Dominika Drobniak

Hispanics as the Speakers of English - the

Perceptibility and Evaluation of the
Language Mistakes Made by Hispanics
Praca licencjacka napisana
!nstytucie "ilologii #ngielskiej
$niersytetu im% #dama Mickieic&a
pod kierunkiem dra 'r&egor&a (rynickiego
Po&na)* +,-,
OWIADCZENIE
Ja, niej podpisany/a
student/ka Wydziau Neofioo!ii
"ni#e$sytetu i%& Ada%a 'i(kie#i(za # )oznaniu
o*#iad(za%,
.e pr&edk/adan0 prac1 dyplomo0
pt%
2mo&na dodac linijke & kropec&ek i dlugi temat pisac dlugopisem albo
skasoac kropec&ki i pisac klaiatura3 &ale&y od Pani gustu4
napisa/em5am samod&ielnie%
6&nac&a to* .e pr&y pisaniu pracy* po&a nie&b1dnymi konsultacjami* nie
kor&ysta/em5am & pomocy innych os7b* a s&c&eg7lno8ci nie &leca/em5am
opracoania ro&pray lub jej istotnych c&18ci innym osobom* ani nie
odpisya/em5am tej ro&pray lub jej istotnych c&18ci od innych os7b%
9ednoc&e8nie pr&yjmuj1 do iadomo8ci* .e gdyby poy.s&e o8iadc&enie
oka&a/o si1 nieprad&ie* decy&ja o ydaniu mi dyplomu &ostanie cofni1ta%
:miejscoo8;* data< :c&ytelny podpis<
+
+a,e of (ontents
+A-.E O/ CON+EN+0&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&1
.I0+ O/ +A-.E0 AND /I2"3E0&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&4
IN+3OD"C+ION&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&5
C6A)+E3 78 .AN2"A2E CON+AC+ AND .IN2"I0+IC 9A3IA+ION&&&&&&&&&&&&&:
-%-% L#='$#'E >6=?#>?%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%@
-%+% A!L!='$#L!SM%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%@
-%B% >6DE-SC!?>H!='%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%D
-%E% L!='$!S?!> A6FF6C!='%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%G
-%H% L!='$!S?!> I#F!#?!6=%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-,
C6A)+E3 ;8 6I0)ANIC0 IN +6E "NI+ED 0+A+E0&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&77
+%-% ?EFM!=6L6'J%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%--
+%+% #= 6$?L!=E H!S?6FJ%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%--
+%B% ?HE >$FFE=? S?#?$S 6" H!SP#=!>S%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-B
+%E% PL#>ES 6" FES!DE=>E%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-H
+%H% H!SP#=!>S #S ?HE SPE#(EFS 6" E='L!SH%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-K
2.5.1. Phonetics and phonology..............................................................................17
2.5.2. Syntax............................................................................................................24
2.5.3. Semantics......................................................................................................26
+%K% S$MM#FJ%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+G
C6A)+E3 18 'E+6ODO.O2<&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&1=
B%-% S$A9E>?S #=D HJP6?HES!S%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%B,
B
B%+% M#?EF!#LS $SED != D#?# >6LLE>?!6=%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%B-
B%B% PF6>ED$FES != D#?# >6LLE>?!6=%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%B-
B%E% D#?# #=#LJS!S%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%B+
C6A)+E3 >8 ANA.<0I0&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&1>
E%-% FES$L?S%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%BE
4.1.1. The recordings...............................................................................................34
4.1.2. The questionnaire..........................................................................................36
E%+% D!S>$SS!6=%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%BD
4.2.1. The recordings...............................................................................................3
4.2.2. The questionnaire..........................................................................................41
CONC."0ION&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&>>
3E/E3ENCE0&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&>5
E
.ist of ta,es and fi!u$es
?able -% Hispanics in the $nited States%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-B
?able +% Hispanic population in particular states%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-K
?able B% ?he most common language mistakes made by Hispanics%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%BH
?able E% ?he correlation beteen >MPC and the scores given by the evaluators%%%%%%%%%B@
?able H% ?he coefficient of mistakes per ord in particular fields of analysis%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%E-
?able K% ?he average scores and the >MPC of particular speakers%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%E+
"igure -% Educational attainment of Hispanics in the $S#%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-E
"igure +% English proficiency of Hispanics in the $S#%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-@
"igure B% Ioel chart of #merican English%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-D
"igure E% Ioel chart of Spanish%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-D
'ap 7& +?e pe$(enta!e of 6ispani(s in pa$ti(ua$ states&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&75
H
Int$odu(tion
?he aim of this paper is to discuss the English language spoken by Hispanics :mainly
those living in the $S#<% #t the beginning* e ill eLplain the most important terms
related to the issue of bilingualism and language mistakes made by non-native speakers
of English% ?he scope of the study is narroed to Hispanic speakers only* so e ill
briefly characteri&e them and focus on the features of Hispanic English ith respect to
phonetics and phonology* syntaL and semantics% ?he study aims at investigating
language mistakes that Hispanics made and measuring the accuracy of evaluation of
their utterances by the native speakers of English% Fecordings of Hispanics speaking
English and an online Muestionnaire ill be the instruments of this research% Ce ill
measure also the correlation beteen HispanicsN actual language mistakes and the
scores :means of evaluation< given by the native speakers of #merican English%
"urthermore* the results of this study ill help investigate hich of the three areas of
evaluation* namely phonetics and phonology* syntaL and semantics* ill have the
strongest influence on the general score :overall impression of a given recording<% ?he
preliminary assumption is that pronunciation mistakes ill be most noticeable to the
evaluators% Moreover* e ill check hether it is possible that the evaluatorNs or
speakerNs characteristics :such as age* gender* state of residence or education< can be
acknoledged as influential on the perception of a given recording% !t is of utmost
importance to emphasi&e that the utterances ill be evaluated ith respect to language
mistakes* not the speakerNs proficiency in English%
K
C?apte$ 78 .an!ua!e (onta(t and in!uisti( @a$iation
7&7& .an!ua!e (onta(t
#ccording to ?homason :+,,-O -<* Planguage contact is the use of more than one
language in the same place at the same timeQ* hoever* the speakers of these languages
do not necessarily have to be fluent bilinguals or multilinguals to interact verbally% ?his
interaction can influence language in several ays* among othersO Pcode-sitching*
code alternation* passive familiarity* RnegotiationN* second-language acMuisition
strategies* bilingual first-language acMuisition* and change by deliberate decisionQ
:?homason +,,-O -+G<% Some of these processes ill be of crucial importance for this
study%
7&;& -iin!uais%
?here are numerous definitions and approaches toards bilingualism depending on
different Pcategories* scales and dichotomiesQ :Fomaine +,,-O --<% #ccording to
Aloomfield :-GDEO HK<* Pnative-like control of to languagesQ is the condition of
bilingualism% Hoever* linguists are not unanimous as far as the proficiency of a
bilingual speaker is concerned% 'rosjean :-GDHO E@--E@+< claims that bilingualism
involves the ability of a speaker of one language to communicate in another in everyday
life% ?he issue of bilingualism can be concluded folloing Fomaine :+,,-O ----+<O
Mackey :-GKDO HHH< concludes that in order to study bilingualism e are forced to
consider it as something entirely relative because the point at hich the speaker of a
second language becomes bilingual is either arbitrary or impossible to determine% He
@
therefore considers bilingualism as simply the alternate use of to or more languages :see
also Ceinreich -GKDO -<% "olloing him* ! have also used the term RbilingualismN to
include multilingualism%
7&1& CodeAs#it(?in!
#ccording to "ranceschini :+,,+O H-<* code-sitching means Pusing several languages
or language varieties in the course of the conversationQ% $sage of this mechanism is a
more or less conscious decision of a speaker% !ntersentential sitching and
intrasentential sitching are the to types of code-sitching% ?he former occurs outside
the sentence boundary and the latter takes place ithin one sentence :?homason +,,-O
-B+<% !n many cases* hoever* it is difficult to distinguish hether an item should be
classified as code-sitching or a borroing% Let us consider the folloing eLampleO
:-< !t as his idea* StT sabesU
R!t as his idea* you knoUN
!n fact* this is a freMuent insertion among Puerto Fican and Dominican bilingual
speakers used in informal speech :Lipski +,,HO @<% Hoever* t! sa"es is problematic* as
it can be treated as either intrasentential code-sitching or a borroing% ?here are many
such ambiguous eLamples in different languages and linguists are divided ith respect
to their approaches to the distinction beteen code-sitching and a borroing% ?his
Muestion is eLplained by PoplackO
?he classification of lone items is at the heart of a fundamental disagreement among >S
researchers over :a< hether the distinction beteen >S and borroing should be
formally recogni&ed in a theory of >S* :b< hether these and other manifestations of
language contact can be unambiguously identified in bilingual discourse* and :c< criteria
for determining hether a given item as sitched or borroed :+,,-O +,KB<%
Evidently* the ambiguity of insertions like t! sa"es depends on the approach of a
particular linguist* as differentiation beteen a borroing and a single-ord sitch is
Pconceptually easy but methodologically difficultQ :Poplack +,,-O +,KB<% Poplack
:+,,EO HGE< also mentions the relation beteen code-sitching and the bilingual
proficiency V the higher the proficiency the more freMuent use of code-sitches% "or the
purposes of this study* it has to be emphasi&ed that code-sitching and borroing are
D
not regarded as language mistakes% ?hey ill be mentioned in the analysis* as they
might have an influence on the respondentsN perception of the speakersN proficiency* but
they ill not be counted as mistakes%
#part from code-sitching* bilingual speakers* especially immigrants* use code
alternation% !t also involves the use of at least to languages* hoever* hat
distinguishes it from code-sitching is that code alternation cannot be found ithin the
same utterance or conversation% >ode alternation concerns bilinguals ho Puse one of
their languages in one set of environments and the other language in a completely
different set of environmentsQ :?homason +,,-O -BK<* e%g% Spanish at home and English
at school% Chile code-sitching may be applicable in this study* code alternation is not
because recordings present single person in a single situation%
7&>& .in!uisti( ,o$$o#in!
