Running head: LITERATURE REVIEW 1

Literature Review:

Linguistics and the Impact at UTEP

Octavio Yanez Jr.

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1302

Dr. P.J. Vierra

April 15, 2017

LITERATURE REVIEW 2
Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the different aspects of Linguistics at The

University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) and how they affect our community. For instance, the

different aspects explored between the course of study for Communications and that of

Linguistics. Therefore, there will be a compilation used as a primary source to demonstrate the

observed differences between the linguistics and the communication curriculum such as the

different courses being offered. Therefore, leading to the evolution of the linguistics program,

and the impact of having the program versus only having English and rhetoric to refer to

linguistics as a subfield of English and only when necessary. Furthermore, referring to the idea of

being monolingual versus bilingual and how each aspect affects an individual person within the

El Paso Southwest and the university of Texas at El Paso community. Therefore, there will be the

use of terms that refer to monolingual and bilingual speakers while having a focus on them as

students. The following teams are as follows: one-languages speakers in references to

monolingual speakers and two language or more speakers in reference to the bilingual speakers.

Relational bilingualism is also introduced to explain the environment of bilinguals in their

communities and their sociolinguistic behavior within their environment they are daily exposed

to.
 LITERATURE REVIEW 3

Introduction

In the University of Texas at El Paso and the borderland community, there is a value for

academics and interest in the expansion within each field of study. This is important because

based on the number of students that enroll to each department there is a demand for academic

funding requested and an expansion of department buildings. However, it is important to

understand the community in which the institution is planted, where language and culture

implement well being and a slow process of improvement. This improvement can be seen by the

enforcement of academics and learning of the language and culture study. For instance, leading

to the importance of departments focusing on particular studies and knowing the difference

between communications from linguistics, which can be further understood in the following

lines.

Along the differences between two fields of study, there are other subjects to address such

as the evolution of the linguistics department. The importance of a second language acquisition

and subfields of linguistics that focus behaviors amongst people who have acquire a second

language as they were growing up and are considered bilingual. In the midst of the bilingualism

is the comparison between being a monolingual and a bilingual speaker. Furthermore, the

implementation of bilingual education in the southwest states in the United States. This to

implement the improvement of the bilingual population, and while providing an opportunity for

the monolingual population to pursue second language acquisition.

Research Questions

These questions have been selected to create an understanding of the importance of the

linguistics department within The University of Texas at El Paso and the El Paso community:

What is the difference between Linguistics and the Communication program at UTEP?
 LITERATURE REVIEW 4
How did the field of Linguistics become a course of study at UTEP and how has it evolved
overtime time?
What if the linguistics department at UTEP had never developed? How would this impact our
region?
Does being bilingual necessarily mean that you are better off communicating within the El Paso
region than by being monolingual?

Since the late 1960s, the El Paso region has been affected by the implementation of

learning or knowing Spanish when entering the field of study in linguistics. For instance, also

maintaining a focus on techniques and general rules of language usage such as proper grammar,

and studying language acquisition for the monolingual speakers of only English. For the purpose

of examining and comparing the field of linguistics to that of communications providing

different perspectives of the many scholars focusing on linguistic aspects.

What is the difference between Linguistics and the Communication program at UTEP?

The difference between the linguistics and the communication program is that each

course of study is individually distinct in concentration and focus. According to the UTEP

Catalog (1998-00) each program whether linguistics and the communication are completely

different in the purpose of what they represent and about the courses that must be taken to

complete them. For the linguistics program there are classes such as phonological analysis,

language acquisition, and phonetics such aspects ensure that linguistics is focus based on

grammatical correctness and of the content of language study (p. 126-127). Showing an apparent

difference between speech and language study.

Pertaining to Communication, the focus is more on how to implement improvement of

public speaking and the use of electronic media in the workplace (p. 102). The concentration of

study is not just speaking, but also on how to properly speak in public in a particular situation.

However, these techniques and skills of public speaking also need to be applied to the use of
LITERATURE REVIEW 5
electronic media. More specifically, learning new techniques to reduce nervousness when

presenting, speaking on radio or television by the means of news broadcasting.

Figure 1 demonstrates a comparison between the linguistics and communication course

curriculum from the years (1998-00) in the UTEP undergraduate catalog. This comparison is

briefly conducted for observation of courses differentiations.

