Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US 9781847691798

Citation preview

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS Series Editor: Dr Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Roskilde University, Denmark Consulting Advisory Board: François Grin, Université de Genève, Switzerland Kathleen Heugh, Human Services Research Council, South Africa Miklós Kontra, Linguistics Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary Masaki Oda, Tamagawa University, Japan The series seeks to promote multilingualism as a resource, the maintenance of linguistic diversity, and development of and respect for linguistic human rights worldwide through the dissemination of theoretical and empirical research. The series encourages interdisciplinary approaches to language policy, drawing on sociolinguistics, education, sociology, economics, human rights law, political science, as well as anthropology, psychology, and applied language studies. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS Series Editor: Dr Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Roskilde University, Denmark

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US Edited by

M. Rafael Salaberry

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Buffalo • Toronto

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US/Edited by M. Rafael Salaberry. Linguistic Diversity and Language Rights: 6. 1. Education, Bilingual–United States. 2. English language–Study and teaching– United States–Foreign speakers. 3. Second language acquisition–United States. 4. Language and languages–United States. I. Salaberry, M. Rafael. LC3731.L34 2009 370.117’50973–dc22 2009017379 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-84769-178-1 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-84769-177-4 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA. Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada. Copyright © 2009 M. Rafael Salaberry and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by The Charlesworth Group Printed and bound in Great Britain by the Cromwell Press Group.

Contents Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi 1

Language Allegiances Rafael Salaberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2 Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes in Reading, Pennsylvania Almeida Jacqueline Toribio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3

A Sociolinguistic View of Speech Sciences Nancy Niedzielski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4

Linguistic Profiling: The Linguistic Point of View Dennis R. Preston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

5

The Bilingual’s Hoarse Voice: Losing Rights in Two Languages Sandra Del Valle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

6

Problems with the ‘Language-as-Resource’ Discourse in the Promotion of Heritage Languages in the US Thomas Ricento . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

7

English Hegemony and the Politics of Ethno-Linguistic Justice in the US Ronald Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

8 Livin’ and Teachin’ la lengua loca: Glocalizing US Spanish Ideologies and Practices Ofelia García . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 9

Bilingual Education: Assimilation, Segregation and Integration Rafael Salaberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

v

Contributors Sandra Del Valle is a civil rights attorney. She was an Associate Counsel at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund for 14 years where she specialized in language rights, bilingual education, issues in urban education and the rights of day laborers. She is currently a Senior Staff Attorney at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest where she works on behalf of individuals with mental illness and children with special educational needs. She is the author of several articles on language rights and a book entitled Language Rights and the Law in the United States: Finding Our Voices (Multilingual Matters) Ofelia García is Professor or Urban Education at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. She has also been Professor of Bilingual Education at Columbia University´s Teachers College, Department of International and Transcultural Studies, and at The City College of New York, and has been Dean of the School of Education in the Brooklyn Campus of Long Island University. Her latest books include Bilingual Education in the 21st century: A Global Perspective (in press); Imagining Multilingual Schools (with Skutnabb-Kangas & Torres-Guzmán); A Reader in Bilingual Education (with Colin Baker); and Language Loyalty, Continuity and Change: Joshua Fishman’s Contributions to International Sociolinguistics (with Peltz & Schiffman). She is a Fellow of the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS) in South Africa, and has been a Fulbright Scholar, and a Spencer Fellow of the US National Academy of Education. Nancy Niedzielski worked for several years as a speech scientist for Panasonic Technologies, Inc., on automated speech recognition and speech synthesis, and she received three US Patents during her tenure with that company. Currently she is a faculty member in the department of Linguistics at Rice University. She is currently a consultant to the Houston FBI and other agencies on issues pertaining to voice identification, and to NASA on the Robonaut project. She is the co-author of Folk Linguistics with Dennis Preston, and is currently working on Sociolinguistics and Speech Perception for Erlbaum. vi

Contributors

vii

Dennis R. Preston (Professor of English, Oklahoma State University and University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and English, Michigan State University) was President of the American Dialect Society (2001-2) and served on the Executive Boards of that society, the International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, New Ways of Analyzing Variation, and the Linguistic Society of America, as well as the editorial boards of Language, Impact, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Kwartalkik Filologiczny, Journal of Sociolinguistics, Compass. His work focuses on sociolinguistics, dialectology, ethnography, and minority language and variety education. His most recent book-length publications are, with Nancy Niedzielski, Folk Linguistics (2000), with Daniel Long, A Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, Volume II (2002), Needed Research in American Dialects (2003) and, with Brian Joseph and Carol G. Preston, Linguistic Diversity in Michigan and Ohio (2005). Thomas Ricento is Professor of Applied Linguistics, University of Calgary. He has published widely in the field of language policy, politics and ideology. His most recent publication is An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method (Blackwell, 2006). Other books include Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities (co-edited with Barbara Burnaby) and Ideology, Politics, and Language Policies: Focus on English (editor). He is founding co-editor (with Terrence G. Wiley) of the Journal of Language, Identity, and Education (Lawrence Erlbaum). Rafael Salaberry is Professor of Spanish Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition at University of Texas–Austin. He is Associate Chair and Director of the Language Program in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese. His research and teaching are focused on a variety of topics centered on the acquisition of second languages among adults. His most recent publications are: Marking Past Tense in Second Language: A theoretical model (2008, Continuum Press); The Art of Teaching Spanish: Second Language Acquisition from Research to Praxis (with Barbara Lafford, 2006, Georgetown University Press); and Tense and Aspect in the Romance Languages (with Dalila Ayoun, 2005, John Benjamins). Professor Salaberry has also produced a one-hour documentary on bilingual education entitled The Choosers. Ronald Schmidt, Sr is author of Language Policy and Identity Politics in the United States (Temple University Press, 2000), and professor of political science at California State University, Long Beach. He has published numerous articles on the politics of language and language policy in the US and Canada and his current work centers on the

viii

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

incorporation of immigrants in the US and Canada. Schmidt has held a Fulbright Research Chair at the University of Montreal (Quebec), and he has been president of the Western Political Science Association and co-president of the American Political Science Association’s Organized Section on Race, Ethnicity and Politics. Almeida Jacqueline Toribio is Professor of Linguistics in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Texas–Austin. Her major fields of inquiry are linguistic theory, Spanish syntax and contact linguistics, with specializations in language variation and change, bilingualism and attrition. Her publications appear in Bilingualism: Language & Cognition; International Journal of Bilingualism; International Journal of the Sociology of Language; Lingua; Linguistic Inquiry; Linguistics; Spanish in Context and Probus, among others. She has co-edited, with Barbara Bullock, the Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching.

Chapter 1

Language Allegiances RAFAEL SALABERRY

Introduction Is the competence to speak a language (for example, Spanish) an essential or important feature of identity (for example, Hispanic or Latino)? To what extent is self-perceived identity based on language abilities in one or more languages? What effect does bilingualism have on specific identities? Does bilingualism lead to ‘fractured’ identities? Does a state need a ‘national’ language to become a nation separate from other nations? Are multilingual states less united than the ones that promote a single national language? These questions, among others, focus our attention on the relationship between language and identity. Indeed, identity seems to be associated, at least to some extent, with our competency in one or more languages. For instance, the rapid shift in language competency in, or usage of, the language(s) used by the children and grandchildren of immigrants is typically linked with the severing of ties with the specific culture associated with that language (e.g. Brodie et al., 2002; García-Bedolla, 2005; Kymlicka, 1995; Kymlicka & Patten, 2003; May, 2001; Sears et al., 1999).1 This very close association between use of a language and the sense of affiliation with the culture associated with it may be regarded as a form of language allegiance in that language affiliation seems to garner a type of loyalty and support that few other identities command (e.g. Ricento, 1998, 2000; Schmid, 2001). For instance, Cornell and Bratton (1999: 635) point out that ‘for many Latino/as their ‘visibility’ stems more from their lack of acculturation than from their skin color.’ In this respect, language seems to be one of the main components of acculturation mentioned by Cornell and Bratton in opposition to race. Thus, given the importance of language in defining cultural identities, this book will address a number of questions associated with the concept of language allegiances: are language allegiances rational; is allegiance to more than one language possible; how do we define language; are allegiances to 1

2

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

minority languages supportive of a liberal state or antithetical to it; can we be objective in our analysis of our language varieties? In this introductory chapter, I will provide an initial framework of analysis, and will summarize the main intent of the various chapters that make up this volume.

Language and Identity Is language an essential feature of identity? From a sociolinguistic perspective, language can play the role of a boundary-marking function that helps to denote identity (Blommaert, 2005; Cameron, 1995; Lippi-Greeen, 1997; Tabouret-Keller, 1999). For instance, Cameron (1995: 17) points out that ‘speakers use speech to signal their sense of themselves as belonging to group A and being different from group B.’ Indeed, the association between language and identity is clear from the analysis of surveys, public opinion polls and demographic data in general (e.g. Alba, 2004; Crawford, 2000; GarcíaBedolla, 2005; Sears et al., 1999). For instance, based on the analysis of data from approximately 100 personal interviews, García Bedolla (2005: 81) claims that the ‘collective identification [of Latinos] is intimately related to their language, so it becomes problematic for some when they lose their connection to that language’ (see also Toribio, this volume). Similarly, Sears et al. (1999) reached an analogous conclusion based on the analysis of questionnaires that measured attitudes towards social identity, political representation, resource allocation, etc. Their results revealed that second and third generation Latinos (in Los Angeles) progressively eliminate ties to their heritage language at the same time that they progressively assimilate to mainstream US culture (as much as previous European immigrants did). In this respect, language shift can serve to signal that an individual or group does not wish to retain any identity features significantly different from the ones held by the majority speakers of a language. Interestingly, it is not so clear that identity precedes its signaling through linguistic means. For instance, Cameron wonders: ‘[i]f identity pre-exists language, why do speakers have to mark it so assiduously?’ (17). In other words, it is possible that language, to some extent, helps us define our identity; that is, language precedes our self-identification. From a socio-economic point of view, language and identity are also inextricably linked. For instance, according to May (2001: chap. 4), the process of language shift in Ireland (from Irish to English) can be explained as the outcome of a socio-political process that has linked

Language Allegiances

3

English with modernization, and, ultimately, with economic and social success. Along the same lines, but with reference to the case of Spanish in the US in particular, Cornell and Bratton (1999: 629) argue that ‘[t]he minority can retain its language and its economic independence only by restricting itself to segregated workplaces and to teams that are monolingual in the minority language’. They, thus conclude that the process of cultural assimilation is equivalent to ‘reinventing oneself to surmount the linguistic and cultural divides that separate a minority from the majority group’ (p. 644). The connection between language and identity is also well represented in literature, and especially so when monolithic cultural identities are being challenged (for relevant examples see García, this volume and Ricento, this volume). In this respect, Cornell and Bratton (1999) point out that important writers have explicitly noted that their cultural identification is intimately connected with the language they use in their writings. The literary authors cited by Cornell and Bratton are worth mentioning because their work is indicative of language shifts and concomitant cultural transitions. For instance, Gloria Anzaldúa, writing in English and Spanish, conveys what it means to be mestiza in the US, whereas Toni Morrison describes how her writing in English can be regarded as quintessentially African-American. I note that the above-mentioned writers use vernacular forms of English and Spanish to convey mixed and hybrid senses of their identity. Cornell and Bratton also note the way the writer Jorge Luis Borges identifies himself as a Latinamericanist (‘I am inseparable from the Spanish language’). Interestingly, Borges was a fluent bilingual who studied in a bilingual English–Spanish school and read the writings of famous English-speaking authors in the original language. The notion that language and identity create an inseparable bond brings about some difficult conceptual and by extension legal challenges. For instance, Del Valle (2003: 28) points out that only immutable, unchangeable characteristics define protected groups; thus, only immutable characteristics endow groups with legal rights. More specifically, policies that disfavor mutable characteristics do not, for instance deprive of job opportunities, rather they condition them ‘on a willingness to comply with workplace rules’ (Ford, 2005: 185, stress added). Does language constitute a mutable characteristic that can be changed at will? Some legal scholars have argued that language is not a mutable characteristic in the sense of an ‘on–off switch’, and have thus proposed that language is an essential property of cultural identity and affiliation (e.g. Cornell & Bratton, 1999; Matsuda, 1991; Piatt, 1990; Rodriguez, 2001). For instance, Rodriguez (2001: 142) argues emphatically that ‘[l]inguistic difference

4

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

retains an immutable dimension precisely because it has been interwoven into the linguistic development of the speaker’. Along similar lines, Piatt (1990: 180–181) argues against the theory of mutability of identity alongside changes in language proficiency found in García v. Gloor because such a legal position ‘fails to take into account the individual’s interest in viewing the world through his or her culture’. Finally, Del Valle (this volume) wonders: Why are language minorities treated differently by the courts in Gloor and Spun Steak than African-Americans in Brown v. Board of Education? Aren’t all minorities the ‘other’? Aren’t most minorities easily ascertainable by some kind of marker, whether color or accent or language? The answer seems to be a qualified ‘yes’. Del Valle thus argues that language represents as powerful an indicator of identity as any other, including race. She acknowledges, however, that the level of discrimination against African-Americans may have been disproportionately higher than the level of discrimination represented in previous legal cases against, for instance, bilingual employees (see also Ford, 2005). Nevertheless, the perspective that the only wronged rights that have to be addressed are the ones from the past represents a myopic position. On the other hand, some authors disagree with the strong association of language and identity (e.g. Appiah, 2005; Ford, 2005; Gracia, 1999, in press; Gutmann, 2003). For instance, Gracia (1999: 44) defines the term Hispanic within the context of what he calls the familial–historical view: ‘. . . in spite of the many differences that separate Hispanics, we have a common identity of a familial, historical sort, although this identity is not based on common properties. . .’. Most importantly, Gracia argues that ‘. . . [n]one of the conditions mentioned — territory, political unit, language, culture, race, genetic lineage, or class — functions either as a necessary or a sufficient condition. . .’ (p. 14). Therefore, language, among many other features, cannot be considered an essential feature of being Hispanic. May (2001: 129), however, points out that ‘to say that language is not an inevitable feature of identity is not the same as saying it is unimportant’. To be more precise, May (2003: 140–141, stress added) claims: I reject unequivocally any conception of language as a ‘primordial’ feature of identity, along with any related essentialist notions of language-identity link . . . Where I beg to differ is [. . .] to assume that, if language is merely a contingent factor of identity, it cannot therefore (ever) be a significant or constitutive factor of identity.

