Spanish Language Shift Reversal

Spanish Language Shift Reversal on the US-Mexico Border and the Extended Third Space Margarita Hidalgo Department of Spanish and Portuguese, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-7703, USA Language shift reversal (LSR) is defined as a change in progress affecting Spanish language use along the US-Mexico border and some other extended areasof the country during the past few decades. LSR is contrasted with reversing language shift (RLS), the result of official language policy and planning. Samples of LSR in San Diego County are presented in connection with reactions towards bilingual education in a space loaded with ambivalence. In this scenario, a reflectionon intercultural communication is offered in the light of the international trade agreement with Mexico.

At present the US-Mexico border is inhabited by millions of speakers of English and Spanish, two post-imperial languages of impeccable credentials and literary traditions. Although little attention has been given to language contact in this important region dividing the First World from the Third World, it is well-established that this border is unique, for it is the only one where a fully developed industrialised society and military and economic superpower is found in direct juxtaposition with an ‘emergent’ nation. The world’s largest border is ideal to examine sociolinguistic phenomena (e.g. language variation, bilingualism, diglossia, language maintenance and language shift, language attitudes, etc.) resulting from intense, multidirectional, and unequal social contacts. In this milieu, the reversal of language shift is a plausible occurrence, given the rapid growth of the Spanish-speaking origin population (SSOP) of the area. Language shift reversal (LSR) is a concept advanced herein and exemplified with data from San Diego County (SDC), the third largest city of the state of California. This reversal in progress has been described in other border communities (cf. Hidalgo, 1995; Jaramillo, 1995) which have gained a considerable proportion of Spanish speakers over the past four decades. Some of these communities (e.g., El Paso, Tucson, San Diego) suffered significant population losses as a result of the Mexico-US War (1846–1848). The most conspicuous consequence of LSR is the use of Spanish in public domains which were formerly exclusive to English. The small surveys conducted in SDC offer provocative data that are interpreted in the light of the advancements of the sociology of language, in general, and reversing language shift, in particular. In addition, this paper explores the notion of an extended quasi-reversal in interior US communities, some of which had in the past century a very small SSOP. Finally, the official and unofficial reactions to the unsuspected and growing presence of Spanish speakers is examined in connection with California Proposition 227 and the Bilingual Education Act of 1994. In the US local, regional, and national scenario, a reflection on international and intercultural communication is deemed necessary to close this contribution. 1470-8477/01/01 0057-19 $16.00/0 Language and Intercultural Communication

©2001 M. Hidalgo Vol. 1, No. 1, 2001

57

58

Language and Intercultural Communication

The model of LSR proposed for SDC serves to advance generalisations about trends and patterns that are being observed in border and interior communities of an extensive region known as the United States Southwest (primarily California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and southern Colorado), the vast area explored by the Spanish expeditionaries since the mid-sixteenth century. In the United States Southwest (USSW), European explorers did not find exotic civilisations or important mineral sites. The absence of wealth and native population led to the establishment of missions and to the practice of a pastoral lifestyle that ended with the North American explorations of the West and the occupation of the predominantly Spanish-speaking territory. Until the mid-nineteenth century, Spanish was the only European language spoken – alongside a few Amerindian languages – in the scarcely populated towns and villages of the USSW. The southwestern states belonged to the Spanish Empire until 1821, when Mexico consummated its independence from Spain. Between 1821 and 1848, they were governed by the Mexican Republic. The war between Mexico and the United States (1846–1848) was more than a mere battle over the enviable territory; for this reason, it soon became a permanent conflict of race, religion and customs (Weber, 1973: 96). In May of 1848, the US Senate ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and settled for the third portion of the Mexican territory which had the fewest Mexicans (Weber, 1973: 100). The history of language conflict and languages in competition since the loss of one-half of the Mexican territory to the United States has not been studied yet. It is however assumed that Spanish language loss and shift have been continuous since then. The Spanish-speaking population of the vast area acquired from Mexico between 1845 and 1854 was about 75,000, according to most estimates: 60,000 Nuevo Mexicanos, 7,500 Californios, about the same number of Texanos, and less than 1,000 Mexicans living around the presidios of southern Arizona. These people constituted a unique new ethnic block in the United States (…) the fact that they were guaranteed all the rights of the citizens did not prevent them from becoming foreigners in their native land. (Weber, 1973: 140–141) The new culture of the border region partly resulted from the encounter between the Anglo and Iberian worlds and their abysmal differences of values, attitudes, behaviours, and languages. The construction of Anglo-Americans’ stereotypes of Mexican-Americans did not come into being in the border region but in the US interior (Weber, 1979/1989: 300). Originating as early as 1822, they were later exacerbated through increasing numbers of travellers, merchants and settlers who entered northernmost Mexico after 1821. The stereotype was used until recently to justify efforts to ‘Americanize’ Mexicans in the USSW and to capitalise on the exploitation and poor treatment of Mexican and Mexican-American workers in the fields and factories of the border region (Weber, 1979/1989: 303). The residents of Mexican descent who remained in the region in the late nineteenth century and those who came from Mexico in the first half of the twentieth century were consistently oriented towards the English language and US mainstream values, given the pressures exerted by the mainstream culture. For about a hundred years, Spanish language loss and language shift have been occurring

Spanish Language Shift Reversal

59

at different rates. At the same time, Spanish mother tongue maintenance of the foreign-born population has been recorded since the early twentieth century, when the number of speakers was merely 258,131,a figure that grew to 556,111 in 1920, reached 743,286 in 1930, and declined precipitously to 428,360 in 1940 (Fishman et al., 1984: 132) due to massive deportations during the Depression era. Since the 1960s, however, the progressive recovery of the SSOP and the noticeable use of the Spanish language have been observed in both the border region and the USSW. The fact that the Spanish language has been gaining speakers every decade for the past four decades (1960–2000) is clearly indicated in the figures of the official US Census (see Table 1). Nonetheless, according to unofficial observers, the estimates are normally conservative and inaccurate, for those who live in the ‘ethnic’ communities claim that many individuals of Spanish-speaking origin are either uncounted or undercounted. Table 1 Growth of the Spanish-speaking origin population of the United States (1940–1999) Year 1940 1960 1970 1980 1990 1999

Total Population 132,165,129 179,325,671 203,210,158 226,542,199 248,709,873 281,421,906

SSOP Population 1,861,400 3,334,960 7,823,583 14,608,673 20,425,646 31,337,122

Sources: 1940–1970 data derived from J.A. Fishman et al. (1984) The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival (p. 132); 1980–1999 data derived from the US Bureau of the Census (1981–1982; 1992, 1999) Census of the Population, Washington, DC.

