Choosing a “Standard”Variety of

Spanish for the Instruction of Native

Spanish Speakem in the U.S.
DanielJ Wlla
New Mexico State University
ABSTRACT Many Spanish for Native Speakers (SNS) instructional approaches are based on
the idea that there exist invariable spoken and written “standards”o f the language that are
preferable over other varieties and that will benefit students when acquired. However, such
invariable varieties o f any language do not exist, and thus a decision must be made as to
which dialect and written variety will be used in SNS instruction. This decision is political in
nature, and one that cannot be avoided. Basing this decision on sociolinguistic research, the
author proposes a spoken and written variety o fSpanish to be employed in the instruction of
native Spanish speakers in the United States. The concept o f “standard”is reviewed, and ar-
guments are offered to support the decision as to which varieties o f Spanish are most appro-
priate for SNS instruction.

Introduction whether a speech community shares com-

Traditional Spanish for Native Speakers (here
after SNS) programs, dedicated to teaching
Spanish to those students who have acquired it
at home or in the community, have often fo-
cused on “correcting” the variety of Spanish
brought to the classroom. Such programs as
sume that the students’ heritage language is an
impure mixture of English loanwords, archaic
usages, neologisms, imperfect morphology
and syntax, among other failings, all of which
must be eradicated. Other SNS methodologies,
labelled as “comprehensive” approaches, are
based on the notion that native speakers of U.S.
Spanish can acquire “standard” Spanish
through talking, reading, and writing about
themes presented in standard written and s p o
ken Spanish (Faltis 1990). All such approaches,
whether corrective or comprehensive, are
based on the idea that there exists one “stan-
dard” form of spoken and written Spanish,
which will benefit students when adopted.
Little debate arises over the question of
Daniel J. villa (Ph.D., University of New Mexico) is an
Assistant Professor of Spanish at New Mexico State
University, Las Cruces.
mon linguistic characteristics that to some de-
gree are identified with that community.
Dialectal studies form an important part of the
tradition of Spanish language research; even a
brief examination of the work in this field of-
fers an idea of the tremendous linguistic vari-
ation associated with the Spanish language
speech communities found throughout the
world. As a result of such research, “stan-
dards,” or usage norms, can be established to
one degree or another for at least some of
those speech communities.
However, determining which one of the
many varieties of Spanish should be estab-
lished as the unique “standard to be adopted
by all SNS programs creates polemics. Such a
debate is not inconsequential, as a decision to
select one variety over another will have a
tremendous impact on the material and
human resources dedicated to SNS instruc-
tion. This article, then, discusses the notion of
a “standard” form of language, the theoretical
foundations for identifying such a variety, and
the fact that a number of criteria are necessary
for making an informed choice of which stan-
dard or standards to select for SNS instruction.

Foreign Language Annals, 29, No. 2, 1996

 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A ” A L S 4 U M M E R 1996
The Concept of “Standard” Language
It is of primary importance to attempt a def-
inition of the concept of “standard.” As Cor-
son (1994,273) points out, the imprecision in
the use of the term has created debate about
its utilization, as “standard” implies two differ-
ent but related meanings:
One of these [meanings] is...a synonym
for ‘uniform’; w e talk about a standard
measurement which is common to all,
both invariant and normal. The other
sense is more judgmental; it suggests
‘something to aspire to,’ ‘something ex-
cellent,’ ‘the best there is,’ or ‘the para-
digm case.’
Measures such as the meter, gram, ounce,
or yard represent the former definition of
“standard.”There exists for these standards a
precisely defined unit that is invariable and
constant: a gram refers to the same degree of
mass in Mexico, England, Russia, o r the
United States. In order to establish this type of
uniform standard for any language, it would
be necessary to specify fully its phonological,
morphological, syntactic, pragmatic, and dis
course variance, among other factors. This d e
gree of specification has not yet been
achieved for any language and may well be
an impossible task d u e to theoretical ap-
proaches to linguistic analysis, a point dis-
cussed below.
