Bilingualism and Identity: Spanish at the Crossroads with Other Languages (Studies in Bilingualism, Volume 37)

Bilingualism and Identity

Studies in Bilingualism (SiBil) The focus of this series is on psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of bilingualism. This entails topics such as childhood bilingualism, psychological models of bilingual language users, language contact and bilingualism, maintenance and shift of minority languages, and sociopolitical aspects of bilingualism.

Editors Kees de Bot

University of Groningen

Dalila Ayoun

University of Arizona

Editorial Board Michael Clyne

University of Melbourne

Kathryn A. Davis

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Joshua A. Fishman Yeshiva University

Francois Grosjean

Université de Neuchâtel

Thom Huebner

San José State University

Georges Luedi

University of Basel

Christina Bratt Paulston University of Pittsburgh

Suzanne Romaine

Merton College, Oxford

Merrill Swain

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

G. Richard Tucker

Carnegie Mellon University

Wolfgang Klein

Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik

Volume 37 Bilingualism and Identity. Spanish at the crossroads with other languages Edited by Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman

Bilingualism and Identity Spanish at the crossroads with other languages

Edited by

Mercedes Niño-Murcia Jason Rothman The University of Iowa

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bilingualism and identity : spanish at the crossroads with other languages / edited by Mercedes Niño-Murcia, Jason Rothman. p. cm. (Studies in Bilingualism, issn 0928-1533 ; v. 37) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Bilingualism. 2. Group identity. 3. Ethnicity. 4. Spanish language--Social aspects. 5. Languages in contact. I. Niño-Murcia, Mercedes II. Rothman, Jason. P115.B5429    2008 306.44'6--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 4148 1 (Hb; alk. paper)

2007051082

© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents Acknowledgements

vii

Part 1.  Theoretical background Preface Ana Celia Zentella

3

1. Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman

11

Part 2.  Spanish in contact with autonomous languages in Spain 2. Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi 3. Conflicting values at a conflicting age: Linguistic ideologies in Galician adolescents Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez 4. Language and identity in Catalonia Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz

35

63

87

Part 3.  Spanish in contact with Creole and Amerindian languages in Latin America 5. Literacy and the expression of social identity in a dominant language: A description of “mi familia” by Quechua-Spanish bilingual children Liliana Sánchez 6. Maya ethnolinguistic identity: Violence and cultural rights in bilingual Kaqchikel communities Brigittine M. French

109

127



Bilingualism and Identity

7. “Enra kopiai, non kopiai.”: Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in lima Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola

151

8. Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish: The perception of Haitianized speech among Dominicans Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

175

Part 4.  Spanish in contact with English in the United States 9. “I was raised talking like my mom”: The influence of mothers in the development of MexiRicans’ phonological and lexical features Kim Potowski 10. Choosing Spanish: Dual language immersion and familial ideologies* Elaine Shenk 11. Whose Spanish?: The tension between linguistic correctness and cultural identity Bonnie Urciuoli

201

221

257

12. Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California Isabel Bustamante-López

279

13. Multilingualism and Identity: All in the Family Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

301

Part 5.  Conclusion Afterword: Indicators of bilingualism and identity: Samples from the Spanish-speaking world Margarita Hidalgo

333

Author index

359

Subject index

363

Acknowledgements The realization of an edited volume is always the product of successful collaborations, often on many fronts. First and foremost, we are extremely grateful to the authors of the individual chapters whose interesting work made this project a reality and from whom we learned a great deal. We are grateful to Ana Celia Zentella and Margarita Hidalgo for their support of this project and their gracious collegiality in writing the preface and afterword, respectively. We are indebted to Dalila Ayoun and Kees de Bot for their very helpful comments on the manuscript as a whole and to Kees Vaes and his staff at John Benjamins for all of their support. We would also like to express our most sincere appreciation to the peer reviewers for the chapters in this volume, whose comments improved the quality of each individual chapter and the volume as a whole: José Luis Blas Arroyo (Universitat Juame), David Beck (University of Alberta), Jasone Cenoz (Universidad del País Vasco), Anna De Fina (Georgetown University), Anna María Escobar (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Brenda Farnell (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Brigittine French (Grinnell College), Ofelia García (Columbia University), Juan Carlos Godenzzi (Université de Montreal), Laura Graham (University of Iowa), Alexandra Jaffe (State University of California, Long Beach), Paula Kempchinsky (University of Iowa), Carol Klee (University of Minnesota), Judith Liskin-Gasparro (University of Iowa), John Lispki (Pennsylvania State University), Gillian Lord (University of Florida), Sara Mills (Sheffield Hallman University), Rachel Moran (University of California, Berkeley), Lynn Pearson (Bowling Green University), Kim Potowski (University of Illinois at Chicago), Fernando Ramallo (Universidad de Vigo), Suzanne Romaine (Oxford University), Teresa Satterfield (University of Michigan), Guadalupe Valdés (Stanford University) and Virginia Zavala (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú). In addition, we express our gratitude for the University of Iowa Arts and Humanities Initiative (AHI) grant, to the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Department of Spanish and Portuguese of the University of Iowa for their support. We would especially like to thank our research assistants Sarah Dow, Michael Iverson and Tiffany Judy whose collaboration was instrumental during the compilation of materials and the editing process.

part 1

Theoretical background

Preface Ana Celia Zentella

University of California, San Diego

What do we know about bi/multilingualism and identity, and what more do we need to know? What has been the contribution of scholars studying bi/multilinguals throughout the Spanish-speaking world, and what are our hopes for the future of their research? This ambitious and groundbreaking volume encourages the asking of these questions, offering analyses of Spanish in contact with a variety of languages and language families. As a starting point, I encourage the authors and their readers to consider the theoretical perspectives and methodological practices that will help us to arrive at the most informed and useful answers. Because in the end, or perhaps to begin with, we must ask ourselves why we want – or need – to know anything about bilingualism and identity. Isn’t the current mass marketing of globalized identities and the spread of ‘killer English’ (Skutnabb-Kangas 2000) making the investigation of bilingualism and identity a ‘small subject,’ especially in the post 9–11 era of terror and violence? Many of us respond that it is precisely because many individuals and communities are facing linguistic discrimination, even annihilation, that we need to understand the price they pay, and the repercussions for political, social and religious intolerance. Others believe it is not our job to tackle such weighty issues, insisting instead that “in this changing world, the task of the linguist is to lay out the facts concerning a given linguistic situation” (Ladefoged 1992: 811). While the difference in these perspectives appears to be rooted in radical or conservative politics, it may have more to do with distinct frameworks for understanding language. The study of multilingualism has been a fertile ground for these conflicting perspectives and, depending on the lens, the focus on identity is either blurred or sharpened. These lenses, or frameworks, need to be examined because they have political and social implications for how multilingualism and multilinguals are seen and treated, which is why I advocate an anthro-political approach. In the investigation of child bilingualism, for example, many researchers concentrate on the linguistic/psycholinguistic analysis of lexicon, phonology and syntax acquired in each language, while others take an anthropological approach,



Ana Celia Zentella

focusing on the relationship between the individual or community’s languages and the cultural practices that define group membership (Zentella in press). A few scholars adopt a third approach, one I have called the anthro-political linguistic perspective (Zentella 1995, 1997), to incorporate the ideologies and sociopolitical structures that determine the value of specific languages and the status of their speakers. This tri-partite scenario has also been identified, independently and with some variations, in an overview of the ideologies that have shaped Mexican-American bilingualism: Martinez (2006) notes the conflict between the linguistic perspective, the sociolinguistic perspective and the critical linguistic perspective. The linguistic perspective analyzes language as a formal grammatical system and seeks to determine a bi/multilingual’s control over the components in his/her repertoire. Martinez contrasts Bloomfield’s 1930s definition of bilingualism from the linguistic perspective as “native-like control of two or more languages” with Weinreich’s ‘sociolinguistic’ approach in the 1950s. However, I think the emphasis on control is also at the heart of Uriel Weinreich’s classic definition of the “ideal bilingual” as one who “switches from one language to the other according to the appropriate changes in the speech situation (interlocutors, topic, etc.), but not in unchanged speech situations, and certainly not within a single sentence” (Weinreich 1968: 73). The centrality of use is highlighted, as in most sociolinguistic research, but there is a one to one correspondence between shifts in settings and speakers on the one hand, and shifts in the linguistic components required by/for them on the other. The message is that identities or roles can be multiple, but not at the same time, and an ideal bilingual is expected to patrol those borders. Those, like me, who mix their languages, are viewed as incompetent Spanglish speakers or dangerous border crossers. Still, the attention to the social setting of bilingualism that characterizes the ‘sociolinguistic perspective’ is a constructive departure from the purely linguistic approach and puts identity in clearer focus. Hymes (1974) argued that both approaches were indispensable and inextricably linked because competent speakers necessarily displayed a knowledge of the linguistic and social rules for the conduct of speech. This made sense to me because it corroborated what I had learned as the daughter of a Mexican father and Puerto Rican mother, for example, that it was not only knowledge of the difference between ‘frijoles’ and ‘habichuelas’ in the lexicon or the presence or absence of syllable final-s in the phonology that I had to display in Mexican or Puerto Rican settings, but ways of answering, greeting, leave-taking, praying and being. The early contribution of ‘sociolinguists’ like Ferguson and Fishman identified high (formal) and low (informal) domains that helped shape a bilingual’s choice of what to speak where, when and to whom, but the diglossic domains turned out not to be as stable or as air tight as predicted; the leakage in most bilingual communities proved too messy. If US Latinos were expected to speak English with teachers in



Preface

school and Spanish with elders at home, bilingual schools and multi-generational households where Spanish and English were spoken interchangeably challenged a compartmentalized language model. The distinction between high and low domains, which appropriately recognized the defining role of institutional power in determining a language’s status, was echoed by the ‘we-they’ dichotomy that linked a speaker’s or community’s home/heritage language with insider intimacy and nurturing roles, while the dominant society’s language was linked to outsider status and power. But this dichotomy ignored the generational shifts that could take place. In many communities – whether in the US, where Spanish and English function as the ‘we-they’ languages respectively, or in parts of Spain and Latin America, where a regional or indigenous language is the language of the home and Spanish is the language with national power – children may reverse the insider-outsider roles. Those who become fluent in the dominant language feel more at ease and intimate in it and communicate with difficulty in their weakened heritage language, even distancing themselves from it. For this reason, it is unwise to assume that a bilingual’s choice of, or switch to, the dominant language is necessarily an invocation of and identification with its power, and the choice of, or switch to, the heritage language a sign of solidarity. Even when the scales against the traditional in-group language have not been tipped by weakened proficiency, a bilingual’s alternations between the languages in his/her repertoire are not predictable moves to or away from authority. As Valdés (1982) pointed out, the direction of the language switch in the conversation of bilinguals can be less significant than the fact of the switch itself, which signals membership in a bilingual community. This does not negate the symbolic domination of languages that rule, but it cautions against a mechanistic link between linguistic codes and social roles or identities. Another school of sociolinguistics relies on quantification to correlate specific linguistic variables with particular social and stylistic variables. Beginning in the 1960s, Labov and other variationists have made significant contributions by specifying the phonetic and syntactic features that vary in the formal and informal styles of distinct classes, genders and ethnicities. When, for example, similar types and rates of syntactic patterns characteristic of what was then called Black English turned up in New York Puerto Rican English, it offered statistically valid evidence of the impact of close contact between New York Puerto Ricans and African Americans; outsider wannabes who try to adopt a Black identity by imitating the speech of rappers cannot be as accurate. Intuitions about the identities of core or fringe members of groups could be verified mathematically. Quantification allowed us to be precise about the hierarchy of standard vs. non-standard pronunciations and grammatical structures that reflected prestigious or low status class, gender and ethnic identities. But assigning membership to pre-determined groups such as





Ana Celia Zentella

‘lower’ or ‘upper’ middle class could be difficult, especially when immigrants who had been professionals in their home country had lower working class jobs in the new land. Also, aggregate numbers could obscure in-group variation. For example, even in a small circle of girls of the same class and ethnicity who were raised in the same neighborhood, bilingual code switching patterns and rates varied, depending on their ages, personalities and other aspects of their social identities (Zentella 1997). Unlike quantitative sociolinguists, linguistic anthropologists take a constructivist approach to bilingualism, focusing on the co-constructed practices critical in the production of bilingual repertoires of identity and the centrality of language: “Language and communication are critical aspects of the production of a wide variety of identities expressed at many levels of social organization” (Kroskrity 2001: 106). Bilinguals display their gender, class, racial, ethnic and other identities by following the social and linguistic rules for the ways of speaking that reflect those identities in their homes and primary networks. Young bilingual children function like junior ethnographers, ascertaining what language to speak to whom, when and how, even chastising adults who break the local rules (Fantini 1985). As they grow older, they learn the art of ‘doing being bilingual’ (Auer 1984), which acknowledges agency in performing “acts of identity” (Le Page and Tabouret Keller 1985), sometimes instantiated simultaneously. Because bilinguals are not passive recipients of cultural models, but active agents who exploit both traditional and new ways of ‘doing being an X,’ bilingual repertoires of identity may incorporate diverse rules and include hybrid linguistic and cultural practices that defy narrow classification. For bilinguals who are accustomed to switching to accommodate monolinguals, switching with other bilinguals may come to symbolize their identification with two speech communities, i.e., they ‘speak both’ because they ‘are both.’ And speaking both can also accomplish a myriad of communicative strategies, including emphasis, clarification, aggravation and mitigation of requests as well as topic and role shifting. But, borrowing and mixing are often frowned upon, leading some insiders and outsiders to patrol their respective language borders against what they consider a linguistic deformation. Disparaging labels reflect the despised mixture, e.g., Spanglish, Quechuañol, Catañol, etc. The authenticity of the national and/or ethnic identity of code switching bilinguals can be as suspect as their linguistic practices, but charging them with corrupting the heritage language and culture prove counterproductive. Instead of encouraging bilinguals to develop their languages, guilt may lead them to abandon one of them, usually the less widely esteemed code. Some bilinguals, including su servidora, do claim the labels like Spanglish that reflect their combinations of languages and cultures with pride and, with poets and other wordsmiths in the vanguard, they adopt new labels to reflect their blended



Preface

identities, e.g., Nuyorican, Dominican York. In the US, the pendulum against code switching has swung to the other extreme, with defenders like Stavans (2003) who distorts both the practice and the principles of Spanglish in an overzealous attempt to stop Spanglish bashing. Despite his laudable goals, Stavans’ creation of an inflated Spanglish dictionary – which includes traditional Spanish words, multiple spellings of anglicisms, and infrequent or unknown items – paints an inaccurate picture of a purported ‘new American language.’ And the anachronistic translation of El Quixote violates the in-group nature of Spanglish. With friends like these, as the old joke goes, who needs enemies? While it is true that bilinguals should not be held to monolingual standards, as if they were two monolinguals stuck together at the tong, it is also true that proclaiming a code switching style as a new language distorts the linguistic facts and masks the nature of linguistic prejudice. Many code switchers are on their way to language loss, not the creation of a new language. And, as the Oakland School Board learned when they sought respect for the rulegoverned linguistic code spoken by their African American students, defending the maligned way of speaking of a racialized minority is no easy task and cannot be accomplished merely by declaring it a language. Accordingly, we need a critical or anthro-political linguistics to unmask linguistic ideologies that perpetuate inequality, undermining a bilingual’s willingness to maintain and develop his/her bilingualism. Research on bilingualism and identity must repudiate “the illusion of linguistic communism” (Bourdieu 1991: 43), the notion that everyone is equally able to acquire the code of power and prestige in their society if they want it and work for it, ignoring the role of linguistic capital in the marketplace, which determines the status of languages and dialects, and the symbolic domination that the language of privilege exerts. We must ask ourselves who benefits and who suffers from the view that some languages or dialects are more correct than others and from the idea that bilingualism promotes cognitive confusion on the individual level and political schism on the community level. We must challenge educational policies that encourage multilingualism for the elite but monolingualism for the masses, and national language policies that marginalize language minorities. In the US for example, the Census Bureau classifies all members of families as ‘linguistically isolated’ if no one in the home over the age of 14 speaks English very well, even if younger children are monolingual in English. Yet no one who lives in a family where only English is spoken is considered linguistically isolated. Fears of English under threat by the less than 20% who speak a language other than English at home – most of whom speak English well or very well – have resulted in a surge of English-only laws passed by 19 states since 1981, bringing the total to 30. These laws, passed in the name of unity, reinforce the ‘naturalized’ connection between English-only, ‘real American’ and good citizen, and foment linguistic intolerance.





Ana Celia Zentella

This brings us back to our opening questions: Why do we want – or need – to know anything about bilingualism and identity, and what are our hopes for future research in this field? From an anthro-political perspective, it is not enough to lay out the linguistic facts, as Ladefoged insists. In fact, idealistic notions of bilingualism combine with discriminatory policies to construct unequal identities, with damaging social, educational, and economic repercussions for the lives of many. As Nancy Dorian (1993) reminds us, in response to Ladefoged’s insistence that “we must be wary of arguments based on political considerations,” there are no apolitical positions where languages and cultures are threatened. An anthro-political linguistics makes this plain, and reminds us of our responsibility to avoid complicity in the ‘misrecognition’ of bilinguals and their identities, heeding Bourdieu’s warning: …the language of authority never governs without the collaboration of those it governs, without the help of the social mechanisms capable of producing this complicity, based on misrecognition, which is the basis of all authority (Bourdieu 1991: 113).

One caveat: we cannot assume that recognizing the multiple identities of bilinguals will necessarily challenge traditionally rigid linguistic and national borders that reproduce inequality. Given the worldwide emphasis on consumerism and the crucial role of linguistic capital, bilingualism is not immune to commodification. The result is the marketing of multiple identities and a multilingual linguistic capital that mimics Weinreich’s ideal bilingual. Based on her research with FrenchEnglish bilingual students in Ontario, Heller fears the lines drawn by a new bilingual elite: …because of the nature of the new economy, the ability to cross boundaries is important….what is valued is a multilingualism as a set of parallel monolingualisms, not a hybrid system.... This [new bilingual] elite builds a position which marginalizes both those bilinguals whose linguistic resources do not conform to the new norms, and those who are, simply, monolingual (Heller 1999: 5).

Fortunately, the research in this volume on bilingualism and identity in diverse parts of the Spanish-speaking world, so theoretically sound and methodologically rigorous, contributes to a more democratic vision of the future, one that rejects rigid linguistic, cultural, and national boundaries. It is heartening to note that studies in Hispanic settings are in the vanguard of defying “multilingualism as a set of parallel monolingualisms” by providing convincing evidence that “different types of identity are neither exclusive nor singular” (Kroskrity 2001: 107).



Preface

References Auer, J.P.C. 1984. Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Dorian, N. 1993. A response to Ladefoged’s other view of endangered languages. Language 69(3): 575–579. Fantini, A. 1985. Language Acquisition of a Bilingual Child: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. San Diego: College Hill Press. Heller, M. 1999. Linguistic Minorities and Modernity. London, New York: Longman. Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kroskrity, P. 2001. Identity. In Key Terms in Language and Culture, A. Duranti, (ed), 106–109. Oxford: Blackwell. Ladefoged, P. 1992. Another view of endangered languages. Language 68: 809–811. Le Page, R.B. and Tabouret-Keller. A. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Ethnicity and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martinez, G. 2006. Mexican Americans and language: Del dicho al hecho. University of Arizona Press. Stavans, I. 2003. Spanglish: The making of a new American language. New York: Rayo. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education – or Worldwide Diversity and Human rights? Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Valdés, G. 1982. Social interaction and code-switching patterns: a case study of Spanish/English alternation. In Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic Aspects, J. Amastae and L. EliasOlivares (eds), 209–229. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Weinreich, U. 1968. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton. Zentella, A.C. in press. Bilingualism. In The Chicago Companion to the Child, Richard Shweder, (ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zentella, A.C. 1995. The ‘chiquita-fication’ of U.S. Latinos and their languages, or Why we need an anthro-political linguistics. SALSA III: the Proceedings of the Symposium about Language and Society at Austin. Austin, TX: Department of Linguistics, 1–18. Zentella, A.C. 1997. Growing Up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Oxford: Blackwell.



chapter 1

Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman University of Iowa

Contemporary sociolinguistic literature is concerned with undertanding the construction of linguistic identity. Spanish-contact situations across the globe present a particularly fruitful background against which linguistic identity can be studied. Since Spanish comes in contact with many languages and dialects in different geographic areas and because Spanish has a range of different social statuses in these situations, comparing and contrasting the sociolinguistic realities of bilingualisms in different Spanish-contact cases can inform theories of language and idenity as well as disentangle variables that are otherwise difficult to properly identify. The present chapter serves as a resourse to the reader of this volume in that it (a) reviews the sociolinguist literature pertinent to the concepts and argumentation discussed/offered in each chapter and (b) highlights the collective impact the individual studies in this volume have for current theorizing.

1. Introduction The chapters in this book explore the relationship between language and identity as it develops in multilingual environments where Spanish comes in contact with other languages or even with other varieties that are stigmatized.1 In the latter case, even if there is no bilingualism per se (see Bullock and Toribio this volume) there are ‘acts of identity’ based on linguistic performances (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985). As a result of the language contact situation, bilingualism constitutes a fertile ground to study identity manifestations. The dynamic nature of bilingualism has long been acknowledged and reflected in the multifarious approaches to investigating it. As a result, there is no shortage of serious scholarship dealing with bilingualism at the societal and individual level (e.g., Haugen 1953, 1956; Grosjean 1982; Appel and Muysken 1987; Hammers and Blanc 1989; Milroy and Muysken 1. As Romaine (2004: 385) suggests, we also use the terms “bilingual” and “multilingual” interchangeably to refer to the use of two or more languages in a community as something necessary in every day interactions.



Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman

1995; Myers-Scotton 2006; Romaine 1995, 2004b; Zentella 1997). Today more than ever before, we understand a great deal about the process, outcomes, impacts, politics and social milieu of bilingualism in a broad sense. However, there is much to be discovered. As linguistic and social theories evolve, so too must the study of bilingualism. The principle that language use is key in the process of negotiating identity(ies), and not a mere artifact of the speakers’ membership in social entities, constitutes the basis of the research presented in this volume. Its leitmotif is how identity is constructed in discourse in bilingual or multilingual contexts and what indexical functions language choice marks or delimits (Cameron 2001; Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985). Thus, identity is viewed as the result of processes of self-presentation, which emerge socially in the course of a person’s encounters with others. In recent years, the sociolinguistic study of language and identity2 has emphasized the notion of identity construction and as such is mostly seen as a negotiation that changes throughout time and is in a constant state of renegotiation (see Hidalgo this volume for previous and current competing perspectives). However, we are keenly aware that language is not by itself the exclusive determiner of social grouping since language gets entangled with other indicators of group membership. One must take into account that even categorical identities that seem solidly established such as the concepts of ‘woman,’ ‘man,’ ‘Latino,’ ‘Basque,’ ‘Spaniard,’ ‘Indian’ or ‘working-class’ are, in fact, not all-encompassing, monolithic descriptors. While they serve to make general classifications that entail minimum requirements for inclusion, they camouflage important recursive negotiations of meaning and make identity an ever-shifting process. We are thus reminded that “[t]he shared worlds that emerge from dialogues are in a continuous state of creation and recreation, negotiation and renegotiation” (Mannheim and Tedlock 1995b: 3). Keeping in mind that people do not belong to homogenous groups such as ‘Catalonians,’ ‘Mayas,’ ‘Quechua speakers,’ ‘Galician’ or ‘Latinos,’ whose group members rigidly share the same attitudes and ideologies, the data presented here are analyzed in relation to the individual history of the subjects and their network of relationships. Their cases defy simple reductive categories (De Sousa Santos 1998: 161; Cameron 2001: 161,170). As Romaine states, “simple labels hide complex realities” (2004a: 387) and thus, analyzing processes of identity construction and their linguistic manifestation is far from simple. Even the very category of identity itself is problematic. In a world of dissolving boundaries and disrupted continuities, the notions of groupness and stability of identity are not only being questioned but 2. Bucholtz and Hall (2005:586) propose the term sociocultural linguistics to refer to the interdisciplinary field that investigates language, culture and society. The authors list as subfields, among others, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, and certain forms of discourse analysis.



Chapter 1.  Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity

problematized, as are the notions of group making, identity as a field of competing values, and collectivity-blurred boundaries (Brubaker 1994, 2004). Keeping one of the languages constant, Spanish, the chapters in this volume compare and contrast the spectrum of resources in regards to linguistic identity construction specifically in the Hispanic bilingual or trilingual individual, family and/or ‘community of practice.’ Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1999: 490) define a community of practice as “an aggregate of people who come together around some common endeavor” which channel identity to social practice and speech. Likewise, since Spanish serves as both the prestigious as well as the socially lowerranking language depending on the environment, these divergent societal ideologies bring much to bear on the construction of linguistic identity. As a result, it is extremely interesting and fruitful to juxtapose the reality of linguistic identity construction by bilinguals in Spain and Latin America and by Hispanic bilinguals in the United States where speakers are positioned asymmetrically in different ways as minority groups. Within a nation, the notion of which language socially subsumes the others is often established and unwavering, but not exclusively so. The term minority language, frequently, is a euphemism for the language of the non-hegemonic, nonelite or subaltern groups within a particular context (Romaine 2004a: 389). However, any given language can be a minority language in one context and still the hegemonic language in another, as is the case with Spanish across the globe. As we will see in many chapters of this volume, Spanish is decidedly a socially subordinate language in the United States and equally the socially dominant language in most of Hispanic-Latin America. However, we will also see that Spanish and the autonomic languages share the co-official status in Spain, at least on paper (see Azurmendi et al.; Boix-Fuster and Sanz; Loureriro-Rodríguez this volume). In Catalanonia, for example, as discussed by Boix-Fuster and Sanz (this volume), Castilian, the majority language of Spain, is largely considered to be a minoritylanguage in Catalonia, where Catalan is the majority-spoken language. From a purely nationalistic perspective, Castilian (or Spanish) is decidedly the hegemonic language, however, from a provincial perspective within Catalonia it is the language socially dominated by Catalan and is thus effectively reduced to a minoritylanguage there. And so, while Basque, Catalan and Galician are autochthonous, non-unique languages, Spanish is non-adjoining throughout Spain and the Americas (Edwards 1994; Romaine 2004a). Most of the literature on the topic of minority language denotes a difference between indigenous and non-indigenous (immigrant) minorities depending on how long the population has been established in their homeland. An indigenous or autochthonous representation, according to the audience or social context (Blom and Gumperz 1972), community has been in a place for centuries. Conversely, the





Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman

recent arrival of immigrants is often seen as an imposition of a non-indigenous presence on the local community and by extension its linguistic history.3 This has immediate implications for multilingual contexts, which are explored throughout the present collection of chapters. A holistic reading of this volume highlights such a reality and underscores the mutable social currency that a single language can have depending on its different ‘markets’ in the Bourdieuian sense. In monolingual interactions speakers can use a different register or style; in multilingual exchanges the linguistic repertoire increases. In such exchanges language choice is indexical through the accentuation of dialect features or the selection of a different language for self-identification. Thus, multilingualism presents particular conditions in which identity can be expressed. There are several volumes dedicated to the study of linguistic identity (Benwell and Stokoe 2006; Butler 1990; De Fina, Schiffrin and Bamberg 2006; Gumperz 1982) and to identity and agency (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner and Cain 1998). However, this is the first volume dedicated specifically to an examination of the effects that multilingualism has on identity formation where one of the languages is kept constant, comes in contact with a multitude of others and has such a range of different social statuses as Spanish. And so, this volume attempts to contribute to studies on the emergence of identity in multilingual contexts in Europe and in the Americas. The goal of this chapter is to introduce the reader to the current sociolinguistic literature pertinent to the discussions throughout this volume. In doing so, we contextualize its chapters, highlighting common themes as well as the value of each contribution. 2. Theoretical background The concept of identity has long informed sociolinguistic research. Starting with the first variationist studies, to the most recent analytical studies that approach identity as a relational and sociocultural phenomenon. The notion of “acts of identity”, introduced by Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) in their study of Pidgin- and Creole-speaking communities in Belize, London and St. Lucia, made an impactful contribution to the anaylisis of identiy. Their findings regarding the linguistic behavior of their subjects revealed multiple instances where their perception of norms, standards and stereotypes was intertwined differently according to context. The authors called our attention to this “linguistic 3. This raises other dichotomies such as state-wide minority language or a local-only minority language, unique or non-unique language in the state and cohesive/ non-cohesive, according to the level of the spatial cohesion and adjoining/ non-adjoining communities.



Chapter 1.  Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity

behavior as a series of acts of identity in which people reveal both their personal identity and their search of social roles” (1985: 14, emphasis in the original) as a relational phenomenon rather than a fixed category. In the last two decades, new directions in social theory have also shifted attention from a “structuralist” theoretical position that viewed collectivities as stable components of the social scaffolding to a more “constructivist” position. The individual, through acts of identity, do the “social positioning of self and other” (Bucholtz and Hall 2005: 586) in the collectivity. Thus, the notion of identity has moved from the unproblematic view of category membership to a more problematized positional view. The shift to view collectivities more as entities in constant flux, and therefore negotiation and renegotiation of membership, does not impede members of a group from deploying an essentialist argument in order to advance a political agenda. It is not to say that an essentialist ideology that imagines the ‘Other’ as homo­ genous and static has been replaced by the constructivist one. Today, essentialism is even used in appeals for recognition of rights, particularly to structure claims for demographic reforms and at times, for opposing projects (French in this volume). Poststructuralist and postmodernist theories suggest that a person’s identity (as member of certain social entities) is neither stable nor immutable. As such, identity, as a form of “doing” or “performing,”4 can be negotiated, constructed, altered, renewed, recreated, challenged and contested. The notion of ‘performativity’ goes back to Austin (1975) and his speech-act theory. Recent social and critical theory treats language as part of the notion of “performativity” of identity (with this or a different label) (e.g., Butler 1998; Cameron 2001, 2005; Irvine and Gal 2000; Heller 1999, 2003; Jaffe 1999, 2007; Mannheim and Tedlock 1995b; Mühlhäusler and Harré 1990; Romaine 1999, 2000, 2004a; Urciuoli 1996). They account for the role that linguistic exchanges play in the construction of identity and the social importance of language use in its construction: For many contemporary theorists, then, gender, and other kinds of identity, involve continuous work: failure to do this work, or to do it in socially acceptable ways, can have a strong negative impact on social interaction (making people feel confused, uncomfortable or threatened) (Cameron 2001: 171).

The notion of performativity5 challenges “the notion that our behavior flows ‘naturally’ from some core or essence inside us, that we do A, B and C because we ‘are’ 4. Different theoretical terminologies use particular terms to express the idea of evolving identity notion: ‘doing’ or ‘accomplishing’ (Cameron 2001; West and Zimerman 1991; Piller 2002; Romaine 1999), ‘constructing’ or ‘performing’ (Butler 1990). 5. We do not assume that every speech act is performative, but that a speech act becomes performative when it evokes some type of change. We thank Brenda Farnell for pointing this out to us.





Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman

X, Y and Z. Some theorists would argue that what happens is actually the reverse – it is in doing X, Y and Z that we become or construct ourselves as A, B and C” (Cameron 2001: 170 emphasis in the original). Butler (1990) argues that even gender (as a social construct, based on a natural condition, sex) and gender identity, considered one of the most firm identities, is an illusion because it is the repetition of certain acts (dress, gesture and speech) within social regulations that produce “the appearance of substance” when social actors perform them (1990: 33). For Butler, repetition is what sustains identity; it is by doing something over and over that behavior is internalized so identity does not feel like a performance to the actor but a ‘natural’ way of behaving (Cameron 2001: 171). As Austin pointed out, some illocutions like “I declare you husband and wife” bring something into being, Butler believes that ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are not what we are but what we do (Cameron 1998: 271–272). Cameron (2005: 489) links Butler’s theory of identity and performativity, partially carried out through language, to the concept of ‘community of practice’ (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1999). As Cameron points out, the relevance of the community of practice theory to sociolinguistic theory of performative identity is that the relationship between language and the practice of some identity is defined by the social structure and practices of a certain community to which the speaker feels they belong (2005: 489). Bourdieu (1991) focuses on the relationship between linguistic forms and the symbolic capital they represent. This notion is also applicable to the identity the speakers construct in different contexts. When a speaker chooses to perform his/ her identity through a specific language or linguistic forms, it is because s/he attaches particular meanings to those resources. Therefore, the significance of Bourdieu’s view is that certain discourse forms legitimate semantic and social meanings in a given speech community and determine the value as symbolic capital when used in the linguistic market. Consequently, social capital is continually reproduced for that market precisely because it has symbolic value (Bourdieu 1991). 3. Language and the construction of identity As language becomes the conduit for constructing an identity, there are countless social contexts in which to analyze not only language choice and code-switching but also to observe linguistic exchanges as conditions “for ‘meta’ discussions about aspects of identity” (Cameron 2001: 171 emphasis in the original). Each of the chapters in this volume provides such an opportunity to the reader.



Chapter 1.  Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity 

3.1

Relational identities negotiation

People construct different identities to project an image or to renegotiate a sense of self. Without ignoring that some individuals deviate from societal norms and produce ‘deviant’ identities (Cameron 1995: 16), social competence demands different performances in different situations. These social expectations are linguistically realized, although obviously not exclusively so (see Urciuoli in this volume). In the case of multilinguals, one may choose another language or code-switch to let the interlocutor know that “not only am I X, but I am also Y” (Myers-Scotton 1988: 170). Switching between languages, when each language is associated with particular sets of rights and obligations, occurs when one is talking with others one considers similar to oneself (Myers-Scotton 2000: 146). Switching has semiotic value, conveying a sense of solidarity by indexing identity and in-group membership (Valdés 1982; Gal 1987; Romaine 1994, 2000; Rothman and Rell 2005). Moreover, switches can symbolically mark the identity we want to project at any given particular time within that particular group. 3.2

Identity and representation Consciously or unconsciously, speakers use speech to signal their sense of themselves as belonging to a group A and being different from group B. In both accounts, it is implicitly assumed that the relevant categories and identities exist prior to language, and simply “marked” or “reflected” when people come to use it (Cameron 1995: 15).

The main challenge of research into language and the assertion of identities is the resources used (linguistic or otherwise) to distinguish oneself from others who are perceived as different. As Irvine and Gal (2000: 39) put it, “By focusing on linguistic differences, we attempt to draw attention to some semiotic properties of those processes of identity formation that depend on defining the self against some imagined ‘Other.’” The essentializing of the ‘Other’ (imagined as homogenous and static) is a well-known issue questioned in the current related literature. Another aspect explored in various chapters of this volume (e.g., Azurmendi et al.; French; Loureiro-Rodriguez; Zavala and Bariola) is the linguistic representation formed under specific historical conditions in which the different groups live or have lived; such representations may serve – Irvine and Gal continue – to interpret linguistic differences that have arisen through drift or long-term separation. But they may also serve to influence or even generate linguistic differences in those cases where some sociological contrast (in presumed essential attributes of persons and activities) seems to require display.



Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman

4. Globalization and identity politics The globalized economy has provoked deep transformation of language and identity in several ways. Identity under the conditions of a postmodern geography has changed people’s experience of the world (or the placelessness in it) with the result of diasporic communities. This fact has added complexity to cultural and linguistic identities which require reconstruction and renegotiation for contemporary demands (Morley and Robins 1995; Heller 2003). Part of the logic of globalization is to push toward a greater homogeneity in industrial markets and to remove a market from the local characteristics of its context. But, there is also a contrary force at work challenging that logic: a resurgent interest in the local and regional pride (see for example Azurmendi et al; Boix-Fuster and Sanz; Loureiro-Rodrí­ guez; Zavala and Bariola this volume). Interestingly, this has opened up spaces for local communities in the areas where ethnic minorities have some control. The Otavalo indigenous community in Ecuador, for example, has built up its consciousness through political resistance; Kichwa revitalization is in place and they have also acquired more control over their own resources. This produces tension with the state but the local community is flourishing thanks to transnational commerce. So there are “tensions between local, national, and supra-national identities and language practices, and between hybridity and uniformity” (Heller 2003). According to De Sousa Santos (1998: 348) there is not a single globalization, but rather globalizations – a set of social relations that provoke conflict, winners and losers. This definition poses two issues: (1) what we call globalization is the successful globalization of a given localism (348) and (2) globalization provokes localization (Niño-Murcia et al. 2008). We could give many examples of how globalization provokes localization; one case is the spread of English in the World, which has resulted in the localization of French as the international language. However, the process called globalization has provoked a resistance by means of an emergence of regionalisms and enhancement of local languages and identity (De Sousa Santos 1998: 348). Spanish has been considered one of the Lingua Franca languages in the world (Godenzzi 2006). What does it mean for Spanish to serve as a lingua franca? It means that its sphere of influence is not limited to Spain and the American ex-colonies as well as that it is been used for people for whom it is not the native language (McGroarty 2006). This fact has linguistic and social implications, establishing asymmetric relations among its users too. In Hispanic Latin America, Spanish is in the hegemonic position and dominates other languages; on the contrary, in the United States it is in a subordinate position. In the United States, the presence of Spanish speakers has drastically increased, but this fact has also provoked a negative attitude on the part



Chapter 1.  Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity 

of some English speakers to ban the language in the country (e.g. Niño-Murcia et al. 2008, Hidalgo this volume) 4.1

National and ethnic identities

Nationalism and ethnicity share the sense of ‘groupness’ or ‘people-hood.’ On the other hand, viewing nations as communities requires a great amount of abstraction since national and community citizenship are imagined and a nation does not rely on the day-to-day interactions of its citizens (Romaine 2004a: 387, 389). During the early nineteenth century, language was linked to nationalism and identity by the philosophers of German romanticism such as Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803), Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814) and the French Ernest Renan (1823–1892) and Etienne Bonnot de Condillac (1715–1780). For example, Humboldt stressed that linguistic communication is the “spiritual exhalation of a language” and nothing was more crucial for a nation than the possession of a common language. As Condillac (1746) had identified language with “the genius of the people” and that “each language expresses the character of the people that speaks it,” by the time national histories were written, the nation had an instrument with which identity was maintained: language. In 1807, Ficht advanced the idea that the loss of a language was equivalent to loss of identity (Bauman and Briggs 2000; Olender 1992; Edwards 1985). As Bauman and Briggs (2000: 142) point out, “Locke and Herder promoted ideologies of language that emphasized shared identity while at the same time generating means of creating hierarchical rankings of discourses and modes of producing and receiving them,” an issue that is the matrix for the analysis of the cases presented in this volume. Nationalism, on the other hand, has been seen “as an extension of ethnicity” in which nation is self-defined and an ethnic group is other-defined (Edwards 1985: 5). Ethnic groups are generally equated with minority groups, particularly in the contexts of immigration or an indigenous population, despite the fact that as Edwards (6) continues, the Greek word ethnos means nation (a common descent group) and thus includes all people, which is to say, a super-set of all and not subsets of some. Nonetheless, dominant groups do not define themselves as ethnicities proper and group boundaries become relevant in identity formation processes. When boundaries that demarcate so-called ethnic groups disappear, it is because members became integrated into the majority group (European immigrants in the United States, for example). Thus, the term “ethnic” can be used in processes of commodification of culture of the previously marked groups (Heller 2003). Ethnicity becomes a “symbolic ethnicity” (Gans 1979) in which the native language no longer plays a role because its members have mainly (and sometimes exclusively)



Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman

become speakers of the majority language. Not surprisingly, this discussion will bring much to bear on Bustamante-López, Potowski, Rothman and Niño-Murcia, Shenk and Urciuoli’s chapters in this volume, which discuss the reality of Hispanic bilingualism in different contexts in the United States. Since ethnicity is not a voluntary membership (whether people identify themselves or are identified by others as members of the group) the construction of identity makes ethnicity a fertile ground to appreciate its dynamics within heterogeneous societies. 4.2

Language contact

The role of language contact, co-existence with typologically unrelated languages and bilingualism produce hybrid linguistic forms and therefore, adds options to the construction of a multiplex identity. Examples of this principle include Euskera (Basque) in Spain, as discussed in Azurmendi et al., and the Amerindian languages in Latin America (Quechua, Shipibo in Peru, and Kaqchikel in Guatemala) as discussed by French, Sánchez, Zavala and Bariola and with Haitianized Kreyol in the Dominican Republic as discussed by Bullock and Toribio. In contexts where an indigenous language is involved, language choices may or not emphasize “Indianness,” but what concerns us here is the importance of language choice in indigenous self-representation and the ways in which Indians deploy language to negotiate identity (Graham 2002). Shipibo, Quechua and K’aqchikel communities (any indigenous community for that matter) have traditionally not been acknowledged as “bilingual” but as people “doubly disabled, lacking both the language of culture and the language of wider communication” (Jaffe 2007: 54). Currently, we are witnessing the contestation of those misconceptions. Five centuries after the first contact with the Spanish-speaking world, Mayan peoples have not only survived the transformations of indigenous Central America, but their culture has flourished and has in fact entered, a period of great ethnic reaffirmation. Not surprisingly, language is central to this endeavor. In addition, when gender identities are also being enacted, language choice acquires more relevance as Zavala and Bariola analyze in this volume. Migration from the Amazonian rainforest to Lima is provoking some changes in Shipibo women’s use of their vernacular language. By using the Shipibo language, they are not only maintaining the link with their ethnic identity as city dwellers but also redefining gender relations. Shipibo women are undergoing an empowerment process and language choice is acquiring new social meanings by which they are constructing an identity as mothers not only by contrast with men but also with other versions of women. It illustrates how relational identities are being



Chapter 1.  Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity 

renegotiated all the time and the indigenous culture and discourse, like in any other group, are constantly changing in a globalized world (Graham 2002). 5. Bilingualism Is bilingualism an individual phenomenon or a societal one? It is not always possible to maintain a strict boundary between the two. However, being aware that there is not a unique typology of bilingual communities nor of bilingual individuals, we are more concerned with multilingualism as a societal phenomenon. That is to say, when using more than one language is “a normal and unremarkable necessity” (Edwards 1994: 1). On the other hand, bilingual individuals belong to different “communities of practice,” as we mentioned earlier, thus they interact regularly, with a shared repertoire of communal resources as ways of communicating, including the use of one or more languages (Romaine 2004a: 387). Membership in bilingual communities does not imply active use of two or more languages, since membership sometimes entails passive competence, but shared norms of understanding. Equally, not being in a society that overtly supports particular instances of bi/multilingualism does not a priori mean that minority language loss is inevitable (see Rothman and Niño-Murcia this volume). In any case, linguistic choices become a medium to construct an identity since the interlocutor may have a receptive competence and understand the speaker even if his/her own productive skills are not developed (Romaine 2004a: 385–387). 5.1

Indexicality and human agency

Finally, we would like to focus on indexicality and human agency in these processes. Indexicality connects formal elements of language to extra-linguistic conditions, things people do by means of the property of linguistic signs to indicate aspects of the social context (Silverstein 1976). People respond to discourse by constructing and reconstructing meaning through complex social interactions and indexicality. As De Fina et al. (2006) put it, “[t]he concept of indexicality helps us understand how connections are established not only between language (as well as other modes of communications) and local identities, but also between language and global identities.” On the other hand, since “[it] is ‘the social’ as a patterned action rather than the ‘social system’ as social structures that determine the patterning of action” (Varela 1999: 385), agency is another concern in some of the chapters (See Zavala and Bariola this volume). How much control do speakers have over language? The assignment of agency belongs to peoples in social relations. It is people who use



Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman

linguistic conventions to perform identities and not the other way around. Rather, all human actions that reproduce social practices and transform them within social, cultural and linguistic co-constructed group patterns are agentic (Mannheim 1995). 6. Volume organization The above discussions are not meant to be exhaustive, but to serve to orient the reader since these themes are echoed, to a greater or lesser extent, in the individual chapters that comprise this volume. Although the spatial reality of the situations examined in this volume are, by design, different, they are not at all mutually exclusive. Besides the obvious link of Hispanic bilingualism, they all consider societal, individual, humanistic and linguistic factors to necessarily be intertwined and deterministic in the process of identity construction. This fact makes these chapters not only complementary, but mutually inclusive. Moreover, the discussions they provide consider original data from written and spoken language, which is to say, data from complementary types of contexts. They examine lexical and language choice, phonological and syntactic productions, differences and judgments, code-switches and code-mixing and interview data that are introspective and reflective among other features. In doing so, they take ethnic, geographic, societalparticular, socioeconomic and individual factors into consideration. Joining the most current discussions in sociolinguistic theorizing about language and identity, each chapter explicitly or implicitly challenges the notions that simple labels and visual cues (e.g., food, dress and appearances) are not adequate to define the reality of linguistic identity at the group, much less at the individual levels. Each chapter adds to our understanding that linguistic identity is a dynamic concept in every sense and that linguistic identity is shaped by internal and external factors that are mutable and constantly renegotiated at the macro and micro levels. In particular, these chapters remind us that the process of identity construction is perhaps even more elaborate and multifaceted in the case of multilingualism, where the increased linguistic repertoire of multilingual people adds another dimension of complexity to an already involved process. This book is a collection of twelve chapters in which the linguistic practices of multilingual and cross-cultural speakers are explored in varied contexts. A quick survey of the linguistic diversity and language contact situations in the Hispanic world renders obvious the countless resources one has to investigate bilingual identity construction (and for different, yet complementary perspectives see Hidalgo this volume), and the chapters in this volume exemplify this nicely. Instead of viewing countries individually, we consider the larger international



Chapter 1.  Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity 

Spanish-language community of which Basque, Catalan, Galician, Quechua, Shipibo, Kaqchikel, Haitian Creole-speaking and Latinos in the US communities have been long-time members. The chapters in this collection are grouped together in three chronologically (in terms of the diffusion of Spanish) and geographically motivated subdivisions: (1) Spanish in contact with autonomous languages in Spain, (2) Spanish in contact with Creole and Amerindian languages in Latin America and (3) Spanish in contact with English in the United States. Common to all these situations is that Spanish bilingualism either at the super-societal or subsocietal level of the larger society is the expected norm. While the status of Spanish is different in many of these contexts, the fact that Spanish is held constant in these situations allows the reader to draw meaningful parallels across the situations. However, the fact that there are important differences highlighted by a holistic reading of these case studies despite the consistency of Spanish invites the reader to transcend linguistic common ground and appreciate the uniqueness of each situation with regard to the complexity of identity construction and manifestation, at the individual, societal and supra-societal levels. 6.1

Hispanic bilingualism in Spain

The chapters in section II examine cases of Spanish contact with autonomous languages in Spain such as Basque, Catalan and Galician. In Spain, Spanish has a unique relationship in that it is simultaneously the hegemonic and the socially subordinate language depending on the geographic context. Although the autonomous languages share co-official status with Spanish, at some autonomic level such as in Galicia, Catalonia and the Basque Country its hegemonic status is contested. As we will see, this situation makes for fruitful and distinctive investigations into issues of bilingual linguistic identity. Furthermore, these individual cases juxtapose with each other as well as the reality of Hispanic bilingualism in the United States, where Spanish is ubiquitously considered socially subsidiary, and Latin America where Spanish is decisively the language of power. Azurmendi, Larrañaga and Apaletegi analyze the process of the administrative and cultural attempt to “revive” the use of Basque with respect to its policies and results in each of the three Basque territories: the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) and Navarre (both in Spain) and Iparralde (in France). Their analysis is realized through a statistical examination of various forms: censuses, academic enrollment data and (primarily) linguistic/identity questionnaires of Basque and/ or Spanish/French speaking populations. The authors argue that the revival process of Basque has been a success in the BAC, generally positive in Navarre, and poor to nonexistent in Iparralde, France. However, they note that in spite of the statistical growth, Basque’s use outside of an educational setting is limited, which



Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman

hinders the process of “normalization.” The authors partially attribute this fact to the lack of “instrumental” motivation (necessity in the work force), the lack of “integral” motivation (functioning within the Basque culture) and the (recent) disassociation between speaking Basque and being considered Basque (in a 2003 survey, only 18% of those who responded said that speaking the language is necessary for viewing oneself as a member of the culture). Loureiro-Rodríguez’s chapter was inspired by the lack of current qualitative studies evaluating language choice and attitudes in Galicia, particularly among adolescents. Historically, the linguistic hegemony of Spanish in Galicia has triggered language shift to Spanish, which has had a significant impact on the language policy and planning in Galicia. While Spanish has always enjoyed high status, Galician has been considered a non-standard and much stigmatized dialect since the 15th century through Franco’s dictatorship (1939–1975). Loureiro-Rodríguez shares her findings from a study conducted in Galicia in order to determine the linguistic ideologies that determine adolescents’ language choice in Galicia. She also explores the repercussions of the institutionalized bilingualism in the linguistic ideologies and identity formation among the younger generation of Galicians. Her data consist of recorded informal interviews and sociolinguistic open-ended questionnaires. Loureiro-Rodríguez’s collected data reveal that while speakers whose pronunciation differs from the institutionalized standard Galician may be stigmatized, speakers of standard Galician may be regarded as socially privileged or as of greater intellectual and personal worth. The data also suggest that standard Galician is still linked to a nationalist ideology and consequently may be misrecognized as being symbolically linked to nationalists’ political or intellectual nature. Interviews also suggest that standard Galician is, in fact, the most prestigious and valuable variety and that several adolescents recognize the practical value and advantages of learning it, which is essential to be able to obtain a job in Galicia. Individuals also seem to recognize the importance of the homogeneity function of the standard variation. However, she suggests that bilingual education may be interfering with children’s right to use their mother tongue (regardless of what that may be) and the developing of their own identity. Boix-Fuster and Sanz discuss the history, current linguistic and social reality of Catalonia. Employing complementary forms of data from different sources “along a continuum from more public to more private” they solidly demonstrate how identity can be negotiated, indexed and performed through language. They dispense of three types of data sources: (1) language from the recent electoral campaign in Catalonia, (2) the speech of a choir conductor in Barcelona and (3) data from several elicited narratives. Their data show a clear link between language and identity, especially ethnic identity in Catalan society; however, they also demonstrate that such a link has become problematized in recent years due in large part



Chapter 1.  Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity 

to immigration and the importance at the political level of the first and second generation of immigrants from other regions in Spain. They argue that contemporary shifts in the social structure have favored the expansion and proliferation of bilingual varieties of both Spanish and Catalan in Catalonia. For an ethnic group such as Catalans that depend on their language as a marker of identity, such a linguistic situation is understandably problematic and will inevitably force a reassessment of the criteria that determine what it means to have a Catalan identity. Such a reality provides evidence for a constructivist notion of identity beyond the individual level, but at the societal level as well. 6.2

Hispanic bilingualism in Latin America

The chapters in section III largely deal with cases of Spanish/indigenous language contact in Latin America. Although the contact languages, social environments and the populations studied are quite different from one another, Spanish is the hegemonic language of the larger national community in all situations and is thus of prestigious and desirable value. This fact makes these situations quite different from the cases of Hispanic bilingualism in the United States and in Spain. Sánchez examines writing patterns in L1 Quechua/L2 Spanish bilingual and Spanish monolingual children in Peru, focusing on the acquisition of text structure and semantic content of a given topic in classroom compositions. The acquisition of L2 literacy by children in diglossic societies poses a problem for the development of writing skills. Bilingual children acquire text structure in the L2 at the time they are completing the acquisition of sentence structure and lexicon in their L1, something monolinguals have been able to do earlier. There may also be bilingual/ monolingual discrepancies in what constitutes culturally appropriate content for a given composition topic. Her analysis of the semantic content in writing samples about families yielded significant differences between the two groups. Bilingual children described extended family members and even their domestic animals in their compositions. The family was described solely in terms of their daily activities and function within the family as a productive, working unit. Monolinguals, on the other hand, focused on immediate family members. They described the positive qualities of the person and the relationships between family members. Sánchez proposes that these differences in semantic content as well as use of nonnative structures by bilinguals are both important factors that contribute to the perception of these two groups as having different identities as academic writers. French examines the case of the Mayan languages in Guatemala. Following an unsuccessful attempt to declare all twenty-one Mayan languages official national languages in 1999, the Guatemalan government – in contrast to their previous stance – passed the Ley de Idiomas Nacionales ‘Law of National Languages.’ While



Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman

during La Violencia in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the government attempted to portray the twenty-one Mayan languages, and their correlated cultures, as a threat to national unity, recently, in an effort to revive the culture that was suppressed by the state, academicians, linguists, and the Mayan people now utilize the Mayan languages as a unifying tool. French shows that these two groups, the Guatemalan government of the late twentieth century and the Mayan community of the twenty-first century, invoked the same political/social/linguistic strategy in order to achieve their opposing ends, i.e., suppression of the Mayan people in the former, rebirth and unification in the latter. In order to reverse the effects of the Guatemalan government’s linguistic genocide, present-day Mayan scholars, and Mayan speakers in general, initiated a program to standardize each of the languages, update its lexicon and revive its use in hopes of furthering the understanding of their culture. In this way, French completes her parallel: by equating the Mayan languages with the Mayan culture, she is able to show how two different groups with two contrasting purposes were able to use the same principle to carry out their respective intents. The Guatemalan state used the intrinsic relation between the Mayan culture and language to show that speaking Mayan was detrimental to a unified nation, whereas the Mayan scholars and activists took the same approach in order to restore the culture and linguistic rights of their people. Zavala and Bariola analyze the effects of migrating to the city have on the sense of the ethnic community and the power and gender relations for the Shipibo people. Living in Lima has provoked a renegotiation of identities. Since women are now making more money than men, a new agentive identity is surfacing in the group in Canta Gallo. In their communities of origin, women are considered as assistants of men in the agro-chores while they perform domestic duties, but in Lima the opposite has been observed. Women’s handicraft production is reversing the roles as the breadwinners for their family. The use of the Shipibo language in communal meeting is the symbolic resource deployed to assert their identity as Indians and as empowered women and they themselves are portrayed as agentive in the social change. How language choice becomes indexical is illustrated by the Shipibo women discussed by Zavala and Bariola: women use more Shipibo than men in the communal meetings, but not due to lack of Spanish proficiency. Women as well as men are fluent speakers of Spanish but choose the Shipibo language as a defining feature of identity construction. But as always, in transcultural and multilingual encounters the political ramifications of language use in public arenas is infinitely more complex. Bullock and Toribio examine the Spanish spoken by fronterizos, Dominicans living along the Haitian border, which is often characterized as ‘Haitianized’ by other Dominicans. This study is unique in that there is no bilingualism proper despite the potential for bilingualism (i.e., Spanish-Haitian Creole contact) which



Chapter 1.  Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity 

has implications for linguistic identity theorizing. They are concerned with whether the negative characterization of so-called “Haitianized” Spanish speech that emerges from this language contact is based on salient creoloid features in Dominican Spanish or whether it is the result of wide-spread anti-Haitian sentiment in the Dominican Republic. It seeks to determine whether even in a monolingual context Dominicans discern ‘Haitianized Spanish’ from other cibaeño dialects (those in the northwest region of Cibao), and whether a lower prestige is conferred on this speech. It also seeks to identify the linguistic properties that are characteristic of this variety. The authors note that Dominicans have negative social attitudes with respect to the varying Spanish dialects, with the capitaleño speech having more prestige than cibaeño speech and how other dialects such as the castellano of Spain have more social prestige than any Dominican dialect. Given that judgments about a language variety are assessments of how its speakers are perceived in society, it seems to follow that fronterizo speech, being ‘Haitianized,’ reflects social attitudes of Dominicans towards fronterizos, that is, that they are of Haitian descent, black and poor. This chapter wonderfully demonstrates how linguistic identity is shaped and negotiated not only internally by individuals, but is conditioned on external factors at the societal level. Moreover, it demonstrates how prevailing attitudes can resist the development of societal bilingualism even in close language contact situations. 6.3

Hispanic bilingualism in the United States

The chapters in section IV treat the case of Spanish as it comes in contact with English in the United States where Spanish is largely considered a socially subordinate language to English. It also discusses common themes and similar issues inherent to language contact contexts. Although these chapters are complementary they are decisively unique, touching upon a range of important issues and highlighting differences in various communities/instances of Hispanic bilingualism in the United States (from rural to urban settings and across socioeconomic instances). Kim Potowski’s chapter explores aspects of ethnolinguistic identity via the examination of individuals who have one Puerto Rican (PR) and one Mexican (MX) parent, which she labels MexiRicans (MXPR), in Chicago. This study is of particular interest for the compilation and analysis of sociolinguistic facts of Chicago, a place where the effects of Spanish dialectal contact/leveling combine with the influence of the majority language, English, to affect the Spanish and linguistic identity of Hispanic heritage learners. She aims to determine the degree to which phonological and lexical traits from the mother’s dialect were transmitted to the Spanish spoken by their adult MexiRican children and explains the presence or absence of these dialectal features through examining the content of interview



Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman

data. Potowski draws the conclusion that the data support the idea that MXPRs leaned toward the dialect of their mothers. However, this is not always the case and dialectal influence can come from other family members and other external entities such as social groups, communities or context. Elaine Shenk’s chapter provides excellent examples on the discourse of language and identity use by bilingual children in a small community in the Midwestern region of the United States. She discusses data from a longitudinal study conducted in a dual immersion school (English/Spanish) in rural Iowa in a community that is over 40% Latino, which compares sharply to the 4% average Latino population in the rest of Iowa. Shenk demonstrates that dual identities are negotiated and performed, with linguistic and cultural competence, as the students can access the world of the majority language and culture as well as that of the secondary language. By retaining the use of Spanish as much as possible, some students hold on to both worlds. They can integrate with existing family and community networks and also merge into English speaking cultural circles, sometimes even being intermediaries. They utilize both languages appropriately and understand the social and cultural settings of each. Urciuoli argues that the Spanish language, as a social phenomenon, is often (mistakenly) correlated with culture by inheritance, i.e., monolinguals in the United States tend to categorize cultures based on quantified components such as food, music, dance, language, etc. She examines the societal – and, to an extent, personal – ramifications of oversimplifying the view of culture in this way. Urciuoli proposes that one’s “culture” is defined by experience and self-classifications (e.g., “Latino/a” versus Dominican, Mexican, Puerto Rican, etc.), which indeed change over time, specifically when a student who comes from a bilingual working class culture enters a liberal arts college in which he or she faces judgments and stereotypes due to his or her linguistic background. Urciuoli argues that one’s racial, socioeconomic and geographic factors must be considered in order to fully understand an individual’s bilingualism. Urciuoli draws these conclusions from nine personal interviews that she conducted between 1995 and 2005 with bilingual students from liberal arts colleges. She also uses excerpts of interviews with similar circumstances from a senior thesis of one of her students. The concern, she argues, is that academicians and pedagogues at the college level devalue the individualism that coincides with one’s bilingualism, principally, the self-defined racial component and the dialectal aspect. Bustamante-López examines the situation of Mexican-descended individuals from a variety of backgrounds in southern California, demonstrating how linguistic identities are constructed and maintained through various social circumstances. Bustamante argues and supports the notion that ideas of identity, as who one is within specific social and linguistic worlds, vary greatly, depending on both the



Chapter 1.  Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity 

social context and with whom one is speaking. She shows a facet of constantly shifting identity through the perspective of bilinguals, who must make use of many differing linguistic identities. The way in which bilinguals perceive themselves is at the center of this piece including their perceptions amongst varying groups and the identity/identities they attempt to claim. The group from which data were collected represents very distinct individuals with various backgrounds, such as some who spent most of their childhood within the US and others in Mexico. She discusses the fact that California has been consistently bilingual for centuries, though the social circumstances of such bilingualism have been in constant flux, especially between groups. Rothman and Niño-Murcia discuss data from an on-going longitudinal case study on simultaneous Hispanic trilingualism in an affluent family of three young boys in the San Francisco, California area. Examining the pattern of language choice between the boys and their parents as well as among themselves, the data presented exemplify the principle that language choice is a social act and that identity is not only constructed, in part, linguistically, but that such a construction is in a constant state of flux and reevaluation. The authors demonstrate that the boys are very linguistically aware and are in tune to their interlocutors, knowing what the linguistic expectations are with whom in all situations. However, the boys are testing the linguistic waters so to speak more and more as the majority language of the society, English, becomes a more prominent source via schooling and social connections being made outside of the family unit. This chapter suggests issues for the future with regard to language shift and linguistic identity as the boys continue to mature and make meaningful connections in the English world that subsumes them. How these multifarious realities interplay with the negotiation and performance of identity is treated differently throughout this volume, but is its overall focus. The sum total of all the chapters herein reveals the dynamic nature of identity seen linguistically in multilingual contexts and highlights the fact that the social status of the languages in question is a determinative variable. Since many languages are cited in this volume, it is worth mentioning that unless otherwise indicated, the authors of each chapter have translated quotes into English. References Appel, R. & Muysken, P. 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Arnold. Austin, J.L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed. J.O. Urmson & M. Sbisà (eds). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Bauman, R. & Briggs, C.L. 2000. Language philosophy as language ideology: John Locke and Johann Gottfried Herder. In Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, P.V. Kroskrity (ed.), 139–204. Santa Fe NM: School of American Research Press.



Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman Benwell, B. & Stokoe, E. 2006. Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Blom, J.P. & Gumperz, J.J. 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds). New York NY: Holt. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brubaker, R. 1994. Rethinking nationhood: Nation as institutionalized form, practical category, contingent event. Contention 4(1): 3–14. Brubaker, R. 1996. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge: CUP. Brubaker, R. 2004. Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. In Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 585–614. Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge. Butler, J. 1998. Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal 40(4): 519–531. Cameron, D. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge. Cameron, D. 1998. Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In Language and Gender: A reader, J. Coates (ed.), 270–284. Oxford: Blackwell. Cameron, D. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Cameron, D. 2005. Language, gender, and sexuality: Current issues and new directions. Applied Linguistics 26(4): 482–502. De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. & Bamberg, M., 2006. Introduction. In Discourse and Identity, A. De Fina, D. Schiffrin & M. Bamberg (eds), 1–23. Cambridge: CUP. De Sousa Santos, B. 1998. De la Mano de Alicia: Lo Social y lo Político en la Postmodernidad. Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes. Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. 1999. New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research. Language in Society 28: 185–201. Edwards, J. 1985. Language, Society and Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Edwards, J. 1994. Multilingualism. London: Routledge. Fuss, D. 1989. Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature and Difference. London: Routledge. Gal, S. 1987. Codeswitching and consciousness in the European periphery. American Ethnologist 14(3–4): 637–653. Gans, H. 1979. Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. In Ethnic and Racial Studies 2: 1–20. Godenzzi, J.C. 2006. Spanish as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26: 100–122. Graham, L.R. 2002. How should an Indian speak? In Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America, K. Warren & J. Jackson (eds), 181–228. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Gumperz. J.J. (ed.) 1982. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: CUP. Hammers, J.F. & Blanc, M. 1989. Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: CUP. Haugen, E. 1953. The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. (Reprinted in 1969, Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press).



Chapter 1.  Spanish-contact bilingualism and identity Haugen, E. 1956. Bilingualism in the Americas: A Bibliography and Research Guide. Alabama AL: American Dialect Society. Heller, M. 1999. Linguistic Minorities and Modernity. London: Longman. Heller, M. 2003. Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4): 473–492. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D. & Cain, C. 1998. Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Irvine, J. & Gal, S. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, P.V. Kroskrity (ed.), 35–83. Santa Fe NM: School of American Research Press. Jaffe, A.M. 1999. Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jaffe, A.M. 2007. Minority language movements. In Bilingualism: A Social Approach, M. Heller (ed), 55–70. London: Palgrave. Le Page, R.B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: CUP. Mannheim, B. 1995. Agency, grammar, and pragmatics. Paper read at the Linguistic Anthropology Laboratory at the University of Michigan, Fall 1995. Mannheim, B. & Tedlock, D. 1995. Introduction. In The Dialogic Emergence of Culture, D. Tedlock & B. Mannheim (eds), 1–32. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press. McGroarty, M. 2006. Editor’s Introduction: Lingua franca languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26: vii-xi. Milroy, L. & Muysken, P. (eds.). 1995. One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Code-switching. Cambridge: CUP. Morley, D. & Robins, K. 1995. Spaces of Identity: Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural Boundaries. London: Routledge. Mühlhäusler, P. & Harré, R. 1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Myers-Scotton, C. 1988. Codeswitching as indexical of social negotiations. In Code-Switching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, M. Heller (ed), 151–186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Myers-Scotton, C. 2000. Code-switching as indexical of social negotiations. In The Bilingual Reader, L. Wei (ed), 137–165. London: Routledge. Myers-Scotton, C. 2006. Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Malden MA: Blackwell. Niño-Murcia, M. Godenzzi, J.C. & Rothman, J. 2008. Spanish as a world language: The interplay of globalized localization and localized globalization. International Multilingual Research Journal. 2(1): 1–19. Olender, M. 1992. The Languages of Paradise: Race, Religion and Philology in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Piller, I. 2002. Bilingual Couples Talk:  The Discursive Construction of Hybridity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Romaine, S. 1995. Bilingualism, 2nd edn. Malden MA: Blackwell. Romaine, S. 1999. Communicating Gender. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Romaine, S. 2000. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: OUP. Romaine, S. 2004a. The bilingual and multilingual community. In The Handbook of Bilingualism, T.K. Bhatia & W.C. Ritchie (eds), 385–405. Malden MA: Blackwell. Romaine, S. 2004b. Bilingual language development. In The Child Language Reader, K. Trott, S. Dobbinson & P. Griffiths (eds), 287–303. London: Routledge.





Mercedes Niño-Murcia and Jason Rothman Rothman, J. & Rell, A. 2005. A linguistic analysis of Spanglish: Relating language to identity. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 1(3): 515–536. Silverstein, M. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description. In Meaning in Anthropology, K. Basso & H. Selby (eds), 11–56. Albuquerque NM: University of New Mexico Press. Urciuoli, B. 1996. Exposing Prejudice: Puerto Rican Experiences of Language, Race, and Class. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Valdés, G. 1982. Social interaction and code-switching patterns: A case study of Spanish/English alternation. In Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic Aspects, J. Amastae & L. EliasOlivares (eds), 209–229. Cambridge: CUP. Varela, C. 1999. Determinism and the recovery of human agency: The embodying of persons. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 29(4): 385–402. West, C. & Zimmerman, D. 1991. Doing gender. Gender and Society 1: 125–151.

part 2

Spanish in contact with autonomous languages in Spain

chapter 2

Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country* Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi University of the Basque Country

This chapter deals with the current situation of bilingualism in Euskal Herria (the Basque Country), being brought about by a process to revive the Basque language and culture. This situation manifests itself differently in each of the Basque Country’s three political-administrative territories: the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) and the Charter Community of Navarre (Navarre) in Spain, and Iparralde (the Basque territories) in France, largely due to the different institutional language policies applied. Interdependence among different processes is shown: re-Basquization and bilingualization, ethnolinguistic identity (linguistic and cultural), acculturation strategies and the psychosocial construction of citizenship and Basque nationalism. The Basque case is of great interest because it presents a dynamic, changing scenario, ideal for studying all the questions raised. It also has far-reaching implications for language and identity in general and in particular in the Spanish-contact contexts. The Basque case highlights nicely the complex and multifarious nature of constructing, performing and negotiating identity at the societal and individual levels.

* We are grateful to the Sub-Ministry for Language Planning of the Government of the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) for the funding granted for the presentation of this chapter in English.



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi

1. Presenting the Basque case1 Euskal Herria (the Basque Country)2 is a small region located in the vertex of the Atlantic Arc on both sides of the Pyrenees mountain range, divided between Spain and France. The seven historical territories or provinces that make up Euskal Herria (hereinafter referred to as Euskal Herria) are currently divided in the following way: (1) Hegoalde or the Southern Basque Country, in the Spanish State: Araba, Bizkaia and Gipuzkoa that constitute the Basque Autonomous Community (hereinafter referred to as the BAC) and the Charter Community of Navarre (hereinafter referred to as Navarre) and (2) Iparralde or the Northern Basque Country (hereinafter referred to as Iparralde) in the French State: Lapurdi, Behe Nafarroa and Zuberoa make up part of the département of the Pyrénées-Atlantiques (they do not constitute a single, separate administration in France, despite continual demands for the creation of a Basque département). This division largely explains the different situation presented by each of the three Basque political-administrative units, with respect to both bilingualism and Basque identity. The BAC and Navarre are two of the 17 Autonomous Communities within Spain. They are among the most economically dynamic, most industrialized and most modern. This fact has undoubtedly facilitated the great efforts towards the normalization of the Basque language and culture that have been made over the past 25 years, especially in the BAC. By contrast, Iparralde (the Basque territories in the French State) has a more traditional economy, based internally and mainly on agriculture, stockbreeding and on tourism. It is precisely these territories where the decline of Euskara (the Basque language) still persists. The BAC, the most dynamic in the Basque language and culture normalization process, experienced high immigration rates from other Spanish regions, most significantly at the beginning of the 20th century and during the Franco era. As a result, roughly one third of the current population in the BAC (taking only the last three generations into consideration) is the result of this immigration (immigration in the other territories is recent). Notwithstanding, the BAC has been and continues to be the most dynamic community in the Basque language and culture normalization processes. The most important Basque city, Bilbao, located in the BAC, is also one 1. In order to provide an overview of Euskal Herria, the Basque Country and of Euskara, the Basque language, during recent decades and today, some of the aspects that are going to be referred to in this introduction have already appeared in recently published papers (Azurmendi, Bachoc and Zabaleta 2001; Azurmendi and Martínez de Luna 2005, 2006; Gardner 2000). 2. Euskal Herria has (1) a surface area of 20,664 km2 (the BAC 7,234 km2, Navarre 10,392 km2, and Iparralde 3,039 km2) and (2) 2,900,856 inhabitants (2,082,587 in the BAC, 556,263 in Navarre, according to the 2001 census, and 262,440 in Iparralde, according to the 1991 census). So, we are dealing with one speech community and one small, but highly complex nation.



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country 

of the most important ones in the Atlantic Arc of the EU. This socioeconomic context is important, as it is one of the factors that explains the political-linguistic changes taking place. Euskara is a linguistic isolate in Europe from a genealogical viewpoint, since it is not related to any other European language, and also from a typological viewpoint; it is one of the oldest languages in Europe and predates the arrival of the languages classified as Indo-European. Although its domain was considerably greater in early history than in recent history, it is a truly an autochthonous language in Europe. Perhaps because of all this, Euskal Herria means the Country of Euskara. In addition to its remarkable historical value (could or should it be regarded as the “heritage of humanity?”), it has a tremendous symbolic and pragmatic value for Basque citizens today. As a result, maintaining and defending Euskara is currently the subject of social and political debate and one of the main reasons behind the rallies and social movements widely supported in Euskal Herria. In other words, the interest, attitudes, symbolic as well as pragmatic motivations and ethnolinguistic identification are overwhelmingly in favor of Euskara, at least in the BAC territories, the epicenter of the Basque linguistic normalization process. In order to understand not only the current situation of Euskara (and that of Euskal Herria in general), but also its recent evolution, it is necessary to distinguish between two main periods: (1) the pre-autonomous administrative one, which saw the emergence of many of the current Basque language loyalist groups that made the current revival of Euskara possible and (2) today’s autonomous administrative period, following the enactment of the new Spanish Constitution in 1978, the Statute of Autonomy for the BAC in 1979 and the Charter Statute of Navarre in 1980, which ushered in the change from repression to the recognition and revival of Basqueness and of Euskara (and of Catalan and Galician as well). Both Basque Communities (the BAC and Navarre) were to develop different linguistic and education policies in different ways and to different degrees in connection with bilingualism and Basque identity. In the case of Iparralde in France (Ipar Euskal Herria, or the Northern Basque Country), the three Basque territories (Behe Nafarroa, Lapurdi and Zuberoa) have neither been officially recognized as of yet, nor constitute their own territorial unit despite constant demands, so they have no power for self-determination. The biggest change is taking place right now following the creation of the official Euskararen Erakunde Publikoa (Basque Language Board) in 2004, with the principal aim of facilitating the teaching of Euskara in the education system. Two things have taken place concurrently during the autonomous administrative period in the BAC and Navarre, both of which will be taken into consideration in this chapter: (1) the activity of numerous Basque language loyalist movements and social organizations, which has expanded in a similar way throughout Euskal



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi

Herria and (2) the activity of different official institutions (e.g., Government and Parliament of the BAC and of Navarre) which extends across the various territories in different ways. 1.1

Bilingualism, I: Language competence development

The most general data with respect to Euskara knowledge and competence throughout Euskal Herria between 1980 and 2001 show that active bilinguals have increased from 20% to approximately 30% and that there is an additional 20% of passive bilinguals. By region, much progress has been made in the BAC, little progress has been made in Navarre and in Iparralde the situation is one of continuing linguistic attrition/language loss. Among the available research, special mention should be made of the Sociolinguistic Surveys of the Basque Country undertaken by the Government of the BAC (on occasions with the collaboration of institutions in Navarre and Iparralde) to study language competence, language transmission, language use and language attitudes throughout Euskal Herria (Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco, 2001). As far as the language situation is concerned, among the 16–24 age group in 2001 (1) active bilinguals accounted for 39.6% in Euskal Herria as a whole, with 48.5% in the BAC, (2) passive bilinguals accounted for 17.6% in Euskal Herria with 20.2% in the BAC and (3) the percentage of Spanish-speaking monolinguals had fallen to 42.8% in Euskal Herria and to 31.3% in the BAC (there are no Basque-speaking monolinguals). This increase in the number of Basque speakers is due mainly to the Basquization through the education system, Basquization of adults and the increase in the number of Basque speakers and co-mother tongue bilinguals (through intergenerational transmission, crucial from the point of view of the RLS –Reversing Language Shift– theory of Fishman, 1991). Table 1 below shows how intergenerational transmission among active bilinguals (20% in 1991 and 30% in 2001) has evolved in the space of 10 years (Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco, 2001): Table 1.  Evolution in intergenerational transmission of language (Euskara, or Euskara and Spanish/French) (in percentages) BAC Euskara as a first language (L1) Both languages as L1 (co-mother tongue bilinguals)

Navarre

Iparralde

1991

2001

1991

2001

1991

2001

83.7 8.2

86.7 10.2

66.3 20.3

76.8 15.2

73.1 10.3

52.7 24.9



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country 

In the BAC, the transmission of Euskara as a first language (L1) is very high and is on the increase and the L1 transmission of both languages (co-mother tongue bilinguals) is also on the increase. In Navarre, the L1 transmission of Euskara is also high and on the increase, but the transmission of both languages as L1s is showing a gradual decline. Conversely, in Iparralde, the L1 transmission of Euskara is falling sharply, whereas the L1 transmission of both languages is also increasing sharply. As regards the Basquization of adults, the social organizations throughout Euskal Herria have joined forces with the official institutions in the BAC and the “Euskaltegiak” (Basquization centers for adults: public, private and officially approved private) to Basquize two types of inhabitants: (1) adults in general, (2) specific groups of inhabitants, mainly teachers in the pre-university education system (0–16 years) and employees in the public Administration (Government of the BAC, Provincial Administrations, Town Councils (Azkue et al. 2005)). In regards to the education system, what stands out is teacher Basquization (Gardner 2000; Gardner et al. 2005), which is required to bring about the implementation of the different bilingual teaching Models in the BAC: Model-D (Euskara-medium with Spanish as a subject), Model-A (Spanish-medium with Euskara as a subject) and Model-B (bilingual). The Government of the BAC has facilitated this process through a sophisticated language-retraining program, but this is not the case in Navarre or in Iparralde. The Basquization process of the BAC’s education system is noteworthy. Within the span of 20 years, the percentage of Basquespeaking teachers rose from 5% in 1975 to approximately 80% in the public network and 65% in the private network in the 2005–2006 academic year. Thus, in 2002, it was possible to have 63% of the teachers qualified to teach in Euskara: 68.8% in the public schools network and 56.3% in the private schools network. The Ikastolak (Euskara-medium schools set up by Basque language loyalist groups during the Franco era in the 1960s) have always had a 100% Basque-speaking teaching staff. In short, largely as a result of the different language policies applied, Basquization has been generally successful only in the BAC, limited in the case of Navarre and virtually non-existent in Iparralde. 1.2

Bilingualism, II: Basque in education

The education system is currently the main domain of social functioning for the Basquization and bilingualization of the inhabitants throughout Euskal Herria, principally in the BAC (Azurmendi et al. 2005b; BAT Soziolinguistika Aldizkaria, 60, 2006; Cenoz et al. 2006; Etxeberria 1999; EUSTAT 2004; Gardner 2000; Gardner et al. 2005; Grin et al. 1999; Larrañaga 1996; Luque 2004; Luque et al. 2004; Martínez de Luna et al. 2000).



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi

The Ikastolak, which were set up during the Franco era at the end of the 1960s by Basque language loyalist organizations and which continue today, constitute an important precedent and reference for understanding the evolution and current situation of the Basquization of the education system. The number of students in these schools rose dramatically from a low of 596 students in the early 1960s to a high of 69,953 in 1981–1982. Bearing in mind the virtual semi-clandestine nature of their existence, made possible mainly by private, religious schools, their positive evolution is particularly noteworthy. The Ikastolak continued to grow after the installation of the autonomous administrations. In the BAC, in the 1992–1993 academic year, the Ikastolak stopped having their own school network since they were required either to join the public network, with 32% taking that option, or the private network, which 68% opted to do. This fact subsequently signified Basquization reinforcement in both the public and private sectors. This did not happen in Navarre or in Iparralde, where the Ikastolak continued to operate within their own school network. In the case of the BAC, the Euskara Use Normalization Act (Ley de Normalización del Uso del Euskara, Parlamento Vasco 1982) established that the statutory education system (currently up to the age of 16) had to guarantee knowledge of the BAC’s two official languages throughout its territory. As a result, different bilingual teaching models were established throughout the school networks (public and private) from which parents could make a choice for their children and which still exist today: Model-D, Model-A and Model-B. Some figures are provided in Table 2 (Erkisia et al. 2006) below. These data show that the increase in the bilingual teaching models are most favorable towards Basquization, in particular Model-D (the one that really guarantees Basquization and Bilingualization), has been steady in the BAC, and this increase becomes sharper mainly in the early education levels. It is also clear that there are significant differences between the two education networks: (a) the main bilingual teaching models are Model-D in the public network and Model-B in the private network (mostly church-run schools) and (b) the minority bilingual education models are Model-A in the public network and Model-D in the private network. Interestingly, a special situation arises with respect to the school population of immigrant origin, which is educated almost exclusively in the public network. As most of these students are educated in Model-A, their chances of integration are thereby reduced. In the case of Navarre, the Basque Language Act (Ley Foral del Vascuence, Parlamento de Navarra 1986) established three sociolinguistic zones: (1) Basquespeaking (with the lowest demographic weight), (2) Spanish-speaking and (3) mixed (this is the most important one, not only because it is the largest demographically, but also because it includes the capital, Pamplona/Iruñea). Different language policies are applied to each zone. Models D and A (similar to the same



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country 

Table 2.  Distribution of students (in percentages) among the Bilingual Teaching Models in the BAC BAC

Model-D Euskara-medium with Spanish as a subject

Model-B Bilingual

Model-A Spanish-medium with Euskara as a subject

1982–83

13.1

9.2

77.2

2002–03

49.7

22.5

22.6

2004–05 (3–5 age group)

62.8

29.5

7.7

2004–05 Primary Education (6–11 age group)

51.0

28.6

20.4

2004–05 Secondary Education (12–16 age group)

45.0

22.5

32.5

69.2

18.7

12.2

15.4

65.0

28.6

22.8

27.6

49.6

2004–05 Public network Primary Education 51.0% of all students 2004–05 Private network Primary Education 49.0% of all students 2005–06 Immigration in the last 10 years (from Latin America, Africa and Eastern Europe)

bilingual teaching Models as in the BAC) exist in the Basque-speaking and mixed zones while Model-G (Spanish-medium teaching only) is the imposed model in the Spanish-speaking zone. Table 3 (Zabaleta 2006) below provides some general data. These data indicate that an increase in the Basquization of education has taken place mainly during the early schooling levels, but to a considerably lesser extent than in the BAC. Furthermore, there are huge differences among the school networks. For example, in the public sector three teaching models exist, although Model-G predominates. In the private/parochial sector Model-G clearly predominates with the exception of the Ikastolak, where Model-D is the only choice.



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi

Table 3.  Distribution of students (in percentages) among the Bilingual Teaching Models in NAVARRE NAVARRE

1988–89 Pre-statutory and primary education (3–11 years) 2004–05 Pre-statutory and primary education (3–11 years 2004–05 Basque-speaking sociolinguistic zone 2004–05 Mixed sociolinguistic zone 2004–05 Spanish-speaking sociolinguistic zone 2005–06 Public network pre-statutory and statutory education (3–16 years) 61.70% of all students 2005–06 Private network pre-statutory and statutory education (3–16 years) 30.67% of all the students 2005–06 Ikastola pre-statutory and statutory education (3–16 years) 7.63% of all the students

Model-D Model-A Model-G Euskara-medium Spanish-medium Spanish-medium with Spanish as a with Euskara as a teaching only subject subject 13.3

5.4

81.1

26.5

27.8

45.6

86.3

13.6

29.2

26.0

44.7

5.9

34.1

59.9

30.5

33.8

34.8

0.1

21.5

78.1

100



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country 

In Iparralde, it is a very different situation since the institutionalization of the different bilingual teaching models in education is something starting to take place only now under the auspices of the Euskararen Erakunde Publikoa (Basque Language Board) set up in 2004. Using the same Models as in the BAC, the situation of Iparralde during the 2003–2004 academic year is schematized in Table 4 (Erkisia et al. 2006) below: Table 4.  Distribution of students (in percentages) among the Bilingual Teaching Models in IPARRALDE IPARRALDE 2003–04

Pre-statutory and primary education (2–11 years) Secondary education (12–16 years)

Model-D Euskaramedium with French as a subject

Model-A Model-G FrenchFrenchmedium medium with Euskara teaching only as a subject

5.5

16.8

5.5

72.1

3.4

5.8

8.1

82.7

16.15

7.0

76.9

22.7

0.3

74.7

Public network Pre-statutory and Primary (2–11 years) 70% of all the students Private network Pre-statutory and primary (2–11 years) 27% of all the students Ikastola Pre-statutory and primary (2–11 years) 3% of all the students

Model-B Bilingual

100

Somewhat differently from the two previous cases reviewed, these data show that the Basquization process of education is very weak and slow, although it is principally manifested in early levels. Another sharp difference is the fact that only the situation in the public and private networks is very similar, with the exception of the Ikastolak (which comprise only 3% of schools). In view of the importance of the education system, it is prudent to discuss an evaluation of the Basquization process. In the case of the BAC, we can draw from



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi

internal and external evaluations. In 2005, an external evaluation was made as part of a large European Union (EU) educational analysis. The report showed that the average level of knowledge in the BAC is similar to or higher (in certain subjects) than that obtained in Spain as a whole and that what is obtained through Model-D is also similar to or higher than the average for the BAC. The internal evaluation has been taking place from the start, and very early on it was pointed out that the different bilingual teaching models made very different results possible, which is to say that active bilingualism was only guaranteed by Model-D and facilitated by Model-B. These results explain the social debate going on in the BAC right now surrounding the Bilingual Teaching Models. Different proposals have been put forward like that of introducing one single, multilingual model that would guarantee not only widespread Basquization and bilingualization as well as widespread Englishization, but also widespread social cohesion and equality of opportunities. One of the current challenges facing the Basque education system (and the non-Basque one, also facing Spain, France and the EU in general) is how to guarantee a good knowledge of English in a statutory way, in addition to an intermediate level in another optional foreign language by the end of statutory education (at the age of 16). As far as the introduction of English is concerned, there have been a variety of experiences, the most prominent being the one conducted by the Ikastolak mainly in the BAC with the introduction of English at the age of 4 in 1990. This experience of the Ikastolak has been evaluated favorably, since their students end up with a level of competence in English recognized as equivalent to the international “FCE-Cambridge First Certificate” qualification. Thus, the Ikastolak have shown that not only widespread Basquization and bilingualization are possible through Model-D schooling, but also widespread Englishization simultaneously, offering an education model that goes beyond bilingualism to clear multilingualism following EU directives (Garagorri 1998; Cenoz et al. 2000, 2006). All this progress in Basquization in education in the phases prior to university has had repercussions on university education itself. Once again, the situation differs greatly among the various Basque territories and among the different universities. The most interesting example is that offered by the University of the Basque Country (Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea – UPV/EHU), which is the BAC’s public university and the most important one in Euskal Herria (in terms of the number of courses and students). It is the only one in which two teaching tracks – one in Euskara and one in Spanish – have been established. Of the 50,000 students in the UPV/EHU that took the University Entrance Exams during the 2004–2005 academic year, 50.07% took the exams in Euskara and 49.93% took them in Spanish. This number indicates a growing demand being made by students for a University education in Euskara. Available teaching offered in Euskara, at least as far as the compulsory subjects are concerned, is about 80%,



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country 

but it is low with respect to the optional subjects, made possible by the increase in bilingual teaching staff (roughly 30% of the overall faculty). Today this university is also increasing multilingual offerings, principally in English, and is thus joining the growing EU trends in this respect. 1.3

Bilingualism, III: Basque use development

The real objective of the Euskara normalization process, through the widespread bilingualization of the population, is to bring about normal, widespread Euskara use, not only for the BAC’s official institutions but for the whole of Euskal Herria. So the biggest advances, once again, will be taking place in the BAC. Again, the available bibliography on the subject is broad and touches on many interrelated issues. BAT Soziolinguistika Aldizkaria, 53, 2004. Data on Euskara use in Euskal Herria, as far as the 15+ age group is concerned (Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco 2001), offer a typology, according to domains of use, important from the theoretical viewpoint of the RLS model (Reversing Language Shift) put forward by Fishman (1991, 2001) and allows us to see emerging patterns in language choice in particular social environments. In general, the proportion of Basque-speakers using mainly Euskara is small, although it is growing steadily. In 2001, the greatest use was in the BAC: the biggest proportion was with children (23%), in banks and with municipal services (20%); 18% used it with friends and the smallest proportion with the State Administration (7%). This small proportion of majority Euskara use is due to different reasons, such as psycholinguistic reasons of the degree of competence in the two official languages and sociolinguistic reasons since social use norms entail the use of Euskara in cases in which all the interlocutors are Basque speakers, a situation that is not yet very widespread. Thus, the greater, growing proportion of Euskara use exists by territory (in the BAC), by age (among the youngest) and by domain of use (in the closest relationships, such as with family and friends). In Euskal Herria as a whole, adolescents (13–14 years) (Martinez de Luna et al. 2000) display greater Euskara use than the older age groups, although this use continues to be less than their Spanish or French use, even among those schooled in Model-D. There could be an explanation for this because use would depend on a few interrelated factors. Firstly, individual aspects are relevant due to the possibility of lower competence in Euskara coupled with insufficient motivation for using it in some individuals. Also, the social structure of Euskara is of great importance, whereby its normalization and dissemination depend crucially on power mechanisms and the degree of institutionalization of spheres of Euskara use, when the latter facilitate genuine Euskara use. Related to this is the general and specific prestige of Euskara in certain spheres, which also facilitates genuine Euskara use.



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi

It should be noted that 48% of the 13 to 14-year-old adolescents surveyed from Euskal Herria as a whole are Basque speakers. In this population, the biggest differences in Euskara use depend on the bilingual teaching models followed in education, and are linked to the internal and external contexts of the schools. 72% of those taught in Model-D use mostly Euskara at school and 50% of them use it outside school. Those taught in Model-A do not use Euskara in most situation while 31% of those taught in Model-B use mostly Euskara at school and 15% do so outside school. There is a piece of research based on direct observation of genuine Euskara use in the street throughout Euskal Herria and repeated every four years by the Soziolinguistika Klusterra (BAT Soziolinguistika Aldizkaria 43, 2002); it is regarded as a barometer for gauging the advances being made in spontaneous Euskara use. The results indicate that the increase in Basque use in mundane encounters is constant in the case of the BAC, is maintained in the case of Navarre and is falling in the case of Iparralde, a result that is consistent with all data discussed thus far. Some of the figures for 2001 indicate the following situation: (1) by territory: (a) throughout Euskal Herria the average proportion of use is 13.5%, (b) in the BAC it reaches 16.1% (although in the most Basque-speaking territory, Gipuzkoa, it reaches 29.9%), (c) in Navarre it is 6.7%, (d) in Iparralde it is 5.8%; (2) by age, it is the youngest population that uses Euskara to the greatest extent: (a) throughout Euskal Herria: 19% of children, 13.6% of teenagers, and 11.3% of adults (because the increase in Basque speakers tends to take place at increasingly earlier ages); (b) among children: the proportion of use in the BAC is 23.5% (which in the case of Gipuzkoa reaches 43.7%), in Navarre it is 8.7% and in Iparralde 5.2%; (3) the presence of children leads to greater Euskara use: (a) when children are present, 25.1% (in Gipuzkoa 40%), (b) without children present, 11.5% (in Gipuzkoa 19.1%). This is consistent with the results of other pieces of research, which indicate that the adult population encourages children’s Euskara use considerably more than its own. On the other hand, there are Euskara uses not directly linked to communicative interaction. For example, uses connected with the linguistic landscape (street and road signs) or with the publication/production of books, magazines, music and videos. 2. Bilingualism and ethnolinguistic identity The history of Basquization and bilingualization expounded above is largely explained by the great loyalty towards Euskara and Basque matters in general, which can be studied in very different ways. For example, one can take the perspective of the psychosocial processes which have accompanied its history. One of the



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country 

psychosocial processes much studied in the Basque context has been the favorable/unfavorable attitudes frequently linked to motivations (integrative/instrumental/etc.) towards Euskara, Basque speakers and language promotion. In general, the attitudes tend to be more favorable in the BAC and in Iparralde than in Navarre. By age, the youngest are either the most favorable or the most indifferent. In terms of language competence, the greater the Euskara competence the more favorable one’s attitude towards its maintenance and dissemination, but the attitudes of Spanish or French monolinguals are also broadly favorable as well. Identity has also been widely studied as well. Identification is studied in a complex way, such as national identification, Basqueness in general or the complex configuration of Basque identity, with different components emerging, such as language, culture, national feeling and territoriality. This relates to the degree of conflict, opposition, separation and integration around the Basque/Spanish or French axis, particularly with respect to language and culture, which cannot be disassociated from bilingualism. The bibliography available with respect to this is extensive, primarily as far as the BAC is concerned, and covers not only the institutions (since the 1980s), but also social initiative (since the 1970s). Once again the difficulty is deciding what to choose for this chapter. From the beginning of the autonomous administrative period, the Government of the BAC looked into the objective social situation regarding Euskara (knowledge, use, transmission, etc.) and the subjective one (attitudes, interest, motivation, national feeling, identity, etc.), both in the BAC as well as throughout Euskal Herria. For example, in 1991 (Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco 1995), a study demonstrated that 64% of the 16 and older regarded itself as Basque while only 24% did not. In response to the question, “How do you regard yourself, between Basque and Spanish?” there were differences by territory. In the BAC, 35% responded that they regarded themselves as Basque, 11% more Basque than Spanish, 28% Basque and Spanish in equal measure, 4% more Spanish than Basque and 16% Spanish. In Navarre, in response to the question “Do you regard yourself as Basque?” 34% said they did, 13% said they did partly and 51% said they did not; this did not mean that they regarded themselves as Spanish, but rather that they mostly considered themselves to be “Navarrese.” In Iparralde, in response to the question “Do you feel Basque or French?” 13% said they felt Basque, 6% more Basque than French, 29% Basque and French in equal measure, 11% more French than Basque and 35% French. Regarding the conditions for feeling Basque, throughout Euskal Herria the most important distinction for Basque speakers and active bilinguals was “to speak in Euskara,” while that of “having been born in the Basque Country” was the most important factor for passive bilinguals and monolingual Spanish speakers. For 56% of the people surveyed the most important reason for learning Euskara was “because it is our language” a reason more identitary



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi

than instrumental. As far as interest in promoting Euskara was concerned, 91% of those who regarded themselves as Basque were in favor, whereas 48% of those who did not regard themselves as Basque were against it (they regarded themselves as either Spanish or French). Since 1996, the Government of the BAC has periodically conducted research into Basque youth (15–29 years, in order to monitor its evolution closely) with respect to different aspects, including Basque identity. In general, the results of a survey conducted in 2003 (Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco 2004) show that among the most important conditions for a person to regard him- or herself as Basque are feeling Basque (69%), living and working in the Basque Country (40%), having been born in the Basque Country (32%), speaking Euskara (only 18%), being of Basque descent (10%) and voting for a Basque nationalist political party (1%). As far as the BAC is concerned, there are numerous pieces of research dealing with identity conducted by social initiative, which is generally conducted by university researchers mainly from sociolinguistic and psychosocial perspectives. This research gives similar results that are consistent with each other, even though very different methodologies have been followed. Our own research has been carried out mainly on university students, because, among other reasons, they constitute a young population (with respect to the future) and an educated one (with respect to future social leadership). This research has emphasized the study of identity on the basis of the hypothesis that it is principally a psychosocial process, both the cause and consequence at the same time of the remaining intergroup, psychosocial processes (linked to cognition, motivation or affectivity). Identity is the defining process of people and groups in their interpersonal and intergroup relations. For this reason, identity construction, performance and negotiation are directly linked to interpersonal and intergroup behavior in relation to the situation of contact languages and cultures. We have followed a complex tradition of study (Azurmendi 2000) through which we examine ethnic and national identity vis-à-vis sociology and sociolinguistics (Conversi 2004; Erize 2001; Fishman 1989, 1999; García et al.  2006; Hornberger et al.  2006), as social identity type in social psychology (Abrams et al. 1990; Lorenzi-Cioldi et al. 1996; Tajfel 1978; Tajfel et al. 1986), as well as ethnolinguistic identity in the social psychology of language (Hecht et al. 2001; Giles 1977; Giles et al. 1987; Gudykunst et al. 1990; Sachdev et al. 2001). As an example of a study into the complex configuration of Basque identity, the following four components were singled out (Azurmendi et al. 2003a): (1) linguistic (Euskara, Spanish, both languages or bilingual), (2) cultural (provincial, of the autonomous community, Basque, Spanish, European), (3) national (Basque, Spanish, Basque-Spanish or bicultural) and (4) territorial (municipality, province, autonomous community –BAC–, Euskal Herria, Spain, Europe). Some of the results display the following identity typology (dimensions in the factorial analysis),



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country 

incorporating the four identitary components under consideration: (1) Basque identity (accounting for 27.4% of variance), which shows itself to be knowledgeable about the culture of Euskal Herria and participates in it, (2) European-Spanish identity (accounting for 18.1% of variance), which shows itself to be knowledgeable about Spanish and European cultures and participates in them, (3) Spanish identity (accounting for 8.3% of variance), which is in contradiction with and in conflict with the situations of Basque speaker and bilingual in the language component and which shows itself to be knowledgeable about Spanish culture and participates in it and (4) localist identity, incorporating only the territorial and cultural components on the municipal, provincial, and autonomous community levels (accounting for 7.9% of variance). Among these 4 identity types, the Spanish and European-Spanish identities correlate positively with each other (together accounting for 26.4% of variance), so they can be regarded as one single identity type. The Basque and Spanish identities appear orthogonally, in other words, as separate identitary worlds, except with respect to the language component, since those who identify themselves as Spanish correlate positively with the Spanishspeaking situation but negatively with the Basque-speaking and bilingual situations. The localist identity appears as separate and neutral with respect to the main Basque/Spanish identitary axis. On the other hand, no integrative Basque-Spanish identity type is obtained, so that the Basque and Spanish identities continue to manifest themselves as separate from each other, although in conflict as far as Euskara is concerned. Moreover, identification with Europeanness does not function as a supracategorial goal from which to be able to overcome the conflict between the Basque and Spanish identity types (Bourhis et al. 1996). On the other hand, relative identity intensity is different: stronger in Basque identity and weaker in Spanish identity. These identity types display the following discrete psychosociolinguistic profiles: I. Basque identity: (1) according to sociodemographic characteristics: residing in the more Basque-speaking territories (Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia), residing in municipalities with considerable presence of Basque speakers (in any case exceeding 20%), children of natives and natives, students at both the public and private universities (University of the Basque Country and the Jesuit-run University of Deusto, respectively), (2) according to sociolinguistic features: (in the case of both the subjects and their parents) having Euskara, or Euskara and Spanish (co-mother tongue bilinguals) as a first language, having been schooled in Model-D (Basque-medium with Spanish as a subject) or Model-B (bilingual), having chosen to respond to the questionnaire in Euskara, having high linguistic competence in Euskara and (3) according to psychosocial features: displaying a positive attitude towards Euskara as well as towards Basque speakers.



