1 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

Mixed Messages in the Spanish Heritage Language Classroom: Insights from CDA of Textbooks and Instructor Focus Group Discussions

Katharine E. Burns Carnegie Mellon University

Linda R. Waugh University of Arizona

ABSTRACT This paper explores the implications of prevailing attitudes about language variety found in a case study of a large, university SHL program. First, a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach was employed to examine the ideological underpinnings of the presentation of varieties of Spanish (including those of U.S. Spanish) in textbooks used in the program. Second, discussions with focus groups of SHL instructors were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed to gain insight into the practices fostered by the SHL program related to language variety. The CDA findings show evidence of reinforcement of an ideology of a monolithic “standard” Spanish in the SHL textbooks and curricula, with only cursory attention paid to regional varieties of Spanish and, at times, implicit and explicit de-legitimization of U.S. varieties of Spanish. The focus group data indicates that instructors identify tension between: 1) the program’s stated goals, which are to validate the students’ Spanish varieties and to develop an academic or professional register of Spanish; and 2) classroom reality, in which the “standard” is the overwhelming focus and the students’ own “home varieties” of Spanish are at times devalued by the textbook and course materials. Finally, based on these results, some pedagogical recommendations to validate heritage learners’ Spanish as a resource, rather than a deficit, are discussed.

Keywords: U.S. Spanish, language variation, critical discourse analysis, language ideology, textbooks

INTRODUCTION The Pew Hispanic Center reports a 61.9% increase in the number of Hispanics born in the U.S. between 2000 and 2012 (Krogstad & Lopez, 2014). Hispanics are the largest and one of the fastest- growing minority groups in the U.S. In addition, 74% of U.S. Hispanics say they speak a language other than English in the home to at least some degree, whether or not they also speak English at home (Krogstad & Lopez, 2014). Though the U.S. is one of the largest Spanish-speaking countries in the world when bilingual speakers are counted, with over 39 million speakers (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017), spoken varieties of U.S. Spanish are among those with the lowest prestige (Escobar & Potowski, 2015; Otheguy & Stern, 2011). This may be due to many factors, including Spanish’s status as a minority language in the U.S., its contact with English and lower-prestige Spanish varieties, and the often uneasy political and cultural relationship between the U.S. and the Spanish- speaking world, among others. Spanish as a heritage language (SHL) students typically come from bilingual Spanish-speaking communities in the U.S. that may use varieties of U.S. Spanish and often struggle with internalized linguistic prejudices and low linguistic self-esteem (Goble, 2016; Beaudrie, 2011; Parodi, 2008; Bills, 2005).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 2 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

Spanish departments in the U.S. have a long history of being Euro-centric, literature-focused, and having a tendency to reinforce stigmatization of non-“standard” language varieties (Ortega, 1999). Moreover, SHL courses traditionally have focused on grammar and writing using an amalgamated “standard” variety of the language, which does not reflect the type of language most often used by speakers in authentic conversational contexts (Ducar, 2009; Martínez, 2003). Students, however, particularly those in beginning-level SHL courses, are in need of accurate and complete sociolinguistic information about the varieties of Spanish spoken in their own country and communities, as well as realistic information about global spoken varieties of Spanish. The current study seeks to examine the ways in which regional language variety, with particular focus on U.S. varieties of Spanish, is presented in the curriculum of a large public university that is home to one of the largest SHL programs in the U.S. Because of the need for a uniform experience across dozens of sections, course syllabi often mirror the textbook so closely that, in fact, the textbook essentially becomes the syllabus (Pardiñas-Barnes, 1998; see also Beaudrie, 2015b). Therefore, the current study employs CDA to analyze the ideological underpinnings of the university’s first and second-year SHL textbooks building on the work of Ducar (2009, 2006) and Leeman and Martínez (2007) as well as their presentation of regional language variety and its relationship to the reproduction of “standard” language ideology. Since instructor beliefs and practices regarding language variety are also a key component of SHL instruction, this study includes focus group interviews with SHL instructors to gain insights into their perspectives on this issue (following Beaudrie, 2015a; Burns Al Masaeed, 2014).

U.S. Spanish Varieties and SHL Speakers The United States is home to a highly diverse population of Spanish speakers, many of whom are bilingual. Their varieties are heterogeneous, differing according to a host of sociolinguistic factors, and their receptive and productive competences in Spanish fall along a continuum. This study focuses on a subset of SHL speakers that exist in many places: they are mostly third generation Spanish-speakers who have experienced some degree of language shift toward English; these speakers tend to have higher receptive than productive competence in Spanish. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, Beaudrie and Ducar’s (2005) definition of a heritage learner will be used for its inclusive scope: “…all individuals that have experienced a relatively extended period of exposure to the language, typically during childhood, through contact with family members or other individuals, resulting in the development of either receptive and/or productive abilities in the language, and varying degrees of bilingualism” (p. 13). The majority of SHL learners in the U.S., by virtue of geography, have been exposed to one or more of the many varieties of U.S. Spanish that have been in contact with English. Most U.S. varieties of Spanish also have sustained and/or historical contact with non-U.S. varieties of Spanish, indigenous languages, or both.

Otheguy and Stern (2011) have defined the varieties of U.S. Spanish as “…the popular registers of the Spanish of [the] vast majority of first- and second-generation U.S. Latinos” (p. 88), which includes some SHL speakers. However, many SHL speakers are in fact members of the third generation and beyond (Escobar & Potowski, 2015; Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005; Bills, 2005; Valdés, 1995). Their language varieties and needs as SHL learners should not be overlooked in discussions of language variety in the SHL classroom. The nuanced heterogeneity of U.S. varieties of Spanish

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 3 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

means they have proven to be difficult to define or identify using a single term. For example, some researchers (Otheguy & Stern, 2011; Lipski, 2008) have problematized the term ‘’ as reinforcing an ideological position that does not give U.S. Spanish, their preferred term, a valid place among the other local varieties of Spanish (e.g., Mexican, Argentine, Costa Rican) and stigmatizes it as a low-prestige fusion of Spanish and English. In fact, Otheguy and Stern (2011) argue that U.S. varieties of Spanish, like other varieties of the language, have their own regular rules and patterns, and are not simply an arbitrary mix of Spanish and English, so they should be treated as legitimate varieties of the language. Zentella (2009), however, contends that the term Spanglish could be reclaimed by the users of U.S. varieties of Spanish, both as a means of expressing linguistic and cultural pride and as an acknowledgement of linguistic oppression, past and present, of U.S. Spanish-speaking communities. For a more detailed treatment of this dilemma, see also Lipski (2008).