A single, invariant standard is difficult to
specify even when a written version of a lan-
guage has a wellestablished history. For ex-
ample, socalled “dead” languages, those that
exist primarily or wholly in written form, ex-
hibit variation, as exemplified by the differ-
ences found between Classical and Church
Latin. With regard to Spanish, the various
Academias have been struggling for centuries
to standardize the written variety, and yet
there exists the alternation between loismo
and leismo (variation in the use of direct and
indirect object pronouns), Mkxico and Mtijico,
psicologia and sicologia, to name but a few
examples. Moreover, these differences are rel-
atively superficial; a fully specified written va-
192
riety would not only have to establish an in-
variable orthography and grammar but also
dictate how many embedded phrases, colons,
semicolons, commas, coordinated sentences,
etc., could be employed per x amount of
words in a text. Norms exist for these types of
usages; a standard, or uniform usage, does
not. Despite this fact, the idea of a unique, in-
variable language variety appears to persist in
the SNS methodologies mentioned above.
The following discusses possible linguistic
motivations for such a view.
The Synchrony/DiachronyDichotomy
The impact of Ferdinand de Saussure’s
work on the study of language is widely rec-
ognized, to the point that h e has been dubbed
by some as the “father of modem linguistics.”
There is n o doubt that concepts h e formu-
lated establish an important base for modem
linguistic studies; nevertheless, certain Saus-
surian precepts are open to discussion.
Among these is the notion of the dichotomy
between the synchronic and diachronic study
of language. The separation of the history of a
language from a present-moment invariable
system of grammar, as determined by the lan-
guage researcher, underlies many modem a p
proaches to linguistics. However, this
dichotomy, while convenient and indeed nec-
essary for some theoretical approaches to lin-
guistics, does not apply a pion’ to any given
language as it is employed by its speakers.
There has arisen interest in the field of lin-
guistics in resolving the synchrony/di-
achrony dichotomy (Christie 1982; Hopper
1987; Heine, Claudi, and Hunnemeyer 1991;
Bybee, Pagliucca, and Perkins 1994, among
others). However, in spite of the current
work o n developing what Christie (1982)
calls “panchronic” linguistics, the notion of a
uniform and invariable synchronic form of a
language existing in a speech community ap-
pears to be maintained by some. This may re-
sult in part from the means of classifying
elements of language in linguistic studies.
Taylor (1991, 24) asserts that o n e philo-
sophical approach to analysis has predomi-
nated:
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SUMMER 1996
One can scarcely overestimate the role
that the Aristotelian model of categoriza-
tion has played in mainstream linguis-
tics. Not least, the highly sophisticated
formalism associated with much post-
war work in phonology, syntax, and s e
mantics rests ultimately on assumptions
(1)-(4) of the Aristotelian model.
These assumptions are that:
(1) Categories are defined in terms of a
conjunction of necessary and suffi-
cient conditions;
(2) Features are binary;
(3) Categories have clear boundaries;
and
(4)All members of a category have
equal status (Taylor 1991, 23-24).
This classification system underlies any no-
tion of a synchronic grammar, be it descrip-
tive or prescriptive. While it cannot be denied
that synchronic grammars offer tremendously
valuable insights into linguistic structure, they
will not represent language as it is employed
in a speech community. That is, any syn-
chronic grammar, because of its static nature,
does not capture the linguistic dynamics of
human communication,which is in constant
development. While a detailed argument for
this position falls well outside the scope of this
article, the difficulties presented by many cur-
rent language philosophies have led Lan-
gacker (1987), among others, to call for
developing new approaches to language t h e
ory, instead of refining existing mainstream
approaches.
An Aristotelian-based,synchronic notion of
language is not confined to mainstream lin-
guistics but is encountered in the works of
some of those who deal with SNS issues as
well, perhaps as a result of the influence of the
former on the latter. One of the clearest ex-
amples of this approach to language in the
SNS tradition is Espariol para el bilingiie
(Barker 1972). Throughout the text certain
language use is divided into “se dice...” and
“no se dice...”;an unidentified set of neces-
sary and sufficient conditions is employed to
193
define “palabraso expresiones no dignas del
habla de la gente decente” (Barker 1972,47).
The features of these words or expressions are
binary, in part (+culto), (-culto), (+accept-
able), and (-acceptable), facilitating their
identification into two categories, one legiti-
mate and the other not. The (culto) terms are
clearly distinct, are all (-acceptable), and
share an equal status of unacceptability.
However, such a classification does not
permit gray areas, in part because all mem-
bers of a category have equal status. This
then renders the distinction between “cor-
rect” or “standard” usage difficult to estab-
lish. For example, if borrowings from English
into Spanish such as puchar or monquear are
(-Spanish origin) and thus (-acceptable),
then such words as boxear and linchar, being
members of the same category and sharing
equal status as loans from English, must also
be (-acceptable).
