Blogging / Interactive reflection (BLOG) (20%)
- In this section you will write a 300-500 word reaction segment to each week’s material. You may talk about: (1) what you found interesting in the material covered that week and why, (2) what you found challenging, (3) how it ties to your research interests, (4) whether you’ve read related material, (5) whether it reminds you of real life situations, etc.
- (Or) You may submit a ‘linguistic artifact’ or interesting piece of linguistic evidence (this may be an image, a YouTube video, a news article on a language-related issue) that you feel relates to the classroom material as part of your weekly reflection (300 – 500 words). Along with this artifact, you are expected to provide a description on why you believe that artifact ties to discussed material.
Reflection pieces are to be left in the “comment section” below, including your full name and word count. Please make one entry [no duplicates]. The deadline for each weekly assignment is Saturday at 5:00pm of that week.
Topics in Sociolinguistics 
Lateralization, where a lateral [l] is used instead of a simple vibrant [r] (amol vs. amor; colol vs. color, etc.) is a typical variation in Puerto Rican Spanish and well known in Hispanic communities, in the U.S. as well as in Latin America. It’s even considered stereotypical of all of us and in many Hispanic countries, as an “inferior, vulgar, uneducated” form of Spanish (as a linguist may I assert that “correct, standard” languages do not exist. Only the ones with armies and navies). Since the 1920’s many studies have been made of this phenomenon, especially in the South-Western mountains of the Island. The first study was in the coffee farms of Castañer, a county or “barrio” in Lares, and its inhabitants considered this mainly as an identification of their people, instead of class or gender or age markers. This is a genuine “enregisterement”, very famous in Puerto Rico also for the ascent of the vowel [e] to [i] (lechi di poti). Later, in the 1970s and 1980s, this study was corroborated in the same area, and very little had changed in terms of the indexicalities described. The main objection of participants in these studies is towards the vibrant velarization (carrrrro vs. carro), that it is truly considered in bad taste and as a marker of class (low), gender (sorry, guys!) and education (low). Not even the vibrant aspiration is objectionable. Lateralization and aspiration may also be considered as markers of national identity and idiosyncratic, compared to the rest of the other countries. Nevertheless, attitudes towards lateralization are different in big cities like Ponce and San Juan, that are considered more impersonal and class conscious. At this moment, these attitudes towards lateralization are more lax in the younger generations, with the huge popularity of urban music, where these speech styles may serve as a form of identification, mainly for the “ninjas” (no income, no jobs, no assets) and young graduates with low expectations in the local job market. (327 words)
LikeLike
This week’s discussion on enregisterment allows me to digest and deconstruct linguistic perceptions/discrimination in my barrio. The [l] laterization as well as velarization are common to Puerto Rican speech. Throughout the years, these components of what we call ‘Puerto Rican Spanish’ have been negatively perceived. This became a marker for identity in Puerto Rico that carried negative connotations which still exist today, but not nearly as much as it did before. For Puerto Ricans who velarized ‘perro,’ ‘carro,’ ‘barrio,’ they were immediately associated with: low class, uneducated, “jibaros,” even “dumb,” etc… On a macro-scale, we experience linguistic discrimination from other Spanish speakers and even our own peoples.
I come from a barrio in Anasco which is divided into sectors of low to middle to high middle class. My mother is from New York and my father form Anasco. None of them lateralize nor velarize in their speech. However, as I grew up with English as a predominant language, I learned Spanish from playing outside with my neighbors. All of us belonged to the same middle/high middle class, we all went to private schools, and we were privileged enough. However my Spanish remains lateralized and velarized and I continue to drop ‘s’ and ‘d,’ and end words in ‘au’ (i.e. “He engordado mucho” to ‘He engordau’ mucho”). I continue to use words such as (estroniau’, espitiau’, afuegol, amiwis) etc… in social environments as a form of reversal of constraints. I understand how language works, including standardized speech. I know the rules, the grammar, the meaning; however I choose to use speech that has been used to socially marginalize its people. When I go out in Mayaguez, I am surrounded by college students and young people who use this form of speech for social context. No longer is lateralization a thing of “low class” nor “jibaros;” it has taken a different from as a marker of identity. Speakers are able to take what is seen as “negative” and utilize it in social context; because they know how it works and what it means but they take control and adapt to its usage. “It demonstrates the combination of replication and adaptation that is only really available to those who fully understand the nature of what they’re adapting (Childs, 2014).”