Language Allegiances

5

Similarly, but from a broader perspective, Cornell and Bratton (1999: 681, stress added) state that ‘the proposition that language and culture are not coterminous does not imply that language is not a basic parameter of culture’. In fact, we should note that Gracia (in press, stress added), more precisely, explains that ‘[t]he use of the Iberian languages is one of the main features that unites Hispanics and can serve to distinguish them in certain contexts. In other words, the latter statement seems to give language a sort of preeminence among other features of the Hispanic identity. Overall, the debate about the nature of the connection between language and cultural identity can be assessed from several different perspectives: language can be regarded (a) as a true essential property of identity; (b) as a belief about an essential property; (c) as a symbol that denotes cultural affiliation; and, finally, (d) as a fluid parameter subject to social construction. In essence, there are at least three non-essentialist arguments that may account for an effect of language on the constitution of identities. As a matter of fact, the position against a strong essentialist view of language as constitutive of identity — cogently argued by Gracia and others — is accepted by researchers who have been strong advocates of language rights (e.g. May, 2001). Having said that, however, we need to differentiate actual essential properties of identity from the perception of an essential property of identity. That is, even if Gracia were right in that the Spanish language may not define Hispanic identity in essentialist terms, the belief that language and identity are essentially connected may have important consequences on cultural group affiliations (e.g. Banaji & Bhaskar, 2000; Bonifiglio, 2002; Cameron, 1995; Lippi-Green, 1997; Matsuda, 1991). Furthermore, we also need to consider the possibility that even if language were not an essential property of identity, language could, nevertheless, symbolically represent an identity — equally or even better than other identity features (e.g. Cameron, 1995; Lippi-Green, 1997). For instance, Cameron points out: ‘one common function of arguments about language is to stand in for arguments on subjects people are reluctant to broach more directly’ (p. 217). Indeed, Cameron highlights ‘the powerful symbolism in which language stands for other kinds of order — moral, social and political’ (p. 25). Finally, we need to consider the possibility that cultural identity may not be static, but rather fluid and dynamic in nature.2 For instance, Cornell and Bratton (1999: 675) make a distinction between parameters and limits to point out that identities can be reconstructed based on how we perceive ourselves and how others perceive us. In sum, the belief about what is an essential property of identity, the symbolic power of certain properties of

6

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

cultural identity and the wish to be perceived in a certain way may be as crucial as (or even more crucial than) actual inherent properties that make up an identity. The subtle gradience of language categories Not only is the association of language and identity very complex, but the delimitation of a definition of language is complex as well. Take the meaning of Spanish, for instance. Gracia (1999: 10) wonders: . . . how much do some African Cubans, some native Bolivians, and some Asturians have in common linguistically? The accent would be very different, and so would be the vocabulary and even much of the syntax. Would they understand each other? Gracia’s question points to the obvious complexity of the term language and how generic labels such as Spanish, English etc. are misleading because they refer to many different representations or delimitations of language at once. This oversimplification of the reality of the definition of language is deceptive and, more importantly, it seems to be popularly accepted as part of the metaphor of ‘language trees’, and its concomitant branching-off of languages as categorical entities. Contrary to this view, Penny (2000: 20–28) proposes that the best metaphor to describe language variation (whether regional, historical or social) is that of the perception of colors. Colors are defined, in objective terms, as specific frequencies in the visible light range of the electromagnetic spectrum. But the definition of color can also be a subjective experience because the light spectrum consists of an infinite gradation of wavelengths that are arbitrarily segmented by the human visual system into the seven basic colors of the rainbow. In other words, color categories are continuous rather than clear-cut and, most importantly, categories reside in the eye of the beholder. Languages seem to be better defined as continuous entities with no clear-cut boundaries, although, as is the case with colors, we can have categorical perceptions of them. Blommaert (2005: 245) explains the consequences of not taking into account the metaphor of the light rainbow when he notes that ‘[w]e have failed to see the fine shades of identity often articulated not by one monoglot “language”, but by delicate and moment-to-moment evolving variation between varieties of language, including accents, registers, styles, and genres’. Not surprisingly, thus, we find significant discrepancies in the way we describe language varieties as standard or non-standard to the point of incorrectly describing some varieties as

Language Allegiances

7

abnormal (e.g. Bonifiglio, 2002; García, this volume; Niedzielski, this volume). More importantly, not only are languages not ‘categorical’ entities neatly defined and segmented, but their associations with specific identities are also fluid and dynamic. Blommaert, thus states that identity is best seen not as one item, but as a repertoire of different possible identities, each of which has a particular range or scope and function. In that sense, a term such as ‘national identity’ is, as said above, best seen as a specific ascriptive label attached to people. (245) In essence, it is clear that we cannot address language allegiances within the overly simplistic framework of classical categories. For instance, how do we determine whether bilinguals can switch from one language to another when we cannot categorically define where one language ends and the other one starts? In this respect, Francois Grosjean (1998) coined the phrase ‘a bilingual is not two monolinguals in one.’ His assertion summarizes a basic concept of bilingualism (cf. the lack of a clear demarcation between the two languages) that is shared by most — if not all — scholars who are specialists on this topic (e.g. Hamers & Blanc, 2000; Myers-Scotton, 2005; Romaine, 1995). This concept, however, stands in contrast with popular views about bilingualism in which languages are discrete and in which any syncretism is perceived as tainting either one of the categorically perceived individual languages (e.g. Grijelmo, 1998). This fluid and dynamic definition of language identities leads to other problematic phenomena with regards to the identification of speakers of specific varieties of language in a legal setting (Preston, this volume) and the adjudication of the right to speak a preferred language at the workplace (Del Valle, this volume).

Language Allegiances The preeminence of the majority language The association of language and identity is corroborated by evidence that shows that losing ties to a particular language entails losing ties to that identity (e.g. Brodie et al., 2002; Sears et al., 1999). For instance, as mentioned above, the findings from Sears et al. (1999) revealed that second and third generation Latinos are assimilating as much as previous European immigrants (as measured by attitudes towards social identity, political representation, resource allocation, etc.). Sears et al. argue that their data are revealing of a transition towards a superordinate national identity model (cf. mainstream views). In fact, many

8

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

scholars share that position and conclude that religious and ethnic diversity is not as significant (real) as popularly assumed, thus there is no substantive risk of ‘Balkanization’ (e.g. Aguilar, 2004; Appiah, 2005).3 Most significantly, Aguilar argues that the Latinization of the US is a fantasy of Chicano intellectuals and academics. And much of the promoted singularity of the Latin identity is, in reality, imaginary, although for its proponents — and for ethnic corporations in general — it may represent a reality. (pp. 203–204)4 Notice that the unapologetic position advanced by Aguilar underlines what most demographic data in the US seem to indicate — that the so-called Latin or Hispanic identity in the US society is either inexistent or non-viable (e.g. Alba, 2004; Crawford, 2000; García Bedolla, 2005; Sears et al., 1999).5 It is ironic that in this context of clear domination of one majority language/culture in the US, the public support of bilingualism and of minority languages in general is perceived to be the beginning of a possible threat against the project of a homogeneous national culture. Such is the main concern of organizations such as English-only that loudly proclaim that English is under the threat of, especially, Spanish (see Del Valle, this volume; Ricento, this volume). The value of a super-ordinate cultural identity It must be acknowledged, however, that even if the minority language/culture had no real chance to destabilize the status quo that the majority language/culture enjoys, there could still be valid reasons not to encourage the development of minority views. Indeed, despite the noble objectives of accommodation of minority groups, we should recognize that cultural and language allegiances may, in theory, lead to negative outcomes. In this respect, Appiah (2005: 139) is right when he points out that the Robber’s cave experiment (Sherif, 1966) taught us about ethnogenesis: groups are defined by opposition to one another. It is worth summarizing the findings of Sherif’s famous study given its relevance for the arguments advanced against the support of minority groups in a liberal society. Sherif’s experiment on intergroup conflict and cooperation was carried out in a boy scouts camp (at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma) with a group of 22 12-year-old children divided into two groups of eleven children each. In the first stage of the study (4–6 days), the groups were kept separate and were given the chance to bond and create a sense of belonging to the group (the groups named

Language Allegiances

9

themselves the ‘Rattlers’ and the ‘Eagles’). In the second stage of the project, the two groups were led to compete with each other with no second prizes awarded (winner-takes-all) for another period of about 4–6 days. During this stage, the groups became very antagonistic against each other both verbally and physically and eventually decided that they had no desire to be together (e.g. not to eat together in the same mess hall). Finally, during the last stage of the experiment, researchers created some super-ordinate goals (gathering water and renting a movie of their choice) that required the collaboration of both groups. This last stage was successful, eventually generating a great deal of generosity among members of both groups towards members of the other group. As stated by Appiah, the outcome of Sherif’s study seems to suggest that cultural groups are defined by opposition to other groups (e.g. Brewer, 1999, 2000; McCauley, Jussim & Lee, 1995; Wright & Taylor, 2003). Thus, one may be tempted to conclude that it is important to eliminate this antagonistic perception of reality and favor, instead, the development of a more overarching cultural make-up through the promotion of super-ordinate goals (for example, the project of a democratic liberal state). Appiah ultimately concludes that the consolidation and maintenance of a homogeneous cultural make-up represents a valid objective of a viable liberal society. . . [f]or the erasure of differences within social groups is not necessarily something to be condemned. Rather it raises the question of whether there are certain norms or uniformities that are useful in preserving a benign social order — whether some measure of homogeneity is a good thing. (p. 152) Similarly, Ford (2005: 155, 158) views cultural syncretism as an eminently good objective of a liberal society, further arguing against the ‘counter-productive message that difference discourse sends to the disadvantaged: . . . that they have a right to persist in socially dysfunctional behavior and that the way to a better life is not to adapt.’ Nussbaum (1997: 109) is also opposed to the politics of cultural identity: ‘The goal of producing world citizens is profoundly opposed to the spirit of identity politics, which holds that one’s primary affiliation is with one’s local group, whether religious or ethnic or based on sexuality or gender.’ Most dramatically, and in non-ambiguous terminology, Sleeper (1997: 93) warns us that: if public policy and the media only heighten people’s awareness of one another’s religious and ethnic identities, they will hinder individuals’ passages (and promotions) to a second, broader tier of

10

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

American creativity and belonging. We need that second tier more than ever before. Precisely because the country is becoming more racially and religiously diverse, we should be working overtime to identify and nurture the shared values and affectional bonds that have spared it the fate of so many nations. Sleeper’s statement can be regarded as a call for immediate action (before it is too late) and thus avoid following ‘the fate’ of other nations.6 The example of French speakers in Quebec trying to secede from the rest of Canada is an example that has been used in the past to warn US citizens of the impending danger of ‘Balkanization’.

Accommodation of Minority Languages/Identities The above-mentioned arguments in favor of the promotion of cultural homogeneity to develop a liberal democratic society are not enough, however, to address some thorny outstanding questions that challenge the view that a homogeneous culture has to be ‘nurtured’. For instance, should the use of other languages and bilingualism in general be regarded as dysfunctional (as implied by Ford in his general statement)? Should the use of other languages and bilingualism in general put the users of languages other than the dominant one at a disadvantage with regards to monolingual speakers of that majority language (as warned by Sleeper)? Should access to bilingual education in the US put children at a disadvantage with respect to children being taught in English only? In this section, I will argue that the promotion and support of education in languages other than the majority one strengthen (as opposed to compromise) the project of developing a liberal and democratic society (its resource value: Ruiz, 1984). I substantiate this position along the lines of three main arguments: the use of majority goals as the reference point by which basic principles of a liberal society are assessed; the complementarity of majority and minority goals in a liberal society; and the effect of group stereotypes on judgments about the promotion of minority languages. Who speaks for the liberal state? We should note that (at least some of) the same authors who favor cultural syncretism also argue that there is a role to be played by minority groups as long as the views and perspectives of the latter are not intolerant or antithetical to the basic principles of a liberal society. Thus,

Language Allegiances

11

there is a tendency (intended or not) to give priority to the majority culture/language, given that the majority views are regarded to be the reference point that other cultures should adapt to (Kymlicka, 1995; May, 2001). For instance, Appiah (2005: 203) points out that one legitimate function of a liberal state is, and has been, to attenuate the strong, Blut-und-Boden identitarian commitments it encounters: to process the surly sources of alternative authority — whether Catholicism or English nativism — and leave something diluted by broader liberal commitments: call it Identity Lite. . . The question one should ask is: who speaks for the liberal state? Even though it is not explicitly stated in Appiah’s statement above, it appears that there is a reference point that determines what is and what is not an identitarian commitment that needs to be attenuated. That reference point seems to be associated with the majority culture given the popular view that majority interests are aligned with civic goals, whereas minority interests are associated with ethnic goals (Kymlicka, 1995). But even if such popular (and inaccurate) perception of the ‘civic’ nature of majority views and the ‘ethnic’ nature of minority perspectives, were not an intended assumption of Appiah’s statement above, there are structural factors that lead us to the same unfortuntate outcome. To wit, Appiah further affirms that the state has at its disposal specific means by which that concept of Identity Lite can be achieved: ‘. . . if intolerance of other identities is built into an identity, or if learning the views of others except as shameful error is one of their norms, we will be seeking, in public education, to reshape those identities, so as to exclude this feature’ (p. 211). Interestingly, one could argue that it is the imbalance of power that, by definition, characterizes the majority group, the structural factor that is likely to lead the latter group to be intolerant of the minority group rather than the other way around. Majority–minority complementary goals The idea that the support and development of a minority language/ culture does not necessarily threaten the liberal state and that it can be integrated within a majority language/culture is cogently articulated by Rodríguez (2001: 185), who proposes that ‘[a]ccommodation should . . . make it possible for linguistic minorities to incorporate the dominant language into their identities and communities without being coerced into assimilation’. Rodríguez specifically argued that the state should actively support the concept of fluid civic identity. That is, the state

12

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

should support the rights of citizens to retreat to ‘culturally defined communities in search of meaning for living or personal values’ but structure ‘public institutions in a manner that discourages such retreats or rejections of participation in public life’ (157). In other words, individuals should not feel threatened or discouraged from using languages other than the majority language (cf. English) in the public context. Taking an even stronger position, Schmidt (this volume) supports a ‘national policy of fluent bilingualism, enabling Latinos (and others) to become fully bilingual in both English and Spanish’. Schmidt states that such a national policy would assure ‘social mobility (in English)’ at the same time that it would support ‘valued ethnic ties (via Spanish language mastery)’. Individual rights and group (perceived) identity There is yet a third argument in favor of the promotion of minority languages/identities that is worth discussing in detail: the effect of group stereotypes on individuals. In this respect, Appiah (2000; 2005: 194–195) describes three main types of stereotypes that are useful for our discussion: (1) normative stereotypes (e.g. gender-related norms of dress and behavior); (2) false stereotypes (e.g. when the group does not have that property); and, most importantly, (3) statistical stereotypes. The latter occur when we ascribe ‘to an individual a property in the belief that it is characteristic of some social group to which she belongs, where there is indeed a statistical correlation between that property and being a member of that group, but where, in fact, she does not have that property’ (2000: 47). Statistical stereotypes are important because their activation and effects are antithetical to a fundamental principle of justice: individuals cannot be guilty by the fact that they are associated to/are part of a certain group, but rather because they have done something as individuals. One clear example of a statistical stereotype is the phenomenon of racial profiling (Ford, 2005: 197–198; Sleeper, 1997: 28), prominently represented by the case of owners of jewelry stores that use a buzzer system to deny entrance to some customers if they regard them as more likely to commit a crime (typically young black males). A series of invited editorials published by The New Republic in 1986 presented various opinions on this case of racial profiling. Ultimately, the editorial opinions assessed whether stereotypes and prejudice are the result of abnormal behavior of socially maladapted individuals (thus, profiling is racist), or, whether stereotypes and prejudice should be regarded

