Anglicismos no Espanhol da Região de Sonora

Vista previa del material en texto

t0'Eo:::>000C)0778 1 
YJ 
S/. 11 P,t 
2(fj) 
13-II 
USE OF ENGLISH LEXICAL BORROWINGS IN SONORAN BORDER SPANISH 
Thesis presented 
By 
JAY PAUL PENCE DUDGEON 
Presented far the Virtual University of the 
Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey 
in partial fulfillrnent far the degree of 
MASTER IN EDUCA TION 
WITH A SPECIALIZA TION IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 
(ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING) 
May, 2000 
' .. , 
' 
INSTITUTO TECNOLOGICO Y DE ESTUDIOS SUPEIUORES DE MONTERREY 
UNIVERSIDAD VIRTUAL 
CAMPUS SONORA NORTE 
ACTA DE EXAMEN Y AUTORIZACION DE LA EXPEDICION 
DE GRADO ACADEMICO 
1 ¡ ') r: .. , ,} 
Los suscritos, miembros del jurado calificador del examen de grado sustentado hoy 
por JAY PAUL KERMIT PENCE DUDGEON 
en opción al grado académico de 
MAESTRO EN EDUCACION, ESPECIALIDAD EN LINGUISTICA (INGLES) 
hacemos constar que el sustentante resultó o. r,o 'ba.do -\)Oí U Y'lct. ni ~d., 
m._ ~= rr¿j~@ . 
MTRA .MARIA TERESA Mlli ; CERVANTES 
/~~ DRA. CLAUD;,;;;,.,sm!o~ 
Hago constar que el sustentante, de acuerdo con documentos contenidos en su 
expediente, ha cumplido con los requisitos de graduación, establecidos en el 
Reglamento Académico de lo~ogramas de graduados Universidad Virtual. 
ING. LUIS 
Director de Servicios Escolares 
Expida.se el grado académico mencionado, con fecha 23 DE Ml\YO DE 
ING. CARLOS CRUZ LIMON 
Rector de la Universidad Virtual 
Hermosillo, Sonora, e. 03 DE MAYO DE 2000. 
ABSTRACT 
USE OF ENGLISH LEXICAL BORROWINGS IN SONORAN BORDER SPANISH 
MAY, 2000 
JAY P. PENCE 
BACHELOR OF ARTS 
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 
MASTER OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 
HARVARD UNIVERSITY 
MASTER OF EDUCA TION 
INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO Y DE ESTUDIOS SUPERIORES DE MONTERREY 
Directed by Professor Fabiola Ponce Ehlers-Zavala, Ph.D. 
This study examined the use of English lexical borrowings, or anglicisms, in the 
everyday speech of border region residents in Sonora, Mexico. A written questionnaire 
was applied to 287 public high school students from four cities at varying distances from 
the U.S.-Mexican border. These cities were Agua Prieta, Magdalena, Caborca, and 
Navajoa. The purpose of the study was to establish density of anglicisms in border 
Spanish for sociolinguistic purposes related to language education. 
The questionnaire asked participants to selector provide synonyms for 50 
standard Spanish lexical items. lt was hypothesized that a high percentage of subjects 
would selector provide English lexemes as synonyms rather than standard Spanish 
synonyms. Moreover, it was hypothesized that the percentage of anglicisms selected by 
subjects would be related to their proximity to the border. 
The findings show that the use of anglicisms in the speech of high school 
students in the border region of Sonora is measurably significant. Using a multi-choice 
¡¡ 
method, border region participants selected anglicisms as synonyms 32% of the time, 
while non-border participants selected anglicisms only 16%. Using a method asking 
participants to provide their own synonyms, border region speakers responded with 
anglicisms 48% of the time, while non-border region speakers 24%. The results indicate 
neither fonnal English classes, time spent in the United States, nor use of computer and 
internet are measurable extra-linguistic characteristics of Sonaran speakers. However, a 
small but significant difference was demonstrated between cable television viewing and 
prívate English lessons and use of anglicisms, when comparing border and non-border 
speakers. 
This study concludes that the high density of anglicisms in the speech of border 
region Sonaran high school students warrants special consideration of these speakers in 
second language instruction. Moreover, the use of anglicisms is related to the factor of 
geography more than any other non-linguistic variable. Thus, a proposal for English as a 
Second Language (ESL) vocabulary instruction that accounts for these border culture 
Spanish speakers and their linguistic variety is provided for border culture classrooms. 
111 
CONTENTINDEX 
Chapter Page 
ABSTRACT ..................................................................... ii 
CONTENT INDEX ............................................................ iv 
TABLE INDEX ................................................................. vii 
FIGURE INDEX ............................................................... viii 
INTRODUCTION.................. . ........................................... 1 
1.1 Theme .......................................................... 2 
1.2 Background ................................................... 3 
1.3 Problem ....................................................... 4 
1.4 Hypothesis .................................................... 6 
1.5 Relevance ..................................................... 6 
1.6 Outline ......................................................... 7 
2 BACKGROUND ANO THEORETICAL 
CONSIDERA TIONS: SOCIOLINGUISTICS .............................. 9 
2.1. Introduction to Sociolinguistics ............................ 9 
2.1.1. Sociolinguisitcs and Spanish ................. 12 
2.2. Dialectology ................................................. 14 
2.3. Lexical Dialectological Studies .......................... 16 
2.4. Review of Lexical Dialectology ......................... 18 
2.5. Lexical Studies of English Borrowings in Spanish .... 22 
2.6. Summary .................................................... 27 
iv 
3 BACKGROUND ANO THEORETICAL 
CONSIDERATIONS: ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE ...... 28 
3.1. The Universalization ofEnglish, Language 
Planning and Education ................................... 28 
3.2. English as a Second Language (ESL) Theory .......... 36 
3.3. ESL Vocabulary Instruction Theory ................... .44 
3.4. Summary ................................................... 45 
4 METHODS ..................................................................... 46 
4.1. Design ........................................................ 46 
4.2. Participants ................................................. .48 
4.3. Materials .................................................... 50 
4.3.1. The Questionnaire ........................... 51 
4.3.2. The Lexical Items ........................... 52 
4.3.3. Extra-linguistic Variables ................. 54 
4.4. Procedures ................................................. 55 
5 RESULTS ...................................................................... 57 
5.1. Statistical Analysis ....................................... 57 
5.2. Overall Sample Statistics ................................ 58 
5.2.1. Overall Results from Part J.. .............. 58 
5.2.2. Overall Results from Part II ............... 60 
5.2.3. Results for each City ....................... 62 
5.2.4. Summary of Overall Results .............. 63 
5.3. Border and non-Border City Comparison ............. 64 
5.4. Demographic Results .................................... 69 
5.5. Summary .................................................... 74 
6 DISCUSSION ANO CONCLUSIONS .................................... 75 
6.1. Discussion ................................................. 75 
V 
6.1.1. Discussion of Sample ...................... 76 
6.1.2. Discussion of Methodology ............... 76 
6.1.3. Discussion of Extra-linguistic 
Variables .................................... 76 
6.1.4. Discussion of Theoretical 
lmplications ................................. 81 
6.2. Conclusions ............................................. 85 
7 IMPLICA TIONS FOR ESL EDUCA TION AND 
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ....................... 89 
7 .1. Implications of Results ................................ 89 
7.2. Didactic Techniques for the ESL Classroom 
in Sonora ................................................ 89 
7.3. Suggestions for Further Research .................... 96 
REFERENCES.............................................................. 98 
APPENDICES .............................................................. 107 
Appendix A ................................................ 108 
Appendix B ................................................ 118 
Appendix C ................................................ 131 
Appendix D ................................................ 144 
VITAE 
vi 
TABLES INDEX 
Table Page 
Number and Gender of Participants by City ......................... 50 
2 English Synonym Selection for Part l.. ............................... 59 
3 Negative Responses and Spanish Responses ........................ 60 
4 English Synonym Selection for Part II. .............................. 61 
5 No Responses and Spanish Responses for Part II .................. 62 
6 Percent of English Synonyms: Agua Prieta v. Navajoa ........ 65-66 
7 Inferential Statistics of Significance for Part I ...................... 67 
8 lnferential Statistics of Significance for Part 11 ..................... 68 
9 Demographic Categories ............................................... 69 
10 Use ofTechnology: Overall. .......................................... 70 
11 Use of Technology: Border City v. non-Border City .............. 71 
12 Direct Exposure to English: Overall ................................. 72 
13 Direct Exposure to English: Border City v. non-Border City ..... 73 
14 Evaluation of Questionnaire: Overall ................................ 73 
15 Evaluation of Questionnaire: Border City v. non-Border City ... 74 
16 Total Number of Anglicisms by Method ........................... 77 
VII 
FIGURES INDEX 
Figure Page 
The State of Sonora .................................................... 49 
2 Selection of Anglicisms by City: 5 Cases .......................... 63 
3 Frequency of English Selection for 10 Lexical Items ............ 64 
4 Summary of Results: Border v. non-Border ........................ 68 
5 Cable T.V. Use by City ............................................... 80 
6 Socio-linguistic Border Zone of Sonora ............................ 87 
viii 
CHAPTERI 
Introduction 
1. The rapid spread of American culture and the English language throughout the 
world have become controversia) issues, especially with the advent oftechnology and the 
conclusion of the cold war. One only needs to look at today's periodicals and news 
journals to identify the perceived advantages and fears of a universal set of values and 
mode of communication. Less newsworthy, but perhaps more important, is the study of 
inter-cultural influences, and the mutual effects of cultures and languages in ever-
increasing contact. As the planet becomes increasingly smaller, such studies will prove 
essential for the further beneficia) development of civilization. 
