E Place of Nonstandard Spanish in the Classroom: Beyond the “Separate but Equal” Approach Kristy E

Home , Nonstandard dialect, Standard Spanish

e Place of Nonstandard Spanish in the Classroom: Beyond the “Separate but Equal” Approach Kristy E. Nieto University of Wisconsin-Madison

anguage instructors understand that the key component of their work is to teach their students to master a standard, prestigious variety of language that Lwill gain them access to academic success and respect in the professional world. Many, however, can’t help but suspect that in evaluating their students based on their ability to perform in this standard, prestige variety of the language, they are really re- enforcing unfair socio-economic power dynamics. " is suspicion, or even sense of guilt, may be particularly present in the case of the non-native (read “gringo”) Spanish instructor who teaches Spanish to native and heritage speakers. Even native Spanish speaking instructors may be aware that in enforcing the use of “correct,” “proper” or “academic” Spanish they are a# rming the system in which privilege belongs to an elite group which is o$ en identi% ed by ethnicity and language use. As Sato (1989) a# rmed, “second dialect speakers consistently underachieve academically” and their educational experiences “are no doubt tied to generations of socioeconomic and ethnic strati% cation in American society.” (p. 260). " e good instructor is thus paradoxically charged with building students up (i.e. assimilating them) by breaking them down (i.e. correcting non-prestige behaviors and ways of thought). So how does the Spanish instructor go about teaching a standard variety that will increase the students’ social mobility while managing to somehow break, or at least not explicitly perform, the cycle of paternalism and socioeconomic strati% cation in the classroom? In the ongoing debate over the treatment of nonstandard dialects in the classroom, most educators today believe in additive bidialectalism, an approach that treats the acquisition of the standard as the acquisition of a second dialect, instead of as a remediation of the nonstandard dialect spoken in the home (Sato, 1989, p.260). " e basic ideology behind the approach is one of “value the home dialect, but teach the standard.” Fairclough (2003), in a brief survey of the research on the place of Spanglish in education, concluded that:

una pedagogía bidialectal parece ser el camino más indicado a seguir por aquéllos que tienen como tarea la enseñanza del español al estudiantado bilingüe (español/inglés) de Estados Unidos. Mientras que el vernáculo debe apreciarse por su valor emotivo y por reflejar la

Divergencias. Revista de estudios lingüísticos y literarios . Volumen 8, número 2, invierno 2010 41 Divergencias. Revista de estudios lingüísticos y literarios . Volumen 8, número 2, invierno 2010

identidad del individuo, el estándar de-stigmatize the speech of our students while debe inculcarse por su valor teaching them the standard in a richer, more instrumental. (p. 197). meaningful context. What follows is a review of current research But, how can we say we really claim to “value” in language variation and identity, along with what we do not dare bring into the classroom? a more in-depth study of nonstandard U.S. ! e approach, at least as practiced by many Spanish, especially the phenomenon known as educators, is essentially contradictory and Spanglish, and # nally a set of pedagogical and reminiscent of the “Separate but Equal” ideological recommendations for the instructor principle. Gay (2002) has stressed that teachers who is considering inviting nonstandard Spanish must go beyond “mere awareness of, respect for into the classroom. and general recognition of the fact that ethnic groups have di" erent values or express similar Sociolinguistic Principles of Language Variation values in various ways” (p. 107). To simply First, it will be necessary to establish a remind students that one must “value the home set of de# nitions of the linguistic terms that dialect,” is quite super# cial when relegating all will be used from this point forward, such as nonstandard speech to private family life. “dialect,” “variety,” and “standard.” ! e term It is my position, therefore, that “dialect,” to begin with, has no real scienti# c instructors who teach Spanish as a second or objective de# nition (Fairclough, 2003, dialect to native or heritage speakers must p.200). According to Trudgill (1974), the go beyond simply reminding students that term “dialect” is not particularly easy to de# ne. their home dialects are valued. Culturally He has stated that the term “refers, strictly aware instructors must first understand and speaking, to di" erences between kinds of be able to teach sociolinguistic principles of languages which are di" erences of vocabulary language variation as related to identity and and grammar, as well as pronunciation,” and has socioeconomic power in order to contribute gone on to mention regional and social dialects to students’ views of themselves (Valdés, 1995, as examples of speci# c, identi# able di" erences. p. 310). Next, teachers must acquire detailed, Trudgill (1974) used the term “variety” to refer factual information about the varieties neutrally to “any ‘kind of language’ we wish to spoken by the students in their classrooms, talk about without being speci# c,” and added in order to truly appreciate the students’ that “the term dialect can be used to apply to all contributions as well as help add to their rich varieties, not just to nonstandard varieties” (p. knowledge base instead of correcting it or 5). Trudgill’s de# nition of variety is the one that treating it as erroneous. Finally, we must free will be used for the purposes of this paper. As for the nonstandard Spanish dialects from the “dialect,” however, Halliday’s (1985) de# nition secret, hidden world to which they’ve been is more precisely suited to a discussion of U.S. relegated by admitting them into the public, Spanish. He has explained that “[a] dialect is prestigious realm of academia in the form of the variety you speak because you ‘belong to’ course materials, class activities and projects. (come from or have chosen to move into) a We can use the nonstandard as a point of particular region, social class, caste, generation, entry for developing standard mastery; we can age group, sex group, or other relevant grouping