Language Allegiances

13

as normal behavior rooted in basic mechanisms of perception and categorization (thus, profiling is rational). Among the responses published in The New Republic, a noted economist, Williams (1986), argued that storeowners are acting rationally by ‘playing the odds’.7 In fact, he points out that we normally make decisions based on perceived statistical evidence: Doctors can predict the probability of hypertension by knowing race, and osteoporosis by knowing sex. A white jeweler who does not open his door to young black males cannot be labeled a racist any more than a black taxi driver who refuses to pick up a young black male at night. Essentially, Williams argued that we make decisions on the basis of limited information, but we can do so efficiently and economically if we rely on statistical trends. Thus, Williams argues, to some extent the effect of racial profiling is almost unavoidable, and in some cases justified as the only rational decision. The editors of The New Republic contradicted Williams’ position stating that ‘[i]f race is ever a factor in deciding whom you admit to your store, you are breaking the law’ (p. 22). In fact, at least some legal scholars seem to concur with the opinion of the editors of The New Republic. For instance, Armour (1994: 794) argues that ‘[u]ltimately, the courts’ reliance on statistical generalizations may provide an official imprimatur on stereotypes about the class in question.’ Is it possible that Williams’ argument about rational thinking represents a more pragmatic approach than the one voiced by legal scholars? Only in principle, because, as we will see, Williams’ argument is incomplete. Before we review in more detail Williams’ rational thinking approach, I will summarize a proposed solution to the problem of racial profiling that is in line with William’s thesis. More specifically, some have argued that racial profiling in general can be effectively addressed through an increased reliance on personal responsibility and civility, instead of any ‘wholesale’ solution along the lines of cultural groups. Thus, Appiah (2005: 152) suggests that ‘culture is not the problem and it is not the solution’. Along the same lines, Aguilar (2004: 183) argues that ‘culture takes over a moral space that is not its own. We should respect people, not their cultures.’8 And, Sleeper (1997: 155) admonishes that ‘[w]hen respect for individualism is intense enough, its judgments of individuals are not so easily circumscribed by race.’ Although the emphasis on individuality advocated by Aguilar, Appiah, Sleeper and others is valid, it does not provide an adequate solution to a problem (i.e. statistical

14

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

stereotypes) that, by its very nature, seems to be impervious to the exercise of individual responsibility. The main problem with Williams’ analysis is not that it is misguided on its emphasis in the role of rational thinking (cf. Intelligent Bayesians); rather, the problem is that Williams seems to minimize the negative effects of perceived statistical evidence (thus, leading to the overly simplistic solutions focused on individual responsibility detailed above). In fact, findings from modern social psychology show that humans’ cognitive processing of statistical information is guided by bounded rationality, not by classic rationality (e.g. Banaji & Bhaskar, 2000; Kahneman, 2003). For instance, humans tend to make a logical mistake called the inverse fallacy (or conditional probability fallacy) that essentially confuses the posterior probability of an event with the prior probability of that event (e.g. Villejoubert & Mandel, 2002).9 In essence, not only do humans tend to rely on statistical generalizations (as Williams points out), but they may also underestimate (or overestimate) the effect of specific trends that they find in their daily interactions with data of various types (including racial profiles). The obvious consequence of underestimating the importance of the effects of bounded rationality is that we are discounting clear and negative trends against specific individuals because they are members of specific groups. Thus, with reference to the ‘jeweler’s dilemma’, if individuals who are members of a specific minority (e.g. AfricanAmericans) are effectively treated not as individuals, but as members of (perceived) categories (be they based on skin color, language etc.), we would be hard-pressed not to support the minority group as such. In line with the latter argument, the editors of The New Republic specifically argue for the accommodation of minority groups: Expecting a jewelry storeowner to risk his life in the service of colorblind justice is expecting too much. Acknowledging this reality, however, also requires acknowledging that that society as a whole, principally through the government, must do all the more. (p. 22) We cannot escape the fact that stereotypes of individuals as members of perceived groups have an effect on many decisions we make in our daily lives. Thus, in light of the reality of our bounded rationality we should judiciously discount stereotypes in our legal judgments on an individual basis (e.g. Armour, 1994), at the same time that we proactively provide accommodations to minority groups — the ones most negatively affected by stereotypes. As a consequence, the development of a proactive agenda to develop to its fullest the potential abilities of the

Language Allegiances

15

members of a nation (including language abilities) is, arguably, a valid objective of the liberal state (see chapters by Ricento, Salaberry and Schmidt, this volume). In fact, there is a great deal of support for the view that minority rights (as group rights) are not necessarily at odds with the concept of the development of a liberal society focused on a common superordinate identity. Ford (2005: 176), for instance, specifically states that ‘[w]e should require social institutions to bear reasonable costs in order to prevent widespread and unjustified discrimination’, thus opening the door for the state to play a more active role in the preservation and maintenance of language minorities should these (and their speakers) happen to be discriminated. In this respect, and with reference to the specific objective of language rights and the promotion of language diversity, Del Valle (this volume) argues for a proactive approach that avoids making the same mistake that has been made in the past with minority communities that co-habit with majority groups: Immigrants bring assets to the United States, whether it is hard work, the revitalization of dormant communities or bilingualism. They also bring new challenges and one of them is accommodation, if not promotion, of minority languages. It will not do for the US to refuse to extend the full panoply of civil rights protections to immigrants simply because they do not have a history of repression in the US. They are now in the US and unless the country is willing to repeat its history of creating classes of second-class citizens, it needs to re-frame its position on the civil rights of language minorities to a more generous and practical approach. Even more specifically, Hochschild and Scovoronick (2003: 181) propose that: . . . non-immigrant communities need to be encouraged to integrate more across ethnic and racial lines, not given an excuse for remaining aloof from the great demographic, political, and social changes facing our nation. Both groups must change, and each will do so in part because the other does. For better or for worse, we are all in this together. Furthermore, the promotion and support of the language abilities of the citizens of a nation willing to do so need not be seen as an unfair burden on members of society not interested in the development of language abilities. In fact, there are precedents that justify such an investment given that there are a number of ways in which the state supports

16

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

and promotes the development of resources of various types even when not every person benefits from such investment (at least not directly). For instance, as Nussbaum (2001: 407) argues, the reduction of the capital gains tax helps primarily the people who have considerable financial resources in the stock market more than the ones whose income is mostly represented by wages.10 Ultimately, if our bounded rationality leads us to categorize others too strictly on the basis of their language competence, it behoves us to find appropriate solutions to allow each individual to pursue his/her own view of the ‘good life’. The analysis of factors for and against the promotion of minority groups leads us to an ironic conclusion: in order for us to overcome our natural tendency to segregate ourselves into (antagonistic) groups, we need to explicitly and critically analyze potential differences among groups. This is where the concept of multiculturalism is very useful in critically analyzing cultural contrasts and similarities (Parekh, 2000; Nussbaum, 1997, 2001; Tully, 1995; Salaberry, this volume). For instance, making specific reference to the value of second language learning (both among children and adults) Nussbaum (1997: 146) states that: language study puts the problem of cross-cultural understanding before the student in a way nothing else does. Expressing your own ideas in a foreign tongue is a good way of seeing the relationship between sameness and difference; it should shape all cross-cultural study. In the end, the social (and financial) investment required to engage in a process of consciousness-raising that will lead to a more open analysis of language allegiances is supported by many and varied arguments. The chapters that follow make a cogent case for such analysis.

The Chapters in this Volume The collection of eight essays (Chapters 2 to 9) that comprises this volume focuses on the analysis of the concept of language allegiances, and, more broadly, on the analysis of language-based identities in a multilingual society such as the US. The authors of the chapters that comprise this volume share the idea that, whether based on reality or a perception of reality, there is a privileged connection between language and identity. The guiding theme of the chapters that comprise this volume is the identification of specific beliefs and attitudes towards language, and how specific perceptions of language lead to particular actions exemplified in this volume in language ideologies (García,

Language Allegiances

17

Ricento, Schmidt), legal litigation (Del Valle, Preston), educational agendas (García, Niedzielski, Salaberry), political strategies (Del Valle, Ricento, Schmidt, Toribio) and cultural identities (Salaberry, Ricento, Toribio). In Chapter 2, Toribio starts out with a contextualized analysis of the social–psychological construct of attitude defined as a disposition to react favorably or unfavorably towards an object. Most obviously, in traditionally immigrant-based societies like the US language contrasts that may exist between members of the host society and incoming groups may have significant consequences for each. In particular, Toribio’s analysis focuses on the perspective of Non-Hispanics and Hispanics residents of the small town of Reading (Pennsylvania) towards the increased presence of Hispanic immigrants, mostly from the Dominican Republic, and their language varieties. Toribio’s study is interesting insofar as the attitudes towards the Dominicans arriving to Reading are mostly positive (paralleling the attitudes towards Cubans in general in Miami). In fact, only 8% of non-Hispanics and 5% of Hispanics believe that the presence of the newly arrived immigrants is negative for the host city, a finding that seems to contradict popular beliefs about the attitude towards Hispanic immigrants in the US. On the other hand, the majority of both Hispanics and non-Hispanic (about 60% of each group) believe that bilingual education classes should not be offered in Reading. Toribio acknowledges that there are some specific characteristics of her case study of one small town that need to be taken into account. Her findings are, nevertheless, enticing due to the interesting correlation of factors such as demographic density, homogeneity of immigrants’ backgrounds, perspectives on language use etc. Niedzielski delves further into the notion of attitudes towards language varieties in general by specifically focusing on the deleterious effect of popular (negative) beliefs about non-standard language varieties of English. She specifically focuses on the efforts to ‘remediate’ dialectal speech, drawing important conclusions regarding the nature of beliefs about language and its speakers. Niedzielski starts off documenting that non-standard speakers make up a disproportionate amount of the population of students in remedial speech and special education programs. To account for this phenomenon, Niedzielski reviews the results of research conducted over several years, involving speech professionals ranging from pathologists to educators to computer programmers. She concludes that there are at least four main factors that seem to account for the mistaken belief that speech needs to be remediated (when in fact there is nothing to be corrected). The four main factors

18

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

are: (1) the myth that there is a language variety in the US which could be labeled ‘General American’; (2) features that are part of the phonological and syntactic structures of nonstandard dialects are often considered symptomatic of disorders in various diagnostic tools; (3) nonstandard dialects are often considered ‘social pathologies’ in need of remediation; and (4) computer-based diagnoses or remediation tools of necessity rely on a very narrow definition of ‘normal’. Niedzielski’s chapter brings up an often overlooked dimension of the language identity phenomenon: we seem to share the belief that there is a standard form of language that is right and variations from it that are less right or patently wrong. More importantly, as documented by Niedzielski, even language professionals seem to be unaware of the fact that standard varieties are the ones that are ‘almost pathological’ in nature, given the fact that the spoken standard variety is so much tied to the written form of language. Surely, as Niedzielski points out, one necessary tool to address this important shortcoming will be a proactive approach towards educating non-professionals about the nature of language change and language variation. Along the lines of the theme of linguistic variation and popular beliefs about language and its speakers, Preston analyzes the value and legality of linguistic profiling. The assumption in linguistic profiling is that hearers can use speech as a means of identifying people according to classes or categories such as ethnicity, age, sex, sexual preference, native language background and so on. Thus, Preston wonders whether laypersons have the competence to make such identifications with any degree of accuracy. Preston’s answer is both yes and no. On the one hand, lay people can identify speakers of their own speech community as well as other language varieties. As stated by Preston, ‘members of speech communities are not only good at ethnic identification but are also good at age, gender, social status, and a host of other distinctions, with amazingly minimal amounts of linguistic evidence to go on.’ On the other hand, lay people also tend to be misled in their judgments of speakers’ identifications with speech communities as evidenced by the effects of, for instance, prescriptive notions about standard and non-standard varieties of language. For instance, the empirical evidence shows that in some cases ‘the belief that a person belongs to a certain class . . . prevents the hearer from registering actual pronunciation’. Thus, Preston argues that linguistic profiling cannot be just accepted at face value without taking into consideration the fact that it requires a minimum level of specialized knowledge. Preston argues that some modifications to the precedent procedures used in court are in order.

Language Allegiances

19

Among his most important recommendations, he suggests that for someone to be regarded as a trustworthy judge of a particular language variety, four conditions need to be met. First, the person deciding whether someone is a member of a particular speech community must also be a member of that community of speakers (it is not enough to be familiar with some broadly defined characteristics of a language variety). Second, the person who is being identified should indeed be an authentic speaker of the target variety under scrutiny. Third, the speaker being identified on the basis of linguistic characteristics should not have been trying to disguise his or her voice or speech by imitating another variety of the language in question. Fourth, the judge of the language variety being identified does not hold any well-known stereotype of that speech community of speakers (cf. statistical stereotypes as discussed in preceding sections). Following up on the theme of the legal implications of linguistic profiling, Del Valle discusses the legal rights of bilinguals to use the non-mainstream language in the workplace. Del Valle reviews language rights law within the parameters of US civil rights law by examining two employment discrimination cases where bilingual employees were fired for violating English only workplace rules, Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1980) and Garcia v. Spun Steak, 13 F.3d 296 (9th Cir. 1993). In both cases the courts held that the terminations were not in violation of anti-discrimination laws. Politically, socially and legally the crux of the cases lays in the role that bilingualism plays in anti-discrimination law. The question is: should a bilingual employee who can, to some but an unknown extent, speak English, be protected when s/he does not abide by and English-only workplace rule? Should we, under these circumstances, assume that an English-only workplace rule will have a cognizable, discriminatory impact on the employee? In both cases, the answer was negative. After Garcia v. Gloor was decided, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued Guidelines that stated that the presence of English-only workplace rules were prima facie indicators of employment discrimination. Still, after the Guidelines were issued, the Ninth Circuit in Spun Steak decided that the kind of injury, if one existed at all, in forcing a bilingual to speak English at work was not of a sufficient magnitude to justify invocation of the anti-discrimination laws. Del Valle discusses the cases in depth, from both a legal as well as a political perspective in order to gather conclusions about attitudes towards language minorities. Ricento analyzes the conceptual rationale that underlies different views of bilingualism in the US, and how those various perspectives are — or are not — beneficial for the development of heritage languages.