The study of languages in contact plays a significant role in understanding cultures, 
values, and human development. Although the scientific field of how society and 
languages relate, called sociolinguistics, is relatively new and often misunderstood, 
understanding how languages change can help us to understand how people change. 
Sociolinguistics recognizes factors such as ethnicity, age, gender, and geographic area in 
the attempt to understand language use and change (Hudson, 1980; Trudgill, 1974). One 
of the principie tenants of sociolinguistics is: language and society are so closely related 
that one cannot communicate anything through language without revealing something 
about ones self (Trudgill, 197 4 ). English and Spanish are two of the world · s most 
heavily used languages. The study of how they interact and change each other and their 
respective speakers, especially considering the traditional differences between Anglo and 
Latin cultures, emerges as an important scientific and humanistic endeavor. The purpose 
of the following study is to contribute a small amount to this endeavor. 
1 
Theme 
1.1. The focus of this investigation is the use of English vocabulary in the daily 
spoken Spanish of Mexicans living along the Arizona-Sonora border. The use ofwords 
from another language, called lexical borrowing, is a common linguistic occurrence for 
all languages (Hudson, 1980). For example, a native English speaker might use the word 
patio, a term borrowed from Spanish to designate an area outside the house. However, 
there is a distinction between a lexical item that has become an accepted and permanent 
part of the standard language, and a lexical item that has been borrowed only recently or 
by a specific group of speakers. This distinction provokes many questions about the 
proper use of the borrowing language, and the values and education of its speakers. 
Although there are relatively few studies ( e.g., Galindo, 1996; Bustamante, 1982) which 
address the theme of border Spanish in Mexico, border speakers are clearly aware of the 
differences between the Spanish they speak and the Spanish spoken in other parts of 
Mexico and Latin America. For example, in Sonora I have heard individuals speak of 
country speech, coastal speech, southern speech, and border speech as distinct dialects of 
Spanish. The explicit theme ofthe present study, then, is the product of the following 
questions: 
1. Do Mexicans from the border region speak a variety of Spanish 
that includes a high quantity of borrowed English lexical items? 
2. Do border region speakers use more English lexical items than 
non-border region speakers? 
3. What are the implications for education and language instruction 
for speakers of border Spanish? 
2 
Background 
1.2. The preceding research questions evolved from my English as a Second 
Language (ESL) teaching experience at the Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios 
Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM) campus in Hermosillo, Sonora from 1992 until the 
present. 1t is the culmination of a very basic reality in my classrooms: students from 
towns nearer the border have a broader English vocabulary than other students not from 
the border region, regardless of amounts of formal English education. Nevertheless, 
though students closer to the border tend to have a greater vocabulary and understand 
English better, their usage is often erroneous or awkward in terms of accepted standard 
English. In addition, because these border region students know more English 
vocabulary, they tend to become easily bored by classroom instruction that fails to 
account for their unique linguistic awareness of English. Thus, I began to wonder 
whether ESL instruction, or at least vocabulary instruction, for students from border areas 
ought to be altered or specialized in accordance with their apparent informal knowledge 
of English. 
The theme of border Spanish is not new. There are a number of interesting 
linguistic, sociolinguistic, educational, and sociological studies that have been conducted 
in recent years about Mexican-American speakers of Spanish living in the United States 
( e.g., Gal indo, 1996; Penal osa, 1980; Studerus, 1996). Generally, the theme of these 
studies involves how the dominant culture and language of the United States affects the 
language and behavior of Mexican-American Spanish speakers in a variety of ways. 
Nevertheless, information about border Spanish from the Mexican side of the 
international frontier is more scarce: there are relatively few studies about how U.S. 
culture, especially in terms of language, impacts Spanish speaking Mexicans living along 
the border in Mexico. The purpose of this study is to begin to address precisely this type 
of question. 
3 
Problem 
1.3. A specific inquiry into the possible impact of the English language on 
everyday border Spanish prompts three important questions. 
1. Does a discernable geographic area exist along the U.S.-Mexican 
border where a distinct variety of spoken Spanish, characterized by 
numerous English lexical borrowings,is used by native speakers? 
2. What non-linguistic factors might also contribute to the use of such a 
variety of border Spanish? That is, Can a study be conducted which 
controls or limits sorne of the many extra-linguistic factors so that one 
variable, such as geography, can be statistically correlated to the use of 
the English lexical borrowings? 
3. How can the use of English lexical borrowings, and the non-linguistic 
variables, be measured such that the measurement provides 
possibilities for broader interpretation? 
The problem here is the scope of the phenomena and the variety of factors that 
are at play in this socio-cultural reality. From a sociolinguistic perspective, one must 
determine what linguistic items should be measured, and how their use proves (or 
disproves) the presence of a unique Spanish language variety. Most sociologists and 
border studies experts will not argue with the belief that the culture along both si des of 
the U.S.-Mexico border is unique, and somewhat distinct from the non-border cultures of 
both countries (Alvarez, 1995). The purpose of this study is to attempt to represent, in a 
specific and concrete fashion, one linguistic aspect that makes Mexican border culture 
unique. A study ofthe presence of English lexicon in native speech requires an extensive 
lexical sample of Spanish speaking Mexican natives from the border region. A large 
sample from different geographical locations, at distinct distances from border, might 
4 
provide a broad view of the use of English lexical items in border Spanish. Further, a 
focused selection of subjects from each geographic site might help explain why or how 
English lexical borrowing occurs in the border region. 
Thus, a written questionnaire testing the knowledge and use of 50 borrowed 
English lexical items, or anglicisms, was administered to 300 native Spanish speakers 
from Sonora. Of this sample, one-fourth (75) were taken from Agua Prieta, one-fourth 
from Magdelena, and one-fourth from Caborca, ali towns at varying distances from the 
U.S. border and considered border region communities. The final fourth of the sample 
was taken from Navajoa, Sonora, a community over 600 kilometers from the U.S. border 
and not considered a border region town. Using a method that asks for synonyms for 
common standard Spanish words, the questionnaire sought to measure the extent to 
which Sonoran speakers use anglicisms in their daily spoken Spanish. In addition, the 
questionnaire elicited sociological data related to six other non-linguistic factors, in order 
to attempt to assess the relative importance of geography in the use of anglicisms in 
spoken Spanish. These factors were: age, gender, use of computer technology 
(specifically the internet), cable and satellite television viewing, time spent in the United 
States, and formal English language instruction. 
In order to narrow the focus of the study, the questionnaire was only applied to 
public high school students between the ages of 16 and 18. Focusing the sample in terms 
of age and economic background made data collection more efficient, and minimized the 
non-linguistic factors because ali of the participants had similar demographic profiles. 
