Processes of linguistic accommodation within the Puerto Rican

diaspora in New Jersey

Procesos de acomodación lingüística dentro de la diáspora

puertorriqueña en Nueva Jersey

Yhosep Fernando Barba Blanco

The State University of New Jersey

y.barba@rutgers.edu

ABSTRACT

This article explores the sociocultural and linguistic experiences of eight Puerto Ricans who have

migrated to the state of New Jersey. While previous research has shown how the Puerto Rican

diaspora has linguistically accommodated across the United States, this study investigates the

role of linguistic attitudes and accommodation processes in the maintenance, reinforcement, or

erasure of sociophonological and lexical features in Puerto Ricans who have migrated to New

Jersey. Through a Grounded Theory approach, this study discloses how these individuals navigate

linguistic norms, maintain cultural identity, and challenge racial and linguistic discrimination.

Findings show a range of linguistic accommodation strategies, varying from preserving their

Puerto Rican Spanish phonological features to code-switch (Spanish-English) and terminology

explanation to have mutual understanding when talking to other Spanish-speaking communities..

Keywords: Linguistic Accommodation, Language Attitudes, Code-switching, Grounded-Theory,

Language and Identity

RESUMEN

Este artículo explora las experiencias socioculturales y lingüísticas de ocho puertorriqueños que

han migrado al estado de Nueva Jersey. Mientras que investigaciones previas han mostrado cómo

la diáspora puertorriqueña se ha acomodado lingüísticamente en los Estados Unidos, este estudio

investiga el papel de las actitudes lingüísticas y los procesos de acomodación en el

mantenimiento, refuerzo o eliminación de características sociofonológicas y léxicas en

puertorriqueños que han migrado a Nueva Jersey. A través del enfoque de Teoría Fundamentada,

este estudio revela cómo estos individuos navegan las normas lingüísticas, mantienen su

identidad cultural y desafían la discriminación racial y lingüística. Los hallazgos muestran una

variedad de estrategias de acomodación lingüística, que van desde la preservación de las

características fonológicas del español puertorriqueño hasta el cambio de código (español-inglés)

y la explicación de terminología para lograr un entendimiento mutuo al hablar con otras

comunidades de hispanohablantes.

Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas (RNAEL) ISSN 1699-6569

Vol. 18 Núm. 37 (2024) doi: 10.26378/rnlael1837587

Recibido:7/09/2024 / Aprobado: 14/11/2024

Publicado bajo licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento Sin Obra Derivada 4.0 Internacional

Palabras clave: Acomodación Lingüística, Actitudes Lingüísticas, Cambio de Código, Teoría

Fundamentada, Lengua e Identidad

1. INTRODUCTION

This article explores into sociocultural dynamics and linguistic experiences of eight

Puerto Rican people living in New Jersey. Several studies focused on perceptions towards

specific Spanish allophones typical of Puerto Rican Spanish, which are often associated

with different degrees of sociolinguistic attitudes and stereotypes (Ortiz, 2022; Delgado

Díaz, Galarza, & Díaz Campos, 2021; Mack, 2010; Valentín-Marquéz, 2006; López

Morales 2004; and some others). Though previous research has shown that speakers

may adapt their use forms that carry social stigma as part of a process of

accommodation to the dominant varieties when joining new communities (Woods &

Rivera-Mills, 2012), less is known about these processes within the context of the Puerto

Rican diaspora. This case study analyzes narrative interviews, through a Grounded

Theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), in order to illustrate some of the complexities

of language use, negotiation of identity, processes of accommodation, and responses to

social dynamics among Puerto Ricans in New Jersey. Understanding their migration

experiences, cultural shocks, and encounters with linguistic and racial discrimination

provides the chance to further unveil the intricate nature of language and identity

negotiation.

In this study, the speakers reflected on their linguistic accommodation processes, in

some cases even adapting their speech to fit with “standard” regulations due to the

negative interactions faced while living and working in New Jersey. These negative

interactions provoked a conscious decision on building a sense of duality while trying to

navigate linguistic norms within their contexts. Not only did they experience

discrimination/judgement for their use of linguistic features specific to their variety, but

some of them were also racialized (Ahmed, 2002). This study contributes to the broader

discussion on linguistic stereotypes and discrimination. Through its focus on in-depth

analysis of personal narratives, this article highlights the importance of considering

participants lived experiences in sociolinguistic analysis. Furthermore, these findings

reinforce the need to deconstruct perceptions that find non-standard varieties as

“impure” (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Leeman & Serafini, 2016).

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. Spanish in Puerto Rico

The Hispanic Antilles, an archipelago that extends from the eastern tip of Yucatan

Peninsula and the southern segment of Florida to the coast of Venezuela, comprises the

Greater and Lesser Antilles. These include Spanish- speaking countries such as Cuba,

the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico (Alba, 2016). Despite being geographically

dispersed across different islands and, additionally, including diverse cultures, there is

a shared perception that they all have the same dialect: the Caribbean Spanish. Alba

(2016) notes that there exists dialectal diversity within Caribbean Spanish, influenced

by sociocultural and educational factors, although certain linguistic features are shared

among Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic.

Since 1992, Spanish and English have coexisted as official languages in Puerto Rico.

Nonetheless, Spanish has been the common denominator of general use within its

population (Ortiz, 2022). Ortiz (2022) contends that its contact with English has

contributed to the emergence of a more bilingual society in Puerto Rico, particularly

among the elite, young professionals, and Puerto Ricans who move between both

territories: the US. and Puerto Rico (also explore Schmidt 2014; and González-Rivera &

Ortiz López 2018). Scholars have examined this phenomenon of language contact from

various perspectives (Schmidt 2014; Carroll, Rivera, & Santiago 2015; Domínguez-

Rosado 2015; inter alia), alongside its political implications and its relation to the U.S

colonial project (see Malavet, 2000; and Schneider, 2013 for further insights). The

sociopolitical status of Puerto Rico has created perceptions that its Spanish has been

significantly influenced by English, unlike other Caribbean islands, with some even

suggesting that it has evolved into a “mixed language” (Alba, 2016). Despite this,

scholars such as López Morales (2004) argue that research on Puerto Rican Spanish

shares linguistic features with other Caribbean dialects while also holding its own distinct

characteristics in general.

According to Alba (2016), there are seven general features that may describe the Puerto

Rican phonological system nowadays (although not all of them are present at the same

time and across different populations: 1) tendency towards fricative realization of /tʃ/ as

in muchacho > [muʃáʃo] (‘boy’), 2) posterior/velar pronunciation of the multiple vibrant

/r/ (erre) – like the Castilian “jota”, as in carro > [‘ka.ro] (‘car’), 3) the aspiration of

syllable-final /s/ such as esta > [ehta] (‘this’) and propuesta > [propuehta] (‘proposal’),

4) elision of the post-tonic intervocalic /d/ in words such as acabado > [acabao]

(‘finished’), 5) velarization of word-final /n/ as in muy bien > [muy bieŋ] (‘very well’),

6) aspiration of /x/ as in ejemplo > [ehemplo] (‘example’), and 7) lateralization of the

simple vibrant syllable-final /r/ to /l/, a phenomenon often called ‘lambdacism’ as in

puerta > [pwél.ta] (‘door’) and comer > [komél] (‘to eat’). In regard to the previous

sociophonological feature, it is relevant to mention, as Ortiz (2022) states, that the /ɾ/

in coda position presents, at least, three phonetic variants: the alveolar simple or mixed

vibrant /ɾ/: amor > [a.ˈmoɾ] (‘love’), comer > [ko.ˈmeɾ] (‘to eat’); the lateral /l/: amor >

[a.ˈmol], comer > [ko.ˈmel], and the retroflex [ɻ]: amor > [a.ˈmoɻ], comer > [ko.ˈmeɻ],

and porque > [poɻ.ˈke] (‘because’) (see also Armstrong, 2010 to explore more about

Puerto Rican Spanish intonation).

Alba (2016) also notes morphosyntactic features that are typically shared among the

Spanish-speaking islands in the Antilles, including Puerto Rico. In questions, for

instance, there is a tendency to not invert subject-verb order: ¿de dónde tú eres?

(‘where are you from?’); the pluralization of the impersonal verb “haber” (‘there is/there

are’) as in: “habían muchas personas en el mercado” (‘there were many people in the

market’) (see also Rivas & Brown 2012, and Claes, 2014 for further reference), and so

forth. Other morphosyntactic characteristics that are typical of Puerto Rico are related

to word order in expressions such as “lo más que” instead of “lo que más” (‘the most’),

and the use of gerunds with nominal function due to English influence (Alba, 2016). See

also Penas (2007) for further information on semantic and lexical aspects of Puerto Rican

Spanish. The truth is that, although some studies have identified common linguistic

features among the Puerto Rican population, these features are not consistently used

across all social settings in the island. It is also worth asking to what extend these

features persist within the Puerto Rican diaspora in states such as New Jersey.

2.2. Indexicality and language attitudes

Taking into account the potential for linguistic forms to be associated with particular

social means, and the fact that Puerto Rican Spanish has often been linked with low

linguistic prestige (Suárez, 2019), and that its linguistic features deviate from the

“standard” (Alfaraz, 2014; Long & Preston, 2002; Niedzielski, 1999), it is critical to

review the processes by which linguistic can both reflect and convey social dynamics.

The structural focus in sociolinguistics has been on the correlation between linguistic

variation and social-structural categories such as class, age, race, and gender. These

characteristics do not directly cause any particular linguistic practice but instead

structure the conditions and everyday experiences of individuals, leading to variation

taking on meaning in local social practices (Eckert, 2019). Social indexicality, as a

cornerstone to this article, is used as a reference framework within speech communities;

in this way, indexical signs can evoke a series of associations within an ideological field.

