Keywords

1 Introduction

Despite the hostility characterizing the current political climate in the US towards immigrants and minorities, the US Hispanic community continues to grow, showing a 2.0% increase from 2016 to 2017 (US Census Bureau 2017). This nationwide increase has also impacted US colleges and universities: Latinx enrollment at four-year colleges and universities have increased from 13% in 2011 (Fry and Parker 2012) to 17.4% in 2017 (US Census Bureau 2017). Moreover, Spanish, the native language of the US Hispanic community, is also the most widely studied second language (L2) in American education (Potowski and Carreira 2010). The population of Spanish language learners in the US falls mainly within two categories: learners of Spanish as a second language (hereafter L2 learners) and heritage language learners (HLLs).Footnote 1 The former group adheres to the typical foreign language learner profile: those who are studying a language other than their native language. The latter are individuals who grew up exposed to a non-majority/unofficial language at home or in their community - 74.2% of US Hispanics reported speaking Spanish at home (Krogstad and Lopez 2017) - and therefore developed some degree of bilingualism in said language and the majority language (Valdés 1980). Given their different linguistic repertoires at the onset of target language learning and their cultural backgrounds, L2 learners and HLLs are two distinct learner profiles (Carreira 2004). One distinction proposed is that HLLs are native speakers of the target language, whereas L2 learners are not (Rothman 2009; Rothman and Treffers-Daller 2014).

While the number of heritage language educational alternatives (e.g., the creation of a heritage language tracks and courses) at the college level has increased in the last decade (Beaudrie 2012) the reality of Spanish classrooms in the US is still defined by their mixed population (Carreira 2004). In this context, HLLs and L2 learners share a learning space despite their foundational differences. Importantly, notwithstanding the different needs of these two populations (Carreira 2016), mixed classes normally approach both groups of learners using a second/foreign language perspective with foci on linguistic and cultural competencies. Both sets of competencies, however, are generally taught in isolation, even though for decades the collegiate L2 profession has been arguing for the elimination of this unnecessary and counter-productive division (Byrnes 1998; James 1996; Kern 2002; Schulz 2007). In addition to the separation of linguistic analysis from cultural inquiry, there is the tendency to focus on linguistic (e.g., discrete grammar knowledge) or cultural products (e.g., a work of literature, historical anecdotes, political event, or dance). Yet, our intention is to adopt a broader perspective by also encouraging students to think of practices (i.e., behaviors), and to develop informed perspectives, or “beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions held by the members of the L2 culture” (Dema and Moeller 2012, p. 78). This perspective reflects an acknowledgement of ACFTL’s World Readiness Standards as a framework to guide the pedagogical choices underpinning the classroom project presented herein.Footnote 2

Besides the ACTFL’s Standards, our approach joins current re-conceptualizations in the teaching and learning of Spanish in the US (e.g., Leeman and Serafini 2016; Rivers 2018; Prada and Nikula 2018) by focusing on the local, and reformulates traditional understandings of Spanish as a foreign language into Spanish as a local language in the US context. In doing so, our perspective also expands the notion of L2 culture to a more inclusive stance where there is room for local materializations. More specifically, we emphasize the role of local varieties, values, and behaviors as worthy of promotion and inclusion in classroom endeavors. In this way, our definition of culture moves beyond traditional representations of cultures as solely pertaining to foreign language communities. The critical applied sociolinguistic perspective (e.g., Piller 2016; Rickford 2018) we adopt asks us to formulate learning contexts where students can examine linguistic dimensions within particular communities. More specifically, we emphasize the need to explore sociolinguistic ecologies within their local communities. To do so, in the context of mixed classrooms, it is essential to define strategies for the learning of language/culture in a setting that encompasses both student populations. To this end, we identify several issues that require attention: (1) How do we make mixed student populations aware of the importance of the language-culture link in our community? (2) How do we raise these students’ awareness of the linguistic choices in the community where they live? (3) How can these students understand the factors that impact those choices?

Recognizing the need to explore the language-culture link at a local level calls for seeking new tools to investigate this connection. To achieve this, we propose the strategic use of linguistic landscapes (LLs) for educational purposes as a unifying tool that can help students discover local linguistic repertoires, their deployment, and the decisions behind these choices. To formulate an educational change in the way we work with language/culture in our classes, we sought to devise a pedagogical approach that could harness attention to culture, language, and community through a critical perspective. Furthermore, we sought to implement an approach that would stimulate students to personally interact with real data, solve open-ended problems (Dema and Moeller 2012), and obtain a clear perspective of the link between language and culture in particular contexts.

