Love speaks as a character from La Rosa de Guadalupe

Claudia Santos

And it may be because love, whom from now on will be called Hermenegildo, belongs to a really specific high social class in Mexico City, but the sensation that his way of speaking caused me at the beginning of our relationship had me confused for several weeks. What does this way of speaking imply and why it was so uncomfortable for me? I'm not talking about the accent… he also had an accent, but it was listening to his Spanglish that caused in me a bit of a stir. 

I also use Spanglish often, and I am sure that it was because  I use it often that he had the confidence to do the same. However, my Spanglish doesn't make me cringe, and it doesn't make me stop and think about it either. This may be because sometimes we forget to stop and think about how we speak and why. The fact that his use of Spanglish sounded uncomfortable to me made me realize, in the first instance, that our Spanglishes were different and this led me to try finding these differences and their implications. 

I live in Colima, Mexico, and I started mixing my Spanish with English probably in the second year of my University career (English Major). I consider (as many of us in my socio/academic circle consider) that I borrow some expressions from English into my daily Spanish because they are closer in meaning to what I want to say, at least in the immediacy that speech needs. I also think it is important to clarify that we only use these English words among ourselves and with other people who use the same or some other type of Spanglish. Most of us, not coming from families whose parents are familiar with English, do not use expressions in this language at home. However, when we are talking to each other it is not unusual to hear, here and there, a “supportear/supporting” instead of “respaldar” or “probar”; a “relies” as something between “apoyar” and “confiar”; a “by the way” instead of the not so untranslatable “por cierto”; or recently I heard “masculine presented” instead of “aquel que se presenta a sí mismo (not orally but using clothes/styles/behaviors usually related to this gender) como masculino”. This last example, at least for me, makes it clearer why we think we have to take these expressions from English: because if the other understands them, what one means is much clearer, in less words, and communication is faster. This “type of Spanglish” comes, at least in that sense, and at least for me and those with whom I have talked about it, from an attempt to speak more effectively: one uses English in an attempt to be able to convey meaning faster and closer to the ideas you want to transmit. However, it is important to recognize that, due to the fact that many of these expressions in English are acquired throughout our university studies in this language, there is a marker of these same studies in this use of “this Spanglish” that distances us from most everyday Spanish speakers (with whom, I repeat, we do not usually speak like this). 

Now, the Spanglish of Hermenegildo can use “btw” or “supporting” or “masculine presented”, but unlike ours, it also uses “house,” “school,” “party,” among many other words. This allows him to create phrases such as “después de la school nos vamos a una party, y al final te dejo en tu house”. One would think that, on everyday speaking, one decides to make use of the words that are closest to us in order to immediately convey what one wants. But is it really possible that the word "house" is somehow closer or more common to you than "casa" and this is the one that comes to you first? Perhaps through custom, at some point, it is, or becomes so, but at first, I don't think so. In other words, I don't think that when Hermenegildo and his social circle made the decision (consciously or unconsciously) to start talking like that, it really was easier to say "school" than "escuela", especially considering that they (and this I asked) didn't grow up talking like that, but rather started doing so at some point after childhood. It is important to mention that this phenomena is contemporary, Hermenegildo’s parents or his friends parents don’t speak English just like our parents don’t speak English. There are some young parents who speak this type of “fresa” Spanglish that may transmit it to their children, but currently I do not imagine many 60ish parents being “fresa.”