The notion of a LSR in the border region was first advanced by both Hidalgo (1995) and Jaramillo (1995) in reference to El Paso (Texas), Tucson (Arizona), and San Diego (California). I compared the degree of LSR in the three border cities and proposed that El Paso had a higher index of vitality, because it has moved forward in the process of reversal and continues to be more advanced than either Tucson or San Diego. Moreover, I stated that the early accommodation of the Spanish-speaking San Diegans to the conditions imposed by English-speaking newcomers had ‘led to the submergence of subsequent generations of Spanish-Mexican descent’ (Hidalgo, 1995: 42). I also asserted that, in contrast with other borders, the process of reversal in San Diego would be longer and harder. In spite of these difficulties, San Diego is slowly immersing itself in the cultural and sociolinguistic dynamics of the USSW and is acquiring some of the traits characteristic of the USSW region. For this reason, SDC is proposed as a model of parsimonious LSR. If this reversal continues to advance, it can be predicted that other communities (borders, USSW communities, and extended communities of the US interior) will move, too, in the same direction. At present, the Anglo/Mexican population ratio varies considerably from community to community across the USSW area. By the same token, the saliency of Spanish language and ethnicity varies according to traditions established by

60

Language and Intercultural Communication

both groups since the mid-19th century, when the whole USSW region was entirely monolingual in Spanish and Mexican mono-ethnic. The arrival of Anglo-Americans changed the profile of the border and USSW communities giving rise to Spanish/English contact for the first generations of Anglos and Mexicans. It is assumed that the second generation of Anglo-Americans was bilingual, and that the early Mexican-Anglo contacts in most communities was distinguished by elite intermarriages. As Anglo-American groups increased in number of individuals and the control of the communities was almost exclusively in the hands of speakers of English, English became the general language of communication throughout the twentieth century; so strong was the influence of English and the wave of Anglicisation that Mexican-Americans turned out to be extremely anglicised and acculturated. This is the noticeable trend in the pre-and post-World War II decades (Hidalgo, 1995: 36). The current conflicts of the border region may differ from those experienced a hundred years ago. Because of the profound demographic transformationsof the past 40 years, the border region is no longer the periphery where the demarcation of two disparate nation-states was imposed. This is not to imply that all the qualms about the area are forgone, but only that the demographic, industrial, commercial, and agricultural activities are better integrated into the economic and political spheres of both countries. It is important to add, nonetheless, that the border region, or the ‘taboo region’, as I labelled it (Hidalgo, 1995) has always been dependent on not one but on two hegemonic systems: Mexico and the United States. The conglomerate of people of Mexican descent inhabiting the marked area have become a unique regional social system where family structure, culture, social interaction and factors of production were fused across the boundary. The most important by-product has been the bicultural transfrontier interdependent metropolis.

The Extension of the Border or the ‘Third Space’ The extended border is at present more undetermined and unspecified than the border region per se. However, the extended border is found beyond the USSW, as revealed by the official estimates of the US Bureau of the Census (July, 1999). The ranking by Hispanic population shows that nine states (five of them in the USSW) comprise a total of 26,199,843 people of the total of 31,183,515 recorded in 1999. Moreover, the second 17 states ranked in 1999 have a SSOP ranging from almost 400,000 to slightly more than 100,000. The combined population of these 17 states reaches 3,961,642 individuals of SSOP (see Appendix A). These glaring figures may be sufficient to claim that LSR is an ongoing change that can be observed in border communities per se, interior communities of the USSW, and even those that are outside the USSW region. The LSR scenario at the national level assumes the active participation of millions of individuals of Spanish-speaking origin, the majority of whom reside in large urban centres of the country. In almost all of these centres, Spanish is currently heard, spoken, and even written in both private and public domains. The specific contexts of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Hartford or Las Vegas in which Spanish is used may be singled out as the extended border or third space. Because the US-Mexico border is incessantly moving northward, migration from Mexico

Spanish Language Shift Reversal

61

begins to reach areas formerly unpopulated by individuals of Mexican descent and others from the Caribbean region, and Central and South America. Individuals from south of the border carry with them two major cultural and closely related components: language and ethnicity. Language (Spanish) and ethnicity (Mexican for those communities of high Mexican density or Hispanic for mixed communities) are phenomena that stand out in most places as being anomalous or disruptive. The saliency of Spanish language and ethnicity increases or decreases according to various external factors: greater distance from Mexico or from the country of origin of the speakers, ratio of inhabitants of Anglo and Hispanic descent, date or primacy of settlements of the SSOP, and economic development. The conflictive nature of social contacts in communities inhabited by Spanish-speaking people is historically linked to the peripheral nature and markedness of the Spanish-speaking world, which is mostly distinguished by underdevelopment and racial mixture. The extended border has acquired some of the features of the US-Mexico border, for language and ethnicity have become salient characteristics that help maintain boundaries and limits; the degree of saliency and separateness in the extended border varies from community to community. In all the US cities in which there are speakers of Spanish-speaking origin, however, the marked language is Spanish and the marked ethnicity is Mexican, Hispanic or Latino.

