Jump to content

Talk:English in New Mexico

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Results of a new source-discovery run

[edit]

I did a bunch of digging for sources, on:

  1. NM English, Spanish and their contact
  2. Sociology, sociolinguistics, education policy, and subculture of Latino English and bilingualism (mostly not constrainable to NM, but often to the SW)
  3. The Spanish of the area (again often of the SW in general, not just NM)
  4. Historical and cultural background material that may relate, e.g. as to Native American English usage in the area, development of Southern and Southwestern English, cultural events in NM and the SW that affected Hispanic versus Euro-American population and affluence, etc.

It's not comprehensive, being the cream of about 8 pages of Google Scholar results, and a bunch of looking around on Amazon, plus some follow-the-rabbit digging. But it's quite a lot of material that, even if not usable at this article, should be at related ones, including perhaps an article on "Southwestern American English" or "English in the American Southwest".

  • Notes
    • Most of these are behind paywalls. I may have missed some full-text download links among them, and I did not try alternative searches for individual papers to see if they're available in full text at other sites. This was a "fast" (8.5 hour) search-examine-cite dump (from combing the results of a Google Scholar search on Southwest American English).
    • Search results for Southwestern English generally produce results relating to southwestern England.
    • I formatted them as WP:CS1 citations for easy re-use.

The sources:

  • On dialectology in the region or in the US broadly:
Extended content
  • Underwood, Gary N. (January 1974). "American English Dialectology: Alternative for the Southwest". International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 1974 (2): 19–40. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1974.2.19. (Abstract only, at this URL.)
  • Kurath, Hans (May 1928). "The Origin of the Dialectal Differences in Spoken American English". Modern Philology. 25 (4): 385–395. doi:10.1086/387724. (First page only, at this URL.)
  • Suci, G. J. (July 1960). "A comparison of semantic structures in American Southwest culture groups". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 61 (1): 25–30. doi:10.1037/h0047110. (Abstract only, at this URL.)
  • Kretzschmar, William A., Jr. (2004). "Regional Dialects". In Finegan, Edward; Rickford, John R. (eds.). Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge University Press. pp. 39–57. ASIN B00E3URECA. ISBN 9780521777476.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (Snippet view, at the URL; much of the article is available, including key diagrams and the bibliography.)
    • Noteworthy for a systematic classification (which may be more relevant for the article on AmEng as a whole) of AmEng urban dialect areas into the following groups and subgroups (as of 1997), mostly running in wide lateral bands across the country (see diagram on p. 54): North (North Central [covering WI, MI, n. IA, ND, and n. SD], Inland North [most of the Great Lakes cities, and the locus of an ongoing "Northern Cities Vowel Shift"; also incl. w. NY state, MI], Boston and Eastern New England [incl. NYC as sub-sub-dialect, NJ, CT, etc.]); Midland (North Midland [incl. Pittsburgh and St. Louis as sub-sub-dialects, and also covering PA, n. OH, n. IN, n. IL, s. IA, NE, n. KS, s. SD], South Midland [Philadelphia as sub-sub-dialect, plus DC, n. MD, DE, far n. WV, s. OH, s. IN, s. IL, n. MI, s. KS, n. OK, far n. TX panhandle]) South (Coastal Southeast [isolated pocket from Charleston NC to Savannah GA] and South proper, locus of an ongoing "Southern Vowel Shift" [incl. everything from s. MD down to FL, and west to almost all of TX, s. OK, and far se. NM]; and an undifferentiated West (the far sw. spur of TX, almost all of NM, far sw. ND, far w. SD, far w. NE, CO, WY, MT, AZ, UT, NV, ID, CA, OR, WA).
    • This is interesting because a) it will not perfectly align with overall dialect maps, based as much on rural speakers as urban ones, and Kretzschmar purports to show a different pattern based on rapid urban migration rather than slow agricultural-community dispersal (which makes sense; these really were different migrations of different people from diff. places and in diff. concentrations to diff. new locales); and b) it belies a lack of western US dialect research, because there is clearly a huge difference between the speech patterns of people in c. to n. NM, s. CA, n. CA through WA, and inland in places like ID-UT-WY-MT, including in urban centers in these areas. Kretzschmar's paper focuses on the East Coast and n. vs. s. differences. Fortunately, CA dialects in particular have been the subject of a lot of study, so at least those could be teased out of his "the West" mess.
    • Kretzschmar's work (as far as it went) seems to be based on data from the American Linguistic Atlas Project (https://www.us.english.uga.edu) and Atlas or North American English (see below).
    • Kretzschmar also provides a "Suggestions for further reading and exploration" section (p. 56) before his bibliography proper.
    • I'm adding this Language in the USA book to my "get" list, for some other articles in it, but it's not a high priority (I'm loath to spend $30+ on a 2004 textbook).
    • The previous edition (1981, ISBN 9780521298346, with very little overlappign content) doesn't appear to have anything specific enough to be useful here. The article "New World Spanish" by Jerry R. Craddock sounds far too general, and I don't know about the content of "Varieties of American English" by Walt Wolfram; "Profile of a state: Montana" by Anthony F. Beltramo might be useful for an overall article on Western American English, but is no help for SW stuff.
  • Labov, William; Ash, Sharon; Boberg, Charles (2005). The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology and Sound Change. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3110167467.. This is something to get via interlibrary loan; the retail price is over US$1000. Provides a lot of details on broad regional patterns (the Inland North or just the North, New England, Mid-Atlantic, South, Midland, West, and Canada; plus several major cities as sub-sub-dialects. Contrasts multiple systems of analysis. As with most such works, it focuses heavily on differences between n. and s., and has much less detailed material on w. dialects. Associated website: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas
  • Wolfram, Walt; Schilling, Natalie (2015). American English: Dialects and Variation. "Language in Society" series (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1118390221.
  • Amberg, Julie S.; Vause, Deborah J. (2009). American English: History, Structure, and Usage. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521617888.. Seems to be primarily an ESL textbook, but might have something useful.
  • Spanish–English contact, code switching, and creolization:
Extended content
  • Timm, L. A. (May 1, 1975). "Spanish–English Code Switching: El Porqué y How-Not-To". Romance Philology. 28 (4). University of California, Berkeley: 473–482.
