Language in a Sphere

I have always thought that mans creation has a tie to everything and to anything and language is no exception. Sapir-Whorf theory of placing everything inside a sphere is an assertive way to explore language. If there is any reason for the overlapping of concepts like sociolinguistics, for example, is because of the making of this sphere. I see the Sapir-Whorf sphere as a composition of layers where the core is just made up of the concept that we are humans. Even though the language is dynamic all the changes take part on this enclosed sphere. The enabling factor that allows us to study this, what we call language is that of the overlapping of concepts that in some way have a constant variable. Every language, dialect, register etc. has a structure to which rules apply. It is the difference in rules that enables the ties of language.

socio qué!!!!

Esta lectura se me hizo muy ilustrativa he aprendido un poco más de lo que significa la lingüística y sus usos, confieso que esta materia no ha sido fácil y que es un constante desafío para no caer en el hábito de estar comparandola con la literatura. Me llama la atención los elementos que se toman en cuanta para estudiar el comportamiento de la lengua dentro de un contexto social. Uno de los que me tiene con una duda es ¿cómo un sustantivo es más sustantivo que otro? En el artículo de Corvalán menciona eso de igual manera menciona que un verbo puede tener mas verbalidad que otros, es fascinante ver que los investigadores toman en consideración aspectos que yo no veo, ni distingo, y como estos compartamientos influyen dentro de la inteacción/conversación entre hablantes. Me gustan los análisis que se hacen de gramática y sus variaciones y puedo entender el por qué de estas; sin embargo, sé que necesito poner más atención a escuchar, para tener una recepción "real" de cómo se usa el idioma al momento de hablarlo. Seguiré aprendiendo y por el momento sólo puedo decir que una de mis metas será el mantenimiento del español, como maestra/instructora de lengua creo que es una tarea relevante para preservar el uso del español dentro de los Estados Unidos y crear una actitud positiva ante este idioma tan extraordinario.

Sociolinguistics vs. Sociology of the language

Cuál es la diferencia entre ellos? Hay una diferencia? Esto es algo que me ha confundido por más de un año ahora. Me parecen similares, así que no entiendo por qué necesitan dos nombres distintos. Tal vez después de leer el resto de Silva-Corvalán las entenderé muy bien, pero quería poner esta pregunta en el universo para ver si alguien me las pueda explicar en términos sencillos. Gracias! :)

Language is like cooking.

Hola compañeros,
Sólo quería compartir con ustedes una metáfora que Kim Potowski nos presentó allá en UCLA. Estaba hablando sobre métodos de enseñar la escritura a nuestros queridos alumnos de herencia y ponía de relieve la importancia de darles a los estudiantes instrucciones bien detalladas. Además, subrayaba la necesidad de proveer rúbricas transparentes. Algunos dicen que tantas instrucciones, llenas de ejemplos, puede matar la creatividad de los alumnos. Potowski argumenta el contrario. Dice que Pablo Picasso tenía que aprender los métodos clásicos del arte antes de poder expresar su creatividad e ir más allá de las reglas. Ella propone que es lo mismo con los estudiantes (en este caso de lenguas heredadas, pero se aplica también a estudiantes de segundo idioma). Ellos quieren desarrollar sus habilidades en la redacción, pero necesitan buenas instrucciones tal como un adolescente de quince años necesita una receta con muchos detalles. Si se le dice a un muchacho de quince años que haga una cena de rigatoni, pues, los resultados son dudosos e infinitos. Sin embargo, si se le explica muy bien, tomando en cuenta todos los posibles errores, entonces le saldrá mucho mejor. Después de aprender como sofreír, hervir la pasta, picar las verduras y medir los ingredientes, entonces se puede utilizar estas herramientas para crear algo nuevo—y de ahí sale una creatividad tremenda.

Tolerancia!!!!