Unfortunately for this classification system,
the latter terms share wide acceptance, as ev-
idenced by their appearance in common-use
dictionaries, while the former do not. One
could argue that borrowings such as boxear
and linchar exhibit some kind of a (+alto)
feature that renders them (+acceptable).
However, defining this concept is problem-
atic, as “classy”is in the eye of the beholder,
subjective,and not clearly defined by a binary
feature.
Hence, such a system, which would theo-
retically support a clearly defined uniform
standard, faces fundamental difficulties when
faced with “real-world’’distinctions. As Taylor
(1991) notes, an Aristotelian model of classifi-
cation has had an important impact on main-
stream linguistics; it appears to inform various
SNS teaching methodologies as well. This im-
pact may have resulted in the use of “stan-
dard” by some involved in SNS issues to mean
a uniform, invariable synchronic language va-
riety that exists in a speech community, an
empirically and theoretically unsupported
correlation. Thus, since no “standard” lan-
guage in the sense of “uniform”exists, a case
must be made for choosing “the paradigm
case,”the “bestthere is.”
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALSSUMMER 1996
The Politically Motivated Use of
“Standard”
The above serves as a review of the notion
of “standard” and aims primarily to restate
and emphasize a point that has already been
discussed extensively in the literature. A con-
cise discussion of the concept as it applies to
the teaching of bilingual students is found in
Hidalgo (1990, 111); after reviewing the con-
cept of “standard” language, she amves at the
conclusion that “...the criteria of establishing
the distinction between a language and a di-
alect are not well defined,” a notable depar-
ture from a binary analysis. She then observes
that “...in some Latin American countries the
speech variety spoken in the national capital
represents the ideal linguistic norm and a
model worthy of imitation” (Hidalgo 1990,
111). This assertion casts “standard squarely
into the role of “the paradigm case” or “the
best there is.”Thus, the selection of a standard
is not based on clearly delineated linguistic
analyses but rather on the political stance of
those who are in the position to make the
choice.
Given the commonly imprecise use of the
term “standard,”this is a selection that cannot
be avoided; hence, those who do make such
a decision must carefully consider their moti-
vations, whether personal or institutional, in
the choice of ”the best there is.“ This is not a
decision to be made lightly, again as it will af-
fect the allocation of scarce resources in an
SNS program.
As Hidalgo notes, a fairly common selec-
tion of a “standard” as “the best there is” has
been the variety of an elite upper class with a
certain level of formal education, the so-
called “norma culta,” of some regions of Latin
America (with the Castilian variety now ap-
parently downplayed in this respect). Barker
(1972), for example, seems to refer to some
such variety in her “se dice/no se dice” di-
chotomy. This is underscored by the common
practice of defining “nonstandard usages in
U.S. Spanish by focusing on these forms as
they vary from the “norma culta.” Again, Hi-
dalgo (1990, 120) provides a concise review:
“Those who study M-ASp [Mexican-American
194
Spanish] consistently report the additions of
/ s / in the second person singular of the
preterite (dijistes, trajistes), columnar stress in
the first person plural of the present subjunc-
tive (vayamos, tengamos, pukdamos, duer-
manos), and the substitution of /n/ for /m/ in
the first person plural of the imperfect indica-
tive (ibanos, comprabanos, salianos), among
other non-standard phenomena (emphasis
”
added).
As a result, certain characteristics have
been identified that could form a framework
for the teaching of a “standard” Spanish, i.e.,
that variety spoken by certain elite Latin Amer-
ican groups, one worthy of imitation and
which accrues benefits to its speakers. How-
ever, it is reasonable to assume that many in-
volved in SNS issues would be at odds with
the idea that the wholesale imposition of an
outgroup spoken variety would be beneficial
to U.S. speakers of Spanish. Hidalgo (1993,89)
recognizes this problem, noting the negative
affective impact of imposing an out-group
standard on SNS students and that indeed
even graduate students from Mexico and edu-
cated speakers from Chile and Argentina em-
ploy “nonstandard”forms. Sanchez (1993,80)
provides an extreme example of a reaction to
affective factors: a hunger strike by students in
one program. This in part was due to a “stan-
dard” conflict. In an article entitled “Feds
probe discrimination charges at UCD,” pub-
lished in the Sacramento Union, 15 March
1990, Dan De Luce reported: “Students who
speak a Spanish different than the dialect
common in Spain told the task force [investi-
gating the incident] they run up against ‘elitist’
faculty members who have given them lower
grades because they speak a Latin dialect ....”