20

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

Ricento’s framework of analysis is the famous tripartite division proposed by Ruiz (1984) to account for language planning: language-asproblem, language-as-right and language-as-resource. Ricento explains that in the US, language ‘rights’ have been tethered to ethnic or racial entitlements as a means to redress historical patterns of discrimination and to enhance access to individual rights (e.g. provision of voting ballots in languages other than English, access to bilingual education). As Ricento points out, however, the language ‘rights’ approach is ‘not to protect any particular language or the rights of speech communities to maintain or use their languages in the public sphere indefinitely’ (stress added). Thus, the language-as-right approach is essentially an instrumental view of language (as opposed to language as identity marker) and one that inherently seeks to garner support for the teaching and learning of heritage languages by de-linking language from ethnicity or race. As a consequence of this decoupling of language use and identity, the language-as-right orientation ‘displaced from its historical situatedness’ has had negative effects on efforts to gain broad public support for the teaching and maintenance of languages other than English. Conversely, Ricento argues that the language-as-resource orientation represents the best option to promote and support heritage languages in the US. By definition, however, the view of language as a resource entails a challenge to the hegemonic view of English as the main marker of a true American identity. Of course, this argument is only true under the assumption that the use of languages other than the majority one may lead to divided loyalties. Ricento concludes that efforts to promote heritage language education as a national strategic priority within the framework of an instrumental view of language may result in shortterm governmental support. In contrast, the more substantive objective of developing heritage languages within a true language-as-resource orientation will require wider and more sustained popular support. In turn, popular support will require significant modifications in the underlying values and ideologies about the status and role of languages other than English in education and public life. Further expanding on Ricento’s view of the application of the language-as-right versus the language-as-resource frameworks of analysis of language diversity in the US, García describes and critiques the current bilingual (mostly diglossic) environment in the US. García focuses, in particular, on the potential value (or lack of value) of bilingual education given her analysis of the two monoglossic ideologies that surround the teaching of Spanish in the US today. The first monoglossic ideology characterizes Spanish as a minoritized language — the language

Language Allegiances

21

of poor people of color, of conquered and colonized people, as well as immigrants. The second one, spurred by the economic globalization of the 21st century, sees Spanish as a global language, capable of being used to access the world economy, as well as the growing Spanish speaking market in the US. García analyzes how these two ideologies influence, now and in the past, the use of Spanish in teaching (what is generally called bilingual education), as well as the teaching of Spanish (what is commonly called foreign language education or heritage language education). The chapter then looks at how the two opposing monoglossic ideologies surrounding Spanish in the US, and the ways in which they are manifested in Spanish language education today, make it difficult to develop a US bilingual citizenry. García ultimately argues that Latinos in the US are prevented from developing their Spanish/English bilingualism to be effectively used as an economic and social resource in the global markets. Expanding on the topic of García’s chapter, Schmidt analyzes the reasons that would explain the lack of support for a pluralistic or bilingual approach to language policy in the US. Like most states in the contemporary world, the US is a multilingual country. That is, nearly eighteen percent of the US population regularly speaks a language other than English in their homes. Well over half of these speak Spanish, and most US Spanish speakers are members of the Latino ethno-racial group. Despite these elemental demographic facts, however, Schmidt contends that the country’s approach to language policy is overwhelmingly weighted toward linguistic assimilation to English. Furthermore, there is virtually no organized political movement in the US to support a pluralistic or bilingual approach to language policy. The latter fact is surprising given that some two-thirds of US Latinos have consistently favored a policy that favor bilingualism for more than two decades. Schmidt analyzes why, in marked contrast to the political situation in most multilingual countries in the world, such a political movement has not emerged in the US. Employing a critical discourse analysis, and drawing upon the path-breaking work of Antonio Gramsci, Schmidt argues that it is a combination of English language hegemony, American nationalism, and the highly individualistic political culture of the US that best accounts for this seeming political anomaly. After developing the explanatory argument, Schmidt concludes with a brief inquiry into the prospects for a counter-hegemonic discourse of linguistic pluralism in the US. Finally, Salaberry proposes that bilingual education has the potential to develop a more coherent and demographically representative new

22

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

mainstream civic identity (e.g. Barry, 2001; Hochschild & Scovoronick, 2003; Macedo, 1998). Salaberry argues that bilingual education can help accomplish this objective by bringing together children from diverse backgrounds that, in turn are reflected in diverse home language backgrounds. In principle, the viability of the potential of bilingual education should be attainable given specific trends in beliefs about the positive value assigned to the achievement of competence in second languages in general. For instance, most parents tend to view the learning of a second language as a valuable scholastic activity at all levels of schooling (e.g. Padilla, 1998). Ironically, however, Salaberry states that bilingual education in the US is viewed with suspicion as one of many ways of enhancing the threat that other languages (especially Spanish) pose to English as the preeminent language (e.g. Crawford, 2000; Lippi-Green, 1997). This is because bilingual education is regarded as an educational program that leads to segregation by enhancing the already strong ties between language and cultural identity (e.g. Blommaert, 2005; Cameron, 1995; Rossell & Baker 1996; Tabouret-Keller, 1999). In contrast with this view, and to some extent counterintuitively, Salaberry claims that bilingual education can become a highly integrationist educational program by effectively softening the connections between language and cultural identification. More specifically, Salaberry proposes that (at least some) bilingual education programs (cf. dual language programs) can help decouple the tight connection that is forged between language and identity during the formative years of childhood. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, bilingual schooling can help children become less (rather than more) identified with the strong version of language allegiances. In turn, loosening the connection between language and perceived identities can help future citizens develop a more representative and socially just mainstream society (cf. Appiah, 2005; Guttman, 2003; Nussbaum, 1997, 2001). Notes 1. It is difficult to determine which factors among the various changes that happen from generation to generation are the ones that most weaken cultural ties to the original immigrant groups (e.g. correlation need not imply causation). It is plausible, however, that language shift acts as the harbinger of a cultural identity shift given socio-economic and political factors. 2. But see May (2001, Chapter 2) for some theoretical limitations of socialconstructionist models. 3. Popular parlance seems to be accurate enough when, as was the case with previous generations of immigrants from Italy, Ireland etc., the descendants of the original immigrants, after becoming part of the mainstream society

Language Allegiances

4.

5.

6.

7. 8. 9.

10.

23

(assimilated), labeled themselves as Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans. Lately, immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries have become MexicanAmericans, Cuban-Americans, etc. In this respect, US native-born generations of Hispanics are probably much ‘less Hispanic’ than other Hispanics who continue to be dominant Spanish speakers (especially the ones living outside the US). In contrast with the divergence from the use of the Spanish language as a unifying (or necessary) cultural force to define who is Hispanic in the US, Hispanics outside the US are defined, more likely than not, as residents of countries in which Spanish is a majority language. Translated from the original in Spanish: ‘La latinización de los EEUU es una fantasía de los intelectuales y académicos chicanos. Y mucho de la pretendida singularidad de la identidad latina es en realidad imaginaria, aunque para sus proponentes — como para los empresarios étnicos en general — resulte muy real.’ A second, more controversial, argument advanced by Aguilar is that this imagined Latin/Hispanic identity is manufactured by intellectuals, corporations and other parties with a vested interest in promoting such ‘fantasy’ (see also Barry, 2001; Slepper, 1997) It is worth repeating that despite Sleeper’s concern — at least within the realm of language use — the preeminence of English as the hegemonic language in the US will hardly be challenged by any other language, Spanish included (e.g. Brodie et al., 2002; Sears et al., 1999). Williams’s piece was titled the Intelligent Bayesian in reference to Thomas Bayes who started the field of statistics. Translated from the original in Spanish: La ‘cultura’ usurpa un lenguaje moral que no le pertenece. Es a las personal a quienes debemos respetar, no a sus culturas. In general, this fallacy is based on the fact that conditional probabilities are assessed without taking into account the effect of base rates. For instance, if we know that a certain disease occurs in 1% of the general population (the base rate), and that a specific test is accurate 99% of the time, what are the chances that a patient who has received a positive reading of the test, actually has the disease? Previous studies show that the majority of respondents to this puzzle (doctors included) tend to assume that there is a 99% probability that the patient has the disease. In essence, they are ignoring the effect of the base rate. In fact, the application of Bayes theorem leads us to the conclusion that the probability that the aforementioned patient actually has the disease is only 0.5%. Warren Buffet, the wealthiest person in the world as of 2008, famously stated that he was embarrassed that his secretary paid proportionally more taxes than he did. Indeed, investment capital (which tends to be the bulk of the taxable income of wealthy tax payers) is taxed at a lower rate than wages. More specifically, the Tax Reconcilliation Act of 2001 determines that longterm capital gains (investments held for at least one year) are taxed at a maximum rate of 15% (irrespective of the marginal tax rate of the individual — the latter as high as 35%). In contrast to capital gains on investments, wages are taxed at the specific marginal tax rates of each individual tax filer (on average 25% for most middle income tax filers, although the range of tax rates goes from 0% to 35%).

Chapter 2

Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes in Reading, Pennsylvania* ALMEIDA JACQUELINE TORIBIO

The Sociolinguistics and Social Psychology of Immigration As aptly noted by Chambers (2003), the resettlement of people across national and linguistic boundaries invites consideration of the sociolinguistics of immigration. Most obviously, the language differences that may exist between members of the host society and incoming groups may have significant consequences for each. One consequence, to be addressed herein, relates to the social–psychological construct of attitude, a disposition to react favorably or unfavorably towards an object, in this instance, the posture of the majority group towards the presence of immigrants and their language varieties. Attitude comprises three components — cognitive, affective and behavioral — reflected respectively in the propagation of stereotypes, adverse inferences, and concerted actions against visible and ‘audible’ minorities by the dominant group. Such is the case for Spanish-speaking minorities immigrating to the US and migrating within its national borders. Also addressed are Spanishspeaking (im)migrants’ responses to attitudes towards their increased presence in the larger US social sphere.

Language Attitudes It is well recognized that particular speech forms can evoke assumptions about speakers’ social status, economic standing, personal attributes and group membership (see The Social Connotations Hypothesis, Giles & Niedzielski, 1998). Patterns of reactions toward linguistic forms and towards those who employ them are referred to as language attitudes. Language attitudes have been assessed through a variety of methodologies, among these, ethnographic observations and examination of public information, direct treatments that draw on questionnaires, surveys, polls and interviews requiring participants to express attitudes about 24

Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes: Reading, PA

25

particular language varieties, and indirect measurements, such as the matched-guise technique, that tap into stereotypes about language by focusing on assessments of the speakers of particular language varieties.1 Extant research in psychology and the social psychology of language is consistent in finding that listeners stereotype members of certain groups and their speech forms along a number of dimensions. Studies drawing on direct scalar measures suggest that Anglo-Americans’ perceptions towards Hispanics are generally unfavorable.2 Hispanics are viewed as unproductive, uneducated, poor, and criminally-inclined (Marin, 1984; Jackson et al., 1996). Likewise, in verbal-guise tests, speakers of Spanish-accented English are downgraded on traits of competence (Giles et al., 1995) and rated as less suitable for higher status occupations (De la Zerda & Hopper, 1979). Additional evidence suggests that Hispanics may come to adopt the same negative characteristics in describing themselves (e.g. Bernat & Balch, 1979) and their language forms (Dailey et al., 2003), consistent with the research that others’ perceptions have important implications for self-perceptions and behavior. Thus, the study of language attitudes takes on considerable importance in discussions regarding broad social issues such as language planning in the context of immigration, and attitudes are centrally implicated in language maintenance and language shift among immigrants. For instance, unfavorable attitudes towards (im)migrants’ speech may limit their access to, and participation in, the social and economic arenas of the larger society. This holds true for many Spanish speakers who immigrate to the US and migrate within its borders. Recognizing that their language, and more specifically, others’ attitudes towards it, often sets limits on their prospects of advancement, many Hispanics elect to completely assimilate to the host society, relinquishing the heritage language (and other Hispanic cultural traditions) in favor of those of the Anglo-American mainstream majority. Others resist linguistic assimilation, either because they are socially and economically empowered, as in established enclave communities; or, less likely, because they perceive themselves as permanently disenfranchised by the mainstream — for instance, as a consequence of racial or cultural characteristics — and regard the acquisition of English to be a pointless exercise. Still others seek to integrate themselves linguistically into the dominant English-speaking society, while at once maintaining linguistic identification with co-ethnics through bilingualism. Implicated in this latter option are immigrants’ attitudes regarding their own language varieties and the value ascribed to language retention. The particular

26

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

outcomes depend on the social context pertinent to the allegiances of the group and individuals in question (cf. Liebkind, 1999). This chapter focuses attention on Reading, Pennsylvania, a community that has witnessed a tremendous growth in its Hispanic population over the past decade, and subsequently examines the identity and language outcomes for one group in particular: persons with origins in the Dominican Republic. As we cannot discuss matters of outcomes without reference to context, the ensuing section presents a portrait of Reading, Pennsylvania, and its residents.

Spanish and Spanish speakers in Context Pennsylvania ranks as the state with the thirteenth largest Hispanic population. Numbering 405,000, Hispanics account for 3.4% of the state’s populace. US Census data present a population that is young (median age 25.2) and mostly US-born (82%) or naturalized citizens (5.9%). Hispanic adults participate in the labor force at rates comparable to non-Hispanics (62.2% and 63.9% respectively), although their median earnings are significantly lower than non-Hispanics ($28,584 versus $41,478), and a disproportionate number live below poverty level (28.8% vs. 10.0%). The Hispanic school-age population increased by 76.7% (as compared with the 9.1% for the total state population) in the decade preceding the 2000 Census. Hispanics in Pennsylvania have settled in the northeastern regions, especially along the border with New Jersey, and along an arc of small cities, including Allentown, Lancaster, York and Reading. This growth in Hispanic presence in Reading reflects a national trend: Census data reveal a redistribution of Hispanic (im)migrants and internal migrants away from traditional destinations and towards new settlement communities. Reading, Pennsylvania Reading is a small, industrial city, with a population of over 81,000, located in Berks County, a largely agricultural region in southeastern Pennsylvania. Its early economic growth was spurred by iron foundries and transportation, which served military forces in the 18th and 19th centuries. The city witnessed continuous growth until the 1930s, when its population reached nearly 120,000. But in subsequent decades, a decline in industry led to mass emigration to surrounding areas. More recently, this trend has been reversed, due in part to developments connecting the suburbs of Reading to Philadelphia as well as to an increase in Hispanic (im)migrants.

Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes: Reading, PA

27

Figure 2.1 Sign in both English and Spanish

Hispanics entered Reading’s labor force in the early 20th century in the textile mills. As these posts diminished and disappeared, the workers gravitated towards the retail outlets and service industries that flourished in the area in the 1970s. The closing of the outlets did not curtail the influx of Hispanics, however. In 1990, Hispanics in Reading numbered 14,486; by 2000, their numbers had increased to 30,302 or 37.3% of the city’s population (US Census). The Hispanic presence is evident in the signature of Reading’s linguistic landscape, which is marked with Spanish-language billboards and storefronts (as shown in Figure 2.1), and in the Spanish-language newspapers and bulletins that are readily available at local retailers and public service agencies. To be sure, the visibility of the Spanish language is a strong indicator of its vitality in Reading (see Landry & Bourhis, 1997).3 Dominican (im)migrants in Reading Among Hispanics in Reading, persons with origins in the Dominican Republic have provoked particular attention. As reported in Jensen et al.

28

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

(2006), Dominican (im)migrants are bypassing traditional Dominican destination cities (e.g. Washington Heights, New York; Laurence, Massachusetts; Providence, Rhode Island) in favor of new settlement communities such as Reading. In 2000, there were an estimated 2,758 Dominicans in Reading — a nine-fold increase in one decade — accounting for 7.6% of the city’s Hispanic population; by 2005, the number had grown to 5,912 (American Community Survey). While some immigrate to Reading directly from the Dominican Republic, most are ‘secondary’ migrants (or ‘internal’ migrants), relocating from New York. Second, notwithstanding their small numbers (and recent arrival) relative to other Hispanic groups in Reading (62% Puerto Rican and 18% Mexican), Dominicans display the hallmarks of an (im)migrant minority that has made significant social and economic strides.

The Present Study: Language Attitudes and Language Outcomes The present study probes language attitudes and consequent language outcomes in Reading. More specifically, it explores the attitudes of Non-Hispanics and Hispanic resident of Reading towards the increased presence of Hispanics and the Spanish language, and subsequently explores the language outcomes for Dominicans and DominicanAmericans. The discussion draws on two data sources: a telephone survey administered to residents in Reading and personal interviews with a sampling of Dominicans and Dominican-Americans. These sources of data are complemented with figures generated from the 2003 and 2005 American Community Survey (US Census Bureau). Telephone survey The telephone survey was designed to gauge dispositions toward the increased presence of Hispanics in Reading, toward Spanish–English bilingualism, and toward Spanish in public life in Reading. Volunteer respondents were enlisted through a random sampling of an on-line business directory and through convenience and snowball sampling beginning with several members of a local church. The survey was administered in English or in Spanish, as appropriate, and lasted approximately five to 15 minutes.4 One hundred fourteen persons consented to participate in the survey: 68 Non-Hispanics and 46 Hispanics. Non-Hispanic respondents ranged in age between 18 and 71 years of age; 59% were male, 18% non-Hispanic black, and 82% non-Hispanic white. The remaining 46 respondents were Hispanics, between 18 and

Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes: Reading, PA

29

42 years of age; 54% were male, 65% Dominican, 22% Puerto Rican, and 15% Mexican. Three sets of items were presented, each discussed in turn. The first set was a series of multiple-choice questions as detailed below.5 (1)

Telephone survey: Part 1 (Non-Hispanics and Hispanics) (a) Would you say that the increased Hispanic presence has been overall positive for Reading, negative for Reading, or had no effect on Reading? (b) Would you say that the increased Hispanic presence has driven wages down in Reading, driven wages up in Reading, or had no effect on wages in Reading? (c) Would you say that the increased presence of Hispanics has increased the quality of education, decreased the quality of education, or had no effect on the quality of education in Reading? (d) Would you say that the increased presence of Hispanics has been beneficial, has been harmful, or has had no effect on the local business economy in Reading?

The answers to these questions, divided according to group (Hispanic versus Non-Hispanic), are presented in graphical format in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Perception of effects of increased Hispanic presence in Reading

30

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

As shown by the response ratios, participants’ reactions reflect a community that views the Hispanic presence as favorable. Two response patterns merit comment. Note first that non-Hispanics and Hispanics differed markedly in their assessment of the overall effects of the increased Hispanic presence in Reading (1(a)): only 35% of nonHispanics deemed it positive, whereas 85% of Hispanics offered a positive assessment. As elaborated by several respondents, many nonHispanic whites have left the city of Reading to seek out a better quality of life in the surrounding areas. In turn, Hispanics, immigrating from Mexico and the Caribbean or migrating from large metropolitan areas such as New York City and Philadelphia, are looking to Reading for the same. Note also that non-Hispanic and Hispanic respondents differed in their views of the effect of the increased Hispanic presence on primary and secondary education, with non-Hispanics offering a less dim outlook (1(b)): 15% of non-Hispanics versus 50% of Hispanics thought that the quality of education had diminished as a result of the increase in the Hispanic population. One might conjecture that this discrepancy owes to the aforementioned fact that many non-Hispanic whites (the majority of the respondents) reside beyond the bounds of the Reading city school districts or enroll their children in private schools, and therefore have little direct experience with the city’s public schools – in 2006, 68% of the city’s public school enrollment is Hispanic, while local private schools register less than 10%.6 Hispanics’ judgments appear more accurate, the Pennsylvania System of State Assessments results show that students in Reading public schools perform below proficiency in a number of areas. To cite but one example, in 2006, 65% of the state’s Grade 11 students performed at or above defined proficiency level in reading; in Reading the tally was 37% (a decrease from 44% in 2005); in mathematics, the state average was 52%, but Reading’s figure was 23% (a decline from 26% in 2005). Of course, it remains to be determined whether this situation has emerged as a consequence of the challenges to resources (human and monetary) presented by the increased Hispanic population. However, a number of Hispanic respondents raised concerns about the Spanish-rich school environment, which they believe hinders their children’s academic development. In the second component of the telephone survey, participants listened to a listing of statements and indicated whether or not they agreed with the content of each.7 Some items pertinent to Reading as a context of reception for Hispanic (im)migrants are presented in (2):

Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes: Reading, PA

(2)

31

Telephone survey: Part 2 (Non-Hispanics and Hispanics) (a) Hispanics are well-respected in Reading. Non-Hispanic respondents: 94% in agreement Hispanic respondents: 67% in agreement (b) Hispanics in Reading are more socially accepted than African-Americans. Non-Hispanic respondents: 91% in agreement Hispanic respondents: 100% in agreement

As shown, Hispanics in Reading are felt to be well-regarded. Unsolicited statements further substantiate these views: One non-Hispanic white male respondent offered, ‘Everyone else has moved out; Hispanics ARE Reading’, and one Hispanic respondent proudly stated, ‘They compare us [Hispanics] to the Cubans in Miami’, in a direct reference to the social prestige accorded to that population. Hispanics are also thought to be more socially accepted than African-Americans; as one AfricanAmerican remarked, ‘They [Hispanics] are better off than the rest of us’. This response pattern is significant in view of the fact that many Hispanics are phenotypically black, an issue we return to in the ensuing section. While the presence of Hispanics was considered positive, by and large, it remained to be known whether the presence of the Spanish language would be as positively assessed. This was the main objective of the third component of the telephone survey detailed in (3). Again, respondents were invited to agree or disagree with each statement, on a four-point scale. The answers are presented in graphical format in Figure 2.3. (3)

Telephone survey: Part 3 (Non-Hispanics and Hispanics) (a) Being bilingual in Spanish and English is an asset in Reading. (b) All residents of Reading should strive to speak English and Spanish. (c) Hispanics in Reading do NOT want to learn English. (d) Hispanics in Reading should NOT teach Spanish to their children. (e) Bilingual education classes should NOT be offered in Reading.

As revealed above, Non-Hispanics and Hispanics are in full agreement that being bilingual is advantageous in Reading (3(a)). However, bilingualism is perceived as an asset mainly for those who speak a language other than English, i.e. the Hispanic population (3(b)). One

32

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

Figure 2.3 Attitudes towards Spanish, English and bilingualism in Reading, PA

non-Hispanic respondent offered: ‘Hispanics should be bilingual; they should all speak English’. And another respondent regarded the English language as a means towards promoting citizenship among Hispanic (im)migrants, suggesting that ‘Maybe they [Hispanics] can learn civics in the bilingual education classes’. A majority of respondents are in agreement that Reading’s Hispanics are not opposed to learning English (3(c)). And indeed, Hispanics in Reading do speak English: Among residents who reported speaking Spanish at home (31.2% or Reading’s population), 76.7% rated their ability to speak English as ‘very well’ or ‘well’ (2000 Census). Finally, notice that only 24% of non-Hispanics and 6% of Hispanics thought that Hispanic parents should not teach Spanish to their children (3(d)). Nevertheless, a majority of those sampled opined that Bilingual Education classes should not be offered (3(e)), attributable to innumerable factors, some already noted (e.g. the challenges presented to the school districts, or the perceived harm of Spanish in the school environment). Additional items explored perceptions towards the presence of Spanish in the Reading public sphere. Survey results in (4) indicate that Spanish is well-ingrained in the city. Notably, non-Hispanics are not bothered by the presence of Spanish, especially in print media. One

Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes: Reading, PA

33

non-Hispanic respondent said, ‘It’s good they [Hispanics] have their own newspapers; they can learn things about living in Reading, living in the United States’.8 This integrative orientation towards Hispanics’ English-language acquisition stands in contrast to the instrumental orientation that the Hispanics typically present (see the discussion in the next section). (4)

Telephone survey (Non-Hispanics and Hispanics) (a) It bothers me to see Spanish in newspapers and billboards in Reading. Non-Hispanic respondents: 9% in agreement Hispanic respondents: 0% in agreement (b) It bothers me to hear Spanish spoken in public. Non-Hispanic respondents: 24% in agreement Hispanic respondents: 4% in agreement

In brief, social attitudes are sensitive to social changes. In Reading, Hispanic (im)migrants are credited by both Hispanics and nonHispanics with having revitalized the city; accordingly, the cultural gaps between the minority and the dominant groups may be less problematic in Reading than might be the case in other destination communities. Ethnographic survey Having examined Reading as a context of reception for Hispanic (im)migrants, this section turns to consider the identity and language outcomes for Dominican (im)migrants in Reading. The data to be presented are extracted from an ethnographic survey carried out in collaboration with researchers in sociology, demography, and anthropology (Jensen et al., 2006).9 Dominican participants were identified through random blocks, snowball sampling, and convenience sampling. Surveys were conducted in person, in English or Spanish, in respondents’ homes, place of business, or in a local Dominican restaurant; the interviews lasted between 75 and 90 minutes. Cursory characteristics of the sample follow, and more detailed information is found in Jensen et al. (2006). There were 65 respondents: between 16 and 68 years of age; 52% male; 94% Dominican-born; with between 3 and 16 years of education. The survey examined the their outcomes in Reading along a number of dimensions, including transnational ties, socioeconomic status, discrimination experiences, physical and mental health, ethnic identity and language usage. The following discussion focuses on the contributions

34

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

of ethnic identification and language attitudes on Dominican (im)migrant outcomes in Reading.10 Several items examined identity. When asked to offer up the terms they use to describe their race and ethnicity, respondents conflated ethnicity and race.11 Most use ‘ethnic’ identifiers to classify themselves racially: 43% describe themselves with a specific ethnic identifier (‘Dominican/o/a’) and 42% use a more general pan-ethnic identifier (‘Hispanic/o/a’ and ‘Latino/a’),12 a figure that increases to 47% when those who indicated ‘Spanish’ are included.13 The lack of reference to racial categorization may be attributed to the fact that in the Dominican Republic, notions of race are more nuanced and feature an array of color terms for gradations between black and white. Dominicans are often very dark-skinned and as a consequence have an ambiguous racial status in the US (see Duany 1998; Torres Saillant 1998, 1999; Itzigsohn et al., 2005): (5)

‘En Dominicana soy blanca; aquí no sé.’ ‘In the Dominican Republic I am white; here, I don’t know.’

In the black versus white dichotomy of the dominant US society, Dominicans are considered black, an ascription that most resist for historical reasons (see Howard, 2001; Sorensen, 1997; Wucker, 1993). Predictably, Dominicans in Reading make their position explicit with national and ethnic markers: (6)

(a)

‘[Los dominicanos] son una mezcla racial; en Estados Unidos se les llama hispano.’ ‘Dominicans are a racial mixture; in the US they are called Hispanic.’ (b) ‘Me dicen, “Creía que usted era morena”; yo digo, “Sí soy morena, pero de Santo Domingo”.’ ‘They say to me, “I thought you were black”; I say, “Yes, I am black, but from Santo Domingo”.’

Indeed, a number of informants reported responding to instances of racial discrimination through pan-ethnic labeling, as in (7a), and another respondent drew on her citizenship (7b): (7)

(a) ‘When they ask me what race I am, I say: Latina.’ (b) ‘Digo que soy dominicana, pero americana cuando les sale el racismo.’ ‘I say that I am Dominican, but American when their racism emerges.’14

Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes: Reading, PA

35

It merits noting that in specifying those features that distinguish them from African-Americans, Dominicans in Reading point to lifestyle, work ethic, and mindset: (8)

(a)

‘Llevamos un estilo de vida más sano; al afro-americano no le importa el futuro.’ ‘We have a healthier lifestyle; African Americans don’t care about the future.’ (b) ‘Los dominicanos somos más trabajadores, especialmente con los negocios.’ ‘We Dominicans are more hardworking, especially with businesses.’ (c) ‘[El dominicano se conoce por] la forma de pensar — los dominicanos se preocupan por la economía pero también por desarrollar el conocimiento intelectual, la lectura. . .’ ‘Dominicans are recognized by their way of thinking — Dominicans are concerned with economic well-being but also with developing their intellectual knowledge, with reading. . .’

This impression may emerge from their visible rise in socioeconomic status relative to other minorities. In his article, suitably titled ‘Leaving New York, with bodega in tow’, New York Times contributor Seth Kugal reports that Dominicans move to Reading to avail themselves of opportunities for business-ownership and home-ownership that they could ill-afford in New York City. Dominican-owned bodegas seem to anchor every city block, catering to Hispanic needs in general and to Dominican tastes in particular: customers can find food products such as casabe (Yucca bread) and longazina (a type of sausage) or play the Dominican lottery. Likewise, Dominicans describe themselves as more entrepreneurial and less socially dependent than other Hispanics in Reading: (9)

(a)

‘Los dominicanos son más emprendedores [que los mexicanos].’ ‘Dominicans are more ambitious than Mexicans.’ (b) ‘[Los dominicanos] cogen menos ayuda que los puertorriqueños; no me gusta vivir del gobierno.’ ‘Dominicans take less assistance than Puerto Ricans; I don’t like to live off the government.’

