Mexican Spanish vs. Iberian Spanish: Ideologies and Sensitivities
Dounia Bredes
According to the Washington Post, Latinos [1] have recently passed whites as the largest ethnic group in California (Wu, 2015). This marks a diversity milestone in the state. However, here in Monterey, locals’ opinions about the Spanish language suggest a complicated attitude towards both the language and the wider Hispanic [2] community.
Ideologies about the Spanish spoken in Mexico and the Spanish spoken in Spain (Iberian Spanish) are connected in the minds of speakers and language learners. These two types of Spanish are part of a complex, changing hierarchy of global Spanish, and so the contrasts that we draw between them make for rich sociolinguistic research. For this project, I focus on this contrast as it is perceived by young people in the Monterey Bay area.
Methodology. I created a short survey—a Google Form, online and anonymous—and persuaded friends, fellow students, and acquaintances (n = 13) to share their thoughts. In order to focus on local ideologies, I polled only those people who had lived here for at least two years (having moved here for school, work, or family) or who grew up in the surrounding area. I managed to get a linguistically diverse cross-section of people, from native Spanish speakers to total beginners in the language. They also demonstrated a range of familiarity with sociolinguistic concepts and terminology.
This is a convenience sample. These people are not strangers to me and they were all aware of the purpose of my research. That said, the results of the survey provide anecdotal evidence for a possible relationship between language education and sociolinguistic awareness. Respondents also demonstrated a pragmatism in relation to wanting to learn Mexican Spanish, as well as a need to explain preferences for learning Iberian Spanish through emotional connection or, in one case, the expertise of other Spanish speakers.
All respondents live in or around Monterey Bay, including Carmel Valley, Marina, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Santa Cruz, and Walnut Creek. I ranked them according to their self-reported experience with Spanish, with 4 being the highest (for respondents who were native speakers) and 1 being the lowest (for respondents who were elementary-level language learners or who had received no Spanish instruction). I also categorized them as local (having grown up in California), national (having grown up elsewhere in the United States), and international (having grown up outside the United States). See Table 1 for a summary of these categories.
I avoid making too many comparisons based on age or gender, because my respondents were mostly male (n = 10 of 13) and mostly young adults (all were between 20 – 35 years old), and therefore didn’t fall into comparable groups of similar size.
Results. With such a small sample size, the conclusions that I draw are tentative at best. Yet there’s still something to be gained from studying the trends in their responses.
- There’s definitely a difference. All of the respondents felt that there was an observable difference between Iberian Spanish and Mexican Spanish.
- Experience with the language qualifies your opinion. Respondents with extensive experience in the Spanish language (ranked 3 or 4) were much more likely to elaborate on the difference between the two, noting pronunciation (“Spanish-speakers in Spain make the ‘th’ sound for c’s and z’s”) and vocabulary (“zumo for juice in Spain, jugo in Latin America”). They also mentioned perceived formality: one felt Spanish in Spain is “more proper” and cited use of vosotros, but another felt that Spanish in Mexico was “more formal” and cited usted. One respondent described “Castilian Spanish” as “gentler and more beautiful, though more traditional and stuck-up, even effete,” whereas Mexican Spanish “sounds nasally, less-refined, and contains a substantially different lexicon.” In contrast, respondents with less experience (ranked 1 or 2) were more likely to be less specific, saying: “all I can hear is a thick accent difference.” However, there was an exception: one of the less-experienced respondents also specifically mentioned pronunciation (“the ‘c’ in Barcelona”) and pronouns. See Table 2 for a summary of their responses.
- History and geography explain the difference. When asked why they felt that there was a difference between the two types of Spanish, respondents pointed to history and geography. One referenced “time since colonization”; another “separate geographical influences.” One called the difference “a cultural phenomenon”; another said that it was due to “social environments individuals live in.” The one international respondent, also a Mexican national, mentioned national pride and the need for Mexico to distinguish its language from the Spanish spoken in Spain.
- Practicality determines preference for Mexican Spanish. A majority of respondents (n = 7 of 13) would prefer to learn Mexican Spanish. Most of them (n = 6 of 7) cited proximity to Mexico and described Mexican Spanish as “more applicable” or having “greater utility” than Iberian Spanish. One added that it was spoken by more people and another stated that Spanish “without the ‘th’ sound is more universal.” See Table 3 for a summary of responses.
- No preference does not mean no opinion. Two respondents indicated no preference. One of the two went on at length about his lack of a preference: “I do not see a large difference in learning one versus the other, especially if your goal is to become fluent in a second language…I would rather learn Spanish in many different countries.”