42 Kristy E. Nieto within the community” ( p.44). In any language, academically—in the classroom their dialect is the “standard” is the prestige variety which is considered inferior, therefore they themselves normally taught in schools. A standard dialect is are inferior. ! e implications of identity and “imposed from above over the range of regional language in the self-esteem of children, for dialects,” and cannot be legitimately considered instance, are great. Gloria Anzaldúa (1987) has superior to any other variety (Trudgill 1974). written passionately and frankly on the subject Although the term “standard” with ideas of of how people’s perceptions of her language as formality and correctness, Train (2003) reminds “incorrect” have a" ected her identity: us that a critical perspective on language includes Ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic “the recognition that standard languages are identity—I am my language. Until I can take constructed in terms of linguistic ideologies and pride in my language, I cannot take pride in sociocultural practices,” and not in terms of “the myself. Until I can accept as legitimate Chicano reality of observable language use” (p. 5). Texas Spanish, Tex-Mex and all the other ! erefore, in the context of this article, a languages I speak, I cannot accept the legitimacy nonstandard variety of Spanish will refer to any of myself (p. 124). and all varieties that di" er from hegemonic, ! ere is an undeniable, permanent link prestige varieties of Spanish. ! e term between language use, identity and biological “nonstandard” will be used interchangeably inheritance. It is because of this link that it with “vernacular.” ! e term “dialect” will be is crucial for language instructors to make reserved for references to the varieties used by well-informed decisions on the treatment of particular identi# able language communities, nonstandard language in their classrooms. such as ‘Miami Cuban Spanish’ or ‘New York Puerto Rican Spanish.’ Language and Power As Trudgill (1974) has shown, the Language and Identity standard dialect in a given society is in no way We can use language to express or perform linguistically superior—it has simply been our identities, but # rst our language forms imposed on society by those with the power our identities. We judge ourselves and others and money. Even though it is the language of based on the use of language as it constitutes the elite classes that is imposed on the rest of group membership. To repeat Halliday’s us, it is o$ en the middle class that appropriates (1985) observation, we speak a dialect because itself of the upper-class dialect, and enforces its ‘we belong.’ Ellison (2006) emphasized that use in schools and homes (Keller 1976, Trudgill “language is the key to a person’s identity because 1974). Sayer (2008) showed that this treatment it is so o$ en taken as a biological inheritance of certain groups’ dialects as superior is so that its association with ethnic paternity is omnipresent that “many mexicano parents in the both frequent and powerful.” In other words, Chicago area prefer not to teach their children to see another’s language use as inferior is to Spanish because they are conscious that their see that person as being biologically inferior as rancherado or bumpkin variety is denigrated” well. When looked at in this light, it is easy to (p.109), and that even “[f ]rom an early age, see one of the main reasons why nonstandard children have a sense of which is the prestige dialect users have historically underachieved language, and which is the subordinated one”