Census data support these assessment also. Approximately one third of (31.1%) of Mexicans (but only 7.7% of Dominicans) 16 years of age

36

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

and older engage in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations; 28.9% of Dominicans (but only 10.5% off Mexicans) are employed in sales and office positions.15 And Puerto Ricans have the lowest work-force participation (54.8), lowest income ($19,856), and highest rate of public assistance (20.4%). As noted at the outset, identity is based on how persons perceive themselves, how they strive to distinguish themselves from other ethnic groups, and how they are viewed by the dominant society. In Reading, Dominicans distinguish themselves from African-Americans and from other Hispanic co-ethnics. Interestingly, Dominicans draw differences between themselves and other co-ethnics along dimensions of language. They fault Puerto Ricans for not speaking Spanish or pretending not to speak it: (10) (a)

‘People say, “I don’t speak Spanish”, even those born in Puerto Rico.’ (b) ‘En el hospital, en las calles, en las tiendas, [los puertorriqueños] se hacen que no hablan español.’ ‘In the hospital, on the streets, in the stores, Puerto Ricans pretend they don’t speak Spanish.’

Census data confirm that 17.1% of Puerto Ricans in Reading speak only English; this compared with 7.9% Mexicans and 12% of Dominicans. Nearly 10% of Reading’s Hispanic population does not speak English at all: 27.3% of Mexicans, 5.6% of Puerto Rican, and 12.7% of Dominicans. Those Puerto Ricans who do speak Spanish are reported to be easily identified by their distinctive uvular trill — ‘Puerto Ricans have a different accent; they talk rude, with RRRR’ — and by their English-influenced Spanish-language forms:16 (11) (a)

(b)

‘El puertorriqueño se conoce por su lenguaje. . .tienen una mezcla rara de inglés y español.’ ‘Puerto Ricans are recognized by their language. . .they have a strange mixture of English and Spanish.’ ‘Los puertorriqueños fingen mucho, quieren engañar y actúan como que no son latinos. (que no hablan español)’ ‘Puerto Ricans pretend a lot; they want to deceive and act as if they were not Latinos. (as if they don’t speak Spanish)’

Dominicans disparage Puerto Rican speech perhaps because their own speech patterns carry little prestige, even in Reading (see García et al., 1988; Zentella, 1997):

Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes: Reading, PA

37

(12) ‘Se burlan de nuestras expresiones y de nuestro acento. . .dicen que los dominicanos son brutos.’ ‘They make fun of our expressions and our accent. . .they say that we are stupid.’17 Unsurprisingly, linguistic insecurity is prevalent among the Dominican respondents. As reported in Jensen et al. (2006), only 70% of those with 29 years or more of residency in the Dominican Republic rated themselves as speaking their native language ‘very well’. Moreover, a separate tabulation reveals that linguistic insecurity diminishes little with education: Only 75% of those with between 11 and 18 years of schooling in the Dominican Republic highly assessed their oral Spanish language abilities. Putting aside the other-imposed recriminations and self-directed disparagement regarding their language forms, the social context of Reading — and their socioeconomic attainment therein — promotes Dominicans’ Spanish-language loyalty: (13) ‘Because so many people around are Hispanic, if you know the language, you can do everything; you need Spanish everywhere.’ As discussed in Jensen et al., respondents reported extensive Spanish language usage across domains, and 83% reported that Spanish is ‘easy to maintain’ in Reading. Spanish is considered part of the Dominican cultural endowment that must be preserved: (14) (a)

‘[Mi hijo] ya habla inglés y pienso que es mi responsabilidad que hable español.’ ‘My son already knows English and I think it is my responsibility to have him speak Spanish.’ (b) ‘[A través del español] puedo ayudar a mi comunidad y mantengo mis raíces vivas.’ ‘Through Spanish I can help my community and keep my roots alive.’ (c) ‘[Mis hijos] son hispanos, de descendientes hispanos; no quiero que nieguen la raza. [El español] es una forma de que se acepten ellos mismos.’ ‘My children are Hispanic, of Hispanic descendents; I don’t want them to deny their race. Spanish is a way for them to accept themselves.’

The association between identity and language is well-studied. In immigrant contexts in particular, heritage languages are attributed a core value as a feature of group membership, as a cue for ethnic

38

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

categorization, and as a means of in-group cohesion (cf. Giles, 1977). For Dominicans in Reading, the Spanish language serves as an important indicator and expression of ethnicity, readily allowing for the ‘performance’ of non-African-American identity, as conceptualized by Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1982):18 (15) ‘Some people think that I’m black. Because probably I’m dark skinned, I look black, I act black, I always talk in English. . . [They know I’m not African-American] because I can talk Spanish.’ Although Dominicans in Reading report a keen attachment to their heritage language, they are also mindful of the importance of English. In the main, participants discussed the social benefits accrued through English-language acquisition: (16) ‘Sería una oportunidad para integrarme más a la comunidad, poder entender a la mayoría de personas, no ser víctima de engaños en servicios, firmar contratos. . .’ ‘It would be an opportunity to integrate myself more fully into the community, to be able to understand most people, to not be a victim of service fraud, to sign contracts. . .’ Parents were especially vocal regarding the instrumental value of English and Spanish-English bilingualism: (17) (a)

‘El inglés te da más desenvolvimiento. . .la sociedad que nos rodea es americana y tenemos que aprender su idioma.’ ‘English allows you greater self-assurance. . .the society that surrounds us is American and we have to learn its language.’ (b) ‘Si hablan dos idiomas, son dos personas en una.’ ‘If they speak two languages, they are two persons in one.’ (c) ‘[A través del inglés] pueden ser profesionales aquí en el futuro, pueden estudiar, servirle a este país, ocupar un lugar importante en la sociedad; no quiero ver a mis hijos en factoría.’ ‘Through English, they can be professionals here in the future, they can study, be of service to this country, occupy positions of importance in society; I don’t want to see my children in a factory.’

One young respondent was firm in his opinion of the importance of English: (18) ‘If you don’t know English, you’re a nobody.’

Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes: Reading, PA

39

In brief, because they perceive their own group vitality as high, Dominicans in Reading have more positive attitudes towards their own group ethnic identity and language. The larger ethnographic survey, outlined in Jensen et al. (2006), offers further insight: Being able to speak Spanish was found to be associated with higher economic status among Dominicans in Reading. In addition, Dominican respondents who identify with pan-ethnic terms (e.g. ‘Hispanic/o/a’ and ‘Latino/a’) are advantaged on dimensions of education, employment and income relative to those identifying only as ‘Dominican’. These findings suggest that Dominicans in Reading are integrating themselves into the US society, as members of a larger Hispanic/Latino community, which is not hindered, but pushed forward by their Spanish-language allegiance.

Discussion and Directions for Future Work A broad view of the above findings belies the views of Peñalosa (1972) which suggest that Spanish in the US is held in prestige only where Spanish speakers are small in numbers, i.e. the more viable locally the lower its social status. Instead, the findings show that the cultural distinctions specific to Hispanics in Reading (paramount among these is language) do not negatively impact the perceptions and attitudes of the larger community. Speaking to Dominicans’ experience in Reading in particular, enduring ethnic identification and language practices are not prejudicial of social and economic advancement. That is, the cultural practices of the dominant society are not necessarily the most vital in achieving social and economic success; maintenance of distinct cultural practices are also implicated. These findings must be interpreted with caution, however, since the contributions of identity and language on the social and economic outcomes of (im)migrants in new settings is less predictable than that of their cohorts in traditional destination communities (cf. Either & Deaux, 1994). Thus, while the sample characteristics in the surveys are sufficiently diverse so as to allow for generalization in Reading, the findings cannot be extended to attitudes and outcomes in other contexts; comparison data is needed. For instance, it would prove instructive to compare Dominican outcomes in Reading with outcomes in Raleigh or Charlotte (North Carolina), both of which have also witnessed significant (im)migration of Dominicans in recent years. These findings could, in turn, be confronted with data on Dominican outcomes in Providence (Rhode Island) or Lawrence (Massachusetts), well-established destination cities for Dominicans. In addition, since (im)migration presents a case of languages and language varieties in contact, new destinations

40

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

such as Reading allow for the examination of social factors implicated in language innovations. Does the vitality and socioeconomic standing of Dominicans in Reading raise the prestige of the Dominican dialect? Does it exempt them from social pressures towards language assimilation with the dominant English-speaking society? Are Dominicans in Reading less likely to demonstrate dialect leveling with their Spanishspeaking co-ethnics? Will Dominicans in Reading evade the typical pattern of language shift, thought to be systematic by the second or third generation? Again, additional observational treatments are needed, for example (e.g. indirect measures to include matched-guise techniques), and qualitative approaches (involving interviews). Notes * 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

I am grateful to Barbara Bullock, Tyler Kimball, and Rafael Salaberry for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. The interested reader is referred to Garret et al. (2005) for in-depth discussion on the nature and assessment of attitudes. The term Hispanic is used to officially designate people of Spanish and Latin American descent living within US national borders. As a federally legislated label, it is central to the classifications that motivate the distribution of power and status through political representation and allocation of resources. See Gorter’s (2006) edited anthology for current research on linguistic landscape. I am grateful to Jessica Hoover for assistance with the design of the survey and to Benji Romig and Fernando Disla for assistance in its administration. A fifth item on legislation was in referendum in the city of Hazelton, Pennsylvania; this legislation would deny work permits to companies that employ undocumented workers, fine those who offer housing to the undocumented, and make English the official language of that city. Respondents were asked whether such legislation, if adopted in Reading, would be positive, negative, or have no effect; 68% of non-Hispanics and 15% of Hispanics thought such legislation would be positive. Figures available on www greatschools.net The four point scale was converted to two: completely agree and somewhat agree were coded as ‘agree’ and completely disagree and somewhat disagree were coded as ‘disagree’. A final set of survey items was administered only to those who identified as Hispanic, further scrutinizing the perceived importance of Spanish and English for Hispanic residents of Reading. Respondents ascribe significant value to Spanish as a marker of identity: 100% are in agreement with the statement, ‘The Spanish language is an important part of my identity’. English was evaluated as important to identity among only 30% of the Hispanics sampled, but this number increases to 88% when the sample is restricted to those born in the US.

Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes: Reading, PA

41

9. Support for this research was provided by Russell Sage Foundation Project # 88-04-01, ‘Context, Identities, and Economic Outcomes: A Pilot Study of Dominicans in Reading, Pennsylvania’. Infrastructural support and funding for a special US Census tabulation were provided by the Population Research Institute at Penn State, which has core funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD041025-03). 10. The notion of ethnicity is invoked here in referring to the ‘the identificational dimension of culture’, following Fishman (1997: 327). It is a socially constructed category that is perspectival and oppositional, understood only in reference to the ‘other’, and it is situational, produced in interaction between individual and contextual variables. Thus, ethnic identity is not a static phenomenon; rather, it depends on the context in which it is expressed. 11. Race is often implicated in the formation of ethnic identity in immigrant contexts (cf. Mittelberg & Waters 1983; Omi & Winant, 1996). 12. Latino has been embraced for collective identification among persons of Spanish language heritage, as an alternative to the imposed designation Hispanic. Initial impetus for the latter was provided by shared social ideologies, but the term has been stripped of some of its original connotations and is now widely acknowledged and accepted as an ‘ethnic’ label. The reader is referred to Oboler (2005) for a thorough-going treatment one ethnic labelling. 13. It is common for Hispanics to identify language with ethnicity: ‘I speak Spanish, so I am Spanish’. 14. Dominicans similarly also use language to make themselves distinct from ‘African’ neighbors on the island of Hispaniola and in New York (cf. Toribio, 2000, 2003, 2006). 15. In this respect, it merits noting that Berks County, which includes Reading, ranks third in the state for agricultural production. Mexicans demonstrate the highest participation in the work force (61.5%) and have the highest median family income ($30,307). 16. Negative critiques of Puerto Rican Spanish are attested in the Dominican Republic as well (cf. Toribio, 2000). 17. Zentella (1990) found that Dominicans expressed highly negative opinions about Dominican Spanish, and 80% reported that Dominican Spanish should not be taught in schools. 18. Consult Toribio (2003) for a study of the differential language performances of black and white Dominicans.

Chapter 3

A Sociolinguistic View of Speech Sciences1 NANCY NIEDZIELSKI

Introduction As a linguist who has spent several years working on speech remediation technology, I have heard from several speech therapists that linguists have a reputation for marching into speech science venues, guns blazing, mouths frothing, and demanding more accountability vis-à-vis dialect issues from communication disorders professionals. The froth is not completely undeserved: the fact remains that non-standard speakers make up a disproportionate amount of the population of students in remedial speech and special education programs (NOMS 1999; OCR, 1989, as cited in Adger et al., 1999). Indeed, results of research including interviews with speech professionals ranging from speech– language pathologists (hereafter SLPs) to educators, thorough examination of remediation software (and work with its creators), attendance at several speech science conferences, and thorough literature reviews, reveals that there is a strong tendency to remediate dialects, for varied reasons. However, SLPs accurately point out that linguists spend very little time with speakers such as their clients, and thus hurl their accusations from the tops of their ivory towers, while they are the ones who must answer to the education system, the parents of the clients, and the clients themselves. It is one thing to construct theories about how language works, but it is entirely another to be charged with the duty of fixing it when it’s broken. In this paper I will not only present the result of the above-mentioned research, but also suggest several ways in which each discipline can enlighten the other, with the ultimate goals of both fields better serving disordered (and non-disordered) speakers, and understanding the nature and development of non-disordered (and disordered) language. 42

Sociolinguistic View of Speech Sciences

43

Background In 1983, the American Speech–Language Hearing Association’s (ASHA) statement on social dialects made clear their position on dialects as pathologies: ‘. . .no dialectal variety of English is a disorder or pathological form of speech or language’ (ASHA, 1983). Since then, there have been an impressive number of studies examining the role of, for example, ethnicity on diagnoses (cf. Quinn et al., 1996; Wyatt, 2002), proposals for dealing with multiethnic populations (cf. Battle, 1993), classes on American dialects in SLP curricula, and new diagnostic tools (cf. Stockman, 1996; Norris et al., 1989), all created with the goal of eliminating the possibility that a child is labeled as disordered solely due to the use of a non-standard language variety. However, the fact remains that non-standard speakers make up a disproportionate amount of the population of students in remedial speech and special education programs. To illustrate, the National Outcomes Management Survey (NOMS) 1999 reports that 25% of the clients in speech programs in US schools are African-American, while African-Americans represent about 12.5% of the US population, and OCR 1989 (as reported in Adger et al., 1999) reports that 41.6% of the ‘educable mentally retarded’ in the US are African-American, again reflecting an inflated percentage relative to African-American population in the US. In addition, the results of research conducted over several years’ time — in which I interviewed speech professionals such as SLPs, examined speech pathology textbooks and websites; worked with SLPs and computer programmers in the creation of computerized speech remediation programs; and worked with marketing department personnel at a major electronic firm with the goal of marketing such system — reveals that there is a strong tendency to remediate dialects, and that the reasons for this are quite varied. Below I present some of the findings of that research, as well as several suggestions for assuring that true disorders, rather than nonstandard speech, are the focus of speech remediation. I also acknowledge that the research of professionals in the speech remediation fields is invaluable to linguistic researchers in numerous ways — a fact which has been all but overlooked within the field of linguistics.