While the imposition of an out-group variety
will not necessarily provoke such an extreme
reaction as a hunger strike, this occurrence
does serve to underscore the impact that af-
fective factors can have.
The question thus remains open as to what
standard should be employed in the instruc-
tion of native speakers of U.S. Spanish. In ad-
dition, to further complicate the situation,
there appears to exist no clearly defined dis-
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A”ALS--SUMMER 1996
cussion in SNS literature between a standard
spoken and written variety. It is at this juncture
that a critical distinction must be established
between the two, as they exhibit fundamental
differences, and impact the decision of which
”standard” to employ.
The Spoken Language
It is perhaps in the choice of a spoken stan-
dard as “the paradigm case”that political m e
tivation must be most closely examined. As
noted above, the imposition of a variety other
than that of the speaker’s community can be
detrimental to SNS students in a number of
ways, not the least of which is the implication
that their community variety is somehow sub-
standard or deficient. However, one possible
motive for selecting an out-group standard is
that its acquisition will positively impact the
students’ employment opportunities and soci-
etal success (Hidalgo 1990, 113).
This argument necessitates a definition of
which society native speakers of U.S. Spanish
would find their job opportunities and social
success endangered in by speaking their com-
munity variety. There are many opportunities
for employment in the U.S. for bilinguals that
require a knowledge of community varieties,
e.g., health care, banking, education, social
services, the court system, motor vehicle and
voter registration offices, among other occu-
pations. As for “success in society,” one can
observe that native speakers of New Mexican
Spanish varieties, for example, have occupied
the positions of Governor and Lieutenant Gov-
ernor of that state, among other posts; they a p
parently have not been “held b a c k by the
Spanish they speak. Finally, research con-
ducted by White (1992) suggests that variables
other than the assessment of verbal skills may
be a central factor in the “hireability”of a job
applicant. Myths abound about speech styles
and advancement in a society, but they are
precisely that; myths and not empirically vali-
dated facts. It is clear that much research r e
mains to be conducted before any assertions
can be made about the correlation between
the assimilation of an out-group spoken Span-
ish variety and economic and societal success.
195
Further, a common assumption of those
who would choose a nonnative standard is
that the students in SNS classes control the
community variety, which is then to be “cor-
rected.” However, U.S. Spanish speakers do
not necessarily fully possess community vari-
eties; a number of researchers have docu-
mented the shift from Spanish to English
among U.S. Spanish speakers (Lopez 1978,
Veltman 1988, Sole 1990, Bills et al. 1993,
among others). This trend has been observed
among students in one SNS program; a survey
of self-reported Spanish language use indi-
cates a general pattern of language shift from
Spanish to English (Villa 1993). That is to say,
the basic material to be corrected is not nec-
essarily available.
Thus it is that recapturing the heritage vari-
ety becomes of central importance; that
which does not exist cannot be built upon.
Neither can the affective dimension of lan-
guage loss be ignored; Fishman (1991, 2) as
serts: “...speech communities that realize that
they are in danger of dying are certainly not
complaining about a ‘mere’ toothache, but,
rather, about a very painful and dangerous
disorder within their sociocultural realm.”
Current linguistic research supports the asser-
tion that community varieties are not “conta-
minated” with English loanwords, archaic
usages, neologisms, imperfect morphology
and syntax, but rather are distinct dialectal va-
rieties, which are as valid as any other variety
of the Spanish language. As a result, the au-
thor hypothesizes that students’ community
language varieties must be emphasized in lan-
guage training, as they are the most accessi-
ble, reduce negative affective reactions, and
serve as an unsurpassed base for further d e
velopment of language skills.
It is this hypothesis, based on current em-
pirical research in sociolinguistics, that in-
forms the selection of a spoken standard in at
least one SNS program. Following the asser-
tion that the retention of heritage language by
the individual is crucial for language mainte
nance, a valuable goal in and of itself, com-
munity varieties assume a central role in SNS
instruction, as they are the most productive
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SUMMER 1996
for enriching oral language skills (Rodriguez
Pino and Villa, 1994). With regard to develop
ing language skills in SNS programs, this r e
flects Faltis’ (1990, 119) assertion that “a
reconciliation of set roles for students and
teacher can occur only if there is an opportu-
nity for dialogue.” He cites Freire (1970, 66),
who argues: “[in] an encounter among men
who name the world, it must not be a situation
where some men name on behalf of others.”