It is also relevant to mention that over time, these associations can become widely held

and enter a new level of indexicality, accumulating multiple associations and forming an

indexical field (Eckert 2008).

This process, whether conscious or unconscious, can be accompanied by language

ideologies. Irvine and Gal (2000) focus on the ideological dimensions of linguistic

differentiation, evaluating the concepts that participants and observers use to shape

their interpretations of people, events, and activities that are relevant to them. They

also suggest that linguistic ideologies are not exclusive to immediate participants within

a local sociolinguistic system but are also embraced by external observers, including

linguists and ethnographers. Though linguistic ideologies play an important role in this

research; the main focus will be on language attitudes. As explained by Wardhaugh and

Fuller (2021), language attitudes research delves at the ideas about specific varieties

held by persons from different sociolinguistic groups; language ideology research looks

at societal discourses and how they are produced in media as well as public and private

speech (p. 66). Dewaele & Pena Diaz (2018), for instance, analyzed how learner-internal

sociobiographical variables and linguistic profiles have an effect on linguistic attitudes

towards Spanish, Galician, English, and French in a language school in La Coruña, Galicia

(see also Pablos Ortega, 2011 to get an insight on linguistic attitudes and perceptions

from British and American informants in regard to the absence of thanking in Spanish).

It is also important to note that not only specific dialects and/or languages are

stereotyped, but the combination of two or more languages (e.g. Franglais, Fragnol,

Portuñol and Spanglish) is also stigmatized; this due to the monoglossic ideology that

many people have (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2021). In fact, Spanglish has been studied from

different approaches and contexts (see Lipski, 2015; Montes-Alcalá, 2009; and Rangel

et al. 2015 for further reference). Fallas-Escobar (2024), for instance, presents how

Latinx bilingual teacher candidates (TCs) have been conditioned by raciolinguistic

ideologies that perceive Spanish as a language that needs to be restricted, and

Spanglish/code-switching as a disease or a bad habit.

On the other hand, studies on socio-phonetics and language attitudes within the Puerto

Rican community to illustrate how certain groups, due to stereotyping, may later

linguistically accommodate to fit into the norm. On one hand, perceptual socio-phonetics

has been framed within the broader model of linguistic attitudes. Socio-phonetic

linguistic attitudes, as a field of study, has focused on perceptions towards specific

allophones, which carry different degrees and/or levels of linguistic, social, and sexual

attitudes and stereotypes (Ortiz, 2022). Mack (2011) analyzed how the /s/ has been

associated with homosexual males among Puerto Rican university students. Valentín-

Márquez (2006) described how the occlusive feature of the /s/ could be adopted in

Puerto Rico as a source of the population to linguistically uphold their Puerto Rican

identity in contrast to Dominican Spanish. On the other hand, López Morales (1983,

2004) demonstrated how the elision of the /s/ and the velarization of the /r/ increased

in populations that belong to a low social class and rural areas (see Emmanuelli, 2000

for further reference). This velarization process has been studied deeply and has shown

more complex attitudes, varying from unfavorable perspectives (rural, informal, vulgar)

to more neutral and favorable references (Puerto Rican, educated, whiteness), all

conditioned by social variables such as gender, education, and geographical location

(Delgado Díaz, Galarza, & Díaz Campos, 2021; Delforge, 2013; Roig, 2018; and

Valentín-Márquez, 2022, 2006).

2.3. Acculturation – linguistic accommodation

Given the attitudes and ideologies often associated with Puerto Rican Spanish and Puerto

Ricans, the question remains as to the ways in which speakers navigate different

contexts through social/cultural and/or linguistic mechanisms. Acculturation, as a

mechanism, refers to the cultural changes that occur when groups with different cultures

have continuous direct contact, leading to changes in the original cultural patterns of

one or both groups (Redfield, et al.,1936). It is also relevant to note that not all direct

contacts are the same, these vary depending on the context, number, and attitudes of

the group (see also Redfield, et al., 1936 to know more about types of contacts and

situations in which acculturation processes may occur). Assimilation is one of the many

acculturation strategies that immigrants and national minoritized groups may adopt as

they work to integrate into mainstream society (Bourhis & El-Geledi, 2010; Bourhis,

2001).

Linguistic accommodation, as a linguistic mechanism or strategy, is defined as the

adjustments that speakers make to be more or less linguistically similar to an

interlocutor or a social environment. Since accommodation processes can vary

depending on the linguistic feature and/or the context, research on linguistic

accommodation has used different methodological approaches, including dialogue

analysis, shadowing tasks, as well as short and long-term analysis (Ruch & Benito

Moreno, 2023).

Studies have shown that phonetic characteristics, segmental duration, linguistic style,

syntactic complexity, lexical choices (linguistic features), and even social and cultural

aspects play a role in linguistic accommodation (see Barón-Birchenall, 2023 for further

reference). The present study focuses on linguistic choices and social dimensions, as

part of an examination of the ways in which language attitudes can influence processes

of linguistic accommodation.

Previous work in this area suggests that certain linguistic features are more readily

adopted during accommodation, with perceptual salience predicting the degree of

accommodation, all of these contingent upon participants' attitudes towards the

interlocutor's dialect and the prevailing social context (Ruch & Benito Moreno, 2023).

For example, Amastae & Satcher (1993) study word-final /n/ velarization and

spirantization of Honduran Spanish newly residents among speakers of Northern

Mexican Spanish (both features differ in both dialects). In this study, the authors find

that when Honduran Spanish speakers are in contact with Northern Mexican Spanish

speakers, they tend to accommodate their speech patterns towards the local norms in

both features; nonetheless, word-final /n/ velarization shows a more significant change

within Hondurans. In a different study, Otheguy & Zentella (2012) analyzed subject

personal pronouns (SPPs) in the speech of 140 Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans,

Colombians, Mexicans, and Ecuadorians living in New York City. Their findings show that

rates of SPP expression increase with time spent in the city for all groups. Moreover,

some of the differences in constraints on SPP expression between Caribbean and Latin

American Mainland Spanish varieties diminish over generations. Although this study is

normally used to discuss convergence between English and Spanish, their findings might

suggest that these speakers are adjusting and/or accommodating their use of SPPs to

align more with the linguistic norms of the broader Spanish-speaking community in the

city. Although some studies may show that accommodation processes happen

inevitably, some others indicate the opposite due to ideological tensions and

social/professional networks; people might resist to linguistically accommodate because

they want to preserve their identity, beliefs or simply state authority, or group

membership (see Ramos-Pellicia, 2014; Ghosh Johnson, 2005; Bayley et al., 2012).

In addition to the motivators of accommodation, intelligibility also plays a relevant role

in accommodation processes. If the phonetic features of Dialect X often lead to

misunderstandings with speakers of Dialect Y, then (the) speaker(s) of Dialect X are

more likely to participate in an accommodation process (Trudgill, 1986 in Ruch & Benito

Moreno, 2023). Nielsen (2011) conducted a significant study on functional constraints

in short-term accommodation in two experiments of twenty-five L1 speakers (12 F and

13 M) of American English. She examined how altering voice onset time (VOT) in /p/

affected its imitation, finding that participants imitated lengthened VOT but not

shortened VOT. This result is interpreted in light of the phonological implications of VOT

in English, where lengthening VOT (i.e., aspiration) does not alter phonological

distinctions, while shortening VOT may lead to confusion between /p/ and /b/ in minimal

pairs like "pan" and "ban". In addition to that, lexical differences within speech

communities can also lead to linguistic accommodation in various contexts even among

speakers of a specific community (see Bonomi, 2010; Chambers, 1992).

Although linguistic accommodation is used by interlocutors as a strategy for clarity of

communication, other reasons why interlocutors accommodate are determined partly

due to the result of language attitudes, which are based on ideologies-created by the

dominant group and even maintained by different members within minoritized groups

(Ramos-Pellicia, 2014). Latinx people are an increasing population in the continental

United States. Ramos-Pellicia asserts that throughout these migration processes,

diversity conspicuously expands, as a result of linguistic dynamics within specific

regions. These linguistic patterns underscore the imperative for every subgroup within

the Latinx community to forge and navigate its own unique identity and negotiate with

the other. Woods & Rivera-Mills (2012) found that in Mexican American communities in

the Pacific Northwest, Salvadorans and Hondurans developed a strategic approach

(ethnolinguistic masking) to ease integration into the established Latinx community. In

their study, participants not only made use of voseo, to different degrees, as an

affirmation of Central American solidarity and identity, but also their use of tú was

observed as linguistic accommodation and a chance to create a sense of Latino solidarity

in Mexican - American communities.

Zentella (2020), on the other hand, discusses the linguistic behavior of 94 Puerto Ricans

living in San Diego and how their closeness to Mexico and Mexicans in their context have

(not) affected their repertoires. In her study, she finds that although her participants

are surrounded by Mexican Spanish, they have not significantly adopted Mexican

linguistic features, this due to the strong sense of Puerto Rican identity and nationalism

that some of her interviewees have. The author also mentions that even though there

is linguistic, cultural, and political solidarity with Mexicans, leading to some instances of

accommodation, these processes are fluid and in continuous construction, preventing

dialect leveling and koineization. Ramos-Pellicia (2014), on her side, also found that

lexical borrowing and phonological convergence was evaded from Mexicans-Puerto

Ricans due to power ideologies regarding the inferiority of the other groups’ speech and

how English has influenced and/or corrupted their Spanish language (See also Rosa,

2019; and Potowski, 2014 to check other cases in high schools). The truth is that the

maintenance or the erasure of certain linguistic features are not randomized but are also

constructed through relations of power (see Van Dijk 1991 for further reference) that

pursue attitudes/ideologies.