Methodology My introduction to the field of speech pathology was via speech technology. I was part of a team at a major electronic company assigned the task of creating a speech training system, for both hearing-impaired and

44

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

language-impaired children. As such, I spent several months engaged in the following activities: observing and interviewing SLPs, to determine what kinds of issues a computerized speech training system could address; reading through introductory textbooks on speech disorders, to see exactly what kinds of language pathologies SLPs are likely to encounter; examining various diagnostic tools available to SLPs; and, finally, examining computerized speech programs already in existence. As a result of my training in sociolinguistics, I was especially curious about how language varieties were addressed within the field, and consequently asked specific questions during interviews regarding phonologic and syntactic variation. Additionally, I spent considerable time examining the way in which dialectal variation was dealt with in introductory texts. In addition to working with speech remediation professionals, I spent some time with marketing personnel, exploring how and to whom such a system would be marketed, and spent considerable time with programmers, exploring what capabilities such a system would have. Finally, I examined several website resources, which included websites of SLPs and publishers of materials for parents — several of which contained diagnostic tests presumably to be used to determine if a speaker should seek the assistance of an SLP, or purchase the publisher’s product. I compare findings from this research to the results of different sociolinguistic studies I have conducted over the past decade on both language varieties in the US, and attitudes towards those varieties. These studies have included language attitudes surveys (cf. Niedzielski & Preston, 1999), acoustic analyses and speech perception experiments (cf. Niedzielski, 1999). In addition, I make some recommendations as a result of smaller studies based on several classroom activities, using undergraduates and graduate students as respondents.

Results Several themes emerged from the various sources of speech remediation research: (1) the myth that there is a language variety in the US which could be labeled ‘General American’; (2) features that are part of the phonological and syntactic structures of non-standard dialects are often considered symptomatic of disorders in various diagnostic tools; (3) non-standard dialects were often considered ‘social pathologies’ in need of remediation; and (4), computer-based diagnoses or remediation tools of necessity rely on a very narrow definition of ‘normal’. Each of these will be addressed in turn below.

Sociolinguistic View of Speech Sciences

(1)

45

There is a language variety in the US which could be labeled ‘General American’. One of the first patterns to emerge from the research conducted for the speech training system is that there is a persistent belief in such a dialect as ‘General American’. First, a search for ‘General American English’ on ASHA’s Journals’ website turned up 2961 hits. Next, several SLPs referred to such variety, offering as illustration the dialect of either white, non-Hispanic Californians (the speech laboratory was located in Southern California), or white Midwestern Americans (respondents mentioned as examples people from Michigan, Kansas, or Iowa). An examination of introductory textbooks revealed much the same thing2 (if language variation were mentioned — most texts, in fact, did not address the issue (e.g. Doehring, 2002; Silverman, 1995)). For instance, Yavağ (1998: 226, stress added) mentions ‘New England variety, Southern variety, General American, and African-American vernacular’ as illustrative of US language varieties. Reed (1986) reproduces a dialect map from 1966, which labels ‘Southern’, ‘Appalachian’, ‘Western Pennsylvania’, ‘New York City’, ‘Middle Atlantic’, ‘Eastern New England’, and ‘Emerging general American’ (a region the purportedly reaches from Ohio, down to west Texas, and out to the west coast; emphasis mine). These labels vastly oversimplify the US dialect picture, with the greatest inaccuracy thus being the belief in General American — a variety that simply does not exist. For example, the vowel systems found in one region included under the ‘General American’ label — even vowel spaces of speakers matched for education, social class, age and gender — differ tremendously from vowel spaces found in other regions. I will show (via charts of vowel spaces and recordings of speakers) that even if we examine only those regions specifically offered as standard by SLPs, we find enormous differences between, e.g. Los Angeles speakers and Detroit speakers. Furthermore, virtually every language variety included under the classification ‘General American’ has at least a few, and in some cases several, vowel types that most American listeners would label non-standard. Recordings of urban, educated Detroiters that I have played for people from all over the country have immediately been labeled non-standard, for instance, particularly when listeners are not told that the speakers are from Michigan. In Niedzielski (1999), I report findings that show that Detroiters themselves label other Detroiters’ speech as non-standard, if they are made to believe that the speakers are from English-speaking regions other than Detroit.

46

(2)

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

This study, and others, provide convincing evidence that ‘General American’ is an idealized construct, rather than an actual language variety, and as such should not be used as a benchmark by which to evaluate or compare to speakers’ usages. Features that are part of the phonological and syntactic structures of non-standard dialects are often considered symptomatic of disorders by pathology texts and diagnostic tools. A second pattern to emerge from an examination of speech remediation procedures was that several of the features in diagnostic tools (e.g. the Rice/Wexler Test of Early Grammatical Impairments (TEGI); the Northwestern Syntax Screening Test (NSST); the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability (ITPA); etc.) are grammatical in several US dialects. For instance, TEGS contains tests for so-called ‘inaccurate’ constructions such as ‘he happy’, ‘he walking’, ‘yesterday she walk to my house’, and ‘(do) he like me?’, each of which is purported to signal a syntactic disorder. Other tests check for ‘correct’ usage of plural or possessive markers (so that ‘two cat’ and ‘Gramma house’ are ‘incorrect’). While these syntactic productions may in fact signal a disorder in children whose dialects do not contain such constructs, in many dialects these sentences are well-formed, grammatical utterances, and there are millions of normal, non-disordered children and adults who use them. However, there is no statement regarding these dialects anywhere on articles about the TEGI, websites advertising the test, and SLP websites mentioning the test. Similar patterns were found with regard to phonological variation. For instance, several texts (and websites) on phonological disorders offer paths of ‘normal’ phonological progression, and state that retention of developmental processes after a specific age might indicate a need for an SLP’s intervention. Yavağ (1998: 142), for instance, offers several charts depicting chronologies of phonological development, including processes such as ‘final devoicing’ (i.e. ‘goot’ for ‘good’); ‘final consonant deletion’ (i.e. ‘fine’ for ‘find’); ‘cluster reduction’ (i.e. ‘poposal’ for ‘proposal’); and ‘stopping’ (i.e. ‘dat’ for ‘that’), all of which occur in several US dialects as grammatical phonological processes. There is no mention, however, of the fact that these should only be considered pathological if they are not a part of the adult phonology in the region.3 In addition, not a single website that included such diagnostic tests for parents to use on their own children4 contained such disclaimers regarding syntactic or phonological variation, and neither did any of the existing computerized speech-training programs.

Sociolinguistic View of Speech Sciences

(3)

47

Finally, most of the SLPs interviewed for the computer project felt that tests for the above-mentioned syntactic and phonological features were valuable, and unfortunately several were not aware that such features were part of several US dialects. Several of those that were aware of them, felt that in fact they should be remediated (see (3) below). Furthermore, the marketers and programmers at the electronics company for which I worked felt that the question of dialect was a non-issue, and that computerized programs should test for and help to remediate any non-standard construction, with no consideration for potential language varieties of the users. A few weeks into the project, in fact, one programmer brought a grammar book to me and said that it was proof that the syntactic constructions in question were ‘against the rules’, and thus any computer program we created should eradicate them. Thus, while some texts and SLPs mention the necessity of attention to the speech community’s language varieties, in practice it does not appear to be the norm. And while the constructs mentioned above may very well indicate a disorder in the speech of a child who is not a part of a speech community where they are used, I suggest that using such features as the basis for diagnosis virtually assures that speakers of non-standard dialects will get caught in the language-disordered net. Non-standard dialects were often considered ‘social pathologies’. Perhaps the most distressing of the findings was the often blatantly made statement that non-standard dialects were in fact pathologies, and there were two predominant opinions. First, there were a few SLPs who did not believe that non-standard features, such as those mentioned in section (2) above, could be anything but disordered, and in their defense, they lived in areas that did not include populations of non-standard speakers who used such features (excepting non-native speakers). They thus felt that a client who produced ‘he happy’ or ‘Gramma house’ regularly had a syntactic disorder, which should in fact be remediated. When I suggested that there were entire communities of speakers that would therefore be considered disordered, one SLP said that that was not surprising since ‘speech disorders tend to run in families’. The second group that classified non-standard constructions as disordered often labeled them ‘social pathologies’. Several pathologists felt that helping a child to replace non-standard features with more standard ones actually was a service they should provide,

48

(4)

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

since non-standard varieties were not accepted in, for instance, the workforce. This idea was found in a few of the texts that mentioned such varieties as well. For instance, Peterson and Marquardt (1990) cautioned practitioners (based on De Avila & Havassy, 1974) that the use of ‘local norms’ could lead to such consequences as ‘reducing children’s aspirations’, ‘lowering expectations for certain ethnic-racial groups’ and ‘reinforcing the genetic-inferiority argument’ (p. 15). One of the programmers I worked with expressed a similar sentiment, based on the fact that he himself was a speaker of a nonstandard dialect. He contended that he would gladly ‘hook myself up to a machine that would make me say my r’s right’, and that the entire eastern seaboard should welcome such a device. I recognize that this is not by any means an unusual attitude of non-standard speakers, and I hope that this can be addressed by the suggestions I offer in the narrative section. Computer-based diagnoses or remediation tools of necessity rely on a very narrow definition of ‘normal’. Existing computerized speech training systems, such as IBM’s SpeechViewer, BoTech’s VideoVoice, and Idioma’s Pronounce products, must be trained to recognize certain tokens of speech as acceptable, or ‘correct’, and others as unacceptable. Most did a good job of detecting degrees of nasality, for instance, or rhoticity. However, each contained several applications for vowel evaluation, and the range of ‘correct’ tokens was limited. For example, on each of the products, my own vowel productions were not accepted (I am a native of Detroit, Michigan). Several of the demonstrators claimed that the machine had a harder time with women, perhaps, or that I was not speaking clearly enough. One person suggested that I said ‘man’ and ‘candle’ too ‘nasally’, and that I may in fact have a disorder (failing to realize that it was my raised and fronted /æ/, rather than nasality, which was the issue). And even though vowel disorders are much rarer than consonant disorders (Yavağ, 1998), these systems had at least as many, or more, vowel-based applications than consonant-based ones.

Computerized systems that address syntactic disorders often require a user to either choose the ‘correct’ grammatical pattern, or to type in a ‘correct’ sentence. However, several of these systems involve training on the very same constructions I have mentioned in section (2). Thus, plurals, past tenses, possessives and number agreement not overtly marked, copula absence, ‘double negatives’, and regularized verb forms

Sociolinguistic View of Speech Sciences

49

are all unacceptable, and none of the systems mentions dialect. What emerges is a picture of language that assumes there is in fact one correct, uniform variety of American English, which should be the goal that language remediators help their clients to attain. Problems with and solutions to this are discussed in the following section. Discussion Of course, it is not the case that every SLP in the US feels that nonstandard dialects need to be fixed, and in fact most may be acutely aware of the issues. The number of university programs that include dialectology or sociolinguistic requirements suggests that non-standard speakers are not being ignored. In addition, a number of texts address the issue, and texts such as Rosberry-McKibbin and Hedge (2000) address it several times and with great assiduousness. By the same token, I have no doubt that were SLPs to spend time interviewing sociolinguists, and perusing sociolinguistic texts, they would no doubt discover that we know maddeningly little about what types of disorders children have, how such disorders are manifested, and how to treat such disorders. How can we make claims about variants not being disorders, when we know so little about what constitutes a disorder in the first place? Too often, however, non-standard varieties are in fact treated as if they were pathologies, and the percentage of African-Americans in remedial classes seems to confirm this. I therefore offer the following suggestions, based on the success I have had in instructing students about non-standard (and their own) dialects. First, it is worthwhile to spend time examining one’s own speech. People are always amazed to discover that often the very features they find fault with are those that they frequently use themselves. Students, for example, are always surprised to find out how often they delete obstruents word-finally, how often they reduce vowels, and how often they produce an alveolar rather than velar nasal, even in relatively formal speech. I have them read into a tape-recorder a passage about ‘using your best speech around children’, and even in this one phrase they are surprised by the fact that they delete the /d/ from ‘around’, and the /t/ from ‘best’, reduce ‘your’ to ‘yer,’ and sometimes metathasize the vowel and the /r/ in ‘children’. I make students repeat this painful process several times, including having them tape discourses, which allows them to find syntactic and morphological constructions that they swore they never used (no one ever admits to the use of ‘gonna’ or ‘wanna,’ until they catch it on tape, for example).