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi

II. Spanish identity: (1) according to sociodemographic characteristics: residing in the less Basque-speaking provinces (Araba, and Bizkaia), residing in municipalities with a minimal presence of Basque speakers (generally less than 20%), natives are children of parents of whom either one or both are immigrants, students at both the public and private universities, (2) according to sociolinguistic characteristics: (in the case of both the subjects and their parents) having Spanish as the first language, having been schooled in Model-A (Spanish-medium with Basque as a subject), having opted to respond to the questionnaire in Spanish, having low linguistic competence in Euskara and (3) according to psychosocial characteristics: displaying a negative attitude towards Euskara, but a positive one towards Basque speakers. Therefore, the contact languages, Euskara and Spanish, function as an important component in the social or group identification process, and also as the main component in the complex configuration of Basque and Spanish identities from the relational or intergroup point of view. Arratibel et al. (2001) have demonstrated that the factors that have a bearing on adult Basquization, in the processes not only of learning but also of use, are sociolinguistic and psychosocial factors in equal measure and that the sociolinguistic factors refer mainly to the presence of Basque speakers. They have also demonstrated that among the psychosocial factors, Basque ethnolinguistic identity comes to bear on both processes, in motivation for learning and also in attitudes towards use. In other words, ethnolinguistic identity once again occupies a central position in the problems of bilingualism in cases of languages and speech groups in contact, as in the Basque case, and functions simultaneously in relation to bilingualism as a predictor as well as a result. 3. Bilingualism, ethnolinguistic identity and psychosocial construction of citizenship At present, one of the problems of great interest in the social sciences is that of citizenship, both in connection with the traditional interethnic contact situation in the EU (Azurmendi et al. 2003a, 2003b; Nelde et al. 1996) as well as in Spain and in the BAC (Azurmendi et al. 1998a, 2003a). This relates to the emergent interethnic contact situation, due in large part to the importance of the recent, intense immigration into the BAC (Azurmendi et al. 2005a; Etxepeteleku et al. 2006; Larrañaga et al. 2005; Ruiz et al. 2005) through legislation to allow immigrants access to host-country nationality through intergroup psychosocial processes (opinions, attitudes, identities, etc.), mainly through the ‘acculturation theory’ (Berry 2005;



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country

Berry et al. 1992; Bourhis et al. 1997; Sabatier et al. 1996). In view of its importance in connection with bilingualism and ethnolinguistic identity, we are going to show some of the results obtained in the Basque context in the BAC (this aspect has not been studied much in Navarre and not at all in Iparralde). Twenty years after the passing of the Spanish Constitution (1977) and the Statutes of Autonomy (1978 to 1980), research was conducted involving university students in Spain’s bilingual Autonomous Communities (Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia, Navarre and Valencia) to find out what influence the new situation involving the revival of autonomous community languages and cultures had had on ethnolinguistic identity (linguistic and cultural) as well as on the psychosocial construction of citizenship in the different bilingual contexts (Azurmendi et al. 1998a). In order to see the evolution, ethnolinguistic identity among university students was studied once again 10 years later (1995–2004), this time in the BAC (Azurmendi et al.  2005a). The results indicate that the identity types obtained can be plotted along an identitary continuum, the poles of which would be occupied by extreme Basque or Spanish ethnolinguistic identities and the central section of which would be occupied by integrative bilingual-bicultural, or Basque-Spanish identity. Within the space of 10 years, the results show the following evolution in the BAC: (1) the Basque identity prototype has gone from being 16.6% to 18.9%, (2) the Spanish identity prototype, from 6% to 4.7% and (3) the bilingual-bicultural, or Basque-Spanish integrative identity prototype, has gone from 12% to 37.7%, which points to the main trend in the evolution. Table 5 summarizes several factorial dimensions or citizenship types among university students in the BAC (Table 5). These results indicate that four main dimensions or types of access to Basque citizenship emerge among university students in the BAC (because these four alone account for 61.4% of the variance), and that these turn out to be similar in intensity even though the cultural citizenship dimension is the predominant one. University students adhere mainly to cultural citizenship (mean=5.1, on a scale of 7 points), then to ethno-civic and civic citizenships (mean=4.2) and finally to political-ethnic citizenship (mean=3.2). This indicates that university students are not in favor of creating intergroup barriers between the two linguisticcultural contact groups (Basque and Spanish) by means of characteristics that cannot be acquired, but prefer to emphasize the characteristics that can be acquired. This is mainly the case among those who identify themselves as Basques (linguistically and culturally). These results coincide with those of other research (Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco, 2005), in which young people (15–29 years) prefer conditions such as (a) the will to be Basque or feel Basque (63%) and to live and work in the Basque Country (52%), conditions that are on the increase and (b) the condition of speaking Euskara (10%) which is gradually decreasing (in apparent contradiction); both are conditions that can be acquired.



.847 .811 .561 .497 .067 .176 -.033 .042 .547 -.047 .398 .400 -.047 .359 .387

Knowing and defending Basque culture Participating in Basque culture Supporting Basque cultural and ethnic diversity Participating in the Basque Country’s association movements Having Basque forebears Having been born and brought up in the Basque Country Living and working in the Basque Country Having a surname of Basque origin Knowing and speaking the Basque language Being a political party sympathizer Being in favour of the Basque Country’s sovereignty Having Euskara as the first acquired language Being a voter in general and regional elections

Respecting and complying with the Basque Country’s laws Adhering to the Basque Country’s democratic values

CULTURAL 19% of variance

.116 .178

.134 .170 -.012 -.016 .742 .712 .586 .572 .569 .074 .098 .453 .144

ETHNO-CIVIC 15% of variance

Factors (or dimensions)

.126 .296

.138 .185 -.204 .396 .368 -.024 -.159 .520 .145 .732 .645 .531 .245

POLITICALETHNIC 14% of variance

.719 .558

.044 .097 .331 .381 .027 .248 .478 .063 -.008 .251 .175 -.025 .730

CIVIC 13.4% of variance

Table 5.  Conditions necessary for someone to regard him- or herself as Basque. University students in the BAC, in 2004 (Factorial analysis)

 Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country 

From the point of view of ethnolinguistic identity more specifically, there are significant differences among those who identity themselves as Basque and those who identify themselves as Basque-Spanish (Azurmendi et al. 2005a; Larrañaga et al. 2005). Table 6.  Differences among those who identify themselves as Basque or Basque-Spanish. University students in the BAC, in 2004 (M, on a scale of 7 points) Basque identity

Basque-Spanish identity

Differences

Knowing and speaking Euskara

5.8

5

F=43.11 1.643 p<.01

Knowing Basque culture and defending it

6.2

5.4

F=82.92 1.643 p<.01

Participating in Basque culture

5.8

5.0

F=56.68 1.641 p<.01

Adhering to the Basque Country’s democratic values

4.7

4.1

F=20.96 1.638 p<.01

Having Euskara as a first language

4.4

3.4

F=41.50 1.643 P<.01

Being in favor of the Basque Country’s sovereignty

4.3

2.6

F=45.8 1.641 p<.01

Participating in the Basque Country’s association movements

4.3

3.9

F=1081 1.622 p<.01

Living and working in the Basque Country

4

4.3

F=5.89 1.644 p<.05

Being a voter in general and autonomous community elections

3.4

3.9

F=8.35 1.641 p<.01

These results show that the differences between the two identity types were not very significant in the remaining citizenship components studied. Nevertheless, it is also important to consider the psychosocial construction of citizenship in the new emerging contact situations resulting from the growing immigration throughout the EU in general, and in particular the BAC–where the number of immigrants has increased from 15,000 (1.5% of the population) in 1998 to 73,000 (5% of the population) in 2005 (EUSTAT 2005). Applying the ‘Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM)’ of Bourhis et al. (1997), the following intergroup strategies and attitudes are distinguished on axes of integration, assimilation,



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi

segregation, exclusion and individualism for the host community. For the immigrant community, conversely, they are distinguished on the basis of integration, assimilation, separation, anomie as well as individualism. Table 7 below shows the results obtained in the domains studied of employment, culture and marriage, with respect to immigrants unfavorably evaluated (Moroccans); in other words, in the most difficult conditions (Larrañaga et al. 2005). Table 7.  Acculturation Strategies in the Host Community (university students in the BAC), with respect to Immigrants (Moroccans), in 2004 (M, on a scale of 7 points)

EMPLOYMENT CULTURE MARRIAGE

Individualism

Integration

Assimilation

5.9 4.9 4.9

5.6 4.3 3.6

3.9 1.5 1.7

Segregation Exclusion 2.3 5.1 2.6

1.5 2.4 1.8

In general, these results show that the acculturation strategies towards Moroccan immigrants are fairly positive, since in the three domains studied, individualism (interpersonal relationships) and integration (among intergroup relations) predominate with fairly high scores. Nevertheless, as far as the cultural domain is concerned, the predominant strategy is the intergroup one of segregation (that of maintaining distance) so that this emerges as the most difficult and problematic interrelation domain. Interestingly, the biggest differences appear in the cultural and marriage domains, in which the groups of Basque identity and also the Basquespeaking or bilingual group are more in favor of integration (an intergroup strategy, perhaps as a measure to protect the Basque language and culture, in a subordinate, minority situation in the BAC itself). Conversely, the Spanish identity group, as well as the non-Basque-speaking, or monolingual Spanish linguistic group, are more in favor of individualism (interpersonal strategy), thus confirming the interdependence between ethnolinguistic identity and acculturation strategies (Azurmendi et al. 1996). In short, in the Basque context, at least in the BAC, a positive interdependence emerges between bilingualism, ethnolinguistic identity (both linguistic and cultural) and acculturation attitudes or strategies. In general, there is a predominance of those interdependencies that tend towards Basque-Spanish integration and towards integration (intergroup) and/or individualization (interpersonal) towards immigration (with respect to the emerging contacts situation). In other words, it appears that future perspectives could be broadly favorable from the point of view of harmonious intergroup relationships, as long as the revival and development of the Basque language and culture are guaranteed.



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country 

4. Conclusions Some of the relatively firm reflections emerging from all these results could be as follows: I. The case of Basque is of particular interest with respect to the problems of the situation of contact languages and speech communities and also in relation to bilingualism and identity, due to its tremendous complexity in the EU context especially. The reason is that, among other aspects, it reveals the importance of the positive concurrence between the institutions and the Basque language loyalist movements and social organizations when both are clearly in favor of the revival of their own minority language, as in the case of the BAC (Apalategi 1999; Azurmendi 1998; Intxausti 1998). II. In the revival and re-normalization processes of minority languages, as in the case of Euskara, there is concurrence and interdependence among numerous aspects. In general, and in a very condensed way, the following could be regarded as the principal ones: (1) the most objective aspects; namely, political, social, economic, sociolinguistic, educational, etc., in the early stages of these processes, still relevant today in Navarre and Iparralde and (2) also of the more subjective aspects, primarily the psychosocial ones, which include ethnolinguistic identity (Azurmendi 1997). This chapter has presented some of the most widely studied aspects and most consistent results in the case of Basque. III. It is also necessary to highlight the importance acquired by education from the earliest age, when one is most malleable to Basquization, because it affects the whole population. In the case of the BAC, the success of the Ikastolak is due to a number of circumstances coming together. It can be seen during its long experience that (1) the bilingual teaching Model-D (Euskara-medium schooling with Spanish as a subject) is the most suitable for Basquization, bilingualization and even multilingualization through Englishization and (2) it starts schooling from a very early age (2 or 3), so that the start of Basquization of children at such an early age is explained not only from the point of view of learning (as a second language) but also from that of acquisition (as a first language), more by psycholinguistic rather than psychosocial reasons; in other words, through the easiest, fastest and most thorough way possible. IV. Equally, it is necessary to highlight once again the importance of the concurrence of a whole range of factors in the processes of Basquization referred to above. For example, one must acknowledge the influence of several factors that are not mutually exclusive and are deterministic, such as need and volition vs. obligation and choice, instrumental motivation (mainly labor) vs. integrative motivation (for the most part participation in Basque culture), as



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi

well as current and future prospects, current satisfaction and what is expected for the future. However, there are other types of reflections that are less clear and difficult to interpret when an attempt is made to evaluate them globally, positively or negatively, both in terms of the results obtained (like those presented in this chapter) and in terms of the processes followed to achieve the said results. In other words, the degree of ambiguity is great, because although what has been achieved and the way in which it has been achieved is considerable in the BAC, the fear that the Irish model (widespread competence in Irish, but minimal use or none whatsoever) could be repeated in Euskal Herria is also considerable. So, a number of questions are being debated right now, mainly in the BAC, such as: will simply maintaining the current normalization process in the BAC suffice in order to meet the Basquization and bilingualism objectives? And, if so, will it be enough to promote a repetition of the model followed in the BAC for Navarre and Iparralde? In the event that the introduction of changes in the processes being followed in the BAC should be deemed necessary more questions arise: what kind of changes should be implemented? How far-reaching should they be? How should they be carried out? Who should take the leading role? What degree of consensus is needed? Furthermore, there are other aspects of the process that are even more difficult to evaluate and in which the degree of uncertainty (typical nowadays) is high. We are referring to current general challenges in the context of the developed West in which Euskal Herria is located and participates. For example, what is to become of the language itself, Euskara, in light of its contact with Spanish and French, and even with English? These challenges frequently appear full of paradoxes and apparent contradictions (typical of current postmodernism). For example: V. The globalization/anti-globalization debate (Castells 2003), in which localism shows itself to not only be possible, but also shows that it could in addition constitute the means and level of integration of the universal and the particular, the general and the personal, etc., with respect to languages and identity (James 1997): “the global and the specific are now more commonly found together, as partial (rather than exclusive) identities, because they each contribute to different social, emotional and cognitive needs that are co-present in the same individuals and societies…” (Fishman 1999: 450). This can be applied to languages by promoting multilingualism and multilinguality (García et al. 2006), as in today’s EU. In this respect, as far as the languages in the Basque context are concerned, the multilingualism option is being increasingly requested, an option in which Euskara could respond to the most quotidian social needs (family, friends, work, social services, autonomous community administration, mass media, shared between the



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country 

two languages, etc.). In connection with ethnolinguistic democracy in the EU context, Fishman says: “only the speakers of unquestioned international ‘super languages’ can pretend to be totally effective in modern life while remaining monolingual. Thus, clearly, those who start off weakest are required to protest the most vigorously at three levels, in order to (a) secure ethnolinguistic democracy in intra-communal affairs, (b) engage in the minimally adequate corpus planning required by local government and new media and (c) attain access to national and international roles in their intergroup lives. The price they have to pay is a considerable one, not because it is difficult for individuals to learn several languages, but because it is difficult for societies to maintain several languages simultaneously, …” (García et al.  2006: 2002–2003). This would lead us to redefine diglossia (Fishman 2002, in García et al. 2006 and in Hornberger et al. 2006). VI. The primordialism/constructivism debate (Fishman 2004), or ethnicism/ culturalism, traditionalism/futurism, stubbornness/openness, objectivism/ subjectivism, inside subjectivism/outside objectivism, etc., appears in the literature on occasions as dichotomies of opposition (Conversi 2004), on others as compatible dichotomies and in integration (García et al. 2006). In the Basque case, the two aspects are useful, and at the same time exist to a certain degree, so they could prove to be positively interdependent between them and not necessarily negatively interdependent (Apalategi 2003; Azurmendi and Martinez de Luna 2005). For example, many of those who go furthest in demanding Euskara as the principal characteristic of Basqueness, are also those who achieve the greatest degrees of bilingualization and multilingualization. VII. The debate over the distinction between different types of power and the means for exercising it: political and social, material and symbolic, objective and subjective, etc. All this distinction is important, because each type of power makes use of certain means and has specific consequences. Symbolic power can be especially important because it relates to the prestige that favors voluntary adherence and because it stems from deep, anthropological consequences that are difficult to change (Bourdieu 1994). In the Basque case, as far as the contact languages are concerned, this type of power, too, has been and is also in the hands of Spain and France in favor of Spanish and French; nevertheless, Euskara’s increase in prestige and Basqueness in general has led to an increase in its symbolic power. VIII. It is interesting to know how Basque nationalism is viewed and interpreted from outside through explicit references to the Basque case, like those that appear in the recent publication edited by Conversi (2004). For example, in connection with modernization and modernism: “my own research



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi

suggests that the impact produced by industrialization and modernization was perhaps the most relevant factor in the rise of anti-state nationalism in Spain” (2004: 9); with ethnicity and nationality: “the prime requisite is subjective and consists of the self-identification of people with a group. To this might be added a clarification regarding whether a people demands the possession of a sovereign political state of its own, such as the Basques, or whether the group merely wishes to preserve an existent recognized status within a nation-state of which it is a member, e.g., the Puerto Ricans or Catalans” (2004: 263). Also of interest are the specific references that Brubaker (2004) makes to the Basque case, for example in connection with ethnic and nationalist violence: “The Basque-Catalan comparison is a natural one in this respect… Waldman (1985, 1989) compares the violent ethnic conflicts in the Basque region and Northern Ireland to the (largely) non-violent conflicts in Catalonia and Quebec, and explains the transition from non-violent nationalism protest to violent conflict in the former cases in terms of the loss of middle-class control over the nationalist movement” (2004: 101). IX. Continuing the debate on nationalism, it is also important to know how Basque nationalism is seen and interpreted from inside and to compare the two views, external and internal, to see how far they coincide. Basque nationalism is complex because it incorporates apparently contradictory aspects: primordialism and constructionism, objective characteristics like Euskara and subjective ones like culturalist and civic (not ethnicist) Basque identity. For example, from the political point of view, demands of differing degrees coexist, although through procedures like the free decision or selfdetermination of Basque citizenry and through new ways of functioning of social movements, mainly in the BAC (Apalategi 1999). Euskara has occupied and continues to occupy a central position, although it is diminishing among Basque youth, who are more concerned today about problems like unemployment and housing than about language questions (Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco 2005). In this respect, the Basque case is of great interest in the context of the EU, because today it presents a dynamic, changing scenario, full of contradictions and new proposals that are difficult to interpret, yet ideal for studying all the questions raised from a position of uncertainty as challenges for the future. It also has farther reaching implications for language and identity in general and in particular in the Spanish-contact contexts. The Basque case highlights nicely the complex and multifarious nature of constructing, performing and negotiating identity at the societal and individual levels.



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country 

References Abrams, D. & Hogg, M.A. 1990. Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances. New York NY: Harvester/Wheatsheaf. Apalategi, J. 1999. La anticipación de la sociedad. Psicología social de los movimientos sociales. Valencia: Promolibro. Apalategi, J. 2003. Identidad y memoria vasca en la encrucijada de la construcción institucional de Europa. In Colectivo, tiempo de soluciones. Proyectos políticos, análisis y sugerencias. 127–161. Bilbao: Herria 2000 Eliza. Arratibel, N., Azurmendi, M.J. & Garcia, I. 2001. Menpeko hizkuntzaren bizi-kemena. Bilbo: SEI & UEU. Azkue, J. & Perales, J. 2005. The teaching of Basque to adults. In The Case of Basque: From the Past Toward the Future [International Journal of Sociology of Language 174], M.J. Azurmendi & I. Martínez de Luna (eds), 73–84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Azurmendi, M.J. 1998. Importancia del soporte institucional para la normalización del uso del Euskara. In Actas de la V trobada de sociolingüistes Catalans. Barcelona, 1997. 216–238. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Azurmendi, M.J. 2000. Psicosociolingüística. Bilbao: UPV/EHU. Azurmendi, M.J., Bourhis, R.Y., Ros, M. & Garcia, I. 1998. Identidad etnolingüística y construcción de ciudadanía en las Comunidades Autónomas bilingües de España. Revista de Psicología Social 13(3): 559–589. Azurmendi, M.J. & Garcia, I. 2003a. Configuración compleja de la identidad etnolingüística. In Comunidades e individuos bilingües: Actas del I simposio internacional sobre o bilingüismo/ Bilingual Communities and Individuals: Proceedings from the First International Symposium on Bilingualism, Vigo, 1997, C. Cabeza, A.M. Lorenzo & X.P. Rodríguez (eds), 9–20. Vigo: Universidade da Vigo. Azurmendi, M.J. & Garcia, I. 2003b. Planificación lingüística y construcción de ciudadanía. In 2n congrés Europeu sobre planificació lingüística/2nd European Conference on Language Planning. 321–350. Barcelona: Generalitat de Barcelona. Azurmendi, M.J., Larrañaga, N., Etxepeteleku, H., Apalategi, J., Sánchez de Miguel, M. & Ruiz, S. 2005a. Construcción psicosocial de la identidad nacional y estrategias de aculturación en la Comunidad Autónoma Vasca. In Psicología política, cultura, inmigración y comunicación social, J.M. Sabucedo, J. Romay & A. López-Cortón (eds), 373–380. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. Azurmendi, M.J. & Luque, J. 2005b. The early acquisition-learning (at age 2–4) of Euskara (Basque) and the interdependence between general psychological development, family and school. In Bilingualism and Education: From the Family to the School, X.P. Rodríguez, A. Lorenzo-Suárez & F. Ramallo (eds), 145–160. Münich: Lincom. Azurmendi, M.J. & Martinez de Luna, I. (eds) 2005c. The Case of Basque: From the Past Toward the Future. International Journal of the Sociology of Language [International Journal of Sociology of Language 174]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Azurmendi, M.J. & Marinez de Luna, I. (eds.) 2006. The Case of Basque: Past, Present and Future. Donostia/San Sebastián: Soziolinguistika Klusterra. Azurmendi, M.J., Romay, J. & Valencia, J.F. 1996. Identidad étnica en el mundo hispanohablante. In Estereotipos, discriminación y relaciones entre grupos, R.Y. Bourhis & J.P. Leyens (eds), 241–284. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.

 Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi BAT Soziolinguistika Aldizkaria (Journal of Sociolinguistics), 43: Kale erabileraren IV. Neurketa, 2001 (2002). BAT Soziolinguistika Aldizkaria, 53: Euskararen erabileraren bilakaera (2004). Bat Soziolinguistika,Aldizkaria, 60: Unibertsitate aurreko hizkuntza ereduen balorazioa eta proposamenak (2006). Berry, J.W. 2005. Conceptual Approaches to Acculturation. In Acculturation. Advances in Theory, Measurement, and Applied Research, K.M. Chun, P.B. Organista & G. Marín (eds), 15–60. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y., Segall, M. & Dasen, P. 1992. Cross-cultural Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge: CUP. Bourdieu, P. 1994. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourhis, R.Y., Gagnon, A. & Moïse, C.L. 1996. Discriminación y relaciones intergrupales. In Estereotipos, discriminación y relaciones entre grupos, R.Y. Bourhis & J.P. Leyens (eds), 139–170. Madrid: McGraw-Hill. Bourhis, R., Moïse, C.L., Perreault, S. & Sénécal, S. 1997. Towards an Interactive Acculturation Model: A Social Psychological Approach. International Journal of Psychology 32: 369–386. Brubaker, R. 1996. Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge: CUP. Brubaker, R. 2004. Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Castells, M. 2003. La era de la información. Vol. 2: El poder de la identidad. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Cenoz, J. & Jessner, U. (eds). 2000. English in Europe. The Acquisition of a Third Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. & Lasagabaster, D. (eds.) 2006. Hizkuntzak ikasten eta erabiltzen. Bilbo: UPV/EHU. Conversi, D. (ed.) 2004. Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World. Walker Connor and the Study of Nationalism. London: Routledge. Erize, X. (compiler). 2001. Joshua A. Fishman: Llengua i identitat. Alzira: Bromera. Erkizia, T., Lakasta, M. & Urrusolo, J. 2006. “Irakaskuntza euskalduntzeko proposamen” etik zati batzuk. BAT Soziolinguistika Aldizkaria, 60, 2006, 55–72. Etxeberria, F. 1999. Bilingüismo y educación en el país del euskara. Donostia/San Sebastián: Erein. Etxepeteleku, H., Ruiz, S., Sánchez de Miguel, M., Larrañaga, N., Azurmendi, M.J. & Apalategi, J. Psychosocial profiles associated to the acculturation orientations towards immigrants in the autonomous community of the Basque Country. Paper presented in the VIII International Association of Transcultural Psychology (IACCP). Regional Congress, Athens, 2006. Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco 1995. Euskararen jarraipena/La continuidad del Euskara/La continuité de la langue Basque. Vitoria/Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco. Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco 2001. Euskararen jarraipena III/La Continuidad del Euskara III/La Continuité de la langue Basque III/ The Continuity of Basque III. Vitoria/Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco. Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco 2004. Gazteen argazkiak/Retratos de juventud, 7 (Portraits of Youth). Vitoria/Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco. Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco 2005. Hacia una nueva cultura de la identidad y la política. Tendencias en la juventud Vasca. Vitoria/Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco. EUSTAT (Basque Statistics Office). 2004, 2005. Fishman, J.A. 1989. Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.



Chapter 2.  Bilingualism, identity, and citizenship in the Basque Country  Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J.A. (ed.) 1999. Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Oxford: OUP. Fishman, J.A. (ed.) 2001. Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J.A. (ed.) 2002. Focus on Diglossia. [International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fishman, J.A. 2004. The primordialist-constructivist debate today: The language-ethnicity link in academic and in everyday-life perspective. In Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World. Walker Connor and the Study of Nationalism, D. Conversi (ed.), 83–91. London: Routledge. Garagorri, X. 1998. Programa de plurilingüismo. Donostia/San Sebastián: Ikastolen Elkartea. García, O., Peltz, H., Schiffman, H. & Schweid Fishman, G. (eds) 2006. Language Loyalty, Continuity and Change. Joshua A. Fishman’s Contributions to International Sociolinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gardner, N. 2000. Basque in Education in the Basque Autonomous Community. Vitoria/Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza/Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco. Gardner, N. & Zalbide, M. 2005. Basque acquisition planning. In The Case of Basque: From the Past Toward the Future [International Journal of the Sociology of Language 174], M.J. Azurmendi & I. Martinez de Luna (eds), 55–72. Berlin: Mouton de Guyter. Giles, H. (ed.) 1977. Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press. Giles, H. & Johnson, P. 1987. Ethnolinguistic identity theory. A social psychological approach to language maintenance. In International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68: 66–99. Grin, F. & Vaillancourt, F. 1999. The Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of Minority Language Policies: Case Studies on Wales, Ireland and the Basque Country. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI). Gudykunst, W.B. & Ting-Toomey, S. 1990. Ethnic Identity, Language and Communication Breakdowns. In Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, H. Giles & W.P. Robinson (eds), 309–328. New York NY: Wiley & Sons. Hecht, M., Jackson, R.L., Lindsley, S., Strauss, S. & Johnson, K.E. 2001. A layered approach to ethnicity, language and communication. In The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, W.P. Robinson & H. Giles (eds), 429–450. New York NY: Wiley & Sons. Hornberger, N.H. & Pütz, M. (eds.) 2006. Language Loyalty, Language Planning and Language Revitalization. Recent Writings and Reflections from Joshua A. Fishman. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Intxausti, J. (ed.) 1998 Hizkuntzen aldeko mugimendu sozialak. Bilbo: UPV/EHU. James, P. 1997. Nation Formation: Towards a Theory of Abstract Community. London: Sage. Kroskrity, P.V. 2000. Regimes of Language. Ideologies, Polities and Identities. Santa Fe NM: School of American Research Press. Larrañaga, N. 1996. Euskalerriko gaztetxoek euskararekiko dituzten jarrerak eta beren eragina euskara ikasi eta erabiltzean. PhD, 328: Universidad de Deusto. Larrañaga, N., Azurmendi, M.J., Etxepeteleku, H., Apalategi, J., Ruiz, S. & Sánchez de Miguel, M. 2005. Influencia de la lengua en las orientaciones de aculturación entre los grupos étnicos en contacto en la Comunidad Autónoma Vasca. In Psicología política, cultura, inmigración y comunicación social, J.M. Sabucedo, J. Romay & A. López-Cortón (eds), 381–388. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.



Maria-Jose Azurmendi, Nekane Larrañaga and Jokin Apalategi Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. & Doise, W. 1996. Identidad social e identidad personal. In Estereotipos, discriminación y relaciones entre grupos, R.Y. Bourhis & J.P. Leyens (eds), 71–90. Madrid: McGraw-Hill. Luque, J. 2004. Adquisición-aprendizaje del Euskara a través de la Inmersión Total Precoz (2–4 Años): Análisis psico-socio-lingüístico-pedagógico. Bilbao: UPV/EHU (PhD). Luque, M.L. & Azurmendi, M.J. 2004. Adquisición precoz del Euskara en inmersión total: diferentes contextos de interacción. In Cap al plurilingüisme des de l´ensenyament-aprenentatge de la segona llengua (III jornades institut Europeu de programes d´immersió, Barcelona, 2004). 130–138. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya and Institut Europeu de Programes d´Immersió. Martinez de Luna, I. & Berrio-Otxoa, K. (eds.) 2000. Etorkizuna aurreikusten 99: Euskal herriko gaztetxoak eta Euskara. Donostia/San Sebastián: I. Martínez de Luna. Nelde, P., Strubell, M. & Williams, G. 1996. Euromosaic. Production et reproduction des groupes linguistiques minoritaires au sein de l´Union Européenne. Luxembourg: Commission Européenne. Ruiz, S., Apalategi, J., Sánchez de Miguel, M., Azurmendi, M.J., Larrañaga, N. & Etxepeteleku, H. 2005. Perfiles psicosociales asociados a las orientaciones de aculturación hacia los grupos etnolingüísticas en contacto en la Comunidad Autónoma Vasca. In Psicología política, cultura, inmigración y comunicación social, J.M. Sabucedo, J. Romay & A. López-Cortón (eds), 493–502. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. Sabatier, C. & Berry, J. 1996. Inmigración y aculturación. In Estereotipos, discriminación y relaciones entre grupos, R.Y. Bourhis & J.P. Leyens (eds), 217–240. Madrid: McGraw-Hill. Sachdev, I. & Bourhis, R.Y. 2001. Multilingual Communication. In The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, W.P. Robinson & H. Giles (eds), 407–428. New York NY: Wiley & Sons. Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (eds), 7–24. Chicago IL: Nelson-Hall. Waldman, P. 1985. Gewaltsamer Separatismus. Am Beispiel der Basken, Franko-Kanadiar und Nordiren. In Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 32(2): 203–229. Waldman, P. 1989. Ethnischer Radikalismus: Ursachen und Folgen gewaltsamer Minderheitenkonflikte am Beispiel des Baskenlandes, Nordirlands und Quebecs. Opladen: Wesdeutscher Verlag. Zabaleta, P. 2006. Inibertsitate aurreko hezkuntzako hizkuntza ereduen balorazioa eta proposamenak. BAT Soziolinguistika Aldizkaria, 60, 2006: 163–178.

chapter 3

Conflicting values at a conflicting age Linguistic ideologies in Galician adolescents Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez University of California – Davis

In Galicia the linguistic hegemony of Spanish has historically triggered language shift from Galician to Spanish, which has significantly impacted the region’s language policy and planning. Recent research indicates that Galician is losing speakers, especially among the younger generations, who paradoxically have the most positive attitudes toward the autochthonous language. This attitudinal study investigates adolescent’s values and attitudes toward Spanish, standard Galician and local dialects of Galician to unearth the linguistic ideologies determining language choice in this population. Analysis of the qualitative data (questionnaires and interviews/discussions) reveals that conflicting values toward the Galician language have arisen as a consequence of the implementation of standard Galician in the educational system and in official scenarios. These unexpected repercussions of institutionalized bilingualism in linguistic ideologies and identity formation must be addressed to more effectively promote Galician language use in the younger generations.

1. Spanish and Galician in contact: Overview of the sociolinguistic history1 Galician is a minority Romance language spoken in northwestern Spain, where it shares co-official status with Spanish. Over the centuries, the status of Galician has changed due to the political vicissitudes within Spain, ultimately affecting speakers’ attitudes and the use of both languages.2 Spanish has always enjoyed high status while Galician has been considered a non-standard and much stigmatized dialect 1. This research has been made possible thanks to the Second Language Acquisition Institute Fellowship (University of California, Davis). I am grateful for the guidance and support from professors Robert J. Blake and Lenora A. Timm, and Ramón Farré González and Albino Pernas Barcón for his extensive help during the data collection process in Galicia. 2. For a detailed description of the sociolinguistic history of Galicia, cf. López Valcárcel (1991); Freixeiro-Mato (1997); Mariño Paz (1998); Monteagudo-Romero (1999).



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez

from the 15th century through Franco’s dictatorship (1939–1975). Due to both the isolation and rural economy of its speakers, Galician remained a linguistic variety principally used by lower-class rural dwellers. The arrival of democracy in 1976 transformed the linguistic conditions of Galicia, elevating the status of Galician to that of “language” and declaring it co-official with Spanish. 1.1

Origins of a dichotomy

Typical descriptions of the sociolinguistic history of Galicia (López Valcárcel 1991; Freixeiro-Mato 1997; Mariño Paz 1998; Monteagudo-Romero 1999) tend to be consistent with the following outline. Up until the 13th century, the language spoken in Galicia and Portugal was one and the same, barring some minor dialectal variations. The texts found in poetic anthologies are good illustrators of the unity of the language spoken in the area, a sort of koiné usually referred to as GalicianPortuguese, with no significant difference between the language spoken north and south of the river Miño (which constitutes part of the present political border between Galicia and Portugal). Galician-Portuguese enjoyed a prestigious status as an everyday language and also the language of lyric poetry across the Iberian Peninsula. It was used in oral communication by all social classes and it was the language used in legal, administrative, civil and ecclesiastical documents, and in the composition of literary works, as testified to by the production of texts of wideranging contents which have survived from that period. By the middle of the 12th century, Galicia became a territory ruled by the Castilian crown, but Portugal secured its autonomy. It was the political independence from Portugal that eventually led to the linguistic differentiation north and south of the border. Slowly, (Castilian) Spanish3 was introduced in Galicia by Castilian dominant classes, who took charge of Galician land and administrative jobs. These representatives of the royal authority constituted the main linguistic inroad into Galician by Spanish, thus “those who sought social mobility in Galicia imitated the linguistic behavior of the new Spanish-speaking dominant classes” (O’Rourke 2003: 35). However, as Ramallo points out, the establishment of Spanish was a gradual process, therefore the results of language contact were not immediately obvious (2007: 22): Very slowly, certain varieties of Castilian began to appear among the inhabitants of Galicia, initially as received speech, and only much later as spoken language. In other words, contact had no immediate consequences in Galicia’s linguistic adaptation. In fact, we should remember that the most splendid period for 3. The term castellano (‘Castilian Spanish’) refers to the variety of standard Spanish spoken in Spain.



Chapter 3.  Conflicting values at a conflicting age 

Galician-Portuguese Romance literature runs from the thirteenth century to the first quarter of the fourteenth century.

In the period that followed, the so-called Séculos Escuros (‘Dark Ages’), from the 15th to the 18th century, even though Galician was still widely spoken by the great majority of the population, it was abandoned by the upper classes. This abandonment caused the language to disappear from the spheres of power and consequently, “any loyalty to the vernacular was soon lost, and its use became a source of shame and contempt” (Beswick 2002: 259). Spanish, the official language of the kingdom since the 16th century, became the language of prestige, and Galician was equated to the rural, lower status, uneducated speakers who continued to use the vernacular language and to transmit it across generations. During the Galician Rexurdimento (“Renaissance”), from the end of the 18th century to the beginning of the 20th, there were attempts to create a literary standard and, in general, to promote the language and bring it back as the legitimate language of culture in Galicia (Bourdieu 1991). Despite the achievements of the Rexurdimento, linguistic habits of the Spanish-speaking higher social classes began to filter down into the middle classes with which came into contact. Consequently, the Galician middle class, seeking to gain social prestige, started to incorporate Spanish into their linguistic repertoire and gradually abandoned Galician. 1.2

Galician in the 20th century: In search of linguistic equity

The deep-seated high/low dichotomy between both languages became more evident during Franco’s dictatorship (1939–1975) (Ramallo 2007: 28). Throughout this period, Spanish was the only legitimate language and regional differences, both cultural and linguistic, were not recognized. Although the use of other peninsular languages such as Galician, Basque and Catalan was not explicitly prohibited, the centralist sociopolitical ideology of Franco’s regime exercised linguistic practices that clearly supported the use of Spanish over any other language. Expectations for regional autonomy, linguistic unification and cultural development in Galician were put on hold. Spanish was the only language to be used in the educational system, the media, the administration and the church, and Galician was considered a dialect of Spanish only spoken by the rural non-educated population. During the dictatorship, while Galician was kept alive by the rural lower class, Spanish firmly secured its position in the urban environments, especially among the younger generations and the more educated speakers. Moreover, with the late urbanization process, rural native speakers of Galician started to incorporate Spanish into their daily formal and informal interactions, which led to a steady



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez

loss of intergenerational transmission of the Galician language and, consequently, to a continuing increase in bilingualism (Ramallo 2007: 24). In the context of Spain’s transition to democracy, the linguistic and cultural differences that had been denied during forty years of dictatorship were formally acknowledged. Thus, in the Spanish Constitution of 1978, Galician status was elevated from that of “dialect” to “language” and was given co-official standing within the territorial confines of its Autonomous Community of Galicia. As a consequence, Galicia now had two co-official languages: Spanish, plus its “own language.” Furthermore, Article 5 of the Galician Statute of Autonomy (1981) guaranteed the use and the promotion of the use of the language at all levels of public and cultural life.4 Nonetheless, changes in individual language choice are not motivated as much by legislation itself as by the social significance that such choices acquire under a particular institutional arrangement (Woolard 1989; Bourdieu 1991). Consequently, the fact that Galician language became co-official with Spanish has not completely changed the sociolinguistics of Galicia, as it will be discussed later. In fact, during the twentieth century, according to the Mapa Sociolingüístico de Galicia (henceforth “MSG,” Seminario de Sociolingüística: 1994, 1995, 1996), the advance and presence of Spanish in Galicia has become stronger. However, the equality promoted by this legislation is only apparent. One of the former declarations of the Law of Linguistic Normalization (1983) stated that all Galicians had the right and the duty to know the regional language, but this provision was challenged by the Constitutional Court (Hermida 2001). As a result, Galicians have the right to know Galician, but it is a duty for them to know Spanish. This situation, along with the fact that Galician has not been recognized as the official language, but rather a co-official language, shows that Galician remains subordinated to the traditionally hegemonic language, Spanish, which in the long run undermines its neutrality vis-à-vis Galician speakers (García Negro 1991; Loureiro-Rodríguez 2007). In the context of Spain’s democracy, the concept of linguistic normalization is understood as the process of increasing the number of speakers and users of the regional languages, as well as empowering the speakers of the language so that it fulfills their communicative needs in a modern society (Cobarrubias 1987; MarMolinero 2000). Since the differences between Spanish and Galician do not constitute an important obstacle for communication – evidenced by the common codeswitching or code-mixing – linguistic normalization in Galicia is triggered above all by sociolinguistic and sociopolitical motivations. The understood goal of this process is to restore Galician to all domains through appropriate corpus, status 4. For a description of the legislation on Galician, cf. Monteagudo-Romero (1990) and García Negro (1991).



Chapter 3.  Conflicting values at a conflicting age 

and language planning, which will ultimately raise its former status from a lowprestige language and end the discrimination towards its speakers, developed as a consequence of such status. But as it was mentioned earlier, the Spanish legislation related to linguistic concerns is evidence for the hegemony of Spanish in Galicia, which suggests that, as Herrero-Valeiro points out, the institutionalization of Galician does not seem to aim to substitute Spanish but rather produce a “sharing of institutional and social spaces” (2002: 297). In this framework of institutionalization and normalization of the language, it becomes necessary to create a legitimate language that fits into legitimate or high culture (Bourdieu 1991) and that is accepted as a shared and prestigious variety. This variety, the standard, is an “abstracted, idealized, homogeneous spoken language” (Lippi-Green, 1994: 166) that represents the correct way of speaking and has a symbolic value that speakers recognize and by which they feel represented. The significance of restoring and recognizing the (standard) Galician language as an expression or source of a communal identity becomes physically visible in the introductory paragraph of the Law of Linguistic Normalization passed in 1983 by the regional government, the Xunta de Galicia, where Galician is repetitively described as a “common identity” or “collective personality” (Loureiro-Rodríguez 2007). In other words, (standard) Galician carries symbolic value as it aims to represent both individual and collective language ideologies (Woolard 1989; Bourdieu 1991; Timm 2000). In the ideology of the standard (Milroy and Milroy 1985), this linguistic variety ultimately becomes an instrument that should bring prestige to a language and also attract the loyalty of new speakers (Fennel 1980; Woolard 1989). In the case of Galician, there is an additional ideological aspect behind the creation of a standard variety designed to purify it of elements originated in the historically hegemonic language, Spanish, in order to attain a more “authentic” Galician. As Recalde (2002: 63) explains: The differences between subordinate [Galician] and dominant languages [Spanish] are consciously strengthened as strategies for reinforcing intergroup boundaries that, if weakened, would provoke the full linguistic and cultural assimilation of the Galician in-group to the Spanish out-group and the disappearance of one of the key elements for nation-building.

Galicia’s sociolinguistics have had a crucial function in the development of Galician nationalism, or galeguismo, which made the unique language, history and culture of Galicia the focal point of their ideology in order to define Galician identity in opposition to that of central Spain.5 The promotion of the regional languages 5. Herrero Valeiro (2000) offers a detailed examination of the language-nation relation in Galicia.



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez

is a characteristic of the European nationalist movements (Hobsbawm 1990), and in the case of Galicia, it was the most vital element in the creation of an autonomous socio-cultural and linguistic community. In general lines, two divergent ideological orientations that differ in the reading of the sociolinguistic history of Galician, and that directly influenced the shape of the standard, have developed inside galeguismo: differentialism (or autonomism) and reintegrationism (or lusism). Differentialism, linked to more conservative positions, does not recognize a sociolinguistic conflict in bilingualism and considers Galicia an autonomous community inseparable from the idea of the Spanish nation. The autonomous government, Xunta de Galicia, led until 2005 by ideologically Spanish nationalist sectors, favored the differentialist proposals in the legitimization of the standard.6 Reintegrationism, on the other hand, views bilingualism as a conflict originating from the hegemony of Spanish and the historical political subordination to Spain, therefore defending the sociopolitical and linguistic allegiance to Portugal. Reintegrationism has been linked to the pro-independent nationalism of the Bloque Nacionalista Galego (‘Galician Nationalist Bloc’), but other ideologies subscribe to this view. The same occurs with differentialism, within which differing political ideologies coexist (Herrero-Valeiro 2002: 295). No matter the approach taken into consideration for the creation of the legitimate language – being more influenced by either Spanish or Portuguese – , the ultimate goal is for standard Galician to capture the loyalty of its speakers, which should guarantee the maintenance of the language and the reverse of language shift into Spanish (Fishman 1991). Due to the co-officiality of Spanish and Galician, the goal of the public bilingual education is to achieve a balanced or harmonic bilingualism (for a detailed study cf. Regueiro Tenreiro 1999). According to the 14th article of the Law of Linguistic Normalization and a further expansion of this law (decree 135/83), the study of (standard) Galician language is required in non-university levels, and at least two other subjects must be taught in Galician. Each public education center decides which non-language related subjects will be taught in Spanish or Galician, most of the times being a teacher’s choice according to her/his individual preference. Nonetheless, when teaching in Galician, it is the teachers’ duty to make sure that students are in fact using the language in order to develop their oral and written

6. After twenty-five years of almost uninterrupted ruling, the conservative PP (Partido Popular ‘People’s Party’) lost its overall majority in the regional elections of 2005. Although the PP remained the largest party in the regional parliament, it was replaced in the government by a coalition of the PSdeG (Partido Socialista de Galicia ‘Galician Socialist Party,’ a branch of the PSOE, Partido Socialista Obrero Español – ‘Spanish Workers’ Socialist Party’) and the ‘Bloque Nacionalista Galego’ (‘Galician Nationalist Bloc’).



Chapter 3.  Conflicting values at a conflicting age 

skills.7 The teaching of standard Galician and the instruction in this variety play a decisive role in the spread of this ‘shared’ and ‘high’ variety, since the educational system, being part of what Lippi-Green (1994, 1997) designates as dominant bloc, helps build a consensus towards the standard. Through the school system, then, the nationalist group in control of the linguistic market spreads its (socio)linguistic ideology among the younger speakers and builds consent in the direction of the legitimate and prestigious language (Bourdieu 1991). The appropriation and reproduction of the dominant ideology and the standard language by speakers of a devaluated variety (in this case, dialects of Galician), will lead them to discriminate against their own linguistic variety (Recalde 2002: 62). In addition, the fact that the standard does not include certain lexical or phonetic characteristics of the local dialects of Galician, “contributes to perpetuating or generating processes involving social stigmatization that affect such forms and those who use them” (Domínguez-Seco 2002: 212). 1.3

Socio-linguistic paradoxes: Language attitudes vs. language use

Macro-sociolinguistic data provided by the MSG (Seminario de Sociolingüística: 1994, 1995, 1996) show that attitudes towards Galician are in general favorable, rated at a 3.6 average on a five-point scale (1 being the lowest value, and 5 the highest). The MSG shows that the percentage of people who speak only or predominantly Galician (68.6%) is higher among those with a lower level of formal education, from the lower social classes, especially those living in rural areas. The MSG also offers data that demonstrate that the age of the speaker is an important distinctive factor in the Galician sociolinguistic context. The 16–25 age group shows the lowest levels of habitual use of Galician with only 23.5% identifying themselves as habitual users and a similar 23% claiming to use the autochthonous language more than Spanish. Paradoxically, this age group of speakers shows the most positive attitudes towards Galician, to which they confer symbolic value and which they regard as representative of the Galician identity (also in Monteagudo-Romero 2000; Ramallo 2000; Beswick 2002; Bouzada-Fernández 2002; Rodríguez-Neira 2002; O’Rourke 2003). This could be related in part to the fact that Galician nationalism has a significant effect on the group more likely to use Spanish – i.e., the urban young (Monteagudo-Romero 2000). Although it can be argued that it is as yet too soon to predict whether language policies have changed the status of the autochthonous language, several studies 7. In June 2007, a new decree (124/2007) was issued by the Galician Parliament regarding the use and promotion of Galician in the school system. The most significant change lies in the requirement that 50% of the classes, as a minimum, be taught in Galician.



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez

(del Valle 2000; Monteagudo-Romero 2000; Ramallo 2000; Beswick 2002; Bouzada-Fernández 2002; Rodríguez-Neira 2002) show that Galician is considered to be as prestigious as Spanish, if not more so, among certain speakers with higher education and/or with a regionalist political ideology. However, despite the seemingly more favorable attitudes towards the language amongst the younger population, the number of Galician speakers continues to decline. According to the MSG, only 28% of young Galicians, ages 16–25, list Galician as their first language (L1), in contrast to 81% of older adults. It could be hypothesized that while linguistic normalization since the 1980s has succeeded in infusing more positive attitudes amongst the younger population, this linguistic policy is perhaps failing to raise the status of Galician as a viable mode of communication. On a more optimistic note, positive attitudes towards Galician could be interpreted as a pre-behavioral change; that is, as an indication of future linguistic change that is not yet perceptible through current language use (Woolard and Gahng 1990: 312). Nevertheless, although the optimistic institutional reading of the data provided by the MSG suggests that the process of linguistic substitution might have reached an impasse, it can be deduced that the current situation may still be defined as an advanced phase of a process of linguistic substitution (Fernández 1991, 1993; Herrero-Valeiro 2002). This claim is supported by research suggesting that, although attitudes are not explicitly negative, underlying prejudices about the socioeconomic value of Galician or its appropriateness in certain contexts continues to exist (Roseman 1995; Hermida 2001; O’Rourke 2003). In addition, although there is a trend in the increase of bilingualism among the younger age groups, there are also large sections of younger speakers living in urban and semi-urban locations who are monolingual in Spanish, the substitutive language (Fernández 1993; Rodríguez-Neira 2002). Recent qualitative studies have explored language choice and language identity (Iglesias-Álvarez 2002; Iglesias-Álvarez and Ramallo 2002, 2003) in speakers with ages ranging from 20 to over 40, but there is a shortage of research on adolescents (González-González et al.  2003). The present chapter will contribute to a better understanding of language attitudes and language identity among the younger speakers in Galicia. 2. Methodology The present chapter, which represents one installment of an ongoing research effort, looks at the language attitudes and values towards both Galician and Spanish among Galician adolescents. The general approach followed here derives mainly from attitudinal research done in linguistic anthropology (cf. Briggs 1986; Woolard



Chapter 3.  Conflicting values at a conflicting age 

1989). The analysis of qualitative data will offer interpretations that will complement other research done in the field, shedding light on the contemporary values attached to Spanish and Galician varieties as well as helping the understanding of language ideologies and identity in adolescents. The data used here are the result of fieldwork conducted from March 2006 to June 2006 in two public high schools in the town of Ortigueira and the city of A Coruña. Ortigueira, with a population of less than 10,000 people, is located on the northern coast with an economy based on agriculture and fisheries. A Coruña, the second biggest city in Galicia with a population of around 245,000, has a flourishing economy based on tourism and business. The data come from two sources: 1. Answers to the following subset of questions from an open-ended questionnaire administered during a two-class period (45 minutes per period): a. Do you think that it is important to have a good knowledge of both Galician and Spanish? Why? b. What should be the language (or languages) of Galicia? Please, explain. c. What is your opinion on the standard Galician? 2. Tape-recording of 20 to 30 minute-long interviews/discussions in pairs during students’ recess or other individually available times, with minimized intervention of the researcher. Students volunteered to participate in the interviews/discussions. The participants of this microanalysis are thirty 15–17 year-old students, fifteen from each high school. Throughout the analysis, quotations are followed by a code that identifies each participant in the following way: a number previously assigned during my data collection in Galicia (408 students), sex, age, language of choice (“S”= Spanish, “G” = Galician, “B” = both Spanish and Galician), and the high school they attend (“O” = Ortigueira, “C” = Coruña). It is also indicated if the quote comes from the questionnaire or from the interview. 3. Analysis Traditionally, aldeas ‘small villages’ in Galicia have been associated with poverty, rural isolation and lack of education which are the conditions that help keep the vernacular language alive. But now this long-established perspective is being



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez

challenged by adolescents, who acknowledge the importance of the rural community in maintaining the vernacular (also in Iglesias-Álvarez and Ramallo 2002). (1) Se non fora polas aldeas, o galego non tería sobrevivido durante os séculos. ‘If it weren’t for the villages, Galician wouldn’t have survived throughout the centuries.’ (1MB15O -interview) (2) Claro, claro, pero donde se habla es en la aldea, vamos, donde se habló siempre. ‘Sure, sure, but it is the villages where it is spoken, well, where it has always been spoken.’ (69F17C -interview)

(3) E que o galego sobreviveu nas aldeas, non? Nas cidades, non. ‘Galician was kept alive in the villages, right? Not in the cities.’ (3MB16O -interview)

Aldeas can be described as an endocentric community where language functions as a symbol of group cohesion (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985). In fact, speaking Galician is a requisite for members of that community and outsiders or ‘visitors’ will be subjected to criticism if they speak Spanish. To become part of the local identity8, Galicians who are speakers of Spanish must consciously switch codes or they will not be accepted. Switching to Galician becomes a symbol of the speaker’s intention, so from the interlocutor’s perspective code-switch “is both a means and a message” (Myers-Scotton 1988: 156). As Iglesias-Álvarez and Ramallo point out, this criticism, along with the fact that using Spanish in this social context becomes a marked behavior, “reflects the vitality of a new eco-linguistic consciousness” (2002: 264). This explains why even speakers whose language of choice is Spanish feel it necessary to use Galician to talk to their grandparents, porque viven en la aldea ‘because they live in the countryside,’ but would not switch to Galician in any other contexts, not even in a class taught in Galician. (4) Es que si hablo en castellano cuando voy a la aldea se cachondean de mí. ‘If I speak in Spanish when I go to the countryside they will make fun of me.’ (99FB17C -interview) (5) Claro, é que non te vas a poñer a falar en castelán cun tío da aldea, é que non pega. ‘Sure, you can’t start speaking Spanish with a guy from the countryside. It just doesn’t work like that.’ (96M16GO -interview)

8. ‘Local identity’ is translated in Spanish as identidad localista.



Chapter 3.  Conflicting values at a conflicting age 

It should be noted that it is the non-legitimated form of Galician, the dialectal varieties, that is the only one appropriate in the aldeas. Reinforcing the local, i.e., non-standard, norms is a defining characteristic of the social networks (Milroy 1980), which is also an example of covert prestige since speakers of these linguistic varieties considered non-prestigious or of low status are in fact using them as a symbol of group identity and cohesion (Labov 1972; Trudgill 1972). The use of the standard variety in the villages becomes as unacceptable as the use of Spanish, as none of those languages are pieces of this new local identity. Small villages, acknowledged as the custodians of the vernacular language, receive the recognition of speaking o galego de verdad ‘the real Galician,’ in opposition to standard Galician, the variety legitimized by the regional government, which is seen as unshared, non-natural and non-traditional, although valid in some contexts, as in the Galician language class (cf. #13). (6) O verdadeiro galego é o que só se fala nas aldeas. ‘The real Galician is the one that is only spoken in the villages.’ (189F16BC -questionnaire) (7) [...] porque o galego tradicional é o que se fala nos pobos ou nas aldeas. ‘[…] because the traditional Galician is the one spoken in the small towns of villages.’ (8MB16O –questionnaire) (8) Me gusta el gallego de siempre, de toda la vida… ¡el de la aldea! ‘I like the traditional Galician, the one that has always been spoken… the one from the villages!’ (103F17BC –questionnaire) (9) Personalmente no me gusta. Prefiero el de los pueblos, que parece más gallego, más nuestro. ‘I personally don’t like it [standard Galician]. I prefer the one [Galician] spoken in small towns, because it is more ‘Galician,’ more “ours.” (250M17BC –questionnaire)

(10) Gústame máis o galego que fala a miña avoa e os seus irmáns, porque a min paréceme máis natural que o galego normativo. ‘I prefer the Galician spoken by my grandma and her siblings. I find it more natural than standard Galician.’ (1MB15O-interview) (11) El gallego real es el de las aldeas, no éste. ‘The real Galician is the one spoken in the villages, not this one [standard Galician].’ (65FS17C -questionnaire)



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez

(12) No, claro, yo no hablo nunca el gallego normativo, y mucho menos cuando voy a la aldea. ‘No, of course not. I never use standard Galician, let alone when I go to the countryside.’ (99FB17C -interview) (13) E logo como hei falar, tío? Vou dicirlle ‘vasoira’ á miña avoa? Ó de galego, aínda bueno, pero na casa… ‘So how am I supposed to talk, man? Am I going to say ‘vasoira’ [standard form for ‘broom’ as opposed to ‘escoba’, Spanish term used in the area of Ortigueira]. Maybe I can do it when talking to the Galician teacher, but at home…’ (13M16GO -interview)

However, this mystified ‘real’ Galician has no value outside of the social network of the ‘aldeas.’ More specifically, in the job market, standard Galician is the only variety with cultural capital that can be converted into a rewarding job (Bourdieu 1991). In this context and especially for those who do not habitually use Galician, standard Galician becomes “an emblem of a form of linguistic capital they might some day actually be expected to deploy” (Heller 1999: 187). In other words, standard Galician acquires an instrumental value that the local dialects lack (Gardner 1985). (14) A la hora de trabajar […] tienes más posibilidades si tienes un buen conocimiento de ambas lenguas. Además, es obligatorio saber el estándar, no te vale el gallego de la aldea. ‘When it comes down to working […] you will have more opportunities if you have a good knowledge of both languages [Spanish and Galician]. In addition, it is compulsory to know standard Galician, since the Galician spoken at the villages is no good.’ (103F17SC -questionnaire) (15) A la hora de encontrar un empleo es necesario saber el estándar, sobre todo en los relacionados con la sanidad, la seguridad social, la enseñanza… ‘When it comes down to finding a job it is necessary to know the standard, specially for those jobs related to the public health system, the Social Security, the education…’ (56F16SC -questionnaire)

In spite of this newly acquired positive values of rural Galicia(n), old deep seated stigmas continue to exist to a certain extent. Thus, association of Galician with rural areas and illiteracy may make some Galician speakers shift to Spanish to avoid being type-cast as a ghañán ‘redneck,’ which is a word that came up in many



Chapter 3.  Conflicting values at a conflicting age 

of the interviews conducted in the high school of A Coruña to refer to people who speak Galician and are not very refined. The following quotes (#13 and #14) come from students whose families moved to A Coruña from the countryside in the last five years. They consciously switch to Spanish when they are in their high school, where the majority of the students have Spanish as a language of choice. In order to be accepted as a member of this new group, Galician-speakers switch to let the Spanish-speakers know that they share not only a code but also a set o values and attributes that are distinct from those associated to the speakers of the local dialects (Myers-Scotton 1988), making language a determiner of social grouping and socio-linguistic acceptance. (16) Se falas galego cos rapaces do instituto dinche que es un ghañán. ‘If you speak Galician with guys in high school, they’ll call you a redneck.’ (102M16BC -interview) (17) Bueno, o que pasa é que aquí a xente coma sempre fala castelán pensan que es medio ghañán se falas así coma falo eu na casa ou cando vou á aldea. ‘Well, what happens is that here everybody speaks Spanish all the time so they think that you’re a redneck if you talk like that, like the way I speak at home or when I go to the village.’ (65M16BC –interview) (18) Con mis padres o con mis amigos de la aldea hablo gallego, pero aquí hablo castellano. ‘I speak Galician with my parents or my friends from “the village,” but here [Coruña high school] I speak Spanish.’ (103F16BC-interview)

In addition to these feelings of inappropriateness, there are two features of the local dialects that still seem to be stigmatized among my informants: the gheada and the Galician pitch pattern. One of the characteristics of the standardization of a language is the tendency towards structural uniformity, therefore variability “is resisted and suppressed by stigmatization of nonstandard variants” (Milroy and Milroy 1998: 52). Accordingly, standard Galician does not incorporate gheada, which is a phonetic-phonological phenomenon present in the local varieties spoken in the areas of Ortigueira and A Coruña, as well as in other Galician dialects. Gheada consists of producing an aspirated phoneme /h/, which can have different articulations, in the place where standard Galician has the voiced velar phoneme /g/.9 It has traditionally been associated with lower class, backwardness, lack of 9. For the geographical distribution of the diatopic variants of gheada, cf. Fernández Rei (1990).



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez

education, ignorance and even incapacity of pronouncing the sound [g].10 Recalde’s research (1995) on attitudes towards gheada among adolescents shows that non-users of gheada try to overgeneralize the negative characteristics traditionally associated with this phenomenon and, to a lesser extent, with its users. As for the adolescent users of gheada, they do not exaggerate its attributes, but they do reject the prejudices of the non-users. A related recent study conducted by Thomas (2005) on 24 college graduates living in the capital of Galicia Santiago de Compostela found that prejudices against gheada are still very much active, as participants claimed not to have any prejudices against the gheada, although they often avoided it in formal situations. Among the participants of my research, old prejudices against gheada and its users seem to be very much alive. (19) Es más fino ¿no? No sé, al no tener la gheada… ‘[Standard Galician] is more refined, isn’t it? I don’t know, since it doesn’t have gheada…’ (56F16SC -interview) (20) No es que esté mal [la gheada], pero suena un poco bruto […] ‘I am not saying that it [gheada] is wrong, but it sounds very thick/brute.’ (44F17BO -interview) (21) Lo que pasa es que, cuando oyes a alguien hablar así piensas inmediatamente que es de la aldea. ‘What happens is that, when you hear somebody speaking like that, you immediately think that he/she is from the countryside.’ (32M16SO -questionnaire) (22) Home, as cousas como son… Moi elegante, moi elegante, non che é. ‘Man, let’s be realistic… It’s [gheada] not that elegant.’ (11M16GO –interview)

Among the participants in this research, both gheada and regional pitch pattern are linked to the local identity, but also to the stereotype of ghañán. While the lack of a noticeable Galician accent when speaking Galician may be seen as more prestigious and attractive (Cando che escoitei falar así [...] sen acento forte e tal, pensei: ‘que tía máis interesante.’ ‘When I heard you [the researcher] [...] speaking without a strong accent, I thought: ‘what an interesting chick!’) (13M16GO -interview), it is more often criticized. Speaking Galician without the regional pitch pattern is the main object of criticism in the neo-Galician speakers, as they falan o do libro, pero no teñen acento ‘speak the one [Galician] from the books, but they do not have an 10. Recalde Fernández (1994) may be consulted for a general description of the phenomenon of gheada. For a critical review of the Castilianist theory of the origin of gheada, see Recalde (2002).



Chapter 3.  Conflicting values at a conflicting age 

accent’ (22M16GO –interview). As Ramallo points out, ‘pitch accent is the suprasegmental attribute that immediately sets a Spanish speaker in Galicia apart’ (2007: 25), which is noticeable on the hosts of the Galician television programming, who teñen un acento español que flipas ‘have a heavy Spanish accent that discombobulates you…’ (13M16GO -interview) because es obvio que no lo hablan en casa ‘it is obvious that they do not speak it [Galician] at home’ and that is the reason why suena tan forzado ‘it sounds so forced’ (103F17SC- interview). Again, we are dealing not only with feelings of appropriateness and inappropriateness towards languages or language varieties, but also with linguistic models associated to a particular social group of speakers. One of the models refers to the stereotype of the ghañán linked to local Galician, pitch accent, rurality and lack of education; the other model refers to the stereotype of the neo-speakers, associated with standard Galician, Spanish-like accent, urban origin and a higher level of education – standard is only learnt through schooling. Both opposing identities, the ghañán and the neo-speakers, have in common that they are penalized in terms of their accent. Even though pitch accent has been traditionally stigmatized, it may be legitimized because it is an essential element of the newly resurgent local identity, where standard Galician is rejected. Linguistic purism, understood as a conservative criterion of linguistic authenticity, operates as an ideology that penalizes neospeakers and legitimates the statu quo (González-González et al. 2003), which may also explain the outright rejection to the latest changes to the standard (July, 2003), proposed by the reintegrationist approach, which does not recognize the linguistic or cultural borders with Portugal (cf. #23). Also, once again, Galician is related to a close social network, the family, and identified as part of the cultural heritage that must be passed on from parents to children at home, not at school (cf. #24, #25). Among this group of speakers, the school system is neither legitimized nor able to transmit the language (i.e., the ‘real’ Galician, not the standard) or to assure its maintenance (cf. #26, #27): (23) Hay gente que quiere hacerse más portuguesa […] no sé para qué. Dicen palabras como “increibel” y rollos chungos que en realidad no deberían porque el gallego es el gallego y que se deje quieto donde está. ‘There are people who want to become more Portuguese […] I don’t know why… they use words such as increibel and other screwed up things when they really shouldn’t, because Galician is Galician and they should let it be.’ (48F17SC -questionnaire)



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez

(24) Penso que é inútil, xa que o galego apréndese na casa, e as personas falan desta maneira our otra dependendo de donde naceran. ‘I think that it is useless, since Galician is learned at home, and people speak in one way or another depending on where they are born.’ (220M17GO -questionnaire) (25) O galego debe daprenderse na casa, coa familia. ‘Galician should be learned at home, with your family.’ (123M16BC -questionnaire) (26) Yo creo que no lo deberían dar, porque me parece una pérdida de tiempo. Porque, a ver, el gallego se aprende en casa, y no en clase. ‘I think that it shouldn’t be tautght, because I think it’s a waste of time. Because, let’s see, one learns Galician at home, not in the classroom.’ (277F14BC -interview) (27) Por mucho énfasis que pongan en la enseñanza del gallego, la gente no va a empezar a hablarlo. ‘It doesn’t matter how much emphasis they put on the teaching of Galician, because people will not start speaking it.’ (56F16SC -interview)

Politicians and neo-Galician speakers are criticized for the same reasons: they do not speak the ‘real’ Galician and they speak Galician just because it is a job requirement, no van a hablar español, sería el colmo ‘they cannot be speaking Spanish, that would be the last straw’ (31F17C -interview), or because now speaking Galician está guai ‘it is cool’ or está de moda ‘it is fashionable’ (74F16CB -interview). Also, standard Galician is seen as an ideologically politicized construct, unconnected with la gente de a pie ‘average people’ because of its exclusively liturgical uses. Although the participants in this research have been explicitly exposed to standard Galician through instruction since their very first year in the school system, it seems clear that this variety is not playing a decisive role in the construction of the identity of most of these adolescences. They refuse to make standard Galician their own because they regard it as a construct that does not relate to their identity as Galicians – no matter if they are Galician-speakers or not. Also, standard Galician is considered as particular to an elite, politicians and intellectuals. Therefore, the implications of the standardization process are not more social than solely linguistic, since the standard variety establishes an obvious socio-cultural border by being associated with more powerful and/or highly educated speakers. This outright rejection of standard Galician and the process of normalization of the Galician language shown in most of the participants are consistent with González-González et al. (2003) findings, thus contradicting the optimistic findings of the MSG.



Chapter 3.  Conflicting values at a conflicting age 

(28) Deberías hablar con esos tíos, porque son del Bloque y por eso siempre hablan gallego… no les oyes ni una palabra de español. ‘You [the researcher] should talk to those guys, because they are nationalists and that’s why they always speak Galician… you will never hear them saying a word in Spanish.’ (45F16O -interview) (29) [...] pero el de filosofía no [habla castellano], ése es del Bloque. ‘[…] but the Philosophy teacher doesn’t [speak Spanish], (because) he is affiliated with the [Galician Nationalist] Bloc.’ (90F16GO -interview) (30) Os que falan o galego normativo son ou os políticos ou os intelectuais, pero ninguén máis. ‘Those who speak standard Galician are politicians or intellectuals, but nobody else does.’ (14M17GO -interview) (31) […] ese galego só o fala a xente da tv, radio, profesores (e os do BNG), porque a xente na calle non fala así. ‘[…] that type of Galician is only spoken on TV, radio, [and by] teachers (and those people affiliated with the Galician Nationalist Bloc), because regular people don’t speak like that.’ (16M16BO -questionnaire) (32) Opino que la gente no se siente identificada con él porque la utilización de este gallego sólo está presente en actos oficiales, aunque “la gente de a pie” no se expresa así. ‘I think that people don’t identify themselves with it [standard Galician] because the use of this Galician is only present in official ceremonies, although the average people don’t express themselves like that.’ (48F17SC -questionnaire)

The great majority of the participants in this research regard standard Galician as an unshared variety specific to authorized elites. Domínguez-Seco’s study (2002) shows that standard Galician is at the same time acknowledged as a legitimate variety as valid as the non-standardized varieties by Galician-speakers. Only one of my participants, a Galician-speaker, recognized this equity (cf. #33), but at the same time her response shows that relationship of functional specialization is surfacing. In other words, an internal diglossia between standard and dialectal Galician – high and low variety, respectively – is developing (Kabatek 1996; LoureiroRodríguez 2007). In responses that clearly mirror the ideology of the legitimacy of the standard reproduced in the Galician language textbooks used in the classroom,



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez

students conferred standard Galician the status of a variety more appropriate for writing, although they will not speak it because it is not an identity marker as Galician-speakers or Spanish-speakers (cf. #33–35). A consequence of this new diglossia is that, due to being schooled in standard Galician, adolescents fear that Galician-speakers may shift to Spanish due to the difficulties of adopting a prestigious regional variety that excludes phonetic and lexical features characteristic of the variety they have grown up speaking or listening to (cf. #36, #37). Galicianspeakers’ self-conscious metalinguistic judgments about their own spoken variety, characterized by linguistic interference with Spanish – referred to as ‘vulgarisms – ’ (Katabek 1996), are evidence of the breach that standard Galician is opening in their linguistic identity (cf. #38-#40). Also, there are some more aggressive reactions towards the reasons behind the creation of standard Galician, such as #41, where this participant demands the same prestige and values for the traditional local varieties and their speakers, that is, for her own (socio-) linguistic identity. This type of discourse explains the difference in prestige associated with the varieties of Galician while expressing resistance to such difference (Domínguez-Seco 2002: 222). (33) Está ben utilizalo nos medios de comunicación e nos libros pero non se debe impoñer sobre o galego que utilizamos habitualmente no medio rural. Deben coexistir os dous. ‘It’s ok to use it [standard Galician] in the media and in books, but it shouldn’t be imposed over the Galician that we habitually use in the rural environment. Both should coexist.’ (136F16GO -questionnaire) (34) Non me gusta nada. Non hai quen o fale. Hai que pensar moito según vas falando para decir as cousas correctamente. Á hora de escribir, prefíroo. ‘I don’t like it [standard Galician] at all. Nobody can speak it. You have to think hard as you talk so you can say things correctly. When writing, I prefer it.’ (47F17BC -questionnaire) (35) Me parece adecuado en algunos casos como por ejemplo a la hora de hacer un texto informativo o algún tipo de trabajo. Pero dentro del núcleo familiar no se utiliza el gallego normativo, sino el gallego de cada zona. ‘I think it is appropriate in cases such as writing a tex of informative nature or some type of paper. But local Galician is used at home, rather than standard.’ (105F161BC -questionnaire)



Chapter 3.  Conflicting values at a conflicting age 

(36) A xente da calle fala o galego que falou sempre e ó escoita-lo normativo na tele [...] deixa de falalo porque pensan que non o fan ben. ‘Galician speakers speak the way they always have. However, when they hear the standard on TV they may think that they don’t speak correctly, and therefore stop speaking Galician.’ (13M16GO -interview) (37) [el gallego normativo] Es un error clamoroso. Está consiguiendo que la gente que hablaba sólo en gallego cambie al castellano, y la gente que lo hablábamos en igual cantidad que el castellano ni por asomo. ‘[Standard Galician] is a huge mistake. It is making Galician speakers shift into Spanish, and people like me who would use both Galician and Spanish equally don’t speak Galician at all now.’ (80M16BC -questionnaire) (38) Es un poco difícil de hablar ya que estoy acostumbrada a hablar otro tipo de gallego con muchos vulgarismos. ‘It [standard Galician] is a little difficult to speak, since I am used to speak another type of Galician with many vulgarisms.’ (65F17BO -questionnaire) (39) Eu fáloo moi poucas veces, as veces intento pero cústame un pouquiño. Co tempo mellorareino, porque eu utilizo moitos vulgarismos. ‘I harldy ever use it. Sometimes I try but it’s a little hard for me. I’ll improve with time, because I use many vulgarisms. (132F17BO-questionnaire) (40) Yo estoy acostumbrada a un gallego con vulgarismos, pero es que es así como se habla en la aldea […], no se habla el normativo. ‘I am used to a Galician with vulgarisms, but that is how people speak in the countryside […]. They do not speak the standard.’ (51F16BC -interview) (41) Que es absurdo modificar un idioma que tantos años fue hablado por nuestros abuelos y bisabuelos y que aun así poseían el mismo nivel de cultura, y no por cambiar el idioma se cambia la cultura o el ser refinado. ‘It is absurd to modify a language that has been spoken by our grandparents and great-grandparents, who had the same cultural level. Changing the language doesn’t make you more educated or refined’. (232F153O –interview)

It should be noted that the linguistic position legitimized by the regional government seems to be echoed in most of the informants. Differentialism considers the Galician territory as an entity with an autochthonous culture and language that is



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez

an inseparable part of the Spanish nation. This identity includes both languages, Spanish and Galician, and it is not opposed, but rather complementary, to the local identity. The social and linguistic representations of Spanish and Galician find a common ground. This is what Iglesias-Álvarez and Ramallo (2003) label as “cultural identity,” as opposed to “identity of resistance,” which contributes to the idea of Galicia as a nation. (42) Las dos pertenecen a la cultura de la comunidad autónoma y deben por tanto estar presentes en la sociedad, y el castellano debe estar presente al ser la lengua de comunicación con otros habitantes españoles. ‘Both [Spanish and Galician] belong to the culture of the Autonomous Community, and that is why they should be presents in the society. And Spanish must be present because it is the language to communicate with other Spaniards.’ (105F161BC-questionnaire) (43) […] Galicia segue sendo de España e no país a língua predominante é o castelán, aínda que non se debería perder o galego. ‘[…] Galicia is still part of Spain, and in this country the predominant language is Spanish, although we should not lose Galician.’ (123M16BC -questionnaire) (44) En Galicia deben ser oficiales el gallego […] porque es la lengua propia y original […] y el castellano […] porque forma parte del estado español. ‘In Galicia, Galician must be official […] because it is the own and original language […] and Spanish […] because it [Galicia] forms part of the Spanish State.’ (48F17SC -questionnaire)

4. Concluding comments Respondents were consistent in their answers to both the questionnaires and the spontaneous responses given during the informal interview. Results suggest that the legitimization of the vernacular language in its standard variety and the institutionalized bilingualism play an important role in the shaping of linguistics ideologies and the formation of individual and group identity in adolescents. The incorporation of standard Galician in the public educational system has become a source of a new diglossic dynamic, proving to be a double-edged sword.11 11. I adhere to the use of the term ‘diglossia’ to refer to the co-existence of different languages in a relationship of functional specialization (Fishman 1967; Timm 1981).



Chapter 3.  Conflicting values at a conflicting age 

In theory, speakers should adhere to this legitimized variety – as opposed to the non-legitimized local varieties – to avoid shifting to Spanish, the traditionally dominant language. However, the data yield some rather unexpected results. Although most of my informants acknowledged the importance of the existence of a variety that unifies dialectal variation, they regard it as unnatural, artificial, liturgical and representative of a nationalist separatist political ideology. At the same time, they fear that standard may make Galician speakers and bilinguals stop speaking Galician due to a sense of incorrectness or inappropriateness, which would create a new diglossic situation between the standard and the local varieties. Although underlying prejudices about certain features of the local dialects of Galician persist, along with its use in certain domains reserved for the standard (i.e., job market), a new positive ideology that presents local dialects as the ‘real’ Galician is taking place. In this local identity, rural dwellers and their language, once severely stigmatized, take on a renewed positive value. Thus, local dialects become prestigious and carry a symbolic and shared value, in contrast with the non-natural non-shared standard Galician, which loses its public legitimacy and prestige in this context. This local identity asserts that Galician must be transmitted at home, across generations. Accordingly, the school system is not expected to generate new speakers of Galician, who, as we have seen, become the object of criticism. Coexisting with these apparently conflicting ideologies of Galician, there is an assumed discourse that considers Galicia inseparable from the Spanish state. The Autonomous Community of Galicia has its own language, but it is indivisible from the entity of the Spanish nation. In this micro-study, I have not found a clear connection between the Galician language and Galicia as a unity opposed to the rest of Spain. More extensive research is needed before we can claim that Galician identity is solely constructed on the basis of language. Language conflict arises from the confrontation of different linguistic varieties and the overlapping of new and traditional values attached to Galician. Findings show that bilingual education and standard language ideologies in Galicia interfere with adolescents’ construction of their linguistic identity, which ultimately influences their construction of their own self-image and group consciousness. It is vital that language planning go beyond the simply liturgical institutionalization of the language. Additionally, underlying social tensions between language varieties as well as the sociolinguistic and socioeconomic conditions of each community must be taken into consideration for the successful implementation of effective language planning policies.



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez

References Beswick, J. 2002. Galician language planning and implications for regional identity: Restoration or elimination? National Identities 4(3): 257–271. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Bouzada-Fernández, X.M. 2002. Change of values and the future of the Galician language. Estudios de Sociolinguistica 3(2) & 4(1): 321–341. Briggs, C.L. 1986. Learning how to Ask: A Sociolinguist Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: CUP. Cobarrubias, J. 1987. Models of language planning for minority languages. Bulletin of the CAAAL 9: 47–70. del Valle, J. 2000. Monoglossic policies for a heteroglossic culture: Misinterpreted multilingualism in modern Galician. Language and Communication 20: 105–32. Domínguez-Seco, L. 2002. Social prestige and linguistic identity. On the ideological conditions behind the standardisation of Galician. Estudios de Sociolingüística 3(2), 4(1): 207–228. Fennel, D. 1980. Can a shrinking linguistic minority be saved?: Lessons from the Irish experience. In Minority Languages Today: A Selection from the Papers Read at the First International Conference on Minority Languages held at Glasgow University from 8 to 13 September 1980, E. Haugen, J. D. McClure & D. Thomson (eds). Edinburgh: University Press. Fernández, M.A. 1991. Coordenadas sociais e dinámicas do bilingüismo galego. Grial 110: 239–262. Fernández, M.A. 1993. La lengua maternal en los espacios urbanos gallegos. Plurilinguismes 6: 27–53. Fernández Rei, F. 1990. Dialectoloxía da Lingua Galega. Vigo: Xerais. Fishman, J. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia: Diglossia with and without bilingualism. The Journal of Social Issues 23: 29–38. Fishman, J. 1991. Reversing Language shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Freixeiro-Mato, X.R. 1997. Lingua Galega: Normalidade e Conflito. Santiago de Compostela: Laiovento. García Negro, M.P. 1991. O Galego e as Leis. Unha Aproximación Sociolingüística. Pontevedra: do Cumio. Gardner, R. 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitude and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. González-González, M. et al. 2003. O galego na mocidade. A Coruña: Real Academia Galega. Heller, M. 1999. Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. London: Longman. Hermida, C. 2001. The Galician speech community. In Multilingualism in Spain: Sociolinguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects of Linguistic Minority Groups, M.T. Turell (ed), 110–140. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Herrero-Valeiro, M.J. 2000. Glotopolítica y genealogía del poder: El proceso de institucionalización del gallego desde la perspectiva de una (macro)política de la lengua. PhD dissertation, Universidad de Coruña. Herrero-Valeiro, M.J. 2002. The discourse of language in Galiza: Normalisation, diglossia, and conflict. Estudios de Sociolingüística 3(2) & 4(1): 289–320. Hobsbawm, E.J. 1990. Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: CUP.



Chapter 3.  Conflicting values at a conflicting age  Iglesias-Álvarez, A. 2002. Falar galego: “no veo por qué”. Aproximación cualitativa á situación sociolingüística de Galicia. Vigo, Xerais. Iglesias-Álvarez, A. & Ramallo, F. 2002. Language as a diacritical in terms of cultural and resistance identities in Galicia. Estudios de Sociolingüística 3(2) & 4(1): 255–287. Iglesias-Álvarez, A. & Ramallo, F. 2003. Relocalización, identidades e linguas periféricas: O caso do galego. In Nacionalismo e globalización: lingua, cultura e identidade, A. Bringas López & B. Martín Luces (eds), 117–132. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo. Kabatek, J. 1996. Os falantes como lingüistas. Vigo: Xerais. Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell. Le Page, R.B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. 1985. Acts of Identity. Cambridge: CUP. Lippi-Green, R. 1994. Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in Society 23: 163–198. Lippi-Green, R. 1997. English with an Accent. Langauge Ideology and Discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge. López Valcárcel, X.M. 1991. Normalización: Agora ou nunca. Cadernos de Lingua 2: 135–146. Loureiro-Rodríguez, V. 2007. Are Galicians bound to diglossia? An analysis of the nature, uses and values of the standard Galician. In Spanish in Contact: Policy, Social, and Linguistic Inquiries, K. Potowski & R. Cameron (eds), 119–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mar-Molinero, C. 2000. The Iberian peninsula: Conflicting linguistic nationalisms. In Language and Nationalism in Europe, S. Barbour & C. Carmichael (eds), 83–104. New York NY: OUP. Mariño Paz, R. 1998. Historia da Lingua Galega. Santiago de Compostela: Sotelo Blanco. Milroy, L. 1980. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. 1985. Authority in Language. Investigating Language Prescription and Standardization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. 1998. Varieties and variation. In The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, F. Coulmas (ed), 47–64. Malden MA: Blackwell. Monteagudo-Romero, H. 1999. Historia Social da Lingua Galega: Idioma, Sociedade e Cultura a través do Tempo. Ed. Galaxia: Vigo. Monteagudo-Romero, H. 2000. Quinze ans de la Loi de Normalisation Linguistique en Galice (1983–1998): Notes pour un bilan. Le galicien et la sociolinguistique galicienne: à la conquête de la reconnaissance sociale de la langue. Lengas. Revue de Sociolinguistique 47: 131–158. Monteagudo-Romero, H. 1990. A oficialidade da lingua galega: O marco legal.  Grial 107: 387–398. Myers-Scotton, C. 1988. Code-switching as indexical of social negotiations. In Code-Switching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, M. Heller (ed.), 151–186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. O’Rourke, B. 2003. Conflicting values in contemporary Galicia: Attitudes to ‘o galego’ since autonomy. International Journal of Iberian Studies 16(1): 33–48. Ramallo, F. 2000. Rétention et reproduction du galicien. Le galicien et la sociolinguistique galicienne: à la conquête de la reconnaissance sociale de la langue. Lengas. Revue de Sociolinguistique 47: 97–118. Ramallo, F. 2007. Sociolinguistics of Spanish in Galicia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 184: 21–36. Recalde Fernández, M. 1994. ‘Gheada’ e situación. Verba 21: 339–67. Recalde, M. 1995. Unha aproximación ás actitudes e prexuízos cara á gheada. Cadernos de Lingua 11: 5–31.



Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez Recalde, M. 2002. The Castilianist theory of the origin of the ‘gheada’ revisited. Estudios de Sociolingüística 3(2) & 4(1): 43–74. Regueiro Tenreiro, M. 1999. Modelo Harmónico de Relación Lingüística. Estudio en Galicia. Madrid: 3catorceeuro Ediciones. Rodríguez-Neira, M.A. 2002. Language shift in Galicia from a sociolinguistic viewpoint. Estudios de Sociolingüística 3(2) & 4(1): 75–112. Roseman, S.R. 1995. ‘Falamos como falamos’: Linguistic revitalization and the maintenance of local vernaculars in Galicia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 5(1): 3–32. Seminario de Sociolingüística. 1994. Lingua Inicial e Competencia Lingüística en Galicia. A Coruña: Real Academia Galega. Seminario de Sociolingüística. 1995. Usos Lingüísticos en Galicia. A Coruña: Real Academia Galega. Seminario de Sociolingüística. 1996. Actitudes Lingüística en Galicia. A Coruña: Real Academia Galega. Timm, L. 1981. Diglossia old and new: A critique. Anthropological Linguistics 23: 156–167. Timm, L. 2000. Language ideologies in Brittany, with implications for Breton language maintenance and pedagogy. In The Information Age, Celtic Languages, and the New Millennium (Sixth Annual Conference of the North American Association for Celtic Language Teachers), R.F.E. Sutcliffe & G.O. Néill (eds), 147–154. Limerick: University of Limerick. Thomas, J.A. 2005. La divergencia entre actitudes y conducta lingüísticas: La gheada gallega y la formación de un registro culto oral.  In Selected Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, L. Sayahi & M. Westmoreland (eds), 54–66. Somerville MA: Cascadilla. Trudgill, P. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1: 179–195. Woolard, K.A. 1989. Double Talk. Bilingualism and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia. Stanford CT: Stanford University Press. Woolard, K. & Gahng, T. 1990. Changing language policies and attitudes in autonomous Catalonia. Language in Society 19: 311–330.

chapter 4

Language and identity in Catalonia Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz

University of Barcelona, Georgetown University Catalonia is a bilingual region where Catalan and Spanish coexist. While there are virtually no Catalan monolinguals, the proportion of Spanish monolinguals and Catalan/Spanish bilinguals has varied within the last 100 years as a result of Franco’s repression, migration and successful pro-minority language policy. Catalans have traditionally used language to identify themselves (ius linguae), but in the present day this stands in contradiction with the law (ius loci). Moreover, the presence of bilingual varieties of both Spanish and Catalan are making the use of language as criterion for identity more complex. Catalan characterized by heavy lexical and morphosyntactic Spanish transfers is growing with the number of L2 Catalan speakers. That this population may identify itself as bilingual and Catalan (both ius loci and ius linguae), but be perceived as ‘nonCatalan’ is a clear example of a conflict between self-constructed identity and perceived identity.

1. The role of language(s) in identity Languages are extremely ductile communication tools and symbols of both identity and power. As such, linguistic codes can serve to mark and construct identity. Variation in speech expresses social meaning and conveys important information about the speaker’s social identity. Speaking a given code makes it feasible for others to identify and categorize the speaker. Remember for instance the well-known passage in Judges (XII: 6), and its description of how the members of a tribe killed an enemy Hebrew tribe when their pronunctiation gave away their identity. Or the case of the Catalan speakers, who, while completing their required military service, were reprimanded and called Polaco! ‘Pole’ whenever they were heard speaking Catalan. Thus, language use allows people to identify others; and in cases of language contact between majority and minority groups, language choice defines their own identity. Identities are the different ways in which individuals and collectivities are distinguished in their social relations with others. Social interaction is inconceivable



Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz

without some means of knowing ourselves and those around us: “social identity is our understanding of who we are and of who other people are, and reciprocally, other people’s understanding of themselves and of others” (Jenkins 1996: 4). Identity must always be validated by others, and it is never unilateral. In modern postindustrialized societies the concept of identity has come sharply into focus. Globalization and modernization trends problematize identities in contrast with ancient societies where they were fixed, not ascribed (Bauman 2005). The medieval peasant, for example, was from “here” and had no expectations of changing this ascribed location. Rapid change and cultural contact (through tourism, migration, and work mobility) produce uncertainty. Underprivileged classes and immigrant groups in our heterogeneous societies increasingly demand recognition. Our social maps no longer fit our social landscapes. We encounter others whose identity and nature are not clear to “us” – indeed, it is often not clear to “them.” These “crises of identity” are especially salient in minoritized and fragile societies, such as the Catalan society, where the autochthonous language has suffered a lasting process of subordination. In everyday life, speakers usually do not analyze or elaborate on their language use; they simply use it, so language is opaque. In situations of intense language contact, however, as in current Catalonia, where there are two languages that share both official status and pervasive use, people become much more aware of language practice and language choice. Speakers everywhere can actively manipulate linguistic resources to create identities, usually imitating those patterns of the group or individual with which they wish to be identified. For example, linguists who have carried out research on pidgin and creole languages have found that speakers continuously make up identity acts by means of their linguistic choices in prosody, morphosyntax and lexicon (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985). It is the same case in highly-focused societies with well-established languages like Catalan, which can rely on a well-established codification (Catalan was already established in medieval times and has had a renewed norm since the beginning of the XX century) by means of all sorts of dictionaries and grammars.1 Language draws the limits of Catalan culture: where people say Bon dia ‘Good morning,’ there is Catalan culture. For many speakers of Catalan, language identifies the territory: language has been locus for cultural identification for Catalan speakers while they have accommodated to the Mediterranean fringe. Toponimy clearly identifies their country.

1. Highly-focused societies are those “in which mass literacy in a standardised model language buttressed by grammars and dictionaries is prescribed by the education system and tested by the public examination system” ( Le Page 1980: 174).



Chapter 4.  Language and identity in Catalonia 

Language is one of the most salient traits to index identities, comprised of the largest range of features to be indexed. Language makes up a complex and endless series of features which enable speakers to catalog a whole range of identities: generational, ethnic, gender, social, linguistic...but languages (modern languages) are also associated with constitutions and law, in which case they determine political identities that often do not coincide with ethnic identities. Frenchmen are expected to speak French, and Spaniards are expected to speak Spanish...but are Swiss expected to speak Swiss (sic) or are Belgians expected to speak Belgian (sic)? 2. Language use in Catalonia A summary of the events that have taken place recently within Catalan society is necessary to fully understand the indexical value; that is, the social connotations of linguistic choices. The Catalan and Spanish languages are distributed unevenly through Catalan society mainly due to two different factors: (1) a process of political subordination and (2) a process of massive immigration. As a result of these factors, according to the latest 2001 census, 94% of the population of Catalonia understood Catalan, 75% could speak it, 74% could read it and 50% was able to write it (Pons and Vila 2005: 73), whereas oral and written knowledge of Spanish was universal and Spanish illiteracy had basically disappeared. Social bilingualism is still clearly asymmetrical in favor of Spanish. Catalan is the language of the original inhabitants of Catalonia. Only a tiny part of the population, belonging to its upper economic elite, has adopted Spanish (usually called Castilian in Catalonia) as their family language because they consider Catalan to be a less prestigious code, while the bulk of the indigenous population has been loyal to Catalan and has continued to use it in all domains of everyday life. The distribution of the use of Spanish and Catalan by social domains is as follows: approximately half the population speaks Catalan at home; the other half speaks Spanish, and the percentage of those who consider themselves to be bilingual, that is, those who consider both languages to be their own, is growing (Torres 2005). In general, unlike other Catalan-speaking territories such as Valencia and French Catalonia, intergenerational language transmission has not been disrupted. As both languages are official, both are employed by government institutions. Catalan is used more in local and regional government entities while Spanish is used more in governmental bodies controlled by the central Spanish government (Spanish ministries, post offices, courts of law, airport and railway authorities, etc.). The educational domain stands out because of its extensive use of Catalan. In primary and secondary education (more so in primary), Catalan is known as the “normal” language and is the language of preference in regular classes and courses.

 Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz

Universities are bilingual; professors, students and staff members are free to use either official language. This active bilingual policy requires everybody to be bilingual, at least passively. In the workplace, the situation is more complex. Whereas in the public arena (education and civil service, but not the courts) both Castilian and Catalan tend to be required, in the private sector the language that is most in demand is Castilian (and increasingly, English). In contrast, Spanish is the main (but not the only) language of the working class, especially in the industrial metropolitan areas of Barcelona and Tarragona. This is due to waves of migrants who moved from Castilian-speaking regions of Spain to Catalonia in the fifties and sixties. More recently, within the last decade, a new wave of Eastern European, Latin American and African immigrants has arrived, inevitably bringing about changes in the sociolinguistic situation. As a result of both of these processes, Catalan has middle-class connotations in modern Catalonia, associated with prestigious professions. This is unlike what occurs with other European minority language communities (Woolard 1989). The re-establishment of Catalan democratic institutions in the seventies made Catalan an official language again, and it became the main language used throughout the educational system. Both languages are now compulsory in schools; in fact, by the time they leave school all students are expected to know both Spanish and Catalan with native fluency. The historical process behind these changes explains why almost all young Catalans are able to speak, read and write Catalan. Most adults, however, cannot write Catalan, because they did not learn it at school or in public life. When they were young, Franco’s dictatorship (1939–1975) forbade the public and official use of all peninsular languages (Galician, Basque and Catalan) except Spanish. The mass media is mainly in Spanish, but there are powerful and influential public TV and radio stations in Catalan. Recovering the use of Catalan (known as ‘normalization’) has been a peaceful process, even though some attempts have been made to trigger internal ethnolinguistic conflict between “Castilians” (mainly Spanish-dominant speakers) and “Catalans” (Catalan dominant speakers) (Voltas 1996; Hall 2001). Knowledge of Catalan in society has become so widespread that in its proposal for reform of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, the Catalan Parliament establishes it as a duty to be fluent in both official languages (Catalonia Today, 3 November 2005). The new Statute approved by plebiscite in June 2006 follows what the 1978 Spanish Constitution states as far as Spanish is concerned, but goes on to affirm that Catalan should have preferential use, being the indigenous language. Article 6, Language. 6.1. The language proper of Catalonia is Catalan. As such, Catalan is the language of preference in the Catalan public administration bodies and in the



Chapter 4.  Language and identity in Catalonia 

public media. And moreover, it is the language of teaching and learning in the education system. 6.2. Catalan is the official language of Catalonia, together with Castilian, the official language of Spain. Each individual in Catalonia has the right to use and the duty to know these two official languages. The public authorities of Catalonia shall establish the necessary measures to enable the exercise of these rights and the fulfillment of this duty (authors’ emphasis).

