Language Race And White Public Space Analysis

In this paper, I intend to interpret and explain the arguments made by Jane Hill in her article titled “Language, Race, and White Public Space.” To successfully map Hill’s arguments, I will complete the following. At first, I will identify the main claims Hill makes, outlining each argument in detail. As I state the main claims of the article, I will explain definitions important to the understanding of each argument. I will then discuss the evidence Hill uses to support her claims and connect the evidence to the argument’s main points. I will then restate each argument in terms of how it is supported in context, being sure to identify which claims are most supported by evidence and thus the most relevant. Here, then, I will be arguing that …show more content…
More specifically, Hill explores the topic of “Mock Spanish” in the United States and the racism it specifically indexes. Here, Hill uses the term Mock Spanish to describe the colloquial and often grossly inaccurate use of certain Spanish words, phrases, and colloquialisms by Whites. Hill first argues that language can have an indexical racializing function. Another claim Hill makes states that historically Spanish-speaking populations are marginalized by an imposition of “linguistic order” by the “White public space.” White public space is used to define the context in which Whites are an invisible unmarked normal whereas people of color are a visible different. This argument then generally states that if bilingual Spanish and English speakers “mix” their languages, they are seen as unprofessional and even dangerous in the context of the outer sphere. I will treat this as the “first claim.” The second claim is related and states that the exact opposite is true for White (strictly English speakers), where mixing language makes a person seem “congenial,” “authentic,” and “sensible.” In other words, Mock Spanish promotes the “elevation of whiteness.” She continues by arguing that Mock Spanish is not directly racist, as are vulgar insults or elite racism. Instead, …show more content…
This general explanation is comprised of a number of specific ethnographic explanations. This argument is also supported by a basic explanatory report of another linguistic anthropologist who outlines what it means to speak Spanish (as a Native Spanish speaker) in the “outer sphere.” Here, the outer sphere is defined as the space in which a person communicates with strangers or in a public sector. That is, the outer sphere is defined in opposition to the inner sphere, which is defined as the space in which a person communicates with those they know or “connect with” on a cultural level. Hill’s second argument is supported both by empirical fact, a canonical study outlined in the endnotes, as well as the other main general ethnographic explanation. Here, Hill also cites a number of concrete ethnographic cultural and historical examples to support her claim that the use of Mock Spanish elevates whiteness. It is important to note that Hill makes the general assumption that whiteness is inherently valued or indexed as “good” in American society. Hill’s final two arguments are different from the first two, as one focuses simply on outlining the other uses of Mock languages to support the fact that Mock languages do, in fact, exist. This argument is almost explicitly supported by linguistic representational examples. Thus, this argument is generally quite