Talk:Chicano English

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


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Janet-L-0, Dinosfan. Peer reviewers: Keeterz1, Dinosfan, Jordansanchez1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rfilippone13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic American English dialects[edit]

The topic of Chicano English brings up the question:

Do each of the other types of Hispanic Americans also have their own dialects of American English? Gringo300 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can Chicano English be regional and not just associated with Mexican Americans? Can people of other races living in Mexican-American neighborhoods for example, speak this variety of English? Bibliography Fought, C. 1. (2003). Chicano English in context. Palgrave Macmillan. Galindo, D. L. (1995). Language attitudes toward Spanish and English varieties: a Chicano perspective. Hispanic Journal Of Behavioral Sciences, 17(1), 77-99 Penfield, J. (1989). Social and linguistic parameters of prosody in Chicano English. In (pp. 387-401). Santa Ana A., O. (1993). Chicano English and the nature of the Chicano language setting. Hispanic Journal Of Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 3-35. Teschner, R. V. (1977). A collection of research studies in Chicano linguistics. Bilingual Review, 4(1/2), 138-140. Janet-L-0 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

carnal[edit]

What does 'carnal' (-oye carnal) mean?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondel (talk • contribs)

I think it can mean "buddy" or "pal." It also means carnal. AEuSoes1 04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Lopez[edit]

George Lopez does not speak Chicano English (if you read the article carefully). He speaks Spanish-accented English. He is born in the States so he definitely does not speak Spanish-accented English. That`s one of the myths about people like him and about Chicano English. You should read some scientific literature about it, for example "Chicano English in Context" by Carmen Fought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.240.135.159 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stubble[edit]

How come there are so many references listed for a page that is essentially a stub? Strange. I'm going to see if I can find the referenced books in my uni's library, and perhaps start fleshing out an actual article here. Reydeyo (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Consonant Deletion[edit]

This section is minorly incorrect. Off the top of my head I can think of two isolated examples ('red' and 'pared') and an entire class (nouns ending in '-dad') that are final -d. Perhaps it should be altered to discuss deletion of final consonant clusters? This is all it demonstrates anyway. ClockwerkMao (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so racist[edit]

...that it should be deleted.

Or at least get it right.

"Chicano English" is not a dialect of American English used by Chicanos. The subject of this article could be more accurately described as a regional dialect for a subset of people or as a dialect of American English spoken by Chicanos in California, and even more specifically southern California. As the article has already pointed out, "Chicano English" is not spoken by the "Chicanos" in parts of Texas.

There is a sizable "Chicano" population in industrialized northern US cities like Chicago and the "Chicanos" there do not speak this cholo/low-rider/zoot suit/southern California dialect. Possibly because the Mexican populations that ended immigrating to industrialized northern US cities took jobs in the local factories and worked among non-Spanish speakers (many also recent immigrants from Europe) which forced the recent immigrant groups (Mexican and European) to acquire at least a working grasp of English to communicate with each other and consequently they assimilated faster, often within the first generation.

This is so racist (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it says used by chicanos, not by ALL chicanos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.73.7.198 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not racist, it's just over-generalizing. This is a conflict between WP:THETRUTH and WP:RS. That is, actual sources call it "Chicano English" (sometimes), but other sources make it clear that not all self-identifying Chicanos speak this way; it is clearly centered on Southern California. So, it is possible that the article needs to be renamed, but we need to look to reliable sources for another attested term for it; I don't know of one off the top of my head. Maybe some linguistic sources have some term for it like "Hispanic Californian Vernacular English" or something. Like all dialects, it's also in flux; California in recent decades has had a very large influx of Central and South Americans, affecting the Hispanic use of English in the area and the very nature of the Hispanic subculture in California (though perhaps more so in the San Francisco Bay Area than between San Diego and L.A.). At any rate, the WP:GREATWRONGS desire to "fix" the fact that not every single Chicano in America speaks what this article (and external sources) call Chicano English cannot lead us through original research to reject the term as "wrong". Rather, the scope and definition of the article's subject needs to be defined better. Two countervailing factors are a) the term "Chicano" is on the decline, and b) it only applies to Mexican Americans, not all Hispanics, and many non-Chicanos simply do not understand that at all. Puerto Rican and Cuban Americans, for example, are not Chicanos, so any argument along the lines "Hispanics in New York and Florida don't speak this 'Chicano English', so this article must be wrong" are invalid on their face.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal (New Mexican English to Chicano English)[edit]

