Talk:New Mexican Spanish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several omissions with this article that uses as a main reference Cobos work. Unfortunatley I am using the 1983 dictionary Cobos wrote, I am currently obtaining the 2003 edition. Several quotes from the 1983 edition that contradicts what is written in this article:

The introduction says, "New Mexican Spanish is a variant or dialect of Spanish spoken in the United States, primarily in the northern part of the state of New Mexico and the southern part of the state of Colorado. Despite a continual influence from the Spanish spoken in Mexico to the south, New Mexico's relative geographical isolation and unique political history has made New Mexican Spanish differ notably from Spanish spoken in other parts of Latin America, even from that of northern Mexico or Texas."

But Cobos says,"Pronunciation of local Spanish is akin to that of northern Mexico, and both differ from Castilian Spanish pronounciation with respect to c, z, ll and y." (page vii), and, "Bascially Spanish in its morphology and syntax, New Mexico and Southern Colorado Spanish is an offshoot of of the Spanish of northern Mexico, especially with respect to usage and pronunciation. This is understandable, since New Mexico was an integral part of New Spain (Mexico) from 1540 to 1821 and a part of Mexico from that year until 1850, when it became a territory of the United States." (page viii) and "... borrowings from English, local and regional vocabulary, words and idiomatic expressions peculiar to the Spanish of Mexico, indigenous Río Grande Indian terms, Mexican Indian vocabulary (mostly from the Náhuatl), and archaic sixteenth-and seventeeth-century Spanish - make up the Spanish dialect of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado." (page xv)

The article states, "Despite their relative poverty and isolation, speakers of New Mexican Spanish, for a number of cultural and sociological reasons, placed a high value on education and literacy." but Cobos states: "The lack of continuous, day-to-day contact with the people of Mexico throughout the seventheenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, together with a dearth of books, dictionaries and other reading materials, stagnated and impoverished the Spanish of the colonists." (xii). —This unsigned comment was added by Ron habla hispana (talk • contribs) 23:53, 31 March 2006.

[edit] Cobos

I added the Cobos reference to this article, though I only tinkered a little bit with what already existed (see the history). The article had no sources, and I intend to do a complete re-write with several sources beyond Cobos, I just haven't had an opportunity to do so. I apologize if I have caused any confusions. (my Cobos is the 2003 ed. as well) Murcielago 00:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime I added some phonetics information based on a paper/minor study I just finished on the effects of Mexican immigration on New Mexican Spanish. Most of the phonetic features are oft-written about, though there were other minor differences that I found in my own research that I noted (e.g. uvular /x/ and laminal /s/). Bills (UNM prof) does an excellent job showing the differences between New Mexican and Mexican Spanish. I haven't read Cobos, but I think I'd take issue that the pronunciation is akin to that of northern Mexico. New Mexican Spanish doesn't exhibit the classic characteristics of Mexican Spanish, that is, higher degree of tonality, elongated /s/, diminished vowels sometimes to a schwa, or nasality. Also, New Mexico was not an integral part of either Spain, Mexico, or the US historically. Its lack of natural resources meant that all three nations ignored it when under their control (obviously I'm not referring to the contemporary US, rather the historical). Also, I'm not sure how Nahuatl influenced New Mexican Spanish when there weren't any nahuatls in the area, instead there were Zuñi, Taos, and Navaho which aren't even part of the same language tree as Nahuatl. Hopi is part of Uto-Aztecan, but that was spoken in Arizona, where I wouldn't expect a large influence on New Mexican Spanish as compared to the other more local tribes. Guifa 10:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

the Nahuatl influence came from the Spanish colonists who came with Oñate in 1598/returned with DeVargas post pueblo revolt, along with Mexican Spanish cross-over through the centuries. But you are correct in observing that New Mexican Spanish has the distinct feature of bearing the influence of Pueblo-language (keres, tewa, etc)and other Indian language loan-words. Murcielago 02:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

---

The Spanish of northern New Mexico is akin to that of northern Mexico, more so than it is to Castillian or other dialects spoken in Spain. The vocabulary is especially Mexican in flavor, and when you ask a speaker of this dialect what language they are speaking they will respond with "mexicano" (see Cobos' dictionary; entry:

"mexicano, -na, adj. [<Sp. mexicano] Terr. N.M. Sp., a Mexican national; a New Mexican of Mexican descent; the Spanish language as spoken in New Mexico and southern Colorado. Also, mejicano." (Pg. 111, 1983 dictionary).