43 Divergencias. Revista de estudios lingüísticos y literarios . Volumen 8, número 2, invierno 2010

(p.96). Keller (1976) has remarked that middle of Latinos await President Obama’s promised class “abhorrence” of and “disdainful attitude” Immigration Reform Act while Arizonians toward nonstandard varieties comes from and protestors nation-wide " ght against a their association of nonstandard speech with controversial bill aimed at publicly identifying the monodialectalism and low social status of and detaining illegal immigrants (Archibold, the uneducated class (p. 23)—a sector from 2010). According to further projections from which those of the middle class wish to separate the Census bureau, around 66% of Hispanics themselves as much as possible. ! e middle, in the U.S. today were born here (2000), which fairly educated class is adept at the standard for the majority means that they have learned and nonstandard varieties, and is able to switch a nonstandard, U.S. dialect of Spanish and between registers according to their context. have had little to no access to formal Spanish- ! e uneducated sector does not control the language education. standard, or what Keller (1976) refers to as the “lingua franca,” and is unable to switch. While Heritage and Native Speakers it is unfair that one group’s dialect be deemed As Beaudrie, Ducar and Relaño-Pastor superior and used as a sort of shibboleth in school, (2009) a$ rm, there exists a “broad range of work, and other social situations, the hard social bilingual competencies” within the growing reality remains: “all people who only speak a Hispanic population in the U.S. (p. 157). Of the vernacular are condemned to limited social some 35 million native Spanish speakers living mobility in any society.” (Keller, 1976, p. 28). in the country, 30 million are considered to Language instructors are clearly responsible for possess some level of bilingual competency, and training their students in the standard variety of 18 million are considered to speak both English Spanish and therefore increasing their ability to and Spanish “very well” (United States Census compete in society, but they must " nd a way to Bureau 2007). ! ere is a slight distinction to be do so that does not communicate the inferiority made, within this largely bilingual population of of the student and their heritage. Spanish speakers, between native speakers and heritage speakers. For the purposes of this article, Nonstandard Spanish in the U.S. I will follow Cook’s conclusion that the only Historical and Demographical Context “indisputable element in the de" nition of native As the Hispanic population of the U.S. speaker is that a person is a native speaker of the grows, so does the number of heritage Spanish language learnt " rst” (p.187). ! erefore, all those speakers whose unique linguistic situation who learned Spanish " rst are native speakers of (that of being bilingual with little-to-no formal Spanish. It is important to clarify that native education in their " rst language) confounds speakers possess varying degrees of literacy and language educators and de" es linguistic “display regional, occupational, generational, classi" cation. According to projections from class-related ways of talking” (Kramsch, 2003, the U.S. Census Bureau (2008), the percentage p.251). ! e term native speaker will not be used of Hispanics will have risen from around 5% in here to describe some ideal speaker whose use the 1970’s, years during which Chicano studies of the language is “correct.” Claire Kramsch exploded in universities across the country, to (2003) attests that the idea of the native speaker around 16% in 2010, the year in which millions as “arbiter of grammaticality and acceptability

44 Kristy E. Nieto of language […] is in fact an imaginary group of bilingual Spanish speakers in the construct” (p. 255). Rothman (2007) explains country, according to Sánchez (1994), “is that heritage speakers comprise one particular the most widespread and the most complex subsection of native speakers and, like all native because individuals exhibit various levels of speakers, “are exposed naturalistically to the language pro! ciency in two languages and heritage language; however, this language is by various patterns of language choice according to de! nition a nonhegemonic minority language function and domain” (p. 3). Here standard and within a majority-language environment.” In nonstandard varieties from over 20 countries other words, the native Spanish used at home co-mingle and compete amongst one another is a“nonhegemonic minority language” in U.S. and with all of the varieties of English. Some society, where English is the hegemonic language. of the most recognizable nonstandard dialects Rothman underscores that “[s]ince the heritage in the U.S. today are Cuban Miami and New language is the family language used and heard York Puerto Rican Spanish, as mentioned in restricted environments, there are varying earlier, Afro-Spanish, several regional dialects degrees of deterministic consequences for the of Chicano Spanish, such as Border, Texas, New complete acquisition and / or maintenance Mexico, Chicago, and Arizona, and the many, of the heritage language” (p. 360). Heritage highly controversial varieties of Spanglish, such speakers possess such a broad range of bilingual as Nuyorican Spanglish and Tex-Mex (Anzaldúa competency precisely due to the fact the Spanish 1987, Bernal Enríquez 2003, Fairclough 2003, is learnt and used in “restricted,” or private and Stavans 2000a, Stavans 200b, Zentella 1997). principally non-institutional environments. Spanglish, broadly de! ned, is a type of language Edstrom (2006), for example, describes interaction, the result of continued contact, heritage speakers in this context as “individuals con" ict and language mixing between Spanish from Spanish-speaking families in the United and English in the U.S. (Muysken, 2001). States who grow up using the language to varying degrees and in varying contexts but who Spanglish. do not necessarily acquire a formal register.” # ere is tremendous variation within Furthermore, not all heritage speakers are " uent the phenomenon that is known as Spanglish in the heritage language, but as Katz (2003) across Latino communities . Some researchers argues, “[m]ost researchers agree that many have referred to Spanglish as a dialect (Ardila of these speakers should be considered native 2005, Keller 1976, Sayer 2008) others as an speakers” (p. 132). # e term native speaker, interlanguage (Ardila 2005) and some have even especially within discussions of language, power, defended its status as a new, hybrid language, and the stigmatization of nonstandard dialects, or Creole (Sayer 2008, Keller 1976, Stavans should not be limited to describing those 2000a). who possess a mastery of a standard variety of Zentella (2002), warned against the Spanish. tendency to over-generalize about Latinos and Latino language use, and Sayer (2008) US Spanish Dialects explained that in the metropolitan Phoenix, # e Spanish-speaking community of the Arizona community where he did his study, Unites States is endlessly heterogeneous. # e political pressure against providing services in