2.4. Puerto Ricans in New Jersey

Puerto Rican migration to the U.S. is significantly influenced by economic, political, and

social conditions rooted in both Spanish and U.S colonial projects. Following the U.S

invasion of Puerto Rico during the Spanish-Cuban-American war on July 25, 1898

(Duany, 2003), the colonial government implemented labor contracts to address issues

such as poverty and unemployment. This strategy not only facilitated migration to places

like Hawaii, New York, and other U.S. localities, but it also met the demand for low-

wage labor in North America’s agricultural and industrial sectors (Acosta-Belén &

Santiago, 2006).Thus, the ongoing political, economic, and social linkage between the

U.S. and Puerto Rico have drawn significant attention to how Puerto Ricans shape and

express their identities (Lamboy, 2011), particularly when it comes to linguistic choices.

As Zentella (1990) notes, the maintenance of the Spanish language is intricately linked

to the preservation of Puerto Rican identity and nationhood.

This connection between migration and identity is highlighted by demographic trends

during this century. According to the Pew Research Center (Moslimani, et al. 2023),

from 2000 and 2021 in the United States, the Puerto Rican diaspora grew by 71%,

increasing from 3.4 million to 5.8 million. During these two decades, the number of

people born in Puerto Rico but residing in the 50 states and D.C. rose by 25%, from 1.3

million in 2000 to 1.6 million in 2021. Puerto Ricans are the main Latinx group in seven

states: Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

and Pennsylvania (Zong, 2022). It is also worth noting that Mexicans and Puerto Ricans

have been the fastest-growing groups in states with smaller Latino populations,

compared to South American Latinos, including Venezuelans, Uruguayans, and

Colombians, who have had the most rapid growth in states with already established

Latino populations (Latino Policy & Politics Institute, 2022).

The Puerto Rican population in New Jersey is approximately 484,727, with a nearly even

gender distribution of 50.4% female and 49.6% male (Center for Puerto Rican Studies,

2023). The same report indicates that 26.9% of Puerto Ricans living in the state are

under 18, and 11.0% are aged 65 and over, with an average age of 34.5 years.

Moreover, educational achievement among those who are 25 and older reveals that

19.0% have less than a high school diploma, 34.6% are high school graduates or have

a GED, 26.6% have some college education or an associate's degree, and 19.9% hold a

bachelor's degree or higher (24.5% females, 15.1% males). Employment status data,

on the other hand, shows a labor force participation rate of 65.3%, with 58.6%

employed and a 9.9% unemployment rate (Center for Puerto Rican Studies, 2023).

2.5. Research question

Though previous research has shown that speakers may adapt their use forms that carry

social stigma as part of a process of accommodation to the dominant varieties when

joining new communities (Woods & Rivera-Mills, 2012), less is known whether the use

of specific sociophonological and lexical features persist among Puerto Ricans who have

migrated to New Jersey and have been in contact with other Spanish-speaking

communities. Consequently, the following research question is posed:

• What is the role of linguistic attitudes and accommodation processes in the

maintenance, reinforcement, or erasure of sociophonological and lexical features

in Puerto Ricans who have migrated to New Jersey?

2.6. Hypothesis

Regarding this research question, it is hypothesized that sociophonological and lexical

features may persist among Puerto Ricans in Spanish multilingual environments like

New Jersey, albeit to varying extents. The degree of variation, whether it be

maintenance, reinforcement, or attrition of sociophonological and lexical features, will

be tied to the individual experiences of the study participants. In other words, individuals

who have had positive experiences, i.e., not encountering judgment for their speech

when interacting with other Spanish speakers, are likely to maintain their linguistic

features. On the other hand, those with negative experiences, condemned and

minoritized by their pronunciation and repertoire, may accommodate into the prevalent

linguistic norm, resulting in a dual linguistic identity that prompts code-switching based

on context and need.

3. METHODS

In this section, I describe the methods used in this study, including the background and

language questionnaire, the data collection process, as well as the approach to delve

into discourse analysis across the eight participants of this study.

3.1. Background and linguistic survey check

The participants answered a series of questions adapted from the Language Experience

and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q) (Marian, et al. 2007) to confirm native-speaker

status (Hespos & Piccin, 2009) and measure their exposure to other varieties of Spanish

while being in New Jersey.

In the following paragraphs, I outline the profiles of all eight participants. Their real

names will not be displayed due to privacy purposes; thus, I select a code to refer to

each one of them. It is important to note that the following information was taken from

each individual interview and the LEAP-Q.

PR01

PR01, a 29-year-old originally from Humacao, Puerto Rico, spent much of his early life

in Las Piedras, a town and municipality in the east of the island. After some years, he

moved to the western side of Puerto Rico to do his bachelor's degree. In 2017, upon

concluding his undergraduate studies, PR01 relocated to New Jersey to continue his

education at a public university. He has been living in New Jersey for the past seven

years.

PR02

PR02 was born and raised in the central region of Puerto Rico, San Sebastián. He spent

around five to six years at a university in Mayagüez where he primarily spoke Spanish,

though he began incorporating more English into his daily life, making him use

Spanglish. During his third or fourth year of university, PR02 started participating in

internships in the United States. He completed internships in Upstate New York, Florida,

and finally in New Jersey with an investment banking company. He enjoyed the

experience so much that he decided to move to New Jersey in January 2017 after

securing a full-time job with the company.

PR03

PR03 was born and raised in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She moved from Puerto Rico 17

years ago and has been living in New Jersey for the past 13 years. Currently, she works

at a public university in New Jersey.

PR04

PR04, a 31-year-old from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, moved to New Jersey in 2017, right

after Hurricane María, although her relocation had been planned before the storm. She

spent seven years in New Jersey, including four years at a public university, where she

pursued a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering.

PR05

PR05, a 27-year-old from San Juan, Puerto Rico, moved directly from his home island

to New Jersey. He has been living in New Jersey for the past four years, soon entering

his fifth year. PR05 is currently pursuing his Ph.D. His decision to attend the university

where he is finishing his studies comes from a positive experience during a summer

research program he participated in while finishing his undergraduate studies.

PR06

PR06 was born and raised in Juncos, Puerto Rico. After completing her undergraduate

studies, she moved to Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 2011, where she lived for a year. In 2012,

she relocated to Madison, Wisconsin, to attend graduate school. After having finished

her graduate studies, PR06 moved to New Jersey to pursue a postdoctoral position at a

public university. She has been living in New Jersey since 2019.

PR07

PR07 is a 39-year-old woman from Añasco, Puerto Rico. At the age of 21, she moved to

New Jersey to pursue her graduate studies at a public university, where she completed

her Ph.D. Initially, PR07 planned to return to Puerto Rico to work at a university after

her studies. However, meeting her husband changed her plans, and she has now been

living in New Jersey for six and a half years.

PR08

PR08 was born in Puerto Rico, where she lived until she was 11 years old. From the ages

of 11 to 15, she lived in Mexico due to her father's job relocation. After returning to

Puerto Rico, she began studying accounting at a university there. During her university

years, her father was transferred to the United States, and PR08 decided to move to

New Jersey to complete her studies. After having graduated, she got a job and has

stayed in New Jersey ever since.

3.2. Interview and interview analyses

Sociolinguistic interviews were performed between March and April in 2024 via Zoom

and participants were recruited using the ‘snowball method’ (Oliver, 2022; Schilling,

2013) in which the first participant introduced a friend of their friend, and so on. Thus,

the eight speakers participated in individual 40-minute semi-structured interviews in

Spanish, which included open-ended questions on topics such as migration processes,

experiences with other Spanish- speaking communities, language attitudes, Spanish

use, and racial and linguistic discrimination. The central questions are listed in Table 1.

It is also important to note that other questions came up, but were unique to each interview,

since they followed the flow of each conversation organically.

1. ¿Qué experiencias positivas y negativas puedes rescatar de tu proceso

migratorio a Nueva Jersey?

2. ¿Cómo ha evolucionado o cambiado el español a lo largo de tu vida y qué

factores han influido en estos cambios? Considera tu uso del español durante

la infancia, la adolescencia y la adultez.

3. ¿Notas alguna diferencia en tu uso del español en comparación con otras

personas de tu comunidad (vecinos, amigos, familiares, colegas que hablan un

dialecto diferente o similar del español)? ¿Cuáles son esas diferencias?

4. ¿Puedes recordar alguna situación en la que tus vecinos u otras personas de la

comunidad hispanohablante no comprendieran el mensaje que querías

transmitir? ¿A qué factores atribuyes esta situación: vocabulario,

pronunciación, orden de las oraciones,…?

5. ¿Te has encontrado con estereotipos lingüísticos o prejuicios sobre la forma en

la cual usas el español? Si es así, ¿cómo te afectaron?

6. En contextos académicos y/o más formales, ¿has sentido que necesitas usar

una variedad más “estándar” del español?

7. ¿Qué factores/formas lingüísticas son típicas de las personas que vienen de

Puerto Rico?

Table # 1 – Interview Questionnaire

After transcribing orthographically the interviews, I utilized a Grounded Theory approach

(Glaser and Strauss, 1967) to identify recurrent themes in participants’ narratives.

Grounded Theory is a qualitative research methodology widely used in the social

sciences and other fields. Unlike traditional approaches, it follows a nonlinear process

where theory emerges from the data collected (interviews, as it is the case of this study),

letting the data guide the research instead of relying on predetermined frameworks.

After having collected data, researchers analyze the information to identify recurrent

themes and relationships among variables through a coding process. This exploration

allows researchers to classify and conceptualize findings effectively (see the following

section).