Description of Societal Bilingualism In the border region, the USSW and other interior communities in which Spanish speakers have been established for at least two generations, bilingualism can be experienced in a continuum that begins with Spanish monolingualism in the first generation; Spanish/English bilingualism is usually the norm for the second generation, and at times even for the third generation, whereas English monolingualism is attained in the third or fourth generations, as illustrated in Figure 1 (Hidalgo, 1993c: 14). The bilingual continuum can be observed primarily in urban settings of any size (e.g., San Antonio, Austin, Houston (Texas), Tucson, Phoenix (Arizona), Albuquerque (New Mexico), Los Angeles, Santa Ana (California), but also in small cities, towns, and even rural areas where the shift to English is normally predictable. In the rural settings and communities adjacent to the Mexican border, the shift to English may occur until the fourth generation; also, select individuals or groups of individuals may experience a shift reversal in their adult life. Finally, communities that are considerably distant from the country of ancestry or those which do not experience the replenishment of the SSOP on an intergenerational basis may undergo a language shift in the second generation. The US-Mexico border can be considered an area of stable bilingualism, given that there exist sufficient numbers of speakers of both languages so as to constantly foster language contact, diglossia, and bilingualism, which are not exclusive to the border region per se, but have been present in other USSW communities for several generations. At times newcomers fail to adjust to the new USSW culture because they feel they are, or they are indeed, rejected by members of the majority culture. Others assume a diametrically opposite attitude and adjust promptly: their rapid assimilation is simultaneous to the aban-

62

Language and Intercultural Communication

Monolingual

Bilingual

Monolingual

Spanish

Spanish & English

English

First generation

Second and third generations

Third and fourth generations

Figure 1 Bilingual continuum in USSW communities

donment of many traits of the original culture, including language. Between the two extremes there can be found groups and individuals who are both bilingual and bicultural to varying degrees; some maintain the two languages and cultures separate; others are bilingual but mono-cultural in the USSW culture; still others are acquainted with the two cultures but do not blend them or practice noticeable behaviour shifts. The vast majority of bilinguals of the USSW and some of the interior communities, however, participate actively in styles of communication such as lexical borrowings from English, structural interference from English into Spanish, and Spanish/English code-switching, inasmuch as these speech styles have become an integral part of the linguistic repertoire of the bilingual communities. Needless to say, newcomers are often surprised, annoyed, and even shocked to hear the abundant borrowing, interference, and inter- and intra-sentential code-switching. The latter speech style has become thus far the typical practice among bilinguals inhabiting both rural and urban settings. These styles of communication are the result of language contact and intense and unregulated bilingualism, which sometimes lead to a language breakdown with all-Spanish or all-English monolingual speakers, but particularly with monolingual Mexican or Latin American nationals, who in spite of their eagerness to learn English, claim to reject the Hispanic bilingual of the USSW or other interior communities. In the face of the disparagement of bilingual modes and speech styles, when they move north, Mexican and other Latin American nationals end up acquiring precisely those styles of communication of the US Hispanics inhabiting the USSW or the intensely bilingual cities of the country (e.g. Miami or New York). The model described is applicable, too, to the extended border, and can be observed in Chicago, Denver, or any other place in which there can be found sufficient bilinguals interacting with one another.

Language Shift Reversal As the US-Mexico border becomes more central in the national agenda of both the United States and Mexico, the marked language gains space in different domains. The growing use of Spanish in the border proper, the USSW, and the extended border can be defined as LSR, a conspicuous phenomenon ensuing over the past 40 years in the most populated urban areas of the country. This reversal is not the result of an induced change, an intentional conscious occurrence stemming from a social or political agenda (cf. Fishman, 1991). Spanish LSR is precisely the opposite of reversing language shift (RLS); the latter is derived from the collective efforts of individuals, groups of individuals or insti-

Spanish Language Shift Reversal

63

tutions acting to defend, protect or regulate the use of endangered languages. Such endeavours have been successful in different parts of the world (e.g. Quebec, Catalonia, the Basque country and Israel, among others). In these areas, the reversal of the disadvantageous conditions surrounding the threatened language – usually a minority language – is the desired outcome of RLS, while the restoration of conditions favourable to the neglected language is the direct consequence of sociolinguistic activism or militancy. In contrast, the Spanish LSR observed in the United States does not meet the prerequisites needed to categorise this change in progress as RLS, inasmuch as RLS is by definition an active enterprise supported, funded, or strengthened by local, regional, or national institutions. The quintessential case of such successful practice is found in Quebec. Spanish LSR, as observed in the continental United States, is not the result of an induced change and is neither supported nor financed by agencies or institutions. LSR is rather the unintentional repercussion of immigration, population growth, consumer demands for goods and services in the ancestral language, and the ready response to these demands on the part of providers of goods and services. Against the definition of LSR, scholars may argue that not all the individuals who report Hispanic ancestry are fluent Spanish speakers (e.g. Fishman & Milán, 1983; Fishman et al., 1984; Solé, 1985; Bills et al., 1995). While this assumption is incontrovertible, it is also indisputable that varying proportions of foreign-born and even US-born individuals do use Spanish at home and other domains. Thus, in spite of the fact that some individuals or groups of individuals shift to English in the course of their lifetime, the sheer numbers of active speakers is sufficient to maintain the language with high ratios of vitality. And whereas it is also accurate that Spanish has been mostly used in the domestic sphere, it is nowadays more certain that Spanish is ubiquitous in those areas where there are plenty of speakers who need to communicate with one another for different purposes (e.g. personal and business) and through different means (e.g. printed and electronic media). The growing number of speakers who use Spanish outside the home domain are the sine qua non conditions for LSR. In so far as this scheme is both discontinuous and spontaneous, in the eyes of out-group members, LSR is less desirable than RLS. Whereas RLS is more closely regulated and controlled by individuals and institutions, LSR is unregulated and unrestricted. The stages followed by RLS (see Appendix B) are, to an extent, connected and consecutive. In contrast, the stages of LSR may be disconnected, random, and at times unpredictable (Hidalgo, 1998). The RLS typology proposed by Fishman (1991: 81) implies an active social policy to interfere with or intervene to counteract the predictable course of events ‘because that course would result in consequences that are consensually viewed as undesirable’. The value positions justifying RLS status planning have to do with a positive popular sentiment and support; with the protection of majority rights; with the perceived benefit of stable bilingualism for outsiders and insiders and the concomitant need for internal and external boundaries. Finally, the positive attitudes of the collectivity lead to the selection of priorities and efforts to reverse language shift in function of culturally relevant choices that ultimately promote intergenerational language use and reasonable chances of success. The RLS model is complete, consistent and coherent; in the United States,