45 Divergencias. Revista de estudios lingüísticos y literarios . Volumen 8, número 2, invierno 2010

Spanish and educational pressure to assimilate could be called an interlanguage, what about the has kept Spanglish from becoming stabilized case of the Spanglish spoken in New York, where and grammaticized, and therefore he considers the only border is with English and French Phoenix Spanglish be a dialect (p. 99). In other Canada? Ardila (2005) suggested that “[w]hat communities, however, where the Spanish- is unique with Spanglish is that it is not spoken speaking neighborhoods are well-established, in a linguistic border. As a matter of fact, there the populations are long-term, and there is a is not an evident linguistic (and geographic) marked resistance to assimilation, Spanglish is frontier. ! e “border” is everywhere in the becoming more grammaticized and could be United States. ! e two are interwoven” (p. 64). considered a stable language in the future. ! ese Ardila’s “border” is not a geopolitical one, but long-term communities include Nuyoricans rather is cultural, linguistic, and o* en racial. (Zentella 1997), Nuevomexicanos (Bernál Once again the inextricably tangled nature of Enriquez 2003) and Texas Chicanos (Anzaldúa identity, language, and biological inheritance is 1987). ! e reason that many researchers support exposed. the idea that Spanglish could become stable, Linguistic features. grammaticized and creolized is that in these Spanglish then can be broadly de& ned as long-term communities new, young generations the language mixing of Spanish and English in are speaking it without having had contact with the U.S. In this language mixing, Spanish is the both languages (Ardila, 2005, p. 66). In other “superstrate” (Sayer 2008) because it is the more words, there is a new generation of monolingual “dominant” language in the mix; in other words, Spanglish speakers. Fairclough (2003) has Spanish contributes more syntax and lexis. ! e explained that the process of grammaticization main linguistic features of Spanglish are code- in which “[e]sta nueva lengua puede adquirirse switching, calques, loan words, and semantic directamente aunque la persona no tenga la extensions. conexión social o étnica con la lengua minoritoria Code-switching (1a) and code-mixing (1b) [English] o bien no posea el conocimiento de las will be used here to refer to the introduction of lenguas en cuestión,” will continue to accelerate unassimilated loan words or entire loan phrases as the number of Hispanics born in the U.S. into a discourse. In Spanglish, this would mean continues to rise, but that for now “el Spanglish the insertion of an English word or phrase into […] sigue siendo algo esporádico, muy personal Spanish speech, without adapting the word y sumamente difícil de cuanti& car” (p. 200). ! e morphologically or phonologically to Spanish phenomenon known as Spanglish along with grammar. Ardila (2005) distinguished between its linguistic characteristics varies from region code-switching and code-mixing, explaining to region, household to household, person to that “code-switching means that at a certain person. point, the speaker changes the language, and As mentioned, some researchers view continues talking in another language. ! e Spanglish as an interlanguage (Ardila 2005), switch is produced when beginning a new which is a language spoken at a linguistic sentence, and usually a new topic,” whereas “[c] border. While it is true that there is close contact ode-mixture (or code alternating) means that between Spanish and English at the Mexico- within a single sentence, two languages are U.S. border, and that the Spanglish spoken there mixed and may alternate” (p. 70). ! e following