  • Finegan, Edward (2004). "American English and its distinctiveness". In Finegan, Edward; Rickford, John R. (eds.). Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge University Press. pp. 27–28. ASIN B00E3URECA. ISBN 9780521777476. (Snippet view, at the URL; the quoted part below is available, while the bibliography is not.) Quote from "Across ethnic groups" section, p. 27: "On English-language radio and television broadcasts, correspondents generally speak without marked social group accents .... Latino correspondents typically do not exhibit dialect markers in the body of their reports, but some use a marked ethnic pronunciation of their own names when they sign off .... Likewise, news reports delivered by Latino correspondents often display characteristic pronunciations of Latino names ..." [eye-dialect examples elided]. That's the only relevant part of the chapter, and is not confined to the Southwest, but presumably would also refer, in the aggregate, to Latino reporters in Florida, New York, etc.
    • "For a book-length treatment of Chicano English, see Fought 2003." (From Finegan; the biblio. details are not visible in the snippet view.)
  • Lipski, John M. (1999) [1993]. Roca, Ana; Lipski, John M. (eds.). "Creoloid phenomena in the Spanish of transitional bilinguals". Spanish in the United States: Linguistic Contact and Diversity. Mouton de Gruyter/Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 9783110165722. (Snippet view only, at this URL, with only portions of the article available, including only about 1/10th or less of its substantial bibliography.)
    • Some other articles in this book are probably also relevant, e.g. "Convergent conceptualizations as predictors of degree of contact in U.S. Spanish" by Ricardo Otheguy and Ofelia Garcia
  • Roca, Ana; Jensen, John B., eds. (1996). Spanish in Contact: Issues in Bilingualism. Cascadilla Press. ISBN 9781574730081. Has section on contact of Spanish with other languages (mostly English) in the US; other sections cover Spain and Latin America.
  • One in the other direction, and worth a look, since assimilation (and often mis-assimilation) of Spanicisms is a common feature of SW AmEng, yet in the face of stubborn monolingualism on the part of most whites in the regions. Hill, Jane H. (1993). "Hasta la Vista, Baby: Anglo Spanish in the American Southwest" (PDF). Critique of Anthropology. 13 (2). SAGE: 146–176. (Full text at URL.)
    • Also distinguishes multiple period of Spanish–English crosspolination in the region (cowboy era of workaday word exchange in the mid-1800s; the beginnings of affluent white migration and tourism to the area, starting in the 1880s in California; and a modern exchange rooted popular culture, especially "jocularity, irony and parody".
    • Has a useful bibliography.
  • On the Spanish of the region (and its influence on the local English or vice versa):
Extended content
  • Bentley, H. W. (1932). A dictionary of Spanish terms in English: With special reference to the American Southwest. Columbia University Press.
  • Willis, Erik W. (2005). "An initial examination of Southwest Spanish vowels". Southwest Journal of Linguistics. 24 (1–2): 185 ff. (Abstract only, at this URL. Says it includes a literature review, and also accounts for contact between Spanish and indigenous languages, and natural conversation, while previous work on this focused on the Spanish of the Iberian peninsula and on "laboratory" speech samples. The abstract suggests that the study reaches conclusions that differ from the older work, but buries this lede.)
  • Zentella, Ana Celia (2004). "Spanish in the Northeast". In Finegan, Edward; Rickford, John R. (eds.). Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge University Press. pp. 182–204. ASIN B00E3URECA. ISBN 9780521777476. (Snippet view only, at this URL. Most of the article is missing, but its bibliography is present). In full text, could presumably help distinguish Spanish>English influence in the Southwest (mainly Mexican, but some Colonial in NM) versus that in the Northeast (mainly Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Central and South American).
  • Keep in mind the unique history of northern New Mexico Spanish, which was more isolated between colonial times and the era of broadcasting, and remains distinct to an extent.
  • Sheridan, Thomas (1986). Los Tucsonenses. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Covers an unusual situation of middle-class Hispanic, Spanish-speaking affluence in Tucson, Arizona in the 19th century, while Hispanics were subjected to racism and subordination in Texas and California. It did not last, and by the early 20th century, the local culture of the area had been overturned by the same kind of anti-"Mexican" prejudice by increasing numbers of Euro-Am. settlers.
  • Saunders, Lyle (1949). The Spanish-speaking Population of Texas. University of Texas Press.
  • Relationships of bilingualism, English fluency, and accented speech to education, medical care, etc., in the region:
Extended content
  • Native American connections:
Extended content
  • Leap, William L. (1993). American Indian English. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. ISBN 978-0-87480-639-7. (Snippet view only, at this URL; while many pages are missing, the available material is substantial. Appears to especially focus on the Ute and their reservation schools, as a case study, in later chapters. Earlier chapters are more generalized. The index indicates coverage of many Southwest groups, including Mohave, Navajo, Puebloan, etc., through to the Lakota and Apache, as well as influence of Black English Vernacular.)
  • Anderson, Eric Gary (1999). American Indian Literature and the Southwest: Contexts and Dispositions. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0292704886. (Only snippet view available, at that URL but provides some entire chapters, including the one mentioned below.)
    • Has a chapter "Indian Detours, or, Where the Indians Aren't: Management and Preservation in the Euro-American Southwest" that may be relevant, as might some of the other material in here. Also has material on "assimilationists" among these peoples (e.g. Jason Benitez), and their writings.
    • Worth quoting: "read writers such as Frank Norris, Mary Austin, and Willa Cather" (i.e., Euro-Americans writing about the Southwest) "in Indian contexts for the simple but often overlooked reason that the Southwest is first and foremost Indian country." Large tracts of the Southwest, especially west of Texas, remain Native American land.