Los artículos de Hill y Achugar explicaron conceptos muy relevantes del uso del español dentro de los Estados Unidos, es increíble que ya hayamos olvidado que el mundo es una mezcla de razas, idiomas, ideas, etc. y de ahí la diversidad de culturas, identidades, de comuninades, etc. Dentro de las universidades aprendemos de religiones, de ciencia, de filosofía, de literatura, etc. y cada facultad es un microcosmos con un "idioma" propio de acuerdo a la asignatura, lo mismo sucede con las comunidades hispanas dentro de los Estados Unidos cada una de ellas tiene su propio idioma para comunicarse ya sea español, spanglish, bilinguismo, heteroglosias, etc no creo que se deba delimitar a estas comunidades ni se les deba etiquetar de inferiores por no ser monolingües. Dentro de las clases de español como segunda lengua intento acercar a los estudiantes al idioma pero además a la cultura de cada país, que aprendan sus diferencias y sus similitudes y así ellos puedan hacer conexiones con su propio país. Estas conexiones y relaciones es lo que nos lleva a ser tolerantes y aprender uno del otro no a excluir. Tal vez esta práctica debería llevarse a la arena política?? será posible??

Negative Language Stigmas

We have repeatedly seen from the articles that Spanish is tagged with a negative stigma, primarily due to its speakers being minorities. Yet minorities are the mayor growing population. Spanish is a language that will never cease even without the inflow of immigrants. If by miracle, the borders were blocked off to the extent that no new immigrants came to the U.S., would the negative stigma continue? Let's imagine that everyone learned and spoke English, would this bring an end to the fear of other languages becoming prestigious? Could other languages then be considered legitimate because they no longer were a threat? What would happen to Spanish? As we have seen, language and culture are connected; therefore, this cannot be flushed out of people unless they chose otherwise. You would think that since we live in such a diverse and progressive country, it would be acceptable to value other cultures and languages instead of mocking or justifying negative stigmas. I think it is normal for people to fear the unknown, but labeling other languages as disorderly or dangerous is just absurd.

El sentimentalismo

En Mejías et al. promueven que un actitud sentimental hacia el idioma como una indicación de una pérdida del idioma con la ausencia de los otros tres factores, y que se necesita otros modos de apoyo para poder mantener el idioma (Mejias and Anderson, 1988). Me pregunto cómo se comparan las actitudes entre este estudio y los estudiantes de UNM y qué estamos haciendo para promover o no promover los cuatro factores (comunicación, instrumentalismo, sentimentalismo y valor/lealtad al idioma). ¿Predomina el factor de sentimentalismo? ¿Creen que el sentimentalismo es algo negativo como lo pintan en Mejías et al.?

Castigo???

Buenas tardes a todos. Estoy más que molesta después de leer el artículo de MacGregor, creía que esas prácticas violentas pertenecían a un pasado muy lejano, veo que no es así. Estamos hablando de hace casi 20 años o 30 años cuando todavía se forzaba de manera violenta el uso del inglés. Hoy en día no se maneja de esa manera; sin embargo, si existe coacción de manera más "civilizada". Entiendo que si estamos en los Estados Unidos debemos aprender el idioma del país que habitamos, pero no entiendo la imposición política de este país por eliminar la "identidad". Anderson dice: "Language-of-state it might be, but it could not, in the nineteenth century, be the language of business, of the sciences, of the press, or of the literature, especially in a world in which these languages continuously interpenetrated one another" (78). Es exactamente la idea de diversidad los idiomas pueden crear puentes entre ellos y no tiene porque ser el inglés sólo el idioma dominante y creerse que es el único ni debe ser castrante de otros.

Language maintenance and loss: Another viewpoint

This class has been enjoyable, enlightening, and frustrating for me at times. While I acknowledge all points made in discussion as valid and important, I sometimes feel like I can't contribute personal stories and anecdotes in the same way as others. Again, I agree that it is important for any language (and especially Spanish in the case of this class) to be maintained as a way to preserve culture. But as a native-English speaker, I have never had to struggle to accomplish this goal. In short, I can sympathize, but not empathize 100% with those who do.

Once again I must talk about the general sociolinguistics class I took last semester, because one of the articles from that class is, I think, relevant when considered in the context of this class. It is well-known that English is the overwhelmingly dominant language in this country. Since so much emphasis is placed on the promotion of this language in the United States and globally, sometimes it is difficult to really remember that English is in fact a minority language in some areas of the world.

The article I want to briefly summarize brought this blaringly to light for me, and I think that is both eye-opening and ironic. In their 1987 article titled "The Philadelphia story in the Spanish Caribbean," Shana Poplack and David Sankoff examine a small community of native English-speakers who reside in the Dominican Republic. Their discussion basically concludes that the situation of English there is identical to that of Spanish here, excepting a continuous influx of language-maintaining immigrants. The language is being lost in the younger generations, despite their parents' best efforts to maintain it. While I in no way celebrate the loss of any language anywhere in the world, it was a "nice" change of pace to read that English does not occupy such a hegemonic position in all corners of the globe.

