Читать книгу Speaking Spanish in the US - Janet M. Fuller - Страница 12
ОглавлениеTo define language ideologies, explain how language ideologies connect language to social meanings and power, and examine various language ideologies related to Spanish in the US.
In this book we are particularly interested in the ways in which language, and Spanish in the US in particular, is tied up with social identities, culture and power. In previous chapters we made reference to the inaccurate assumption that people who speak Spanish don’t know English, as well as to the portrayal of Spanish and Spanish-speakers as out of place in the US or even a threat to national identity. Where do these ideas come from and what assumptions undergird them? Why do people assign different kinds of social meaning to different languages and different ways of using language? How are these notions tied to broader social processes and how do they reproduce social hierarchies? In this chapter we address these questions through an examination of language ideologies, which at the simplest level can be defined as ideas about language structure and use (Errington, 2000). As we will see, there are also other, more complex, definitions.
Language ideologies can be about language in general, specific languages, specific language varieties or specific ways of using language. An example of a language ideology relevant to Spanish in the US is the idea that each nation ‘naturally’ has a single language and that the presence of multiple languages causes divisions (we discuss this ideology in more depth later in this chapter). Another common set of beliefs about language is the standard language ideology, which imagines that there is a single correct and unvarying way of speaking that is ‘better’ than ‘non-standard’ varieties, which are often denigrated as illogical or sloppy. The standard language ideology is inconsistent with a basic premise within the field of linguistics: all languages and language varieties are equally systematic and there is no objective linguistic reason for any variety or language to be considered ‘better’ than another.
If no variety is really better than the others, how does one way of speaking get chosen as the standard? Typically, the variety of the socio-economic elite, which is generally also the one associated with written language norms, is selected as the standard (Lippi-Green, 2012; Piller, 2015). Clearly, then, beliefs about the value or correctness of different language varieties and practices aren’t only about language; they are also about other things, such as the status of the speakers of those varieties. Language ideologies are also shaped by other non-linguistic issues including societal understandings of national belonging (e.g. who is a ‘real’ American), the perceived intelligence or cultural ‘value’ of different groups, as well as other ideas about the people who speak different languages and language varieties (Woolard, 1998). Further, language ideologies don’t just reflect ideas about people, groups or social and political issues; they also have an impact on them. For example, language ideologies undergird discussions and debates about whether English should be the official language of the US, whether someone is ‘really’ Latinx if they don’t speak Spanish, what language(s) should be taught in schools, and if it is ‘ok’ to combine English and Spanish in conversation.
In the following sections we provide an introduction to the study of language ideologies and the ideological processes that give language social meaning. In addition to examining how language ideologies work, we show how they are inseparable from questions of power as well as how they allow linguistic difference to serve as a mechanism for maintaining social inequality. In the second half of the chapter we present some key language ideologies related to Spanish in the US. As we’ll show, language ideologies are both reflected and reinforced in various kinds of public discourse and language policies, and they have ‘real-world’ impact.
Within the fields of sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology, scholars emphasize that ideas and beliefs about language are a bridge between language and the social world. Language ideologies are what give social meaning to particular ways of using language and they allow us to judge people based on the way they speak. This notion is reflected in Woolard’s (1998: 3) definition of language ideologies as ‘representations, whether explicit or implicit, that construe the intersection of language and human beings in a social world,’ as well as Irvine’s (1989: 255) definition of language ideology as ‘the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests.’
Another important element of Irvine’s definition is her description of language ideologies as ‘cultural systems.’ In this way, she makes it clear that language ideologies are not just individual opinions or impressions held by individual people; instead, different language ideologies are related to each other, and they are tied to societal values and norms. In other words, we don’t come up with ideas about language completely on our own, in isolation from the world. Quite the opposite, people’s beliefs about language (and other things) are shaped by our families and our communities, as well as the institutions and socio-economic and political structures with which we interact. Further, language ideologies can vary from society to society and culture to culture.