    • Also covers Euro-American expansionism into the area and its consequences more broadly. While presenting the context and viewpoints of the indigenous inhabitants, it also contains some academic analysis, with citations (including to critiques of early but still-common assumptions).
  • There are also various works available on the "Indian school" movement and its imposition on (along with English and an anti-indigenous-language approach) at and near reservations all throughout the Southwest. (You'll find an Indian School Road or the like in most cities in the area (Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Scottsdale, etc.), that used to lead to the isolated schools in question, but today are often lined with shops and suburban housing tracts.)
  • Brandt, Elizabeth A. (July 1981). "Native American Attitudes toward Literacy and Recording in the Southwest". Journal of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest. 4 (2): 185–195. (Only abstract available, at this URL.)
  • Connections between African American Vernacular English, a.k.a. Black English Vernacular, and general Southern dialects (which definitely includes Texan and Oklahoman but probably not New Mexican through Californian except to a minor extent, until the rise of hip hop subculture in the 1980s):
Extended content
  • Cukor-Avila, Patricia (October 10, 2001). "Co-existing grammars: The relationship between the evolution of African American and White Vernacular English in the South". In Lanehart, Sonja L. (ed.). Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English. John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 93–127. ISBN 978-9027297983. (Snippet view only, at this URL, but substantial portions, including long bibliography.)
  • Bailey, Guy (October 10, 2001). "The relationship between African American and White Vernaculars in the American South: A sociocultural history and some phonological evidence". In Lanehart, Sonja L. (ed.). Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English. John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 53–92. ISBN 978-9027297983. (Snippet view only, at this URL, with most of the article unavailable including most of the bibliography.)
  • Those are the only two articles in Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English that appear potentially relevant.
  • See also Leap, American Indian English, above.
  • Historical and cross-cultural background:
Extended content
  • Weber, David J. (1982). Billington, Ray Allen; Lamar, Howard R. (eds.). The Mexican Frontier, 1821–1846: The American Southwest Under Mexico. "Histories of the American Frontier" series. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-0603-9. (Only snippet view, at this URL.) At least chapters 7–11 are likely to be relevant, on Euro-American settlement and economics.
    • Important dates, of first Spanish colonial permanent settlements in what it regarded as the Far North and what is now the US Southwest: 1598 (NM), 1700 (AZ), 1716 (TX), 1769 (CA, "Alta California"). P. xvi.
    • Quotes from intro: (pp. xv–xvi, xviii): "Some three centuries of Spanish activity in this region has tended to overshadow the brief period of Mexican rule [1821, losing land steadily until 1854]. So too has a century and a quarter [as of that writing] of American sovereignty .... Lost between the Spanish and American periods, the Mexican interlude has become something of a dark age in the historiography of the Southwest .... In general, neither Mexican nor American historians have sharply illuminated the era. ... United States historians ... have ethnocentrically shoved theor own countrymen to the front of the stage .... [T]urbulence and change characterized the quarter century of Mexican sovereignty over what is today the American Southwest." There's a lot else of interest even just in the intro (e.g. these areas lay largely outside New Spain's defenses and were considered far-flung frontiers; the original 1814 plan for Mexican independence from Spain excluded these lands from the forthcoming America mexicana).
    • There's also a suggestion that, after inclusion in the later, successful Mexican Revolution as important buffer zones between México proper and various rebellious Native American and hostile foreign powers (US and Russia), that the Mexican sovereignty period was the only time before the modern era that the isolation of TX, NM, AZ, and CA from each other was bridged in an organized way (though that was lost against for a while after the Mexican–American War, until the coming of the railroads). During the Spanish period, overland crossing to CA had been cut off by the Yuma since 1781, and there were large tracts between TX and NM and between NM and what is now AZ that were unpopulated except by Indians. The isolation had been greatly exacerbated by Napoleon's invasion of Ibera in 1808, and other Spanish military troubles, cutting off Spanish troops and supplies to outlying areas of New Spain (see pp. 6, 10–11).
  • Major, Mabel; Pearce, T. M. (1972). Southwest Heritage: A Literary History with Bibliographies. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. (Only abstract available, at this URL.) 'The book is divided into four parts: "Literature before the Anglo-American, to 1800," ... "Literature of Anglo-American Adventurers and Settlers, 1800–c. 1918," ... ""Literature from c.1918–1948," ... and "Literature from 1948–1970"'
  • Leonard, Olen Earl; Hannon, John J. (1974). Changes in a rural area: Some social and economic effects of outmigration and resource adjustment in the Spanish speaking villages of North Central New Mexico. University of Arizona Press. OCLC 14515568. This may be a dissertation, and is hard to find. The UT-Austin library has it in the Benson Latin American Collection (2 copies, call no. HD 211 N6 L466 1974, possibly borrowable through interlibrary loan). Labor mobility from this area to the cities, especially Santa Fe and Albuquerque, had a major effect on the English of urban central NM (which is almost half Hispanic, and mostly not from Mexican immigration).