Now, I am aware that both of our uses of Spanglish constitute, at least in our contexts, a class marker. In our contexts, learning this second language also implied belonging to a certain social class with a certain economic status that allowed us (and our circle) to pay for the education with which we acquired this other language. Foreign language acquisition in public schools is difficult because of the quality of education that these schools provide. However, these two class markers that our Spanglish gives us are, in my opinion, different. I explained a moment ago that I consider the Spanglish of my social circle to come from an attempt to achieve the desired meaning. Hermenegildo cannot, however, try to argue that when he says "school" it is because "escuela" does not have the same meaning. I also explained that I am aware that this approach to meaning implies distancing our Spanish from most common uses of Spanish (such as those that my parents have) and that, although we do not usually use it with these speakers, we excuse this distance with the idea that we are approaching the desired meaning of what we want to convey. In contrast, Hermenegildo's Spanglish tends to convey exactly what it would convey if only Spanish words were used. Now, if what this other use of Spanglish is looking for is not to get closer to clearer meaning, what is it is actually looking for? I consider that his Spanglish also implies a departure from the everyday uses of Spanish; however, the words his Spanglish uses are often much easier for someone who is not fluent in English to understand. My parents don't speak English and could understand “school” or “party” but not “by the way” or “relying.” So one may dare to think that his Spanglish is less distant from those who do not speak it because it is easier to understand. Despite this, if they are not trying to achieve a meaning that Spanish does not allow them to reach or that others do not understand, what are they looking for? 

Before proposing an answer, I want to mention that I do not consider that their use of Spanglish comes simply from their knowledge of English. Arturo E. Hernandez explains in his bilingual brain course (given by the University of Houston) that this change between one language and another (also called code-switching) does not happen by mistake or naturally. When the Chicano community, for example, speaks in Spanglish, it is not that they are constantly changing their code, but that they use a specific type of Spanglish as their code. Thus, the types of Spanglish that I am talking about here are not used because knowledge of the two languages ​​makes you change code unintentionally, but both are used on purpose, and the proof is that both groups recognize being able of not use it (and that no group uses it all the time). 

If this more "fresa" or “high class” type of Spanglish does not seek to achieve a specific meaning (because it uses words with direct translations) nor moves away from the understanding of those who do not speak English (because it uses words that are usually understandable without great knowledge of the English language), and it is still a class marker, then, in my opinion, it only seeks to mark the class. The speaker of this “high class” Spanglish may use it to belong to their social circle because he/she got it from those around him/her, or for many other individual reasons. However, beyond these individual reasons, its collective use mainly marks class. It is a class marker, as the way we speak always is, as are accents, as are many of the ways we present ourselves. But not all class markers can be used at your own choice; it is complicated, for example, to change the accent to choice; and this Spanglish as a class marker is a chosen one. And, as a lot of class markers do, it segregates. It segregates because it separates, and what differentiate us may separate us or unite us but through (or despite, or thanks to) this first rupture. 

So, in my opinion, this “hay que tener breakfast juntos” type of Spanglish only seeks to mark class, segregate, and is, therefore, classist. Of course, there are many possible types of specific uses where it is not, such as those in which it is used if it is the only or best possible form of communication, the most effective, but the occasions in which it is not, such as when it is used without knowing if the receiver is familiar with English (and if he could, beyond understanding us, listen to us comfortably) can be classist because they segregate and allows one to mark its class, many times, above this other not -familiar with English. 

I also want to point out that there are other uses of Spanish that also seek to get away from everyday Spanish and, given the lack of knowledge of them, that also make it difficult to understand those who use them, and they do not try to reach any meaning that is not attainable with most everyday Spanish words. An example of this may be a part of the population of Mexico City in contrast to speakers of other Mexican states. To arrive in Mexico City for the first time and hear expressions such as “Qué Pachuca por Toluca?” or “Aguas, aguas, aguaaaaas…. y refrescoooos,” it is also not comfortable for an external receiver. However, I think that the speaker who uses these expressions would hardly be segregating by marking their class above others: it would also cause a difference and therefore segregate; it could make you feel outside of a foreign culture, for example, but hardly inferior. This departure from plain simple Spanish (if anyone uses it that way or such thing exists), as opposed to “high-class fresa” Spanglish, may be a class marker, but not classist. 

The ways in which we speak presents, whether we like it or not, many characteristics of us. They can mark our class, what culture or sub-culture we belong to, our studies, our interests (which technical words can you handle and which ones you cannot?). Our choice of words says a lot about us, and it can come with an intention that, although not personal, causes some negative effect for the receiver of our speech.