SPN 490 Branden Ryan 1

Spanish 490 ­ Honors in Foreign Language Bilingualism in Macon, Georgia ­ A Case Study on the Impact of Spanglish on the Construction

of Socio­Linguistic Identity in Bilingual Communities

By: Branden Ryan

Contents:

I. Introduction 1.1 Abstract 1.2 Scope 1.3 Aim of Study

II. Literature Review 2.1 Bilingualism 2.2 Language, Culture, and Identity 2.3 Code­Mixing and Code­Switching 2.4 Spanglish

III. Research Methodology 3.1 Experiment 3.2 Subjects 3.3 Research Questions

IV. Data Analysis V. Conclusion VI. Limitations and Future Research

6.1 Time constraints 6.2 Population Limitations

VII. Bibliography VIII. Appendix

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 2

I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Abstract

The study of languages in contact has become increasingly important in a globalized society where language groups are faced with constant interconnectivity and exposure. Accordingly, the prevalence of bilingualism must be studied in order to understand the impact on the presence of multiple languages on the cultural identity of the individual. This study looks closely at the relationship between English, Spanish, and the manifestation of Spanglish in the construction of socio­linguistic identity, specifically in Macon, Georgia. For this research, an extensive literature review is conducted in order to assess the theoretical principles of language and identity. Data collected in the form of surveys and questionnaires serve to reflect the opinions of individuals who self­identify as bilingual in Macon, Georgia. With this study, the researcher will fulfill the requirements of SPN 490 ­ Honors in Foreign Language. 1.2 Scope

This is a semester­long research project conducted between January­April of 2013.Further research into the construction of socio­linguistic identities as a result of bilingualism and languages in contact will be required to observe trends within both Macon and the entirety of the state of Georgia. This research project was originally drafted to include major populations of Spanish­speaking individuals throughout Georgia, but the scope was narrowed to focus on Macon, Georgia. Data collection was conducted between March and April of 2013.

1.3 Aim of Study

Recent data by the United States Census Bureau explains that Spanish­speaking minority groups are becoming the largest­growing minority group in the U.S. In Macon­Bibb County, 3.1% of citizens are of Hispanic or Latino origin (Georgia as a whole is currently at 9.1%), and 5.1% of citizens in Bibb County speak a language other than English at home. The United States has become home to the second­largest population of Spanish speakers behind Mexico, with 106 million Spanish­speaking inhabitants, not including undocumented immigrants (Mantilla 2008. Rosaura Sánchez appropriately notes that “for very concrete historical reasons, the border states are pre­eminently multilingual, multiethnic, and multicultural” as the U.S. and Mexico share 1.933 miles of border territory (1998, 101). Colonization of the Americas by Spain in the 17th century began the broad spread of the Spanish language, and throughout the past four centuries, adaptations of the Spanish language have varied nationally among each state. The conquistadores sought to instill a sense of nationalism and pride among indigenous peoples by replacing indigenous languages with Spanish, through “language assimilation and literacy of indigenous populations throughout Latin America” (Sánchez 1998, 109). Language loyalty

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 3

would act as a glue to promote social cohesion. The large presence of Spanish in the Western hemisphere has had profound impact on the socio­linguistic environments of its inhabitants, particularly given the rise of immigration to the United States from South American countries and the increased impact of globalization and cultural shifts.

The aim of this study is to provide answers to the research questions below. This is not a comprehensive, long­term research initiative to describe the social phenomena associated with bilingualism and Spanglish, but rather, is a small research project that will provide insight on the existing cultural norms and manners of self­identification of bilinguals in Macon, Georgia. It is the goal of the researcher that this provides the faculty of Mercer University with new information regarding the social environment of bilinguals in the city in which they teach and allow for campus outreach programs to be developed with the community to enhance the learning of students within the Foreign Language Department.

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 4

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Bilingualism

In an increasingly globalized society, the presence of multiple languages in a single society has led to the rise of contact between languages and, accordingly, the mixing of elements from various languages. Bilingualism is the simultaneous presence of two languages in an individual (bilinguality) or community, and bilinguality is defined as “a psychological state of the individual who has access to more than one linguistic code as a means of social communication; this access varies along a number of dimensions” (Hamers and Blanc 2000, 368). Understanding bilingualism and bilinguality is wholly important in assessing the impact of the mixing of Spanish and English. Though this paper will not discuss the theories of bilingualism and the cognitive and neurological processes associated with both first and second language acquisition, a brief survey of bilingualism and the role of languages­in­contact on the development of the first language (L1) and and the second language (L2) in the individual is necessary before analyzing the extent to which mixing Spanish and English into Spanglish affects the socio­cultural self­identification of individuals who speak these two languages and code­switch into Spanglish.