[376 words]
LikeLike
One of the interesting features about this week’s article is how humans can perceive, understand and then replicate what an object is through “indexicality”. By this, I mean specifically infants and toddlers. For this population is quite hard to have a grasp on the meaning (abstractly) of words and their functions. Taking into consideration those words that are complex, such as: feelings, signals, repercussion of an incident and so on. But, if looked in depth, they are capable of connecting the object with the pronunciation of the word to have a basic understanding. This topic is quite connected to the one discussed in “The Socially Charged Life of Language” by Laura Ahearn in which she states the differences between indexicality and its level. For instance, infants may be capable of connecting the object with its tag “word”. For example: “tree”, it can be of any type but they have something in common; they are tall, full of leaves, green aspect, rough or even smooth trunk, etc. The infant or toddler may make the connection between a drawing of a tree and its word being this an icon; One of the simplest form of understanding everything that surrounds us. For us grown-up, can connect abstract actions such as the if the traffic light goes red, you automatically understand that is for you to slow down and eventually stop. Such small connections are what we defined indexicality since we are providing any object, gesture or action a meaning.
Unfortunately, this concept of indexicalitation is not related to my area of study since mine is more pedagogical rather that the linguistic patterns of a social context. I did find a small amount of misunderstandings, specifically the three levels of indexicality by Silverstein but I am guessing that these are derived according to the group that we are targeting such as: how people interact in a certain class group (lowest to highest), how people behave depending on the place or culture and how do they identify in society. Furthermore, these constructions of meaning are more relatable when we compare different individuals that come from different cultures since probably one object might signify something like for others might be another meaning. A simple example would be the color “red”. In China the color “red” signifies death or even war compared to Americans which red signifies alert or passion.
LikeLike
Dialects are peculiar in the sense that speakers do not really become aware of dialectical differences in their language unless these idiosyncrasies are pointed out or speakers come in contact with speakers of other dialects. This process is labeled as enregisterment. Barbara Johnstone, Jennifer Andrus, and Andrew E. Danielson explore this practice in relation to Pittsburghese” in their paper, “Mobility, Indexicality, and the Enregisterment of ‘Pittsburghese.’”
Of all the interviews the authors presented in their work, the last one associated with 3rd order indexicality and social identity caught my attention the most. The interviewee, Jessica, detailed a dialect-comparing activity where the idea of a connection between dialect and location was reinforced (Johnstone et. al, 2006, pp. 98). As university students from various regions gather together in one place, linguistic varieties become more noticeable. And, although the notion of stereotypes is emphasized through this exercise, the differences in pronunciation between dialects are also highlighted and become more evident. Since in this environment language is not an indicator of social status, dialects and vernaculars become embraced as part of social identity.
I believe context is a determining factor as to which order of indexicality is being incorporated into people’s perception of dialects. Depending on the situation, the value given to certain linguistic forms varies. Some contexts hold the perspective that these accents and variations need to be corrected to upkeep an image whereas in other scenarios dialects are a means for pride over one’s origins. To this day, perspectives on language standardization and correctness still prevail although, in reality there is no truly correct way of speaking a language. Personally, as I grew up, I was self-conscious of my own speech because of all the direct and indirect messages I heard regarding Puerto Rican Spanish in comparison to other dialects of Spanish. I used to believe, like many do, that Castilian Spanish was the highest standard of Spanish. It was not until I reached university and learned more about language that I valued my normal form of speech and Puerto Rican Spanish as part of my identity in a similar way that the example of 3rd order indexicality portrayed. (357 words)
LikeLike
After reading this week’s paper, the only thing I could think about was about my own perception of language dialects, varieties or accents. Johnstone says “A person who employs features of a particular variety can… be identified with the place the dialect maps onto or the group the sociolect maps onto” (Johnstone, 2016: 632). In my own experience with meeting and interacting with people from different parts of the US and PR, and from abroad I have made these categorizations and gave them an identity because of it. It has also happened when people meet me, hear my way of talking and immediately make assumptions about who I am and where I’m from.