The arrival of a new, highly heterogeneous migrant population from Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa raises the question of whether a multicultural and bilingual society is feasible in Catalonia (Comellas 2005). Since most new immigrants do not speak Catalan well, the Catalan language may not be “preferential.” Spanish, instead, is becoming the lingua franca. Language choice has always been linked to political identity in Catalonia, as the older generation was forbidden to speak Catalan in public during childhood, and now all individuals are expected to learn and use Catalan when living there. Older people are proud of having established or re-established the seemingly natural custom of speaking Catalan in private and in public contexts. They felt uncomfortable when forced to express themselves in Spanish, as the “national language” (the regime’s term for Castillian) was associated with resentment towards them. The same does not hold true for the younger generation, which tends to be much more fluent in Spanish than in Catalan (Galindo 2005) due to the hegemony of Spanish in the media and informal networks. In interethnic encounters (between Castilian and Catalan speakers), Catalan speakers tend to accommodate to Spanish, relinquishing the use of their language and converging towards their addressee, which establishes Spanish as the dominant language used in the public arena as well (Boix-Fuster 1993). 3. Language and identity in Catalonia Historically, the Catalan model of integration has been rather unique. Whereas France followed the republican conception of citizenship (ius soli) and Germany followed the territorial conception based on ancestry (ius sanguinis), Catalonia chose an unusual way (ius linguae): the adoption of Catalan as their own language. Those who usually spoke Catalan were considered Catalan automatically, whereas those who didn’t speak Catalan were called castellans ‘Castilians’ (Woolard 1989). Nonetheless, this notion is now in crisis. Currently, there are two legitimate conceptions of citizenship (Giner 1998). There is the official view, availed by the Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy, according to which any citizen living and



Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz

working in Catalonia is considered Catalan.2 There is also another very prevalent conception of integration: any citizen, who, regardless of origin, integrates into the Catalan community through the learning and use of Catalan, is a Catalan citizen. But this view, well described by Giner (1998) citing Woolard (1989), faces serious difficulties because Spanish works as the lingua franca: This popular construct that is still alive in the collective imagination is becoming more and more difficult to maintain, not only because it is in contradiction with constitutional law based on ius soli, but because there are important sections of Catalan society that do not use Catalan to communicate. Also, a great part of immigrants from the peripheral world – what used to be called Third World – as well as EU foreigners with residence in Catalonia become integrated in our society through the learning of Spanish, not Catalan. (Giner 1998: 36).

Immigration policies must necessarily take language policies into account as part of a wider frame of identity policies (Zapata-Barrero 2006). Currently, Spanish is the language everyone knows, especially because many of the new immigrants are Latin American. As a result of the most widely spoken language, it has also become the most useful, so Catalan runs the risk of becoming a low prestige language, restricted to the autochthonous population. 4. Three examples of identification processes by means of language This section presents three cases that illustrate the relationship between language and identity in different ways. The methodology implemented in the three cases differs, moving from a more qualitative approach to a more controlled experimental design. The situations also represent a progression from language and identity in the public discourse to individual competence in the language. The first case focuses on the recent elections to the Presidency of the Catalan government, when language and identity moved to the forefront of the public’s awareness in a discussion that looked both at language and individual vs. group identity, and self-developed vs. perceived identity. The second case describes the use of language in a choir and has been chosen to show the multiple functions of multilingual Catalanbased code-switch. Finally, Spanish and Catalan narratives were elicited from bilinguals who differed in their first language. This rather controlled method shows that Spanish transfers are pervasive in Catalan regardless of the subject’s L1, which leads to a discussion of the extent to which a bilingual variety of Catalan is becoming prominent in private and public discourse, and is possibly responsible for the 2. Catalan Civil Law, which is significantly different from Spanish law in some respects, applies to all Spanish citizens who are legal residents of Catalonia.



Chapter 4.  Language and identity in Catalonia 

crisis of an identity model traditionally constructed through Catalan. While the first case is intrinsically related to the issue of identity and the way language is used to self-define and perceive identity both at the individual and social levels, the other two cases are examples of the social significance of code-switch and language varieties characterized by transfer in a bilingual society like that of Catalonia. 4.1

The elections to the Catalan Parliament (2006)

José Montilla, born in southern Spain and representative of the Catalan Socialist Party (PSC-PSOE3), was the first candidate born outside of Catalonia to become President of the Catalan Government. Did Montilla’s origin really matter? Did his campaign push the ethnolinguistic boundaries within Catalan society? In the early days of his campaign, Montilla emphasized his Andalusian origins, together with the fact that his party was the only party to encompass autochthonous and non-autochthonous citizens, saying, for example, “I am a Catalan from Iznájar, I am Andalusian by birth and Catalan by choice” (El Mundo 8-X-2006). His origin and simultaneous claim of Catalan identity is not equally well accepted throughout Catalonia. Lluís Foix, a prestigious journalist, recently wrote (La Vanguardia 28-XI-2006): Wandering through Catalonia outside Barcelona, the rural territory that looks towards the capital with all sorts of misgivings, I have observed a certain disappointment that a president that is a native of Cordouba, who speaks Catalan with the caution of those who learn the language as adults, can rule the destiny of the country at a time of fast and deep changes.

The internal ethnolinguistic clash appears, but indirectly: Montilla and fellow politicians offer confirmation of its existence by tenaciously denying it. In his first address as candidate, Montilla repeatedly stated that he wanted to serve all Catalans and become everyone’s president, regardless of their origin and destination, therefore implying that previous governments had operated differently (Avui, 17VII-2006). The message is subtle but evident: it is a call to mobilize the non-autochthonous population characterized by low participation in the elections to the Catalan Parliament. In La Vanguardia (16-VII-2006), Montilla stated: We are going to teach a lesson to those who raise the specter of division and make distinctions among Catalans (…). I am Catalan by choice and by sentiment, I am a citizen of Catalonia (…) I was born in an Andalusian village, but I am Catalan,

3. PSC (PSC-PSOE) was the result of unificaction of an independent Catalan Party (PSC) and the Catalan branch of a Spanish Party (PSOE).



Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz

and my goal is to become the president of the Generalitat to serve all Catalans, of origin and of destiny.

Montilla’s emphasis on a distinction (or lack thereof) between ‘kinds’ of Catalans was harshly criticized as unfair, since he was using the concept of purity to his advantage. Because discussion of ‘purity’ by individuals of Catalan ancestry would be considered a case of racism, the references to the candidate’s family origins had to be refrained from as well. Montilla’s party, however, made constant reference to the integrative example of their party, whose base is made up of both Catalan-born and immigrants from other parts of Spain (PSOE-PSC). The term Catalans was pervasive in Montilla’s posters, billboards and pamphlets. In the precampaign, the socialist posters bearing the image of Montilla read “Now it is the right time for Catalans” (in Catalan only). Likewise, the party’s brochure cover stated “No one will do more for Catalans” (in Catalan only). The use of Catalan in the highly visible posters and brochure covers contrasted with the text inside, which contained identical texts written in both Catalan and Spanish. In El País (29-X-2006), Montilla criticized his main adversary, the candidate of the nationalist center-right coalition CiU, “because he wants to exclude a part of the country (Catalonia).” His opponent’s answer referenced the ethnolinguistic division in the country and Montilla’s origin when he referred to the “warm welcome that a land of opportunity like Catalonia gave him (Montilla), treating him like a Catalan born in Catalonia (…) if CiU had not been in power governing with one people and one country in mind, working towards integration and equal opportunity, Montilla would not be a candidate today.” By the final days of the campaign, the attempts to dichotomize Catalan society were unrestrained: at that point, it had become obvious to politicians that the issue of ethnicity was a powerful means for calling out the vote and mobilizing the base. Montilla referred to a nationalist candidate as: “someone who thinks that a section of the country’s population (Catalonia) that lives and works in Catalonia and that has helped Catalonia grow is not Catalan; someone who excludes them, cannot be President” (El Punt 29-X-2006). Linguistically, Montilla exemplifies the path followed by some immigrants. On television (TV3 October 2006), he affirmed that he speaks Spanish with his wife, but Catalan with his siblings. Montilla, like his party and like most politicians across political lines, denied the existence of a linguistic conflict in Catalan society: (…) this (linguistic) problem is perceived as such by outsiders, but it is not a problem at the heart of Catalan society; those in Catalonia who talk about the language problem are few and are manipulated by media outside our country (Catalonia). (Catalunya Ràdio, 13-IX-2006).



Chapter 4.  Language and identity in Catalonia 

Only rarely do we find references to Montilla’s self-defined identity made in a derogatory tone: for instance, Xavier Mas de Xaxàs (La Vanguardia 23-VI-06) described him as “a charnego for most nationalists.” Charnego is a stigmatized, negative term that refers to mostly working class immigrants born in different regions of Spain. It is important to note that individuals who fall under this definition but who have achieved native-like Catalan proficiency are not referred to as charnegos. Montilla’s language limitations in Catalan are rarely referred to and then only briefly (Soledad Gallego Díaz, El País 29-X-06): Montilla is a bad speaker and the electoral race is not long enough to allow him to correct that limitation. His lack of authenticity is due perhaps to his shyness in public, but probably also to his irregular use of Catalan, a language he speaks fluently but with some of the errors characteristic of native speakers of Spanish of his generation (maybe as many errors as can be found in the Spanish of young native speakers of Catalan who do not practice bilingualism much). No one comments on it openly, but in private some joke about a Montilla-Catalan Dictionary.

According to Woolard (2005), the new president prefers Catalan to Spanish in his institutional speeches because Catalan is the default unmarked code according to the linguistic ideology of anonymity. On the basis of authenticity and expression of his inner self, however, Spanish is his language. Is this crisis situation that became obvious during the 2006 elections one of linguistic conflict as a reflection of identity conflict? Or is it actually the other way around, a case of identity conflict that results from a linguistic conflict? When ethnic identity is defined by language, the growth and extension of a new language variety will inexorably lead to a redefinition of ethnic identity. We move now to our second case, one that focuses precisely on code-switching and its potential for blurring distinctions previously made by a ‘pure’ code, which will underline the earlier statement that identities are not only uttered, but performed. 4.2

Crossing: Code-switching in a Catalan-speaking choir

Another scenario where the intermingling of language and identity can be observed is in many choirs and churches. During Franco’s dictatorship, they were almost the only places where Catalan could be used in public. Catalan music was part of the ‘rich and varied Spanish folklore,’ to use the regime’s terminology. Also, religious music was an important part of choirs’ repertoire, and for both reasons, the use of Catalan in the context of a choir was deemed safe. Perhaps because choirs were able to escape linguistic repression, some of them consisted of members that shared a certain pro-Catalan political ideology. In the public imagination in Catalonia, a choir speaks Catalan. The specific choir in this study is made up of adult



Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz

singers who have met in the same space in Gràcia, a mainly Catalan-speaking neighborhood in Barcelona, for the last four years. The director’s first and preferred language is Catalan and he conducts with directions in Catalan. He speaks Catalan to native speakers of Catalan and also to native speakers of Spanish who sometimes speak Catalan even with heavy transfer from Spanish. Every choir member understands Catalan; still, the conductor switches into Spanish to address the monolingual Spanish speakers, even though they understand Catalan perfectly. Conducting the choir requires the director’s constant attention and encouragement. In order to increase his effectiveness, he manipulates Catalan, the unmarked code, to distance it from the standard or to incorporate elements from other languages, including Spanish, as shown in the following examples:

(1) Spanish excerpts, mainly language chunks taken from Spanish television commercials. For example, “Repetimos” (“let’s do it again’ from a dairy product commercial); “día completo, día comanche” (‘full day, Comanche day’); “bueno, bonito y barato” (‘good, pretty, and cheap’); “atendiendo una amable petición” (‘responding to a kind request’). Some excerpts are directives: “¡Venga, vamos todos!” (‘Come on, all together!’). In some cases, an entire sentence is taken from a well-known Spanish song – “Libre como el sol cuando amanece” (‘Free as the sun at sunrise’) – or from political statements – “Pa tras ni pa tomar impulso”, decía Fidel (“Never backwards, not even to spring forward, said Fidel”). In other cases, the speaker simply wants to get the audience’s attention: for example – “para que la gente lo reflexione” (‘for people to consider’), “sóc agente secreto” (‘I’m a secret agent’), “¡cuando era pequeño me lo hubiera comido!” (‘When he was little I would have eaten him up’), “y esto es lo que molesta” (‘and this is what bothers you’), “otra vez más fuerte” (‘again, louder’), “pim, pam, fuego” (‘ready, aim, fire’). The same effect is obtained incorporating English elements: “estem a la page 55” (‘we are on page 55’).



(2) Andalusian or non-Standard Spanish excerpts. “Joia en el món” (Joy to the world), Haendel’s song, pronounced with an Andalusian accent. These humorous effects are also reached with colloquial Spanish: “las tres uves: voluntad, valor y vuevos” (‘the three Vs: will, bravery, and balls’), or a literal and ridiculous Catalan translation: “envuelve que hace fuerte” (‘tie it up to make it stronger’) from “embolica que fa fort” (‘keep it up and make it worse’).



(3) Italianisms, common in musical jargon. In this case, however, the director uses literal translations or a mix of Catalan and Italian, as in “tutti drets” (‘everyone (Italian) stand up (Catalan)’).



(4) Mixed elements Catalan/Spanish. Use of Spanish lexical items with Catalan phonology, like “repitu” (for ‘repeteixo’, I repeat), “silenciu” (for ‘silenci’, silence),



Chapter 4.  Language and identity in Catalonia 

“sigu” (for ‘segeixo’, I continue). Also, conscious use of stigmatized errors is utilized, such as “ho mateix” instead of “el mateix” (the same), a typical mistake by Spanish L1 speakers. We have identified a case of triple language mix, Catalan/Spanish/Italian: “canteu por lo bajini” (sing softly).

(5) Catalan colloquialisms, deviations from the standard grammar. “Amb sense” instead of “sense” (‘without’), “fenya” instead of “feina” (‘job’), “hómens” instead of “homes” (‘men’), “escomenço” instead of “començo” (‘I start’). 4

The conductor’s ethnicity is not questioned, despite his frequent use of Spanish and colloquial Catalan and the incorporation of deviant forms resulting from negative transfer form Spanish. Is it because of his origin, because he is a native speaker of Catalan, or because he has a good command of the language and it is obvious to his audience that his use of ‘faulty’ Catalan is conscious? As in all cases of codeswitch in bilingual situations around the world, combining two or more codes is possible when communication is not impeded (Italian, different varieties of Spanish) and because its practice is accepted only for emphasis or to create a humorous effect. Despite the growth of a bilingual variety of Catalan with heavy Spanish transfers, code-switching is not pervasive among Catalan speakers and its use is marked: a mixed variety of Catalan does not exist.5 The next section analyzes the elicited narratives of Spanish/Catalan bilinguals with a focus on negative transfer, as it seems that the use of a native variety that approaches the standard versus a bilingual variety of Catalan with marked features transferred from Spanish is becoming key to a definition of Catalan identity. 4.3

Encoding Catalan identities in narratives

It should be clear by now that the nature of both knowledge and use of Catalan and Spanish is a sensitive political issue. On the one hand, the Spanish government in Madrid sometimes criticizes the autonomous Catalan government for not emphasizing mastery of Spanish throughout the educational system. On the other hand, indigenous Catalan sectors are sometimes reluctant to accept Spanish as a native

4. These data come from 5 years of note taking by the first author, a member of the choir. 5. In a recent corpus of colloquial Catalan in the Barcelona area (Boix-Fuster et al. 2006), the use of Spanish in the middle of Catalan narratives by speakers of Catalan as L1, especially young ones, occurs frequently. For example, in dialogue 1, the speaker shifts to Spanish (in italics) by saying, “en plan pataditas a joderle al profesor que te cagas,” or, “món germà és el privilegio de la casa.” In dialogue 2, the interviewee affirms, “són pijitos todos, són niños de papa.”



Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz

language variety of Catalonia.6 For them, Spanish in Catalonia is a product of political repression and subordination, rather than a product of social and demographic changes. We do not yet know to what extent Catalan and Spanish have been mastered by young Catalans, and, above all, we do not know these young speakers’ allegiances to each variety of their linguistic repertoire. Hundreds of thousands of Spanish L1 speakers regularly speak Catalan in their leisure time, in their workplace, in school and in college. Do they feel at ease when speaking Catalan? Do they accept this language as their own language as well? Similarly, are Catalan L1 speakers comfortable when speaking Spanish, their second language? Do they feel Spanish is their own language, too? The main question raised here is whether each group indexes their identity when using its first or second language (either Spanish or Catalan). The study described below was designed to begin to answer this question. 4.3.1 Methods 4.3.1.1 The frog story.  Twelve female undergraduates at the University of Barcelona were asked to tell a story about the adventures of a frog in a forest in Catalan and then in Spanish. Subjects were Catalan/Spanish/English trilinguals born and/or raised in Catalonia whose ages ranged between 19 and 30 years old. All the speakers lived in the Barcelona metropolitan area and spoke the easterncentral variety of Catalan. Out of the twelve subjects, four were native speakers of Catalan, four were native speakers of Spanish and four were family bilinguals.7 Participants were asked to tell the frog story twice, once in each language, with an intervening period of two weeks at the very least. This procedure produced twenty-four videotaped narratives: twelve in Catalan and twelve in Spanish. Participants were told that the focus of the research was memory effects. The narratives were elicited in a controlled context not suitable for elicitation of a relaxed, colloquial style but rather a formal register with prescriptive linguistic pressures. The experiment’s real goals were to gather data that were comparable in terms of discourse structure suitable for assessing to what extent mastery of Catalan and Spanish is symmetrical and equally balanced in the sample. The twenty-four video-recorded narratives were transcribed and later analyzed along with the video recordings. The main objective was to identify a variety 6. For instance, there has recently been a heated discussion in the Catalan press on the presence of Catalan culture in the Frankfurt International Book Fair to be held in 2007. Some argue that only writers who use Catalan as their means of literary expression should represent Catalan literature, whereas others think that writers whose production is in Spanish should also be included. 7. Family bilinguals are those who were socialized with both languages in their family context. This normally implies that their proficiency in both languages is highly balanced.



Chapter 4.  Language and identity in Catalonia 

of interference phenomena, and more generally, all cases of code-switch between Spanish and Catalan. Narrations produced in the participants’ first language are presented first, followed by narrations in the L2. 4.3.2 Results8 4.3.2.1 Catalan narratives by Catalan L1 subjects.  All Catalan L1 participants produced narratives containing Spanish interferences that are characteristic of colloquial Catalan such as “bueno” ‘well’ or “es despedeixen” ‘they say good-bye’ instead of the correct forms “bé” and “s’acomiaden,” respectively. Two participants’ narratives showed constant Spanish pronunciations [ke] of both the conjunction and the relative pronoun “que” ‘that’ in unstressed final position instead of the neutral vowel expected in their native variety of Catalan. All the participants in this group displayed lexical gaps in rural lexicon. Words such as “rusc” ‘beehive,’ “bresca” ‘honeycomb,’ “talp” ‘mole,’ “mofeta” ‘skunk’ and “flascó” ‘flask’ or ‘pitcher’ were not produced by any of the participants, who relied on circumlocution instead. 4.3.2.2 Spanish narratives by Catalan L1 subjects.  The Spanish variety spoken by these young people showed few traces of Catalan and could barely be distinguished in Catalonia from other native varieties of Spanish. This variety would, however, be identified as a well-defined regional variety of Spanish by speakers from outside Catalonia. Of all participants, only one, a native speaker of Catalan, produced open vowels, a case of Catalan phonological transfer. No speakers produced a velar [l], one of the most common and stigmatized features of the Spanish spoken by Catalan bilinguals. Indeed, one speaker dropped the intervocalic [d] in cases like “la(d)o” ‘side’ or “enfada(d)o” ‘angry,’ a characteristic of colloquial Spanish. 4.3.2.3 Spanish narratives by Spanish L1 participants.  These participants’ native Spanish showed very few Catalan traits. As in the case of Catalan L1 subjects, these participants had some lexical gaps in vocabulary concerning rural life or the natural world. They too referred to “colmena” ‘beehive’ as “casa de abejas” ‘bees’ house.’ 4.3.2.4 Catalan narratives by Spanish L1 participants.  These participants’ Catalan narratives showed fluency but frequent interferences from Spanish. While Catalan L1 participants narrating in Spanish (first paragraph in 4.3.2.1 above) showed virtually no instances of transfer from the L1, this group’s instances of L1 transfer (Spanish>Catalan) were more frequent. Their narratives contained the same interferences as Catalan speakers: “bueno” ‘well’ or “pues” ‘so,’ but they also used 8. Transcripts are not provided due to space constraints, but are available upon request.

 Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz

additional, marked Spanish interferences of a morphological nature. This was the case of erroneously pronominalized verbs such as “es cau” ‘it falls down’ instead of the correct form “cau” or “es calli” ‘he/she shuts up’ instead of the correct form “calli,” the verbal form “n’hi ha una granota” ‘there is a frog’ with an adverbial pronoun “en” instead of “hi ha una granota,” Spanish roots with a Catalan ending attached, like “acantilat” ‘cliff ’ or “s’assomen a la finestra” ‘they lean out the window’ instead of the correct form “s’arrepengen a la finestra.” Each of the participants showed some phonetic transfer from the L1 as well, just like their L1 Catalan counterparts. For instance, they ‘closed’ what are open vowels in central Catalan. Such is the case of “bosc” ‘woods,’ “doncs” ‘so,’ “nen” ‘child’ or “animalot” ‘beast.’ These participants showed what could be interpreted either as higher degree of language awareness or as higher degree of insecurity. For example, when they lacked the words for beehive, they asked or said they could not find the word in their heads. The design of the experiment (formal, controlled environment) probably heightened linguistic insecurity across groups, but this insecurity seemed to be felt more intensely among L1 Spanish participants.9 4.3.2.5 Participants from Spanish-Catalan bilingual families.  These participants’ Spanish narratives did not show any trace of Catalan influence in any aspect of their language, including phonology and morphosyntax. However, their Catalan narratives contained recurrent Spanish words and a tendency towards Spanish phonology. For example, the Catalan neutral vowel schwa was opened and pronounced as a Spanish [a]. These bilingual speakers not only preferred Spanish words like “vale” ‘OK,’ “pues” ‘so’ and “bueno” ‘well’ like the L1 Spanish participants, but also produced recurrent Spanish interferences like “es dóna compte” ‘he realizes’ instead of the Catalan “s’adona.” Their narratives also included problems not encountered in Spanish L1 narratives, such as “panell de mel,” which is a mistakenly Catalanized form of the Spanish word “panal” or “colmena” ‘beehive.’ In other words, the native bilinguals’ narratives present a pattern that runs parallel to that of previous participants. First, they show that the amount of transfer from Spanish to Catalan is by far the most frequent and extends to different aspects of the language. Second, and in contrast with Spanish L1 participants, despite 9. Catalan speakers in Barcelona show linguistic insecurity because they do not master the standard variety of Catalan, even though it is taught in schools and is used heavily in the media. There has always been an awareness among Catalan speakers in the Barcelona area that there is a formal variety of Catalan with which it is possible to compare one’s own variety, which results in linguistic insecurity (Soler 1986). There is still a big split between standard Catalan and oral colloquial Catalan, especially among those who have acquired literacy in Catalan only recently, or after schooling (Münch 2006). An interesting topic of study would be linguistic insecurity among young generations who have become biliterate as a result of attending bilingual schools.



Chapter 4.  Language and identity in Catalonia 

the many cases of Spanish transfer that plagued their Catalan narratives, native bilingual participants feel comfortable with the image they project; they do not show linguistic insecurity. We do realize our conclusions on this topic are based on observations of naturally occurring cases; since more specific data should be gathered to analyze this insecurity throughout all groups. 4.3.3 Discussion The first noticeable trait of these bilingual narratives is that throughout, the boundaries of the two linguistic codes remained clearly separated. There were no cases of code-switching, a practice that, as we said earlier, is not common among Catalan/Spanish bilinguals, in clear contrast with other bilingual communities such as US Latinos (Poplack 1980). Furthermore, participants share the use of a common variety of Spanish that can be identified by outsiders (not residents of Catalan-speaking region) as the variety of Spanish spoken in Catalonia although it is not characterized by transfers from Catalan the way the bilingual variety of Catalan is with Spanish transfers. Our data show that the linguistic differences in the speech of the three groups of subjects (Catalan L1, Spanish L1 and speakers from bilingual Spanish-Catalan families) quite plausibly reflect an imbalance in mastery of the languages rather than an index of identity allegiance. The appearance of interference traits seems to depend on the speaker’s first language and level of proficiency of the L2. Catalan L1 subjects’ L2 production shows a good level of proficiency and fluency with virtually no cases of L2 transfer, whereas Spanish L1 subjects, while fluent, have not acquired equivalent proficiency in Catalan; their narratives present a variety of examples of transfer: lexical, morphosyntactic and phonological. Bilingual participants’ ability to express themselves in both languages also differed, with a higher control of Spanish as shown by the lack of transfer from Catalan. We interpret these data as showing the more prevalent influence of the majority language, which is superimposing its lexicon and structure on the minority language, Catalan. The linguistic insecurity shown by the Spanish L1 participants in their Catalan narratives contrasts with the high level of confidence and the ease with which Catalan L1 and native bilinguals introduced terms and structures borrowed from Spanish. While the first group perceives their Catalan as lacking, the second is comfortable using a variety of Catalan that is far from the standard. Do they feel they have ‘the right’ to do it, as language owners? Do they feel this is a native variety of Catalan that coexists with regional and standard varieties? Is it that they have not gone beyond the threshold in the number and type of Spanish transfers that separates bilingual’s Catalan (spoken by Catalan L1, native bilinguals, and high proficient Spanish L1 speakers) from Catalan interlanguage, the variety used by native speakers of Spanish who have not reached the highest level of proficiency?

 Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz

5. Conclusions We have explored different ways in which identity can be indexed through language and the social significance of code-switching and language transfers in the analysis of three types of data that move along a continuum from more public to more private: in the recent electoral campaign in Catalonia, in the speech of a choir conductor in Barcelona, and in a series of elicited narratives. The latter do not allow us to confirm the existence of differentiated identity groups according to their linguistic varieties. We hypothesize, however, that some linguistic/social correlations exist due to extralinguistic factors. For instance, urban distribution of the population (there are clearly separated Spanish-speaking and Catalan-speaking districts in current Catalonia) and social and electoral trends (some parties are clearly more popular among members of one linguistic group in comparison with the other) cause us to believe that socially perceived ethnolinguistic groups are still present, namely “Castilians” and “Catalans.” Future attitudinal (matched guise experiments, for instance) and anthropological research (participant observation of everyday interactions, for example) would validate these hypotheses. So far, the overall data show that the link between language and identity, especially ethnic identity, is strong in Catalan society. But this link is also in crisis, a crisis that is due to, among other factors, new waves of immigration and the importance in the prevalence and visibility at every level, including the political level, of the first and second generation of immigrants from other regions in Spain. This sea of change in social structure has favored the growth and extension of bilingual varieties of both Spanish and Catalan. For an ethnic group that relies on language to define its identity, this situation is obviously problematic and will inevitably lead to a reconsideration of the criteria that define Catalan identity. In our analysis of the narratives, we have identified a Catalan dialect of Spanish that is shared by all participants regardless of their L1. Catalan Spanish is the variety of Spanish used by those living in Catalonia and that is clearly different from the Spanish used outside the Catalan-speaking territory. This variety of Spanish used in Barcelona is beginning to function as an unmarked variety that crosses the boundaries of the original L1 languages. However, research on this topic is recent; not all the features of Catalan Spanish have as yet been identified and further research is necessary (see for example Gómez Molina 1998; Arroyo 1998; Sinner 2004; Wesch 2000; Vann 2002, 2005). It would be interesting to investigate whether this variety of Spanish is already present in, or will spread to, other Catalan-speaking cities, such as Tarragona, Valencia and Palma de Mallorca, and whether it can be considered a variety of Spanish alongside Andalusian, Standard



Chapter 4.  Language and identity in Catalonia 

Mexican and other well-established Spanish varieties.10 In addition to this general tendency and given the more than seven million speakers of Catalan, this regional variety will more than likely maintain its function as an identifier. In other words, residents of Catalonia will continue to be identified by members of ‘the other’ group either by the use of Catalan or by the use of Catalan Spanish. The elicited narratives also illustrate the existence of a bilingual variety of Catalan that is used by native and non-native speakers of Catalan alike, as well as by native bilinguals, and characterized by transfer from Spanish that extends to all language areas, including morphosyntax, phonology and the lexicon. We must be careful and point out, however, that we are discussing issues of transfer, not codeswitch. General code-switching, the way it is in, for example, the Spanish of Latino communities in the US, cannot be found among Catalan/Spanish bilinguals. Every group maintains a clear difference between languages and between groups: language choice indexes identity. The case of the choir conductor in our study shows basic multilingualism and a conscious, expressive function of code-switching. He incorporates different languages, not just Spanish, in his Catalan speech, and switches into the other language to hold the choir’s attention and to create a positive atmosphere using humor. The elements from the other languages are always whole chunks well known to his audience, as they are borrowed from commercials, songs and famous quotes. He also exemplifies what is common practice among Catalan speakers: he switches into Spanish and stays in that language to address passive bilinguals; i.e., those members of the choir that understand Catalan but do not speak the language. While Catalan/Spanish code-switching is not common, a bilingual variety of Catalan is well established across groups. It is not impossible that this growth and extension of this variety is associated with the important number of L2 learners of Catalan, first and second generation of immigrants that have made an effort to integrate, which, in the case of Catalonia, is equivalent to learning the autochthonous language. The members of this group see themselves as Catalan: both ius loci and ius linguae apply here. But, are they considered Catalans? Montilla’s use of Catalan, the first case we have looked at in this study, is an example of how the old model of ethnolinguistic indexing is changing. Montilla is trying to project a new identity, that of someone who is able to speak Catalan fluently but was raised only in Spanish and is bilingual at home. Montilla does not speak standard Catalan, he does not speak the bilingual variety of Catalan that native speakers of Catalan use either. The variety of Catalan that he uses frames his identity. This variety of Catalan that we call Catalan Interlanguage differs from the 10. Wesch (2000/2003) has already started to gather data on the Catalan Spanish variety spoken in Palma de Mallorca.

 Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz

bilingual variety in the number and types of transferred features from Spanish that make it easy to identify. Montilla’s need to make explicit his own identity in his campaign speeches contrast with statements made by writers, fellow politicians and journalists who stick to the old model of identity, according to which, Montilla is not part of the group, he is ‘the other.’ The issue here is neither ius loci, nor ius linguae; it is not even about the standard: it is about the threshold between a bilingual variety of Catalan and a non-native variety, Catalan Interlanguage, and how this distinction is beginning to frame Catalan identity. Clearly, the social landscape is changing rapidly: in 2007, almost 13% of the population was made up of new immigrants; that is, those who come from outside Spain, and above all, Latin America. Many of these newcomers are monolingual Spanish speakers, a factor that impedes Catalan’s position to become the common language of Catalonia. A well-known Catalan writer (Puigverd 2006) has given a bright and clear description of the challenges that the negotiation of identities presents to Catalan society: The day will come when everyone will be misplaced. What will be the concept of ‘homeland’ then? Given that the problem is important and nothing seems to work, it would be best not to take it as a tragedy, as a sure threat to the endangered Catalan identity, but rather as a look toward the future with eyes, not of what we wanted to be, but of what we are. Looking at it from where we stand, from what we are, it is clear that Catalans are well prepared to cope with the future that is coming. [We have the] experience of coexisting with the other, of adapting to its presence and getting by, avoiding abuses and asphyxiation, to foresee excessive awkwardness and soothe irritations. To adapt and to get by: there is nothing else left to do, if one wants to succeed. And by success I do not mean to reach an idyllic place, the crossing of races, but simply to avoid letting society blow up into a thousand pieces (authors’ translation).

References Arroyo, J.L.B. 1998. Las comunidades de habla bilingües. Temas de sociolingüística Española. Zaragoza: Libros Pórtico. Bauman, Z. 2005. Identitat. Converses amb Benedetto Vecchi. València: Universitat de València. Boix-Fuster, E. 1993. Triar no és trair. Llengua i identitat entre els Joves de Barcelona. Barcelona: Edicions 62. Boix-Fuster, E., Alàmo, M., Galindo, M. & Vila, F.X. 2006. El corpus de varietats socials. Materials de Treball. Barcelona: Publicacions de la Universitat de Barcelona. Comellas, P. 2005. Representacions lingüístiques a l’ESO públic de Catalunya. PhD dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona.



Chapter 4.  Language and identity in Catalonia  Galindo, M. 2005. Les llengües a l’hora del pati. Interferència, alternances i usos lingüístics en les converses quasiespontànies dels infants de 6è de primària de Catalunya. PhD dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona. Giner, S. 1998. Identitat i llengua. In La societat Catalana, S. Giner (coord.), 36–37. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Gómez Molina, J.R. 1998. Actitudes lingüísticas en una comunidad bilingüe y multilectal. Área metropolitana de Valencia. Anejo XXVIII de Cuadernos de Filología. Universidad de Valencia. Hall, J. 2001. Convivència in Catalonia: Languages Living Together. Barcelona: Fundació Jaume Bofill. Jenkins, J. 1996. Social Identity. London: Routledge. Le Page, R.B. 1980. The concept of ‘a language.’ Grazer Linguistische Studien 11–12: 174–192. Le Page, R.B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. 1985. Acts of Identity. Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: CUP. Münch, C.H. 2006. Sprachpolitik und Gesellschaftliche Alphabetisierung. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Pons, E. & Vila, F.X. 2005. Informe sobre la situació de la llengua Catalana (2003–2004). Barcelona: Observatori de la Llengua Catalana. Poplack, S. 1980. Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of code-switching. In Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic Aspects, J. Amastae & L. Elias-Olivares (eds), 230–263. Cambridge: CUP. Puigverd, A. 2006. La cruïlla de les identitats. Presència 21-IX-2006. Sinner, C. 2004. El castellano de Cataluña. Estudio empírico de aspectos léxicos, morfosintácticos y metalingüísticos [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 320]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Soler, J. 1986. Models i límits de la llengua estàndard a Barcelona. Estudis de Llengua i Literatura Catalanes XIII: 131–148. Torres, J. (coord.) 2005. Estadística sobre els usos lingüístics a Catalunya 2003. Llengua i societat a Catalunya en els Inicis del Segle XXI. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Vann, R.E. 2002. El castellà catalanitzat a Barcelona: Perspectives lingüístiques i culturals. Catalan Review 15(1): 117–131. Vann, R.E. 2005. El español de los Países Catalanes. In Variedades linguísticas y lenguas en contacto en el mundo de habla Hispana, C. Ferrero & N. Lasso-Von Lang (eds), 183–193. Bloomington IN: Author House. Villatoro, V. 2006 Catalanitat/catalanisme. Avui, 24-IX-2006. Voltas. E. 1996. La guerra de les llengües. Barcelona: Empúries. Wesch, A. 2000. Algunes divergències entre el català parlat (o col.loquial) i el català escrit. Zeitschrift für Katalanistik   Revista d’Estudis Catalans 13: 32–57. Wesch, A. 2000/2003. La investigación sobre variedades del español hablado en contacto con el catalán (particularmente en Cataluña y Baleares): Estado de la cuestión y perspectivas para el futuro. Actas del V Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española, 1857–1872. Madrid: Gredos. Woolard. K.A. 1989. Double Talk. Language and Ethnicity in Barcelona. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Woolard, K.A. 2005. Language and identity choice in Catalonia: The interplay of ideologies of linguistic authenticity and anonimity. Paper presented at the “Coloquio internacional,

 Emili Boix-Fuster and Cristina Sanz Políticas de regulación del plurilingüismo. Relaciones entre lengua, nación identidad y poder en España, Hispanoamérica y Estados Unidos.” Berlin, June 3, 2005. Zapata-Barrero, R. 2006. Immigració i govern en nacions minoritàries. Flandes, el Quebec i Catalunya en perspectiva. Barcelona: Fundació Trias-Fargas.

part 3

Spanish in contact with Creole and Amerindian languages in Latin America

chapter 5

Literacy and the expression of social identity in a dominant language A description of “mi familia” by Quechua-Spanish bilingual children Liliana Sánchez Rutgers University

The development of writing skills for children in the non-primary, but socially dominating language in diglossic situations presents specific challenges for traditional models of second language writing development. This study examines two factors affecting the acquisition of literacy in a diglossic context by bilingual children: text structure and social identity. A comparison of Spanish compositions on the topic Mi familia ‘My family’ written by L1 Quechua-L2 Spanish bilingual children and by Spanish monolingual children revealed no significant differences in text structure between the two groups in terms of number of sentences per composition and frequency of regularity and causality markers (Kress 1994; Reynolds 2002). There were significant differences between the two groups in semantic content of the descriptions (families’ activities and personal qualities). Along with non-native structures, the focus on the family’s activities is indicative of a distinct way of expressing social identity in bilingual writers.

1. Introduction The development of second language writing skills in a socially dominant language by children who are native-speakers of a minority language poses a challenge to traditional models of understanding the development of second language writing. In addition to differences in grammatical features at the sentential level and in text structure organization, it is frequently the case that children who speak minority languages are immersed in cultural traditions different from those that surround children who are native speakers of a socially dominant language. In previous work on the expression of social identity through literacy, it has been proposed that children construct their identities as writers on the basis of the

 Liliana Sánchez

patterns of oral discourse prevalent in their communities and these tend to differ from those considered to be standard uses by the larger society (Horowitz 1995; Rubin 1995). In this chapter, I propose a model of analysis of second language academic writing that incorporates language-related factors and culture-related factors as contributors to the construction of a bilingual child’s identity as a writer in diglossic situations. The model is tested in a study of writing patterns among indigenous Quechua-speaking children in Peru that focuses, on the linguistic side, on (1) the children’s use of syntactic forms traceable to Quechua (their first language and an indigenous language strongly discriminated in the country) and (2) the children’s acquisition of text structure in Spanish (their second language and the socially dominant language in the country). On the cultural side, the study looks at (1) the levels of awareness of the diglossic situation in which they live and (2) how the children present a topic that is culturally charged: the description of their family. Their writing samples are compared to those of monolingual Spanish-speaking children who live in an urban environment. Differences in sentence and text structure are treated as being indicative of different levels of textual competence between bilingual and monolingual children while differences in semantic content are indicative of cultural differences in the children’s approach to the topic of the composition. The goal of the study is to understand the relative weight of different factors in the complex process of developing writing skills in a second language in a diglossic situation. The chapter is organized as follows. The first section presents an introduction to the factors that affect the acquisition of literacy in diglossic contexts. Section two focuses on the study design and on data collection and coding methodology. In section three, the quantitative and qualitative results are presented and discussed. The fourth section includes a discussion of the differences in the writings of the two groups and how these differences may shape the construction of bilingual and monolingual children’s identities as academic writers. 2. The acquisition of literacy in a second language It is a well-known fact that children who are part of culturally dominant groups and are native speakers of prestigious languages have access to better academic opportunities than children who are speakers of an indigenous language in Latin America (Rivero 2000) and that, even though indigenous children acquire the socially-dominant language in school, their results in nationwide evaluations place them at the lowest levels of academic performance (Dirección Nacional de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe y Rural 2005–2007; Sánchez 2006). Multiple factors are



Chapter 5.  Literacy and the expression of social identity in a dominant language 

involved in generating this differential achievement. Economic factors are, of course, extremely important in creating this imbalance in the academic achievement of indigenous and non-indigenous children. Another important aspect of this imbalance is the fact that, traditionally, assessment of the performance of indigenous children has been conducted by means of written tests in the socially dominant language, which is usually their second language, and not in their first language. 2.1

Literacy in a socially dominant language

Given the prominent role that writing skills are assigned in the general assessment of academic knowledge in most educational systems, it is of great importance to understand the process of acquisition of literacy in a socially dominant second language by indigenous children and to isolate the factors that are at the basis of their lower levels of achievement in academic writing. One of the key aspects of the difficulties in the acquisition of second language literacy in minority children is the diglossic nature of their communities.1 The fact that only the socially dominant language is used for educational purposes and that the mother tongue of the child is excluded by the educational system poses a problem for the definition of what constitutes a “normal” developmental pattern of writing skills in the child’s second language and makes it very difficult to assess the potential of these children in a continuum of bilingualism and biliteracy (Hornberger 2004). While monolingual children are learning how to transpose oral patterns of discourse into written text, successive bilingual children face the challenge of having to acquire text structure in their second language at the same time as they are completing their acquisition of sentence structure and of many areas of the lexicon in their first language. This is a task that monolingual children are able to accomplish at earlier stages of acquisition. More importantly, bilingual children need to adjust to differences between the oral discourse patterns of their first language and those of the second language they are learning. This situation is further complicated by the fact that in many bilingual diglossic communities, second language writing skills are measured against a “norm” established on the basis of monolingual speakers’ oral and writing skills (Pozzi-Escot 1975; Zavala 2002; Sánchez 2006). Furthermore, some of these diglossic communities are also characterized 1. I use the term diglossic, in the sense of the re-elaboration of Ferguson’s (1959) original definition by Hudson (2002), to refer to situations in which a variety of a language or a language is assigned a low status whereas another one is assigned a high status and is therefore the variety or language used in education for academic purposes and in the development of reading and writing skills.

 Liliana Sánchez

by strong cultural differences between speakers of the variety with low status and the variety with high status (Francis 1998, 1999). 2.2

Previous studies on the acquisition of literacy in diglossic situations

Previous works on the acquisition of academic literacy by children in diglossic situations have focused either on linguistic features transferred from the low variety/ language onto the written register in the high variety/language (Thompson, Craig and Washington 2004) or on the relationship between achievements in first and second language literacy and the children’s metalinguistic awareness as determined by different degrees of decontextualization of a text (Francis 1998, 1999, 2002). In their study on the acquisition of literacy in standard English by children who are native speakers of African American English (AAE), Thompson, Craig and Washington (2004: 269) found that, although phonological and morphosyntactic characteristics of AAE oral speech are transferred into the oral patterns of the children’s use of Standard English in classroom settings, only AAE morphosyntactic features are dominant in the children’s writing samples. In their view, the writing produced by the third grade children who participated in their study indicates the emergence of bidialectalism in their writing skills. Their study exemplifies a case of successful acquisition of second language writing patterns. However, as noted by Francis (2002, 2005) there is generally more at stake in the analysis of literacy in diglossic contexts. In his studies of Nahuatl-Spanish bilingual children’s editing and correction strategies in writing, Francis found that metalinguistic awareness of language forms in the first and second languages are a relevant contributor to literacy despite the inherent inequality represented by the diglossic context that frames the use of Nahuatl and Spanish in Mexico. This could indicate that lack of such awareness could be problematic for bilingual children. 2.3

L2 writing

A different tradition of research in second language writing is represented by studies such as Reynolds’ (2002) based on Kress’ (1994) proposal that focus on the acquisition of discourse connectors. Kress’ proposal can be schematically described as postulating a difference between texts with no causality relations expressed through connectors and texts in which causality is expressed either through regularity or causality markers in discourse. Regularity markers are those that indicate causal processes viewed as “regular successions of affairs: a cause and an effect are things that happen together in sequence, and there is no more to causality than this togetherness” (Kress 1994: 162).



Chapter 5.  Literacy and the expression of social identity in a dominant language 

This sense of causality is conveyed by markers such as then or and illustrated in the following written text produced by an English-speaking 9 year old boy as part of a routine exercise in class: (1)

Yesterday when we played Red Rover Jody and Stephen smashed into each other and* (a) Josy had a blood ear and* she couldn’t hear (wer) (w) very well (and). (2) then she had to go and clean her ear. Then the (we) the(er) teacher said we can’t play it again and then we played another game. (Kress 1994 :159) *underlining added

In this text, the conjunction and acts as a connector that expresses causality as regularity in a sequence of events. The connector establishes a causal relation by means of establishing a regularity of events, that is, the event in which Josy had a blood ear follows that in which they smashed into each other creating a regularity link that is to be interpreted as a causality relation. In addition to these regularity markers, Kress proposes that the conjunctions because, so, therefore and thus make causality patent and indicate not a regularity view of causality but what he terms a “powers model” of causality, that is, a view in which an active causal link can be found between two clauses. Reynolds (2002) examined the use of regularity markers and causality markers by L2 acquirers of English and English monolingual students in regular language arts classes. His findings suggest that in narratives that do not require a high frequency of causality markers, second language writers tend to overuse them. 2.4

Language and identity in the acquisition of literacy

In this chapter, I incorporate aspects of different traditions of investigating second language writing. I focus on linguistic and cultural factors that have a role in the acquisition and development of literacy in a socially dominant second language by bilingual children who live in a diglossic situation. In terms of linguistic factors, the study focuses at the sentential level on the presence of non-native structures in the writings of bilingual children. At the textual level, two indicators of text structure are used: (1) mean number of sentences per text and (2) the use of sequential, regularity and causal connectors to detect lack of competence in their use such as the overuse of causality connectors found by Reynolds. If the indigenous children’s acquisition of literacy in a second language is affected by their incomplete acquisition of sentence structure we expect to find instances of non-native grammatical features in their written production. If bilingual indigenous children have more difficulties acquiring text structure than their monolingual counterparts, we expect

 Liliana Sánchez

statistically significant differences in the number of sentences per text and in the frequency of regularity and causality markers between the two groups. The non-linguistic factors examined are (1) the level of awareness in the children of the diglossic situation in which they live and (2) the semantic content of the children’s descriptions of their families. In order to find out whether the children have some level of awareness of the diglossic nature of their communities, the study explored their perceptions of language use in school. If the children are aware of the fact that the school privileges the second language, it should be clear to them that academic proficiency in that language is extremely important. However, despite their efforts to achieve academic success in second language writing in linguistic terms, cultural differences might be at the basis of differential development in the writing skills and the identities as narrators of bilingual and monolingual children. If that is the case, we should be able to observe statistically significant differences in the semantic content of their writings about the same topic. 3. The study In order to test the hypotheses mentioned above, I examined data from a larger research project on Quechua-Spanish bilingualism in school-aged children in the Southern Andes of Peru (Zúñiga, Sánchez and Zacharías 2000). Quechua is one of the most extended indigenous languages in Peru and in other Andean countries (Adelaar and Muysken 2004). At the time of the data collection for the large research project, most of the formal instruction in state schools was provided in Spanish, although the number of teachers who were native speakers of the language had been increasing in 5 years prior to the collection of the data and continues to do so even now. I consider this a diglossic situation because, although the use of the native language was not prohibited in school, and therefore some use of it took place, it was not encouraged by the educational system as a means of transmitting academic information. In fact, the diglossic situation in the area made it necessary to investigate the extent to which the student population and also the parents and teachers of the area considered bilingual education programs necessary. As part of the large study, we collected samples of writing in Spanish by bilingual children attending state schools that provided instruction only in Spanish. For this chapter, I selected the compositions written by 30 of the bilingual children who participated in the larger study and who are native speakers of Quechua and second language learners of Spanish. I compare the bilingual children’s written production to that of 30 monolingual children from the city of Lima also attending state schools.



Chapter 5.  Literacy and the expression of social identity in a dominant language 

In addition to being bilingual in an indigenous language and Spanish, these students live in rural communities that assign a great value to oral traditions and for whom the written language (Spanish) is at the same time a coveted instrument for empowerment and a symbol of the dominant sector of the larger society. Oral traditions in Quechua contain very important aspects of traditional Andean culture and therefore are viewed by indigenous communities as central to their social identity. Instruction in Spanish, on the other hand, is viewed as a means to gain access to better economic opportunities. The different cultural traditions of these groups with respect to how the family units are organized for productive and reproductive functions are also important factors in this study. Whereas in rural areas the family unit is also a work unit in agricultural and other tasks, in urban areas, the family unit is not necessarily a work unit, although children may contribute to the family income by working outside the home. 3.1

Bilingual participants

The bilingual group consists of 30 children from five regions in the Southern Andes of Peru (6 children from Apurimac, 8 children from Ayacucho, 5 from Huancavelica, 3 from Cuzco and 8 from Puno). Eleven children are male and 19 female. Thirteen children were in 5th grade and 17 in 6th grade at the time of their interviews and their ages ranged from 10 to 16 (see table below). All the children attended a state school at the time of the interviews. Twenty-seven children attended a “multigrade” school, that is, a school in which two or more grades share one teacher. One child attended a school in which all elementary grades share the same teacher. All of the children in this group have Quechua as their first language, and only one of them said she is bilingual from birth. Eighteen of the children use Quechua most frequently with their relatives at home and 12 use Quechua and Spanish. Despite the fact that Quechua is their first language, the children whose data I report perceive that the only language used for reading and writing activities in their classroom is Spanish which is indicative of a diglossic situation. The children live in a rural environment and are surrounded by a strong oral tradition and a culture that emphasizes collaboration and family ties in agricultural work. In terms of their perception of how often they speak Quechua in their classroom (see Figure 1), 11 children said that they use their first language most of the time, 8 said that they use it half of the time, 9 said they use it sometimes and only 2 said they never use it. Contrary to their perceptions of their own use, their perceptions of their teachers’ use show a different pattern. Only one of them said that their teacher uses Quechua most of the time; 4 answered that the teacher uses the language half of the time; 17, sometimes; and 8 said that their teacher never uses

 Liliana Sánchez

Quechua. This pattern is illustrative of how schools communicate in an indirect manner the low status of Quechua to the children. Children's perceptions of Quechua use in classroom 20 18

17

16 14 12

bilingual children

11

10 8 6

teachers of bilingual children

8

4

4 2

9

8

2

1

0

most of the time

half of the time

sometimes

never

Figure 1.  Children’s perception of Quechua use in classroom

Language in which the children understand the teacher better 20

18

18 16 14 12 10 8 6

6

6

Quechua

Spanish

4 2 0 Both

Figure 2.  Language in which children understand the teacher better



Chapter 5.  Literacy and the expression of social identity in a dominant language 

This information is relevant since more than half of the children, 18 declared that they understand their teachers better when they use both Spanish and Quechua in the classroom and six of them said that they understand their teacher better in Quechua (see Figure 2). These students perceive the use of Quechua by the teacher in the classroom as helpful, even though the language used for reading and writing activities is Spanish. These facts show that these bilingual children do not feel confident in their use of Spanish as the exclusive vehicle of instruction. 3.2

Monolingual participants

The monolingual group consists of 30 children from the city of Lima. Eleven children are male and 19 female. At the time of the interviews, 13 children were in 5th grade and 17 in 6th grade and their ages ranged from 9 to 13. Their age range differs from that of the bilingual children. This difference is illustrative of the delay in school progress relative to age that characterizes the Quechua-speaking rural populations when compared to other school children in state schools in urban areas (Zúñiga, Sánchez and Zacharías 2000). All of them speak Spanish and at the time of the interviews were in 5th and 6th grade in a state school in the city of Lima in the district of Miraflores. These children live in a Spanish-dominant environment, in an area in which Quechua is a language against which there is a strong prejudice. Their schooling takes place exclusively in Spanish in oral and in reading and writing activities. 3.3

Data collection

As part of the larger project, a questionnaire on language use and language preferences was given to the children in an oral interview. The children were asked to re-tell a short story they heard and to write a composition describing their families. In this chapter only an analysis of the written compositions will be presented. 3.4

Linguistic factors

In terms of the three formal traits used to indicate the level of acquisition of writing patterns used by Reynolds (2002: 312) based on Kress (1994) (non-causal markers on the one hand and regularity markers and causality markers on the other), no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the average number of markers found in the compositions (see Table 1). There were no significant differences in terms of number of sentences per text. However, the bilingual group exhibited a higher level of variation in sentence length than the monolingual group.

 Liliana Sánchez

Table 1.  Indicators of text structure

Bilinguals

 

Monolinguals

 

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Sentence length Non-causality markers Causality markers

7.03

3.41

7.2

2.8

1

1.92

2.53

1.63

0.03

0.18

0.13

0.34

Chi-test: 0.604655179

In terms of the percentage of students, however, there was a significant difference: only 3 bilingual students (10%) used sequential markers in contrast to twentyseven (90%) of the monolingual students. The following composition with no sequential markers and no causality markers exemplifies the production of bilingual students: Participant H24 (5th grade, 10 yrs old) (2)

Tema La Familia [1]Tengo 5 hermanos H. G. E. I. G. [2] Miermano G. juega con la pelota [3] H mi ermano H. pastea chancho [4] mi ermano E. trabaja en la chacra [5] mi ermana I. laba ropa [6] Gla mi ermana G. cocina. ‘[1] I have five brothers [2] Mi brother G. plays with the ball [3] Mi brother H. sheperds pig [4] My brother E. works in the farm [5] My sister I. washes clothing [6] My sister G. cooks.’

This example shows some traits found in other compositions written by the bilingual children: the absence of sequential or causality markers; the use of one line per sentence and a strict adherence to a Subject Verb Object word order. By contrast, the production of the majority of monolingual students was characterized by



Chapter 5.  Literacy and the expression of social identity in a dominant language 

the use of some form of a discourse connector although not necessarily a regularity or causality marker and more than one sentence per line. As in the case of the bilinguals, most monolingual children adhered to the subject verb object word order pattern.2 These characteristics are illustrated by the following composition: Participant L21 (5th grade, 10 years old) (3)

Mi familia [1]Yo tengo 6 hermanos mis cuatro hermanos y dos hermanas [2] los sotros ayudamos a mi mama [3] mi mama tiene 33 años [4] y mi papa tiene 42 años [5] mi mama se llama Y. C. [6] y mi papa se llama M. P. ‘My family [1] I have 6 siblings my four [2] brothers and two sisters the we help my mom [3] my mom is 33 years old and my dad is 42 years old [5] my mom’s name is Y.C. [6] and my dad’s name is M.P.’

Monolingual narratives also showed more lexical variation in discourse markers. The bilingual group’s production of sequential markers was limited to y ‘and,’ one instance of mientras ‘while,’ one of diayi (for de allí) ‘then’ and one of después ‘after that’ all produced by different students. The monolingual group produced more instances of y ‘and’ and other markers such as: claro ‘of course,’ como siempre ‘as always,’ y hasí (for y así) ‘and so,’ por último ‘lastly’ (all these used by one student), primero ‘first,’ cuando ‘when,’ and es donde lit.‘it is where’(meaning ‘it is then that’). The following composition by a monolingual student has five markers: Participant L1 (6th grade, 11 years old)

(4) [1] Mi familia es una familia muy unida [2] somos en total 5 [3] mi papa se llama A., mi mama C., [4] mis hermanos son dos R. y Y. [5] y por ultimo yo me

llamo P.

[6] Mis hermanos y yo tenemos mucha comunicación con nuestros padres 2. This adherence to SVO is noticeable given that as noted by Sanchez (2003) in contrasting the oral speech of monolingual and Quechua-Spanish bilingual children other word orders with fronted topics such as clitic left dislocated constructions and fronted objects were found.

 Liliana Sánchez

[7] y claro nos llevamos todos muy bien, [8] pero como siempre aunque todos tratemos de no tener discusiones pues entre mis hermanos y yo a veces hay discusiones [9] pero hablando lo solucionamos todo [10] y hasí constantemente somos una familia como muchas familias. ‘[1] Mi family is a very united family [2] we are in total 5 [3] my dad’s name is A, my mom’s name is A, my siblings are two R. and Y. [5] and lastly my name is P. [6] My siblings and I have a lot of communication with our parents [7] and of course we all get along very well, [8] but as always even though we all try to not have disagreements well between my siblings and I sometimes there are disagreements [9] but we solve everything talking [10] and so constantly we are a family like many other families’

With respect to causality markers, only one bilingual student used one, whereas 4 monolingual students used them. Finally, the writings of 23 bilingual children contained grammatical structures that indicated evidence of non-native command of the grammar of Spanish such as a lack of subject-verb agreement, lack of definite determiners or plurals and difficulties with irregular verbs among others: (5) *Yo nace en Arcahua. I born-3sg in Arcahua ‘I was born in Arcahua.’ (6) *Vamos a pastear a serro. (We) go to shepherd to mountain ‘ (We) go to the mountain to shepherd (animals).’ (7) *Mi ermano H. pastea chancho. Mi brother H. shepherds pig ‘ Mi brother shepherds pigs.’ (8) *Después a murido. (cf. muerto) After has died ‘ Afterwards he died.’

Overall, I take these facts to indicate that there are some differences in the linguistic traits that distinguish the bilingual and monolingual childrens’ compositions. Although, on average, sentence length and the use of discourse connectors did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups, the level of individual variation in the bilingual group is greater than in the monolingual group. Such variation could contribute to an overall perception of these children (based on those with lower number of sentences per text and lower numbers of discourse connectors) as less skilled writers than their monolingual counterparts. Another



Chapter 5.  Literacy and the expression of social identity in a dominant language 

salient difference between the two groups was the use of non-native structures by bilingual children and the lack of variation in markers. 3.5

Semantic content of the description

In terms of the semantic content of the narratives, the two groups did not exhibit similar patterns. While 90% of the children in the bilingual group mentioned study and work-related activities of family members, only 20% of the children in the monolingual group mentioned them. Most of the bilingual children described their families in terms of their work activities and cooperative work. The following two samples of bilingual compositions illustrate the patterns found. Participant A1 (5th grade, 13 years old) (9)

Yo nacio en Acco Yo bebo con mi mama Cosechamos PaPa AVINA MAIZ trego quinua Yo estudio en mi casa y en mi escuela Yo empeso a estodiar mes de abril ‘I was born in Acco I live with my mom (we) harvest potato, oat, corn, wheat, quinoa I study in my house and in my school I began to study month of April’

Participant A3 (5th grade 11 years old) (10) “1. Yo vivo en Leriopata con mi papa y con con mi mama con mis hermanos. 2. Yo ayudo a mi papa en sus trabajos sacar papa cortar trigos 3. cuando descanso en el mediodia yo agarro mis cuadernos empeso a leer 4. también ayudo en cosechar cevada y luego levamos a mi casa a guardar 5. también vendemo llevamos a vender al mercado la papa para vendernos 6. y también ayudo en cuidar vacas ovejas en los campos pastear 7. y también estudio unos minutos mis cuadernos de trabajo 8. y también ago mis tareas cuando termino mis tareas ayudo a mi papa 9. y leo mis libros los cuentos párrafos adivinanzas noticias 10. y luego sacamos olluco luego llevamos al mercado y vendemos.” ‘1. I live in Leriopata with my dad and with my mom with my siblings 2. I help my dad in his works harvest potato cut wheat 3. when I rest at noon I grab my notebooks I begin to read 4. (I) also help to harvest barley and then we take (it) to my house to keep 5. (we) also take to sell to the market, the potatoes to sell

 Liliana Sánchez

6. and (I) also help to take care of the cows, sheep in the fields to sheperd (them) 7. and (I) also study my notebooks for some minutes 8. and (I) also do my homework when I finish my homework I help my dad 9. I read my books the stories the paragraphs riddles news 10. Then we harvest olluco then we take (it) to the market and sell (it).’

On the other hand, the monolingual compositions were mostly centered around family member’s personal qualities and on the relationships amongst family members. Example 4 shows the typical pattern. Another example of such pattern is found in (11): Participant L2 (6th grade 13 years old) (11) [1] Yo bibo en casa muy feliz y contenta [2] porque tengo una familia muy bonita [3] y yo me siento muy orgullosa de ser la familia M. [4] Mi papa se llama J. y mi mama A. [5] los dos también se sienten orgullosos [6] tengo 6 hermanos que son buenos y comprensibles* con todos en casa [7] el mayor se llama J., el 2do L. y el 3ro O., la tercera R. y la ultima A. [8] y también tengo mi perra llamada P. [9] es una perra muy juguetona y feliz [10] esto es todo lo que te puedo contar… ‘[1] I live at home very happy and joyful [2] because I have a very nice family [3] and I feel proud of being the family M. [4] My dad’s name is J. and my mom’s name is A. [5] the two of them are proud too. [6] I have 6 siblings who are good and understanding with everybody at home [7] the eldest one’s name is J. the 2nd one’s name is L and the 3rd one’s O, the third is R and the last one is A. [8] and (I) also have my dog called P. [9] (She) is a happy and playful dog [10] this is all I can tell you…’ * the word should be comprensivos; comprensibles means understandable.

In fact, in this area there were statistically significant differences between the two groups’ patterns as shown in Table 2. A significant number of bilingual children’s compositions included references to family work activities and domestic animals. This was not the case for monolingual compositions. At the same time family members’ personal qualities and interpersonal relations were mentioned in a significantly higher number of monolingual children’s compositions.



Chapter 5.  Literacy and the expression of social identity in a dominant language 

Table 2.  Narrative contents

Family work activities Family member’s qualities Interpersonal relations Domestic animals Total number of compositions

Bilinguals

Monolinguals

27 (90%) 7 (23.3%) 1 (3.3%) 13 (43.3%) 30 (100%)

6 (20%) 19 (63.3%) 23 (76.6%) 1 (3.3%) 30 (100%)

Chi-square: 1.433

4. Discussion The results of this study indicate that the second language writing samples of bilingual and monolingual children did not show statistically significant differences in terms of the mean number of sentences and the use of discourse connectors. However, greater variability in the bilingual group could be masking the fact that some children had lower numbers of sentences and connectors per text. Additionally, a majority of bilingual children’s compositions showed instances of non-native grammatical competence. Unlike in Reynolds’ study, no evidence of overgeneralization of causality markers in their Spanish was found. In addition to linguistic factors, there were, some aspects of the content of the bilingual children’s compositions that identify them as bilingual and rural: the majority of bilingual children described their family in terms of daily activities rather than in terms of their personal qualities or their interpersonal relations. Also 43.3% of the bilingual children included their domestic animals in their family description while only 3.3% of the monolingual children did. Whereas a majority of the monolingual children viewed this task as an opportunity to elaborate on the psychological attributes of their families (63.3%) and on their interpersonal relations (76.6%), bilingual children viewed the task as an enumeration of their own work responsibilities as members of a family as well as of their relatives’ responsibilities (90%). These two different approaches to the description of their families could be viewed as ‘cultural’ differences that have no bearing on academic success. There are, however, important consequences to this difference that could, in the end, work against a positive evaluation of bilingual children as academic writers. If a deeper “psychological” presentation of the characters in a description is expected by the school system and by elaborators of nation-wide tests, then the children in the monolingual group have a clear advantage over the bilingual children. Their description can be perceived as being more complex and better structured

 Liliana Sánchez

despite the fact that the descriptions provided by both groups were of a quasiformulaic nature. Overall, bilingual children establish themselves as group of heterogeneous writers in terms of linguistic factors such as number of sentences per text, variation in the lexical choice of connectors and the use of non-target grammatical forms. At the semantic content level, they focus on the working relations between family members. Monolingual children on the other hand appear to be a more homogenous group of writers that show a little more variation in their choice of connectors and establish themselves as ‘psychologically-sophisticated’ writers that focus on personal characteristics and interpersonal relations. I would like to propose that the compound effect of second language grammatical structures, greater variation across individuals in the number of sentences per text, lack of variation in the lexical choice of connectors and a salient difference in their approach to topics give these children a different profile as writers than that of their monolingual counterparts. Whether these factors are in fact directly responsible for the low levels of achievement of bilingual indigenous children needs to be further investigated by studying the assessment practices of evaluators and the extent to which they use these factors when assigning grades. However, I believe that positing a model that incorporates linguistic and non-linguistic variables to the study of the acquisition of literacy in diglossic societies can contribute to deepen our understanding of the disadvantages that children in indigenous communities have to face.3 5. Conclusions In this chapter, I have presented a comparative study of Spanish compositions on the topic Mi familia “My family” by Quechua-Spanish bilingual and monolingual Spanish children in Peru. The study focused linguistic measures of literacy such as mean number of sentences per text, use of inter-sentential connectors and nonnative structures. Bilingual writing samples showed evidence of non-native 3. Since the year 1998, several attempts have been made by the Ministry of Education in Peru, in particular by the Dirección Nacional de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural (DINEBI) and the Unidad de Medición de Calidad Educativa, to address the issue of language assessment of rural bilingual populations using nation-wide testing instruments (Unidad de Medición de Calidad 2004; Sanchez 2006). Cultural differences are currently addressed in the standards used to evaluate the production of L2 Spanish writing and bilingual schools are being supported and promoted by the DINEBI. There are, however, very subtle ways in which patterns of cultural differences emerge in writing that need to be acknowledge by institutions in charge of language assessment.



Chapter 5.  Literacy and the expression of social identity in a dominant language 

structures and low variation in the lexical choice of connectors. Mean number of sentences per text and mean number of connectors showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. However, there was more variability across participants in the bilingual group. Semantic content measures such as family members’ qualities and interpersonal relations did show significant differences between groups. I have proposed that it is the complex interaction of some of the linguistic factors along with content differences that can be at the basis of the construction of different identities in bilingual and monolingual children as academic writers. In diglossic societies such differences can be strongly disadvantageous for children who are members of a linguistic and cultural minority group. References Adelaar, W. & Muysken, P. 2004. Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: CUP. Dirección Nacional de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe y Rural. 2005–2007. La participación de los pueblos indígenas y comunidades rurales en el proyecto de educación en áreas rurales (PEAR). Ministerio de Educación de Perú. Ferguson, C. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15: 325–340. Francis, N. 1998. Bilingual children’s reflections on writing and diglossia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 1(1): 18–46. Francis, N. 1999. Bilingualism, writing, and metalinguistic awareness: Oral-literate interactions between first and second languages. Applied Psycholinguistics 20(4): 533–561. Francis, N. 2002. Literacy, second language learning, and the development of metalinguistic awareness: A study of bilingual children’s perceptions of focus on form. Linguistics and Education 13(3): 373–404. Francis, N. 2005. Bilingual children’s writing: Self-correction and revision of written narratives in Spanish and Nahuatl. Linguistics and Education 16(1): 74–92. Hornberger, N. 2004. The continua of biliteracy and the bilingual educator: Educational linguistics in practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7(2–3): 155–171. Horowitz, R. 1995. Orality in literacy: The uses of speech in written language by bilingual and bicultural writers. In Composing Social Identity in Written Language, D. Rubin (ed.), 47–74. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hudson, A. 2002. Outline of a theory of diglossia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157: 1–48. Kress, G. 1994. Learning to Write. London: Routledge. Pozzi-Escot, I. 1975. Norma culta y normas regionales del castellano en relación con la enseñanza. In Lingüística e indigenismo moderno de América. R. Avalos de Matos & R. Ravines (eds). Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Reynolds, D. 2002. Learning to make things happen in different ways: Causality in the writing of middle-grade English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing 11: 311–328.

 Liliana Sánchez Rivero, J. 2000. Reforma y desigualdad educativa en América Latina. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 23: 103–133. Rubin, D. 1995. Composing Social Identity in Written Language. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sánchez, L. 2003. Quechua-Spanish Bilingualism. Interference and Convergence in Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sánchez, L. 2006. Bilingualism/second language research and the assessment of oral proficiency in minority bilingual children. Language Assessment Quarterly 3(2): 117–149. Thompson, C., Craig, H. & Washington, J. 2004. Variable production of African American English across oracy and literacy context. Language Speech and Hearing Services in School 35: 269–308. Zavala, V. 2002. (Des)encuentros con la escritura. Escuela y comunidad en los Andes Peruanos. Lima: Red para el Desarrollo de las Ciencias Sociales en el Perú. Zúñiga, M., Sánchez, L. & Zacharías, D. 2000. Demanda y necesidad de educación bilingüe: Lenguas indígenas y Castellano en el Sur Andino. Lima: Ministerio de Educación (Peru’s Ministry of Education), GTZ (German Cooperation Agency) and KfW (Germany’s Financial Cooperation).

chapter 6

Maya ethnolinguistic identity Violence and cultural rights in bilingual Kaqchikel communities Brigittine M. French Grinnell College

This chapter examines Maya ethnolinguistic identity construction as it has been experienced in urbanized bilingual Kaqchikel communities. It situates Maya ethnolinguistic identity between a history of violence and contemporary cultural rights claims to argue that both the Guatemalan state and the Pan-Maya Movement have linked Mayan languages to indigenous identity in immutable ways. It shows that these essentializing ideologies of language have been productive in structuring radically different political projects. It concludes by suggesting that individual social actors in some bilingual Maya communities articulate alternative identifications about language and modernity that disrupt essentialized notions of identity. In addition to metalinguistic discourse that disrupts the essentialist language ideology of Mayan languages and Maya identity, there are many ways that social actors express their Mayaness through Spanish (see for example Don Fidencio’s use of Maya discourse structures within the chapter).

1. Introduction On May 5, 2003, in a historically unprecedented move, the Guatemalan Congress passed the Ley de Idiomas Nacionales ‘Law of National Languages.’ The law formally recognized “the right of the peoples and indigenous communities to their cultural identity in accordance with their values, their language and their customs, should be fundamentally guaranteed by the State” (Decreto Numero 19–2003). Such an explicit invocation of guaranteed “rights” relative to indigenous “cultural identity” and “language” was a markedly new position for the Guatemalan state. Just a few years before, in 1999, a national referendum to co-officialize all 21 Mayan

 Brigittine M. French

languages alongside Spanish as constitutionally national languages was defeated.1 Indeed, the majority of 20th century state-directed professional involvement with Mayan languages in Guatemala was explicitly aimed at ameliorating the “problem” of Maya cultural difference manifested through and emblematic in their linguistic difference. In this way, the idealized erasure of Mayan languages through the promise of Spanish linguistic assimilation among indigenous communities functioned in service of homogeneous nation-building (French 2003). In short, during much of the 20th century, national visions for creating a unified Guatemala were predicated upon and committed to transforming Mayan-speaking indios into Spanish-speaking guatemaltecos. Perhaps even more impressive than the marked change in state policy toward guaranteeing the rights of indigenous language and identity was the constituency of its official supporters. Not surprisingly, Maya scholars and activists were staunch advocates of the policy as they have worked in various capacities during the latter half of the 20th century for the promotion of linguistic rights, including such efforts as the development of a unified orthography for Mayan languages, the creation of the Mayan Languages Academy, the implementation of standardization projects, and grass-roots literacy efforts in several highland communities. These self-conscious efforts by Maya scholar-activists directed both toward recognizing and promoting Mayan languages have been understood as integral components of democratic multicultural reform within the nation (Brown 1998; French 1999; England 2003). More surprising, however, was the fact that the new law was codified by President of the Congress, Efrain Ríos Montt. Ríos Montt was none other than the former General/President of Guatemala who had been complicitious in acts of genocide against the Maya population during La violencia just decades earlier in the late 1970s (CEH 1998; Sanford 2003). Paradoxically, Ríos Montt officially endorsed the cultural rights of the very people his government had sought to violently purge from the body politic of the nation. 2. Essentialism and language ideologies The ironies entailed in the Ley of Idiomas Nacionales situates the consideration of bilingualism, language and identity in Guatemala among Maya communities squarely between, on the one hand, the contemporary cultural rights claims of Maya scholars/activists and, on the other hand, the recent history of extreme 1. For a complete discussion of the National Referendum that included several other constitutional reforms, see Warren 2002.



Chapter 6.  Maya ethnolinguistic identity 

violence against them by the state. The politics of both these radically different projects, to valorize cultural difference and to obliterate it, share a common ideology that has profoundly affected collective understandings of language and identity in Guatemala. Both projects rely on an essentialized construction of language and indigenousness. That is to say, state-sponsored homogeneous nation-building efforts as well as Pan-Maya ethnonationalist cultural rights activism assume that Mayan languages are iconic representations of Maya peoples, as if Mayan languages “depicted or displayed the group’s inherent nature or essence” (Irvine and Gal 2000: 37). The particular instances of essentialist ideologies of language in Guatemala are, in turn, indicative of similar ideological processes underway in a variety of multilingual, multiethnic contexts (Blommaert and Verschueren 1998; BokhorstHeng 1999; Jaffe 1999; Errington 2000; Irvine and Gal 2000). Indeed, as Woolard notes, this Herderian ideology of language linking a particular code with the essence of a people has become globally hegemonic today (1998: 17). While several scholars of language have rightly challenged such essentializing ideologies by showing the diversity of linguistic ideologies circulating in a given ethnographic context (Urcuoili 1996; Gal 1998), less attention has been devoted to uncovering the ways that such essentialist ideologies that are hegemonic become efficacious. Woolard explains this current scholarly challenge in the following way: Although the validity of the nationalist ideology of language (linking a language with a collective people) has often been debated or debunked, less attention has traditionally been given to understanding how the view of languages not only as discrete, distinctive entities but emblematic of self and community comes to take hold in so many different settings (1998: 18).

The specific construction of essentialist ideologies of language in post-conflict Guatemala, in this case linking Mayan languages with the essence of Maya peoplehood, provides an opportunity to take up Woolard’s suggested inquiry. In the pages that follow, I aim to show some experiences and processes by which hegemonic ideologies of language come to take hold among bilingual Kaqchikel communities. I argue that an essential ideology of Mayan languages as inherently emblematic of indigenous identity in bilingual Kaqchikel communities has been socialized through extreme violence propagated by the state as well as creatively engendered through linguistic and cultural activism by Pan-Maya scholars. Before continuing with my discussion of essentialist ideologies of language among contemporary bilingual Kaqchikel-Maya communities, it is important to underscore that there are indeed multiple ideological configurations of the language and identity relationship among Maya communities in Guatemala that are refracted through local understandings of gender, history, place and modernity (Watanabe 1992; Reynolds 2002; Choi 2003; Little 2004). As I will show, individual

 Brigittine M. French

social actors in urban, bilingual Maya communities do indeed disrupt the essential projects upon which both the repressive and the democratizing projects have been built. In this chapter, I turn my attention toward the state’s and Maya activists’ ideological configurations to underscore the political expediency of the essential projects they both engender. More specifically, I focus my analysis primarily on examples from highland indigenous communities that speak Kaqchikel, a language with approximately 405,000 speakers, at least 87% of whom are bilingual in Spanish (Richards and Richards 1990). The increasingly high levels of bilingualism in Spanish are directly related to the fact that Kaqchikel communities have been more subjected to the economic, cultural and political forces of national society due to their proximity to Ladino (non-Indian) power centers (Maxwell 1996) and, in some cases, the militarization of their communities (CEH 1998).2 It is important to note that the histories and experiences of Maya communities shaping ideologies of language and identity are different in other parts of Guatemala. This means that the analysis I present here is meant to offer a partial understanding of the ways that state violence and cultural revitalization have been experienced by some urban highland Maya communities with high levels of bilingualism among the demographically larger Mayan languages. I now turn to discuss the essentialized understanding of language and indigenous identity as propagated by the Guatemalan nation-state. As we will see, the language ideology linking Mayan languages to inherent definitions of “Indianness” have situated Mayan languages and peoples outside of Guatemalan national identity. From this state perspective, Spanish was endowed with the transformative power of creating a unified Guatemala. As I hope to show, these conceptions of language were predicated upon and socialized through violence among Kaqchikel communities that became predominantly bilingual. 3. The violence of ethnolinguistic identity Since the beginning of the nation-building period during the early 19th century, the Guatemalan nation has been erected upon the stark opposition between two groups: “Indians” and Ladinos (Smith 1990). Constituting meaningful categories of social boundedness, Ladino refers to the minority of Guatemala’s citizens who are of European, usually Spanish and indigenous ancestry. “Indian” refers to members of any of the 21 named ethnolinguistic groups belonging to the family of Mayan languages that includes: Achi, Akateko, Awakateko, Ch’orti, Chuj, Itzaj, Ixil, 2. The CEH found that the K’iche’, Kaqchikel, Mam, Q’eqchi and Ixil linguistic communities were those most affected during the armed conflict (1998: 69).



Chapter 6.  Maya ethnolinguistic identity 

Kaqchikel, K’iche’ Mam, Mopan, Popti’, Poqomchi’, Poqomam, Q’anjob’al, Q’eqchi, Sakapulteko, Sipakapense, Teko, Tz’utujiil and Uspanteko.3 Seizing upon the social opposition between these two categories, the Guatemalan state has actively circulated a conception of “Indians” as an undifferentiated, inherently inferior group that has stood stubbornly in the way of the nation’s progress and development modeled after Western paradigms of nation-building that presuppose the necessity of cultural homogeneity for collective unification (Gellner 1983). From this perspective, to be Guatemalan has meant to be Ladino, and to be Ladino means to be non-Indian. Within this commonplace and hegemonic logic, the persistence of the “Indian problem” has been the bane of the nation’s project of crafting a homogenous national community. To that end, the modern Guatemalan state has sought to eradicate cultural differences in order to create a unified nation through a variety of social, economic and political means including (but certainly not limited to) those efforts directed at the linguistic assimilation of Mayan-speaking populations to Spanish through scholarly linguistic analysis, religious conversion, bilingual education, compulsory Spanish literacy classes and military service. As in other American contexts (Childs 1998), language was the site of violence against indigenous ethnolinguistic identity by the state. Enduring essential constructs of “Indians” as inherently “backward, uncivilized and ignorant” (Casaus Arzú 1992) in 20th-century Guatemalan national discourse have had material and violent consequences for the majority Maya population. In other words, such essentialist constructions of Indian identity, including those constructions based upon language, as antithetical to definitions of Guatemalan national identity, have been a productive part of the social and political factors for state-sponsored violence against Maya populations (Menchú 1983; Montejo 1987; Carmack 1988; Grandin 2004). From the late 1970s to the mid 1980s, the military, under the leadership of Presidents/Generals Lucas García and Ríos Montt, unleashed a genocidal campaign against Maya populations. During La Violencia, the army and its agents annihilated 626 villages, leaving over 200,000 people dead and another million people displaced, the overwhelming majority of whom were Maya (CEH 1998). During the course of my ethnographic fieldwork in Guatemala among highland bilingual communities over the past fifteen years, it has become clear to me that Kaqchikel speakers’ experiences of becoming bilingual in Spanish during the 1960s and 1970s are inextricably connected with La Violencia. Individuals’ quotidian discourse about the process of acquiring Spanish highlights both the violent 3. The 21 Mayan languages of Guatemala are part of a family of approximately thirty languages that descended from a common ancestral language spoken around 4,000 years in lowland Mesoamerica (England 2003: 733).

 Brigittine M. French

nature of the experiences and the omnipresence of the state as an agent of language change in their lives. Indeed, the forced measures and actions of the state’s agents engendered what I call an ideology of exclusivity – a conception of language change in which the acquisition of Spanish is understood to be at expense of indigenous peoples’ first languages. When indigenous people become imagined Spanish monolinguals, their perceived linguistic assimilation is hegemonically conceptualized as a national victory in erasing the “Indian” identity that Kaqchikel embodies from the essentialist perspective of the state. To illustrate the violent experiences often associated with Maya ethnolinguistic identity during recent Guatemalan history, I now turn to narratives told to me by Fidencio Kan during the spring of 1997 in Sumpango, Guatemala.4 As a bilingual Kaqchikel-Maya who came of age under repressive conditions imposed by the Guatemalan state, Fidencio Kan represents the many indigenous men living in urban environs who chose not to pass on their first language to their children. In this way, Fidencio Kan’s “living memory of violence” (Sanford 2003) provides valuable insight into the experiences and ideologies underpinning language shift among Kaqchikels that is now underway in many highland communities (Richards 2003). Don Fidencio grew up in a Kaqchikel monolingual household in the village of San Martín, Chimaltenango, the Kaqchikel community that was hardest hit by state-sponsored violence during the armed conflict. As with most life stories, his was also selectively remembered and told. During the ten years that I have known him, Don Fidencio has shared some defining moments with me, not necessarily in chronological order. At some point in his youth, Don Fidencio left his village and was conscripted into the army. While with the army in the K’iche’ region of Quetzaltenango, he met and married his wife, a local indigenous K’iche’ speaker from a rural aldea ‘village.’ Together, they returned to urban area in Kaqchikel territory and rented a house in a predominantly Ladino town near the capital, Guatemala City. During his adult life, Don Fidencio completed his high school-level education, involved himself in entrepreneurial activities (including tourism), and began to raise five monolingual Spanish children. Never did I hear or overhear Don Fidencio speak in Kaqchikel with his wife, children, coworkers or fellow Catholics from his local parish in any quotidian context that I was privy to while living with the family; Spanish was Don Fidencio’s unmarked code of daily use. Consequently, Don Fidencio narrated his memories in Spanish, a fact intimately connected with violent consequences for speaking Kaqchikel (as we’ll see below) and a concomitant commitment to heading an exclusively monolingual Spanish household.

4. For the purpose of maintaining confidentiality, the name and community of residence have been changed.



Chapter 6.  Maya ethnolinguistic identity 

As we consider Don Fidencio’s memories of forced military service, coercive literacy classes, and authoritarian state agents recounted in his narratives, I want to underscore that our discussion centered on the seemingly mundane topic of speaking Spanish and Kaqchikel. In other words, neither violence nor the state was a discourse topic that I ever introduced into our conversations; in fact, it would have been extremely inappropriate of me to do so, given the perceived danger of mentioning such things aloud for fear of reprisal (Green 1999). Rather, it is precisely because these themes emerged naturally in the context of Don Fidencio’s discourse about his experiences with the languages he spoke that my analytic focus on the relationships among bilingualism, violence and the state becomes possible. One afternoon, after I returned from my language lesson with a local Kaqchikel instructor and was studying at the family table, Don Fidencio arrived home and queried me politely, yet again, about my interest in learning Kaqchikel. While he had explicitly endorsed my study of his first language, Don Fidencio was also quick to point out that only a very few elderly people still spoke Kaqchikel, thereby tacitly questioning the utility of learning it.5 (1) FK: Ya es poca, poca gente [que habla Kaqchikel]. Ya es la gente anciana. Now only very few, few people speak Kaqchikel. Now it is just the old people. (2) Es la gente anciana, que ellos ya no se dedicaron, unas que otras palabras It’s the old people, those who didn’t dedicate themselves, a few words here and there, (3) ellos comprenden en castellano. Pero ya la mayor parte, fue ya en en año de, (..) en el they understand in Spanish. But now the majority, it was in the year, in the

(4) año cincuenta mas o menos y empezó. Ya con, ya gobernantes que empezaron a, the year 1950, more or less, when it started. Now with, the rulers, they began (5) caer de eso y se movilizó lo que es el castellano. Porque, entonces, to knock it down and mobilize Spanish. Because, then, (6) este gobierno autorizó, para no hablar mas en, en(..) idioma de, de orígenes, this government authorized to not speak any more in, in.. the language of one’s origins,

5. In the transcripts that follow I have used consecutive (.) to indicate the number of seconds a pause lasted in the discourse. Additionally, I have left all Spanish as it was spoken, including pauses, false starts, and corrections. The reader may well notice additional features of Mayan discourse structures in the transcript.

 Brigittine M. French

(7) en las escuelas, solo español, español. Fue ya directamente en la época de Carlos Castillo. in the schools, only, Spanish, Spanish. It was directly in the epoch of Carlos Castillo

(8) Armas. Más o menos en los años sesenta que empezaron a prohibir todo esto. Entonces, ya, Armas. More or less in the sixties when they began to prohibit all of this. So, then,

(9) ya los niños empezaron a aprender solo en castellano, castellano. Y esto fue now the children began to learn only in Spanish, Spanish. And this was (10) una evolución cuando floreció directamente de español. Entonces, bajó lo que an evolution when Spanish directly flourished. So, it declined that which (11) es directamente nuestro, nuestro lengua de orígenes. Bajó por completo. is directly our, our, language of origins. It declined completely.

In his efforts to educate me about the potential utility of Kaqchikel, Don Fidencio identifies with people who speak the language, marked by the indexical shifter (Silverstein 1976) “our” in line 11, even as he describes the transformation of Kaqchikel speaking communities into Spanish ones as an “evolution” (line 10) with progressive connotations, a point which is further underscored in the transcript that follows. Using Maya formal discourse structures (Brody 1986) like repetition and parallelism (lines 7 and 9), Don Fidencio explicitly names the agent of language change in institutional terms: the rulers (line 4) and the government (line 5). These state actors “authorized” the use of only Spanish in schools (line 6) and authored the concomitant prohibition of Kaqchikel (line 8). Don Fidencio’s keen attention to the specific powerful agents in language change is further underscored when he names the “era of Carlos Castillo Armas” (line 7) as a transformational period in Kaqchikel-speaking communities. Don Fidencio returns to name the presidency of Castillo Armas later in his narrative, when he introduces another key feature of the violence of linguistic change – forced military service. As we will see, the ideology of exclusivity, namely the relational linking of Spanish and Kaqchikel as mutually exclusive codes, emerges clearly in Don Fidencio’s metalinguistic talk. These themes unfold as he returned to emphasize his point that almost everyone in urban Kaqchikel communities speaks Spanish: (12) FK: La mayor parte de los que no hablan [castellano] están en casa. The majority of those who don’t speak (Spanish) stay at home.



Chapter 6.  Maya ethnolinguistic identity 

(13) Un tiempo, en el tiempo de Carlos Castillo Armas, estaría hablando del One time, in the time of Carlos Castillo Armas, I’d be talking about (14) año, como el año... sesenta-ocho más o menos. Hubo esa época the year, around the year sixty eight more or less. There was this time (15) que fue obligatoriamente, todos los hombres, todos los varones when it was obligatory, all of the men, all of the males, (16) tenían que prestar servicio militar.” had to go into military service. (17) BF: Todos? All of them? (18) FK: Si todos, todo varón tenían que prestar obligatoriamente. Yes, all them, all of the males had to go into military service obligatorily. (19) En este tiempo, todo. Él que iba a servicio militar, les quitaban el hablante, In this time, all of them. He who went into military service, they took away (20) Kaqchikel o cualquier dialecto, y le incorporaban el castellano. the speakers’ Kaqchikel or whatever other dialect and incorporated Spanish. (21) Ya cuando regresaban a su, su tierra, ya les prohibían hablar When they returned to their, their land, they now prohibited them to speak (22) en, en, en Kaqchikel o otro idioma, sino que tenían que, ellos, ya fue in, in, in Kaqchikel or another (Mayan) language, rather they had to, they, it was (23) uno como una (..) autoregulacíon directamente en el hablante. Entonces, ahora ya no. like a self-regulation directly with the speaker. So now, they don’t speak in Kaqchikel.

Don Fidencio’s second mention of the Castillo Armas’ regime (line 13) underscores the authority of the Guatemalan state, an authority personified in the dictator who made military service obligatory for young indigenous men (lines 15–18). This forced military service is, in turn, directly linked to language change from Kaqchikel to Spanish in which the speaker is situated as the object whose native language was taken away and replaced with Spanish (lines 19–20) by state agents outside local Maya communities. Indeed, Castillo Armas was the military leader put in place by the CIA sponsored coup of 1954, who ruled the nation until 1957 (Schlesinger and Kinzer 1999). His regime is particularly significant for inaugurating a series of military dictatorships that persisted in various forms during the 36 year armed conflict. Yet, more than a simple and transparent recapitulation of historical “facts,” Don Fidencio’s narrative shows how the social memory of language

 Brigittine M. French

and violence inhabits daily speech. Its legacy persisted after men completed their military service and returned to their communities when they were “prohibited from speaking in Kaqchikel” and learned to censor the language out of their speech (lines 21–23) for fear of reprisal. Here the self-censorship of Kaqchikel among indigenous men returning from the army, much like Don Fidencio in his daily life, recreates another violence, the symbolic violence based upon “the most effective and best concealed censorships that exclude certain agents from communication by excluding them from the groups which speak or the places which allow one to speak with authority” (Bourdieu 1991: 138). In these ways, past experiences of forcible language change in the military and internalized censorship of Kaqchikel provide the very foundation for language choices and ideologies in the present that tend to exclusively privilege Spanish. Further experiences with state mandated language change under the threat of violence – this time in the form of compulsory literacy classes – emerge in Don Fidencio’s narrative. His discourse articulates the paradox of speaking Spanish for many bilingual Mayas who lived during La Violencia; Spanish is seen as both the product of force in the past and a benefit in the present for those who command it. He continues: (24) FK: El gran recurso que tuvimos fue en el año 1980–86 que The great resource that we had was in the year 1980–86 when (25) fue obligatoriamente, tenían que asistir a alfabetización. it was obligatory, everyone had to attend literacy classes. (26) BF: Sí? Really? (27) FK: Sí, es fue obligatoriamente en el tiempo del gobierno del Lucas, hasta Yes, it was obligatory in the time of the Lucas government, even (28) incluso hubieron amanenzas para los que no asistían a esas clases. including that there were threats for those who didn’t attend these classes. (29) BF: En serio? Seriously? (30) FK: Si. Por ejemplo sucede.. sucede, por ejemplo, en mi pueblo, Yes. For example, what happens, happens, for example in my village (31) había mucha gente que no, que no tenían, que no, there were many people who didn’t, who didn’t have, who didn’t, who (32) no sabían leer. Ahora yo admiro que esa gente who didn’t know how to read [in Spanish]. Now I admire that these people



Chapter 6.  Maya ethnolinguistic identity 

(33) ya sabe leer....Porque decía, “El que no asistía a now know how to read... Because it was said, ‘He who does not attend (34) a sus clases es porque es gente guerrillera.” Entonces, para no sentir esta his classes because is he a guerilla.’ So, to not feel the effect of this (35) acusación, tenían que ir forzosamente, ir a asistir a las clases. accusation, they had to go compulsorily, to go and attend the classes. (36) A veces, hasta con los niños, con los niños, y tenían que aprender. Sometimes, even with small children, with children, and they had to learn. (37) Allí prácticamente, ya estuvo borrando, borrando mucho lo que es From there practically, it was already erasing, erasing, much of what is (38) nuestra idioma, porque fue forzosamente y directamente. our language, because it was unavoidable and direct.

In this section of Don Fidencio’s narrative, his quotable discourse revives the powerful social forces during the regime of President Lucas, who literally threatened the lives of those people who did not attend Spanish classes (line 28). The narrated voice indexically links Spanish illiteracy with politically subversive activity, “he who doesn’t go to literacy classes is a member of the guerilla” in lines 33–34, in such a way that the essential construction of “Indianness” as antithetical to Guatemalan national identity is laid bare. In other words, if one speaks in Kaqchikel and not in Spanish, one is perceived to be a danger to the nation – a danger created by the recursive projection of linguistic difference onto social difference (Irvine and Gal 2000) that must be eradicated from the body politic for the national good. In this way, forced literacy classes in Maya communities during the years of repressive Lucas dictatorship (1978–1982) was yet another aspect of the ways that violence and the state were implicated in local Kaqchikel communities’ understandings of language ideologies, bilingualism and identity. Importantly, the association of language and violence grounded in an ideology of exclusivity, whereby Spanish was necessarily acquired at the perceived expense of Kaqchikel, was part of Don Fidencio’s practical consciousness (Williams 1977) based upon his experiences as a bilingual indigenous man who was conscripted by the army and lived through the 36-year civil war by moving to an urban area. The specifics of Don Fidencio’s narratives are, no doubt, particular to the lived understandings of language, violence and identity that were experienced by men from the community of San Martín during the 1960s and 1970s. Nevertheless, similar experiences with language, identity and violence are strikingly echoed in the testimonies of survivors of the Guatemalan genocide whose narratives were recorded in the Truth and Reconciliation projects undertaken by the Commission for Historical Clarification as part of the peace process for example, some

 Brigittine M. French

individuals from Popti’ (spoken by around 32,000 people) communities in the department of Huehuetenango remembered: (39) Nos obligaron a dejar nuestro idioma y nuestros costumbres, decían They obliged us to leave our language and our customs, it was said (40) que todo hombre que hablara en lengua era guerrillero, all people who would speak in our language were guerrilla, (41) nos hicieron avergonzarnos de nuestras raíces para poder sobrevivir” they made us ashamed of our roots in order to survive. (witness from Huista, Huehuetenango CEH 1998: 27).

As in Don Fidencio’s narrative, the “we” of indigenous people is not constructed around a specifically named community, but instead around all those who were forcibly made to “give up language and customs” (line 39) in order to survive the violence. In this instance, “they” is the army who acted to threaten the lives of those who didn’t conform to non-Indian ways of culture and language. Perhaps the ultimate example of the profound link between violence, language change and identity in the context of Guatemalan social life is recounted in the testimony of another Popti’ witness who testified as follows: (42) Algunas veces encontrábamos gente en la montaña pero como Some times we encountered people on the mountain, but because (43) no hablaban el castellano y nadie les entendía, ni el traductor they didn’t speak Spanish and no one understood them, not even the (44) Jakalteko [Popti’] que llevábamos, el oficial nos daba Jakalteko translator that was with us, the official gave us (45) el orden de matarlos. (CEH 1998: 187). the order to kill them.