46 Kristy E. Nieto examples illustrate the di! erence between the In other words, those “false cognates” or “falsos two: amigos” that we so o# en warn our non-native (1a) Vicky me cuida. She’s my babysitter . Spanish students about become true cognates. (Zentella, 1997, p.58) 1 (4a) una ganga : a “deal” in Standard Spanish, (1b) Tú estás metiendo your big mouth. a “gang” in Spanglish (Zentella, 1997, p.45) (4b) pretender: to “want to get or be Calques (2a-b) are the literal translations something” in Standard Spanish, to “pretend” of one language to another (Fairclough, 2003, in Spanglish. (Ardila, 2005, p. 69). p. 186), or the syntactical structure of one It is interesting to note that Ardila (2005) language being mapped onto another (Sayer, classi& ed code-switching and borrowing as 2008, p. 97). Calques can be one of the aspects “super& cial phenomena” of Spanglish, and of Spanglish that most irritate formally educated calques and semantic extensions as “deep native Spanish-speakers. phenomena” that eventually lead to changes in (2a) Ese avión está supuesto a [is supposed the organization of Spanish. to] llegar a las 3. (Ardila, 2005, p. 75). (2b) Y luego vino pa’tras [he came back]. Source of contro$ersy. (Sayer, 2008, p. 103). Spanglish is a source of controversy not " e use of loan words (3a-b) from English, only because of its resistance to classi& cation or borrowing, o# en applies to the introduction as already discussed, but especially in terms of of any English word or phrase, whether or not it its validity as a way of speech, its propriety in is morphologically or phonologically adapted to public and private spheres, and its merit as an Spanish (Fairclough, 2003, p. 186). In this paper, organized system of language. however, the term “loan words” is used strictly to First of all, there are those who worry signify those words and phrases that are adapted about the e! ects of Spanglish on the Spanish to Spanish grammar. " is could mean a verb language and on Latinos in general. Language like “to park” being adapted morphologically purists such as González Echeverría believe to Spanish in the form of “parquear,” or a word that Spanglish is slowly corrupting the Spanish such as “stop” being adapted phonologically to language by gradually and permanently “es-TŌP.” To avoid confusion, the rest of the deforming its grammar and turning it into a English words and phrases that are not adapted chaotic, irregular tangle of dialects or even are referred to in this paper strictly as code- idiolects. Beyond the worry for the future of the switches. language itself, is the somewhat more legitimate (3a) la huayfa [morphological adaptation concern that Spanglish is a quotidian, painful of “the wife” in order to convey importance of representation of “imperialistic exploitation” gender] (Sánchez, 1994, p. 33). and “United States domination” (Keller, 1976, (3b) aberaje [“average” using Spanish p. 28). González Echeverría agrees, concerned phonological form] (Ardila, p. 72, 2005). that we will all end up speaking “McSpanish” Semantic extensions (4a-b) occur in (Osio 2002, p. 1). Patrick Osio, in an article Spanglish when a pre-existing Spanish word for the Houston Chronicle, accused Spanglish of loses its original Spanish meaning in favor of more than representative of, but also as trapping the English meaning of a lexically similar word. its users, in a lifelong cultural and economic

47 Divergencias. Revista de estudios lingüísticos y literarios . Volumen 8, número 2, invierno 2010 limbo. To Osio, Spanglish is an “aberration” and Many also point out that Spanglish has those who use it in the classroom belong in “the psychological and cognitive significance as hall of education-shame” (2002, p. 1). González “una metáfora para una nueva forma de vida, Echeverría (1997) wrote his own article, this one un nuevo espacio cultural, cuyas fronteras for the New York Times, stating that “# e sad parecen no tener límites” (Fairclough, 2003, reality is that Spanglish is primarily the language p. 189), and political significance as it of poor Hispanics, many barely literate in either allows users to express group affiliation and language […]# ey lack the vocabulary and solidarity. education in Spanish to adapt to the changing Spanglish is also stigmatized because world around them” (p. 116). What Echeverría the practice of code-switching is commonly and Osio are worried about, in the always adept perceived as evidence of a deficient vocabulary words of Stavans (2000b), is that there might (Sayer 2008). Those who have not studied be entire new generations of Latinos “who, no the phenomena assume that Spanglish means longer $ uent in the language of Cervantes, have having to rely on words from both Spanish not yet mastered that of Shakespeare” (p. 64). As and English, because one is not educated or mentioned earlier, those who master a standard fluent in either. The practice of switching dialect clearly enjoy greater social and economic codes due to a gap in vocabulary is known mobility than those who are unable to switch as “crutching.” (Sayer, 2008, p. 97). As we between dialects. It is interesting, however, that already know, however, Spanglish involves both Osio and Echeverría, in di% erent ways, more than mere code-switching—it includes argue for the total suppression or eradication of calques, semantic extensions, and borrowing, Spanglish. Stavans ( 2000a) comments that he and many other linguistic phenomena that are is “not at all surprised that the dissemination of described in detailed grammar studies such Spanglish in the United States has given way to as that of Zentella (1997). She found that an atmosphere of anxiety and even xenophobia” the children in her study were not “semi- or (p. 556), and that only studying Spanglish will a-lingual hodge-podgers, but adept bilingual we discover its function and vitality. jugglers. They followed rules of what and On the other side of the controversy are where to switch that were shared by several those who defend their right to call Spanglish a Latino communities” (58). In other words, legitimate language. Among them is Anzaldúa the two languages are not simply mixed at (1987), who has said in de& ance: random. Users follow rules about how the languages can and cannot be combined. Somos los del español deﬁ ciente. We In fact, several studies have found that are your linguistic nightmare, your the strongest bilinguals tend to be the linguistic aberration, your linguistic “most prolific code-switchers,” (Sayer, 2008, mestizaje, your burla. […] Until I can p. 104) and that “aquellos que poseen un take pride in my language, I cannot buen dominio de ambos idiomas tienden a take pride in myself. I will no longer be made to feel ashamed of existing (p. producer CC [cambio de códigos] con mayor 124). frecuencia” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 193). The idea that those who practice code-mixing are compensating in order to fill in the gaps in