The questionnaires were administered during the month ofDecember, 1999 by a team of 
native Sonorans under my direction. The data were analyzed, descriptively and 
inferentially, using the SPSS statistical software package version 7.5. Statistical 
5 
information presented included simple numerical calculations of frequency and usage, 
cross-tabulations, and t-test analysis of statistical significance. 
Hypothesis 
1 .4. This study posits two hypotheses. 
1. The use of borrowed English lexicon in Sonoran border Spanish is significant as 
compared to other geographic areas. 
2. The frequency of usage of English lexicon is related to the speakers proximity to 
the U.S.-Mexico international border. 
Moreover, this study posits that English language classes, number of days spent in the 
United States, use of computers, intemet, and cable television will not emerge as decisive 
factors in the use of anglicisms. Rather, geography will emerge as the key non-linguistic 
factor in determining the frequency of anglicisms in the speech of Sonora high school 
students. 
Relevance 
1.5. The importance of this study rests in the implications it may hold for 
understanding border communities and their unique varieties of language, as well as for 
foreign language teaching. The demographic data gathered may prove useful for 
sociolinguists, linguists, and experts in Spanish language and culture. Confirmation of 
the hypotheses would lend weight to the theory that the U.S.-Mexican border is a unique 
culture in itself, and must be treated so in socio-political terms. Identification of a 
distinct Spanish variety along the border would also benefit the residents of this region 
because it would confirm a unique cultural status, thereby affirming their language and 
culture, rather than stigmatizing it. Moreover, this inforrnation could benefit ESL theory 
and instruction, particularly in Mexico and its border classrooms. lt may benefit second 
6 
language acquisition theory in general, especially in light of the increasing amount of 
people who speak mixed-languages as a result of globalization. This research might also 
be of interest to the State govemment, as well as educational administrators in border 
areas, in terms of language planning. Finally, this theme has global interest as well. 
Through technology, the world is becoming smaller, and, increasingly, peoples are 
encountering other cultures and languages. Ali govemments and cultures should have an 
interest in how linguistic professionals will identify and manage these language 
confrontations far the benefit of everyone. 
The study of border varieties of Spanish and their implications far ESL instruction 
are justified far three reasons. First, these linguistic communities are growing atan 
increasing rate and their value and presence must be taken into account, both socially and 
educationally. Second, cultures are growing more universal, and English is the language 
ofthe world: knowledge of English will be the prerequisite far membership in the global 
community in the next generation. Third, few similar studies have been done to date, and 
the field is relatively new and unexplored. 
Outline 
1.6. In arder to accomplish the objectives of the present study this paper has 
been divided into seven distinct chapters. The succeeding chapters are organized in the 
fallowing manner. Chapter II, Background and Theory, reviews the relevant 
sociolinguistic and dialectological studies. Chapter III provides the concomitant 
Background and Theory far the English language and ESL theory. Chapter IV presents 
the Methods of data collection. Chapter V is concerned with the presentation and 
interpretation of the Results of the research. Chapter VI Discusses the results and 
presents the Conclusions of the study. Finally, Chapter VII elaborates on the 
Implications of the study far Second Language Education in Mexico. Included here are 
7 
sorne ideas for Further Research which the present study suggests. A final section of 
References and the Appendix conclude the paper. 
8 
CHAPTERII 
Background and Theoretical Considerations: Sociolinguistics 
2. The linguistic aspect of this research project is based in two areas: sociolinguistics 
and dialectology. The following is a brief review ofthe issues, theories, and studies 
related to the present research. The chapter is divided into the following six parts: 
introduction to sociolinguistics, dialectology, lexical dialectological studies, review of 
lexical dialectology, lexical studies of English borrowings in the Spanish language, and a 
summary. 
Introduction to Sociolinguistics 
2.1. Sociolinguistics is based on thebeliefthat language is inexorably related to 
society, culture and context (Trudgill, 1974). Researchers have realized only recently 
that sociolinguistics reveals much not only about language, but also about society and 
human beings. As Trudgill (1974) states: "A study of language totally without reference 
to its social context inevitably leads to the om ission of sorne of the more complex and 
interesting aspects of language and to the loss of opportunities for further theoretical 
progress" (p. 32). The formal study of linguistics and society did not become widespread 
until the 1970s. The novelty of the field has meant, inevitably, that sociolinguistics has 
had to fight for acceptability. For example, linguists like Bloomfield and Labov 
recognized the importance of examining language in its social context, but their work has 
not been fully accepted by theoretical linguists like those from the Chomskean school 
(Hudson, 1980; Lastra, 1992). Nevertheless, many linguists believe that any study of 
9 
language cannot occur without consideration ofthe speaker and the social context and, 
thus, traditional linguistics must go hand-in-hand with sociolinguistics (Hudson, 1980). 
Sociolinguistics begins with a personal experience of language first, and a 
collection of data second (Hudson, 1980). lt is a difference of emphasis based on the 
beliefthat the study of human speech must be conducted in relation to human beings in 
order to include the possibility of finding social explanations for the structures and use of 
language (Hudson, 1980; Trudgill, 197 4 ). In this sen se, as Hudson ( 1980) points out, the 
proper object of sociolinguistics is not theory, but everyday (spoken) speech and 
language use. Thus, for example, sociolinguistics questions the distinction between 
Dutch and German along sorne parts of their respective international border because 
speakers can communicate easily with one another. Likewise, it questions the shared 
categorization of the language spoken by African-Americans living in Detroit and 
Welshman in Wales as English because these two groups of speakers cannot 
communicate effectively (Hudson, 1980). This scientific approach based on realism is 
further demonstrated in the notion of dialect. Sociolinguistics holds that a language 
dialect refers to lexical, grammatical, and/or phonetic differences within languages 
(Hudson, 1980). Moreover, each version or variety of the language is as legitimate as 
any other: there is no such thing as a standard variety of English in the sense that the term 
refers to value or superiority. A standard variety indicates a dialect chosen as a reference 
point for linguistic characteristics and functions, but does not represent linguistic 
superiority (Hudson, 1980). 
Sociolinguistics, then, claims that the speech community is crucial to 
understanding the language of the speakers (Hudson, 1980; Trudgill, 1974; Lastra, 1992). 
According to Hudson ( 1980) and Trudgill ( 197 4 ), identifying a specific speech 
community and its unique language variety are basic tasks in sociolinguistic work. The 
socio-cultural factors that sociolinguistics may take into account in the attempt to identify 
10 
a speech community include, but are not limited to: socio-economic status, ethnicity, age, 
gender, geography, nationality, and context. Bloomfield (1933) developed the idea that, 
if speech communities can be delimited, then they can be studied in terms of unique 
linguistic features that then define and delimit particular linguistic varieties and 
boundaries. 
In general, there are two techniques for the collection of sociolinguistic data: the 
recorded oral interview, and the questionnaire. Despite the fact that language differences 
are constituted by many linguistic factors, most sociolinguistic work (e.g., Labov, 1972; 
Chesire, 1982) has been concemed with phonology: the examination of differences and 
change in sounds between language varieties. Thus, the former method is more common. 
Basically, an interviewer elicits speech from a subject, usually through a non-directed 
casual conversation, and records the speech using a tape recorder. The speech sample is 
then transcribed and analyzed for the linguistic variant to be studied (Hudson, 1980). In 
order to do this properly the interviewer(s) must record literally hundreds of hours of 
speech to collect enough examples ofthe linguistic variant under study. In many cases, 
hours of recorded speech may produce only a few examples ofthe variant sound or word 
that the researcher is looking for. As a consequence, this type of research is limited to a 
few, well-funded and established linguists. Sometimes, as in the case of the Linguistic 
Atlas ofNew England (1939-43), this task can take seores of researchers years to 
complete. 
Dueto the impractical nature of this kind of data collection and analysis for short 
term or very specific studies (as in the case of a dissertation, for example), sociolinguists' 
have developed a variety of efficient techniques to provoke and elicit the speech they 
wish to study. These techniques fall into two categories: direct and indirect questioning. 
Chambers and Trudgill (1980) explained the differences between the two techniques. A 
direct question might ask: "what do you calla 'cup'." An indirect question is somewhat 
11 
more subtle, and resembles questions like: "What do you sweeten coffee with?" (seeking 
to elicit the word "sugar" from the subject), or "What can you make from milk?" 