Here, we are faced with the ultimate material consequence of an essentialist construction of Indian identity based upon linguistic difference – murder. The official (line 44) is the agent who forced Maya people to kill other Mayas, literally instantiating the degree to which Indian identity was antithetical to belonging in the Guatemalan nation. 4. The project of Maya ethnolinguistic identity While such an essential understanding of Mayan languages and indigenous identity was a part of the productive conditions for the violent obliteration of Maya



Chapter 6.  Maya ethnolinguistic identity 

culture, it, nevertheless, also is used productively to structure claims for democratic social reform and multicultural nation building in Guatemala in the postconflict era. Rising out of this unprecedented period of repression, some Maya people have become committed to a vibrant ethno nationalist movement that seeks to promote Maya cultural difference within the nation-state and to craft a collective Pan-Maya identity in the face of a national policy of assimilation and violence (Cojtí Cuxil, 1991, 1994, 1995; Fischer and Brown 1996; Warren 1998). It is a movement launched both against the state and in favor of a nation reconstituted and redefined by the politics of cultural difference. This Maya cultural revitalization project, based centrally (although not exclusively) around Mayan languages, is linked to the dual political objectives of promoting cultural autonomy for Maya peoples and reconfiguring the Guatemalan nation into a multilingual and multicultural democracy. Central to the pursuit of the Maya Movement’s goals of cultural self-determination and progressive political reform within the Guatemalan state is the strategically essential linking of Mayan languages with the ideal of a unified Maya pueblo ‘people/nation’ (French 1999). In other words, Mayan languages hold a unique place among several aspects of culture that are objectified as the fundamental essences of Maya identity – the very foundation upon which a collective Maya identity is erected. Dr. Demetrio Cojtí, the foremost visible leader of the Maya Movement, articulates the link between Mayan languages and Maya peoplehood as an inherent one, as do most educated Maya scholars and activists whom he represents. Cojtí defines Maya identity though a strategically essentially claim: “The Maya people exist because they have and speak their own languages” (1990: 12). This Herderian language ideology, linking Mayan languages with the ideal of collective Maya people in the nationalist sense, has acted as an effective means for restructuring notions of difference and for legitimizing calls for cultural autonomy. Indeed, the few but important victories Maya leaders have won involve the state’s recognition of difference based upon the uniqueness of Mayan languages and their provisional inclusion in the Guatemalan national community, most recently visible in the Ley de Idiomas Nacionales. To speak of cultural rights that are bestowed upon a collective group by the state, such as the recently recognized linguistic rights of Maya people, requires an essential understanding of collective identity whose boundness is conceptualized as the objectified “culture” which unifies them as a distinct people (Handler 1988; Domínguez 1989; Legáré 1995). Indeed, indigenous peoples throughout Latin America are struggling to articulate similar kinds of cultural rights claims for democratic social reform (Von Cott 1994; Warren and Jackson 2002; Yashar 2005). In so doing, they attempt to mobilize objectified cultural difference in a variety of forms like traditional body adornment (Conklin 1997), religious practices

 Brigittine M. French

(Gordillo 2003) and language use (Ramos 1995; Graham 2002; García 2005). However, it is not enough for interested groups to solely assert, that is to say, presuppose essential cultural difference. Social actors and institutions must also actively create a difference that unifies identities in an essential way, such that the latter can warrant the pursuit of cultural rights claims (French, forthcoming). How then, have Maya scholars actively produced an essentializing project around language and ethnolinguistic identity for democratic ends? To examine one of the ways that Mayan languages are effectively mobilized for the project of a Maya collective identity, I now return to the issue with which I began the chapter – namely, the Mayan languages officialization project and the linguistic ideological work entailed in it through standardization efforts. My discursive examination of a recent neologism project undertaken by the Kaqchikel Cholchi’ (The Kaqchikel Linguistic Community) will show how Maya linguists constitute a distinct and essential Maya peoplehood through three inter-related aspects: (1) an invocation of a common history as indigenous people in Guatemala, (2) a Whorfian construction of Maya worldview and (3) a self-conscious emphasis on linguistic unification through the erasure of dialect variation within Kaqchikel and the erasure of language variation within the family of Mayan languages. As in the narratives of linguistic violence analyzed earlier, the state is situated in this context as a primary actor in the process of shaping language and Maya identity. Language prescription, or the establishment of standards, particularly in written usage, has come to take on an important role in Maya cultural rights activism, particularly among Maya linguists (England 1996: 178, 2003). The written codification of Mayan languages through standardization is politically urgent in the case of Maya ethnonationalism precisely because it can function productively, as an act of linguistic consolidation that can be recursively projected (Irvine and Gal 2000) onto collective identity consolidation. Indeed, this is the very process that Anderson (1991) assumes and Schieffelin and Doucet (1994) enumerate in their analyses of national identity formation; namely, commonplace linguistic ideology that language standardization enables linguistic unification and, linguistic unification, in turn, provides the means by which print technologies “re-present the kind of imagined community that is national” (Anderson 1991: 25). Rukemik K’ak’a’ Taq Tzij (Criteria for the Creation of Neologisms en Kaqchikel) is one of a myriad of interventions meant to further activate the project of a strategically essential understanding of Maya identity based upon Mayan languages. Kaqchikel Cholchi’ directed the project in conjunction with the Mayan Languages Academy of Guatemala with international funding and support from UNICEF. Several linguists, Kab’lajuj Tijax, Ixq’anil, Ixchayim, Pakal B’alam, Tz’unun Ya’, Lolmay and Raxche’, explicitly undertook the project in order to help accomplish new linguistic and cultural rights in Guatemala, including the right to an education in



Chapter 6.  Maya ethnolinguistic identity 

their own languages (Kaqchikel Cholchi’ 1995: 6), a right that was codified in the Ley de Idiomas Nacionales. How then do Kaqchikel-speaking linguists actively engender a collective unification of many distinct Maya communities as one Maya people through their linguistic work? As we will see below, a distinct peoplehood defined through Mayan languages is strategically constituted through the linguistic analysis of neologisms in Kaqchikel. In their theoretical introduction to the general criteria for creating neologisms, linguists begin their analysis by calling attention to the pre-Columbian history of Kaqchikel communities as well as the colonial history of domination that all Maya communities were subjected to in Guatemala. (46) Antes de 1524, el idioma Maya Kaqchikel tenía la categoría del único Before 1524, the Mayan language Kaqchikel had the category of the only (47) idioma de la Comunidad Lingüística que ahora conocemos como Maya language spoken by the linguistic community that we now know as Maya (48) Kaqchikel... Tanto los gobernados, como los gobernantes tenían el mimo Kaqchikel....The governed as well as the governors had the same (49) idioma de comunicación (1995: 9). language of communication.

Here, linguists harken back to a pre-Columbian era when Kaqchikel-speaking Mayas were unified as an ethnolinguistic group (Maya-Kaqchikel in lines 46 and 47). The indexical relationship between the Kaqchikel language and the Kaqchikel people is taken to be iconic (“Kaqchikel was only language spoken by the community” in lines 46 and 47). In other words, the borders of a language and a people are ideologically understood as transparently isomorphic before Spanish colonialism. In their analysis, linguists highlight the drastic change produced by the history of colonialism for Kaqchikel-speaking communities and generalize it to the history of all Maya peoples in Guatemala, despite the vast differences in responses to and impacts of the Spanish invasion in individual indigenous communities (Smith 1990). (50) Al inicio del colonialismo sobre el Pueblo Maya en general y del In the beginning of colonialism over the Maya people in general and of (51) Kaqchikel en particular, los ámbitos de uso del Kaqchikel se Kaqchikel in particular, the contexts of Kaqchikel usage were (52) restringieron drásticamente. No fue más el idioma oficial del Estado, drastically limited. No longer was Kaqchikel the official language of the state (53) al ser destruido el Estado Kaqchikel (1995: 10). as the Kaqchikel state was destroyed.

 Brigittine M. French

As linguists craft a shared history of linguistic oppression among Maya peoples, they, like the individual Mayas in bilingual highland communities whose narratives I analyzed earlier, draw attention to the significant role of the state in structuring “official” uses of Mayan languages (line 52). From this perspective, Maya communities must both rely upon and return to their shared pre-Columbian independence and political power. The privileging of an independent, shared history of Maya peoples is also central to linguists’ contemporary choices in selecting standard forms in Mayan languages that they put forth in linguistic projects. Nora England explains: “Historical authenticity has become a criterion of substantial weight in choosing among competing forms for standardization. For instance, showing that one form is “older” than another may be enough to guarantee its acceptance” (2003: 736). In addition to the active construction of a shared history of colonial oppression of Maya communities and languages, linguists’ analysis in Rukemik K’ak’aka Taq Tzij produces a strategically essential Maya identity based upon language through their emphasis on a uniquely Maya worldview. In particular, they stress the “inherent” relationship between the Kaqchikel lexicon and Maya cosmovision, invoking an “anthropological” understanding of language to show how: (54) “Por medio del vocabulario se transmiten conceptos o significados de Through the vocabulary concepts or meanings are transmitted that are (55) acuerdo a la cultura...Los idiomas de origen maya tienen in accordance with the culture. The languages of Mayan origin have (56) inmerso dentro de su vocabulario cosmovisión” (1995: 14). a vast cosmovision in their vocabulary.

Their linguistic analysis goes on to specify the importance of nouns that embody a uniquely and spiritually Maya perception of reality: (57) Es decir que el vocabulario hace referencia a que todos los elementos That is to say that the vocabulary makes reference that all of the elements (58) del universo están interrelacionados si como una sola energía. Los of the universe that are inter-related like only one energy. The (59) Mayas vemos los elementos de la naturaleza con vida al igual que Mayas, we see the elements of nature with life equal to that of (60) humano (1995: 14). human life.

In this instance of linguistic analysis, “the” Maya view of the universe as a living organism make up of anthropomorphic elements (line 59) is ideologically crafted



Chapter 6.  Maya ethnolinguistic identity 

into the basis of a collective Maya peoplehood. In other words, a Whorfian understanding of language and worldview is marshaled for political ends. The examples below in Table 1 demonstrate the active configuration of a uniquely and essentially Maya cosmovision instantiated through linguistic analysis. Table 1.  Identifying Kaqchikel-Maya Cosmovision Term

Person

Animal

Plant

Thing

Ruwi’ Ruwäch Raqän Ruq’a’

Hair/Head Face/Front Foot Hand

Top part Fruit Stem/Stalk Branch

Top part Frontal part/surface Leg Handles

Ruchi’ Rey

Mouth Teeth

Coat/Fur Face/Front Hoof/Paw Front extremities Mouth Teeth

Outline Edge

Opening/hole Edge

* Adopted from Kaqchikel Cholchi’ (1995)

The principles of Maya cosmovision are actively drawn upon in the creation of neologisms to further unify speakers – to find “old ways” of naming new concepts. Some examples demonstrated in three proposed neologisms below: (61) Kajulew /kaj/ (sky) + /ulew/ (land)

Universe

(62) Ik’ch’umil Astronomy /ik’/ moon + /ch’umil/ (star) (63) Kematz’ib’ Computer /kem/ (a weaving) + /a/ (connects to roots) + /tz’ib’/ (writing)

As in the Xavante’s creative use of new words used in service of indigenous activism, Kaqchikel neologisms for concepts like universe, astronomy and computer, enables them to “draw on elements from the discursive fields of the national and international arenas into which they increasingly move. This incorporation enables Indians to take part in the debates and discussions of these areas” (Graham 2002: 212). The preferential sanctioning of linguistic homogenization in the creation of new words over dialect heterogeneity of spoken discourse that relies on Spanish borrowings is a third facet of the ways that linguists actively construct a strategically essential Maya identity around Kaqchikel and other Mayan languages. These

 Brigittine M. French

analysts focus on the importance of creating neologisms for the project of standardization: (64) Al fortalecer el vocabulario Kaqchikel, se está apoyando el proceso de To strengthen the Kaqchikel vocabulary, the process of (65) estandarización, mediante la ampliación del vocabulario del idioma. Con ello, standardization is supported through the amplification of the vocabulary of the language. With it, (66) se impulsa la unidad lingüística de los hablantes kaqchikeles, al tener the linguistic unity of Kaqchikel speakers is driven forward, to have (67) un mismo vocabulario para hacer referencia a los avances científicos, the same vocabulary to make reference to scientific and technological (68) tecnológicos, etc. (1995: 13). advances.

The advancement of linguistic homogenization to unify Kaqchikel speakers in their references to new aspects of culture (line 67) is, in turn, self-consciously extended outward to other Mayan languages. For example, the specific process for creating neologisms outlined by linguists in Rukemik K’ak’a’ Taq Tzij include new lexemes created from the following procedures: composition based upon the combination of roots, semantic extension, phonetic symbolism, and derivation (1995: 18). They propose that this productive methodology, (69) Guíen el trabajo lingüístico para la potencialización de los Guide the linguistic work to realize the potential for the (70) idiomas K’iche’, especialmente el Kaqchikel. Así mismo, consideramos que the K’iche’an languages, especially Kaqchikel. At the same time, we (71) consideramos que estos criterios, con las adaptaciones pertinentes pueden consider that these criteria, with pertinent adaptations, can (72) ser utilizados por todas los idiomas Mayas (1995: 12). be utilized for all of the Mayan languages.

Thus, the principles of creating neologisms in Kaqchikel are understood as part of the larger language standardization project for the historically related languages in the K’iche’ group of the Mayan family that also include the linguistic groups K’iche’, Sipakapense, Sakapulteko and Tz’utujiil which shared up to 85  percent of their vocabulary until the 1500s (1995: 9) as well as other, more distantly-related Mayan languages, with “pertinent adaptations” (line 72). Taken together, Kaqchikel-speaking linguists actively constitute a strategically essential Maya identity based on Mayan languages through their analysis of



Chapter 6.  Maya ethnolinguistic identity 

neologisms by means of a discourse about the shared pre-Columbian and colonial histories of Maya peoples, the Whorfian world view embodied in them, and the great need to unify linguistically in order to unite a people. Such scholarly interventions are not merely esoteric. The Kaqchikel neologisms created by linguists figured prominently in a special issue of Iximulew, a bilingual periodical (in Spanish and a different Mayan language each month) circulated nationally in the country’s largest newspaper, the Siglo Veintiuno. The entire December 1996 issue was devoted to the question the potential officialization of Mayan languages in which the innovative “linguistic engineering” (Iximulew 1996: 7) done by Kaqchikel Linguistic Community was highlighted and included an alphabetized list of 80 neologisms with their Spanish translations. Referentially, such new concepts expressed in the Kaqchikel neologisms “express creative engagement with the global world in which Indians now find themselves” (Graham 2002: 212). However, in a country where literacy in Spanish is widely variable, from 15 percent in some areas to 92 percent in others, (Richards 2003) and literacy in Mayan languages is only now nascent among populations in the post-peace accords era, the productivity of Kaqchikel neologisms circulating in national print media like Iximulew may lie in their iconic and indexical valiancy. In other words, regardless of the questionable levels of referential comprehension by Mayas and Ladinos alike, the image of Kaqchikel as a written codified and publicly circulating language iconically embodies a perceptual and ideological sameness with Spanish. The iconization of Kaqchikel with Spanish, in turn, functions indexically to mark the new ways that Kaqchikel becomes a “modern” language fit for the nation. 5. Challenges to ethnolinguistic identity Both the Guatemalan state and Maya scholar-activists have propagated an essentialist understanding of language and Maya identity to foster their diametrically opposed political projects – the violent eradication of difference in service of homogenous nation-building and the progressive valorization of difference for democratic social reform within the nation. Within this highly charged, complicated and paradoxical context, there is, nevertheless, a diversity of language ideologies linked with collective experiences among local indigenous communities that structure the language and identity nexus differently; that is to say, in non-essentialist ways. In some local contexts, Kaqchikel (and other Mayan languages) are not so neatly bound to reified notions of ethnic and national identity, but rather linked with locally meaningful understandings of gender, performance, history and place (Reynolds 2002; Choi 2003; Little 2004; French, forthcoming). While

 Brigittine M. French

the complexities of these identifications are too many to discuss here, in conclusion, I would like to mention one – the ideological relationships between language and modernity. In some urbanized bilingual Kaqchikel and K’iche’ communities, individual social actors are particularly concerned with a collectively identified “modern” identity (Reynolds 2002; Choi 2003; French, forthcoming). Being and becoming a “modern” person, is tied to Spanish and Mayan languages differentially. My ethnographic research in the urban departmental cabecera of Chimaltenango, a large Kaqchikel-Ladino city located near the nation’s capital, revealed persistent identifications with a “modern” indigenous identity in metalinguistic discourse. More specifically, many Maya citizens of Chimaltenango identified themselves as agents in a “modern” present within which life was perceived to be materially, economically and socially better than it had been in the past for indigenous people. Within this narrative of progress, language ideologies linked Kaqchikel with undesirable, old ways of living, characterized by parochialism, lack of formal education, isolated living and poverty for indigenous people. Conversely, Spanish was indexically linked with “modern,” desirable ways of life, characterized by worldliness, opportunities for formal education, travel and economic advancement. To be a “modern” indigenous person, therefore, was to speak Spanish – an identification that disrupts dominant ideologies based upon the essential language/indigenous identity construct. At the same time, to be a “modern” indigenous person was to often recognize the cultural value of Kaqchikel. Ana, a Spanish monolingual market woman in her mid-thirties, expressed this dual ideological stance toward both Spanish and Kaqchikel as important for modern indigenous people: (73) Mi papa quería nosotros aprendiéramos bien el castellano porque así nos My father wanted us to learn Spanish well because with it we (74) puede desenvolver mejor. Pero ahora me doy cuenta que el kaqchikel es could manage better. But now I realize that Kaqchikel is (75) muy importante. Bueno ahora pues, es muy importante aprender un idioma, very important. Well, now it is very important to learn a language, (76) cualquier idioma sea kaqchikel, el k’iche’, el q’eqchi’ porque ahora están, whatever language, be it Kaqchikel, K’iche’ or Q’eqchi’ because now (77) como le diría, hay muchas instituciones que están promoviendo el kaqchikel, how shall I say it, there are many institutions that are promoting Kaqchikel (78) así como las asociaciones mayas.” like the Maya associations.



Chapter 6.  Maya ethnolinguistic identity 

In addition to metalinguistic discourse that disrupts the essentialist language ideology of Mayan languages and Maya identity, there are many ways that social actors express their Mayaness through Spanish (as Don Fidencio’s use of Maya discourse structures in the beginning of the chapter indicates). Reynolds research illustrates how first-generation Spanish monolingual children from the Kaqchikel community of San Antonio Aguas Calientes invent new forms of play like “Popeye versus the Pirates” – a game derived from watching the famous North American cartoon on their family’s satellite dish. In their daily routines, Antonero boys call for help on their imaginary cell phones and while borrowing from traditional Maya discursive forms, like hearsay evidentials, to assert authority in their directives toward other children (2002). In the post-Peace Accords era, the success of the Maya Movement’s goals will be strongly affected by the ways in which they creatively incorporate these kinds of local knowledges, experiences, and conceptions of modernity as the basis for further social change within the Guatemalan nation. References Anderson, B.O. 1991 [1983]. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Blommaert, J. & Verschueren, J. 1998. The role of language in European nationalist ideologies. In Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard & P.V. Kroskrity (eds), 189–210. Oxford: OUP. Bokhorst-Heng, W. 1999. Singapore’s speak Mandarin campaign: Language ideological debates in the imagining of the nation. In Language Ideological Debates, J. Blommaert (ed.), 235–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Brody, J. 1986. Repetition as a rhetorical and conversational device in Tojolabal (Mayan). International Journal of American Linguistics 52(3): 255–274. Brown, R.M. 1998. Mayan language revitalization in Guatemala. In The Life of Our Language: Kaqchikel Maya Maintenance, Shift and Revitalization, S. Garzon, et al., (eds), 155–170. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Carmack, R. (ed.). 1988. Harvest of Violence: The Maya Indians and the Guatemalan Crisis. Norman OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Casaus Arzú, M. 1992. Guatemala: Linaje y Racismo. Costa Rica: FLASCO. CEH (Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico). 1998. Guatemala: Memoria del silencio. Guatemala City: United Nations. Child, B. 1998. Boarding School Lessons: American Indian Families, 1900–1940. Lincoln NB: University of Nebraska Press. Choi, J. 2003. Language Choice and Language Ideology in a Bilingual Community: The Politics of Identity in Guatemala. PhD dissertation, SUNY Albany. Cojtí Cuxil, D. 1990. Lingüística e idiomas Mayas en Guatemala. In Lecturas sobre la Lingüística Maya. N. England & S. Elliot (eds), 1–26. Vermont VT: Plumsock Mesoamerican Studies.

 Brigittine M. French Cojtí Cuxil, D. 1991. La configuracíon del pensamiento político del pueblo Maya. Quetzaltenango, Guatemala: Talleres de El Estúdiante. Cojtí Cuxil, D. 1994. Políticas para la reivindicación de los Mayas de hoy. Guatemala: Editorial Cholsamaj. Cojtí Cuxil, D. 1995. Políticas para la reivindicación de los Mayas de hoy (2a parte). Guatemala: Editorial Cholsamaj. Congreso de la Republica de Guatemala. 2003. Decreto numbero 19–2003L Leyde idiomas nacionales. Conklin, B. A. 1997. Body paint, feathers, and VCRs: Aesthetics and authenticity in Amazonian activism. American Ethnologist 23(4): 711–737. Domínguez, V. 1989. People and Subject, People as Object: Selfhood and Peoplehood in Contemporary Israel. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press. England, N.C. 1996. The role of language standardization in revitalization. In Maya Cultural Activism in Guatemala, E.F. Fischer & R.M. Brown (eds), 178–194. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. England, N.C. 2003. Mayan Language revival and revitalization politics: Linguists and linguistic ideologies. American Anthropologist 105(4): 733–743. Errington, J. 2000. Indonesian(‘s) authority. In Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, P.V. Kroskrity (ed), 205–228. Santa Fe NM: School of American Research Press. Fischer, E. & Brown, R.M. (eds). 1996. Maya Cultural Activism in Guatemala. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. French, B. 1999. Imagining the nation: Language ideology and collective identity in contemporary Guatemala. Language and Communication 19: 277–287. French, B. 2003. The politics of Mayan linguistics in Guatemala: Native speakers, expert analysts, and the nation. Pragmatics 13(3–4): 483–498. French, B. Forthcoming. Guatemala: Essentialisms and cultural politics. In Companion to Latin American Anthropology, D. Poole (ed). Oxford: Blackwell. Gal, S. 1998. Multiplicity and contention in language ideologies: A commentary. In Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard & P.V. Kroskrity (eds), 317–332. Oxford: OUP. García, M.E. 2005. Making Indigenous Citizens: Identity, Development, and Multicultural Activism in Peru. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Gellner, E. 1983. On Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. Gordillo, G. 2003. Shamanic forms of resistance in the Argentinean Chaco: A political economy. Journal of Latin American Anthropology 8(3): 104–126. Graham, L.R. 2002. How should an Indian speak? Amazonian Indians and the symbolic politics of language in the global public sphere. In Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America, K.B. Warren & J.E. Jackson (eds), 181–228. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Grandin, G. 2004. The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Green, L. 1999. Fear as a Way of Life: Mayan Widows in Rural Guatemala. New York NY: Columbia University Press. Handler, R. 1988. Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press.



Chapter 6.  Maya ethnolinguistic identity  Irvine, J.T. & Gal, S. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, P.V. Kroskrity (ed), 35–84. Santa Fe NM: School of American Research Press. Iximulew. 1996. Oficialización de los idiomas Mayas. Siglo Veintiuno 10 de noviembre. Guatemala: Siglo Veintiuno and Cholsamaj. Jaffe, A. 1999. Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kaqchikel Cholchi’. 1995. Rukemik K’ak’a’ Taq Tzij: Criterios para la creación de neologismos en Kaqchikel. Guatemala: ALMG. Légaré, E. 1995. Canadian multiculturalism and aboriginal people: Negotiating a place in the nation. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 1(4): 347–366. Little, W.E. 2004. Mayas in the Marketplace: Tourism, Globalization, and Cultural Identity. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Maxwell, J. 1996. Prescriptive grammar and Kaqchikel revitalization. In Maya Cultural Activism in Guatemala, E.F. Fischer & R.M. Brown (eds), 195–207. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Menchú Túm, R. 1983. I Rigoberta Menchú: An Indian Woman in Guatemala. London: Verso. Montejo, V. 1987. Testimony: Death of a Guatemalan Village. Willimantic CT: Curbstone Press. Ramos, A. 1995. Sanumá Memories:Yanomami Ethnography in Times of Crisis. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Reynolds, J.F. 2002. Maya Children’s Practices of the Imagination: (Dis)playing Childhood and Politics in Guatemala. PhD Dissertation, University of California Los Angeles. Richards, M. 2003. Atlas Lingüístico de Guatemala. Guatemala City: Universidad Rafael Landívar. Richards, J. & Richards, M. 1990. Languages and Communities Encompassed by Guatemala’s National Bilingual Education Program. Guatemala: Ministerio de Educación. Sanford, V. 2003. Buried Secrets: Truth and Human Rights in Guatemala. New York NY: Palgrave MacMillian. Schieffelin, B.B. & Doucet, R. 1994. The “real” Haitian Creole: Ideology, metalinguistics, and orthographic choices. American Ethnologist 21(1): 176–200. Schlesinger, S. & Kinzer, S. 1999. Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala. Cambridge MA: Harvard University & David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies. Silverstein, M. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Meaning in Anthropology, K. Basso & H.A. Selby, (ed) 11–55. Albuquerque NM: University of New Mexico Press. Smith, C. A. 1990. Introduction: Social relations in Guatemala over time and space. In Guatemalan Indians and the State: 1540 to 1988, C.A. Smith (ed), 1–30. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Urciuoli, B. 1996. Exposing Prejudice: Puerto Rican Experiences of Language, Race, and Class. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Van Cott, D.L. (ed). 1994. Indigenous Peoples and Democracy in Latin America. New York NY: St. Martin’s Press. Warren, K.B. 1998. Indigenous Movements and their Critics: Pan-Maya Activism in Guatemala. Princeton NJ: University of Princeton Press. Warren, K.B. 2002. Voting against indigenous rights in Guatemala: Lessons from the 1999 Referendum. In Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America, K.B. Warren & J.E. Jackson (eds), 149–180. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.

 Brigittine M. French Warren, K.B. & Jackson, J. 2002. Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the Sate in Latin America. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Watanabe, J.M. 1992. Maya Saints and Souls in a Changing World. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Williams, R. 1977. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: OUP. Woolard, K.A. 1998. Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard & P.V. Kroskrity (eds), 3–47. Oxford: OUP. Yashar, D. 2005. Contesting Citizenship: Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge in Latin America. New York NY: CUP.

chapter 7

“Enra kopiai, non kopiai” Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola

Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú The migration of Shipibo people from the Amazonian rainforest to Lima has produced a recreation of gender relations and of Shipibo ethnic identity. Now that the mothers in Lima are the ones who sustain their families economically, the Shipibo ethnicity of women no longer connotes their subaltern condition, but rather the possibility of having access to power. We analyze how the use of the vernacular language becomes an important symbolic resource for the performance of gender and ethnic identities in the communal meetings, with the goal of discussing the problems that people face in this new context. Women not only use this language to a greater extent than men, but they also interact in a way in which they display their agency. This liaison between Shipibo women, the use of the vernacular language and having access to power through the production and selling of handicrafts has contributed to maintain the link between the Shipibo language and the Shipibo ethnic identity in the city.

1. Introduction The migration process of more than three hundred Shipibo people from the Ucayali river basin (on the Peruvian side of the Amazonian rainforest) to Lima has provoked a drastic and ongoing recreation of gender relations and of Shipibo ethnic identity. In this chapter, we hope to share some thoughts on these changes and on their relation to the use of language. Both in the Amazonian communities and in Canta Gallo – the area of the capital city where all the Shipibo migrants have been settling since 2001 – women have been identified as more Shipibo than men, mainly because they are conceptualized – by men and women alike– as the ones who practice and maintain traditional culture: they are the ones who use the traditional clothes, produce tradition crafts, socialize their children in the Shipibo culture (Heise et al.  1999) and use the

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola

vernacular language to a greater extent. However, whereas back in those communities the link between the Shipibo ethnic identity and women implied their subaltern condition, in Canta Gallo – due to important changes concerning labor activities – this liaison connotes the possibility of women having access to power. A crucial component of women’s empowerment concerns the use of the Shipibo language in public communal meetings, where tribulations are debated and agreements are achieved in a struggle for forging ahead in the new metropolitan scenario. In Lima, the ethnicity of women acquires new social meanings and language becomes an important symbolic resource for its performance and a means to produce gendered and ethnic differences. We will also see that the case of Canta Gallo goes against the general tendency found in studies about migration and processes of language shift in which the indigenous language is lost in urban scenarios (Gugenberger 2005). This study is framed within a postmodern approach to language and identity, which treats apparently fixed and natural categories such as “woman” or “Shipibo” as constructs whose ontological reality may be called into question. Instead of conceiving identities of all kinds as stable attributes of individuals, this approach of “social constructionism” assumes that these identities are brought into being by the performance of certain acts in particular contexts. As a social act, language use is a key device in the construction of multiple identities and social relations in different situations. In addition, an important insight of the postmodern turn is that gender is no longer assumed as consisting of two internally homogeneous groups (“men” and “women”), but as an array of possible gender positions that imply intra-group differences and inter-gender similarities (Cameron 1997, 2005; Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992, 1999; Butler 1998). In relation to this, it is important to point out that the identity of women struggling in the city is constructed on the basis of their motherness and that this gender identity is constituted not only by contrast with men but also with other versions of women. The fieldwork was based on a series of visits to Canta Gallo, which took place over a four-month period. We held interviews and were participant observers in various public spaces, particularly in collective meetings. In what follows, we combine the analysis of the interactions taking place in these scenarios with the analysis of a selection of testimonies. Throughout the data, we see that gender or ethnicity cannot be separated from each other and from all of the other dimensions of someone’s social identity, such as age, class, occupation and so forth. In this sense, language use indexes various types of social meanings in a complex way.



Chapter 7.  Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima 

2. The Shipibo in the new scenario1 Traditionally, the economic subsistence of the Shipibo communities in the Amazonian rainforest has been based on hunting, fishing and agriculture. Nevertheless, in the last few decades, these activities have become less and less productive, mainly due to the unscrupulous extraction of natural resources by national and international entities. As a result, many Shipibo people have decided to migrate to Lima, expecting greater access to educational and labor opportunities. Although some of them had lived in different districts of Lima before settling in Canta Gallo, it is here where they have gathered as a community and where they have created the association of Shipibo artisans “Ashirel” (Artesanos Shipibos Residentes en Lima). Their goal was to organize themselves in order to address problematic issues of the Shipibo in the capital city, especially in regard to the appropriation of the State’s land that the community was occupying.2 The sense of community is a social construction that has been developed historically and that is strengthened in an urban context like Lima. In fact, the idea of regrouping in the Amazonian communities constitutes a relatively new project that arose as a way of facing oppression. As Chirif et al. (1977) have pointed out, in the Amazonian region, the family was the basic type of organization and was devoted to agriculture. However, later on, the Shipibo felt the need to group together as communal organizations in order to face the exploitations of landlords and employers. Similarly, in Canta Gallo, the association that supports the Shipibo community in Lima – Ashirel – was also created with the aim of confronting adversaries found in this new place. For instance, Luz told us that when another association wanted to buy the land they now occupy – and hence to throw the Shipibo out –, “hemos estado fuerte, y también los que estamos en segundo nivel hemos puesto en una sola masa, y hemos puesto fuerte para que la asociación de abajo no se pueda abusarse de nosotros” ‘We have been strong, and also those of us who are in the second level have formed a single mass, and we have stood strong so the association 1. The Shipibo constitute the third most numerous peoples of the Peruvian Amazon after the Ashaninka and the Aguaruna. Estimates of their population vary from 16,085 (Instituto Nacional de Estadística 1993) to as high as 40,000 (Tournon and Cauper 1994). Valenzuela (2002) suggests that the National Census of 1993 underestimated the Shipibo population and that the actual number might be close to 30,000. Currently, this population is organized in around 130 communities, mainly in the department of Ucayali in Peru. 2. Some important facts about Canta Gallo: Currently, there are 107 families associated with Ashirel. However, there are always more Shipibo people arriving in Lima from the Ucayali region. Most of the Shipibo in Canta Gallo have relatives in the original communities and they travel to these places at least once a year to visit them and to obtain material for their handicrafts (such as seeds for necklaces and bracelets).

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola

from below can not abuse us.’ Indeed, this problematic issue is conceived as one that has to be dealt with as an organized group within an association; in Wilson’s words: “La organización es para mí importante porque nosotros como indígenas que somos nos respaldamos en esas instituciones” ‘The organization is important for me because we indigenous peoples are supported by these institutions’ and “Nosotros acudimos a Ashirel con algunas problemáticas para trabajar organizadamente” ‘We turn to Ashirel with some problems in order to solve them in an organized fashion.’ On the whole, the sense of ethnic community has been re-signified in the city on the basis of the difficulties and challenges that are encountered by the Shipibo in a new urban context. Jonás, the president of Ashirel, explicitly affirms that the sense of community constitutes a clear social construction and that without it Shipibo people would be lost in Lima: (1) Si no nos imaginamos [la comunidad], prácticamente estamos perdidos. En la práctica, estamos viviendo en una ciudad de Lima, que es muy ajena a nuestro sitio de origen, muy ajena. Estamos rodeados de una costumbre de un ambiente occidentalizado. De esta manera, es que nosotros imaginariamente nos ponemos a sentir que es una comunidad y que vivimos en comunidad. ‘If we do not imagine [the community], practically we would be lost. In practice, we are living in the city of Lima, which is very different from our place of origin, very alien. We are surrounded by customs of an occidentalized atmosphere. It is in this way that we imaginatively feel that it is a community and that we live in a community.’

We follow Wenger’s (1998) distinction between diffuse communities of imagination or alignment such as the Shipibo community in Canta Gallo (that one which is referred to by Jonás above) and face-to-face communities of practice through which people construct identities at a more local level in the day to day meaning making. As we will analyze later, the communal meeting in Canta Gallo entails a community of practice where people discuss issues regarding mutual engagement and endeavor and where a certain space is articulated with particular ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values and power relations (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992, 1999). It is participating in this more intensive community – through distinctive styles of speaking, styles of movement, of dress and others forms of social engagement – that some “women” negotiate a place in the world as Shipibo mothers and that they construct themselves as social agents. It is clear that in Lima people living in Canta Gallo negotiate multiple memberships in other communities of practice as well, some of which are more central than others to their sense of who they are and in some of which people are more active and successful in managing their involvements. We will see next that this new agentive identity that women negotiate in this community of practice derives from the fact



Chapter 7.  Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima 

that – in contrast to their situation in the traditional communities – in Canta Gallo they are now the ones who work. 3. Women do work Marisol de la Cadena (1991) sustains that, in the Andean area, one of the sources of gender hierarchies is the evaluation of men and women’s ability to work. For instance, both men and women from Chitapampa (Cusco, Peru) believe that what women do both inside and outside their homes can not be considered “work.” Since the ability to “work” is what legitimizes the exercise of power in the community, women from Chitapampa are not qualified to access different sources of power. In the Amazonian communities, the situation is similar. Shipibo men are also considered to be the ones who “work.” They are in charge of working the land and leave their territory to fish and to hunt. Learning how to fish is an indispensable condition to be qualified as a “man,” since it signals the ability to provide the most important food for the family (Chirif et al.  1977). In the testimonies gathered, Shipibo people affirm that – in the traditional communities – women assist men with agriculture and, in addition, they take care of their children, wash the clothes, cook, load water and firewood, collect wild fruits and make handicraft. However, both men and women from Canta Gallo argue that women do not “work.” By contrast, in Canta Gallo, people declare that the current situation is almost the opposite of the one in the traditional communities. Women produce handicraft everyday (mainly necklaces, bracelets and embroideries) and they are also the ones who leave Canta Gallo in order to sell it. Some men make bows and arrows, but these products are neither produced on a regular basis nor do they sell well. Activities related to agriculture, fishing and hunting are no longer possible in the city. Although some – and especially young – men work as employees in different workshops, the majority of them “are just there,” “helping women” with the handicraft. In Wilson’s words: “Al revés es acá la cosa” ‘Here the situation is the inverse.’ 3.1

Handicrafting: performing feminine identity

The making of handicraft in Amazonian communities is just one of the many activities carried out by women. Nevertheless, while in some of these communities closer to the urban areas (and hence to the tourists) this activity is more intense, in others that are farther away handicraft is not produced on a regular basis. In Canta Gallo, however, handcrafting is the most important activity: it allows people to survive in the capital city. Although it has always been identified as a woman’s activity, in Lima the production of handicraft has recreated its social meaning and is now

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola

perceived as an activity that reveals and constructs the Shipibo feminine identity in a stronger way. Wilson, the man in charge of the adult literacy program sponsored by the State in Canta Gallo, exemplifies this through the following testimony: (2) Ella yo le enseñé [a mi esposa] para que pueda trabajar. Y ella me ganó ya. Aunque yo soy shipibo, ¿no? Y en vez de trabajar con esto, estoy con puros papeles, la oficina. Ya hoy ella pues dedica en eso, hace su artesanía y lo gana ella. Ahora, digamos, ella es una shipiba. ‘I taught [my wife] her so that she could work. And she is already better than me. Although I am Shipibo, aren’t I? And instead of working on this, I am only with papers, the office. She now dedicates herself to this, she makes her handicraft and she earns. We could say now that she is a Shipiba.’

Wilson ratifies the link between Shipibo identity and the making of handicrafts by stating that, as a Shipibo, he should be producing necklaces and bracelets, instead of working in an office. Wilson also points out that his wife, an Andean woman, could now be considered Shipibo, due to the fact that she makes handicraft like the other women in Canta Gallo. Although Wilson knows how to produce and sell handicrafts, the social norms that regulate gender in the community do not allow him to do so. This illustrates the importance of the gender dimension when dealing with handicrafts. It is important, however, not to essentialize Shipibo women: making handicrafts constitutes a way in which one constructs oneself as a Shipibo woman. In addition, although women in the city are still considered more Shipibo than men, the ethnic and gender identities that construct them as such through their performance in certain scenarios are constantly being negotiated and redefined. 3.2

Handicrafting and power

The values attached to what men and women do in traditional communities and in Canta Gallo can be appreciated in people’s testimonials. In Claudia’s words, for instance: in the traditional communities “las mujeres más es lo que se dedican a la chacra, a lavar su ropa, atender sus hijos y nada más. Los hombres sí trabajan” ‘Women mostly dedicate themselves to the land, to washing their clothes, to taking care of their kids and nothing else. Men do work.’ Claudia’s use of “nada más” ‘nothing else’ implies that what women do in traditional communities is not considered as “work” and that their activities are conceptualized within a discourse of deficit. Men, on the other hand, do “work.” Wilson complements this by stating that the fact that women do not “work” in traditional communities legitimizes men’s power over them: “La madre, ella cocina, lava. El hombre hace su trabajo, todo lo que es la chacra. El hombre es el que maneja todo: ‘¿Sabes qué mujer? Me lo haces esto si no...’” ‘The mother cooks, washes. The man does his job, everything to do with the



Chapter 7.  Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima 

farming. The man is the one who manages everything: ‘Do you know what, woman? You will do this for me or else...’ The quote (“Me lo haces esto sino…” ‘You will do this for me or else...’ shows that men are perceived as having the right to threaten women directly, simply because they are not the ones who “work.” The situation in Canta Gallo is completely different from the one presented above; Wilson argues: “Acá, pues, la mujer tiene su trabajo” ‘Here, though, the woman has her job.’ Claudia, who leads the mother’s guild in Canta Gallo, even stated – laughing – that they can do without men (“y ya no interesan los hombres” ‘and men are no longer of interest’) when making certain decisions for the community: (3) Las mujeres somos más las que nosotras trabajamos. Yo soy la presidenta [del club de madres] y le digo a las madres ‘Vamos a hacer esta cosa’ y hacemos entre todos y hacemos una reunión y decimos ‘Mañana hacemos esta cosa’ y ya no interesan los hombres (risas). Entre nosotros estamos así trabajamos. ‘Us women are the ones who work. I am the president [of mother’s guild] and I say to the mothers ‘Lets do this thing’ and we do it together and we have a meeting and we say ‘Tomorrow we will do this thing’ and men are no longer of interest (laughter). We work just with ourselves.’

Claudia’s speech acts in ‘Vamos a hacer esta cosa’ ‘Let’s do this thing’ and ‘Mañana hacemos esta cosa’ ‘We will do this thing tomorrow’ clearly portray her assertiveness and determination. This testimonial reveals that women make decisions for the community amongst themselves, and that they are not open to dialogue with men in certain circumstances. Thanks to their work with handicraft, not only do the women support their family and allow that their children be educated (“con artesanía educamos para sobresalir a mis hijos, para sacar adelante a mis hijos” ‘we educate with handicraft to make my children outstanding, to make my children progress’), but they also make it possible for their husbands to not accept denigrating kinds of jobs in the city. Due to the fact that they are the ones who work and sustain their families economically, the mothers have obtained authority and rights in Canta Gallo. In (4), Wilson clearly states the causal relationship between working (and, hence, “making contributions”) and demanding rights: (4) En la tarde, acá va a haber una reunión, no vas a ver acá a los hombres (señala el centro del lugar en el que se llevará a cabo la reunión), sino puras mujeres van a estar acá. Ellas son las que trabajan pues. Ellas son las que dan aportes. Por eso, las mujeres son las que reclaman pues acá. ‘In the evening, there will be a meeting and you will not see men here (pointing to the center of the location where the meeting will be held), rather only

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola

women will be here. They are the ones who work. They are the ones who make contributions. This is why here women are the ones who make demands.’

Women are positioned as agents of social change in the community through the performance of a gendered and ethnic identity that differentiates them from men (and from other women as well). The use of the Shipibo language constitutes a symbolic resource for the construction of this identity. 4. Women do speak: Participating in the public sphere The communal meetings are a central activity for the Shipibo people living in Lima. They take place approximately once a week and congregate all of the members of Ashirel. The objective of these meetings is to give space to debate and to reach agreements concerning communal issues such as the land they occupy, the production and selling of handicraft, basic services – such as electricity and water, etc. As Wilson explains: “Es importante participar de las reuniones para escuchar las manifestaciones de los asociados y la información del Presidente, porque así se llega a mutuos acuerdos entre todos los asociados” ‘It is important to participate in the meetings to listen to the members’ opinions and to the information that the president gives, because in this way we reach an agreement among all the members.’ The communal meeting, as part of a community of practice, creates a fundamental situation in which femininity is constructed as agentive. Generally conceived as the human capacity to act (Ahearn 2001), agency refers to the property of subjects that have some degree of control of their own behavior, whose actions in the world affect other entities and whose actions are the object of evaluation (Duranti 2004). As we will analyze below, these three interconnected features characterize women’s actions in the communal meeting. In analyzing women’s actions in specific situations, we want to do justice to its potential effects not only in reproducing social structure but also in transforming it and, hence, in “making” society. Agency emerges in sociocultural practices, including linguistic ones, because it is embedded in and shaped by the linguistic forms that a speaker uses (Ahearn 2001). In the case of Canta Gallo, we will see how language choice, on the one hand, and the use of features such as turn taking or overlapping discourse, on the other, shape and are shaped by gendered and ethnic social structures. We will first analyze the performance of women’s agency – in the sense of its coming into being in social interaction (Duranti 2004) – and, secondly, we will give account of how men evaluate women’s actions.



Chapter 7.  Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima 

4.1

The performance of agency

Although in the Ucayali region some women have lately gained enough confidence to demand some participation in the community (Heise et al. 1999: 74), the communal meetings are still considered a place where men talk and women listen. As Luz states: “Allá en la comunidad las mujeres son calladas. En las reuniones no participan” ‘Over there [in the Amazonia] women remain quiet. They do not participate in the meetings.’ In Canta Gallo, the situation is totally different. Luz asserts that “Acá en Canta Gallo cualquier cosa que haiga acá, las mujeres shipibas no quedan calladas” ‘Here in Canta Gallo, whatever happens Shipibo women do not remain silent.’ We understand the fact that women do not remain silent as their way of trying to transcend the subaltern position they occupied in the traditional communities, in which the ability to define and to make changes in their social reality was attributed exclusively to the masculine gender. Women assumed men’s symbolic domination through the repetition of men’s evaluation of their own activities: for instance, as we explained previously, women themselves claim that what they do in traditional communities could not be considered “work.” Men’s power was performed and reproduced in the communal setting, whereas the voice of the women was incapable of achieving a locus of enunciation. Women’s utterance did not complete a speech act because they simply could not be heard. In Canta Gallo, women have progressively been gaining a place from which they can make critiques, express their opinion and, hence, “make” society. However, not every woman fulfills this role; it is a specific group of mothers who attend the communal meetings and work in handicraft the ones who display agentive feats in this scenario. In what follows, we analyze their participation in these meetings. At first, we noticed that the women use the Shipibo language much more than men. This is not only part of the acquisition of agency, but also an important element of what it means to be a Shipibo woman in Lima. In order to examine this further, we will analyze two excerpts of communal meetings that represent a constant pattern. The first one, (5), belongs to a mother (Olinda) and the second one, (6), to a man (Simón). It is important to point out that the reason why the women use more Shipibo than men is not because they do not know enough Spanish. In fact, both women and men are fluent speakers of Spanish (in the following excerpts, the use of Spanish is in italics and the use of Shipibo is in normal font):

(5) Maton jaskakin toda la vida maton jaskajaska beirani joai neskaki noa parakatikanai keska ribi ikaxbi kopiayamaibo; ya mmmm jaiki moa winota ikon rama jakiribi peoribiai jaskajaska resai en oina biri. Jawekeskaribi mato eara de acuerdoma iki, eara de acuerdoma iki maton akaibo

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola



(6) Antes que nada buenas noches queridos socios. En primer lugar felicitar en las actividades que ha realizado la junta directiva. Pero antes quiero mencionar una cosa. Para entrar el año 2007, para realizar estas actividades conciernientes al 2007, me parece, me parece que hay plantear una evaluación de la junta directiva. En oinabirikan oimepariti jake alguienin onainrake neno jawe kopiki ea reunion yoyamai ixon. En oinabiriki sin animo de ofender nenokan eara jaskati yoyoikai. Hermano Jonásshokotsi non retea con dos o tres. Y los restos de la directiva ja jasjarain hermano Jonás mapo soikai no? Al final, de hecho, el que abarca mucho, poco aprieta ikai betin ikon, jakaira neon maxkake. Por favor, no vayan a la junta directiva secretariados... acaba de mencionarmelo nato balance le corresponde a la tesorero o la administración. Ya no es el trabajo real del presidente no? Ahora, el secretario de organización, fiscales, etc, etc. Yo creo que hay un conjunto del cuerpo directivo, kaira, que no funcionan legalmente.

While in the first excerpt Olinda uses Spanish only in two cases (Toda la vida ‘All the time’ and de acuerdoma ‘agreed,’ in the second one Simón uses this language much more. Furthermore, in Olinda’s excerpt, the use of Spanish seems to be a case of “borrowing” or intra-sentential code switching, in which Spanish is used with Shipibo morphological suffixes (“ma” is a Shipibo morpheme of negation that is added to the Spanish phrase “de acuerdo”) or inserted within sentences in Shipibo (as the case of “toda la vida”). However, Simon’s excerpt also contains instances of inter-sentential codeswitching, in which long sections of Spanish and Shipibo (with Spanish borrowings as well) are chunked together one after the other. The mothers hardly ever intervene with long chunks in Spanish.3 In addition to the greater use of Shipibo by women than by men, the women’s agency is also displayed by the characteristics of their interactions. Let’s look at the following example (noting that the previous italic convention for the Shipibo/ Spanish distinction has been dropped).4

3. We are interested in focusing on the phenomenon of language choice in general terms and not in the social functions of the language switch within and among utterances (Woolard 2004). 4. We follow the conventions of the GAT system for the transcription of this and the following interaction:

[ [ = ? , ; .

] ]

Simultaneous speech Immediate start of a new turn Intonation at the end of the unit: ascending Intonation at the end of the unit: partially ascending Intonation at the end of the unit: partially descending Intonation at the end of the unit: descending



Chapter 7.  Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima 

(7) Wilson:

mi intervención, señores querido socios, en jisa keskara noara moa año dos mil siete iki. olvidemonos de lo que pasó. min jisa keskara min planificanti jake del año dos mil siete moa. ‘My intervention, sirs, dear associates: I believe we are in the year 2007. Let us forget what happened. In my point of view, we must plan the year 2007.’

Jonás:

agradezco lo que es el pedido, hermano Wilson ha pedido nos olvidemos de todas las cosas, las faltas, las multas del año dos mil seis. ‘I give thanks for what has been asked for. Brother Wilson has asked us to forget everything, the rule breaking, the fines of the year 2006.’

Olinda:

maton jaskakin toda la vida maton, jaskajaska beirani joai neskaki noa parakatikanai keska ribi ikaxbi kopiayamaibo. ya mmmm jaiki moa winota ikon rama jakiribi peoribiai, jaskajaska resai en oina biri. jawekeskaribi mato eara de acuerdoma iki, eara de acuerdoma [iki maton akaibo. ‘You have always been doing the same thing, tricking, I do not agree with them not playing with corresponds to the past, but now I know they are again charging the same thing, in my point of view I don’t agree.’

Juana: [enra kopiai. enra kopiai. ‘Yo pago, yo pago.’ Olinda: on kopiai ikax. ‘We pay.’ Juana:

enra kopiai. ‘Yo pago’

Olinda:

jawekeskara ibirai rabetibi faltani? si ati eketian en ati jake multa kopiai. aunque sea isinai ikaxbi ipachoai bakenbenaya ikaxbi neno yakata matsin ikibishoko. no estoy de acuerdo.

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola



‘What would happen if I miss the reunion twice? If we have to pay the fines, we must pay. I have come to the reunion even though I’ve been sick, even though I have given birth. I don’t agree.’

Jonás:

muy bien. wetsara de acuerdo maiki para que a partir de enero multa cobranti, sino nenoxon abeirana de acuerdo al listado cobranti del dos mil seis. ‘Very well. Others do not agree with charging the fine as from January. If not we should charge according to the list of charges of the year 2006.’

Juana:

axekanai. ‘Accustomed.’

Olinda: axekanara ikai. ‘They are accustomed.’ Juana:

axekanakaiki. maton shinanaki jawekeska iki. ‘They are already accustomed. What do you think?’

This example not only shows the extent of the mother’s participation in the meetings, but also the way they participate. It could be said that men are more polite than these women, in the sense that men’s utterances provide more politeness strategies that take into consideration the negative and positive face wants of the interlocutors (Brown and Levinson 1987). First of all, it is interesting to note that men and women introduce their ideas differently. When considered alongside other interactions, it can be asserted that in most cases men initiate their interventions by addressing Jonás (the president of Ashirel) using the form that designates his position, legitimizing his authority and the association as such: “Un ratito, Presidente, Presidente” ‘One moment, President, President,’ “Deseo hablar, señor Presidente” ‘I wish to talk, Mr. President’. Besides using these forms, they also begin by affirming that they are planning to introduce their opinions (or ask permission to do so) before they actually do. After doing this, most of them address other people in the meeting using expressions such as “socio” ‘member,’ which constructs the group of people as members of Ashirel and, hence, a sense of community in the existence of the association. This is the case of “Mi intervención, señores, queridos socios” ‘My intervention, sirs, dear members,’ “Antes que nada, buenas noches queridos socios” ‘Before anything, good evening dear members.’ Wilson’s intervention has these characteristics. In contrast, the mothers initiate their interventions by directly stating their position in relation to what has been said previously without softening their utterances with negative politeness strategies. For instance, in the last excerpt, Olinda’s



Chapter 7.  Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima 

“Maton jaskakin, toda la vida maton jaskajaska beirani joai...” ‘You do the same thing all the time...’ reveals her willingness to assert her opinion through strong statements. In addition, by implicitly generating a contrast between “we,” the ones who contribute regularly to the association fund, and “you,” the ones who do not pay, she is not signaling common membership or common points of views with Jonás but, instead, she is distancing herself from his wants. In this sense, she is threatening the positive face of her interlocutor. Besides looking at the way men and the mothers initiate their turns and construct their utterances, it is important to address how men achieve alignments amongst themselves and how women do the same. This could be clearly appreciated in the excerpt above. In the first section of the interaction, Wilson takes a stand after Jonás’ intervention and proposes a solution to the conflict (to forget about the people who did not pay in 2006) as a way of reducing the chaos that has been generated among the participants. In the next turn, Jonás thanks Wilson by addressing him in a way that reveals closeness (“hermano” ‘brother’). After this, Olinda explicitly asserts her discrepancy with Jonás and Wilson by stating that they always lie about it. While Olinda is developing her argument, Juana asserts “Enra kopiai” ‘I pay’ not as a way of interrupting her, but rather as a way of supporting what she had been saying. Indeed, by stating “Enra kopiai” ‘I pay,’ a contrast with what Olinda had stated before is created, in the sense that while men lie, the mothers fulfill their duties as members of the association. Furthermore, Olinda’s next intervention corroborates the alignment produced among the mothers, since the utterance “Non kopiai” ‘We pay’ establishes that it is not just Juana who pays, but the mothers in general. Although the example she gives afterwards refers only to herself, the detail about “giving birth” contributes to the construction of the mothers as responsible members who attend the meeting despite being in difficult situations. After Jonás acknowledges the participation of the two mothers, they align themselves again by repeating each other’s utterance. The phrase “Axekanai” ‘You are getting used to this’ reveals that they are conscious of their need to question men’s power within the association. The next example shows how another mother (Julia) manages to impose her voice after having been interrupted by Jonás. In (8), people discuss the need to cut the water supply according to what the municipality had ordered. It seems that some of them had not obeyed what this entity had decreed. Julia asserts that the authorities – like Jonás – and their families should give the example. (8) Julia:

ea disculpawe yaskarakaike, ikaxbi non xatetiyoixon jatixonbi shateti. jain shateyamaribia jatian jawerano bokanai jatian jasjara kai iki. En primer [lugar

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola



‘Everyone should cut off their water (supply). Jonas has to tell his mother to cut it off first. Then everyone will cut it. In the first place...’

Jonás: [Nato no corresponde, Nato no [corresponde ‘That’s not right.’ Julia: [primero min tita pari xateti jake jatixonbi xateti jake ea disculpawe. ‘If she does not do it first, the rest won’t do it.’

We can see that, although Jonás interrupts her by stating that her participation is out of place, Julia does not allow him to silence her, and she eludes the interruption in order to make her point. Julia expresses her discomfort about the inconsistency of Jonás’ argument: if it is indeed necessary to cut off the water service, Jonás and his kin should give the example. In (8) we can see a mother trying to get the floor in order to be able to enunciate. The way she talks and the contents that her speech delivers constitute an act of defiance against the impunity of the Ashirel board of direction. Indeed, many other members of the association follow Julia’s claim, in order to bring justice and equality to the community. Thus, we witness the mothers’ agency as they produce changes in their social reality. The next example clearly portrays the relevance that the feminine gender has acquired for the construction of the Shipibo community. Although we have seen that women use the Shipibo language to a greater extent than men, men start to use Shipibo more and more when the sense of a Shipibo community in Lima is at risk. This means that the use of the Shipibo language works symbolically, giving more stability to the Shipibo community. But why do men use more Shipibo when they want to restore the community? Historically, the use of the vernacular language has been associated more with the Shipibo ethnicity than with a gendered identity. However, the fact that women are seen as the ones who still perform traditional ethnic practices has reinforced the liaison between femaleness and the use of the Shipibo language, obscuring partly the direct indexical relationship between the use of the language and ethnicity. Thus, in order to perform the Shipibo identity when the community is endangered, men act as if they were women. In other words, when men want to enact their Shipibo ethnicity themselves they do something that women usually do: speak in the vernacular language.

(9) Jonás:

Ninkawe neskarariki asunto oin jakopira mato yoibake neskakin matonra chismeyora ikon akai, ja chisme ikon axon kai matpin neskarabo cometenkanai. Yosiaribai en directivo yosishoko César Sinuiri



Chapter 7.  Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima 



Julio: Marina: Julio: Marina: Wilson: Simón: Wilson:



notsiribia pero ebe computanaxmabi. O sea que si miaki en oinaxa wetstiora jaweki, pero en mia onanke en mia ika, ikon, ea kato (unintelligible) o ikon mari. Jatian ja yoyaxmabi ea neno notsinotsiai sin consulta onanaxmabi jatian notsixon en moa aki kai bueno matonra moa ashokoke ramra en aribai. Enkai cometenikai de repente akama ayora ikemabo jatian maton onanke jatian en ninkaninkaibake Jonaskairiki Jonaskairiki Jonaskairiki, pero maton kai consultayamai. ‘Listen. This is how things are. That is why I have said that you believe too many rumors. Because you believe too many rumors, you make mistakes. The directive grandfather César Sinuiri becomes bitter with me without asking. If someone sees something so strange in someone else, you ask, is that not so? So if nothing is said one already complains, without consulting, without knowing the truth. Because of this you are complaining. Well, you have made it this way. I could have done it or not. You know me. You know me. I heard ‘Jonás, Jonás, Jonás’ but you don’t ask.’ Puede hablar sin el idioma de los ‘Could he speak without the language of the...’ Castellano para poder ‘Spanish, so we can...’ No escuchamos nada pe ‘We can’t hear anything.’ Nada, nada ‘Nothing, nothing.’ Un ratito, presidente, presidente. En este caso, ja min reunión de coordinación akai xobonxo aki itai noa kai oficinaya ike betin jainxon ‘One moment, president. In this case, to have a coordiantion meeting we have our office so that a coordination meeting can be held.’ joe yamaribi. ‘There is no electricity.’ Ati kan jatian temariki ea yokati jain shokobi ea itinke jatian matonkaxonbira ati iki bueno Wilson ea maniwe jainsho maton akabira jakon iti iki jaresa. En mia yoyai. ‘You could have said ‘Wilson, lend me your electricity’ and I can give you some. So you can have your meeting there. That is what I wanted to say.’

In the above excerpt a problem concerning installations of water in Canta Gallo is discussed. All the members are angry with Jonás, the president of Ashirel, because

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola

they believe that he has received some money from two Andean people who live nearby when he was not entitled to. In an atmosphere in which people are accusing Jonás of being corrupt and Jonás is trying to save face, men start to use more Shipibo than they regularly do. Even Jonás, who uses more Spanish than the rest of the men, uses the vernacular language to align himself to a Shipibo community in order to prevent the attack from the other members. It is interesting to note that even people who are not in Jonás side also use more Shipibo than in other cases (Wilson’s case, for example). Furthermore, the excerpt above is striking because the discussion occurred in the presence of Andean people who did not speak Shipibo and who even asked the other people explicitly to speak in Spanish (Julio and Marina). Nevertheless, the switch did not take place. In another case that we are not reproducing here, the topic of whether to divide the association in various groups emerged. People were afraid of doing so due to the negative consequences that this could have for the resolution of central communal issues, such as the land. In the same way as in the other case, men spoke more in Shipibo than they regularly do. However, in this case there was a “dissident” young man who said almost everything in Spanish and in a more academic register. Interestingly, he was one of the few men with higher education and the one who was most in favor of the division. As Jonás puts it: “Él se identifica shipibo claramente pero cuando empieza a hablar en las reuniones piensa de lo que él es más que los demás, por lo que está en la universidad. Entonces empieza hablar en castellano y las madres se quedan un poco asombrados: ‘¿Qué es lo que está hablando?’” ‘He clearly identifies himself as Shipibo but when he starts to speak in the meeting he thinks that he is more than the rest, as he is in university. So, he starts to speak in Spanish and the mothers are rather surprised: ‘What is he talking about?’ Along the same lines of a postmodern perspective of language and identity, we could state that the above discussion shows that “women,” “men” or “Shipibo” do not constitute groups, in the sense of substantial entities in which interests and agency are defined. Instead, they are part of what we can call groupness, a contextually fluctuating variable that should be conceptualized in “relational, processual, dynamic, eventful and disaggregated terms” (Brubaker 2004). Shifting attention from groups to groupness as variable and contingent rather than fixed and given, allows us to explain the interactions that we have analyzed in terms of a phase of great cohesion and a moment of collective solidarity rather than of a constant characteristic of “women” or of “Shipibo.” Put it this way, when “women” or “Shipibo” decide to organize themselves into a group they are not driven by any preexisting or recognizable similarity, but rather by agency and power that leads to the invention of similarity and the downplaying of difference (Brubaker 2004). The communal meeting in Canta Gallo entails a community of practice that is not defined by a stable group with rigid and fixed characteristics. Instead, it constitutes a



Chapter 7.  Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima 

situation where groupness constantly develops as a social, cultural and political project; however, there may be other situations in Canta Gallo where groupness does not happen. 4.2

Evaluation of agency

In the last section, we have shared our reflection on the Shipibo mothers’ performance in the public sphere and its effects for the construction of the community in Lima. In this section, we will account for the way in which men reveal, by means of their language use, the consideration of feminine agency in this new scenario. We will analyze testimonies about the communal meetings and fragments of men’s participations in these public settings in order to trace explicit or tacit judgments about the mothers’ agency. Some men, like Wilson, are aware of how the articulation between the Shipibo ethnicity and the feminine gender has changed in the capital city: “Con el tiempo, ellas se han cambiado” ‘With time, they have changed themselves.’ Wilson’s testimony not only denotes the fact that there have been changes in what femininity means within the Shipibo people; the use of the pronoun “se” (themselves) also acknowledges the fact that some women are agents of their own change in the capital city. As we have pointed out previously, a fundamental component of the mothers’ empowerment in Lima has to do with them being in charge of the family’s income. Jeiser asserts that in Canta Gallo, “La mujer es la liberal, la que pone la plata en la casa, la que sale a vender, la que hace el trabajo y el hombre está en la casa esperando el resultado del trabajo de la mujer” ‘The woman is the one who is liberal, the one who makes the money in the house, the one who goes out to sell, the one who does the work and the man is in the house waiting for the results of the woman’s work.’ As we have seen, the nature of the agentive feats that the mothers perform in the private sphere, allows them to access a locus of enunciation in the public sphere. The following excerpts illustrate that men are aware of many crucial aspects that we have pointed out in the previous sections. These passages depict men’s evaluation of the mothers’ action as it contributes to the presentation of a self and as it favors the construction of culture-specific acts (Duranti 2004). Jonás gave the answer seen in (10) to the following question: “Why is it important to speak the Shipibo language in communal meetings?” (10) Jonás: Que las madres hablen, que no sean conformistas con lo que digo, que tengan el mayor acceso de opinar. La costumbre es que critiquen al presidente si es que está haciendo mal, que ayuden para que el presidente no decida por su propio principio. Cuando el dirigente comporta

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola



mal, prácticamente esta comunidad o estas madres en la asamblea de inmediato lo están expulsando o le piden la renuncia. ‘So that the mothers talk, so that they will not be conformist with what I say, so that they will have a greater access to speak. The tradition is that they question the president if he is misbehaving, that they help so that the president does not decide by himself. When the director misbehaves, this community or these mothers in the meeting immediately expel him or ask him for his resignation.’

The beginning of this excerpt (“Que las madres hablen” ‘So that the morthers talk’), and the fact that he mentions “the mothers” when introducing his response, shows not only that these are considered to be agentive contributors of the communal meeting, but also the main characters of this communal space. In addition, Jonás assumes the naturalness of the mothers’ ways of being critical: they favor the debate and support the dialogic emergence of ideas that represent the interests of people who are not on the side of the board of directors. Furthermore, we also believe that – on the basis of what we asked him – Jonás is revealing the fact that the enactment of the mothers’ agency implies the usage of the Shipibo language. Let’s look now at another example: (11) Simón: Hay que preguntarle a las madres, a los socios. ‘We have to ask the mothers, the members.’

Simón gives an interesting clue while he expresses a disagreement with the board of directors of Ashirel. He complains about the lack of coordination for developing the communal meetings and he argues that it is essential to know when the members of the association are able to attend to the meetings. The way he speaks in (11) indicates the protagonistic role of the mothers in the communal meeting: in Lima, a mother is the prototypical associate. The same happens in (10), where Jonás says “this community or these mothers” implying that the mothers are the ones who represent the community of Canta Gallo. The next two excerpts, (12) and (13), show how men mimic women as a way of expressing evaluation: (12) Wilson: Acá ahora la mujer es la que opina: ‘Sabes que tú Jonás, a ti te digo que eres así!’ ‘Here the woman is the one who gives her opinion: ‘You know, Jonás, I tell you that you are this way!’ (13) Jonás:

Él se está asumiendo que puede ser más que los demás. Hay momentos que las madres le refutan: ‘Lo que estas hablando mucho



Chapter 7.  Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima 



técnicamente, al final no estás dando solución.’ Las madres se dan cuenta lo que está diciendo. ‘He considers himself more than the rest. Sometimes the mothers refute him: “What you are saying technically does not provide any solution.” The mothers realize what he is saying.’

Both Wilson in (12) and Jonás in (13) express awareness for the fact that the mothers state their opinion in direct terms. Wilson says that they do not hesitate to refute the opinion of the authorities, while Jonás refers to the importance of the mothers for the maintenance and the consolidation of the community: in his testimony, the person whom the mothers refute is the “dissident” man who wanted to generate a division within the association. Finally, let’s take a look at the following revealing utterance: (14) Jonás: El terreno todavía no es de nosotras. ‘The land is not ours (female) yet.’

This is a fragment from Jonás’ participation in a discussion about the land issue during a community meeting. The question here is: why did Jonás use the female form of the Spanish pronoun? We think that (14) could be regarded as a lapsus linguae, a fault concerning the use of a word instead of another intended one. Even though it may be considered as a simple error with no further meaning, we think that this excerpt is actually revealing an unconscious content. In our opinion, it refers to the fact that men account for the importance of women in the capital city. They have already internalized that some of them are fundamental agents in the Canta Gallo community. They constitute the economic support of both the families and of the association; and their participation is crucial for the performance of the community. In a word, this passage depicts men’s consideration of the mothers’ agency. These changes that are developing in Canta Gallo do not imply that women are now more empowered than men. Men are still the ones who lead the association and the ones who make many decisions in this new urban context. For instance, the next fragment shows that men give orders to their wives with imperative constructions: (15) En vez de trabajar, jóvenes llenos de fuerza, las chicas se van a vender, y [el hombre] está esperando ahí. Yo puedo decir a mi señora: ‘Tal lugar ándate, vete trabajar, entonces yo me quedó aquí con mis hijos.’ Entonces, ¿qué hace el hombre? ¿Para qué es el hombre? Así son, hay muchos que son así. ‘Instead of the young men, who are full of strength, working, the women go to sell, and {the man} is waiting there. I can tell my wife: ‘Go to such a place, go

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola

to work, then I will stay here with my children.’ So, what does the man do? What is the man for? They are like that, there are many who are like that.’

Nevertheless, since the basic activities of the Amazonian communities are not possible in Lima, some Shipibo men are also starting to question their role in this new context. Indeed, back in the Amazonian communities, men were qualified as such because they were strong fishermen and hunters, who provided food for their families. In Canta Gallo, however, men know that, although they could still be considered strong, nowadays the mothers are the ones who go to sell handicraft.5 Furthermore, some men stay at home with their children, while the women are out. The testimony in (15) reveals that some men cannot find a position for themselves in the capital city. Most of them have decided to “be there” and to “assist” their wives in Canta Gallo, instead of working as employees in workshops, because the latter would be equivalent to exploitation. 5. A note on language shift The above discussion could give the impression that the maintenance of the Shipibo language in the capital city is guaranteed in the long term. However, the vitality of this language in public settings, such as in the communal meetings, is not seen in other domains. In fact, a process of language shift is underway in other contexts and this does not constitute a paradox in the Shipibo’s ideology of language. In Peru, studies about migration and language use have been limited to the Andean population, which has migrated in large numbers to the larger cities since the 1940’s. Although not much has been said about processes of language shift in the new contexts, the general finding is that Quechua is not used even at home among family members of the first migrant generation. One of the explanations that has been given is that in the imaginary of Quechua speakers who migrate to the cities there is no “supraregional” consciousness of affiliation among them all. This would prevent the consolidation of a collectivity of migrants who would define themselves as belonging to the same linguistic community and who think of the ethnic language as an essential feature of their identity (Gugenberger 2005). This is why, in cities, Quechua does not work as a symbol of belonging to a new group in a new context. While in the Andean case, language is one of the first cultural aspects that is lost in the migration process, the situation of Shipibo people in Lima is different because the performance of the Shipibo ethnicity (indexed by the use of the Shipibo 5. Women even go to sell to other provinces and could be out of Canta Gallo for several days.



Chapter 7.  Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima 

language) has acquired new social meanings that are now linked to women’s achievement of power on the basis of their work. In a way, the fact that this language is used in Canta Gallo in certain contexts (in the communal meeting, for instance) is supported by the theory of economic relations as the basic source of inequality among languages and their speakers (Philips 2004), since, in this case, the code associated with the economically advantaged persons, such as the Shipibo mothers, acquires some prestige and expands in interaction. In addition, researchers of language shift have observed that this is not a simple and straightforward process but one that proceeds somewhat unevenly. For example, certain language genres (such as cursing, insulting, gossiping, etc.) may continue to be used as salient markers of ethnic identity and group membership after the process of shift is underway (Garret 2005). This is the case of Canta Gallo where, despite the process of language shift in other contexts of language use, the use of the Shipibo language for discussing the problems in the communal meetings constitutes a way of constructing a Shipibo identity in Lima. No one in Canta Gallo doubts that children need to master Spanish and many parents have even decided to speak to them in this language. For instance, the president of the association is sure that the best way to cope with his daughter’s development of bilingualism is to speak to her in Spanish during her first five years and afterwards talk to her in the Shipibo language. According to him, this way she will acquire both languages. In addition, many parents enroll their children in schools that are far away from Canta Gallo, where the majority of students are native Spanish speakers. Parents assert that “they do not want them to suffer at school.” Therefore, in spite of the fact that there are children who can be observed talking in the Shipibo language to their parents and among their peers, the power of Spanish as the national and hegemonic language entails that the intergenerational transmission of the Shipibo language cannot be guaranteed. However, in the same way as the use of Spanish constitutes an advantage in certain contexts and for some speakers, the use of the Shipibo language is also considered advantageous when participating in meetings. Not knowing the language is a disadvantage in these contexts. For instance, Wilson’s wife, who is an Andean woman who does not know how to speak Shipibo, remains silent during the meetings even though she usually works with the other women making handicrafts. Without being proficient in Shipibo, she is essentially not entitled to contribute towards the construction of a Shipibo identity in the city.

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola

6. Conclusion In this chapter, we have discussed how gender, the Shipibo ethnicity and the use of language interact in Canta Gallo. As we have seen, migration to the capital city has involved multiple and ongoing changes in these aspects. Within this process, some Shipibo women have made a space for performing the agency we have described. This agency is based on social practices that are related to some elements that may well be regarded as sites of continuity with the Amazonian communities (i.e., the making and selling of handicraft and the major use of the Shipibo language), but its meaning is reconstituted in order to forge a way to “pull through” in the city. Luz puts it very clearly: (16) En la comunidad tú no ves ‘quiero tomar la palabra,’ no. En cambio acá en Lima las madres se levantan, discuten en la reunión, hacen intercambio de ideas:’cómo hacemos esto’, (dicen) a veces las cosas que no le gusta. Pero en la comunidad yo veía que daban no más oportunidad no más a los hombres que hablen. Ellos tienen voz y voto. Ahora acá estamos todos iguales. Hombres y mujeres damos nuestra palabra, nuestra opinión, discutimos en las reuniones. Pero en cultura no. En cultura yo veo igual.  Nos ponemos nuestra vestimenta, hablamos tal como allá, eso no hemos dejado... La mujer mucho se ha desenvuelto. Pero no deja su costumbre: más que todo el idioma y hacer sus tejidos. ‘In the community you don’t see ‘I want permisison to speak,’ no. On the contrary, here in Lima the mothers stand up, they discuss during the meetings, they interchange ideas. ‘How do we do this,’ (they sometimes say) the things they don’t like. But in the community I saw that they only gave the men the opportunity to speak. They have voice and vote. Now here we are al equal. Men and women give our word, our opinion, we discuss in the meetings. But not in culture. In culture, I see the same. We put on our clothing, we speak as we do there, we have not left that...Women have greatly loosened up. But women do not leave their customs, especially the language and their weaving.’

Even though women may still be considered to be more Shipibo than men, the aspects that we have described in this chapter indicate that some of them have taken advantage of the liaison between femininity and the Shipibo ethnicity to acquire power and that they use this power to produce gendered and ethnic differences. Therefore, the way in which some Shipibo women perform their singularity may be regarded as an effort to achieve a natural place of enunciation in the public sphere and, hence, as a way of confronting men’s dominance. Furthermore, it is also a way of maintaining Shipibo culture against the “deindigenyzing” influence of the city. One could affirm that in the public meetings, people in Canta Gallo



Chapter 7.  Gender, ethnicity and language use in a Shipibo community in Lima 

struggle against this occidentalizing influence that has greatly affected other cultural groups in Lima. In addition, what we have reviewed in this chapter has significant implications beyond the case of Shipibo society in Lima. It demonstrates the dynamic nature of linguistic identity in bilingualism in general. In particular, we discuss specific issues in the performance of identity in a society where Spanish is the hegemonic language; nevertheless, the minority heritage language continues to attain higher levels of prestige and symbolic capital, especially as it relates to the annexing of new social roles and rights (for women in Canta Gallo). In doing so, this chapter validates the notion that language and identity are, on the one hand, inseparable while at the same time identity and its linguistic features are mutable constructs that are reevaluated and renegotiated continually. References Ahearn, L. 2001. Agency. In Key Terms in Language and Culture, A. Duranti (ed.), 7–10. Malden MA: Blackwell. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. Brubaker, R. 2004. Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Butler, J. 1998. Actos performativos y constitución del género: Un ensayo sobre fenomenología y teoría feminista. Debate Feminista 18: 296–314. Cameron, D. 1997. Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In Language and Masculinity, S. Johnson & U.H. Meinhof (eds), 47–64. Cambridge MA: Blackwell. Cameron, D. 2005. Language, gender and sexuality: Current issues and new directions. Applied Linguistics 26(4): 482–502. Chirif, A., Mora, C. & Moscoso, M. 1977. Los Shipibo-Conibo: Diagnóstico Socio-económico. Lima: SINAMOS-ONAMS. De la Cadena, M. 1991. “Las mujeres son más indias”: Etnicidad y género en una comunidad del Cusco. Revista Andina 9(1): 7–29. Duranti, A. 2004. Agency in language. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, A. Duranti (ed.), 451–473. Malden MA: Blackwell. Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 461–490. Eckert, P. & McConell-Ginet, S. 1999. New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research. Language in Society 28(2): 185–201. Garret, P. B. 2005. What a language is good for: Language socialization, language shift, and the persistence of code-specific genres in St. Lucia. Language in Society 34(3): 327–361. Gugenberger, E. 2005. Dimensiones del espacio lingüístico y su significado para los hablantes. Una contribución a la lingüística migratoria en el ejemplo del Perú. In Encuentros y conflictos: Bilinguismo y contacto de lenguas en el mundo Andino, H. Olbertz & P. Muysken (eds), 97–124. Madrid: Vervuert-Iberoamericana.

 Virginia Zavala and Nino Bariola Heise, M., Landeo, L. & Bant, A. 1999. Relaciones de Género en la Amazonía Peruana. Lima: CAAAP. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI). 1993. Resultados Preliminares del IX Censo Nacional de Población. Lima: INEI. Philips, S. 2004. Language and social inequality. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, A. Duranti (ed.), 474–495. Malden MA: Blackwell. Tournon, J. & Cauper, S. 1994. Los shipibo-conibo y la fauna acuática. Anthropológica 12: 27–61. Valenzuela, P. 2002. Transitivity in Shipibo-Conibo. PhD Dissertation, University of Oregon. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge: CUP. Woolard, K. 2004. Codeswitching. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, A. Duranti (ed.), 73–94. Malden MA: Blackwell.

chapter 8

Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish The perception of Haitianized speech among Dominicans Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio The Pennsylvania State University

The Spanish spoken by the fronterizos, Dominicans living along the Haitian border, is often characterized as ‘Haitianized’ by other Dominicans. Whether there are recognizable creoloid features in Dominican Spanish or whether this reflects the wide-spread anti-Haitian sentiment in the Dominican Republic is the impetus for this study. To date there has been no study of the language of the Dominican fronterizos from the Cibao region; therefore, there is no way to untangle whether there does exist a distinctive ‘Afro-Dominican’ vernacular (akin to African-American Vernacular English) or whether such perceptions reflect racial, cultural, and regional stereotypes rather than linguistic reality. The findings of the study afford insights into the social attitudes and the likely linguistic correlates that contribute to popular negative perceptions of language varieties spoken by fronterizos. In addition, the findings allow for a deeper understanding of language convergence in contact situations without bilingualism.

1. Introduction The Spanish of the Dominican Republic, while sharing many properties with other Caribbean varieties, is at the forefront of linguistic innovation, manifesting specific structural features that differentiate this Spanish variety from all others, particularly in the northwestern dialect region of the Cibao. The origins of the unique phonological and morphosyntactic features of the cibaeño dialect are obscure, but among regional dialects, cibaeño speech is the most stigmatized. Various scholars have attributed selected traits to the Spanish spoken by the Canary Island settlers who settled in the Cibao in large numbers in the eighteenth century, to language internal changes ensuing from linguistic isolation, or to Afro-Hispanic influence (see Lipski 1994a for an overview).

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

Lipski (1994b: 1) denies a direct African substrate for Dominican Spanish and instead maintains that “the greatest extra-Hispanic influence in the Dominican Republic has been Haitian Creole.” In the Cibao region, the influence exerted by Kreyol may be felt to be especially strong because a large portion of the western Cibao abuts neighboring Haiti, with the bridge crossing the Massacre River at Dajabón constituting the most important and most traversed entry point between the two nations. Given the relatively porous border, many of the villages along the border in the Cibao region have been populated by Haitians whose offspring now ‘pass’ as Dominicans only because they are fully Spanish speakers. So, while Dominican speakers generally repudiate any Kreyol influence in their own speech, the Spanish spoken by the border dwellers, the fronterizos, is alleged to be ‘Haitianized’ and, as a consequence, it is held in very low esteem throughout the Dominican Republic. Among cibaeño speakers, then the speech of the fronterizos is the most profoundly stigmatized in the popular imagination. To date there has been no study of the language of the Dominican fronterizos from the Cibao region (but see Ortiz López 2006 on the second language Spanish of the Haitians along the border); therefore, there is no way to untangle whether there does exist a distinctive ‘Afro-Dominican’ vernacular (akin to African-American Vernacular English) or whether such perceptions reflect racial, cultural and regional stereotypes rather than linguistic reality. Thus, the present investigation seeks to examine whether Dominicans can discern a ‘Haitianized Spanish’ as distinct from other cibaeño varieties of Dominican Spanish and whether they confer low prestige on such speech. Second, it endeavors to identify those linguistic properties that are characteristic of this stigmatized variety. 1.1

Dominican Spanish phonology

Dominican Spanish, in general, demonstrates a constellation of phonological and morphosyntactic properties that distinguish it from other varieties of Spanish. Widespread are the complete elision of /s/ in syllable rhymes (e.g., transportes: transpor-tes→tra[m]-por-te) and the loss of oral closure of nasal consonants (tr[ã]-porte). There are also attested regional variations in the realization of syllable-final liquids. Persons with origins in the capital city of Santo Domingo are said to hablar con la /l/ ‘speak with the /l/,’ those from the southern region hablan con la /r/ ‘speak with the /r/,’ and those from the northwestern Cibao Valley hablan con la /i/ ‘speak with the /i/.’ These processes of neutralization (lambdacism, rhoticism and liquid gliding) are attested alongside elimination: coda liquids and glides may be variably realized



Chapter 8.  Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish 

or elided altogether.1 The cibaeño whose speech is transcribed in (1) demonstrates the typical patterns of gliding in (1a) and deletion and hypercorrection in (1b), indicating that the allophones of coda liquids are in free variation in his speech:

(1) a. …que salió e[l] so[j] (<sol) y é[j] (<el) se alevantó y no cantó el gallo Quiquiriquí… ‘…that the sun came out and he awoke and Cock-o-doodle-doo the rooster didn’t sing…’ b. …a[∅]mó (< armo) su escopeta de habichuelas y … salió sa[r]tando (<saltando)…sale a recoge[l] (
Another striking auditory property in the speech of many fronterizos of the Cibao Valley is their prosody. Up till now, cibaeño intonation, outside the city of Santiago, has not been subject to linguistic analysis, nor has it been mentioned in any phonological descriptions of Dominican Spanish (Jiménez Sabater 1984; Henríquez Ureña 1940). Jiménez Sabater (1984: 127) makes brief note of the circumflex accent and unusual length that accompanies the affirmative marker sí ‘yes’ in campesino speech throughout the nation. He claims, however, that this accent is deployed pragmatically to denote the speaker’s desire to please or to win over the listener. However, it is our perception that this pitch accent pattern for the affirmative sí is the norm among fronterizos and cannot be associated with any particular pragmatic function. Willis (2003) documents the intonation of speakers from the urban center of the Cibao Valley, Santiago, which is the second largest city in the country. He notes two unusual, although infrequent, patterns of intonation among his participants that have not been attested in other varieties of Spanish. First, some Santiago speakers produced a L+H* prenuclear accent; that is, an early pitch peak aligned within the tonic syllable where most Spanish varieties would instead show a late aligned post-tonic peak in prenuclear position (L*+H). Additionally, Willis noted a unique (L+H*+L%) rise-fall, akin to the ‘circumflex accent,’ in nuclear position. He concludes that both of these unusual accents are only used for emphasis or contrastive focus. While Willis’ study provides a valuable comparison of Dominican Spanish intonation relative to that of other varieties, it largely describes the pitch contours manifested in the speech of educated, urban speakers. In our estimation, the speech of the rural, largely illiterate fronterizos of the Cibao differs considerably from that of their city counterparts. As will be discussed below in § 4,

1. Lipski (1994a) notes that liquid gliding is in recession in the Cibao Valley except in the speech patterns of rural residents.

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

these speakers employ so-called rare or pragmatically marked prosodic properties on a normal basis in neutral contexts. The prosodic characteristics that we have found to be commonplace among rural fronterizo speakers include the L+H*+L ‘circumflex’ pitch accent and elongation of the affirmative sí and the early alignment of a H tone within the stressed syllable in prenuclear, as well as nuclear position. For instance, a female speaker produced the reply in (2) in response to the question “Se trata bien a los haitianos en Dominicana?” ‘Are Haitians well-treated in the Dominican Republic?’

(2) Sí, porque ello hay haitiano[∅] bueno[∅] y hay haitiano[∅] que son.. uté (<usted) ve...cosa, pero ello hay haitiano[∅] que vienen aquí y.. uno.. lo[∅], lo[∅] trata bien.



(3) ‘Yes, because there are good Haitians and there are Haitians who are… you see, something, but there are Haitians who come here and one treats them well.’ (Working class female, age 43)

It is to be noted that this reply contains many of the features that characterize Dominican speech, including a consistent use of the expletive ello, a complete deletion of the plural morpheme –s and velarization of final nasals. Moreover, the pitch contour depicted in Figure 1 displays the speaker’s salient prosodic characteristics, including the very elongated stressed vowel in sí with an attendant circumflex pitch contour and the H tone associated to the stressed syllable in prenuclear buen(o) ‘good.’ These are consistent traits of this speaker and of others from the region, rendering the overall impression of a ‘sing song’ intonation pattern.

500

Frequency (Hz)

5000

Pitch (Hz)

0

50 si

0

por

qu’ell’

hay Hai

Time (s)

tia

no

buen’ y hay

1.36

Figure 1.  F0 contour of female Cibaeño speaker: “Si, porque ello hay haitino bueno y hay...”



Chapter 8.  Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish 

1.2

Linguistic and social attitudes

As noted earlier, the Spanish dialect of the Dominican Republic distinguishes itself from the prescribed norm for the Spanish language. These speech forms are readily identified and recognized as being of low prestige, as reflected both in the negative evaluations of other Spanish speakers (cf., Zentella 1990; García et al. 1988) and in speakers’ own insecurity (Toribio 2000). The excerpt in (3a) attests to speakers’ sensitivity to linguistic norms and to the low esteem in which the dialect is held.2 When pressed, Dominicans point most immediately to regional variations based in pronunciation, particularly those noted above. Of the dialectal forms, the lateral liquid of the capitaleño ‘person from the capital’ carries the greatest social status, as expected, and the cibaeño pronunciation the least, as expressed in (3b).

(3) a. Hay pueblos [hispanohablantes] donde la gente tiene más cuidado en hablar un buen castellano.…Los dominicanos tenemos el problema que hablamos con faltas ortográficas… no, es verdad. Aquí se habla con falta ortográfica, no sólo se escribe, sino que se habla también. ‘There are towns where people take more care in speaking a good Spanish…We Dominicans have the problem of speaking with orthographical errors …no, it’s true. Here people speak with orthographical errors, not merely write it, but speak it too.’ (Upper class male, age 35) b. El capitaleño se mofa del cibaeño hasta en las comedias por la . Cae gracioso. …En la televisión te ponen un cibaeño y le ponen la , y te hace reír. [Y la no?] No… la no…Quizás sean los cheques de la capital. ‘The capitaleño makes fun of the cibaeño even in comedies because of the . It is funny…On television they’ll show a cibaeño and give him the , and it makes you laugh. [And not the ?] No…not the …It must be the checks from the capital.’ (Upper class male, age 35)

More generally, Dominican speech is aesthetically undervalued, especially among the middle and upper classes in the Dominican Republic, for lacking certain features of an idealized standard – la lengua original y pura ‘the pure and original language’ – of Spain, as evinced in (4). And Dominicans’ exceptionally dim view of the speech of fronterizo communities in the Cibao, where contact with the neighboring nation is most pronounced, may be said to speak more explicitly to the derision of Haitians and Kreyol, as confessed in (5). 2. Moreover, Dominicans’ linguistic insecurity is heightened in the US; for example, Dominicans in New York characterize their speech as campesino while they describe other dialects as merely ‘different’ (see Toribio 2000).

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio



(4) a. Me gusta como hablan los españoles. …Para como hablan los españoles y como hablamos nosotros aquí, hay mucha diferencia, para como uno habla. Me gusta la forma de ellos hablar, su acento y todo, eso me gusta.… ellos tienen más modalidad que uno hablando. ‘I like the way the Spaniards speak…The way the Spaniards speak and the way we speak here, there is a lot of difference, the way we speak it. I like the way they speak, their accent and all, I like that…they have better form than us speaking.’ (Middle class male, age 30) b. El [español] de España es como más fino. ‘The Spanish of Spain is more refined.’ (Middle class male, age 54)

(5) a. La región que habla mal, que hablan medio cruzado, es en Vaca Gorda, porque ahí son todos prietos. Es como la lengua que se les cruza, son gente medio haitianados. Ya ellos están aquí como que son dominicanos. ‘The region that speaks poorly, that speaks somewhat tongue-tied, is in Vaca Gorda, because there they are all blacks. It’s as though their tongues are tied, they are somewhat Haitianized. They are here as if they were Dominicans.’ (Working class male, age 70+) b. Por aquí en El Rodeo había una descendencia haitiana; en esa área del Rodeo no se hablaba bien el español. ‘Here in El Rodeo there was some Haitian heritage; in that area of El Rodeo people didn’t speak Spanish well.’ (Middle class male; age 55) c. Los prietos ronchuses de por allá hablan como jmmpf, ¿no es verdad? Como cosa de brutos. ‘The scruffy blacks from there speak like jmmmf, right? The likes of dumb/ crude folks.’ (Middle class female, age 50+)

The popular view is that the best Spanish variety approximates the European norm and the worst is spoken by those Dominicans who are believed to be influenced by an African substratum. In this predilection for the Peninsular Spanish variety and repudiation of the influence of the Haitian language in fronterizo communities, Dominicans make a great deal of their hispanidad while at once racializing the Haitians. For instance, Dominicans reserve the designation negro ‘black’ for Haitians, believing that the only blacks on the island are Haitians (cf., Torres-Saillant 1998a, 1998b, 1999). In describing their own skin color, Dominicans use terms that fall along a color continuum, including blanco ‘white,’ indio claro ‘light Indian,’’ indio oscuro ‘dark indian,’ and moreno ‘dark brown.’ Note that negro and moreno generally refer to the same skin color, although their social connotations are quite distinct.



Chapter 8.  Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish 

2. The present study As is well known, judgments about language varieties are ultimately assessments of the speakers of those varieties and how they are perceived in the larger society. It stands to reason that if Dominicans identify fronterizo Spanish as ‘Haitianized,’ it is presumably because they believe the speakers to be ‘Haitianized,’ i.e., of Haitian descent, black, and poor. Keeping these considerations in mind, the present study of Dominican speech is guided by three interrelated questions: (6) Research questions a. Can Dominicans reliably discriminate among varieties of cibaeño fronterizo Spanish? b. Do Dominicans ascribe low prestige to particular forms? c. What phonological properties characterize the most stigmatized varieties of cibaeño fronterizo Spanish?

2.1

Methodology: Materials and procedure

The study draws on sociolinguistic methodologies, including the elicitation of naturalistic speech samples and the assessment of attitudes towards particular speech varieties. 2.2

Speech samples

Spanish speech samples were collected from fourteen informants, of which nine of the best quality recordings were selected for the creation of a data set.3 The nine speakers were all male, ranging in age from 18 to 43. They included two Haitian immigrants, one speaker from the capital, Santo Domingo, and six speakers from the northern border regions of the Cibao Valley. The Haitian immigrants and the six cibaeño speakers all live in one of three towns located within 5 miles of the border: Loma de Cabrera, Restauración and El Rodeo. The latter is the smallest, least populated and most rural of the towns, and it is commonly believed by other fronterizos to be a village settled by people of descendencia haitiana ‘Haitian descent,’ as attested by the citation in (5b) above. Its closest neighboring village is Vaca Gorda, also identified as having a ‘Haitianized’ population (see 5a). The men presented diverse educational histories, extending from no formal schooling to completed university degrees, and a range of occupations, from those who held positions as unskilled day-laborers to one who had secured a highly 3. Four of the recordings were discarded because the participants recounted them haltingly or inaccurately. A fifth was discarded because the participant was over 70.

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

professional position in industry. They also represented diverse skin coloring. Their personal profiles are shown in Table 1, with skin color designated by the researchers according to traditional Dominican classifications; the term moreno is used for individuals of African descent who are not also of apparent European or Amerindian background; blanco is reserved for individuals of European descent only with no apparent African or Amerindian background; individuals who are of mixed European-African-Amerindian descent are classified as indio claro, if light skinned, or as indio oscuro, if dark-skinned.4 It bears mentioning that such classifications are commonplace in the Dominican Republic and that the researchers confirmed their assessments with other Dominicans or with the participants themselves. Each interview session commenced with the elicitation of personal history. Then, each participant listened as the second author, a Dominican, read aloud a brief narrative adapted from Zevallos’ (1997) Los cuentos del tío Lino, a book of short folktales for children. The informants were instructed to listen attentively to the story, since they would be asked to retell it. We chose to use an elicited repetition methodology because many of these speakers are illiterate and we could not ask them to read the story for themselves. The narrative was repeated several times, until we were assured that the participant had fully comprehended the text; a sample of the third elicited text, El Quiquiriquí ‘The Cock-o-doodle-doo’ is presented in Appendix A. Each participant was subsequently instructed to recount the tale in his own words, aided by a drawing of the main characters portrayed. The oral production of the narratives were recorded, one at a time, using a Marantz PDM660 digital flash recorder and a Shure A-10 head-mounted microphone to reduce ambient noise. If a participant faltered during his recitation, the recording was stopped and erased and then he was allowed to begin again. The procedure was repeated for two additional narratives so that the final data set included three different narrative samples from each of the participants. The participants were recorded separately in a semi-private environment (the rural nature of the frontera precludes the ideal recording environment of a sound-proof room). The average time for each participant to complete the task was ten minutes. They were remunerated for their participation. From the three narratives produced by each informant, we extracted only the third tale – El Quiquiriquí – to prepare for the accent ratings task because the participants improved their performance through each story. Thus, the retelling of El Quiquiriquí was the most fluent and comfortable performance across participants. The men each recounted the story accurately, in all its details, within roughly the same amount of time (mean time = 51 seconds). 4. These are broad classifications. In actuality, Dominicans employ an elaborate range of terms for racial classification (e.g., prieto ‘very black,’ amarillo ‘yellow,’ canela ‘cinnamon’), not all of which may be easily translated (e.g., trigueño, jabao).

Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic Dominican Republic

Haiti

Haiti

Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic

Speaker 1

Speaker 2 Speaker 3

Speaker 4

Speaker 5

Speaker 6

Speaker 7

Speaker 8

Speaker 9

Place of birth

Table 1.  Speakers’ profiles

El Rodeo

Restauración

Restauración

Santo Domingo

Loma de Cabrera

Loma de Cabrera

El Rodeo Loma de Cabrera

Loma de Cabrera

Place of residence High School (Not completed) None High School (Completed) High School (In progress) High School (In progress) University (Completed) Elementary (Completed) High School (In progress) Elementary (Completed)

Education

Student, skilled worker Unskilled laborer

Skilled worker

Student, skilled worker Student, unskilled laborer Professional

Unskilled laborer Skilled worker

Skilled worker

Occupation

indio oscuro

moreno

indio claro

indio oscuro

moreno

moreno

moreno indio claro

blanco

Ascribed skin color

Chapter 8.  Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish 

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

Accent rating task

2.3

As has been well-established by researchers in sociolinguistics and the social psychology of language, linguistic varieties can trigger assumptions about speakers’ personal attributes, social standing, and ethnic and national affiliations (cf., The Social Connotations Hypothesis, Trudgil 1983). One means of assessing reactions towards specific linguistic forms, together with the values, prestige, stigma, and stereotypes that these elicit is via attitudes surveys. Like a traditional matched-guise test, the Accent Ratedness Survey employed in this study required listeners to assess speakers on a variety of items that referenced personality and social characteristics. Because we were also interested in the perception of ‘Haitianized’ speech, the survey also comprised items that referenced nationality and skin color. A sampling of survey items appears in Table 2 (and the translation appears in Appendix B). Table 2.  Accent Ratedness Survey Este hombre da la impresión de ser…



inteligente capaz



…

No, de ninguna manera 1 2 1 2

La forma de hablar de este hombre me pareció: No, de ninguna manera atractiva 1 2 educada 1 2

Sí, mucho 3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

Sí, mucho 3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

4

5

Muy bien 6

…

La manera en la que este hombre hizo el cuento me pareció… Muy mal 1 2 3 El nivel de educación de este hombre podría ser: primario secundario universitario La profesión de este hombre podría ser: obrero no especializado, p. ej., agricultor obrero especializado, p.ej., operador de fábrica empleado de oficina, p.ej., contable encargado o gerente, p.ej., ejecutivo de una empresa profesional, p.ej., abogado



Chapter 8.  Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish  La clase social de este hombre podría ser: baja media-baja media media-alta alta Este hombre podría ser: estadounidense ___ haitiano dominicano a. del campo? b. capitaleño? Este hombre podría ser: negro moreno indio oscuro indio claro blanco

de la ciudad? fronterizo? cibaeño? sureño?