Given the many varieties of Spanish worldwide as well in the U.S., and the number of variables affecting the language variety and proficiency of U.S. Spanish-speakers, it may seem counterintuitive that Spanish is often portrayed as monolithic in textbooks. Therefore, this study examines the potential influence of language standardization and ideology on these pedagogical materials as a means of providing insight into how they portray U.S. varieties of Spanish.

Language Standardization, Ideology, and CDA The process of language standardization occurs when a politically, economically, or socially dominant group seeks to consolidate and reproduce their power by fomenting the belief that their own language variety, equal to all others in an academic, linguistic sense, is a necessary means by which to acquire cultural, political, economic, or social capital (Bourdieu, 1991). They seek, therefore, to minimize variation within language, which is often connected to regional, ethnic, or social identity, under the guise of “eliminating redundancy,” “streamlining” or for “efficiency’s sake” (Cheshire, 1999; Garvin, 1993).

This “standard” form, used in spheres such as the media and education (Siegel, 2006), is often ascribed higher status than other varieties. However, as Milroy (2001) points out, standard varieties are often not those that are characterized by the most uniformity (as the term standard would suggest), but rather those that have the highest social prestige. For example, (castellano) and, more recently, the Latin American norma culta, or “educated” standard, have risen to dominance largely via the ideology of standardization (Train, 2007). As is typical, “standard” Spanish is identified with the educated, and is supported both from the top-down and the bottom-up.

Paffey and Mar-Molinero (2009) describe some top-down attempts to spread and promote a by the Real Academia Española (RAE [Royal Spanish Academy]) in conjunction, at times, with the Cervantes Institute. What the RAE calls a “pan-Hispanic” language policy, which they claim to have developed in cooperation with the language academies of other Spanish-speaking countries (themselves authorities with a prescriptive notion of language), is revealed by Paffey and Mar-Molinero (2009) to be a hierarchy in which Spain is dominant and under which many varieties of, and language closely related to, Spanish are ignored, including Catalan (catalán) (Vann, 2002) and U.S. varieties of Spanish (Villa, 2002). The RAE and its many

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 4 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

branches in the Americas and elsewhere have significant symbolic power to influence what “Spanish” is and how it is taught. For example, Lynch and Potowski (2014) found that a book published by one of RAE’s branches, La Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española [ANLE; The North American Spanish Language Academy], that was intended to serve as a guide for bilingual U.S. users of Spanish, in fact provided erroneous or misleading sociolinguistic information about Anglicisms in U.S. varieties of Spanish and sent implicit negative messages about the natural linguistic consequences of Spanish-English contact. Lynch and Potowski argue that these messages are counter to ANLE’s stated mission of promoting the use of Spanish in the U.S., and that they could reinforce SHL learners’ low linguistic self-esteem.

In addition to top-down efforts to reinforce standard language ideology, many SHL speakers are subject, perhaps most directly, to bottom-up attempts to stigmatize certain language varieties in favor of others. Spanish speech communities themselves may adopt more accepted or standard forms of speech, such as the “koineization” described by Parodi (2011) in some Mexican-origin Spanish-speaking communities in Los Angeles, which is acquired by speakers of other Spanish varieties as a means of integration into the wider Spanish-speaking community.

As Milroy and Milroy (1991) point out, this type of language prescription is directly tied to an ideology of standard language that cements the power of hegemonic groups. Given that language standardization seeks to eliminate variation, but that variety is still very much a hallmark of spoken language, how can we mitigate the effects of standard language ideology as we prepare students to become autonomous users of a heritage language in the target culture or community?

One way of uncovering these hegemonic language ideologies is through Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Following van Dijk (2001), this study utilizes CDA to “[study] the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context” (p. 352). Because many of the power relationships that CDA seeks to explore, expose, and remedy are tacitly expressed, CDA has a close relationship to ideology, which it seeks to unmask: “Discourse practices can…be seen as the deployment of, and indeed sometimes as acts of resistance to, dominant ideologies” (Jaworski & Coupland, 1999, p. 7).

Dominant groups, according to van Dijk (2001), assert power as control in two main ways. The first is in exerting control over public discourse, a privilege allotted almost exclusively to the elite by which they have the means to manipulate non-dominant groups implicitly, with little risk of being challenged. The second is in “mind control,” ( van Dijk, 2001, p. 357) or in assuring that non-dominant groups must accept certain information or ideology because they have no alternative discourse and may not have the resources with which to challenge hegemonic discourses. Given that hegemonies and the ideologies that bolster them are often reproduced via institutional discourse, CDA has often been employed to expose inequalities, latent or otherwise, in the discourse of educational institutions (Waugh, Catalano, Al Masaeed, Do, & Renigar, 2016). It can be useful in the classroom, since, as Auerbach (1995) argues, the classroom is a place in which the power of the dominant class is perpetuated through the kinds of knowledge and discourse that are valued and those that are not, in areas such as curriculum development, instructional content, materials design, and language choice. CDA can help students and teachers identify and address

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 5 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

marginalized points of view in order to work toward more inclusive classroom discourse (Pennycook, 2001).

In the context of this study, CDA will be used to examine whether the SHL textbooks used at a large, Southwestern university reproduce the ideology of the “standard” language, and to explore the consequences of these ideologies in the classroom by using transcripts from instructor focus groups.

Pedagogical Considerations and Instructional Materials Studies have found that university Spanish departments have a highly pervasive ideology of a standard language. In interviews with university Spanish faculty and graduate instructors, Valdés, González, García, and Márquez (2003) found that most participants described standard or academic Spanish as needing to be “pure, formal, and error-free” (p. 14) and displayed a negative attitude toward U.S. Spanish varieties, when they mentioned them at all. In addition, ideologically- based power dynamics operate within Spanish departments that favor monolingually-raised faculty and graduate students from Spain or Latin America over Euro-American L2 learners of Spanish and over the group attributed the least prestige of all—U.S. Latinos. SHL students are frequently perceived by faculty and graduate instructors as facing “insurmountable” obstacles toward acquiring standard Spanish and their communities are often characterized as being comprised of less-educated immigrant groups who do not have the Spanish language skills to gain entry into an academic or professional class (Valdés, González, García, and Márquez,2008, 2003; Leeman, 2012). Ortega (1999) also identifies a disconnect between expectations of language majority (L1 English monolingual) and language minority (U.S. Latino bilingual) students when it comes to studying Spanish—the former are encouraged to study a standard variety of Spanish in a classroom context as an L2, while the latter are expected (and in many cases forced) to give up their naturally acquired, usually “nonstandard” varieties, rather than to view them as a resource.