64

Language and Intercultural Communication

however, the main process, i.e. active reversing, does not flow easily through each of the stages proposed in the model. Scholars are sceptical about the potential of Spanish to reach the most important stages of the proposed scale (especially 1 and 2), primarily because they perceive the major damage inflicted upon Spanish-speaking communities in Stages 6 through 4 (see Appendix B). Nevertheless, the constant flow of immigrants from Spanish language background has made such reversal a reality. This new reality must be looked into under a different light. We need to resort to the traditionally used quantitative models but also have to appraise qualitative aspects of Spanish-speaking communities that have been ignored so far. Students of language maintenance and shift primarily observe the attrition rates throughout the decades, and whereas it is observed that language shift, too, is a continuous process, both language maintenance and LSR coexist at least in some communities. In the USSW, we observe that Spanish begins to move back into prominent use. Not only the absolute and relative numbers of the speakers increase every five or ten years, but the number of public and private services increase as well. The US Spanish-speaking communities can belong in Stage 8 like the Brule speakers of Lousiana (cf. Holloway, 1997). Others seem to fluctuate unsteadily between Stages 6 and 2, like El Paso or Laredo, Texas (cf. Hidalgo, 1995). In addition, in those communities where Spanish stands out, a discordant trend is observed, for the endeavours to reverse language shift are neither fully planned nor fully official. In some cases they are unplanned and unofficial.

Sociolinguistic Models of Language Shift Reversal The dynamics of language maintenance and vitality, language shift and LSR have been addressed by Jaramillo (1995) with respect to what the author identified as a quasi-border. Standing alone as a model of macrosociolinguistic variables that either inhibit or enhance Spanish language maintenance, the study of Tucson (Arizona) highlights the contributory factors impinging on the initial stages of a LSR: size and density of the Mexican-American population, relative socioeconomic subordination and distance from the mainstream; market value and status of Spanish in the wider community; and presence of Spanish in the public sector, a phenomenon that may signal a reversed diglossia in progress. The passive legitimisation of Spanish in the quasi-border is validated due to its growing use in public spheres (e.g. religion, ethnic organisations, media and the like). The numerous communities where the presence of Mexican-Americans is apparent have not been researched yet, but there is sufficient information on the patterns of language use and language attitudes (cf. Hidalgo, 1993b). In this respect, the community studied by Jaramillo (1995) is a ‘hybrid’, inasmuch as it has features of true borders, as defined by Hidalgo (1993b and 1995) and southwestern communities. In addition to the model proposed for Tucson, the data gathered in the 1990s shows that LSR is occurring in the wealthiest and one of the trendiest US borders. The case of SDC is introduced herein in the light of new developments in the international arena such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was identified as a potential contributory factor in the revitalisation of Spanish in Arizona (Jaramillo, 1995: 84).

Spanish Language Shift Reversal

65

As compared to other USSW cities, the SSOP of SDC has grown slowly; the progression of loss and recovery between 1850 and 1999 is shown in Table 2. In 1860, the SSOP was only 28%; in 1870, the total was 41%, whereas 40% was Anglo-American; in 1880, the former population declined to 8.5%. The virtual disappearance of the SSOP seemed to have occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century, when it merely reached between 3.6% and 5%. However, since 1960 it has increased steadily (from 6.3% to 8.2% in 1970); the most significant gains can be observed in 1980 and 1990 with a total of 14.8 and 20.4%, respectively. Other sources clearly indicate that between 1996 and 2000, the SSOP reached a quarter of the total population of the county. Finally, according to the 1990 census, 72.4% of the SSOP over five years claim to speak Spanish at home. In sum, at present more than one-half million people of Spanish-speaking origin reside in San Diego; of these, the vast majority (or 87%) are of Mexican descent (US Bureau of the Census, 1990; Hidalgo, 1995; San Diego Association of Governments, 1997, 1999, 2000). Table 2 The total and SSOP of San Diego County (1850–1999) Year 1850 1860 1880 1900 1930 1960 1970 1980 1990 1996 1997 1998 1999

Total population 798 4,324 8,618 35,090 209,659 556,808 1,357,854 1,861.846 2,498,016 2,690,255 2,724,437 2,794,785 2,911,468

SSOP 1,211 733 1,263 10,483 35,079 112,820 275,177 510,781 619,638 642,772 670,761 722,377

% SSOP 28.0 8.5 3.6 5.0 6.3 8.2 14.8 20.4 23.0 23.6 24.0 25.0

Sources: 1850-1990 data derived from State of California, Department of Finance (1998) 1996–1999 date derived from San Diego Association of Governments (1997, 1999, 2000) San Diego.

The proportion of SSOP speakers in SDC (by jurisdiction) shows that the communities adjacent to Mexico have a higher density of Spanish speakers, to wit: National City, 49.6%; Chula Vista, 37.3%; Imperial Beach, 28.3%. Northern communities follow southern areas in the proportion of Spanish-speaking people: San Marcos, 27.5%; Vista, 24.8%; Escondido, 23.4%; Oceanside, 22.6%. Central areas such as San Diego proper and Lemon Grove follow with 20.7 and 19.9%, respectively. Other ethnic languages with significant numbers of speakers in SDC are Tagalog, Vietnamese, Chinese, German, Japanese, French and Italian. The total number of speakers of the 23 ethnic languages spoken in 1990 was 207,643. But by far the most spoken ‘ethnic’ language of SDC is Spanish with 64% of all the speakers of other-than-English languages (San Diego Association of Governments, 1997).