#ccording to Haugen :-GH,O +-+<* a borroing is Pthe attempted reproduction in one
language of patterns previously found in anotherQ% #s a factor that contributes to the
eListence of borroings* "ield :+,,+O H< gives freMuency% ?he more freMuent an item in
the source language* the more likely it is to be borroed% 6ther reasons include the need
of reference to a ne object or concept and prestige of a donor language :McMahon
-GGEO +,--+,+<% ?here are several types of borroings :Haugen -GH,< and e ill
describe the ones that are most important for this study% ?he most common is a direct
loan here both form and meaning are borroed* e%g% Spanish sand#ich or $!t"ol%
#nother type of borroing is (aBue* hich incorporates a oan t$ansation and a
se%anti( oan% ?he first involves ord-by-ord translation of a foreign eLpression into
the native language* e%g Spanish rascacielos RskyscraperN% ?he latter pertains to the
eLtension of meaning of a native ord so that it accommodates the meaning from a
borroing language* e%g% Spanish rat%n RmouseN :the original meaning as eLtended to
a Rcomputer mouseN under the influence of English language<%
G
7&4& .in!uisti( @a$iation
?he concept of linguistic variation is inseparably related to dialects including the ethnic
ones% Hispanic #merican English :H#E< has become a dialect hich* according to Ellis
:-GGGO -E@<* Pis variation in grammar and vocabulary in addition to sound variationsQ%
Hoever* it should be emphasi&ed that there are many sociolinguistic factors that
determine oneNs speech* e%g% Pthe speakerNs purpose in communication* the relationship
beteen speaker and hearer* the production circumstances and various demographic
affiliations that a speaker can haveQ :Feppen et al% +,,+O I!!<% !n case of H#E* the
most important factors contributing to the emergence of this dialect as the origin of its
speakers% "or the purpose of this study* e ill focus on three of the variations* namely
phonological* syntactic and semantic%
Phonological variation* also referred to as accent* Pcan signal important
information about aspects of speakersN social identity V about such things as class* age*
ethnicity and genderQ :Eckert -GDDO KE<% !n fact* the most prominent and distinctive
features of H#E are the phonological ones :(Wvecses +,,,O G-<% Hoever* syntactic
dissimilarities beteen H#E and Standard #merican English :S#E< together ith
differences in leLicon allo to treat them as different dialects% "inally* leLical and
morphological variations are also common among Hispanics and although they may
have their roots in contact ith #frican #merican English :Colfram and Schilling-Estes
-GGDO -D+<* they have become a distinctive feature of H#E as ell%
?o conclude* as has been mentioned before* the most important mechanisms for
this study include language contact* code-sitching* code-alternation and borroing%
?he notion of linguistic variations* divided into phonological* syntactic and leLical ones*
ith respect to H#E ill be eLplained later in this paper%
-,
C?apte$ ;8 6ispani(s in t?e "nited 0tates
;&7& +e$%inoo!y
# dictionary definition for &ispanic readsO Psomeone ho comes from a country here
Spanish or Portuguese are spoken* especially ones in Latin #mericaQ :Mayor +,,GO DB-<
hereas* 'atino is Pa man in the $S hose family comes from Latin #mericaQ :Mayor
+,,GO GDB<% Even though* as Fyskamp :-GG@O +< notes* the definition of &ispanic makes
eMual all the Hispanic people living in Europe* Latin #merica and the $nited States* as
yet* there is no better terminology for such a distinction than calling these people by
their nationalities% =otithstanding* in this paper* e ill follo the terminology
proposed by federal government of the $nited States described in P?he #merican
>ommunity V Hispanic +,,EQ reportO
P?he federal government defines Hispanic or Latino as a person of MeLican* Puerto
Fican* >uban* South or >entral #merican* or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of
race% ?hus* Hispanics may be any race% ?he terms &ispanic and 'atino are used by the
$%S% >ensus Aureau3 hereinafter in this report* the term &ispanic is used to refer to all
individuals ho reported they ere Hispanic or Latino%Q
;&;& An outine ?isto$y
?he presence of Hispanics in the territories of present day $nited States of #merica can
be divided into three stages* namely* the Spanish era* the MeLican era and the $nited
States era%
--
?he first Spanish eLplorers came to #merica at the beginning of the siLteenth
century and in -HKH founded the first city on this continent* St% #ugustine* "lorida% ?he
desire for eLploration of ne lands and establishment of =e Spain led Spaniards
through the Southest of the continent triggering the creation of numerous cities* e%g%
Santa "e* long before the settlement of Aritish pilgrims :Ceaver -GGEO EB-EE<% #t the
same time Spain focused on eLpansion in MeLico* Peru and the Philippines% Southern
states* including #ri&ona* =e MeLico and >alifornia ere coloni&ed by the end of the
eighteenth century :Ceaver -GGEO EE<% ?o islands* that are native lands of many
Latinos living in $nited States today* namely >uba and Puerto Fico* ere under the rule
of Spain for almost E,, years% During that time* Spanish culture permeated into many
aspects of lifeO PSpanish language* the >atholic religion* a plantation* a monocrop
economy* Spanish social structure and other institutionsQ :Ceaver -GGEO EH<%
?he situation of the empire of Spain begun to orsen hen in -D+- MeLico
gained independence% !t as synonymous ith the end of European rule in >alifornia
and the immigration of #merican settlers to this territory% #dditionally* in the -DB,s
MeLican government alloed #mericans to live in ?eLas and get citi&enship* and they
soon managed to outnumber the ?ejanos :Ceaver -GGEO EH<% ?he so-called MeLican era
as relatively short and ended hen the ar of -DEK broke out* resulting in the
#merican invasion and MeLico >ity being taken over in -DE@%
#s a result of the MeLican-#merican Car* the ?reaty of 'uadelupe-Hidalgo in
-DED and the 'adsden ?reaty in -DHB* the vast territories once under the rule of Spain
and MeLico ere partially given and partially sold to the $nited States% ?he ne
#merican lands ere Peventually divided into the present states of >alifornia* #ri&ona*
=e MeLico* >olorado* (ansas* 6klahoma* =evada* $tah and CyomingQ :Ceaver
-GGEO EH<% ?he majority of Hispanics chose to stay and become #merican citi&ens* as
the government of the $nited Stated promised them full rights to their lands% Hoever*
these promises ere never fulfilled and as Ceaver :-GGEO EK< rites in his paperO
PHispanic population became a maligned minority* objects of discrimination* land
confiscation and a people ith second-class citi&enship% ?he migration of MeLicans for
the remainder of the nineteenth century as modest* but it became increasingly larger
during the tentieth century% !t has alays been tied to the periodic economic needs of
MeLican orkers in MeLico and opportunities in the $nited StatesQ%
-+
?he situation of >alifornios :Spanish-speaking residents of >alifornia< got even orse
during the >alifornia 'old Fush :-DED--DHH<% #t the beginning* MeLican and Sonoran
miners revolutioni&ed mining techniMues* hich soon brought great benefits to the
>alifornian and #ri&onian gold fields :Mendo&a and ?orres -GGEO @E<% ?hey ere trying
to maintain Hispanic traditions and social life* hoever they soon became overhelmed
by large numbers of settlers ho ere moving from one place to another in chase of
gold% Some #merican miners* unable to communicate ith Spanish-speakers* tried to
assimilate them* simultaneously provoking acts of violence :Hill -GGGO -<% Hoever*
despite discrimination* civil rightsN violation and language barriers Hispanics managed
to maintain their culture and traditions%
;&1& +?e (u$$ent status of 6ispani(s
#ccording to the data of the $%S% >ensus Aureau P+,,D #merican >ommunity SurveyQ*
there are almost EK%G million people in the $S# ho declared to be Hispanic* hich
constitutes over -H%EX of this countryNs population% 6ver KH%HX of these people are
MeLican% Significantly smaller percentage of Hispanics constitute Puerto Ficans*
>ubans* Dominicans and people from South #merica% Aelo* there is a simplified table
presenting the demographics of Hispanics from different countries%
?able -% Hispanics in the $nited States
6rigin Estimate Percentage of the
$S population
Hispanic EK*DG-*EHK -H%E
MeLican B,*@BD*HHG -,%-
Puerto Fican E*+-K*HBB -%E
>uban -*K-@*,-, ,%H
Dominican :Dominican Fepublic< -*B+@*KDH ,%E
>entral #merican B*DKG*E+K -%B
South #merican +*@B+*E,+ ,%G
6ther Hispanic +*BDG*DE- ,%D
?he biggest rise in the population of Hispanics in the $nited States as noted in the
-GG,s* hoever it is still groing% #ccording to the neest predictions* the Hispanic
population ill be increasing to reach -,+%K million in +,H, :Aergman +,,E<%
-B
#ccording to P>urrent Population Survey +,,KQ* median age of Hispanic $S
inhabitants as +@%- among men and +@%@ among omen% ?hese numbers are Muite lo
in comparison ith an average age of the total of residents of the $nited States* hich is
almost G years older% ?his is mainly because among Hispanic immigrants there are many
young people ho move to the $S# ith the ill to improve their lives and start their
families there% !n +,,E* about - in B Hispanics as under -D* hen compared ith - in
H among non-Hispanic hites% Chat is also related to the above age statistics is the