Stale
 – Discussion died off in November 2015.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this merger is controversial, since it (plus also the info I added to this page) was reverted by first-time user JoinerFact; see my last edit on Chicano English. So, here are some of my references for why "New Mexican English" is a sub-variety of Chicano English:

  • Balukas, Colleen; Koops, Christian (2014). "Spanish-English bilingual voice onset time in spontaneous code-switching". [I can pass along the full doc if needed.]: This source, already used on New Mexican English, discusses New Mexican English only as part of the phrase "New Mexican English-Spanish bilinguals." It does not imply any sort of "New Mexican English" spoken outside of English-Spanish bilinguals. In any case, due to the obvious ethic/linguistic demographics of New Mexico, these Hispanophone bilinguals in question would largely be of Nuevomexicano/Mexican heritage... so: Chicanos. Also, the Balukas & Koops study says that it studies the corpus of "practiced, frequent code-switchers for whom codeswitching is an unmarked, common in-group discourse mode (Gonzales Velásquez, 1995, 1999)" (p. 426). Both of those cited Gonzales Velásquez sources center around (see their titles) Chicana English.
  • Hernández, Pilar (1993). "Vowel shift in Northern New Mexico Chicano English" [Again, I have the full article if needed]: This discusses, once more, a New Mexican variety of English only in the context of being a sub-type of Chicano English. By the way, Hernández says "ChE transcends age, race and socioeconomic status so that speakers include[...] even non-chicanos" (p. 233). This seems to debunk User:JoinerFact's contention as implied by the edit summary "The State of New Mexico is not entirely composed of Chicano individuals." The implication is that what WP is calling "New Mexican English" cannot possibly be just a type of "Chicano English," but Hernández (and probably all linguists) would obviously disagree with the premise underlying that assumption. Chicano English can absolutely be spoken by non-Chicanos (even non-Latinos), just like Southern White Vernacular English can also be spoken by non-whites, or AAVE by non-blacks.
  • Wilson, Damian (2015-05-21). The Burqueno Dialect: This source, already used (and most ubiquitous) on the New Mexican English page, discusses several of the Spanish-influenced terms in Albuquerque English, and the fact that Albuquerque (i.e. New Mexican) Spanish has influenced the dialect. Also, the intonation patterns match those documented by Santa Ana, Otto; & Bayley, Robert. (2004a). "Chicano English phonology" (in "The Handbook of Varieties of English.") as Chicano English; Santa Ana & Bayley also marks the Southwest as the major dialect region of Chicano English, further strengthening that what we're talking about here (vaguely, by the way, as I've mentioned in past comments) is really a form of Chicano English. Wolfdog (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado are home to the "Northern New Mexico Chicano English", which is a legitimate sub-dialect of New Mexican English that is related to the descendants of Spanish settlers mainly in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. However, New Mexico is not solely Chicano as it has a rather large Native American population, which are known to speak with the New Mexican English dialect, particularly the Mescalero and Jicarilla Apache and the numerous Pueblos from around the state, that's not even beginning to discuss the descendants of the American West, Buffalo soldiers, Mexican-Americans, etc. New Mexican English is about the English language as spoken in New Mexico, and this article discusses numerous Chicano dialects from across the country including "Tejano English" and "Northern New Mexico Chicano English", both of which are better discussed in-depth at the Texan English and New Mexican English articles respectively. This article should discuss the origin of Chicano English as a whole, and discuss regional variations such as those in Texas and New Mexico. JoinerFact (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You provide some interesting information. But it all seems like original research (OR) unless you can give sources to back up your points. I'm going to break down your previous response, sentence by sentence (in numerical order, starting, in other words, with your sentence #1):
  1. Do you have a source for this sentence?
  2. I know that NM is not solely Chicano, as I've explained (however, in NM, Latinos outweigh non-Latino whites as well as Indians/Natives Americans). You're knocking down a straw man. (Do you have any citations, rather than just OR, that Mescaleros Jicarilla Apaches, Pueblos, Buffalo soldiers all primarily speak this "New Mexican English"?)
  3. You think it makes more sense to put information about "Northern New Mexico Chicano English" (NNMCE) under the debatable page "New Mexican English" than the firmly-established page "Chicano English"? The answer seems to me in the very name. I'm confused. You say that NNMCE is "better discussed in-depth" at "New Mexican English." No, it isn't. It is only mentioned in one single sentence, and I carried that same exact info over into my merge with Chicano English, which you reverted. You're also mistaken in Tejano English being discussed in-depth at the page Texan English; it is quite obviously discussed briefly (in fact the term "Tejano" is discussed more than the term "Tejano English" itself there).