By pointing out that language ideologies are intertwined with ‘moral and political interests,’ Irvine makes it clear that they are not inconsequential opinions or preferences; rather, they benefit particular people or groups of people. As we noted above, when the standard language ideology portrays the way that the educated elite or dominant groups speak as better than other ways of speaking, this is not simply a neutral aesthetic preference; it reflects the higher status and power of the dominant group. But it’s not just that that the dominant group’s socio-economic or political status plays a role in determining that their way of speaking will be seen as better; the standard language ideology also plays a role in helping the dominant group maintain that status. People who speak ‘standard’ varieties are portrayed as intellectually and morally superior to speakers of ‘non-standard’ varieties – who are portrayed as ignorant or lazy – and they are offered more educational and professional opportunities (we return to this issue later in the chapter). For this reason, research on language ideologies emphasizes that they are part of the production and reproduction of social inequality. In other words, linguistic and social practices do not merely reflect social norms but also perpetuate and shape them.
Hegemony and Symbolic Domination
The concept of hegemony is a useful one for thinking about the role of language ideologies in the reproduction of social inequality and power. The basic definition is a simple: hegemony means that one entity (usually a social group or nation state) is dominant over another. The concept of hegemony also references the cultural and/or ideological influence of the dominant group in shaping broader societal norms and beliefs. With language ideologies, we are concerned not only with the way that certain ideologies help establish or sustain the hegemony of certain groups, but also with the hegemony of certain ways of thinking about language.
Hegemonic ideologies aren’t always stated explicitly; in many cases they are naturalized and taken for granted (Kroskrity, 2004). Naturalization implies that an idea is not recognized as a specific cultural value or viewpoint, but is instead seen as common sense, an inevitable truth or something inherent to the human experience. For example, in the US there is widespread acceptance of the one nation-one language ideology (i.e. the notion that each nation is defined by single language and vice-versa) and of the hegemony of English. These ideologies are largely taken for granted, such as in the ‘Welcome to America: Now SPEAK ENGLISH!’ bumper sticker shown in Figure 4.1. Nowhere in the bumper sticker’s text is there an explicit claim that nations should have just one language, that speaking English is a key part of US national identity or that other languages are unwelcome; however, the text only makes sense if the reader/viewer has access to these hegemonic ideologies. In addition to the belief that immigrants have an obligation to assimilate linguistically, the bumper sticker’s message also rests on the (inaccurate) presupposition that immigrants to the US don’t speak English (discussed in Chapter 2); otherwise they would not need a directive to do so.
Figure 4.1 Bumper sticker: ‘Welcome to America: Now SPEAK ENGLISH!’
Hegemonic ideologies can be so powerful and can become so naturalized that even when people reject arguments based on them, they sometimes inadvertently participate in and reproduce the same ideologies (Gal, 1998; Kroskrity, 2004; Silverstein, 1996). For example, take a look at the bumper sticker in Figure 4.2, which reads ‘Welcome to America: Now speak Cherokee.’ This bumper sticker offers a tongue-in-cheek rebuttal to the message in the bumper sticker in Figure 4.1 by reminding the reader/viewer that English is a relatively new arrival in what is now the US. As such, the apparent intention is to reject the disparagement of speakers of languages other than English and, on the first reading, it may seem like a challenge to the dominant English-only ideology. Nonetheless, this apparent challenge actually embodies some of the same assumptions inherent in that ideology. Indeed, the Speak Cherokee bumper sticker doesn’t reject the one nation-one language ideology or celebrate multilingualism but instead upholds the idea that there is a single ‘legitimate’ language; it simply replaces English with Cherokee. By ignoring the linguistic and cultural diversity of Native peoples as well as implying that they would have felt the same way about the linguistic obligations of new arrivals, the bumper sticker inadvertently reinforces hegemonic ideologies as timeless common-sense notions. Moreover, having Native peoples offer a welcome to ‘America’ projects its existence backwards in time and naturalizes it. Further, this bumper sticker seems to suggest a false equivalence between contemporary immigration to the US and the historical colonization and conquest of the Americas by Europeans, thus obscuring the genocide and political domination we discussed in Chapter 3.
