More Related Content Similar to Bilingualism in Macon, Georgia - A Case Study on the Impact of Spanglish on the Construction of Socio-Linguistic Identity in Bilingual Communities (20) 2. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
13. 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?
30. 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
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.”
35. 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.
36. 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
37. 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.