LEP or FEP

I found Norma Mendoza-Denton’s article very interesting and close to home. I grew up in the South Valley and attended schools similar to SJHS. I attended Rio Grande High School (RGHS) for a year and experienced living among gangs such as those discussed in the article. As a matter of fact, there were Sureña and Norteña gangs. The gangs present at RGHS were so many; it seemed only very few did not participate. There were rivalries which seemed to split the school in half. The article describes the differences in the members of the gangs as English vs. Spanish dominant. I remember it being obvious who belonged to what gang by simply speaking to them. Of course other factors were their attire and colors worn. Luckily my interest in education overcame interest in ever participating in gangs.
Not only were there such gangs similar to SJHS, RGHS also had LEP and FEP programs. I do not believe those programs compared to SJHS, in which disruptive students were placed in, it seemed to be mainly Spanish dominant speakers. Although I considered myself English dominant, I still had trouble in some classes. I remember telling my mom that I did not want to speak Spanish or be considered a Spanish speaker because then I would be put in “certain” classes. My mom would tell me to do whatever I had to, to get the best education. Even though she pushed English for a better education at school, she always made us speak to her in Spanish at home to preserve the language.
As we can see, it is a disadvantage to not get the best education. It is devastating for those students that have dreams of succeeding to be held back of their educational opportunities because they speak Spanish or are not English proficient. I know that this should not discourage people or should be viewed as a stepping stone, but when in high school and living among so much pressure can lead to dropping out. Learning and speaking English as a dominant language in these types of schools is practically seem as a survival method.

Digging Deeper

    One of my central concerns in our reading of various studies of "Southwest" or "Chicano" Spanish is what neat little packages are produced as a result of the studies. We have seen several efforts to catalogue phenomena present in a generalized language group, each of which produces useful and interesting results, even if never truly attending to the motivational complexity intrinsic in language employment. Missing from the discussion of language in the Southwest is its nature as contingent on a constructed identity. It has been mentioned in several articles that language is a signifier of identity; this has been done to this point without a significant exploration of this relational nature nor the implications of hybridity at more than a superficial level.

    It is important to understand the constructedness of identity in this target population-- which find themselves along the continuum of interstitiality between resistant and acquiescent to myriad hegemonic agents influential in identity formation. Chican@s situate themselves historically among colonizers and colonized, belonging to a class long steeped in both the winning and losing side of the struggle for cultural primacy. What makes the Chican@ unique, in that sense, is that unlike the Mexican mestizo in diaspora, the Chican@ finds himself caught between currents that transcend generational limits. Chican@ "authenticity" is always in question because it is not germane to any geospatial context. Whereas a characteristic of a Mexican can be attributed to "the way things are in Mexico" just the same way as the characteristic of an Anglo can be pawned off as "Americanness", the Chican@ as an identity is further complicated by the lack of geospatial authenticity that has plagued it since it was "from Mexico" and will continue to do so until it reasserts its primacy as an identity or folds itself into the proverbial hegemonic "melting pot".

    The question of geospatial authenticity may be less influential in the case of New Mexicans who reside in their "querencia", a term used affectionately to describe their homeland. To be certain, residence in a given place for longer than the scope of the collective memory is foundational in the establishment of "authenticity". However, there are myriad influences at work in hybridity, not the least of which concern economic status, sexuality, religion, gender, power, and relational identity in an area of contact between more than one culture. While these are all factors that are important in the formation of identity universally, the elusiveness of their definition is further exacerbated by the complex "mixed" nature of Chican@s as a mestizo people. The classic testament to this can be seen in definitions of what it means to be Chican@ as posited by Gloria Anzaldúa, Oscar "Zeta" Acosta, Sandra Cisneros, and Richard Rodriguez.

    I'll conclude my thought on the problematic nature of identity as it relates to language employment in Chican@ context, by acknowledging the limitations of what can be accomplished in a blog. My rumination over this topic is intended only to shed light on the superficiality and overgeneralization of clumping the "Southwest" into an ostensibly homogeneous group, not to assert some authority or even "new" perspective on this topic.