More recently, SHL pedagogues have advocated for a classroom model that attempts to de- stigmatize student language varieties by contextualizing their language behavior as typical of bilingualism in a linguistic sense and by using the tools of sociolinguistics to discuss explicitly the historical and social power dynamics that lead monolingual speakers to stigmatize those features (Beaudrie, 2015b; Parodi, 2008; Ducar, 2009; Martínez, 2003). However, studies have found incongruity between SHL programs’ stated objectives, which include the promotion and maintenance of students’ own varieties of Spanish, and classroom practice (Beaudrie, 2015a; Burns Al Masaeed, 2014; Lowther Pereira, 2010), which, at times, involves de-legitimization of student varieties.

In addition, Parra (2016) has suggested applying the principles of Critical Pedagogy (Freire, 2005) to the SHL classroom in order to empower students as language users by encouraging critical language awareness and by challenging students to examine the hierarchies and power structures at work in their communities. Lowther Pereira (2015) proposes ways in which SHL programs can encourage critical language awareness through service learning. Fairclough (2016) has advocated a model of Second Dialect Acquisition (SDA) for SHL classrooms in which the standard and home varieties are treated as “overlapping but separate” (p. 145) and which functions as an additive, rather than a subtractive, process in which students use their home varieties as a starting point from

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 6 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

which to acquire the standard through contrastive exercises and sociolinguistic information about ideology, power, and the development of standard language. Two-way translation exercises in which students are asked to translate into both the home variety and the standard variety (without characterizing one as more important than the other), as well as corpus-driven information about language variety have also been proposed as possible ways to address language stigmatization in the SHL classroom (Ducar, 2009, 2008; Parodi, 2008).

Beaudrie’s (2015a) research on student and instructor beliefs about language variety in the SHL classroom indicates that both parties agree on the importance of using informal varieties of Spanish in the classroom alongside academic registers. Other studies (Magaña, 2015; Ducar, 2008; Schwarzer & Petrón, 2005) have found that the majority of SHL students cite expanding their ability to use Spanish within their own communities as more important to them than developing academic registers of Spanish and that the students favor a practical focus that moves beyond the classroom and uses authentic materials. Nevertheless, it appears that, by and large, SHL textbooks continue to de-legitimize varieties of U.S. Spanish. Ducar’s (2009) survey of several SHL textbooks found that they heavily favor high-prestige Castilian varieties of Spanish and marginalize U.S. varieties of Spanish.

Previous studies examining the ideological underpinnings of language textbooks using the tools of CDA include Ducar’s (2006) dissertation study, which analyzes the representation of U.S. Latinos and U.S. varieties of Spanish in SHL textbooks. Ducar’s (2006) findings reveal that, most often, information about varieties of U.S. Spanish and their speakers is presented selectively and in a way that promotes Castilian Spanish, portraying U.S. Spanish varieties as appropriate only in a home context. Leeman and Martínez (2007) found a longitudinal shift in the ideological values advanced by SHL textbooks, from inclusive language, emphasizing “access, inclusion, and representation for minority Spanish language students” (p. 35) in the 1970s-80s to an ideology of competitiveness and globalization in the 1990s. Leeman and Martínez (2007) characterize this shift as motivated by the increasing commodification of diversity, with negative implications for SHL students. Building on these studies, the present investigation employs CDA to examine how SHL textbooks present U.S. and other varieties of Spanish.

THE PRESENT STUDY The case study presented here was undertaken in order to investigate how varieties of Spanish, especially U.S. Spanish, are represented in first- and second-year SHL textbooks, and how the approach of textbooks compares with that of instructors with regard to language variety. According to its website, the SHL program at the university where the study was conducted is one of the oldest and largest such programs in the country. The program offers a total of 6 courses, which places it in the top 4.5% of universities in the U.S. Southwest in terms of number of courses offered (Beaudrie, 2011). Approximately 500 students take courses in the SHL program in any given semester. This study focused on the beginner and intermediate courses, which are each completed in one semester (See Table 1 for course descriptions as they appeared on the university website at the time data was collected).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 7 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

Table 1.

SHL Course Descriptions

Beginner For students who have receptive skills in Spanish, but who encounter difficulty in speaking. It focuses on developing fluent conversation and listening skills in a positive and culturally rich environment. It also covers basic grammar structures problematic to students. For the Heritage Speaker of Spanish, Contact Department. Intermediate Designed for students who learned Spanish in a home or community environment. Focuses mainly on written and oral development but reading and listening skills are also practiced in a dynamic cultural context. Grammar and spelling issues problematic to students are also covered. This course fulfills the University's foreign language requirement.

Materials and Participants The textbooks used for the current study were chosen based on the materials used in the SHL courses at the university at which the case study was conducted: in the beginner course, ¡De una vez! (Samaniego, Rodriguez, & Rojas, 2008) and in the intermediate course, Nuestro idioma, nuestra herencia (García, Carney, & Sandoval, 2011).

The five instructor participants (three female, two male) in the focus group discussion conducted for this study were all enrolled in doctoral programs in either Hispanic Linguistics or SLA and working as graduate student instructors in the SHL program at the beginner or intermediate levels. All instructor participants had taught both SHL and SFL courses and had 3-5+ years of experience teaching Spanish at the university level. One of the five was a native speaker of . The other four participants were native English speakers. The participants volunteered for the study by responding to a recruitment E-mail sent to a Spanish and Portuguese departmental listserv; they were assigned pseudonyms to maintain confidentiality.

Method CDA of Textbooks For each textbook, the first author conducted a careful reading of the introductory material, preface, and scope and sequence of the Instructor’s Annotated Edition in order to determine how each book presents itself in relation to both Spanish outside the classroom and language variety, including whether it was systematically addressed.

Subsequently, the index of each book was searched for key terms pertinent to U.S. Spanish and language variety in general, such as: U.S. Spanish, Spanglish, language contact, loan words, language variety, vernacular, colloquialism, dialect, etc. The corresponding pages were examined for lexical and grammatical information about regional language varieties, with particular focus given to those of U.S. Spanish. Finally, each page of all textbooks was examined for any additional information on regional language variation. Special attention was paid to chapters, lessons, or sections focusing on the U.S. and/or Latinos in the U.S. and any mention of language variation in those sections. Quotations from the textbooks have been translated by the researchers into English

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 8 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

for the benefit of all readers. Due to space limitations, readers are referred to the indicated pages of the textbooks for the original Spanish.