Similarly, according to Fishman (1991, 342):
“...the standard variety need not be as obliga-
tory in speech as in writing. Indeed, all di-
alects should remain valid in speech,
particularly in informal and intimate speech
within their [native speakers’] own traditional
speech networks and communities.” Heman-
dez-Chavez (1993,67) eloquently sums up this
point of view:
The goals for Spanish revitalization can-
not be separated from those for cultural
pluralism .... While language is seen as a
critical aspect of pluralism, it is not the
only component (and perhaps not even
the central one). The important goal is
the development of the community-
educationally, economically, socially,
politically-through Spanish, through
English, or bilingually. For the individ-
ual, we must add a strong sense of self,
grounded in the native culture, and the
full development of cognitive capabili-
ties. The native language is a critical in-
gredient in all of this precisely because it
can contribute to these goals, and with-
out it, individuals are uprooted, and the
community tends to fragment (empha-
sis added).
Thus, imposing a n out-group spoken lan-
guage variety becomes even more irrelevant,
as it may very well have little or nothing to d o
with students’ economic, academic, and so-
cial success. Community varieties, o n the
other hand, are appropriate for said goals.
A possible objection to using such varieties
in SNS classes is that a communicative gap
would be created between students and other
196
native speakers, as the latter could not under-
stand U.S. “regional” varieties. With regard to
contact between speakers of U.S. Spanish and
those of other dialects, Lipski (1988, 163) re-
ports: “the interfacing of Central American
and Mexican American Spanish in the United
States poses n o major barriers to successful
communication, although individual differ-
ences are significant and extensive.” Differ-
ences in phonology, morphology, syntax, and
semantics, among other factors, do not create
unsurmountable bamers between speakers of
differing varieties of Spanish. This is especially
significant for classes in which a number of
community varieties are spoken. The impor-
tant task is not to impose any one variety, but
rather to facilitate interdialectal communica-
tion, which enriches both the instructor’s and
the students’ language skills.
Lipski further offers some interesting impli-
cations for the status of U.S. Spanish, particu-
larly that of the Southwest. U.S. varieties may
b e in the process of elevation to a prestige
level, this as a result of a “deliberate linguistic
strategy practiced by many Central Ameri-
cans, particularly Salvadorans, to more
closely approximate the speech of Mexicans,
in order to blend into the background of legal
Mexican immigrants and American citizens of
Mexican origin” (Lipski 1998, 161). That is,
US. Spanish varieties may be gaining intema-
tional prestige with regard to their instrumen-
tal value for economic advancement.
Whether or not this may be the case, the
communicative facility Lipski notes is ob-
served in the SNS classes described by Ro-
driguez Pino and Villa (1994). There is n o
tremendous lack of understanding that arises
from differences in spoken varieties. Further,
the author has taught classes composed pri-
marily of native speakers of U.S. Spanish in the
topic areas of phonology, morphology, syn-
tax, History of the Language, and Spanish in
the Southwest, among others, and has found
that the lack of understanding created by
technical terms and concepts is resolved
through dialogue in the community standard
or standards to a degree governed by the ab-
stract nature of the linguistic concept under
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A ” A L S 4 U M M E R 1996
discussion. Hence, the issue of which spoken
standard to use in an SNS class becomes, in
essence, a nonissue. Differing spoken varieties
d o not pose a threat to instructorstudent com-
munication. The instructor employs his or her
spoken standard, the students theirs, and any
confusion resulting from differences between
the various standards is resolved through dia-
logue, through a communicative negotiation
in which all participants can name their
worlds, to borrow a phrase from Freire.
A principal goal of this type of interaction is
to develop a n awareness among students that
variation in language will be encountered in
“real life.” In the Southwest, for example, sig-
nificant differences are found among the vari-
ous Spanishspeaking communities, reflecting
various migrations during the last four cen-
turies. Respecting language variation, learning
to negotiate meaning not only enriches lan-
guage skills in class but also reflects a com-
municative necessity of the entire Spanish-
speaking world. Learning to adapt to various
language varieties, to appreciate the richness
of dialectal variation, to explore means of dis-
covering and understanding differences in
language prepares students for communicat-
ing in any Spanishspeaking community. The
SNS classroom can become, in a sense, a mi-
crocosm of the Spanishspeaking world; lan-
guage variation is not a problem, but very
much an asset.