The idea of using LLs for educational purposes and, more particularly, for culture-awareness purposes is definitely not new. The LL as a pedagogical resource began to be established within multilingual educational contexts; LLs have been used in L1 literacy classrooms and in L2 classrooms, particularly in English as a Second and Foreign Language contexts. For instance, Sayer (2010), working on English signs in Oaxaca, Mexico, noted that analyzing this LL allowed students (a) to reflect creatively and analytically on the manner in which language is used in society; (b) become more aware of their own sociolinguistic context; (c) shift the student from being a language learner to a language researcher. Similarly, Rowland (2012) analyzed LLs in Japan to successfully develop students’ symbolic competence and literacy skills in a multiliteracies sense. In another study, Chesnut et al. (2013) noted that their three South Korean undergraduates obtained a greater awareness of the complex and contradictory relationship between languages and enhanced their development as language learners. The instructor’s and the three students’ different perspectives influenced the manner in which they analyzed the multilingual signs, generating tension and occasions for learning. All these studies have explored English signs for classroom projects in diverse countries. As a point of difference, however, the current study describes the implementation of a didactic unit revolving around local Spanish/bilingual language use in West Texas. The rationale behind choosing an LL as a pedagogical tool was its potential to illustrate the communicative and cultural legitimacy of local Spanish as it emerges on the signs designed and deployed by local speakers. A central component of our approach was in the collaborative nature of the project. Given that the group was comprised of L2 learners and HLLs, we wanted to provide a scenario where collaborative work among these two populations would yield cross-cultural, critical, and transformative dialogues based on their experiences with the local communities, the different forms linguistic practices take, and the communicative and cultural value they represent

2 Spanish in the Classroom Through a Critical Lens

The Spanish language arrived in Texas in the early sixteenth century. Ever since, uninterruptedly, some areas along the US-Mexico border as well as some smaller ones across the state of Texas have consisted of Spanish-speaking communities. In other words, some of these communities have existed long before and have not emerged solely through recent immigration waves. In fact, migrant flows from Mexico into Texas have only added to the already existing Latinx populations that remained after the Republic of Texas was annexed by the US in 1845. Fundamentally, 38.2% of the population in Texas identifies as Latinx (US Census Bureau 2017).Footnote 3 This brief snapshot of Texas demographics lays out a foundation to counter and rethink the portrayal in mainstream discourse of the Spanish language as a foreign language (Alvarez 2013; Leeman et al. 2011) and the Latinx community as an immigrant community.

The representation of the Spanish language as foreign resides at the core of the approach we contest by seeking to bridge the classroom with community-based fieldwork. It is paramount that pedagogical practices find strategies to lay bare the politicization of linguistic practices and cultural behaviors regarding Spanish (e.g., García 2011; Pascual y Cabo and Prada 2015). In the case of Texas, as is the case of other states where the Spanish-speaking population is large (e.g., Arizona, Florida, California, New Mexico), creating spaces for classroom discussion, local explorations, and forms of community engagement is a necessary step in the contestation of mainstream discourse that bolsters old perspectives on immigrant/minority/indigenous languages, their social roles and values, and their historical presence.

As indicated, this study was conducted in a university context. As is common in this type of context, the traditional framework used in language courses was informed by the abovementioned ACTFL World Readiness Standards for Foreign Language Learning (henceforth Standards), which identified five central learning domains (i.e., the five C’s of Culture, Comparisons, Communities, Connections, Communication) as a way of moving language learning beyond purely the acquisition of linguistic elements. Broadly speaking, we recognize these Standards as a helpful framework. For our specific purposes, however, we focused on three of these components, Culture, Comparisons, and Communities, and reformulated them to respond/promote to the critical perspective we mentioned earlier. For the specific purposes of our approach that emphasizes engagement with the local community, we will focus on the three components that relate most closely with community interaction: Culture, Comparisons, and Communities. However, to engender the critical perspective that we see as essential for any type of community engagement, we have amended them to include this critical angle.

The notion of Culture in the Standards is not only about acquiring cultural competence, but also includes being able to move from cultural practices to an understanding of beliefs and values (i.e., perspectives). For this study, culture hinges on students being able to critically explore the local community not only based on the products they see (e.g., signage), but also on interacting with these products in ways that transform their conceptualization of what these products mean to themselves and to the community to which they belong. Regarding the notion of Comparisons, the Standards highlights the development of insight into the nature of language and culture through contrasting, building, reinforcing, and expanding their knowledge of other disciplines while using the language to develop critical thinking and to solve problems creatively. Based on this, we understand that comparisons must also serve a purpose when faced with non-standard forms of language and culture that do not follow what has been traditionally presented as standard forms in the classroom setting. The third component, Communities, is understood as contexts that allow individuals to participate in multilingual communities at home and around the world. For us, the Communities component plays a key role, as it becomes the arena for students to engage in first-hand explorations of the target language and culture. More importantly, a locally mindful approach empowers local communities and helps us rethink traditional textbook representations of who the speakers of a language are, where they live, and what their cultural practices are. In line with this approach, the Spanish language and culture should not be seen as a foreign object, as generally perpetuated in textbooks (Leeman and Martínez 2007), but a central element to local communities where Spanish coexists with English. We, therefore, emphasize that this framework presents a limitation: languages and cultures through the Standards are presented as foreign. Moreover, other reports such as the 2007 report by the MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages present languages as monolithic, separate entities (Kramsch 2014). As we see it, language pedagogy in the twenty-first century should equip students with tools to critically understand these assumptions. As we said earlier, ultimately, our objective is to encourage students to question the linguistic and cultural products and behaviors, and develop informed perspectives of the community in which they live. We seek to create pedagogical spaces to reformulate the way in which language and culture have been—and continue to be—presented through educational, political, and media discourse. Furthermore, based on the belief that cultures are not static (Savignon and Sysoyev 2005) and that the teaching of culture is more related to the “process of discovery than it is to static information” (Lange 1999, p. 60), the dynamic nature of culture becomes a challenge in foreign/second language classrooms. Inquiry-based teaching has the potential to facilitate the bridge between the dynamicity of language and culture and the type of instructional tasks that student can encounter in the classroom. By asking students to investigate, they have the potential to become interested in the target culture (the community they inhabit) and develop an in-depth understanding of cultural similarities and differences (Dema and Moeller 2012).