(Chambers and Trudgill, 1983). With Labov (1972) the sociolinguist became more 
sophisticated in the attempt to record natural speech, and thus minimizing the problem of 
the observer' s paradox. In a famous sociolinguistic study, Labov (1972) examined the 
pronunciation ofthe phonetic variant of /r/ in New York City by visiting department 
stores and asking clerks where an item was located (knowing it was located on the 
"faurth floor"). He then privately transcribed what he heard. In this fashion he was able 
to make sorne interesting revelations about the use of the linguistic variant in question. 
Although not used in this famous case, tape recording of speech seems to be the 
methodology of choice by most sociolinguists studying phonological variants of 
language. 
Another accepted methodology far sociolinguistic research is the questionnaire, 
either oral or written. The written questionnaire has the advantage of being more 
efficient and practica! than the recorded interview. The written questionnaire dates to the 
genesis of sociolinguistics itself in the 19th century. French and German linguists used 
the postal system to collect data from school masters and public officials (Chambers and 
Trudgill, 1980). In a sense, the written questionnaire and the recorded interview are 
similar: both tend to ask similar questions and, theoretically, elicit similar infarmation. 
Sociolinguistics and Spanish 
2.1.1. The amount of sociolinguistic research of Spanish is notas substantial as 
that far English. A number ofthe current studies of Spanish dialectology, far example, 
are concerned with the language as it is spoken in the United States (Galindo, 1996; 
Penalosa, 1980). Included among these are two studies of mood variability (specifically, 
the use of the subjunctive) in Spanish (Studerus, 1996; Escamilla, 1982). Both studies 
used a written questionnaire, applied to Mexican-Americans living in Texas, to determine 
12 
if, and to what extent, the use of the subjunctive in the Spanish spoken by these speakers 
was affected by exposure to the English language. Interestingly, both studies concluded 
that the Spanish spoken in Texas constitutes a unique dialect or variety of Spanish 
because of the extra-Iinguistic factors these speakers are exposed to. In other words, 
these studies claimed that the use of the subjunctive by Spanish speakers in Texas tends 
to decreasein relation to the time they have lived in the United States (Escamilla, 1982; 
Studerus, 1996). 
Another representative example of a sociolinguistic study of Spanish was that 
conducted by Lope Blanch ( 1970) on the different dialect zones of Mexico. This series 
of reports attempted to expand on a phonological study of Mexican territory conducted 
by Ureña in 1921. Ureña' s study distinguished between six dialect zones in Mexico: the 
north, the center, the gulf coast, the south, the Yucatan region, and Chiapas. Lope Blanch 
and his team administered a written questionnaire, which included more than 700 
linguistic problems of syntax and grammar, to almost 500 subjects in 20 different cities in 
Mexico. This survey was administered both in person and vía correspondence over 
several years. In addition to the written questionnaire, the spoken speech of six subjects 
from each locale was recorded using the undirected dialogue method, and then analyzed 
for phonology in order to "corroborate and amplify the inforrnation obtained in the 
questionnaires" (p. 5. Note: ali translations are mine unless otherwise indicated). The 
conclusion confirrned Ureña' s demarcation of dialect zones in Mexico (Lope Blanch, 
1971 ). Unfortunately, these studies failed to address, other than in passing, the 
possibility of a unique border dialect zone within the north dialect zone. This study does 
not lend itself to very accurate or reliable data or conclusions about specific dialects and 
variants of Spanish because the sample size was too narrow for the geographic areas 
under examination. 
13 
Another seminal study of sociolinguistics that has particular relevance to the 
present research was conducted by Hensey ( 1972). Hensey examined the language 
contact zone on the Brazilian-Uruguayan border in terms of bilingualism, border 
communities, and linguistic interference in and between Spanish and Portuguese. Using 
different methods, including several types of written questionnaires, Hensey concluded 
that linguistic and cultural influence operates both directions on the border communities 
he studied. That is, Brazilian border communities use a style of Portuguese influenced by 
Spanish, and Uruguayan border communities use a style of Spanish influenced by 
Portuguese. 
Hensey' s study ( 1972) is important for three reasons. First, in the study of lexical 
borrowings between these border communities and their respective languages, a written 
questionnaire, utilizing pictures and drawings to elicit responses, was used. Second, it 
was one of the first studies to demonstrate the components of border dialects. And third, 
it attempted to demonstrate the connection between linguistic and cultural elements. That 
is, Hensey posited linkages between border dialect communities and their traditions and 
values (as seen in, for example, literature), which non-border dialect communities did not 
share. The weakness of this study, at least compared to the present research, is the lexical 
similarity of Spanish and Portuguese, which, as Hensey himself admits, share up to 90% 
of the same lexicon. 
Dialectology 
2.2. The present study seeks to identify a unique speech community along the 
border between Mexico and the United States (on the Mexican side). lt examines the 
characteristics of a Spanish variety which incorporates the use of English language 
vocabulary in the daily speech of its speakers. This type of study falls under the category 
of a branch of sociolinguistics called dialect geography or simply dialectology (Chambers 
14 
and Trudgill, 1980). As Trudgill (1974) explained, geographical features such as 
distance and barriers affect the progress and path of linguistic change. Dialectology 
attempts to measure linguistic variables in terms of areas and boundaries, and it 
represents them physically on maps or charts. As Chambers and Trudgill (1980) showed, 
dialectological maps plot each individual use of a particular variable on a map, as 
compared to the use of contrary variables. These maps usually include lines between the 
two areas to show where the variable is generally used and where it is not. These 
geographic boundaries are called isoglosses. One theory used to explain much of dialect 
geography is called the wave theory which, as its name implies, claims that linguistic 
change emits from a certain geographical locus (for whatever reason), and spreads 
outward from that area (see Bailey, 1973). 
Often a dialectological study will attempt to representa linguistic variable not 
only in tenns of geography, but also as it is related to one or more other sociological 
factors, such as age or socio-economic status. That is, a study that focuses on the 
interaction between independent (sociological) variables and linguistic variables. This 
trend in dialectology is characterized by studies of urban communities of speakers 
(Labov, 1972; Sankoff, 1972). 
Examples of representative studies in this field include those conducted for the 
Linguistic Atlas ofNew England (Kurath, Hanley, Bloch and Lowman, 1939-43), which 
discovered a distinct three-way division of lexical and phonetic dialects in Massachusetts. 
By conducting surveys throughout the state, it was discovered that most speakers from 
the eastern third of the state u sed one set of names and pronunciations for specific items 
and concepts, while the rest of the state u sed another. F or example, the concept of a 
pancake in one part of the state was normally termed fritter, while the term griddle-cake 
was used in another part. The tenn "normally" was used relatively: the study showed 
15 
various usages of terms but distinguished a definite preference of usage by simply 
considering greater number of examples of usage. 
Another good example of dialectology is provided by Chesire ( 1982) in her 
analysis ofthe morphological and syntactic differences between standard English and the 
English spoken in and around Reading, England. In this study, the author recorded the 
speech of working-class adolescents while they were playing ata public playground. 
This research attempted to eliminate as much non-linguistic variation (independent 
factors) as possible. Chesire claimed to have "eliminated" the "better-known aspects of 
sociolinguistic variation," namely age, sex, economic class, topic, context, and values by 
recording children playing ata working class playground who were "roughly" the same 
age and who "shared a number of common values and activities" (p. 5). By comparing 
the childrens' use ofthe pre-established Iist of morphemes and syntax with standard 
English, the author attempted to make general claims about the dialect spoken in 
Reading. This method for classifying and controlling non-Iinguistic variables is 
ambiguous because it assumes certain demographic and sociological characteristics ofthe 
participants simply by their presence in a certain location. No concrete demographic data 
about the children was collected by Chesire and, therefore, the results of her study are not 
as conclusive. 
Lexical Dialectological Studies 
2.3. Sociolinguistic studies focusing on lexicon are less common in comparison 
to their counterparts in phonology or syntax. According to sorne of the leaders in the 
field of sociolinguistics (e.g., Trudgill, 1974), the sub-field itselfhas an ambiguous 
presence in most sociolinguistic texts. A prime example is Lope Blanch's text Estudios 
Sobre el Español de México ( 1991 ). This text contains three main sections, including the 
Introduction, Phonetics, and Grammar, but only mentions Spanish lexicon in passing. In 
16 
discussing the archaic nature of the Spanish spoken in Mexico as compared to Spain, 
Lope Blanch mentioned that this "archaism is most evident in the lexical terrain. 