In addition to the definitions of bilingualism and bilinguality offered by Hamers and Blanc above, numerous linguists offer simpler definitions of the notion of the presence of multiple languages. Edwards notes that “everyone is bilingual” in the sense that a majority of the world’s population knows, implicitly through popular culture or explicitly through learning, words, phrases, or utterances in other languages (2004, 7). Uriel Weinreich, renowned for his work on languages­in­contact, defines bilingualism as the “alternate use of two languages” regardless of the level of understanding (Weinreich, 1953). Competence often distinguishes levels of bilinguality. Thus, on the opposite side of the spectrum, many linguists refer to bilingualism as the mastery of two or more languages as measured by proficiency in speaking, writing, listening, and reading. However, many commentators on bilinguality assert a more lenient definition; Grosjean defines those who are bilingual as “those who use two or more languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives” (2010, 4). Bilingualism, then, can vary in degrees due to the language psychotypology of the individual or the social and linguistic contexts in which the languages are used. ‘True’ bilingualism, or balanced bilingualism, becomes one method of describing bilingualism, but it does not provide an overarching definition for those whose lives are influenced by various languages at different levels of input and output. Butler and Hakuta define bilingualism as “psychological and social states of individuals or groups of people that result from interactions via language in which two or more linguistic codes are used for communication” (2004, 115). For the purposes of this paper, bilingualism and bilinguality, though differentiated by Hamers and Blanc, will be defined as follows; The active or passive use of two or more languages, to varying degrees of functionality, by a single individual on a consistent or frequent basis.

Hamers and Blanc define numerous types of bilingualism, found Appendix I, and it is

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 5

important to note that bilingualism is truly multidimensional. Butler and Hakuta describe four dimensions of classification, including linguistic, cognitive, developmental, and social (2004, 115). There can be no narrow definition of bilingualism due to the different levels and styles of bilingualism patterned by inputs and outputs. Similarly, measurements of bilinguality are difficult to assess and must be specific to the type of bilinguality in question. “The measurement of bilinguality [...] should assess a psychological state and therefore account for its specificity,” and as such, bilinguality becomes linked to the context of L1 and L2 (Hamers and Blanc 2000, 33). Grojean appropriately distinguishes the difference between language fluency and language use by noting the level of proficiency in a language as opposed to the frequency of the use of a language and relies on language use in his definition of bilingualism (2010, 23). In order to maintain a broad definition of bilingualism, this paper focuses on the frequency of the use of L1 and L2 as opposed to the level of proficiency in the two languages as perceived by the individual subjects. Bilingualism can become dormant through the infrequent use of a language, but it is active bilingualism, or frequent use of two or more languages, that directly impacts identity formation and self­perceived proficiency.

Linguistically, bilingualism is generally balanced or dominate in regards to L1 and L2 competency. The functionality of L1 and L2 and the impact of the simultaneous presence of two or more languages constitute the cognitive differences of bilingualism. The developmental aspects of bilingualism focus on the ways in which foreign or second language acquisition are affected by age, cerebral development and capacity, and how determinants, such as the age­of­arrival (AOA), the age­of­arrival in the adopted country, or critical age of the child, impact language acquisition. The age­of­arrival is defined as the age at which an individual becomes proficient in a language. This definition is highly variable dependent on whether this is a self­assessed or tested characteristic, what constitutes an acceptable level of proficiency, and whether proficiency is required in all four levels of language (speaking, writing, reading, listening). And finally, valorization, or the perceived utility of a language, and the use of L1 and L2 in social environments denote the types of societal bilingualism separate from the AOA. Though there are cognitive and developmental implications of bilingualism, the societal dimensions of language use possess direct influence on socio­cultural norms on language and, as such, the cultural valorization of language.

Language acquisition can be categorized as second language (SLA) or foreign language acquisition (FLA). The native language of the speaker, or the mother tongue, is denoted by the abbreviation L1, and this is the first language learned by the individual. L2 can either be a second language or a foreign language which differ according to the linguistic environment of the individual. Gass and Selinker define second language acquisition as the process of learning any language after learning L1, whereas foreign language acquisition is the “learning of a nonnative language in the environment of one’s native language” (5). Thus, learning Spanish in a classroom setting of an English­speaking university in an English­speaking town constitutes foreign language acquisition. SLA and FLA influence the extent to which the acquisition of L2

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 6

affects the process of acculturation, to be discussed in section 2.3. However, because studies on SLA and FLA are primarily cognitive in nature, an in­depth analysis of the differences in developmental stages of SLA and FLA is unnecessary in order to understand the impact of bilingualism on socio­cultural identity it relates to the presence, not the acquisition, of two languages. Self­perceived proficiency in L1 and L2, whether through SLA or FLA, by the individual in the four areas of language is measured by the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale, used by the United States Foreign Service Institute and the National Foreign Affairs Training Center, in this paper. The five classifications include elementary proficiency, limited working proficiency, professional working proficiency, full professional proficiency, and native or bilingual proficiency. Due to the limitations of this research project outlined in part VI, the process of quantitatively measuring bilinguality through testing levels of proficiency in all four areas was omitted in favor of a self­assessment of proficiency by participants.