66

Language and Intercultural Communication

Private and Public Domains of Interaction The hypothesis proposing that use of Spanish in public domains signals a trend of reversed diglossia and therefore passive acceptance of Spanish (cf. Jaramillo, 1995) is tested in SDC among various groups of individuals, agencies, and private and public domains. (1) The results of a small survey conducted in 1991–1992 (cf. Hidalgo, 1993a) show the patterns of Spanish language use and attitudes of 158 bilingual students from all over the county (mostly between 11 and 20 years of age). These Subjects (Ss) displayed positive attitudes toward Spanish in the instrumental, integrative, and personal/developmental dimensions. The patterns of intergenerational language choice are similar to those reported in other communities where bilingualism prevails. In the family, Spanish is used with parents and grandparents, whereas English is used with siblings. In the community, English is more prevalent than Spanish, but Spanish stands on an almost equal footing with English in more interpersonal (e.g. friends and acquaintances) and societal domains (e.g. spoken and printed media). Ss claimed to prefer to be educated in the two languages and to want the same for their children. In addition, the responses to self-rated proficiency in Spanish are likewise balanced on the scale from 0 to 5 (0 being none and 5 being native). The Ss ranked themselves as advanced (although not native superior) speakers of the two languages. Finally, when choosing the subjunctive mood in context-bound sentences, the Ss selected the correct response in a little over half of the cases. (2) With the population growth and increased Spanish use, services are either demanded or offered by public or private agencies. In various cities, we have observed the increment of Spanish speakers both as the regular clientele and the service crew. Thus far, we have surveyed San Ysidro, Chula Vista, San Diego, Del Mar and Encinitas. In the shopping centres, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, and medical centres of the above mentioned cities, Ss have reported an observed increase of services in Spanish in the past 15, 20 or 25 years. In the cities adjacent to Mexico (San Ysidro and Chula Vista), the reported increment is about 50%. In cities that are distant from the border (e.g. Del Mar and Encinitas) and the city of San Diego proper, the reported increase is from 20 to 25%.1 (3) The most dramatic change has occurred in the domain of religion, which was all-Spanish until the mid-19th century. After the Mexico-US War, only a few Catholic churches held mass in Spanish. In 1992, we found 25 parishes offering services in Spanish. By 1996, we counted 98 Catholic churches in the county. Of these, 47 offered numerous services in Spanish and 12 of them in other foreign languages. The demand for mass in Spanish is due to the fact that 27.1% of all registered Catholics are of Mexican or Hispanic ancestry. The proportion of Anglo-American Catholics is 59.7%. In addition, we found that eight out of ten churches offered three masses or more in Spanish per week, but all ten churches offered catechism in Spanish for all age groups. One church offered mass with mariachi music (typical band from the state of Jalisco) in both English and Spanish. The churches had one or two bilingual priests who were in charge of all the Spanish services. Nine of the

Spanish Language Shift Reversal

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

67

churches served in funerals, weddings, confirmation and Easter Sunday mass. The farther south we surveyed the churches, the more services were reported. Another small survey conducted in 1997 among 30 subjects residing in San Ysidro and Chula Vista helped us establish the hypothesis of a close connection between language, ethnicity and religion. It seems that those subjects who attend mass in Spanish are not only fluent in Spanish but have a stronger Mexican or Hispanic identity. The churches from southern communities offered four masses every Sunday, one every Saturday, and one daily in 1997. Since 1991 there has been an increment of 90% of religious services in Spanish and 100% increment in the Spanish masses attended by the public because they are offered in Spanish. Some of the parishioners come from across the border, a factor that enhances both the quantity and quality of Spanish used in the Catholic church of the southern cities of SDC. Finally, in 1991 there were 150 Spanish speakers who received the Holy Communion in Spanish. By 1996, there were 500 Spanish speakers initiated in the Holy Communion, which represents an increase of 300%. Spanish speakers also engage in mundane activities such as disco dancing, movies, plays, and consumption of Spanish music. Surveyed in 1997, 50 freshmen and sophomore students at San Diego State University, reported that in their junior high and/or high school years, they used to listen to pop music and rock-and-roll music in English. As they begin to interact with other Hispanic students when they enter college, a reversal seems to take place. In addition, Ss reported that between 18 and 23 years of age, they begin to consume not only Spanish rock-and-roll music (from both the US and Latin America), but also traditional folk music (‘rancheras’), traditional and contemporary ballads (‘boleros románticos’), contemporary vernacular (‘quebradita’, ‘salsa’), and traditional regional music (‘merengue’, ‘cumbia’). Moreover, since the early 1990s Spanish rock-and-roll music is being recorded in San Diego, because music companies perceive the potential of the youth market. About 50% of the Hispanic population of the county is below 24 years of age. The next drastic change is observed in the courts and the legal system in general, which used English exclusively between 1860 and 1960. The services of translators and interpreters in the local courts have increased since the early 1960s. In the San Diego Municipal Court we found out that there was only one interpreter in 1961; in 1995, there were 12. In 1964 in the North County Municipal Court, there was also only one interpreter; in 1995, there were eight. Spanish book collections in the public libraries have grown with the demands over the last 40 years. The oldest collection of Spanish books started in 1960. By 1981, the total combined number of Spanish volumes for the library systems in Chula Vista, Coronado, Escondido, San Diego City and San Diego County was 39,815. In 1996, the number increased to 137,028 in the City of San Diego Library, which has a total of 2,452,000 volumes. The branches with the most volumes are San Ysidro (20%), Logan Heights (17%), Chula Vista (12%) and Otay Mesa (10%). The use of Spanish in education is less conspicuous. In elementary schools we found transitional bilingual programmes (e.g. Logan Elementary School

68

Language and Intercultural Communication

with an enrolment of 1040, 88.4% of whom are bilingual). Most subjects are taught in English, but Language Arts and Writing are taught in Spanish. In the immersion biliterate model (e.g. Hall District Elementary School), Spanish is taught three days per week. Bilingual immersion is based on the concept that a second language is best acquired in a natural setting. In a pre-school setting children are taught in their native language. In the Language Immersion Model (e.g. Horton Elementary School), children are taught entirely in Spanish (or French). A very recent development in SDC is the promotion of a programme of English/Spanish biliteracy from K through 12 (Magee, 1999a and b), which is in consonance with the Bilingual Education Act of 1994 (cf. Crawford, 1997b). (8) In the past ten years, San Diego State University and several two-year colleges (known as junior community colleges) have implemented independent ‘tracks’ or mini-programmes of Spanish for US Hispanics. The new programmes focus on traditional grammar, reading (with an emphasis on the Latin American classics), and writing. Speakers of local and/or regional dialects are exposed to the written supraregional and/or international variety of New World Spanish, but the respect and appreciation for US Spanish are promoted (cf. Hidalgo, 1996). This option is based on the restoration approach, whose purpose is to recondition and repair the structures of languages which have been negatively affected by disadvantageous societal factors. (Several mini-tracks and programmes of Spanish for heritage speakers are now available in dozens of US colleges and universities). The purpose of the restoration approach is to lead speakers of regional dialects and local vernaculars in the direction of accepted national or international standards. This is one of the several strategies of bilingual education implemented with the intention of reversing language shift (Hidalgo, 1999).