household si&e% Hispanics live in bigger families than people of other origins in the
$nited States% 6ver +,X of Hispanic households comprise of four members and as
much as ++%HX of five people and more :P>urrent Population Survey +,,KQ<%
?he statistics concerning educational attainment of Hispanics sho that for some
reasons :probably mainly economic< they are less likely to get a A#5M# degree or even
graduate from high school% #s it is presented in the graph belo* almost half of
Hispanics in the $S# get a high school degree* hoever almost +HX have less than Gth
grade :P>urrent Population Survey +,,KQ<%
"igure -% Educational attainment of Hispanics in the $S#
Hispanics* like many ethnic minorities* have smaller incomes* partly because of
their loer educational attainment% #ccording to P>urrent Population Survey +,,KQ*
most of male Hispanics ork in construction and maintenance* production and
-E
transportation or services% Comen mostly occupy jobs in sales and services% #n average
earnings of a full-time year-round Hispanic orker in +,,H ere Y+H*EG-* hile the
total median income as over Y--*,,, higher% Hoever* even more alarming are the
statistics concerning the number of Hispanics living belo the poverty line* namely
about ++X* hich is GX more than a total for the $S#% ?he same study :P>urrent
Population Survey +,,KQ< shos that almost - in B Hispanic children lives belo the
poverty line%
Iery often* their social status in the $nited States is* therefore* determined by
their economic status% Hispanics live in bigger families* earn less and children are
forced to start orking instead of going to college or university% !t has its effects in lo
level of educational attainment and the fact that only -@%@X of Hispanics ork as
professionals* compared ith tice as much of all the inhabitants of the $nited States%
;&>& )a(es of $esiden(e
?he latest immigration of Hispanic population to the $nited States began in the -G@,s%
?hey started to settle in the Southern States :mainly >alifornia and ?eLas< and in =e
Jork :Ceaver -GGEO -@<% ?hese trends seemed to continue through the neLt decades up
to no* hoever* as can been seen in the Map - belo* Hispanics managed to populate
also >entral and Cestern States% #ccording to the data of the $%S% >ensus Aureau
PPopulation Estimates +,,DQ placed in the ?able + belo* in +,,D* the biggest Latino
population could be found in >alifornia* namely almost -B%H million of Hispanics% !t
means that every third inhabitant of >alifornia has Hispanic origins% ?he second state
densely populated by Latinos as ?eLas* the territory hich is inhabited by over D%D
million of Hispanics% 6ther huge populations of Hispanics could be found in "lorida
and =e Jork%
#s the Map - presents* there are four states hose percentage of Hispanic
population constitutes over B,X of their overall population* namely >alifornia* #ri&ona*
=e MeLico and ?eLas% =e MeLico is the state of the highest percentage of Hispanics
V EE%GX% Aesides* Latinos constitute a significant part of the population of =evada*
>olorado* "lorida* =e Jork* =e 9ersey and !llinois%
-H
?able +% Hispanic population in particular states
State Estimate Percentage of the
state population
$nited States EK*GEB*K-B -H%E
>alifornia -B*EH@*BG@ BK%K
?eLas D*D@,*E@H BK%H
"lorida B*DEH*,KG +-%,
=e Jork B*+H,*,BD -K%@
!llinois -*GK@*-+- -H%+
#ri&ona -*GHH*KB, B,%-
=e 9ersey -*E-D*HEH -K%B
;&4& 6ispani(s as t?e speake$s of En!is?
#s the statistics indicate :P+,,K #merican >ommunity SurveyQ<* over K,X of Hispanics
living in the $nited States speak English Pvery ellQ and almost -HX PellQ% Corse
-K
Map -% ?he percentage of Hispanics in particular states
abilities of speaking English present -HX :Pnot ellQ< and over GX of Hispanics is
claimed not to speak any English%
Due to the fact that MeLicans constitute the biggest percentage of all the $S
residents ith Hispanic background* the most popular and homogeneous Hispanic
#merican English variety is >hicano English :(Wvecses +,,,O G-<% Aeside this* for the
purposes of this study* e ould also touch upon the Muestion of the characteristics of
English spoken by non-native speakers ith Hispanic roots% ?he sections belo divide
these features on phonetics and phonology* syntaL and semantics hich are
simultaneously the fields of the research described in the folloing chapters%
;&4&7& )?oneti(s and p?onoo!y
?he most distinctive features of >hicano English :>E< and probably the English of non-
native speakers ith Hispanic origins :H==E< are in the field of phonetics and
phonology% ?he deviations occur in the reali&ations of particular sounds* stress patterns
and intonation* hoever* it must be emphasi&ed that very often the differences are
arbitrary and depend on an individual speaker :"ought +,,BO K+<% ?aking into
consideration the fact that the majority of the characteristics of >E are found also in
-@
"igure +% English proficiency of Hispanics in the $S#
H==E hich plays a more important role in this study* e ill focus particularly on
this variety%
"igure B% Ioel chart of #merican English
?he first type of differences beteen H==E and Standard #merican English
:S#E< are the reali&ations of voels% #s (Wvecses :+,,,O G+< ritesO PS#E has eleven
stressed voel phonemesO 5i5* 55* 5e5* 55* 55* 5u5* 55* 5o5* 55* 55* 55 :"igure B<* hereas
Spanish only five 5i5* 5e5* 5u5* 5o5* 5a5 :"igure E<%
-D
"igure E% Ioel chart of Spanish
Such differences in voel charts of these to languages cause the substitution of
a fe English sounds by one Spanish sound that seems to be the closest :(Wvecses
+,,,O G+<% Aesides* the Spanish voel system does not include some features that are
basic to the #merican one* such as the distinction beteen laL and tense or long and
short voels :Santa #na and Aayley +,,EO E-D<% Chat is more* Spanish phonology
lacks Pa set of r-colored allophones of long voelsQ :+,,EO E-D<% #s a result of these
differences* the speakers of >E and H==E may not distinguish beteenO
/i/ and // - Many of the speakers of >E substitute 55 for 5i5 in Ving morpheme* as in
the eLample :+<* but they use 55 correctly in other conteLts :"ought +,,BO D-<% #s
opposed to them* the users of H==E ho do not have a voel 55 in Spanish*
encounter serious problems ith this distinction* Pproducing a majority of
phonological 55 tokens as 5i5Q :"ought +,,BO D-<% #s it is shon in :B<* the lack of
differentiation beteen these to phonemes leads to pronouncing distinct ords
ith the same voel 5i5 :(Wvecses +,,,O GB<%
:+< mo(ing S#EO 5muv5 >EO 5muvi5
:B< sit S#EO 5st5 H==EO 5sit5
seat S#EO 5sit5 H==EO 5sit5
/C/ and /e/ - ?his distinction seems not to be problematic for the users of >E*
hoever* the speakers of H==E Puse 5Z5 and 5e5 interchangeably for phonemic 5Z5P
:"ought +,,BO D+<* as can be seen in :E<%
:E< hand S#EO 5hnd5 H==EO 5hend5
ha"it S#EO 5hbt5 H==EO 5hbt5 :"ought +,,BO D+<
-G
// and // - "ought :+,,BO D+< notices that* once again* the speakers H==E
encounter some difficulties ith distinguishing beteen these to voels*
inserting 55 in the place of 55* hereas* in >E these to are different phonemes :H<%
Hoever* this substitution is arbitrary and the same speakers insert 55 in the right
places* as in the eLample :K< :+,,BO DB<% "inally* Pthe reverse substitution as also
sometimes found3 some tokens of 55 are reali&ed as 55Q :@< :+,,BO DB<%
:H< alone S#EO 5lon5 H==EO 5lon5
:K< some H==EO 5sm5
:@< calm S#EO 5cm5 H==EO 5cm5
dip?t?on! and /e/ - 6ccasionally* the speakers of Hispanic-English varieties
:including >E< and H==E use 5e5 instead of a diphthong* as in the eLample belo
:Colfram and Schilling-Estes -GGDO --E<%
:D< la)e S#EO 5leik5 H==EO 5lek5
?he second set of differences beteen H==E and S#E that ill be described
includes various reali&ations of consonants% #lthough the inventories of consonants in
English and Spanish are not as distinct as in the case of voels* the speakers of H==E
encounter problems ith the distinction beteen the folloing consonantsO
stops /t/ /d/ and inte$denta f$i(ati@es // /D/ - "reMuently* the speakers of H==E
insert apico-dental stops :[t t ] [dt ]< in the place of interdental fricatives :55 55<* as in
:G< :"ought +,,BO K@<% 6bviously* Hispanics are not the only non-native speakers of
English ho use this substitution* since it is very common among people of other
nationalities :+,,BO KD<% !t is also a feature hich occurs in >E* but only ord-
initially :(Wvecses +,,,O G+<%
:G< something S#EO 5sm5 H==EO 5smt t in5
then S#EO 5en5 H==EO 5dt en5 :"ought +,,BO KD<
+,
/t/ and // - ?his substitution is reciprocal* meaning that the speakers of H==E
substitute 5t5 for 55 and the other ay round :-,<% #s far as the >E is concerned*
"ought :+,,BO D+< indicates that Pall the native >hicano English speakers in my
sample has a clear contrast beteen 5t5 for 55Q% Hoever* she noticed this feature in
the speech of the older generation of >E speakers% (Wvecses :+,,,O G+< observes
that it can be hypercorrection hat causes the process of inserting 55 in ords like
chic)en* since Spanish does not have this sound%
:-,< shop S#EO 5!5 H==EO 5t!5
chie$ S#EO 5ti"5 H==EO 5i"5
/v/ and /b/ - !n the speech of >E and H==E a bilabial stop 5b5 may be a substitute
for a labio-dental fricative 5v5 sound :--< :(Wvecses +,,,O G+<% ?his may result from
the fact that in Spanish PvQ letter is pronounced as a bilabial plosive 5b5* as it is
shon in the eLample :-+<%
:--< (isit S#EO 5v#t5 H==EO 5bi#it5
:-+< (oy R! goN SpanishO 5boi5