"mejicano, -na. adj. [<Sp. mejicano, Mexican] Col. and Terr. N.M. Sp., a New Mexican of Indo-Hispanic descent; a Mexican national; the Indian language of the Valley of Mexico (Aztec or Náhuatl); the Spanish language in New Mexico and southern Colorado; hablar en mejicano, to speak Spanish." (Pg 109, 1983 dictionary)

There's also an article here http://www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no6/vigil.htm that deals with Spanish speakers in Mora who identify themselves as "mexicano" although the author talks about them being "hispano".

The debate about classifying the language as a sub-dialect of Mexican extends to the identity of the person who is New Mexican Hispano, in that I mean the shunning of the Mexican culture, identity and roots that exist in New Mexico and the romanticization of a "Spanish" heritage.

Ron habla hispana 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Bills makes the distinction as "chicano" and "manito". Manito being traditional New Mexican Spanish (and residents) and chicano being inclusive of the Mexican immigrants (both recent and from past waves). It's a distinction I know I've used in recent times. Matthew Stuckwisch 13:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

---

What about the reference made by José Antonio Burciaga as seen on the page "Caló (Chicano)" in reference to the Spanish language spoken in the Southwest:

"According to Chicano scholar José Antonio Burciaga:

"Caló originally defined the Spanish gypsy dialect. But Chicano Caló is the combination of a few basic influences: Hispanicized English; Anglicized Spanish; and the use of archaic 15th-century Spanish words such as truje for traer (to bring), or haiga, for haya from haber (to have). These words were left in isolated pockets of Northern New Mexico and the Southwest, especially New Mexico, by conquistadores españoles. In this country, Caló is not recognized as a dialect but is derisively called Tex-Mex, or Spanglish, without taking into consideration its unique multicultural, political, societal and linguistic function and formation.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal%C3%B3_%28Chicano%29

This helps to broaden the scope of Spanish spoken in New Mexico. It's not as isolated and some people like to believe - the connections with northern Mexican Spanish exist. Your reference to "manito" is the first I've heard of this term; I could not find anything in Wikipedia or Google in reference to the Spanish language.

Ron habla hispana 16:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If anything, he's arguing that Caló be considered a dialect. Note "derisively" not "decidedly". Anyways, he also notes that those words came from otherwise unique remnants of older Spanish found in New Mexican Spanish. I'll admit that at the present time, due to massive immigration from Mexico and the influence of mass media, the "pure" New Mexican accent/lexicon/etc is being lost. However, note that the Spanish wikipedia goes so far as to distinguish Español Sur-mexicano, Español Nor-mexicano, and Español de Nuevo México. The latter at this point in time has no content though. Not sure how you couldn't find reference to manito though, a quick search for "manito new mexico" on Google pulls up a number of references, mainly in paper titles. Other variations pulled up similar uses excluding the movie title result. One of the main problems is that for a long time, Chicano was used in general for New Mexico, but now that term (especially in the Spanish speaking world) is used almost exclusively for Mexico proper, but in English still has mixed usage. See, for example, «La supresión de la /y/ en el español chicano», L Ronald Ross, Hispania (1980): 552-554; where chicano is used to mean New Mexico and excludes Mexico. That was in the 80s, and now the usage has shifted. Though for sure, the terminology is hardly fixed, which of course causes problems. I suppose my main issue is that (besides I don't really agree with Cobos from what I've read), we shouldn't base the entire article on a single source. However, there seems to now be enough interest in the article to pull in many more sources. I wonder, what does Cobos' book have under the entry "manito"? (I don't have it a copy of the book) Matthew Stuckwisch 17:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just looked it up in the Cobos text. "Manito-ta (los manitos)- a term applied by Mexican immigrants to New New Mexican Hispanics." of some interest, the following entry: 'mano - brother, and mano-na, a term that has been used in northern New Mexico since the early seventeenth century. Murcielago 18:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phonetics

