
































SECTION E: INSIGHTS INTO SOCIOLINGUISTICS



Linguistic cohabitation of Spanish and English in the United States

Purity Ada Uchechukwu

Abstract

The study of speech communities characterized by language contact has been a major goal of
modern sociolinguistics. However, the term, linguistic cohabitation is best used to describe the
coexistence of Spanish with the English language in the United States. This paper looks at the
linguistic outcomes of this cohabitation from the perspective of borrowing and substratum
interference. The insights gained reveal that the co habitation of Spanish and English in the US is
based on socio-historical and demographic factors whose relevance demystifies the myth of the
United States as the melting pot for other languages other than English, and aligns its linguistic
panorama with the language situation in many other parts of the world in the era of continuous
immigration and globalization.

Keywords: Spanish and English in the US, borrowing, substratum interference, language contact

Introduction

Conquest and immigration are two major social processes that give rise to language contact
processes (Sankoff, 2001, p. 4). From a socio-historical perspective and with regard to the
Spanish language in particular, the former can be confirmed through the Spanish discovery and
conquest of the Americas (the Americas is used here in a broad sense to include Spanish
speaking Central, South, North and the Caribbean Americas) which marked the beginnings of a
series of conquests; and ensuing contact of the Spanish language with Amerindian languages. To
these belong Carib, Arawak and Taíno (Caribbean) followed by contact with the main language
of Mexico by the Aztecs (Nahuatl), and Quechua of the Inca empire. Other Amerindian
languages include Maya, Chibcha, Tupí-Guaraní, and Mapuche. These linguistic outcomes are
still prevalent today in the occurrence of amerindianisms or Amerindian borrowings in the lexis
of Spanish (see Buesa, 1967; Penny, 2002).



Migration of Spanish-speakers to the United States on the other hand, forms the basis in
this paper for the analysis of some linguistic features that have arisen through Spanish-
Englishcontact. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives a briefoverview of
factors that contribute to the diversity of Spanish in the United States. Section 3 examines
Thomason & Kaufman’s (1988) interpretations of the linguistic terms borrowing and substratum
interference in relation to languages in contact.Section 4 dwells on the characteristics of United
States Spanish, whilesection 5 is the summary and conclusion.

Varieties of Spanish in the United States

Spanish in the United States is a continuum whose origins can be traced to the 16th century (Noll,
2001, p. 99). However, there is no one homogeneous Spanish in the Spanish-speaking world.
While Spain through theRoyal Spanish Academy orReal Academia Española (RAE) in
cooperation with the Associating Academiesin Latin America (Associación de lasAcademias),
has been able to fix the norm for the standard variety (see Fries, 1984; Stewart, 1999; Mar-
Molinero, 1997; 2000), the Spanish spoken in each Latin American country bears distinct
features that distinguish them from standardPeninsular Spanish. Though the differences are more
pronounced in the lexicon thanin the linguistic rules as such;the consequence is that with the
influx of immigrants from these countries into the United States, the Spanish spoken in the
United States bears the peculiarities of the varieties of Spanish spoken by its native speakersfrom
the different Latin American states.Research by Cardenas (1970) groups the dialects of Spanish
spoken in the US into four: the Mexican or Chicano, the Puerto Rican, the Cuban and the
Peninsular dialects. Whereby, the Mexican or Chicanovariety is further sub-classified into New-
Mexico-Colorado, Texas, Southwest, and Arizona-California dialects.

Lipski (1990) lists Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Central American
under which Salvadoran, Nicaraguan, and Guatemalan featured. Lipski also includes the Sabine
River dialect (spoken at the border between Louisiana and Texas) as well as the Isleñodialect
spoken in Saint Bernard Parish in Louisiana.

Because of this prevailing complex linguistic situation, Mar-Molinero (1997,p. 161)
criticizesthe use of the term “Hispanic community”because it ignoresthe diversity of this group;
more so, as according to Waltermire (2014),the varieties of Spanish spoken in major cities have
become much more diverse over time, as immigrant populations from other parts of Latin
America have expanded to a large extent.