!otta f$i(ati@e /?/ and @ea$ f$i(ati@e /E/ - ?his process occurs eLclusively in
H==E and it consists in the substitution of 5$5 :a velar fricative sound that appears
in Spanish< for 5h5* as in the eLample :-B< belo :"ought +,,BO DB<%
:-B< hand S#EO 5hnd5 H==EO 5$nd5
#part from various substitutions of voels and consonants* the speakers of >E
and H==E involve into their pronunciation different kind of processes* includingO
(onsonant (uste$ $edu(tion V !n fact* this process occurs in many #merican
dialects* hoever* it is significantly more freMuent among the speakers of >E and
H==E* especially in case of 5t5 or 5d5 deletion :-E< :"ought +,,BO KD< and besides*
Hispanics tend to Preduce clusters to a greater eLtent than many other dialectsQ
:Santa #na and Aayley +,,EO E+H<% "urthermore* there is a process called l-
+-
vocali&ation* hich involves the deletion of 5l5 sound* hen it occurs in a consonant
cluster :-H< :+,,EO E+H<% !t may even happen* very rarely hoever* that a speaker
omits an entire cluster :-K< :"ought +,,BO KG<% (Wvecses :+,,,O G+< noted also that
sometimes Pan entire suffiL may be deleted* as is the case ith the past time
morpheme 5d5Q and Pthe third person suffiL 5s5 may also be left outQ :-@<%
:-E< rest S#EO 5%est5 H==EO 5%es5
:-H< cold S#EO 5kold5 H==EO 5kod5
:-K< hard#are S#EO 5h%d&'5 H==EO 5h&'5 :"ought +,,BO KD<
:-@< sa(ed S#EO 5sevd5 H==EO 5sev5
oss of fina a@eoa$ posi@es V ?his process concerns the production of consonants
hich occur ord-finally and are not a part of a consonant cluster :"ought +,,BO
KG<% $sually* it involves plosives hich are unreleased in S#E in ords such asO
:-D< stop S#EO [st!(\ H==EO [st\
met S#EO [met(\ H==EO [me\
no faps V Even though the Spanish consonant inventory includes the flap sound 5)5*
the speakers of H==E often do not use it in English% ?hat is because in Spanish the
letter pronounced as 5)5 is PrQ* as in the eLample :-G<* hereas in #merican English
the reali&ation of 5t5 and 5d5 as an alveolar flap is very common :'iegerich -GG+O
++K<% !n effect* as "ought :+,,BO DB< observes* H==E speakers Pfollo this rule
only variably and sometimes do not have a flapQ* as in the folloing eLample :+,<%
:-G< caro ReLpensiveN SpanishO 5ka)o5
:+,< personality S#EO 5!'snl)i5 H==EO 5!'snlti5 :"ought +,,BO DB<
epent?eti( F - #s "ought indicates :+,,BO DB-DE<* Pthis is a stereotypical feature of
non-native English speakers hose first language is SpanishQ and it involves Pthe
insertion of epenthetic 55 before a consonant cluster beginning ith 5s5Q :+-<% ?he
reason for such a process is that in Spanish consonantal blends starting ith 5s5 does
++
not occur ord-initially* so in H==E 55 sound precedes the cluster :Helman +,,EO
GE<%
:+-< spea) H==EO 5s!ik5
fina de@oi(in! V ?his feature seems to be related eLclusively to H==E* hoever
"ought :+,,BO DE< points out that it is also noticeable among the older generation of
>E speakers% "inal devoicing in H==E can occur ith respect to any voiced
consonant* yet the devoicing of 5d5 and 5#5 is most freMuent :++<%
:++< head S#EO 5hd5 H==EO 5ht5
please S#EO 5!li#5 H==EO 5!lis5
$ridge S#EO 5"%d*5 H==EO 5"%t5
?he last issue concerning phonology that ill be touched upon is prosody%
#lthough this Muestion is one of the most distinct features of >E and H==E* it is not
ell-developed yet :"ought +,,BO @,<% Due to the fact that some speakers use Spanish
and English patterns interchangeably* prosody becomes a very PelusiveQ feature :Santa
#na and Aayley +,,EO E+K<% "or the needs of this study* e ill focus on stress patterns*
as they are of primary importance ith respect to H==E%
Cord stress shift patterns are very freMuent among the speakers of H==E and a
clear influence of Spanish can be noticed in this aspect% !n ords given in :+B<* the
stress is placed on the penultimate syllable* since Spanish is a penultimate-stress
language :"ought +,,BO DH<% Hoever* ords ending ith a RdN letter are stressed on the
last syllable* due to the rule transfer from Spanish :+E< :+,,BO DH<%
:+B< ]techniMue
]sho up
:+E< terri]fied
rea]li&ed
+B
Sentence stress in H==E is also affected by Spanish and very often it is shifted
to the penultimate ord or syllable :"ought +,,BO DH<% !t has to be emphasi&ed that the
eLamples in :+H< are not ^^^^^^^^^^^%
:+H< >hildren are that ay%
_ but it ainNt alright for me to talk to my homegirlsU :"ought +,,BO DH<
!n this section* the most significant phonological variations of >E and* more
importantly* of H==E have been described% ?he eLamples above seem to be noteorthy
effects of language contact and bilingualism* hoever* some of the aspects still need to
be eLamined more thoroughly :e%g% the issue of prosody<%
;&4&;& 0yntaE
SyntaL is the neLt* after phonetic and phonology* field of descriptive grammar full of
discrepancies hen >E and H==E are concerned% !n this section* e ill describe the
main syntactic features of these to varieties of English ith a special emphasis put on
these that are crucial for this study%
1$d pe$son sin!ua$ fo$%s V Spanish is a language full of irregularities of forms*
mainly ith respect to verbs* and compared to English it seems to have much more
complicated morphological patterns% Hoever* inconsistency in using Brd person
singular forms and the lack of the distinction beteen #as*#ere are very freMuent
among Hispanics speaking English :"ought +,,BO GE<% #s can be seen in :+K<* the
speakers of >E and H==E use plural forms of verbs in place of singular ones%
:+K< He don+t ant me to end up like my sister%
[!f\ somebody else just come and ta)e your life* you kno%
Everybody kne the >oboys #as gonna in again% :+,,BO GE<
past tense fo$%s V >E and H==E speakers face some problems ith matching an
adeMuate form of a verb to the tense they are using% #s a result* very freMuently* they
+E
create Present5Past Perfect by combining a verb in the past tense form ith an
auLiliary verb* as in :+@<% ?hey also ignore some irregularities of verbs and attach V
ed ending to infinitives of verbs hich are not regular :+D< :"ought +,,BO GE<%
:+@< ! havenNt #rote in a long time%
:_< ! had came out the hospital before ! got shot% :+,,BO GE<
:+D< ?hose ere the um- most people that ! hanged around ith% :+,,BO GE<
p$onoun fo$%s V ?his is the neLt grammar issue hich concerns regulari&ation and
proves to be problematic for the speakers of H==E and >E% "ought :+,,BO GE-GH<
observes that Hispanics freMuently use Pnon-standard refleLive formsQ consisting of
a possessive determiner and a suffiL -self5-selves :+G<%
:+G< [?hey\ have to start supporting theirsel(es at early ages%
:_< heNs a guy* he could take care of hissel$%
dou,e ne!ation V ?he origin of this feature is unclear* hoever it may have its
roots in Spanish% Designated by "ought :+,,BO G@< as Pnegative concordQ* it
involves the usage of to negatives ithin one sentence :(Wvecses +,,,O GB<*
therefore* creating a structure hich is grammatically incorrect in English* but fully
acceptable in Spanish :B,<%
:B,< ! don+t have no car%
,o tengo ning!n coche%
e%,edded Buestions V ?he structure of embedded Muestions in English does not
involve the inversion of a subject-auLiliary% Hoever* Pin embedded h- Muestions
in Spanish* the subject and verb or auLiliary ould normally be invertedQ :"ought
+,,BO GD< :B-<% ?his difference in sentence structure is supposedly the reason hy
the speakers of >E and H==E use inversion in embedded Muestions* as can be seen
in the eLample :B+<%
:B-< He told us #hat it #as%
+H
Les dijo qu- era esto%
CH#? C#S !?%
:B+< He told us #hat #as it%
%oda would V "ought :+,,BO GG< observes that Hispanics use #ould differently in
if- clauses than the speakers of S#E% ?hey insert #ould ha(e in the clause folloing
i$* as in :BB<* hereas in S#E it is typical to construct this clause using pluperfect
tense% !n Spanish* this form of a verb is alloed to follo si :the eMuivalent of i$<
:BE<% ?herefore* it is supposed that the occurrence of this feature among the speakers
of >E and H==E may have its sources in Spanish%
:BB< !f ?hurman ?homas #ouldn+t ha(e dropped those fumbles* then the Aills ould
have on%
:BE< Si ?hurman ?homas no hu"iera perdido la pelota* los Aills hu"ieran 'anado%
C6$LD=N? H#IE C6$LD H#IE
"ought :+,,BO GG<
p$epositions V ?he use of prepositions by the speakers of >E and H==E is deeply
influenced by Spanish and as a result* this feature can be noticed more often among
non-native speakers of English% ?hey substitute a proper preposition ith the literal
translation of the Spanish one% !n this ay* they insert on in the place of in* because
of Spanish en* hich means both in and on :BH< :"ought +,,BO -,,--,-<% Similarly*
$or is used in the meaning of so that and it is probably derived from Spanish para
que* hose literal translation ould be $or that :BK< :+,,BO -,-<% ?his
characteristics* hoever* may vary among the speakers of H==E and depend on
their proficiency of English%
:BH< CeNre really supposed to get out of here on 9une%
:BK< .or my mum can understand% .or she onNt feel guilty% :"ought +,,BO -,,<
!n this section* the most important syntactic variations ere presented% "or the
purposes of this study* e discussed only those hich are probably tied to Spanish* as
ell as those most freMuent among the speakers of H==E%
+K
;&4&1& 0e%anti(s
!n this section* e ill describe leLical features of >E and H==E ith a special
emphasis put on these that can be related to Spanish language%
tell V !n the speech of >E and H==E tell is often used as as)% #s "ought :+,,BO