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexican English

[edit]
Sock puppetry, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smile Lee. If there is a valid suggestion here, it should be made by an unblocked editor. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Isn’t it the usual thing to call a locality’s English by its demonym? Like shouldn’t this just be called “New Mexican English”, and is there any eveidence that this is multiple varieties of English, and not just a main dialect with sub-varieties. As far as I can tell, these are all referencing the same variety of English. For example, Burqueño English and Northern New Mexican Chicano English seem to just be subtle variants of one another, and don’t the Hispanos of New Mexico speak that Chicano English variety, could this just be a misnomer? For example Scottish English goes by many names, including Glasgow English which would be the equivalent of Burqueño English here, but it’s still just a subtle variant of the same Scottish English. It seems like a huge stretch to also now be including Indiginous and Hispano influences on the New Mexican English language which most sources seem to talk about. Point is, this article is a mess, and it seems someone ripped it apart by destroying relavant resources, there’s a viral video that made the news many times that had this dialect, the actress of which did small teaching sessions on New Mexican English at UNM and professors there have done talks on it, and that “Heaven Sent Gaming” source mentioned above for example is referenced in the Albuquerque Journal and other local news resources, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be used. And there is no logic in assuming that New Mexico has more than one main variety, and as such I think the name “New Mexican English” works much better here. Sorry just a rant from an angry Sandia Pueblo man, that is all. 2600:1:D517:7DCA:F079:FFCB:6231:1F2D (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Heaven Sent Gaming is absolutely not a reliable source. It was a pernicious source of vanity spam, and should not be cited here, per many tedious time-sinking discussions on multiple Wikipedia talk pages. Last I checked, that website itself specifically requested that it not be cited on Wikipedia, which is pretty funny, since evidence pointed to the site's owner being the one who was adding most of the citations. If you know of reliable sources which have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, please present them.
This article's lede specifically explains that it's about the larger topic of how English is used in New Mexico. If sources do not agree on there being one or multiple varieties, the article will reflect that. If you have a specific proposal to make, please do so. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I don’t know much about reliable sources or pernicious sources or citations. Thank you for the link. I’ll try though. The sources that the prior topic person SMcCandlish posted do agree in a singular New Mexican English, and UNM had a studies that showed the differences and even used the term “New Mexican English” https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds/49/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1367006913516035 UNM’s “What: Engaging the Linguistic Diversity of UNM in the Classroom“ mentions that “New Mexican English is itself unique” As for the “Heaven Sent Gaming” resource I know some reliable sources that talk about them like Albuquerque Journal https://www.abqjournal.com/1047119/admiration.html and KRQE https://www.krqe.com/amp/news/heaven-sent-gaming-celebrates-decade/900391688 they aren’t the only ones, there are others but those are New Mexican ones. From what I know they are not just a site and they are an organization that is owned by more than one individual, but I didn’t know they didn’t want to be cited, if you were fighting spam they may have been doing the same from this website and placed a warning to fight that spam too. They have contact information on their site, were they ever helped or contacted about that? I don’t know, it sounds like too much of an assumption to think they added citations if they were not allowing there inclusion. Onto the other resource that I mentioned a viral video that is discussed by KOAT https://www.koat.com/amp/article/burquenos-video-goes-viral/5039276 and Colores on PBS https://www.newmexicopbs.org/productions/colores/september-20-2013/ I hope these help if they don’t then that’s fine then. I don’t want to bother, which it seems like I did, sorry about that 2600:1:D517:7DCA:F079:FFCB:6231:1F2D (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason Heaven Sent Gaming hasn't been added to the spam blacklist is because it's not worth the hassle. Well, it's not worth it weighed against how amusing these attempts to defend it are. "it sounds like too much of an assumption"... It isn't. The site's founder has been proven to have started many, many sock puppet accounts, and this editor has a long history of wasting people's time by pretending to be a gee-whiz innocent bystander who just happened to stumble on this issue, and ask "golly, why, exactly isn't it reliable?" This isn't an assumption, this is a demonstrated pattern. That editor, should he happen to read this, would have to log into his original account and request an unblock, which would, just as a starting point, require disclosing every sock account he had made. I seriously doubt this would be enough, however, but it would be a start. Even then, the site itself would still not have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking, so it would still not be usable on Wikipedia. Local softball blurbs, only one of which even mentions the lexicon, are not sufficient to counteract the site's reputation for deception and sloppy scholarship demonstrated by this past behavior. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was rude, wtf. You didn’t even address my information regarding the viral video or the other resources from UNM. I don’t know what you’re talking about with Heaven Sent Gaming and I don’t care, you should contact them if there is a spam issue though. Get back on topic, I was talking about New Mexican English . . . but at this point I don’t care enough. Out 2600:1:D509:5422:186B:8098:7190:11AB (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, see the section "Requested move 24 October 2015" above. Also, look here for more on the Heaven Sent Gaming scandal. Wolfdog (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure that any one variety has been identified, as you advocate. Can you tell us about it (and the sources that back it)? A majority of white New Mexicans presumably speak Western American English, with minor characteristics here or there that give it local flavor. A sizeable portion of Latino New Mexicans speak dialects of Chicano English. So where's the "one" New Mexican dialect? Wolfdog (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Heaven Sent Gaming issue sounds like a gigantic misunderstanding, and it should be worked out with them, sounds like both sites were dealing with spam. “Local softball blurb” by Aaron Drawhorn? If I remember correctly he covered news for Las Vegas Review-Journal during the OJ Simpson fiasco, I’m pretty sure he’s more qualified than you are to assess them than us. Heaven Sent Gaming is most certainly not spam, and they have many contact methods all over their site, contact them and work it out. I don’t care enough to do so, but you people seem more than interested and capable to do so. Back to the topic at hand, I wouldn’t presume a difference between Anglo and Latino communities in a regional variation. While I agree that the most certainly is a Hispano influenced Northern anew Mexico English, I don’t think it would be broadly called Chicano. Back to the research, UNM did research on accents between monolingual and multilingual New Mexican English speakers, and found there was only a very slight difference between the onset of any accent, and many scholarly studies base their on a “New Mexican English” in particular. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds/49/ https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_7QYBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA238&dq=%E2%80%9CNew+Mexican+English%E2%80%9D&ots=yxEl80sgVG&sig=_ortxoCCe2gjswbJaAzV_HqhQlg http://search.proquest.com/openview/447664de0138259b81288bbb03433362/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y https://read.dukeupress.edu/pads/article-abstract/102/1/31/133497 2600Texan (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:AGF, I searched JSTOR to see what came up. The only use of the exact phrase "New Mexican English" is this from 1975. This term isn't directly used, but is part of the title of a Ph. D dissertation from 1941 ("Characteristic Features of New Mexican English between 1905 and 1890" by Woodford A. Heflin, University of Chicago). This was already mentioned on this talk page a few years ago, and I agree that it's extremely thin. Comically thin, really. (There is also one other search match, but it's a false positive). This search proves nothing, but it does suggest that this isn't a special term with an established usage. When in doubt, common usage matters, per Wikipedia:Article titles. "New Mexican English" doesn't appear to be that common.
Perhaps this is the FUTON bias, though, and "new" and "english" are ubiquitous enough to make search tedious. Still...
These links 2600Texan provides are useless for this. The dissertation is unfinished, unpublished, and cannot be verified. The Google Book result doesn't use the phrase, it just has some pages with those three words on them. The proquest article is so completely unrelated that it's either an error or outright trolling. The Duke Press link is at least relevant, but if it supports a name change, I don't get how. New Mexican Spanish has a documented (and interesting) history, but this article isn't about that, and we should avoid false equivalence.
From this, and looking through some of the results I found, I endorse the move from 2015. As was said at the time, this change alleviates confusion. That's good enough. Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll repeat and continue some of what I said on my talk page here with more added. Even if there was consensus beforehand for moving away from New Mexican English, I brought up completely other academic and scholarly sources that reliably show the term New Mexican English, and even make simple conclusions about a regional New Mexican English. Quotes “New Mexican Spanish, predicate nominals designating occupations or social status favor bare nouns, but in New Mexican English, the direction of effect is reversed” and “ ” and “dialectology and sociolinguistics have largely ignored the topic of New Mexican English, perhaps in part because English is still a relative newcomer to the region.” The viral video “Shit Burqueños (New Mexicans) Say” has also been continually ignored in these discussions, I bring it up because as I’ll repeat the person Lauren Poole who acted in them did an interview with PBS https://video.klru.tv/video/colores-colores-september-20th-2013/ and did New Mexican English for a lecture at UNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhMLDvdrkQ. Common usage does matter, “New Mexican English” is much more documented than the overly confusing and meaninglessness “English in New Mexico”, I feel like it implies that English is a secondary language in New Mexico which it is not, and this can be shown in the higher popularity of this page back when it was “New Mexican English”. https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2014-07-01&end=2019-03-17&pages=New_Mexican_English%7CEnglish_in_New_Mexico 2600Texan (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I was planning to ignore what you've said on your talk page with its personal insults and fabrications, but since you bring it up, here's some of the things you said: that I'm being "very hostile", "slandering", "jumping to like a million conclusions", "talking down" to you, and "mocking" you. What in the world are you referring to? This isn't how people edit in a collaborative way. Let's move on....
  • From which exact source are these "Quotes" you give?
  • Why are you saying the Burqueños video is being ignored, and, even if that's true, why should it matter? I think it actually used to be sourced right here on the page until some editor (it looks like Savidinaz -- feel free to talk to him/her) removed it. To be fair, it's not an academic source; it's a comedy video. The fact that a comedy video has gone viral and therefore been covered by local news outlets adds nothing to your advocacy for the term "New Mexican English." Neither video even uses that term! Tell me what I'm missing. Wolfdog (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of what I expected when I signed on here, I’d been editing anonymously for a long while. So when I created an account, after being involved in an issue which blocked Sprint IPs in Texas, I expected to have more of a collaborative experience.