48 Kristy E. Nieto their vocabulary is a common misconception there is o# en a juxtaposition of roles in the that could lead to misunderstanding in the classroom—the instructor expects the heritage classroom. speaker to act as a leader or an informant (p. As Sayer (2008) has reminded us, the 156). Another, obvious problem arises when the “sociolinguistic description of code-mixing instructor does not value the student’s speech as contrasts sharply with commonly held legitimate, o# entimes because the instructor is misconceptions about bilinguals’ mixing not familiar with some of the terms used in that practices as evidence of laziness or sloppiness” (p. student’s dialect. $ is is a problem that requires 100). Code-switching is not simply crutching; it much care, especially since Felix (2009) found is a way for bilingual speakers to maximize their that most heritage speakers already enter the rich linguistic resources to highlight reported classroom with feelings of embarrassment. One speech, re! ect social power relations, and mark student shared: “[w]hen I took the class I did their identities. feel slightly embarrassed because I’m Hispanic. I Heritage and Native Spanish Speakers in the felt I never should have had to be in a classroom Foreign Language Classroom learning what should have come naturally” Problems and Bene ts (p. 158). $ e foreign language instructor in Although the nonstandard dialects such charge of such a classroom must be aware of the as Spanglish are legitimate, vibrant languages, heritage student’s unique situation in the foreign one still needs to master Standard Spanish for language classroom. practical reasons, among them, in order not to $ ere are, however, many bene" ts for be the victim of discrimination in a job interview all when a heritage speaker joins the foreign or by a scholarship committee. Although language classroom. With the right classroom discrimination is wrong in the " rst place, we still environment, the student may feel empowered, must admit that it exists and protect ourselves instead of embarrassed, due to her " rst-hand from it. More and more native Spanish speakers knowledge. $ e student can discover that are beginning to enroll in Spanish as a Foreign what is a part of her heritage can also be an Language classes seeking to perfect their use of a excellent advantage in school and work. $ e standard Spanish, for that very reason. other students bene" t when a heritage speaker Educators and students alike encounter is able to challenge them in class discussions. the various and inevitable problems that occur Diversity in the classroom is unavoidable. As when the native speaker attends a Spanish instructors we can choose to see a diverse group class designed for the non-native speaker. For of students as an obstacle, or as an advantage, an instance, Felix (2009) has noted that these classes additional tool to help guide students towards “present Spanish as a foreign language stripped self-discovery and academic maturity. of the notions of culture and heritage that characterize human language” (p.145). In other Recommendations for Instructors words, Spanish is presented as the language of In order to e% ectively use students’ the “other,” as an ethnographical artifact, instead nonstandard dialects as a resource, instructors of as the language of the students’ forefathers must have a clear understanding of sociolinguistic and ancestors. Felix also found that when the principles of language variation as related instructor is not a native Spanish speaker, to identity and socioeconomic power. Train

49 Divergencias. Revista de estudios lingüísticos y literarios . Volumen 8, número 2, invierno 2010

(2003) discusses the ! eld of Critical Language how to a& rm those in the classroom. As Ellison Awareness (CLA) as key to the professional (2006) pointed out, “[t]eachers’ conceptions of development of language educators as it “marks students’ abilities and expectations for students an attempt to problematize the notions of from di$ erent backgrounds lead to di$ erential accuracy and ‘appropriateness’” based on native- treatment of students in classrooms” (p. 134). speaker norms that re" ect only the language Edstrom (2006) stated that in order to be practices of a dominant group in society” (p. able to give sensitive feedback and provide 15). # e culturally aware instructor is one who an equitable environment, the educator must understands why certain dialects are favored understand how Spanish is spoken in the “real over others, the arbitrary nature of “correctness” world” and why it is spoken that way (p. 337). in language, and how a student’s relationship To add to Edstrom’s idea, I believe the language with language a$ ects his self-esteem. instructor should also resist the temptation to Beyond being an essential component of create an opposition between the “real world” language instructor education, CLA must and the classroom. Language exists in the real be introduced to language students as well. world, along with all of society’s contradictions, Students who do not understand the processes complications, and nonstandard speech. Instead of language variation and standardization simply of denying or suppressing these complications, memorize the “correct” forms in an uncritical the way some critics would wish for the manner, without developing the knowledge disappearance of Spanglish, instructors should and con! dence necessary to make conscientious use them as material for constructive exploration choices about language use. Once students begin and discussion on language. to see the target language less as some static ideal Finally, I recommend that instructors and more as a dynamic, ever-changing re" ection integrate nonstandard dialect texts into their of a web of social relations and environments, class materials, in order to a& rm the legitimacy they will be much more able to cope with the of nonstandard dialects as well as put into ambiguities that tend to torment them as practice the concepts of CLA. Comparative language learners. Martínez (2003) argues for analyses of dialects are particularly well suited a “robust model of CBDA [classroom based to the objective of critical language instruction. dialect awareness] that is capable of transmitting For example, instructors could choose a poem a deep-seated understanding of language written in nonstandard Spanish, perhaps a variation at the elementary levels of heritage poem in Spanglish by Gloría Anzaldúa, and ask language instruction.” Martínez shows that students to explicitly analyze the di$ erences “heritage language pedagogy can be considerably between the poem’s language and the standard enriched if dialect awareness is the ! rst thing Spanish taught in the textbook. Students that students are taught instead of the last”(p.4). could even identify instances of calques, code- Language instructors must engage students in switching, and loan words. Once students critical conversations about language variation identify the nonstandard features of the if they are to e$ ectively address nonstandard language used, they could enterinto a discussion speech in the classroom. about the possible political implications of Furthermore, instructors should be informed the writer’s concious use of a nonstandard about their students’ dialects and must know dialect. Martínez (2003), in a review of Spanish