Focus Group The focus group discussion was moderated by the first author in a semi-structured format and lasted approximately 60 minutes. The group’s conversation was audio recorded in full using a digital audio recording application and selected passages were transcribed. The transcription style was inspired by Conversation Analysis and adapted mainly from Gee (2011) and Bloomer, Griffiths, and Merrison (2005). See Appendix for information about transcription abbreviations and conventions used herein.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Sociolinguistic Information in the Textbooks ¡De una vez!, the beginner SHL textbook, systematically treats both lexical and grammatical variation within Spanish, with some discussion of phonological variation. Most lexical variation is discussed in the “Nuestra riqueza lingüística” (NRL) [Our Linguistic Wealth/Richness] sections included in each chapter. These same sections in some cases also address languages in contact, and in one case, a grammar point (el voseo). Grammatical variation is most often discussed in small boxed-off sections within the grammar lessons called “Notas para bilingües” [Notes for bilinguals] and “Notas para hispanohablantes” [Notes for Spanish-speakers]. These sections provide contrastive analysis between Spanish and English, in addition to addressing lexical and grammatical items from U.S. Spanish varieties. Finally, each chapter includes a section entitled “La tradición oral” [Oral Tradition] in which oral phenomena such as “proverbs, tongue twisters, riddles, popular sayings, and slang” (p. xiv) are presented from various Spanish-speaking cultures. Thus, the themes of oral language and variety within spoken Spanish are woven throughout ¡De una vez!. In the interest of focusing on portrayals of U.S. varieties of Spanish, this study examines the first half of ¡De una vez!, which includes six chapters on U.S. communities of Spanish-speakers (Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban-Americans, Dominicans, Nicaraguans, and Salvadorans).

The intermediate-level SHL book, Nuestro idioma, nuestra herencia, contains less overall sociolinguistic information than ¡De una vez!. It features sections called “Nuestro idioma” (NI) [Our Language], which discuss Spanish in contact with a different language in each chapter (Latin, Nahuatl, Greek, Visigoth, Quechua, Guarani, Arabic, and English). The NI sections provide the only sociolinguistic information in the textbook, with the exception of two additional sections in the final chapter, which is on Hispanics in the U.S., discussed below. This study focuses on that final chapter.

Textbook CDA Results The prefaces of both textbooks, which were written originally in English, explicitly support validation of students’ language varieties. According to its preface, the beginner-level textbook,¡De una vez! has the aim of promoting “Recognition of and respect for linguistic variants” (p. x). The authors state clearly their position on language variety within Spanish:

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 9 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

From the very beginning of the program, students are made aware, in such sections as Nuestra riqueza lingüística, [“Our Linguistic Wealth”] that the Spanish spoken in one country or region may vary from that of other regions, but that all are valid and worthy of respect (Samaniego et al., 2008, p. x).

However, elsewhere in the preface, the authors also make known that the grammar sections of ¡De una vez! are designed to “address specific linguistic needs of heritage Spanish speakers, including common pitfalls and less-widely accepted variants of Spanish” (p. x).

The authors of the intermediate-level textbook, Nuestro idioma, nuestra herencia, assert in the preface that one of the book’s several goals is “development of an awareness of register—that is, knowledge of the most appropriate language to use in formal vs. informal contexts” (García, Carney, & Sandoval, 2011, p. xi). The tension caused by, on the one hand, a desire to validate students’ existing varieties of Spanish, while on the other hand encouraging them to acquire an awareness of appropriate register and language, points to a central conflict in SHL pedagogy: how can academic or formal registers be introduced and developed without devaluing spoken or colloquial varieties? Below, we discuss three examples that show explicit devaluation of U.S. Spanish varieties in the textbooks.

Example 1: “Acceptable” Lexical Items One chapter on varieties of U.S. Spanish in ¡De una vez!, whose sociolinguistic theme is Spanish in contact with English, reveals a clear prescriptivist perspective. The chapter, which focuses on Cuban-Americans, contains an NRL section which begins with a list of fifteen Spanish words of English origin,1 from which students are asked to select the three words that are included in Spanish dictionaries, and therefore “acceptable” in the wider Spanish-speaking world. The section goes on to inform students that “…frequently, these variants are not understood outside certain border communities and are even seen negatively by many Spanish-speakers in the U.S. as well as in the rest of the Spanish-speaking world” (Samaniego et al., 2008, p. 107).

Given that some SHL students come from communities in which these words may be used, this activity seems to highlight the degree to which their own language use potentially deviates from the variety that is globally acceptable, which is not in line with the book’s aim to validate student varieties. While it may be true that some features of the varieties of U.S. Spanish are not widely known in other parts of the Hispanophone world and that they are sometimes stigmatized, students are not presented here with the wider sociolinguistic context to understand that language variation and languages in contact are common sociolinguistic phenomena and that all language varieties contain unique features. In addition, pointing out stigmatization of U.S. varieties of Spanish (of which many SHL students are all too aware) without a research-based counterpoint problematizing this notion leaves students vulnerable to the messaging that this stigma is somehow legitimate. Referring to lexical items as “acceptable” or, by extension, unacceptable, is ideologically motivated and not used by the authors to describe any other language variety in the textbook except those of U.S. Spanish. In addition, the authors choose to use dictionaries as a measure of acceptability, which have traditionally been tools of language academies to achieve standardization and perpetuate language ideology. The authors provide no indication of how they arrived at this particular list, nor do they cite evidence from corpora or sociolinguistic research

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 10 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

regarding the degree to which these words are used, understood, or accepted in the Spanish- speaking world. Rather, U.S. Spanish varieties are characterized here as insular and low-prestige.

Follow-up activities to the informational reading on U.S. varieties of Spanish in this chapter ask students to choose, from a list of fifteen loan words, which words they use. They are then asked to match lexical items to their equivalents in “general Spanish,” given in an opposite column. While the contrastive analysis portion of this activity may be useful in helping SHL students distinguish between language varieties, it may also have a marginalizing effect that reinforces internalized linguistic prejudice if they find themselves to be users of a high number of these words that by implication are characterized as unacceptable. The final activity in the section asks students to do a mini-ethnography of their family’s language. They are to “observe, without them noticing,” and document, the English loan-words used by Spanish-speaking family members. Once this list is obtained, students are tasked with the following:

…divide the list of loan-words in two, one list with the loan-words that do not have an equivalent in Spanish and therefore are accepted in the Spanish- speaking world, and another for those for which an equivalent exists and, therefore, are not very accepted. In this case, write the equivalent as well (Samaniego, et al., 2008, p. 108).

In addition to the potentially serious personal consequences of asking students to criticize their families’ form of communication, this activity does not appear to be designed to validate students’ language varieties. The authors confirm the ideology of the standard by proceeding as if Spanish were monolithic, and as if the standard were the only true version of the language. This NRL section, taken as a whole, is in direct contradiction with the authors’ explicitly expressed position on the equality of all language varieties. This promotion of standard Spanish is likely to result in a reproduction of the same language ideologies that students have internalized, and which may make them reluctant to speak their heritage languages in the first place.