Public Reactions to Hispanic Population Growth Some of the most boisterous reactions towards the growing numbers of Spanish-speaking people have been raised in the past two decades. First, the opponents to bilingualism spearheaded a successful campaign for official-English legislation. The U.S. English-Only movement measures were adopted by twenty-three states. Second, in 1996, a group of citizens residing in southern California promoted a statewide ballot initiative known as Proposition 227 requiring that all children in public schools be taught only in English. The measure passed overwhelmingly on 2 June 1998, and virtually outlawed bilingual education in California (Crawford, 1997a). Although the tenets of these movements are not readily implemented or enforced, the public support for them only shows the prevailing sentiment to invalidate or discourage the use of Spanish in public domains. The advocates of the U.S. English-Only movement and Proposition 227 are normally better informed about the general trends and/or findings of the U.S. and state governments, which routinely release statements on immigration or educational policies. A few years before Proposition 227 was formulated, the percentage change of the population of California which claimed to speak Spanish between 1970 and 1990 was well known. In the eyes of some people, the following figures were alarming: The 2,150,600 individuals who claimed to

Spanish Language Shift Reversal

69

speak Spanish in 1970 (or 10.8% of the total population) increased to 3,132,690(or 18.4% of the total) in 1980, and to 5,478,712 (or 22% of the total) in 1990 (State of California, Department of Finance, 1998). Despite the antagonism of some sectors of the US society, the official position of the federal government seems to be the subtle endorsement of continued immigration from Spanish-speaking countries and the multilingual education of heritage speakers of any language and national background. The Bilingual Education Act of 1994 (BEA) is clearly supportive of societal multilingualism and multiculturalism, on the one hand, and academic bilingualism, on the other (Crawford, 1997b). Operating under the principle of globalisation, recently implemented programmes of bilingual education – known as two-way or dual immersion – are giving an opportunity to both heritage speakers and native speakers of English to be exposed to each other’s language and culture. The programs are known for improving social relations, cross-cultural understanding, and academic achievement (Christian, 1994). The two-way immersion programmes and the BEA of 1994 are somehow related to the reactions to LSR in the USSW, given that the dual immersion programmes are indirectly supportive of language maintenance, biliteracy, and cross-cultural understanding. In contrast, the official endorsement of immigration patterns is revealed in the forecasts about the massive growth of the SSOP of the United States. A statistical brief released by the Bureau of the Census in 1995 asserted that ‘The rapid growth of the Hispanic population in the early 1990s was a continuation of the trend of the previous 20 years’. The projected increase to 31 million people in the year 2000 was accurate, whereas the projections of 63 million in 2030 and 88 million in 2050 remain to be seen. According to this report, by the mid-twenty-first century, nearly one in four Americans may be Hispanic (US Bureau of the Census, 1995).

Redefining the Roles of Languages (and Cultures) in the Global Community In future decades, US educators, scholars and politicians will be confronted with the latent controversial problems that have been partially addressed in the twentieth century. The promotion of English in a global community represents a dual agenda: the first part of the agenda is the crystalisation of the Anglophone supremacy after World War II; the second one may endorse the use of other languages; some of them are the domestic languages spoken in the United States, which often are the same ones that are used as national languages in the countries of origin of the immigrants. In the United States the position of the Spanish-speaking people is that of a minority, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The presence of other minority groups does not help to divert the attention of the majority from the conspicuousness of Spanish-speaking individuals. On the contrary, in recent times the Spanish-speaking masses continue being the object of derision which is now a part of the collective consciousness of the Anglophone majority. The question to be raised at this juncture is whether the international trade agreement with Mexico will help reverse the deleterious conditions described above or whether it will exacerbate them to the point of friction and strife. In theory, a trade agreement should minimise conflict and promote harmony. If so, in the United States, Span-

70

Language and Intercultural Communication

ish should undergo a profound re-evaluation which ideally will be conducive to change its users’ relationship with it (Hidalgo, 1994). LSR is potentially conducive to a reversal of the symbolic relations of power and of the hierarchy of the values placed on the competing languages. The legitimisation of the marked language will lead speakers to perceive the new political and economic advantages. In an ideal world, international trade enhances positive attitudes towards multiculturalism and multicultural education for the speakers involved in the parternship. The assessment of the issue, however, does not necessarily lie in the disciplines that study language(s), but in those that study the relations of power within and between nations. The position of the United States as the superpower and its economic and cultural dissimilarities with Mexico make the latter a vulnerable and fragile partner. In spite of the strong commercial ties between Mexico and the United States, the relationship between them is unequal and asymmetrical. In order to undertake a mutual enterprise, speakers of imperial languages have to redefine their roles; otherwise, they are going to lose credibility in the eyes of the masses they are to convince of their own ideology (Hidalgo, 1994). In the era of globalisation, nations and individuals believe that a knowledge of English is one of the keys to a more prosperous life. Indeed, there is sufficient evidence that Mexicans have invested personal resources in the acquisition and learning of English after World War II (Hidalgo et al., 1996). Their agenda of bilingualism is not complete, but is permanently in progress, inasmuch as Mexicans are continually becoming bilingual. The belief that English is a valuable asset because it is one of the languages of the global community is strong, and it is reflected in the paid advertisement of English courses in major Mexican television networks. This attitude is coupled with the promotion of English for educational purposes in the recent campaigns for the Presidency of Mexico. Such novel developments are not only stunning but unprecedented. The evidence indicating that Mexicans and Mexican Americans have been espousing the cause of bilingualism is overwhelming. Finally, those who inhabit the border regions have also been constructing new identities in reaction to external pressures and processes of exclusion and construction of otherness in a complex scenario, a dynamic third space created by the continuous transnational circulation of people (Gutiérrez, 1999). The cultural traits of the ‘new’ social site are gauged by the groups that are directly or indirectly affected by the mere existence of the third space, which is perceived as being ambiguous because the hegemonic groups have made it ambiguous. This ascribed ambiguity is in itself an impediment to access the cultural beliefs of the other groups. Whereas the completion of language acquisition and language learning on the part of all groups is beyond question, the understanding of culture and identity is disputable. The type of vernacular bilingualism spontaneously generated in the area (described at the onset of this paper) is not the challenge to cross-cultural or multicultural understanding, nor is it the unimaginative programme of biliteracy advanced by the Anglophone majority. The first step of the real challenge is to move from bilingualism and biliteracy to biculturalism through the teaching of culture and the learning of culture before even attempting to teach or learn the target language. The second step in a programme of bilingualism and biculturalism should be the discussion of stereo-