4. RESULTS

4.1. Interview results

In this section, I review each question (see Table 1) and identify recurrent themes in

participants’ narratives. I also include excerpts from the interviews that illustrate these

recurrent themes. Overall, findings typify that the eight participants accommodate

linguistically to their contexts, while some of them prefer to explain the word/phrases

they use (lexicon) and/or lower their speech rates, others code-switch (Spanish -

English) in order to avoid any type of misunderstanding. Commentaries about the way

they use their Spanish have also influenced their linguistic choses (check the discussion

section to see more points of intersectionality between language, language attitudes,

migration, and accommodation processes).

4.1.1. Migration processes

One recurrent theme in participants’ narratives is related to migration processes. Many

interviewees valued having a support network of friends or colleagues from Puerto Rico,

which eased their transition to New Jersey. Several of them found New Jersey to be a

great state to migrate to, whether it was through seeing similarities to their hometowns,

speaking their first language, or having exposure to diverse cultures and opportunities.

As a matter of fact, one of them, PR02, made an emphasis on how his life has positively

changed after leaving Puerto Rico.

(1) Lo más positivo ha sido, pues calidad de vida, por más que sea la calidad de vida

en Nueva Jersey, es mejor que en Puerto Rico en el sentido de muchas cosas,

necesidades, cosas tan sencillas como saber que vas a tener luz y electricidad y

agua todo el tiempo, eso pues cambia bastante, en Puerto Rico nunca sabes cuándo

vas a tener luz, cuándo vas a tener el agua, pues eso fue bien positivo, me gustó

muchísimo. (PR02)

In (1), PR02 mentions how access to utilities (water and electricity) has improved his

lifestyle after having migrated to New Jersey. Negative experiences, on the other side,

varied. PR01 mentioned that adjusting to the cold weather and being away from family

were significant challenges for him. Financial stress was another subject, PR02 stated

that dealing with expenses and loans during the initial months was particularly

overwhelming. A sense of isolation from the community (PR03) and difficulties in

maintaining connections after the pandemic also contributed to negative stances (PR04).

Issues with stereotypes and misunderstandings, mainly regarding personal identity, and

background, was another topic. Some of them experienced frustrations due to

assumptions and/or stereotypes about their language skills or physical features, which

led to feelings of being judged or misinterpreted (PR01, PR04, PR06, PR07). As a matter

of fact, PR01 mentioned having to explain others where he comes from, and the relation

Puerto Rico has with the United States.

(2) Al principio llegué a tener algunas situaciones cuando salía a algunos sitios y me

pedían mi identificación y veían que era de Puerto Rico, y me decían que eso no es

aceptable, que necesitaba tener mi pasaporte y después tenía que explicarles que

yo soy ciudadano americano, entonces había, pues a veces, hubo varias veces que

hubo esas situaciones donde, pues yo diría que por ignorancia, no, no me, no, pues

no me dejaban entrar en algún sitio y tuve que explicarle, obviamente eso era

frustrante. (PR01)

In (2), as illustrated by participant PR01, he felt that many people did not accept his

American citizenship due to his Puerto Rican origin. Although he links these experiences

to people’s ignorance, it has caused him a feeling of frustration. PR04, on the other

hand, specified not fitting into the “stereotypical spicy Latina” due to her personality.

She also mentioned facing situations where people are surprised by her language skills

(they do not expect her to speak Spanish because she is white, nor she is supposed to

speak good English because she is Latina).

(3) Creo que, como que, mucho prejuicio de cómo una persona puertorriqueña actúa.

Ok. O sea, por ejemplo, yo soy introvertida, no sé bailar, no escucho tantísimo

reggaetón. Como cosas que no soy el “stereotypical spicy latina”, I guess. Ajá, y la

gente entonces, cuando se ve contigo dice como ¿Pero cómo? Si eres el opuesto.

He tenido ocasiones que, por ejemplo, en el trabajo le sorprende que mi primer

idioma sea el español. Y no sé si eso es un tipo de micro agresión. Sí. Porque a

veces como que, oh, hablas buen inglés, no como esas otras personas. (PR04)

PR07 has also encountered people making comments about the way she looks and her

language skills, leading to feelings of discomfort due to microaggressions and racism.

(4) Pero como la gente espera que sea un puertorriqueño, pues yo no me veo así.

Tengo ojos verdes, soy blanca, mi familia no se ve igual que yo, pero sí que yo me

veo. Es difícil, mi apellido casado no es uno típico, obviamente es egipcio, no es

latino. Todos estos comentarios como que ay, pero tu inglés… no tiene acento, tú

no puedes ser puertorriqueña o tú no te ves puertorriqueña. ¿Tú estás segura que

tú eres puertorriqueña? Esas cosas así que uno tiene que estar batallando cada

rato, son lo más incómodo que yo he tenido que pasar. Situaciones incómodas con

microagresiones y racismo, o la gente trata de hacerme sentir mejor. (PR07)

Only two participants narrated not encountering any kind of issues within their migration

processes (PR05, PR08).

4.1.2. Spanish throughout their lives and differences with other Spanish speaking

communities

A second theme has to do with how their Spanish has evolved or changed. For some,

their Spanish remains largely unchanged, some stated maintaining their accent and

fluency (PR01, PR04, PR05). Others have experienced shifts, such as increased use of

Spanglish due to the influence of English in their daily lives and work environments

(PR02, PR04 PR06, PR07). Here are some of their narratives:

(5) Ahora hay muchas veces que yo como que estoy hablando en español y de verdad

no consigo la palabra en español, y pues ahí es que cambio, cambio a inglés y sigo

la oración en inglés, eso es como que mitad español. (PR02)

In (5), Pr02 feels that whenever he is speaking in Spanish, there are certain words he

cannot achieve, meaning that it is hard for him to express what he wants; thus, he

chooses to code-switch from Spanish to English.

(6) Mi padre me dijo que mi acento sigue teniendo mancha de plátano, como le dicen,

y no, por ejemplo, nosotros tenemos unos amigos que el acento se escucha como

más gringo, I guess, y pues como que más suave, no sé, pero por lo menos mi

papá y mi mamá no me ha comentado nada. Si tenía una compañera que era una

postdoc chilena que le daba como un poquito de gracia que uso mucho Spanglish,

en una oración puedo tenerte una palabra, uno en español, uno en inglés y uno en

español. (PR04)

In (6), her family does not think her accent has changed, they even suggest that it

keeps on having mancha de plátano. On the other hand, her postdoctoral classmate

found little bit funny the fact that PR04 would use a lot of Spanglish in a sentence. PR06,

on her side, also mentioned using specific languages at specific contexts (she uses

English at work, Spanish with friends, and Spanglish at home).

(7) En New Jersey, a veces es hasta 50-50, es como lo que tengo que mi inglés

profesional, y tengo compañeras latinas que le hablo en español y en mi casa yo

hablo Spanglish. (PR06)

Some of the interviewees found that their ability to express themselves in Spanish,

mostly in professional contexts, has lessened, often because they learned specific terms

and concepts in English (PR03, PR04, PR06). A few of them have also noted a more

noticeable impact on their written Spanish, feeling less comfortable with grammar and

writing productions (PR03, PR07). PR08, on her side, mentioned that previous

experiences in other Spanish-speaking countries have influenced her accent, leading to

perceptible changes that reflect regional influences from places like Mexico or Colombia.

(8) Yo creo que el cambio más grande de mi español fue el haber vivido en México, ya

yo, cuando regresé a Puerto Rico, mis familiares me decían que tenía un acento

mexicano, y cuando entré a la escuela superior, la high school de aquí, mi mejor

amiga en la high school era una chica colombiana de Cali, y nos hicimos mejores

amigas, y ella pues también tenía su acento caleño, y todo el mundo me decía que

yo parecía que tenía acento de Cali, yo fui más con mi amiga que cambié mi acento,

y con México. (PR08)

In (8), Pr08 narrates how living in Mexico influenced her Spanish, to the point that her

family in Puerto Rico noticed a Mexican accent when she returned. Later, in high school,

people around her would tell that she seemed to have a caleño accent. The interviewee,

in this case, attributes her accent changes primarily to her time in Mexico and her close

friendship with her Colombian friend.

Apart from discussing how their own Spanish has changed, interviewees also examined

how their Spanish use differs from that of other Spanish-speaking communities. PR01,

for instance, felt he consciously accommodates his language to be more formal or

understandable to people from different Spanish-speaking countries.

(9) Sí, creo que, creo que sí, trato de hacer un poquito más formal el lenguaje, porque

a veces cuando en Puerto Rico utilizamos mucha jerga y mucha, este, este, nuestro,

este, habla, manera de hablar coloquial, es diferente, así que trato de, como

conscientemente, tratar de no utilizar palabras que puedan ser confusas, este, para

la gente de otros, de otros países, pero, este, pues creo que sí, eso es lo más, lo

más que cambia. (PR01)

In (9), Pr01 mentions to consciously accommodate his discourse in order to be more

formal; thus, he avoids Puerto Rican slang and/or expressions that may confuse people

from other Spanish-speaking countries. PR02, on his side, noticed that when multiple

dialects and accents from Latinxs intersect, particularly while working in diverse

settings, he chooses English over Spanish because he believes it is “more direct”, and it

goes straight to the point.

(10) Bueno, en el trabajo mismo conocí muchos colombianos, venezolanos, tuve amigos

mexicanos y ahí fue interesante porque dependiendo de dónde éramos, el español de

nosotros es bien rápido, y el de los dominicanos también es bien rápido y había muchas

veces que yo diría que, cuando, cuando incluyen muchas distintas como que

nacionalidades, el español cambia un montón, los significados de las palabras cambian

y lo que, lo que terminaba pasando, que era interesante en el, por lo menos en el setting

del trabajo, era que se nos hacía más fácil hablar en inglés porque el inglés de todos era

bien neutro, era como que bien directo el grano, esto es lo que hay y ya. (PR02)

In (10), as stated by participant PR02, working with colleagues from different Latin

American countries made a context where meanings of words repeatedly varied across

nationalities. As a result, it was easier for them to communicate in English because he

felt it was more straightforward for everyone involved in the communication process.