The issue of choosing a spoken standard,
then, is a matter of those involved in SNS
programs analyzing the educational bureau-
cracy within which they work and closely
examining motives a n d goals for SNS
classes. For example, if the attitude of a lan-
guage department reflects a preference for
an out-group language variety, then that is
the issue for SNS educators to deal with, not
the language variety of the students. In addi-
tion, given the tremendous influence of
mainstream linguistic research, the profes-
sion must closely scrutinize its own attitudes
toward the issue of a standard, keeping in
mind that synchronic grammars are theoret-
ical constructs that do not have “real-life”
counterparts in speech communities.
197
Again, the selection of a “standard” is a p o
litical o n e and must be recognized as such.
One policy is to employ current empirical r e
search in sociolinguistics as the theoretical
base for the choice: the community variety or
varieties. Those who choose other out-group
standards must present coherent and empiri-
cally valid arguments for their selection; a fail-
ure to d o so may very well have negative
repercussions in students’ academic achieve
ments, as well as other undesirable results,
again, as Sanchez (1993) notes.
The Written Standard
As stated above, the notion of a “standard”
for even a written variety is problematic.
However, there are certain stylistic norms
used for different types of writing, be it for stu-
dent papers in the university environment,
technical manuals, newspapers, journal arti-
cles, memoranda, advertising, or public infor-
mation literature, among others. If variation
in orthography and grammar exists, there are
widely accepted written norms and formulas;
in North America, for example, Mkxico is p r e
ferred over MQico. Any spoken community
variety can serve as a passageway to the use
of a corresponding formal written variety. The
transition from the former to the latter re-
quires training in the norms established by
the context of the written variety.
However, it is observed by some working in
SNS programs that students may not be able to
master a formal written variety of Spanish dur-
ing the time that they participate in those p r o
grams. Hidalgo (1993, SS), for example,
argues: “The teaching of the standard lan-
guage is not an easy task; if this teaching is car-
ried out, more years would be required in any
educational program than in those that are
currently dedicated to the teaching of Spanish
for Native Speakers in the United States.”
There is little doubt that teaching students in
SNS programs to write like veteran monolin-
gual journalists for major Latin American
newspapers would be a rather daunting task.
However, it would appear feasible to instruct
SNS students to write an “acceptable” prose,
o n e relatively free from the “interference” of
 FOh!EIGN LANGUAGE A ” A L S 4 U M M E R 1996
the spoken standard. To support this point,
the work of 12 native speakers of U.S. Spanish
on a short composition for a third-year Gram-
mar class is offered. The students were asked
to describe the social and economic position
of Spanish in the United States, in a composi-
tion of about 400 words. A system of peer and
instructor revision was used; the third version
of the composition received a grade.
The average number of “nonstandard” us-
ages (that is, “errors”) for the compositions
was 4.3, with a minimum of 0 errors on one
composition to a maximum of 16 on another,
for a standard deviation of 4.9 from the mean.
The majority of difficulties were orthographic
irregularities and lack or misplacement of the
orthographic accent. There was one instance
of “a ser” for “hacer,” o n e of “a ver” for
“haber,” and three instances of feminine gen-
der articles with “idioma.” In other words, an
average composition of 400 words with four
“errors” indicates a successful usage of the
written standard of about 99 percent. The au-
thor notes here that, for the majority of these
students, this was a first attempt at producing
a formal written variety of the language.
This article will not detail the methodology
used in class for the writing assignment other
than to note that during the entire course a
careful distinction was made between the
idea of a prescriptive grammar and descriptive
grammars. That is, it was stressed that “stan-
dard” written language, of necessity different
from spoken varieties, needed to be manipu-
lated within a very closely bounded context,
i.e., “a carefullyedited composition that satis
fies one requirement for a third year grammar
class.” This is noted as Hidalgo (1993, 92) as
serts: “There is no efficient formula that allows
us to correct without hurting the feelings of the
rest of the students.” Negative affective reac-
tions from the students with regard to correc-
tions on the short compositions were not
observed by the author. Furthermore, in the
anonymous student evaluations completed at
the end of the semester, there was not a single
incident of anyone expressing a negative r e
action regarding written corrections. On the
contrary, six students specifically mentioned
198
that the writing activities were the most helpful
exercises in the course.