Additionally, students come into the classroom with a background that encompasses their biographies, their emotional states, their socio-educational profiles and those of their parents, etc. In the case of the language classroom, part of this background influences their understanding of language and bilingualism as a set of preconceived ideas, as well as their experiences. Taken together, these factors shape the basis of their linguistic ideologies. Linguistic ideologies are defined as “cultural systems of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests” (Irvine 1989, p. 497); these ideologies are dynamic and may evolve in response to new insights and experiences, which in turn, can be nurtured through pedagogical interventions that call to question the status quo. For instance, a focus on critical language awareness (hereafter CLA) captures how “linguistic practices are shaped by, and shape social relationships of power” in the students’ mind (Clark et al. 1990, p. 249). As Leeman and Serafini (2016) put it, critical approaches to language awareness look to engage students in examining and assessing events and practices that are taken for granted in everyday life. Connectedly, orientating pedagogies towards CLA development promotes a deeper understanding of how and why the practices of certain communities are represented in a negative light in popular discourse. More specifically, the inclusion of CLA within the classroom should enable students (a) to see language variation as natural and recognize the intrinsic value of their own variety, as well as all others; (b) to develop a consciousness of the political, social, and economic power structures that underlie language use and distribution of the prestigious and non-prestigious varieties; (c) to uncover dominant language ideologies that are hidden in daily monolingual/bilingual practices; (d) to be empowered to exercise agency in making their own decisions about language use and bilingualism (e.g., Leeman 2005; Martínez 2003). Hence, the study presented herein incorporates a LL-based pedagogy as a means to enhance students’ CLA.

To accomplish this goal, two research questions were devised:

  1. 1.

    Do LL-based pedagogies result in gains regarding students’ critical language awareness (CLA)?

  2. 2.

    If they do, how do these manifest themselves?

3 The Study

3.1 Participants

This study included 17 participants—seven male and 10 female students—with ages ranging from 20 to 27 years enrolled in an upper-level Spanish composition course. As mentioned earlier, the ethnolinguistic make-up of the group was comprised of a combination of HLL and L2 learners; this type of groups, are generally referred to as mixed groups (e.g., Carreira 2016), representing a wide array of linguistic and cultural experiences with the target language, its varieties and culture(s). For 11 of the students, Spanish was (one of) their home language(s). Four of them were born in Spanish-speaking countries and relocated to the US Southwest before adolescence, and another four were born in US cities alongside the US-Mexico border (i.e., El Paso and Brownsville). Four of the non-native speakers of Spanish had spent substantial time in sojourns in Mexico, Central America, South America, and Spain.

All participants were minoring or majoring in Spanish at the time of this study, and therefore had taken a minimum of five Spanish courses prior to this advanced composition one (i.e., Advanced Composition in Spanish). Topics covered in previous courses ranged from foundational, intermediate, and advanced grammar and topics in literature, culture, and history, to Spanish for specific purposes (e.g., medical, business). Some students were Lubbock locals themselves, and were familiar with the ethnolinguistic make-up of the city, and where to “find Spanish.” Others, while not Lubbock natives, identified as Hispanic/Latinx and knew the community through their social networks.

3.2 Setting

The university where this study took place is in Lubbock, Texas. This city is considered an urban environment, and is the largest city in West Texas with over 253,000 inhabitants, 22.4% of whom grew up in a home with a language other than English, and 35% identifying as Hispanic (US Census Bureau 2017).

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis

The didactic unit on LLs lasted 6 weeks in total. Data were collected from three sources: (a) a background questionnaire (an adapted version of the Bilingual Language Profile Questionnaire); (b) a questionnaire on language and signage in the community (included in Appendix A); (c) coursework—personal reflections and a written report. The background questionnaire sought to categorize the students’ demographic and linguistic profiles to establish the makeup of the group. The second questionnaire was administered the week before the didactic unit started and consisted of 13 open-ended questions. Its objective was to establish a baseline in terms of familiarity with the notion of LLs, its presence in the local community, and its meaning. Additionally, we analyzed the reflections the students produced while completing the projects, as well as the projects themselves, as sources of insight. The content of the reflections, questionnaires, and projects was analyzed using content analysis (Merriam 2009).

3.4 The Didactic Unit

As mentioned above, this study appraised the overall impact of implementing a unit revolving around the topic of LLs on learners’ CLA development. This thematic unit operated as a central component to our study, providing students with a toolkit of conceptual elements and laying out a theoretical bedrock before engaging in fieldwork. Within the overall course framework, the unit on LLs was the third out of a total of seven, with the other units exploring more traditional writing genres (e.g., narration, description, exposition) as well as other textual articulations typically associated with the twenty-first century (i.e., multimodal texts, digital stories). The LL unit encompassed two stages. On the one hand, the unit included a combination of lectures, readings, videos, and homework activities focusing on the acquisition of a core theoretical toolkit to understand LLs (included in Appendix B). Links to online resources containing the readings (included in Appendix B) were provided via email. As part of the homework activities, as we further describe in the following section, students were asked to prepare a one-page digest synthesizing specific information about LL, identify methodological trends in the study of LL, and gain a general understanding of LL as a field of research. For example, students read Colomé (2014) and were asked to provide a working definition of LL, to identify what an instructional “unit” could mean in this context, to provide a one-paragraph description of the methodology and methodological considerations presented in the article, and to provide another paragraph synthesizing the main findings/problems/interesting issues raised by the author. Additionally, there was a practical dimension to the unit design incorporating the presentation of samples from datasets and data analyses from the authors’ large-scale study developed in the area, leading to a final fieldwork-based project. In what follows, we provide a detailed account of how these elements were articulated and the rationale behind them.