The study of bilingualism and the relationship between L1 and L2 in individuals has been broad and extensive. Due to the multidimensionality of bilingualism, it is difficult to adequately treat all aspects of shared language capacities in individuals when conducting research. Ambiguity is necessary in order to encompass all types of bilinguality with regards to a socio­cultural identity due to the inherently individual nature of identity formation and prescription. 2.2 Language, Culture, and Identity

Anthropologically, language functions as a manifestation of cultural traits, but it also reflects culture through relationships established by languages. Social contexts affect the ways in which language is both learned and perceived. As inherently social beings, human interaction is largely based on interpersonal communication, both verbal and physical. Because culture includes shared experiences based on tradition, history, ethnicity, and social values and norms, language is directly correlated with the formation of culture and identity. Tylor (1873) defines culture as “a complex entity which comprises a set of symbolic systems, including knowledge, norms, values, beliefs, language, art and customs, as well as habits and skills” (quoted in Hamers and Blanc 2000, 198). However, the literature presents various theories regarding the extent to which language impacts culture and identity, and as such, how bilinguals respond to the simultaneous presence of languages when self­identifying.

Hamers and Blanc note the importance of socialization and internalization in forming cultural identity. Language socialization refers to the use of language in social environments and the effect that these environments have on the learning of language which is then internalized psychologically in order for individuals to discern the social meanings of language according to different social contexts (Hamers and Blanc 2000, 111). According to Liebkind, it is important to note differences between ethnicity and identity and the levels of analysis by which conclusions are drawn, including individual and societal levels (2010, 18­19). Liebkind cites her 1996 study regarding the connection between identity, ethnic language, language learning, and

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 7

communication styles as an example of distinguishing between ways in which both ethnicity and identity affect language. Many studies have linked language to the formation of ethnic identity, such as Liebkind’s 2006 study or Howard Giles’ 1977 study, whereas others have demonstrated that the affinity towards a language can be based on socioeconomic concerns as opposed to psychological concerns of identity, revealing that the connection between language and identity is contextual and does not possess universal applications, such as Allard and Landry’s 1994 analysis of political, economic, and cultural capital (cited by Liebkind, 2006). While there are subtle differences between ethnic identity and social identity, commonalities include affinity for a particular people group, self­identification and self­worth with regards to that group, and shared values or norms. Thus, an individual can identify ethnically as a Hispanic or Latino, or a socially as a member of a smaller cultural group.

Studies into the role of language relativism were first published by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf in what is now referred to as the Sapir­Whorf hypothesis. Makihara summarizes the Sapir­Whorf hypothesis as follows; “speakers of languages with different systems of grammatical categories are led by these linguistic frames of references to experience the world in different ways” (2010, 39). Thus, language plays an integral role in determining how an individual reacts and responds to social environments. For example, the presence of formal and informal forms of third person designations in Spanish, French, or Italian would signify a societal sense of reverence for elders. The method of verb conjugation of the Hopi indians reveals a cyclical pattern that reflects their non­linear perception of time (Whorf 1956). However, this narrow definition of language relativism has been criticized for overemphasizing the connection between language and the perception of social reality. The broad application of language relativism implies that “language influences habitual ways of thinking” by establishing a correlation, not a causal relationship, between language and perception (Makihara 2010, 39). Linguistic anthropology operates on this assumption that language does play a role in the ways in which linguistic groups respond to their environments and then analyzes the ways in which linguistic interactions affect identity. Woolard’s language ideology paradigm emphasizes the role and use of language as perceived by the individual, formalizing the “weaker” version of the Sapir­Whorf hypothesis (1998).

It is important to understand the process of acquiring a cultural identity in order to determine the ways in which language can affect the cultural self­identification of the individual. Briefly summarized, the process by which children learn cultural cues is through enculturation. Enculturation occurs when various sources of input, including parents and family, schools, media, and other interactions contribute to the learning of both tacit and explicit cultural behaviors and then, in turn, the output of the individual in social situations reflects these inputs. The increasing prevalence of languages in contact due to globalization is part of the growing salience of cultural characteristics between groups. Hamers and Blanc cite a study by Giles and Coupland that notes four factors contributing to this increase: language is “an attribute of group membership, a cue for ethnic categorization, and emotional dimension of identity and a means of

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 8

ingroup cohesion” (2000, 204). Accordingly, the spread of cultural characteristics linked to language increases as a connection between the individual and the cultural/linguistic group becomes pronounced. The result of acculturation is the mixing of cultures that are in contact with one another. Therefore, cultural exchange in its basic form can be described three ways: Culture A borrowing elements from Culture B, Culture B borrowing elements from Culture A, or both Culture A and B borrowing elements from one another. Cultural domination results in the assimilation of one culture into another and the subsequent loss of the folding culture. Linguistically, assimilation is unfavorable due to the extinction of language, as evidenced by the slow losses of indigenous languages in North America, South America, and Africa. However, acculturation causes shifts in language that can result in the pidginization (non­native mixing) or creolization (native mixing) of languages and, as a consequence, cultural identities are also shifted and the hybridization of culture occurs.