(Words) forgotten in the peninsula maintain their vitality in Mexico"(p. 14). He then 
proceeded to list sorne of the lexicalitems still used in Mexico but not in Spain, for 
example: lindo; pararse; andprieto (p. 14). The author mentioned lexicon only one 
other time, in the discussion of the influence of indigenous languages and speakers on 
Spanish. Here, again, he listed sorne words used in Mexican Spanish, but not in Spain, 
which are derived from indigenous lexemes, such as: chapulín and milpa (p. 29). Where 
and how this small amount of information was obtained is left unsaid. Curiously, the 
entire subject of lexical study in the Spanish of Mexico is relegated to a few lines. The 
impression retained by the reader is that vocabulary is either so obvious that it should be 
understood, or so unimportant that it does not merit mention. 
This imprecision is also reflected in the English language studies, as well as in 
the English language textbooks on dialectology. For example, in Trudgill's important 
introductory text on sociolinguistics (1974), the field of lexical study is mentioned twice, 
and only once in relation to dialect geography. In speaking of linguistic innovations and 
language boundaries, Trudgill stated that lexical items spread according to the field in 
which a particular language tends to dominate (p. 177). Thus, he pointed out, English 
words have come to dominate science and technology vocabulary in many languages. 
Unfortunately, Trudgill does not expand on the concepts oflexical loaning and borrowing 
beyond this. Hudson (1980) is only a little better. In his text on sociolinguistics, two 
pages are dedicated to lexical borrowing and loan translations in the chapter on varieties 
of language. Interestingly, Hudson explained how sorne words lose their foreign 
pronunciation when adopted by another language, while other lexical items may be used 
only as models by which native constructions are created. The passage continued on to 
imply that linguistic borrowing from one language to another entails more than 
17 
convenience, as sorne other authors (e.g., Hidalgo, 1983) have claimed, but may involve 
syntax and morphology. Hudson concluded this brief account with the provocative 
question: "Are there any aspects of language which cannot be borrowed?"(p. 60). 
Unfortunately, this author leaves the reader wondering why there are not more studies 
demonstrating specifically why and how this borrowing is being done. 
Poplack, Sankoff, and Miller ( 1988) studied the French spoken in the Ottawa-
Hull region of Canada in terms ofthe nature and impact of English on speakers from five 
communities. Going door to door, this team obtained over 270 hours ofrecorded speech 
that were then transcribed with English words and phrases noted by English orthography. 
This study is important for its in-depth delimitation and classification of dialectological 
terms, like borrowing, code-switching, and loan words. The authors concluded that 
active use of English vocabulary by these native French speakers was less than I percent 
of the total corpus, and that most of these were momentary or faddish borrowings that 
were not used by the majority of the subjects, nor had any long-term impact on French. 
Review of Lexical Dialectology 
2.4. In spite of the work of researchers like Poplock, Sankoff, and Miller ( 1988), 
the general body of dialectological work fails to adequately answer questions about how 
lexical studies are done and why they are significant. The two best sources for 
information about lexical dialectological theory and terminology that I have found are 
Sociolinguística para hispanoamericanos (1992) by Yolanda Lastra, and Bilingualism 
( 1989) by Suzanna Romaine. Lastra' s chapter on Languages in Contact and Romaine' s 
on The Bilingual Speech Community elaborated the relevant terminology and distinctions 
related to lexical studies. Unfortunately, though both texts provide excellent and detailed 
information, it seems that they both confirm the ambiguity and lack of consensus in a 
fledgling academic field. As Romaine remarked, questions of language interference and 
18 
borrowing are the most commonly described dialectological phenomena, but also the 
most hotly debated (p. 50). 
Citing Weinrich (1953), both Lastra (1992) and Romaine (l 989) began with the 
term interference: meaning a deviation, either phonological, grammatical, or lexical, from 
the linguistic norm dueto a bilingual speakers' familiarity with more than one language. 
In other words, the process involving the introduction of fareign elements, including 
lexical items, into the structure of a language. Unfartunately, there is not universal 
acceptance of this term. Romaine cited a series of other authors who use different tenns 
to refer to these two same concepts. Most authors seem to imply, however, that linguistic 
interference between two languages is originally caused by bilingual speakers. The 
significant issue far the present study is how and why non-bilingual speakers use fareign 
lexical items in their daily speech. Fortunately, Weinrich seems to provide a clue as to 
how to resolve this question in his claim that there is a need far further study to determine 
whether interference is caused linguistically when languages are in contact via bilingual 
individuals, or whether it is caused by non-linguistic factors of the socio-cultural nature. 
Here the notions of languages in contact and cultures in contact become intimately inter-
related, as sociolinguistic theory demands. 
In arder to further define the notion of interference, Lastra ( 1992) presented the 
term linguistic borrowing (or transfer) and the sub-tenns momentary borrowing and 
established borrowing. The distinction between the sub-terms is crucial far the present 
study: the farmer is a type of interference used by a bilingual speaker in spoken speech, 
the latter a modification in the language itself. Haugen (l 950), in one of the first attempts 
to categorize lexical influence between languages in contact, made a congruent 
distinction: words that are fully assimilated into a language (phonologically and 
morphologically) are not the same as partially assimilated words. The fanner are called 
loanwords, while the latter are words used by mono lingual speakers, who may not even 
19 
be aware of their foreign origin. Poplock and Sankoff ( 1984) made a more specific 
distinction in this respect. They claimed that momentary borrowing (or nance borrowing, 
as they term it) by bilingual individuals occurs when one cannot remember the precise 
word in his native language and substitutes a foreign word in its place. How and why 
bilingual speakers switch from one language variety to another, called code-switching (or 
alternation), is not agreed u pon by ali scholars. Far example, Hudson ( 1980) claimed 
code-switching occurs only among members ofthe same community, while Lastra 
disagreed with this point. Sorne scholars, like Romaine (1989), believe that code-
switching can occur between different varieties of the same language or even between 
styles of speech within the same variety. This understanding of code-switching stands in 
contrast to the notion of diglossia, in which the speaker uses one distinct language or 
another depending on the social context (Romaine, 1989). The result is a general 
confusion of terminology where the use of a single utterance from another language can 
be termed mixing, tag switching, or lexical borrowing depending on the author and the 
study involved (Romaine, 1989). What these disparate theories share is an understanding 
of the concepts of bilingual and bilingualism. How much of another language must a 
speaker know to be considered bilingual? Can one be a "passive bilingual" (Romaine, 
1989) if one can understand a dialect similar to one' s own? Can a speaker be an 
unconscious or unwilling bilingual if one experiences linguistic interference of any type? 
As Lastra ( 1994) pointed out, an established linguistic borrowingis easier to study 
because it should be recurrent, and should spread amongst many speakers (implying non-
bilingual speakers), rather than existing only in a particular moment with a particular 
speaker. These are sociolinguistic concerns which have yet to be clearly worked-out, 
especially in terms of pedagogy and language instruction. 
There are two kinds of lexical borrowing ( or lexical transference ). In the first 
type, termed borrowed form, the morphemes of the word of one language are adapted to 
20 
the new language. In the second type, termed extension of meaning, the borrowed lexical 
item assumes a new or additional meaning in the borrowing language (Lastra, 1992). An 
example of the former is the word holishmok in German, which comes from the 
exclamation in English, "holy smoke!" An example of the latter is the word ministro in 
Spanish, which has come to have the additional meaning of protestant clergy dueto the 
influence of English (Lastra, 1992; Romaine, 1989). Borrowing can take semantic or 
grammatical forms as well, but such issues are beyond the scope of the present paper. 
An important distinction for the present study is that between code-switching and 
lexical borrowing. Though these processes may be related ( depending on how one 
understands bilingual and the role of the bilingual individual when languages are in 
contact), sorne scholars ( e.g., Lastra, 1992) claim there is a difference that is manifested 
in pronunciation. Leo un magazine, in which the noun is pronounced using standard 
English, is an example of code-switching. In contrast, Leo un lmayasín/ is an example of 
lexical borrowing (Lastra, 1992). Lastra stated: "Monolinguals use established 
borrowings since momentary borrowings are employed only by bilingual individuals and 
are not always phonetically integrated (in the borrowing language). (Momentary 
borrowings) are a kind of alternation of only one word, generally a noun" (p. 192). 