A convenience sample of sixty Dominicans completed the Accent Ratedness Survey. All participants were enrolled at the Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo and studied either engineering, law or business. They were tested on the university campus in blocks of approximately 20. Participants listened to the speech samples of El Quiquiriquí played through a laptop and attached speakers. Following each of the nine guises, they were required to render judgments on a variety of perceived attributes of the speaker. The session lasted approximately forty minutes and subjects were remunerated for their participation. 3. Results and discussion The means for the assessments of participant judges on continuous variables (e.g., personality traits) and polychotomized variables (e.g., social class) were tabulated and submitted to a series of one-way repeated-measures ANOVAs.5,6 Three one5. Of the eighteen traits considered, nine were positive (inteligente, cariñoso, trabajador, capaz, próspero, generoso, cumplidor, divertido, amable) and nine negative (desleal, aburrido, frío, bruto, mezquino, ambicioso, perezoso, pobre, incompetente). Five of the traits rendered significant differences among the judges evaluations of the nine guises: inteligente, capaz, próspero, bruto, pobre. Of the eight adjectives describing each narrator’s form of speaking, three descriptors returned significant differences among the guises: atractiva, inculta, educada. 6. We thank our colleague, Nuria Sagarra, for her generosity in carrying out the statistical analysis.

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

way repeated-measures ANOVAs showed a main effect for inteligente ‘intelligent’ (F(8)=34.244, p <.01), capaz ‘capable’ (F(8)=9.852, p <.01) and próspero ‘prosperous’ (F(8)=9.547, p <.01). Two one-way repeated-measures ANOVAs showed a main effect for atractiva ‘attractive’ (F(8)=15.570, p <.01) and educada ‘educated’ (F(8)=25.394, p <.01). One one-way repeated-measures ANOVAs showed a main effect for Education (F(8)=45.875, p <.01), for Social Class (F(8)=27.201, p <.01) and for Profession. In each case, Bonferroni post-hoc tests revealed that Speakers 1, 2, 7 and 9 are judged to be statistically indistinct from each other but statistically distinct from the other guises. Speakers 3 and 5 are statistically indistinct from each other but different from all other guises, as are Speakers 4 and 6. Finally, Speaker 8 is statistically distinct from all others. Thus, our participant judges are uniform in their assessment of the nine guises, having evaluated Speakers 1, 2, 7 and 9 least favorably and Speaker 8 most favorably on measures of personality, educated manner of speaking, education, profession and class. Importantly, there were no significant differences in judges’ evaluation of the manner in which the diverse speakers narrated the tale. A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA also showed a main effect for racial classification (F(8)=8.038, p <.01). Evaluations of Speaker 8 are shown to be statistically distinct from those of Speakers 3 and 5, and both are distinct from all others.

Figure 2.  Judges’ designation of speakers’ skin color

Two one-way repeated-measures ANOVAs showed a main effect for nationality haitiano ‘Haitian’ (F(8)=9.497, p <.01) and dominicano ‘Dominican’ (F(8)=25.394,



Chapter 8.  Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish 

p <.01). As shown in Figure 3, all guises were consistently and largely identified as having been produced by Dominican. Speaker 4 was correctly identified as Haitian with a frequency of 14.2%, but Speaker 5, also produced by a Haitian, was correctly assessed at only 2.1% while several guises produced by Dominicans (Speakers 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9) were equally or more frequently identified as having been produced by Haitian speakers.

Figure 3.  Judges’ designation of speakers’ country of origin

Figure 4 presents the descriptive results of judges’ evaluations of speakers’ regional origin. Although no statistical analysis was carried out, the results appear to follow the trends attested. As shown, speakers for Speakers 1, 2, 7 and 9 are thought to be from rural areas; in contrast, Speaker 8 was thought to have been produced by a speaker from the urban capital.

Figure 4.  Judges’ designation of speakers’ region of origin

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

4. Discussion Drawing together the above measures, participant judges’ evaluations of the nine speakers may be summarized within a continuum. Speakers 1, 2, 7 and 9, produced by unskilled workers of Dominican origin with little to no schooling, were evaluated as having significantly lower levels of education, employment status and social class, and to be of significantly darker skin color than the others. And Speaker 8, produced by a student, was evaluated most positively, as being of higher social class and educational and professional attainment, and lighter-complexioned than the others – in fact, he was judged to be nearly ‘white’ even though few Dominicans would actually rate themselves as blanco. Between these two extremes, Speakers 3 and 5 were judged relatively favorably on all measures and Speakers 4 and 6 moderately on measures of education, class and profession. Reprising the speaker’s actual profiles from Table 1, an overall summary appears in Table 3, where shading indicates judges’ evaluations from negative (light shading) to positive (dark shading) based on the combined results of the survey with respect to personality traits, speaking manner, skin color ratings, nationality, and region of origin. It merits noting that Speakers 4 and 5 are Haitian speakers. Speaker 5 was raised in the Dominican Republic and speaks Spanish with no discernible foreign accent. On the other hand, Speaker 4 would be characterized as a childhood latelearner of Spanish (age of onset of Spanish = 10) and, at least to the authors, he does speak with a slight but perceptible foreign accent although his narrations were fluent and engaging. A particularly striking trait was that he produced the imperfect tenía with initial stress [ténia] rather than with penultimate stress. While, among our speakers, he was the most often correctly identified as Haitian (14.2% of the time), it is significant that his average skin color rating in not distinct from that of Speakers 1, 2, 7 and 9. These latter speakers, who were consistently rated negatively on personal and linguistic traits, were also consistently judged to be darker (i.e., generally moreno or indio oscuro answers) than those judged favorably.7 The results of the Accent Ratedness Survey indicate that the answer to each our first two research questions is affirmative. That is, Dominicans do discriminate between varieties of cibaeño fronterizo Spanish. They ascribe low prestige to the speech of those whom they judge to be campesinos, that is, rural Dominicans. However, although they also believe these speakers to be of African descent from their speech forms, our results show that the judges could not accurately guess the 7. It is also noteworthy that Speaker 6, a college educated, professional from Santo Domingo did not receive the most favorable ratings. We speculate that this may be because the volume of his recorded narrative was very low, much lower than all the others, and the judges may have assigned him average scores by default because they had difficulty perceiving his voice clearly.

Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic

Haiti

Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic

Haiti

Dominican Republic

Speaker 1

Speaker Speaker 9

Speaker 7

Speaker

Speaker 6

Speaker 3

Speaker 5

Speaker 8

Place of birth

Table 3.  Hierarchy of Guises

Restauración

Loma de Cabrera

Loma de Cabrera

Santo Domingo

Loma de Cabrera

Restauración

El Rodeo El Rodeo

Loma de Cabrera

Place of residence High School (Not completed) None Elementary (Completed) Elementary (Completed) High School (In progress) University (Completed) High School (Completed) High School (In progress) High School (In progress)

Education

Student, unskilled laborer Student, skilled worker

Skilled worker

Student, skilled worker Professional

Skilled laborer

Unskilled laborer Unskilled laborer

Skilled worker

Occupation

moreno

moreno

indio claro

indio oscuro

moreno

indio claro

moreno indio oscuro

blanco

Skin color

Chapter 8.  Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish 

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

skin color of the speakers. Instead, they judge speakers who are, in reality, laborers of low socioeconomic class and education to be darker (thus, presumptively of African/Haitian heritage) than those to whom they attribute more linguistic (and social) prestige. It is to be noted that the judges, all university students from Santo Domingo, consistently discriminated the speech of rural, less-educated fronterizos (Speakers 1, 2, 7 and 9) from those with more education who come from larger towns (Speakers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8). Given that assessments of low prestige speech forms relate directly to the perception (but not the reality) of the speaker as dark-skinned, it is reasonable to conclude that Dominicans do perceive certain speech forms as ‘Haitianized’ although the speakers themselves are not frequently judged to be Haitian. Note that the term ‘Haitianized,’ in fact, is not applied to Haitians’ use of Spanish. Indeed, from our many interviews in the field over the last four years, we have ascertained that there is a widespread consensus among Dominicans and Haitians throughout the Dominican Republic that Haitians are much better language learners than Dominicans. 4.1

Linguistic correlates of ‘Haitianized’ speech

The results of the Accent Ratedness Survey indicate fairly clearly that Dominicans do perceive the speech of some fronterizos from the Cibao region to be ‘Haitianized.’ However, given that each speaker related his own version of El Quiquiriquí so the narratives varied in linguistic form, it is unclear what linguistic trait or traits provoked such an assessment. Thus, it is necessary to overview the most salient properties of the oral narratives produced by the speakers before focusing in on the aspects that we believe to be most indicative of the less prestigious forms of fronterizo speech, namely, the segmental phonology and prosody. 4.2

Lexical variables

The methodology of elicited repetition of the narratives allowed us to largely control for lexical variation. Each participant correctly referred to the main actors of the story (el Viejo, el gallo, el lobo) and employed by and large the same types of predicates (buscar ‘to look for,’ sacar ‘to take out,’ cantar ‘to sing,’ dar un machetazo ‘to give a machete blow to,’ salir ‘to come out,’ oír ‘to hear,’ callarse ‘to be quiet,’ hacer seña ‘to give a sign,’ estar debajo de un árbol ‘to be underneath a tree’). There was some salient but minor variation in the use of substantives by the various narrators that occasioned strong (humorous) reactions from the judges. Specifically, Speaker 4 referred to el ano ‘the anus’ rather than to el trasero del lobo ‘the rear of the wolf ’. Additionally, Speaker 7 used the vernacular Dominican word colín pronounced with a very salient velar nasal, rather than the elicited machete. Three



Chapter 8.  Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish 

speakers (Speakers 2, 7 and 9) used the form alevantar/alevantarse ‘to raise/to arise’, with a prosthetic [a], rather than the correct levantar. Overall, the lexical variation within these texts was minimal and it is doubtful that lexical choice alone motivated the perception of ‘Haitianized’ speech in any robust manner. However, it is possible that the novel verb form employed by Speakers 2, 7 and 9 contributed to their low assessment in the Accentedness Survey. 4.3

Morpho-syntactic variables

All the texts produced by these speakers were grammatically correct; there were no errors of agreement, no missing inflections (aside from the total deletion of word final [s] which is standard in Dominican Spanish) and no syntactic deviations from what could be considered normative Spanish. Speaker 2, however, produced an unusual number of overt subject pronouns. In fact, the only environment in which he did not produce an overt subject pronoun was in a conjoined verb phrases:

(7) Cuando él se acercó al lobo el gallo sacó la cabecita. Cuando ahí él se incomodó, cogió su machete y rajó el lobo y sacó su gallo y se lo llevó.

‘When he got close to the wolf the rooster stuck out his little head. When then he got upset, took his machete and sliced open the wolf and took out his rooster and took him.’

It is possible that his nearly automatic use of subject pronouns, compounded by his use of them as discourse markers (see below) may have augmented the judges’ tendency to assess his speech as of very low prestige. All other narratives were morpho-syntactically well formed. 4.4

Discourse variables

Several of the speakers made use of specific discourse markers multiple times in their retelling of the story. Interestingly, each speaker who employed a discourse connector used the same one throughout his narration with no variation. The only marker in the original version they were taught was en eso ‘meanwhile,’ which was repeated three times by Speaker 9. However, Speaker 3 instead used pues ‘well’ five times throughout his rendition of the story while Speaker 4 used cuando ‘when’ five times. Speaker 8, judged to use the most prestigious speech used y on five occasions at the beginning of matrix clauses as a discourse connector. Other connectors employed in these narratives include de repente ‘suddenly’ used twice by Speaker 1 and, unusually, él ‘he’ articulated twice as a discourse marker by

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

Speaker 2. The speakers’ choice of discourse connectors, even repetitive ones, or their lack of such markers seemed to have no correlation with the judges’ perception of ‘Haitianized’ speech. 4.5

Phonological variables

As overviewed in 2 above, the cibaeño dialect is specifically characterized by liquid neutralization, usually via gliding or the deletion of coda /l,r/. As expected, this characteristic was manifested within the speech of some speakers. Specifically, Speakers 1, 2 and 7, all of whom were classified among those with the most stigmatized speech forms, consistently neutralized coda liquids, as illustrated by the citation in (1) above, quoted from Speaker 1. Thus, the application of liquid neutralization may have marked their speech as strongly dialectal to the ears of the judges who may have been unused to hearing this trait except as a satire of rural cibaeño speech (cf. the quotation in 3b above). However, Speaker 9 was likewise judged as among those who speak in the most stigmatized fashion yet he does not make widespread use of this variable in his recorded narrative. In fact, Speaker 9 manifests a very small proportion of vocalized codas in his narrative, vocalizing only one time and maintaining the correct liquid coda in the other ten possible environments. This ratio exactly parallels that of Speaker 8 who received the most favorable judgments. If usage of the “cibaeño [i]” alone accounted for negative assessments, then it would be unlikely that Speakers 9 would have been categorized among the group with the most stigmatized speech form or that Speaker 8 would have been assessed so favorably. 4.6

Prosodic variables

Although Speaker 9 does not deploy the ‘classic’ marker of rural, cibaeño speech, he does share with Speakers 2 and 7 an unusual pattern of intonation. Specifically, the intonational phrasing of the majority of the Dominican speakers perceived to be the most moreno (i.e., blackest) is characterized by multiple prenuclear pitch accent contours that are more like nuclear accents or edge tones, sounding very much as if the speaker has come to the end of the phrase even where there is no focus or contrast. An illustration of such an utterance, produced by Speaker 9, is shown in Figure 5. There are several unusual aspects of this utterance. First, there is very little declination in pitch across the utterance; instead, the pitch contour on the verb llamaba reaches nearly the same point as that of the prenuclear tenía un gallo, where the H is aligned with the clitic (u)n and perhaps even with the onset of gallo. This may be because the posttonic syllable of gallo is severely reduced both in duration and in intensity with respect to the stressed syllable. Thus, from the



Chapter 8.  Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish 

onset of the articulation of gallo through the offset of the word there is an apparent drop in pitch and in intensity that gives the auditory impression that the speaker has reached the end of a phrase only to continue with what sounds like a pitch reset in the subordinate clause. Although it is clear from this image that the speaker pauses between the object and the relative clause, nearly all his utterances show similar ‘lilting’ contours, irrespective of pauses.

5000

Frequency (Hz)

300

Pitch (Hz)

0

75 te

nia

un

ga

llo

que

0

se

lla

ma

ba

Quiquiriqui

Time (s)

2.64

Figure 5.  Speaker 9

Compare the pitch contour of Speaker 9 given above to that of Speaker 8, articulating the exact same utterance as illustrated in Figure 6.

300

Frequency (Hz)

5000

Pitch (Hz)

0

75 te

nia

0

Figure 6.  Speaker 8

un

ga

llo

que

se

lla

Time (s)

ma

ba

Quiquriqui

2.20

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

Here, in contrast to the speech contour of Speaker 9, the prenuclear pitch peak aligns with the offset of the posttonic vowel in tenía then declines gradually through the object, un gallo. Unlike in Figure 5, there is no evidence of a severely reduced posttonic vowel in gallo. Instead, the pitch contour from the posttonic syllable in gallo plateaus until the expected rise on the verb. The unusual prosodic patterns of Speaker 9 are also characteristic of Speakers 2 and 7. Each of these speakers manifests short falling or rising-falling intonation contours where either rising or steady ones would be expected. They, along with Speaker 1, also manifest clearly reduced posttonic syllables where not only the length and intensity of the syllable is diminished but the vowel quality is reduced as well. Specifically, items like Quilo, lobo, gallo are realized with a final raised vowel Quilu, lobu, gallu. Figure 7 provides an additional illustration of the ‘sing song’ intonation and the reduced posttonic vowels, produced by Speaker 2.

300

Frequency (Hz)

5000

Pitch (Hz)

0

75 e’ta

una

0

vez

qu’ej

Viejo

Quil[u]

Time (s)

te

nia (u)n

gall[u]

3.49

Figure 7.  Speaker 2

The speech of Speaker 2 is similar to that of Speaker 9. They share the characteristic of producing short phrases with rising-falling or falling intonation contours where rising intonation contours would be expected. They also both manifest prosodically reduced posttonic syllables. The overall auditory effect of their speech is like an exaggerated reading intonation but we must emphasize here that these particular speakers cannot read and that this is their normal speech pattern. A full investigation of the intonation of rural fronterizos is a matter for future research. At this point, we can tentatively conclude that there appears to be a conspiracy of prosodic and segmental properties in the speech of all of those judged to be ‘Haitianized’ that are largely absent from those whose speech is assessed



Chapter 8.  Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish 

more favorably. Specifically, the speech of the uneducated, rural Dominicans may be characterized as stigmatized by the presence of one or more of the following traits: a salient use of liquid neutralization (Speakers 1, 2, 7), the prosodic reduction of posttonic syllables (Speakers 1, 2, 7 and 9) and the production of prenuclear pitch accents with patterns more likely to be understood as nuclear or edge tones (Speakers 2, 7 and 9) rendering a sing-song type of intonation pattern. 5. Conclusions While this study has shown that Dominicans naively ascribe the use of stigmatized speech properties among the rural fronterizos to the influence of Haitian Kreyol, it would be premature to conclude that there is any single clearly identifiable Kreyol substrate feature in fronterizo speech. Urban Dominicans may believe that they can reliably perceive traits of an Afro-Dominican basilect yet only one of the speakers they identified as using these traits, Speaker 2, is black and of clear Haitian descent. In fact, Speaker 1, who was likely assessed negatively on the sole basis of his liberal use of the cibaeño [i], was the only ‘white’ person in the sample. Thus, the linguistic traits that Dominicans stigmatize as ‘Haitianized’ properties are actually features of the speech of rural, uneducated cibaeños of all racial designations. It is nonetheless legitimate to inquire whether the peculiar prosodic properties described in this study could indicate a Kreyol substrate among the border population. Unfortunately, there is, at this point, no research on the prosodic and intonational patterns of rural Haitian Kreyol to serve as a point of comparison. However, studies on the intonation contours of Spanish in contact with Quechua (O’Rourke 2003), with Italian (Colantoni and Gurlekian 2004), with Basque (Elordieta 2003; Elordieta and Hualde 2003), and with German (Lléo, Rakow and Kehoe 2004) are informative about the possible effect of contact on Spanish prosody.8 Specifically, all contact varieties of Spanish studied so far tend to show early peak alignment patterns in unfocused prenuclear positions. These results converge with the description of the speakers judged to be most ‘Haitianized’ in the present study. It is possible, then, that in contact varieties of Spanish, speakers adopt a default pattern of peak alignment, accounting for early peak prominence in all positions. Future studies on the intonation patterns of rural Dominicans from border villages with a majority Haitian settlement may help elucidate the role of language contact in the frontera. Furthermore, it would be instructive to examine the perception of the speech of uneducated, rural populations away from the frontera and 8. We are grateful to Aaron Roggia for having conducted the research that led to this observation.

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

from the Cibao to determine if judges similarly ‘racialize’ all rural speech forms.9 Still, it would impossible to rule out the possible substrate effects of Kreyol. Given several centuries of extensive language contact on the island and given the absorption of a large number of Haitians into the Dominican populace, some degree of substrate transfer is highly likely throughout the island. As Lipski (1994b: 45) reminds us, “[T]he interpenetration of Spanish and Haitian Creole in Santo Domingo has been so thorough that most Dominicans themselves are unaware of the true extent of Haitian/creole influence on vernacular Dominican Spanish.” References Colantoni, L. & Gurlekian, J. 2004. Convergence and intonation: Historical evidence from Buenos Aires Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 107–119. Elordieta, G. 2003. The Spanish intonation of speakers of a Basque pitch-accent dialect. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2: 67–95. Elordieta, G. & Hualde, J.I. 2003. Tonal and durational correlates of accent in contexts of downstep in Lekeitio Basque. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33: 195–209. García, O., Evangelista, I., Martínez, M., Disla, C. & Paulino, B. 1988. Spanish language use and attitudes: A study of two New York City communities. Language and Society 17: 475–511. Henríquez Ureña, P. 1940. El Español en Santo Domingo. Buenos Aires: Biblioteca de Dialectología Hispanomericana V. Jiménez Sabater, M. 1975. Más datos sobre el Español de la República Dominicana. Santo Domingo: Ediciones Intec. Lipski, J. 1994a. Latin American Spanish. New York NY: Longman. Lipski, J. 1994b. A new perspective on Afro-Dominican Spanish: The Haitian contribution [Research Paper Series No. 26]. University of New Mexico. Lléo, C., Rakow, M. & Kehoe, M. 2004. Acquisition of language-specific pitch accent by Spanish and German monolingual and bilingual children. In Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology, 3–27. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ortiz, L. 2006. La pragmática de la negación y el contacto de lenguas en la frontero domínicohaitiana. Paper presented at the Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, University of Western Ontario, October 19–22, 2006. O’Rourke, E. 2003. Peak alignment in two regional varieties of Peruvian Spanish intonation. In Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics, J. Auger, J. Clements & B. Vance (eds), 321–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Toribio, A.J. 2000. Setting parametric limits on dialectal variation in Spanish. Lingua 110: 315–341. Torres-Saillant, S. 1998a. Creoleness or blackness: A Dominican dilemma. Plantation Society in the Americas 5: 29–40. Torres-Saillant, S. 1998b. The Dominican Republic. In No Longer Invisible: Afro-Latin Americans Today, P. Pérez-Sarduy & J. Stubbs (eds), 109–138. London: Minority Rights Group.

9. Our thanks to Karen Zagona for this suggestion.



Chapter 8.  Kreyol incursions into Dominican Spanish  Torres-Saillant, S. 1999. Introduction of Dominican Blackness [Dominican Studies Working Paper Series, 1]. New York: City College of New York. Trudgill, P. 1983. On Dialect. Oxford: Blackwell. Willis, E. 2003. The intonational system of Dominican Spanish: Findings and analysis. Ph.D. Doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Zentella, A.C. 1990. Lexical leveling in four New York City Spanish dialects: Linguistic and social factors. Hispania 73: 1094–1105. Zevallos, A. 1997. Los cuentos del Tío Lino. Lima: Lluvia Editores.

Appendix A: Narrative sample El Quiquiriquí: El Viejo Quilo tenía un gallo que se llamaba Quiquiriquí porque así cantaba. Una mañana se despertó el viejo cuando el sol ya estaba afuera, pero el gallo no había cantado. Salió a buscar su gallo y sólo encontró plumas. En eso oye un cantico: qui…qui…ri..quíiiiiiiiii. El viejo busca que busca. El canto parecía salir de un lobo que estaba tendido debajo de un árbol. El gallo sacó la cabeza por el trasero del lobo, y el viejo le hizo seña que se callara. El viejo dio un golpe de su machete y le partió la barriga al lobo y sacó a Quiquiriquí sanito. ‘The Cock-o-doodle-doo: Old Man Quilo had a rooster that was named Cocko-doodle-doo because he so sang. One morning, the old man awoke when the sun was out, but the rooster had not sung. He went out to look for his rooster and only found feathers. Just then, he hears a little song: cock-o-doodle-doooooooo. The old man searched and searched. The song appeared to come from a wolf that was laid out under a tree. The rooster stuck out his head from the wolf ’s backside, and the old man signaled for him to be quiet. The old man gave a blow with his machete and split the wolf ’s stomach and took out Cock-o-doodle-doo safe.’

 Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio

Appendix B: Accent ratedness survey This man gives the impression of being… No, not at all intelligent 1 2 3 capable 1 2 3 This man’s manner of speaking seems… No, not at all attractive 1 2 3 educated 1 2 3 This man’s level of education could be… primary school high school university This man’s profession could be… non-specialized worker (e.g., agricultural worker) specialized worker (e.g., factory operator) office employee (e.g., accountant) administration (e.g., company executive) professional (e.g., lawyer) This man’s social class could be… low low-mid mid mid-high high This man could be… U.S.American Haitian Dominican from the country? from the city? from the border? from the capital? from the Cibao? from the south? This man could be… black dark brown dark ‘indian’ light ‘indian’ white

4 4

5 5

Yes, very much 6 6

4 4

5 5

Yes, very much 6 6

part 4

Spanish in contact with English in the United States

chapter 9

“I was raised talking like my mom” The influence of mothers in the development of MexiRicans’ phonological and lexical features Kim Potowski

The University of Illinois at Chicago This study examines the Spanish dialect features of 27 individuals who have one Mexican parent and one Puerto Rican parent. In 20 out of 27 cases (74%), participants were rated as having a preponderance of dialect traits similar to those of their mother’s ethnolinguistic group. However, two factors mitigate the connection between the mother and the dialect variety of children: (1) one third of the participants evidenced hybridized dialects and (2) in two cases it was not due to the mother, but to other family factors, that the adult children shared the mother’s dialect. Individuals’ dialects, including phonology and lexicon, serve to mark them as either Mexican or Puerto Rican, a distinction that is significant in the city of Chicago. These findings underscore the role of mothers in language transmission and in the development of minority language identity.

1. Introduction The United States Latino population is becoming increasingly diverse, particularly in major metropolitan areas. Table 1 displays the populations of the most numerous Latino groups in four major US cities. While all four cities have a single Latino group that outnumbers the others, in some areas the difference is not very great. The particularly large percentage of “other” groups in New York, Los Angeles and Miami reflect very heterogeneous Latino populations.

 Kim Potowski

Table 1.  Population of Latino groups in several US cities (United States Census 2000) Predominant Latino group (% of all Latinos in the city)

Other Latino groups (% of all Latinos in the city)

New York

Puerto Rican (36.5%)

Los Angeles1

Mexican (63.5%)

Miami2

Cuban (51.9%)

Chicago

Mexican (70%)

Dominican (18.8%) Mexican (8.6%) Other (36.1%) Salvadoran (7.3%) Guatemalan (3.8%) Other (25.4%) Nicaraguan (8.6%) Honduran (5.1%) Other (34.4%) Puerto Rican (15%) Guatemalan (1.8%) Other (13.2%)

Most research on contact between members of different Hispanic communities in the US has looked at either intergroup relations or linguistic outcomes. The study of intergroup relationships encompasses, among other things, the political mobilization of Latino groups and the creation of latinidad, or ‘Latin-ness,’ referring to a panethnic unity based on shared experience of economic, political and cultural marginalization (see for example Padilla 1985; DeGenova and Ramos-Zayas 2003; Pérez 2003). Research on the linguistic outcomes resulting from the contact between different Latino groups has typically sought to determine whether there has been dialect leveling, either lexical (Zentella 1990), phonological (Ghosh Johnson 2005) or syntactic (Otheguy and Zentella 2007). What both research areas have largely ignored, with exceptions such as Rúa (2001) and Potowski and Matts (2008), is the phenomenon of mixed Latino parentage. Rúa (2001) studied “MexiRicans” in Chicago, individuals who have one Mexican parent and one Puerto Rican parent. She sought “to demonstrate the multiple and uneven ways individuals theorize, practice, experience and take part in everyday constructions of latinidad (117), which locates latinidad not in social, cultural or political movements, but rather in daily personal experiences. She found that MexiRican individuals experienced tensions when drawing from both of their cultural repertoires. Also in Chicago, Potowski and Matts (2008) explored aspects of ethnolinguistic identity, as well as overall Spanish proficiency and phonological features, of 20 1.

East Los Angeles is 97% Mexican.

2. Dade County is 65% Cuban.



Chapter 9.  “I was raised talking like my mom” 

MexiRican individuals. Given that Mexican and Puerto Rican Spanish differ considerably, the authors wondered whether one dialect would predominate or whether hybrid dialects would result. Puerto Rican Spanish exhibits frequent aspiration, or deletion of syllable-final /s/, velarization of the multiple vibrant /r/ and lambdacisms such as pronouncing “bailar” as [bailal]. Mexican Spanish does not exhibit these phonological traits; it often exhibits voiceless final vowels, assibilated /r/ and particular intonation patterns (see Lipski 1994 for descriptions of both varieties). The authors found that in 11 out of 20 cases, the participants’ Spanish accent most strongly resembled that of their mother’s ethnolinguistic group. Although 11 out of 20 represents only half of the cases, no other category of experience – such as the participant’s friends, neighborhood, or preferred music – was correlated to their dialect rating. Given the tensions between Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in the city of Chicago (DeGenova and Ramos-Zayas 2003), having a Mexican or a Puerto Rican accent serves to mark a MexiRican individual as either Mexican or Puerto Rican. Indeed, all participants were aware of principal differences between the two dialects and related anecdotes about how their own Spanish variety marked them ethnolinguistically. Although some participants claimed the ability to switch between the two dialects, most of them were unsuccessful at doing so. 1.1

Mothers’ role in language development

The findings of Potowski and Matts (2008) prompted me to further pursue the concept of mothers’ influences on language development. Although most research on bilingualism relies on the concept of the “mother tongue,” relatively few studies have focused specifically on the influence of the actual mother3 in language transmission, particularly when her language or dialect variety differs from that of the father and, at times, that of the dominant society – a very common occurrence throughout the world. Four studies of mothers’ influence on language development will be reviewed here: Kamada (1997), Roberts (1997), Tse and Ingram (1987) and Okita (2002). Kamada (1997) was a case study of 10 families living in Japan in which one parent was Japanese and the other was a speaker of a minority language, either Chinese or English. The children with minority language-speaking mothers ended up becoming more proficient bilinguals than those with minority language-speaking fathers. The author claimed that several minority language-speaking fathers “had tried, with some success in the early stages, to instill the [minority language in] their children, but later gave up after realizing the difficulty of the task and 3. While “primary caretaker” is a more precise term, in this study the primary caretaker was almost always the mother

 Kim Potowski

requirement of total dedication” (1997: 53). In cases where the minority languagespeaking mother chose not to speak the minority language, it was not acquired by the children. Roberts (1997) examined the acquisition of sound changes among three- and four-year-old English-speaking children in Philadelphia. She found that dialect acquisition is underway even in children of this young age, and that several factors were correlated with the degree to which the phonological traits under study were acquired. Overall, the most important factor was the extent of the children’s contact with native Philadelphians. More specifically, the children evidenced the same sound change patterns as their mothers and other female speech community members more than they evidenced male-dominated changes. The author proposes that her study is evidence supporting Labov’s (1994) suggestion that women lead linguistic changes due to childcare asymmetry – that is, women tend to take on greater roles in childcare than do men – and thus female-dominated changes are more widely advanced in the transmission of dialect features across generations because children have greater contact with females and, therefore, with such changes. Tse and Ingram (1987) studied a young girl’s acquisition of two dialects of Cantonese over the period of one year (age 1;7 to 2;8). The girl, Wai, was being raised in Vancouver, Canada, where Cantonese is a minority language, by her stayat-home mother. The father’s dialect had a phonemic distinction between /n/ and /l/ that did not exist in the mother’s dialect, which had only /l/. Since the daughter was exposed to two sets of input, the question was whether she would acquire the mother’s or the father’s dialect, or else treat all linguistic input as one dialect with /l/ and /n/ in free variation. Wai clearly recognized the /n/ from her father’s dialect and produced words with [n] throughout the recording sessions and with both parents. She treated /l/ and /n/ as being in free variation nearly half of the time and produced many /l/ words with /n/, in violation of both dialects. Therefore, there was no evidence that Wai had acquired either the mother’s or the father’s dialect. The authors concluded that she was processing input from both dialects and had not separated the two, much like the single system hypothesis currently accepted in studies of bilingual first language acquisition. However, in the later recording sessions, Wai had begun to converge on her mother’s dialect. Okita (2002) is an ethnographic portrayal of 28 families living in Britain in which the mother was Japanese and the father was British. It details the difficulties of the mothers in transmitting and sustaining the minority language. Overall, it was not easy or natural for the mothers to use Japanese in the ways suggested by bilingual childrearing books, and the responsibility for nurturing the children’s bilingualism fell upon the mothers more than the fathers. Mothers cited the draining requirements of time, energy and money necessary to teach their children to read and write in Japanese, which needed to be balanced with concerns for



Chapter 9.  “I was raised talking like my mom” 

children’s English development, homework assistance, housework and attending to their other children, their husbands and themselves. Okita calls this language maintenance another type of “invisible work,” much like housework and kin-keeping. Although the study did not attempt to document children’s proficiency in Japanese, it provides a vertical lens on the trends found by Kamada (1997) regarding the mother’s important role in minority language transmission. It also highlights that “language use in intermarried families is deeply intertwined with the experience of childrearing….[and is] impossible to separate from interpersonal, family and societal contexts” (232). Similarly, Piller (2002) argued that linguistic practices are central to contemporary couplehood and that bilingual couples’ “linguistic intermarriage” constitutes a case study in language contact, the (re-)construction of identities and discourses of bilingualism. The preceding review of literature does not intend to imply that the father’s language or dialect variety cannot be acquired by children. For example, Ronjat (1913), Pavlovitch (1920) and Leopold (1939) all detailed how their children acquired their father’s language, which was different from that of the mother and from the dominant society (it is important to note that these three fathers were linguists). The existing evidence, however, suggests that the mother often plays a larger role in the early acquisition of language and of dialect variety.4 1.2

Purpose of this study

The purpose of the present study was to determine to what degree phonological and lexical traits from the mother’s dialect were present in the Spanish spoken by their adult MexiRican children, and to examine the content of their interviews for possible explanations for the presence or absence of their mothers’ dialect features. It should be noted that I did not collect samples of either parent’s Spanish. In some cases, participants stated that their parents’ Spanish sounded Mexican or Puerto Rican, but I do not have evidence to support these statements. For the purposes of this study, I make the assumption that a Puerto Rican mother’s Spanish has some or all of the phonological traits I have described (particularly syllable final /s/ weakening) as well as Puerto Rican lexicon, and that a Mexican mother’s Spanish exhibits Mexican lexicon and phonology (including regular realization of syllable final /s/ and the intonational patterns described by Lipski 1994). However, some participants revealed that this was not always the case, as will be described in a later section.

4. In later years, peer groups appear to play the largest role in language development (for example, see Caldas 2006)

 Kim Potowski

2. Setting and methodology Chicago has the third largest Latino population in the United States, which contains the second largest Mexican (hereafter MX) population outside of Los Angeles and the second largest Puerto Rican (hereafter PR) population outside of New York City (Census 2000). Although Latino populations in New York, Los Angeles and Miami are becoming increasingly heterogeneous with new patterns of immigration,5 Chicago is the only large city where, for over fifty years and thus several generations, “MXs and PRs live together, work together, and marry each other” (Pérez, 2003), giving rise to a relatively large number of MexiRican (hereafter MXPR) progeny. The Chicago south side neighborhoods of Pilsen and Little Village are almost 100% MX. Since the 1970s, substantial numbers of MX have also been moving into traditionally PR neighborhoods on the north side, including the area known as Humboldt Park. By 2000, PRs were no longer the majority Latino group in any Chicago neighborhood. Given the large numbers of both groups, DeGenova and Ramos-Zayas concluded that, in Chicago, “it is difficult for [MX or PR] to formulate perspectives about their own identity without comparing it to some degree with that of the other group” (2003: 52) and that Latino politics in the city are usually “poised precariously between MX and PR” (2003: 33).6 In addition, DeGenova and Ramos-Zayas (2003) provide extensive detail about the ways in which individual MX and PR experience conflicts with each other in competition for jobs and services. Thus, the ways in which MexiRican individuals choose to identify themselves ethnically has potential social consequences. However, Potowski and Matts (2008) found that MXPR individuals claimed to be equally Mexican and Puerto Rican, rarely hiding or downplaying one or the other of their ethnicities. Unlike the findings of Rúa (2001) and what might be predicted based on DeGenova and Ramos-Zayas’ (2003) portrayal of MX vs. PR conflicts in Chicago, these MXPR individuals did not experience significant challenges to their choice to claim hybrid identities.7 However, unlike claims to general ethnic identity, dialect variety in a minority language is usually not under a person’s control. The dialect(s) one develops usually depends on language exposure during childhood. 5. Ramos-Pellicia (2004), for example, has studied the phonological outcomes on PR Spanish of the contact between MX and PR individuals living in adjacent communities in Ohio. 6. Chicago is home to other Latino groups, including Central American (3% of local Latino population), Cuban (1%) and “Other” (8%), but they do not appear to influence the local political or linguistic landscape. 7. Many MXPR participants described instances of relatives or friends teasing them for being either MX or PR, which they cited as unimportant.



Chapter 9.  “I was raised talking like my mom” 

Thus, for MXPR individuals, displaying either a MX or a PR dialect likely reflects how they were reared as children and marks them as either MX or PR, despite any insistence on claiming both ethnic identities. The data reported here come from an initial total of 35 MXPR individuals and forms a part of two separate studies. In Study A (Potowski and Matts 2008), 24 MXPR individuals were interviewed in English. Topics included home language use, family origins and cultural influences. At the end of the interview, all participants completed three Spanish language tasks. The first was a vocabulary identification task, in which participants were asked to describe what a person in a drawing was doing, such as “he is cooking.” The second was an opposite word task, in which participants were expected to state the word opposite to ten words stated by the interviewer, such as “tall-short.” Finally, participants listened to a short story of three minutes’ duration and retold it in their own words while looking at drawings that narrated the main events. In Study B, 11 MXPR individuals were interviewed in Spanish. Many of the same questions were asked as in Study A, including questions about language use and parents’ background. In addition, at the end of the interview Study B participants were given a vocabulary recognition task. They were shown photos of 16 items that are known to vary lexically among MX versus PR speakers (displayed in Table 2). Participants were asked the first word that came to their mind, and then whether they knew other words for the same item. Responses were coded in the following way: two points were awarded for the first word stated, one point for the second word stated, and zero points if no word was offered. For example, upon seeing a photo of earrings, a participant who said only “pantallas” would receive two points under PR. If she next offered “aretes,” she would receive one point under MX. There is relatively little evidence in the literature that the first word offered is the word the participant tends to use more often, but several participants stated that this was the case for them. In addition, Matthei and Roeper (1985) suggest that the frequency of occurrence of a word in a language affects the time it takes to gain access to that word in the mental lexicon. It may be the case, then, that the first word offered by a speaker is the word that is heard and produced with higher frequency. I also studied the transcripts from Study B for MX and PR lexical items in order to provide additional evidence, but vocabulary produced in the transcripts was not coded in any way.

 Kim Potowski

Table 2.  Lexical items (Study B only) vocabulary identification task English

MX variety

PR variety

orange (fruit) baby’s pacifier yellow school bus earrings woman’s sandal swimming pool food item cake garbage can umbrella red beans t-shirt jeans eyeglasses banana drinking straw

naranja chupete autobús aretes guarache/chancla alberca tamales pastel basurero paraguas frijoles playera vaqueros/mezclilla lentes plátano popote

china bobo guagua pantallas chancleta piscina pasteles bizcocho zafacón sombrilla habichuelas camiseta maones gafas/espejuelos guineo sorbeto

2.1

Determination of dialect variety

Only those participants who had sufficient proficiency in Spanish to complete the story retelling (Study A) or to engage in informal conversation (Study B) were included for analysis in this study. Of the original 35 participants, eight were eliminated due to low Spanish proficiency, six from Study A and two from Study B, leaving a total of 27 participants for analysis. The 27 participants’ dialects were determined through ratings of their spoken Spanish. Study A used eight raters: four Ph.D.s in Spanish linguistics (two of whom specialized in phonology) and four non-linguist bilinguals. Study B used six raters, including three Ph.D.s in Spanish linguistics and three non-linguist bilinguals. Each participant’s Spanish was rated for whether it sounded MX (with a score of 1 or 2) or PR (with a score of 4 or 5). A score of 3 meant that the rater could not determine whether the Spanish sample sounded MX or PR. This study did not seek to provide a thorough linguistic analysis of the dialect features of MXPR individuals, but rather to determine which dialect features were most salient and, therefore, markers of ethnolinguistic identity, particularly to the ears of

8. No participants produced the word “zafacón.”



Chapter 9.  “I was raised talking like my mom” 

non-linguists who more closely resemble the majority of people with whom MXPR interact on a daily basis. The vocabulary items produced by Study B participants were an additional source of data about whether their Spanish was more MX or PR. That is, for Study B participants, there was a combination of phonological and lexical data, while Study A participants’ dialects were determined almost exclusively by phonology (and perhaps an occasional MX or PR lexical item produced in the story retelling). It should be noted that the speech samples of a story retelling (Study A) vs. an informal interview that elicited narratives (Study B) constitute different types of language. The two studies, therefore, might have resulted in different relative numbers of phonological tokens produced or the realization of these tokens. The influence of the interviewer’s accent might also influence participants’ phonological production. However, participants’ accents did not always match that of the interviewee, and several participants claimed in their interviews that they were unable to reliably produce their less dominant dialect. Characteristics of our sample of MXPR participants are displayed in Table 3. They were identified through personal contacts by a team of interviewers. Table 3.  Participants (n = 27) Generation

Age

Education

Gender

Mother’s origin

G2 = 16 G3 = 11

Range 15–33

15 in high school

17 females

Average 19

12 in college or with college degree

10 males

19 PR 8 MX

Each participant’s generation (G) was determined according to accepted sociolinguistic practice (cf. Silva-Corvalán 1994). Sixteen of our participants were G2, that is, they came to the US before the age of five or they were born in the United States to two G1 parents, G1 parents were born abroad and came to the United States after the age of 12. Eleven participants were G3, meaning that they were born in the United States to at least one G2 parent. Potowski and Matts (2008) showed that there was a notable difference in Spanish proficiency between G3 participants who had one only parent belonging to the G2 category (who they called “G3:1”) versus G3 participants whose two parents belonged to the G2 category (called “G3:2”). The average age of all participants, 19 years, is relatively young. This is logical given that contact between MX and PR in Chicago began in the 1950s, and MX began moving into traditionally PR neighborhoods in the 1970s. All of the participants were either in high school or had completed some college. Two thirds of the participants were female and one third was male. Nineteen of the participants’ mothers (70%) were PR, while half as many, eight, were MX. If this trend were

 Kim Potowski

found to hold with a larger sample, it would be interesting to explore why PR women tend to marry MX men more often than the other way around. In any case, the fact that 70% of the mothers in this study were PR skews the potential findings. We did not ask specific questions about socioeconomic status, although the zip codes where participants lived provide some indication of family income based on neighborhood characteristics. The majority of our participants lived in working-class neighborhoods. We also requested that both the MX and PR cultures have been present to some degree in participants’ homes during their formative years, and they were for all but two participants. 3. Findings Of the 27 MXPR participants, 18 were from Study A, whose Spanish story retellings were rated for MX or PR accent by eight individuals. Nine participants were from Study B, whose Spanish interviews were rated for accent by six individuals and who were asked to produce 16 vocabulary items that vary between MX and PR. Before reporting the average ratings of dialect variety, it is interesting to note that, in eight out of the nine cases in Study B, phonological accent was correlated with vocabulary production (see Table 4). That is, people rated as having a PR accent also produced a greater number of PR vocabulary items and people with a MX accent produced a greater number of MX vocabulary items. Therefore, for these eight individuals, the consistency between lexicon and phonology indicates that both accent and lexical items mark their dialect variety. In addition, I suggest that the greater the difference between the number of MX vs. PR lexical items, the more dominant the individual is in that dialect. For example, J.T. produced 24 PR lexical items, but only nine MX lexical items. This suggests that she is much more familiar with PR Spanish than with MX Spanish. On the other hand, M.Z. produced fairly equal numbers of MX and PR lexical items, indicating more balance between the two dialects (at least lexically). There was one exception, G.P., whose phonological accent did not match her lexical production. She produced a fair amount of /s/ aspiration and velarizations of syllable-final /n/ in her interview, earning her a fairly strong PR rating, although the appearance of these traits was not consistent in the same phonological contexts. But despite her PR rating for phonology, her vocabulary was slightly more MX (23 MX items vs. 18 PR items). G.P. evidences a hybrid dialect combining some



Chapter 9.  “I was raised talking like my mom” 

phonological aspects from her mother’s PR Spanish dialect with phonological and lexical characteristics from her father’s MX dialect. Her father arrived from Table 4.  Correlation between accent and lexical items (Study B participants only) Participant (mother) Correlation (8/9): V.G. (PR) A.D. (PR) M.Z. (PR) J.L. (MX) H.G. (PR) J.T. (MX) K.M. (PR) M.A. (PR) No correlation (1/9): G.P. (PR)

Accent

Lexical production

MX MX MX ~MX4 PR PR PR PR

24 MX, 18 PR 22 MX, 18 PR 19 MX, 15 PR 19 MX, 9 PR 28 PR, 15 MX 24 PR, 9 MX 16 PR, 9 MX 24 PR, 16 MX

PR

23 MX, 18 PR

Mexico as a young adult but her mother was born in Chicago and spoke mainly English with G.P. This probably means that G.P.’s MX father was more proficient in Spanish than was her PR mother, which may have countered any potential influence of the mother on G.P.’s Spanish. Given that accent and lexicon generally coincided, my use of the term “dialect” henceforth includes phonological features and lexicon. I will thus divide the findings into the following two categories: those MXPR individuals whose Spanish dialect resembled the variety of their mother, and those whose Spanish dialect resembled the variety of their father. There was only one case, that of G.P. cited above, where accent and lexicon did not correlate. I considered accent alone when determining whether G.P.’s dialect resembled that of her mother. This is because individuals’ accents usually serve to mark them as MX or PR almost immediately in any oral exchange, while lexical items that would mark them as MX or PR may not necessarily arise in a given conversation. Finally, it should be recalled that on the scale of 1 to 5, an average rating under 2.9 was placed in the Mexican category, even though a rating between 2.5 and 2.9 is only very slightly MX. Similarly, an average rating over 3.1 was placed in the Puerto Rican category, even though a rating between 3.1 and 3.5 is only slightly PR. There were no average ratings of exactly 3.0. One third of the participants 9. The symbol “~” denotes a rating between 2.5 and 3.5, which is considered a hybridized dialect.

 Kim Potowski

(8 out of 27) received average ratings in the “slightly MX or PR” category, that is, between 2.5 and 3.5. These individuals can be said to evidence hybrid dialect varieties, containing some MX features and some PR features. I will return to a discussion of these nine individuals. In general, raters labeled as PR a speaker who exhibited syllable final /s/ weakening (aspiration or deletion). They rated as MX any speaker who lacked prototypical PR features such as /s/ weakening. The phonologists could identify specific MX features such as voiceless final vowels, assibilated /r/ and intonation patterns for some participants. Table 5 displays a summary of the dialect ratings of the 27 participants in the present study. The ratings for individual participants are displayed in Appendix A. Table 5.  Dialect ratings Like mother (20/27)

Unlike mother (7/27)

Due directly to her (18)

Not due directly to her (2)

Strongly 11 Weakly 7

Strongly 2 Weakly 0

3.1

Strongly 5 Weakly 2

Dialect resembles that of the mother: 20 out of 27 cases

In the present study, 20 out of 27 participants (74%) exhibited a Spanish variety with a dominance of traits that resembled the dialect of the mother. In two of these 20 cases, the participants sounded like their mother’s dialect group due to the influence of family or community members rather than the mother herself. I will return to a description of these cases. But in the majority of the 27 cases overall (67%, or 18 cases), participants’ dialect features were attributable to the mother herself. This provides further support for the findings in Potowski and Matts (2008) in which 11 out of 20 (55%) of MXPR participants exhibited Spanish dialect traits similar to that of their mothers. Additionally, in the present study, in 11 of the 18 cases of dialect similarity attributable to the mother, the participant was rated as “strongly” exhibiting those dialect traits, that is, with an average rating of below 2.5 (Mexican) or above 3.5 (Puerto Rican). I will return to a discussion of the seven individuals whose average ratings were between 2.5 and 3.5, that is, “weakly” MX or PR. In the 18 cases of dialect similarity attributable to the mother, participants reported either that their mother spoke a greater percentage of Spanish vs. English to them than did their fathers, or that they heard almost equal amounts of Spanish from both parents. If the mother spoke a greater percent of Spanish to her children than the father, it is logical that the children would develop her dialect features. But



Chapter 9.  “I was raised talking like my mom” 

if the parents spoke equal percentages of Spanish, why might the mother’s dialect dominate in the Spanish of the child? It may be that participants spoke a greater overall amount of time overall with their mothers and their mothers’ families while growing up, thus hearing a greater amount of her Spanish variety. For example, the participant E.D. stated, “My Spanish is Mexican because my mother is Mexican – you know, you’re raised by your mom. But she made sure we knew we were also Puerto Rican, how to act around Puerto Ricans so they would be more accepting of us.” An interesting case is J.O., who stated that she was more deeply connected to her MX father culturally, but that linguistically she was like her PR mother: I was raised talking like my mom. I talk like a Puerto Rican, but the way I am inside is Mexican. I am just like my dad. They say I am more Mexican than a Mexican. I eat chile, I like to dance Mexican music.

This potential explanation, that individuals spend more time talking with their mothers and their mothers’ families, is also supported by the cases of four participants whose fathers actually spoke a greater percentage of Spanish with them, but whose Spanish varieties resembled that of their mothers. A.A. reported speaking in Spanish 90% of the time with his MX father and only 50% of the time with his PR mother. Yet linguistically and culturally he was very much like his PR mother, earning a PR rating of 4.4, using words like bochinchar ‘to gossip,’ and describing how he was required to ask his grandmother for la bendición blessing’ (a common PR cultural practice). Participant T.U. heard 100% Spanish from her MX father, who had immigrated as an adult, and only 10% Spanish from her PR mother, who arrived to Chicago as a child. However, T.U., who was rated as PR at 4.0, claimed that “the PR influence was bigger,” having visited PR several times and always dating PR men, who she found more attractive than MX men. Another participant, C.R., reported that his PR father spoke 100% Spanish with him and his MX mom just 50%, yet his Spanish received one of the strongest MX ratings in Study A (1.6). He was very close with his mother – a self-described “momma’s boy” – and, interestingly, his PR father also felt very close to Mexican culture: You would never guess that he’s Puerto Rican. He listens to mariachi music, he wears the high boots and the belt… for a while he was trying to wear the hat, we had to get him not to. He wants to move to Mexico when he gets old. He says that he was born in Puerto Rico, but he should be Mexican.

In two cases, the participants shared their mother’s dialect features, but for reasons not directly related to their mother. Grandparents and other family members played a role, as did the neighborhood in which participants were raised. H.G., who was rated highly PR at 4.7, spoke only English with her parents, but she was

 Kim Potowski

raised by her PR grandparents in the traditionally PR neighborhood of Humboldt Park. She was involved in several local PR cultural activities and evidenced a preponderance of PR lexical items (28 PR vs. 15 MX on the picture identification task, plus words in the interview such as “bochorno” and “boba”). Attesting to the important role that grandparents can play in minority language transmission, when asked whether their future children would learn Spanish, several participants replied affirmatively and added that if they themselves were not able to transmit Spanish to their future children, they would entrust this task to their own parents. In the other case, even though K.M.’s PR mother spoke to her entirely in English, K.M. had very strong PR phonology (rated at 4.7) and lexicon (16 PR words vs. 9 MX on the picture identification task, plus words used in the interview such as chavar, nene and fogonarse). Like H.G., she grew up in Humboldt Park, where she attended an alternative high school supported by the Puerto Rican Cultural Center and where she was a member of a traditional bomba y plena dance group. These two cases indicate that caretakers other than parents, when they are the principal source of input in a minority language, can pass on dialect features. In addition, the Spanish dialect spoken in an individual’s neighborhood can influence the Spanish variety that individual develops. Interestingly, in both of these cases, it was the mother’s dialect that was transmitted by family members or the local community, perhaps because the mothers selected caretakers and neighborhoods of their own ethnic background. Seven of the individuals who were rated as similar to their mothers received average ratings between 2.5 and 3.5.10 Thus, they evidenced hybridized dialects with traits from both MX and PR features, but fell slightly more towards their mother’s group. For example, J.L. regularly pronounced “porque” as “po’que,” which the raters identified as PR, but he also said “nadien” for “nadie,” which they identified as MX. For five of these individuals (L.M., S.R., A.T., L.A. and A.E.), at least two raters claimed to hear syllable-final /s/ while other raters claimed that it was regularly aspirated. However, almost all of the raters noted lambdacisms produced by these five speakers (for example, “plantal en su jaldín” for “plantar en su jardín.”). Therefore, to these raters, the weakening of syllable final /s/ was a stronger indicator of a PR dialect than were lambdacisms. That is, if syllable final /s/ was present, the speaker was rated on the MX side of the scale despite the presence of lambdacisms. Before describing participants who did not share their mothers’ Spanish dialect variety, I would like to return to A.A.’s comment that he was required to ask his PR grandmother for la bendición. MX and PR cultural practices such as this one were 10. There were no ratings between 2.5 and 3.5 for individuals who were rated as not sounding like their mother.



Chapter 9.  “I was raised talking like my mom” 

present in many participants’ homes. For example, with very few exceptions, the participants ate both MX and PR food. They described how one day their mother would prepare MX food and another day PR food, and a few individuals regularly ate both types of food in one meal: “My mom would make fried pork chops and Mexican rice, or mole with Puerto Rican rice.” The PR dish arroz con gandules was eaten in almost every single participant’s household. Sometimes the father prepared the food from his ethnic background, but usually he or one of his family members had taught the mother how to do so. This echoes findings about the importance of food preparation among the PR women studied by Pérez (2003) and highlights the connections between gender, food, language and cultural identity. 3.2

Dialect does not resemble that of the mother: Seven out of 28 cases

In the remaining seven cases (25% of the total), the participants’ Spanish was rated as dissimilar to that of their mothers. Only one of these participants, J.T., had a MX mother. J.T. had spent several years with her PR father in Puerto Rico and had very little contact with her mother. Her average rating was 4.2, strongly PR, and she produced 24 PR lexical items vs. just 9 MX items. In the other six cases, the participant had a PR mother but was rated as having a MX dialect. For two of these individuals, the PR mother had arrived to the US at a younger age than had the MX father. Younger age of arrival generally leads to less adult proficiency in the minority language, so in these two cases, the mother was probably less proficient in Spanish than the father. A.D.’s mother arrived from Puerto Rico at the age of three and spoke mostly English, while her father arrived from Mexico at the age of 20 and spoke mostly Spanish. Interestingly, although A.D. (rated strongly MX at 1.7) did not evidence any of her mother’s PR phonology, she produced a fairly large number of PR lexical items (18 PR vs. 22 MX). D.P.’s PR mother immigrated at the age of four and her MX father arrived at 18. In addition, her nuclear family had a falling out with her mom’s PR side of the family and rarely spoke with them. DP was rated strongly MX at 1.1. In these two cases, the parents’ generation11 and, by extension, their Spanish ability along with other family circumstances, appeared more closely correlated to their children’s Spanish dialect than did the parents’ gender. The third case, V.G., heard approximately equal amounts of Spanish from each of her parents, but she was raised until age nine in the heavily Mexican 11. In both of these cases, it was the PR mother who immigrated at a very young age or was born in Chicago, and the MX father who arrived from Mexico as a young adult. DeGenova and Ramos-Zayas (2003) suggest that, in Chicago, MX are seen as retaining their culture and language to a greater degree than PR. Age of immigration may be a factor.

 Kim Potowski

neighborhoods of La Villita and Pilsen, and she claimed that she identified herself most strongly with these areas. This is a third example, then, of the community exerting linguistic influence on MXPR Spanish, similarly to K.M. and H.G. described earlier who were raised in PR communities in Humboldt Park. The fourth case, M.Z., presents some interesting contrasts. Her PR mother had stayed home to raise the children and M.Z. claims that she and her siblings learned more Spanish from their mother than from their father. She also noted that her MX father sometimes used PR words that he had learned from her mother. She also liked visiting Puerto Rico more than Mexico, and preferred PR food and music. However, M.Z.’s accent displayed no PR features, and her vocabulary was fairly equally MX (19) and PR (15). She also celebrated a quinceañera party in Mexico. Her average rating was 2.33, which was only 0.17 points short of the “hybrid” category. The two remaining individuals of the seven who were not rated as having their mother’s dialect had average ratings of 2.3. This placed them in the category of MX, but only 0.2 points away from the “hybrid” category. Generally speaking, the raters could not distinguish a preponderance of MX or PR features in these two young men. M.G. heard fairly equal amounts of Spanish from both parents and traveled to both Mexico and Puerto Rico regularly. Although he lived in Humboldt Park and preferred Puerto Rican music, his family in Puerto Rico often told him that his Spanish sounded Mexican, while his family in Mexico said it sounded Puerto Rican. Four of the dialect raters, including one phonologist, stated that they could not decide whether he sounded MX or PR. The other person, S.V., heard 100% Spanish from his G1 PR mother and 50% from his G2 MX father. This would seem to favor the development of a PR accent. Yet he claimed that his mother cooked mostly Mexican food and “caught a Mexican accent” when she married his father,12 but switched back to a PR accent with her own family. Similarly, he said that his father sounded PR because he worked with many PRs and spent a lot of time with his wife’s PR family. However, S.V.’s Spanish was rated as slightly MX. It is interesting to note that five of the seven individuals rated as having a dialect different from that of their mothers were female. Wodak (1984) examined processes of language change between generations of females by interviewing 30 mother-daughter pairs, and found that if the relationship was ambivalent or in conflict, the daughter used a significantly different speech style from the mother. And even in stable and friendly relationships, the differences between mother and daughter were larger than between mother and son. This interaction between gender-motivated psychological factors and phonological variation may be a contributing factor in dialect transmission in mixed dialect households.

12. S.V.’s mother had 14 siblings, seven of whom, like herself, were married to MX.



Chapter 9.  “I was raised talking like my mom” 

4. Conclusions MexiRican individuals who grow up in contact with both parents and dialects are exposed to two linguistic and cultural repertoires. In 20 out of 27 cases in this study, the Spanish variety of the MXPR participants leaned toward that of their mothers. This provides further evidence of the influence of the mother on the language variety developed by children (Kamada 1997; Roberts 1997). In the same way we speak of mother tongue, these data support the idea of a mother dialect. One possible explanation for these findings is that mothers are traditionally more engaged in childrearing than fathers, particularly during the early years of children’s language acquisition (Labov 1994). Okita (2002) argues that language use in intermarried families is deeply intertwined with the experience of childrearing. Minority language transmission appears to constitute another example of “the work of ethnic identity formation in families resting on women’s shoulders” (Pérez 2003: 112) or, more precisely, in their mouths. It is clear, however, that mothers were not the sole influence on MexiRican individuals’ Spanish variety. Several participants had fathers who were either primary caretakers or the only parent who spoke Spanish to the children, and these participants evidenced traits of their father’s dialect of Spanish. We also saw several instances of the community and other family members either supporting the same dialect as that of the mother, or supporting the father’s dialect. When studying relationships between Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in Chicago, DeGenova and Ramos-Zayas found that the assumed commonality of the Spanish language, while often assumed to form a basis for unification among Latino groups, was instead “an especially salient object around which to produce their difference” (2003: 145). Fully three fourths of our MexiRican participants (20 out of 27, or 74%), whether evidencing oral Spanish traits similar to or different from that of their mothers’ ethnolinguistic group, produced dialect features that were identifiable as leaning towards either Mexican or Puerto Rican. That is, despite their solid ethnocultural identification with both backgrounds, the Spanish they produced in these interviews marked most of them as either MX or PR. The other 25% of the participants evidenced hybridized varieties, which merit further research. Also recall that seven participants were eliminated from the data set due to very low Spanish proficiency, is a very common phenomenon among G3 Spanish speakers in Chicago and elsewhere in the United States, yet their Spanish also merits further research (cf., Lipski 1993). People often shift between different styles of speaking in order to present a particular identity, varying their accent and other dialect features according to the speaker, the situation, or other factors (Bell 1984; Labov 1994 and others). It is valid to ask to what extent the nature of the task – a story retelling or an informal

 Kim Potowski

interview, both in the participants’ weaker language – might have affected the phonology and lexicon exhibited by the participants. For example, it is possible that they tried to use a more formal variety of Spanish, both in Study A for the Spanish story retelling, as well as in Study B for the hour interview in Spanish, which may have affected phonological realizations. It is also possible that participants tried to match the phonological features exhibited by the interviewers. Thus, we cannot propose firm conclusions based on the findings of this study. Ethnographic data collection methods that include interaction with family and community members would provide a more complete picture of MXPR language. Finally, it would be illustrative to study the Spanish of MexiRicans’ parents, following Piller’s (2002) observation that linguistic intermarriage is a form of language contact and identity (re)construction. As we have seen, three participants claimed that one of their parents did not have dialect features typical of their language origin group because they “adopted” the principal features of their spouse’s variety. Our informal phone conversations with several of the participants’ mothers were intriguing in that it was impossible to identify their dialect variety as either MX or PR. Partners in Mexican-Puerto Rican romantic unions may in fact provide more fertile ground for research on phonological and lexical change through dialect contact than do their MXPR children, because the children use mostly English in their daily lives (DeGenova and Ramos-Zayas 2003; Ghosh Johnson 2005; Potowski 2004). References Bell, A. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145–204. Caldas, S. 2006. Raising Bilingual-biliterate Children in Monolingual Cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DeGenova, N. & Ramos-Zayas, A. 2003. Latino Crossings: Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and the Politics of Race and Citizenship. London: Routledge. Ghosh Johnson, E. 2005. Mexiqueño? A case study of dialect contact. In Selected Papers from NWAV 33 [Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11.2], 91–104. Kamada, L. 1997. Bilingual Family Case Studies, Vol. 2 [Monographs on Bilingualism No. 5]. Tokyo: Japan Association for Language Teaching. ED422750. Labov, W. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Leopold, W.F. 1939. Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist’s Record. Evanston IL: Northwestern University. Lipski, J. 1993. Creoloid phenomena in the Spanish of transitional bilinguals. In Spanish in the United States, A. Roca & J. Lipski (eds), 155–182. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lipski, J. 1994. Latin American Spanish. London: Longman. Matthei, E. & Roeper, T. 1985. Understanding and Producing Speech. New York NY: Universe Publishing.



Chapter 9.  “I was raised talking like my mom”  Okita, T. 2002. Invisible Work: Bilingualism, Language Choice and Childrearing in Intermarried Families [IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society 12].. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Otheguy, R. & Zentella, A.C. 2007. Apuntes preliminaries sobre nivelación y contacto en el uso pronominal del español en Nueva York. In Spanish in Contact: Educational, Linguistic, and Social Perspectives [IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society 22], K. Potowski & R. Cameron (eds), 273–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Padilla, F. 1985. Latino ethnic consciousness: The Case of Mexican Americans and PuertoRicans in Chicago. Indiana IN: University of Notre Dame. Pavlovitch, M. 1920. Le Langage Enfantin: Acquisition du Serbe et du Francais par un Enfant Serbe. Paris: Champion. Pérez, G. 2003. Puertorriqueñas rencorosas y mejicanas sufridas: Gendered ethnic identity formation in Chicago’s Latino communities. The Journal of Latin American Anthropology 8(2): 96–125. Piller, I. 2002. Bilingual Couples Talk: The Discursive Construction of Hybridity [Studies in Bilingualism 25]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Potowski, K. 2004. Spanish language shift in Chicago. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 23(1): 87–116. Potowski, K. and Matts, J. 2008. MexiRicans: Inter-ethnic language and identity. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 7 (8). Ramos-Pellicia, M. 2004. Language Contact and Dialect Contact: Cross-generational Phonological Variation in a Puerto Rican Community in the Midwest of the United States. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University. Roberts, J. 1997. Hitting a moving target: Acquisition of sound change in progress by Philadelphia children. Language Variation and Change 9: 249–266. Ronjat, J. 1913. Le développement du langage observe chez un enfant bilingue. Paris: Champion. Rúa, M. 2001. Colao subjectivities: PortoMex and MexiRican perspectives on language and identity. Centro Journal 13(2): 117–133. Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994. Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon. Tse, S. & Ingram, D. 1987. The influence of dialectal variation on phonological acquisition: A case study on the acquisition of Cantonese. Journal of Child Language 14: 281–294. United States Census 2000. www.census.gov. Wodak, R. 1984. Intimate but Helpless? Mothers and Daughters Relate. Vienna: Deuticke. Zentella, A.C. 1990. Lexical leveling in four New York City Spanish dialects: Linguistic and social factors. Hispania 73: 1094–1105.

 Kim Potowski

Appendix A Dialect ratings for all participants 1.0 = Mexican, 5.0 = Puerto Rican The symbol “~” denotes a rating between 2.5 and 3.5, which is considered a hybridized dialect.

Did not match mother (7)

Matched mother (20)

Participant’s initials

Average numerical rating

Dialect rated as…

Mother’s dialect variety

DP VG AD MZ

1.1 1.2 1.7 2.3

MX MX MX MX

PR PR PR PR

SV MG JT

2.3 2.3 4.2

MX MX PR

PR PR MX

ED CR JJ MR DT

1.0 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.4

MX MX MX MX MX

MX MX MX MX MX

JL SR

2.5 2.9

~MX ~MX

MX MX

LM AT LA RV

3.1 3.4 3.4 3.4

~PR ~PR ~PR ~PR

PR PR PR PR

AE GP

3.5 3.7

~PR PR

PR PR

TU MA

4.0 4.2

PR PR

PR PR

AA JO

4.4 4.6

PR PR

PR PR

KM* HG*

4.7 4.7

PR PR

PR PR

FF

4.9

PR

PR

* Participant’s Spanish dialect attributable to family members or community, not directly to mother.

chapter 10

Choosing Spanish Dual language immersion and familial ideologies* Elaine Shenk

Saint Joseph’s University This chapter examines data collected through ethnographic methods in response to the following questions: (1) What language choices did native speakers of Spanish make in response to the official language frames established by a dual language program/curriculum? (2) Which students chose to use Spanish more consistently than their peers? and (3) What common themes were present in the language ideologies held and transmitted by the families of these students regarding the choice towards Spanish language usage? Classroom data were analyzed based on participant structures, discursive norms of interaction, speaker and interlocutor fluency and apparent ethnic identity. Interview data were categorized into three common themes as expressed or lived out in familial ideologies. In contrast to the ideal linguistic behavior envisioned by the program, students demonstrated varying responses to curricular language frames. For some students, however, familial ideologies stood in contrast to standard language ideologies by encouraging the child to retain his/her cultural and linguistic identity, to broke the space between multiple cultural, linguistic and ethnic worlds, and to value Spanish as a form of economic capital.

1. Introduction Research on Spanish-English contact in the United States has predominantly focused on regions with large Spanish-speaking populations and in which the contact is long-standing. Less focus is placed on smaller communities interspersed throughout the United States. In the Midwest, language contact is increasingly * I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for pointing out areas for improvement to tighten the argument and contributions of this chapter. I am grateful to Mercedes Niño-Murcia for her feedback and editorial assistance. I also thank the participants involved in this study, the students and their parents, for sharing their language practices and their time with me throughout and beyond the course of this study.

 Elaine Shenk

common in rural towns. Latino children are growing up in these settings where bilingualism may be perceived as a relatively uncommon phenomenon, processing messages not only from within their home environment but also from the institutions and societal values that surround them. These Latino children construct identity in a variety of ways, whether through assimilation to the dominant culture, retreat into the language minority culture, or through a linguistic brokerage that blurs the boundary between the two languages and cultures. The current study (1) investigates language use patterns in a two-way immersion classroom to demonstrate how students on given occasions make choices about language, (2) identifies five Latino students who use Spanish more consistently than their peers in the classroom and (3) explores the familial language ideologies supporting the atypical language choices of these five students. 2. Research site In 2000, nearly 41% of the population of West Liberty, Iowa, was of “Hispanic or Latino origin,” a contrast with the state of Iowa where Latinos formed only 2.8% of the total population (US Census Bureau 2000).1 West Liberty has the highest percentage Latino population in the state, rivaled only by neighboring Columbus Junction (39%). Although the actual number of Latinos is higher in the state’s larger urban areas, such as Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, or Davenport, their presence in relation to the total population in these cities remains relatively small. In contrast, it is in several of the smaller towns that the Latino population rises above 20%. Thus, the visibility of Latinos, the impact on public perception and the subsequent effect on policy decisions are not as great in the cities as they are in places such as West Liberty. In 2000, the town’s residents were primarily Latino (40.5%) and Anglo (54.8%), with Asian, African American and American Indian residents making up the remaining 4.7% (US Census Bureau 2000). As shown in Figure 1, the Latino presence in West Liberty increased rapidly from approximately 300 persons in the mid 1970s to 1,349 Latinos by 2000, with an almost two-fold increase during the 1990s alone (Miehe 1976, US Census Bureau 2000).

1. The use of the term ‘Hispanic or Latino origin,’ as designated by the US census, indexes an ongoing shift in terminology. For the purposes of this chapter, the term “Hispanic or Latino” is used when referring specifically to census data; Latino will be used elsewhere.



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish  45%

Percentage of Latinos

40% 35%

Latino population in West Liberty

30% 25% 20%

Latino population in Iowa

15% 10% 5% 0% 1976

19 80

1990

20 00

Figure 1.  Latino population growth in West Liberty vs. the state of Iowa 1976–2000

These changing demographics have had a significant impact on public perceptions. Following publication of the 2000 census, the media highlighted the changing face of specific Iowa communities, giving considerable attention to the increase in the Hispanic population (Staff Press-Citizen 2001). The following year, the state legislature approved an Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act, legislation sponsored by Senator Steve King and signed into law by Governor Tom Vilsack in March 2002. The Chair and CEO of US English, Inc., an organization which advocates for the passing of such kinds of legislation, claimed that polls showed a majority of Iowans supported such a measure (Mujica 2002). Somewhat ironically, advertising in Spanish across the state was on the increase during this same time, a reality also commented in the media (Clayworth 2002). In some ways, West Liberty is a typical rural midwestern town. In other ways, however, it breaks with this traditional image. A turkey processing plant was established in 1963, marking the beginning of a northern migration to West Liberty, primarily from the Mexican states of Coahuila and Durango. The town has earned a reputation of being one of Iowa’s more diverse communities, and advertising increasingly caters to bilingual clients and potential employees. Nevertheless, not all publicity has been positive. For example, racial epithets have been directed on occasion at Latino student athletes during sporting events, an arena of contact between students from West Liberty and other parts of Iowa. Patterns of social interaction between Latinos and non-Latinos in the town indicate that there are parallel or even multiple communities occupying different spheres: long-standing non-Latinos with established social networks and Latinos with fewer roots in Iowa geography and its traditional Anglo farming culture, signifying some level of a linguistic, cultural, social and economic divide. A third group – generally bilingual

 Elaine Shenk

and bicultural – moves more easily between the two spheres. These persons speak both languages but also understand multiple sets of cultural rules. They tend to have lived in West Liberty for a significant length of time, and may have local family connections spanning several generations. Employment trends have a propensity to facilitate such separation. In the earliest years of the turkey plant, a relatively small number of Latinos worked there alongside non-Latinos and tended to assimilate relatively quickly into the language and culture of the town. A pilot study by the late 1980s, however, documented the relative geographic isolation of the town, the high percentage of Latinos working at the plant and the continuation of migration as being factors in supporting Spanish language maintenance (Wherritt and González 1989). A pattern of migration between West Liberty and Allende, Durango, in particular, has established strong ties through the relocation of extended families, which is reinforced by intermittent travel between the two towns. This robust connection has revitalized the community’s Spanish language use, providing, in particular, strong integrative motivations to retain fluency. The social dynamics described above are played out not only in the community at large but also within the context of the public schools, where Latino and non-Latino students relate to each other in the classroom. In a number of ways, the school district has been at the forefront of propelling the community towards a greater acceptance of linguistic, cultural and ethnic diversity. The district initially simply indexed the demographic transformations taking place, but subsequently took a leadership role in advocating for change via the implementation of a dual language immersion program (DLP) in 1998 at the pre-K and kindergarten levels. The program expanded into the middle school and has also subsequently evolved in terms of the balance of time spent in each language at the various grade levels. Although the program encountered initial community resistance, ultimately it inspired significant parental interest by Latinos and non-Latinos alike. The program attracted statewide attention, underscoring the impact on both students and their families in light of the fact that the state’s social environment has been less than welcoming to the linguistic diversity of its inhabitants.2 The DLP’s overt philosophy is to help its students become bilingual, biliterate and bicultural (Gardner 2004). More broadly, the district’s mission “is to provide a safe environment for students to become responsible, contributing members of a diverse and changing society” (West Elementary School 2004). In the fall of 2004, the percentages of 2. The recent Official English legislation is only the most recent demonstration of this perspective. In the anti-German context of World War I, in 1918 the state of Iowa prohibited the use of any language other than English in public, showing some history of intolerance to linguistic diversity (Grosjean 1982; Haugen 1969).



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

Latino and Anglo students within the student body of 1,185 students were nearly equal, as seen in Figure 2 (WLCSD Base Enrollment Figures 2004). Just less than eleven percent of the student body was foreign-born. Thus, the majority of Latino students were born in the United States, many of them in West Liberty. Asian 2.8% African American 1.3%

American Indian 0.1%

Hispanic 47.5% Anglo 48.4%

Figure 2.  Student Population in the West Liberty Community School District by Ethnicity (2004)

The program is optional, since students registering for school for the first time select either the DLP or non-DLP track. During the 2004–2005 academic year, 263 students out of 835 participated in the DLP from pre-K through 6th grade (WLCSD Base Enrollment Figures 2004). Curricular guidelines establish the balance of instructional languages within the classroom. In second grade, for example, students alternated homerooms each day between two teachers who taught either in English or in Spanish. Daily opening, literacy activities, math, social studies and science were carried out in the language of that day’s classroom. Native speakers of Spanish (NSSs) also received instruction in Spanish language literacy and in English as a Second Language. The DLP is just one of several expressions of the district’s intention to recognize and respond to cultural and linguistic diversity. The district also instituted a desegregation plan in 2004, thus communicating to students, their families and the broader community the importance of supporting cultural and linguistic

 Elaine Shenk

diversity.3 The demographic and cultural realities highlighted here necessarily have an effect on the ways in which Latino children use language to define themselves both as individuals and as members of the wider community. The increasing diversity in West Liberty – linguistic, ethnic and cultural – within a relatively short period of time, the milieu in which it finds itself in southeastern Iowa and the broader context of the US Midwest, and the dynamic of support and conflict between the majority and minority language communities provide a rich background for the current research. 3. Theoretical background Linguistic fluencies and performances are part of the transactional realities (economic, cultural, social and symbolic) of the linguistic marketplace (Bourdieu 1991). In such a marketplace, interlocutors and “overhearers” (Goffman 1979: 8) alike exert social constraints on speakers to use language according to societal norms.4 Speakers choose their relationship to these norms based on their own and others’ language ideologies, which may be articulated overtly or embodied in specific linguistic practices (Razfar 2003; Woolard and Schieffelin 1994). The Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act exemplifies a standard language ideology that supports linguistic assimilation and clearly indexes the lesser symbolic value of languages other than English (Senate File 165 2001). Lippi-Green (1997) argues that ideologies such as these accompany a process of subordination, devaluation and stigmatization of minority languages. Nevertheless, expressions of resistance can also be found. Cameron (2001) points out that speakers may choose to speak a minority language, not because they are unable to participate in the dominant cultural norms, but because they choose not to do so. Language choices essentially both reflect and help to construct a social identity for the speaker: “it is in doing X, Y and Z that we become or 3. Iowa law permits students to open-enroll out of a school district. In this case, families were electing to withdraw their children from the West Liberty district. Although families did not need to declare a reason for their decision, the families doing so were primarily Anglo, leaving demographic balances in the schools different from those found in the town. Concerned about the related loss of federal funds and disturbed that the school no longer reflected the ethnic ratios in the community, the district enacted a policy in which Anglo or Latino students could open-enroll out of the district only if a student of the other ethnicity also opted out. 4. Goffman (1979) distinguishes “overhearers” (8), who hear the discourse without much intent but who nevertheless glean information from it, from “eavesdroppers,” who use or exploit the information they receive from the interaction. Both terms potentially apply in situations of language contact, as these persons contribute to the assessment of a speaker’s linguistic offerings.



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

construct ourselves as A, B and C” (Cameron 2001: 170). Therefore, patterns of language choice are disorderly. Speakers do not simply comply with given social categories to which they belong, such as age, gender, socioeconomic level, or ethnicity, nor do they always comply with the situational factors in which they find themselves. Rather, they “exploit the possibility of linguistic choices in order to convey intentional meaning of a sociopragmatic nature” (Myers-Scotton 1993: 57). Speakers’ choices at times defy the seemingly obvious frame laid out by the situation and interlocutor, suggesting that a speaker-centered model to language choice is more appropriate than the established categories mentioned above (Giles and Powesland 1975). Speakers may choose to validate a minority language by using it in public settings where it is considered marked (i.e., atypical or unexpected) (Myers-Scotton 1993), even though the mainstream will likely notice and perhaps even reject such linguistic deviations (Coulmas 1997). Thus speakers are free to make choices, but they also weigh the inherent costs and rewards for their actions. For bilinguals, language choice can reference a dual identity, including both the refusal to give up one’s own identity, language and culture while also indexing access to a mainstream identity, language and culture (Zentella 1997). Speakers may blur the boundaries between groups through their linguistic practices, and thus integrate the two worlds to form a new and independent identity, a kind of linguistic and cultural brokerage demonstrated in a variety of settings (Brubaker 2004; Heller 1994; Hill and Hill 1986; Urciuoli 1996). Bilingual children make daily choices about language, evaluating their interlocutors according to language proficiency and identity (Blom and Gumperz 1972; Valdés 1982; Zentella 1981). The interlocutor’s personal appearance (ethnicity and gender) is also a factor (Carranza 1995; Urciuoli 1996; Zentella 1997). Yet apparent ethnic identity may potentially be a less important factor for the bilingual child than the interlocutor’s age and/or authoritative role (Raschka, et al. 2002). Particularly in the school as institution, authority plays a key role in establishing behavioral, academic and linguistic norms (Brice Heath 1983). DLPs deviate from traditional school settings by essentially creating and legitimating an alternative norm, taking the perspective of language as resource rather than as problem (Freeman 1996; Ruíz 1984). Nevertheless, DLP classrooms are subject to the intrusion of societal standards, often leaving Latino children situated in the middle of ideological debates (Shannon 1999; Valdés 1997). Research carried out in one- and two-way immersion programs throughout the United States has shown that the majority language continues to exert its influence on classroom language use patterns (Carrigo 2000; Christian et al.  1997; Freeman 1996; McCollum 1999; Potowski 2004). Instructional practices are crucial. McCollum (1999) lays the responsibility on the school for students’ shift towards English. The concept of leakage, or a discrepancy between ideal policy and

 Elaine Shenk

actual practice (Freeman 1996), is a component of this responsibility, as are the tolerance of English during Spanish class time (Christian et al. 1997; Fortune 2002; Potowski 2004), the disparaging of students’ dialectal variants of the minority language (Heller 1994; McCollum 1999) and the weight of the English language in popular culture (Fortune 2002; Freeman 1996; Potowski 2004). Curricular and asymmetrical assessment policies have also been identified as culprits in helping students to switch (Freeman 1996; McCollum 1999; Potowski 2004). Some studies have highlighted factors correlating with increased minority language use in the classroom. Teachers themselves can more actively encourage use of the minority language (Carranza 1995; Fortune 2002). Additionally, oppositional school discourses can at least partially counteract societal pressures and push language use patterns towards the minority language (Freeman 1996). Within the classroom, on-task topics have been documented as triggering increased use of Spanish in the classroom (Potowski 2004). Students’ differing levels of investment in the minority language have also been shown to play a role in their choices to use it or the dominant language in the classroom (Potowski 2004). To date, however, DLP research has not specifically focused on native speakers of Spanish who are making choices to use the minority language in this kind of supportive institutional setting, and the effects that familial ideologies have on their choices have not yet been fully explored. The current study documented DLP classroom language choice patterns, seeking to confirm or contradict the patterns from previous studies regarding language choice within a two-way immersion program classroom. Based on the classroom data, five students were identified who chose Spanish more consistently than their peers in a number of settings. These five students and their families then formed the basis for further investigation into familial language ideologies. The current research contributes on two accounts: (1) it distinguishes four participant structures within the classroom which helped to predict students’ choices and (2) it explores common themes in the language ideologies held by families of those students who used language in marked ways as compared to their peers within the DLP classroom. The research questions are as follows: 1. What language choices did students make in response to the official language frames established by the dual language curriculum? 2. Which students chose to use Spanish more consistently than other NSS peers? 3. What kinds of language ideologies were held and transmitted by the families of these students regarding appropriate language choices?



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

4. Research design To capture the relationship between linguistic behaviors and social reality, the present research incorporates a recursive ethnographic paradigm of observation, analysis and critique. Research questions and initial hypotheses emerged on site in the midst of the fieldwork and were subsequently refocused (Antón 1996; Johnson 1992). The analysis combines sociolinguistics, ethnography and discourse analysis in an attempt to integrate both micro and macro analysis (Bargiela-Chiappini 2004). Thus, observable linguistic phenomena are situated firmly within the social characteristics of the community, following the example of studies such as Brice Heath (1982), Philips (1983), Urciuoli (1996) and Zentella (1997). 5. Data collection The collection of data involved: (1) participant observation of naturally occurring classroom speech in two DLP classrooms (approximately 368 hours of classroom observations, at 10.5 hours/week for 35 weeks) during the 2004–2005 academic school year; (2) 36 hours of video- and audio-recorded data of classroom speech; (3) six formal interviews and numerous informal conversations with teachers, school staff, parents and other members of the community; (4) home interviews carried out with parents of five students, selected for their more consistent choices towards Spanish in the classroom, followed by a series of participant observer interactions with these families both in their homes and in the town; and (5) written historical and demographic data, including school records, newspaper accounts of the DLP implementation and community response, historical records on West Liberty and US Census data. These methods parallel those utilized in classroom ethnographies such as Freeman (1996), McCollum (1999) and Potowski (2004). Field notes were kept throughout the 2004–2005 academic year. Audio and video recordings were made of classroom activities using either a small Sony Cassette-Corder or Hitachi digital video camera. The second grade was selected for the classroom data collection due to the fact at the time of the study the DLP was officially balanced 50–50 in language of instruction (English/Spanish) from kindergarten through the second grade, whereas its realization beyond second grade distinctly leaned towards English in terms of time and subject material devoted to each language. Thus, I wanted to capture what was happening at the highest grade level at which the two languages were still officially balanced, as this balance was potentially the most effective in influencing students’ language choices towards Spanish language use. Although the language choice data focused primarily on classroom interactions, the cultural context of these phenomena extended into the rest of the

 Elaine Shenk

school and the broader community. Observations also took place outside the classroom setting during recess, library, in the cafeteria and hallways, on field trips and during school assemblies. Formal and informal discussions about language use in West Liberty took place with school staff and with both Latino and non-Latino community members, whose insights yielded information on the history of the town and its cross-cultural relations. Extra-curricular activities with students and their families provided additional insight into the town’s social environment. The structure of a DLP depends on the establishment of a series of language frames, wherein the language of instruction is divided between English and Spanish within the classroom. DLP curricular guidelines established an official 50–50 language balance, so there were essentially two frames: an English language frame and a Spanish language frame. Each of the two DLP second-grade sections had a particular frame related to the teacher: two groups of students alternated each day between an English-only teacher (Ms. Bell), and a Spanish-only teacher (Mr. Jones). Several other classes, such as music, art, or library, were carried out in English with other teachers. The DLP teachers attempted to maintain the language frames through changes in “footing” (Goffman 1979: 5), which served to indicate the end of one part of the interaction and the beginning of another, such as when the students returned from art class or library time into the DLP classroom. Teachers also made the effort to preserve the language frame through strategies such as the maintenance of a monolingual stance (that is, feigning non-comprehension when students used English). Goffman’s (1974) concept of frame suggests that speakers understand that there are particular terms to be followed, and that certain actions and communication are therefore appropriate, within each frame. However, as we will see below, these terms were often broken by students. The term language frame encompasses both academic and non-academic activities. For example, school settings outside the DLP classrooms were considered part of the English frame, as only some classrooms were part of the DLP. The research did not focus on the DLP itself, but rather on the students’ patterns of active language choices within the program. Out of the body of classroom language choice data, I identified five students whose classroom practices demonstrated not only a lack of reluctance to speak Spanish in the classroom but a decidedly more consistent use of Spanish than their peers. These students were selected for follow-up investigation into familial language ideologies as well as parental strategies that served to highlight and transmit these ideologies to their children. This took place through structured interviews conducted in homes, supplemented by data gathered through a series of informal conversations and participant observations that took place with these families in their homes, at the school and during public events in West Liberty. The interviews were audio-taped and conducted with one or both parents, and in some cases, grandparents. Interview topics focused on language use patterns in the home, the



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

motivation for enrolling the child in the DLP, the child’s experience in the program, and the relative importance parents placed on their child(ren)’s using and maintaining Spanish and/or becoming fully bilingual, as well as broader questions related to life and interactions within the town of West Liberty, particularly between Latinos and Anglos. Home visits and a variety of contacts both within and outside the home ranged from two to nine with each family, depending primarily on the initiative of the participants. The interview data were transcribed and categorized collectively on a thematic basis that emerged throughout the interview and observational process. 6. Participants The classroom participants included in these findings and analysis include fourteen second-grade Latinos – first- or second-generation in the United States – all of whom were classified as native speakers of Spanish (NSSs) and who comprised 42% of two DLP second-grade classrooms. The students’ placement as NSSs was made by the school based on a combination of parental indications, the results from a standardized Idea Proficiency Test (IPT) administered prior to the beginning of each school year to determine language dominance and fluency level, and teachers’ observations and assessments. Table 1 shows the IPT proficiency levels for these 14 students at the end of their first grade year. Table 1.  IPT scores of 14 DLP NSS students immediately prior to second grade ENGLISH TEST IPT rating

SPANISH TEST IPT score

Non-speaker

A B C

Limited speaker

D E

Fluent speaker

F

# of students – 1 1 7 1 4

IPT rating

IPT score # of students

Non-speaker

A B

– –

Limited speaker

C D E F

1 6 5

Fluent speaker

2

As seen in this table, even though these students had been classified as native speakers of Spanish by their families and their language dominance had been confirmed by the teachers’ informal assessments, their formal test scores showed few of them to be rated as fluent Spanish speakers. The IPT’s primary drawback is that it is based heavily on vocabulary recognition. Thus even NSSs whose families spoke

 Elaine Shenk

only Spanish at home often did not rate as fluent (the same happened with native speakers of English on the English test). Two out of the fourteen were evaluated as non-English speakers according to test results. In reality they fared much better in English than the test results might indicate. Eight were classified as limited English speakers and four as fluent English speakers. In turn, twelve were classified as limited Spanish speakers and two as fluent Spanish speakers. Although IPT results based on vocabulary rated the majority of these students as limited Spanish speakers, they demonstrated considerable ease when communicating in Spanish and in spite of occasional lexical gaps. On the whole, the majority were proficient both receptively and productively in both languages. Lack of Spanish proficiency for these students was thus not considered to be a significant factor in language choice. It should be noted that Latino students who were (1) classified within the DLP as English-dominant, (2) enrolled in other DLP classroom sections or (3) not enrolled in the DLP are not represented in the data collection or analysis here. Likewise, native speakers of English enrolled in the DLP are not included. The selection of the five NSS students was based on (1) their observed classroom language choice behavior, (2) demonstrated fluency levels in both English and Spanish as shown on the Idea Placement Test from the end of the previous year and (3) parental willingness to participate in the interview process. These five students were second graders Maritza, Carmen, Pilar, Rogelio and kindergartener Alberto.5 The four second graders were more consistent in complying with the Spanish language frame, and additionally used Spanish in settings where the frame was less clearly demarcated, such as in the hallway or during recess, even though they had significant English language skills and showed themselves to be fully capable of following their peers’ example in using English (IPT scores showed Maritza, Pilar and Carmen as having achieved a level D in English by the end of first grade, as had half of the 2nd grade NSSs, and Rogelio had achieved a level F, the highest level possible). Their more frequent use of Spanish was thus marked in relation to the choices of the majority of their peers, even though technically their choices followed the official classroom frame (Spanish). The kindergartener, Alberto, was relatively quiet in the classroom, but often chose to use Spanish and, of the kindergartners, was one of the most likely to choose that language over English, even though his English fluency was average for his class (he had achieved an IPT English score level C, which at the pre-kindergarten level was considered to indicate language fluency). 5. The broader study from which these data are taken focused on both kindergarten and second grade levels. The specific classroom data on language choice ended up focusing primarily on the second grade classrooms, since very low levels of Spanish were used by kindergarten students. However, because this kindergartener (Alberto) was not reticent to use Spanish in the classroom, yet demonstrated English fluency as well, his family was included at the interview stage.



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

7. Analysis Particular attention was paid to the established classroom frames as defined above as well as students’ subsequent language choices during various participant structures. Participant structures were defined both by who was present in the core interaction (students and teacher), as well as by who primarily guided or controlled the interaction (students or teacher). Fortune (2002) discusses a student-led participant structure which elicited more Spanish. Parker et al. (1995) also divide analytical structures into teacher-fronted and non-teacher-fronted. In the present study, I divided the latter (non-teacher-fronted) into three groups, two during which students primarily engaged in free interaction – within and outside of classroom lessons – and one during which the students took some level of responsibility for the classroom lesson; I maintained teacher-fronted as a fourth category. These structures will be explored in detail below. On-going discussion with the teacher throughout and following the school year helped to clarify patterns as they surfaced in the data. Representative samples of discourse, showing both typicality and some variation, were then systematically selected for close transcription and translation, and formed the basis for a more in-depth analysis. Although the examples selected were characteristic of students’ language choices, involving patterns repeated over the course of the year, these were not quantified. The intent of the family interviews and observations was to elicit the description and interpretation of particular, and recurring, themes related to language use from within the participants’ world (Freeman 1996). The interviews were conducted within the home environment, thus allowing me to observe naturally occurring language use, providing a context for the interview data and additional information for analysis. Interview analysis occurred both during and after the interviews in the sense that participants were asked to describe certain components of their linguistic world, meaning was condensed and interpreted during the interview for confirmation or contradiction by the interviewee, and the data from the interview were transcribed, in and of itself a process of structuring and analysis (Kvale 1996). Subsequent analysis included meaning categorization (assigning interview elements to particular categories, principally where similar categories are mentioned by other interviewees, thus making some level of generalizations possible), meaning condensation (reducing texts to concise formulations, while retaining the basic points made by the interviewees) and narrative structuring (focusing on the stories told during the interview to elicit the underlying meaning) (Kvale 1996). The researcher’s identity, assumptions and role are a significant component of ethnographic analysis (Cameron et al. 1992). As a researcher, I entered a context in which I was not a member, striving to understand how participants understood

 Elaine Shenk

and related to others in their world, myself included. Contemporary calls have been made for more accountable research methods and analysis. Specifically, Cameron et al. (1992) assert that research should be undertaken on, for and with the participants, taking into account participants’ agendas in forming the trajectory of the research. Ideally, research questions, methodologies and analysis are mutually beneficial, addressing not only the researcher’s interests but the participants’ as well. Because research often highlights what is not working, the focus of this research evolved to examine the factors that motivated students to choose Spanish over English (the more expected or typical language choice). This choice was motivated by both teachers’ and parents’ interest to see the students speak Spanish more often, particularly when they saw either their own children or others’ children making the choice to shift towards English. Topics related to language choice, along with language maintenance and shift, were interesting to parents and they engaged these topics by supplementing our conversations with numerous examples about their own children or interactions about language they had experienced with friends and extended family members. Although I did not share with parents the theoretical frameworks of the research, we did discuss issues related to the differential assessment of the two languages, minority language maintenance, parental support and home language boundaries. Thus this work is about locating and elucidating factors which potentially raise consciousness both among these Latino students and their families as well as the broader public which surrounds their small community in West Liberty. 7.1

Findings (1): Patterns of language choice related to classroom participant structures

This section summarizes findings related to the overall patterns of bilingual Latino students’ language choices within the DLP curricular guidelines. Although interlocutor identity and appearance was certainly an important factor in students’ language choice, as predicted by Carranza (1995), Urciuoli (1996) and Zentella (1997), an equally important factor emerged related to the participant structure of classroom activities. Four structures are examined briefly here, as outlined in Table 2: (1) unstructured student interaction, (2) student-directed classroom activities, (3) student-fronted classroom activities and (4) teacher-fronted classroom activities. The participant structures in this order showed an increasing propensity on the students’ part to choose Spanish as the language of interaction, as shown in selected examples from the data.



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

Table 2.  Participant structures used in the analysis of language choice in the DLP classroom Participant Structure

Teacher present?

