ABSTRACT
The neglect of sociolinguistic patterns of language variation in U.S. Spanish is due at least in part to the abiding preoccupation with contact-induced change and a methodological predilection for acceptability judgments, experimental tasks, or cherry-picked examples. This “Hispanic tradition” of language study as Bills (1975: vi–vii) characterized it nearly half a century ago is hampered by an “interest in the accumulation of speech fragments with little concern for linguistic or sociological context” and “almost exclusive interest in deviations from standard Spanish.” Adherence to the analyst’s idealizations as the benchmark for evaluations leaves working-class varieties of U.S. Spanish in a no-win situation, as pointed out by Ana Celia Zentella; for example, New Mexican Spanish is branded ‘archaic’ “porque se describe en referencia a la norma de otra comunidad [because it is described in reference to the norm of another community],” but “tampoco se vale ser innovador . . . al notar la reacción . . . en contra de . . . lonche . . . y otros préstamos [it isn’t worth being innovative either . . . when one considers the reaction . . . against . . . lonche . . . and other borrowings]” (1990: 157).