  4. This final sentence baffles me. Now you seem to be agreeing with me about what to do on the Chicano English page.
In any event, can you back up any of your disagreements with sources? Wolfdog (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
  1. The first sentence comes from one of the sources you listed, especially Vowel shift in Northern New Mexico Chicano English by Hernández, Pilar. As well as this source Chicano English: An Ethnic Contact Dialect by Joyce Penfield. The peoples of Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado do not identify as being primarily Mexican/Chicano but instead identify with being the unique Nuevomexicano as you stated.
  2. This is not a straw man, moving a linguistic region like New Mexico into a vast language such as Chicano English would be confusing. New Mexican English is identified just one thing, the English language in New Mexico, and referring to it as New Mexican English allows for uniformity with other regional dialect. Chicano English discusses English as spoken by those that interact with speakers of Mexican Spanish, which is found throughout areas Chicano English involves primarily Mexican-American communities. Merging these articles could mislead people to think that New Mexicans speak primarily Chicano English, yet alone losing information, note Tiwa place-names and certain English additives such as "sick to the stomach" and "Or what and Or no". I'm saying that merging these articles is misleading. See Some Homelands and Place Names of New Mexico by Robert Valdez a well known New Mexico historian and Language Rights and the Law in the United States by Sandra Del Valle.
  3. Northern New Mexico Chicano English should be discussed in the New Mexican English page as that is its primary language of interaction. Chicano English needs to discuss these sub-dialects, Tejano and NNMCE, and it should describe what the differences of those languages. But, Texan English and New Mexican English are completely different from one-another and from Tejano and NNMCE. See Form and function in Chicano English by Jacob Ornstein-Galicia and Chicano English by Allan A. Metcalf/‎ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, ‎Center for Applied Linguistics.
  4. I definitely appreciate your work on the language pages here on Wikipedia, and I do agree with what your trying to do. But, New Mexican English is not the same as Chicano English, and equating the two will cause confusion.
There are many more sources that would inform you, if you're having trouble finding sources on New Mexican English, I recommenced searching for English language in New Mexico. The New Mexican English article should definitely discuss more of its history, and probably contain a bit about the good ol' "Partner" and "Howdy", etc. JoinerFact (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In response to each number above:
  1. The Hernández source does not, as you claim, say anything about Northern New Mexico Chicano English (NNMCE) being a sub-dialect of New Mexican English, or even NNMCE being spoken in Colorado. It simply says "there is much regional linguistic variatíon within the ChE dialect. This pilot study uncovers one such dialectal variation spoken in Northern New Mexico" (p. 227). If anything, then, NNMCE is confirmed here to be a sub-dialect of ChE -- not a sub-dialect of some New Mexican English. As for the Penfield source, I don't have full access to it, but a search for the phrase "New Mexico" in Google Books yields only this sentence: "Two other very archaic dialects of Spanish which exist in the Southwest are varieties found in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado" (p. 8). So, your claim that "Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado are home to the 'Northern New Mexico Chicano English'" is supported only by a source referencing a dialect of Spanish-- not a dialect of English. Looking at the lexical features on New Mexican English, I think it's hard to argue that this seemingly difficult-to-verify variety is not a Latino English.
  2. Is it "New Mexican English" (often, implying a dialect -- in the style of other WP articles) or is it "English language in New Mexico" (not implying a fully unique dialect, but implying some unique elements that appear to have ties to Chicano/Spanish influence and could better be merged elsewhere). I'm not sure what the Valdez and Del Valle sources do to show that what you're calling "New Mexican English" is not actually a sub-variety of Chicano English. What pages are you looking at in Del Valle? And a source by this historian does nothing to discuss a dialect one way or the other; the Valdez source has everything to say about local topographical/historical place-names, and nothing to say about local English dialect uniqueness.
  3. What exactly is the difference between Tejano, Chicano, and New Mexican English? If we could find a solid source on that, then I'd have to relent. Instead, Tejano English is discussed only as a sub-variety of Chicano English and there appears to be no "New Mexican English" outside of Hernández's "Northern New Mexico Chicano English," Balukas & Koops's English as spoken by New Mexican Spanish-English bilinguals, and Wilson's vague New Mexican Spanish-influenced "Albuquerque English" which seems to have no support elsewhere in the academic world. Can you point to anything specific in your Ornstein-Galicia and Metcalf sources? I have no access to them.