3.4.1 Lectures, Readings, and Homework

The unit began with two lectures conducted in Spanish, each running for about an hour. The first lecture focused on introducing the notion of LLs and providing a solid conceptual framework to be called upon for the rest of the unit. It began by stating an open question: “Using your intuition, what do you think a LL is?” Answers ranged from “the languages spoken in a country,” to “when you go to a place and hear many languages, like a landscape.” According to the information provided in the background questionnaire, none of the 17 students had ever heard of or could recognize the notion of LLs prior to this unit. The lecture continued by providing photographs of the LL across multiple environments, including monolingual signs (e.g., Arabic, English, Spanish), bilingual/multilingual signs (e.g., English/Spanish from Texas, Catalan/Spanish from Spain), and multimodal signs containing icons, pictures, and other semiotic resources. Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 show examples of the photographs shown during these lectures. Following the first lecture, students were asked to provide a working definition of LLs based on what they had seen. This lecture was seen as the first step within the unit towards bringing the local community into focus. Classroom discussions mobilized issues introduced during the lecture and presented through readings (i.e., a scholarly article by Colomé, and a blog entry from the Basque Country’s official website) and homework activities (e.g., are tents and monuments LL? If I place a sticker on a trashcan, does that immediately become part of the LL? Are slogans on t-shirts part of the LL?). As foreshadowed earlier, the readings were conducted at home in Spanish and were accompanied by a battery of questions that sought to guide their reading. In the open classroom conversation, students were encouraged to create connections between the nature of LLs and social, historical, educational, and political factors surrounding the community through prompts such as “Considering that over 20% of Texan residents speak Spanish, how is that reflected in the LL of Lubbock? Can you think of any reasons for that?” Besides the above-mentioned synthesis, homework assignments included, among others, an internet search of the notion of LLs, the collection and description of examples of LLs online, and the development of a two-paragraph synthesis of the language policy and linguistic history of Texas (Appendix B). Taken together, these homework activities were geared toward helping students begin to actively investigate different aspects of the LL, its social meaning, and its potential as a window into linguistic vitality in situations of ethnolinguistic minority and diaspora.

Fig. 1
A photograph of the bilingual sign for a business that deals with cowboy hats and soles of footwear.

Bilingual sign used in lecture as example

Full size image
Fig. 2
A photograph of a small, hand-drawn ice cream cart with Spanish words on it.

Sign in Spanish used in lecture as example

Full size image
Figs. 3 and 4
Two photographs. The photograph of the sign board on the left reads Linda's Pinatas, and the right reads Boxer de Hombre.

Translingual sign used in lecture as examples

Full size image
Fig. 5
A photograph of a sign has the following text. We do events. Baby showers. Birthday parties. Quinceaneras. Weddings.

Bilingual sign used in lecture as example

Full size image
Fig. 6
A photograph of open containers with candies along with their corresponding placards.

Imported products from Mexico. Photograph used in lecture as example

Full size image

The second lecture presented an adapted version of a study conducted by the authors that consisted of an original dataset (photographs N = 500 and semi-structured interviews N = 75) collected in Hispanic flea markets in four different Texas cities (Lubbock, El Paso, San Antonio, and Houston). Through their exposure to the photographs and the interviews, participants came into contact with some of the sociolinguistic realities of the communities that use Spanish as a local language in Texas, unveiling answers to questions connected to the legitimacy of local Spanish, the role of Spanish in local discourse, and the importance of Spanish to the cultural heritage and the identity of the areas under study. To that end, students engaged in discussions regarding the difference in concentrations of Spanish-only signs in Lubbock and San Antonio, compared to El Paso and Houston. Then, through their review of the interviews conducted in these markets, students explored the relevance of location to the individual linguistic profile of each community. Meaningful excerpts were played in class and used to stimulate discussion.

Finally, through sets of questions provided by the instructor, students reflected on how the market users’ views on the LL incorporated a multilingual perspective, transcending notions of purity and standardized language, thereby granting contact Spanish communicative and identity value. These reflections, however, were very abstract.

The ultimate goal of these two lectures was to help students move from theory to practice in their understanding of local language dynamics (with a focus on Spanish in Texas), while equipping them with the tools to explore how power structures impinged on language use, and laying the foundation for the students’ own interpretation of these phenomena in the next stage of the project through their development of an ethnolinguistic project and an oral class presentation.

3.5 The Ethnolinguistic Project

This project was framed as an ethnolinguistic field investigation into the sociolinguistic dimensions of the local community. Students were given 5 weeks to complete the project in pairs under the instructor’s guidance. Students choose their own partners, resulting in HLL/HLL and L2/L2 dyads. To that end, they were asked to complete five stages: (a) select a unit of analysis within city limits (e.g., a shopping area, a restaurant, a street, a clinic) in consultation with the instructor; (b) take digital photographs of the LL focusing on signs; (c) conduct interviews with local community members with a focus on language use, linguistic policy, and/or language attitudes and ideologies (two drafts of the interview questions were reviewed by the instructor prior to data collection); (d) synthesize their findings in a final written report; (e) carry out an in-class presentation of their data (included in Appendix B).