Figure 4.2 Bumper sticker: ‘WELCOME TO AMERICA: NOW SPEAK CHEROKEE’
The two bumper stickers we have just analyzed illustrate the ways in which public discourse is influenced by language ideologies. But this relationship is two-way, or circular, in the sense that this kind of discourse also reinforces specific language ideologies. Taking the case of the Speak English bumper sticker, a person might put this on their car because of their beliefs regarding the role of English in the US and immigrants’ supposed moral obligation to speak it. But presumably, the person who puts this bumper sticker on their car also hopes that it will influence other people to think the same way. In this way, discourse doesn’t just reflect language ideologies; it also disseminates and promotes them to other people. Language ideologies are similarly disseminated and reproduced in everyday interaction, in the statements of public figures, in news media, television shows and movies and in a range of governmental and non-governmental policies. And this is generally the case for linguistic and social policies and practices too: they don’t just reflect social norms or ideologies; they also perpetuate and shape them. In other words, the relationship between ideologies and practices is circular and mutually reinforcing. The hegemony of English, and especially ‘standard’ English, leads to its dominance in education and government. It then becomes associated with these domains, and people use it in order to convey status and authority. This, in turn, further strengthens those associations and the symbolic value of standard English, and the cycle continues.
Ideologies are sometimes conscious and expressed openly. However, in other cases they may circulate below the level of consciousness (Kroskrity, 2004) and their reproduction can also be more subtle, such as when television programs or movies use ‘foreign’ or ‘non-standard’ accents as a way to portray characters as unintelligent (Lippi-Green, 2012). Even when language ideologies have negative consequences for non-dominant groups, people who belong to those groups also often take them for granted. In other words, both socially dominant and dominated groups see hegemonic ideologies as natural and universal, or they don’t even notice them (Woolard, 1998). For example, the hegemonic ideology that languages other than English are un-American and/or interfere with the acquisition of English is not limited to monolingual English-speakers. People who speak other languages (whether monolingually or in addition to English) also sometimes believe this (especially if told as much by their children’s teachers), and this can lead them to speak to their children exclusively in English (Zentella, 1997a). (This is a pervasive but false notion. Spanish language maintenance does not interfere with English acquisition, as we saw in Chapter 2. Further, it is positively correlated with academic achievement and overall upward mobility; see discussion in Chapter 9.)
Scholars of social inequality sometimes use Bourdieu’s (1991) notion of symbolic domination to refer to dominant groups’ ability to convince dominated groups that existing social hierarchies are fair and just, and they point to schools as a key place where this happens (see Chapter 9). Let us again use the example of the standard language ideology which, as we saw, elevates the language variety spoken by the dominant group. By portraying speakers of the standard variety as smarter or more hardworking than the ‘ignorant’ and ‘lazy’ speakers of other varieties, the standard language ideology doesn’t just favor the dominant group; it also portrays them as intellectually and morally deserving of higher status. Bourdieu stresses that the hegemony of one language or variety rests in part on the complicity of speakers of other languages or varieties. Thus, in the case of language ideologies, symbolic domination consists of getting people to take up or accept the hegemonic language ideologies that disadvantage them.
Although certain language ideologies achieve hegemony within a given society, there are also always competing ideologies that co-exist with them (Kroskrity, 2004). For example, in the one nation-one language ideology, language is considered a defining characteristic of national identity, societal monolingualism is seen as promoting national unity, and multilingualism is considered divisive. However, there is also a competing ideology that portrays multilingualism as a national resource for global competitiveness or national security. Competing ideologies regarding multilingualism also operate at the individual level. One ideology sees monolingualism as the normal state of affairs and minority language maintenance as a hindrance to English acquisition, but another ideology constructs multilingualism as a valuable resource for intellectual development as well as professional success (we discuss these ideologies in more depth later in this chapter). In some cases different members of society subscribe to different ideologies, but in other cases individuals shift back and forth between different ideologies depending on the context. The fact that counter-hegemonic ideologies can co-exist with hegemonic ideologies underscores that it is sometimes possible to resist dominant ways of thinking. Moreover, it suggests that ideologies can change over time and thus that hegemonic ideologies should not be considered permanent or intractable.