  4. You caution that "New Mexican English is not the same as Chicano English, and equating the two will cause confusion." But I'm not equating the two. I'm saying that there is a New Mexican sub-variety of Chicano English, which is where we should move "New Mexican English" to, since the sources already on the "New Mexican English" page more or less (or, in Hernández's case, directly) point to it being a type of Chicano English. I even would have a special "New Mexico" section on the Chicano English page, to avoid readers completely equating the two. Meanwhile, the "New Mexican English" page is hardly verified as it is. If you request it, I'd be happy to go through all the references on that page to show you which ones actually uphold the idea of a unique "New Mexican English," none of which I would argue confirm it to be separate from the umbrella of "Chicano English." Wolfdog (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, you say "The New Mexican English article should definitely discuss more of its history, and probably contain a bit about the good ol' 'Partner' and 'Howdy', etc." I assume you're talking about the Southern American English and Texan English elements, which encroach on the region according to this map from the 2006 ANAE. Those dialects already have their own respective pages on WP. Western American English also already has its own page. And the only unique batch of elements in New Mexico that "New Mexican English" presents with "o sí," "canales," etc. also has its own page and a perfect place for its own more specific section: Chicano English. Wolfdog (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly creating circular arguments.
  1. The Hernández source does claim that Northern New Mexico Chicano English is a sub-dialect of New Mexican English, "Because the inhabitants of this predominantly monolingual environment are not recent immigrants from a Spanish speaking country, their English is not a result of language interference but is strongly rooted in the region transcending age, race and socioeconomic status". It also explains what NNMCE is "in Northern New Mexico (=NNM). In this particular region, the fluent ChE spoken as a first language most likely originated in the variety of English spoken by immigrants from Mexico who have learned English as a second language." The Penfield source discusses the regional Chicano variation of the entire Southwest, from Southern California Chicanos to New Mexico Chicanos to Tejanos.
  2. Refer to the multitude of studies on Southwestern American English. You will find them breaking down the differences between Chicano English throughout the Southwest and how it relates to neighboring non-Chicano speech patterns.
  3. "New Mexican English" would be preferred term here on Wikipedia for neutrality sake, see English in the United Kingdom, as this is referring to a linguistic region that covers Southern Colorado, Eastern Arizona, but primarily focusing on New Mexico. The term New Mexico itself comes from the old Spanish colony, and the Mexican and American territories, Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico, which used to cover a great deal of the area. The Burqueno Dialect is mentioned in one of the articles you brought up, this term is also sometimes used simply because it is the largest metropolis in New Mexico. Perhaps other terms should be mentioned in the lede for New Mexican English.
  4. By combining the two you WILL cause confusion, New Mexico's English does not solely have Chicano influences, and in order to make your assessment true you would need to throw out several facts that could not be covered within a section on the Chicano English page. For example, the term "chile" being used, instead of chili, has very little to do with Chicano English, and is much more related to the culture of New Mexico itself. Most Chicano English speakers wouldn't care about the spelling of chili, only New Mexican English speakers would.
This circular logic appears to be a extremely similar to your prior discussions with User:SMcCandlish. JoinerFact (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: These are only vaguely related topics. It's like demanding to merge Ulster English and Scottish English because they have similarities and a partially-shared cultural background, and there are more sources for Scottish English. We simply do not merge articles on the basis of such vague correlation and convenience. In actuality, Scottish and Ulster English actually have more in common with each other than Californian and New Mexico English, since the Irish Sea between Ulster and Scotland is quite narrow and passable, with close contact going back to to prehistory, a shared early medieval kingdom, later joint rule under the English, and Early Modern mass transplantation of Scots into Ulster; meanwhile, there was virtually no contact between New Mexico and California until the coming of the railroad at the end of the 1800s. People not steeped in this history just don't understand how impassable the land was (Arizona and Nevada, which had only a tiny population of non-indigenous settlers until the 20th century) between the two now-states.