Following the two lectures, all students met with their course instructor to determine the feasibility and focus of their project ideas. Importantly, students were encouraged to come up with their own research ideas. Given the mixed nature of the group, some students had strong familial connections with the local Hispanic community, while others had other linkages, ranging from a general interest in the culture/language to feeling like an outsider/visitor. Because of this array of biographies, we deemed it necessary to design a project that would allow students to position themselves in the field and define their interests in light of their personal experiences. To conduct the fieldwork portion of their projects, each group decided upon a different area of analysis. These ranged from a Mexican Cantina to a Hispanic supermarket (Fig. 7) or a health clinic.

Fig. 7
A photograph of a sign reads La Super Carniceria Meat Market.

Façade of Hispanic Supermarket in Lubbock. (Photograph taken by student)

Full size image

Interestingly, their areas of choice were representative of their life experiences, as reported by the participants when asked the question, “Why did you choose this particular area for your fieldwork?” Some of the participants already knew the area, while others had to ask friends and relatives for advice. For some of these students, this was their first time visiting the Hispanic community of Lubbock. This yielded a variety of projects reflecting the students’ personal understanding of where the Spanish language is in the local community.

3.5.1 Written Reports and in-Class Presentations

Written reports ranged from 12 to 25 pages. There was no minimum or maximum page count for this project. Conversely, students were asked to use as many or as few pages as they deemed appropriate to support their argument, including a list of interview questions used in the ethnographic stage of data collection. The written reports were divided into two parts. The first part showcased the photographs and an analysis of the LL, and the second included a synthesis of the participants’ responses and a personal reflection on the fieldwork assignment. Upon completion of the written reports, students prepared an oral presentation to communicate their results and personal reflections to the rest of the classroom members.

4 Results

4.1 Questionnaire Results

As reported during classroom discussions and as revealed in the questionnaires, before the students had conducted the study, most had not paid attention to the urban signage and had not realized the language(s) being used in the signs. They had a recollection of seeing public signs in hospitals and other health-related institutions, elevators, grocery stores, gas stations, directional signs, and university signs (i.e., top-down or public signage). Some students expected to find Spanish and maybe a few bilingual signs, but overall, their expectations were to find English signs because that was the majority language. As reported in the questionnaires, students anticipated finding bilingual or Spanish monolingual signs only in areas where a sizable Mexican population owned businesses. It is for this reason that they expected that Lubbock’s location in the Texas panhandle, away from the border, may have presented a lower presence of Hispanics and, consequently, of bilingual and Spanish signs. For instance, one student stated that his aunt (of Hispanic origin) believed that the people in Lubbock lack the values of their Latinx roots due to being further away from the border.

With regards to the project itself, a non-Hispanic student thought of the project as a way to be immersed in the target culture because he had never been abroad. Another student expressed his hope to become more aware of the Spanish language and culture when investigating the local community and obtain a sense of how, when, and where Spanish was spoken in this city. Overall, students wanted to gain insight as to what areas of town were more densely populated with Spanish-speaking individuals and their families as well as understand how Spanish and English are intertwined in local advertising and the reasoning behind such decisions.

4.2 Data Analysis

Upon completion of a qualitative content analysis (Merriam 2009) of the three data sources (reflections, papers, and questionnaires), four main features of the students’ interaction with the LL emerged: linguistic awareness, the intersection of social/cultural/political awareness, the purposes of the signs, and hypotheses and imagined communities. We conflated all the responses from all three sources and conducted a categorization from the ground up, developing categories through qualitative content analysis. In what follows, we provide a synthesis of the results as they pertain to four major features.

4.2.1 Linguistic Awareness

Prompted by the study of the Hispanic markets introduced in the class and the instructional environment itself, students analyzed the data they collected to explore some of the reasons for the language choice(s) and use in the LL of their unit of choice. Specifically, students discussed the range of bilingual signs in the LL, which demonstrated different degrees of translation or adaptation within and across particular signs. Figure 8 illustrates one example of how to “make a sign bilingual” by just adding the label with a translation on it.

Fig. 8
A photograph of a rack loaded with chip bags, each of which has a sticker with an English translation.

Imported Mexican bags of chips with stickers showing the English translation of the flavors. (Photograph taken by student)

Full size image
Figs. 9 and 10
Two photographs. The photograph of the left bilingual sign reads wet floor, and the right reads Linea Rapida express, 10 items or less.