Example 2: Unintelligible and Low Prestige--El caló In the ¡De una vez! chapter on Mexican-Americans, the NRL section contains an informational reading on el caló, which, according to the textbook, is “a slang or variant that predominates in the Southwest of the U.S. and in parts of Mexico” (Samaniego et al., 2008, p. 34). Here, then, the whole of Mexican-American Spanish is reduced to one of its parts—el caló, which, according to Webb (1982) is a particular variety of informal Mexican-American Spanish most often employed by young, male speakers who are often uneducated, frequently impoverished, and use their language as an expression of identity and, at times, as a challenge to English-speaking and Spanish- speaking hegemonic cultural forces that seek to define or degrade them. However, this information is not discussed in this section, nor is it mentioned that el caló and culture were most popular in the 1950s-1970s and may be a somewhat dated concept for some modern SHL speakers. The NRL passage continues: “Even Spanish professors from these regions [U.S. Southwest and parts of Mexico] hear their students use it [el caló] very often, without understanding them, especially if they are not themselves from that region” (Samaniego et al., 2008, p. 34). First, this frames el caló as not only so obscure that those whose professional expertise is the Spanish language do not understand it, but also as of such low sociolinguistic prestige as to be slang that is

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 11 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

incomprehensible to speakers of more prestigious varieties. Again, no sociolinguistic studies are cited, nor is further evidence given for these claims. Though the authors state their belief that “all variants are valid and need to be respected” (Samaniego et.al, 2008, p. xiii) here again they seem to confirm implicit linguistic prejudices that the students have internalized from both top-down and bottom-up sources. Example 3: Common Grammatical “Errors” The intermediate textbook, Nuestro idioma, nuestra herencia, contains a chapter focusing on Hispanics in the U.S. which includes a section called “Errores de uso común” [Errors of common use]. This section lists verb, adverb, and pronoun “errors” that are, according to the authors, “commonly” committed in both spoken and written Spanish. The list consists of two columns, the “correct forms” and the “incorrect forms,” and the latter have been crossed out with red X symbols. In other words, the authors could scarcely have been more explicit in their prescriptivist condemnation of these “errors.” However, again, they neglect to include information on sociolinguistic context. The items on their list are not simply errors, but features common to some varieties of U.S. and , including the regularization process found in the second- person preterit tenses in some communities, as in fuistes, comistes, etc. (Bernal-Henriquez & Hernandez-Chavez, 2003; Silva-Corvalán, 2001). Thus, if students did not notice more subtle marginalizations of U.S. Spanish varieties, this section explicitly dismisses language features that they and their families may use as “errors,” without acknowledging that these verbs, adverbs, and pronouns are part of a rule-governed, legitimate language variety. In fact, the labels “error” and “incorrect,” combined with the red X symbols and the fact that varieties of U.S. Spanish are not mentioned, combine to make this list a powerful example of SHL textbooks’ reproduction of standard language ideology. It also reinforces the prescriptivist, negative messages SHL students have been hearing all their lives about the way they speak Spanish, and those messages may partially explain why many SHL students decide not to continue studying Spanish (Beaudrie, 2011; Potowski, 2005).

While syllabi are often designed around textbooks, which are the center of the courses in this university program, an analysis of language variety in the SHL curriculum would be incomplete without the perspectives of instructors. We turn now to their comments on the treatment of language diversity in the classroom, and in particular on the tension between validation of home varieties and awareness of a standard.

Focus Group Results The four SHL instructors in the focus group identified a disconnect between the program’s stated goals and classroom practice that was similar to the difference between the textbooks’ stated mission and the reality of their messaging. While the instructors agreed that the SHL program’s stated goals were to simultaneously validate students’ Spanish varieties and to develop an academic or professional register of Spanish, they conceded that in practice standard Spanish is often the focus, and students’ varieties are tolerated, but not developed. Their conversation centered on the difficulties that result from the tension between encouraging standard language while validating student varieties. The group offered some techniques that have been successful in their own classroom efforts to empower students as SHL users, including supplementation of the textbook, empowerment through contextualization and awareness of register, and the introduction of sociolinguistic terminology to cultivate students’ metalinguistic awareness.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 12 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

SHL Instructors on Validation The SHL instructors explored what the concept of validation means in the real-world context of the classroom: 1 Melissa: I think it’s ((students’ home variety)) more tol/erated than (.) like (.) 2 validated (1.0) One (.) because I think as instructors you have your 3 own (1.0) uh language knowledge and where you come from (.) um 4 (1.0) and also because you get students who aren’t from the area (.) 5 from ((U.S. Southwest)) or (.) ((Northern Mexico)) (.) a:nd so you 6 get these students who they’re learning a whole different language 7 altogether and getting different input from their peers (.) and so 8 they’re doing their own language at home (.) and kind of 9 participating more with blending it with like (.) what they know 10 from kids from this area (1.0) I think 11 12 Jessica: I think it depends on the level too (.) since I’ve taught ((lower level 13 courses)) (.) when I say “validate” I don’t mean “promote” (.) 14 necessarily (.) what I mean is whatever they come with (.) making 15 them feel like that’s OK (.) and that they don’t feel ba/d about that 16 but at the same time kind of instilling that (1.0) that standard in them 17 (.)

Here, Jessica and Melissa both speak of a practice of tolerance, rather than validation (Lines 1-2; 15-16) on the part of the SHL program. Melissa points out that the classroom itself has linguistic diversity, and those students whose families are not from the U.S. Southwest or Northern Mexico at times experience an additional type of marginalization, since they can feel alienated by their classmates who speak the local variety of Spanish as well as by the “standard” language presented in the textbook. Jessica makes an important distinction in her comment about validation but not promotion (Lines 15-16). In her estimation, the SHL program’s idea of validation is to make students feel comfortable initially with their own varieties, but in service of transitioning them to a focus on standard Spanish, not in preparation for developing and enriching their varieties in conjunction with the acquisition of the academic or professional register. This contradicts, of course, the explicit messages given to students by their textbooks and by their instructors that all varieties are equally valid and worthy of study.