People make assumptions about others based on how they talk because of stereotypes and preconceived notions. Language ideologies are then created and reproduced by these people. These ideologies about language varieties happen between people from different countries and different states or towns. For example, in Puerto Rico we have differences in speech between people from the West and people from the East, and people from the city and people from the countryside. Another example is AAVE or African American Vernacular English; when people hear the features that are predominantly in AAVE they assume that person is black and or uneducated. People assume your socioeconomic status, the place you were brought up in, whether you are educated or not and many other things. What a lot of people don’t realize is that they themselves might share of these linguistic features with others.
It wasn’t until I took linguistic classes that I realized the way I spoke was different than a lot of other people. I also realized what it was that I did that was different. This knowledge is only acquired through the study of the linguistic field. Everyday people don’t know what linguistics know and as such they make assumptions based on other things such as stereotypes and ideologies.
LikeLike
In this paper the interesting part of it was when it talks about enregisterment. Which we all know its the “ process and practices whereby preformable signs become recognized as belonging to distinct, differentially valorized semiotic register by a population” (Agha, 2008: 81). Which we know that they link identities with genres, language standardization and other stuff. And being in a campus university which brings so many people with different linguistic backgrounds we can see the if they change some of the things they say. Like when Johnstone says: ““If hearing a particular word or structure used or a word pronounced a particular way is experienced in connection with a particular style of dress or grooming, a particular set of social alignments, or a particular social activity, that word, structure, or pronunciation may evoke and/or create a social identity, eventually even in the absence
of other cues.” (2016, p.632) But with enregisterment goes along side with indexicality, which is the study of meaning. Yet by the last readings we know that indexicality is mostly an ideological construct. And we talked in class about Silverstein’s three orders for indexicality. First is class, the working class or the upper middle class. Second it the place, where is it from and the third is social identities, more that leans to stereotypes like the word “ya’ll” that is used mostly on the south of the states. And this can be used in any pragmatic discourse. And like many of classmates said in their reflection we can tie it with Puerto Ricans lateralization on the [r].
LikeLike
In this week’s reading of Mobility, Indexicality, and the Enregisterment of “Pittsburghese” we talked about and discussed the 3 orders of indexicality and when discussing them, I couldn’t help but compare them with the Puerto Rican diaspora. As I mentioned in last week’s reflection on language identity we say “empanadilla” and “pastelillo” when referring to the same thing, but it depends on where you like, this case place, which is one of the indexicality orders. Also, it depends on the class, like the working class specifically. In Puerto Rico we speak very different from other countries, we are the only place where trash cans are referred to a “zafacon” also we tend to speak really fast, so we cut words or slide over a few letters. I would describe this as a working-class issue. Most Puerto Ricans are working-class so when speaking they tend to not emphasize the /r/ and we cut words just so we can speak faster and not lose any time. An example for this would be when saying “Arroz” or “Cabo Rojo”, most people just say it fast and don’t emphasize on the /r/ so it tends to sound like an /l/ or they do the sound at the back of the throat instead of rolling the tongue behind the teeth. People of a higher class might not speak this way since this is a thing of the “street” or working-class phenomenon and if you ask someone why they do that they probably wouldn’t be able to tell you why they do it or they don’t even notice when they do it. It’s more of a less, let’s say, polite kind of way. That’s why usually some people in Puerto Rico know from when you come from by just hearing the way you speak but it may vary and might not even have to do with class and just place.
