Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US

By M. Rafael Salaberry

Multilingual Matters

Copyright © 2009 M. Rafael Salaberry and the authors of individual chapters
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-84769-177-4

Contents

Contributors, vi,
1 Language Allegiances Rafael Salaberry, 1,
2 Language Attitudes and Linguistic Outcomes in Reading, Pennsylvania Almeida Jacqueline Toribio, 24,
3 A Sociolinguistic View of Speech Sciences Nancy Niedzielski, 42,
4 Linguistic Profiling: The Linguistic Point of View Dennis R. Preston, 53,
5 The Bilingual’s Hoarse Voice: Losing Rights in Two Languages Sandra Del Valle, 80,
6 Problems with the ‘Language-as-Resource’ Discourse in the Promotion of Heritage Languages in the US Thomas Ricento, 110,
7 English Hegemony and the Politics of Ethno-Linguistic Justice in the US Ronald Schmidt, 132,
8 Livin’ and Teachin’ la lengua loca: Glocalizing US Spanish Ideologies and Practices Ofelia García, 151,
9 Bilingual Education: Assimilation, Segregation and Integration Rafael Salaberry, 172,
References, 196,

CHAPTER 1

Language Allegiances

RAFAEL SALABERRY

Introduction

Is the competence to speak a language (for example, Spanish) an essential or important feature of identity (for example, Hispanic or Latino)? To what extent is self-perceived identity based on language abilities in one or more languages? What effect does bilingualism have on specific identities? Does bilingualism lead to ‘fractured’ identities? Does a state need a ‘national’ language to become a nation separate from other nations? Are multilingual states less united than the ones that promote a single national language? These questions, among others, focus our attention on the relationship between language and identity. Indeed, identity seems to be associated, at least to some extent, with our competency in one or more languages. For instance, the rapid shift in language competency in, or usage of, the language(s) used by the children and grandchildren of immigrants is typically linked with the severing of ties with the specific culture associated with that language (e.g. Brodie et al., 2002; García-Bedolla, 2005; Kymlicka, 1995; Kymlicka & Patten, 2003; May, 2001; Sears et al., 1999).

This very close association between use of a language and the sense of affiliation with the culture associated with it may be regarded as a form of language allegiance in that language affiliation seems to garner a type of loyalty and support that few other identities command (e.g. Ricento, 1998, 2000; Schmid, 2001). For instance, Cornell and Bratton (1999: 635) point out that ‘for many Latino/as their ‘visibility’ stems more from their lack of acculturation than from their skin color.’ In this respect, language seems to be one of the main components of acculturation mentioned by Cornell and Bratton in opposition to race. Thus, given the importance of language in defining cultural identities, this book will address a number of questions associated with the concept of language allegiances: are language allegiances rational; is allegiance to more than one language possible; how do we define language; are allegiances to minority languages supportive of a liberal state or antithetical to it; can we be objective in our analysis of our language varieties? In this introductory chapter, I will provide an initial framework of analysis, and will summarize the main intent of the various chapters that make up this volume.

Language and Identity

Is language an essential feature of identity?

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

From a socio-economic point of view, language and identity are also inextricably linked. For instance, according to May (2001: chap. 4), the process of language shift in Ireland (from Irish to English) can be explained as the outcome of a socio-political process that has linked English with modernization, and, ultimately, with economic and social success. Along the same lines, but with reference to the case of Spanish in the US in particular, Cornell and Bratton (1999: 629) argue that ‘[t]he minority can retain its language and its economic independence only by restricting itself to segregated workplaces and to teams that are monolingual in the minority language’. They, thus conclude that the process of cultural assimilation is equivalent to ‘reinventing oneself to surmount the linguistic and cultural divides that separate a minority from the majority group’ (p. 644). The connection between language and identity is also well represented in literature, and especially so when monolithic cultural identities are being challenged (for relevant examples see García, this volume and Ricento, this volume). In this respect, Cornell and Bratton (1999) point out that important writers have explicitly noted that their cultural identification is intimately connected with the language they use in their writings. The literary authors cited by Cornell and Bratton are worth mentioning because their work is indicative of language shifts and concomitant cultural transitions. For instance, Gloria Anzaldúa, writing in English and Spanish, conveys what it means to be mestiza in the US, whereas Toni Morrison describes how her writing in English can be regarded as quintessentially African-American. I note that the above-mentioned writers use vernacular forms of English and Spanish to convey mixed and hybrid senses of their identity. Cornell and Bratton also note the way the writer Jorge Luis Borges identifies himself as a Latinamericanist (‘I am inseparable from the Spanish language’). Interestingly, Borges was a fluent bilingual who studied in a bilingual English–Spanish school and read the writings of famous English-speaking authors in the original language.