Hidalgo (1993,89) does pose a very impor-
tant question, asking if “the objectives pro-
posed up until now by those of us who teach
Spanish-mastery of literary language-are
realistic and can be attained within the frame
work of our academic programs.” lnitial data
indicate that the mastery of a formal written
variety, relatively free from errors, is a reason-
able goal. The key phrase that Hidalgo intro-
duces is “mastery of literary language”
(emphasis added). Not all SNS students will
be writers for major Latin American newspa-
pers, literary journals, and the like. The ques-
tion of degree of command of the written
language is one that must be considered by
the profession in future discussion of develop
ing SNS students’ writing skills. Further, the
role that formal written language plays in
“real-world” contexts must be established. As
noted above, recuperating lost oral language
skills is of primary importance. However, it r e
mains to be established to what degree formal
written Spanish forms a part of students’ real-
ity in “real-world”environments.
Conclusion
This article presents an argument that at-
tempts to change the recurrent general ques-
tion of “which ‘standard’ will be used in the
SNS classroom?” to the more specific “what
are the goals of the SNS instructor or the aca-
demic institution with regard to mastery of the
written language?” The issue of imposing any
one spoken language variety is abandoned; it
is asserted that all Spanish varieties are
equally valid, do not impede communication
in the SNS classroom or in the Spanishspeak-
ing world, and that efforts to change students’
varieties will not be highly productive. Rather,
recovery and maintenance of students’ her-
itage language varieties is of central impor-
tance, and the most productive in building
oral language skills. Learning to negotiate
meaning among different language varieties is
identified as a crucial task. If an out-group va-
riety is selected for SNS instruction, whether
by an individual or by some bureaucracy,
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A”ALS--SUMMER 1996

then that individual’s or bureaucracy’s mo- SNS programs, one of which is to integrate lan-
tives must be dealt with by SNS educators, not guage instruction for native speakers of Span-
the issue of a spoken standard. ish and heritage language communities into a
In order to focus on these issues, the au- single, well coordinated entity, a fusion that
thor advocates abandoning the term “stan- results in the enrichment of students’ lan-
dard” in the context of issues regarding the guage skills, oral as well as written.
teaching of Spanish to US.speakers of Span-
ish, d u e to its imprecise usage and poten- REFERENCES
tially negative semantic content. A more Barker, Marie Esman. 1972. Espaiiol para el bil-
neutral term which has not yet acquired the ingiie. Skokie, IL National Textbook.
semantic baggage of “standard” is “variety,” Bills, Garland D., Eduardo HemdndezChdvez, and
or uariedad. Thus, instead of talking about Alan Hudson. 1993. “The Geography of Lan-
”standard” and “nonstandard” usages, o n e guage Shift: Distance from the Mexican Border
can speak of Spanish as Southwest, U.S. and Spanish Language Claiming in the South-
Puerto Rican, or Cuban spoken varieties ver- westem United States.” Uniuersity of New Mex-
sus Latin American-urban-dweller-with-uni- ico Working Papers in Linguistics 1 15-30.
versity-degree spoken varieties, or formal Bybee, Joan L., William Pagliuca, and Revere
versus affective written varieties. With regard Perkins. 1994. The Euolution of Grammar: Tense,
to the language used in a specific SNS pro- Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the
gram, community varieties are employed in World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
dialogue (Rodriguez Pino and Villa, 1994). Christie, William M., Jr. 1982. “Synchronic, Di-
This choice, of necessity political in nature, is achronic and Panchronic Linguistics,” 1-10 in J.
based on recent research in sociolinguistics. Peter Maher, Allan R. Bomhard, and E.F. Konrad
Within very restricted domains, a formal writ- Koemer, eds., Papers from the Third International
ten variety, as specified in prescriptive gram- Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam
mars and common-use dictionaries, is Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic
employed. These decisions are in part due to Science, Ser. 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
a commitment by the program to integrate Corson, David J. 1994. “MinoritySocial Groups and
Spanish language instruction with commu- Nonstandard Discourse: Towards a Just Lan-
nity varieties, in the process avoiding the guage Policy.” Canadian Modem Language Re-
type of conflict between the two that uiew/La reuue canadienne des langues uiuantes
Sinchez notes in her 1993 article. 50 (January/janvier):271-95.