Romaine (1989) concurred with similar words: 
(Bilingual) speakers rely heavily on nonce borrowing (though) in principie, 
the whole lexicon of the two languages is at the disposal of the proficient 
bilingual...(These nonce borrowings) provide a source of potentially 
integratable items for other less proficient bilingual and monolingual 
members to draw on (p. 63). 
The present study attempts to provide more information with respect to precisely 
whether or not monolinguals use momentary lexical borrowings or ifthey are limited to 
bilingual speakers. This task may be difficult in the sense that is has not been readily 
21 
000820 
attempted. According to Lastra, "The role of bilinguals as opposed to monolinguals ... in 
the dissemination of (lexical) borrowings, has not been empirically studied"(p. 189). 
Romaine ( 1989), citing Ha u gen ( 1953 ), Poplock and Sankoff ( 1984 ), and others claimed 
that "borrowed items seem to have an uncertain linguistic status ... each individual 
(speaker) may adopt it to varying degrees ... or in different form from one occurrence to 
the next"(p. 58). In order to begin to understand how linguistic borrowing takes place, 
one must consider more thanjust linguistic phenomena. The present study seeks to 
considera specific demographic group, and explicit extra-linguistic variables, in order to 
focus the ambiguous problem of lexical dialectology. The objective is to provide 
manageable information which may prove useful for language education theory. 
Lexical Studies of English Borrowings in Spanish 
2.5. The quantity of studies dealing with English lexical borrowings in Spanish 
are few and, in general, not well done. It is difficult to account for this paucity of 
research, especially in light ofthe increasing significance of contact between U.S. culture 
and Mexican culture along one ofthe world's largest bi-national frontiers. In my 
research for the present study, I have encountered three similar studies that are reviewed 
next. 
Margarita Hidalgo conducted the first of these studies for her Ph.D. dissertation in 
1983. The study, titled Language Use and Language Attitudes in Juarez, Mexico, applied 
a written questionnaire to 85 residents of Juarez in arder to elicit information about code-
switching. As the author stated, the purpose of her study was to investigate "the specific 
domains and frequency with which English is used in Juarez, and (to explore) the use of 
Spanglish" (p. vii). Hidalgo (1983) made an important distinction between informal 
language setting and usage, and formal language settings and usage, which served as a 
basis for her general position about the use of English by Juarez residents: 
22 
The use of English (lexical borrowings) is restricted to informal situations 
which enhance a relaxed atmosphere and tone of conversation. This 
sporadic, informal use of English is definitely a style ofthe young adults 
under thirty-five who have studied English formally for a number of years 
(p. 48). 
Further, this study claimed that English borrowing is restricted by very specific domains 
and only infrequently occurs regularly between Mexicans. In conclusion, Hidalgo (1983) 
claimed that her study shows that English use by Mexicans in Juarez was related to 
socioeconomic status and the environment of the border, which facilitates exposure to 
informal sources of English language use. 
Unfortunately, this study has a number of serious errors which make the data 
related to the use of English borrowings by Mexicans questionable. For example, the 
questionnaire has no specific linguistic aspects that deal with English. Section 2 of the 
questionnaire, "intended to measure the Subjects' informal use of English," was "a 
comprised measure based on approximations of functions ofthis language and its 
domains" (Hidalgo, 1983, p. 50). Thus, rather than any sort of linguistic questions, the 
questionnaire consisted of questions such as: "12. How often do you write in English" 
and "13. In general, your knowledge of English is ... " (p. 227). At severa) points the 
author mentioned common anglicisms used by Mexicans and, at one point, even provided 
a chart that listed 11 items with their popular version, English source, and whether their 
use was stigmatized in Spanish. However, these data were not obtained from the 
questionnaire but from "discussions," which occurred apart from the questionnaire, with 
sorne of the subjects (p. 130). 
Additional problems with the methodology include the manner in which the 
subjects were selected for study. As Hidalgo (1983) indicated on page 52, subjects were 
23 
selected dueto "convenience" and "willingness to participate" from visits to stores and 
restaurants. 1t is difficult to accept, scientifically, Hidalgo' s inductive conclusions about 
English lexical borrowings for twofold reasons. First, the sample size was too small 
since it represented a variety of ages and economic classes. Second, the method for 
subject selection was problematic: subjects not willing to participate were excluded. 
Granted, the purpose of Hidalgo's study was more than the use of language, it also hadas 
a goal exploring the attitudes Mexicans had toward languages and their use. But there is 
a dubious relationship between the two. As she stated herself: "There is nota complete 
correspondence between language attitudes and language behavior" (p. 26). 
Nevertheless, it is clear that this study failed to understand or capture the nature of the 
use of English lexical borrowings by Spanish-speaking Mexicans on the border. As 
Hidalgo admitted, "The use of English with other Mexicans is an exceptional, 
incongruent fonn of behavior whose parameters deserve a more cautious and exhaustive 
study" (p. 69). 
Huyke Freiría conducted a similar study which is included in a text edited by 
Lope Blanch called Estudios Sobre el Español Hablado en las Principales Ciudades de 
America ( 1977). This study dealtwith the presence of anglicisms in San Juan, Puerto 
Rico. lts purpose was to investigate the density of anglicisms in the "standard educated 
linguistica" of San Juan in four distinct lexical areas: transportation and travel, mass 
communication, entertainment, and the office (Lope Blanch, 1977). In order to execute 
the study, Huyke used an oral questionnaire consisting of open-ended questions that were 
designed to provoke responses of the English lexical words in question. For example, in 
the area of transportation, the participants were asked to name "those words that you 
associate or use with 'train'" (Lope Blanch, 1977, p. 65). For her study, Huyke defined 
an "anglicism" as fulfilling one of the following criteria: a word whose fonn - whether 
phonetically adopted to Spanish or in its original fonn - comes from English; or, a word 
24 
whose meaning is accepted in Spanish but comes from English (Lope Blanch, 1977, p. 
69). In other words, check and chequear were both considered anglicisms for this study. 
The results revealed that of the entire lexical corpus elicited from the subjects, only 
10.4% were anglicisms, as defined using the broad criteria cited above (Lope Blanch, 
1977, p. 71). The study concluded with a detailed list of ali the English lexical items 
used and their individual frequency, which proved useful for the selection of items used 
in the present study. 
Despite the interesting distribution of lexical infonnation provided for by Huyke 
in her series of charts and lists, her study lacks significant impact in the field of lexical 
dialectology for two reasons. First, the number of subjects and their breadth of 
demographic representation made any inductive conclusions about speech in San Juan 
dubious. Huyke used only 12 subjects, which included persons in age from 26 to 58 
years (Lope Blanch, 1977, p. 66). Moreover, other than information about education 
levels, no other sociological information was provided. Second, the scope and results of 
the research were misleading. The stated objective of the study was the density of 
anglicisms present in the educated speech of San Juan; therefore, ali of the subjects 
possessed at least one university degree as a criterion for participating in the study. 
Unfortunately, as many sociolinguists claim (e.g., Trudgill, 1977), non-standard speech 
occurs more frequently and naturally in less formal circumstances. Thus, to study a 
feature of non-standard speech in educated Spanish, via a formal questionnaire, seems 
contradictory from a methodological and theoretical standpoint. Huyke herself made an 
enigmatic statement in this regard on page 65: "Pero es poco probable que se utilicen en 
conversaciones cotidianas." This accounts for the seemingly low percentage of density 
of anglicisms in the speech of San Juan, a city that has as one of its official languages 
English. The present study hopes to avoid these errors with a much larger sample of 
25 
subjects, a more specific sociological focus, and an emphasis on daily, informal, spoken 
Spanish. 