Unlike the development of Peninsular Spanish from Vulgar Latin, the Spanish spoken in
the US is the outcome of socio-historical developmentsas“linguistic outcomes of language
contact determined in large part by the history of social relations among populations, including
economic, political and demographic factors (Sankoff, 2001,p. 3). With the focus of this paper
onthe Latino/Hispanic population, this socio-historical development encompasses the Spanish



historical conquest of the Americas, thecountry of origin of the speakers, their length of stay in
the United States, the continuity of Spanish within specific areasand the sustained cultural links
of the speakers with theirhome countries.This last factor in particular, enhances the retention of
Spanish in the US.

That Spanish, unlike other migrant languages such as French or German, can coexist with
English in the United States is not only due to the continuous inflow of Latinos/Hispanics, but
the fact of a more or less homogeneous cultural identity in the Hispanic/Latino community. That
the coexistence with English gives rise to linguistic outcomes such as code-switching, and
transference at all linguistic levels is not peculiar to Spanish alone, but presents a general feature
of the different linguistic outcomes of language contact.

The next section addresses the concepts of borrowing and substratum interferenceas explained by
Thomason & Kaufman (1988).

Borrowing and Substratum Interference

Thomason and Kaufman (1988, p. 37) define the linguistic term borrowing as “the incorporation
of foreign features into a group's native language by speakers of that language”. In addition, the
authors state that even though the native language is maintained, it undergoes changes by the
addition of the incorporated features from the foreign language; wherebywords from the foreign
language are consistently the first elements to enter the native language in a borrowingsituation.

Substratum interference on the other hand, is a subtype of interference that results from
imperfect group learning during a process of language shift (p. 38). That is, in this kind of
interference a group of speakers shifting to a target language fails to learn the target language
(TL) perfectly. The errors made by members of the shifting group in speaking the TL then spread
to the TL as a whole when they are imitated by original speakers of that language. However, as
the authors also state, imperfect learning is not to be understood as the lack of ability to learn.
Instead, attitudinal factors may be a substantial contribution to why speakers’ version of the TL
undergoes a shift. Another factor which may be crucial is also availability of the TL. In
conclusion, Thomason and Kaufman explain that "errors" are identified solely from the
viewpoint of preexisting TL structure (p. 39).

The above defined concepts are reflected in the Spanish spoken in the United States
through the linguistic contact situation of Spanish and English.A prominent characteristic of this
contact situation is reflected in borrowings which appear as anglicisms in US Spanish. This
feature, which Penny (2002) says has been erroneously defined as ‘interlanguage borrowing’,
actually refers to:

Loans whose immediate etymon is an English word or expression,



irrespective of the source of the English word…it does not include

those words in Spanish whose ultimate etymon is an English word,

but which have reached Spanish through the etymon of another language

(Pratt as cited in Penny, pp. 277-278)

The author, therefore, includes lexical items such as anorak (Eskimo), géiser (Icelandic),
among anglicismsin the Spanish language, while excluding words which can etymologically be
traced to English, but were originally French (Gallicisms).

To the linguistic outcomes of Spanish English contact include the phenomenon of code-
switching which has given rise to Spanglish, a term used to describe the process of switching
from Spanish to English by bilinguals; and erroneously described as evidence of a lack of
proficiency in the English language (see Zentella, 2002). Research has, however, shown that
people who code-switch unconsciously draw on linguistic principles and consequently, code-
switching is a rule-governed bilingual behavior and “the ability on the part of bilinguals to
alternate between their linguistic codes in the same conversational event” (Toribio, 2001, p. 184).
Another is the adoption or borrowing of English lexical items into Spanish through direct
translations, phonological and morphological adaptations (Espinosa 1975, p. 99) and ‘linguistic
homogenization’ (Mar-Molinero, 1997, p. 163).

Generally, the Spanish spoken in the United States is characterized by borrowings and
substratum influence from the English language, allof whichcan be found on all linguistic
levels.At the morphological level this includes semantic extension, verbal and nominal
adaptations, and hybrid formations. Included also are morphosyntactic adaptations in literal
translations, word order, and passive constructions. There are also cases of phonological
adaptations at the phonological level. Each one of these aspects is treated separately below.

Semantic Extension and Literal translation

Extension in the meaning of a lexical item occurs when foreign expressions that in their
meanings bear a certain similarity to some native words are adopted and expanded. Inthe case
ofSpanish,“se atribuye a una palabra existente en español el significado de una palabra inglesa
parecida” (Azevedo, 2005, p. 381). In other words, English lexical items and verbs which have
Spanish equivalents are borrowed and their original English meanings undergo semantic
extension. All examples are from Azevedo (2005, pp. 380-384). Table 1 below shows that the
meanings of verbs can also be expanded.