Crucially, language ideologies also play a role in how we think about or categorize individuals and groups of people. To understand this, let us look again at the examples of ideologies we’ve mentioned thus far. As we noted, the standard language ideology doesn’t just reflect a group’s relative prestige and power. Instead, by framing certain ways of speaking as better than others, it also plays a role in social differentiation, or the classification and evaluation of people and groups. Along the same lines, in the US the one nation-one language ideology contributes to the portrayal of people who speak languages other than English as un-American (even if they also speak English). In the next section we look more closely at how language ideologies allow linguistic forms and practices to take on social and symbolic meanings, and to justify social practices on the basis of linguistic difference.
Language Ideologies: Bridging the Linguistic and the Social
One key way in which language expresses social meaning is through a process called indexicality. When a linguistic feature (or language, language variety or linguistic practice) is associated with a specific stance, social category or characteristic, the feature is said to ‘index’ or ‘point to’ that category or characteristic (Ochs, 1992; Silverstein, 1996). In order to grasp this notion, remember that it is not only the content of our speech that has meaning, but also the way we talk. Just as we can say something about ourselves by the way we dress or style our hair, we can also enact certain identities by speaking in a particular language or style, or even just by choosing to use certain words. Indexicality is the process that allows us to do this. For example, in her research with Latina gangs in northern California, Mendoza-Denton (2008) found that the color red was an index of the Norteña gang while the color blue was an index of the Sureñas, such that dressing in these colors was a way to signal membership in one gang or the other. Feathered hair and the numbers 14 and 4 were also indexes of Norteña identity, whereas vertical ponytails and the numbers 13 and 3 were indexes of the Sureñas. Language was another way through which girls signaled their membership in one gang or the other: speaking Spanish (and minimizing or denying proficiency in English) indexed the Sureñas, while speaking English and downplaying or avoiding Spanish indexed the Norteñas.
Indexical meanings are not intrinsic, but instead depend on context; clearly, the color blue doesn’t index the Sureña gang everywhere. Similarly, linguistic features and practices don’t always mean the same thing in every context, or even to everyone with in a given context. Obviously, Spanish doesn’t index Sureña identity universally; in many US contexts it is an index of Latinx identity, an issue we return to later in this chapter and throughout the book. For another example of the contextual nature of indexicality, let us consider the use of English words in a primarily Spanish conversation, which has different social and symbolic meanings in Latin America and the US. In many Latin American contexts, incorporating a few words in English can serve to index internationalism and sophistication, but in the US the exact same practice is sometimes interpreted as linguistic sloppiness or seen as evidence of deficient Spanish knowledge.
One framework for looking at the role of language ideologies in social differentiation, or how language ideologies allow for linguistic differences to be used in assigning people to different social categories or identities, has been put forth by Irvine and Gal (2000). They identify three key processes: iconicity, fractal recursivity and erasure. Iconicity is an ideological process in which linguistic features not only index certain groups or activities but are seen as iconic representations of them, and reflections of the group’s ‘inherent nature or essence’ (Irvine & Gal, 2000: 37). In other words, the linguistic feature or language doesn’t just ‘point to’ the social group; it is seen as inherent to the group. Further, with iconization, the linguistic feature and the group associated with it are perceived as being similar or sharing certain characteristics. Taking the case of Spanish in the US, in many contexts Spanish has become an icon for Latinxs, such that the perceived characteristics (and stereotypes) of Latinxs map onto perceptions of Spanish. For example, the Spanish language is commonly viewed as ‘easy’ (Lipski, 2002: 1248), which parallels racist attitudes about the cultural and intellectual achievements of Spanish-speakers.