-,H< eLplains* this can come from an ambiguous use of Spanish decir :meaning
say*tell< in embedded Muestions% ?he speakers of H==E hen translating them* may
insert tell for as)* as in :B@<% !t results from the fact that in Spanish it is correct to
use decir in embedded Muestions instead of preguntar :meaning as)< :BD<% "ought
:+,,BO -,H< supposes that this process could originate in embedded Muestions in
English and then* eLtend to other constructions%
:B@< !f ! tell her to jump up* sheNll tell me ho high%
She as telling my aunt to tell them* you kno* hat* ! mean* hatNs the reasonU
"ought :+,,BO -,E<
:BD< ! asked him if he anted a car%
Le di/e Mue si Muer`a el coche%
:!< ?6LD
barely V ?he speakers of >E and H==E use "arely not only in its primary meaning
being that something Phappens immediately after a previous actionQ :Mayor +,,GO
--D<* but also as an eMuivalent to recently :BG<% #lthough* as "ought :+,,BO -,K<
observes* this usage is also freMuent among the speakers of other non-standard
dialects of English* some Spanish impact can also be noticed% ?he Spanish
eMuivalent ord to "arely* namely apenas* has to primary meanings% ?he first
overlaps ith the English one given above* hereas the second denotes Pthat
something happened recentlyQ :"ought +,,BO -,K<% !n this ay* there are to
theories of the origins of such an eLtension of meaning V either it as adopted from
other English dialects or it stems from the Spanish meaning of apenas%
:BG< ?hese [treadmills\ ere eLpensive hen they "arely came out%
:"ought +,,BO -,K<
+@
brothers V ?he discrepancy beteen the standard meaning denoted by the plural of
"rother and the meaning in hich it is used by Hispanics results from interference
ith Spanish% ?he speakers of >E and H==E use "rothers hen they talk about the
siblings regardless of gender :E,<% #ccording to "ought :+,,BO -,K<* this usage is
influenced by a Spanish masculine plural noun hermanos* used for males or for a
group of males and females :to refer to females alone they use a feminine form
hermanas<% ?aking into consideration the gender* hermanos is an eMuivalent to
English "rothers* hoever semantically* it has a broader meaning eLtended to both
seLes%
:E,< ?o my "rothers ! usually talk in English%
:the speaker has four sisters and one brother< "ought :+,,BO -,K<
borrow/lend V ?he differentiation beteen these to ords causes problems for
many non-native users of English* not only Hispanics* because "orro# and lend are
marked by the person the action is directed to% Spanish* like many other languages*
lacks this distinction* so that the speakers of >E and H==E use "orro# in the place
of lend :E-< :(Wvecses +,,,O GB<%
:E-< >an you "orro# me you bikeU
dis(ou$se %a$ke$ ey V ?his discourse marker is surely borroed from Spanish* and
it can be compared to English yeah% "ought :+,,BO -,K--,@< claims that ey should
not be perceived as code-sitching* since the speakers ho use it does not involve
any other sitches in their speech%
:E+< !f a girlNs pretty you kno and she feels the same for me* ey* ! got it right there%
"ought :+,,BO -,K<
?he majority of eLamples of semantic variation given above originate or are
borroed from Spanish% Hoever* as has been mentioned earlier in this chapter* for the
purposes of this study e focus our attention on H==E hich is deeply influenced by
+D
Spanish% 6n the other hand* >hicano English also involves the usage of ords discussed
above* but it cannot be accused of being a dialect created only on the basis of the
mistakes made by Hispanics :"ought +,,BO -,G<%
;&5& 0u%%a$y
!n this chapter* e characteri&ed Hispanics living in the $nited States as an ethnic group
hich has its history and culture% Ce presented their current status in the $S# ith a
special emphasis on their origins and places of residence% $ltimately* the main focus of
this chapter as to describe the varieties of English used by >hicanos and* more
importantly for this study* the variety used by all Hispanic non-native speakers of
English% ?his as done ith respect to phonetics and phonology* syntaL and semantics%
Ce tried to find eLplanations and influences of Spanish on all these processes and
deviations% !t has to be emphasised* hoever* that language change and variation cannot
be easily measured and eLplained* especially ith respect to varieties other than >E
:(Wvecses +,,,O G-<% "or this reason* the above eLamples cannot be undeniably
interpreted by an impact of Spanish* even if for the majority of them* this eLplanation
seems to be accurate and justified%
+G
C?apte$ 18 'et?odoo!y
1&7& 0u,je(ts and ?ypot?esis
!n this chapter* e ill describe the Muestionnaire and its respondents as ell as the
process of data collection%
?he primary aim of the study as measuring the accuracy achieved by native
speakers of #merican English of the evaluation of language mistakes made by
Hispanics% ?his as done ith respect to phonetics and phonology* syntaL* and
semantics* as these areas cover the most freMuent variations in H==E% ?he assumption
behind such a division as that the most noticeable feature of speech ould be
phonetics and phonology% "or this reason* it as presumed that numerous mistakes in
this area ill correlate closely to a loer general score for a given recording% Aesides*
e investigated the influence of the characteristics of the Hispanic speakers and the
#merican respondents on their assessment%
#mong the secondary aims of this study as the analysis of chosen recordings
of Hispanics speaking English also ith respect to phonetics and phonology* syntaL* and
semantics% Ce also looked for the most common mistakes and investigated in hich of
the fields of analysis Hispanics made most mistakes% $ltimately* the speakersN
characteristics :gender* origin* time spent in the $S# and the state of residence< ere
taken into account in order to measure hether they influence the amount of mistakes%
B,
1&;& 'ate$ias used in data (oe(tion
?he data for this study ere compiled ith the use of a Muestionnaire% "irst* ten eLcerpts
from intervies ith famous Hispanics speaking English ere collected ith the use of
Jou?ube :httpO55%youtube%com<% ?hey became the core part of the Muestionnaire
and the subject of evaluation% Each recording as not longer than one minute in length
and contained from to to four sentences% ?he identity of the speakers in the recordings
as not revealed until the end of the Muestionnaire* so that personal likings ould not
have any influence on the evaluation% !t is* hoever* possible that some of the voices
ere recogni&ed anyay% Chat is more* the proficiency of English of the speakers as
varied as ell as the time they spent in the $S#% ?he Muestionnaire as available online
for the native speakers of #merican English ho ere the target group of this study%
Each recording as to be listened to only once and evaluated ith respect to
pronunciation* sentence structure and vocabulary ith the use of ---, scale :here - is
eLtremely bad and -, is eLcellent<% ?he respondents gave also a general score and could
leave some additional comments to each sample% ?hey ere told to pay special attention
to language mistakes* not the variety of vocabulary or grammatical structures% #t the
beginning of the Muestionnaire* they provided basic personal data* namely gender* age*
state of residence and completed education% !t as assumed that some of this
information might enable some additional divisions among the respondents% ?he overall
number of respondents as DB%
1&1& )$o(edu$es in data (oe(tion
?he first stage in data collection as the compilation ten recordings of Hispanics
speaking English% During the selection process special attention as paid to the variety
of speakersN proficiency in English and the spontaneity of production% ?he latter as of
eLceptional importance since the point as analy&ing and evaluating unprepared*
natural speech as a determinant of a speakerNs proficiency in English%
?hen* the recordings ere compiled in an online Muestionnaire addressed to
native speakers of #merican English% ?he respondents ere not selected* hoever* the
majority of them ere linguists or people interested in linguistics% ?his as due to the
B-
fact that the Muestionnaire as distributed also via the Linguist List :httpO55%
linguistlist%org<% ?his group may comprise of about @BX of all the respondents%
1&>& Data anaysis
#t the outset* all the recordings ere transcribed and analy&ed ith respect to semantic
and syntactic mistakes% SubseMuently* ith the use of '#?E as an annotation tool* all
the phonetic and phonological mistakes ere found and marked% Summed up amounts
of language mistakes ere compiled in a table and the coefficients of mistakes per ord
:>MPC< ere calculated :each recording had four coefficients i%e% for phonetics and
phonology* syntaL* semantics and the overall one<% Such a coefficient as necessary
since the recordings contained various amounts of ords% !t proved to be essential
further in this study* namely in the analysis of the Muestionnaire results% Ce gathered
information about the speakers :such as origin* time spent in the $S# and the state of
residence< ith the ultimate goal of measuring their influence on the amount of
language mistakes in the particular recordings%
?he second part of data analysis process as compilation of the MuestionnaireNs
results and investigating hich of the evaluated components correlate most precisely
ith the general score% "irst* all the scores for each field of analysis ere averaged