Additionally, differences in vocabulary and expressions related to food or everyday items

was also part of the conversation (PR03, PR04, PR05, PR07), as individuals

accommodate to learn new terms from different Spanish-speaking contexts (PR06,

PR08).

(11) Durante mi tiempo de vivir en Estados Unidos, he recogido muchas palabras que no eran

o no son del dialecto puertorriqueño. So, en la comida, lo más, lo más, este como a mi

esposo le digo como que… pues, el choclo, para nosotros es la mazorca, este o cuando

hablo con mi suegra también tengo que ver, o le pregunto a mi suegra qué es lo que

usted se refiere con x y o z que no sé o tengo que googlearlo para ver cuál es cuál es la

foto de esa fruta o la verdura, pero es más como que pues yo aprendo como ella dice

las cosas y yo le digo a ella cómo nosotros decimos, decimos las cosas pero yo creo que

la mayoría es en la comida. Que encuentras como las diferencias. (PR06)

In (11), as expressed by PR06, living in the United States has made her use words that

are not necessarily related to the Puerto Rican dialect (she mentions choclo as a new

term she learned through her husband). She also feels that clarifying or looking up for

fruit and vegetables names is important, especially when communicating with her

mother-in-law. It is important to note that this understanding/clarification process,

according to her, is bidirectional.

4.1.3. Language-related misunderstanding across Spanish-speaking

communities

PR01 mentioned that Puerto Ricans often speak quickly, shorten words, or they

“modify” pronunciations, such as substituting /r/ with /l/, which can lead to

misunderstandings. In one case, he remembered coming back to how he linguistically

accommodates to his girlfriend while talking about el fregadero, so she could understand

what he was referring to (he consciously tries not to use the word).

(12) Un poco con mi novia, pues ella, lo que yo le digo el fregadero, que es donde uno

hace los trastes y lava los platos, ella le dice el caño, entonces yo trato de no decir

fregadero conscientemente porque sé que a lo mejor no está tan acostumbrada a esa

palabra, por ejemplo, pero sí, creo que sí, hablar rápido y cortar palabras, cortamos

mucho las palabras. (PR01)

PR02 described confusion arising from regional differences in terminology, such as

using parcha instead of maracuyá for passion fruit and noted how using the English word

helped bridge the gap.

(13) Con la parcha, con la fruta, perfecto. Este, había momentos en los que iba a pedir,

por ejemplo, un zapete, qué sé yo, de parcha, o un mojito con parcha. Eso no es

parcha en muchos estados, en muchos países, ¿Cómo es que se llama? [Maracuyá].

Sí, maracuyá, nosotros le decíamos parcha, y era como que, parcha, pues, un

mojito de parcha, y era como que, ¿Qué? Entonces, pues, en esos momentos era

como que, pues, passion fruit, y entonces ahí como que los dos lo entendíamos,

porque passion fruit era lo mismo para en inglés. (PR02)

PR03 felt that while she is understood, she sometimes struggles with translating medical

or work-related terms, which can cause her family to notice her difficulties while

communicating in specific contexts. PR04 also recounted a case where her use of

zafacón, word used by many Puerto Ricans to refer to trash can, confused a Mexican

neighbor, who was unfamiliar with the term.

(14) Pues la semana pasada, yo le pregunté a mi vecino si podía sacar el zafacón y él

no supo a qué me refería, entonces yo no, como que le dije pues el trash can, pero

el mexicano, eso no sé si era el bote de basura, o algo así, pero yo le dije el zafacón,

y pues él no, como que no entendió lo que quería decir. (PR04)

PR05 also recalled a situation where differing food vocabulary led to confusion during a

kitchen task. PR06, on her side, shared that she often has to explain or clarify regional

food names and phrases. Refer at the following transcription of a conversation we had

about a particular dessert and the way she linguistically accommodates to specific

situations.

(15) Ya, creo que en momentos he dicho cosas, y es más creo que va a la comida o alguna

costumbre o algo que yo utilice una palabra o una frase, y entonces… pero yo siempre

estoy aware most of the time que o asumo que la persona no lo va a entender. Yo

explico lo que significa el dicho o explico lo que significa la comida que estoy tratando

de explicar. (PR06)

(16) Por ejemplo para los peruanos, para los puertorriqueños este postre se llama brazo

gitano. Yo no sé cómo se llama en Colombia. Es un queque que es así. (PR06)

(17) ¿El que es por fuera rosado? (Interviewer)

(18) En un rollito. Ajá. Y tiene la cremita adentro. (PR06)

(19) Sí, a eso le llamamos brazo de reina. (Interviewer)

(20) Pues para ustedes brazo de reina, para nosotros brazo gitano y para los peruanos se

llama pionono creo que es. (PR06)

(21) So, verdad. Diferente. Yo como que, ah no, que si el brazo y entonces yo le explico.

(PR06)

(22) La comida es muy importante. Son todos los ejemplos que te voy a dar de comida.

(PR06)

(23) Igual cuando yo le hablo a mi esposo, como el otro día, no me acuerdo a qué lo envié.

Necesito que me hagas… no sé qué. Y él…y yo esperando que lo hiciera. Y es, pero es

que no entiendo qué es lo que tú estás diciendo. Y entonces me hizo decirlo en inglés.

(PR06)

(24) Entonces yo lo digo en inglés, pero le digo, esa palabra significa esto. Para que la

aprendas. (PR06)

In this conversation, Pr06 mentions how she linguistically accommodates, especially

when using food terminology. With her husband, the word brazo gitano, to refer to a

swiss roll, would have to be switched to pionino in order to avoid any kind of

misunderstanding. In some other cases, she code-switches (Spanish - English);

nonetheless, she would also teach her husband the word, so he would have a reference

on how to use that word in her dialect.

Overall, these narratives feature the challenges of communication within diverse

Spanish-speaking communities, emphasizing the importance of linguistic

accommodation in order to have mutual understanding.

4.1.4. Stereotypes about Puerto Rican Spanish

Throughout the interviews, participants noted linguistic features that are typical from

Puerto Ricans. In this case, PR01 considers that linguistic markers vary a lot, leading to

no single feature applying to everyone from Puerto Rico. PR02 highlights the

replacement of the /r/ for an /l/ as a strong marker of Puerto Rican Spanish. He also

mentions the trend to shorten double R sounds (e.g., carro > [ˈkaχo] (‘car’) and a fast,

melodic speech pattern, similar to Cuban Spanish but less intense. PR03 identifies

phrases associated with Puerto Rico such as "ay, bendito," the shortening of words (e.g.,

"pal" instead of "para"), and the tendency to replace or drop final R sounds. PR04

mentioned the aspiration of the /s/ sound, changing it to an /h/ sound, to be as a strong

marker of Puerto Rican Spanish. PR05 also indicated the /r/ to /l/ swap and the tendency

to cut off /s/ sounds at the end of words and transform them into a J sound (e.g., [loh

‘paxaɾoh]). He also observes the affinity to shorten words and the generally fast,

somewhat melodic speech pattern (similar to PR02). PR07 mentioned the /r/ to /l/ swap,

the use of Spanglish, and informal expressions and/or words like "pana" and "mijo."

PR08 Identifies the R to L substitution and certain specific words as key markers of

Puerto Rican Spanish.

While many interviewees mentioned that Puerto Ricans exhibit a rich diversity in their

linguistic repertoires, some participants shared their experiences with encountering

linguistic stereotypes or biases about their Spanish use. PR01 mentioned that Mexicans

sometimes tease Puerto Ricans about not pronouncing the [r] correctly, though he did

not find it negative.

(25) He sabido hablar con gente mexicana y tratan de, tú sabes, nosotros, otra cosa que

decimos en Puerto Rico es pegarte un vellón, es vacilarte, como que make fun of you,

pues entonces tratan de pegarme un vellón diciendo como que va a Puerto Rico, diciendo

que no pronunciamos la ‘R’, y ese tipo de cosas, sí lo he visto. No ha sido en una situación

negativa, pero pues sí, ese tipo de cosas sí persisten y es una percepción que tiene la

gente de cómo hablan los puertorriqueños. (PR01)

PR02 also mentioned a situation where he was mocked for using specific lexicon of

Puerto Rican speech (in this case, the word was coño) which felt awkward but later was

understood as a stereotype.

(26) Fue una vez, estábamos en uno de las paradas de los trenes, y nosotros estamos

hablando, y nosotros, pues, usamos la palabra con C mucho en nuestro, like, day to day.

Entonces, pues, otra persona nos para, y como que, nos empieza como que a decir la

palabra muchas veces, y nosotros nos quedamos como que, ¿Pero qué está pasando? Y

él, ustedes son puertorriqueños, ¿verdad? Y pues, como que ese, como que se tiró el

estereotipo de que nosotros decimos la palabra mucho, y para referirnos a nosotros, y

como que, fue medio raro, pero pues lo entendemos, porque pues, es lo que, es de la

manera que hablamos. (PR02)

PR03 and PR04 have not experienced linguistic stereotypes in New Jersey, nonetheless,

PR04 has noticed that Mexicans joked about Puerto Ricans replacing /r/ with /l/ when

she was living in Mexico.