Proyectos Finales

¡Hola muchachos!

Siempre me cuesta pensar en los proyectos finales. Para mí, la parte más difícil es escoger un tema específico. Siempre tengo alguna idea nebulosa de lo que quiero hacer, pero no siempre logro formarla y hacerla más concreta. A pesar de mis batallas con los proyectos finales, sí he aprendido algo: cuando hablo con la gente sobre mis intereses, se me van formando las ideas. Por lo tanto, quería abrir un espacio donde podemos conversar sobre nuestros proyectos finales. Si les interesa, podemos hacer comentarios, preguntas, compartir recursos y contactos, etc. En cuanto a la clase de Damián, no tengo el sílabo a mano, pero se me hace que vamos a tener que hacer algún estudio linguístico (not sure how to put in the little diéresis over the "u") y quizá algo con el habla vernáculo por medio de entrevistas. ¿Me equivoco? No sé cómo se sienten ustedes, pero yo me siento un poquito intimidado porque nunca he hecho un estudio linguístico formal. A ver qué piensan.

Comments on "Ruling Ethnicity Out"

I agree that ethnicity should be ruled out. Especially when we have people of our own raza who are for English Only (i.e. Dennis Chavez as we learned). I also recognize why for some people it is difficult to not leave ethnicity out. As we have read in most of the articles, Spanish speakers are generalized as a subordinate group. Many of who are viewed as "retard immigrants... people who speak an unintelligible language... Spanish people who are looked upon as an inferior race...handicaps of bi-lingual Mexican children...operation wetback[s]...bad guys...portrayed as dark, foreign, and disturbingly 'alien'...ghettoized Puerto Ricans...," to name a few. Even though many negative ethnic-specified comments are made, I am not suggesting that these comments are coming from a particular ethnicity. But it is clearly understandable why our raza tends to slash back with similar ethnic-specified remarks. I agree that it is a "reverse-racist agenda" of us to come back with similar comments. I think an experiment should be conduced to measure the social and language attitudes of people who are in a controlled circumstance. It would be interesting to discover how attitudes are affected and if there is a significant difference in pedagogical philosophies, in addition to any changes to previous beliefs. As we can see, it is obvious that these attitudes still vividly exist and affect people's behavior and beliefs.

Mi español no es perfecto....

Primero un saludo y veamos cómo funciona este blog. Son casi tres semanas de clase y me encuentro con las diversas variaciones del español, y lo que es aun más interesante una variación única: el español de Nuevo México. En estas semanas hemos leidos artículos que abarcan las específicas características de esta varaiación; además, de los acontecimientos históricos, políticos y económicos que han tendido un impacto positivo como negativo en la lengua. Uno de estos impactos que llamó mi atención es el considerarse en estos años de modernidad al español como "low class", sé que esto viene de hace cientos de años y es un suceso que tal vez nunca termine, Pero en sí qué es "low class" clase baja ¿¿¿por qué, por las diferencias de color, de nivel económico, de castas, de qué??? El lenguaje es lo que permite a un ser humano comunicarse con otro ser humano, no debería existir categorías entre ellos. Además el lenguaje por medio de la palabra de otorga una identidad y te crea una cultura, que te identifica. Este proceso debe ser carente de etiquetas debido a que cada comunidad tiene su propia forma de comunircarse entre ellos. El español chicano, novo mexicano, pachuco, mexicoamericano y hasta el spanglish son variaciones de una lengua general que tiene cientos de años de existencia, lo mismo ocurre con el inglés y no veo que este sufra de discriminación.
El mantenimiento del español en el estado de Nuevo México es un gran esfuerzo por preservar la cultura e identidad y creo que no sólo se debe motivar sino inlcuso ayudar a que se mantenga no sólo en NM sino en todos los lugares donde se hable el español.