Spanish Language Shift Reversal

71

types with the purpose of attenuating them, if not eliminating them. The final step should be the inclusion of native speakers of the groups in conflict in the same programme of ‘foreign’ language learning. The implementation of bilingual, biliterate and bicultural policies for all of those concerned should help to ease the anxieties and fears generated in regions where ancestral frictions become unsurmountable barriers to effective communication. The patterns of bilingualism and attitudes towards speakers of languages of the region are currently extending to the US interior due, in part, to the NAFTA. In this way, the US interior is beginning to display traits that used to be exclusive to the US Mexico-Border. Obliterating cultural barriers as though they were trade barriers will become the most onerous task of partners that have worked for 150 years under basic principles of inequality. In anticipation of the millions of Spanish speakers that are going to live, work, and receive education in the United States in the course of the twenty-first century, the English-speaking superpower and major leader of globalisation will have to put to a test an unprecedented exercise in cultural democracy by opening public spaces to the Spanish language. This will convert LSR into RLS (stages 3 through 1). In sum, the declaration that former President Clinton made on 20 October 1994, will be challenged by the many millions of Spanish speakers expected in US soil in the next five decades. ‘No other country [but the United States] is so well-positioned to move into the twenty-first century to live in a global society that is more peaceful and more secure – no one’ (President Clinton, cited in Crawford, 1997b: 3). Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Professor Margarita Hidalgo, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-7703, USA ([email protected]). Note 1. The students who participated in the fieldwork reported in 2–7 were the following: (2) Amy Bryant and Delia de Anda; (3) Matthew Mercado and Oscar Padilla; (4) Héctor Ortega and John Cox; (5) Marcos Sotelo and Rosa Delia González; (6) Brian Deyo; (7) Luz María Peña.

References Bills, G., Hernández-Chávez, E. and A. Hudson (1995) The geography of language shift: Distance from the Mexican border and Spanish language claiming in the southwestern U.S. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 114, 9–28. Christian, D. (1994)Two-way Bilingual Education: Students Learning Through Two Languages. (Educational Practice Report 12). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Crawford, J. (1997a) The campaign against Proposition 227: A post mortem. Bilingual Research Journal 21 (1). Crawford, J. (1997b) Best Evidence: Research Foundations of the Bilingual Education Act. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Fishman, J.A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J.A. et al. (1984) The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival: Perspectives on Language and Ethnicity. Berlin: Mouton. Fishman, J.A. and Milán, W. (1983) Spanish language resources in the United States: Some

72

Language and Intercultural Communication

preliminary findings. In L. Elías-Olivares (ed.). Spanish in the U.S. Setting: Beyond the Southwest (pp. 167–180). Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Gutiérrez, D.G. (1999) Migration, emergent ethnicity, and the ‘third space’: The shifting politics of nationalism in Greater Mexico. Journal of American History 86 (2), 481–517. Hidalgo, M. (1993a, August) Subjunctive use and sociopsychological variables: A sample of Hispanics from southern California. X International Congress of Applied Linguistics. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Hidalgo, M. (1993b) The dialectics of language maintenance and language loyalty in Chula Vista, Ca.: A two-generation study. In A. Roca and J. M. Lipski (eds) Spanish in the U.S.: Language Contact and Diversity (pp. 47–71). Berlin: Mouton. Hidalgo, M. (1993c) Language problems of the northern Mexican frontier: Fundamental concepts for their study. In H. Polkinhorn, R. Reyes and G. Trujillo (eds). Open Signs: Language and Society on the United States-MexicoBorder (pp. 1–24). San Diego: Binational Press. Hidalgo, M. (1994, February) A redefinition of sociolinguistic roles and identities: After NAFTA. Third Annual Conference on Ibero-American Language and Culture. ‘Hispanic Language and Ethnic Identity’. The Univers ity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M. Hidalgo, M. (1995) Language and ethnicity in the ‘taboo’ region: The U.S.-Mexico border. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 114, 29–42. Hidalgo, M. (1996) Criterios normativos e ideología lingüística: Rechazo y aceptación del español de los Estados Unidos. In C. Colombi and F. Alarcón (eds). La Enseñanza del Español a Hispanohablantes: Teoría y Práctica (pp. 109–120). New York: D.C. Heath. Hidalgo, M. (1998, May) Language shift reversal in the U.S. Southwest: A conceptual and research challenge, Part I. Language in the 21st Century. Center for Research and Documentation of World Language Problems, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT. Hidalgo, M. (1999, June) Language shift reversal in the U.S. Southwest: A conceptual and reseach challenge, Part II. Language in the 21st Century. Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Hidalgo, M., Cifuentes, B. and Flores, J.A. (1996) The position of English in Mexico: 1940–1993. In A. Conrad, J.A. Fishman and A. Rubal-López (eds) Post-Imperial English: 1940–1990 Status Change in Former British and American Colonies and Spheres of Influence (pp. 113–138). Berlin: Mouton. Holloway, C.E. (1997) Dialect Death: The Case of Brule Spanish (Studies in Bilingualism 13). Amsterdam: Johns Benjamin. Jaramillo, J.A. (1995) The passive legitimization of Spanish. A macrosociolinguistic study of a quasi-border. Tucson, Arizona. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 114, 67–91. Magee, M. (1999a, June 2) Schools aim for biliteracy. Bilngual education is being revamped for consistency. The San Diego-Union Tribune (pp. B1, B2). Magee, M. (1999b, June 2) Kindergarteners learn to speak Spanish in experimental effort. The San Diego Union-Tribune (p. B3). San Diego Association of Governments (1997, September) Info: Population and Housing Estimates. San Diego: San Diego Association of Governments. San Diego Association of Governments (1999, March) Info: San Diego Region. Demographic and Economic Characteristic. San Diego: San Diego Association of Governments. San Diego Association of Governments (2000, January) Population and Housing Estimates by Age and Ethnicity. San Deigo: San Diego Association of Governments. Solé, Y. (1985) Spanish/English mother-tongue claiming: The 1980 Census data, a subsample, and their sociodemographic correlates, Hispania 68 (2), 283–297. State of California, Department of Finance (1998, December) Race/ethnic population with age and Sex Detail, 1970–2040. Sacramento, CA. State of California, Department of Finance (1972) 1970 Census of the Population, Subject Report Series, Persons of Spanish Origin, PC(2)-1c. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Spanish Language Shift Reversal