(27) Cuando yo hice como un apartelamiento en México, y como que, pues a veces que

cambiamos la R por la L, y pues el chiste era como que cada vez que pasaba alguien

de Puerto Rico, decían… Puelto Lico. (PR04)

PR05 noted that while he does not feel judged, there is awareness among Puerto Ricans

about their distinctive use of /l/ and /r/. PR06 highlighted stereotypes about Puerto

Ricans speaking with a "reggaeton" accent.

(28) Ya, y para el puertorriqueño es que habla cantado, que se come las erres, como que

habla como los reggaetoneros, o esos estereotipos. (PR06)

PR07 has also encountered comments from Spanish-speaking communities that

suggests that Puerto Rican Spanish is less cultured or matado (‘broken’), and that people

can immediately identify her as Caribbean due to her accent.

(29) Es decir, gente de pronto ,que dice como no, que el español de Puerto Rico no es

español o cosas por el estilo. Hay comentarios así, como que el español de Puerto

Rico es tan inculto o matado, como dicen. La amiga mía que era de España me decía,

es que a ustedes se les nota súper rápido que no son de aquí, porque si tú eres de

España y hablas así, saben rápido que tú eres caribeño y es otra cosa. Yo, ok, yo ni

sabía. Con las setas, yo puedo hacer las setas también. (PR07)

PR08, who in the past changed her accent to avoid the Puerto Rican /r/ sound, has not

faced any issues with her Spanish since then, although she recalls receiving criticism for

her accent when she was younger and living in Mexico.

(30) No yo creo que lo que me pasó a mí fue el cambio… lo tuve cuando era joven y lo

incorporé de una manera que yo no tengo mi acento puertorriqueño, entonces creo

que fue de muy joven que recibí esa, ese mensaje de que los puertorriqueños o que

no hablaba correctamente el español ¿verdad? Y al yo haberlo cambiado me quedé

así, ya, yo sí tuve, no sé si tú notas, pero mucha gente me dice que yo no tengo

acento puertorriqueño. Yo siento ciertos matices. (PR08)

(31) Pero yo creo que de seguro tendré muchos matices, pero la R, que es lo número uno

de hablar con la L ,eso yo lo eliminé… entonces eso ya no es parte de cómo yo hablo,

entonces cuando yo hablo en la escuela con alguien que habla español, no, nadie se

ha burlado, no he tenido problema, nadie me ha dicho que no entiende lo que digo,

no he tenido ese problema… lo tuve de jovencita. En México, claro, ya llegando ya a

la comunidad mexicana. (PR08)

4.1.5. Using “standard” Spanish

In addition to pointing out linguistic stereotypes, another recurrent theme was related

to the setting in which participants used English or Spanish. interviewees mentioned

using English in most of their “formal” contexts, so there was no Spanish involved.

However, some of them recalled specific situations where they had to accommodate to

their audience. For instance, PR01 feels that whenever he is presenting a poster, he

tries to formalize or to make more formal the way he speaks.

(32) Dando una presentación o estoy en una presentación de un póster, digamos, y viene

una gente que habla español, a donde mí, trato de conscientemente no utilizar tantas,

a veces se me escapa un poquito, pero se me sale un poco lo informal, pero siempre

trato de, por lo menos, tratar de formalizar un poco el lenguaje. (PR01)

PR06, on her side, tries to avoid any slangs or words that will have a different meaning

in specific contexts. In the following excerpt, she mentions that whenever she is in front

of Colombian or Mexican students, she would avoid using the word coger, which in her

dialect means to grab something, but for others it may have a different connotation.

(33) No, trato de, he aprendido a estar más consciente de no utilizar palabras que son slang

o que yo he aprendido que tienen otro significado. So, si sé que el estudiante es

colombiano o es mexicano, pues sé que algunas palabras no debo de decir, como coger

con un mexicano, porque para el puertorriqueño es agarrar algo versus que para el

mexicano es otra cosa. (PR06)

Interestingly, more than half of the interviewees mentioned that Spanish was used in

more “informal” contexts: family and friends, such was the case of PR02 where he

normally uses English at work, because he feels it is more neutral, and Spanish to

socialize in other settings.

(34) Por lo menos en el setting del trabajo, era que se nos hacía más fácil hablar en inglés

porque el inglés de todos era bien neutro, era como que bien directo el grano, esto es

lo que hay y ya, y pues cuando salíamos a hacer actividades sociales y eso, pues

entonces hablábamos español, pero, pero como que en ese setting de trabajo nos

quedábamos en inglés mayormente por eso, por tratar de como evitar decir algo que

significa otra cosa o que no podíamos entender. (PR02)

PR08 is the only one who interacts with Spanish speakers all of the time in “formal”

contexts (she is a social worker), although she says that, in her case, she tries to

accommodate to people’s dialect.

5. DISCUSSION

Overall, all of these narratives feature a variety of experiences related to participants’

migration, acculturation, and accommodation processes from Puerto Rico to New Jersey.

In these interviews, participants re-counted positive and negative livings while arriving

to their new place, and how each one of them linguistically and culturally accommodated

to their contexts, especially when being in contact with other Spanish-speaking

communities.

In terms of their migration experiences, many participants expressed appreciation for

the improved quality of live in New Jersey, which, in general terms, in their view,

includes better access to utilities and a stable work environment. As a matter of fact,

PR02 expresses appreciation into how much his daily life has improved. This echoes the

general feeling from the other interviewees who also find perks in living in New Jersey

(see also Palmer,1990, for more narratives/perspectives on migration from the

Caribbean, and Benson & Osbaldiston, 2014 for more information about lifestyle

migration research).

On the other side, some participants also reported difficulties such as adapting to the

cold weather, missing their family, facing financial anxiety (PR01 and PR02), feeling

isolated (PR03), maintaining connections after the pandemic (PR04) were some notable

concerns, not to mention general stereotypes and misunderstandings about identity.

PR01 experienced issues with identification and citizenship, a well-documented issue

among Puerto Ricans living in the continental U.S. due to unequal U.S. citizenship (Valle,

2019). PR04 encountered stereotypes about how Puerto Ricans should look like and

speak a language. Similarly, PR07 reported microaggressions and racial biases based on

her appearance and English accent, due to the fact that she did not sound as a “Latinx”

according to others. Despite Latinxs’ heterogeneous linguistic, historical and, therefore,

cultural background, the never-ending stereotype that links them to the Spanish

language and makes them sound like Latinx while speaking English depicts processes of

indexicality. Rosa (2019) highlights the continued nation-state project that homogenizes

Latinx (Latinx panethnicity) all over the US. territory, making them look like a language,

and sound like a race (as some interviewees stated). In the end, although many

interviewees reported problems after having migrated to New Jersey, positive

experiences seem to outweigh migration challenges.

In regard to their Spanish use, interviewees reported diverse changes in their Spanish

as a result of migration. Some of them stated that they maintain their original accents

and fluency (PR01, PR04, PR05). These self-reported characteristics align somewhat to

the results from Ramos-Pellicia, 2014; Ghosh Johnson, 2005; Bayley et al., 2012, and

Zentella, 2019 where even though participants have been in contact with other

communities, there is no linguistic accommodation due to ideological tensions and social

networks. Other interviewees, nonetheless, have experienced shifts towards more

Spanglish usage due to the predominance of English in their daily lives and work

environments (PR02, PR04, PR06, PR07). In fact, PR02 reported doing code-switching

between Spanish and English within sentences when he did not know the target word in

Spanish (Torres, 2010). PR08, on the other side, mentioned how living in Mexico and

Colombia has led to linguistic changes due to accommodation processes, this shows the

impact of different cultural contexts on linguistic identity within Spanish speakers. These

actions aligned with what Ruch & Benito Moreno (2023) mentioned about degrees of

accommodation and how these processes are contingent upon participants’ attitudes

towards other interlocutors, and the prevailing social context. In this case, PR08

accommodated discursively to avoid judgement from her Mexican peers (as the local

norm was not related to her idiolect). This finding also aligns with what Amastae &

Satcher (1993) discovered in Honduran Spanish speakers while they were in contact

with Northern Mexican Spanish speakers (refer to the theoretical framework for further

information).

The results of the interviews also validated how communication within diverse Spanish-

speaking communities often involves linguistic negotiation, especially when there is

difference in terms of terminology and linguistic habits such as speech rate. PR01 and

PR02, for instance, both mentioned occasions where regional differences in terminology

led to confusions. PR02 noted misunderstanding over the term parcha, as they would

call it in Puerto Rico, versus maracuyá for passion fruit. PR03 and PR04 also encountered

difficulties due to differing regional terms, such as zafacón, as they would call it in Puerto

Rico, versus bote de basura for trash can. Interestingly, these speakers chose to use

English rather than Spanish to accommodate linguistically in these situations, citing that

English was “more direct” for their purposes. Interviewees like PR06 and PR07, on the

other side, have become more conscious of lexical differences while talking to other

Spanish speakers, thus they provide explanations or accommodate their language to

bridge gaps in understanding.

Participants’ reported willingness to linguistically accommodate to other Spanish

speakers was not only based on lexical and speech rate intelligibility but also due to

linguistic stereotypes and their role in certain social spheres. In fact, PR01 and PR02

mentioned facing stereotypes related to Puerto Rican Spanish, such as the perception

of not pronouncing the /r/ sound and swapping to an /l/ or using specific Puerto Rican

lexical items. PR01 described how Mexicans sometimes tease Puerto Ricans about their

pronunciation, while PR02 told being mocked for using Puerto Rican expressions. These

experiences underline how linguistic features, linked with Puerto Rican Spanish, can be

subject to stereotyping and mockery. PR04 and PR06 also mentioned similar issues,

PR04 listened to jokes about the /r/-to-/l/ substitution in Mexico, and PR06 encountered

stereotypes about Puerto Rican Spanish being like the one used by "reggaetoneros”.