Changing social situations often result in changing linguistic landscapes of culture groups. Spolsky notes that linguistic pluralism among immigrant populations across generations demonstrates this pattern of linguistic change (2010, 176­177). First generation immigrants generally follow the process of SLA for socioeconomic purposes. Second generation immigrants then learn L1 and L2 simultaneously, speaking one language at home with their parents (their mother tongue) and another at school through formal education. Third generation immigrants then might only learn the native language of their country of birth as opposed to both the official language and their grandparents’ mother tongue. Hamers and Blanc affirm this notion; “the relationship between language and ethnic­group identity is not static but varies as a function of the type of power relations between the groups and the level of economic and social development” that exists (2000, 278). However, in these contexts, the bilingual develops a distinct cultural identity from that of a monolingual. As aforementioned, the pidginization and creolization reflect two types of language shift that can occur in immigrant or bilingual populations and influence the formation of a multilingual cultural identity. Pidginization is the mixing of elements from two distinct languages in order for two linguistic groups to communicate with one another due to the necessity to bridge linguistic gaps for communication. Borrowings assist each language group in communication and the resulting set of syntactical and lexical rules becomes the pidgin language. A pidgin language becomes a creole language once this language becomes the mother tongue spoken by a community. Ultimately, these shifts in languages while languages are in contact contribute to the variation of identity for the bilingual. “Different ways of speaking both within and across languages can thus produce real effects on people, creating multiple expressions of the self” that are based on the notion of a linguistic culture (Salomone 2010, 71). Though the link between language and cultural identity are not causal, there is a direct correlation between language and the transmission of certain cultural values and norms, and as such, language acts as a vehicle for culture and the two are inextricably linked.

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 9

2.3 Code­Mixing and Code­Switching The mixing of language is a particularly unique phenomenon that occurs when groups

come into contact with one another. Characteristics of a social system of mixed languages vary according to the social environments in which the languages are used and the necessities upon which individuals mix multiple sources of input. Code­mixing is an overarching term that encompasses code­switching and borrowing between languages in bilingual environments. The mixing of elements creates a socio­linguistic context that contributes to the development of a multilingual identity, as evidenced by the emergence of Spanglish as a blend of Spanish­ and English­speaking cultural identities.

Grosjean defines code­switching as “the alternate use of two languages, that is, the speaker makes a complete shift to another language for a word, phrase, or sentence and then reverts back to the base language” (2010, 51­52). Macswan affirms this definition, citing a study by Belazi, Rubin, and Toribio; “code­switching is the alternate use of two (or more) languages within the same utterance” (2004, 283). L1 and L2 are used within the same sentence and, accordingly, code­switching is appropriate only within communities where both languages are spoken. Thus, code­switching is frequent in bilingual communities where both languages are used frequently, or where both the speaker and the listener possess varying levels of proficiency in either language. Grojean notes various situations in which code­switching is often appropriate for bilinguals; when expressions in one language are better understood than another, when the speaker lacks the vocabulary to express ideas in a particular language, or to mark identification with another cultural group (2010, 53­54). The limitation of knowledge in a particular language forces the speaker to find new ways of expression. This can result in the change of the meaning of the intended expression when it is conveyed, or the linguistic avoidance of the individual which is the tendency of non­native speakers of a language to find different ways of expression when confronted with a difficult and unknown word or phrase in the target language.

Shana Poplack’s studies on code­switching are essential in understanding the theoretical framework behind the mixing of elements of various languages into a single, spoken vernacular. “Code­switching is a verbal skill requiring a large degree of linguistic competence in more than one language,” according to Poplack (Grojean 2010, 251). Three types of code­switching were distinguished in her study; extra­sentential code­switching, intersential code­switching, and intrasentential code­switching. Extra­sentential code­switching is the addition of a tag to the end of a sentence or phrase, intrasentential code­switching is the use of words from both languages within the same sentence or phrase, and intersentential code­switching is the use of words from both languages with a switch at the clause boundary. These variations of code­switching change depending on the function and context of bilingual exchange. Linguistically, there are various models that describe the grammatical constraints imposed on code­switching. Poplack and Sankoff (1981 assert that code­switching is determined by both the free morpheme constraint and the equivalence constraint (Hamers and Blanc 2000, 261). The free morpheme constraint says that “a switch may not occur between a bound morpheme and a lexical form unless the

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 10

latter has been phonologically integrated into the language of a bound morpheme” (2000, 261). Simply stated, not all elements of a language can be switched into another. The equivalence constraint asserts that “the other of sentence constituents immediately adjacent to and on both sides of the switch must be grammatical with respect to both languages simultaneously” (Hamers and Blanc 2000, 261). Macswan summarizes this theory by stating that “codes will tend to be switched at points where the surface structures of the languages map onto each other” (2004, 286). Another model, proposed by DiScuillo, Muysken, and Singh, called the syntactic­government constraint model, relies on Noam Chomsky’s principle of the government binding theory and claims that “switching is only possibly between elements” that are not bound by this model and that “if two elements are lexically dependent on one another, there cannot be a switch between them” (Hamers and Blanc 2000, 264). One final theory important to understand code­switching is the matrix language frame model proposed by Myers­Scotton, based on the dominance of one language over another, and the interchangeability of elements from the dominant language (Macswan 2004, 292). Though these studies have been pivotal in analyzing the complexities of code­switching, this paper will not discuss these in depth as the focus of this paper is not on grammatical theory but on the practical application of these theories.