Domain(s)

Typical activities

(1) Unstructured student interaction

No

School hallways Playground Cafeteria

(2) Student-directed classroom interaction

Primarily “absent” (circulating throughout the room)

Classroom

(3) Student-fronted classroom interaction

Yes

Classroom

(4) Teacher-fronted classroom interaction

Yes

Classroom

Arriving at/leaving school Preparing for recess Games Walking to another area of the school Eating lunch Independent or small-group work Writing short essays Doing math problems Sharing materials Reporting about outside activities Playing with language Presenting authored material to the class during Dibujos de lunes and Taller de escribir Negotiating question-andanswer period with peers Presentation of new material (math, social studies, literacy skills)

7.1.1 Unstructured student interaction Unstructured student interaction was external to the official classroom language frames, as it took place primarily in domains outside the classroom or, if inside the classroom, involved short time periods outside of official classroom activities, such as the minute or two immediately preceding recess or lunch time. There were daily opportunities for NSSs to interact with each other and with NSEs in informal settings such as recess, lunch time or in the hallways. Spanish was sometimes spoken, but only in small groupings of NSSs. The frequent presence of NSEs generally meant that the unmarked language of student groups involving native speakers of both languages was English. Most NSEs selected English as their language of choice in these unstructured domains, although several occasionally attempted to use Spanish in limited incidents of self-talk or interaction with others. NSSs generally accommodated to this choice of English. Rarely, if ever, did a mixed language grouping carry out an extended interaction in Spanish. Because the school as a

 Elaine Shenk

whole was not part of the DLP (i.e., there were two sections at each grade level which were English-only), many students were not exposed to any Spanish language instruction during the school day. Carranza (1995) found that native speakers of Spanish chose to use English with apparent Anglo-American speakers, and suggested a sense of “pretense” when speakers “communicate in one language, knowing that both can be more effective in another language” (174). We will return to this concept in the fourth participant structure. 7.1.2 Student-directed classroom interaction This participant structure took place during the official classroom language frame but while students were working individually at their desks. This was primarily a peer-level interaction; the teacher was present in the classroom, although circulated among all the students and was mostly a non-participant in students’ interactions who were working independently or in groups at their desks. Some activities could not be carried out in English and specifically required the use of Spanish, such as reading a story aloud to a partner. In these cases, students did not have a choice in terms of which language to use, and as seen in Potowski (2004), specific focus on this kind of task-based activity elicited more Spanish language use. However, the most common scenario in mixed language groupings during other tasks, which did not explicitly require Spanish, was an almost complete divergence from the language frame into English. This held as long as students were the only ones engaged in the activity. In this environment where both NSSs and NSEs were present, as in the previous unstructured interaction, there was a clear tendency on the part of NSSs to carry out peer interaction in English, whether or not such interaction was related to their task (such as writing a short story in Spanish). These student interactions included strategies of negotiation and repair between NSSs and NSEs. Some language choices towards Spanish, however, occurred during the teacher’s overt presence when he stopped by from time to time. Thus the language frame seemed to hold little power except when the teacher’s authoritative presence was physically evident – specifically right next to the students’ desks. This same pattern was also documented in many student-directed interactions where only NSSs were present. Data showed that although all interlocutors in a group were proficient NSSs, and in fact gave themselves away as non-native speakers of English due to certain lexical choices, many NSSs carried out their interaction with other NSS peers in English. Again, a language switch was sometimes made in response to the teacher’s queries regarding the academic task at hand. Although this might initially be seen as confirming the value of certain task-based activities to elicit more sustained use of the minority language, as found by Fortune (2002) in one-way immersion and Potowski (2004) in two-way immersion settings,



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

it is more clearly related here to the weight of the teacher’s presence in eliciting more use of the minority language. Importantly, the teacher was interacting with students about the task itself, whereas other language use within this student-directed interaction time often fulfilled a function of talking to peers about events both within and outside the classroom, the sharing of materials, reporting and playing with language. Thus, in the absence of the teacher, NSS peer interactions were heavily weighted towards English language use, particularly, but not necessarily, in the immediate presence of NSEs. 7.1.3 Student-fronted classroom interaction (teacher present) Student-fronted classroom interaction took place during the official classroom language frame but included both a formal presentation component and a formal question-and-answer time. This was also a primarily peer-level interaction, with occasional comments or questions from the teacher, who was an observer. In this participant structure, although the teacher was present, students were in charge of monitoring classroom interaction and turn-taking. Two regularly scheduled activities (see Table 2) allowed students to take center stage in the classroom, carrying out duties otherwise allocated to the teacher, such as (1) presenting material to the class, (2) calling on other students and (3) fielding questions. Although the teacher retained the roles of disciplinarian, keeping students on task and closing the activity, the locus of control was shifted from teacher to student. Thus these classroom activities provided an opportunity to observe students’ language choices as guided somewhat more overtly by the language frame, since the teacher was an obvious and legitimated eavesdropper to the interaction. Students presented their own work in Spanish, whereas the question-and-answer time varied in terms of language selection. The overarching pattern was NSSs’ accommodation towards the presenter’s native language but not vice versa; that is, NSSs asked questions in English of NSEs, and NSEs also generally asked their questions, even of NSSs, in English, not finding it necessary to accommodate to NSSs’ native language. When the two students posing and answering questions were both NSSs, language choice vacillated between Spanish and English and could be somewhat predicted by the individual students involved. Some NSSs showed a greater inclination to choose Spanish as the language of their question and/or response, whereas many other NSSs frequently did so in English. The latter answered in English the questions and comments posed to them in either language. In spite of their classification as NSSs, their IPT scores showing fluency in Spanish and their accurate grammar, fluent reading skills and ease of expression in Spanish, they clearly demonstrated a preference for negotiating with peers in English. In contrast, a smaller group of NSSs (chiefly the five selected as described above) used Spanish more consistently during these student-directed activities,

 Elaine Shenk

particularly to address their teacher or other classroom adult Spanish speakers, but also to address peers. These students more reliably held the frame for both the formal presentation of their work as well as for the question-and-answer time. Thus, student-fronted classroom structures, where the teacher was present but with a background role, demonstrated mixed results in terms of students’ language choice. The obligatory use of Spanish as part of the presentation functioned to predispose students to consider this the language of the frame, although the student-fronted role of managing turn-taking often resulted in breaking that frame. In this aspect, the results differ from those of Fortune’s (2002) study, in a one-way immersion classroom, in which she found that peer interaction around structured classroom activities elicited more use of the immersion language than when the teacher led the discussion. As we see here and in the fourth participant structure, this research found the opposite to be true. However, this third participant structure did elicit a slight increase in Spanish language use, primarily on the part of specific NSSs (this time with both teacher and NSEs present), including, on very limited occasions, interactions between these NSSs and their NSE interlocutors. 7.1.4 Teacher-fronted classroom time In the fourth classroom structure the teacher took an active role as the primary convener of class activities, presenting new material, eliciting student responses and facilitating discussion with the entire class or in small groups. This kind of interaction is perhaps most typically assumed within a classroom setting, but made up only one part of a typical school day in this second-grade classroom. As may be deduced from the previous examples, teacher-fronted activities were the most successful in eliciting Spanish language use, either in mixed groups of NSSs and NSEs, or with NSSs alone. This contrasts with Carranza’s (1995) assumption of pretense, since the teacher, a non-Latino and non-native speaker of Spanish, often elicited more spoken Spanish from NSS speakers than did Latino peers who were native speakers of Spanish. The increased use of Spanish was supported by the incorporation of daily classroom routines, the repetition of which provided the strongest incentive for the Spanish language frame to be most clearly upheld by students. In non-routinized teacher-fronted time, the picture was more complex. In spite of an overall increase of Spanish during teacher-fronted classroom time, students continued to disrupt the language of the frame by the insertion of questions, responses and general commentary in English. NSS students participated actively in this divergence. This formed a striking contrast to what happened during English instructional time, such as music, art, library or gym classes, as well as the English blocks in the DLP curriculum, where all students (NSEs and NSSs alike) invariably converged to the language of the frame. Therefore, the teacher-fronted classroom structure, like that of student-



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

fronted activities with the teacher present, presents a mixed picture. Mr. Jones’s presence served to increase the amount of Spanish used by NSSs, particularly when students were direct interlocutors with the teacher. Of the four classroom structures presented, this one provided the highest motivation for students’ use of Spanish. However, even this was not enough to prevent frequent divergence into English on the part of many of the students. 7.2

Division of students by native language

Perhaps somewhat paradoxically, a structural factor, which resulted in NSSs speaking more Spanish, was the division of students by native language for literacy classes (i.e., Spanish language literacy for NSSs). This corresponds with Carrigo’s (2000) findings in which division by native language meant that the Spanish home-language students of her study used a high proportion of Spanish, as opposed to mixed language groupings. When the NSE students left their Spanish language classroom to attend an English language literacy class and additional NSS students from the other DLP section entered Mr. Jones’s classroom, there was a decided shift to spoken Spanish on the part of the NSS students. This class drew out a much higher degree – in many cases exclusively so – of Spanish use. Native language literacy classes required students to discuss complex themes, develop orthographic skills and phonetic analysis and build vocabulary. Students were much more successful in holding the language of the frame in this class than during any of the classes in which NSEs were also present. The discussion included the presentation of vocabulary, evaluation of examples and the formation of connections between textbook content and real-life situations. Students responded to Mr. Jones’s coaching and questioning, holding the Spanish frame without fail and when asked to define a word, did so by pantomime or using their own words to define it. Notably they did not switch to English at any time. Even so, the clearly delineated frame often broke down when the formal academic activities were completed, even though students had just engaged in language literacy activities in Spanish for significant amounts of time. Summarizing, although the division of students by native language increased NSSs’ overall use of Spanish, the teacher’s presence was still a factor, such as his taking leave from a group, was frequently accompanied by a switch to English. Nevertheless, as was the case for the studentdirected participant structure, some NSSs regularly demonstrated that they were more likely than others to use Spanish with NSS peers even when the teacher was not present. This forms the basis for the next section.

 Elaine Shenk

7.3

“Maintainers” and “shifters”6

In the previous section, I have shown variation in language choice patterns according to four distinct participant structures. I have also shown that patterns varied according to individual speakers, since the fourteen NSS students demonstrated diverse responses to the Spanish language classroom frame. Supporting the findings of other DLP classroom research (Carrigo 2000; Christian et al.  1997; Freeman 1996; Fortune 2002; McCollum 1999; Potowski 2004), no student in the classroom exclusively used Spanish during this time. This contrasts with what happened during the English language classroom frame, where all DLP students – both NSSs and native speakers of English (NSEs) – conformed unilaterally. Nevertheless, some NSS students complied with, or respected, the Spanish frame more consistently than other NSSs, including times when the teacher was not present. Additionally, the former were observed choosing to use Spanish in settings where the Spanish language frame was not as clearly demarcated, set apart by time, deviations in schedule, or physical location, such as the library, hallway or playground. The use of Spanish was a marked choice in these environments, as English was clearly the unmarked option within the broader school. This more consistent choice of Spanish determined the selection of five NSS student “maintainers” for further study regarding familial ideologies and the impact of these on the students’ language behavior. 7.4

Findings (2): common themes in the familial language ideologies of 5 DLP students

Discussions with the parents of the five selected students revealed a variety of beliefs regarding language usage, many of which coalesced into three primary themes. Foremost in the interviews were: (1) a positive correlation between actively choosing to use one’s first language and the retention of one’s cultural or national identity and (2) the integrative function of language as facilitating and brokering the boundaries between different groups and cultures. Voiced, but of somewhat lower priority as determined by the frequency and timing of when the topic emerged, was (3) the perspective that maintaining Spanish in addition to learning English would lead to better job or economic opportunities. First, the robust connection between speaking Spanish and retaining one’s cultural and/or national identity was repeatedly expressed by parents during the interview process and regularly referenced in subsequent conversations. In response to why it was important for their children to maintain the Spanish language in the 6. Stoessel (2002) uses these terms to describe speakers’ language choice leanings.



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

midst of the predominantly monolingual English-speaking culture in Iowa, parents stated in varying ways the intrinsic link they perceived between language and the expression of a cultural self. Their child’s use of the heritage language seemed to them, at the least, simply an inherent requirement related to one’s identity, as seen in the following example:

(1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

[INT-P1: 8] Quiero que ellos tengan sus raíces y sepan de donde vienen. No quiero que – porque este país es un país de muchos lugares. Hay muchas gentes que vienen de [inaudible] y se olvidan de sus raíces y – y hablan puro inglés. O que vienen de Europa y, se preocupan – claro es bien importante aprender inglés, pero es mucho más importante mantener su cultura.

‘I want [my children] to have their roots and to know where they come from. I don’t want – because this country is a country of many places. There are a lot of people who come from [inaudible] and they forget their roots and – and they speak only English. Or they come from Europe and, they worry – of course it’s very important to learn English, but it’s much more important to maintain one’s culture.’

For these parents, the separation of language from identity, and the subsequent shift from the native language to the societal dominance of English, was perceived to be a significant loss for those speakers who are no longer connected with their roots. In fact, this kind of linguistic and cultural disconnect was related to similar losses by one parent who linked the discussion about maintaining Spanish or shifting to English within the United States to the loss of indigenous languages in Mexico. The clear formulation of this correlation of language and identity meant that there was some surprise expressed in light of the reality that some Anglo-Americans, or at least those who appear to be, also spoke Spanish, particularly if they did so relatively fluently. When language is perceived to be closely linked to ethnic or national identity, members of other ethnic groups or nationalities who also use that language are thus somewhat anomalous or, at the least, are cause for some reorienting of the belief systems at work. People in West Liberty were often expected to fall along expected linguistic and cultural lines, with Latinos on one side and non-Latinos on the other, with the exception of the bilingual teachers in the school system. Additionally, the use of Spanish on the part of Latinos was perceived to express a sense of intrinsic or fundamental pride in that identity, a stance which many of these parents affirmed and supported. One father linked the use of Spanish to a lack of shame in one’s identity, indicating that although some youth seemed embarrassed to claim such a cultural or ethnic identity, those who had the maturity to perceive the connection between language and identity were the ones who

 Elaine Shenk

were going to succeed in life. He also asserted that the viewpoint claiming that one has to leave behind one’s language upon entering the United States, such as that supported by proponents of Official English movements, is related to racist undercurrents in US society, and expressed the hope that this mentality would eventually disappear. He went on to compare the situation of Spanish with that of other languages such as French or German in the United States, and staunchly defended the right of the former to be placed on equal par with the latter. Perhaps due to their ready acknowledgement of pride in their own culture and in a Mexican national identity, as well as the connection between that identity and the Spanish language, the NSS parents interviewed for this study expressed overall incomprehension regarding the decisions made by Latino parents whose children were not participating in the DLP. When asked about the difference between families whose children were enrolled in the program and those whose children were not, these parents regularly observed that the latter children seemed to be losing Spanish skills and comprehension at a much faster rate than their own or other children in the program, or at least speaking it more poorly, thus indicating that they believe the program to have an important influence on their children’s developing Spanish skills and Spanish language maintenance. One parent mentioned that a student older than her own children who was not in the DLP and who no longer spoke any Spanish, although his grandparents and mother do not speak English. When the child’s mother pushed him to speak Spanish, the child reacted with some level of irritation. These parents attributed others’ decisions to not enroll their children either to a lack of understanding about the relatively rapid process of language attrition, or to an overt disinterest or rejection of Spanish as an essential part of identity, as evidenced in the comments of Alberto’s father:

(2) 1 2 3 4 5 6

[INT-P5:3] Creo que eso también es ignorancia, de parte de las familias mexicanas o latinas. Es ignorancia. Por qué es ignorancia? […] Cuando un padre le niega al hijo tener un programa como que tenemos para mí en lo personal, es ignorancia.

‘I believe that that is also ignorance, on the part of the Mexican or Latino families. It’s ignorance. Why is it ignorance? […] When a father denies his child to have a program like the one we have, for me personally, it’s ignorance.’

This father later used a hypothetical interlocutor to emphasize his perspective. This pseudo-interlocutor interspersed English into the dialogue, indicating not only a lack of knowledge about the topic at hand – cultural and historical knowledge – but also either an inability or choice not to use Spanish. One child’s mother spoke of her interactions with other children (not her own) in which she explicitly asked the children about their language choices, and although she was not able to



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

clearly elicit their underlying motivations or reasoning processes, she did extrapolate meaning from their choices in conjunction with her own observation of parental realities and practices – children whose parents were fluent in both Spanish and English often did not find Spanish to be as important, since they were able to communicate with their parents in English, the broader societal language. A second parental ideology emerged that clearly valued the child’s use of Spanish as enabling that child to generate for themselves a role in which they potentially functioned as linguistic and cultural brokers between the Latino and Anglo cultural worlds. This role enabled them to both (1) integrate into existing family and community networks in West Liberty and the home country as well as (2) merge into English-speaking cultural circles in West Liberty. Their participation in both circles enabled them to function as intermediaries. Integrating into existing networks through the use of Spanish was particularly important, although not exclusively, in facilitating intergenerational communication with monolingual Spanish speakers such as grandparents or newer immigrants. Pilar’s mother noted that good preparation and achieving fluency in both languages was very important since others in the community did not speak English. In this way, motivating or encouraging children to speak Spanish helped to bridge the gap between an older, often monolingual Spanish, generation and the younger, sometimes monolingual English, generation. By maintaining Spanish, these children were avoiding the breach in communication taking place in some other Latino families. Within West Liberty, there are many extended family networks and thus significant intergenerational contact between grandparents, parents and children. However, even those who do not have these familial ties can readily network almost exclusively within the Latino community. There are significant numbers of Latinos, then, for whom the need for English is mitigated by a strong Spanishspeaking social network. Although some of these are recent immigrants, some members of the community have lived in West Liberty for fifteen or twenty years with minimal English comprehension or production skills. Therefore a number of these parents fostered a language brokerage stance (Heller 1994) towards their children’s bilingualism. They encouraged their children as they took on this role, functioning as mediators between Latinos and nonLatinos as well as mediating that space within themselves as emerging bilingual and bicultural children. Parents recognized the significant barrier between monolingual English and monolingual Spanish speakers in West Liberty, and indicated that their children and others of that generation would be able to cross more quickly or easily over that barrier when they chose to do so. They recognized that their children potentially filled a niche by going between Spanish and English speakers, bridging the two cultures with which they came into contact on a daily basis. Some of them spoke of their children’s pride and personal satisfaction in

 Elaine Shenk

having the ability to serve as a go-between in a variety of situations, whether within the school setting itself, between Spanish-speaking neighbors and non-Spanishspeakers, or even at home by brokering between the outside English-speaking culture and language, including neighbors, and their parents or grandparents. The DLP was perceived as potentially of great advantage in bridging this barrier not only because their children were maintaining Spanish while learning English, but also because non-Latinos were learning Spanish. In fact, in some cases, the push for children to learn and practice such brokerage skills was a consequence of parents being very cognizant of their tenuous immigration status in the United States, a reality which meant that at any time they might find themselves on the other side of the US-Mexico border. Maintaining the Spanish language was thus an astute contingent plan, as they wanted their children to be prepared for either eventuality – either remaining in the United States or returning to Mexico. The DLP was thus perceived to be welcome assistance in helping their children to survive and excel in either world. Parents expressed a high value in seeing their child functioning in these ways, specifically showing pride in their child’s progress not only in English but also in Spanish:

(3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

[INT-P5: 4] Y me he encontrado con jóvenes graduados de que estamos sorprendidos de así cómo pueden escribir el español. Escriben el inglés perfecto. Y pueden interpretar perfecto palabra por palabra. Simultáneamente. Pueden hablar una palabra en inglés y español pum pum pum. Digo, “Wow!” Eso es ser bilingüe. Ese es mi sueño. Que mis hijos sean así. Porque, para mí es una mara – maravilloso que alguien pueda dominar, cien por ciento dos idiomas.

‘And I have met young graduates of whom we are surprised at how they can write Spanish. They write English perfectly. And they can interpret perfectly word for word. Simultaneously. They can say a word in English and Spanish pum pum pum. I say, “Wow!” That is what it means to be bilingual.  That is my dream. That my children can be that way. Because, for me it’s a marv – marvelous that someone can be one hundred percent fluent in two languages.’

One child’s grandmother stated that she did not mind that the child and his sister sometimes talked to each other in English even though she herself did not understand them. However, she always addressed the children in Spanish, and sometimes tested their ability to go back and forth in translating vocabulary into the other language. On one occasion, while discussing the importance of supporting the children in continuing to maintain the Spanish language, the child’s grandfather asked him, “¿Cuánto vales si hablas dos idiomas?” ‘How much are you worth if you speak two languages?’, to which the child responded, “Dos personas” ‘Two people,’ a response affirmed by his grandfather: “Vales dos personas” ‘You are worth



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

two people,’ a clearly established question and response routine between the two. Bilingualism, and specifically maintaining the minority language as a part of this bilingualism, was communicated to these children as something that contributed to their self-worth. A third ideology set emerged during several interviews, but was neither a predominant nor primary focus of parental ideologies. At the outset of data collection, the latent supposition was that an ideology linking Spanish (or, at the least, bilingualism) to economic advancement and opportunity would be first and foremost for Latino families. The interview questions, however, were framed in such a way that invited parents to state their own priorities for wanting their children to become bilingual and to maintain Spanish. Notably, an ideology set linking Spanish language maintenance with increased job opportunities or financial success was not found to be overly prominent in the interviews. Rather it arose in a secondary way, and in fact during some interviews not at all, as part of the motivation parents had for encouraging or even requiring their children to continue to use Spanish and for enrolling them in the dual language program. Such an instrumental ideology, in which language use is perceived primarily as a way in which to obtain practical or economic benefits, thus played a comparatively small role in these parents’ reflections about Spanish language use and maintenance. The parents, who did indicate the economic profit of speaking Spanish in addition to English, framed their responses in a way that referenced the reality of globalization. In such a world, multilingualism is seen not only as an inevitable reality in which it makes sense for their children to participate, but additionally as a superior way to function, since bilingualism provides a way of power and access to that globalized world. One father believed that if he had learned English while still in Mexico, he would have been able to find a job with good pay while still in his home country, rather than needing to seek employment elsewhere. However, now that the family is in the United States, and knowing that his children are readily acquiring English, he believed the benefit to be gained was by holding on to Spanish, as the linguistic disadvantage would be held by those who know only English and not also another language. This parent reiterated his position by elaborating a transformation that he had seen in the commercial market, listing a series of corporations who, in the last decade, had begun focusing on bilingual projects (McDonald’s, Burger King, Disneyland), which he stated had not happened in the 1980s. He claimed this as an example of opening markets and the competition that was pushing the use of Spanish and bilingual advertising, making companies more attentive and responsive to Spanish-speakers’ needs. He also pointed out that bilingual products and services are much more common now than previously. This ideology of bilingualism as power and access – specifically the retention of Spanish language fluency, and not merely the acquisition of English

 Elaine Shenk

– was echoed by other parents as having reached West Liberty through clear examples of employment offers to native speakers of Spanish as legal assistants, as office staff in turkey processing plant offices and as bank clerks, all positions involving significant interaction with other Latino employees, but which were a step up from what many Latinos in the community already had:

(4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

[INT-P6: 7] [Mother]: Pues yo a veces le digo a, a Carmen que este, es importante que hable los dos idiomas porque a veces pueden encontrar trabajos, mejor, por saber los dos idiomas. […] Aquí en West Liberty [inaudible]. Y en los periódicos también que se – que se hablan que hable español. […] Y también ya hay muchos ah abogados ponen anuncios de abogados y luego dice se habla español. […] [Father]: Como aquí los que trabajan en las oficinas, están agarrando las personas hispanas […] en la oficina de West Liberty Foods. [Mother]: Y también en el banco hay algunos hispanos. [Father]: Casi la mayoría.

Well I sometimes tell Carmen that um, it’s important that she speak both languages because sometimes people can find work, better work, by knowing both languages. […] Here in West Liberty [inaudible]. And in the newspapers also that – that people speak that the person be able to speak Spanish. […] And also there are now a lot of um lawyers they put advertisements from lawyers and then say Spanish is spoken […] Like here those who work in the offices, they are hiring Hispanos […] in the office at West Liberty Foods. And also in the bank there are some Hispanos. Almost the majority.

Significantly, when these parents discussed the importance of knowing a second language, they were not merely referring to the importance of speaking English, because in the environment in which the families are located, they are aware that English is readily being acquired. Rather, it was the added benefit that speaking Spanish will give their children, as seen in the focus Carmen’s mother places in her discourse: the jobs she sees advertised are for someone who also speaks Spanish. Summarizing, NSS parents indicated a hierarchy of ideologies around language usage and their hopes for their children. A primary ideology connected the everyday use and long-term maintenance of Spanish as not only retaining one’s cultural and ethnic identity, but also demonstrating pride in that identity. Secondly, using Spanish regularly was crucial to brokering the linguistic and cultural boundaries, not only through intergenerational interaction within the Latino community but also in crossing the borders between the two languages and cultures with those who speak English and are generally part of the non-Latino community in West Liberty and beyond. Thirdly, parents maintained a globalized



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

perspective in valuing Spanish in addition to English as an effective form of economic capital that would improve and expand their future opportunities. 8. Discussion and analysis The WLCSD’s establishment of the DLP in 1998 meant that NSSs and NSEs together began to systematically study each other’s language in the same classrooms. Both languages were thus recognized by the institution for their contribution to academic learning and success. This recognition was transposed into the classroom setting by the establishment of language frames communicating the expectations for equivalence of language use as well as the footing (Goffman 1979) for classroom interaction. The first research question sought to determine what kinds of language choices were being made by the students in the DLP classroom in response to the language frames established by the curriculum. In contrast to the ideal linguistic behavior expected by the program, the patterns described above (and summarized in Figure 3) demonstrate that frame-divergent language choices were overwhelmingly unidirectional – that is, towards English – in non-compliance with the established language frame. A high level of use of the dominant language within the classroom, and particularly the use of English as a language of peers, is a finding that supports previous studies on one- and two-way immersion classrooms (Carrigo 2000; Christian et al. 1997; Freeman 1996; McCollum 1999; Potowski 2004). English frame

Predominant pattern is convergence towards English

Spanish frame

Virtually no divergence towards Spanish

Some convergence to Spanish (mostly by a small number of NSSs)

frequent divergence towards English (all NSSs)

Figure 3.  Overall Pattern of NSSs’ Language Choices related to Classroom Language Frames

Although the goals of the program do not intend for this outcome, several factors both inside and outside the school must be taken into account. The routine nature of frame-divergent language choice is not coincidental.  Rather, the overall tendency of dominant code intrusion into the classroom is a form of convergence towards broader school and societal norms, even though it entails a divergence

 Elaine Shenk

from the interlocutor, superseding the teacher’s authoritative role in establishing the Spanish frame as well as ignoring the ethnic identity of native Spanish-speaking peers. In spite of the efforts to maintain a 50–50 balance between instructional languages, wider school activities increased the use of English overall, as subjects such as art, music, physical education and library skills were nearly exclusively taught in English. This was also the language of wider communication in assemblies and with most classroom outsiders.7 This kind of “leakage” (Freeman 1996) is impossible for students to ignore. The intrusion of English as the dominant language in almost every area of the school outside the DLP classroom, and even inside it at times, indicates that some level of cultural convergence towards broader school and societal norms is inevitable. Additionally, although efforts are made to use age-appropriate Spanish materials, teachers acknowledge that there is some imbalance in terms of available materials. As predicted by the literature (Giles 1973; Valdés 1982; Zentella 1981), bilingual NSSs did account for their interlocutor’s language proficiency, converging towards that person’s native language particularly when that language was English, using it almost exclusively to communicate with their non-Latino peers. The perplexing reality is that although critics of bilingual or dual language education base their concerns on the fear that language minority speakers will not achieve English proficiency, NSSs are rapidly acquiring English to the extent that they are readily choosing English over Spanish even to communicate with other NSS peers. Interlocutor identity, then, as established by ethnic and social factors, often did not correspond with the student’s language choices towards English. Most clearly, the second-grade teacher who, based solely on appearance would not be perceived as a native speaker, derived the highest level of communication in Spanish. This held for several others as well – a bilingual substitute teacher and myself – people of some level of authority who nearly always spoke Spanish in the classroom, but who did not appear to be native speakers of Spanish either due to personal appearance, accent or native-level proficiency. In contrast, NSS interlocutors who more clearly “appeared” to be native speakers and who spoke fluent Spanish, were frequently addressed in English by their NSS peers. It is not that NSSs never used English with the teachers or other two mentioned above, but they tended to use more Spanish when these were present than with their NSS peers. Teacher-fronted classroom time thus showed a higher degree of convergence towards the Spanish frame, while at the same time diverging obviously from the teacher-interlocutor’s native language. Mixed language groups 7. In exception to this pattern, several DLP teachers and paraprofessionals used Spanish to communicate with each other, potentially allowing students to hear Spanish used in adults’ classroom-external interaction.



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

(both NSSs and NSEs present) meant an even lower use of Spanish, as Carrigo (2000) also found. In this way, speakers’ compliance with the native language of their interlocutor generally held when the interlocutor was a NSE student, but often not with a NSS student. Therefore authority and the perceived association of the teacher with language rules was a more important determining factor than interlocutor identity. Importantly, approximately half of the DLP classroom students were classified as native speakers of English (NSEs). The fact that these students used very low levels of Spanish – during the Spanish frame when some NSSs were complying with that frame – solidified English dominance as demonstrated outside the classroom. NSEs made some limited assertions of privilege, on occasion appealing for translations or clarification on the language of the activity: “Are we going to do it in Spanish?” These assertions always moved in the direction of English; NSSs simply did not make these kinds of requests to switch to Spanish during English language frames. In light of this reality, the increase in NSSs’ compliance with a Spanish frame during the division by native language groupings, echoing Carrigo’s (2000) findings, is intriguing. As deJong (2002) has pointed out, the purpose of a DLP is to intentionally facilitate peer interaction and native speaker modeling. For many NSSs in the United States, however, English language acquisition is often a subtractive process, in which second language acquisition interferes with, leads to the regression of or even replaces, the first language (Lambert 1975; Romaine 1995). Several DLP teachers acknowledged that many NSSs at West Elementary appeared to be experiencing a self-elected subtractive bilingualism. Their choices to regularly recur to English mean fewer chances to practice their linguistic knowledge and skills in Spanish, and the arenas in which they use the language are shrinking. During Spanish language literacy classes, however, the absence of NSEs lowers the hegemony of English within the classroom, making it less risky for NSSs to develop and use Spanish in that setting, one in which fluent reading skills and Spanish language proficiency are perceived to be a highly valued form of capital as students compete to be called on. In a setting where all students claim Spanish as their heritage language, the language has a stronger presence. The combination of certain structural constraints, including the establishment of language frames, the division by native language and the authority of the teacher, are an effort on the part of the school to contest the values found both within and outside of the school walls. The DLP provides a supportive context within which to level the playing field of the two languages. Yet even within this supportive context, most students in these classrooms diverge towards English. In a societal environment fostering English acquisition as essential for building a unified society (Baron 1990) students assess their peers both within the classroom as well as overhearers (Goffman 1979) who may or may not be in the same physical space

 Elaine Shenk

of the classroom, but who, all the same, inform their awareness of societal markedness and norms (Myers-Scotton 1993). Choosing to use marked language sets speakers apart. Therefore, many of these NSSs students demonstrate, through their use of English, the effort to match their linguistic habitus (Bourdieu 1991) to that of the broader world around them, even though both speaker and interlocutor fluencies place limits on how far this matching process can be pushed. Although the hope is that the values communicated through the dual language immersion program in the West Liberty Community School District could potentially alter the strong societal standard language ideologies being communicated to students, this research shows that the program’s goals and curricular practices are not necessarily enough in and of themselves to counter the hegemonic forces of English as a dominant language. The energies of teachers and staff notwithstanding, many students are making choices towards the same hierarchical relationship between the two languages as the one they see reflected in a myriad of ways outside the school walls. Overall, the data of children’s language choice in these dual language classrooms confirmed the results of other dual immersion classroom research as mentioned above, showing students to be attentive to the constraints exerted upon them to use language according to societal norms. As pointed out in Myers-Scotton (1993), the costs and benefits of their actions, whether consciously or subconsciously, are part of their choices about language use. The DLP students in this study were clearly exposed to the values and ideologies of the marketplace, and did not simply leave these values in their lockers at the beginning of the school day, only to pick them up again on their way out the door (van Lier 1988). Within this DLP classroom, however, was also found a level of resistance to the hegemony of English in the language choices made by certain Latino students (Lippi-Green 1997; Schmidt 2000). In contrast to the overall pattern wherein many native speakers of Spanish most frequently accommodated themselves to the broader norm and hegemonic influence of English, some NSS students (Maritza, Carmen, Pilar, Rogelio and Alberto) did indeed persist in using the minority language more consistently in deference to the frame established by the teacher and the DLP curricula in spite of the factors presented here. In this way they subverted the model of language subordination and complicity (Lippi-Green 1997) by responding with their own resistant behaviors to the societal norms followed by many of their classroom NSS peers who readily chose in favor of English. These five students are constructing identity through their linguistic practices, as highlighted by Cameron (2001). Through their choice to respect the Spanish language frame in spite of its somewhat marked status when compared to broader school and societal norms, these NSSs point to (index) and negotiate (broker) a dual identity which both validates linguistic and cultural competence in their native



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

language and simultaneously accesses the world of the majority language and culture. By retaining the use of Spanish in as many contexts as possible, these students essentially hold on to both worlds. The brokerage role enables them to integrate into existing Latino networks as well as merge into English-speaking cultural circles in West Liberty, and even on occasion to serve as intermediaries between Latinos and non-Latinos. Thus they bridge the two cultures with which they come into contact on a daily basis, as well as mediate that space within themselves as emerging bilingual and bicultural children who continually move back and forth between the two cultural worlds. They utilize appropriately both languages as well as understand the social and cultural morels of both settings, in spite of a linguistic and ethnic border, which is regularly reaffirmed in a community with a clear demarcation between many Latinos and non-Latinos. NSS students, unlike most of the NSE students, exhibited “crossing” (Cameron 2001; Rampton 1995) or boundary-blurring behavior (Brubaker 2004). They participated in numerous aspects of US popular culture in addition to that of their own heritage language, and regularly referenced US (English) television shows, movies, popular games or toys, whereas non-Latino children did not, for the most part, participate in or reference Latino cultural items or events such as quinceañeras, local events honoring the Virgen de Guadalupe, Día de los Muertos and so on. As discussed in Cameron (2001) and Rampton (1995), such crossing is not necessarily intended to make the speaker pass as a member of an alternate social or ethnic grouping, but rather to associate oneself with certain key traits or characteristics typically attributed to that identity. It is therefore primarily the Latino NSS students who emerge on these borderlands (Haugen 1969). As native speakers of Spanish with significant proficiency in English, they already live in a transitional space between two languages, cultures and peoples both within and outside of the classroom environment. In Iowa, these emergent or fluently bilingual children are far from national borders. Nevertheless they broker the space between two languages, nationalisms and cultural worlds (Hill and Hill 1986), a reality of which, at least behaviorally, they appear to be well aware, even though their young age often precludes them from metalinguistically processing such access and/or crossing.8

8. One reality that emerged during the data collection was that second-grade students often were either unable to articulate reasons for their linguistic behavior as evidenced in the classroom, or in fact, claimed behavior that did not concur with the observations and recordings. For example, Carmen claimed that she always spoke Spanish, even though this was not the case as shown in recorded interactions, whereas Maritza said that her peer language was always English, also not confirmed by the recordings. This confirms that reported linguistic behavior does not necessarily match actual practice but rather must be confirmed by observation and analysis.

 Elaine Shenk

Children such as Maritza, Carmen, Pilar, Rogelio and Alberto were encouraged by familial ideologies to exercise such a dual identity – both maintaining and validating a linguistic and cultural competence in their native language while not denying themselves access to the world of the majority language and culture. Although these young Latinos did recognize and demarcate the borders between themselves and others based on ethnicity, national origin or language, in many other ways they were also working to diminish and permeate the borders between themselves and others both within and outside of the classroom (Brubaker 2004). Although these student participants were relatively young and therefore did not articulate clearly the motivations behind their choices, they demonstrated patterns of language usage that revealed something of their at times uneasy relationship to both Spanish and English, and additionally their understanding at some level that language usage is not completely neutral, either as employed by a speaker or as captured by an overhearer. The choice to use a minority language in the context of a clearly dominant language or conversely to shift towards the use of that dominant language are choices that children make, choices that have long-term effects in overall language maintenance and shift (Romaine 2000). Students understood, recognized and, to some level, respected the borders between the two language groups because they saw it reflected every day in the society around them. The familial ideologies of these students contested or subverted, albeit quietly, the standard language ideology sets found in US society, and worked to establish alternative norms for their children within the home. The children, in turn, demonstrated an active adoption of the language values and ideologies held and passed on by their parents, ideologies which, like that of the school in Freeman’s (1996) study, were comprised of a resistant and oppositional discourse. NSS parents understood their children’s daily Spanish language use as an integral component of retaining and demonstrating pride in their cultural and ethnic identity, as well as of long-term language maintenance. These ideologies were distinct from those demonstrated by parents of NSEs in the DLP, for whom the advantage of bilingualism was clearly instrumental (economic) and/or cognitive in nature. Although NSS parents also perceived the use of Spanish as capital in which their children were investing for the future, this ranked lower within their articulated priorities. These parents highlighted and transmitted such ideologies to their children through strategies and household rules including metalinguistic imperatives or directives regarding language use in the home, the minimization of English incursions into the home, and a relaxed, or non-anxious, stance towards the varying stages in their children’s bilingual development (see Shenk 2007). This research shows these Latino families working alongside the DLP curriculum to establish alternative norms for their children that support increased use of Spanish despite its status as a minority language in West Liberty and the broader



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish 

United States, essentially that reestablish a subordinated minority language as valuable and important (Lippi-Green 1997). Although NSE parents also articulated certain benefits to learning Spanish, the ideologies expressed by NSS parents, in particular, resisted the strength of standard language ideologies claiming the hegemony of the English language, such as those articulated in the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act. 9. Conclusion In conclusion, the native speakers of Spanish in these classrooms demonstrated conflicting responses to the language frames established by the DLP curriculum. Factors included speaker and interlocutor proficiencies and identities, participant structures and, more broadly, interactional norms determining the un/marked character of the discursive options. The data presented here support other dual immersion classroom research in revealing an overall pattern related to the hegemony of English within the academic environment, as articulated in Carrigo (2000), Christian et al. (1997), Freeman (1996), McCollum (1999) and Potowski (2004). Similar to the findings in these studies, the public English frame was, with few exceptions, respected, while the public Spanish frame was treated as malleable and permeable. This research, however, evolved to focus on students who were actively choosing to use Spanish, unlike, or at least more consistently than, their peers, both NSS and NSE, in an effort to identify and highlight the kinds of ideologies and strategies that these students were processing at home. The findings of this research suggest that both parents and school can be actively involved in promoting minority language maintenance, over and against the powerful messages being sent to children about majority-minority language status. On the parents’ side, clearly holding and articulating values about the minority language being valuable, particularly for reasons of linking oneself to a cultural identity or to brokering a border between cultures and languages, appears to be as or more beneficial than advocating an economic advantage to bilingualism, since students may very well see through the latter as not necessarily true. DLP teachers and staff, for their part, can contribute by using their presence to encourage interaction in the minority language as well. Previous research has situated the school within broader society, showing how values from the outside affect what is going on inside school walls. The current study attempts to integrate into those two areas a third component of familial language ideologies as they influence language usage, initially within the home, but

 Elaine Shenk

additionally in the potential outflowing of the home environment into classroom behavior, and vice versa in the synergistic interaction between the two. References Antón, M. 1996. Using ethnographic techniques in classroom observation: A study of success in a foreign language class. Foreign Language Annals 29(4): 551–561. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. 2004. Introduction: reflections on a new research paradigm. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 166: 1–18. Baron, D. 1990. The English-Only Question. New Haven CT: Yale University Press. Blom, J.P. & Gumperz, J. 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structures: Codeswitching in Norway. In Directions in Sociolinguistics, J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds), 407–434. New York NY: Rinehart and Winston. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. J. Thompson (ed.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University. Brice Heath, S. 1982. What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society 11: 49–76. Brice Heath, S. 1983. Language policies. Society 20(4): 56–63. Brubaker, R. 2004. Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Cameron, D. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage. Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey P., Rampton, B. & Richardson, K. (eds). 1992. Researching Language: Issues of Power and Method. London: Routledge. Carranza, I. 1995. Multilevel analysis of two-way immersion classroom discourse. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 169–187. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Carrigo, D.L. 2000. Just How Much English are they Using? Teacher and Student Language Distribution Patterns, between Spanish and English, in Upper-grade, Two-way Immersion Spanish Classes. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Christian, D., Montone, C., Lindholm, K. & Carranza, I. 1997. Profiles in Two-way Immersion Education. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Clayworth, J. 2002. Ads in Spanish target Hispanics. Des Moines Register. 27 Jan. 2002: 1B. Coulmas, F. 1997. A matter of choice. In Language Choices: Conditions, Constraints, and Consequences, M. Pütz (ed), 31–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. deJong, E. 2002. Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic achievement in a twoway bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal 26(1): 65–84. Fortune, T. 2002. Student language use tells an interesting story. ACIE Newsletter 5(2) www. carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol5/Feb2002_StudentLang.html. Accessed 3/4/2005. Freeman, R. 1996. Dual-language planning at Oyster Bilingual School: It’s much more than language. TESOL Quarterly 30(3): 557–582. Gardner, N. 2004. Meeting the needs of second language learners. Presentation at the University of Iowa, March 2004. Giles, H. 1973. Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15: 87–105. Giles, H. & Powesland, P. 1975. Accommodation theory. Reprinted in Sociolinguistics: A Reader (1997), N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (eds), 232–9. New York NY: St. Martin’s.



Chapter 10.  Choosing Spanish  Goffman, E. 1979. Footing. Semiotica 25(1–2): 1–29. Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with Two Languages. An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Haugen, E. 1969. The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Bloomington IN: Indiana University. Heller, M. 1994. Crosswords. Language Education and Ethnicity in French Ontario. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hill, J. & Hill, K. 1986. Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. Tucson AZ: University of Arizona. Johnson, D. 1992. Approaches to Research in Second Language Learning. London: Longman. Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Lambert, W. 1975. Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In Education of Immigrant Students, A. Wolfgang (ed.), 55–83. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Lippi-Green, R. 1997. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge. McCollum, P. 1999. Learning to value English: Cultural capital in a two-way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal 23(2–3): 113–134. Miehe, V. 1976. The Spanish-speaking people. In Moving ahead with West Liberty, 64–65. West Liberty IA: Heritage Committee. Mujica, M.E. 2002. The Iowa English language reaffirmation act is a victory for all Hawkeyes. US English, Inc. 15 Mar. 2007, http://www.us-english.org/inc/news/preleases/viewRelease. asp?ID=26. Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Social Motivations for Codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Philips, S. 1983. The Invisible Culture. London: Longman. Potowski, K. 2004. Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom: Implications for second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. The Modern Language Journal 88(1): 75–101. Rampton, B. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman. Raschka, C., Wei, L. & Lee, S. 2002. Bilingual development and social networks of British-born Chinese children. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 153: 9–25. Razfar, A. 2003. Language Ideologies in ELL Urban Contexts: A Case Study of Classroom Discourse. PhD dissertation,University of California. Romaine, S. 1994/2000. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: OUP. Romaine, S. 1995. Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ruíz, R. 1984. Orientations in language planning. National Association for Bilingual Education Journal 8(2): 15–34. Schmidt, R. 2000. Language Policy and Identity Politics in the United States. Philadelphia PA: Temple University. Senate File 165. 2001. Iowa English language reaffirmation act of 2001. http://www.legis.state. ia.us/ GA/79GA/Legislation/SF/00100/SF00165/Current.html. Retrieved 23 June 2005. Shannon, S. 1999. The debate on bilingual education in the US: Language ideology as reflected in the practice of bilingual teachers. In Language Ideological Debates, J. Blommaert (ed.), 171–199. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

 Elaine Shenk Shenk, E. 2007. The Economies of Language Choice: Where Theory and Practice Meet. PhD dissertation,University of Iowa. Staff. Census 2000: Counting the counties. Iowa City Press-Citizen. 13 Mar. 2001: 6A. Stoessel, S. 2002. Investigating the role of social networks in language maintenance and shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 153: 93–131. Urciuoli, B. 1996. The political topography of Spanish and English: The view from a New York Puerto Rican neighborhood. In Towards a Critical Sociolinguistics, R. Singh (ed.), 255–279. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. US Census Bureau. 2000. United States Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/. Retrieved 10 July 2004. Valdés, G. 1982. Social interaction and code-switching patterns: A case study of Spanish/English alternation. In Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic Aspects, J. Amastae & L. EliasOlivares (eds), 209–229. Cambridge: CUP. Valdés, G. 1997. Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review 67(3): 391–429. van Lier, L. 1988. The Classroom and the Language Learner. Ethnography and Second Language Classroom Research. London: Longman. West Elementary School. 2004. Parent-Student Handbook 2004–2005. West Liberty Community School District. West Liberty Community School District. 2004. Base Enrollment Figures. West Liberty IA: WLCSD. Wherritt, I. & González, N. 1989. Spanish language maintenance in a small Iowa community. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 79: 29–39. Woolard, K. & Schieffelin, B. 1994. Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 55–82. Zentella, A.C. 1981. Tá bien, you could answer me en cualquier idioma: Puerto Rican codeswitching in bilingual classrooms. In Latino Language and Communicative Behavior, R. Duran (ed.), 109–131. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Zentella, A.C. 1997. Growing up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Malden MA: Blackwell.

chapter 11

Whose Spanish? The tension between linguistic correctness and cultural identity Bonnie Urciuoli Hamilton College

Among liberal arts college students identifying as Latino and bilingual, the Spanish with which they grew up has a complex relation with Spanish as an academic subject. Three particular aspects of this relation stand out: the ways in which “knowing Spanish” operates as part of a pan-Latino identity; the ways in which academic Spanish correctness norms play on students’ self-consciousness; and the ways in which Spanish comes to be re-imagined as an element of a globalized version of ethnic identity. In this chapter, I examine interview data from Hispanic heritage language learners seeking to understand and best frame how these speakers experience the intersection of language and culture. The question of whether or not these learners self-identify as bilingual, depending on the gap between their experience with Spanish as a heritage language and what they have encountered as academic Spanish is the focus of the present chapter.

1. Introduction In the contemporary marketplace of higher education, elite liberal arts schools compete on a number of bases. One of these is the diversity of their student population, as can be seen in US News and World Report’s America’s Best College’s ranking of campus ethnic diversity for liberal arts colleges.1 Students whose presence makes possible this ranking are in a paradoxical position. Their ethnic/racial classification (generically multicultural or diverse, or specifically African-American, Latino or Asian-American), valuable as it is to such a ranking system, may also reflect histories of class and ethnic/racial disadvantage. Where linguistic identity figures into ethnic identity, as it does for Latino students, they face further issues. 1. See http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/libartco_campdiv_brief. php (accessed 3/31/07).

 Bonnie Urciuoli

If they self-identify as bilingual, the specific varieties (especially if Caribbean) and registers (especially if code-switched) of Spanish (and English) with which they grew up may reflect that disadvantage (Zentella 1997; Urciuoli 1996). Or they may hesitate to self-identify as bilingual because of the gap between their experience of those registers and what they have encountered as academic Spanish. The paradox, then, is one of symbolic capital, in Bourdieu’s (1991) sense of honor or status: the linguistic identity that figures into the ethnic identity that supplies the institution with symbolic capital in the form of diversity ranking becomes a problem of symbolic capital for students in terms of personal presentation, of being taken seriously. For some students, the academic study of Spanish provides a therapeutic, by virtue of its correctness, and by virtue of its generic quality, unlinked to a specific class-marked background. The situation of these students presents a specific perspective on a more general linguistic ideology of standardization and correctness. Linguistic ideologies, as beliefs, rationales or justifications as to what language is or how it is used, reflect or respond to particular social positions and distributions of power (Woolard 1998: 6–7). Ideologies of standardization and correctness particularly represent the maintenance of institutional authority. There is some social and moral contrast in the values indexed by Spanish and US English correctness norms. Both index academic authority and class/race hegemony. In addition, Spanish correctness norms index a particularly European sense of linguistic and literary propriety (which especially contrasts with Caribbean Spanish forms and practices) while US English correctness norms index what Silverstein (1996) has described as monoglot standard English, a form of English routinely taken by Americans as naturally acquired, and ideally free of foreign or regional “impurities” such as accents. In this way, US English correctness norms carry a strong moral charge: there is a widely accepted belief that because “good” English is assumed to be naturally available, people living in the US have no excuse for not acquiring it. They should acquire it, especially since acquiring it facilitates the “American Dream” of class mobility, which is also considered a moral imperative for citizens or potential citizens, i.e., immigrants.2 This puts working class US bilinguals of Latino immigrant background in the sociolinguistic situation described by Zentella (1995) as chiquitafication: the trivialization of their knowledge of Spanish (as non-European), the disparagement of their knowledge of English (as a- or semi-lingual) and the collective identification of such speakers with a generalized mass or horde.

2. This logic is widely propounded by US English organizations and commonly occurs in media coverage of immigrants and class mobility. Plugging “English language” and “American Dream” into a search engine should pull up quite a few examples.



Chapter 11.  Whose Spanish 

How do speakers experience the intersection of language and culture? I turn shortly to the analytic literature on this subject, but first let us consider the common folk notion (too often found in academics as well) that language and culture are “things” which naturally laminate onto each other. Handler’s (1988) work on Québécois folk culture demonstrates the grounding of such objectification in institutionally reinforced popular belief. A common expression of this objectification and conflation is the belief that linguistic forms – especially words – have inherent cultural meaning. In the US imaginary (and many others), language consists of sounds, words and grammar while culture consists of tradition, food, customs, values and language. Language and culture are thus routinely understood as things made up of other things, i.e., discrete, unitary phenomena that can be acquired, kept or lost, as the things of which they are made are acquired or lost. It is thus not surprising that people in the US (and elsewhere) tend to see bilingualism as made up of things inherited from family or acquired in school. People sympathetic to the notion of inherited bilingualism are likely to view the things making up language and culture as things to be kept, cherished and celebrated. People antagonistic to the notion of inherited bilingualism tend to view it as made up of wrong linguistic things taking the place of right linguistic things. Similarly, they tend to view the accompanying family culture as made up of wrong things getting in the way of right things. Bilingualism acquired in school is, by contrast, unproblematic, since it is perceived as correct and uncomplicated by culture.3 How then to understand the intersection of language and culture? Most importantly, they are not reducible to things. As many theoreticians have pointed out, most notably Silverstein (1976), language forms (sounds, grammar, words) are only experienced as forms of social action, indexically embedded: all use of language is connected to and interpreted in relation to the social relations and formations making up people’s lives. People interpret and respond to a variety of discursive functions of which reference is but one,4 interactively constructing, reconstructing and often contesting meaning through complex social interaction and in the process, performatively constructing and reconstructing much of the structure that frames social life. Such linguistic experience is routinely internalized without people taking notice, constituting what Bourdieu (1991) characterized as linguistic habitus. Habitus is made up of the interpretive dispositions, practices and strategies that people internalize through routine practices in the social worlds in which they live, as those are structured by class, race, gender, etc. Linguistic habitus is habitus manifesting itself in linguistic form, practice and 3.

See Urciuoli (2000) for further discussion of the language-culture lamination model.

4. Jakobson (1960) is regarded as the first major formulator of this approach; it has been further developed by (to name but a few works) Hymes (1974) and Gumperz (1982).

 Bonnie Urciuoli

knowledge, accumulated through the internalization of everyday pragmatics. Habitus provides a useful basis for considering cultural formation; culture may be understood as socially structured and discursively produced webs of understandings and interpretations, an interactive and cumulative process of making sense of the world, organized around key sets of meanings.5 It should thus be clear that bilinguals do not literally “have” two languages or cultures, and that linguistic forms have no inherent connection to culture(s). For monolinguals, linguistic forms are drawn mostly from one formal system; for bi- and multilinguals, they are routinely drawn from more than one. People’s experience of distinct codes – i.e., their bi/multilingual practices – may come together to form a single codeswitching register; people may also keep codes distinct in separate registers.6 Merely juxtaposing forms from two codes (as in code-switching) does not automatically signal an accompanying contrast of cultural contrast. Linguistic and cultural identities are generated in practice, taking time to develop, and they develop in ways that index the conditions in which they develop, particularly the racial, class and institutional conditions. The objectification of language and culture is, as is the case with cultural objectifications generally, discursively produced. Reference is the most ideologically salient function of language in literacy-based societies and it is certainly central to US conceptions of language. The social process of imagining language as a system of linguistic forms, and attributing stability and correctness to those forms, is in most contemporary societies shaped by the ways in which language practices are entextualized (Silverstein and Urban 1996) through metalinguistic publication, particularly those through which language standards are disseminated – dictionaries, reference grammars, school texts and, in the US, the heavily commodified publication of the work of popular language mavens. The notion of a US English standard exists far more in popular belief than in published reality (Silverstein 1996). Most US residents, whatever their sympathies (or not) regarding ethnicitylinked bilingualism, unproblematically accept an English standard imagined in this way. Such a linguistic imaginary also frames what Hill (1998) describes as white public space of which English forms are the natural, rightful denizens and in which contested languages – Hill focuses on Spanish – either have no rightful place or at best supply forms to be played with by English speakers. It is within this cultural and linguistic imaginary that Latino bilingual college students find themselves coming to terms with linguistic aspects of their social identities. This is not a simple process, considering the fact that their pre-college 5.

I here build on ideas developed in the 1960s-70s by David Schneider and Clifford Geertz.

6. There is an enormous literature on this; for the ethnographic account most relevant to the background from which the students in this study come, see Zentella (1997).



Chapter 11.  Whose Spanish 

experiences of Spanish and English are shaped by life in urban working class neighborhoods, and that they have come to a rural liberal arts college in which their encounters with Spanish are often saturated by literary correctness, and their experiences with English are saturated by middle-class or elite American whiteness.7 In this setting, students who grew up in, say, Puerto Rican or Dominican families in New York, code-switching local varieties of English and Spanish, often rethink themselves as Latino, in part as a solidary response to the overwhelming whiteness of the environment. This construction of Latino is not simply a hypernym for, e.g., Puerto Rican, Dominican, Honduran or Ecuadorian. It is semiotically specific to the structures in which it operates. The construction/emergence of Latinidad in college life – especially in an elite liberal arts college – has distinct qualities, central to which are some of the functions of liberal arts education, particularly access to symbolic capital through class mobility. The reworking of Latino identity that takes place in college thus reflects who they are becoming as college students and may well include a recasting of Spanish itself. While some see the literary or correctness qualities of classroom Spanish as an elitist counterpoint to their original Spanish, some may also come to see it as a resource for reworking identity. In her work on Corsican, Jaffe (2007: 51) describes a shift since the early 1990s “away from bilingualism-as-cultural deficit towards bilingualism-as-valueadded in discourses about what it means to be bilingual in a minority language context.” Something like this shift appears to be taking place in this instance. In an academic environment where class/race-marked Spanish may be seen by faculty and other students in “cultural deficit” terms, students may be attracted to a “value added” model that casts bilingualism as a social resource and contribution. I begin this chapter by outlining the way “culture” is presented in student organization discourse and the limited opening it leaves available for conceptions of “language.” I then draw from interviews with bilingual students in which they describe and reflect on their experience of the cultural deficit model in Spanish and its juxtaposition with the classroom-based correctness model. I will also use research by Lorda (1998) among bilingual students at the same institution to demonstrate the (not entirely unmixed) appeal of the value-added model for many bilingual students. Throughout this discussion, I will demonstrate how students’ experience of Spanish and English are mediated by cultural conceptualizations of Spanish and English relative to each other. In doing so, I should make clear some of the ways in which bilingual experience is about so much more than two languages.

7. Since 1995, I have been conducting a study at this school of the institutional production of diversity, a study which started with the examination of how, e.g., Puerto Rican or Dominican students from, e.g., New York City, came to reformulate their identity as Latino/a.

 Bonnie Urciuoli

2. The cultural scene In this rural liberal arts college, as at most US colleges and universities, how students define themselves as Latino is framed by the multicultural, or affirmative action, classification system. Multicultural refers to US citizens or permanent residents who fall into one of the four non-white federally established affirmative action demographic categories.8 This classification system organizes faculty hiring and student recruiting, as well as the student cultural organizations. According to the college’s web site, cultural organizations are “groups that serve to educate the campus about a diversity of experience, including, but not limited to languages, countries, regions and ethnicity.”9 Six organizations are listed as cultural for the 2006–2007 school year (during which this is written), three of them multicultural: the Asian, Black, Latino, Middle Eastern, West Indian African, and International student societies. The multicultural organizations were founded in large part to provide a comfort zone for students of color. But given their charge to “educate the campus,” certain elements of the college’s diversity programming are in effect outsourced to these organizations. The Latino organization was established in 1984 “to complement the growing diversity within the Latino community”10 and describes itself as: committed to provide a positive image of Latino culture in the community. The organization is devoted to broaden the community’s awareness of issues pertaining to Latino culture, society and politics. Finally, it is determined to provide an atmosphere in which Latino(a) students may express any personal, social and academic problems they may encounter.11

Of particular interest is the phrase “committed to provide a positive image of Latino culture within the community.” The student officers of this organization take on a good share of institutional responsibility for the public presentation of Latino identity

8. The establishment of countable identity categories, under Title VII (the 1964 Civil Rights Acts), was part of the legal mechanism prohibiting discrimination by race, sex, or religion. The current five categories (black, white, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander and Native American) were established in 1978 by the Office of Management and Budget. 9. https://my.hamilton.edu/college/student_activities/organizations.html?action= getOrgs&category=CO last accessed 11/12/06 10. http://www.hamilton.edu/applications/catalogue/studentlife.html last accessed 11/12/06 11. http://my.hamilton.edu/college/Student_Activities/organizations.html?action= getOrgs&category=CO last accessed 11/12/06



Chapter 11.  Whose Spanish 

at the school. The job of framing cultural identity can get quite bureaucratized, as is evident in this 2004 interview excerpt with Dora, a Latino organization officer12: I delegated jobs or tasks to the rest of the e-board, depending on what event we were doing for the week or for the month. I would also put agendas together for meetings, both e-board and general membership meetings. I sent out e-mails. I communicated with different faculty and administration about different events that were going on with the organization. There were times when I also contacted outside people that we wanted to book for whatever events we were doing. I sent e-mails out – as secretary I sent e-mails out with the minutes. I took minutes. I handled the budget. I dealt with... the Dean of Students office about our budget, handing in receipts and making check requests on time.

Cultural programming is decided on by the executive board and after decisions are made, one of the officers has to contact the speaker or performer, arrange the visit, make sure payments are made, publicize the event and so on. Cultural programming includes speakers on historical, political and social topics. It may also include literary, theatrical and musical performance, in which Spanish may figure importantly in the performance, whereas speakers are most likely to be in English. What constitutes “culture” is nested in this bureaucratized task structure and provided as a form of community service. As Gina, another officer of the same organization (2002 interview) puts it: I think one of the goals is to be able to show the campus what we are all about, being able to tell them not only this is what we do, this is what we want to do, but actually show them, through panel discussions, which are more than just certain stereotypes that people may have. We actually do – we listen to our music, yes, but there’s a lot more stuff that’s part of our culture. What is our culture? Trying to show them all the different perspectives on what it is to be Latino, to be black, in this community and outside of this community. So each student has a very different perspective, you know? And within the organization, of what it is to be Puerto Rican or Dominican or black or Honduran. It’s all very different experiences, so it brings in a lot of differences and diversity within the group.

Elsewhere Gina describes “Latino culture” in these terms: ... now as a graduate, I would have to say, it’s what it is you’re identifying, how it is you identify yourself as being who you are. What do you do to celebrate who you are. I think that [entitles] a lot of it. It’s not only partying and listening to your favorite artists, it’s actually celebrating your culture. And when I came in I really wasn’t very aware of these things. I loved singing and listening to Latin music and dancing to salsa, I loved it. But you’re not really aware of these things until you’re actually put into a setting where you have to be aware. Where people identify you 12. All names used in this chapter are pseudonyms.

 Bonnie Urciuoli

a certain way or point you out as a certain thing. So you have to accommodate into that. So I think that’s when, throughout my four years, I definitely have created this [sense of] what it is to be Latino for me, and what it is, the Latino culture, for me. I think a lot of people come in, being minority students, formulate their own Latino culture or black culture, you know?

Gina describes in particular sharing this sense with the students she met in the Higher Educational Opportunity summer program: So when we come in you see the faces, you see the people you spend five very intensive weeks, and you’re able to have something. And by your senior year you have this niche, you have this creation, this process you’ve gone through the past four years, and you know who you are, or you try to know who you are. You graduated with an identity that you’ve created in your four years here, helping by that culture you’ve experienced.

Here, Gina describes the development of a sense of group identity that emerges from the function of cultural organizations as places of safety, where students can “be themselves” in the organization. Student descriptions of shared culture, like this, tend to describe culture as both segmentable (e.g., into music, dancing, food, language) and as a generalized social bond, a shared identity, the latter largely available only to those who have gone through their four years together. 3. Where does language come into all this? Language has a complicated place in these processes of identity formation. It occupies a place in the list of things one “has” when one “has” a culture. But the link is not a necessary one, it is not always there, and when it is there it may or may not signify belonging. To begin with, there are students at the college who grew up speaking Spanish, and for whom it is an aspect of cultural identity, yet who do not actually find themselves using all that much Spanish at school. In a 1999 interview, I asked Patricia, an active member and officer of the Latino organization, whether she used much Spanish in her everyday college experience: Not in a constant way. We might throw a few words here and there. It’s really weird. But not even in my Spanish class, unless I’m required to speak Spanish. Then you have to. But not like in normal everyday life, we don’t. Like I said, words here, “Oh, hi muchacha, how you doing?” That type of thing.... I was just trying to think how would that apply to me, but I would have to think about that. I don’t look for people that speak Spanish because I do hang out with them, like they’re all around me. But unconsciously I think I do try to surround myself with people



Chapter 11.  Whose Spanish 

that are not because they speak Spanish but because they share my culture. And I’m not talking about only being Latino or Latina, I’m talking about sharing my culture and trying to get to know my culture, because I have friends who don’t speak Spanish and are not Hispanic but they like to be around us and they love our music and they want to speak Spanish. Some of them do. My friend [name omitted], she knows Spanish. She’s not Latina or anything but I have a lot of similarities with her. Not only that but because we come from New York City, it’s kind of...

Having come from Central America some years previously, Patricia spoke Spanish routinely at home. In the ordinary sense, she “has” Spanish. What she does not “have” at school is much opportunity to use it other than emblematically. It is also clear that while she sees an association with knowing Spanish and identifying it with culture, she also sees pieces of, or degrees of association. Thus she describes sharing culture with friends who are not Latino but share an interest in her music and want to, or do, speak Spanish. Spanish thus can serve as something of a marker of intent. Yet there are also occasions where students can judge each others’ Spanish much less inclusively, where what Spanish signifies about cultural belonging is very much a function of local identities, as Julia’s experience (below) makes clear. Not all students from bilingual backgrounds grew up speaking Spanish to the same degree, or in the same social patterns. Many are also acutely aware of the discrepancy between academic Spanish and the familiar patterns with which they grew up. In the following excerpts from a 2005 interview, two third year students, Richard and Sara, both from New York Puerto Rican families talk about their perceptions of their own Spanish. Richard starts: “I understand a lot of Spanish but in terms of speaking it, I just feel uncomfortable with it because I feel like I sound silly. After spending so much time with my family, like me even trying would just like–” Sara adds “And that’s a problem that a lot of second generation have.” She continues: It’s like Richard was saying, although I’ve taken Spanish and I know I can speak it, I still feel kind of uncomfortable, I have to stop here and there and think about a word. I feel like I might not sound good, my accent might not be 100% or whatever.

The sense of fragmentation Richard and Sara describe here is not an unusual perception of Spanish among people who have grown up code-switching, but in an academic context its fragmented nature tends to be foregrounded. Thus, Sara continues: I’m going to Spain next semester so hopefully I’ll come back and be completely fluent. It’s part of the reason why it’s my major and people don’t understand that. They think that I’m taking the easy way out. I get that all the time, you’re cheating, you’re cheating.

 Bonnie Urciuoli

The bind here is that, as the phrase “you’re cheating” suggests, students from Spanish-speaking family backgrounds are often assumed to naturally know Spanish, therefore academically devaluing a concentration in Spanish. Such essentialism becomes obvious when one considers that people do not make the same assumption about English monolingual students majoring in English. Richard points out a further dimension of this essentialism: if you’re Latino, you naturally speak Spanish: It’s interesting that in the same respect that people would be like “you’re cheating by taking Spanish,” if you tell someone you don’t know Spanish they’re like what? You don’t know Spanish? What? And I mean so many people have been so shocked at me, they’ll be like yeah, whatever, why don’t you just talk to him in Spanish? Guys, I don’t know Spanish. What??

This lamination of language and culture (i.e., that they always co-occur) is reinforced by the racialized assumption that the language is “natural” to one’s cultural condition and therefore requires no additional effort (hence the “cheating”). Such conflation appears to be a default interpretive position in US society, massively reinforced by the conditions and discourses of consumer culture, particularly those of Latino marketing, as Dávila (2001) has so elegantly shown. Students like Richard, Sara and others interviewed here do find themselves, by virtue of their positions in the cultural organizations, caught in a version of such marketing, insofar as the organizations figure into the school’s marketing of its diversity. The racialization that complicates the language-culture conflation is further complicated by class-based interpretations of correct versus familiar Spanish, a point addressed by Sara and experienced by many students: S: But it’s not even an issue about that, like we were talking about in class, if you’re going to be using it as an asset in the workforce you can’t be talking colloquial Spanish. I can’t – I don’t really understand it, even when I went to my Spanish class I didn’t know what half the words were because my family would cut the word in half and I wouldn’t understand– Interviewer13: Like pa’ for para? S: Right, exactly. And I didn’t understand that till I started taking my Spanish class. It’s different. The Spanish you speak at home, the Spanish you hear on the streets, it’s not the same. It’s the same for English too. Nasty to my friends and outside of the classroom is not the way I’m going to come into my class and start cursing and using slang and this and that. You have to know when it’s appropriate and when it’s not.

Sara’s distinctions of Spanish and English based on personal presentation (nasty and cursing), locale (home or street versus classroom) and appropriateness versus 13. The interviewer is the author of this article.



Chapter 11.  Whose Spanish 

correctness underscore the distinction which Sara makes about language that may or may not be an asset in the work force, the core of the value-added model. The distinction between colloquial and correct Spanish becomes a distinction between colloquial and useful Spanish, a distinction I will revisit in greater detail below. Here, Richard comments on his experience of family versus classroom correctness: I actually knew a decent amount of Spanish from my mom. The minute I went to what was it, seventh or eighth grade Spanish? To be honest I failed Spanish. That doesn’t have to go on this record does it? (Laughs) And it wasn’t that it didn’t make sense because I’d write these papers and I’d show them to my mom and she’d say oh yeah, that’s fine. And I’d show it to my teacher and there’s red ink everywhere. And they’re like, no. S: I found out really quickly that my mom couldn’t help me that much in revising stuff.

The issue is not a simple matter of making sense or conveying meaning; it is the symbolic capital that frames their legitimacy as students (“to be honest, I failed Spanish”). One can challenge judgments to non-standard usage if one has a sufficient fund of symbolic capital. For example, in Anzaldúa’s canon-challenging 1987 work Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, she foregrounds her bilingual, codeswitched, South Texas Chicano Spanish in a literary performance of a self shaped by a history of race, class and gender exclusion. The text’s effectiveness lies in Anzaldúa’s capacity to foreground non-standard linguistic elements as both personal statement and alternate aesthetic; the text is also legitimated by Anzaldúa’s academic and publication credentials. Some of the legitimation stems from its author’s capacity to frame the performance as, in part, regional. In challenges to hegemonic perceptions of language, there are ways to present regional varieties as having some legitimacy. I bring this up because at least as an aesthetic or expressive device, regional varieties can take on a form of symbolic capital that counters the social marking that often accrues to regional varieties. But bringing off this effect takes work and for a student in a classroom, regional variety may be routinely conflated with class-markedness. So having one’s language perceived as regional can reinforce its perception as non-standard, thus reinforcing deficit-model judgments. In this 1995 interview, Ely, whose family moved to New York from Puerto Rico, describes a professor’s reaction to her Puerto Rican Spanish in classroom conversation: Well, I’ve been taking Spanish since my first year. And my first Spanish class was horrible, my professor was a visiting professor from Spain and he actually criticized us (a fellow student and herself) for speaking like that, because he was saying that it was unfair to the rest of the students, they don’t understand a word

 Bonnie Urciuoli

you’re saying and we’re like we understand that but why are they in a 200-level class? And then we kept arguing about that the whole semester, because “oh you speak too fast, you don’t speak clear,” and so the white students were getting really annoyed because “oh you know they speak too fast.” So we had to modify our speech to accommodate them.

This particular judgment does not always take place, but it is common enough. It represents an ideological default position: regional varieties lack the defining virtues of the standard. The judgment of her Spanish as too fast, unclear and “unfair” to other students – particularly US (and typically white) students – meant that accommodating other students was her responsibility. But when it comes to their language, their Spanish, it’s very slow, and – you know I even tried to tutor one girl but... There’s a huge difference, and it not only has to do with the accent but intonation also, like where you see the highs and the lows, and then we hear the white students, well at least the ones that haven’t gone to a Latin American country for a semester, and we’re like, why is this person speaking like this? And it sounds funny and it’s rude and it’s bad and it’s harsh but – (everyone laughs).

Another form of linguistic judgment to which students like Ely are subject is that of “Spanish interference” in their English. Ely experienced being told her first year of college that she had problems writing English because of her Spanish. She describes this as an association: ... with being Latina and how you speak Spanish and (that) you think in Spanish which is false because the first language I learned was English. And all my life I’ve taken English in school, so there was no reason for me to think in Spanish. If that’s what I was thinking, that’s what I was taught to think to begin with. So this specific person used to write on my papers that I had to see (him/her) because I didn’t speak proper English or I didn’t write proper English because I was too busy thinking in Spanish.

Rosa, Puerto Rican born and raised in New York (1995 interview), adds: Yeah. Like “when you write, do you think in Spanish or in English?” and I’m like, well, if I’m writing in English I would have to be thinking in English. What I’m thinking is what I’m writing. So yeah, I had the same problem.

What Ely and Rosa (and several other) students describe here is Spanish typified in terms of the zero-sum ideology that often characterizes US cultural perceptions of bilingualism. Spanish imagined in this way is a keystone element of white public space, its status as a threat to English prior taking priority over to its status as a linguistic system. This is perhaps the most race-like perception of Spanish and English. Older racial imaginings presupposed fixed boundaries between white and



Chapter 11.  Whose Spanish 

non-white, the breaching of which would contaminate whiteness. This imagining of language parallels it in that failure to maintain fixed boundaries between English and non-English could lead to linguistic contamination in the form of academic problems with English. Indeed, one administrator did recommend Ely postpone college Spanish courses until her written English had improved. (Ely did not comply with this recommendation.) When Spanish does serve as an index of belonging, it does not do so in the same way for all students, nor does it always do so smoothly or predictably. Many students, including Ely and Rosa, reported the routine use of Spanish with Latino friends at the college. As she put it, “... if you’re Latina, then I speak to you in Spanish. It’s something that I do automatically.” Ely put it as follows: ... at (the college), it’s definitely like yes, yes, you have to – even overdo it, just to get the point across. I don’t know, it’s just like you’re so far from home that speaking Spanish is like bring home closer to (the college).

Ely and Rosa express slightly different perspectives (although neither belongs exclusively or always to either student). Rosa describes the emergence of Spanish as routinely emergent among Latina friends, and I suspect that for her this really was gender marked. Ely describes speaking Spanish as a deliberate action, bringing home a little closer. These perspectives are probably commonest among bilinguals from the New York area, especially young women. In the mid-1990s when I began this research, they were predominantly Puerto Rican and Dominican. Students not from that background often experienced a more complicated version of bilingual sociality. In this 1995 interview selection, Julia, who grew up English-dominant in an Ecuadoran family in Florida, describes her experience of Spanish at the college: Let me just tell you my story and we can go from there. In (the Latino club), when I was president, I think the most ignorant, apathetic, stupid, ooh just jerked my cheeks – this guy – he made me feel like, “you aren’t – you can’t be with us because your Spanish isn’t good enough. You don’t know the music we’re talking about. You don’t know how to dance merengue and salsa.” And so yeah, he made me feel like definitely I couldn’t belong to that group. But when you’re with your girl friends it doesn’t really matter.... I really never think about it, but when I do go to like the salsa and merengue parties, then I think about it. Because I know, like I’ll say “Hola, ¿cómo estás?,” “Muy bien, y tú, ¿cómo estás?” and they see that I don’t have an– that I have a good accent in Spanish. And they’ll want to keep talking to me in Spanish. And they use all those slang words and all these little sayings, and I’m like “¿Qué? ¿Perdón? What?” And then I’m like, “Oh God, they’re not going to think I’m Latina now because I don’t understand what they’re saying.” So that’s really the only time when I’m aware of how I should act or what I should do. But other than that, I never think about it.

 Bonnie Urciuoli

Julia’s description illustrates the practical politics of bilingualism and linguistic identity. Instead of a simple generalized association of language and cultural identity, she illustrates the localized politics of belonging. In the mid-1990s, the Latino organization was predominantly New York Puerto Rican and Dominican. The young man who sent Julia the message that her Spanish didn’t fit equated that with other “pieces” of culture – music and dancing. At the same time, as she points out, this only became an issue among a certain group; Julia also had Latina girlfriends with whom it did not arise. The expression of gender solidarity through shared Spanish is in fact a running theme throughout the decade or so of interviews for this study. The experiences of Spanish emerging from these interviews are by no means unitary. School and home Spanish may be incommensurate; Spanish that is adequate at home may be experienced at school as inadequate or fragmentary; students who do not think about what they know at home, find themselves pushed into often uncomfortable metalinguistic reflection at school, where correctness is a constant concern. Such circumstances complicate, even inhibit, rather than enhance its significance as cultural marker. Focus on dialect form indexes the status hierarchy within Latin America and the Hispanophone Caribbean. Focus on diction (talking fast or “not clearly”) indexes non-conformation with or ignorance of academic norms. Focus on “interference” from English indexes class and race structures in the US. The problematic nature of a generalized association of language and culture and the tension between that and the localized dynamics of cultural/linguistic indexicality is clearly set out by a colleague of mine who served on the Spanish faculty and as faculty advisor to the Latino club (2000 interview). Her mother’s family is Puerto Rican and father’s family from Spain; she lived in California before teaching at this institution. She describes the assumptions about language, culture and ethnicity made by her department, when she was assigned to the student Latino organization as advisor when she arrived as junior faculty in the early 1990s, assumptions which took no account of the actual experience of these students: So then when I came here and I suddenly become the Latina poster girl, the first thing they have me do is become faculty advisor to [the Latino club] and this is completely a matter of identity politics, you know: you are Latina, you will naturally advise this group of Latino students.... [the Latino club] had for years somehow gotten attached to the Spanish academic department. And what’s really amazing about that is when I got here, very few US Latino students were studying in our classes. And there was in fact, I would come to find out, great antagonism between especially some personalities in our section but overall between the idea of what we do in our curriculum and in our courses and in our classrooms, and what we represent on campus, and who the kids in [the Latino club] think– what they think they’re all about – there’s an incredible gulf. And yet, I imagine that at



Chapter 11.  Whose Spanish 

some point this had to have been an administrative decision, that [the club] is somehow your responsibility over there in Spanish, right? Again, I mean somehow this link was made, even though there’s no real motivated connection, particularly given the politics of our section at that time.

Club advising, she explained, was assigned by senior faculty as department service, along with Spanish Club and Spanish Table. She then describes her encounter with the dynamic described above by Julia – the accent test: ... the first day that I sat in that [meeting room] with all those kids, the idea of saying to them “I’m Puerto Rican” was just terrifying to me. I felt all of the sudden, I’m Latina, OK? But I don’t have the right to claim a Puerto Rican identity because, in my own mind and in a lot of their minds, the thing that happened was, we started speaking in English and one of the kids switched to Spanish right away. Now I interpreted this as The Test, one of the Latina Tests, does she speak Spanish, and how does she speak Spanish? And they’re going to read all this stuff. And so we started speaking in Spanish and here came the question, so what are your raices? You know? This happened to me yesterday, again, by the way. We had a gathering of [the Latino club] and a new girl– it happens to me every year. So what are your raíces? So I said well, I’m Puerto Rican. And like that, but in Spanish, yo soy puertorriqueña, and she says to me, tú no hablas como puertorriqueña, you know? So there it was, you know? You don’t speak like a Puerto Rican. For me that was it, that was definitive. The verdict was in, I was not a Puerto Rican, I couldn’t claim to be a Puerto Rican.

Why should an accent mean so much? Accents are not simply phonetic variation produced by a speaker’s place or language of origin. Accents are semiotic complexes through which people locate each other. They operate deictically, pointing to and away from participants’ locations as those participants classify themselves and each other. The same accent can mean different things to different people. Embodied as they are in a voice produced by a social actor, and perceived as they are by social actors, they are interpreted relative to those actors’ location in the social world. Above all, they are interpreted as familiar or unfamiliar and whatever they might signify in terms of race, class and locale depends on what, for the interpreter, constitutes a familiar world (see Urciuoli 1996: 123ff. for more extensive discussion). Morever, their interpretation is sensitive to the discursive event within which they take place. For example, Sara and Ely, in the interviews above, talk about correctness issues affiliated with accents, clearly a point that emerges in a classroom context. By contrast, Julia and my colleague talk about accent as a sign of familiarity, often salient in a social context where belonging is at issue. My colleague in particular addresses the point that to a New York Puerto Rican, there is a very specific accent that signifies that familiar world. Tú no hablas como

 Bonnie Urciuoli

puertorriqueña, “you don’t sound Puerto Rican,” also signifies, for that speaker, “you don’t sound like me, or people like me.” Her response to this, in her role as advisor, was to sculpt a generalized Latina identity, though it meant letting go of her claim to a specifically Puerto Rican identity: ...what eventually has happened to me... is that I really have come to adopt this very generic identity as Latina. “I’m Latina,” you know? Even yesterday, when [one of her students] was saying that, “She’s Puerto Rican,” I felt so removed, whatever that used to mean to me and whatever it can to me, even though I grew up with my Puerto Rican grandmother sleeping in my room. When I hear boricuas [Puerto Ricans] and I hear that, it’s just like my heart, you know, that’s home to me? But somehow I don’t have the right to claim it. The longer I’m here, the less I have that right, and I feel like I can though claim some Latinaness that nobody can really define and then it’s OK.

As a teacher, she can create an alternative to a personalized identity by designing Spanish courses to show that the basis for a generic Latinidad ... is around a political identity. That it really where it begins to happen, is in the classroom because I happen to also teach the Latino curriculum. So I have these kids in Spanish for Native Speakers, I have these kids in Intro to US Latino Lit, I have them in a senior level class on Latino Literatures as well.

In these courses, she foregrounds work by important bilingual authors and has striven to create courses that combine an understanding of the politics of language with linguistic and literary study. She notes with pride that up to a third of the enrollment in these courses are Latino students, a sizable percentage in a school where perhaps 4–5% of the student population self-identifies as Latino.14

14. In a recent (8/8/06) e-mail, she expands: My link with the students really comes when I teach about a common history of oppression. Among other things I focus on the historical campaigns to silence the Spanish tongue and the equally vigorous Latino driven campaigns for language rights, and I look at this through its effects in the educational system. My students have lived through this experience, and as I teach, they begin to see that I am speaking from the position of Latina identity, even though I don’t sound like a New York born Puerto Rican (in English OR Spanish!). This then gives me a Latina identity, even in the eyes of the most suspicious students, but it’s an identity forged through political meaning, not through cultural identification or experience.



Chapter 11.  Whose Spanish 

4. Correctness and cultural value: striving toward a remade persona While I have focused thus far on students’ experience of the tension between the imposition of institutionally-based correctness norms and their “home” experience of Spanish, the interview with Sara does briefly touch on fluent or correct Spanish as a goal worth striving for, when she describes it as “an asset in the workforce.” This perspective, shared by many students, imbues correctness with a degree of agency. Instead of measuring one’s shortcomings, the correctness model offers new ways to be Latino, and to some, a means to a livelihood. Correct Spanish as cultural and symbolic capital, and its role in the remaking of agency for college students, is the subject of Dillon Lorda’s 1998 senior project, Re-inventing Spanish (at the same school as my own research). Most of his interviewees were students from Dominican families in New York City, whose backgrounds, especially class backgrounds, were much the same as those I had interviewed in the mid 1990s. They describe much the same social transition, learning to adjust to a white middle class Anglophone habitus. In the process of doing so, while most of their social life was in English, use of Spanish, however emblematic, served as a social touchstone. At the same time, they expressed a sense of growing distance from the specific patterns of Spanish language use that they experienced prior to college. Comments from roommates, peers and professors made them self-conscious about their accents, despite having heard themselves sometimes characterized by people in their home communities as “talking white.” Like the students I interviewed, most described how, prior to college, they had not regarded being Latino as the most salient element of their identity. As one student put it, before coming to the college “I was just Carmen” (Lorda 1998: 44). Many Latino students at this school report developing a polarized sense of racial, class and linguistic identity by the end of their college career. This is especially true of those who came in through the Higher Education Opportunity Program, with its 5-week summer program in which many students create long-term bonds. As a result, Lorda found, “The relationship between the respondents’ selfidentification and use of Spanish develops new meaning at an elite academic institution... which has a different set of values in which the respondents are forced to examine their use of Spanish” (1998: 45). As one participant put it, “Spanish is, since you’re in an education type of environment you’re supposed to speak the correct Spanish and I’m Dominican so we just speak different” (1998: 45–46). Nine of Lorda’s ten participants described wanting to improve their Spanish grammar, and taking college Spanish classes to do so, commenting as follows (1998: 46–47): Before I took classes, I was able to read it and write it but I didn’t follow any of the rules.

 Bonnie Urciuoli

“I wanted to lose my Dominican accent. Dominicans have bad accents. They don’t pronounce the letter s.” “I just feel like I am becoming an adult and I want to have an adult conversation and you have to get an adult vocabulary.” “If you were at our level or actually surpassed our level you would be like – they are speaking it but it is very, very broken and it is not as eloquent as it should be.... All that stuff, grammar, vocabulary, everything. Come to think of it we use our past and future and whatever very well. That stuff we do well. But stuff like grammar and vocabulary, that’s tough for us.”

The metalinguistic formulations expressed by these students, like those expressed by Richard, Sara and Ely reflect a model of correctness oriented toward notions of rules, written representations of language, age-role appropriateness, incompleteness and a rather mysterious notion of grammar. These also match metalinguistic characterizations that I found in my study of awareness of correctness norms among working class New York Puerto Rican bilinguals.15 In many respects – the way people talk about rules, letters, levels and grammar (which most people seem to think of as a set of rules learned in school) – it sounds like the same characterizations from students in my linguistics classes. This is an awareness that people grow up with, long before entering a college language classroom. Lorda shows how the process of studying Spanish in college creates a new form of linguistic solidarity among these students: there is the solidarity that comes from shared Spanish, as noted in my interviews but as Lorda further notes, “the ability to speak Spanish on an upper-middle class level fortifies the sense of pride because it is also accepted as a valid form of communication within the academic community” thus creating “... a respectable, elite Latino subculture within the greater Anglo community” at the college (1998: 50). In this fashion, for these students, having access to academically certified correct Spanish provides them with cultural capital that can parallel English, in a way that simply speaking Spanish from home cannot. Lorda’s study posits a restructuring of older associations of language with ethnic or national identity. The realignment of values associated with Spanish is characteristic of the “value-added” model described by Jaffe (for Corsican) as “movement away from the learning of the minority language for the sole sake of learning about or affirming local identity” (2007: 62–63) and towards a more universalist identity to which the minority language makes a positive contribution. Here, however, we see a fork in the road as it were, depending on who gets to do the valuing: those within the group, or those outside.

15. Urciuoli 1996, Chapters 4, 5.



Chapter 11.  Whose Spanish 

The value-added perspective of those within the group – for the students in Lorda’s study and for the Spanish professor and club advisor whom I interviewed – takes the form of a generalized notion of Latino culture associated with an educated awareness of the history and politics of Latinidad.16 For some students, this tempers and inflects with an academic awareness, even a bit of academic hipness, the racialization they may and often do experience as US Latinos. The engagement with a reinvented “educated” version of one’s native Spanish further reinforces this. This identity is very much a product of college experience, so that one’s specific awareness of being, for example, Dominican, Puerto Rican, Ecuadorian, etc. is framed by a generalized Latinidad. Moreover, students see this “improved” Spanish as having practical, instrumental applications; as one student put it: If I ever want to pursue a criminal law career, which I am thinking about, I will probably deal with a lot of people who are Hispanic, and in tough legal positions and especially people who speak Spanish and don’t have people to represent their legal needs to speak Spanish. And I think that’s a need that the US doesn’t want to account for (Lorda 1998: 48)

Some comments, like Sara’s description of Spanish as a potential workforce asset, point toward another aspect of the “value added” language model: its potential to serve as a saleable skill. This is “value-added” from a neoliberal corporate perspective in which all knowledge is imaginable as a commodity. Given the status of Spanish as a world language, this typification is likely to increase. In their work on French in Canada, Heller (2003) and Budach, Roy and Heller (2003) find a decreasing identity of French with localized ethnic identity, and an increasing focus on its place in the world economy, with linguistic routines standardized and “professionalized” as “skill sets.” “Authentic” vernacular bilingualism does not correspond to dominant expectations about “good language” or what employers might consider useful bilingualism. The idea of language as a commodifiable skill fits dominant US neoliberal communication skill discourses. And I have heard bilingual students talk about educated Spanish as a skill in this sense. So the emergence of this particular “value added” model is unsurprising in a neoliberalized higher education environment where diversity itself is defined in terms of its market potential. 5. Conclusion So what does it mean to be speak Spanish, or for that matter, to be Latino? There are no simple definitions to which this range of practices and social interpretations 16. Many students interviewed by Lorda and by me took courses from the colleague whom I interviewed above.

 Bonnie Urciuoli

can be reduced. From the perspective of an institution advertising itself, language and culture are “things” people have that neatly laminate onto each other. For many, perhaps most, working-class Latino students, they are the practices with which they grew up, practices valued because they index the very structures which make them marked, because they provide solidarity and a breath of home; at the same time and for the same reason, they are subject to the “deficit model” of Spanish in the form of devaluation by those unmarked for race/class and by those standing for institutionally-based correctness. For students striving toward a rethinking of Latinidad, the internalization of correct Spanish can be empowering, a realization of an identity encompassing both one’s local origins and a sense of elite generic belonging; in this identity, Spanish and the rethought Latinidad are a bulwark against class/race marking. This is one form that the “value added” model of Spanish might take; the other is Spanish-as-skill-set. They differ in that the first indexes an internal perspective – how people might ideally rethink themselves and their language – whereas the second indexes an external perspective – how the corporate world might rethink language and diversity as workers’ contributions to their organizations. And, alas, given the power of race/class structures, neither “value added” model has the enduring power of the “deficit model.” Finally, any student might experience any or all these meanings of Spanish and its affiliated social interpretations. In short, what are valued as language or as identity are shaped by the tidal pulls of class/race markedness, social solidarity, institutional representation and the marketplace. Acknowledgments This chapter is based on a paper originally delivered at Lengua, pedagogía y poder, Jose Del Valle, conference organizer, CUNY Graduate Center, New York City 10/8/05. In addition, brief sections are adapted from Urciuoli 2003.

References Anzaldúa, G. 1987. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco CA: Aunt Lute. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Budach, G., Roy, S. & Heller, M. 2003. Community and commodity in French Ontario. Language in Society 32: 603–627. Dávila, A. 2001. Latinos Inc: The Making and Marketing of a People. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Gumperz, J. (ed.). 1982. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: CUP.



Chapter 11.  Whose Spanish  Handler, R. 1988. Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin. Heller, M. 2003. Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4): 473–492. Hill, J. 1998. Language, race and white public space. American Anthropologist 100(3): 680–689. Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania. Jaffe, A. 2007. Minority language movements. In Bilingualism: A Social Approach, M. Heller (ed.), 50–70. New York NY: Palgrave. Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Style in Language, T.A. Sebeok (ed), 350–377. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Lorda, D. 1998. Reinventing Spanish: An ethnographic study of language in an elite academic institution. Senior Thesis. Department of Sociology, Hamilton College, Clinton NY. Silverstein, M. 1996. Monoglot “Standard” in America. In The Matrix of Language, D. Brenneis & R. Macaulay (eds), 284–306. Boulder CO: Westview. Silverstein, M. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description. In Meaning in Anthropology, K. Basso & H. Selby (eds), 11–56. Albuquerque NM: University of New Mexico. Silverstein, M. & Urban, G. 1996. The natural history of discourse. In Natural Histories of Discourse, M. Silverstein & G. Urban (eds), 1–17. Chicago IL: University of Chicago. Urciuoli, B. 2003. Boundaries, language and the self: Issues faced by Puerto Rican and other Latino/a college students. Journal of Latin American Anthropology 8(2): 152–172. Urciuoli, B. 2000. The complex diversity of language in the United States. In Cultural Diversity in the United States, I. Susser & T.C. Patterson (eds), 190–205. Malden MA: Blackwell. Urciuoli, B. 1996. Exposing Prejudice. Boulder CO: Westview. Woolard, K. 1998. Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard and P. Kroskrity (eds), 3–47. NY: Oxford. Zentella, A.C. 1995. The “Chiquitafication” of U.S. Latinos and their languages, OR why we need an anthropolitical linguistics. In SALSA III: Proceedings of a Symposium on Language and Society, Austin, TX, April 5–7, 1995. Zentella, A.C. 1997. Growing Up Bilingual. Oxford: Blackwell.

chapter 12

Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California Isabel Bustamante-López*

California Polytechnic University, Pomona In this chapter, I examine how bilingual young adults of Mexican descent in Southern California negogiate and construct their linguistic identity. In doing so, I explore questions related to language and identity from a sociolinguistic perspective as they pertain to the affirmation of linguistic identity. Most of the subjects from whom I report data herein have experienced an Anglophone academic setting, a larger Anglophone community setting and a variety of linguistic settings at home (Spanish, English and Spanish-English bilingualism). The analysis of datasets suggests that Southern California Mexican-Americans linguistic identities are formed in open dialogue with others. That is to say, Mexican-American bilinguals assume multiple identities when they interact with various speakers in various situations. In the encounters analysed here bilinguals claim different linguistic identities with various collectivities.

1. Introduction This chapter examines how bilingual young adults of Mexican descent in Southern California construct their linguistic identity. In this work, I explore questions related to language and identity from a sociolinguistic perspective as they pertain to the construction and affirmation of linguistic identity. Bell (2006: 236) and Mishler (1999: 8) among others argue that identity is a “collective term referring to the dynamic organization of sub-identities that might conflict with or align with each other.” Identity “consists of disjunctions, discontinuities, contingencies, and transitions” (Bell 2006: 236; Mishler 1999: 2, 2006). I will define identity as how we represent ourselves in the social world and linguistic identities as the languages we * I thank Juan López-Magaña, Joseph Farrell and Karen Russikoff for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this chapter. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive proposals and comments. I am especially grateful to the MexicanAmerican participants of this project whose insights are invaluable. I give them special thanks.

 Isabel Bustamante-López

employ to represent ourselves. While monolinguals have only one language to communicate the many facets of their identity, bilinguals have greater linguistic resources for such expression. As a result, language choice in bilinguals necessarily constitutes a sociolinguistic act that is related to the negotiation and expression of identity. In this chapter, I posit that Mexican-American bilinguals claim multiple linguistic identities. As Ros i Solé (2004: 230) indicates, L2 learners do not exchange one linguistic model for another but rather become legitimate users of L1 and L2 and they acquire multiple identities. In this study, I analyze life histories in an attempt to answer questions such as: “How do bilinguals themselves perceive their linguistic identity?” as well as “What identity or identities do they claim? I start by outlining the background of the study. Next, I briefly review some theoretical perspectives on identity and present the methodology. Then, I examine the life histories produced by a group of young Mexican-American speakers and I illustrate how through their texts they attempt to construct their linguistic identities. Finally, I present my conclusions. 2. Sociolinguistic background From a sociolinguistic perspective, Mexican-American English-Spanish bilinguals who participated in this study are part of the complex Southern California multilingual environment. They are immersed in a linguistic contact zone in which English and Spanish, as well as other languages, are spoken. Southern Californian bilinguals of Mexican descent are usually described as a homogeneous group; but this is not the case because they differ in their backgrounds. Most of them are generation 1.5 – these are immigrants born in Mexico but schooled in the U. S. Another significant group is second generation MexicanAmerican. Among the first group there are subgroups: those who have maintained Spanish and learned English and those for whom English has become the dominant language whereby their knowledge of Spanish is limited. Southern Californian bilinguals of Mexican descent have experienced an Anglophone academic setting and have been encouraged to learn English to succeed in the formal educational system and in the job market. Mexican-American bilinguals construct their identities in various social worlds. They function not only in domains in the English-speaking world, or in a Spanish-speaking world, but also in environments in which both languages merge. There are several forces that influence the negotiation and construction of their linguistic identities. On the one hand, the Anglo society exerts pressure upon them to use English to succeed. On the other, their loyalty to their family and friends



Chapter 12.  Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California 

pushes them to maintain Spanish. According to Skerry (1993: 289), for MexicanAmerican parents it is important that their children maintain Spanish and this may be may be explained by the uniqueness of their experience: unlike other immigrants, Mexicans arrive here from a neighboring nation that has suffered military defeat at the hands of the United States; and they settle predominantly in a region that was once part of their homeland. … Mexican Americans enjoy a sense of being on their own turf that has not been shared by other immigrants. This fact, along with continuous infusions of new Spanish monolinguals, would arguably count for much of the resistance, if not to learning English, then to abandoning Spanish.