Here’s a fun video of how Puerto Ricans speak: https://youtu.be/USlh23jtZns
LikeLike
Language is complex and rich, expressed through innumerable ways with countless signs, both visual and phonetic, which are used to express and understand a message. If the message I want to express is “danger, do not approach”, and I wanted this message to be understandable by people of all ages, social classes, and ethnic/national backgrounds, I might need to consider a universal language, but since no such thing exists yet, I might need to turn to Johnstone’s definition of a sign “(word, gesture, glance, a hairstyle, or anything else that can be meaningful) is indexical if it is related to its meaning by virtue of co-occurring with what it is taken to mean.” (Johnstone, 2016: 633). Upon analyzing the idea of a sign, I might conclude that the most suitable way to express the aforementioned message of danger is to create a new symbol and assign the desired meaning to it, with the hope that it becomes indexical. For example, if one were to actually create the symbol, one might use sharp right angles in bright red in the shape of a diamond, and skull and crossbones. Anyone who sees the symbol might understand its meaning, regardless of the language they speak, though they must also have a basic understanding of human biology in order to fully grasp the message of peril. In the same way that we can describe the abstract concept of danger, humans have used language in its many forms to describe signs, and some groups of humans usually assign different meanings to specific signs according to their own experiences and understanding of the world. Agha defines this idea as enregisterment, which he defines as “processes and practices whereby performable signs (language) become recognized (and regrouped) as belonging to distinct, differentially valorized semiotic registers by a population (or by a group)”. This common understanding of a sign in one group might clash with the common meaning of the same sign in another group. Take, for example, the thumbs up gesture. In many countries, like Puerto Rico and USA, this gesture has a positive connotation, along the lines of “good work” or “well done”, but in other countries like Iran or Iraq, the same gesture has a negative connotation, meaning roughly “shove it” or “I strongly disapprove of you/your actions” (the latter connotation is given in lieu of using an expletive phrase). These different understandings of certain signs points to a rich linguistic diversity, even when the signs themselves are merely images, gestures, or icons.
(Word count: 417)
LikeLike
Articles like this one are extremely interesting to analyze while trying to put it in a scenario that is familiar to us and trying to pinpoint the features that stick out about Puerto Rican Spanish and attempting to pinpoint when our language became enregistered. It was very intriguing how with Pittbusrghese, it started becoming enregistered once there was a lack of that dialect and how features that, in the past, were completely unmarked by Pittsburghers suddenly became linked to certain facets of their life. With the mobile community heading out of Pittsburg, consequently losing their dialect and later on moving back to the city, the marking and enregistering of Pittsburghese began.
Thinking back to how this can relate to Puerto Rico, there is the ever standing divide of people from “la isla”, meaning the non-metropolitan areas, and people from “la metro”. This divide is a social construct, which is held up with geography but also very commonly associated with language and dialectal features. The features that mark Puerto Rican Spanish, are usually mentioned and thought of as being universal, encountered with many speakers. However, since this dialect has been enregistered with indexicality orders, very similar to those Pittsburghese is connected with, socioeconomic class (working class, “jibaros”) and place (rural areas), leading to a perception of lower education and possibly also to a disconnect with what is considered modern. This thought process has caused some people from metropolitan areas to try to distance themselves from the Puerto Rican Spanish features, and train themselves to speak a dialect they consider “proper” because just as some of Johnstone’s interviewees Arlene, Dottie and Barb they link those features to “incorrectness”. It is interesting that many people have gotten to the metalinguistic awareness of the dialect and without any linguistic training are able to identify and talk about how they feel about the features. Moreover, an intriguing aspect that leads to further the divide and create conflict is the notion of patriotism and the fight to not become Americanized, which is different from Pittsburghese. It would seem that many people from “la isla”, especially younger folk, are consciously speaking with lateralization, velarization, etc. in order to display their patriotism and pride of their culture, somewhat distancing themselves from the Americanization of the language after the United States colonized the island. For this reason, while some people view the PR dialect as associated with the working class and less sophisticated, others view the lack of the dialect as spurning their country and trying to fit in with the colonizers in order to not be seen as “other” or “incorrect” in the face of a country that is a world power. Analyzing how the stance of Puerto Rican Spanish and codeswitching, etc. has changed over the years is always very interesting, and nobody truly knows what will happen next and if this socially constructed divide will be mended ever again. (483 words)
LikeLike
“Languages and dialects are cultural constructs, produced by a group of people using, or orienting to and/or talking about, a particular set of linguistic features, in a process that also constructs the group itself (Gal and Irvine 1995).” The particular set of features that people use in their everyday life can have a deep impact in how others perceive them. These perceptions are based on ideas constructed out of opinions and judgments formed by social standards.