Similarly, the Mock Spanish practice of adding -o endings to English nouns (e.g. no problemo, el cheapo) and the treatment of Spanish as if it weren’t a ‘real’ language with its own words and complex grammar parallels the devaluing of Latinx peoples and cultures (Barrett, 2006; Hill, 1995, 2008; we discuss Mock Spanish further in Chapter 6). In these cases, the perceived shared characteristics of Latinxs and Spanish are negative, but that isn’t always the case in iconization. When a website selling online language classes states that ‘Spanish tops off our list as one of the world’s most romantic languages because of its passionate, sensual sound’ (https://www.rocketlanguages.com/blog/the-languages-of-love-the-5-most-romantic-languages, accessed 12 September 2018), passion and sensuality are perceived as shared characteristics of the language and its speakers. Of course, even when presented as positive attributes, these are still stereotypes that can have negative implications (see the discussion in Chapter 7 on such stereotypes in media representations of Latinxs).
Fractal recursivity is the term that Gal and Irvine use to describe the tendency of social and linguistic distinctions to operate on multiple levels. Specifically, ideological features that are used to differentiate between groups are often also used to differentiate within groups recursively. Recursivity in US language ideology can be found in the hierarchy of languages that positions some languages as better than others and the pervasive idea that there is just one right way of speaking that is superior to other ways. In the dominant linguistic hierarchy, English is intellectually superior to Spanish. However, similar distinctions are also made within English, such that northern US varieties are seen as ‘smarter’ than southern varieties. Thus, the perception of one ‘correct’ way of speaking and multiple inferior ways of speaking is seen both on the level of language as well as on the level of variety. Similar types of fractal recursivity also operate in Spanish among national varieties and within them. For example, a common belief among Spanish-speakers is that Colombian Spanish is ‘better’ than other national varieties. However, within Colombian Spanish, Bogotá Spanish is often seen as superior to varieties spoken along the coast and, within Bogotá, the varieties spoken by the elite are seen as better than those of the working class.
Finally, erasure is the phenomenon of ignoring or rendering invisible any information or practice that would contradict the hegemonic ideology. The one nation-one language ideology frames monolingualism within a national territory as the natural and right way for a country to operate, and thus portrays multilingualism as divisive, an impediment to participation in mainstream America, and a characteristic of impoverished immigrant communities. In order for this ideology to stand, several sociolinguistic realities undergo erasure. To wit, there are many multilingual nations throughout the world, and the majority of the world’s people are believed to be multilingual. In the case of the US, many bilinguals were born in the US, fully participate in all aspects of US society and are members of the middle and upper socio-economic classes. In addition, Spanish language maintenance (i.e. Spanish–English bilingualism) correlates with academic achievement and success (see Chapter 9). These facts constitute counter-evidence to the prevailing ideology but go largely unseen by those that subscribe to it. Similarly, the image of the US as a monolingual English-speaking nation involves selective erasure of various aspects of the linguistic history of the US, including the multilingual nature of early settlements and the maintenance of immigrant and Indigenous languages. And of course, it also erases the fact that English itself is not native to what is now the US.
The Consequences of Language Ideologies: Power, Politics and Policy
As we noted, language ideologies are opinions or beliefs, but they have real-world consequences. By influencing the public portrayal and perception of people and groups, language ideologies also shape the treatment of those people and groups. This can happen at the level of individual interactions, such as when someone yells at or attacks people for speaking languages other than English. There have been numerous videotaped examples of this in recent years, some of which are listed together with other examples of linguistic prejudice and discrimination on the webpage http://potowski.org/resources/repression. Here we will discuss one representative example which received a lot of attention in the media and public discourse, the case of a New York man who became enraged that employees of a Manhattan eatery were speaking in Spanish (Robbins, 2018; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/nyregion/man-threatens-spanish-language-video.html, accessed 15 September 2018). The one nation-one language ideology is clearly reflected in the man’s outrage that ‘staff is speaking Spanish to customers when they should be speaking English,’ his explanation that ‘It’s America,’ and his subsequent assumption and threat: ‘I will be following up, and my guess is they’re not documented. So my next call is to ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to have each one of them kicked out of my country.’ For this man, the ideological linking of English and the US is so strong that he doesn’t just demand that other people know English; he feels entitled not to have to even hear Spanish when in the US. Further, he sees Spanish as so illegitimate that he assumes that employees speaking it must be unauthorized immigrants (and threatens to call ICE), and he suggests that ‘they’ do not belong in ‘[his]’ country.