However, in a report published by the National Research Council in 2006 (47), experts explain that “the degree of Spanish retention among foreign-born Hispanics is a controversial subject.” They state that “the loyalty that many Spanish speakers (especially Mexicans) feel toward their native tongue diminishes across generations especially beyond the second.” Although Spanish has been spoken for centuries in the Southern California area and the US Southwest, it is not the language of prestige. Speakers of various Spanish dialects identify Mexican-Americans as individuals who do not speak Spanish or as speakers of a non-prestigious variety. Speakers of other dialects refer to the Spanish spoken by Mexican-Americans in Southern California as a “dialect” (Hablan un dialecto) and at times they even correct the language use of their Mexican-American interlocutors (my personal observation). The media and anti-immigrant proponents portray Hispanics in Southern California as Mexican immigrants whose first language is Spanish and as a group that does not attempt to learn English. Newspaper editorials seem to indicate that Anglophone speakers in general reject multilingualism. In general, there is no acknowledgement that California has been a language-contact zone for centuries. The California Constitution of 1849 declared California a bilingual state. Article 11, section 21, established that all laws, rights, regulations and disposition were going to be published in English and Spanish: “Toda ley, derecho, reglamento y disposición que por su naturaleza deba publicarse, se publicarán en inglés y en castellano.” ‘Every law, code, regulation and disposition which by its nature must be published, will be published in English and Spanish’ (my translation). Spanish speakers are constantly ridiculed in the media, particularly at times of economic hardship and during political campaigns. This marginalization is also reinforced by the anti-Hispanic immigrant sentiments in California, which usually become stronger during periods of economic uncertainty. In his examinations of public metaphors in the last twenty years, Santa Ana (2002) concludes that the metaphoric definitions of Latinos fix the limits of social identities. According to

 Isabel Bustamante-López

Santa Ana (2002: 284–289), Latinos are described as immigrants possessing less human value than citizens, as individuals who are not English monolinguals and as a group that does not have an Anglo-American cultural orientation. Santa Ana (2002: 290) adds that “it may be in the public school contexts that the social costs are the dearest. The bilingual Latino child is not viewed simply as an American child or an American child with an advantage of two languages and culture. Rather, such a child is considered a linguistically impaired student at best – at worst, a racialized foreigner.” Santa Ana (2002: 7) explains that the images of Mexicans and other Latinos maintained by the public in California and in the rest of the United States today are the result of the metaphoric characterization of the Latino population in the 1990s. These images appear in the public discourse at a time when a significant social reorientation was taking place and momentous political decisions concerning Latinos were being debated. The negative image has not changed despite business marketing efforts to attract Hispanics as consumers. These efforts are the reaction of companies to recent census data that indicate that the Hispanic population in the US has increased considerably. US Census estimates show that California had the largest Hispanic population in July 2004 (12.4 million) and the largest numerical increase (351,000) since July 2003.2 Guerra (2004: 11) suggests that “without question, the increasing presence of Hispanics in the mass media is a direct outcome of the growing number of potential customers that the corporate powers in charge of selling commercial products want to attract.” 3. Theoretical background In recent years there has been a serious debate among linguists about the identity of second language speakers and bilingual speakers. In the past, some researchers considered linguistic identity as a fixed category. In her study of New York Puerto Ricans, Zentella (1997: 3) states that linguistic identity “is not a given, an automatic membership granted by birthplace, parentage or an accumulation of linguistic features, cultural artifacts or group customs with meanings that can be definitely interpreted.” According to Zentella, individuals are actively constructing their social identity by adopting and transforming culture in ways that allow them to communicate in more than one language or dialects. Poststructuralist and postmodernist theories suggest that individuals construct multiple changing identities. Ros i Solé (230) explains that bilingual identity 2. Source US Census Bureau, 2005 US Census Bureau News: http://www.census.gov/Press-

Release/www/releases/archives/population/005514.html



Chapter 12.  Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California 

is somewhat fragmented and fluid. Cameron (2001: 170) also indicates that “identity is shifting and multiple, something people are continually constructing and reconstructing in their encounters with each other and the world.” Speakers claim their linguistic identities at different times and in various situations. De Fina et al.  (2006: 3) explain that identity claims could be defined as “acts” through which people create new definitions of who they are. The authors also describe identity claims as “locally occasioned, fluid and ever-changing” and conclude that “identities are seen not as merely represented in discourse, but rather as performed, enacted and embodied through a variety of linguistic and nonlinguistic means.” 4. Data collection and methodology A qualitative approach was chosen for this study to obtain more information than the data that are usually collected through survey questions. For this reason, data come from a collection of 38 life histories prepared by English-Spanish bilingual speakers of Mexican descent who live in four contiguous Southern California counties: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange. The sample includes 29 female and 9 male participants with ages ranging between 20 and 45. Participants are community college and university students and professionals. This group was selected because the majority of them are first-generation college students whose parents were born in Mexico. Most students are also full-time workers. All of them have experienced an Anglophone academic setting in the Anglophone community and a variety of linguistic settings at home (Spanish, English and Spanish-English bilingualism). Participants were asked to write their linguistic life histories in Spanish in an informal style to allow them time to reflect on their experiences. The informal style was selected to make participants feel more comfortable sharing their experiences. They agreed that some of their remarks could be quoted anonymously for this chapter. I decided to use the life history narrative since this it allows the researcher to see how individuals make sense of themselves through their own texts. According to Benwell and Stokoe (2006: 138), analysis of narratives allows us to understand people’s lives because they portray “storied selves.” Cortazzi (2001: 388) explains that “through life stories individuals and groups make sense of themselves; they tell what they are or what they wish to be.” Thus they become their stories. Researchers describe the narrative as “a privileged mode for self-construction and a unique point of entry into trans-situational features of the self and identity as those emerge in a person’s (ongoing) life story” (Georgakopoulou 2006: 83).

 Isabel Bustamante-López

5. Analysis of narratives Although participants wrote their life histories in Spanish in a conversational style, it is evident that they carefully selected and assembled their experiences to construct their texts. In general, participants organized their stories in a diachronic mode. In some cases as they moved along telling their stories, they altered their chronology and they moved back and forth trying to include significant portions they had omitted. In their narratives participants constructed themselves by describing their lives in three phases: early childhood through the time they entered formal schooling (first year of elementary school), their life in elementary school and high school and, finally, the present. Narrators not only told the story in their own words and as the central protagonists (hablo ingles [sic] ‘I speak English,’ mezclo ingles [sic] y español ‘I mix English and Spanish’) but they also quoted or cited other characters, such as their parents, friends and teachers. In the sections below I will use illustrations from participants’ narratives. These excerpts have not been edited. 6. Linguistic self-assessment Analysis of the data indicates that individuals identify themselves as speakers of English, speakers of Spanish and as speakers of a Spanish-English mixed code (Spanglish). Participants indicate that they have a good knowledge of spoken (conversational) and academic English. Their knowledge of spoken (conversational) and academic Spanish is fair. However, some report that they have some difficulties when using Spanish because they did not have formal education in this language. Other participants explain that parents did not use Spanish at home when they were growing up. It is important to note that as in the case of the Southern California area, in “situations of societal bilingualism an oral proficiency continuum may develop between the two languages in contact” (Silva-Corvalán 1994: 11). In this continuum “one can identify a series of lects which range from standard or unrestricted Spanish to an emblematic use of Spanish and, vice versa, from unrestricted to emblematic English” (Silva-Corvalán 1994: 11). According to Silva-Corvalán “speakers can be located at various points along the continuum depending on their level of dominance in one or the other of the languages or in both, but it is in principle possible for an individual to move or be moving towards (hence ‘dynamic’) a level one or the other end of the continuum at any given stage of his life.” Excerpts from narratives collected for this study and the discussion below give more evidence to the dynamic linguistic situation in Southern California.



Chapter 12.  Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California 

7. Early development of linguistic identities As indicated above, most of the subjects are second generation. They explained that they were born in the US and that they spoke Spanish at home until they started kindergarten. (1) Nací en Monterrey Park, California. Mis padres son originarios de México. Mi primer idioma fue el español. Desde que nací hasta el día que entré a la escuela el español fue el único idioma que hablé. ‘I was born in Monterey Park, California. My parents are from Mexico. My first language was Spanish. From the moment I was born until the day I started school Spanish was the only language that I spoke.’

Another participant wrote: (2) El idioma en el cual uno crece escuchando es normalmente el que la persona primero habla. Mis padres hablan el español y por medio de ellos aprendí a leer, escribir y a hablarlo. La influencia de los programas de televisión, radio y cuentos que mis padres me leían fue un [sic] gran parte de mi aprendizaje. ‘The language that one grows up listening is usually the language that one speaks first. My parents speak Spanish and because of them I learned how to read, write and to speak it. The influence of television and radio programs, and stories that may parents used to read to me was a great part of my learning.’

There are some exceptions in the case of individuals who had a parent that spoke English and the other was bilingual. (3) Mi primera lengua tendría que ser el ingles [sic]. Aunque he escuchado el español e ingles [sic] desde que nací. Mi mama [sic] habla las dos lenguas pero mi papa [sic] creció hablando ingles [sic] solamente. Sus padres son latinos pero no les quisieron enseñar a sus hijos. ‘My first language would have to be English. Even though I have listened to Spanish from the moment that I was born. My mother speaks both languages but my father grew up speaking English only. His parents are Latinos but did not want to teach [Spanish] to their children.’

In some cases extended family members, such as godparents, had an impact on linguistic family choices:

(4) Mi mama [sic] me contó que cuando era niña no quería hablar en español. Dice que cuando mi padrino me hablaba en español le respondía en ingles [sic], que por qué me estaba hablando en una extraña idioma [sic]. Claro, cuando le decía

 Isabel Bustamante-López

eso, mi padrino regañaba a mi mama [sic] y abuelita porque no me enseñaban español. ‘My mother told me that when I was a little girl I did not want to speak Spanish. She says that my godfather used to speak to me in Spanish and that I would answer in English and this was because he was talking to me in a strange language. When I would say so, of course, my godfather would scold my mother and my grandmother because they were not teaching me Spanish.’

In most cases Spanish was the language participants learned and used at home. 8. The nature of English identity In their narratives, participants explained that the first time they encountered English was in kindergarten or elementary school: (5) Una vez que entré a kinder me encontré con un [sic] clase llena de estudiantes que hablaban ambos idiomas, el ingles[sic] y el español. En primer, segundo [sic] y tercer grado tuve clases donde los maestros daban clases en español y en inglés y así aprendí a escribir en ambos idiomas. ‘Once I started kindergarten, I found myself in a classroom full of students who were speaking both languages, English and Spanish. In first, second and third grade I had classes in which the teachers gave classes in Spanish and in English and I learned how to write in both languages.’

Participants also attempted to explain how they learned English: some mentioned that they had English as a second language or bilingual education in their schools. Others underscored the important role played by their friends and the television programs in English that they watched. Narrators explained that they had shifted to English as the language of power, prestige and instruction. As we have observed in the previous discussion, even though narrators explained that their first language was Spanish, they indicated that currently their dominant language was English: (6) Diría que me identifico major[sic] con el ingles(sic), pero solamente porque es lo que he crecido hablando toda mi vida. (mother Spanish/ father English) ‘I would have to say that I identify myself better with English but this is only because I grew up speaking it all my life.’



Chapter 12.  Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California 

In their life stories participants indicate in which situations they identify themselves with the English language: (7) Con el lenguaje que me siento major[sic] es el ingles [sic]. Todas mis amigas hablan el idioma ingles [sic] y es el idioma que regularmente hablamos. En mi casa todos hablan ingles[sic] ecepto [sic] por mis padres, pero mis hermanos con quien [sic] paso la mayoría del tiempo hablan ingles [sic]. Esto concluye que unicamente [sic] con mis papas practico el idioma español. Es por eso [sic] la razón por la cual me siento más cómoda hablando ingles [sic]. ‘The language that I feel better with is English. All my female friends speak English and this is the language that we usually speak. At home, almost everybody speaks English with the exception of my parents, but I speak English to my brothers with whom I spend most of the time. This concludes that I only practice Spanish with my parents. That is the reason why I feel more comfortable speaking English.’

Another participant explains: (8) …me siento con más seguridad usando el idioma ingles [sic] a pesar de que me comunico diariamente con mis padres, amigos y otras personas en español. Me identifico más con el idioma ingles[sic] porque siento menos temor al usarlo en conversación y en escritura. ‘I feel more secure using the English language in spite of the fact that I communicate in Spanish with my parents, friends and other people. I identify myself with the English language because I am less afraid when I use it in conversation and in writing.’

In some cases protagonists explain the construction of an English identity due to an effort to conform to the Anglo society. A participant states: (9) Me siento cómodo cuando hablo inglés cuando hablo de cosas serias como el trabajo y la escuela. ‘I feel at ease when I speak English, when I talk about things like work and school.’

9. The nature of Spanish identity Some previous studies have indicated that Mexican-Americans do not maintain Spanish, the language they have inherited. Skerry (1993: 5) states that “in the barrios of Los Angeles a persistent complaint is that Mexican grandmothers who speak little English have a hard time communicating with their grandchildren,

 Isabel Bustamante-López

who speak no Spanish.” However, participants in this study have maintained Spanish and use it to communicate with loved ones, family and friends: (10) Pero con el idioma que me identifico más en mi casa es el español. Mi mamá y toda su familia hablan español. Me siento más cerca de mi familia y unida con ellos solamente con hablar español. ‘But at home, Spanish is the language with I identify myself most with, is Spanish. My mother and all her family speak Spanish. I feel closer to my family just by speaking Spanish.’

Another participant who immigrated to California when he was nine years old and who had formal education in Spanish in Mexico explains: (11) Aunque tome [sic] todas mis clases en ingles[sic] en la preparatoria, todavía me siguo [sic] sintiendo más a gusto hablando español, siento que me expreso major [sic]. ‘Although I took all my classes in English in high school, I still feel more comfortable speaking Spanish. I feel that I express myself better.’

In some cases, in spite of the fact that participants indicate that they feel comfortable using both languages, they explain that they prefer Spanish in certain domains: (12) Aunque me siento cómoda con los dos idiomas, me identifico más con el español. Cuando estoy en el carro, prefiero las estaciones de radio en español. Mi colección de discos compactos es dominada por la música Latina [sic]. El español es para mí un idioma en el cual me puedo expresar major(sic), identificar más, y el cual deseo pasar a mis hijos. ‘Although I feel comfortable with both languages I identify myself more with Spanish. When I am in the car, I prefer Spanish radio stations. My collection of CDs is mostly Latin music. For me Spanish is the language in which I can express myself best, identify myself best and the one I wish to pass (transmit) to my children.’

Spanish is also used to exclude non Spanish-speakers in an interaction: (13) Abecés [sic] uso el español en circunstancias cuando me conviene o cuando no quiero que otras personas (quienes no lo habla/entiende) [sic] se fijen en lo que digo. ‘Sometimes, I use Spanish when it is convenient or when I do not want other people (who do not speak or understand Spanish) to pay attention to what I am saying.’



Chapter 12.  Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California 

Data seem to indicate that second and third generation Mexican-Americans will shift completely into English and that Spanish will be lost. Skerry 1993 (289) argues that Whatever its origins, this desire to retain Spanish is at odds with contemporary social dynamics, which virtually assure that Mexican immigrants – at least their children and grandchildren – will learn English and forget Spanish. This seemingly inexorable process creates intense misgivings and anxieties among many Mexican-Americans, especially the more educated and upward mobile.

However, Silva-Corvalán (1994: 220) concluded that “bilingualism involving Spanish and English is not dying in Los Angeles. Rather, Hispanic communities throughout this city give evidence of the wondrously complex sociolinguistic phenomenon of societal bilingualism.” In a more recent study based on findings from two surveys (Immigration and Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles Survey and the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study in San Diego), Rumbaut et al.  (2006: 454) conclude that “although the life expectancy of Spanish is found to be greater among Mexicans in Southern California, compared to other groups, its ultimate demise nonetheless seems assured by the third generation”.3 According to this study 17% of the third generation of Mexican immigrants in Southern California speak fluent Spanish while only five percent of the fourth generation immigrants do. My direct experience of the situation in Southern California indicates that there is Spanish maintenance and shift to English but Spanish is spoken by large groups of individuals. One cannot deny the impact of Spanish mass media (radio, television, Internet), circulation of newspapers and magazines and the recent increase in Spanish marketing and advertising. The service industry in the Southern California area often provides services in English and Spanish. It is interesting to mention that even though most participants of this study state that English is their most dominant language at present, they also make use of some strategies to regain Spanish linguistic identity. They indicate that they take advantage of opportunities to enhance their knowledge of the Spanish language. 3. Rumbaut et al. (2006: 454) explained that they estimated “the ‘survival’ of migrants’ mother tongues” using answers to two survey questions. They explained the methodology as follows: “The first asked how well a respondent spoke the language of his or her ancestors, and those who did not answer ‘very well’ were assigned the equivalent of a linguistic death certificate. We consider the mother tongue “dead” in the sense that the respondent has lost the ability to speak it fluently. The second question asked which language the respondent preferred to speak in the household. If the respondent answered “English,” then the mother tongue was also considered to have “died” because it was no longer used within intimate confines of family life.” Part of their source data (IIMMLA) was obtained from surveys “administered in English or Spanish using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system.”

 Isabel Bustamante-López

Some of them have decided to take Spanish courses at the community college or university to recover the language they have almost lost. Narrators mention some intentional strategies of the speakers and their families to maintain the Spanish language: (14) Solamente leo de vez en cuando. Leo revistas. Miro la television [sic] en español por la noche. Veía telenovelas y otros programas. Tomé algunos cursos en la prepa. ‘I only read Spanish every now and then. I read magazines. I watch TV in Spanish at night. I used to watch Spanish soap operas and other programs. I took some courses in high school.’

Some participants explain that their parents have also used some strategies to help them to maintain Spanish. One says: (15) [Mi papá] Él siempre quiso que siguiéramos hablando nuestra lengua natal, y que nunca se nos olvidaran nuestras raíces Mexicanas [sic]. Yo creo que eso me ha ayudado a retener mi lengua natal, aunque la verdad es con el transcurso del tiempo el lenguaje ingles [sic] ha ido invadiendo mis pensamientos, y en efecto, se ha convertido en el lenguaje que domina mi pensar y mi vivir. Desde mis cinco años él ingles [sic] me [sic] impactado tanto qué [sic] hasta ahora batallo aprender la lengua de mi neniece [sic]. [My father] he always wanted us to continue speaking our mother tongue and that we should not forget our Mexican roots. I think that this has helped me to retain my mother tongue, although the truth is that with time the English language has invaded my thoughts and in fact, it has become the language that dominates my way of thinking and my life. Since I was five years old English has had such an impact that to this day I struggle to learn the language of my childhood.]

In some cases participants explain that parents have encouraged their children to read the newspaper in Spanish: (16) Mi padre compraba el periódico para que leyéramos en español y pudieramos [sic] continuar practicando el idioma. ‘My father used to buy the newspaper so that we could read in Spanish and keep practicing the language.’

In some cases, unintentional strategies have helped participants to reinforce their knowledge of the Spanish language. Parents take their children with them when they go to Mexico to visit their relatives. Participants also indicate that they maintain the Spanish language because of their work. There is one case in which a speaker explains that she works at a city library in Santa Ana, California and many



Chapter 12.  Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California 

Spanish speakers go to that library. She is not required to know Spanish for the position but she likes to help them and speaks to them in Spanish. She indicates: “this helps me to practice Spanish.” In this case the linguistic choice also creates a solidarity dimension. 10. Bilingual identity All participants describe themselves as bilingual speakers of English and Spanish: (17) Hablo ingles[sic] y español y también mezclo los dos. ‘I speak in English and Spanish and I also mix both languages.’ (18) Acabo de descubrir que tengo la habilidad de usar las dos lenguas. Me siento muy comoda [sic] con las dos. En la Universidad [sic] he mejorado el inglés y el español. ‘I have just discovered that I have the ability to use both languages. I feel very comfortable with both. At the university, I have improved both English and Spanish.’

In their narratives participants express that they take pride in being bilingual: (19) El ser bilingüe ha sido maravilloso. Me ha ayudado a sobreponerme a mis problemas y he podido ayudar a otras personas. Me permite comunicarme con mi familia. ‘To be bilingual has been wonderful. It has helped me to overcome problems and I have been able to help others. It allows me to communicate with family members.’

Participants indicate that English and Spanish are used for different functions. Spanish is not only the language they use with family members and English the language they use at school and at work, but the languages allow them to signal other meanings: (20) Así que en mi vida profesional utilizo el inglés y para mi vida personal utilizo el español. ‘In sum, in my professional life I use English and in my personal life I use Spanish.’ (21) El español represento [sic] para mí el calor de familia, el amor de mi madre y lo que me hacia [sic] sentir en casa. El ingles[sic] fue representando a un mundo de descubrimientos que jamas [sic] imagine[sic] existieran. No es solo [sic] que

 Isabel Bustamante-López

el ingles [sic] y el español sean totalmente diferentes lenguas pero los mundos que representan son tan distintos. ‘Spanish for me represents familial warmth, love of my mother and what made me feel at home. English came to represent a world of discoveries that I could have never imagined would exist. It is not only that English and Spanish are totally different languages but the worlds that they represent are so different.’ (22) Normalmente suelo hablar en inglés cuando me encuentro expresando ideas mas [sic] complejas, me sucede esto porque no tengo la misma facilidad para expresarme en español. Finalmente aunque se [sic] que me falta mucho por aprender, sé que si me esfuerzo voy a ir mejorando poco a poco. ‘Usually, I am accustomed to speaking in English when I express more complex ideas. I do this because I do not have the same ability to express myself in Spanish. Finally, though I have much to learn, I know if I work at it little by little, I will get better. ‘

Participants indicate that they mix Spanish and English. One participant explains codeswitching as follows: (23) Cuando salgo con mis amigos hablamos las dos lenguas. Hay veces que mis oraciones tienen palabras de cada lengua. Es decir, Spanglish, una combinación del español e inglés. ‘When I go out with my friends we speak both languages. There are times that my sentences have words from each language. That is to say, Spanglish a combination of Spanish and English.’

Another participant says: (24) Últimamente me he dado cuenta que tengo la tendencia de mezclar ambos idio­ mas y me doy cuenta que tiendo [sic] a hacer esto ya que me siento cómoda con las dos lenguas y si se me olvida una palabra en el uno, lo digo utilizando el otro idioma. ‘Lately, I have discovered that I have the tendency to mix both languages and I realize that I tend to do this because I feel comfortable with both languages and if I forget a word in one language, I say it using the other language.’

Participants indicate that they use codeswitching in restricted circumstances: (25) Spanglish es muy importante. Lo uso con mi papa [sic], mama [sic], hermanos y amigos. ‘Spanglish is very important. I use it with my father, mother, brothers and friends.’



Chapter 12.  Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California 

(26) Sí, mezclo las dos lenguas cuando hablo con personas que saben español, pero solamente lo hago con mi familia o personas que saben los idiomas. Hago estas mezclas en un ambiente informal o cuando estoy con amigos o gente de confianza. ‘Yes, I mix both languages when I speak to people who know Spanish but I only do it with my family or people who know the languages. I only mix languages in an informal setting or when I am with friends or people I trust.’

In some cases participants suggest that the use of this code has a negative connotation and they try to avoid it: (27) Ay [sic] veces que cuando estoy hablando español me confundo y empiezo adeir [sic] palabras en ingles [sic]. Trato de hacerlo lo menos posible. ‘There are times that when I am speaking Spanish I get confused and I start saying words in English. I try to do it the least possible.’

In some cases family members intervene: (28) Mezclo los dos a veces cuando hablo con mis amigos. Mi papa [sic] se enoja cuando mezclo ingles [sic] y español. Él [sic] dice: Si vas a hablar español entonces habla español. ‘I mix the two sometimes when I talk with my friends. My father gets angry when I mix English and Spanish. He says: If you are going to speak Spanish, then speak Spanish.’

11. Contradictions of multiple linguistic identities Some authors have suggested that identities might conflict with each other (Cameron 2001). However, most narratives in my data indicate that these participants are not only cognizant of the situations and locations in which they assume a particular identity, but there seem to be no conflicts in their choice of one over the other. Participants indicate that they feel ties to the Anglo community (loyalty) and the use of the English language may signal in Southern California bilingual speakers’ allegiances to the language of power and prestige. A careful examination of the data indicates that there is tension in assuming Spanish identities in certain circumstances. A participant explains that by and large she feels comfortable speaking Spanish, but that there are circumstances she does not. She adds, however, that she is bilingual and that she is proud of that.

 Isabel Bustamante-López

Some participants indicate that they regret never using Spanish and that this is the reason why they have lost the language. Notwithstanding, they nostalgically long for the language and culture they have lost: (29) Me gustaría poder hablar en español. Tomé algunos cursos en el colegio comunitario para poder conversar con mi abuelita. ‘I would like to be able to speak Spanish. I took some courses at the community college so that I could talk to my grandmother.’

In general, the analysis of Mexican-American personal histories indicates that individuals who describe themselves as Anglophones, feel sad because of their infrequent or limited usage of Spanish. (30) Hoy en día me siento muy apegado a los dos idiomas. Siento que me gusta el español más que el ingles [sic], pero se [sic] que puedo dominar el ingles [sic] major [sic] que el español. Creo que la razón por esto sera [sic] porque no practico el español lo suficiente. El español solo lo hablo en casa, ya fuera de casa hablo puro ingles [sic], y esto es porque no tengo ningún amigo o amiga que habla español. ‘Nowadays, I feel close to both languages. I feel that I like Spanish more than English but that I have a better command of English than of Spanish. I think that the reason is because I do not practice Spanish enough. I speak Spanish at home, outside I speak English only and this is because I do not have any friends who speak Spanish.’

As in the previous example, the participants not only think their Spanish is faulty, but also family members ridicule them. (31) Resulta que, aunque yo me creía muy lista y afortunada de saber los dos idiomas descubrí que no era así. Una vez le escribí una notita a mi mama [sic] que se encontraba en el teléfono que decía algo así, “Mami me voy a vallar [sic], ¿me boy [sic] a vallar/¿quées [sic] eso, O, ya se [sic] lo que quería decir es me voy a bañar. Fue entonces que me di cuenta que no sabia [sic] español tal como creía. Que [sic] vergüenza, sí que [sic] vergüenza porque mi mama [sic] soltó la crajadota [sic] y le dijo a todo el mundo. ‘It happens that although I thought that I was sharp and fortunate because I knew both languages, I discovered that this was not the case. One time I wrote a brief note to my mother who was [talking] on the phone. The note said something like this: “Mom, I am going to ‘take a bath’[vallar]/ What is that? Oh, I know. You meant to say I am going to take a bath. It was then that I realized that I did not know Spanish as well as I thought. I felt so ashamed. Indeed, so ashamed because my mom burst out laughing and told the story to everybody.’



Chapter 12.  Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California 

Most participants indicate that they do not have a good command of written Spanish. They state that they know English well and do not know as much Spanish as they would like: (32) Me gustaría ser escritor y me gustaría escribir en español. ‘I would like to become a writer and I would like to be able to write in Spanish.’

As Jaffe (2007: 58) explains, “it is extremely difficult for the individual to have ‘balanced’ competencies in two languages when those languages have vastly different statuses and uses in the surrounding community.” This is also illustrated by the following excerpt taken from a narrative of another participant who does not feel comfortable using Spanish because of a lack of knowledge and because he believes English has influenced his Spanish. At the end of the excerpt, we learn that he believes he does not use a prestigious Spanish variety because he learned the language from his parents and they did not receive formal education in Mexico: (33) Nunca he estudiado gramática de este idioma. Es por esto que me siento con más seguridad usando el idioma ingles [sic] a pesar de que me comunico diariamente con mis padres, amigos y otras personas en español. Me identifico más con el idioma ingles [sic] porque siento menos temor al usarlo en conversación y en escritura. En cambio usando el español siento temor porque pienso que voy a cometer errores al expresarme en conversación y siento más temor al escribirlo ya que no me siento con suficiente sabiduría en terminos de gramática. Siento que mi vocabulario tiene mcuhas [sic] influencias del ingles [sic] y cambio entre idiomas cuando estoy en conversaciones. Siento que mi español esta [sic] demasiado Americanizado [sic] porque es así como lo aprendí de mis padres ya que ellos llevan muchos años en tes [sic] país y tienen esta influencia del idioma ingles [sic] en su vocabulario también. Ademas [sic] de esto mis padres no tuvieron mucha oportunidad de estudiar en su país a si [sic] que ellos no me pueden ayudar mucho con el idioma. ‘I have never studied the grammar of this language. This is why I feel more secure using the English language in spite of the fact that I use Spanish to communicate with my parents, friends and other people. I identify myself with English because I am less frightened when I use it in conversation or in writing. On the contrary, I feel frightened when using Spanish because I think I am going to make mistakes when I express myself in conversation and I am even more frightened when I write in Spanish because I feel I do not have the grammatical knowledge (wisdom). I feel that my vocabulary is heavily influenced by English, and I change from one language to another when I converse. I feel that my language is too Americanized because this is the way I learned it from my parents because they have lived in this country for many

 Isabel Bustamante-López

years and they have this influence from the English language in their vocabulary also. Besides, my parents did not have the opportunity to study in their country so they cannot help me much with the language.’

The participant seems to suggest that he is ashamed of his Spanish. Shame is a recurrent theme in the narratives. Speakers admit that they avoid speaking Spanish to Spanish-speaking interlocutors in the presence of English speakers, particularly in formal situations. I have observed this even among academicians. If there is a conversation in Spanish and English speakers are in the vicinity, bilingual speakers will immediately switch to the English language. They do not want to be considered less or unequal because of their use of the Spanish language. Speakers of Spanish in Southern California are in unequal relations since Spanish is not the language of prestige and as a result Spanish has less linguistic symbolic value. Bilinguals shift to English because it is the language of power and prestige. In some cases, they avoid Spanish even in cases in which they are required to use the language: (34) No hablo español en el trabajo. Soy asistente bilingüe. ‘I do not speak Spanish at work. I am an English-Spanish bilingual assistant.’

As Jaffe (2007: 51) states, this also seems to suggest that participants are not taking advantage of two different languages “linked to two separate identities” but rather their linguistic repertoire is a “potentially uneven mixture of codes, practices and competencies distributed across different individuals and different domains of social action.” 12. Findings In the data gathered it is evident that Mexican-American bilinguals in Southern California claim multiple linguistic identities. They claim three fluid linguistic identities: English, Spanish and code switching in English and Spanish. In their narratives, participants configured their identities according to social practices and relationships. Social circumstances push them to assume these different identities. Most participants identified themselves as English speakers because they believe they can communicate with others more adequately. In certain situations bilingual speakers avoid speaking Spanish because of the way they are perceived by others. However, participants also indicate that they claim a Spanish-speaking identity to exclude non-Spanish speaking interlocutors. The examination of the narratives also indicates that English is a means to attain social mobility. The participants explain that they perform an identity through English because they attach a particular social and economic value to this language.



Chapter 12.  Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California 

However, in some cases Spanish is also mentioned as a means of attaining social mobility, such as in the case of a narrator who tells us about the discovery of the usefulness of Spanish in professional life: (35) Ahora yo soy maestra en Pomona. Todos de mis estudiantes hablan espanol [sic] y yo no puedo hablar con sus parientes que no hablan ingles [sic]. You soy tamando[sic] una clase porque es muy urgente que you [sic] intiento [sic] mucho mas [sic] espanol [sic] para communicar con los padres de mis estudiantes. ‘Now I am a teacher in Pomona. All of my students speak Spanish and I am not able to speak to my students’ parents who do not know how to speak in English. I am taking a class now because it is urgent that I understand more Spanish to communicate with my students’ parents.’

This participant seems to suggest that Spanish knowledge will help her be a more successful teacher. Using Jaffe’s (2007: 56) terminology we can see that in this case there is an emergence of a value-added bilingualism. Data indicate that for participants English and, to a lesser extent, Spanish have economic and social value and, as Cook (2002: 283) indicates, in Bourdieu’s (1991) view “the value of a particular linguistic variety (such as a standard or a vernacular form), or a particular linguistic practice (such as literacy) derives from its ability to provide access to more prestigious forms of education and desired positions in the workforce or on the social mobility ladder.” 13. Conclusions Analysis of the linguistic histories prepared by the bilingual participants of this study reveals that these individuals assume multiple and shifting identities. Guerra (2004: 7) explains this phenomenon quite succinctly: “At this point in my life I want to believe that whatever singular label I may prefer to use to define myself in theory is no longer as important as the multiple labels I must choose to identify myself in practice.” Mexican-American bilinguals attempt to construct their identities integrating Spanish and English in various ways through a complex and at times difficult process. Participants feel at ease using English, the language of formal instruction; Spanish is predominantly the language used with older family members and some friends. Participants also mix English and Spanish with friends and, at times, with some family members. Language selection, according to the interviewees, does not necessarily mean intimacy or a sense of belonging to the group (in contra Rothman and Rell 2005), but rather reflects attempts to anticipate interlocutor’s linguistic identity.

 Isabel Bustamante-López

Linguistic identities are formed in open dialogue with others. Mexican-American bilinguals assume multiple identities when they interact with various speakers in various situations. In these encounters and situations bilinguals claim different linguistic identities with the various collectivities. It is obvious that in the case of Mexican-American bilinguals in Southern California, as Cameron (2001: 170) suggests, “people are continually constructing and reconstructing their identities in their encounters with each other and the world.” Guerra (2004: 8) argues that “multifaceted self-representations and our multiple ways with words can be used to enhance rather than restrict our ability to move fluidly in and out of the porous communities that currently comprise our nation.” By assuming multiple linguistic identities, participants in my study take advantage of what Guerra (2004: 8) calls transcultural repositioning; that is, the Mexican-American participants use their linguistic skills to move back and forth with relative ease and comfort between and among different languages, dialects and cultures. They need to do this to face the challenges posed by encounters with more than one world. Spanish, English and code-switching represent not only different languages but also totally different worlds: (36) Por tan bien que sepa el idioma jamás perteneceré a solo ese mundo sino a dos que se combinan y crean mi mundo. El ingles [sic] representa lo académico y el español representa la familia y el amor de mi madre. Es mucho más fácil para mi [sic] escribir en ingles [sic] pero en conversaciones me fascina comunicarme en español. ‘If I know the language extremely well, I will never belong to that world only but rather to two (worlds) which combine themselves and which create my world. English represents the academic world and Spanish represents the family and my mother’s love. It is easier for me to write in English, but in conversations I love to communicate in Spanish.’

This quotation also allows us to confirm that identity is not something static and that through dialogues with various interlocutors, identities are “in a continuous state of creation and recreation, negotiation and renegotiation” (Mannheim and Tedlock 1995: 3). In Southern California, Mexican-American bilinguals have to continuously negotiate and renegotiate their membership to the Anglo community, their Spanish-speaking or English and Spanish bilingual family members and friends. However, in spite of the tensions and challenges that this may bring about, Mexican-Americans who participated in this study are proud of the richness and complexity of their linguistic identities. I hope that this study contributes to a better understanding of the complexities of bilingualism and the construction of multiple linguistic identities not only in border communities of Southern California, but also in regions where similar sociolinguistic situations are present.



Chapter 12.  Constructing linguistic identity in Southern California 

References Benwell, B. & E. Stokoe. 2006. Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bell, S. E. 2006. Becoming a mother after DES: Intensive mothering in spite of it all. In Discourse and Identity, A. De Fina A., D. Schiffrin & M. Bamberg (eds), 233–252. Cambridge: CUP. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Cameron, D. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Cook, V. (ed.). 2002. Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cortazzi, M. 2001. Narrative analysis in ethnography. In Handbook of Ethnography, P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland & L. Lonfland (eds). London: Sage. De Fina A., Schiffrin, D. & Bamberg, M. (eds). 2006. Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: CUP. Georgakopoulou, A. 2006. Small and large identities in narrative (inter)action. In Discourse and Identity, A. de Fina, D. Schiffrin & M. Bamberg (eds), 83–102. Cambridge: CUP. Guerra, J.C. 2004. Emerging representations, situated literacies, and the practice of transcultural repositioning. In Latino/a Discourses on Language, Identity and Literacy Education, M.H. Kells, V.M. Ballester & V. Villanueva (eds), 7–23. Portsmouth NH: Boyton/Cook/Heinemann. Jaffe, A.M. 2007. Minority language movements. Bilingualism: A Social Approach. M. Heller, (ed.), 50–70. New York NY: Palgrave Press. Kells, M.H., Ballester, V.M. & Villanueva, V. (eds.) 2004. Latino/a Discourses on Language, Identity and Literacy Education. Portsmouth NH: Boyton/Cook/Heinemann. Mannheim, B. & Tedlock, D. 1995. Introduction. In The Dialogic Emergence of Culture, D. Tedlock & B. Mannheim (eds), 1–32. Urbana,IL: University of Illinois Press. Mishler E.G. 1999. Storylines: Craftartists’ Narratives of Identity. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Mishler E.G. 2006. Narrative and identity: The double arrow time. In Discourse and Identity, A. De Fina, D. Schiffrin & M. Bamberg (eds), 30–46. Cambridge: CUP. National Research Council. 2006. Multiple Origins, Uncertain Destinies. Hispanics and American Future: Panel on Hispanics in the United States. M. Tienda & F Mitchell (eds). Committee on Population, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. Ros i Solé, 2004. Autobiographical accounts of L2 identity construction in Chicano literature. Language and Intercultural Communication 4: 229–241. Rothman, J. & Rell, A. 2005. A linguistic analysis of Spanglish: Relating language to identity. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 1(3): 515–536. Rumbaut R.D., Massey, S. & Bean, F.D. 2006. Linguistic life expectancies: Immigrant language retention in Southern California. Population and Development Review 32(3): 447–460. Santa Ana, O. 2002. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin TX: University of Texas. Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994. Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. New York NY: OUP. Skerry, P. 1993. Mexican Americans: The Ambivalent Minority. New York NY: The Free Press. State of California 1849 Constitution as reprinted by Los Amigos of Orange County. Zentella, A.C. 1997. Growing Up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Malden MA: Blackwell.

chapter 13

Multilingualism and Identity All in the Family* Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia University of Iowa

We discuss the linguistic breakthrough of three young brothers into three languages, via data from an on-going longitudinal study. Marcello (6.10), Francesco (4.5) and Giovanni (2.9)1 are simultaneous trilingual learners of Spanish, Italian and English. In keeping with the over all theme of this volume, the present discussion focuses on the emergent construction of their linguistic identity shared over the three languages. We descriptively report on datasets of their linguistic performance and relate these observations to their negotiation and development of unique, complementary yet overlapping identities manifested linguistically. Furthermore, looking towards a future laden with issues of language and cultural maintenance/attrition that the family will face as the children develop socially in the English-dominant environment, we present interview data from the parents as they relate to the motivations, intentionality and goals of this “linguistic project” as well as plans for linguistic sustenance.

1. Introduction Notwithstanding the vast differences that characterize human beings as individuals, there are a few qualities and traits by which people can be defined in general and thus be differentiated from other intelligent animals. Two of these qualities involve the intricacy and uniqueness of our social/personal relationships and the complexity of our linguistic capacity. Barring pathology (e.g., Specific Language Impairment or severe Down syndrome; Rondal 1993; van der Lely and Wexler 1998) or linguistic isolation (Curtiss 1977, 1989), all children acquire the language of their speech * We thank the Vial family for their willingness to participate in this study and for their collaboration in the preparation of this chapter. We are indebeted to Suzanne Romaine and Virginia Zavala for their support of this project, their insights and feedback. We are grateful for the Arts and Humanities Initiative Grant that supported this research. 1.

The dates of their births are September 28, 1999, February 26, 2002 and October 23, 2003.

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

community. In fact, it is uncontroversial to state that wherever there are people, there is language and some form of culturally constructed social hierarchy, which, in part, is based on the values any given society attaches to specific languages. Since language is the most ubiquitous form of communication, it is intuitive to believe that the negotiation and construction of personal identity(ies) is (are) conditioned upon not only social and individual factors, but also linguistic ones. However, the aforementioned is hardly a naïve observation, which is to say, the sociolinguistic study of identity has a long tradition of highlighting the indexical nature of language on the performance of identity (e.g., Benwell and Stokoe 2006; Butler 1998; Cameron 2001, 2005; De Fina et al. 2006). We refer here to relational identities in which speakers perform “particular identities to themselves and each other” (Benwell and Stokoe 2006: 78) such as big brother, little brother, father-son/daughter, mother-son/daughter, friend-friend, and so forth encompassing family identities.2 This fact is supported nicely by examinations into the reality of linguistic identity performances of bilinguals and multilinguals, whose language choice, dominance, attitudes, etc. change throughout time conditioned upon external and internal factors. In recent years, linguistic identity has come to be viewed as a mutable construct, both on the individual and communal level. From this constructivist view, linguistic identity is in a constant flux of reevaluation and renegotiation. This is especially true of bilingualism and multilingualism in situations where societal diglossia does not a priori drive the speaker to use a particular language or variety from his or her linguistic repertoire. In such cases, language choice is, in a sense, the individual speaker’s preference; whether conscious or unconscious, however, the choice signifies a social act (e.g., Butler 1998; Cameron 2001; Myers-Scotton 2000; Zentella 1997 among many others). This is the working hypothesis of the present chapter, which is to say, it is in light of the aforementioned discussion that we analyze the linguistic performance of three young brothers who are growing up as trilingual speakers of English, Italian and Spanish in Menlo Park, California. It is useful to note that the first two children were relatively sheltered from English until they began to attend school where the language of instruction is English. When Francesco, the middle child, turned 3 and started school, the third child, Giovanni, was only 5 months old. It was at this time that English became a fixed presence in the lives of all three boys. Now, all of them attend school in English. It is our contention that an analysis of 2. We do not mean to imply an association between constructionism and linguistic determinism, nor between constructionism and essentializing positions (Benwell and Stokoe 2006: 32). On the contrary, we reject the ‘essentialist’ position that poses identity categories (including gender) as universal and as a “pre-existing source of linguistic and other semiotic practices” (Bucholtz and Hall 2005: 588). In a pluralizing contemporary society there is no single role for boys and one for girls but rather there are multiple patterns of masculinity and femininity.



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

their linguistic practices in all three languages paints a nice picture of their negotiation of linguistic identity shared over the three languages. Moreover, this chapter discusses the recent changes in this “linguistic project” in light of the encroachment of English on the other two languages as it relates to the children’s change in linguistic attitude and language choices. Via interview data with the parents, we discuss their plans for the future, which strive to avoid language attrition, foster and maintain the development of linguistic and cultural ideologies and identities in light of the reality that the linguistic bubble in which they live is gradually being popped by the surrounding English-dominant society. This chapter is set up in the following manner. The next section discusses some key issues in the study of childhood multilingualism. The section that follows presents the linguistic history of this family and the social and linguistic dynamics of their world. Next, we look at particular speech datasets of the three boys, discussing what they reveal as it relates to their performance of linguistic identity and its mutable nature. Finally, we discuss the future of this “linguistic project” in particular and what it brings to bear on the notion of linguistic identity performance and negotiation in similar situations in a general sense. 2. Issues in multilingualism This section cursorily addresses some of the issues involved in the linguistic study of childhood multilingualism. It is in no way meant to be exhaustive; however, we address several key issues, introducing them to the reader in general and in particular, considering them as they relate to the questions we pursue herein. Although we consider childhood bilingualism as a particular instance of multilingualism, we acknowledge that there are important differences between the acquisition of two languages and the acquisition of three or more. It is reasonable to presume, as we do, that although many of the same linguistic issues bilingualism faces are also relevant to trilingualism, the addition of yet another early language and culture raises distinctively novel questions. For example, the fact that multilingual children can acquire several languages as effortlessly as monolinguals acquire one, as we will see, underscores the vastness of our biological linguistic capacity (cf. Meisel 2004). As a result, from a particular point of view, the naturalness and ease of multilingual acquisition begets the question of why Western societies and many researchers take it for granted that monolingualism is the default normal case of language acquisition. The fact that it unavoidably occurs wherever children are sufficiently exposed to three or more languages might suggest that not being multilingual is, by the happenstance of intangible, but existent geographic borders and the like, a waste of our biological linguistic potential.

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

From a sociolinguistic perspective, trilingualism brings about the pondering of distinct questions. How do children encode and balance sociolinguistic and pragmatic features in speech with monolinguals and other multilinguals? Within a multi-child family, will there be differences in linguistic dominance across children? What factors determine this and is it stable? How is linguistic identity constructed, negotiated and shared over the three languages? Must it be shared? Although we do not address these questions in this section, subsequent sections will do so. 2.1

What does it mean to be multilingual?

One significant issue in the study of multilingualism involves its many working definitions. Since there are many acceptable versions of what researchers consider multilingualism to be, it is prudent of any study to define the criterial parameters they assume. Multilingualism definitions range from very restrictive, à la Bloomfield (1933: 56), whereby a speaker is only a true multilingual if (s)he has nativelike competence in all languages, to more open-ended definitions, à la Haugen (1953: 7) for which a multilingual is anyone who is able to effectively communicate in more than one language.3 This vagueness is not the result of investigative imprecision per se, but a reflection of the gamut of different degrees of multilingualism that hold in reality. The question of who qualifies as a multilingual is more a concern (although not limited of) studies of additive multilingualism or attritional multilingualism, the former being the acquisition of a third language after a particular age (usually after puberty) and the latter being language loss by adults who were once fluent speakers of three or more languages. In the present case, the multilingualism of these children reflects age appropriate native abilities in all three languages and so we will not specifically weigh in on the aforementioned debate. The native linguistic ability of these three children is highlighted throughout this chapter, however, it should not be interpreted that we therefore ascribe to a restrictive definition of multilingualism in general. It just happens to be the case that, given the linguistic bubble these children have been brought up in until this point, they would be considered true trilingual speakers, even by the most restrictive of definitions.

3. In fact Haugen’s broad definition “incorporates a developmental perspective which brings the entire process of second language acquisition within the scope of the study of bilingualism” (Romaine 1995: 11). Since our focus here is on child trilingualism, we can put aside the obvious implications such a definition has for adult acquisition in light of the fact that the processes of simultaneous and additive multilingualism [even child additive acquisition] are different in terms of development sequence and most often in ultimate attainment for adults.



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

2.2

Multilingualism is not the sum total of several monolingualisms

Another central issue in bilingual/multilingual research concerns the ubiquitous comparison of multilingual language (both in acquisition and social development) to that of monolingual children of the same ages (and mean length of utterances (MLUs) in acquisition research), despite the fact that there is relative agreement that each represents decidedly distinct cases. There are obvious reasons for this, mostly stemming from the fact that, to date, there is no independent measurement of multilingual success or failure. Along with others (see Muysken 2000; CruzFerreira 2006), we contend that the comparison is not a fair one. Firstly, it presupposes that successful multilingual acquisition is or should be the sum total of multiple monolingual acquisitions, which further presupposes that monolingualism is the ultimate benchmark against which bilingualism and multilingualism should be compared. However, there is no substantiated theoretical or empirical reason to support such an assumption. Secondly, since the environments of acquisition are different (linguistically and socially), it seems somewhat counter-intuitive to expect that the processes of monolingual and multilingual acquisition would be parallel. Furthermore, even if the comparison were a tenable one, it further presupposes that monolingual acquisition is 100% uniform for each individual child of any given language. Of course, this is not the case; which is to say, the patterns of language development are tendencies, which more or less represent children in general, but not each individual child. Since monolingual/multilingual comparisons most often take the form of monolingual aggregates judged against individual multilingual children (or at best much smaller groups), it is not an equitable comparison. This is justifiable insofar as monolingual patterns reflect a range of individual variability within which, on a one-to-one comparison, most multilingual children would likely fall. In light of this, our discussion of the three boys will be devoid of direct comparisons to monolingual children of English, Italian and Spanish. 2.3

Data type and its value

Another issue that is contentiously debated in the literature involves the usefulness and strength of particular types of data (see Muysken 2000 for discussion). This debate pertains more directly to the case of bilingualism, for which there is no shortage of documentation. The argument revolves around the value of data in advancing our understanding of the dynamics of multiple language acquisition. The majority of available research examines the use of language by bilingual children in light of spontaneous speech production corpora. Recently, Muysken (2000) has challenged the usefulness of such data and has suggested that the field needs to invest more in the testing of children using a battery of established experimental

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

psycholinguistic tasks. Others, however, have taken the position that such an approach is meaningful only in conjunction with corpora data since experimental exercises are hardly capable of reenacting the communicative conditions of everyday interactions (e.g., Watson 1991; Romaine 2004). At the end of the day, the usefulness of different data types depends greatly on the questions one seeks to pursue. If one is strictly or partly interested in the linguistic acquisition of multilinguals, then there is little doubt that the increased incorporation of experimental techniques will be quite fruitful.4 However, psycholinguistic measures are, by design, unable to provide insight into the social milieu of multilingualism. As a result, the gathering and analysis of corpora datasets has not reached its usefulness, especially as it relates to childhood multilingualism where data of any type are less available as compared to bilingualism. 2.4

The significance of code-switching

Anyone familiar with bilingualism/multilingualism, whether anecdotally or professionally, is familiar with code-switching, or the mixing of two or more languages at the inter-sentential (the sentence-to-sentence switching from one language to another within discourse) and the intra-sentential (language-to-language syntactic switching within the boundaries of a single utterance) levels. Some have naively suggested that such an occurrence is evidence of linguistic ineptitude on the part of multilinguals (see Haugen 1956; Iams 1976 for review of these earlier studies), a suggestion that a priori presupposes that multilingualism produces linguistic confusion in children acquirers whereby the end result is incomplete acquisition for each language. Code-switching is, therefore, assumed to be the manifestation of this linguistic incompleteness. This line of thought is unassailably falsified on linguistic grounds. Firstly, research on code-switching has demonstrated that it is largely rule-governed and conforms to the universal constraints on natural grammars (Belazi et al. 1994; Jake et al. 2002; Myers-Scotton 1993; MacSwan 1999, 2000, 2005). Moreover, since it never breaks any particular grammar rules of the languages involved, it can be viewed as a mark of high linguistic competence for all languages in the multilinguals’ repertoire. Code-switching has also been shown to be of symbolic value, often marking membership into a group (e.g., Zentella 1997; Rothman and Rell 4. It is perhaps worthy to mention that while we do not report on experimental tasks in this chapter, we did test the boys experimentally, as the larger project investigates both linguistic acquisition and sociolinguistic properties. For example, we tested the children’s knowledge of Principles A and B of the Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981, 1995), with particular interest in differences of the acquisition/application of Principle B in the languages (cf. McKee 1992; Padilla 1990; Chien and Wexler 1990).



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

2005). Furthermore, Zentella (1997) has shown that code-switching can be the unmarked form of communication among members of a particular group whose linguistic reality sojourns between two languages, as in the case of second generation Puerto Ricans in New York. 3. Linguistic history and family dynamics While acquiring language is both a cognitive and social process, the emphasis in this section is on the social aspect. We begin with the family’s history and linguistic background and follow this up with specifics on the linguistic dynamics of this particular situation. 3.1

The family

The family consists of two parents and three young boys. Both parents grew up as bilingual children and have since learned at least one more language. The father, Conrad, a first generation son of Italian immigrants, acquired Italian and English simultaneously as a child in the United States. The mother, Catalina, was born in Belgium to Colombian parents. As a result, she learned both French and Spanish as a child before the family returned to Colombia, where she attended a Frenchmedium school. Motivated by his future wife, Conrad learned Spanish as an adult and is presently a fluent speaker of Colombian Spanish. Similarly motivated, Catalina learned both English and Italian as an adult and is extremely fluent in both. Sharing three languages in common (English, Italian and Spanish) and being cognizant of the advantages of being raised within several cultures and languages, the parents consciously decided to raise their children in a trilingual environment. The boys were all born in California: Marcello (6.10), Francesco (4.5) and Giovanni (2.9). The mother, the primary source of Spanish, has stayed at home to raise the children since the birth of Marcello. Marcello has been attending school since he was 3 years old. To this point, his schooling includes pre-school, kindergarten and first grade, all of which have taken place in English. Francesco also attends school and has done so since he was three. At the time of data collection, he had completed two academic years of instruction while, Giovanni, the youngest brother who was not yet 3, had not attended any type of schooling. Before undertaking what both parents refer to as their “linguistic project,” they thoughtfully planned the trilinguality of the children, taking care to create a balanced linguistic environment at home in an effort to foster language diversity and to maximize exposure to Italian and Spanish, knowing that English would be acquired through formal schooling. As many have claimed, one of the key issues in

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

fostering the acquisition of two or more languages and their retention throughout development in a home where the societal language is not spoken is the existence of a real need to communicate in different languages. As Grosjean (1982: 175) points out, “what is essential in the maintenance of the ‘weaker’ (often the minority) language and hence in the development of bilingualism is that the child feels the need to use two languages in everyday life” (emphasis in the original). As a result, the parents or care-givers must create and enforce (implicitly if not explicitly) a domestic situation in which the languages in question have particular uses and contexts (Ochs and Schieffelin 1995). It is reasonable to suppose that if the language-acquiring children do not experience first hand that ‘need’ in a sustained fashion, this could contribute to linguistic reversion for the minority language overpowered by the increased presence/preference of the environment’s dominant language. This case study demonstrates that, to this point, the caregivers have created such a context. The next section discusses the boys’ socialization into all three languages. Despite the fact that they are brothers and, as a result, many variables are thus fortuitously accounted for such as having the same family milieu and similar social relationship with key interlocutors, circumstance has resulted in a slightly different experience for each child, especially in terms of exposure to English, which we detail. 3.2

Language socialization

The impact of socialization in language has been recognized and studied in many contexts (e.g., Heath 1983; Ochs & Schieffelin 1995; Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen 2004). In part, linguistic and cultural competence is constructed through the interaction of the primary group (family) in which the child is raised and experienced as a continuous process (Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen 2004: 157). The family has adhered by and large to the Grammond principle: one parent, one language (Grammond 1902). Conrad preserves a relatively strict Italian language frame in his interactions with the children in terms of his own language choice and his expectations of their language use with him. Catalina seems more flexible and intersperses some English and Italian in her family interactions, which appears to be conditioned upon the language choice of the children. However, she clearly uses Spanish with the boys the vast majority of the time. What is immediately evident by observing the linguistic practices of the family is the fact that they have created the need for the children to communicate in Italian and Spanish. The aforementioned clearly corroborates what previous studies on the style of parental interactions have documented. That is, the application of the ‘one parent, one language’ principle differs on a case-to-case, person-to-person basis. While Ronjat (1913) and Leopold (1939) reported that no lexical translations were given



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

in the other language, Fantini (1985) reported that he translated words for his son Mario when needed. While Conrad is much more stringent with Italian than Catalina is with Spanish, she clearly has provided the children with sufficient contextualized exposure to and socialization in Spanish such that they most naturally identify her (and her extended family and friends) with Spanish. On the other hand, parents are not the only influence on the children since the boys have always had significant contact with other family members. Additionally, as they mature, they have had increased contact with friends and acquaintances from the outside environment and, of course, siblings socialize amongst one another. Consistent contact with family members has been invaluable in terms of providing input for the children, especially in the case of Italian, a language, unlike Spanish and English, not supported by the social environment of California. The institution of school has provided significant exposure to English and has solidified its social worth insofar as the children have developed new meaningful relationships with people who exclusively speak English. Since this process started at the age of three for Marcello, which resulted in an increasing presence of English in the home by the time Francesco was approaching two years old, the introduction of English at different developmental stages in each boy’s life has resulted in a unique process for each of the brothers (see Pérez-Granados 2002). Presently, the use of English at home has become rather commonplace, particularly when the boys return home after being in school, although not at all to the exclusion of the other two languages. In light of the aforementioned, it is fair to say that Marcello is a native bilingual of Italian and Spanish and an additive trilingual speaker of English. Marcello, being the oldest son, exclusively received communication in Italian and Spanish until the age of three since the home was more or less sheltered from English. In light of this linguistic bubble, the strict use of Spanish and Italian (with their respective primary parental sources and supporting family casts) was more easily maintained for Marcello and to a slightly lesser extent for Francesco, the two eldest boys. Giovanni, the youngest, was born after Marcello started to be meaningfully exposed to English, which was followed shortly by Francesco’s introduction to English. Catalina reported being more liberal with the use of English with Giovanni, as influenced by the language use of the two eldest boys who have acquired English in school. As a result, Giovanni has been significantly exposed to all three languages virtually since birth and is thus developing as a true simultaneous trilingual. 3.3

Language attitudes

Reinforcement and conscious effort to develop the proficiency in the two minority languages (Italian and Spanish) seems to have been the strongest factor for the linguistic development of the three brothers. As alluded to previously, in addition

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

to the parents, there is a close-knit family network where grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins interact. Every interaction among them has cultural meaning and through these interactions they not only learn the cultural practices that come with each language but also a positive attitude towards each of the languages, which is relevant in the way they negotiate and create their identity in each of the languages. The children have established clear linguistic associations with particular extended family members such that either Italian or Spanish is used unconsciously and exclusively with those individuals. When the three brothers talk among themselves they primarily use Italian, but English is the language most likely to be used, although not exclusively so, when they play with toys and games that require the following of instructions or resolution of dilemmas. They also seem to prefer English when discussing particular things that they associate with English. For example, they will talk extensively about the Transformers – robot toys which have a television cartoon in any of the languages; however, they seem to be particularly loquacious about this topic if permitted to discuss the Transformers in English. Moreover, when discussing the Transformers in Spanish and Italian, code-switches back and forth with English increase as their enthusiasm and interest grow. Although we observed that the boys most often spoke Italian to each other, they frequently switched to Spanish when they needed to inquire about the wellbeing of a sibling (e.g., ¡No llores! ‘Don’t cry’) or were giving directives to a younger sibling (No, te vas a caer ‘No, you will fall’). Not surprisingly, their language use amongst themselves is multilingual and dynamic, reflecting the socialization they have had into these languages, an important point to which we return in greater detail in later sections. In addressing the adults in their lives, one can immediately observe the strategies of convergence and divergence by which each child assesses the interlocutor, communicating effortlessly in the L1 of each of the adults with whom they interact. These choices exemplify the Communication Theory (formerly known as Speech Accommodation Theory) (Giles et al. 1973), which takes into account the effect that the interlocutor has on the speaker. According to Giles, a speaker can make a choice: converge, diverge or maintain the code, the style, the register as a way to identify with the interlocutor or to create distance. Of all the linguistic exchanges we observed, we never witnessed a ‘non-reciprocal conversation’ in which each child spoke a different language. 3.4

Relational identity negotiation

Regarding relational identities, people construct a multiplex and mutable identity rather than a monolithic and immutable one, since identity is in part granted by others. Closely related to children’s language and social development is the



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

negotiation of identities since language is one of the loci where such negotiation takes place. Language choice as well as code-switching is never neutral; they are used to project an image or to renegotiate an identity. One may choose another language or code-switch to let the interlocutor know that “not only am I X, but I am also Y” (Myers-Scotton 1988: 170). Switching between languages, when each language is associated with particular rights and obligations sets, occurs when one is talking with others one considers similar to oneself (Myers-Scotton 2000: 146). Moreover, switches can symbolically mark the identity we want to project at that particular event in that particular group. Among the brothers one can observe “an emergent construction of their linguistic identity shared over the three languages” (Romaine 2004), a process of identity construction by isolating the usage patterns of the three available languages in their repertoire. For example, the fact that the brothers speak Italian when they play together (especially during sports and other physical activities) may be an indication of identification with the father’s language. Furthermore, examining the data we can observe that when the older brothers assume the role of the “nurturing” big brother, dealing with emotions, the use of the mother’s language appears as the preferred medium of such communications. It seems to be the case that they have chosen conventionalized uses of ‘a particular language’ to a masculine figure and to a feminine nurturing figure in the family. In section 4, we return to this discussion via a first-hand analysis of example interactions that not only contextualize these claims, but support their tenability. 3.5

Input

An interesting question to pursue involves the functional separation of the languages as mediated by the input the children receive. Is the linguistic input functionally separated? As we have discussed throughout, different inputs are somewhat contextually and very much interpersonally divided. On the one hand, there are clearly established parameters of who provides what input. As previously mentioned, Conrad (and his family) is the primary input provider of Italian. Catalina (and family and friends) does the same for Spanish. English is taken care of by school, limited access to television, friends and the outside environment in general. Moreover, the children are very aware of the fact that their parents are trilingual speakers of English, Italian and Spanish as no attempt has been made to mask their linguistic skills from the children. Nevertheless, this poses no confusion for the children who know which language is, at this point, tacitly expected as a mode of communication with whom. We mentioned that input is to some extent contextually separated, by which we mean to say that particular languages are used for particular functions with

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

particular people. These acts are linguistic and social, combining to determine linguistic identity in these languages. For example, the family enjoys and discusses food together in Italian and the children pray in Italian with their father before going to bed, both time-honored traditions in Italian culture. It is important to note that each conversation in a different language conveys not only linguistic input but also cultural training about how to use language(s). There is a complex dynamic of family conversations that promotes language development and socialization (Ochs and Schieffelin 1995; Moreno and Pérez-Granados 2002). By videotaping the family, we have captured important parent-child, adult-child and child-child interactions. As the study of Moreno and Pérez-Granados (2002: 251) points out, parents and siblings have “complementary conversational patterns when interacting with young children.” As we will see first-hand, there are differences in the interaction among the brothers and the children with their parents (cf. Pérez-Granados 2002). Interactions take several forms, ranging from the informal/mundane to formal attempts by the parents at inculcating linguistic awareness. 4. Linguistic data In this section, we examine selected linguistic interactions of the three boys. Principally, we will examine how they communicate with each other and their parents. We focus on the context of the speech act in an effort to isolate the variables that seem to underlie linguistic choices in real-time speech. In doing so, we seek to exemplify how these linguistic choices reflect the negotiation and performance of their linguistic identities. We have noted throughout that when multilinguals speak to other multilinguals (with the same linguistic repertoire) language choice is essentially a pragmatically motivated preference. Nevertheless, this choice has a functional value and signifies an important sociolinguistic act (e.g., Butler 1998; Cameron 2001; Myers-Scotton 2000 among many others). In light of this, we analyze typical everyday interactions that are representative of the range of parentchild and child-child interactions we have alluded to throughout. They are revealing of the children’s linguistic abilities as well as their development of complementary linguistic identities. 4.1

Linguistic awareness and general use

Before analyzing specific speech acts, it is important to give an overview of the linguistic use of the boys in general terms, especially in situations where choosing



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

between different languages is more limited, if an option at all.5 Given the parameters of the present discussion, we will not deal with particulars of their linguistic development herein; however, it is worth noting that their competence in the three languages is at an expected level for their respective ages (and MLUs). It should come as no surprise that each child uses the appropriate language with monolingual interlocutors and that each child uses the expected language with known interlocutors, even cases where the interlocutor is bilingual. The parents reported that the boys speak English exclusively in school and with their acquaintances from school. We observed the boys speaking exclusively in Italian with the paternal family and in Spanish with the maternal family and Hispanic friends, despite the fact that they now know they are all competent in English. Language choice is usually an ‘orderly’ social behavior rather than a random act resulting from momentary inclination; it functions as a sign of alternative interpersonal relationships (Wei 2000: 59, 62). The boys, even the youngest at three years of age, are remarkably aware of the languages that they speak as unique modes of communication and as significant social constructs. The eldest son, Marcello, will often tell his brothers to speak “in italiano, en español” ‘in Italian, in Spanish’ to particular people or in particular contexts. For example, when Marcello introduced his Italian grandfather to one of the researchers who had spoken to him in Italian since their first encounter, he introduced him in Italian and made a point to let his grandfather know that this particular researcher spoke Italian well. When his aunt from Italy arrived, Marcello whispered in her ear in Italian that his new friend (one of the researchers) spoke Italian and then proceeded to let him know that he should speak to his aunt in Italian. This also illustrates how the interlocutor’s language proficiency is another factor that affects language choice in places where both languages are used (Zentella 1997). Marcello has evaluated his interlocutor’s Italian level and has approved the use of that language with his aunt. Observing Italian-German bilingual children, Auer (1984) has pointed out how they assess both the pronunciation and grammar of their interlocutors and make the language choice based on that assessment. During the interviews with the parents, both of them shared information that further highlights the children’s linguistic awareness. Supporting Auer’s (1984) above-mentioned observation, the father reported the fact that the boys often pick 5. Data have been transcribed orthographically (verbatim) rather than phonetically. We use some signs to include paralinguistic features. Capital LETTERS indicate emphatic speech, stress via amplitude or pitch; (…..) pausing; ( ) empty parenthesis indicate untranscribable talk and the longer the space in between brackets the longer the speech part that is not comprehensible to the transcriber. Words in parentheses are the best guess of what is inaudible or description such as (pointing to it), (talking to his mother), (crying). We use → to indicate a specific line discussed on the text.

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

up on non-native accents in the respective languages. For example, the boys often respond to people who address them in English-accented Spanish in English. Moreover, he reported how the boys during their play will innocently and jokingly mimic non-native accentuated speech in Spanish and Italian. Perhaps the most poignant example of linguistic awareness as well as linguistic identity was the one shared by the mother about her eldest son, Marcello. All the children in Marcello’s 1st grade class were asked to write a few self-defining biographical sentences which would be placed on a card together with a clay selfsculpture in their classroom so that the parents could look through them and pick out their child’s project. Marcello’s card read as follows: My favorite color is red. I like the number 7. I like Sunday. I speak Spanish, English and Italian. Catalina proudly explains: this last sentence in this paragraph for me was like my accomplishment of the year (…) is to know that my almost seven year old kid is able to know that he is probably special because he speaks these three languages and he defines himself in this way (…) it is very rewarding to us.

Coupled together, these sentences, which are mere examples of many instances, demonstrate that these children are conscious of the fact that they are multilingual speakers. Unlike monolingual children at analogous ages, they are linguistically, socially and sensibly aware of what language is, in general, and in particular what English, Italian and Spanish are. Moreover, they are cognizant that being a multilingual means communicating appropriately in all of the languages depending on many variables that they navigate effortlessly. These generalities, however, are not meant to suggest that these boys never switch between the three languages within the same context nor that they never attempt to subvert the established linguistic code between themselves and their parents. What we observed, however, is that the locus for testing linguistic waters seems to be isolated to the nuclear family unit at this point in development. Moreover, when the children switch between languages within their sibling unit or with their parents there is always a performance of a social act, as we will see. This will become clearer as we take a look at specific interactions that exemplify the linguistic identity the children negotiate in each of the languages as well as their attempts to breach some of the linguistic walls that have functionally and socially maintained the languages as independent entities until recently.



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

4.2

Sibling language

As we have indicated, it is fair to say that the preferred language of communication between the boys is Italian. Whether it be for play, for questions, for stories, for prayer or at mealtime, Italian seems to be the language that the boys most naturally use to speak to each other. This is true whether or not Conrad is present, although when their father is present they almost exclusively communicate amongst themselves in Italian. The following is a typical playtime interaction when Conrad was not at home. Marcello: Wow, hai fatto (…) guarda, Francesco, GUARDA dov’é il cyberplanet-key (…) qua dentro e dopo chuidi e non lo prendono i cattivi. ‘Wow, you did (…) look, Francesco, LOOK where is the cyberplanet key? (…) in here and then you close and the bad guys don’t get it.’ Francesco: L’omega-lock qua dentro, come l’hai guardato ieri. ‘The omega-lock inside here, like you saw it yesterday.’ Catalina: (announcing to the boys) Giovanni y Francesco van a hacer la siesta dentro de cinco minutos. ‘Giovanni and Francesco are going to take a nap in five minutes.’ Francesco: Guarda e si chuide e fai l’ omega-lock (…) e dopo fa cosí. ‘Look e it closes and you do the omega lock (…) and then you do like this.’ Marcello: HEY, dov’é l’omega-lock? ‘Hey, where is the omega-lock?’ Francesco: Dov’é l’altro cyber-planet key? (now talking to his mother he switches to Spanish) ¿dónde está? oh, aquí está mio. ‘Where is the other cyber planet key?’(switches to Spanish) ‘where is it? oh, here is mine.’

Although, the boys speak primarily to each other in Italian, English words are incorporated somewhat indiscriminately, despite the fact that the examples here give the appearance that lexical incorporation from English is somewhat isolated to exclamatory expressions and games/toys from the dominant culture. It is not the

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

case, however, that these words reflect a gap in lexical knowledge as can be seen in the following example taken from a typical family afternoon snack: Marcello: Ma tu non voui il tuo biscotto? Ma non lo vuoi? (...) dai, Francesco, MANGIALO! ‘But you don’t want your cookie? You don’t want it (…) come on, Francesco, EAT IT.’ Giovanni: (looking at a cake) Happy Birthday! Conrad: GUARDA! ‘LOOK!’ Giovanni: Guarda ‘Look’ Marcello: Blackberries Giovanni: (repeating) Blackberries Conrad: Come si dice “blackberry” in italiano? ‘How does one say “blackberry” in Italian?’ Marcello: Non mi ricordo ‘I don’t remember’ Francesco: → Io voglio strawberry ‘I want strawberry’ Conrad: Ne vedi? Ce ne sono? Cosa sono? ‘Do you see them? Are there any? What are they?’ Francesco: →fragole? ‘Strawberries’ Conrado: No, non sono fragole ‘No, they are not strawberries’ Marcello: Anche queste sono raspberry, non c’é strawberry. ‘These are also raspberries, there is not any strawberry.’ Francesco: Ma io voglio strawberry, per favore! ‘But I want strawberry, please.’

Interestingly, Spanish words are rarely incorporated into their Italian speech. This is perhaps not so surprising seeing that English is the newer language that is slowly, via school, encroaching on the two home languages. Equally, we note a large presence of English words in their Spanish speech while it is almost never the case that Italian words are incorporated into their Spanish dialogue. Their unconscious use of English words in their Italian and Spanish speech can be understood as a mark of an emerging identity of hybridity as the walls that once separated the languages grow thinner. The fact that the parents are inconsistent in their attempts to correct this linguistic practice is most likely a reflection of its incidence; which is to say, this practice has become so common that the parents hardly recognize the mixes



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

anymore. This possibility was confirmed by their reported unawareness of the frequency with which English lexical insertion occurs. Moreover, one cannot dismiss the fact that their linguistic practices, especially Catalina’s, reflect similar mixes. It would be misleading to insinuate that Italian is the only (matrix) language that the boys use to speak to each other. English is commonly used among the boys when there are English speakers present, whether or not the boys are engaged in active conversation with them. English is also used when the boys are discussing things that they associate with their English world such as friends from school and television shows. Spanish is used in specific situations such as when the boys are in the presence of Hispanic speakers, whether or not they are involved in conversation with the boys. An exception to this is when they are alone with Catalina. In this case, the boys most often speak Italian to each other unless she becomes actively involved in the conversation. Quite revealing of language and identity is the fact that the older siblings console, protect and give directives to their younger sibling in Spanish. For example, here Marcello, the older sibling, is telling his younger brother to tell the videographer, who only speaks English, something: Marcello: (to Francesco) Dilo otra vez. Di ‘I will return,’ DILO. ‘Say it again. Say ‘I will return’. SAY IT.’ Francesco: I will return

In performing these acts in Spanish, the children take on a “mothering” type role. Catalina is the primary care-giver, the one that consoles the boys and gives them directives in their everyday affairs. Clearly, the boys have come to associate these activities with their mother. Equally, they associate Spanish with mom and so the fact that they perform these linguistic acts in Spanish is not unanticipated.6 In sum, the boys use Italian as their primary code of inter-sibling communication. However, each language has its place in the children’s life. It seems that within the family dynamics Spanish and English are reserved for inter-sibling communication that is conditioned upon external influences and associations (i.e., by the surrounding language at any given moment or association they have made with particular entities). Moreover, the boys perform their relational identities for sonfather and brother-brother relationships in Italian and in Spanish for son-mother interactions. English is the mode of communication that seems to be somewhat taboo at home, yet increasingly present. 6. Gender should not be the main category in the analysis of interactions. As Stokoe (2005: 123) points out “To impose a gendered reading onto data is doubly problematic: not only does it weave features of social life into data that do not appear concurrently relevant to speakers themselves, but also it precludes a focus on other potential relevancies.”

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

4.3

Mother-child language

Catalina specialized in linguistics in college and this choice has been overtly factored into her care of the boys, in her knowledgeable thought process behind the commitment to the family “linguistic project.” Since the mother has been the primary source of Spanish, the boys associate her with the Spanish language. Although they incorporate English words into their speech with her, their linguistic engagements are reliably in Spanish. It is clear to see from the following example how language contributes to and mediates the negotiation of identity. Moreover, this mother-child dialogue exemplifies the importance of cultural constructions and how they are bequeathed linguistically (more specifically lexically). That is, this particular speech act overtly discusses the hierarchical family role of the boys. Note the use of the word primogénito (first-born) by Marcello. He understands that in latino cultures the notion of being first born has cultural significance and he proudly lays claim to such rights here. Catalina: (speaking to Francesco) Okay, NO TE ENOJES! ‘Okay, DON’T GET ANGRY.’ Marcello: (making fun of Francesco): Na na na…. Catalina: AY, MARCELLO! ‘OH, MARCELLO!’ Marcello: ¿Pero, porqué tú lo puedes hacer? ‘But, why can you do it?’ Catalina: ¿Qué? ‘What?’ Marcello: ¿Pero porqué tú lo puedes hacer? ‘But, why can you do it?’ Catalina: Hacer, ¿qué? ‘Do, what?’ Marcello: hacer na..na..na ‘Do na..na..na?’ Catalina: porque soy la mamá, ¿te acuerdas? Soy la mamá de esta casa, no se te olvide! ‘Because I am the mother, do you remember? I am the mother of this house and don’t forget it.’ Marcello: pero mamá..yo soy el primogénito. ‘But, mom … I am the first-born’ Catalina: →pero eres el primogénito… ‘But, you are the first-born.’



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

(to Marcello) Com’é in questa casa essere il fratello maggiore ( )?… hai capito? SMETTILA! ‘How does the eldest brother act in this house? ( ) did you understand? CUT IT OUT!’ Catalina: (to Conrad) Pero me está diciendo que es el primogénito (…) ‘But, he is telling me that he is the first-born?’ Conrad: (to Marcello) Me hai capito? SMETTILA! ‘Did you understand me? CUT IT OUT!’ Catalina: (to Conrad) Me dijo que es primogénito como si eso le diera derecho de convertirse en la mamá (to Marcello), perdóname fue un accidente, qué se hace, fue el primogénito?. ‘(to Conrad) He told me that he is the first-born as if this gave him the right to become the mother (to Marcello), excuse me, it was an accident that you happened to be the first-born. Well... what can one do.’ Catalina: ¿Qué? (…) Francesco, tú, ¿eres el de la mitad? ‘What? (…) Francesco, you, you are the middle one?’ Francesco: No Catalina: ¿No? Tú, ¿qué eres? ‘No? You, what are you?’ Francesco: Nada ‘Nothing’ Catalina: ¿No eres nada? ‘You are nothing?’ Francesco: No Catalina: Como así, mira él es el hermano mayor (pointing to Marcello) él es el hermano menor (pointing to Giovanni) y tú eres de la mitad. ‘It’s like this, look, he is the oldest brother (pointing to Marcello) he is the youngest brother (pointing to Giovanni) and you are the middle one.’ Francesco: No, yo soy nada7 ‘No, I am nothing’ Catalina: Eres nada, okay. ‘You are nothing, okay.’ Conrad:

It is interesting to note that the above is a continuation of the snack-time example we analyzed in the preceding section in Italian. The language of communication switched from Italian to Spanish once Catalina became involved in the conversation and quickly switched back to Italian when she exited, not the physical space, 7. This is quite an interesting exchange metalinguistically, because Francesco is rejecting his place in the family hierarchy.

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

but the conversation. This type of linguistic code-switch was ubiquitously observed however, it is important to note that the boys speak Italian around her all the time. Spanish is truly reserved, in fact automatically triggered for direct communications with her (and other Hispanic people). Insofar as Catalina engenders the mother-figure, the compassionate strongwilled woman who simultaneously serves as the teacher, caregiver, and disciplinarian, the boys are most consistently exposed to Spanish that reflects these roles. This can be seen in the following context. Catalina: Mírame, mírame, Marcello te está ayudando. (referring to Marcello’s attempt to help his brother). ‘Look at me, look at me, Marcello is helping you.’ Francesco: No….yo no quiero ‘I don’t want.’ Catalina: Sí señor (...) mírame,mírame la cara,mira la mamá (…) él quería ayudarte a abrir (…) tú me pediste que lo abriera, verdad? (…) Francesco. ‘Yes sir (…) look at me, look at my face, look at your mother (…) he wanted to help you to open (…) you asked me to open it, right? (…) Francesco.’ Francesco: Pero, me (crying)( ) (…) yo no quiero (…) Marcello ‘But, me (crying) ( ) (…) I don’t want (…) Marcello’ Catalina: Entonces, qué hago (…) me va a tocar quitarles los juguetes. ‘Then, what do I do (…) I will have to take the toys away.’ Francesco: No,..no Catalina: Okay, yo no quiero volver a oír los niños llorar con los juguetes porque los quito. Me estás oyendo? Mírame (...) me estás oyendo? No quiero más... no pueden pelear más con los juguetes porque los quito, me estás oyendo? ‘Okay, I don’t want to hear you guys crying about the toys again because I will take them away. Are you listening to me? Look at me (…) are you listening to me? I don’t want more (…) you guys can’t fight any more over the toys because I will take them away, do you hear me?’ Francesco: No (…) pero (…) pero (…) ‘No (…) but (…) but (…)’ Catalina: Okay, ahora voy a contar hasta tres (…) uno (...) dos (…) tres (…) okay, okay ya pasó.



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 



‘Okay, now I am going to count to three (…) one (…) two (…) three (…) okay, okay now it’s over.’

Catalina is especially concerned with her children being literate speakers of all three languages. She reads with Marcello in Spanish and English and regularly consults monolingual dictionaries with him in both languages when they encounter words Marcello is unfamiliar with. Although the majority of maternal interactions are generally informal, these formal/educational activities are goal-oriented in an overt way. In other words, her actions represent a conscious effort at inculcating the importance of educated language to her children, especially in the minority languages. As we will see, both parents invest a great deal of time and energy in educational activities with their boys. 4.4

Father-child language

By circumstance, the boys spend less overall time with their father. Although Conrad’s demanding job – he is a cardiovascular surgeon in California – keeps him away from home on a rotating schedule, when he is home, he usually reads bedtime stories to his boys and prays with them before they sleep. On the weekends, they spend a significant amount of time with their father playing sports and doing other activities (usually physical ones). The following dialogue took place while the boys were playing (and not surprisingly soccer) with their father in the backyard of the family house. Non colle mani. ‘Not with your hands.’ Solo l’ho preso coi piedi. ‘I only got it with my feet’ (telling Francesco to kick the ball) Adesso, forte! ‘Now, hard!’ (to Francesco) hai fatto goal (Marcello kicks the ball) vai a prenderlo Francesco ‘You made a goal. Go get it.’ Conrad: Francesco TIRA, TIRA ‘Francesco, SHOOT, SHOOT!’ Francesco: (Marcello is blocking the goal) Dai Marcello, MUOVITI ‘Come on Marcello, MOVE!’ Marcello: No, questo é come fa il goalie ‘No, this is what a goalie does.’ Conrad: Marcello: Conrad: Marcello:

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

Conrad: Francesco dai, tira, TIRA, fallo passare ‘Francesco, come on, shoot, SHOOT, get it in!’ Francesco: Fai un tunnel (he shoots) ‘You nutmeg somebody’ (soccer slang). Conrad: Goooool! ‘Goal!’ Marcello: L’hai preso (…) adesso Francesco fa il goalie? ‘You got it (…) now Francesco is the goalie?’ Conrad: →Sapete come si dice in Italiano quando fai cosí? ‘You guys know how to say in Italian when you make a goal?’ Marcello: Si ‘Yes’ Conrad: Si dice che gli hai fatto un tunnel ‘You say, I nutmegged on him.’

Although Conrad’s communication with the boys is most typically lighthearted, he embeds linguistic and cultural training in almost everything they do. As seen above, Conrad is consistently teaching his boys overtly how things (mostly culturally significant things) are most naturally conveyed in Italian. In the example below, Conrad has placed Giovanni on a parked tractor at the playground where he has taken the boys to play. He is teaching Giovanni specific vocabulary about a tractor in an engaging, yet non-obvious way. Allora, come lo guidi? Come fai? Dove meti le marche, mostrami ‘Well, how do you drive it? How do you do it? Where do you put the stick, show me.’ Giovanni: (moves his hands upwards) Conrad: No, le marche, quello lá (pointing to it) ‘No, the stick, that there.’ Giovanni: Freno ‘Brake’ Conrad: i pedalli, dove sono? ‘The pedals, where are they?’ Giovanni: (points to them with his feet) qui ‘Here’ Conrad: il volante dov’é ‘The steering wheel, where is it?’ Giovanni: qui ‘Here’ Conrad: questo si usa per (…) ‘This is used for’ (…) Conrad:



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

Giovanni: Conrad: Giovanni:

per girare (…) ma non funciona ‘for driving (…) but, it is not working.’ adesso, adesso non funciona (…) perché? Non hai la chiave. ‘ Now, now it is not working (…) why? You don’t have the key.’ non ho la chiave ‘I don’t have the key.’

The father is much more likely to correct the boys linguistically than the mother is. That is, he often (but not always) corrects the boys’ Italian. For example, we observed him correcting their auxiliary selection in forming the past tense in Italian on several occasions (e.g., abbiamo andato → siamo andati ‘we went’). Most notably, Conrad is much more likely to correct the boys’ English lexical mixes in their Italian speech. We observed that his corrections came primarily in two forms: (a) by asking the boys how they would say that word in Italian or (b) as a recast, as seen below. Allora, mangiamo qual’cosa ‘Well, let’s eat something.’ Quello (pointing) ‘This’ Cosa vuoi mangiare, quello? ‘What do you want to eat?’ Si ‘Yes’ Che cos’é (…) lo sai? ‘What is it (…) do you know?’ Quello é ( ) mangiamo ‘That is ( ), let’s eat.’ Vediamo quello che c’é (…) un biscotto per Giovanni, uno per te, uno per (…) aspetta, ASPETTA (stopping Giovanni from taking the cookies). Vediamo questo. (referring to the round fruit tart he brought home) ‘Let’s see what there is (…) a cookie for Giovanni, one for you, one for (…) wait, WAIT. Let’s take a look at this.’ Giovanni: Una pizza ‘A pizza.’ Conrad: No, é una torta con frutti del sottobosco ‘No, it is a tart with berries.’ Giovanni: →voglio un biscotto, please ‘I want a cookie, please’ Conrad: Giovanni: Conrad: Giovanni: Conrad: Giovanni: Conrad:

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

Conrad: Giovanni:

4.5

→(recast) voglio un biscotto PER FAVORE? ‘I want a cookie PLEASE’ →Si, voglio un biscotto per favore ‘Yes, I want a cookie please’

Summary

The data we presented in the above sections are a mere subset of the multitude of similar encounters we observed. They were chosen because they serve to represent both the negotiation and performance of complimentary identities the boys are developing in these languages. We observed that the boys perform different roles in different languages whereby Italian is the language most closely associated with their father and the preferred mode of communication among the boys. Spanish seems to be associated with communication with specific people or, if used among the boys, takes on a different function insofar as it is used for specific purposes associated with the role of their mother in this household. English, being the language associated with the newest meaningful relationships (school and friends) the boys are making, is steadfastly becoming more present in their lives and more intrusive on the other languages. In the next section, we will discuss interview data from the parents that most directly pertain to this last observation. 5. Linguistic project In addition to the videotaping of linguistic interactions, the parents were formally interviewed. We asked them to critically reflect on the motivations, goals, outcomes and planning of this “linguistic project.” While the motivations that underlie this family’s multilingualism are firm, the goals and planning, like the negotiation and mutable emergence of linguistic identity itself, are in a constant state of growth and reevaluation based on external factors. Space limitations do not permit us to examine the full gamut of revealing information the parents provided. And so, we will focus the present discussion on the last interview question, which asked them to consider the inevitability of the encroachment of English on the two minority languages. We can report that both parents are quite cognizant that the linguistic reality of the society in which they live (California) will most likely interfere with or at least make more difficult the maintenance of the minority languages. As one can imagine, this line of questioning was very emotionally charged for both parents. In fact, there was a palpable change in both Conrad and Catalina’s demeanor as they answered this last question. Although their answers, as we will see, were somewhat



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

similar in content, they were quite different in delivery. Both offered powerfully honest answers, which revealed the forethought and emotional investment that had gone into them. By this we mean that our proposing this probing question served as an avenue for them to verbalize a concern that they had discussed explicitly between themselves and one that had tacitly obliged them to rethink and replan as the boys came in greater contact with the English world. Conrad was very matter-of-fact and pragmatic in his answer while at the same time he was specific and steadfast in his desire to counteract the possible attritional effects that English may have on his children’s multilingualism. Most notably, he was rather protective of Italian in particular. Throughout the interview, he expressed his concern about the children’s relationship with Italian in particular since, unlike English and to a lesser extent Spanish, Italian is not supported to any degree by the environment in which they live.8 This preoccupation was reflected in the following answer and, we believe, reflected in his linguistic practices with his sons that we have discussed throughout (i.e., correcting English mixes in Italian and the like). …...the most important [consideration to avoid English encroachment] in my mind is discipline, it’s literally holding the line, holding the line like my mother held the line in my household growing up, insisting that this is something we have committed to from the beginning and we are going to see it through. So as long as you are in this house, as long as you are here with us this is how we are going to do it, you…we’re going to speak in ITALIAN. And I really think it is like so many things in that respect, it is really no different than any other value you feel is important and formative in your up-bringing of a child and that you want to reinforce, that you think is worth fighting for to reinforce. I consider this one of those critical values for a variety of reasons……

Conrad clearly aligns multilingualism with familial values and rights. As a multilingual adult, he feels that being so helps to define him, which is to say, it is an indivisible part of his identity. Thus, he strongly feels that he must protect this right for his children, much like his parents did for him. Despite future struggles, Conrad has consciously decided that, come what may, this is a battle worthy of being fought. He is determined that his boys will speak Italian as adults and believes that this is important for their development as a “substantive you,” which starts with “knowing where you come from and what those who have brought you through

8. We do not intend to ignore an important and possibly confounding fact about Spanish. Despite the prominence of Spanish in California it caries some degree of stigma, which is not true of Italian. Only time will reveal the extent to which this comes to bear on issues of language maintenance and linguistic attitude.

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia

the world have come through to do so. The language which you speak so greatly symbolizes that, that I think it is worth defending.” Conrad dovetails the above response with an acknowledgement that the children will need sustained social experiences in the minority languages that enable them to make connections with the languages and their cultures. He envisages the children formally studying Italian and spending time in Italy. Catalina is equally insightful and pragmatic in her response; however, she is more overtly emotional than Conrad. It is interesting to point out some revealing facts of Catalina’s interview. Catalina was told that she could answer the questions in any language she felt comfortable. Although English is not her native language, she answered all of the questions in English with few exceptions. She answered the questions pertaining to her linguistic history in Spanish. Otherwise, all of the substantive questions relating directly to the boys and their multilingualism were answered in English. Despite this, when asked this last emotionally charged question, she pensively paused, sighed and switched into Spanish. This particular linguistic switch is significant and revealing as it coincides with a visible emotional switch for her. Catalina responded: Sabemos que entre más viejos se vuelvan nuestros hijos, más grandes, el mundo del inglés va a ser más predominante al nivel escolar, académico, amigos (…) mundos a los cuales están ellos expuestos estamos concientes que (…) eh (...) por mi parte yo no siento ningún temor porque creo que lo más importante es que hayamos sembrado en nuestros hijos la semilla del AMOR por el fenómeno lingüístico de diferentes lenguas, diferentes culturas, el querer siempre saber más de estas lenguas y culturas. Si van a tener algunos errores en el futuro hay clases de lengua en cualquier parte que estén, pueden ir a vivir por periodos de tiempo en Colombia, Italia, cualquier país de habla hispana. ‘We know that the older the our boys get, the bigger, the English world will become more prominent at the school, academic level, with friends (…) worlds that they are exposed to, we are conscious of the fact that (…) eh (…) as far as I am concerned I am not afraid because I believe that the most important thing is that we have planted in our children the seed of LOVE for the linguistic phenomenon of different languages, different cultures, the desire to always know more about those languages and cultures. If they are going to have some errors in the future, there are language classes wherever they will be, they can go to live for periods of time to Colombia, Italy, any Spanish speaking country.’

Catalina expects that there will be uphill linguistic battles to deal with as English becomes more prominent. Moreover, this fact understandably makes her a bit melancholic; however, she finds pride in the fact that come what may, she and her husband will have done their best to provide their children with an exceptional opportunity and appreciation for languages and their cultures.



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

All in all, both parents express a sense of confidence that their “linguistic project” will ultimately be successful. Both of them explicitly spoke of the naturalness of their decision to raise the boys multilingually. In fact, Conrad suggested that he could never conceive of having a family in which Italian was not a central part of it. It just so happened that by a wonderful coincidence his wife was a multilingual speaker of Spanish who happened to know Italian. For them, multilingualism was not as much a decision as it was an inescapable consequence of the merging of their individual identities into a single family unit. 6. Conclusion We began this chapter under the assumption that observing the linguistic interactions and language choices of these boys would provide some insight into the construction, negotiation and performance of linguistic identity in young multilinguals. Since language choice among these three brothers is to some degree unconstrained by competence, but is constrained by interlocutor because they always appear to accommodate to the interlocutor,9we worked under the hypothesis that revealing any observable contextualized patterns to their language choice would be directly indicative of their emerging linguistic identities insofar as consistent language choice signifies a social act of sorts. Such a hypothesis was confirmed by the data. We observed that the languages encode different, yet complementary identity roles for the children. Given the changing reality of the boys as it relates to these three languages throughout time, these roles will likely change. In line with the most current sociolinguistic views of linguistic identity, we assume a constructivist approach to linguistic identity for all. Moreover, we believe that inquiries into linguistic identity performances throughout the development of young multilinguals can provide unassailable evidence for the tenability of such a theoretical position. It is for this reason that longitudinal studies such as these are important. It will be interesting to track these boys throughout the years and chart the re-evaluations and re-negotiations of their linguistic identities. References Auer, P. 1984. Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Belazi, H.M., Rubin, E.J. & Toribio, A.J. 1994. Code-switching and X-bar theory: The functional head constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 25(2): 221–37. Benwell, B. & Stokoe, E. 2006. Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 9. We are indebted to Suzanne Romaine for this comment.

 Jason Rothman and Mercedes Niño-Murcia Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York NY: Holt. Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociolinguistic cultural approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 585–614. Butler, J. 1998. Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal 40(4): 519–531. Cameron, D. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Cameron, D. 2005. Language, gender, and sexuality: Current issues and new directions. Applied Linguistics 26(4): 482–502. Chien, Y.C. & Wexler, K. 1990. Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1: 225–295. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Cruz-Ferreira, M. 2006. Three is a Crowd? Acquiring Portuguese in a Trilingual Environment. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Curtiss, S. 1977. Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day “Wild Child.” New York NY: Academic Press. Curtiss, S. 1989. The Case of Chelsea: A New Test Case of the Critical Period for Language Acquisition. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles. De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. & Bamberg, M. (eds.). 2006. Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: CUP. Fantini, A. 1985. Language Acquisition of a Bilingual Child: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. San Diego CA: College Hill Press. Giles, H., Taylor, D. & Bourhis, R. 1973. Towards a theory of interpersonal accommodation through speech: Some Canadian data. Language in Society 2: 177–192. Grammond, M. 1902. Observations sur le Langage des Enfants. Paris: Mélanges Meillet. Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Haugen, E. 1953. The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. (Reprinted In 1969, Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press). Haugen, E. 1956. Bilingualism in the Americas: A Bibliography and Research Guide [Publications of the American Dialect Society 26]. Heath, S.B. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: CUP. Iams, T.M. 1976. Assessing the scholastic achievement and cognitive development of bilingual and monolingual children. In The Bilingual Child: Research and Analysis of Existing Educational Themes, A. Simões (ed.). New York NY: Academic Press Jake, J., Myers-Scotton, C. & Gross, S. 2002. Making a minimalist approach to codeswitching work: Adding the matrix language. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition 5(1): 69–91. Leopold, W. 1939. Vocabulary Growth in the Ffirst Two Years. Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist’s Record, 1: Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press. MacSwan, J. 1999. A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Code Switching. New York NY: Garland Press. MacSwan, J. 2000. The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from codeswitching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(1): 37–54. MacSwan, J. 2005. Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on modified minimalism. Bilingualism Language and Cognition 8: 1–22.