In the case of the Pittsburghese, many people have the idea that this dialect is “bad English”. These dialect has special pronunciation traits deviated from the “standard” phonetic of English. These regional characteristics have been stereotyped, even within the same Pittsburghese community, as not very desirable. According to the article, many people, in that region, did not consider their way of speaking as “unappropriated” until social mobility made them realize that their dialect was really different from the rest. This dialect was formed thanks to the Scottish, German, Central European and Irish migration, resulting in quite particular sounds, native expressions and a distinctive intonation in the discourse.
According to an article from the University of Pittsburg, “Pittsburg speech” is not the same as “Pittsburghese”. The Pittsburgh speech is how Pittsburghers actually talk and Pittsburghese is how people think Pittsburghers talk. But many of the Pittsburgh people are far from being ashamed of their accent. Myron Cope, a famous journalist known for being the voice of Pittsburgh Steelers, defined himself as a promoter of the “America´s ugliest accent”. He was the first football announcer in Radio Hall of Fame. He was popular for his distinctive accent that he refused to changed, despite the requirements for broadcaster at that time. There is an urban dictionary of Pittsburghers, where the words used today and previously are defined and perpetuated, there are also many books about the history of this dialect and the Pittsburghers proudly proclaim their accent as “the most authentic way of speaking”. Despite the stigma that has been assigned to the way of speaking of the Pittsburghers, many activists, writers and even comedians have taken actions to validate their identity, beyond the stereotypes.
LikeLike
The order of indexicality, it means the ideological construct of language and variety can be stated in three orders, class, place and social identity.
In terms of the first one class is the construct that indexes the symbols in the pragmatical practice of the language. In the case of Colombia, this distinction is based not in just economic class rather than the socio-economic place in which you are located, if you are from the north of a city you supposed to speak formally, but if you are from the south your dialect is full of “vulgarity”.
The following two orders are related to place and social identity, we can derive the past two order in more meanings as gender, scholarship, culture, etc. These explain the ideological construct based on the previous lenses that society focuses on to explain language variety or identity.
Taking into consideration the enregisterment of Pittsburghese, which is a symbol or a mark of a socio-economic class enregister as a dialect, which is considered as not proper or not well seen in social norms, in this case, the socio-economic conditions are the factors that shape speakers dialect. A good example of this situation if the Guajiro’s dialect, because as Pittsburgh, this place has a history of how this dialect evolves. First La Guajira is a region from Colombia where its natives are indigenous people, even though the colonization of the Spaniards they preserve many characteristics of indigenous dialect. A few years later in the 1950s, a huge population come from Saudi Arabia arrived at this place and started making business in the city. Thanks to this the people of the city started to speak faster and then making an intonation in some expression just as the Arabic people did in their language, adding to this it is a border city with Venezuela so they got many features of Venezuelan Spanish. Many of the regions that surround La Guajira think that this is not a “proper” way to speak a language as the example of the book about Pittsburghese
LikeLike
Ernesto Calderon’s reflection:
After switching to the English department, I decided to be part of an exchange program to Canada to continue my studies of French. At that point I had already taken three French courses in the UPRM by three different professors who came from France. Having classmates who went to same program, I was aware that there were some differences between French and “Quebecois,” especially in the accent. Upon arriving, I quickly noticed the variation, not only in some local expressions but also the particular nasality in the pronunciation. I most admit that I was a little nervous, going to an all French speaking environment with the thought that I would be able to defend my self with my previous experiences but having a hard time to understand even the most basic statements. The saving grace of my journey was that the people of Quebec, are well aware of their “accent,” and unlike the negative opinion from some people from France, they own their variety and proudly address it as Quebecois. That sense of belonging is high in their minds and they quickly share it with everyone in a comic and friendly way. I understood why among my friends and the people that have gone to Canada, especially Quebec, why they associated Canadians with happy and charismatic. However, upon returning to Puerto Rico and meeting with my French major friends, they told me another side of the coin. Some of them encountered a radical view of their newly acquired Quebecois, even by professors in the University. For them, that wasn’t French, and they couldn’t “understand” it, enforcing a biased evaluation and affecting the grades of my classmates. I confirmed their narrative by myself when I got in contact with one of my French friends, and upon telling him that I had gone to Canada to study the language, his response was “that is not French,” while laughing.