A third study far consideration is that conducted by Diana Alicia Bustamante far 
a Ph.D. dissertation (1987), titled Choice of Language by Individuals in Border and 
Interior Regions: A Study of Media Impact on Mexican lssues. In her discussion of 
Spanish and the use of anglicisms, Bustamante made sorne startling claims. Using as 
basis a study conducted by a Mexican government agency, Bustamante commented on 
the use of anglicisms along the border as compared to the interior of Mexico: "Interior 
cities show a higher use score on the use of Anglicisms than border cities ... the only 
difference between the two regions is dueto social class, not region (p. 28)." These data 
were based on a study sponsored by the National Commission far the Defense of the 
Spanish Language and conducted by the Center far the Study of Northern Mexican 
Border (CENOFEX) in 1982. Unfortunately, CENOFEX no longer exists and their 
building in Tiajuana where CENOFEX was located, no longer claims to have the study it 
conducted. Moreover, as Bustamante herself admitted on pp. 22-23, the Commission in 
question was created with the purpose of eradicating and stigmatizing the use of English 
in Mexican Spanish. This problematic example aside, Bustamante's research contains 
other methodological errors and sorne dubious research. 
To begin, the method used to measure language use, as in the study conducted by 
Hidalgo ( 1983), does not correspond to any real linguistic information, despite its claims. 
Far example, the questionnaire included the question, "What is the frequency with which 
you have contact with the following means of communication?" Then it listed four 
aspects of media and asked subjects to mark their use in English, Spanish, from the USA, 
and from Mexico (Bustamante, 1987, p. 32). The connection between language choice 
and use was not based on linguistic observation. In addition, the data base used far her 
conclusions was problematic because the cities selected far study are not representative 
26 
of the Spanish of Mexico and its dialect zones as defined by Lope Blanch (1991 ). For 
example, Mexico City and Acapulco, representing the interior of Mexico, ranked highest 
in use of English lexical items, while Matamoros (on the Texas border) ranked last 
(Bustamante, 1987). Unfortunately, the lexical fields chosen for the study, including 
business and travel, are naturally more common in these popular tourist cities that have a 
high number of foreign visitors. Finally, the political agenda of the agency that provided 
the data used by Bustamante, explicitly conducted to defend and protect the use of 
standard Spanish in Mexico, tainted her later claims. One of the objectives ofthe present 
study ofthe use of English lexical items in border Spanish is to disprove the notion that 
border Spanish does not contain a higher density of anglicisms than Spanish in the 
interior of Mexico. 
Summary 
2.6. The purpose of this review of sociolinguistic theory and research was 
twofold. First, it helped locate and focus the present study in terms of methodology and 
objectives. Sociolinguistic studies attempt to examine how language is used by speakers 
in the context of everyday life. Questionnaires or tape recordings provide information 
about the language used by speakers. Then this linguistic information is analyzed for 
selected variables, or in terms of specific sociological factors. Phonological studies 
dominate sociolinguistic work, but other fields, such as dialectology, also constitute 
sociolinguistics. 
The second purpose of this review was to demonstrate the paucity of studies 
related to the use of anglicisms in Mexican Spanish, and to analyze their content and 
quality. No study dedicated exclusively to the examination of the use of anglicisms by 
border Mexicans was identified in this research. Moreover, the four similar studies 
identified in this review contain questionable results dueto methodological problems. 
27 
CHAPTERIII 
Background and Theoretical Considerations: English as a Second Language 
3. The educational aspect of this paper is concerned with English as a 
Second Language (ESL) instruction. This chapter seeks to provide a brief 
review ofthe following themes as they pertain to the present research: the 
universalization of English, language planning and education, English as a 
Second Language leaming theory, and ESL vocabulary instruction theory. A 
summary concludes the chapter. 
The Universalization of English, Language Planning and Education 
3.1. The universalization ofthe English language signifies an 
unprecedented linguistic reality in the history of civilization: today it is used as 
a means of communication by more people than any other language ever 
(Kachru, 1996). As English becomes more universal, the diversity of English, 
in terms of dialectsand styles, increases. Obvious examples of this process 
are seen in the dominance of English in fields like science and technology, 
international business and banking, aviation and tourism, and education at 
higher levels. However, most people fail to recognize or understand the nature 
of this reality and its implications. Goerge Steiner pointed out as early as the 
1970s that the center ofthe English language has shifted away from its origins 
(Kachru, 1996). English is now a language of the world, rather than of justa 
particular culture or country. One scholar has even stated that "the native 
28 
speaker is irrelevant" in the natural development of English asan international 
language (Widdowson, 1983, p. 382). Linguists who favor this view use the 
example of the elusive and changing English lexicon as evidence for the myth 
of a standard English language. These scholars, led by Widdowson, Saville-
Troike, and Kachru, emphasize the unneeded and unwanted input of native 
speakers from England, the United States, or anywhere else in the 
development of English. English lexis, they point out, are constantly invented 
and adapted and cannot be contained in a standard lexicon. English 
vocabulary has so diversified that different groups of users have developed 
their own specialized lexicons for communal communicative functions 
(Widdowson, 1983). This understanding of the English language has 
important implications for linguistic proficiency and regulation. On the one 
hand, a speaker would be considered proficient to the extent that he possesses 
the language and makes it his own, rather than just submitting to standard 
dictates of form. On the other hand, English must be seen as self-regulating, 
"appropriate to different conditions of use" (Widdowson, 1983). 
Linguistically, English is characterized by its tolerance to (linguistic) 
variation and its multiplicity of standard dialects (Lastra, 1992), as opposed to, 
for example, French which is characterized by its identification to a particular 
culture and its inherent rigidity. This basic reality is reflected in the fact that 
there are four non-native speakers ofEnglish for every one native speaker 
(Kachru, 1996), and that English is recognized as the official language of at 
least 37 countries: "English is the only natural language that has considerably 
more non-native users than native users" (Lastra, 1992, p. 347). 
29 
The impact ofthe universalization of English on foreign cultures, other 
languages, language learning, literature, society, politics, economics, and 
ideology have yet to be fully studied or understood. In his paper on World 
Englishes, Braj Kachru ( 1996) attempted to delimit how English is affected 
by, and affects, linguistically and culturally distinct contexts. Therein, the 
author also provided sorne clues as to how language instruction and language 
planning might be approached in the attempt to contend with this important 
phenomenon. Kachru identified this complex affective process by its 
reciproca! manifestations. One, called Englishization, refers to the process of 
change that English has initiated in the other languages ofthe world (p. 138). 
The other manifestation Kachru termed Acculturation ofEnglish, which refers 
to linguistic changes occurring in English as a result of contact with, and use 
by, different cultural groups (p. 138). This concept takes into account the 
variety of non-standard English dialects spoken around the globe and attempts 
to not only legitimize, but also embrace their existence. This term applies to 
the methods and approaches to ESL instruction that exist throughout the world 
and which, according to the author, need to be re-examined. Unfortunately, 
the global initiation of bilingualism in English, a true paradigm shift both 
linguistically and socially, has yet to provide any concomitantly new and 
adequate methodology for the study of its implications on language planning 
and bilingual education. 
The problems of language planning and language education seem clear 
enough at first glance. For example: Can language planning and control be 
exercised, or is the attempt futile or destructive? Does the diffusion of English 
imply the loss or death of other languages? Does a standard English exist and 
30 
how should the varieties of English be compared and valued? Which English 
variety should be taught to second language leamers and who should teach it? 
What qualifications will the language instructor need? What language variety 
should be the medium of instruction? Should the attainment of native-like 
competence be the goal of ESL teaching or not? And, What type of language 
instruction is adequate or appropriate for new sociolinguistic contexts where 
ESL learning is occurring (Nichols, 1996)? However, these issues are not so 
easily resolved when placed in the context of non-Anglo, non-first world 
cultural concepts of power and politics. 
In Mexico, for example, the notion of a distinct and independent 
Mexican culture itself is invariably linked to the preservation of apure 
Spanish as the national tangue. In arder to confront this perceived problem 
the Mexican govemment has created the National Commission for the Defense 
ofthe Spanish Language (Comisión Naciónal Para La Defensa Del Idioma 
Español), which has led to the attempt to provide sorne empirical research to 
verify the supposition that linguistic and cultural change is taking place in 
Mexico as a result of the influence of English and the bordering United States 
(Bustamante, 1987). This Commission led to the questionable study 
conducted by the Centro de Estudios Fronterizos Del Norte de Mexico 
(CEFNOMEX) cited in Chapter II. In addition, the Commission has led to 
publicity campaigns that ridicule the use of non-standard Spanish and play on 
the fears of average Mexicans (Bustammante, 1987). Mexican politicians 
seem to be influenced by doomsayers like Seda (1980), who have predicted 
the extinction of Puerto Rican culture and Spanish dueto English code-
31 
switching: a prophecy which is not supported by current sociolinguistic studies 
of Puerto Rican Spanish ( e.g., see Lope Blanch, 1977). 