    The nature of the spoken English brought into these areas was different, happening at different periods of time (much later in NM despite it being more easterly) and being brought by different groups of native English speakers (with that brought to NM being far more homogenous; the California Gold Rush brought everyone and their dog, from everywhere, all at once (including the first of several waves of Spanish-speakers from south of Mexico), while NM was mostly gradually Anglo settled, by ranchers, farmers, and the like, from the western South (TX, OK, LA, AR) and from the Midwest (KS, MO, IA, NE, etc.) The nature of the Spanish already spoken in the two areas also differed, having been long geographically separated, with the Californian variety coming into commingling contact with English far sooner, and the NM variety being very rustic and traditional, uninfluenced much by later innovation and external influence for quite some time (many of the "old families" in n. NM and s. CO date to the Spanish Colonial period, but this is not true of much of the Spanish-speaking substrate of CA, which has seen a constant churn of northward immigration from Mexico. Many of the original Nuevo México families were Jewish, descendants of the Conversos who emerged from the Inquisition. Entire books have been written about this. (While they were not speaking Ladino a.k.a. Judaeo-Spanish (which mostly developed in Spanish territories east of Spain), they were not speaking high Castilian Spanish, either. The nature of the indigenous languages is also completely different (mostly wholly separate language families in CA and NM), with NM Spanish and later English adopting more indigenous loanwords than the CA varieties (and of course different ones than in CA). CA has also seen a very, very substantial influx of non-Mexican Hispanics/Latinos while NM has not, strongly affecting CA's Spanish and its Spanish's influence on its English. And so on.

    To address the numbered points above:

1, 2, 3, 4 ...
    1. JoinerFact is correct that, except for more recent-immigrant populations in the south of NM, AZ, and w. TX, the native Hispanic population centered on New Mexico does not identify as "Mexican"; many get offended when called this, since historically they were part of New Spain's rather sparse and diffuse colony of Nueva México, named for the city, not the later country, (and in w. Texas part of the Republic of Texas for a while). Calling them "Mexicans" confuses them with and implies that they are "wetbacks", i.e. recent immigrants from across the Rio grande, when many of them have been residing in this area for centuries, before the Mexican-American war. While, especially in the 1970s–80s, many did in fact identify with la causa chicana, chicanismo, and the Chicano civil rights and labor movements, which began in So. Cal. (I grew up in NM and was in high school in the mid-'80s; most Hispanic students identified as "Chicano" or "Mexican-American", and calling them "Mexican" was seen as offensive, while "Hispanic" and "Latino" were not in much use in the area at that time.) At any rate, the Hernández quote JoinerFact just included above makes it pretty obvious why NM Chicano English is an NM English not a [Californian] Chicano English subtopic. Side point: Joinerfact being a recently-joining editor is irrelevant; we were all new editors when we were new editors. That didn't make us stupid, wrong, acting in bad faith, nor did it make those who'd arrived earlier WP:VESTED editors with more editorial rights.
    2. Wolfdog's question doesn't really make sense. What other English would people long in New Mexico be speaking other than New Mexican English. He demands a source for the fact that different ethnic minorities speaking in English in NM speak the NM variety of it, which is silly to begin with, but is already sourced from Hernández to begin with; to quote it again in shorter form: "the inhabitants ... are not recent immigrants ... [and] their English is not a result of language interference but is strongly rooted in the region transcending age, race and socioeconomic status" (hint: "race" = "ethnicity" in this context).
    3. This is another argument that doesn't make sense. [Norther] New Mexican Chicano English (I'll juse NMCE henceforth) is, obviously, a subtopic of both Chicano English and New Mexico English, and should be covered at the latter in detail and at the former in summary form [not the other way around; see below for why], per WP:SUMMARY. When facts are relevant to two articles we do not forcibly hide them in one. If the NMCE material were moved into the CE article to weaken the NME article so it looks more deletion-worthy, that would be WP:GAMING, and it would actually fail, since removal of that subtopic from the NME article will still leave all of the rest of the history of English in the state/territory, which would still remain a notable, sourced topic, and thus necessitate both the keeping of the article and the readdition of the NMCE material as relevant but missing. The effort to merge into this article would effectively be little different from a WP:POVFORK with little effect but temporarily making the NME article worse.
    4. NME is a regional dialect (used by non-Chicacnos and as register / code by Chicanos), while NMCE is a cultural one (used only by Mexican-Americans, apt to self-identify as "Chicano" or increasingly "Hispanic" around Albuquerque and southward, but "Nuevomexicano", or "Spanish" in the north, many of the latter with a different background than Chicanos of TX and CA) that can be classified, sprachbund-wise, as essentially where NME and CE intersect, though historically speaking that assessment is actually a linguistically genetic falsehood. Because NMCE is developmentally a subset of (and strong influence on) general NME, as Tejano (Texan Chicano English) is on Texan English more broadly, the geographical dialect articles are the proper place to cover both ethno-cultural sub-dialects in detail, while the CE article should summarize them as relevant related material – separately derived from related "stock", and thus a case of parallel and partially convergent linguistic "evolution". The only actual connections between NMCE/Tejano and CE are a) a historical cultural connection to Mexico (that has differed), and a modern subcultural/political/literary la Causa / la Raza connection mediated through publishing and broadcasting, after the dialects had already been established. (The connection between NMCE and Tejano is a little bit closer but only a little; in many ways, Tejano is closer related to CACE than to NMCE, which has been culturally more isolated and mostly has little to do with the US/Mexican-border cultural and linguistic interface. The "SNME" and "SNMCE" of borderland s.e. New Mexico, around Las Cruces and Hatch, blends into w. TE & Tejano as much as into more northerly NM[C]E. It's wrong to think of these dialectal continuums as defined by national and state borders, which are culturally permeable. NME and NMCE likewise extend into s. CO, and e. AZ - I'm skeptical that a distinct "AZE" and "AZCE" can even be identified, since so much of the state was empty desert until the 20th c. (and so much of it remains so), while the suburban TE (and TCE) of west TX effectively extends a ways into e. NM, e.g. in Portales and Clovis, where I lived for some time; we were not speaking Burqueño or [N]NMCE there, and most of the "old" families (Anglo, Hispanic and a few black) in that area were originally from TX/OK in the 1800s (many of the old families in n. NM are Hispanic, and date to the colonial period).
Anyway, this proposal is basically part of a months-long campaign to get rid of the article New Mexico English at all costs. Give it a rest. I do share Wolfdog's and others' concerns over the weak sourcing in the NME article, its confusion of the Burqueño sub-dialect of Bernalillo and Sandoval counties, or the NMCE dialect of rural n. NM, with that of the entire region (though he seems to make use of this confusion himself when it suits his own argument), and some of the questionably encyclopedic material in it, but those are matters for improvement by research and editing, not rationales for deletion or for merging away the article by WP:COATRACKing its content into Chicano English where it will be on a WP:COATRACK.

A better solution would be to re-title and re-scope New Mexico English (presently trying to be about a purported dialect that has resisted efforts to source it clearly and consistently as such) into English in New Mexico, which is a much better-sourceable topic, and which can cover ideas about what constitutes regional or local "dialects proper" as subtopics. The problem with the article as it stands is POV and OR aimed at focusing on English in the state as a named dialect, when the evidence more properly leads us to treat English in the region, centered on the modern US state, as a historical, broad topic, and inside of which at least two dialects of differing sorts can be distinguished (urban and suburban Burqueño around Albuquerque, and what is more broadly meant by "New Mexico English" as a dialect, across the top 2/3 or so of the state (including NMCE as an ethnic subdialect well into s. CO). There may or may not be enough material to properly source a separate dialect in the south, one that is more like SW TX Eng. in detail and historically (and parallels So. Cal Eng. developmentally), with strong, modern influence from recent Mexican immigration (which has also influenced Burqueño, but barely touched [N]NMCE. In short: it's a viable historical language-use article with the sources we already have, but as a linguistic dialect article, it will necessarily cover a dialect continuum over the much of the former NM Territory, and for which we don't yet have enough source material. By changing it to focus on the historical aspects, the dialectal ones can be added in more detail over time. Doing it the other way around is raising too many problems and too much desire to undo the article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make NME look more deletion-worthy; I was suggesting the option of a merge. As you've referenced, we already had the deletion discussion and it ended in "no consensus." As far as anyone can tell, "no consensus" means that there is no clear agreement among editors. But this doesn't negate the pursuit of a better place to fit the information given (especially coming from the perspective that, yes, the info was weak already, so perhaps it serves better as a section of another article, rather than its own full article; this is not a conniving or sinister way of thinking). It suddenly occurred to me recently, after acquiring and reading the Hernández article, that "New Mexican English" appears to be decently supported as a type of Chicano English, including when I looked back through the other sources. Meanwhile, SMcCandlish, you seem to be an utter wellspring of knowledge on New Mexican English. You are clearly knowledgeable on the topic, so why can't you help us find any stronger sources? You say that you agree the page is poorly sourced as it stands. Meanwhile, you so definitively inform us about a "Burqueño sub-dialect," specific ethnic self-descriptions that vary throughout the state, "Southern New Mexico Chicano English," the Tejano variety, etc. This is great information! Cite the sources that taught you all this! My main concerns and requests in my various discussions related to New Mexican English have been about sourcing. We're on the same page here.
So, yes, let's give it a rest. Here: I second your renaming/rescoping solution, SMcCandlish. And apparently my question does make sense, since you mirror it in the very solution you propose: "English in New Mexico" could discuss a range of different English-language patterns in the state, rather than implying a single unified dialect, as you admit "New Mexican English" does. Since we've always meant "English in New Mexico," this clears up a lot of my confusion... speaking of confusion. This whole time, I always thought people were trying to argue that New Mexico English is its own dialect, as the lede of the article has repeated stated. Wolfdog (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least you're being honest finally, but since your simply trying to delete the article, I do not agree with moving New Mexican English to "English in New Mexico". This is referring to a region that primarily speaks English, "English in..." articles usually refer to places where English is not the primary language. See English in the United Kingdom, English in the USA, and English in Canada, compared to English in Barbados and English in Puerto Rico. I can't find any American state that has its language article listed as "English in...". Why should New Mexico be any different? See Category:American English. Even out of the different versions of Category:British English I cannot find any "English in..." articles. And, honestly if we're going to suddenly make this distinction regarding one American state we would then need to evaluate the subjective dialectic and accented qualities of each to determine its proper article name. It seems to me that your only intention is to remove "New Mexican English" is misguided. JoinerFact (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaking an accident of WP:COMMONNAME application for some kind of naming convention; it's a case of correlation is not causation. By coincidence, most major, identified dialects are named in the form "Adjectival geonym English". When they have not been (e.g. because of ambiguity or repetitiveness, as with the case of English language in England not "English English"), or when they have not been identified by enough sources for us to be sure they have a name (as in the case of the use, history, and nature of English in New Mexico), we don't use that name format. PS: The reason that English language in England is at that title and not at English in England is because the latter appears to mean the English people in England (i.e., vs. the original Brittonic inhabitants, the Norman invaders, and modern immigrants). This confusion does not arise with English in New Mexico really, so WP:CONCISE would probably have us use the shorter name. There would be no need to rename Texas English, etc., to English in Texas, etc., since we have a substantial body of sources using that term. The only one that's proving hard to source with a consistent meaning and consistent terminology is "New Mexican English". As much as I want that to not be the case, and as much as I expect it will not be the case forever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Wolfdog: People are arguing that New Mexico English is its own dialect, and it's just as valid an argument as the one for Texan English or California English. But, per WP:TRUTH, we don't have to care right now; either we have sufficient sourcing to write the article that way, or we don't, and it seems that at present we don't. I doubt this will be the case indefinitely, as more journals' content comes online. I've recently gotten access to a few more journal search sites via WP:LIBRARY, so maybe something will turn up. Really, this would ideally be dealt with by someone who is faculty or a student at UNM, since they'd have not only all the university subscribed academic search resources, but also the entire UNM library, which is piled high with paper sources most of which are not going to be put online within our lifetimes if ever. I wish this had come up when I at UNM [sigh]. PS: I was not implying a nefarious motive, just an unhelpful proposed result; it doesn't help readers to merge a regional dialect (or language use and history) article into one that is politco-ethno-cultural. As complained higher up the page, the CE article itself also has different regionality issues, since it seems to focus on L.A.-area Chicano English; it probably needs to be reorganized to sort that material into a section on California CE, followed by {{Main}}-linked sections on [N]NMCE and Tejano that point to the relevant sections at English in New Mexico and Texan English. Though I guess that also means we need to reorganize New Mexican English into English in New Mexico first with a section on Northern New Mexico Chicano English, or something to this effect. [insert headache]. CE is best approached as political and cultural topic, like the Celtic language revival in the Celtic fringe (not sure we have an article on that under another, non-redlinked name, but we certainly should, and the relevant rootstock material is now in Category:Celtic language revival); the linguistic information would mostly remain in the language/dialect specific articles like Irish language, Manx language (which has also been classified before as a dialect of Irish), etc. Those are essentially analogous to California English, New Mexico English/English in New Mexico, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SMcCandlish. I appreciate your explanations/clarifications (though JoinerFact still simply takes me for a liar). JoinerFact, I said I'd be in favor of a retitling, so you can put your accusations to rest that I'm just ravenous about deletions. I'm ravenous about not misleading readers, just as you are from your own separate POV. I agree with SMcCandlish's most recent arguments, including the point that "we don't have to care" yet. That's what I've been trying to say: without sources, original research is interesting to read but, as far as the encyclopedia is concerned, as good as nonsense.