Being a student of language, I didn’t want to allow external opinions shape my own meaning and perception of a variety or language. The irony is that upon doing some research and speaking with my Canadian phonetics professor, she told me that the variety or the accent “Quebecois,” came from Paris, and the original soldiers who came to Canada to establish the early colonies. This new settlement, who later was to become Quebec, kept that original variation from Paris and it was in France where changes started occurring with time.
After reading the article about mobility, indexicality and enregisterment, I could quickly identify the orders of index in my experience, specially the second, which deals with mobility and the third, which deals with positive aspects of social identity but also and some times sadly negative stereotypes. As a student of French, I’m now also aware of the disservice high theoretical education does to some languages or languages varieties and the people who speaks it. After all it wasn’t only people who doesn’t know the history or origins of their own language, but high educators such as professors in my own university who spread a radical view of a variation not their own, deeming it as something else or simply an incorrect way of speaking. Going to Canada was one of my greatest language learning experiences. I was taught the same content in a different way and environment. I was able to pick up the language but also and most importantly acquire a different view and meaning which shaped my understanding of different social realities under a same language.
LikeLike
This week, the assigned reading was “Mobility, Indexicality, and the Enregisterment of “Pittsburghese” by Johnstone, Andrus & Danielson (2006). Early in the text, it is mentioned that “’languages’ and ‘dialects’ are cultural constructs, produced by a group of people using, or orienting to and/or talking about, a particular set of linguistic features, in a process that also constructs the group itself (Gal and Irvine 1995, as cited in Johnstone, Andrus & Danielson, 2006, p. 79). Throughout the text, it is described how, through geographic mobility, certain linguistic features that were considered standard (first-order indexicality) by the members of that specific ‘group,’ came to index specific factors as they became noticeable (second-order indexicality). These same linguistic features were eventually enregistered and came to be a symbol or an index of Pittsburgh identity (third-order indexicality).
This brought upon a sense of “linguistic locality—what it means linguistically to be ‘here’ or ‘from here’ and how places and ways of speaking are thought to be related” (Johnstone, Andrus & Danielson, 2006, p. 79). This idea of linguistic locality reminded me of Puerto Rican Spanish, and how our idea of it might have destabilized as a product of diasporic flows, as is the case in the text. This allowed me to make interesting connections between the text and our own reality in the island.
One connection I found was that individuals might use a specific feature “less when they are trying harder to sound educated or cosmopolitan, or more when they are trying harder to sound like working-class men or like other Pittsburghers” (Johnstone, Andrus & Danielson, 2006, p. 83). In Puerto Rican Spanish, one of the customary linguistic features is velarization (the way we pronounce words such as carro, arroz, etc.). This feature may be avoided by individuals in specific cases where they want to sound more ‘refined,’ such as a job interview. However, in other cases, individuals might purposely use more regional forms to “signal social solidarity” (Johnstone, Andrus & Danielson, 2006, p. 93). In other words, individuals might purposely produce that linguistic feature to signal belonging.
Another connection I found was the adoption of the term ‘yinzer’ by younger generations, which labels “someone with a strong local identity and local accent” (Johnstone, Andrus & Danielson, 2006, p. 97). I wondered if this would be similar to our us of the term ‘jibaro’ to label a person who strongly displays local conventions, to the point of being stereotyped. The term ‘jibaro’ has been used for generations, and I’ve seen it be used both derogatorily and “in a more ironic, polysemic way by people aspiring to urban hipness” (Johnstone, Andrus & Danielson, 2006, p. 97).
Based on these connections, and the authors’ descriptions of the part linguists have played in the enregisterment of Pittsburghese, I believe that the following statement applies to Puerto Rico as well: ”sociolinguists interested in understanding patterns of variation and change in the speech community need to pay attention not just to people’s talk but to the metapragmatic activities in which they create and circulate ideas about how they talk” (Johnstone, Andrus & Danielson, 2006, p. 99). As more and more research is done on Puerto Rican speech, in other words ‘talk about talk’, important conclusions may be drawn by researchers which may allow us to move away from our sometimes stigmatized view of our language use.
(Word count: 558)
LikeLike