- Preferences for Iberian Spanish are expressed through emotion. Respondents who stated a preference for learning Iberian Spanish over Mexican Spanish (n = 4 of 13) were more likely to offer feelings as a way to justify their response: “I have an inexplicable, life-long love affair with Spain” or “I feel a much greater connection to Spain than to Mexico.” One also cited the opinions of other, more experienced people: “The Spanish speakers I know say that it is more beautiful and fluid.”
Analysis. Given these trends in the collected responses, I offer an analysis of the results in the broader context of Spanish in California and the United States as a whole.
While all of the respondents agreed that there was a difference between Iberian Spanish and Mexican Spanish, they did not agree on how to describe that difference. The greater the respondent’s level of experience with the language, the more likely that they would be specific in their response, referring to the “th” sound heard in Spain instead of Mexico, as well as pronouns (vosotros and usted). Respondents with less experience had a more muddy perception: one referred to vague “formalisms” in Iberian Spanish; one said Mexican Spanish was slower, another said people spoke slower in Spain. They were also more likely to refer to different accents, without offering any additional detail about those accents.
One respondent offered a guess that because there were different lifestyles between the two countries—specifically, a traditional siesta in Spain—that might account for a slower way of speaking in Spain. The comment reveals an indexical relationship between people, place, and language: that Spanish people are more traditional, with a slower lifestyle, as evidenced by their taking a siesta. Thus, their language must be slower and more traditional, too.
It is these kinds of associations that make up language ideology. Ideology of language is defined by Tollefson and Yamagami (2013) as “complex, often implicit cultural conceptions of language that are closely linked with social structure, social identity, and beliefs about what is ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ in human societies” (p. 1).
The example of vosotros and usted is critical here. Noting this particular difference between Iberian and Mexican Spanish might seem like an objective observation, but because both pronouns carry connotations of politeness and tradition for respondents, they also index formality for either Spanish people and Mexican people. One respondent added that, in addition to being more “traditional,” Iberian Spanish was also more “stuck-up” and “effete.” While these iconic or indexical connections are sometimes subtle, and sometimes explicit, they are always strong indicators of language ideology.
Most respondents preferred to offer observations that were based on specific features of these two types of Spanish, rather than use adjectives like “beautiful” and other, more affective descriptions. That could mean that greater experience in a language can lead not only to greater sensitivity in observing differences within the language, but also increased awareness of local, national, and international stereotypes of the language and speakers of that language. That is, respondents might be educated enough in Spanish that they know these indexical or iconic relationships are potentially inappropriate ways of categorizing types of Spanish and Spanish speakers. For that reason, they stick to seemingly more objective grounds for differentiation, like vocabulary, rather than make claims about people or place. They might still make these connections (like slow, siesta, and Spain), but they seem to know better than to express them.
Respondents also might have wanted to come across as more worldly on the survey. Maybe they were responding in part to my identity as a student at a school that is known for its language programs and international student body—or to my racial make-up and language background, as a young woman of European descent and a native English speaker.
The possible relationship between language education and increased sociolinguistic sensitivity could be good news for Spanish language education in the United States. Spanish is by far the most popular language studied at the secondary and tertiary level [3] in the U.S. (Barnwell, 2008). It should be noted, however, that bilingual education is considered much more controversial. In California, for example, Proposition 227 has effectively ended bilingual instruction in public schools.
And yet, if the one-in-four [4] high school students taking Spanish also end up with increased awareness of the unconscious—and potentially unfair—associations that we make with Spanish speakers, then that could be a boon to Hispanics across the country. However, as Barnwell (2008) notes, the popularity of Spanish doesn’t always translate into proficiency: “It is a commonplace that many people spend their entire educational sequence taking and retaking Elementary Spanish” (p. 236). That’s disappointing, not in the least because without proficiency (and perhaps exposure to a community of native speakers), it’s possible that this potential boost in sensitivity might not occur.
When it comes to the preference for learning the Spanish spoken in Mexico over the Spanish spoken in Spain, it’s worth noting that none of the respondents explained their decision by saying that Mexican Spanish was more poetic or beautiful, or even by saying that they wanted to visit Mexico. Contrast that to respondents who preferred to learn Iberian Spanish because it is more “fluid,” or because they wanted to travel to Spain. It seems that Iberian Spanish comes with a feeling of romance (“life-long love affair”) that’s lacking in Mexican Spanish. This trend in responses hints at the existence of additional indexical relationships between perceptions of these two types of Spanish and their countries, or even the continents of Europe and Latin America.