50 Kristy E. Nieto textbooks for heritage learners, indicates say “nobody,” but all the student hears is that her some of the activities that most meaningfully way of speaking is not valid. In order to avoid incorporate dialect awareness into the language this all too common trap, instructors must rid lesson. Martínez highlights an activity designed themselves and their students of the pervasive by George Blanco, Victoria Contreras, and and false notion of the existence of an inherently Judith Marquez, in which “students are asked to superior standard Spanish. " nd the names of a set of items in three distinct geographical regions. # ey are also told to ask Conclusion their informants which form they consider to be As Fairclough (2003) has explained in most ‘correct.’” # is activity, Martínez observes, reference to preparing students for careers, “el points to “the arbitrary nature of linguistic empleado ideal debería manejar perfectamente variation” and “the fact that the most correct el inglés y el español estándar, como también term is usually the term most closely associated las variedades locales del español, inclusive with one’s own sociolinguistic experience and el Spanglish” (p. 199). Instructors are aware upbringing” (p. 5). that their duty is to provide Standard Spanish Edstrom (2006) has agreed that students education in the FL classroom, and generally also bene" t from opportunities to actually favor a bidialectal approach in order to provide produce their nonstandard dialects in classroom the standard while valuing the vernacular. activities (p.337). For instance, in a weekly In order to create a true valorization of the journal evaluated strictly on content, students vernacular, however, instructors must not be could be encouraged to use their own voices. afraid to allow it to enter the classroom in the # e journals could be used in combination form of materials and activities. Instructors with other writing exercises that are evaluated should rid themselves and their students of false based on the grammar skills presented in the notions about language mixing and laziness, and textbook (as well as use of an academic register). try to actually use Spanglish as a pedagogical # ese exercises would be completed with the resource, whether working solely with native understanding that the textbook presents and heritage speakers or in a traditional FL one particular local standard of Spanish that classroom with non-native speakers as well. As students will be asked to master during the researchers in sociolinguistics continue to study course. Students will understand, of course, that the place of the vernacular in education, we will the Spanish presented in the textbook is not the most likely begin to see more methodologies only “correct” Spanish. published with ideas for incorporating the # e key to integrating nonstandard nonstandard dialects of students. Of course, the language into the classroom is to be able to say eventual goal is to break down the traditional the students’ dialects are legitimate, and really ideas of language and social class and become a mean it. Bernal-Enríquez (2003) has explained more equitable society in general. the damaging e$ ects of a super" cial appreciation of nonstandard dialects, saying that by telling Notes the student, “ Tú dices ‘nadien’; en el español 1 Taken from Zentella´s (1997) study of the estándar se dice ‘nadie’” (p. 106), the instructor speech of New York Puerto Rican children. is justi" ed in wanting to teach the other way to