This fear of linguistic and, by extension, cultural contamination from 
Mexico's powerful northern neighbor influences paradigms of language 
teaching in Mexico. As the English language exerts ever increasing influence 
over Spanish via the speech patterns of Mexican youth, the govemment claims 
this interference may lead to fossilization of errors and subsequent non-
standard varieties of Spanish From the language educators perspective, the 
problem is twofold. First, the knowledge and use of non-standard varieties of 
the target language (English), which may differ from the instructor' s variety of 
English is an issue. Second, the question of which English variety is dictated 
by the curriculum: a pedagogical conundrum which must be addressed in the 
classroom. Ultimately, the fear is that the linguistic death ofMexican Spanish 
itself may result. 
The stance ofthe Mexican govemment, however, is misguided and not 
based on linguistic reality. As Romaine (1989) pointed out, language 
loss/death is not a real threat to the situation in Mexico because language 
switching and borrowing does not cause language loss: there is nota real 
connection between grammar competence and other linguistic competences, 
like lexical borrowing. Moreover, using schools as the principie agents of 
language control and arbitration are ineffective because linguistic interference 
is socially determined, not linguistically controlled (Romaine, 1989). In other 
words, any attempt to control the usage and development of Spanish must 
begin with the control of people and their behavior, a task which no 
govemment is capable of in any comprehensive sense (Wiley, 1996). 
32 
The Mexican government would likely findmore success in its 
language planning policy, especially with respect to the interference of the 
English language in the many varieties of spoken Spanish, if it assumed a 
stance oftolerance based on sociolinguistic reality. The first step would be to 
recognize non-standard varieties of Spanish as legitimate forms of 
communication that represent distinct cultures and societies. As Romaine 
( 1989) pointed out, non-standard varieties are stigmatized in all countries. 
Various sociolinguists now promote tolerance in the classroom as the best 
method to promote social and linguistic variation ( e.g., Hornberger, 1996; 
Rickford, 1996). Issues of linguistic prejudice and social inequality are 
directly related to the act of recognizing a regional linguistic variety as a 
legitimate mode of communication, both within and without the communities 
where it is used. Failure to do this may have a number of educational 
consequences related to ESL instruction. For example, Hornberger (1996) 
suggested that when educational planning takes into account the language 
community and its culture, the quality of language learning improves. 
Further, iflanguage instruction does not consider the cultural and linguistic 
varieties in the classroom, Hornberger warned, the sociological impact on the 
learner can be negative. For example, if only standard English vocabulary is 
taught in a classroom with learners who possess and use English lexical items 
in different formats, the learner will assume the hidden message that his use of 
these lexical items is inferior, less important, and less useful. And by 
extension, his native linguistic variety and even his culture assume these same 
characteristics (Hornberger, 1996). 
33 
The informed sociolinguistic stance would be to legitimize ali varieties 
of Mexican Spanish and question the need and benefits of attempting to 
impose standard Spanish. Further, the claim of the superiority of standard 
Mexican Spanish would be revealed as a myth with no scientific basis. 
Finally, in terms of language planning, sociolinguistics would warn against the 
dangers oftight central control, and emphasize the benefits of maintaining the 
variety and richness of cultures within Mexican society. Lastra (1992) implied 
that language planning should be conducted for one reason: if a 
communication problem exists; then, control of a language must occur. 
However, in Mexico's case no such problem exists. In fact, one ofthe 
principie objectives of much language planning is lexical expansion in arder to 
communicate more effectively with industrialized nations and their languages, 
which is happening naturally in Spanish by, for example, the borrowing of 
English lexical items. Lastra also pointed out the need to study the effects of 
any language change or regularization on the groups being affected, something 
not being done in Mexico. At stake is the recognition and empowerment of 
the various geographic and linguistic cultures in Mexico, and, indeed, the 
success of Mexican society in general. As Hornberger (1996) stated: 
"Language and language use both shape and mediate young peoples' 
participation in educational opportunities, and, ultimately, their contribution, 
real and potential, to the larger society" (p. 452). 
In terms of language education, specifically ESL instruction, Mexico 
must develop new paradigms of pedagogy (method and materials) that respond 
to the new challenges that English lexical borrowing, and a wide variety of 
spoken Spanish varieties, present. Up to the present, this challenge has yet to 
34 
be met, if even recognized. Lastra (1992) claimed that bilingual education in 
Mexico is considered non-existent or poor by ali scholars, and that there are no 
extant studies of bilingual education in Latin America. Zoreda ( I 996) 
suggested using popular texts from different cultures in the ESL classroom in 
order to foster a "creative understanding of the foreign culture" and language 
which would then "help students begin the critical process of discovering and 
questioning their own identities, preferences and subjectivities" (p. 3). She 
claimed that Mexicans educators must change the way they approach 
American culture and the English language in order to: 
Rescue a rather fossilized college English curriculum with the 
purpose of upgrading it so it may contribute to the formation of 
graduates in Mexico as transcultural literates capable of 
confronting others cultures critically and simultaneously 
appreciating their own culture. We would then be working 
toward the end of irrational, chauvinistic policies of "in verse 
discrimination" toward foreign cultures (Zoreda, I 996, p. I ). 
Many scholars concur with Zoreda, and have concluded that language 
teaching should occur in the learners' own variety, with an instructor who is a 
native speaker ofthat variety, and the variety of the target language should 
conform to the leamers linguistic variety and cultural context (e.g., 
Homberger, I 996; Ricker, I 996; and Nichols, 1996). 
Before this can be done, however, a sociolinguisitic study ofthe 
Spanish language and its dialects in Mexico is required. Before such studies 
35 
are conducted and their results analyzed and integrated into specific acts of 
language planning, Mexican language educators need to address their 
methodologies, theories and techniques in order to provide the highest and 
most appropriate level of instruction for the particular linguistic and social 
contexts they face. 
English as a Second Language (ESL) Theory 
3.2. There are a large number oftheories and approaches in second and 
foreign language teaching. So many, in fact, that keeping abreast ofthe 
current theories and trends is difficult for even the most established language 
theorist, much less the average school teacher. In order to adequately 
appreciate a review and evaluation of the most appropriate theory for border 
culture ESL classroom, the linguistic and social context must be established 
beforehand. 
In sociolinguistic tenns, speakers from the border culture of Sonora 
have a strong lexicon, with both English and Spanish elements. We might 
also assume that their grammar is from Spanish and that their phonetic skills 
in Spanish may be non-standard dueto the interference of English. Moreover, 
we might conjecture that their phonetic capacities in English may be unique 
dueto Spanish interference. Finally, border culture speakers may be weak in 
communicative competence with other native Spanish-speakers from outside 
their communities and the border culture. This implies that attempts by border 
culture speakers to communicate and learn in the ESL classroom, especially 
with speakers from outside oftheir communities, might be impeded (Romaine, 
1989). As Homberger (1996) has pointed out, communicative competence is 
36 
variable from speaker to speaker, and culture to culture. A speaker' s 
communicative competence is defined by oral language as well as first and 
second language transfer (Hornberger, 1996). 
One must also assume that the goal ofthe border culture students 
education, in terms of languages, is acquiring linguistic competence in both 
Spanish, the native language, and English, the language required by most 
Sonaran universities and colleges as a second language of study. One concern 
for these speakers is the threat of semi-lingualism, a term used to describe the 
individual with less than native skills or communicative abilities in both 
languages. The academic and cognitive implications of semi-lingualism have 
yet to be fully studied, but the practica) implications of the speaker who uses a 
variety of a language which inhibits easy communication with other speakers 
are obvious: difficulty in leaming a second language; cultural and social 
prejudices; and difficulty in attaining success in education. 
Thomason (1986) implied