English language in northern England is the recent retitling of what was "Northern England English" (and earlier, simply, "Northern English") though this was likely done to avoid SMcCandlish's point about repetition. The same for Southern England English. My point is there are, yes, some conventions for naming language pages on WP, but not just one. As said, names are supposed to be based on a considerable body of sources using that term. This is perhaps my main frustration about "New Mexican English," as I'm now realizing. There is nothing strong enough showing that the "New Mexico English" of the encyclopedia.com article, e.g., is exactly same as the "Burqueño dialect" of the Wilson video is exactly same as the "English in the Southwest" of the Busby article, etc. etc. I'll admit here that I've been willing to assume they were all the same on occasions when going along with local editors' good-faith and potentially true claims that we were all referring to one dialect, thus trying to reconcile these different names in my head.
JoinerFact, the reason that you "can't find any American state that has its language article listed as 'English in...'" is because linguistic boundaries hardly ever conform to state boundaries anyway, as SMcCandlish has pointed out. For example, on Wikipedia, "Western Pennsylvania English"/"Pittsburgh English" is called neither "Pennsylvania English" nor "English in Pennsylvania", and "New York City English" is called neither "New York English" nor "English in New York," because such dialects do not cover the whole state. However, in other cases, such as "California English", the title does have the name of the state in it because it is a single mostly uniform variety being discussed (though this certainly does not have to be the case forever, since San Francisco, for example, may be developing its own separate variety). My understanding is that "English in California," on the other hand, would imply to me a broad discussion of possibly many different varieties specific to California. (By the way, I confess that I'm very confused about what the deal is with "Texan English," right now, since my original understanding is that it would be talking about what the ANAE calls the "Texas South" variety. However, I understand that there are many varieties specific to Texas, and if this diversity is what the page will focus on, then I'd again think it clearer to rename it "English in Texas" or "English language in Texas"). I'm reminded of how editors felt uncomfortable keeping "New Jersey English," since there is obviously no monolithic dialect/variety throughout the state, and instead used the format of "New Jersey English dialects." I participated in a discussion that ended with us simply making the original name into a disambiguation page; however, "English in New Jersey" now occurs to me as another logical possibility. Wolfdog (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Both the "hard to source this as a region-wide dialect" and the "Is X really the same as Y and the same as Z" problem is the reason I've been suggesting we move this to a catch-all descriptive disambiguation / concept disambiguation / general history page, called English in New Mexico (or English language in New Mexico if we want to be long-winded). That gives room to develop the article the way the sources allow, instead of trying to force uncooperative sources into an artificial "we can only write about this as a region-wide dialect" all-or-nothing box. I've opened a WP:RM at Talk:New Mexico English. PS: Outside of NM, I've lived longest in CA, and yes, the SF Bay Area dialect is markedly different from that around L.A. No one up here uses that "Like, omigaw-awd" San Fernando Valley accent; general Bay Area English dialect (and it various sociolects, like it's own form of Black Vernacular English) probably has more in common with the Seattle variety. There's a whole West Coast English continuum. It's difficult to write about this stuff encyclopedically (especially on WP, where anyone can edit, and anyone can bring their national, state/region/county/province, and local prides and prejudices with them) since and actual linguists often use generalizing terms like "Texan English", knowing that it's a shorthand meaning "imagine an uneven dialectal radius blending in with others, and this one happens to center more or less on much of Texas", while it ends up playing to these human factors, leading to misleading articles and disputes about them, because non-linguists think it means "English within the borders of Texas, homogenously and uniquely". PPS: Yes, my anecdotal ramblings are encyclopedically useless, but hopefully they indicate some steerage ideas. It's not really plausible that NM English, in the linguistic dialect continuum sense, has not been written about in academic journals; it's just in older paper ones no one's put online yet. Odds are, most of it came directly out the linguistics depts. at UNM and NMSU (not ENMU; I went there for a year back in '88 or so, and it's tiny and under-funded, more like a community college).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate both your collegiality as well as your ramblings. Let's see how that new requested move discussion goes. Wolfdog (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a former New Mexican I must say that this is like merging apples to oranges.Chicano English deals with primarily Mexican-Americans, and New Mexican English is much more related to the Hispanos of New Mexico. Those two groups are not interdependent on one another, they are completely separate entities.178.209.51.23 (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chicano English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


One thing that should be added to this article is the way Chicano English is perceived by non speakers, like the stereotypes people have about Chicano English speakers. Rfilippone13 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chicano English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do think more needs to be added to the phonology section, here is a link that could help with that https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9780230510012_4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordansanchez1 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The phonology section is extremely inaccurate[edit]

I know a lot about this accent, since I have an Hispanic background and hail from Southern California, and the phonology section is not based in reality. I even get the feeling that the major editor of that section has never even heard the dialect/accent themselves. It seems to be based on a preconception of an accent of someone who is in some way related to an Hispanic national. Articles like this need to be razed and begun again from scratch. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the inclination... at least not currently. Lighthead þ 19:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the consonant section, besides th-stopping (which occurs among non-Hispanics too) is unsourced. I personally haven't heard any of those features, besides the light L, in people who grew up speaking English, so I'll just go ahead and delete them. The vowel section seems more accurate and well-sourced. Erinius (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicano_English&oldid=1206653652"