ENG: English



USSP: US Spanish

SPS:Standard Peninsular Spanish

Table 1

a. The ENG noun, ‘cup’ and the USSP ‘copa’ are synonyms with the simple meaning ‘cup’.The
ENG ‘cup’ also has the additional meaning of ‘football cup’. The USSP ‘copa’ however, extends
the meaning of ‘copa’ to include the ENG ‘cup’. Meanwhile, ‘cup’ in SPS is realized as ‘taza’.

b. The ENG verb ‘to apply’ means ‘to request for a job’; ‘be relevant to/affect’; ‘use
method/process’; ‘put something on surface’; ‘use physical force’ (Macmillan English
Dictionary, 2002).

In USSP, the English ‘to apply’ is hispanized into a verb, ‘aplicar’ in the sense of the ENG
equivalent. The verb ‘solicitar’ in SPS means ‘to request for a job’.

Verbal Adaptations and Neologisms

Spanish verbal formation uses a specific set of verbal suffixes. In SPS the suffix, -ear is one of
the most productive verbal formatives.Instances of verbal adaptation in USSP show that English
verbs are borrowed and incorporated into Spanish through the addition of the suffix, -ear to the
English base. Further observations also show that through adaptations to the phonological and
morphological structure of English, more neologisms are formed also with the ESP productive
suffixes, -iar/-aras in Table 2below:

ENG USSP SPS

a. cup copa Taza

b. ‘to apply’ aplicar Solicitor

SUFFIX ENG USSP SPS



Table 2

a. The USSP verb,parquearis a borrowing of the English noun‘park’, and an incorporation of the
Spanish suffix, -ear.The USSP substantive, parque is a phonological adaptation of the English,
‘park’.The verbal suffix,-earis attached toparqueand the USSP verb,parquear is with the
meaning, ‘to park’ is produced. The verb estacionar in SPS translates ‘to park’.

b. The USSP verb, taipiar is producedsimilar to parquear. The USSP noun, taipais also a
phonological adaptation loaned from the Englishverb, ‘to type’. The Spanish productive
verbalsuffix,-iaris attached totaipa and the verb, taipiar ‘to type’ is formed. The English
equivalent of ‘to type’ is realized as escribir a máquina in SPS.

c. The SPS verb, soldar translates theEnglish‘to weld’. The USSP güeldis a loan word
phonologically adapted to the English verb, ‘to weld’. The attachment of the productive suffix, -
ar to güelda produces the USSP verb, güeldar.

Nominal Adaptations

In standard Spanish, the adaptation of a foreign unit into its system involves the immediate
acquisition of the morphological features characterizing the nominal categories of the Spanish
languagSSP, the description of professions, objects and situations are further derived through
prefixation as the examples below show.

Profession

In the newly formed verb such as güeldar (4.1.1 c) above, the description of a profession can
further be derived as illustrated in Table 3 below:

a. ear ‘to park’ parquear

chequear

dostear

‘estacionar’

‘ revisar’

‘ limpiar el polvo’

b. iar ‘to type’ taipiar

pickiar

donquiar

‘escribir a máquina’

‘ ecoger’

‘danciar (bailar)’

c.ar ‘to weld’ güeldar

deschachar

correctar

‘soldar’

‘descargar’

‘corregir’



USSP Verb Profession (ENG) Profession (USSP) Profession(SPS)

Güeldar ‘to weld’ welder/soldner Güeldador soldador

Trabajar ‘to work’ worker Trabajador trabajador

Table 3

In Table 3, güeldador is a substantive derived from the USSP verb, güeldar, ‘to weld’.
This formation obeys the SPS rule of nominal formations through the suffixation process.In the
same manner, the Spanish productive suffix –dor when added to the verb, trabajar ‘to work’
gives the nominalized trabajador, ‘a worker’. The same pattern occurs with the formation of
soldadorfrom the verb, soldar.