It’s important to note that there was a tremendous public outcry in response to this incident, again demonstrating the multiplicity of ideologies that can co-exist, as well as the possibility of resistance to hegemonic and/or racist ideologies. Particularly interesting is the response of one bystander who challenged the man; she can be heard on the video saying, ‘It is America,’ thus seemingly rejecting the one nation-one language ideology in favor of a construction of US national identity tied to the recognition (and perhaps celebration) of pluralism. And as we noted in Chapter 2, speaking Spanish in public can in and of itself constitute a form of resistance to anti-immigrant and anti-Latinx discourses (Sánchez-Muñoz & Amezcua, 2019).
Language ideologies also impact how people are treated in more subtle, but just as damaging, ways. For example, when schools treat one language or one language variety as the only ‘correct’ one, this tells students who speak differently that their way of speaking is wrong or bad and that, by extension, so are their ways of being, their identity, their family and their community. This denigration can be considered a type of symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1991; Zentella, 2017) or ‘linguistic terrorism’ (Anzaldúa, 1987). The negative impact is not only symbolic, emotional and psychological, but also academic. For one thing, there are added challenges of being asked to do schoolwork, and take tests, in a variety different from one’s own, especially if teachers don’t recognize that students are learning an additional variety. Consider how much harder it is for you to do well in school if lessons, instructions and recess all take place in a language you have not yet learned and, further, you are graded in part on how well you manage the grammar rules of that language. Moreover, language ideologies sometimes lead teachers to assume that certain students aren’t as smart as others based on the way they speak, which also impacts academic outcomes.
Just as language ideologies undergird negative assumptions about students who don’t speak ‘correctly,’ they also undergird employers’ decisions not to hire someone because they don’t sound ‘professional.’ Importantly, the use of the standard language ideology as a gate-keeping mechanism doesn’t just impact individual students or job-seekers, but instead contributes to structural inequality, in which disfavored groups are discriminated against (Fairclough, 1992, 2001; Flores & Rosa, 2015; Leeman, 2005, 2018b). In this way, as we noted earlier, hegemonic language ideologies play a role in the reproduction of social inequality. In the US, the hierarchy of languages portrays English as superior to Spanish (and other ‘foreign’ languages) and positions middle-class and White ways of speaking at the top; ethnoracial varieties (such as African American English, or AAE) as well as varieties associated with poor and/or rural people are positioned at the bottom. Thus, the standard language ideology plays a role in the socio-economic and political exclusion of these groups. However, because this same ideology portrays the favored variety (aka ‘standard English’) as inherently better, language discrimination is often naturalized, and not seen as discrimination at all. As we discuss below, ways of speaking are often portrayed as a choice, and this portrayal bolsters the view that negative consequences for speaking a particular variety or language are deserved, because the speaker could simply speak the standard. In turn, this allows people to express racist or discriminatory views while appearing (and claiming) to be defending common-sense views about ‘proper’ or ‘correct’ speech, or about English being the national language of the US. And because specific ways of speaking are linked to specific groups (i.e. AAE to African Americans, and Spanish to Latinxs), language ideologies contribute to structural racism without making reference to ethnic or racial identity (see Chapter 5).
Language ideologies can also become codified in language policies and laws. For example, the one nation-one language ideology and the related idea that monolingualism is the norm shape language-in-education policies such as the lack of bilingual education. As we discuss in more depth in Chapter 9, in the US, educational policies for speakers of minority languages (including speakers of Spanish) typically prioritize the acquisition of English over the development of students’ home languages, and even the learning of academic subjects. In the relatively rare cases where education in Spanish (or another minority language) is provided, this is usually only a temporary measure, as a way to teach English or content. Further, speakers of Spanish who also know English are generally not provided with any academic support to maintain or develop their abilities in Spanish. These same ideologies also explain why less than 20% of K-12 students in the US are enrolled in a ‘foreign’ language course, a percentage that is even lower at the elementary school level (American Councils for International Education, 2017; we discuss language-in-education policy in Chapter 9).