Some signs are bilingual to help people navigate spaces. (Photo taken by student)

Full size image

Students referred to some of these signs as examples of Spanglish because they were neither entirely English or Spanish monolingual signs, nor did they appear to be literal translations. In doing so, they were discussing moments of flexible language use or translanguaging (García and Wei 2014; Gorter 2015)—where the community’s linguistic repertoires are used to construct a single message, rather than by adhering to isolated languages (e.g., monolingual –standard- Spanish). Even though their discussions addressed flexible bilingual practices, they did not use the term translanguaging in their reports (even though the notion was covered in classroom discussions). For example, a dyadgroup of L2 learners commented that “algunas señales tienen español e inglés mezclados, pero no en forma de traducciones. Diferentes ideas son diferentes lenguas porque la gente puede leer las dos idiomas” (Some signs contain Spanish and English, but not as translations. Different ideas are represented in different languages because people can read both languages). Similarly, a dyad of HLLs reported that some signs are in one language and some are in another one, “apoyando uno a otro” (supporting one another). This way of describing languages in contact as supporting one another and, somehow, behaving as a system, connects sharply with the underpinnings of translanguaging theory (e.g., Otheguy et al. 2015; Li Wei 2017; Prada and Nikula 2018). Importantly, while the notion of translanguaging had not been covered during the lectures, a critical attitude towards what is Spanish and what is not, what is meant by language purity and hybridity, and the idea of native speaker were explored and discussed in class. Students also delved into the grammatical correctness and appropriateness of the signs. This idea of correctness was not only triggered by the ways in which aspects of grammar were included and discussed, but also by students’ assumptions of what good Spanish should look like, influenced to a degree by imagined conceptions of monolingual standard or prestige Spanish.

Additionally, students also mobilized concepts such as bottom-up and top-down signs (which had been previously introduced and exemplified during lectures) in their data analyses; they often found specific reasons to use official or required signs—such as slippery floor (Figs. 9 and 10)—and private signs where the designer chose the languages based on beliefs, opinions, or interests. Students saw these bilingual or Spanish signs as a system to regulate bilingual spaces in the city of Lubbock, creating a linguistic mapping of the area. Overall, it was not surprising that these students showed an acceptance toward bilingual signage for community purposes and as a language learning experience. Indeed, the fact that they were minoring and majoring in Spanish and that many were of Hispanic origin explains this favorable opinion of the use of these signs.

4.2.2 The Intersection of Social/Cultural/Political Awareness

In the state of Texas, the use of bilingual and Spanish signs reflects the state’s proximity to the Mexico border and the continued influx of immigrants crossing the border. After all, as a HLL stated, “This is a nation of immigrants,” and as such the use of Spanish language is seen as a natural resource to help Hispanic immigrants navigate this area of the US. The Hispanic presence in Texas has been a constant in the history of this state as a HLL put it: “Texas used to be Mexico, and America took the land from them, but they didn’t leave.” It is because of the continuous influx of immigrants that the language is kept alive.

As a result of the interviews with people who reside around that LL, our students started to map the Hispanic community of Lubbock. They found that the northeast area of Lubbock was where the community was more present, but other business areas also emerged scattered across the city (e.g., Hispanic supermarkets, restaurants, or Women, Infants and Children (WIC) clinics (Fig. 11)), prompting students to propose increased cultural integration as the result of the emergence of new cultural spaces. The students saw how the signs helped the city highlight the presence of local Hispanic communities in which their members spoke Spanish and had specific cultural traditions. Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the use of bilingual and Spanish signs showing authentic products and the relationship-building and community creation happening in Lubbock. From the Hispanic community’s perspective, a central finding drawn from the participants’ interviews was that signs were used as a means to show appreciation for the Spanish-speaking people living in the local community: “It makes for a more well-functioning society when everybody can read where they are, where they are going and what to do in certain important situations.” Similarly, students perceived bilingual signs as a way to appease both communities and to showcase the city’s demographics. Taken together, all students shared the same vision of the signs as community unifiers, even though as a L2 learner noted: “Some people definitely don’t like them, but I don’t think the signs should be removed or English only. I think it unifies the community more so than disrupts it.”

Fig. 11
A photograph of stacks of pregnancy-related pamphlets in a foreign language.

Women Infants and Children (WIC) Clinic. (Photograph taken by a student)

Full size image
Figs. 12 and 13
Two photographs. The photograph of the shop on the left and right each have a sign that reads Carniceria and Aguas Frescas, respectively.

Authentic products. (Photograph taken by students)

Full size image

The L2 learners’ instincts about what is Spanish in the LL and what is not are more traditional than the HLLSs’. Importantly, although all participants, to some degree, shared a view on some of the signs being “hybrid,” “Spanglish,” and “non-textbook Spanish,” their abilities to express their ideas in a nuanced manner were limited. For example, an L2 learner described these flexible practices as “Spanglish, broken Spanish but it gets the message across,” while a HLL gave a more personal “this is how we speak Spanish; this is our Spanish.” This acknowledgment of local Spanish practices as non-canonical was a central component to their linguistic awareness.

4.2.3 Purposes of the Signs

The third category to emerge from the data was related to the practical reasons why the signs used Spanish. In the eyes of the students, Spanish and bilingual signs played three specific purposes, and therefore, this category is subdivided into these three purposes: signs as utilitarian, signs as cultural markers, and signs as levelers.

Signs as Utilitarian

To begin with, bilingual and Spanish signs appeared to be used for marketing purposes so vendors could attract clients; that is, language choice was strategic. Moreover, the design of the signs certainly had an economic motivation since vendors wanted to sell their products. These signs also constituted a trust-building strategy. Vendors wanted the clients to feel comfortable, to recognize a space similar to what they were accustomed to in their countries of origin or other Hispanic communities in the US. Furthermore, a HLL dyad who investigated a carniceria found out that the owner did not really speak Spanish, but had most signs translated into Spanish to attract the Spanish-speaking members of the local community. At the local level, they saw the choice of language as a way to help older generations of Hispanics or new Hispanic immigrants who do not understand or manage themselves well in English, whereas younger generations apparently do not need this linguistic “help”. For example, a pair of students found out that a non-for-profit clinic used bilingual signs 98% of the times because they were aware that la población hispana local necesitaba sus servicios mucho (“the local Hispanic population were in need of their services”). As one L2 learner student mentioned, “because the Hispanic community is larger than most people think, we have to help them integrate better into a different community they are not used to.” Similarly, another L2 learner dyad included that the use of bilingual signs was essential for laws and norms to be abided. For example, they expressed that “many undocumented people that may speak only Spanish that need clarification (grocery stores, hospitals, church)”. Finally, bilingual signs were just a means for translating particular information, which was important for people who spoke little or no English.