Supplementing the Textbook The instructors agreed that teaching students about language varieties around the world, a large part of the curriculum at the lower levels of the SHL program, requires supplementation of the textbooks: 1 Jessica: the resources I have are the videos I look for and PowerPoints that 2 have been passed down (.) because from what I remember of the 3 book there were just little bubbles (.) vos (.) paragraph about it (.) 4 beyond that there wasn’t much else 5

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 13 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

6 Melissa: Yeah (.) I used the book (.) the ¡De una vez! book the first year I 7 taught/ ((XX)) (.) a:nd (.) I learned very quickly that it was very 8 limited (.) especially when it came to cultural (.) uh facts it was kinda 9 almost like reading off of Wikipedia 10 11 Jessica: Mmhmm 12 13 Melissa: Like a summary of a Wikipedia (laugh) article and so it was a lot of 14 supplement:ing (.) uh (.) I showed my students a lot of (.) when I 15 was teaching ((beginning and intermediate level courses)) (.) short 16 films and (.) um from the movies that they had to watch (.) you know 17 showing the language differe/nce (.) um (.) ((…)) but I think it was 18 all supplemental from the book (.) ((XX)) I think all of it (.) it just 19 came from (.) your own knowledge and anything that you’ve learned 20 on the way from teaching other courses (.) and seeing other people 21 and having friends from different places and (.) knowing what they 22 do and then having kids themselves (.) I had a kid from Chile (.) 23 Cuba (.) Ecuador (.) who had like (.) strong accents and it’s like “oh 24 perfect example,” right? like you can use them too

For Melissa and Jessica, the textbook provided few resources for teaching SHL students about language variety, citing its superficial approach, giving information in “little bubbles” (Line 3) and comparing it to a “summary of a Wikipedia article” (Line 13). Though Jessica mentions pedagogical materials that she supplements with (Line 2), both instructors cite the need for authentic materials, in the form of short videos or full-length films, to give students an appropriate level of information about global language variety. In addition, Melissa points out the importance of the instructors’ own life experiences as well as the rich potential of the students themselves as resources, as they come from diverse Spanish-speaking backgrounds (Lines 21-27). Nowhere in any of the textbooks analyzed for this study do the authors encourage students to discuss with their classmates the features of their own varieties of Spanish, which would be a relatively simple and organic way to incorporate authentic sociolinguistic information into the book, and would create a meaningful opportunity to ask students to think critically about prevailing attitudes toward language diversity.

Empowerment through Contextualization and Sociolinguistic Terminology However, what of the contention by many heritage language pedagogues (Bills, 2005; Carreira, 2000; Hidalgo, 1990) that linguistic prejudice is a fact of life, and that SHL students, who are likely to be affected by this prejudice, should be prepared for it and given access to higher-prestige varieties for their own benefit?

1 Melissa: Yeah it’s important I think to (.) say like (.) this would be probably 2 more (.) um (.) acceptable in this situation or that situation (.) but I 3 mean (.) it’s nice to make them aware but you don’t like have to 4 decide for them

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 14 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

5 6 Jessica: Yeah 7 8 Matthew: From a linguistics perspective (.) all of these varieties have value (.) 9 but then when you enter in soci:ety (.) you know some of these (…) 10 features have (.) have more prestige than others and that’s a reality 11 12 Jessica: Yeah, exactly 13 Matthew: in society as it is now

In this exchange, Melissa affirms the importance of imparting to students a sense of register and appropriateness when it comes to language variety (Lines 1-2), but goes on to suggest that the book and curriculum do not have to “decide for them” (Line 4) which variety to use in which situation. What appears to be missing, then, is a sense of agency for the students. Van Compernolle and Williams (2012) define sociolinguistic agency as “…the socioculturally mediated act of recognizing, interpreting, and using the social and symbolic meaning-making possibilities of language” (p.237). Rather than right and wrong or acceptable and unacceptable variants, then, textbooks and curricular materials might be more helpful to students if they presented these phenomena as contextualized dilemmas. The realities of linguistic prejudice will be familiar to the majority of SHL students; however, they may not have considered the origins of these prejudices, or that in some contexts or situations, it is in fact to the speaker’s advantage to use a non-standard variety to establish oneself as an in-group member. A more nuanced discussion of language in context and the advantages to understanding the interplay of language varieties can help instructors emphasize that language choice belongs to the speaker and thus begin to empower students to make informed decisions about how they engage in code-switching and style-shifting between languages and language varieties on their own terms.

Later in this exchange, Matthew and Jessica acknowledge the fundamental conflict between the scientific validity of all varieties and the reality of societal prejudice against some, but when asked by the researcher if they thought it could be resolved, the focus group responded with silence and then changed the subject, suggesting a sense of inevitability about this conflict. The final word on this topic came when Matthew and Jessica commented on a particular strategy they find helpful to empower students using sociolinguistic terminology and metalinguistic knowledge.

1 Matthew: It was helpful for me to teach them explicitly what is (.) the 2 vernacular and what is the standard and then have them do activities 3 to be able to distinguish between the two (.) and then once teaching 4 that (.) they could use that terminology themselves throughout the 5 rest of the course 6 7 Jessica: That’s absolutely what I was about to say actually and I was thinking 8 about the activity that you ((Matthew)) prepared about (.) a:h (.) well 9 it was vernacular but you know code-switching (.) borrowings (.)

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 15 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

10 calcos ((calques)) etcetera (.) and putting an academic name to the 11 things that they do that may not necessarily be sta/ndard but it in one 12 hand (.) like legitimizes it because obviously linguists are looking at 13 these things (.) and on the other hand does let them talk about it in 14 kind of an (.) informed way recognize what’s happening maybe with 15 actually less judgment

Here, the participants discuss developing an awareness of register and that spoken and written language are different, without casting spoken varieties in a negative light, but instead by initiating students into a sociolinguistic discussion using scientific terminology rather than dictating to them from a prescriptivist, ideologically-motivated position of power (Lines 10-14). In their experience, these techniques have helped to empower students to see themselves and their communities as possessing valuable information about language that is worth sharing with others of different backgrounds.

CONCLUSIONS, PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH This case study indicates that SHL instructional materials and instructors may be sending mixed messages to students about language varieties. On the one hand, they hear explicit messages that all varieties, including their own, are valid. On the other, they are subjected to implicit and explicit indications quite to the contrary that reinforce standard language ideology and the linguistic prejudice so familiar to many SHL students.