Blom and Gumperz describe three ways in which bilinguals code­switch: situational, metaphorical, and conversational (Callahan 1972, 17). “In situational switching the two codes are likely to be separated by physical distance, and only one is used in each environment; in metaphorical switching, one topic is spoken of entirely in one language or another,” so the environment in which the languages are spoken directly influence code­switching (Callahan 1972, 17). Conversational code­switching occurs between individuals who ethnically identify with both of the language for a variety of reasons. According to Ritchie and Bhatia, there are four factors that influences the bilingual to code­switch which include “the social roles and relationships of the participants; situational factors: discourse topic and language allocation; message­intrinsic considerations; and language attitudes including social dominance and security” (2004, 339). The motivation to code­switch varies among individuals, but the types of participants, the situation, linguistic capabilities and psychological factors, and other linguistic considerations are determinants in switching between L1 and L2 within the same linguistic contexts. Due to the levels of variation among motivational determinants of code­switching, it is important to note that studies associated with the exchange of linguistic elements between languages cannot be homogenous in their applications. 2.4 Spanglish

The presence of Spanish in the United States has led to the prolonged contact between Spanish and English. As a result, bilingual communities have developed various systems of code­switching and borrowing, described in section 2.3, as methods of communication between speakers of both Spanish and English. The result of this linguistic blend has been called Spanglish, or a mix of English and Spanish into a single spoken linguistic code. Lipski traces the

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 11

emergence of the term Spanglish to Salvador Tío in a column in 1952 where he characterizes Spanglish as the “deterioration of Spanish in Puerto Rico under the onslaught of English words” (2008, 41). Thus, this negative view of code­switching and borrowing was viewed to have been the bastardization of Spanish. However, development of Spanglish is not a change in Spanish itself, but reflects the emerging mix of Spanish and English, and thus there has been growing acceptance of the Spanglish phenomenon, particularly due to its uniqueness.

“Language shift from Spanish to English occurs in Hispanic communities in the United States even as the total number of Spanish speakers continues to grow through immigration,” and the mixing of the languages among bilinguals continues to gain prominence in the U.S., as evidenced through pop culture (Lipski 2008, 54). It is important to note, though, that Spanglish is not a separate language in and of itself. “Knowing how to switch languages does not constitute knowing a third language” because code­switching does not create a new language but alters the existing patterns between two languages (2008, 68). Because there are no replicated patterns of code­switching, Spanglish cannot become a pidgin or creole language. Spanglish is not a standard language, but a hybridization of English and Spanish. Because Spanglish must be mutually intelligible between code­switchers and because Spanish vocabularies differ between different groups of Hispanics, variations of Spanish impact the formation of Spanglish code switches. There are no native speakers of Spanglish because Spanglish is a term referring to the existence of code­switching and borrowing between English and Spanish. Thus, in order for an individual to speak Spanglish, bilingual competence must exist.

Languages have often borrowed words from one another in order to adapt to new methods of expression. “Spanish borrowed scores of words from Arabic, Greek, Italian, French, and German,” and then mixed with indigenous languages when transferred to the New World during colonization (Lipski 2008, 224). Borrowing words from one language to be used in another is a common characteristic of languages in contact and, as such, the presence of both English and Spanish in the U.S. has lent itself to such borrowing, demonstrated by words such as parquear (to park), printear (to print), or chequear (to check). Similarly, false cognates have sometimes assumed the meaning of their cognates, like the noun carpeta for carpet (instead of alfombra), or asistir for assist (instead of meaning to attend). Spanglish also features all three types of code­switching outline above. These elements are constrained by the models proposed above, but summarized, they must not violate rules of grammar and transition between elements must be cohesive (Lipski 2008, 231). Accordingly, it is not likely that Spanglish will become standardized due to the differences in Spanglish formation among code­switchers. “The relation between language and culture is thus intimate but one does not imply the other,” and it must be noted that Spanglish is itself a manifestation of bilingual culture but Spanglish does not necessarily arise as a result of bilingualism, nor does Spanglish automatically imply bilingual cultural identity (Sánchez 1998, 119). However, it is clear that the simultaneous presence of English and Spanish allows for greater cultural exchange between Hispanic and English­speaking cultures, so the use of Spanglish must indicate a joint cultural foundations in

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 12

addition to bilingual competence, thus prompting the following research questions found in section 3.4 below.

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 13

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Experiment and Methodology

For this research project, information will be gathered through surveys. These surveys consist of a series of 32 questions that documented the language proficiency and cultural identification of the subjects and their households. This quantitative data will then be documented through charts in order to determine whether any trends or general patterns of behavior can be seen. Due to the small population of Hispanic individuals in Macon, surveys will be distributed at two main locations: St. Peter’s Claver Church and Family Advancement Ministries. Online and paper surveys will be made available to all participants in order to allow responses. Personal interviews were omitted from this research project in order to observe general trends before conducting further research into the role of Spanglish in Macon. Data will not be analyzed by extensive statistical analyses.