ithout retaining the division on recordings% ?hen* e calculated the correlation
beteen each component and the general score% #t this stage* e did not check the
accuracy of evaluation* only the influence of particular scores on the overall one% Ce
used PearsonNs correlation coefficient hich is defined by the folloing scaleO from a-
:complete positive correlation<* through , :no correlation<* to -- :complete negative
correlation<% ?he neLt stage as measuring the accuracy of evaluation* meaning the
correlation beteen the average scores for each component and the >MPC% ?his as
done ithout averaging the results of all the recordings* since the scores and the
amounts of mistakes varied significantly among the Hispanic speakers% #ccording to the
assumption* this correlation value should be close to --* meaning that the more mistakes
in a given utterance* the loer the score% ?he third issue e anted to investigate as
the correspondence beteen the mean of scores given for phonetics and phonology*
syntaL and semantics* and the general note% ?his as aimed at measuring if the
B+
respondents tend to average the three scores hen giving the general one% #t the end*
e calculated the correlation beteen the personal characteristics of the respondents
and the scores they gave% ?his as done ith respect to gender* age* level of completed
education and state of residence% !n case of the latter* e asked a Muestion if the amount
of Hispanics in particular states has any influence on the notes given by the evaluators%
BB
C?apte$ >8 Anaysis
>&7& 3esuts
?he description of findings ill begin ith the analysis of the corpus composed for the
aims of this study% ?en recordings of Hispanics speaking English ere eLamined to find
the most common language mistakes the speakers make in spontaneous speech in
English% Moreover* e ill anser the Muestion in hich of the fields of analysis
:phonetics and phonology* syntaL or semantics< the speakers made most mistakes% ?hen*
e ill present ho the speakersN characteristics influence the amount of language
mistakes in their utterances%
!n the neLt part of the resultative section* e ill present the results of the
Muestionnaire concerning the accuracy of evaluation of the -, recordings by native
speakers of #merican English% ?hen* e ill anser the MuestionsO hich of the field of
research seems to correlate most strongly ith the general score and finally* if the
characteristics of the evaluators and the speakers had any influence on the scores%
>&7&7& +?e $e(o$din!s
?he study shos that it is possible to indicate the most common language mistakes
made by Hispanic :?able B<% #ll the mistakes ere divided into three categories* namely
phonetics and phonology* syntaL and semantics%
BE
?able B% ?he most common language mistakes made by Hispanics
"eature =umber of
occurrences
Percentage of all the mistakes
in a given field of analysis
PH6=E?!>S #=D PH6=6L6'J
substitution of 5i5 for 55 HH +,%-
devoicing EE -K%-
substitution of 5d5 for 55 B- --%B
substitution of 5a5 for 55 or 55 +@ G%G
substitution of 5o5 for 55* 55* 55 or 5+5 +K G%H
no sound :the sound is omitted< +B D%E
insertion of an alveolar 5r5 -H H%H
substitution of 5n5 for 55 G B%B
no diphthong G B%B
substitution of 5e5 for 55 or 5+5 @ +%K
substitution of 55for 5i5 K +%+
sound insertion :an unnecessary sound is added< K +%+
substitution of 55 for 5#5 or 5*5 B -%-
voicing B -%-
no flap + ,%@
substitution of 5"5 for 5b5 + ,%@
substitution of 55 for 55 - ,%E
substitution of 5t5 for 55 - ,%E
substitution of 55 for 5n5 - ,%E
rong sound :not even close< - ,%E
stress shift - ,%E
substitution of 5t5 for 5b5 - ,%E
SJ=?#c
rong tense indicated by a rong verb form K -D%+
rong verb form H -H%+
rong article B G%-
unnecessary article B G%-
no verb B G%-
no article + K%-
rong tense + K%-
unclear structure + K%-
rong form of a structure + K%-
rong preposition + K%-
double verb - B%,
rong structure of an embedded Muestion - B%,
no preposition - B%,
SEM#=?!>S
rong ord E H,%,
illogical use of a ord or structure + +B%B
rong collocation - -K%@
code sitching :not regarded as a mistake< B -
!n the first section* it occurred that Hispanics had serious problems ith the i5
contrast since the substitution of 5i5 for 55 in ords like thin)* it* this and in the Ving
morpheme comprises +,%+X of all the pronunciation mistakes% ?he neLt most common
BH
mistakes ere devoicing :-K%-X< and the substitution of 5d5 for 55 :--%BX<% #s far as
syntactic mistakes are concerned* most often Hispanics used rong tense indicated by a
rong verb form* e%g% arri(e for arri(ed or spea) for spo)e% !n the field of semantics the
speakers did not make many mistakes of hich the most common one as the use of a
rong ord% !t constitutes as much as H,X of all the semantic mistakes* among hich
there ere also the use of a rong collocation and illogical structure% ?he occurrences
of code sitching ere also counted* hoever as it has been mentioned earlier in this
paper* these ere not regarded as language mistakes* but as a separate mechanism%
?he neLt Muestion e asked as in hich of the analy&ed language areas
Hispanics made most mistakes% Cith the use of the >MPC* it as proved that phonetics
and phonology is the area of linguistics mostly affected by mistakes :the coefficient
,%E-<% Hispanics made much less syntactic mistakes :,%,H< and even less the semantic
ones :,%,-<%
#s it has been mentioned above* e also checked if there is any correlation
beteen the characteristics of the Hispanic speakers of English and the number of
language mistakes in their speech% ?he characteristics that ere taken into account areO
gender* the country of origin* time spent in the $S# and the state of residence% !t as
proved that all these characteristics are insignificant%
>&7&;& +?e Buestionnai$e
?he main aim of this study as measuring ho accurately native speakers of #merican
English evaluate spontaneous speech and language mistakes made by Hispanics
speaking English :?able E<% ?he results sho that the highest correlation beteen an
average score given for each recording and the >MPC occurred in the area of syntaL
:ab% -,%@@<% ?his ill prove that the syntactic mistakes ere the easiest to notice% ?he
second highest correlation as in the field of phonetics and phonology :ab% -,%H+< and
the smallest occurred ith reference to semantics :ab% -,%+<% ?he correlation beteen an
average general score for each recording and the >MPC is Muite high :ab% -,%HB<% #ll
the coefficients ere negative hich means that the more mistakes ere made* the
loer the score as given%
BK
?able E% ?he correlation beteen >MPC and the scores given by the evaluators
"ield of analysis ?he correlation beteen >MPC and the
scores given by the evaluators
SyntaL -,%@@
Phonetics and phonology -,%H+
Semantics -,%+,
'eneral score -,%HB
#dditionally* e measured hich recording as evaluated most5least accurately
and e managed to find slight correspondence to some of the distinctive features of the
recording :e%g% fluency<* but rather no correlation ith the characteristics of the speakers
:besides the probable personal likings of the evaluators<%
Moreover* on the basis of the data compiled ith the use of the Muestionnaire the
relation beteen the general score and the scores for particular components as
measured% ?he correlation coefficient beteen these variables occurs to be very high V
in the area of both syntaL and semantics it reaches about ,%G- and a bit smaller in case
of phonetics and phonology :,%DD<% ?his proves that syntactic and semantic mistakes
had a little more influence on the general score :and therefore* the impression< than the
pronunciation ones% Hoever* it turned out that the mean of all scores for phonetics and
phonology* syntaL and semantics :K%GBK< is nearly perfectly eMual to the mean of all the
general scores :K%GBD<% ?his shos that none of the three language areas has
significantly stronger influence on the general score%
#dditionally* the correlation beteen the characteristics of the respondents and
the scores they gave as measured% ?he folloing set of information about the
evaluators as taken into accountO gender* age* completed level of education and state
of residence :specifically the number of Hispanics living in a given state<% #ll these
characteristics proved to be insignificant* since the correlation coefficients reached from
-,%-K to ,%+H%
#t the end* e measured hich of the recordings :therefore* Hispanic speakers<
as evaluated most leniently% Some eLplanations ere inferred* hoever* it should be
noted they may be eLaggerated since e used relatively little data%
B@
>&;& Dis(ussion
!n this subchapter all the results ill be discussed and confronted ith the primary
hypotheses and other studies%
>&;&7& +?e $e(o$din!s
?he most common pronunciation mistakes of these Hispanic speakers ere substitution
of 5i5 for 55 :+,%-X of all pronunciation mistakes<* devoicing :-K%-X< and substitution
of 5d5 for 55 :--%BX<% #s "ought :+,,BO D-< observed* lack of i5 contrast is one of the
most noticeable features of H==E% !n the vast majority of cases* they insert 5i5 instead
of 55% ?his study confirmed "oughtNs observations since in as much as E@%DX of cases
here 55 should be used* the speakers inserted 5i5% ?his lack of contrast orks also in the
opposite direction* hoever ith less freMuency :only -B%HX<% Such a mechanism can
be easily justified on the basis of the voel charts of English and Spanish% ?he fact is
that there is no 55 sound in the Spanish inventory of voels and probably for this