The notion that language and identity create an inseparable bond brings about some difficult conceptual and by extension legal challenges. For instance, Del Valle (2003: 28) points out that only immutable, unchangeable characteristics define protected groups; thus, only immutable characteristics endow groups with legal rights. More specifically, policies that disfavor mutable characteristics do not, for instance deprive of job opportunities, rather they condition them ‘on a willingness to comply with workplace rules’ (Ford, 2005: 185, stress added). Does language constitute a mutable characteristic that can be changed at will? Some legal scholars have argued that language is not a mutable characteristic in the sense of an ‘on–off switch’, and have thus proposed that language is an essential property of cultural identity and affiliation (e.g. Cornell & Bratton, 1999; Matsuda, 1991; Piatt, 1990; Rodriguez, 2001). For instance, Rodriguez (2001: 142) argues emphatically that ‘[l]inguistic difference retains an immutable dimension precisely because it has been interwoven into the linguistic development of the speaker’. Along similar lines, Piatt (1990: 180–181) argues against the theory of mutability of identity alongside changes in language proficiency found in García v. Gloor because such a legal position ‘fails to take into account the individual’s interest in viewing the world through his or her culture’. Finally, Del Valle (this volume) wonders:

Why are language minorities treated differently by the courts in Gloor and Spun Steak than African-Americans in Brown v. Board of Education? Aren’t all minorities the ‘other’? Aren’t most minorities easily ascertainable by some kind of marker, whether color or accent or language? The answer seems to be a qualified ‘yes’.

Del Valle thus argues that language represents as powerful an indicator of identity as any other, including race. She acknowledges, however, that the level of discrimination against African-Americans may have been disproportionately higher than the level of discrimination represented in previous legal cases against, for instance, bilingual employees (see also Ford, 2005). Nevertheless, the perspective that the only wronged rights that have to be addressed are the ones from the past represents a myopic position.

On the other hand, some authors disagree with the strong association of language and identity (e.g. Appiah, 2005; Ford, 2005; Gracia, 1999, in press; Gutmann, 2003). For instance, Gracia (1999: 44) defines the term Hispanic within the context of what he calls the familial–historical view: ‘… in spite of the many differences that separate Hispanics, we have a common identity of a familial, historical sort, although this identity is not based on common properties…’. Most importantly, Gracia argues that ‘… [n]one of the conditions mentioned — territory, political unit, language, culture, race, genetic lineage, or class — functions either as a necessary or a sufficient condition …’ (p. 14). Therefore, language, among many other features, cannot be considered an essential feature of being Hispanic. May (2001: 129), however, points out that ‘to say that language is not an inevitable feature of identity is not the same as saying it is unimportant’. To be more precise, May (2003: 140–141, stress added) claims:

I reject unequivocally any conception of language as a ‘primordial’ feature of identity, along with any related essentialist notions of language-identity link … Where I beg to differ is […] to assume that, if language is merely a contingent factor of identity, it cannot therefore (ever) be a significant or constitutive factor of identity.

Similarly, but from a broader perspective, Cornell and Bratton (1999: 681, stress added) state that ‘the proposition that language and culture are not coterminous does not imply that language is not a basic parameter of culture’. In fact, we should note that Gracia (in press, stress added), more precisely, explains that ‘[t]he use of the Iberian languages is one of the main features that unites Hispanics and can serve to distinguish them in certain contexts. In other words, the latter statement seems to give language a sort of preeminence among other features of the Hispanic identity.

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

The subtle gradience of language categories

Not only is the association of language and identity very complex, but the delimitation of a definition of language is complex as well. Take the meaning of Spanish, for instance. Gracia (1999: 10) wonders:

… how much do some African Cubans, some native Bolivians, and some Asturians have in common linguistically? The accent would be very different, and so would be the vocabulary and even much of the syntax. Would they understand each other?

Gracia’s question points to the obvious complexity of the term language and how generic labels such as Spanish, English etc. are misleading because they refer to many different representations or delimitations of language at once. This oversimplification of the reality of the definition of language is deceptive and, more importantly, it seems to be popularly accepted as part of the metaphor of ‘language trees’, and its concomitant branching-off of languages as categorical entities. Contrary to this view, Penny (2000: 20–28) proposes that the best metaphor to describe language variation (whether regional, historical or social) is that of the perception of colors. Colors are defined, in objective terms, as specific frequencies in the visible light range of the electromagnetic spectrum. But the definition of color can also be a subjective experience because the light spectrum consists of an infinite gradation of wavelengths that are arbitrarily segmented by the human visual system into the seven basic colors of the rainbow. In other words, color categories are continuous rather than clear-cut and, most importantly, categories reside in the eye of the beholder. Languages seem to be better defined as continuous entities with no clear-cut boundaries, although, as is the case with colors, we can have categorical perceptions of them.

Blommaert (2005: 245) explains the consequences of not taking into account the metaphor of the light rainbow when he notes that ‘[w]e have failed to see the fine shades of identity often articulated not by one monoglot “language”, but by delicate and moment-to-moment evolving variation between varieties of language, including accents, registers, styles, and genres’. Not surprisingly, thus, we find significant discrepancies in the way we describe language varieties as standard or non-standard to the point of incorrectly describing some varieties as abnormal (e.g. Bonifiglio, 2002; García, this volume; Niedzielski, this volume). More importantly, not only are languages not ‘categorical’ entities neatly defined and segmented, but their associations with specific identities are also fluid and dynamic. Blommaert, thus states that

identity is best seen not as one item, but as a repertoire of different possible identities, each of which has a particular range or scope and function. In that sense, a term such as ‘national identity’ is, as said above, best seen as a specific ascriptive label attached to people. (245)

(Continues…)Excerpted from Language Allegiances and Bilingualism in the US by M. Rafael Salaberry. Copyright © 2009 M. Rafael Salaberry and the authors of individual chapters. Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.