Thus far in this chapter we have given an overview of language ideologies and the ideological processes that mediate between language and the social world, and we have outlined some of the emotional, academic, professional and political consequences of language ideologies. In the second half of the chapter we will present various language ideologies that have an impact on Spanish in the US.
The Standard Language Ideology
We have used the standard language ideology as an example several times in our discussion of language ideologies above but now we want to provide a definition and make a few additional points. Lippi-Green (2012: 67) defines the standard language ideology as ‘a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogenous spoken language which is imposed and maintained by dominant bloc institutions and which names as its model the written language, but which is drawn primarily from the spoken language of the upper middle class.’ She points out that variation is inherent to all languages and language varieties, and thus languages are never actually ‘homogenous’; no two people speak exactly alike, and everybody speaks differently according to where they are, who they are with, what they are doing and what they are trying to express. For this reason, Lippi-Green describes the standard as ‘abstracted’ and ‘idealized.’ Nonetheless, the ideology sets up uniformity as a goal (Milroy & Milroy, 1999), and because certain ways of speaking are represented and perceived as being standard, they are seen as better than other varieties.
Despite favoring upper middle-class speech, the standard language ideology presents the standard variety as if it were neutral and equally accessible to everyone, thus erasing the unequal power relationships it reflects and reproduces (Woolard, 2005, 2016). This allows blame to be placed on people who ‘choose’ not to speak the standard. This is problematic for (at least) two reasons. First, people don’t just choose to speak one way or another; people’s languages, linguistic varieties and accents are obviously closely tied to their identities and their surrounding communities (Lippi-Green, 2012). Secondly, the standard language ideology makes it seem that subordinated groups could improve their status simply by speaking the standard variety. But this makes it seem as if language were the cause of social differences, when in reality language hierarchies are the mechanism by which inequality is reproduced. For example, let us take the case of AAE and Chicanx English. These varieties are often considered ‘non-standard’ and their speakers are frequently disparaged or discriminated against. If language were really the cause of this discrimination, then all the African Americans and Chicanxs who speak standard English would never face discrimination. However, this isn’t the case; institutional and interpersonal racism continue to operate, regardless of how people speak (Bartolomé & Macedo, 1999; Macedo, 1997).
But who chooses the standard and how do people know which variety is preferred? Who makes the rules? One way that language subordination (which goes hand in hand with the standard language ideology) plays out is that language is ‘mystified’ and speakers of the language are portrayed as not being able to use their own language without ‘expert guidance’ (Lippi-Green, 2012: 70). Regular people are delegitimized regarding how to speak their own language, and linguistic authority is assigned to ‘experts’ who are assumed to know more than ‘mere’ speakers of the language. In some countries, and for some languages, there are official language academies. Spain’s Real Academia Española (RAE; Spanish Royal Academy) was founded in 1713, and there are now affiliated national language academies throughout Latin America. With membership comprising prestigious members of the arts and sciences including well-known authors, and with the official motto of Limpia, fija y da esplendor (‘cleanse, fix, and give splendor’), the RAE produces dictionaries, orthographies (i.e. spelling rules) and grammar books describing ‘correct’ usage.
In addition to promoting ‘good’ language use, the RAE seeks to ensure the unity of Spanish not only within Spain, but also internationally (Mar-Molinero & Paffey, 2011; Paffey, 2012; Villa & Del Valle, 2014). Although the RAE collaborates with Latin American academies of Spanish and the international Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (AALE) in the promotion of ‘Pan-Hispanic’ norms that recognize some regional variation, the RAE remains very much at the center of this endeavor and seeks to maintain Spain’s symbolic ownership of Spanish (Mar-Molinero & Paffey, 2011). Along with Spanish government-funded institutions like the RAE and the Instituto Cervantes (which promotes the study of Spanish around the world), private business interests and corporations (such as the telecommunications giant Telefónica) have also sought to maintain Spain’s leadership in defining international language norms, highlighting the intertwining of linguistic, political and economic concerns (Mar-Molinero & Paffey, 2011; Villa & Del Valle, 2014; Zentella, 2017). The involvement of these institutions in the definition of language norms and standards also includes the publication of Spanish-as-a-second-language teaching materials, as well as sponsorship and promotion of the Servicio Internacional de Evaluación de la Lengua Española (‘International Spanish Language Evaluation Service’) (see https://siele.org), a proficiency evaluation and certification service.