73

State of California, Department of Finance (1981–1982) 1980 Census of the Population 1. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. State of California, Department of Finance (1990, April) Population of State by Race and Hispanic Origin, Population Estimates. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. State of California, Department of Finance (1995, September) The Nation’s Hispanic Population – 1994. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. State of California, Department of Finance (1999,July) States Ranked by Hispanic Population. Population Estimates Program. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. State of California, Department of Finance (1999, September) Explanation of Race and Hispanic Origin Categories. Population Estimates Program. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. Weber, D.J. (1973) Foreigners in Their Native Land: Historical Roots of the Mexican Americans. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Weber, D.J. (1979/1989) Scarce more than apes: Historical roots of Anglo-American stereotypes of Mexicans. In D.J. Weber (ed.) New Spain’s Far Northern Frontier: Essays on Spain in the American West, 1940–1821 (pp. 293–308). Southern Methodists University Press.

Language and Intercultural Communication

74

Appendix A: States Ranked by Hispanic Population (1999) State 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

California Texas New York Florida Illinois Arizona New Jersey New Mexico Colorado Total Massachusetts Washington Pennsylvania Nevada Connecticut Michigan Virginia Georgia Oregon Maryland Ohio N. Carolina Indiana Utah Kansas Wisconsin Oklahoma Total

Estimated Hispanic population 10,459,616 6,045,430 2,660,685 2,334,403 1,276,193 1,084,250 1,027,277 708,407 603,582 26,199,843 390,947 376,664 326,218 304,364 279,164 275,849 266,228 239,566 212,870 199,156 184,902 175,707 153,960 150,699 148,479 140,235 136,634 3,961,642

Change (1990-1999) % 35.8 39.3 20.2 48.3 41.1 57.5 37.4 22.3 42.3 36.0 75.5 40.4 144.6 31.0 36.8 66.0 119.9 88.9 59.2 32.4 128.9 55.8 78.1 58.808 50.4 58.6

Appendix B The Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) implies that the socioeconomic space of a speech community has been disrupted to different degrees. Therefore, the higher the rating assigned on the scale, the lower the intergenerational continuity and maintenance prospects of a network or community. This model can be examined in eight stages. (8) There are vestigial users of the ethnic language and are socially isolated. The structures of the minority language (ML) are so deteriorated that have to be re-assembled from the mouths and memories of the speakers. (7) Users of the ML are a socially integrated and ethnolinguistically active but the adult population can no longer contribute demographically to the number of ML users, because they are beyond child-bearing age.

Spanish Language Shift Reversal

75

(6) The ML is the normal language of informal, spoken interaction between and within all three generations, with the majority language being reserved for matters of greater formality. The family, the neighbourhood, and the community are the core of this stage. (5) Institutions and public agencies are preoccupied with the protection of the oral realisation of the ML by providing it with a modicum of literacy, since this facilitates inter-individual and inter-network communication and goal attainment. It is the most difficult phase of reversing language shift. (4) The ML is used as a co-medium in those schools attended by minority children; the ML is funded and self-supported by minority community funds. Minority children receive the education that is desirable for the majority authority and the normal medium of compulsory education is the majority language. These schools are known as type 4a schools. There are also type 4b schools that provide a ML component but these schools are entirely funded with taxpayers money. Type 4b schools make the minority population dependent on the majority-controlled funds. This dependency pattern leads away from reversing language shift rather than toward it. (3) The use of the ML in the lower work sphere involves interaction between majority and minority members. Some of the latter may control certain industries, products, or areas of specialisation. In a minority-controlled enterprise that serves the majority, minorities may conduct their activities in the ML. When the businessmen of the majority are serving the local minority public, reversing language shift efforts must be oriented to requesting the service in the ML. Local quasi-governmental offices (banks, post offices, registry offices, small claim courts, health clinics) can be influenced to move in this direction. (2) The ML is used in the lower governmental services and mass media but not in the higher spheres of either. Reversing language shift efforts can seize the most powerful and the most central institutions and processes of the community, which are normally under majority control. Local agencies and services in the ML neighbourhoods should be urged to operate bilingually using whatever language is preferred by the citizens whom they are serving. (1) This Stage represents the arrival of the pursuit of cultural autonomy for those who have dreamed of attaining the ML language via the ML. When the ML is recognised as the co-language of its region, it becomes associated with the highest educational, occupational, and media activities there, but its spokesmen and representatives become responsible for planning, conducting and evaluating such activities. Source: J.A. Fishman (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.