Wolfdog did not say those things, I did.
It is severely undermining your argument constantly focus on Heaven Sent Gaming. This isn't the place to defend them as a source, and citing additional sources which have nothing at all to do with their reliability wouldn't be the way to do it. This is especially peculiar on a talk page for an article that has nothing to with this company. Repeatedly asking us to contact them, as though it were our obligation to do that, and as though they didn't have several years to 'work it out' before, is also undermining your argument.
Regardless, this is all over the place. Which KRQE video show the main actress? KRQE is a local news channel for Albuquerque, that's how affiliate stations work. So is KOAT. What is the actual proposal, here?
If your proposal is to change the article name back to what Smile Lee had it as, I haven't seen a coherent argument for why that would happen. You do not have consensus, which is what would be needed. If your proposal is something else, explain it in direct language. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realize Wolfdog said this, you have been working hard to steer this discussion back to a more level-headed position. I appreciate that, and I’m sorry you received crossfire over it, let’s try to keep this on a level where we can create consensus. The KRQE source was mentioned on my talk page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhMLDvdrkQ. KRQE and KOAT are news for Albuquerque, yes, but it is a major news source for television news in New Mexico being broadcast statewide in Santa Fe, Roswell, and even in Durango, Colorado. KRQE, KOAT, and Albuquerque Journal are widely distributed mainstream news sources. I haven’t focused on Heaven Sent Gaming, it was small mention in my first post. I became wrongly accused, and defended my position, as well as gave my opinion of the accusations, they should be contacted to prevent these accusations from happening again. Because they should be allowed to clear their name otherwise at this point it seems to be a very one-sided argument. I don’t care if it was the Queen of England who called it “New Mexican English” I do care that it is the most commonly referenced terminology, as I’ve shown in numerous academic and scholarly sources. It even lends conformality to New Mexican Spanish. “English in New Mexico” isn’t too specific enough, as it could just be talking about a British accent speaking person speaking English in New Mexico. “New Mexican English” is more concise in referencing this Demonym’s usage of the Language, in this case demonym language would be New Mexican English. 2600Texan (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? Who are you responding to? I, Grayfell said this was a waste of time and that the overwhelming majority of those who have defended Heaven Sent Gaming have turned out to be Smile Lee's sock puppets. Both of those things are still true. It was not Wolfdog.
As I already said, and as Smile Lee certainly already knows by now, he would have to log into his original account and deal with this there. He has already been blocked for his disruptive behavior, and this behavior continued for several months after that (at a minimum). The burden is now on him to appeal.
So far you have failed to gain consensus for changing the article. You have not addressed the reasons it was changed in the first place. We do not assume that readers are foolish enough to think an entire article would be about a British person speaking English in New Mexico. There is no ambiguity here, except the ambiguity of our sources.
The excessively lengthy Google Books link includes your search terms. You specifically searched for the phrase "New Mexican English", which means you are not searching for sources on the topic, you are searching for sources which support your preferred phrasing. This is a fundamentally flawed approach. Throwing a bowl of search spaghetti against the wall might make a big splash, but it isn't good scholarship. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, try to be constructive and collaborative. If I’m being asked to do this, you must do the same.