Rule Ethnicity Out

I feel like I have to blog about this because it left me feeling very uneasy after class today. I think that we have to be careful to give due regard to objectivity in our class discussions. In the conversation regarding the teaching of ESL to the Spanish-speaking population, the assertion was made that anglo-saxon ESL teachers were more likely to carry an assimilation agenda. I feel like this assertion is not only impossible to prove, but it is a social attitude that misses the point of what we are trying to study at the University. I maintain and would like to strongly emphasize that ethnicity as an isolated variable has no bearing on an instructor's pedagogical philosophy. That kind of statement leaves our scholarly effort vulnerable to myriad criticisms, not the least of which is carrying a reverse-racist agenda ourselves. So what do we do? I think we can say anecdotally that among a population sector in a given location there are palpable social attitudes that manifest themselves in the classroom in the form of an assimilation agenda. But we have to focus on the fact that they are social and language attitudes that are born of a person's life experience, not of their ethnicity that decides the kind of agenda / pedagogical philosophy carried by an instructor. In other words, it is not the instructor's ethnicity, but rather the context in which they were raised and educated that leads to their social and language attitudes. If we could create an experiment that controlled for the social attitudes that are manifest in language and its instruction, I am very confident that we would find no significant difference in the pedagogical philosophies of ESL instructors when categorized solely on ethnic terms.

Response to "Mexican vs. Chicano Spanish"

In the interest of full disclosure: I was born and raised Chicano, for as much and as little as that entails.

I see a couple of factors that contribute to the problems you are discussing in your blog: 1) The problematic effect of the term "Chicano" applied to a language. 2) A classic case of a social attitude carrying over into the perception of something that should be neutral, in this case language. The effect created by these two problems is that our ability to find valuable extrapolations from this article is greatly reduced. These articles should be useful to us in establishing trends and being able to look for pedagogical ramifications, but the application of such a broadly defined term like Chicano to this data set makes it so diverse that few useful extrapolations can be made from it. Likewise, the introduction of social attitudes into the analysis of language trends complicates the picture to the point where the most you can extract from the data are statements regarding the attitudes themselves.

The definition of the term Chicano is among the most problematic that I have wrestled with. Not only because there is no consensus on the exact parameters of what constitutes a Chicano, but also because it is a term that originated as a form of resistance among a subordinated population. As a result it is a term that has been scorned by both the population being resisted against and by those of the same subordinated population who disagree, for myriad reasons I won't try to document, with at least some component of the resistance of Chicanos. The problematic nature of the term Chicano is exemplified in the readings you reference in this blog. Rosaura Sanchez is very liberal with her use of the term, applying it essentially to all Mexican-Americans who were born north of the border. In contrast, Valdes uses a variety of labels for the same population and makes only indirect reference to Chicanos. I think this leads to a blurring of the lines defining who is saying what about whom, and the intentions/connotations carried therein. In class, Damián expressed that, in his perception, whosoever shall self-identify as Chicano is consequently and necessarily Chicano. This is more restrictive than Sanchez's application of the term, but still posits no qualitative characteristics uniform to the Chicano population other than their own desire to be called Chicano. Consequently, the utility of arguing language to be "Chicano" when founded on such a nondescript definition of that term, as in Sanchez's article, is negligible at best, and probably goes as far as counterproductive.

The blog "Mexican vs. Chicano Spanish" states, "I have met many Mexican Americans that cringe when they hear Chicano Spanish, even more so if they are classified or labeled in the "category", and will often say 'no hables como un Chicano'." This is a classic example of a social attitude manifested in a language attitude. The act of cringing when another person talks is a judgment behavior regarding their language. However, as we see in our linguistic studies, language should be seen as a value neutral means of expression. No dialect of a language is worth more than another. A person's reality is communicated through their language. Differences in speech (other than those attributable to developmental differences) usually reflect reality differences. When someone says don't speak like a Chicano, the logical question to ask is, why not? What is implied is that it being Chicano is inferior to being Mexican. Whether you agree with the implication or not, it is easy to see that this is a situation where the judgment of the Chicano person is more important than the judgment of language. In my opinion, this judgment of language provides nothing to the linguistic picture of Southwest Spanish other than to emphasize the compounded discrimination faced by heritage language learners in their effort to learn the language that belongs to them every bit as much as it belongs to a native speaker from any Spanish-speaking nation.

In my opinion, the value of Sanchez's article is diminished by such a nondescript and problematic term for her language set. Doing so doubly plagues her article. On the one hand it leaves the data set broad to the point that few concrete extrapolations can be made from it, and on the other it invites all of the scrutiny that has been independently extended to the term Chicano. It would seem that only in the case of substantial payoff would one invite such a problematic term into their research.