With the following research questions in mind, the hypothesis of this research project is as follows: the existence of Spanglish, or simultaneous instances of English and Spanish, in bilinguals in Macon, GA, will result in the construction of a mixed socio­cultural identity. Thus, the research will seek to either confirm or reject this hypothesis. 3.2 Subjects

The data collection component of this research will include surveys and questionnaires that will be distributed to individuals who self­identify as bilingual in Macon, Georgia. The languages in question are English and Spanish, so individuals who participate will have varying levels of proficiency in both languages. Proficiency will not be measured by knowledge in the four aspects of language (speaking, writing, reading, listening).

There will be no demographic restrictions associated with participation in this survey. Age, gender, race, and other demographic characteristics do not preclude common socio­linguistic identification, and therefore, these will not act as constraints on this research. However, participants are expected to be able to respond to the survey without needing prompts in order to avoid researcher influence in the answers. 3.3 Research Questions In order to guide the course of research, these are the questions that were considered while conducting research:

1. What factors affect the construction of socio­linguistic identities? 2. What factors explain the presence of Spanglish in bilingual communities and how

does code­switching impact cultural awareness and self­identification? 3. How do individuals in Macon, Georgia who speak both English and Spanish

construct their own cultural identities? How does Spanglish have similar influences in Macon, Georgia?

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 14

IV. DATA ANALYSIS

Graph 4.1

Graph 4.2

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 15

Graph 4.3

Graph 4.4

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 16

Graph 4.5

Graph 4.6

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 17

Graph 4.7

Graph 4.8

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 18

Graph 4.9

Graph 4.10

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 19

Graph 4.11

Graph 4.12

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 20

Graph 4.13

Graph 4.14

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 21

Graph 4.15

Graph 4.16

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 22

Graph 4.17

Graph 4.18

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 23

Graph 4.19

Graph 4.20

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 24

Graph 4.21

Graph 4.22

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 25

Graph 4.23

Graph 4.24

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 26

Graph 4.25

Graph 4.26

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 27

Graph 4.27

Graph 4.28

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 28

Graph 4.29

Graph 4.30

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 29

Graph 4.31

Graph 4.32

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 30

General Trends: In order of appearance given the basic data collected from the surveys, the following trends can be seen regarding the results. 1. All participants identified as bilingual. This is a significant factor of self­identification in relation to this study. None of the participants answered that they are not bilingual, and therefore, it can be implied that both Spanish and English are languages that the participants use enough to identify as bilingual individuals. Though capacities for bilingualism can be different, all of the participants did identify as bilingual individuals. Similarly, this indicates that there are bilingual individuals in Macon, Georgia, and affirms that further research in this area can hold significance. Because all of the participants identified as bilingual, their survey answers can be considered when analyzing the data. Levels of perceived proficiency in Spanish and English, found in Graphs 4.13­4.20, present varying levels of bilingualism, though a majority of respondents cited full professional or native/bilingual proficiency on a majority of the questions. 2. Participants learned both English and Spanish at early ages. 10 of 11 participants learned Spanish as a child and 7 of 11 participants learned English as a child. Though this paper does not expand on the literature concerning the AoA of children and the propensity of children to learn multiple languages, there is literature, such as Pinker’s 1994 studies, that advocate for the theory of universal grammar that assist children in learning languages. Although specific causes are still areas of research in linguistics, there is a wide variety of quantitative data suggesting that children can learn more languages with more ease than adults as long as those languages are acquired before the critical age (see Penfield and Roberts’ 1959 paper). It is reasonable to conclude that the acquisition of both Spanish and English at young ages of the participants contributed to the self­identification as a bilingual individual. Similarly, as seen in Graph 4.6, 9 of 11 participants learned Spanish first, while the other 2 learned both Spanish and English simultaneously. No participants learned English first. 3. No participants identify as American. This is a significant graph (Graph 4.7) because it directly relates to the hypothesis stated above in section 3.1. All participants were allowed multiple responses to the question, “What is your cultural identification?”, and no participant chose to identify as “American.” 10 participants identified as “Hispanic,” 4 identified as “Latino,” and given the option to create a cultural identification, only one participant filled that option with “Mexican/American.” This is an especially important trend to note, particularly in regards to Graph 4.8, in which 5 participants state that they were born in the United States, whereas 6 were born outside of the United States. This indicates that birth place does not hold significance in the cultural identification of these individuals. Additionally, all 11 respondents stated that neither their fathers or mothers were