One of the most recent Spanish language academies to join the AALE is the non-profit Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española (ANLE), founded in 1973 and headquartered in New York. The ANLE’s website (http://www.anle.us, accessed 15 September 2018) defines their mission in part ‘to study, develop and execute the normative rules of the Spanish of the United States of America,’ as well as to establish and promote ‘the criteria of proper and correct usage’ and ‘to ensure that, in its constant adaptation to the particular needs of Spanish speakers,’ the Spanish used in the US ‘does not affect the unity and understanding of the language in the Hispanic world.’ Like the RAE and the policy of pan-Hispanism, the ANLE has been criticized for its privileging of European norms and the subordination of local varieties and practices, especially those that reflect influence from English (Lynch & Potowski, 2014; Zentella, 2017).
While the standard language ideology disparages the language varieties associated with disfavored groups (such as those with less education or lower socio-economic status, or who belong to ethnoracial minorities), this rejection of social variation sometimes co-exists with an acceptance of geographic variation. For example, acceptance of geographic variation is reflected in descriptions of Spanish as a pluricentric language. Pluricentrism means that instead of a single, international standard, each ‘Spanish-speaking’ country has its own standard variety (Lope Blanch, 1986, 2001). However, this recognition of multiple standard varieties does not challenge the disparagement of ‘non-standard’ varieties. Indeed, while pluricentrism implies equality among different geographic varieties, it reproduces the hierarchies among social varieties (Leeman, 2012b). This is exemplified in the following quote from linguist Lope Blanch:
Es evidente que en cada país hispanohablante existe una norma lingüística ejemplar, paradigmática, a la que los habitantes de cada nación tratan de aproximarse cuando de hablar bien se trata. Suele ella ser la norma culta de la ciudad capital: la madrileña para España, la bogotana para Colombia, la limeña para el Perú, etc. (Lope Blanch, 2001: n.p.)
It is clear that in ever Spanish-speaking country there is a paradigmatic, exemplar linguistic norm that the inhabitants of each nation try to approximate when their trying to speak well. It is usually the educated norm of the capital city: Madrid’s for Spain, Bogota’s for Colombia, Lima’s for Peru, etc. (Our translation)
Here, the description of Spanish as pluricentric goes hand in hand with reproduction of the standard language ideology and the naturalizing of the privileging of the educated elite in the definition of standard varieties.
The notion that each ‘Spanish-speaking country’ has its own standard is consistent with the existence of a language academy in each one, and it seems to suggest equal status for all of them. However, this is not always the case. As we discussed above, the RAE exerts significant influence in shaping the norms of the member academies of the AALE. Moreover, the standard language ideology and the associated belief in linguistic ‘purity’ contribute to ideas about the relative ‘quality’, ‘correctness’ and/or ‘value’ of different national varieties of Spanish. Sometimes, these linguist hierarchies are based on racist understandings about the superiority of language varieties spoken in countries perceived to have populations with less African and Indigenous ancestry (Alfaraz, 2002, 2014; Niño-Murcia, 2001; Valdés et al., 2003). The relative wealth of different nations and the socio-economic status of the speakers can also shape attitudes toward different national varieties (Carter & Callesano, 2018). Linguistic purism also plays a role, such as in the longstanding subordination of Puerto Rican Spanish to the supposedly superior varieties spoken in Spain, as well as in the ANLE’s denigration of words and expressions typically used by Spanish-speakers in the US (Zentella, 1997a, 2017). The ideological intertwining of ethnonational identity, socio-economic status, education and linguistic authority, as well as resistance to linguistic subordination, are evident in the following statement by the elderly matriarch of a family in rural Michigan:
