 248–250 effacement, 171, 237 El Salvador, 94–95, 245 English, 4–11, 14, 18, 20–21, 23–27, 30, 33–34, 36–38, 42–48, 50, 54, 56–62, 64–65, 67, 72, 100, 130–131, 139, 144, 149, 154–155, 158–159, 165–166, 169, 172–174, 176–179, 191, 193, 199–213, 215, 217, 219–220, 223–235, 237, 240–244, 246, 248–249 and its influence on Spanish, 165 education in Latin America, 125–129 global impact of, 176 increased use of, 44 Only, 38, 225–230 Plus, 225–230 English Language Learners, 211 Equatorial Guinea, 157–160, 162–166 Florida, 37–38, 166, 191–197, 220, 235–236, 239, 242 Franco, Ferdinand, 86 focusing, 22–23, 60, 69, 171, 236, 240 fresa speech, 71 Galicia, 90, 92–93, 115, 122, 124–125, 171

277

Galician(s) , 15, 86, 89, 90, 93, 106, 115, 123–125, 166, 170 gemination, 238 German, 6, 16, 20–21, 23–25, 34, 36, 45, 47, 52, 100, 105, 166, 178, 204–205 globalization, 10–11, 37, 120, 174–176 Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty, 192 Guarani, 86–87, 94–97, 103–105, 118–119, 127–128, 133–140 Guatemala, 94–95, 116, 119, 128, 147–148, 150, 156, 245–246 heritage language, 1, 29, 142, 147, 211, 213–214, 219–222, 225, 230 beliefs, 161 challenges, 214 instruction, 211 Hispanic, 56, 83–85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157, 159, 161, 163, 165, 167, 169–171, 173, 175, 177, 191–202, 214, 220–222, 231–233, 236–237, 239–240, 242, 245, 247 Hispano-Romance dialects, 83–84 Honduras, 95, 98, 116, 147, 150–151, 156, 245 in-group identity, 217, 221 idiolect, 7 indigenous language(s) , 24, 87, 88, 89, 93–105, 106–109, 116–120, 126–127 people(s) , 86, 89, 94, 102, 105, 109, 117–120, 126, 128–129, 140

278

Subject Index

interdialectal development, 22 intergroup, 54, 220 Islen˜o, 166–174 King Charles III, 85, 87 King Phillip II, 87 language(s) acquisition device, 3 and identity, 18, 19, 70, 85, 220–222 and prestige, 69 as a system of systems, 4 attrition, 29, 39, 40–52 causes of, 45 contact, 20–27 death, 40, 43, 44, 100 definition of, 1–2 education, 12, 98, 109, 211, 223 and language policy and planning, 109–110, 111–115 effects of, 20 in Bolivia , 117 in Catalonia, 114, 122, 124 in Ecuador, 141 in Galicia, 122, 124 in Latin America, 125–129 in Mexico, 128 in Paraguay, 103, 127 in Spain, 122–125 in the Basque Country, 122 families, 4, 99, 135, 153, 259 in Latin America, 93–105 in Spain, 122–125 modalities, 29 policy and planning bottom-up approach to, 110 in Bolivia, 117 in Catalonia, 92 in Ecuador, 117 in Galicia, 93 in Guatemala, 119 in Latin America, 116–120 in Mexico, 117 in Paraguay, 118

in Peru, 117 in Spain, 111–115 in the Basque Country, 123 shift, 24, 39, 40, 149 substratum, 23, 24, 202 top-down approach to, 230 universals, 3 Latino, 195–196, 200, 211, 240 leı´ smo, 250 leveling, 22–23, 72, 240 linguistic interdependence hypothesis, 64 linguistics, 5, 7–8, 70, 109, 119, 155 definition, 2 loans, 203 loı´ smo, 249 Lo´pez, Carlos Antonio, 135 Louisiana, 26, 166–168, 170, 172–173, 191–194, 205 Mariel boatlift, 195, 238 macrolanguage(s), 97 markedness, 49–50, 220, 236 Mapuche, 86 Mayan, 86, 96, 98–101, 119, 128, 147–150 Media Lengua, 103 Mexico, 37, 71, 88, 94, 96–101, 105, 107, 113, 117, 127–128, 147–148, 167, 178, 191–194, 198–199, 205, 232–234 mixing, 22, 46–47, 52, 65–66, 134, 145 Mixteco, 99–100 monolingualism, 12, 94, 101, 104, 119, 210, 220 monostylism, 42 naco speech, 71 nasalization, 234 Na´huatl, 86, 87, 98, 99 Nebrija, Antonio de, 84

Subject Index neutralization, 10, 163, 172, 238, 241, 243, 249 New Mexico, 191–194, 198, 205, 234 Nicaragua, 26, 96, 128, 150, 154, 245–246 No Child Left Behind, 207 norm, 10, 13, 109, 112, 211 online processing, 45, 48 Palenquero, 27, 129–133 Panama, 96, 245–246 Paraguay, 88, 94, 96–97, 103, 105, 107, 118–119, 127–128, 133–139, 248–250 parameters, 3–4, 38, 48–51 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 69 performance, 3, 45–48, 223 Peru, 93, 96–97, 101, 105, 117, 126, 139–143, 146–147, 248–250 phonetic threshold , 68 pidgin, 25–26, 129–130, 158–159, 165 pluriculturalism, 113, 116, 122, 212 plurilingualism, 113, 116, 122, 212 prestige dialect, 215 Primo de Rivera, Miguel, 86, 111 principles, 3, 21–22, 50–51, 56, 112 Proposition 203, 207, 222 Proposition 227, 207, 222 Puerto Rican(s) , 242–244 Puerto Rico, 96, 167, 178, 194, 198, 242

279

recreation, 18, 51 relation, 24, 43, 191, 240 adstratal, 24 substratal, 24 superstratal, 162 restructuring, 48, 51 Roosevelt, Theodore, 205 Rodrı´ guez de Francia, Jose´ Gaspar, 118, 135 rule generalization, 45

Quechua, 86–88, 95–97, 101–102, 117, 126, 139–147, 149, 248 Queen Isabella of Castile, 84 Quichua, 95, 97, 101–103, 117, 126, 248

semantic extension, 45, 203 semilingualism, 34, 64 sheı´ smo, 248 Singlish, 9 sociolect, 72 sociolinguistics, 6, 38, 40, 70–71 and age, 69, 70 and gender, 69, 70, 71 and socioeconomic background, 70 Spain, 15, 32, 36, 83, 85–90, 105, 107–109, 111–114, 122, 124–125, 151, 158, 163, 165, 167, 170–171, 174, 192, 231, 260 speech community, 8, 23, 40, 42–43, 70–71, 107 Sprachbund, 20–21 standards, 9, 12, 17, 28, 66, 106, 166, 169, 209, 212 and education, 12 style, 9, 42, 53–57, 149, 213, 216–218, 220–221 style-shifting, 55, 57, 218 substratum, 23–24, 202 superstratum, 23–24, 26, 175

Reagan, Ronald, 207 Real Academia Espan˜ola de la Lengua, 85 reallocation, 22–23

Talavera, Hernando de, 84 Texas, 21, 191–194, 197, 234, 236 threshold hypothesis, 63–64, 67

280

Subject Index

transglossia, 38–39 Tupac Amaru II, 88 UNESCO, 106, 113, 116, 133, 156, 179 unitary language system hypothesis, 63 United Nations, 105–106, 116, 179 universal grammar, 40, 47 Uruguay, 35, 96, 118, 248–249 U.S. English, 227, 228

variety, 6, 8–16, 20, 22, 27, 29, 38, 43, 47, 53, 69, 89–90, 110, 169, 204, 214, 216–217, 223, 233, 246 velarization, 235 Venezuela, 96, 167, 233, 248–250 voseo, 246, 249 yeı´ smo, 246 Zapotec, 99–100, 128 zheı´ smo, 248