Signs as Cultural Markers

Students’ opinions as to whether the bilingual and Spanish signs represented their community appeared to be divided. Some stated that the signs represented the Hispanic community because the Hispanic community itself was part of the urban landscape, and because “the Hispanic in larger than most people think.” Others held that signs did not represent the Hispanic community because the signs themselves could not represent a culture (“they are only words on boards” as a L2 learner stated). A third HLL dyad argued that signs represented some Hispanic communities/community members, although our students did not feel they were necessarily represented as part of this group; despite being Latinx, their proficiency in English and their exposure to American culture placed them in a different group identity. However, some of these students claimed that signs represented some members of their family (mostly grandparents or relatives who they consider “more Hispanic”), but not them, a HLL mentioned. In their contributions, two recurring themes emerged: English language proficiency as an identity marker, and the linguistic diversity of US Hispanics. Despite differences about the degree to which their community and identity were represented in the signs (see Figs. 14 and 15 below), students reported that Spanish and bilingual signage helped Latinxs identify businesses, institutions, and other service providers that to some degree celebrate/embrace the US Hispanic presence. In fact, by serving as cultural markers, Spanish and bilingual signs helped community building; as a L2 learner put it, “I think it does promote a sense of community because it acknowledges that both English and Spanish speakers are a part of the community instead of just assuming everyone speaks perfect English.”

Fig. 14
A photograph of a wall with the word Tortilleria written on it.

A Tortilleria (Photograph taken by students)

Full size image
Fig. 15
A photograph of a rack filled with colored candles that have pictures on them.

Candles on shelves are understood by students as Mexican/Catholic symbol. (Photograph taken by students)

Full size image

Signs as Levelers

Interestingly, even though some students (including both, L2s and HLLs) did not recognize the value of signs in representing the conglomerate of communities in Texas, they connected the Spanish and bilingual signs to the presence of the Hispanic community. In general, all students saw the Hispanic community as having its own identity and acknowledged that Spanish/bilingual signs helped materialize this identity. As one HLL put it, “The minority community is there and exists,” and so the signs reinforced their existence “rather than disregard and ignore it.” A pair of L2 learners went further when they stated in their report, “There are a lot of minorities, and it [the signs] could help them feel at home. They are living here just like any other American.” The only case in which a student did not align with this argument was a L2 learner who considered that Spanish/bilingual signs did not necessarily reinforce the identity of minority communities. He compared Spanish signs in Texas to English signs in Germany, arguing “I don’t think signs contribute to their identity at all. It just makes their lives a little bit easier. If I go to Germany and see an English sign, it doesn’t change how I perceive myself, Americans, or other English speakers.”

4.2.4 Hypothetical Reasoning

The fourth category resulted from an activity drawn from Aiestaran et al. (2010) that presented students with the hypothetical situation of having to work with a budget to develop urban signage. Their responses to this activity signal the influence of two factors: on the one hand, their reflections on the photographs they took and the interviews they conducted and, on the other hand, their previous knowledge and diverse perspectives of the communities in Texas they brought to the classroom. When faced with this hypothetical situation, their responses unveiled positive attitudes toward bilingual signs in the community. For example, one HLL posited that she would place bilingual signs in her community “so people are well communicated and [can] build a better community” while recognizing those people who “once spoke Spanish.” In other words, students not only recognized that signs were representative of their community as it was in the present, but also that they could serve as a tribute to the local history. Some students took into consideration the size of the community in question: “Since Spanish is such a largely spoken language in Texas, we should have signs for those who speak Spanish.” Another HLL moved beyond Spanish to include other minority languages: “I would develop street signs to have a mixture of languages that represents the population. With every city, the population will have different demographics, and I would make the signs accommodate them.” Yet, one L2 learner would only have bilingual signs in areas where minorities lived so as not to spend money where they were not needed. Finally, another HLL wanted to have more universal signs, using images and drawings, to reduce the lack of comprehension that comes from using language. Overall, this imagined society was more open to the diversity of languages and community building than the society they currently inhabited.

5 Discussion

Going back to our research questions, based on the results presented, we can posit that LL-based pedagogies have the potential to promote critical sociolinguistic awareness among advanced learners of Spanish. The project exposed them to an array of linguistic and cultural products and practices that helped them reassess previous perspectives on language use and variation as well as local cultural representations. Through fieldwork in the local community, all participants engaged with aspects of language and culture that were new to them or they had unconsciously disregarded as peripheral to their community. Moreover, their fieldwork experience, while focusing on the LL, helped them rethink the notion of ethnolinguistic diversity in their local community.