  • I was broadly responding, in an attempt to be respectful. Specific blame was not intended.
  • Heaven Sent Gaming is notable, as in covered in-depth in several independent local, nationwide and international publications. Whether Smile Lee knows how to fix the issue isn’t even the point here, you’re assuming that account was the main culprit, from what I can tell that account was extremely constructive before it was accused. Regardless of those facts the point is to get the other side of the story, by reaching out to them which should done, rather than relying on your bias. Ignoring these facts shows a fundamentally flawed approach.
  • I used way more than a Google Books link, and you know it. You’re talking down my research by saying I’m throwing a bowl of speghetti. I have given several examples of New Mexican English (New Mexico) and Burqueño English (Albuquerque, New Mexico) being used and how they are ised interchangably as a Demonym Language reference, and the Demonym Language were talking about here is New Mexican English. You have an obvious bias, to keep this article titled in the vague manner, so you toss out anything that disagrees with you. I also tried to look for “English in New Mexico” and this term is only used, to describe English language usage in New Mexico, it’s not used to describe English from New Mexico, eg Spanish and English in New Mexico. By relying on your bias alone, that isn’t good scholarship. 2600Texan (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciations

[edit]

Kbb2: You're not providing any sources for your pronunciations that would override mine, so why don't we just agree to use phonemic transcriptions on this page? That would simplify our editing disagreements. (I also don't understand why you're opposed to narrow transcriptions for exact dialects but that's another matter.) Wolfdog (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog: Sorry, WP failed to ping me the last time (maybe you should use the ping template instead of the u(ser) one, it seems to be more reliable). This is the first time I'm seeing this.
The reason I don't like the transcriptions [ä lä ˈmäːkinä] and [ˈɒmbɚːz] is because they're inconsistent, strange and probably not entirely correct. First of all, the length marks: the length of the stressed open central vowel in máquina is already conveyed by the stress mark, and we don't use the length mark in IPA transcriptions of NAE on Wikipedia. The length mark in ombers is almost certainly wrong, and so seems to be the initial vowel (are we really to believe that this dialect differentiates LOT from PALM)? This is why I reverted you: because you reinstated wrong transcriptions. When it comes to the centralization diacritic on ⟨a⟩, it's almost certainly not needed. As I've already said, General American /ɑ/ varies from back to central and so the symbol ⟨ɑ⟩ already covers the open central area in NAE dialectology (and English dialectology in general).
The idea of using the IPAc-en template is equally bad. Help:IPA/English is meant to be of help to laymen, but this can't be done at the cost of inaccurate or inconsistent transcriptions here or on any other dialect page. As we've already discussed, /ɪə, ʊə, ɛə/ do not exist in rhotic dialects. They're simply /i/, /u/ and /eɪ/ (or /e/ - same thing written differently) followed by /r/. Furthermore, using the IPAc-en template forces us to use the length mark, even though length isn't phonemic in any or almost any dialect of NAE. This can also create inconsistencies - transcriptions enclosed within IPAc-en use the length mark, and those that aren't don't. This is a perversion, if I may use that word - if anything, phonemic transcriptions should be the ones not to use the length mark, and it should be reserved for the narrowest kind of phonetic transcriptions.
Also, using IPAc-en template forces us to differentiate between /ɒ/ and /ɑː/, a difference that's alien to most varieties of NAE and almost certainly this one. It also forces us to differentiate between /iː/ and /uː/ on one hand and the unstressed-only /i/ and /u/ on the other (which aren't real phonemes by the way), which is a false distinction. What's worse - the usual North American transcription of these vowels is /i, u/ (like the unstressed vowels on Help:IPA/English), not /iː, uː/!
If you have suggestions on how to improve the current transcriptions in the article, I'm all ears. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kbb2: I'm a little confused as to what gives you the authority over me to determine what's inconsistent, strange and probably not entirely correct when neither of us is using any sources to back up our opinions. I've come to these pronunciations by listening to New Mexicans on YouTube; you don't even offer where your pronunciations come from. (This, for example, is where my length marks come from, with prosodic elements being a very unique part of New Mexican English, it seems.)
Contrary to your assumptions, it's not rare to find speakers who merge LOT-PALM-PALM using a rounded /ɑ/: in other words: [ɒ]. It certainly happens among some of the New Mexicans I've heard. In any case, the Wikipedia diaphoneme /ɒ/ still covers that; so not sure of what the big problem is there. And your idea of symbols "covering" certain larger phonetic areas/spaces does not preclude the fact that there can sometimes be a benefit in narrowly transcribing dialects, as I've argued elsewhere.
I happily defer to your rhotic-dialects argument (I admittedly barely understand some of the consensus-decided intricacies of the WP diaphonemic system, even though I'm prepared to defend its basic existence) and I even agree with your phonemic length-mark argument (although "perversion" is a tad dramatic, no? Haha).
Again, I don't entirely understand your minor crusade against using the IPAc-en template on an encyclopedia that is mostly meant for laymen, but we don't need to argue that here. More specifically (and also again), I've offered that we use a phonemic transcription or how about a broad American phonemic transcription, which, in my previous words, would simplify our editing disagreements by at least forcing us into a more universally agreeable format (rather than you and me wrangling over every phonetic detail); it's still not clear to me why you object to this better compromise. For example, why in the world are you insisting on [o] for the assumed New Mexican allophone of [oʊ], when you and I could be pretty content agreeing that the phoneme at play is /oʊ/ (that's what we've consistently used on Wikipedia) and thus just write it as such?? My suggestion: Let's just use a broad American system. Wolfdog (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aspiration in New Mexican English