reason* the substitution of 5i5 for 55 is the most common pronunciation mistake made by
Hispanics% ?he production of 5i5 as 55 can be therefore regarded as hypercorrection%
?he second most common pronunciation mistake as devoicing* mostly final
:GB%-X<% Most freMuently devoiced sound as 5&5 asO a marker of plurality* derivational
0s and in ords like is and #as% #ccording to "ought :+,,BO DE<* Pthis process
approaches -,, percentQ% ?his study shos* hoever* that devoicing of final 5&5 happens
in about @EX of cases% !t is probably caused by the absence of final voicing in Spanish
and Pis often part of a larger process* the devoicing of ord-final obstruentsQ
:MacDonald -GDGO ++G<% ?herefore* Hispanics tend to devoice final voiced consonants*
most freMuently 5&5 and less often 5d5%
?he study proved that Hispanics have considerable problems ith 55 hich they
substitute ith apico-dental stop [dt \ or an alveolar stop 5d5% Aoth 55 and 55 are
problematic for many non-native speakers of English as these sounds occur in fe
languages% !nterestingly* they can be found in many varieties of Spanish and even
though* Hispanics do not produce them correctly% ?he possible eLplanation for this
mispronunciation may be that in Spanish sound 55 is the reali&ation of letter PdQ in a
BD
ord like dedo pronouncedO 5deo5% ?herefore* the problem here is not the inability or
difficulty of pronouncing sound 55* but the letter hich is reali&ed as 55%
!n the area of syntaL to major problems can be identified* namely rong tense
indicated by a rong verb form :-D%+X< and rong form of a verb :-H%+X<% ?he first
type of mistakes is probably caused by either simplification or ignorance of the rules*
such as past tense or past participle forms of verbs% Crong verb form category included
such eLamples as the use of #as ith reference to the second person singular and is
probably related to the reasons given above% ?his problem of H==E as also
mentioned by "ought :+,,BO GE<% #mong other freMuent syntactic mistakes there ere
problems ith articles :rong article or unnecessary article<% Ce found it unusual since
Spanish also has a system of articles* hich is analogical to the English one% ?here
seems to be no logic in their mistaken use of articles* so it may simply result from
speakersN carelessness% Some of the features that has been described in the theoretical
part of this paper appeared also in our recordings% #mong them there as a rong
structure of embedded Muestion supposedly caused by difference beteen Spanish and
English structures of such Muestions :in Spanish the form of a Muestion is retained* in
English it adopts the order of an affirmative sentence<%
Semantics as the least troublesome field of linguistics for Hispanics and the
most freMuent mistake as choosing rong ord :H,X<% Ce ill discuss them all since
there ere only three such cases% ?he first one* probably most striking :several
MuestionnaireNs respondents included it in their comments<* as using get #orm as
#orm up% ?his as probably caused by the fact that a Spanish eMuivalent for #orm up*
hich is calentarse* overlaps also ith the meaning of English get #orm% 6n the basis
of such information* the speaker might have assumed that these English ords are
synonyms and mean to practice1 to prepare $or something%
:EB< get #orm instead of #orm up inO
2=o* because ! havenNt speak in English in a long time* you can tell* it take me
a hile to get #arm%Q
?he second ord inappropriately chosen as $or inO
BG
:EE< P:_< it as a ne set maked very Muickly% ! mean* $or problems and then !
couldnNt rehearseQ%
?he more appropriate ord here seems to be "ecause o$% Ce did not found any logical
sources of this mistake in Spanish* but it can be caused by the English use of $or for
giving reasons* as in :EH<% !n the sentence above* hoever* "ecause o$ seems to be a
more reasonable choice%
:EH< He found it increasingly difficult to read* for his eyesight as beginning to fail%
:Mayor +,,GO KD,<
?he last ord that as mistakenly chosen as illusion :EK<% Supposedly* the speaker
anted to say that something as unbelievable and incredible% ?here are* hoever* no
reasons in Spanish or English for the use of this ord here* so it can be treated as a
random mistake ithout any underlying cause%
:EK< P! started hen ! as nine years old and it as an illusion% ! dream about being a
singer and an actressQ%
?aking into consideration the number of subjects eLamined and the length of
their speeches :altogether KKE ords< all reasoning behind the mistakes presented
above* especially in case of syntaL and semantics* may be eLaggerated% #s the syntactic
and semantic mistakes ere rare* they may prove to be characteristic of a given speaker*
not generally assigned to all the speakers of H==E%
#s has been mentioned before* there ere also several cases of code-sitching*
but these ere not regarded as mistakes% >ode sitching as used by to speakers
:total number of sitches as B<% ?hese uses* hoever* resulted from the ignorance of a
particular ord or phrase in English rather than high bilingual proficiency%
:E@< P!Nm the girl of the ochos.Q :d eyes<
:ED< PCe are influencing the music in our country and in our decada%Q :d decade<
:EG< P! mean this kind of kiss ith to people that are* you say* con la cara cu"iertaQ
:d ith covered face<
E,
?he neLt aim of this study as determining hich of the fields of analysis as
mostly affected by mistakes of the speakers of H==E% ?he results sho that most
problems Hispanics have in the area of phonetics and phonology* then much less in
syntaL and semantics :?able H<% 'enerally* ,%ED mistake falls on one ord* so the
speakers made nearly one mistake each to ords% Probably it is no surprise that
pronunciation mistakes are most common* but the disparity beteen them and the
semantic and syntactic ones occurred to be high% ?his may be caused by the fact that it
is possible to make more than one pronunciation mistake in one ord% "or this reason*
some additional research has been conducted and instead of counting each inappropriate
sound* e counted a mispronounced ord as one mistake :regardless of the number of
mistaken sounds in it<% ?he coefficient of mistakes per ord amounted to ,%B-%
?able H% ?he coefficient of mistakes per ord in particular fields of analysis
"ield of analysis ?he coefficient of mistakes
per ord
Phonetics and phonology ,%E-
SyntaL ,%,H
Semantics ,%,-
6verall ,%ED
>&;&;& +?e Buestionnai$e
?he first issue that ill be touched upon here is the accuracy of evaluation of language
mistakes made by Hispanics by the native speakers of #merican English% #s has been
mentioned earlier* e used correlation coefficient to measure the accuracy% ?he eLact
numbers ere presented in ?able E% !t occurred that the area of analysis hich correlates
best ith the >MPC is syntaL* meaning that the syntactic mistakes ere easily detected
by the respondents and the scores for syntaL loered due to these mistakes% #s far as
phonetics and phonology is concerned* the respondents noted the speakersN mistakes in
this area* but less accurately than ith respect to syntaL% ?herefore* the hypothesis e
adopted at the beginning has not been confirmed% !t is not pronunciation mistake that is
most noticeable* but a syntactic one% ?he scores given for semantics ere proved to
E-
correlate poorly ith the actual mistakes% ?his can be caused by the fact that probably
many of the respondents evaluated speakersN proficiency* instead of only language
mistakes :as they ere asked to<% "or this reason* they gave loer scores for semantics
even if there ere no semantic mistakes in a given sample%
?he neLt Muestion e asked at the beginning asO hich of the fields of research
seems to have the strongest5eakest influence on the general scoreU !t as proved that
they all have nearly eMual impact on the general score :the correlation coefficients for
syntaL and semantics - both ,%G-* phonetics and phonology - ,%DD<% Moreover* the mean
of all the scores for particular components is nearly eMual to the mean of all the general
scores* K%GBK and K%GBD respectively% ?his means that the respondents tend to treat all
the three language areas eMually and average these three scores hile giving the general
one%
#t the end* e used the compiled data to check hich speaker as evaluated
most leniently and hom the respondents assessed most harshly% ?able K belo contains
the names of the speakers* the >MPC and the mean of the scores given by the
respondents% ?he data in this table is organi&ed according to the average score each of
the speakers received :decreasing order<%
?able K% ?he average scores and the >MPC of particular speakers
=ame of the speaker ?he average score given by
the respondents
?he coefficient of mistakes
per ord
Salma Hayek D%HD ,%HE
9avier Aardem @%G, ,%-E
?hal`a @%DB ,%B-
Penelope >ru& @%D+ ,%E,
#ntonio Aanderas @%B+ ,%H-
9ulio !glesias K%@D ,%KH
'loria ?revi K%,+ -%,+
Pedro #lmod7var H%DB ,%K+
'loria ?revi H%@- ,%@-
Pedro #lmod7var H%HG ,%BG
?he results sho that the respondents gave Salma Hayek the highest scores* hile she
made one mistake every four ords% #ccording to the >MPC she should be on the siLth
place% Pedro #lmod7var* hose speeches ere evaluated very lo* achieved the >MPC
very similar to the one of Salma Hayek% Hoever* the difference in the scores they got
E+
reached nearly B points% ?he underlying reason for that may be that either her voice as
