Summary Of Language, Race, And White Public Space By Jane Hill
In this paper, my main goal is to provide an ‘argument mapping’ of Jane H. Hill’s article ‘Language, Race, and White Public Space.’ Firstly, I will present what I believe to be the articles main argument as well as linking it to the different pieces of evidence provided. I will then explain how these claims are interrelated into a larger argument structure. Throughout my paper, I will define the various terms provided to make her main argument clearer. In my understanding, there are two strong ethnographic facts with four supporting ethnographic facts and two weak ethnographic facts. Hill then goes on to provide a general ethnographic explanation. Jane Hill’s main focus is on the ‘elevation of whiteness’ from ‘Mock Spanish’ through direct indexicality of negative and racializing slurs. It consists of the orderliness of language and how these boundaries are necessary. Throughout the article, she cites multiple scholars to back up her claims focusing on the racial aspect of Mock Spanish. She makes six claims
…show more content…
with four of them being the basis of the first two. They all, however, relate to the concept of white privilege, where white culture is the dominant group. The author states how native Spanish speaking Puerto Ricans living in New York City are extremely aware of their speech in public as well as their preciseness in the English language. While, contrary to Puerto Ricans, Whites’ show a lack of concern or respect for other ethnicities in the way in which they speak as well as their vulgarity. Hill explains that language differentiation has two categories, the “inner sphere” and the “outer sphere.” The inner sphere deals with individuals talking to those who are familiar and comfortable speaking the language, in which boundaries do not exist (in the context of language). The outer sphere, explained by Hill, deals with speaking to those of a different background, including strangers and/or members of a different community where the language differences are “sharply objectified” (Urciuoli 1996:2). The rest of his argument is made from on-the-spot observations, keeping up with media and a wide array of analysis from other scholars. The previously stated facts cannot be grouped together with the other four because the others, although equally strong, more so support the above two.
Hill goes on to state that those who speak English in public with an accent are looked down upon more so than if they spoke their native language. Meanwhile, their white counterparts seem educated and well rounded when they speak Spanish in public, no matter how grammatically incorrect they are speaking. The other three claims are: Mock Spanish euphemisms, its “vulgar racist discourse,” and its “elements of heterogeneity.” Examples of these claims would be accompanying the suffix –o to Spanish words to create phrases like “el cheap-o.” This interrelates to the second claim in that using Spanish to say this phrase would demonstrate that most Spanish speaking persons are cheap. All three of these claims correlate with each other because it creates a space where a Spanish speaking person would desire
“whiteness.”
I labeled these six claims as ‘strong ethnographic facts’ and ‘strong supporting facts’ because they are very obviously weaker in the overall argument. She explains the “crossover” of forms from African American English (AAE) into formal English. Although this is an ethnographic study/data, she does state that the crossover is “extremely difficult to study” (Hill 1999: 685). This is what deems it a weaker form of evidence in comparison to the others previously stated. Hill gives a report/ conclusion on a number of authors who argue about the “antiracist deconstruction of racist categorical essentializing” (Hill 1999: 685) within youth in bi-racial friendships. I concurred that this is a weak ethnographic study because it is only in target areas, which seems like an incomplete study. Jane Hill’s ninth claim, a general ethnographic explanation, is from evidence collected on “whiteness” and how Spanish-speaking populations do not share the same understanding of Mock Spanish that Whites’ do. The author studied various Spanish-speaking professionals on how they perceive Mock Spanish and what it means to them. She concurred that Mock Spanish “is offensive to them because it contains so many grammatical errors and because it sometimes uses rude words. (Hill 1999: 684). Some also thought at first it was flattering that Whites’ were trying to learn Spanish, and then later realized that it was only being used negatively in offensive contexts. Hill made the claim that when it comes to other languages and mocking them, it is not generally successful. French, for example, is seen as luxurious due to its use in the fashion industry, whereas Spanish has been given the negative racializing representation of Latinos as “stupid, politically corrupt, sexually loose, lazy, dirty, and disorderly.” My ‘argument mapping’ on Jane H. Hill’s article on Mock Spanish and its use is now complete. In my argument, I’ve stated her two strong ethnographic facts with four supporting ethnographic facts. She added two weak ethnographic facts and then provided a general ethnographic explanation for all eight of these facts.
with four of them being the basis of the first two. They all, however, relate to the concept of white privilege, where white culture is the dominant group. The author states how native Spanish speaking Puerto Ricans living in New York City are extremely aware of their speech in public as well as their preciseness in the English language. While, contrary to Puerto Ricans, Whites’ show a lack of concern or respect for other ethnicities in the way in which they speak as well as their vulgarity. Hill explains that language differentiation has two categories, the “inner sphere” and the “outer sphere.” The inner sphere deals with individuals talking to those who are familiar and comfortable speaking the language, in which boundaries do not exist (in the context of language). The outer sphere, explained by Hill, deals with speaking to those of a different background, including strangers and/or members of a different community where the language differences are “sharply objectified” (Urciuoli 1996:2). The rest of his argument is made from on-the-spot observations, keeping up with media and a wide array of analysis from other scholars. The previously stated facts cannot be grouped together with the other four because the others, although equally strong, more so support the above two.
Hill goes on to state that those who speak English in public with an accent are looked down upon more so than if they spoke their native language. Meanwhile, their white counterparts seem educated and well rounded when they speak Spanish in public, no matter how grammatically incorrect they are speaking. The other three claims are: Mock Spanish euphemisms, its “vulgar racist discourse,” and its “elements of heterogeneity.” Examples of these claims would be accompanying the suffix –o to Spanish words to create phrases like “el cheap-o.” This interrelates to the second claim in that using Spanish to say this phrase would demonstrate that most Spanish speaking persons are cheap. All three of these claims correlate with each other because it creates a space where a Spanish speaking person would desire
“whiteness.”
I labeled these six claims as ‘strong ethnographic facts’ and ‘strong supporting facts’ because they are very obviously weaker in the overall argument. She explains the “crossover” of forms from African American English (AAE) into formal English. Although this is an ethnographic study/data, she does state that the crossover is “extremely difficult to study” (Hill 1999: 685). This is what deems it a weaker form of evidence in comparison to the others previously stated. Hill gives a report/ conclusion on a number of authors who argue about the “antiracist deconstruction of racist categorical essentializing” (Hill 1999: 685) within youth in bi-racial friendships. I concurred that this is a weak ethnographic study because it is only in target areas, which seems like an incomplete study. Jane Hill’s ninth claim, a general ethnographic explanation, is from evidence collected on “whiteness” and how Spanish-speaking populations do not share the same understanding of Mock Spanish that Whites’ do. The author studied various Spanish-speaking professionals on how they perceive Mock Spanish and what it means to them. She concurred that Mock Spanish “is offensive to them because it contains so many grammatical errors and because it sometimes uses rude words. (Hill 1999: 684). Some also thought at first it was flattering that Whites’ were trying to learn Spanish, and then later realized that it was only being used negatively in offensive contexts. Hill made the claim that when it comes to other languages and mocking them, it is not generally successful. French, for example, is seen as luxurious due to its use in the fashion industry, whereas Spanish has been given the negative racializing representation of Latinos as “stupid, politically corrupt, sexually loose, lazy, dirty, and disorderly.” My ‘argument mapping’ on Jane H. Hill’s article on Mock Spanish and its use is now complete. In my argument, I’ve stated her two strong ethnographic facts with four supporting ethnographic facts. She added two weak ethnographic facts and then provided a general ethnographic explanation for all eight of these facts.