[edit]

Nardog, In response to your revert to remove aspiration from the transcription, saying one of the key characteristics of Chicano English is shorter VOT as in Spanish; see e.g. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.550.1032&rep=rep1&type=pdf, p.69, I appreciate you presenting this source. Interesting. This indirectly contradicts a source I was just reading today, Carmen Fought's "Chicano English" in World Englishes Volume II (edited by Tometro Hopkins). Fought makes an effort to transcribe the dialect very narrowly, including on page 123 writing that together would often be pronounced [tʰugɛðəɹ]. Now that I look more into her work, you can see that she routinely shows aspiration for the normally-aspirated English consonants, like throughout her Chicano English in Context. To add another complication to your argument, it's likely that most Chicano English is actually a "mix" of stress-timed and syllable-timed. To add further complications to your argument, are we talking about Chicano English here? -- or is canales truly a loanword used among a majority of New Mexicans (even Anglo or non-Spanish-speaking ones)? The continuing crappiness of our sources on this page doesn't exactly help us to know. But we can pretty safely expect non-Latino and probably many Latino New Mexicans to aspirate these consonants. It'd be smarter to stick to showing aspiration. (If only there were fuller and more fleshed-out sources on New Mexican English and what exactly it is -- if anything! But I've been criticized in the past for continuing to harp on that.) Wolfdog (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fought is apparently going for a very narrow transcription (unreasonably so, if you ask me)—any prevocalic voiceless oral stop is technically aspirated, some more than others, because humans are not robots and it's impossible to start voicing exactly at the same time as the burst. Regardless, I wouldn't—and we shouldn't—transcribe the consonant in that position with aspiration even in GA. stress doesn't determine aspiration is simply false (at least in most major varieties of English), we recently discussed this at Talk:English phonology/Archive 4#Aspiration of English stops.
(If I remember correctly, I think I heard shorter VOT in Chicano English being talked about in this podcast episode, which is why I was like, "No way!", when I saw your edit and summary. I think you'd find that show informative and entertaining for what it's worth.) Nardog (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely be interested in the podcast, thank you! As for your "Aspiration of English stops" discussion, tell me if I'm misreading this, but aren't other users arguing, like me, that aspiration indeed occurs at the beginning of a word AKA word-initially (as in canales) which is different than at the beginning of any old syllable (as in, arguably, upper)? Wolfdog (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a matter of degree. The VOT before unstressed vowels is indeed longer when word-initial than when word-internal, but it's still shorter than the VOT before stressed vowels. So whether to mark it in a transcription is an arbitrary choice and comes down to considerations like whether the aspiration is significant enough and whether it is pertinent to the context. I don't think we should particularly in this case because speakers with Spanish/syllable-timed influence are likely to render it more like [ka], with a full-vowel quality but with little aspiration, and speakers with GA/stress-timed influence are likely to render it more like [kə], with the vowel reduced, which means little aspiration anyway. The vowel reduction is even more likely to occur when preceded by a word like a preposition.
(Wait, Fought is the guest of that episode! But it seems I wasn't remembering correctly—it was probably some other episode where one of the hosts was talking about shorter VOT. It's a really good episode anyway though; I also recommend the one about language policy in Canada and the one about transgender and non-binary people.) Nardog (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! That's funny about Fought. OK, well when I hear an entirely unaspirated /k/, /p/, or /t/ at the beginning of a word, that tends to sound more foreign to me, whereas even an over-aspirated initial /k/, /p/, or /t/ feels unremarkably like English. (I remember I had a native English-speaking friend who would pronounce a word like connnect even as strongly as [kxəˈnɛkt] and most of her other friends didn't notice.) Yeah, I get that it's all a matter of degrees though. Wow, this sounds like a really cool podcast! Wolfdog (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes at calling one of the theorized dialects a form of Chicano English

[edit]

None of these sources corroborate more than a singular dialect of New Mexican English. And by the way, it is massively racist to call Hispano community solely Chicano, especially considering the non-Aztecan indigenous element of that particular group. There is no evidence that the Hispanic community speaks a completely different variety of English. Also, the pageviews for this article didn’t surpass the “New Mexican English” terminology until very recently, meaning that it was and is the preferred term. Looking through the page history, this article has been morphed in a bad way due to POV, by blocking any and all sources that are contrary to select few editors. 2601:8C2:8080:1BC0:286F:3FE:8B00:F772 (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source that New Mexican English has regularly been a more popular term for views on this page. https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2020-03-31&pages=New_Mexican_English%7CEnglish_in_New_Mexico 2601:8C2:8080:1BC0:B823:27F5:21FA:8BB3 (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect's popularity on Wikipedia still has nothing to do with it. We go by commonality among reliable, independent sources. If you've been "looking through the page history", you've noticed that there is only one editor who's been pushing for this change, he has been blocked for sock puppetry and playing stupid games, and the few sources he has proposed for this particular argument have been very weak. If you have a non-WP:CIRC source for this, propose it. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_in_New_Mexico&oldid=1228630507"