Should a seperate phonetics section be put in? I would be happy to clean it up. Also, if you're looking for more sources to use, I have many papers and articles to use (I'm majoring in Spanish Linguistics concentrating in NM Spanish at UNM.) Since school just got out, I'll have some time to possibly put in seperate sections for History, Phonetics, Syntax, maybe Code-switching... Any more ideas for sections? Hotchy 04:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea (though as an aside, I'm not sure how you have time to work on the page if you're having to put up with UNM's department -- sorry, bad experience applying to their MA programme). I'd probably break it down more like History, Phonetics, Syntax, Lexicon, Influence, with code switching falling under the latter. Good information you've got put up there so far. Also, (and I'll correct it as soon as I finish this), the VdV → VV isn't a diphthongisation, it's an elision of the final intervocalic /d/. Di- and triphthongisation of otherwise monosyllabic vowels is what us Southerners do :) BTW, I don't suppose you've come across any papers relating directly to the various manifestations of /s/, have you? I recorded some tapes for a class paper and noticed a difference in /sV́/, all other /s/, and what would be /θ/ in Castilian, where the former and latter would be pronounced clearly [s], but the syllable-final or syllable-prime unstressed s would be realised [s̻]. I was working with a very small sample group and so I could hardly call what I noticed conclusive, but was curious if anyone else had noticed it and published on it. Oh, also, I think with the current set up of the phonetics section, it might be easier to create a table with the columns Feature, Standard Spanish Phonemic, New Mexican Spanish Phonetic, and Standard Spanish Phonetic, since we tend include all of those anyways in each of the examples. This would also make it more clear the distinction between /phonemic/ and [phonetic] which has been confused a little bit I think. Matthew Stuckwisch 02:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Darn, I always screw up the dipthongization! Phonetics was never my strong suit, but this is good, it gives me a chance to practice. I haven't applied for the MA program yet (just in my third year), but going to the board for permission to do research is hard enough. Oh well... Anyways, you have some excellent ideas. A table set-up would be much better. As it is, I agree it's a bit confusing. And as for research on the consonant /s/ (aspiration, elision, etc.), I know there has been a ton of research done on the subject, now if I could just find it in with all my other Spanish junk... There is really two types of variation (like I put in the main article): pre-vocalic (pre-syllabic) and post-vocalic (post-syllabic). There is techincally a third, which is where a speaker variates all /s/, but is so rare it can effectively be considered non-existant. I've personally never come across it. Speakers will really either variate pre- or post- syllabic /s/, not both. You should look up some of the work done by Shana Poplack, Rosaura Sánchez, Ralph Penny, and Carmen Silva-Corvalán; they've all done excellent research into Spanish linguistics. Google Scholar is an excellent search tool. Hotchy 03:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Silva-Corvalán was one of the main texts (along with Lipsky, incidentally from your uni) we used in my sociolinguistics classes. However, I don't recall any distinct references to New Mexican Spanish in Sociolingüística y pragmática, and while Lipsky in Latin American Spanish notes the New Mexican dialect, he doesn't devote a section to it (nor to any US regioned dialect), although he's a prof at UNM. Re the /s/, I was actually refering to the manifestation when manifested as a variant of [s]. Eg, this is what I found one speaker doing (with a quite invented sentence, mind you)
    • Estos cicatrices del azote semanal son de sus hermanos suizos → [ˈes̻.tos̻ si.kaˈtri.ses̻ del aˈso.te s̻e.maˈnal ˈson de sus̻ herˈman.os̻ ˈsui.sos̻].
  • It reminded me a lot of the Castilian /s/ → [s̺], but was laminal. However, I know my grandfather (from Bernalillo Co.) most definitely uses the apical/Castilian version. However, all the research I've seen focuses on the aspiration/elision of it. In any case, I hope the table is clear, feel free to add other examples as you see fit, I tried to show the majority of the variations without using footnotes, not sure if there are exceptions we should show with that like some other articles or not. Matthew Stuckwisch 17:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see now. I haven't come across anything dealing with the laminal/apical variations of /s/. Unfortunately the main library on campus has been closed until further notice due to a small fire in the basement. When it opens, I'll have to go and see. I know they have a ton of articles in the database, but heaven knows when they'll re-open. Anyways, the table looks excellent. I don't know really think that we need to show exceptions, since these are really exceptions to standard Spanish themselves. Now I think we should focus on putting up the other sections, like syntax, lexicon (should have a ton of material on this), more on history, etc. If I have time I'll get some info together this weekend and try to put together a rough skeleton that people can add to. Hotchy 04:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Ditto here for lexicon. My mom has a number of books in the Cuentos series, and it's a great source for some of the lexicon. Since I'm home for the time being, I'll grab it tomorrow and see what I can get out of it (although, it does attribute some phonetic changes, abuelo > agüelo as being separate words, though that might be for the more uninformed English reader. Matthew Stuckwisch 10:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remember the difference between // and [] in phonetics. Spanish phonetics will never use irregular non-alphabetic characters when betwixt the //. CH is written /ch/ but [tʃ]

[edit] Phonetic Variation

I would suggest against using "somos asi" as an example since in New Mexican spanish, that would more properly be "asina semos". My thought, anyway. -Murcielago 20:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)