The author very much shares Hidalgo’s De Luce, Dan. 1990. “Feds Probe Discrimination
(1993, 92) intent to “alleviate the anxiety of a Charges at UCD.” The Sacramento Union, 15
teacher who faces a group of Spanish speak- March.
ers, or the anxiety of Spanish and English Faltis, Christian. 1990. “Spanish for Native Speak-
speakers”; the use of spoken community vari- ers: Freirian and Vygotskian Perspectives.” For-
eties contributes significantly toward this end, eign Language Annals 23,2: 117-26.
as it aims to remove a potential point of con- Fishman, Joshua. 1991. Reuersing Language Shih:
troversy between instructor and students. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assis-
Much energy, time, research, and emotional tance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Mul-
commitment has been dedicated to the de- tilingual Matters LTD.
velopment and implementation of SNS p r o Freire, Paolo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
grams, with impressive results; however, New York: Herder and Herder.
much remains to b e done. The author be- Heine, Bemd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hun-
lieves that shedding some unnecessary b a g nemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Concep
gage created by the “standardhonstandard” tual Framework. Chicago: The University of
dichotomy will free up precious resources Chicago Press.
that can be used to pursue important goals of Hemdndez-Chdvez, Eduardo. 1993. “Native Lan-

199
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALSSUMMER 1996

guage Loss and Its Implications for Revitaliza- Rodriguez Pino, Cecilia, and Daniel Villa. 1994. “A
tion of Spanish in Chicano Communities,” 58-74 Student-Centered Spanish for Native Speakers
in Barbara J. Merino, Henry T. Trueba, and Program: Theory, Curriculum Design and Out-
Fabian A. Samaniego, eds., Language and Cul- come Assessment,” 351-369 in Carol Klee, ed.,
ture in Learning: Teaching Spanish to Native AAUSC Issues in Language Program Direction.
Speakers of Spanish. London: The Falmer Press. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Hidalgo, Margarita. 1990. “On the Question of Sanchez, Rosaura. 1993. “Language Variation in
‘Standard’ vs. ‘Dialect’: Implications for Teach- the Spanish of the Southwest,” 75-81 in Barbara
ing Hispanic College Students,” 110-26 in John J. Merino, Henry T. Trueba, and Fabian A.
L. Bergen, ed., Spanish in the United States: S e Samaniego, eds., Language and Culture in
ciolinguistic Issues. Washington, DC: George- Learning: Teaching Spanish to Native Speakers
town University Press. of Spanish. London: The Falmer Press.
-. 1993. “The Teaching of Spanish to Bilin- Sol& Yolanda R. 1990. “Bilingualism: Stable or
gual Spanish-Speakers: A ‘Problem’ of Inequal- Transitional? The Case of Spanish in the United
ity,”82-93 in Barbara J. Merino, Henty T. Trueba, States.” International Journal of the Sociology of
and Fabian A. Samaniego, eds., Language and Language 84:35-80.
Culture in Learning: Teaching Spanish to Native Taylor, John R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization:Pre
Speakers of Spanish. London: The Falmer Press. totypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon
Hopper, Paul. 1987. “Emergent Grammar.” Berke- Press.
ley Linguistics Society 13:13957. Veltman, Calvin. 1988. The Future of the Spanish
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cogni- Language in the United States. New York: His-
tive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University panic Policy Development Project.
Press. Villa, Daniel. 1993. “Distance from Mexico: The Im-
Lipski, John M. 1988. “Central American Varieties, pact on Language Shift in a Border Region.“
Mexican and Chicano Spanish,” 157-67 in Jacob Paper presented at the Conference on El Es-
L. OmsteinCalicia, George K. Green, and Den- pafiol en 10s Estados Unidos, University of Texas
nis J. Bixler-Mdrquez, eds., Research Issues and at San Antonio, October 8-10.
Problems in United States Spanish: Latin Amen: White, Margie. 1992. “Interviews:The Effects of S o
can and Southwest Varieties. Brownsville, TX: cia1 Variables on Interaction.” Southwest Jour-
Pan American University at Brownsville. nal of Linguistics 11(1-2):80-97.
Lbpez, David E. 1978. “Chicano Language Loyalty
in an Urban Setting.” Sociology and Social Re-
search 62267-78.

200