Object description

USSPVerb Object
description

(ENG)

Object description

(USSP)

Object
description

(SPS)

Lonchar‘to have lunch’ Lunch shop Lonchería merendero

Table 4

An object is described in Table 4. The USSP verb, lonchar is derived from the English ‘to have
lunch’. The noun, loncheríaon the other hand, is a prefixation according to the SPS rule of
prefixing the suffix, -íato describe objects as in panadería‘bakery’, peluquería ‘(hairdressing)
saloon’, etc. The USSP loncheríatranslates theEnglish Lunch shop whose equivalent is
‘merendero’, derived from the verb, merendar‘to have lunch’in SPS.

Hybrid Constructions

Further borrowings include hybrid constructionsformed through morphological incorporation
whereby the borrowing includes a part from both languages as incalendador- (calend-) calendar
and (calendario). Where the English morpheme, -ar carries out the function of the European
Spanish suffix, -dor.Other examples are aire de pompa; which is not a literal translation, but
instead, a morphological incorporation because the Spanish pompa is adapted to theEnglish
pump. In addition, the English syntactic structure is also adapted through the positioning of the
adjective, aire before the substantive, pompa.



Summary and Conclusion

If as opined by Sankoff (1988),the linguistic outcomes of language contact are determined in
large part by thehistory of social relations among populations, including economic, political and
demographic factors (p. 2), and substratum interference results from imperfect learning of the TL
by the foreigners to the TL, the situation in the United States presents a different scenario. This is
more so because not just for demographic reasons (see Mantilla, 2008), or economic (see
Goldman Sachs Strategy Research 2007) but, as clearly stated by Sankoff, it is not a situation
ofinability to learn the TL;, but more of a situation of cohabitation as expressed between two
languages because of the need for both.

However, and in the long run, the immigration volume and regionalconcentration of the
Hispanics in America might prove the most favorable factors for retaining the Spanish spoken in
the United States. This growing trend viewed from an economic perspective was already coined
the hispanization of the United States by Goldman Sachs Strategy Research in 2007.

References

Azevedo, M. (2005).Introducción a la lingüística española. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
New Jersey.

Buesa, O. (1967).Indoamericanismos léxico senespañol. Madrid: CSIC.

Cardenas, D. (1970). Dominant Spanish dialects spoken in the United States.

Espinosa, A. Jr. (1975). “Problemas lexicográficos del Español del Südoeste” in. El lenguaje
de los Chicanos. Regional and social characteristics used by Mexican Americans. USA:
Virginia. Center for Applied Linguistics, 3-18.

Fries, D.(1984). Sprachpflege in der real academia Española. Diss. Aachen.

Goldman, S. Strategy Research. (2007).Thegoldmansachs group, Inc.

Lipski, M. (1990).The language of the Isleños: Vestigial Spanish in Louisiana.Baton
Rouge:Louisiana State University. Press.

Macmillan English dictionary, (2002). Oxford: Macmillan Education.

Mar-Molinero, C. 1997. TheSpanish-speakingworld: A practicalintroductionto
sociolinguisticissues. London: RoutledgePsychologyPress.

Mar-Molinero, C. (2000). Thepoliticsoflanguage in theSpanish-speakingworld.London:
Routledge.



Noll, V. (2001). Das amerikanische Spanisch. Ein regionaler und historischer Überblick.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH.

Mantilla, J. 2008, October 16. Más speakSpanish queenEspaña. El País. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/speak/spanish/Espana/elpepucul/20081006el
pepicul_1/Tes.

Penny, R. (2000). Variation and change in Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Penny, R. (2002). A history of the Spanishlanguage. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Sankoff, G. (2001).Linguistic outcomes of language Contact. In P. Trudgill, J. Chambers
& N. Schilling-Estes, (Eds.). Handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
2001, pp. 638-668.

Stewart, M. (1999). The Spanish language today. London: Routledge.

Thomason, S. G. and Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic
linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, Ltd.

Toribio,A. J. (2001). “Accessing Bilingual Code-switching Competence”. International Journal
of Bilingualism 5, (4).

Waltermire, M. (2014). The influence of English on U.S. Spanish: Introduction.
Sociolinguistic Studies 8(1):1-21. DOI: 10.1558/sols.v8i1.1

Zentella, A. C. (1997).Growing up bilingual. Puerto Rican children in New York.Massachusetts.
USA: Blackwell Publishers.