SHL students bring to the classroom a very complex relationship to ideology that must be dealt with delicately by instructors. Indeed, studies have indicated that despite their intention to validate students’ language varieties, SHL instructors may transmit their own prescriptivist notions of language implicitly and explicitly (Showstack, 2015; Lowther Pereira, 2010). It remains unclear whether the separate but equal approach to language variety used in some SHL courses that purports to validate students’ language varieties while simultaneously reinforcing standard language ideology can be effective, but the former objective (validation) appears to be sacrificed in favor of the latter (acquiring the standard) in this case study. SHL students in particular need to be empowered to make their own decisions about language variety, which requires a more nuanced approach to sociolinguistic information than may be found in some SHL textbooks. The textbooks should present a multi-faceted, complex sociolinguistic situation and encourage students to assume agency in their personal linguistic journeys rather than imposing a particular, prescriptivist view about accepted and ‘unaccepted’ language varieties, and in the process sending mixed signals about the validity of all varieties. The standard is a reality that must be reckoned with—but there is no reason that spoken varieties, particularly those used in students’ own communities, need to be devalued in the process. In the meantime, rather than relying on top-down change from authors and publishers, one way of providing more student-centered SHL materials and shifting some agency to students and instructors might be for SHL programs to collaborate on their own instructional materials using web-based technologies. SHL instructors in particular may find beneficial some of the tenets of Gruenwald’s (2003) critical place-based approach to curricula: “A critical pedagogy of place aims to contribute to the production of educational discourses and practices that explicitly examine the place-specific nexus between environment, culture, and education” (p. 10). This philosophy lends itself well to heritage

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 16 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

language education because instructors can start with local varieties and sociolinguistic features that most students know, and can introduce academic or professional registers through something similar to Train’s (2003) Critical Language Awareness approach—through scaffolding and in a gradual manner. Placing local varieties at the center of the curriculum might mitigate to some degree the stigmatization of student varieties that currently occurs in some textbooks and classrooms.

As Ducar (2009; 2006) points out, textbooks should include data from corpora or evidence-based sociolinguistic studies, rather than anecdotes about global language varieties or short lists of seemingly unrelated words. In addition, as some of the SHL instructors in this study (Matthew and Jessica) have suggested, providing students with sociolinguistic terms to describe the results of Spanish and English in contact in the U.S. (e.g. calque, code-switching, etc.) might elevate students’ view of the varieties of U.S Spanish as worthy of academic study, and empower them to see that U.S. varieties are rule-governed like those of any other Spanish-speaking region. In addition, SHL students should be encouraged to use the local community of Spanish speakers as a rich resource, rather than a liability.

Future research could continue to gather more comprehensive data on language variety and SHL textbooks and curricula by including more textbooks and interviewing more instructors at multiple universities with varying language backgrounds and in a variety of programs. In addition, a longitudinal perspective on presentation of regional language variety in courses ranging from beginner-level language curricula to higher level courses taken by Spanish majors and minors would provide insight into the ways these issues change over the time an individual studies Spanish. New materials for incorporation of regional language variety that are based on sociolinguistic data and spoken corpora and that resist surreptitiously reproducing the ideology of the standard language are urgently needed as well. Future studies could also examine the effect of critical place-based pedagogy for SHL learners (Gruenewald, 2003), including their language attitudes, linguistic competence, and the effects of increased sociolinguistic information about the historical-cultural reasons for certain features of local language varieties.

In addition, future research could further examine students’ perspectives on this issue (following Beaudrie, 2015b; Ducar, 2008). Questions that could be investigated include: how do students feel about their current ability to hold a conversation in the target language in a real-life situation? What do they feel is missing from the textbooks and curriculum that might help them feel more confident about their speaking abilities? What changes in the curriculum would make SHL speakers more likely to continue their studies in SHL programs? How does prescriptivism affect student retention in SHL programs? Additionally, classroom observations of language variety— student use and instructor reactions to non-standard language---would provide valuable insight (see Lowther Pereira, 2010) to help SHL programs and instructors achieve their mission to validate student varieties while also reducing mixed messages that perpetuate standard language ideology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We wish to thank our three anonymous reviewers, whose constructive suggestions and comments helped to improve and clarify this manuscript.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 17 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

REFERENCES Auerbach, E. R. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in pedagogical choices. In J. W. Tollefon (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp. 9-33). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Beaudrie, S.M. (2015a). Instructional effectiveness in the SHL classroom: Comparing teacher and student perspectives. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(3), 274-297.

Beaudrie, S. (2015b). Approaches to language variation: Goals and objectives of the Spanish heritage language syllabus. Heritage Language Journal, 12(1), 1-21. Available from http://www.heritagelanguages.org

Beaudrie, S. M. (2011). Spanish heritage language programs: A snapshot of current programs in the southwestern United States. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 321-337.

Beaudrie, S.M., & Ducar, C. (2005). Beginning level university heritage programs: Creating a space for all heritage language learners. Heritage Language Journal, 3(1), 1-26. Available from http://www.heritagelanguages.org

Bernal-Henríquez, Y., & Hernández-Chávez, E. (2003). La enseñanza del español en Nuevo México: ¿Revitalización o erradicación de la variedad chicana? In A. Roca, & C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States (pp. 78-95). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Bills, G. D. (2005). Las comunidades linguisticas y el mantenimiento del español en los Estados Unidos. In L. Ortiz-López, & M. Lacorte (Eds.), El español en los Estados Unidos y en contacto con otras lenguas (pp. 55-83). Frankfurt/Madrid: Vervuert/IberoAmericana.

Bloomer, A., Griffiths, P., & Merrison, A. J. (2005). Introducing language in use. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burns Al Masaeed, K. (2014). The Ideology of US Spanish in Foreign and Heritage Language Curricula: Insights from Textbooks and Instructor Focus Groups. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson.

Carreira, M. (2000). Validating and promoting Spanish in the United States: Lessons from linguistic science. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 423-42.

Cheshire, J. (1999). Spoken standard English. In T. Bex, & R. J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The widening debate (pp. 129-148). London: Routledge.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 18 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

Ducar, C.M. (2009). The sound of silence: Spanish heritage textbooks’ treatment of language variation. In M. Lacorte & J. Leeman (Eds.), Español en Estados Unidos y otros contextos de contacto: Sociolingüística, ideología y pedagogía/ Spanish in the United States and other contact environments: Sociolinguistics, ideology and pedagogy (pp. 347-367). Madrid, Spain: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.

Ducar, C.M. (2008). Student voices: The missing link in the Spanish heritage language debate. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 415–433.

Ducar, C. M. (2006). (Re)presentations of U.S. Latinos: A critical discourse analysis of Spanish heritage language textbooks. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson.

Escobar, A.M & Potowski, K. (2015). El español de los Estados Unidos. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fairclough, M. (2016). Incorporating additional varieties to the linguistic repertoires of heritage language learners: A multidialectal model. In M Fairclough & S.M. Beaudrie (Eds.) Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 143-165). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th anniversary edition; trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York, NY: Continuum.

García, H. A., Carney, C., & Sandoval, T. (2011). Nuestro idioma, nuestra herencia: Español para hispanohablantes. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill College.

Garvin, P. L. (1993). A conceptual framework for the study of language standardization. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 100-101(1), 37-54.

Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York, NY: Routledge

Goble, R. A. (2016). Linguistic insecurity and lack of entitlement to Spanish among third- generation Mexican Americans in narrative accounts. Heritage Language Journal, 13(1), 29- 54. Available from http://www.heritagelanguages.org

Gruenewald, D.A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3-12.