Chapter 13.  Multilingualism and Identity 

McKee, C. 1992. A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition 2: 21–54. Meisel, J. 2004. The bilingual child. In The Handbook of Bilingualism, T.K. Bahtia & W. Ritchie (eds), 91–113. Malden MA: Blackwell. Moreno, R.P. & Pérez-Granados, D.R. 2002. Understanding language socialization and learning in Mexican-descent families: Conclusions and new directions. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 24(2): 249–256. Muysken, P. 2000. Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-Switching. Cambridge: CUP. Myers-Scotton, C. 1988. Codeswitching as indexical of social negotiations. In Code-Switching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, M. Heller (ed.), 151–186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Dueling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Myers-Scotton, C. 2000. Code-switching as indexical of social negotiations. In The Bilingual Reader, L. Wei (ed.), 137–165. London: Routledge. Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. 1995. The impact of language socialization on grammatical development. In The Handbook of Child Language, P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (eds), 73–94. Oxford: Blackwell. Padilla, J.A. 1990. On the Definition of Binding Domains in Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pérez-Granados, D.R. 2002. Normative scripts for object labeling during a play activity: Motherchild and sibling conversations in Mexican-descent families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 24(2): 164–190. Romaine, S. 1995. Bilingualism, 2nd edn. Malden MA: Blackwell. Romaine, S. 2004. Bilingual language development. In The Child Language Reader, K. Trott, S. Dobbinson & P. Griffiths (eds), 287–303. London: Routledge. Rondal, J.A. 1993. Down’s syndrome. In Language Development in Exceptional Circumstances, Dorothy Bishop & Kay Mogford (eds), 165–177. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ronjat, J. 1913. Le Developement du Langage Observé chez un Enfant Bilingue. Paris: Champion. Rothman, J. & Rell, A. 2005. A linguistic analysis of Spanglish: Relating language to identity. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 1(3): 515–536. Stokoe, E. 2005. Analising gender and language. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(1): 118–133. Van der Lely, H. & Wexler, K. 1998. Introduction to the special issue on specific language impairment in children. Language Acquisition 7: 83–85. Watson, I. 1991. Phonological processing in two languages. In Language Processing in Bilingual Children, E. Bialystok (ed.), 25–48. Cambridge: CUP. Watson-Gegeo, K.A. & Nielsen, S. 2004. Language socialization in SLA. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, C. Doughty & M. Long (eds), 155–177. Malden MA: Blackwell. Wei, L. 2000. Introduction to part one. In The Bilingualism Reader, L. Wei (ed), 59–62. London: Routledge. Zentella, A.C. 1997. Growing Up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Malden MA: Blackwell.

part 5

Conclusion

afterword

Indicators of bilingualism and identity Samples from the Spanish-speaking world Margarita Hidalgo

San Diego State University

1. Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to interpret the papers on bilingualism and identity in the Spanish-speaking world and the relational forces that gradually acted upon the end-result. Several models of language and identity formation are discussed under three major perspectives (primordialist, constructivist and post-modern). These models and related variables and notions aid in the explanation and interpretation of language and identity in Spain, Latin America and the United States. Both logically and chronologically, the point of departure is the Spanish groundwork of the past three decades, which clearly points in the direction or proactive bilingualism and redefinition of identities. Although the Spanish case appears on the surface unrelated to structural changes in Latin America, it is the point of departure and the most significant experience in the Spanish-speaking world. Moreover, the Declaración Universal de Derechos Lingüísticos de Barcelona (1996) was the single most important document in the recent legislation on Mexican indigenous languages (cf. Hidalgo 2006), which is in turn closely related to the Guatemalan legislation on the same matters. Latin American experiences are contrasted with the Spanish cases in that the laws passed by official bodies are for the most part too recent to gauge their effects on indigenous language use and attitudes. Finally, the United States stands out against the former areas because of the inexistence of protective legislation and institutional support. The first three articles deal with the survival of autochthonous languages of the mother country: Basque (Azurmendi, Larrañaga and Apalategi), Catalan (BoixFuster and Sanz) and Galician (Loureiro-Rodríguez). These cases have in common the presence of Spanish as a majority language, whereas the United States contrasts sharply with those above, since Spanish is the largest minority language. Given the dynamics of the particular cases presented in this volume, it is difficult to ascertain

 Margarita Hidalgo

with any degree of objectivity that they all fall succinctly within one or two of the models of identity formation mentioned below. Whereas in all cases the authors explore the dynamics of identity in bilingual regions and/or contexts, I discuss historical and theoretical backgrounds pertinent to the study of Hispanic identity with the goal of highlighting, directly and indirectly, the value of the articles in this volume insofar as they have implications beyond the specific cases and treatments they address. Individually and as a whole, these articles bring much to bear on larger phenomena crucial to our understanding of Hispanic identity formation in its many geographic and social loci and to the inherent relationship of language and identity in a more general sense. Collectively, these articles frame such a question and answer it adequately. Studying bilingualism and identity permits us to cross boundaries of distinct frameworks for understanding the linguistic resources of bilinguals and the social indexicality of linguistic choice which is more transparent than in the case of monolingualism. Moreover, the unavoidable asymmetric positioning of the two (or more) languages in a social sense allows to fine-tune the questions we ask and reveal the ones that, while not intuitive, need to be answered nonetheless. Concern with identity within Spanish-contact bilingualism is not entirely novel but brings a multitude of complementary contexts into one resource, as this volume does. In doing so, a holistic reading of this book presents new arguments and data, and suggests refinements and direction for future studies. 1.1

Primordialist approach

According to the primordialist perspective, identity is thought of as a fundamental phenomenon linked to essential elements (e.g., religion, territory, heredity or ethnicity). The importance of primordialism lies in the emotions that are evoked when one of its components is threatened. Ancestral belonging may be significantly associated with a feeling of loyalty to the original ethnicity (cf. Schiffman 1999). This sentiment leads to a consideration of ethnicity as the primeval component of identity, one that precedes nationalism and the configuration of nationstates (cf. Fishman 1985). Such components of identity shape the feeling of belonging, which under this perspective might be mostly unconscious. These basic tenets may explain why ancestral ethnicity (re)emerges in situations of language contact and real (or perceived) conflict (cf. Fishman 1985 and 1999; Schiffman 1999). Language is among the evaluated dimensions of ethnicity membership, which is also concerned with the meanings that individuals attach to the essence being and behaving, and for this reason, it can become the primary symbol of identity. Ethnicity experiences gradually change across time and space, although



Indicators of bilingualism and identity 

not all changes denote an alteration in meaning and change in meaning does not necessarily denote change in ethnic identity (Fishman 1977: 16–31). 1.2

Constructivist approach

Identity can also be construed, learned, negotiated, modified or manipulated by groups and individuals. Even small children can construe identities based on the recognition of the referents to which they are exposed (cf. Tajfel 1969; see Rothman and Niño-Murcia this volume) or the languages they speak or hear in the family, the extended family, the local community and so on. The constructivist model allows the inclusion of a dual source of identity: (a) the internal source which facilitates the intuition or personal referents from paternity or patrimony and (b) the external source which imposes an identity invented by others who assume the right to invent the “others’” identity, and which eventually affects the image or reputation of the individual or the group in terms of access to positive representations or material well-being. A central notion in the understanding of identity formation is that of prejudice, mainly with regards to unfavorable aspects. The causation of prejudice can be explained via three processes: (1) Categorization is associated with the individual’s identification with the in-group and the internalization of his/her membership in it. A prejudiced individual has an emotional investment in preserving the differentiation between his group and the ‘others’ because it is self-rewarding, particularly when judgments are made in a social context supportive of hostile attitudes towards a particular group (Tajfel 1969: 81, 82, 86). (2) Assimilation of social information, a form of learning evaluations and preferences, can occur very early in childhood; this information provides the context for comparison between groups and the enduring basis for future prejudice and conflict. (3) Search for coherence is made possible when the group is capable of supplying some satisfactory aspects of an individual’s social identity. When increasing tension is present, a search for a positive referent of the in-group can become desperate. According to the cognitive approach, prejudice exists in the minds rather than in inherent extension of the body (Tajfel 1969: 90, 95, 96). Favoritism towards the in-group can manifest itself through extreme reactions towards the out-group, which is dehumanized through contrast. The role of dehumanization in extreme inter-group hostility is one of the fundamental problems in inter-group relations (Tajfel 1970: 137). Social Identity Theory (SIT) assumes that group membership creates in-group categorization at the expense of the out-group. Categorization enhances in-group self-esteem by differentiation from the out-group in valued dimensions. ‘Cognitive aspects of prejudice,’ the pioneering article by Henri Tajfel (1969), laid the foundation for SIT (see also Tajfel and Turner [1979] 1986; Tajfel 1981 Chapter 6; and Billig

 Margarita Hidalgo

2002). The principles underlying SIT state that (1) individuals strive to achieve or to maintain positive identity, which (2) is based to a large extent on favorable comparisons between the in-group and a relevant out-group; (3) when social identity is unsatisfactory, individuals strive to leave their existing group and join another one which is positively distinct (Tajfel and Turner [1979] 1986: 15–16). A strong link between group identification and in-group favoritism may be expected in groups that can be simultaneously characterized as ‘collectivist,’ since they would tend to emphasize intra-group cooperation and group achievement and would thus be more concerned for the in-group standing or performance relative to the other groups. While it is undoubtedly a powerful motivator, the link between social identity and bias is not necessarily universal or present in all groups (Brown 1995: 187). The role of language is reconsidered within the framework of a theory of intergroup relations since in certain inter-group situations, members of an ethnic group may search for a positive distinctiveness from the out-group in highly valued linguistic dimensions. This framework derives from two independent systems, that is, Tajfel’s theory of inter-group relations and social change and Gile’s theory of interpersonal accommodation through speech (Bourhis and Giles 1977; Giles, Bourhis and Taylor 1977). Reformulations on the significance of language and ethnicity aid in the understanding of a perceived ethnic threat in interpersonal relationships. Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory (EIT) draws heavily on SIT and takes into account socio-cultural influences on ethnic groups in contact and how they are perceived by group members. Giles and Johnson (1987) propose that language maintenance is a function of ethnic identification. Language comes into the picture when a group regards its own as a dimension comparable with other out-groups’ and when membership in a group becomes a component of social identity, which is not equally salient at any one time, except when linguistic characteristics (often ethnic ones) are accentuated. A high level of perceived vitality increases the salience of group identity and hence intensifies their inclination to accentuate group speech markers. Similarly, if ethnic solidarity is moderate, individuals will identify moderately with the ethnic group; and when it is not important, they will identify weakly and will not be inclined to maintain their language at the interpersonal level (Giles and Johnson 1987: 72, 84 and ff). 1.3

Reversing language shift

The theory of reversing language shift (RLS) is not a theory on bilingualism and identity, but it has significant implications for both, since the protagonists in the bi/multilingual scenario can be roughly categorized into individuals belonging to



Indicators of bilingualism and identity 

a threatened or a dominant group. RLS theory departs from the analogy of an earthquake whose aftershocks can be measured by the Richter scale. In like manner, the social dislocations and disruptions caused by contact with another group can be gauged through a quasi-implicational scale known as the Graded Intergenerational Disrupted Scale (known as GIDS) which places the threatened language at one discrete point on a scale (ranging from 8 to 1). At some deteriorated and vulnerable angle, agents work to layer the next phase until they reach Stage 1, the epitome of cultural democracy. Recovery of a threatened language is never fortuitous. On the contrary, it is the result of the endeavors of interventionists who continue working tirelessly and opportunely in order to deter major and more serious damages to their language. In both theory and practice, one language is the antagonist of another one, normally used by speakers whose accorded status is not adversely affected by contact (cf. Fishman 1991 and 2001). Reconditioning at lower stages is conducive to restore the threatened language in the home, community and informal educational practices (see Azurmendi et al.  this volume). On the other hand, activism in formal domains represents the attainment of high language functions in mostly public and/or prestigious domains. A summary of the stages of RLS can be found in Fishman’s studies (1991: 395 and 2001: 466). 1.4

Post-modern approaches to cognitive aspects of prejudice

The counterpart of the cognitive approach is the exploration of essentialism in ingroup-out-group distinctions. People tend to believe that the human essence belongs to their in-group and that an infrahuman essence characterizes (some) outgroups. The ‘others’ lack human characteristics and are considered infra-humans or at least are assumed to share the in-group’s humanity to a lesser degree (Leyens et al. 2000: 187, 188). However, not every group will attribute an infrahuman essence to any other group, except when that one group believes that it has “the” human essence and that the other group is fundamentally different (cf. Leyens et al. 2001), especially when expressing secondary emotions (cf. Leyens et el. 2003; Vaes et al. 2006). In the realm of emotions and motivations, it is important to point out distinctions between categories: one is depersonalization (equivalent to prejudice) and the other is dehumanization (equivalent to bigotry), the former leading to the exacerbation of the latter. Dehumanization is the extreme form of depersonalization, as the other is depicted as somewhat less than human (Billig 2002: 178–185). The post-modern approach to identity seems to consider cognitive and emotional aspects of prejudice as a continuum where the boundaries between cognition and emotion are blurred.

 Margarita Hidalgo

2. The areas of the Spanish-speaking world 2.1

Spanish in Spain

The victorious emergence of Spanish in Spain is truly significant, since it resulted in the expansion of the northern dialect, Castilian, during the wars against the Moors. This period of Spanish history is known as la reconquista ‘the Reconquest.’ Since the triumph of Castilian Spanish at the very end of the 15th century, all other languages have been overshadowed by its presence. The Reconquest encompasses the recovery of the Christian territories occupied by the Arabs in both symbolic terms and in the actual reoccupation, population and repopulation of the same. It is also tantamount with Christianization and (re)linguification of the reconquered lands, which led to the unification of the Christian dominions divided under Alfonso VIII and Alfonso IX. As of the 16th century, the changes described above split Spanish into two well-defined macro-dialects. One of them is the northern half of the Spanish territory, expanded with the kingdom of Toledo, Murcia and areas of eastern Andalusia. The second one prevails in most of Andalusia, the Canary Islands and the New World. The three contexts discussed in this volume (Spanish in contact with Basque, Catalan and Galician) are ideal to explore the construction of identity. The earliest Hispanic-based identity is that of Castilian, which emerged during the Reconquest via repopulation occurring in a continual southward movement. Castile expanded more spontaneously than did Galicia, León or Navarre and became a prototypical frontier society, which instilled a sentiment of separate identity that eventually manifested itself in opposition to outside norms. Castilian innovations are ascribed to the co-occurrence of various factors such as the mixing of speakers of different Romance dialects and learner inter-languages (especially the Basques), the rise of loose-knit social networks, and the development of a strong community identity, which may have led to the selection of features that are considered typically Castilian. Finally, the expansion of Castile and the massive demographic mixing that followed brought about the disruption of many old communities and the creation of many new ones (cf. Tuten 2003). At the end of the Reconquest (1492), Castilian had advanced considerably, had occupied the present territory (including Andalusia), and began to epitomize the reunification of Spain in political, cultural, religious and linguistic terms. Since then, the other Spanish regional and ethnic identities became peripheral. Basque, Catalan and Galician lost speakers to Castilian Spanish, but the three languages continued to be used in their own territories and have been preserved mostly under tyrannical conditions.



Indicators of bilingualism and identity 

2.2

Basque in contact with Spanish

The case of Basque illustrates the fall and rise of a language isolate that precedes all other Indo-European languages in the Iberian Peninsula. Scholars predicted the demise of Basque since the advent of the Roman administration. Wilhelm von Humboldt visited the Basque country in 1799 and believed that no traces of Basque would remain by 1900, except in written form (Michelena 1985: 127, 214) but Basque continued to be spoken by traditional groups and was spread in both the Basque region and in the Diaspora (Castile, Andalusia and the New World). Between the 10th and 11th centuries, when scholars began to write about it, Basque was already exhibiting dialectal variation. Moreover, religious endeavors inspired the Basque prose whose audience was the literate urban bourgeoisie. The beginnings of Basque writing can be traced to the 16th-17th century when the prose served as model for authors who attempted to use it in education. Since the late 19th century Basque manuscripts have increased along with diverse genres. By 1918, the Academy of the Basque language was founded and by 1968, it had defined new criteria to introduce orthographic and morpho-syntactic reforms conducive to uniformity. The transmission of Basque, once confined to the domains of home and local community, was extended via formal education in the then illegal ikastolas. This outcome is commendable since new generations of Basques began to learn grammar rules and began to use their language when discussing a variety of subjects (Michelena 1985: 218–227). Since the late 19th century, its use decreased continually from a high of 95% to a low of 20% (Fernández-Ulloa 2005: 99), Basques had been giving up their language for centuries and in large proportions to the extent that by the late 1970’s, only 25% of three million Basques were fluent in Basque, and although many had positive attitudes related to identity; more than literacy, oral traditions belonged to adults. The RLS efforts started with changes to the general environment and education, although the virtual majority of teachers (95%) knew little or no Basque at all and the remaining 5% knew only how to speak it. Since the early 1980’s, the gains of Basque are attributed primarily to education given that special schools have promoted Basque in the elementary and secondary levels and also in real-life situations. Until the late 1980’s, however, Basquization was insufficient to make it a natural vehicle of communication because in public education personnel with Basque abilities was very low. Some other endeavors include initiatives in the written and spoken media, despite the fact that none of those guarantee Basque intergenerational transmission. Before 1991, reports showed an encouraging trend, since moderate proportions of the youngest groups claimed to be able to write Basque while others claimed to know it with their parents (Fishman 1991: 152, 158, 161–162, 167–168, 172–173, 176). By the 1990’s, public records reported the increase of Basque among both active and

 Margarita Hidalgo

passive bilinguals, mostly among those who were born in the Basque Autonomous Community. These Euskara speakers are the ones who guarantee the intergenerational transmission of Basque as L1. Additionally, ikastolas became important transmitters of Basque as L2, while the growth of Euskara is reportedly more common in more domains of interaction (intimate) and otherwise (ranging from 33% in health services to 78% in the market place). Interestingly, attitudes were lower in this decade than the reported use. Finally, it was established that only Model D of public education (where Euskara is the medium of instruction and Spanish is taught as a subject) warrants an acceptable level of competence in elementary education. By the end of the 20th century, Basque was placed at Stage 6 of the GIDS (Azurmendi, Bachoc and Zabaleta 2001: 238–239, 243, 246–248, 258). At present, the situation of Basque can be considered victorious, since the increases can be at least quantified following the implementation and application of the Basic Law on the Normalization of Basque (1982). However, in proportion to the overpowering presence of Castilians, the advance of Basque can be considered the beginning of a reversal of a prolonged language shift. This interpretation falls within the framework of RLS theory (cf. Fishman 1991). Basque has gained domains and speakers who have extended their private and public spheres of use. Since Basque started with a rather shrunken base but grew in the number of speakers, domains of interaction, institutional spheres, education, positive endogenous attitudes and the like, it can be considered a success (cf. Aizpurua Telleria and Aizpurua Espin 2005; Fernández-Ulloa 2006). Moreover, Azurmendi et al. (in this volume) suggest that the Basque success is due primarily to the intervention of the State in language planning; moreover, the comparison across Basque regions is indicative of the differences between three approaches: (a) a strong intervention in the Basque Autonomous Communities, where active bilinguals have increased from 20% to 30%, while passive bilinguals have also increased by another 20%, (b) a weak policy in Navarre, which has resulted in the transmission of Euskara as a mother tongue, but where the transmission of both languages as L1 is showing a gradual decline, (3) finally, the laissezfaire ~ laissez-passer “policy” in Iparralde (France) has been a negative contributing factor because Euskara has been retreating as a result of non-action. While the overall trends of RLS are on the rise, the Basquization process at the psychosocial level is still ongoing because identity construction, performance, and negotiation are linked to interpersonal and intergroup behavior in contact situations where linguistic, cultural, national and territorial components are still significant in the process of full identity recovery. Basque identity competes with European and Spanish identity while Spanish and Basque identity are not necessarily equivalent. The surveys among college students show that Basque identity appears in a



Indicators of bilingualism and identity 

continuum ranging from more to less Basque according to factors such as residential areas, parents’ identity, first language acquired, or public schooling. 2.3

Catalan in contact with Spanish

Spanish nationalism was exacerbated during the Franco regime (1939–75) and implied the consideration of Castile as the artifice of the holy alliance which elevated it as the only language of Spain. The status of Catalan in terms of planning has been protected since the early 20th century and its corpus has not changed since 1913–1932, although at times its use was clandestine (Vallverdú 1991: 15, 24, 40). The intimidating policies banned the use of Catalan in public spheres and even in ordinary conversations while the teaching of Catalan to children was not permitted until 1970. However, the Law of Linguistic Normalization promoted the active use of Catalan. By 1986, the census reported that 60%-64% of the population claimed to speak Catalan (Fishman 1991: 279, 305, 317). Catalanization continued to spread in different domains, particularly in Barcelona. Abundant reports on Catalan consistently point to moderate to high increases and gains, mostly in Catalonia proper. Some highlight vitality and maintenance where oral proficiency is on the rise, although Spanish remains the only language of communication. Faced with massive immigration and low birth rates, the longterm hope for Catalan is to recruit new speakers among the immigrant groups. The evidence also points to a rising trend in use and attitudes. Catalan in Catalonia has been placed at Stage 1 of the GIDS, whereas in the Balearic Islands and Valencia – where one-third of the Catalan speakers live – has been placed only at Stage 6. The proportion of individuals with oral fluency across age groups was also on the rise according to 1986, 1991 and 1996 data and among recent arrivals (Strubell 2001: 266, 269–270, 276). RLS in Catalan-speaking areas is normally appraised every five years. An increase of 4.1% between 1986 and 1991 is reported, whereas it has remained the same in the Valencian Community and has decreased by 4.1% in the Balearic Islands. The subjective importance of Catalan as an instrument of social mobility was assessed just a few years after the Law of Normalization. In 1986, about two-thirds of Catalan speakers considered that knowledge of Catalan was valuable in order to access a job while a vast majority of non-Catalan speakers claimed that it was a positive asset for their children and that it is valued in the dimension of instrumentality and solidarity (Pieras-Gausp 2002: 52, 56, 63) Large official samples collected by the Generalitat de Catalunya (2002) are also encouraging, since they indicate that three-fourths of the youth (across age groups 15–19, 20–24 and 25–29) claim to speak Catalan correctly and fluidly. The Generalitat de Catalunya (2005) has clearly demonstrated the improvement of Catalan language skills in understanding, speaking, reading and writing. Among 30+ year-

 Margarita Hidalgo

old individuals, understanding has increased from 89.20% in 1986 to 93.85% in 2001. Among adults the speaking ability has increased from 61% to 71.1% within the same time period, but the data on the young population (15–19) is even more optimistic, since it reached 95% in 1996. In addition, the official agency calculates that in 1986 only 21.8% of subjects were able to write in Catalan vs. 38.6% in 2001. Moreover, responses to the 2001 census reveal a favorable trend leading to an overall use of about two-thirds of Catalan in Catalonia alone. Comparative data between 1993 and 2004 shed light on moderate increases according to (a) provenance of Catalan- (or Castilian-) speaking groups and according to (b) attitudes). (cf. Querol 2005: 213). The quantitative data introduced in this section are consistent with the report by Boix-Fuster and Sanz (in this volume), since Catalanization gradually moves on to the public domains where it is now considered a valuable tool in the assessment of language and identity. The evolution of Catalan shows that it has more active speakers, passive learners and L2 learners – mostly immigrants from other Spanish regions and the Third World. In this new scenario the authors examined the use of Catalan in political campaigns, the now informal church domain and bilingual narratives. In all cases, speakers seem to be bilingual and as such they feel free to introduce linguistic innovations inexistent in the past. 2.4

Galician in contact with Spanish

Galician is nowadays considered a language of the Autonomous Community of Galicia, although it shares features with northern Portuguese dialects. The attempts to distinguish between languages is not new; some scholars still consider Galician a dialect of Portuguese (or Galician-Portuguese as in medieval times), whereas others argue that they have become separate languages due to structural differences (e.g., in pronunciation and lexicon but also in morpho-syntax). In recent times, scholars have resorted to different criteria to demonstrate the independence of Galician, which is defined as a (1) set of colloquial forms of speech originated in rural areas, (2) a set of standardized urban varieties accepted in formal situations and (3) a set of Galician-Spanish varieties situated along a hypothetical bilingual continuum used by speakers in peripheral areas (Alvarez Cáccamo 1989: 285). The dominant classes of Galicia have interacted in Spanish while assimilation to Spanish has served as a tool for social advancement. Spanish is the language in which the vast majority of formal activities in public, institutional, educational and superordinate domains have been conducted (Alvarez Cáccamo 1991: 43). In contrast with Catalunya and Euskadi, “the most obvious significant difference in Galicia is the historical absence of a local bourgeoisie interested in generating an important culture of prestige around the local language. Instead, the



Indicators of bilingualism and identity 

Galician economic bourgeoisies traditionally have been uncommitted ‘mediating forces’ (…) between the interests of the dominant classes in Galicia and the Spanish State” (Alvarez Cáccamo 1991: 43). Galician continued to be identified with rural origins until the 1960s when the majority of Galician-speaking rural workers entered the urban sectors and ended up working in subordinate positions; this contributed to the association between use of language and low social prestige. In contrast with Basques and Catalans, “the old middle classes of the cities preserved their differential status bolstered by their maintenance of a more fluent command of Spanish as a language of culture and administration” (Bouzada Fernández 2003: 325). Galician has thus been stigmatized, especially among those who are closer to the rural world with which Galician is associated. Speaking Spanish in public appeared more neutral than speaking Galician According to the findings of the Mapa Sociolingüístico de Galicia, Galicians are assigning a more positive value to their language in both rural and urban zones. This attitude improves among the youth while more individuals claim to be literate in Galician. In the realm of formal education Galician is perceived as being equal to Spanish. In terms of identity, more than one-half of all Galicians responded that Galician was the language of identity while 40% responded that both Galician and Spanish are linguistic identifiers (Bouzada Fernández 2003: 325–331). The results of a recent survey, however, indicate that while the use of Galician has decreased, the attitudes towards Galician are on the rise (Sarmiento 2005). In this volume Loureiro-Rodriguez discusses the language attitudes and values of Galician adolescents towards standard Galician and local dialects in two cities (one small and one large). Respondents value the two varieties of Galician but perceive the new diglossic situation that will unfold if standard Galician is introduced as the superimposed variety. Consonant with twenty-first century trends vindicating local(isms) and vernaculars, local dialects of Galician are not necessarily disparaged as they were in the past. Galician is also advancing in RLS endeavors although it is still lagging behind Basque and Catalan. 2.5

Lessons from the mother country

The succinct consideration of the socio-historical and sociolinguistic background in Spain leads us to propose that identity recovery is associated with some common parameters such as: (a) language maintenance–even when it has been drastically diminished; (b) reversing language shift – when it can be at least quantified; (c) literacy in the threatened language – where literacy was very weak; (d) overt and/or expressed identity – where identity had been repressed or suppressed. The cases of Basque and Catalan also show that external factors such as social class and

 Margarita Hidalgo

political changes can positively influence identity recovery. A major contributing factor in the (re)emergence of both languages was the ancestral use by privileged members of autochthonous collectivities and the enhanced feeling of belonging that some had preserved in the face of conflict. And although the languages had been submerged for centuries and had obviously lost many speakers, the primordial identification with the ancestry had not vanished in toto. On the surface, the macro-societal dynamics of maintenance and shift may appear unrelated to identity but they are indeed relevant indicators determining the partial recovery of identities. The two cases have in common not only their ancestral and unequal relationship with Castilian but the methods of recuperation. Because Galician did not count on the support of its privileged members of past generations, it is slowly making reversal inroads. Its speakers seem to be more ambivalent toward Galician than Basques towards Basque and Catalans towards Catalan. 3. Latin America 3.1

Spanish in the New World

In the New World, Spanish was first a colonial language and it is now postcolonial. Its imposition is the result of the conquest and colonization of the new discovered territory while its growth in quantitative terms is at odds with its political empowerment. The spread of Spanish in the New World was not necessarily due to high birth rates among original settlers, but rather to the end-result in the enterprise of colonization; namely mestizaje, language policy in favor of the imposed (or transplanted language), and social stratification. These three factors in combination contributed to the dissemination of a new language that is considered today the majority language in all the countries where it is spoken as the first or native language. Amerindian languages lost speakers due to wars and epidemics. In a few decades, all the native languages of the continent declined precipitously; this sole fact facilitated the inversion of roles, functions and powers of the surviving languages. In some countries, Spanish is de facto or de jure official or even co-official with indigenous languages.. Colonial and independent Latin American societies were followed by political instability, dictatorial regimes and economic stagnation in some cases. Latin American volatility continued through the 20th century and plagued some countries more than others. The Guatemalan case illustrates the strong role of a government that attacked its own people to the extent that it is now difficult to justify that kind of violence, social fragmentation and aggravation of ethnic conflict. Sickening battles in various nations forced scholars and non-scholars alike to redefine



Indicators of bilingualism and identity 

some of the basic problems that had been neglected for decades: human rights abuses and the sheer destruction of indigenous peoples and their cultures. Resistance to oppressive regimes was expressed from Chile and Paraguay to Ecuador and Peru. Although the presence of large indigenous populations appears to be related to resistance, it is not the prime factor in the articulation of anti-dictatorial agendas. The dynamics of polarization in Latin America can be traced to the beginnings of the colony, although such polarization was more intense in some nations than in others. At present, the entire continent is still plagued by the residues of post-colonial and post-independence struggles. Legislation on indigenous languages is recent in most places, but not necessarily favorable or attuned with the reality of indigenous cultures. 3.2

Guatemala

The case of Guatemala introduced in this volume by French exemplifies the case of some Maya people advancing a nationalist movement in favor of a cultural revitalization project based around Mayan languages and the reconfiguration of a nation into a multilingual /multicultural democracy. To this effect, the Kaqchikel linguistic community found inspiration in the reconstruction of the Maya worldview while emphasizing unification as in pre-Columbian times. The linguistic reform undertaken by representatives of Kaqchikel is leading to identify old concepts and (re)redefine new ones in order to accomplish standardization. Codification is thus conducive to a perceptual and ideological similarity with Spanish and a compromise with modernity. The revitalization project includes the right to advance education in Mayan languages. The significant difference is that the speakers appear to be in charge of their own (re)definition and corpus planning efforts. Authorizing the use of 21 indigenous Guatemalan languages in both public and private domains, the Ley de Idiomas Nacionales (Decree 10–2003) was approved by Congress on May 25, 2003. The new bill promotes respect for diversity and endorses the development and dissemination of said indigenous languages in all domains. Enacted two months after the Mexican Ley de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas (2003), the Guatemalan Law obviates the “official” status of Spanish in its Article 1 ‘The official language of Guatemala is Spanish.’ In contrast, the Mexican bill on linguistic rights does not award a superior status to Spanish, but considers all indigenous languages as national languages (cf. Hidalgo 2006 and contributions therein). The Guatemalan and Mexican bills are closely related, since the latter was also the result of an insurrection of Mayan peoples from Chiapas. Both cases validate the Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory which proposes that disadvantaged groups will attempt to change their unfavorable conditions in search for a positive identity.

 Margarita Hidalgo

3.3

Peru: Quechua and Shipibo/Spanish contact

Although its prestige as a language of wider communication can be traced to at least the 17th century, Spanish spread throughout the New World since the early 16th century, when several Spanish-speaking capitals were founded. Since the time of the Spanish conquest, Spanish has been the dominant and high-status language in the Andean region, while indigenous languages have been stigmatized. Because the attitudes of both groups reflect this hierarchical relationship, at present speakers of indigenous languages prefer not to use their language (Hornberger and Coronel-Molina 2004: 14). This attitude is rooted in the hierarchical separation of the Quechua/Spanish societies, which was a strong deterrent of any possibility for social mobility and sociolinguistic interaction between bilingual and monolingual speakers of Spanish. For the first two centuries of the colonial period, Lima was the political, administrative, cultural and religious center of South America, and as such it promoted the separateness of the indigenous community by creating Amerindian residential areas around Lima and Cuzco, the most important cities of the Peruvian viceroyalty. The creation of these Amerindian residential communities resulted in the dispossession of Amerindian lands by the Spaniards. Demographic data from church records show a small indigenous population which was subjected to segregation. Massive migration from rural to urban areas, especially towards Lima, changed the Peruvian profile from a largely (65%) rural society in 1940 to a largely (70%) urban one in 2000. Socio-economic and political changes during the 20th century have also led to changes in the social composition from a caste-type system of the colonial period to a society which allows social mobility for large numbers of people beyond individual cases. The urbanization of Peruvian society and the possibility of social mobility have thus provided the context for a large and stable Quechua/ Spanish bilingual population, for its presence at all levels of society (although mainly in the lower levels) allows greater interaction between bilingual and monolingual speakers of Spanish (Escobar 2001: 81). “In metropolitan areas such as Lima, where the number of Quechua speakers have traditionally been low in proportion to the total population (…), Quechua is overtly devalued by both the dominant society and by Quechua speakers themselves” (Hornberger and Coronel-Molina 2004: 15). Migrant Quechua speakers in Lima tend to hide the fact that they know Quechua and restrict its use to intimate domains out of the public sphere. The model of Spanish accepted in the Hispanic American capitals is derived from the speech and writing practices of non-indigenous Spanish speakers who have acquired Spanish as a mother tongue and who have also studied it in formal/ academic domains. This situation seems to be exactly the opposite in the Andean region where bilingual speakers (Quechua/Spanish) experience distinct levels of



Indicators of bilingualism and identity 

interference on the surface or even transfer at a deeper level. The educational practices in Quechua-speaking areas pay excessive attention to “defective” or “imperfect” pronunciation rules, which hardly ever match the imagined or desired Spanish model of the city. Many children coming from indigenous communities know very little Spanish, if any at all, but school hardly ever deals with the constellation of academic, linguistic and socio-psychological issues arising from language contact, marginalization and shift to Spanish (cf. Godenzzi 2005: 189–190), although the proposals submitted by scholars and educators are not only pedagogically sound and sensitive (Godenzzi 2005: 157–178; de la Piedra 2006) but could prevent the defeat of Quechua-speaking children in the lower levels of education. Literacy in Quechua is subordinated to literacy in Spanish, where the imposed language overemphasizes formal aspects of language representation; reports on the education of the very young show that even when all students are Quechua speakers, the teacher teaches the class entirely in Spanish with all the tasks and assignments derived from and oriented toward learning Spanish via texts that are unrelated to students’ experiences, although many relevant activities can be connected to real life experiences (de la Piedra 2006). The educational practices described above lead to a reasonable inference; that is, by the time children reach higher grades, their written narratives reveal the discrepancies in performance. Sánchez’ chapter (in this volume) shows the contrast of two groups of 11-year old children: (1) those established in the traditional urban setting of Lima and (2) those that reside in South Andean communities. Both in form and content, group 1 approximates the norms of the capital city while the norms and content of group 2 show some interlanguage features, although, as compared to spoken interlanguage samples, they are not too salient. The content is also revealing of their origin, since those of group 1 describe the family as the nuclear “family” exclusively, whereas those in group 2 describe the extended family in a rural environment. In contrast with the situation of Quechua, Zavala and Bariola describe the Lima community of Canta Gallo where speakers of Shipibo established themselves and working women have assumed the role of agents of social change through verbal performance. The use of Shipibo constitutes a symbolic resource for the construction of this identity. In community meetings, women do not remain silent; instead, they transcend the subaltern position they occupied in the traditional communities (re)defining their own roles vs. the masculine gender. The women involved in these routines have gradually made progress as participants who can not only speak but who can be heard. Historically, the use of the vernacular has been associated more with the Shipibo ethnicity than with a gendered identity. The fact that women are seen as the ones who still perform traditional ethnic practices has reinforced the liaison between femaleness and the use of Shipibo, obscuring partly the relationship between the use of the language and ethnicity.

 Margarita Hidalgo

Thus, in order to perform the Shipibo identity when the community is endangered, men act as if they were women and use the vernacular to show solidarity with the Shipibo community. Gaining at least temporary stability via the use of the immigrant indigenous language seems to empower both men and women in the urban setting. This practice has not been reported among Quechua-speaking immigrants in Lima. 3.4

Dominican Republic

The chapter by Bullock and Toribio looks into ascribed perceptions of northern Dominican speech which could be identified as ‘Haitianized Spanish;’ that is, distinct from other regions of El Cibao varieties. The popular belief is that the worst Spanish variety is spoken by those Dominicans who are presumably influenced by an African “substratum.” Spanish spoken by Haitians in fronterizo communities is repudiated by Spanish-speaking Dominicans who tend to racialize Haitians working along the border areas. The designation negro ‘black’ is reserved for Haitians. The perception of color falls along a continuum ranging from ‘white’ to ‘black.’ Researchers proposed that a reliable discrimination of accentedness can be gauged by sophisticated instruments. To this effect, they interviewed nine male speakers ranging in age from 18 to 43 (two Haitian immigrants, one speaker from Santo Domingo, and six speakers from the northern border regions of the Cibao Valley). The Haitian immigrants and the six cibaeño speakers lived in towns located within five miles of the border. El Rodeo was the smallest, least populated and most rural of the towns and it is commonly believed by other fronterizos to be a village settled by people of Haitian descent. The interviewees’ speech samples were listened to by participant judges – all of them students of the Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo. The results of the Accent Ratedness Survey revealed that subjects do discriminate between varieties of cibaeño fronterizo Spanish and that they ascribe low prestige to the speech of those whom they judge to be of rural origin; they also believe these speakers to be of African descent, although judges were not able to arrive at a correct answer or to determine the skin color of the speakers. Authors do not support the notion of the existence of any single identifiable Kreyol substrate feature in fronterizo speech. Although urban subjects may believe that they can reliably perceive the features of an imagined Afro-Dominican basilect, only one of the speakers they identified as using these traits was black and of clear Haitian descent. Moreover, Speaker 1 (who was assessed negatively on the sole basis of his use of the cibaeño glide), was the only ‘white’ person in the sample. In sum, the traits that Dominicans label as ‘Haitianized’ properties are merely features of the speech of rural, uneducated cibaeños of all racial designations.



Indicators of bilingualism and identity 

3.5

Lessons learned from Latin America

The cases of Guatemala and Peru put in bold relief the underlying conflicts of two societies that were formed with diametrically opposing views and lifestyles: the Westernized society imposing over the indigenous and the indigenous submerged against the Westernized. It appears that in Guatemala, the Mayan people were not only able to negotiate the meaning of their primordial identities but also intervened and contributed to a positive change in accordance with modern times. In the case of Peru, the primordialist notion of ancestral identity is not only overshadowed by centuries of oppression, but cannot clearly re-emerge in the minds and hearts of in-group and out-group members due to the resistance of the hegemonic Spanish society. Moreover, the Law on the Officialization of Quechua in Peru (1975) was not endorsed by Spanish-speaking Peruvians (Hornberger and King 2001: 183); in contrast, other countries have advanced protective legal measures despite adverse political conditions (e.g., Paraguay). Too many a scholar has addressed the interethnic conflicts of Andean societies, where speakers of indigenous languages seem to be for the most part disempowered. Another dimension emerging in the Latin American contexts is the utilization and/or manipulation of ethnolinguistic dimensions in political campaigns. One of the most interesting phenomena observed in Latin America in the past decade is the politicization and particization of indigenous ethnic identity (e.g., in Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela). One of the contributing factors is the size of the indigenous population (Rice and Van Cott 2006). In Paraguay, for example, the presence of Guarani in public administration is increasing, particularly during electoral seasons. In the new public administration (2003–2007) Guarani has been incorporated in public speeches and communiqués from the President with the rural population. Politicians use Guarani in order to attract voters, while the success of their harangues depends on the ability to manipulate it for their own gains (Corvalán 2006: 32, 38). Finally, the analysis of language data on the Dominican Republic (prosody, pronunciation, morphology and lexicon) substantiated the opposite proposal; that is, that the Spanish spoken or heard along the border with Haiti is not even remotely Haitianized, except speculatively. Because the initial hypothesis was rejected, an alternative hypothesis has been advanced and is now presumed to be true as a result of the different pieces of evidence collected in situ from the potentially stigmatized speakers and their judges. The null hypothesis became evidently false because the authors have a certain degree of confidence (95% to 99%) that the data did not support it. Despite the most scientific forms of evidence, the notion of the identity of these speakers is still nebulous, since both researchers and speakers of hegemonic languages or language varieties are empowered to advance constructs

 Margarita Hidalgo

that ascribe false traits to “others” when others can be used as scapegoats and when such scapegoats are used to emphasize the “otherness.” While there are no immediate solutions to this problem in strictly scientific terms, research can only be reiterative and discourage linguistic profiling and stereotypes. 4. United States Spanish 4.1

Sociohistorical background

In the United States, Spanish is the largest living language after English. Its presence in today’s territory actually precedes the advent of English, since Spanish explorers occupied St. Augustine, Florida as early as 1565. The earliest incursions of Spanish explorers in the US Southwest (primarily California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and southern Colorado) can be traced to at least the mid-16th century. The absence of wealth and exotic civilizations discouraged further expeditions and led instead to the establishment of missions and to the practice of a pastoral lifestyle. The oldest city in what is now the continental US is Santa Fe, New Mexico (1607), the first capital founded by European colonists. The entire region known as the US Southwest (USSW) was Spanish-speaking, since this vast expanse belonged to the Spanish Empire until 1821 and then to the Mexican Republic until 1848. The major concentration of Spanish speakers was found in New Mexico, where it had attained all the normal functions in both public and private domains. The decline of Spanish was precipitated by the wars lost by Spain and Mexico to the United States. Until the mid-19th century, Spanish was the only European language spoken – alongside a few Amerindian languages – in towns and villages of the USSW. The Mexico-US War (1846–48) represents the beginning of a major catastrophe that propelled language shift to English. This was more than a mere battle over the enviable territory and soon became a permanent conflict of race, religion and customs. In May of 1848, the US Senate ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and settled for the third portion of the Mexican territory which had the fewest Mexicans. The Spanish-speaking population of the vast area acquired from Mexico between 1845 and 1854 was about 75,000. Since then they constituted a unique new ethnic block in the United States (Weber 1973: 140–141). Spanish language loss and shift have been continuous since then. The reversal of this trend is not observed until the 1960s as a result of three major developments: (a) the entrance to the continental US of thousands of displaced Cuban exiles fleeing the Castro regime (the newer refugees were provided with services in Spanish), (b) the advent of the Chicano Movement in 1965, a component of the struggle for civil rights and recognition of US ethnicities, which had



Indicators of bilingualism and identity 

the net effect of raising awareness about the history and roots of US Mexicans and (c) the migration waves from Mexico negotiated via US-Mexico bilateral agreements on border industrialization programs, which attracted hundreds of thousands of individuals to the Mexican border cities, where they first intended to reside. Those who did not find a niche in Mexican northern and border cities ended up crossing the border and stayed in US southwestern urban centers and beyond. The consistent growth of the Spanish-speaking origin population (SSOP) since 1940 can be seen in Table 1. Table 1.  Growth of the Spanish-speaking Origin Population of the United States: 1940–2006 Year

Total Population

SSOP Population

%

1940 1960 1970 1980 1990 1999 2006

132,165,129 179,325,671 203,210,158 226,542,199 248,709,873 281,421,906 299,398,484

1,861,400 3,334,960 7,823,583 14,608,673 20,425,646 31,337,122 44,321,038

1.40 1.85 3.84 6.44 8.21 11.13 14.80

Sources: a) 1940–1970 data derived from J. A. Fishman et al. (1985: 132); b) 1980–2006 data derived from the U.S. Census Bureau (1981–1982; 1992; 1999, 2006). US Census of Population: Washington, D.C.

4.2

Trends of bilingualism

The unswerving augmentation of the US Hispanic population is presently reactivating Spanish language use. The profile of the SSOP is more diverse than before since it encompasses all nationalities from Latin America (and also from Spain), a new universe of speakers who consistently report varied levels and degrees of proficiency in Spanish and English. Traditional US Spanish-speaking communities have been settled for many generations, primarily in the USSW, while the newest waves of immigrants have experienced geographic mobility and seem to have (re) populated and concentrated in major urban centers. Reports about US Hispanics thus focus on the first or second generation of bilinguals, who belong in a continuum that begins with Spanish monolingualism in the first generation and continues with Spanish/English bilingualism in the second generation and at times even in the third generation. The bilingual continuum can be observed primarily in urban settings of any size but also in small cities, towns and even rural areas where the shift to English is usually predictable. Finally, communities that are considerably distant from the country of ancestry or those which do not experience the

 Margarita Hidalgo

replenishment of the SSOP on an intergenerational basis may undergo language shift in the second generation. The USSW is considered an area of stable bilingualism, where there are more than sufficient numbers of speakers of both languages so as to constantly foster language contact and diglossia, which have extended beyond the USSW and are now being observed across the country, where bilinguals participate actively in various styles of communication such as lexical borrowings from English, structural interference from English into Spanish and Spanish/English code-switching (Hidalgo 2001: 62). The glaring evidence of Spanish revitalization derives from the data on language(s) spoken in the home domain. The 2000 US Census Bureau reports that by the year 2000, the total of Hispanics reached 35,238,481; of these, 60 % were US-born and represented 12.5 percent of the total population which in turn is divided by origin: Mexican (59.3%), Puerto Rican (9.7%), Cuban (3.5), Central American (5.1), South American (4.0), Dominican (2.3), Spaniard (0.3), and Other Hispanic (15.7%). The most significant piece of information derived from this report has to do with the use of Spanish at home for the population 5 years or older. Divided in three categories, the information sheds light on macro-societal trends of bilingualism (cf. Ramírez 2004: 8–10). (See Table 2). Table 2.  Language spoken at home and ability to speak English (2000) in percentages [1]

[2]

[3]

Total Hispanic Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban

21.4 21.2 24.6 13.7

37.9 35.7 48.7 40.4

40.6 43.1 26.7 45.9

Central American South American Dominican Spaniard Other Hispanic

8.5 10.5 7.1 40.1 31.3

34.6 41.9 39.2 34.6 38.8

56.8 47.6 53.7 25.6 29.8

[1] Only English spoken at home; [2] Spanish spoken at home but English spoken “very well”; [3] Spanish at home but English spoken “less than very well”

General trends on demographic growth and language use point to maintenance in the domestic and private domains. The total of US Hispanics who claim to speak only English at home is merely 21.4% while almost 80% use Spanish at home regardless of their ability to speak English. This represents a solid base that may guarantee the intergenerational continuity of Spanish, but since it is restricted to the home domain, the functional imbalance can only be perpetuated. Spanish



Indicators of bilingualism and identity 

literacy skills have not been fully developed because public education is mostly offered in English and there is not a tradition of bilingual/biliterate education. The shortcoming of the public system is not commensurate with the growth of Spanish in other areas such as media (radio, television, written press), services in private and public spheres of interaction, etc. The presence of Spanish in the public sector may signal a reverse diglossia in progress, although English remains the hypercentral language in the US linguistic constellation (cf. Hidalgo 2001). Other manifestations of sociolinguistic change include the presence of a larger variety of dialects which interact amongst themselves with supra-regional network Spanish setting the standard. For all the above reasons, it is also no longer uncommon to assign instrumental values to Spanish. This attitude may be more recent. Future studies on language attitudes can assess the status of Spanish along the dimensions of solidarity and instrumentality, because the Spanish used today is being commodified as one more artifact that can be consumed. The chapters on US Spanish included in this volume show the different ways in which Spanish speakers, children and adults alike, negotiate their values. Whereas first-generation parents are resistant to language shift and consider the maintenance of Spanish as a sine qua non condition linked to identity, as in West Liberty, Iowa (see Shenk), second-generation college students struggle in Spanish courses that are not necessarily designed for their peculiar needs (see Urcioli). In the interaction with members of the in-group or the out-group, bilinguals may assume multiple identities and reposition themselves with relative ease and comfort (see Bustamente-Lopez). Having mixed, dual or multiple identities is neither rare nor shameful since MexiRicans can positively (re)construe their identities according to personal and family practices (see Potowski). Finally, language maintenance can be planned in the multilingual family vis-à-vis the dominant language in the larger social space (see Rothman and Niño-Murcia). 4.3

Lessons learned from US Spanish

In the absence of language policy and protective legislation, speakers shape their own attitudes and select the options they find available. This is one of the reasons why Spanish speakers do not hold romantic views about the past or the glories of the Spanish ancestors who pioneered the present-day United States and who built the earliest European settlements in the current US territory. The primordialist worldview that may reappear in traditional collectivities is non-existent in the newer generations of US Hispanics. This is the major difference between them and the groups of Basques, Catalans or Mayans. And although in the US scenario, language maintenance is pervasive in informal domains, there are no RLS endeavors that can move Spanish on to solid projects of literacy at the macro-societal level.

 Margarita Hidalgo

US Hispanics seem to be private constructivists. Those who know Spanish see it as cultural capital and use it within the system of exchange that confers relative power. La perspective bourdiusienne thus explains why speakers have not discarded it in the face of multiple aggressions. Detractors of US Hispanic ethnicity may argue that this traditional ethnic block should assimilate and conform to the societal roles of the English-speaking majority, but advocates of the US Hispanic ethnicity follow intuitively the general trend proposed by the Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory and attempt to change what they can in order to reorient themselves in a positive direction. Actions and reactions in favor of US Hispanics vary across the nation, because Hispanics are under attack in some places more than in others. Some of the attacks are aired on a daily basis and put on view all the signals of ideological genocide which is overtly or covertly manifested in perceptions of dehumanization or infrahumanization. In some places some individuals are oblivious to the following pure and simple fact: “The contrasting learning about out-groups can be considered as one determinant of the dehumanization of out-groups which seems to bear a constant or perhaps even necessary relation to genocide” (Tajfel 1970: 137). Furthermore, the understanding of dehumanization and of the role it plays in extreme intergroup hostility is perhaps one of the most fundamental problems of intergroup relations (Tajfel 1970: 137). 5. Conclusions Identity formation is associated with language maintenance, language shift and reversing language shift at the macro-societal level but it is also related to private and/or personal endeavors. Insights of groups and individuals or inferential (re) interpretations based on an array of socio-historical, demographic, phenomenological and empirical data as reported by subjects and specialists on the subject(s) are the genuine sources of information. It is worth noting the inclusion of Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory as an additional tool that aids in fathoming knowledge, use and favorable attitudes of and towards the threatened language at the microsocietal level, since in studies of bilingualism and identity, it is necessary to resort to those inter-subjective parameters that may predict the direction in which speakers might go in situational contexts. Basque and Catalan seem to be ready at this stage for this kind of approach. The various Hispanic American cases differ substantially from one another in that the consequences of major external forces acting upon them, e.g., protective legislation (as in Mexico and Guatemala) need time to evolve. However, the results can be gauged, too, in terms of language maintenance and language shift and also in terms of the positive orientation via intra- and inter-



Indicators of bilingualism and identity 

group endeavors. Finally, the case of Spanish in the United States is truly deplorable since there is no protective legislation in the horizon; on the contrary, what is found in the English-speaking superpower is the support for English in public education, a movement initiated in 1998 when California voters approved Proposition 227. References Aizpurua Telleria, X. and Aizpurua Espin, J. 2005. The sociolinguistic situation in the Basque Country according to the 2001 sociolinguistic survey. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 174: 39–54. Alvarez Cáccamo, C. 1989. Variaçom lingüística e o factor social na Galiza. Hispanic Linguistics 2(2): 253–298. Alvarez Cáccamo, C. 1991. Language revival and code manipulation in Galiza. In Sociolinguistics of the Spanish-speaking World: Iberia, Latin America, United States, C. Klee and L.A. Ramos-Garcia (eds), 41–73. Tempe, Arizona: Bilingual Press/Editorial Bilingüe. Azurmendi, M.J., Bachoc, E. and Zabaleta, F. 2001. Reversing language shift: The case of Basque. In Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective, J.A. Fishman (ed), 234–259. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Billig, M. 2002. Henri Tajfel’s ‘Cognitive aspects of prejudice’ and the psychology of bigotry. British Journal of Social Psychology 41: 171–188. Bourhis, R.Y. and Giles, H. 1977. The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations [European Monographs in Social Psychology 13], H. Giles (ed), 119–136. London: Academic Press. Bouzada Fernández, X.M. 2003. Change of values and the future of the Galician language. Estudios de Sociolingüística 4(1): 321–341. Brown, R. 1995. Prejudice. Its Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. Corvalán, G. 2006. Las Políticas Lingüísticas del Paraguay: Rol del Estado. Asunción: Consejo Nacional de Educación y Cultura. de la Piedra, M.T. 2006. Literacies and Quechua oral language: Connecting sociocultural worlds and linguistic resources for biliteracy development. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 6(3): 383–406. Escobar, A.M. 2001. Contact features in Colonial Peruvian Spanish. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 149: 79–94. Fernández-Ulloa, T. 2005. El “desarrollo morfosintáctico tardío” en una muestra de estudiantes universitarios de la Comunidad Autónoma Vasca. In La Educación Plurilingüe en España y América, H. Urrutia Cárdenas and T. Fernández-Ulloa (eds), 97–122. Madrid: Dykinson. Fernández-Ulloa, T. 2006. Cómo se recupera una lengua minoritaria: el ejemplo del euskara en la Comunidad Autónoma Vasca. Actualidades Investigativas en Educación 6(3): 1–22. Fishman, J.A. 1977. Language and ethnicity. In Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations [European Monographs in Social Psychology 13], H. Giles (ed), 15–57. London: Academic Press.

 Margarita Hidalgo Fishman, J.A. 1985. Language, ethnicity and racism. In The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival: Perspectives on Language and Ethnicity [Contributions to the Sociology of Language 37], J.A. Fishman et al. (eds), 5–15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Foundations of Theoretical and Empirical Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J.A. (ed.). 2001. Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J.A. et al. (eds.). 1985. The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival: Perspectives on Language and Ethnicity [Contributions to the Sociology of Language 37]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Generalitat de Catalunya. Secretaria General de Joventut. 2002. Estadistica del joves de Catalunya 2002. Barcelona: Institut d’Estadistic de Catalunya. Generalitat de Catalunya. Secretaria General de Joventut. 2005, setembre. Informe sobre la joventut al 2005. Barcelona: Institut d’Estadistic de Catalunya. [Colleció Estudis 17]. Giles, H., Bourhis, R.Y. and Taylor, D.M. 1977. Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations [European Monographs in Social Psychology 13], H. Giles (ed), 307–348. London: Academic Press. Giles, H. and Johnson, P.1987. Ethnolinguistic identity theory: a social psychological approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68: 69–99. Godenzzi, J.C. 2005. Las redes del lenguaje. Cognición, Discurso y Sociedad en los Andes. Lima: Universidad del Pacífico. Hidalgo, M. 2001. Language shift reversal on the U.S.-Mexico border and the extended ‘third space.’ Journal of Language and Intercultural Communication 1(1): 57–75. Hidalgo, M. (ed.). 2006. Mexican Indigenous Languages at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century [Contributions to the Sociology of Language 91]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hornberger, N.H. and Coronel-Molina, S.M. 2004. Quechua language shift, maintenance, and revitalization in the Andes. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 167: 9–67. Hornberger, N.H. and King, K.A. 2001. Reversing Quechua language shift in South America. In Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective, J.A. Fishman (ed), 166–194. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Leyens, J.P. et al. 2000. The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4(2): 186–197. Leyens, J.P. et al. 2001. Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology 31: 385–411. Leyens, J.P. et al. 2003. Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism. The 2002 Tajfel lecture. European Journal of Social Psychology 33: 703–717. Michelena, L.1985. Guillaume de Humboldt et la langue Basque. In Lengua e Historia, L. Michelena (ed), 126–142. Madrid: Paraninfo. Pieras-Guasp, F. 2002. Direct vs. indirect attitude measurement and the planning of Catalan in Mallorca. Language Problems and Language Planning 26(2): 51–68. Querol, E. 2005. Historia sociolinguistica recent: Catalunya el 1993, el 2001, i el 2004. Lengas 29(57): 195–218. Ramírez, R.R. 2004. We the people. Hispanics in the United States. Census 2000 Special Reports. Washington, D. C.: US Department of Commerce.



Indicators of bilingualism and identity  Rice, R. and Van Cott, D.L. 2006. The emergence and performance of indigenous peoples’ parties in South America. A subnational statistical analysis. Comparative Political Studies 39(6): 709–733. Sarmiento, R. 2005. Bilingüismo y educación en Galicia: de la Ley de la Normalización (LNL) al bilingüismo ‘harmónico’. In La Educación Plurilingüe en España y América, H. Urrutia Cárdenas and T. Fernández-Ulloa (eds), 223–239. Madrid: Dykinson. Schiffman, H. 1999. Language, primoridalism and sentiment. In Languages of Sentiment. Cultural Construction of Emotional Substrates, G.B. Palmer and D. Occhi (eds), 25–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Strubell, M. 2001. Catalan a decade later. In Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective, J.A. Fishman (ed), 260–283. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Tajfel, H. 1969. Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues 25(4): 79–97. Tajfel, H. 1970. Aspects of national and ethnic identity. Social Sciences Information 9(3): 119–144. Tajfel, H. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. [1979] 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Psychology of Integroup Relations, S. Worchel and W.G. Austin (eds), 7–24. Chicago: NelsonHall Publishers. (Second edition). Tuten, D. 2003. Koineization in Medieval Spanish [Contributions to the Sociology of Language 88]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Vaes, J., Paladino, M.P. and Leyens, J.P. 2006. Priming uniquely human emotions and the ingroup (but not the out-group activates humanity concepts). European Journal of Social Psychology 36: 169–181. Vallverdú, F. 1991. Los estudios sociolingüísticos en España, especialmente en Cataluña. In Sociolinguistics of the Spanish-speaking World: Iberia, Latin America, United States, C. Klee and L. García-Ramos (eds), 15–40. Tempe, Arizona: Bilingual Press/Editorial Bilingüe. Weber, D.J. 1973. Foreigners in Their Native Land: Historical Roots of the Mexican-Americans. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico.

Author index A Abrams, D.  48, 59 Adelaar, W.  114, 125 Ahearn, L.  158, 173 Alàmo, M.  104 Anderson, B.O.  141, 147 Antón, M.  229, 254 Anzaldúa, G.  267, 276 Apalategi, J.  57–59 Appel, R.  11, 29 Arratibel, N.  50, 59 Arroyo, J.L.B.  102, 104 Auer, P.  6, 9, 313, 327 Azkue, J.  39, 59 Azurmendi, M.J.  13, 17, 18, 20, 23, 36, 39, 48, 50, 51, 53–55, 59, 60, 333, 337, 340, 355 B Bachoc, E.  36, 340, 355 Ballester, V.M.  204 Bamberg, M.  14, 30, 328 Bant, A.  174 Bargiela-Chiappini, F.  229, 254 Baron, D.  249, 254 Bauman, R.  19, 29 Bauman, Z.  88, 104 Bean, F.D.  299 Belazi, H.M.  306, 327 Bell, A.  217 Bell, S.E.  279, 299 Benwell, B.  14, 30, 283, 299, 302, 327 Berrio-Otxoa, K.  62 Berry, J.W.  50, 51, 60, 62 Beswick, J.  65, 69, 70, 84 Blanc, M.  11, 30 Blom, J.P.  13, 30, 227, 255 Blommaert, J.  129, 147 Bloomfield, L.  4, 328 Boix-Fuster, E.  13, 18, 24, 91, 97, 104, 333, 342 Bokhorst-Heng, W.  129, 147

Bourdieu, P.  7–9, 14, 16, 30, 57, 60, 65–67, 69, 74, 84, 136, 147, 226, 250, 254, 258, 259, 276, 297, 299 Bourhis, R.Y.  49, 51, 53, 59, 60, 328, 336, 355, 356 Bouzada Fernández, X.M.  69, 70, 84, 343, 355 Brice Heath, S.  227, 229, 254 Briggs, C.L.  19, 29, 70, 84 Brody, J.  134, 147 Brown, P.  162, 173 Brown, R.M.  128, 139, 147, 148, 336, 355 Brubaker, R.  13, 30, 58, 60, 166, 173, 227, 251, 252, 254 Bucholtz, M.  12, 30, 302, 328 Budach, G.  275, 276 Butler, J.  14–16, 30, 152, 173, 302, 312, 328 C Cain, C.  14, 31 Caldas, S.  205, 218 Cameron, D.  12, 15–17, 30, 152, 173, 226, 227, 233, 234, 250, 251, 254, 283, 298, 299, 302, 312, 328 Carmack, R.  131, 147 Carranza, I.  228, 234, 236, 238, 255 Carrigo, D.L.  227, 239, 240, 247, 249, 253, 254 Casaus Arzú, M.  131, 147 Castells, M.  56, 60 Cauper, S.  153, 174 Cenoz, J.  39, 44, 60 Chien, Y.C.  306, 328 Chirif, A.  153, 155, 177 Chomsky, N.  306, 328 Christian, D.  227, 228, 240, 247, 253, 254 Clayworth, J.  223, 254 Cobarrubias, J.  66, 84

Colantoni, L.  195, 196 Comellas, P.  91, 104 Conversi, D.  48, 57, 60 Cook, V.  297, 299 Cortazzi, M.  283, 299 Corvalán, G.  349, 355 Coulmas, F.  227, 254 Craig, H.  112, 126 Cruz-Ferreira, M.  305, 328 Curtiss, S.  301, 328 D Dasen, P.  60 Dávila, A.  266, 276 De Fina, A.  14, 21, 30, 283, 299, 302, 328 De la Cadena, M.  115, 173 De Sousa Santos, B.  12, 18, 30 DeGenova, N.  202, 203, 206, 215, 217, 218 deJong, E.  249, 254 del Valle, J.  70, 84 Disla, C.  194 Doise, W.  62 Domínguez, V.  139, 148 Domínguez-Seco, L.  69, 79, 80, 84 Dorian, N.  8, 9 Doucet, R.  140, 149 Duranti, A.  158, 167, 173 E Edwards, J.  13, 19, 21, 30 Elordieta, G.  195, 196 England, N.C.  128, 131, 140, 148 Erize, X.  48, 60 Errington, J.  129, 148 Escobar, A.M.  346, 355 Etxeberria, F.  39, 60 Etxepeteleku, H.  50, 59–62 Evangelista, I.  196 F Fantini, A.  6, 9, 309, 328

 Bilingualism and Identity Fennel, D.  67, 84 Ferguson, C.  4, 111, 125 Fernández Rei, F.  75, 84 Fernández, M.A.  70, 84 Fernández-Ulloa, T.  339, 340, 355 Fischer, E.  139, 148 Fishman, J.A.  4, 38, 45, 48, 56, 57, 60, 61, 68, 82, 84, 334, 335, 337, 339–341, 351, 355, 356 Fortune, T.  328, 333, 336, 338, 340, 352 Francis, N.  112, 125 Freeman, R.  227–229, 233, 240, 247, 248, 252–254 Freixeiro-Mato, X.R.  63, 64, 84 French, B.  15, 17, 20, 25, 26, 128, 139, 140, 145, 146, 148, 345 Fuss, D.  30 G Gagnon, A.  60 Gahng, T.  70, 86 Gal, S.  15, 17, 30, 31, 148 Galindo, M.  91, 104, 105 Gans, H.  19, 30 Garagorri, X.  44, 61 García, M.E.  140, 148 García, O.  48, 56, 57, 61, 179, 196 García Negro, M.P.  66, 84 Gardner, N.  36, 39, 61, 254 Gardner, R.  84 Gellner, E.  131, 148 Georgakopoulou, A.  283, 299 Ghosh Johnson, E.  202, 218 Giles, H.  48, 61, 227, 248, 254, 310, 328, 336, 355, 356 Giner, S.  91, 92, 105 Godenzzi, J.C.  18, 30, 31, 347, 356 Goffman, E.  226, 230, 247, 249, 255 Gómez Molina, J.R.  102, 105 González, N.  224, 256 González-González, M.  70, 77, 78, 84 Gordillo, G.  140, 148 Graham, L.R.  20, 21, 30, 140, 143, 145, 148 Grammond, M.  308, 328 Grandin, G.  131, 148 Green, L.  133, 148 Grin, F.  39, 61 Grosjean, F.  11, 30, 224, 255, 308, 328

Gross, S.  328 Gudykunst, W.B.  48, 61 Guerra, J.C.  282, 297–299 Gugenberger, E.  170, 173 Gumperz, J.J.  13, 14, 30, 227, 254, 259, 276 Gurlekian, J.  195, 196 H Hall, J.  90, 105 Hall, K.  12, 15, 30, 302, 328 Hammers, J.F.  11, 30 Handler, R.  139, 148, 259, 277 Harré, R.  15, 31 Haugen, E.  11, 30, 31, 224, 251, 255, 304, 306, 328 Heath, S.B.  308, 328 Hecht, M.  48, 61 Heise, M.  151, 159, 174 Heller, M.  8, 9, 15, 18, 19, 31, 74, 84, 227, 228, 243, 255, 275–277 Henríquez Ureña, P.  177, 196 Hermida, C.  66, 70, 84 Herrero-Valeiro, M.J.  67, 68, 70, 84 Hidalgo, M.  12, 19, 22, 333, 345, 352, 353, 356 Hill, J.  227, 251, 255, 260, 277 Hill, K.  227, 251, 255 Hobsbawm, E.J.  68, 84 Hogg, M.A.  59 Holland, D.  14, 31 Hornberger, N.H.  48, 57, 61, 125, 346, 349, 356 Horowitz, R.  110, 125 Hualde, J.I.  195, 196 Hymes, D.  4, 9, 259, 277 I Iams, T.M.  306, 328 Iglesias-Álvarez, A.  70, 72, 82, 85 Ingram, D.  203, 204, 219 Intxausti, J.  55, 61 Irvine, J.T.  15, 17, 31, 129, 137, 140, 149 Iximulew, 145, 149 J Jackson, J.  139, 150 Jackson, R.L.  61 Jaffe, A.M.  15, 20, 31, 129, 149, 261, 274, 277, 295, 296, 297, 299 Jake, J.  306, 328 Jakobson, R.  259, 277

Jenkins, J.  88, 105 Jessner, U.  60 Jiménez Sabater, M.  177, 196 Johnson, D.  229, 255 Johnson, K.E.  61 Johnson, P.  61, 336, 356 K Kabatek, J.  79, 85 Kamada, L.  203, 205, 217, 218 Kehoe, M.  195, 196 Kells, M.H.  299 Kinzer, S.  135, 149 Kress, G.  112, 113, 117, 125, 209 Kroskrity, P.V.  6, 8, 9, 61 Kvale, S.  233, 255 L Labov, W.  5, 73, 85, 204, 217, 218 Lachicotte, W.  14, 31 Ladefoged, P.  3, 8, 9 Lambert, W.  249, 255 Landeo, L.  174 Larrañaga, N.  23, 39, 53, 54, 59–62, 333 Lasagabaster, D.  60 Le Page, R.B.  6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 31, 72, 85, 88, 105 Lee, S.  255 Légaré, E.  149 Leopold, W.F.  205, 218, 308 Levinson, S.  162, 173 Leyens, J.P.  337, 356, 357 Lindholm, K.  254 Lindsley, S.  61 Lippi-Green, R.  67, 69, 85, 226, 250, 253, 255 Lipski, J.  175, 176, 196, 203, 205, 217, 218 Little, W.E.  129, 145, 149 Lléo, C.  195, 196 López Valcárcel, X.M.  63, 64, 85 Lorda, D.  261, 273–275, 277 Lorenzi-Cioldi, F.  48, 62 Loureiro-Rodríguez, V.  13, 17, 18, 24, 66, 67, 79, 85, 333, 343 Luque, J.  39, 59, 62 Luque, M.L.  39, 62 M MacSwan, J.  306, 328 Mannheim, B.  12, 15, 22, 31, 298, 299 Mariño Paz, R.  63, 64, 85 Mar-Molinero, C.  85

Martinez, G.  4, 9 Martínez, M.  196 Martinez de Luna, I.  36, 39, 45, 57, 62 Massey, S.  299 Matthei, E.  207, 218 Maxwell, J.  130, 149 McCollum, P.  128, 227–229, 240, 253, 255 McConnell-Ginet, S.  13, 16, 30, 152, 173 McGroarty, M.  18, 31 McKee, C.  306, 329 Meisel, J.  303, 329 Menchú Túm, R.  131, 149 Miehe, V.  222, 255 Milroy, J.  47, 67, 75, 85 Milroy, L.  11, 31, 47, 67, 73, 75, 85 Moïse, C.L.  60 Montejo, V.  131, 149 Montone, C.  254 Mora, C.  173 Moreno, R.P.  312, 329 Morley, D.  18, 31 Moscoso, M.  173 Mühlhäusler, P.  15, 31 Mujica, M.  223, 255 Münch, C.H.  100, 105 Muysken, P.  11, 29, 31, 114, 125, 305, 329 Myers-Scotton, C.  12, 17, 31, 72, 75, 85, 227, 250, 255, 302, 306, 311, 312, 328, 329 N Nelde, P.  50, 62 Nielsen, S.  308, 329 Niño-Murcia, M.  18–21, 29, 31, 353 O O’Rourke, E.  196 Ochs, E.  308, 329 Okita, T.  203–205, 217, 219 Olender, M.  19, 31 Ortiz, L.  93, 176, 196 Otheguy, R.  202, 219 P Padilla, F.  202, 219 Padilla, J.A.  329 Paulino, B.  196 Pavlovitch, M.  205, 219 Peltz, H.  61 Perales, J.  59

Author index  Pérez, G.  202, 206, 215, 217, 219 Pérez-Granados, D.R.  309, 312, 329 Perreault, S.  60 Philips, S.  171, 174, 229, 255 Piller, I.  15, 31, 205, 218, 219 Pons, E.  89, 105 Poortinga, Y.  60 Poplack, S.  101, 105 Potowski, K.  20, 27, 28, 202, 203, 206, 207, 209, 212, 218, 219, 227–229, 236, 240, 247, 253, 255, 353 Powesland, P.  227, 255 Pozzi-Escot, I.  111, 125 Puigverd, A.  104, 105 Pütz, M.  61 Q Querol, E.  342, 356 R Rakow, M.  195, 196 Ramallo, F.  64–66, 69, 70, 72, 77, 82, 85 Ramírez, R.R.  352, 356 Ramos, A.  140, 149 Ramos-Pellicia, M.  206, 219 Ramos-Zayas, A.  202, 203, 206, 215, 217, 218 Rampton, B.  251, 254, 255 Raschka, C.  227, 255 Razfar, A.  226, 255 Recalde, M.  67, 69, 76, 85, 86 Recalde Fernández, M.  76, 85 Regueiro Tenreiro, M.  68, 86 Rell, A.  17, 32, 297, 299, 306, 329 Reynolds, D.  112, 113, 117, 123, 125 Reynolds, J.F.  129, 145–147, 149 Richards, J.  130, 149 Richards, M.  130, 132, 145, 149 Rivero, J.  110, 126 Roberts, J.  203, 204, 217, 219 Robins, K.  18, 31 Rodríguez-Neira, M.A.  69, 70, 86 Roeper, T.  207, 218 Romaine, S.  11–13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 31, 249, 252, 255, 301, 304, 306, 311, 327, 329 Romay, J.  59 Rondal, J.A.  301, 329 Ronjat, J.  205, 219, 308, 329

Ros, M.  59 Roseman, S.R.  70, 86 Rothman, J.  17, 20, 21, 29, 31, 32, 297, 299, 306, 329, 353 Roy, S.  275, 276 Rúa, M.  202, 206, 219 Rubin, D.  110, 126 Rubin, E.J.  327 Ruíz, R.  227, 255 Ruiz, S.  50, 59–62 S Sabatier, C.  51, 62 Sachdev, I.  48, 62 Sánchez de Miguel, M.  59–62 Sánchez, L.  25, 110, 111, 114, 117, 126, 347 Sanford, V.  128, 132, 149 Schieffelin, B.B.  140, 149, 226, 256, 308, 312, 329 Schiffman, H.  61, 334, 357 Schiffrin, D.  14, 30, 299, 328 Schlesinger, S.  135, 149 Schmidt, R.  250, 255 Schweid Fishman, G.  61 Segall, M.  60 Sénécal, S.  60 Shannon, S.  227, 255 Shenk, E.  20, 28, 252, 256, 353 Silva-Corvalán, C.  209, 219, 284, 289, 299 Sinner, C.  102, 105 Skerry, P.  281, 287, 289, 299 Skinner, D.  14, 31 Soler, J.  100, 105 Stavans, I.  7, 9 Stoessel, S.  240, 256 Stokoe, E.  14, 30, 283, 299, 302, 317, 327, 329 Strauss, S.  61 Strubell, M.  62, 341, 357 T Tabouret-Keller, A.  6, 9, 11, 14, 31, 72, 85, 88, 105 Tajfel, H.  48, 62, 335, 336, 354, 355, 357 Taylor, D.M.  328, 336, 356 Thompson, C.  112, 126, 254 Timm, L.  63, 67, 82, 86 Ting-Toomey, S.  61 Toribio, A.J.  11, 20, 26, 179, 196, 327, 348 Torres, J.  89, 105

 Bilingualism and Identity Torres-Saillant, S.  180, 196, 197 Tournon, J.  153, 174 Trudgill, P.  73, 86, 197 Tse, S.  203, 204, 219 Turner, J.C.  62, 335, 336, 357 Tuten, D.  338, 357 U Urban, G.  260, 277 Urciuoli, B.  15, 17, 20, 28, 32, 149, 227, 229, 234, 256, 258, 259, 271, 278 V Vaes, J.  337, 357 Vaillancourt, F.  61 Valdés, G.  5, 9, 17, 32, 227, 248, 256 Valencia, J.F.  51, 59, 89, 102 Valenzuela, P.  153, 174 Vallverdú, F.  341, 357 Van der Lely, H.  301, 329

van Lier, L.  250, 256 Vann, R.E.  102, 105 Varela, C.  21, 32 Verschueren, J.  129, 147 Vila, F.X.  89, 104, 105 Villanueva, V.  299 Villatoro, V.  105 W Waldman, P.  58, 62 Warren, K.B.  128, 139, 149, 150 Washington, J.  112, 126 Watanabe, J.M.  129, 150 Watson, I.  306, 329 Watson-Gegeo, K.A.  308, 329 Weber, D.J.  350, 357 Wei, L.  255, 313, 329 Weinreich, U.  4, 8, 9 Wenger, E.  154, 174 Wesch, A.  102, 103, 105 Wexler, K.  301, 306, 328, 329

Wherritt, I.  244, 256 Williams, G.  62 Williams, R.  137, 150 Willis, E.  177, 197 Wodak, R.  216, 219 Woolard, K.A.  66, 67, 70, 86, 90–92, 95, 105, 129, 150, 160, 174, 226, 256, 258, 277 Y Yashar, D.  139, 150 Z Zabaleta, F.  36, 41, 62, 340, 355 Zacharías, D.  114, 117, 126 Zalbide, M.  61 Zapata-Barrero, R.  92, 106 Zavala, V.  17, 18, 20, 21, 111, 126, 301, 347 Zevallos, A.  198 Zimmerman, D.  32 Zúñiga, M.  114, 117, 126

Subject index A accent  14, 76, 77, 96, 177, 178, 180, 182, 184, 185, 188, 190, 192, 195, 198, 203, 210, 211, 216, 217, 248, 258, 268, 269, 271, 273, 274, 314, 348 acculturation  35, 50, 53, 54 Africa  41, 91, African  5, 7, 90, 112, 175, 176, 180, 182, 188, 190, 222, 225, 257, 262, 348 agency  6, 14, 21, 151, 158–161, 164, 166–169, 172, 273, 342 alternative norm  227, 252, 253 Amazonian  20, 151, 153, 155, 159, 170, 171 Amerindian  20, 23, 107, 182, 344,346, 350  autonomism  68 B basilect  195, 348 basquization  35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 50, 55, 339, 341 bicultural  48, 51, 224, 243, 251  Bilingual/bilingualism bilingual community  5 bilingual children  6, 25, 28, 109–114, 116-, 124, 227, 251, 305, 307, 313 bilingual education  24, 40, 68, 85, 114, 131, 286 bilingual society  91, 93 bilingual variety  92, 97, 101, 103–104 bilingualism and identity  3, 7, 11, 8, 55, 137, 333, 334, 336, 354 bilingualism in Latin America  25 bilingualism in Spain  23 bilingualism in the United States  23, 25, 27 bilingualization  35, 39, 40, 44–46, 55, 57

Hispanic bilingualism  20, 22, 23, 25, 27 Spanish-English bilingualism  279, 283, 296 C Catalan  13, 23, 24, 26, 37, 58, 65, 87–104, 333, 338, 341- 344, 354 Catalonia  13, 23–25, 51, 58, 87–104, 341, 342 cibaeño  27, 175–179, 181, 185, 188, 192, 195, 348 citizenship  19, 35, 50, 51, 53, 91 code-switching  16, 95, 97, 101–103, 260, 265, 298, 306, 307, 311, 352 community of practice  13, 16, 154, 158, 166 competence  17, 21, 28, 38, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 56, 92, 110, 113, 123, 250, 252, 304, 306, 308, 313, 327, 340 conflict  4, 18, 47, 49, 58, 68, 83, 84, 87, 90, 94, 95, 129, 130, 132, 135, 139, 163, 216, 226, 279, 293, 334, 335, 344, 349 contact contact situation  11, 22, 27, 50, 53, 175, 340 contact varieties  195 cultural contact  51, 88 Spanish-contact  3, 11, 23, 35, 58, 107, 195, 199, 334, 338 co-official languages  66 Creole  14, 23, 26, 88, 107, 176, 196 cultural borders  77 cultural identity  82, 127, 215, 253, 257, 263, 264, 270 D deficit model  261, 267, 276 differentialism  68, 81 diglossia  57, 79, 80, 302, 352, 353 discourse analysis  12, 229

divergence  236, 238, 239, 247, 310 Dominican Republic  20, 27, 175, 176, 178, 179, 182, 188, 190, 348, 349 E education, education model  40, 43, 44 statutory education  40, 42–44 educational practices  337, 347 educational policy  7 elicited narratives  24, 97, 102, 103, 209 English Black English  5 English-only  7, 230, 236 English dominant/dominance  232, 249, 269, 301, 303 Englishization  44, 55 English speaking  28, 113, 204, 241, 243, 244, 251, 280, 354, 355 English trilingual  98 Puerto Rican English  5 standard English  112, 258 essentialism  15, 128, 266, 337 ethnicity  6, 19, 58, 94, 97, 151–152, 164, 167, 170, 172, 225–227, 252, 260, 262, 270, 334, 336, 347, 354 ethnolinguistic group  102, 130, 141, 201, 203, 217 (ethno)linguistic identity  11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, 29, 33, 35, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 80, 83, 127, 130–132, 138, 140, 145, 173, 202, 221, 257, 258, 270, 273, 279, 280, 282, 289, 297, 345, 301–304, 311, 312, 314, 324, 327, 336, 345, 354 ethnolinguistic identity theory  336, 345, 354

 Bilingualism and Identity ethnolinguistic indexing  103 European Union (EU)  37, 44, 45, 50, 53, 55–58, 92 F French  8, 18, 23, 38, 43, 47, 48, 56, 57, 89, 242, 275, 307, 345 G Galeguismo  67, 68 Galicia  23, 24, 51, 63–68, 70–77, 82, 83, 338, 342, 343 Galician  12, 13, 23, 24, 37, 63–79, 80–83, 90, 333, 338, 342, 343, 344 gender  5, 6, 15, 16, 20, 26, 89, 129, 141, 145, 151, 152, 155, 156, 159,164, 167, 172, 209, 215, 227, 259, 267, 269, 270, 302, 317, 347 gheada  75, 76 globalization  18, 56, 88, 245 groupness  12, 19, 166, 167 Guatemala  20, 25, 128, 129, 130–132, 139, 140, 141, 147–149, 345, 349, 354 H habitus  250, 259, 273 Haiti  176, 183, 189, 349 Herderian ideology  129 heritage language  5, 6, 73, 241, 249, 251, 257 host community  54 hybridized  202, 211, 215, 218 I identitary  47, 49, 51 identity agentive identity  26, 154 bilingual identity  22, 282, 291 Basque identity  36, 37, 47–49, 51, 53, 54, 58, 340 Catalan identity  25, 93, 97, 102, 104 cultural identity  82, 127, 215, 253, 257, 263, 264, 270 dual identity  227, 250, 252 ethnic identity  6, 20, 24, 95, 102, 151, 152, 158, 171, 206, 217, 221, 227, 241, 246, 248, 252, 257, 258, 275, 335, 349 feminine identity  155, 156 Galician identity  67, 69, 83 gender identity  16, 152 group identity  73, 82, 92, 264, 336

identity and agency  14 identity construction  12, 13, 22, 23, 26, 48, 127, 311, 340 identity formation  19, 24, 63, 140, 217, 264, 333–335, 354 identity marker  80 identity performance  303 identity recovery  340, 343, 344 Indian identity  131, 132, 138 language and identity  11, 12, 18, 22, 24, 28, 35, 58, 87, 91, 92, 95, 102, 113, 128–130, 145, 152, 166, 173, 241, 279, 317, 333, 334, 342 Maya identity  127, 139, 140, 142–147 national identity  48, 130, 131, 137, 140, 145, 240–242, 274 social identity  48, 87, 88, 109, 115, 152, 226, 282, 335, 336 Spanish identity  49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 287, 340 ideological genocide  354 ideology  15, 24, 65, 67, 69, 70, 77, 79, 83, 85, 95, 127, 129, 130, 132, 134, 137, 139, 140, 170, 226, 243, 245, 246, 252, 258, 268, Ikastolak  39–41, 43, 44, 55 immigrant community  54 immigration  19, 25, 36, 41, 50, 53, 54, 89, 92, 102, 206, 215, 244, 289, 341 indexicality  21, 270, 334 interference  80, 99, 100, 101, 268, 270, 347, 352 intergroup  48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 67, 202, 340, 354 intonation  160, 177, 178, 192, 194, 195, 203, 205, 212, 268 Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act  223, 226, 253 Italian  96, 97, 195, 301, 302, 305, 307, 308, 309–317, 319, 320, 322–327 ius linguae  87, 91, 103, 104 ius loci  87, 103, 104 ius sanguinis  91 K Kaqchikel  20, 23, 127, 129–137, 140–147, 345 Kreyol  20, 175, 176, 179, 195, 196, 348

L language choice  12, 14, 16, 20, 22, 24, 26, 29, 45, 63, 66, 70, 87, 88, 91, 103, 158, 227–230, 232, 234, 235, 237, 238, 240, 247, 250, 280, 302, 308, 311–313, 327 language contact  11, 20, 22, 25, 27, 64, 87, 88, 195, 196, 205, 218, 221, 226, 281, 334, 347, 352, language frames  222, 228, 230, 235, 247, 249, 253 language ideologies  67, 71, 83, 128, 137, 145, 146, 221, 222, 226, 228, 230, 240, 250, 253 language maintenance  205, 224, 234, 242, 245, 252, 253, 325, 336, 343, 353, 354 language planning  67, 83, 340 language policy  24, 63, 87, 344, 353 language shift  24, 29, 38, 45, 63, 68, 132, 152, 170, 171, 336, 340, 343, 350, 352–354 language transfer  99 Law of Linguistic Normalization  66–68, 341 legitimized variety  83 lingua franca  18, 91, 92 linguistic correctness  257, 258 linguistic insecurity  100, 101, 179 linguistic marketplace  226 linguistic normalization  37, 66–68, 70, 341 literacy  25, 88, 100, 109–113, 124, 128, 131, 133, 136, 137, 145, 156, 225, 235, 239, 249, 260, 297, 339, 343, 347, 353 loyalist  37, 39, 40, 55 Lusism  68 M marked language  250 matched-guise  102, 184 Maya movement  127, 139 Mayas  12, 136, 138, 142, 144–146 metalinguistic discourse  127, 146, 147 methods  98, 218, 221, 229, 234, 344 Mexican  4, 27, 28, 103, 201–203, 205, 206, 211- 213, 215–218, 220, 223, 242, 279–283, 287, 289, 290, 333, 345, 350–352



Subject index 

MexiRican  27, 201–203, 205, 206, 217, 218, 353 migration  20, 87, 88, 151, 152, 170, 172, 223, 224, 346, 351 minority group(s)  13, 19, 84, 87, 125 minority language  13, 14, 21, 55, 87, 90, 101, 109, 201, 203–206, 214, 215, 217, 226–228, 234, 236, 237, 245, 250, 252, 253, 261, 274, 308, 333 modernity  127, 129, 146, 345 monolingual  6–8, 14, 25, 27, 28, 38, 47, 54, 57, 70, 87, 104, 109–111, 113, 114, 117–125, 132, 146, 147, 230, 241, 243, 260, 266, 280–282, 303–305, 314, 321, 346 monolingualism  7, 8, 303, 305, 334, 351 mother tongue(s)  24, 38, 39, 49, 111, 203, 217, 289, 290, 340, 346 motivation(s)  24, 37, 45, 47, 48, 50, 55, 66, 231, 239, 243, 245, 252, 301, 324, 337 multicultural organizations  262 multilingual(s)  3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22, 26, 29, 44, 45, 92, 129, 139, 260, 302–306, 310, 312, 314, 327, 336, 345, 353 multilingualism  3, 7, 8, 10, 21, 22, 56, 103, 245, 281, 301–306, 324–326 multilingualization  55

P participant structures  233–239 passive bilinguals  38, 47, 103, 340, 342 perception  14, 25, 29, 114–116, 120, 142, 175–177, 184, 191, 222, 267, 268, 348, 354 performance  11, 16, 17, 48, 110, 111, 145, 151, 152, 156, 158, 159, 169, 170, 173, 182, 226, 263, 267, 301–303, 312, 324, 327, 336, 340, 347 phonology  3, 96, 100, 103, 176, 190, 201, 205, 208–210, 214 politeness  162 power  5, 7, 26, 37, 45, 57, 65, 94, 130, 151, 154–156, 159, 163, 166, 171, 172, 236, 245, 258, 276, 293, 296, 348 prejudice  7, 70, 76, 83, 335, 337 prestige  7, 27, 45, 57, 65, 67, 73, 80, 83, 92, 171, 173, 176, 179, 181, 184, 188, 190, 191, 281, 286, 293, 296, 342, 343, 346, 348 profile  49, 124, 182, 188, 346, 351 prosody  88, 177, 190, 195, 349 psycholinguistic  3, 55, 306 psychosocial  35, 46–51, 53, 55, 340 Puerto Rican  4, 5, 27, 28, 201–203, 205, 206, 211–218, 220, 261, 263, 265, 267–272, 274, 275, 352 Puerto Rican Spanish  203, 267

N nation  19, 128, 130, 131, 135, 137, 139, 179, 281 national boundaries  8 nationalism  19, 35, 57, 58, 67, 68, 251, 334, 341 nationalist ideology  24, 129 native bilinguals  98, 100, 101, 103, 309 neologisms  140, 141, 143–145 normalization  24, 36, 37, 40, 45, 55, 56, 66–68, 78, 90, 340, 341

Q Quechua  12, 20, 110, 114–117, 170, 195, 346, 347, 349

O objectification  259, 260 official language  40, 45, 65, 66, 90, 91, 141, 221, 228, 245 orthography  128

R race  95, 104, 259, 262, 267, 268, 270, 271, 276, 350 racialization  266, 275 reintegrationism  68 S second language  55, 63, 98, 109–114, 123, 124, 176, 225, 246, 249, 282, 286, 304 self-constructed identity  87 Shipibo  20, 26, 151–156, 158–160, 164, 166–168, 170–173, 346–348 social identity theory  335 social network  74, 77, 243

socioeconomic conditions  83 sociolinguistic sociolinguistic change  353 sociolinguistic context  69 sociolinguistic history  63, 64, 68 sociolinguistic perspective  4, 279, 280, 304 sociolinguistic research  4, 14 Spanish Constitution  37, 51, 66, 90 standard language  69, 83, 221, 226, 250, 252, 253 standardization  75, 78, 128, 140, 142, 144, 258, 345 state (the)  14, 18, 26, 45, 127, 129, 131–133, 137, 139, 140–142, 156, 222–224, 340 status  4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 23, 29, 58, 63–67, 69, 70, 73, 80, 88, 111, 112, 116, 179, 188, 210, 244, 250, 252, 253, 258, 268, 270, 275, 295, 337, 341, 343, 345, 346, 353 subjectivism  59 symbolic capital  16, 173, 258, 261, 267, 273 T testimony  138, 156, 170 transmission  38, 39, 47, 66, 89, 171, 201, 204, 205, 214, 216, 217, 339, 340 trilingualism  29, 303, 304 U unmarked language  95, 102, 132, 235, 240, 276, 307 US Hispanic ethnicity  354 US Hispanics  351–354 V value-added model  261, 267, 274 violence  3, 58, 127, 129–134, 136–140, 344 W writing writing patterns  25, 110, 112 writing samples  25, 110, 112, 123, 124 writing skills  25, 109–112, 114

In the series Studies in Bilingualism (SiBil) the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 37 Niño-Murcia, Mercedes and Jason Rothman (eds.): Bilingualism and Identity. Spanish at the crossroads with other languages. 2008. vii, 365 pp. 36 Hansen Edwards, Jette G. and Mary L. Zampini (eds.): Phonology and Second Language Acquisition. 2008. vi, 380 pp. 35 Rocca, Sonia: Child Second Language Acquisition. A bi-directional study of English and Italian tenseaspect morphology. 2007. xvi, 240 pp. 34 Koven, Michèle: Selves in Two Languages. Bilinguals' verbal enactments of identity in French and Portuguese. 2007. xi, 327 pp. 33 Köpke, Barbara, Monika S. Schmid, Merel Keijzer and Susan Dostert (eds.): Language Attrition. Theoretical perspectives. 2007. viii, 258 pp. 32 Kondo-Brown, Kimi (ed.): Heritage Language Development. Focus on East Asian Immigrants. 2006. x, 282 pp. 31 Baptista, Barbara O. and Michael Alan Watkins (eds.): English with a Latin Beat. Studies in Portuguese/Spanish – English Interphonology. 2006. vi, 214 pp. 30 Pienemann, Manfred (ed.): Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. 2005. xiv, 303 pp. 29 Ayoun, Dalila and M. Rafael Salaberry (eds.): Tense and Aspect in Romance Languages. Theoretical and applied perspectives. 2005. x, 318 pp. 28 Schmid, Monika S., Barbara Köpke, Merel Keijzer and Lina Weilemar (eds.): First Language Attrition. Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues. 2004. x, 378 pp. 27 Callahan, Laura: Spanish/English Codeswitching in a Written Corpus. 2004. viii, 183 pp. 26 Dimroth, Christine and Marianne Starren (eds.): Information Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition. 2003. vi, 361 pp. 25 Piller, Ingrid: Bilingual Couples Talk. The discursive construction of hybridity. 2002. xii, 315 pp. 24 Schmid, Monika S.: First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance. The case of German Jews in anglophone countries. 2002. xiv, 259 pp. (incl. CD-rom). 23 Verhoeven, Ludo and Sven Strömqvist (eds.): Narrative Development in a Multilingual Context. 2001. viii, 431 pp. 22 Salaberry, M. Rafael: The Development of Past Tense Morphology in L2 Spanish. 2001. xii, 211 pp. 21 Döpke, Susanne (ed.): Cross-Linguistic Structures in Simultaneous Bilingualism. 2001. x, 258 pp. 20 Poulisse, Nanda: Slips of the Tongue. Speech errors in first and second language production. 1999. xvi, 257 pp. 19 Amara, Muhammad Hasan: Politics and Sociolinguistic Reflexes. Palestinian border villages. 1999. xx, 261 pp. 18 Paradis, Michel: A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. 2004. viii, 299 pp. 17 Ellis, Rod: Learning a Second Language through Interaction. 1999. x, 285 pp. 16 Huebner, Thom and Kathryn A. Davis (eds.): Sociopolitical Perspectives on Language Policy and Planning in the USA. With the assistance of Joseph Lo Bianco. 1999. xvi, 365 pp. 15 Pienemann, Manfred: Language Processing and Second Language Development. Processability theory. 1998. xviii, 367 pp. 14 Young, Richard and Agnes Weiyun He (eds.): Talking and Testing. Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. 1998. x, 395 pp. 13 Holloway, Charles E.: Dialect Death. The case of Brule Spanish. 1997. x, 220 pp. 12 Halmari, Helena: Government and Codeswitching. Explaining American Finnish. 1997. xvi, 276 pp. 11 Becker, Angelika and Mary Carroll: The Acquisition of Spatial Relations in a Second Language. In cooperation with Jorge Giacobbe, Clive Perdue and Rémi Porquiez. 1997. xii, 212 pp. 10 Bayley, Robert and Dennis R. Preston (eds.): Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation. 1996. xix, 317 pp. 9 Freed, Barbara F. (ed.): Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context. 1995. xiv, 345 pp. 8 Davis, Kathryn A.: Language Planning in Multilingual Contexts. Policies, communities, and schools in Luxembourg. 1994. xix, 220 pp.

7

6 5 4 3 2 1

Dietrich, Rainer, Wolfgang Klein and Colette Noyau: The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second Language. In cooperation with Josée Coenen, Beatriz Dorriots, Korrie van Helvert, Henriette Hendriks, Et-Tayeb Houdaïfa, Clive Perdue, Sören Sjöström, Marie-Thérèse Vasseur and Kaarlo Voionmaa. 1995. xii, 288 pp. Schreuder, Robert and Bert Weltens (eds.): The Bilingual Lexicon. 1993. viii, 307 pp. Klein, Wolfgang and Clive Perdue: Utterance Structure. Developing grammars again. In cooperation with Mary Carroll, Josée Coenen, José Deulofeu, Thom Huebner and Anne Trévise. 1992. xvi, 354 pp. Paulston, Christina Bratt: Linguistic Minorities in Multilingual Settings. Implications for language policies. 1994. xi, 136 pp. Döpke, Susanne: One Parent – One Language. An interactional approach. 1992. xviii, 213 pp. Bot, Kees de, Ralph B. Ginsberg and Claire Kramsch (eds.): Foreign Language Research in CrossCultural Perspective. 1991. xii, 275 pp. Fase, Willem, Koen Jaspaert and Sjaak Kroon (eds.): Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. 1992. xii, 403 pp.