Finally, although most respondents did not reveal particularly strong bias for any one version of Spanish, these linguistic ideologies definitely do exist, both in the United States and abroad. Take the term “Spanglish,” for example. Here in the U.S., it is primarily used to “disparage Latinos in the USA and to cast aspersions on their ways of speaking” (Otheguy and Stern, 2010, p. 86). While not the focus of this research, the term “Spanglish” is nonetheless instructive in who uses it and why, as it reveals “an ideology of exceptionalism that deprives the North American Latino community of one of its major resources: mastery of a world language” (Otheguy and Stern, 2010, p. 86). Indeed, there is a hierarchy in Spanish. There is a “standard” form in textbooks (Al Masaeed, 2014), and it is enforced by the Real Academia Española (RAE). This standard form ignores and even stigmatizes the increasingly diverse number of ways that the language is spoken around the world.
One respondent—a Mexican national—refers to this ongoing tension within the Spanish language in his response. He described the difference between Iberian Spanish and Mexican Spanish in this way: “First of all, Mexican Spanish is way more fun than Spain Spanish. By some reason they still believe we live in the 1800 and that language do not evolve and adapt to new trends. For example, they say ‘La Super Bowl’ which does not make any sense. In Mexico we say ‘El Super Bowl.’” In this, perhaps he’s referring to American football being a masculine pursuit, and so its grammatical gender ought to be masculine, too. However, his wording hints at some defensiveness: he says Mexican Spanish is “way more fun.” He also expresses frustration with an unknown “they” (Spanish people? The RAE?) who believe that Spanish doesn’t “evolve” or “adapt.” These same feelings play out on national and international levels between Spanish-speaking countries, and will continue to do so in our increasingly globalized world.
So, what does all of this mean for the Latino majority in California? Perhaps the popularity of Spanish as a second language among high school students will make for a generation of young Americans who are more aware of linguistic ideology. That might in turn mean a future California that is not only ethnically diverse but also educated in language-based bias. That’s optimistic, but the results of my survey suggest that at least the young people of the Monterey Bay area are sensitive to stereotypes based on language—or at least sensible enough to stay silent on them—and that could be a good sign. If these same respondents made it onto school boards and into political office, maybe Proposition 227 would be reconsidered.
That brings me to the classroom. Given that studying Spanish language in high school or college seems not always to lead to greater Spanish proficiency, we need to focus on the motivations of Spanish students in the United States. Instead of making Mexican Spanish the practical choice for English-speaking Americans, could we make it the romantic option? In other words, could we get students to say “I want to learn Spanish” instead of “I should learn Spanish”? By giving the study of Spanish—especially Mexican Spanish—a little more romance, and a little less obligation, we might improve their ultimate mastery of the language.
These conclusions are based on a very small sample size. Nonetheless, the anecdotal evidence offered by these respondents pose strong questions for future research. Does increased language education really correlate with improved awareness of language ideology? Would an emotional appeal work better than a more practical one in attracting and keeping students in Spanish classes? Would they then have increased motivation, retention, and language proficiency? These questions are worth exploring—not only in California, but in communities of Spanish speakers and Spanish learners everywhere.
Footnotes
[1] In the United States, “Latino/Latina” refers to a person from Latin America or of Latin American descent, but not necessarily a person who speaks Spanish.
[2] In the United States, “Hispanic” refers to a Spanish-speaking person, usually of Latin American descent. Note that most people labeled as either Latino or Hispanic might identify not with that particular term but instead with their country of origin or nationality (Brazilian, Colombian, etc.).
[3] “Spanish is the most widely taught foreign language in the United States, with more students enrolled in Spanish at the higher-education level than in all other modern languages combined, as detailed in a 2010 report from the Modern Language Association (MLA)” (Al Masaeed, 2014).
[4] Barnwell (2008) cites a statistic of 28%.
References
Al Masaeed, K. (2014). The Ideology of U.S. Spanish in Foreign and Heritage Language Curricula: Insights from Textbooks and Instructor Focus Groups. UMI.
Barnwell, D. (2008). The Status of Spanish in the United States. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 21(3), 235-243.
Carter, P. (2014). National narratives, institutional ideologies, and local talk: The discursive production of Spanish in a “new” US Latino community. Language in Society, 43, 209-240.
Lipski, J. (2002). Rethinking the Place of Spanish. Modern Language Association of America. 117(5), 1247-1251.
Otheguy, S. and Stern, N. (2010). On so-called Spanglish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(1), 85-100.
Pellicer, D. (2011). Social Issues in Applied Linguistics: Linguistic Diversity in the Classroom and Beyond. Is it Wrong or Just Different? Indigenous Spanish in Mexico. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 189-198.
Tollefson, J. and Yamagami, M. (2013). Language Ideology in a Language Classroom. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. C. Chapelle (Ed.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Wu, A. (2015, July). Latinos have passed whites as the largest ethnic group in California. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics/la-me-g-census-latinos-20150708-htmlstory.html
Tables