Hidalgo, M. (1990). On the question of 'standard' versus 'dialect': Implications for teaching Hispanic college students. In J. Bergen (Ed.), Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic issues (pp. 110-126). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 19 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (1999). Introduction: Perspectives on discourse analysis. In A. Jaworski, & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 1-44). New York, NY: Routledge.

Krogstad, J. M., & Lopez, M. H. (2014). Hispanic nativity shift. Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/04/29/hispanic-nativity- shift

Leeman, J. (2012). Investigating language ideologies in Spanish as a Heritage Language. In S.M. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 43-59). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Leeman, J., & Martínez, G. (2007). From identity to commodity: Ideologies of Spanish in heritage language textbooks. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 4(1), 35-65.

Lipski, J. M. (2008). Varieties of Spanish in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Lowther Pereira, K. (2015). Developing critical language awareness via service-learning for Spanish heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 12(2), 159-185. Available from http://www.heritagelanguages.org

Lowther Pereira, K. (2010). Identity and language ideology in the intermediate Spanish heritage language classroom. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson.

Lynch, A., & Potowski, K. (2104). La valoración del habla bilingüe en Estados Unidos: Fundamentos sociolingüísticos y pedagógicos en Hablando bien se entiende la gente. Hispania 97, 32-46.

Martínez, G. (2003). Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1), 44-57. Available from http://www.heritagelanguages.org

Magaña, D. (2015). From pedagogy to communities: Issues within and beyond the Spanish heritage language classroom. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 8(2), 375-388.

Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530-555.

Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1991). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardization. New York, NY: Routledge.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 20 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

Ortega, L. (1999). Language and equality: Ideological and structural constraints in foreign language education in the U.S. In T. Huebner, & K. Davis (Eds.), Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA (pp. 243-266). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Otheguy R., & Stern N. (2011). On so-called Spanglish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(1), 85-100.

Paffey, J., & Mar-Molinero, C. (2009). Globalisation, linguistic norms and language authorities: Spain and the Pan-Hispanic language policy. In M. Lacorte, & J. Leeman (Eds.), Spanish in the United States and other contact environments: sociolinguistics, ideology and pedagogy (pp. 159-173). Madrid, Spain/Frankfurt, Germany: IberoAmericana/Vervuert.

Pardiñas-Barnes, P. (1998). Twentieth-century Spanish textbooks: A generational approach. Hispania, 81(2): 230-247.

Parodi, C. (2008). Stigmatized Spanish inside the classroom and out. In D. M Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 199-214). New York, NY: Routledge.

Parodi, C. (2011). El otro México: Español chicano, koineización y diglosia en Los Ángeles, California. In P. Martín Butragueño (Ed.), Realismo en análisis de corpus orales (pp. 217- 243). México, D.F., México: El colegio de México.

Parra, M.L. (2016). Critical approaches to heritage language instruction: How to foster students’ critical consciousness. In M. Fairclough & S. M. Beaudrie (Eds.) Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 166-190). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

Potowski, K. (2005). Fundamentos de la enseñanza del español a los hispanohablantes en los EEUU. Madrid, Spain: Arco Libros, S.L.

Samaniego, F., Rodriguez, F., & Rojas, N. (2008). ¡De una vez!: A college course for Spanish speakers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Schwarzer, D., & Petrón, M. (2005). Heritage language instruction at the college level: Reality and possibilities. Foreign Language Annals, 38(4), 568-578.

Siegel, J. (2006). Language ideologies and the education of speakers of marginalized language varieties: Adopting a critical awareness approach. Linguistics and Education, 17(2), 157-174.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 21 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

Silva-Corvalán, C. (2001). Sociolingüística y pragmática del español. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Showstack, R.E. (2015). Institutional representations of ‘Spanish’ and ‘Spanglish’: managing competing discourses in heritage language instruction. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15 (3), 341-361.

Train, R. (2003). The (non)native standard language in foreign language education: A critical perspective. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign language classrooms : Contributions of the native, the near-native, and the non-native speaker (pp. 3-39). Boston, MA: Thompson/Heinle.

Train, R. (2007). "Real Spanish": Historical perspectives on the ideological construction of a (foreign) language. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 4(2-3), 2-3.

U.S. Census Bureau . (2017). Table B16001: Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over, United States [Data table]. 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Available from http://www.census.gov

Valdés, G., González, S.V., García, D. L., & Márquez, P. (2008). Heritage language and ideologies of language: Unexamined challenges. In D.M Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 107-130). New York, NY: Routledge.

Valdés, G., González, S. V., García, D. L., & Márquez, P. (2003). Language ideology: The case of Spanish in departments of foreign languages. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 34(1), 3-26.

Valdés, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languages as foreign languages: Pedagogical and theoretical challenges. Modern Language Journal, 79, 299-328. van Compernolle, R.A., & Williams, L. (2012). Reconceptualizing sociolinguistic competence as mediated action: Identity, meaning-making, agency. The Modern Language Journal, 96 (ii), 234-250. van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352-371). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Vann, R. (2002). Linguistic ideology in Spain's ivory tower: (not) analyzing Catalan Spanish. Multilingua, 21(2), 227.

Villa, D. J. (2002). The sanitizing of U.S. Spanish in academia. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 222-30.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 22 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

Waugh, L.R., Catalano, T., Al Masaeed, K., Do, T. H., & Renigar, P. G. (2016). Critical discourse analysis: History, approaches, relation to pragmatics, critique, trends and new directions. In J. L. Mey, & A. Capone (Eds.), Pragmatics, culture, and society: An interdisciplinary reader. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.

Webb, J. T. (1982). Mexican-American caló and standard Mexican Spanish. In J. Amastae, & L. Elias-Oliveras (Eds.), Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic aspects (pp. 121-131). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Zentella, A.C. (2009, February). Discussion on the use of the term “Spanglish.” Debate conducted at the Spanish in the United States Conference, Coral Gables, FL.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 23 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

APPENDIX

Transcription Abbreviations and Conventions : Vowel or consonant elongation (.) Micro-pause (2.0) Length of pause in seconds / Rising intonation [ Simultaneous speech (( )) Extra-textual information provided by the transcriber and/or transcriber comment (…) Omitted section ((XX)) Identifiable information omitted (-inaud) Undecipherable speech (laugh) Laugh … Speaker trails off mid-utterance word Emphatic stress “words” Indicates speaker’s use of reported speech

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access 24 Heritage Language Journal, 15(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.15.1.2 April, 2018

NOTE 1. The list of Spanish words of English origin is as follows: nicle, bonche, rula, gasolín, cherife, sainear, espeletear, jonrón, champú, shorts, chainear, pení, taipar, huachar, puchar (Samaniego et al., 2008, p. 107).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 11:01:48AM via free access