50

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

In addition, I require students to collect and acoustically analyze the speech of several friends. This allows them to discover that the symmetrical vowel spaces presented in introductory linguistics and phonetics texts (often with the ‘General American’ label) do not exist (this, of course, presupposes a background in both acoustic and articulatory properties of speech sounds). Following Wolfram 1992, I give students ‘grammar’ tests on non-standard dialects, such as a variety of African-American English (AAE), to stress that there are rules in such dialects that they may not be aware of. And I have collected a long list of sentences from many different parts of the country, and require students to conduct language attitudes research using the list, to discover first hand the reactions that people have towards non-standard constructions. Dr Brenda Seal, a speech pathology professor at James Madison University, reports that in her attempts to educate students about Appalachian dialects, ‘a semester’s instruction in dialects’ was not adequate for changing negative opinions about non-standard features, but that a practicum involving the actual speakers was much more successful.5 This suggests that people who have the potential to work with non-standard speakers be exposed to such speakers during their education, when they are learning about dialects, rather than later, when they are evaluating them. The issue of non-standard dialects as ‘social’ pathologies is more complicated, but must be addressed. Students are encouraged to think of other types of areas that might be considered social pathologies, and fairly quickly they offer categories such as gender, height, age, and skin color. Since they agree that it is unreasonable to require a person to alter any of these features, I attempt to make an analogy with language variety. The question of immutability is often raised — isn’t it easier to change one’s dialect than one’s gender? — and I offer weight, nose size and hair loss as additional analogies. Can we require people to conform to a particular ideal with regard to any of these things, in order to get good jobs? If not (and this is debatable among students, especially with regard to weight), then what do we do so that people are not discriminated against based on these things? This is where I find the suggestions made by linguists such as Carolyn Adger, Walt Wolfram and Donna Christian so applicable. In several articles (cf. Adger et al., 1999: 21), they propose that children be taught about language varieties ‘at practically every grade level’. In a classroom, where language variety is inherently an issue (whether or not the students speak a non-standard variety), dialect issues should be honestly

Sociolinguistic View of Speech Sciences

51

and accurately addressed in a non-biased way. Regional distribution, history, linguistic features, and even prominent figures who speak non-standard dialects can be studied, and most students find this quite interesting. In instances where this has been attempted, there have been several positive outcomes: test scores have risen, children are less threatened by language discussions, and differences between a child’s variety and standard varieties are often easier to address, to name just a few. As they point out: ‘. . . there is a practical reason for studying about language differences. As students learn in a nonthreatening context to pay attention to details of language variation, they should become more equipped to transfer these skills to other language-related tasks, including the acquisition of a standard variety.’ (22). While this is not a suggestion for speech pathology in particular, its application would complement the work of SLPs invaluably, and would serve to assure that it was only students with true deficits that they were treating. Here too is where knowledge from speech pathology professionals is infinitely useful. A source of information that SLPs hold with regard to dialect information is the often vast quantities of data about features that occur in their clients’ varieties. I found that several SLPs had made recordings of both normal and disordered speakers, and some were aware of features, or patterns of features, that dialectologists had not yet uncovered. To illustrate using a more specific case, Adger et al. (1999) report that collaborative efforts between sociolinguists and SLPs in several schools revealed a phonological pattern among AAE speakers that might not have otherwise emerged. Furthermore, Wyatt (1995) points out that most sociolinguistic research is conducted with adults, but that valuable knowledge about language varieties (and of course their development) is gained from working with children as they acquire a dialect. Researchers with the greatest contact with children — namely SLPs — should be able to most accurately gauge what kinds of variables are found in a given community. Finally, the issue of computerized speech training equipment should be addressed. There are many valuable programs that can address fluency disorders, features found in the speech of hearing-impaired individuals (such as hypernasality and amplitude control), voice disorders, and articulation and language disorders. I would caution, though, that the range of ‘normal’ in these programs is severely limited, especially with regard to articulation and language disorders, and they cannot ever match the sensitivity of human listeners. It is simply not possible to program machines to take dialectal variation into account.

52

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

Conclusion I have been accused of being one of the ‘guns blazing, mouth frothing’ masses of sociolinguists who leaps to criticize the very people who are working daily with those that have difficulty communicating, and if this paper contributes to that reputation, I apologize. One thing that reading through introductory speech pathology texts has taught me is that I really know very little about disordered communication, and that I need to remedy this. As someone who have researched and published a great deal on folk linguistics, language attitudes, and speech perception, I am acutely aware of the myths and misconceptions surrounding language varieties. I feel very strongly that those whose job it is to help children and adults learn to communicate better need to absolutely not operate with any of those myths and misconceptions. I also strongly believe that those of us whose job it is to research language varieties need to understand not only ordered, but disordered varieties. I therefore welcome the blazing and frothing (and the knowledge) of the speech pathologists who are in the trenches, and know much more than I about parents, educators, and clients attitudes towards language varieties. Notes 1. Thank you to Toya Wyatt, and to Brenda Seal. 2. Rosberry-McKibbin and Hedge (2000) is an impressive exception; they provide a more detailed map and explanation of the US dialect scene, and refer to it throughout the text. 3. There is reference to US language varieties later in the text (226), including a reference to ‘General American’ — see above; however, I contend that such a reference should be included wherever diagnostic features are mentioned. 4. See the Ontario Association for Families of Children with Communication Disorders website. 5. Personal communication (2002).

Chapter 4

Linguistic Profiling: The Linguistic Point of View DENNIS R. PRESTON

Introduction The assumption in linguistic profiling is that hearers can use speech as a means of identifying people according to such categories as class, ethnicity, age, sex, sexual preference, native language background and so on. This assumption gives rise to two very important questions. First, do laypersons have the wherewithal to make such identifications with any degree of accuracy? Second, to what ends can such identifications, if indeed they can be made, be put? That is, how do landlords, loan officers, juries, police, teachers, employers, or anyone else who has some control over the lives of others, make use of such identifications? These questions touch on issues of civil rights, and the laws are quite clear. Discrimination against persons based on membership in many of these classes and in many areas of public life is not permitted. This chapter was, in fact, motivated by cases in which legally guaranteed rights have been denied to persons who were identified, or profiled, on the basis of their speech, and it is an attempt to bring linguistic expertise to bear on the two questions raised above. Spurred on by John Baugh’s groundbreaking work (Smith, 2001), local and regional fair housing organizations around the country have been sniffing out wrongdoers for years. They make a record of a landlord’s response by phone to a speaker of, for example, African-American English (AAE) that an advertised apartment is not available. They then call the landlord back and have the request made by a person who is not a speaker of AAE. If the landlord says that the apartment is now available, the trap snaps shut. Such proof usually overwhelms the defense claim that the accused is not an expert, and most of these cases have been settled out of court (Smalls, 2004: 6, fn 15). This approach of taking on wrongdoers one-by-one is not only timeconsuming but has also resulted in a dearth of legal precedent by settling 53

54

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

out of court. Can arguments be put forward by experts, in this case linguists, to establish the precedent that laypersons do indeed have the ability to identify, classify or profile people on the basis of their speech? In doing so, we need to start with a review of the current, established legal precedents concerning the ability of untrained persons to do this very thing, and that necessity will lead us into criminal as well as civil concerns. It raises the question, for example, of whether a witness may testify to having identified an unseen speaker as a member of a class of persons, contributing to the establishment of, say, the presence of the speaker at a crime scene. Do lay people think that they can identify language varieties? Before we investigate the law, however, let us see what history, popular culture, and other domains have contributed to beliefs and practices about this issue. The first answer comes from the Old Testament — Judges 12: 5–6: 5

6

And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan; and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

The second answer comes from Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr, which David Margolick, writing in The New York Times, provides the following account of from the 1995 O. J. Simpson case: But on cross-examination, Christopher A. Darden, a prosecutor, contended that in statements to friends, Mr Heidstra had identified the two people as a young white man and an older black one, and had even identified Mr. Simpson as one of the speakers. ‘I know it was O.J. It had to be him’, Mr Darden said Mr Heidstra told a friend. Mr Heidstra dismissed the suggestion that he had identified the speakers by their age or race as ‘absurd’, insisting that he could not have told if they were ‘white or brown or yellow’. When Mr. Darden pushed him, Mr. Cochran rose angrily to object. . . (Margolick, 1995)

Linguistic Profiling

55

Whose of these contradictory beliefs is right? The Old Testament’s or Johnnie Cochran’s? First, let us look at the answer according to ordinary people, although we have no way of knowing if a few experts participated. A 2001 website poll, ‘Mister Poll’ (http://www.misterpoll.com/ polls/46319/results) asked the following question: ‘Do you believe that you can determine someone’s race by their voice?’ The responses were as follows: All the time (4%) 50% of the time (28%) None of the time (6%)

75% of the time (37%) Less than 50% of the time (22%) (N=364)

It is not clear if the people who answered ‘50%’ would also agree with the statistical sophistication that their identifications were no better than chance (assuming two choices). I return to that below, but at least 40% of those who responded believed that their identification ability was rather better than chance. It is probably also the case that many Americans who took the poll translated the term ‘race’ into the notion ‘African-American’. The same poll also asked people to respond to the following statement: ‘I have made assumptions about someone’s race based on their voice.’ Yes (77%)

No (13%)

Not sure (8%)

(N=323)

Since an overwhelming majority agreed that it had made such identifications, perhaps the ‘50%’ interpretation in the first question (agreed to by 29% of the respondents) did not strictly correspond to a statistician’s interpretation. It may be safe to say that ordinary speakers are at least somewhat convinced that they are adept at racial voice identification; if not, it would be strange for 77% of them to admit that they have made such identifications, although it is important to note that this survey did not go on to ask if the poll-taker knew if his or her identifications were correct. Also relevant, however, were two other questions asked in the poll: The first was ‘Should a witness who has heard a crime but not seen a crime be allowed to identify an unfamiliar suspect in a line-up?’ No (67%)

Yes (32%)

(N=359)

I will pay less attention to this question since the wording may have misled respondents. ‘Unfamiliar suspect’ was probably interpreted by most to mean simply any person unknown to the respondent. But ‘identify’ could refer to the sex, age, or ethnicity of the speaker, or it

56

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

could refer to a specific individual. Those are quite different matters, and I will not deal with the second possibility here, although it is an obviously important issue in language and the law or forensic linguistics. The question also fails to indicate what procedures might be used in obtaining such an identification. The other relevant question was the following: ‘Testimony of voice witness accounts should be admissible in court.’ Strongly Agree (8%) Doesn’t Matter (11%) Strongly Disagree (11%)

Agree (45%) Disagree (23%) (N=333)

This question also fails to indicate what sort of testimony should be admissible — the identification of an individual or the identification of the class, age, sex, regional background and/or ethnicity of an individual. Whatever the interpretation, a majority agrees that testimony about a speaker’s voice characteristics should be admissible. I will assume, therefore, that there is general agreement among nonlinguists that some accuracy is possible in non-expert identification of voices, whether they are ones which lead to the identification of a specific individual or of a class of individuals. Now let us look at the answer from big business. Americans must be thought to be sensitive to speech variety, or advertisers, who surely do not want to waste money, would not be so very careful to match speech stereotypes to performers in their campaigns to sell their products. They seem to have audiences in mind that they can count on to respond stereotypically to certain voices. They do not hire ‘good ol’ boys’ to sell trout flies, and they do not hire posh-sounding Englishmen to sell bigmouth bass lures. In a TV advertisement, it was Ricardo Montalban, not George Carlin, who reminded us that the seats of some autos were covered in ‘Corinthian leather’; the first and second vowels in ‘Corinthian’ and the first vowel in ‘leather’ were just tense enough and the /r/ so delicately tapped to let us know that he was of a romanticized ethnicity that should know about such posh matters. When companies advertise in markets that are dominated by or have considerable representation from one group or another, they often specialize their presentations so that characteristics recognizable as those of local speakers or of speakers of the same ethnicity or background can be identified. In African-American markets, for example, McDonald’s uses the label ‘Micky D’s’ as a short, hip and, to their marketing ears, AAE way of referring to their outlets. In short, the evidence from business is that non-experts can and do make these distinctions.

Linguistic Profiling

57

Popular culture, however, is perhaps just as involved in selling itself as in selling things, and the appropriateness of certain voices to some roles and identities in drama, radio, television, movies and song is long-standing. In Hip-Hop, for example, the next worst thing that can happen to an entertainer after being accused of lacking street authenticity is to be accused of lacking an authentic voice (Alim, 2004). In fact, it is unimaginable that one could have street authenticity without the right voice. You got to talk the talk as well as walk the walk if you want to get your props. Finally, let us review a little evidence from linguistics. Considering just the ability of hearers to recognize African-American voices, we find that a large number of experiments, dating back to the 1950’s, have been conducted. This body of research is summarized in Thomas and Reaser (2004), who conclude that overall, the rate of correct identifications is about 80%. I will return to a more detailed account of linguistic factors in identification below, but first let’s look briefly at the law.

Precedents of Linguistic Analysis in Court Laypersons as experts In Clifford v. Commonwealth (1999), a frequently cited case (e.g. Smalls, 2004), testimony was allowed in which the witness identified ‘a voice as being that of a particular race or nationality’ (8). The appeals decision went on to affirm that lay persons can so testify ‘. . . so long as the witness is personally familiar with the general characteristics, accents, or speech patterns of the race or nationality in question, i.e., so long as the opinion is “rationally based on the perception of the witness”’ (8, quoting the last phrase from Kentucky Rules of Evidence 701, which duplicates Federal Rules of Evidence 701). This Kentucky Supreme Court decision was not unanimous, and I will present a more detailed characterization of the dissent below; but it reflects established practice in allowing such testimony from non-experts. What do linguists have to say about all this? Frankly, we were flabbergasted by the Cochran claim. We have been working on much more subtle problems, showing that members of speech communities are not only good at ethnic identification but are also good at age, gender, social status and a host of other distinctions, with amazingly minimal amounts of linguistic evidence to go on. Here is just one example of African-American versus European-American voice identification from Philadelphia. An African-American speaker was recorded saying the sentence ‘I gotta get out of the house’. His vowel in ‘house’, a two-part

58

Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

vowel (or ‘diphthong’), began with the sound most speakers have for the first vowel in the word ‘father’, the sound indicated by the phonetic symbol [a]. The remainder of the vowel in ‘house’ glides upward and ends somewhere near the vowel most speakers have for the vowel in ‘good’, the sound indicated by the phonetic symbol [̃]. The researchers acoustically modified the first part of this diphthong (leaving the rest of the word and sentence in the speaker’s original voice), so that the vowel in ‘house’ began instead with the vowel most speakers have in ‘hat’, the sound indicated by the phonetic symbol [æ]. In the experiment, the first version was the original (unmodified) sentence, in which the speaker said [hãs]. In the second, the speaker pronounced ‘house’ as [hæ̃s]. The two sentences were played, along with other tasks, for native Philadelphians, who were asked to identify the speakers as African-American or European-American. Results: N=70 /hãs/ 55-black /hæ̃s/ 26-black

15-white 43-white (Graff et al., 1986)

On the basis of just the onset of this single diphthong, local, non-expert listeners were able to make a judgment of ethnicity that corresponded to what linguists had discovered about this vowel in the systems of Black and White speakers of Philadelphia English. Even when the remainder of the sentence gave considerable evidence that the speaker was AfricanAmerican, the [æ] onset to the diphthong, a Philadelphia EuropeanAmerican feature, convinced a majority of listeners that the speaker was White. In another recent study, the sociolinguist John Baugh recorded the word hello with pronunciations which were typical of (1) African Americans (AAVE), (2) Hispanic Americans (Mexican-Spanish influenced — abbreviated ChE for ‘Chicano English’), and (3) European Americans (but neither obviously southern nor East Coast — abbreviated SAE for ‘Standard American English’) (Purnell et al., 1999). Students at the University of Delaware listened to these recordings and were asked to guess the ethnicity of the speaker. Table 4.1 shows that the respondents were very good at this. The largest error was the misidentification of the AAVE guise as SAE 42%. The overall accuracy rate, however, based on just this one word, was 0.72, a figure close to the 80% level reported in Thomas and Reaser (2004). Americans are also very well attuned to status speech variables. Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of the realization of post-vocalic /r/

Linguistic Profiling

59

Table 4.1 Ethnic identification of the word ‘hello’; correct identification percentages in bold (Purnell et al., 1999: 23) Responses

Stimuli ChE 15 81 6

AAVE 45 12 42

AAVE ChE SAE

SAE 9 3 87

Chi-square=4,510, df=4, p