PR07, on her side, heard comments saying that Puerto Rican Spanish is less cultured or

matado, which reflects deeper biases about linguistic and cultural legitimacy. Although

PR08 mentioned not facing any stereotypes about her Spanish nowadays, she did

mention facing mockery many years ago while living in Mexico, leading to adjust her

accent to align with the norm, and have a “standard” Spanish (see also Palomares et al,

2016; and Gasiorek, 2016 for further reference on types of intergroup accommodation).

Thus, to address the question of this article, sociophonological features such as

lambdacism, rhotacism, and /s/ and /d/ elision (which were found by interviewees to be

linguistic features from Puerto Ricans) persisted among most of the interviewees while

narrating their stories. Although the study did not quantify the frequency of these

features, it was evident that most participants, except for PR08, exhibited these traits

during conversations. Interestingly, lexical features typical of Puerto Ricans varied in

each participant when in-contact with other Spanish speakers. Some of them decided to

accommodate by code-switching whenever their peers did not understand what they

were saying, and some others explained words and/or expressions (terminology) to

come to mutual understanding. It is also important to note that during the interviews,

interviewees did not use any of the words they mentioned to be typical of the Puerto

Rican repertoire, this may have happened due to the nature of the interview, and my

role as an interviewer with a different dialect. Consequently, these findings indicate a

nuanced spectrum of language adaptation within the Puerto Rican diaspora in New

Jersey. As hypothesized, individuals with positive experiences, where their linguistic

repertoires were valued and accepted, exhibited a strong tendency to maintain

sociophonological features and lexical choices related to their Puerto Rican linguistic

background. This might suggest that favorable attitudes towards a dialect not only

enable dialect maintenance but also the reinforcement of specific linguistic markers as

a form of identity assertion. On the other hand, participants who encountered negative

attitudes or criticisms from other Spanish-speaking communities reported a conscious

accommodation process in their speech. Thus, this study demonstrates that in such

cases, linguistic attitudes play an important role, where accommodation might serve as

a mechanism to navigate spaces that are perceived to be less inclusive of linguistic

diversity. This directly supports the hypothesis that processes of accommodation are

context-driven, as in the case of this study, existence of lexical and sociophonological

features that index Puerto Ricanness fluctuate based on perceived judgement or

acceptance in specific settings of interaction. These findings also highlight how language

use becomes a tool for social navigations, facilitating individuals to affirm cultural

identity while adapting to linguistic expectations.

6. CONCLUSION

To conclude, the interviews in this study disclosed the complex landscape of how Puerto

Rican Spanish speakers interact with other Spanish-speaking communities in New

Jersey. While some interviewees self-reported maintaining their accents, and speech

rate, others mentioned a shift towards an increased use of Spanglish due to their

exposure to English in their daily lives. In their cases, the way they linguistically

accommodated varied depending on the social context and language attitudes of both

themselves and those around them. In fact, most of them specified the way in which

they negotiated with other Spanish-speaking communities. Some narrated occasions

where difference in terminology led to confusion and/or misunderstandings, this opened

spaces for some of the participants to code-switch to English as a “more straightforward”

mechanism to facilitate communication between interlocutors. Others, on the other

hand, became more aware of lexical differences and explained words and/or

accommodated their discourse. Throughout the use of the interviewee’s answers, it was

also possible to perceive the presence of certain sociophonological features associated

with Puerto Rican Spanish (lambdacism, rhotacism, and /s/ and /d/ elision).

Interestingly, these features were prominent in seven participants despite having faced

negative stereotypes about Puerto Rican Spanish. These results suggest that while

phonological features may be more resistant, vocabulary use is more flexible and subject

to linguistic accommodation. All in all, for participants with positive experiences,

sociophonological and lexical features remained intact, underlining how supportive

environments encourage linguistic resilience and reinforce cultural markers.

Nonetheless, interviewees with less positive interactions exhibited varying degrees of

accommodation, suggesting a strategic linguistic and social adaptation rather than a full

assimilation process. These findings also highlight that language maintenance is not

purely individualistic, but rather linked to social acceptance of one’s linguistic identity

and background. Thus, the implications for linguistic acculturation within this community

indicates that language does not fall into a binary of preservation or abandonment; it

is, rather a process (or not) of adaption to suit sociocultural needs.

Overall, this study contributes to the broader discussion on how Puerto Ricans

linguistically accommodate in the Northeast of the United States, and how language

attitudes are another indicator on processes of accommodation. It also contributes to a

broader understanding of acculturation, where linguistic features serve as both adaptive

mechanism of resistance. This article also expands on the need to deconstruct purists’

ideologists that perceive certain dialects as undesired.

REFERENCES

Acosta-Belén, E., & Santiago, C. E. (2006). Puerto Ricans in the United States: A contemporary

portrait (p. 84). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Ahmed, S. (2002). Racialised Bodies. In: Ellie Lee and Mary Evans, eds. Real Bodies: A

Sociological Introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 46-63. ISBN 978-0333947524

Alba, O. (2016). Una Mirada Panorámica al Español Antillano. Books. 10.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/books/10

Alfaraz, G. (2014). Dialect perceptions in real time: A restudy of Miami-Cuban perceptions.

Journal of Linguistic Geography, 2,74–86.

Amastae, J., & Satcher, D. (1993). Linguistic assimilation in two variables. Language Variation

and Change, 5(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001411

Armstrong, M. (2010). Puerto Rican Spanish intonation. In Transcription of intonation of the

Spanish language (pp. 155–189).

Barón-Birchenall, L. (2023). Phonetic Accommodation During Conversational Interactions: An

Overview. Revista Guillermo de Ockham, 21(2), 493-517. Epub July 26,

2023.https://doi.org/10.21500/22563202.6150

Bayley, R., Cárdenas, N. L., Schouten, B. T., & Salas, C. M. V. (2012). Spanish dialect contact in

San Antonio, Texas: An exploratory study. In Selected proceedings of the 14th Hispanic

linguistics symposium (pp. 48-60). Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Benson, M., & Osbaldiston, N. (2014). New horizons in lifestyle migration research: Theorising

movement, settlement and the search for a better way of life. In Understanding lifestyle

migration: Theoretical approaches to migration and the quest for a better way of life (pp.

1-23). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Bonomi, M. (2010). Entre divergencia y acomodación: el caso de los inmigrantes hispanos en

Barcelona y Milán. Lengua y migración/Language and Migration, 2(2), 49-66.

Bourhis, R. Y., & El-Geledi, S. (2010). Assimilation and acculturation. Encyclopedia of Group

Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1, 30-37.

Bourhis, R. (2001). Acculturation, language maintenance and language loss. In J. Klatter-Folmer y

P. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Theories on maintenance and loss of minority languages (pp. 5-37).

Waxmann.

Büdenbender, E.-M. S. (2020). Puerto Rican evaluations of varieties of Spanish. In Dialects from

Tropical Islands (1sted., pp. 166–183). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315115443-10

 
Carroll, K.S., Rivera,  R.L., Santiago, K. (2015).  Questioning Linguistic Imperialism: Language 
Use and Needs in a Puerto Rican Agriculture Program. In: Fabricius, A.H., Preisler, B. (eds) 
Transcultural Interaction and Linguistic Diversity in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, 
London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137397478_8 
Center for Puerto Rican Studies | Hunter College, Cuny. (2023). Puerto Ricans in New Jersey 
2021  [Infographic]. 
https://centropr.hunter.cuny.edu/app/uploads/2023/01/Infographics_NJ_PRicans.pdf 
Chambers,  J.  K.  (1992).  Dialect  Acquisition. Language  (Baltimore), 68(4),  673–705. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0060  
Claes, J.  (2014). The  pluralization  of presentational haber in  Caribbean  Spanish:  A study  in 
Cognitive  Construction  Grammar  and  Comparative  Sociolinguistics.  ProQuest 
Dissertations & Theses.   
Delforge, A. M. (2013). Not correct but not bad either: Another look at the social meaning of 
“velar r” in Puerto Rican Spanish. In Selected proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Spanish 
Sociolinguistics (pp. 158-168). Little Falls, NJ: Montclair State University.  
Delgado-Díaz, G., Galarza, I., & Díaz-Campos, M. (2022). No me molesta que se coman las /s: 
A  production  and  attitudes  analysis  of  coda  /s/  in  Puerto  Rican  Spanish.  In Topics  in 
Spanish  Linguistic  Perceptions (1st  ed.,  Vol.  1,  pp.  13–34).  Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003054979-3  
Dewaele, J.-M., & Pena Diaz, C. (2018). Sources of variation in Galician multilinguals’ attitudes 
towards Galician, Spanish, English and French. Revista Nebrija De Lingüística Aplicada a 
La Enseñanza De Lenguas, 12(25), 34–58. https://doi.org/10.26378/rnlael1225293  
Domínguez-Rosado, B. (2015). The unlinking of language and Puerto Rican identity : new trends 
in sight (1st ed.). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 
Duany, J. (2003). Nation, migration, identity: The case of Puerto Ricans. Latino Studies, 1, 424-
444.   
Eckert,  P.  (2019).  The  limits  of  meaning:  Social  indexicality,  variation,  and  the  cline  of 
interiority. Language 95(4), 751-776. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0072. 
Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field 1. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–
476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x  
Emmanuelli,  M.  (2000).  Valoración  social  y  actuación  lingüística  hacia  algunas  variantes 
fonológicas del español puertorriqueño. Revista de estudios hispánicos, 27(1), 209-218.  
Fallas-Escobar, C. (2024). “Se me sale el Español y se me pega el Spanglish!”: Latina/o bilingual 
teacher  candidates’  racialized  notions  of  bilingualism. Critical  Inquiry  in  Language 
Studies, 21(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2023.2218507  
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and Language 
Diversity  in  Education. Harvard  Educational  Review, 85(2),  149–171. 
https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149  
Gasiorek,  J.  (2016).  The  “Dark  Side”  of  CAT:  Nonaccommodation.  In Communication 
Accommodation  Theory (pp.  85–104).  Cambridge  University  Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226537.005   
Ghosh Johnson, S. E. (2005). Mexiqueño? Issues of identity and ideology in a case  study of 
dialect contact. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.  
Glaser,  B.  G.,  &  Strauss,  A.  L.  (1967). The  discovery  of  grounded  theory;  strategies  for 
qualitative research. Aldine Pub. Co.  
González Rivera, M., & Ortiz López, L. A. (2018). El español y el inglés en Puerto Rico: una 
polémica de más de un siglo. Centro Journal, 30(1), 106–131. 
Hespos, S. J., & Piccin, T. B. (2009). To generalize or not to generalize: Spatial categories are 
influenced by physical attributes and language. Developmental Science, 12(1), 88-95.  
Irvine,  J.  T.,  &  Gal,  S.  (2000).  Language  ideology  and  linguistic  differentiation. Regimes 
language: Ideologies, polities, and identities, 81, 35-84. 