recogni&ed by the respondents and the personal likings increased the scores or not all
the mistakes ere noticed due to her fluent speech% #s far as Pedro #lmod7var is
concerned* it can be inferred that such lo scores may have their sources in his manner
of speaking% His utterances ere not fluent* he spoke sloly and corrected himself
:thus* focused a listenerNs attention on his mistakes<% !nterestingly* there ere to
speakers ho used code-sitching and it resulted that these are the ones ho get the
loest scoresO Pedro #lmod7var and 'loria ?revi% #s has been mentioned earlier* the
sitches they used did not result from high proficiency* but rather from the ignorance of
an appropriate ord in English% Supposedly* code-sitching might have made a bad
impression on the respondents hat affected the scores%
EB
Con(usion
?he primary chapters of this paper treated of the status of Hispanics in the $S# in the
past and today* as ell as discussed the most common features of H==E and >E% !n the
methodological part* e described the research hose main aims as the eLamination
of language mistakes made by the speakers of H==E and the measurement of the
accuracy of evaluation of these mistakes by the native speakers of #merican English% !t
appeared that the differences in Spanish and English sound inventories play a significant
role in the reali&ations of both English voels and consonants in the speech of
Hispanics% Some of the English phonemes are not present in the English sound system
and even if they do* they have different reali&ations :MacDonald -GDGO +-K<% ?his study
confirmed one of the most popular language mistakes made by Hispanics speaking
English are the pronunciation ones* e%g% the substitution of 5i5 for 55* devoicing :mostly
ord-finally< and the substitution of 5d5 for 55% Hoever* the eLplanations of these
discrepancies presented earlier in this chapter are only probable reasons% !t is impossible
to state clearly and surely that all the differences in reali&ations of particular sounds
originate in Spanish phonology :MacDonald -GDGO +-K<% !n the area of syntaL* the most
freMuent mistakes include inserting rong tense and the rong form of a verb* hereas
semantics caused least and rather minor problems hich do not disturb the
communication% ?he characteristics of the speakers proved to be insignificant ith
regard to their mistakes% ?he second part of the study as devoted to the analysis of the
Muestionnaire hose respondents included native speakers of #merican English% 6ne of
the orth mentioning results e achieved is that the evaluators detected most easily the
syntactic mistakes and least accurately they assessed the semantic ones% Simultaneously*
the hypothesis e established at the beginning as not confirmed V the pronunciation
EE
mistakes ere not the easiest to notice% !n fact* the scores for phonetics and phonology
correlate ith the actual amount of mistakes in this area* hoever* the correlation is not
as high as in the case of syntaL% !t should be emphasi&ed* that this result may be affected
by the fact that some of the respondents might have evaluated the proficiency of a given
speaker* instead of focusing eLclusively on the mistakes :as they ere told to<% "or this
reason* they gave loer scores* e%g% for semantics* even if there ere no semantic
mistakes% Ce also found that the respondents tend to average the scores for three
language components hile giving the general note* hich proves that they all have
similar influence on the overall impression% ?he characteristics of both the evaluators
and the speakers seems not to have any significant influence on the perception of a
given utterance% Hoever* there are some underlying reasons for inaccurate evaluation
of the recordings* e%g% the fluency of speech might have increased the notes and helped
the speaker make better impression% #nother vital factor are supposedly personal
likings* since the speakers ere famous people and their voiced might have been
recogni&ed by the respondents of the Muestionnaire% !n conclusion* it should be
emphasi&ed that since correlation does not imply causation* it as indispensable to look
for other factors that could have an influence on the correlating variables% Practically* it
means that both the sociology of language and the sociolinguistic factors* such as the
characteristics of the speakers and the evaluators* the status of Hispanics in the $S# or
personal likings* must have been included in the analysis of the data%
EH
3efe$en(es
+,,, $S =ational >ensus* $nited States >ensus Aureau :retrieved fromO
httpO55%census%gov* date of accessO LL%LL%+,-,<%
+,,E ?he #merican >ommunity V Hispanics* $nited States >ensus Aureau :retrieved
fromO httpO55%census%gov* date of accessO LL%LL%+,-,<%
+,,K >urrent Population Survey* #nnual Social and Economic Supplement* $nited
States >ensus Aureau :retrieved fromO httpO55%census%gov* date of accessO
LL%LL%+,-,<%
+,,D #merican >ommunity Survey* $nited States Aureau :retrieved fromO
httpO55%census%gov* date of accessO LL%LL%+,-,<%
+,,D Population Estimates* $nited States Aureau :retrieved fromO
httpO55%census%gov* date of accessO LL%LL%+,-,<%
Aergman* Mike% +,,E% 3ore di(ersity1 slo#er gro#th% Cashington D%>%O $%S% >ensus
Aureau =es%
MacDonald* Marguerite '% -GDG% P?he influence of Spanish phonology on the English
spoken by $nited States HispanicsQ* inO Peter >% Ajarkman and Fobert M%
Hammond :eds%<* 4merican Spanish pronunciation5 theoretical and applied
perspecti(es. 'eorgetonO 'eorgeton $niversity Press%
Aloomfield* Leonard% -GDE% 'anguage% >hicagoO ?he $niversity of >hicago%
Eckhert* Penelope% -GGD% P'ender and sociolinguistic variationQ* inO 9ennifer >oates
:ed%<* 'anguage and gender5 a reader% MaldenO Alackell Publishing Ltd%* KE-
@H%
Ellis* Donald '% -GGG% .rom language to communication% MahahO Larence Erlbaum
#ssociates Ltd%
EK
"ield* "redric C% +,,+% 'inguistic "orro#ing in "ilingual contexts% PhiladelphiaO 9ohn
Aenjamins A%I%
"ranceschini* Fita% +,,+% P>ode-sitching and the notion of code in linguisticsQ* inO
Peter #uer :ed%<* 6ode7s#itching in con(ersation. 'anguage1 interaction and
identity. LondonO ?aylor f "rancis e-Library* H--@H%
'iegerich* Hein& 9% -GG+% 8nglish phonology5 an introduction% >ambridgeO >ambridge
$niversity Press%
'rosjean* "% -GDH% P?he bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearerQ* inO
9ournal o$ 3ultilingual and 3ulticultural :e(elopment 6* EK@-E@@%
Haugen* Einar% -GH,% P?he analysis of linguistic borroingQ* inO Einar Haugen* The
ecology o$ language. StanfordO Stanford $niversity Press* @G--,G%
Helman* Lori #% +,,E% PAuilding on the sound system of SpanishO !nsights from the
alphabetic spellings of English-language learnersQ* inO !nternational Feading
#ssociation* Preparing reading pro$essionals5 a collection $rom the
;nternational <eading 4ssociation% =earkO !nternational Feading #ssociation
!nc%* G+--,,%
Hill* Mary% -GGG% =old5 The 6ali$ornia story% Los #ngelesO $niversity of >alifornia
Press%
(Wvecses* golthn% +,,,% 4merican 8nglish5 an introduction% PeterboroughO Aroadvie
Press Ltd%
Lipski* 9ohn M% +,,H% P>ode-sitching or AorroingU =o se so no puedo decir* you
knoQ* inO Lotfi Sayahi and Maurice Cestmoreland :eds%<* Selected proceedings
o$ the Second >or)shop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. SomervilleO >ascadilla
Proceedings Project* ---H%
Macpherson* !an Fichard% -G@H% Spanish phonology5 descripti(e and historical%
ManchesterO Manchester $niversity Press%
Mayor* Michael% +,,G% 'ongman dictionary o$ contemporary 8nglish% EsseLO Pearson
Education Ltd%
McMahon* #pril M%S% -GGE% ?nderstanding language change% >ambridgeO >ambridge
$niversity Press%
Mendo&a* Fuben '% and >ru& >% ?orres% -GGE% PHispanic traditional technology and
material culture in the $nited StatesQ* inO ?homas Ceaver :ed%<* &and"oo) o$
E@
&ispanic cultures in the ?nited States5 4nthropology% HoustonO #rte PTblico
Press* HG-DE%
Poplack* Shana% +,,-% P>ode sitchingO linguisticQ* inO =eil 9% Smelser and Paul A%
Aaltes :eds%<* ;nternational encyclopedia o$ the social @ "eha(ioral sciences%
6LfordO Elsevier* +,K+-+,KH%
Poplack* Shana% +,,E% P>ode-sitchingQ* inO $lrich #mmon* =orbert Dittmar* (laus 9%
Mattheier and Peter ?rudgill :eds%<* SoAiolinguisti). 4n international hand"oo)
o$ the science o$ language% AerlinO Calter de 'ruyter* HDG-HGK%
Feppen* Fandi* Susan M% "it&maurice and Douglas Aiber :eds%<% +,,+% ?sing corpora
to explore linguistic (ariation. #msterdamO 9ohn Aenjamins%
Fomaine* Su&anne% +,,-% Bilingualism% MaldenO Alackell Publishers !nc%
Fyskamp* 'eorge F% -GG@% .inding your &ispanic roots. AaltimoreO 'enealogical
Publishing >o%
Santa #na* 6tto and Fobert Aayley% +,,E% P>hicano EnglishO phonologyQ* inO Edgar
Cerner Schneider and Aernd (ortmann :eds%<* 4 hand"oo) o$ (arieties o$
8nglish5 a multimedia re$erence tool1 Colume 1% AerlinO Mouton de 'ruyter* E-@-
EBE%
?homason* Sarah '% +,,-% 'anguage contact% EdinburghO Edinburgh $niversity Press%
Ceaver* ?homas% -GGE% PLatino legaciesO >rossing national and creating cultural
bordersQ* inO ?homas Ceaver :ed%<* &and"oo) o$ &ispanic cultures in the ?nited
States5 4nthropology% HoustonO #rte PTblico Press* BG-HD%
Ceaver* ?homas% -GGE% P?he culture of Latinos in the $nited StatesQ* inO ?homas
Ceaver :ed%<* &and"oo) o$ &ispanic cultures in the ?nited States5
4nthropology% HoustonO #rte PTblico Press* -H-BD%
Colfram* Calt and =atalie Schilling-Estes% -GGD% 4merican 8nglish5 dialects and
(ariation% MaldenO Alackell Publishing Ltd%
ED