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 31

born in the United States. 4. The participants possess two spheres of language. It is significant to note that 9 of the participants responded that Spanish is the primary language in their households, whereas 10 participants responded that the primary language in their places of work or school was English. Therefore, there are multiple environments in which the participants switch from one language to another. This contributes to the self­identification as bilingual due to the existence of multiple linguistic environments. This leaves the possibility of language mixing or code­switching with individuals who co­exist in both linguistic environments. 5. There are mixed responses regarding the use of Spanglish. 7 of the 10 responses to the question of the use of Spanglish in the household stated that the individuals do use Spanglish, whereas 3 stated that they do not. Similarly, 6 respondents to the same question regarding the workplace stated that they do use Spanglish and 4 stated that they do not. However, all respondents to the question regarding mixing Spanish and English when speaking stated that they do it at least sometimes, with 2 responding that they do it often and 2 that they do it always. This is less prevalent in the case of mixing Spanish and English when writing. However, Graphs 4.25 and 4.26 indicate that there is more language mixing than reflected by the previous graphs. Respondents were allowed multiple responses to the question, “What language do you speak with your parents?”. 5 responded that they use English, 9 responded with Spanish, and 5 with Spanglish. With the same question regarding friends, 7 responded that they use English, 9 that they use Spanish, and 6 that they use Spanglish. Thus, the responses to these questions imply greater levels of linguistic integration and mixing than do the questions about the household and workplace.

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 32

V. CONCLUSION

The research above was posited in order to find evidence supporting or refuting the following hypothesis: the existence of Spanglish, or simultaneous instances of English and Spanish, in bilinguals in Macon, GA, will result in the construction of a mixed socio­cultural identity.

The survey results make it explicitly clear that the data does not support the hypothesis. Though there is a wide variety of instances in which the participants use Spanglish or mix English and Spanish, only one respondent indicated mixed cultural connections by providing the “Mexican/American” response to the question concerning cultural identity. The rest of the respondents indicated that they were either “Hispanic” or “Latino,” with a majority of respondents choosing “Hispanic.” The term Hispanic generally refers to Spanish­speaking individuals from the Americas, whereas Latino refers to those from the Caribbean/South America, which allude to the demographic variety of this survey. Nevertheless, given the fact that no respondent chose to identify as an “American” asserts that the existence of Spanglish is not a direct result of mixed socio­cultural identity. Spanglish can be present in communities that are bilingual, with various environments composed primarily of English­speaking elements and some of primarily Spanish­speaking elements, but individuals that experience both of these types of environments will not necessarily identify within both linguistic spheres. Therefore, the presence of Spanglish, according to the results of this survey, is not linked to cultural identity, but instead, to a need to adapt to new linguistic environments despite birthplace or age of acquisition of either language.

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 33

VI. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 6.1 Time constraints

Time constraints proved to be one of the most impactful conditions of this study. Due to the small amount of time allotted for this project, there are various limitations that arose as a consequence. This study is meant to be a brief survey into the history and context of bilingualism, identity, code­switching, and Spanglish. Because of the vast amount of literature and theories regarding all four of these areas, it is difficult to adequately summarize all of the literature that has been published on these subjects. This study does treat the syntactic theories associated with code­switching or bilingualism, nor does it treat the cognitive development theories of both. Time did not permit an in­depth analysis of the literature, nor a study that would treat all aspects of these research questions due to the holistic nature of the issue in question. Similarly, time constraints precluded the possibility of conducting extensive interviews that would allow for the examination regarding the types of code­switching that are more prevalent among bilinguals in Macon, GA. Future research should seek to conduct such interviews and to allow for a greater focus on cultural identification. 6.2 Population Limitations

Because of time constraints, it was not feasible to conduct surveys and interviews of a large population in Georgia in order to determine the extent to which bilingualism and Spanglish affect the construction of identities. Therefore, the population was limited to Bibb County in Macon, Georgia in order to narrow the scope of the research and come to a conclusion on research questions based on the small population surveyed. Similarly, time constraints and population limitations made it difficult to conduct large­scale surveys. Many individuals in the Hispanic community in Macon are also without Internet or regular access to Internet, so participants were unable to access online surveys. There were also very few responses to paper surveys from both St. Peter’s Claver and Family Advancement Ministries. With this in mind, the current research will hopefully serve as a platform for further research in the socio­cultural identity construction of bilinguals in Georgia and in the United States as a whole. There is also a small population of Spanish­speaking individuals in Macon as opposed to Georgia as a whole. Indeed, areas like Atlanta possess a greater number of Spanish­speaking individuals. Future research should seek to expand the scope of this project in order to make broader generalizations about the mixed, bilingual communities throughout Georgia.

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 34

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Bibb County Census Data." United States Census Bureau. N.p., 11 Mar 2013. Web. 21 Apr 2013.

<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/13021.html>. Butler, Yuko G., and Kenji Hakuta. "Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition." The

Handbook of Bilingualism. Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie. Oxford, Uk: 2004. 115­144. Print.

Callahan, Laura. Spanish/English Codeswitching in a Written Corpus. Philadelphia, PA: John

Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. Print. Edwards, John V. “Foundations of Bilingualism.” The Handbook of Bilingualism. Tej

K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie. Oxford, Uk: 2004. 7­31. Print.

Grosjean, François. Bilingual. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press, 2010. Print.

Hamers, Josiane F., and Michel H.A. Blanc. Bilinguality and Bilingualism. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.