 
Lamboy, E. M. (2011). Language and identity construction: Can we talk about a new  Puerto 
Rican  in  the  United  States.  In Selected  proceedings  of  the  13th  Hispanic  linguistics 
symposium (pp. 70-80). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.  
Leeman,  J.,  &  Serafini,  E.  J.  (2016).  Sociolinguistics  for  heritage  language  educators  and 
students. Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the 
classroom, 56. 
Lipski, J. M. (2015). Is “Spanglish” the third language of the South? Truth and fantasy about 
US  Spanish.  In New  perspectives  on  language  variety  in  the  south:  Historical  and 
contemporary approaches (pp. 657-677). University of Alabama Press.  
Long,  D.,  &  Preston,  D.R.  (Eds.).  (2002).  Handbook  of  perceptual  dialectology  (Vol.  2). 
Amsterdam: Benjamins 
López  Morales,  H.  (2004)  Situación  actual  del  español  en  Puerto  Rico.  In: El  español  en  el 
mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes,  (pp. 253-276). Instituto Cervantes. 
López Morales, H. (1983). Estratificación social del español de San Juan de Puerto Rico. México: 
Universidad Nacional Autónoma, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas. ISBN: 968-837-
136-X. 
Mack, S. (2010). A sociophonetic analysis of perception of sexual orientation in Puerto Rican 
Spanish. Laboratory Phonology, 1(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/labphon.2010.004  
Malavet, P. A. (2000). Puerto Rico: Cultural Nation, American Colony. Mich. J. Race & L., 6, 1.  
Marian,  V.,  Blumenfeld,  H.  K.,  &  Kaushanskaya,  M.  (2007).  The  Language  Experience  and 
Proficiency  Questionnaire  (LEAP-Q):  Assessing  Language  Profiles  in  Bilinguals  and 
Multilinguals. Journal  of  Speech,  Language,  and  Hearing  Research, 50(4),  940–967. 
https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067) 
Montes-Alcalá,  C.  (2009).  Hispanics  in  the  United  States:  more  than  Spanglish. Camino 
Real, 1(0), 97-115. 
Moslimani, M., Noe-Bustamante, L., & Shah, S. (2023). Facts on Hispanics of Puerto Rican origin 
in  the  United  States,  2021.  Pew  Research  Center.  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
sheet/us-hispanics-facts-on-puerto-rican-origin-latinos/ 
Niedzielski,  N.  (1999).  The  Effect  of  Social  Information  on  the  Perception  of  Sociolinguistic 
Variables. Journal  of  Language  and  Social  Psychology, 18(1),  62–85. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X99018001005  
Nielsen, K. (2011). Specificity and abstractness of VOT imitation. Journal of Phonetics, 39(2), 
132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.12.007  
Oliver Rajan, J. (2022). El español de la zona cafetalera de Puerto Rico y sus narrativas orales 
como  expresión  identitaria. Borealis  (Tromsø), 11(2),  95–111. 
https://doi.org/10.7557/1.11.2.6435  
Ortiz López, L. A. (2022). El español en Puerto Rico. In Dialectología hispánica (1st ed., pp. 
344–358). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429294259-31  
Otheguy,  R.,  &  Zentella,  A.  C.  (2012). Spanish  in  New  York:  Language  Contact,  Dialectal 
Leveling,  and  Structural  Continuity (1st  ed.).  Oxford  University  Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199737406.001.0001  
Pablos Ortega, C. de. (2011). Las actitudes de los hombres y de las mujeres anglohablantes 
ante  el  agradecimiento  en  español:  Estudio  contrastivo. Revista  Nebrija  De  Lingüística 
Aplicada  a  La  Enseñanza  De  Lenguas, 5(10),  3–26. 
https://doi.org/10.26378/rnlael510161  
Palmer, R. (1990). In search of a better life: Perspectives on migration from the Caribbean. 
Bloomsbury Publishing USA.  
Palomares, N. A., Giles, H., Soliz, J., & Gallois, C. (2016). Intergroup Accommodation, Social 
Categories,  and  Identities.  In Communication  Accommodation  Theory (pp.  123–151). 
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226537.007  

 
Penas  Ibáñez,  M.  A.  (2007).  Aspectos  semánticos  y  léxicos  del  español  de  Puerto 
Rico. ELUA, 21, 281-. https://doi.org/10.14198/ELUA2007.21.14  
Potowski, K. (2015). Ethnolinguistic Identities and Ideologies among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, 
and  “MexiRicans”  in  Chicago.  In A  Sociolinguistics  of  Diaspora (1st  ed.,  pp.  13–30). 
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315883571-3  
Ramos  Pellicia,  M.  (2014).  Language  ideologies  in  action:  When  different  latino  linguistic 
identities collide. New directions in Hispanic linguistics, 23-50.  
Rangel, N., Loureiro-Rodríguez, V., & Moyna, M. I. (2015). Is that what I sound like when I 
speak?:  Attitudes  towards  Spanish,  English,  and  code-switching  in  two  Texas  border 
towns. Spanish in Context, 12(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.12.2.01ran  
Redfield,  R.,  Linton,  R.,  &  Herskovits,  M.  J.  (1936).  Memorandum  for  the  Study  of 
Acculturation. American  Anthropologist, 38(1),  149–152. 
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1936.38.1.02a00330  
Rivas,  J.,  &  Brown,  E.  (2012).  Concordancia  variable  con  haber  en  español 
puertorriqueño. Boletín de lingüística (Caracas, Venezuela), 24(37–38), 102–118. 
Roig, J., & Shaw, J.A. (2018). Perceptions of Dialect Standardness in Puerto Rican Spanish.  
Rosa, J. (2018). Looking like a Language, Sounding like a Race: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and 
the  Learning  of  Latinidad (1st  ed.).  Oxford  University  Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190634728.001.0001  
Ruch, H. & de Benito Moreno, C. (2023). Linguistic accommodation. In Language contact (pp. 
17-48). Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8269228  
Schilling,  N.  (2013).  Sociolinguistic  Fieldwork.  In 323  pp,  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University 
Press, 2013.  
Schmidt, J. R. (2014). The Politics of English in Puerto Rico's Schools. Lynne Rienner Publishers.  
Schneider, A. M. (2013). Breves consideraciones sobre el sistema colonial en Puerto Rico. História (Passo 
Fundo.), 13(1). https://doi.org/10.5335/hdtv.13n.1.2593  
Torres, L.  (2010).  Puerto  Ricans  in the United States  and  language  shift  to  English. English 
Today, 26(3), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078410000143  
Valentín-Márquez, W. (2022). A comparative study of /s/ in Puerto Rican Spanish and the Cuban 
and Dominican dialects. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 11(2), 
61–76. https://doi.org/10.7557/1.11.2.6424 
Valentín-Márquez,  W.  (2006).  La  oclusión  glotal  y  la  construcción  lingüística  de  identidades 
sociales  en  Puerto  Rico.  In Selected  proceedings  of  the  9th  Hispanic  Linguistics 
Symposium (pp. 326-341). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.  
Valle, A. J. (2019). Race and the Empire-state: Puerto Ricans’ Unequal U.S. Citizenship. Sociology of Race 
& Ethnicity, 5(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649218776031  
Van  Dijk,  T.  A.  (1993).  Racism  and  the  Press. Canadian  Journal  of  Communication, 18(3). 
https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.1993v18n3a771  
Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2021). An introduction to sociolinguistics. John Wiley & Sons.  
Woods, M. R., & Rivera-Mills, S. V. (2012). El tú como un “mask”: Voseo and Salvadoran and 
Honduran  Identity  in  the  United  States. Studies  in  Hispanic  and  Lusophone 
Linguistics, 5(1), 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2012-1123 
Zentella, A. C. (2020). Aquí no se cogen las guaguas: Language and Puerto Rican identity in 
San  Diego.  In Dialects  from  Tropical  Islands (1st  ed.,  pp.  184–200).  Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315115443-11  
Zentella, A. (1990). Returned migration, language, and identity: Puerto Rican bilinguals in dos 
worlds/two mundos. International Journal of the Sociology  of Language, 1990(84), 81-
100. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1990.84.81 
Zong,  J.  (2022).  A  mosaic,  not  a  monolith:  A  profile  of  the  US  Latino  population,  2000-
2020. UCLA  Latino  Policy  &  Politics  Institute.  Available  online: 
https://latino.ucla.edu/research/latino-population-2000-2020/ 