51 Divergencias. Revista de estudios lingüísticos y literarios . Volumen 8, número 2, invierno 2010

Works Cited Friedman, Robert. (2001). Language purists Anzaldúa, Gloria. (1987). Linguistic terrorism. dismayed by Spanglish. Geolinguistics, 27, 195- In I. Stavans (Ed.), Spanglish, (pp. 123-124). 196. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Gay, Geneva. (2002). Preparing for culturally Archibold, Randal C. (2010). Arizona enacts responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher stringent law on immigration. New York Education, 53(2), 106-116. Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. González Echeverría, Roberto. (1997). Is com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html. “Spanglish” a language? In I. Stavans Ardila, Alfredo. (2005). Spanglish: An anglicized (Ed.), Spanglish, (pp. 116-117). Westport, dialect. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Sciences, 27, 60-81. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. (1985). Auer, Peter. (1999). From codeswitching via Spoken and written language. Victoria, language mixing to fused lects: Toward Australia: Deakin University Press. a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. Katz, Stacey. (2003). Near-native speakers International Journal of Bilingualism, 3(4), in the foreign language classroom: the 309-332. case of Haitian immigrant students. In C. Bernal-Enríquez, Ysaura & Hernández-Chávez, Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign Eduardo. (2003). La enseñanza del español en language classrooms: Contributions of Nuevo México: ¿revitalización o erradicación de the native, near-native, and non-native la variedad chicana? In A. Roca & M. Colombi speaker, (pp.131-160). Boston: Thomson (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage Heinle. language in the United States, (pp. 96-119). Kramsch, Claire. (2003). “The priviledge of the Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. nonnative speaker.” In Blyth, Carl, (Ed.), Beaudrie, Sara, Ducar, Cynthia and Relaño-Pastor, In Blyth, Carl (Ed.), The Sociolinguistics Ana María. (2009) ‘Curricular perspectives of Foreign Language Classrooms : in the heritage language context: assessing Contributions of the Native, the Near- culture and identity’, Language, Culture and Native, and the Non-Native Speaker. Issues Curriculum, 22: 2, 157 — 174. in Language Program Direction, A Series Cook, Vivian. (1999). Going beyond the native of Annual Volumes (pp.251-262). Heinle, speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, Boston: 2003. 33(2), 185-209. Martínez, Glenn A. (2003). “Classroom based Edstrom, Anne. (2006). Oral narratives in the dialect awareness in heritage language language classroom: a bridge between non- instruction: A critical applied linguistic native, heritage, and native-speaking learners. approach.” Heritage Language Journal , 1. Hispania, 89(2), 336-346. Available from: www.heritagelanguages. Ellison, Vickie R. (2006). Cultural awareness org knowledge and the teaching of Spanish to native Maschler, Yael. (1998). On the transition speakers. Hispania, 89(1), 133-146. from code-switching to a mixed code. Fairclough, Marta. (2003). El (denominado) In Peter Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in Spanglish en Estados Unidos: Polémicas y conversation: Language, interaction, and realidades. Revista Internacional Lingüística identity (pp. 125-49). London, England: Iberoamericana, 1(2), 185-204. Routledge. Felix, Angela. (2009). The adult heritage Spanish Muysken, P. (2001). Bilingual speech: A speaker in the foreign language classroom: A typology of code-mixing. New York: phenomenography. International Journal of Cambridge University Press. Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(2), 145- Osio, Patrick. (2002). No se habla Spanglish: 162. Useless hybrid traps Latinos in language barrio. Houston Chronicle, 8, 1C, 4C.

52 Kristy E. Nieto

Roca, A., & Colombi, M. (Eds.). (2003). Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language Valdés, Guadalupe. (1995). The teaching of minority in the United States. Washington, D.C.: languages as academic subjects: pedagogical and Georgetown University Press. theoretical challenges. The Modern Language Rothman, Jason. (2007). “Heritage speaker Journal, 79(3), 299-328. competence differences, language change, Zentella, Ana Celia. (1997). The grammar of and input type: Inflected infinitives Spanglish. In I. Stavans (Ed.), Spanglish (pp. 43- in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese.” 63). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. International Journal of Bilingualism. ---. (2002). Latin@ languages and identities. In 11(4), 359-389. M. Suárez-Orozco & M. Páez (Eds.), Latinos: Sato, Charlene. (1989). A nonstandard approach to Remaking America (pp. 321-338). Berkeley: Standard English. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 259- University of California Press. 282. Sánchez, Rosaura. (1994). Our linguistic and social conext. In I. Stavans (Ed.), Spanglish (pp.3-41). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Sayer, Peter. (2008). Demystifying language mixing: Spanglish in school. Journal of Latinos and Education, 7(2), 94-112. Stavans, Ilan. (2000a). Tickling the tongue. World Literature Today, 74(3), 555-558. ---. (2000b). The gravitas of Spanglish. In I. Stavans (Ed.), Spanglish (pp. 64-71). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Train, Robert. (2003) . “The (non)native standard language in foreign language education: a critical perspective.” In Blyth, Carl (Ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Foreign Language Classrooms: Contributions of the Native, the Near-Native, and the Non-Native Speaker. Issues in Language Program Direction, A Series of Annual Volumes (pp.3-39). Heinle, Boston: 2003. Trudgill, Peter. (1974). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. London, England: Penguin Books. United States Census Bureau. (2008). Hispanics in the United States [Data File]. Available from http://www.census.gov/population/www/ socdemo/hispanic/hispanic.html. ---. (2007). Language Use in the United States [PDF]. Available from http://www.census.gov/ hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/ACS-12.pdf. ---.(2000). U.S. foreign-born population [Data File]. Available from http://www.census.gov/ population/www/socdemo/foreign/datatbls.html.