Given the mixed population of our group, it is important to note that both learner profiles benefitted from this form of pedagogy. For some participants, (particularly L2 learners), investigating the LL served as a means to discover a reality that, while local, remained hidden to them. Importantly, interacting with the local LL prompted them to enter the Hispanic community, whether they felt they naturally/rightfully belonged to it or not. On the other hand, HLLs appeared to be familiar with the presence of the community, but they reported not to have an in-depth familiarity with how the community behaved; none of these students was originally from Lubbock and they all relocated to attend the university. Through this project, they moved beyond typical interactions with community members (e.g., shopping, making orders) and with their own classmates to address social and linguistic configurations. Because of their diversity and their shared interests in the target language/culture(s), we found that seeking patterns solely based on type of profile did not yield significant differences, although some general trends can be identified (e.g., awareness of local Spanish forms vis-à-vis text-book Spanish forms; familiarity with flexible language use – often referred to as Spanglish by the participants).

The focus of this study was on the development of critical sociolinguistic awareness. As the results reveal through the students’ reflections and answers, LLs provide a space to reappraise old perspectives on community languages, linguistic practices, and their social roles and values. In this case, the different categories that emerged from the data offer insights into how this sociolinguistic awareness surfaces.

The categories derived from the students’ perspectives illustrate how the LL is articulated by members of the local Hispanic community. At times, these formulations in Spanish went beyond standard models presented in class. In other words, they did not fit the textbook Spanish the L2 learners had been socialized into as normative. Whereas the HLLs recognized these linguistic practices as their own, L2 learners, by interacting with and exploring these practices, came into contact with the values and possibilities afforded by flexible language use. Interestingly, as a pair of L2 learners described: el español bilingüe tiene una posibilidad de comunicar muy alta y no es solo para hacer bromas (bilingual Spanish has a high ability to communicate and it is not only meant to be used as mockery). At the same time, reflecting their diverse language learning backgrounds, the L2 learners’ attitudes towards these flexible practices varied greatly, with those students who had experienced Spanish in an immersion setting (both in the US and abroad) understanding this type of variation as normal, and those who had not finding it strange but interesting. This should not be surprising, since it is not common for second/foreign language courses in the US to acknowledge linguistic variation in geopolitical areas where Spanish is not valued (Prada and Nikula 2018). Moreover, the US has been primarily presented as an English-monolingual society in political and social discourse (Valdés et al. 2006). As a result, creating spaces for students to critically address this monolingual character is essential for raising student awareness about language variation and diversity. Similarly, this argument applies to an understanding of culture. As reported by the students, local cultures are much more diverse than they might appear.

The question now is: How exactly does studying the LL of local Hispanic communities help students understand these complexities? Our cohort identified that the design of the signs is based on much more than utilitarian purposes. Initially, the students identified that Spanish/bilingual signs act as a means to attract possible clients. However, a more in-depth analysis showed that the signs serve a greater purpose at the cultural/linguistic belonging level. In recognizing these aspects, students were able to connect this LL to the character and identity of the local community under study. A LL is much more than an artifact. The implications point to how a minority community is nested within a larger society and is perforce affected by sociopolitical ecologies, as reflected in immigration laws, US-Mexico border dynamics. Understanding how these power structures operate, be it through the study of LLs or any other inquiry-based pedagogy, creates space to enhance critical awareness regarding these realities, the nature of the status quo, and the possibilities for change. In fact, this renewed stance on communities and societies allows for reimagining these communities themselves, their configurations, and their ability to cater to their diverse citizens.

Fundamentally, this type of research-based approach served as a window into the complexities of these sociolinguistic ecologies, providing an experiential bedrock to build on and question issues that transcend signage, language, and culture and paving the way to more informed discussions about social justice, equality, diversity, and minorities, all of which require urgent attention in today’s world. While these types of outcomes fall outside of the scope of this project/chapter, this exploration generated opportunities to discuss issues in a more nuanced manner in subsequent sessions. In bridging the classroom with current realities, we provided students with the opportunity to formulate new ways of thinking and acting. Using ACTFL’s Standards as the point of departure, this LL-based pedagogy established synergies between critical approaches to language in context and the ways language/culture are presented in the classroom and, in doing so, enabled students to explore and experience local communities and their speakers, practices and values. Through this LL-based pedagogy that aimed to challenge monolithic conceptualizations of language in generally accepted frameworks as well as the prominence of this orientation in language curricula, some of the participants recognized that the idea of Spanish as a foreign language that abides by standard rules does not hold true in the local LL.

6 Conclusion

While some of the tenets of the Standards serve a purpose in guiding language practitioners, engaging in community-based research may help us rethink the possibilities of connecting these Standards to local realities. These local realities, the cultural traditions and linguistic practices are often left out of language textbooks and therefore it is crucial to develop pedagogical strategies that complement and, at times, challenge textbook content. By portraying Spanish as a foreign language in the language classroom (within the US context), we are distancing learners of all profiles from gaining a deeper, more informed understanding of local realities. More specifically, in this case, this study suggests that exploring LLs allows for meaningful perspectives to emerge from the interactions between the student and the local community. In doing this, learners are given opportunities to build new conceptualizations of local Spanish, its connection with culture, and its social roles. This form of inquiry-based approach to the link between language and culture lays out a scenario for ideologies to be reassessed. For this type of pedagogical approach to serve as a catalyst to critical thinking, in general, and critical sociolinguistic awareness, in particular, it is imperative to provide a toolbox from which students can operate. Only then can our students formulate informed opinions about the values of linguistic and cultural diversity.