Liebkind, Karmela. "Social Psychology." Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Joshua A.

Fishman and Ofelia García. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010. 18­31. Print.

Lipski, John M. Varieties of Spanish in the United States. Washington D.C.: Georgetown

University Press, 2008. Print. Makihara, Miki. "Anthropology." Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Joshua A. Fishman

and Ofelia García. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010. 32­48. Print. Mantilla, Jesús Ruiz. "Más ." Es País. 06 Oct 2008: n. page. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.

<http://elpais.com/diario/2008/10/06/cultura/1223244001_850215.html>.

Macswan, Jeff. "Code Switching and Grammatical Theory" The Handbook of Bilingualism. Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie. Oxford, Uk: 2004. 283­311. Print.

Ritchie, William C., and Tej K. Bhatia. “Social and Psychological Factors in Language Mixing.”

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 35

The Handbook of Bilingualism. Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie. Oxford, Uk: 2004. 336­352. Print.

Salomone, Rosemary C. True American: Language, Identity and the Education of Immigrant Children. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press, 2010. Print.

Sánchez, Rosaura. "Mapping the Spanish Language along a Multiethnic and Multilingual Border."

The Latino Studies Reader: Culture, Economy & Society. Antonia Darder and Rodolfo D. Torres. Massachusetts, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1998. 101­125. Print.

Spolsky, Bernard. "Second Language Learning." Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity.

Joshua A. Fishman and Ofelia García. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010. 172­185. Print.

Weinreich, Uriel. Languages in Motion. The Hague: Mouton, 1953. Print. Whorf, Benjamin L. “The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language.” Language,

Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Jogn B. Carroll (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1956. 134­159. Print.

Woolard, Kathryn A. “Introduction. Language ideology as a field of inquiry.” Language

Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. 3­47. Print.

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 36

APPENDIX I. ADDITIONAL TERMS Bilinguality;

Additive bilinguality: Both L1 and L2 are socially valued, resulting in a cognitive advantage in using both languages.

Adolescent bilinguality: The AOA of L2 occurs between the ages of 11 and 17. Adult bilinguality: The AOA of L2 occurs after the age of 17. Balanced bilinguality: The competence of L1 and L2 are equal. Childhood bilinguality: The AOA of L2 occurs before the age of 11. Consecutive early bilinguality: L2 is learned by the child after L1 (mother tongue). Dominant bilinguality: The individual is more competent in L1 or L2 over the other

language. Infancy bilinguality: Competence in L1 and L2 achieved in early childhood. Simultaneous bilinguality: L1 and L2 are learned simultaneously as mother tongues. Subtractive bilinguality: Either L1 or L2 is socially valued over the other, resulting in a

cognitive disadvantage in using the lesser­valued language. Code­Switching: Code­switching is the use of elements of two languages in the same sentence or phrase. This is a characteristic of bilingual communities (Hamers and Blanc 259). Foreign Language: Foreign languages include the second and subsequently learned languages that are not widely used in the community in which the speaker lives. The definition of the community is contextual in this definition as the community can vary depending on numerous demographic and cultural factors. For the purposes of this research paper, the community will be defined along geographical boundaries as Macon, Georgia. Fossilization of Language: The notion that, though an individual learns syntactical and grammatical rules of L2, the rules of L1 will be dominant due to their cognitive fossilization. Identity: For the sake of this research paper, identity refers to the self­classification of an individual. This is generally cultural in nature, specifically on the lines of ethnicity, nationality, and language group. The construction of socio­linguistic identity, or social identity as influenced by language, is an internal process influenced by external factors. Language acquisition: An unconscious, often tacit method of gaining proficiency in a language that does not include formal instruction. Language atrophy: Progressive loss of proficiency in a language due to a wide variety of factors, including lack of exposure to the language or failure to use a language for a long period of time. Language learning: A formal method of gaining proficiency in a language that includes conscious and explicit instruction. Language Psychotypology: The perceived distance of the individual from a language, including social distance and perceived fluency or connection to the language. Second Language: Second languages include second and subsequently learned languages that are widely used in the community in which the speaker lives. For example, a child of Spanish­speaking parents who learns English will be gaining proficiency in English as a second

SPN 490 Branden Ryan 37

language, not a foreign language. Spanglish: Spanglish refers to the blending of English and Spanish through code­switching.

APPENDIX II: AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY Branden Ryan is a Senior at Mercer University majoring in International Affairs and Spanish with minors in Anthropology, Christianity, and History. He is currently working on his senior projects in both International Affairs and Spanish, researching the nuclear relationship between India and Pakistan and the impact of Spanglish on bilingual identity, respectively. He is currently in the process of becoming a Peace Corps volunteer and hopes to attend graduate school after service in the Peace Corps to study security and conflict studies. His research interests in International Affairs include Middle Eastern politics, the Israeli­Palestinian conflict, nuclear strategy and the balance of power theory, and his research interests in Spanish include Spanglish, bilingualism, multilingualism, second and foreign language acquisition, and the relationship of language and culture.