2000 Linguistics courses 2000 Communication courses

2320 An Introduction to Linguistics (3-0) 1301 Public Speaking (3-0)

2403 Intensive Language Study (3-2) (Common Course Number SPCH 1315)

2404 Intensive Language Study (3-2) 1302 Business and Professional Communication (3-0)

3301 Phonological Analysis (3-0) (Common Course Number SPCH 1321)

Prerequisite: LING 2320, ANTH 2320, 1304 Mass Media and Society (3-0)
or ENGL 2320 (Common Course Number COMM 1307)
3302 Syntactic Analysis (3-0) 1370 Introduction to Communication Studies (3-0)
Prerequisite: LING 2320, ANTH 2320, or 1611 Written and Oral Communication (6-0)
ENGL 2320 2201 Forensic Practicum: Debate (0-4)
3308 Methods of Teaching English to 2202 Forensic Practicum: Individual Events (0-4)
Speakers of Other Languages (3-0) 2300 Beginning Media Writing (3-0)
Prerequisites: ENGL 1312 or ENGL 1313 (Common Course Number COMM 2311)
or ESOL 1312. (May be taken as ENGL 3308) 2312 History of Print Media (3-0)
3309 The Structure of Spanish for Language 2330 Principles of Advertising (3-0)
Professionals (3-0) (Common Course Number COMM 2327)
3310 The Structure of English for Language 2340 History of Electronic Media (3-0)
Professionals (30) 2342 Introduction to Video Systems (3-2)
3311 Spanish Phonetics and Phonology (3-0) 2343 Audio In Media (3-2)
3313 English Historical Linguistics (3-0) 2350 Introduction to Interpersonal Communication (3-0)

3315 History of the Spanish Language (3-0) (Common Course Number SPCH 1318)
2352 Persuasion and Social Influence (3-0) 3344 Making and Using
Language Tests (3-0)
2371 Writing for the Mass Media (2-5)
2390 Introduction to Art of the Motion Picture (3-0)
The first column represents the courses offered for linguistics and the second columns lists the course for
communications.

It can clearly be observed how different the courses are for both the linguistics and

communication program. Therefore, by providing these course comparisons it is demonstrated

that linguistics and communications are very different. The following differences can be

observed in the linguistics course of study there are many specific courses which are focused on
LITERATURE REVIEW 6
language study, analysis, amongst the understanding on who language is composed when in

reference to grammar.

In observation to the communication course of study there is evident course titles that

imply that communications is not simply speech of language but more of a technological,

language application in business form, and the use of professional speech within different

environments (p. 102). Therefore in comparison to the linguistics course of study there is a vast

majority difference in what is being taught in the communications program to what is being

taught in the linguistics program (p. 126). Where linguistics it the specific study of language and

how it is structured versus the use of language as speech in a professional environment whether

mass media or the sense of public speaking (p. 102).

How did the field of Linguistics become a course of study at UTEP and how has it evolved
overtime?

Although linguistics was part of rhetoric in the early 1960s, in 1969 it became its own

field of study. According to the UTEP Catalog (1969-1970) the introductory course for

linguistics was named as English 3220 Introduction to Linguistics (p. 61). Rhetoric and

linguistics were all integrated within English courses since the department of linguistics had not

been developed before. For instance, due to the content of the course of study in linguistics

where the focus was based on grammar correctness alike the English course of study.

Overtime the courses in linguistics were named as LING 2320, where the abbreviation

was now part of the name as the course was listed. According to the UTEP Catalog (2016-2017)

course are clearly listed as LING 2320, LING 3301 (p. 1). Where LING is specifically to

differentiate courses of the linguistics department from other departmental courses.

According to Berk-Seligson (1980) stated a description of different scenarios in which Mexican

American youngsters that are exposed to different environments within their communities, that
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
contributes to the many different aspects of how they speak either English or Spanish (p. 67).

Therefore, providing evidence of the evolution and the use of linguistic studies that have

changed overtime in a bilingual community such as the southwest of El Paso and the surrounding

regions. Impacting UTEP department of linguistics where new studies and discoveries are made

continuously to observe the changes of many subfields of linguistics such as the sociolinguistic

views and attentiveness evolving.

What if the linguistics department at UTEP had never developed? How would this impact

our region?

Lack of development of the linguistics department would implement that the subject of

linguistics remain as part of the English and Rhetoric curriculum. Therefore in 1969, there would

have not been any changes to the catalogs and curriculum course names and titles. For example,

as written in the UTEP Catalog linguistics courses would continue to be named as English 3220

Introduction to Linguistics rather than LING (p. 61). Therefore, students taking such courses

would understand linguistics as a subfield of English and not its individual course of study of

language.

Up until the late 1960s, students who were attempting to obtain a degree in linguistics

would be highly advised to know Spanish for the curriculum required them to take advanced

Spanish courses. According to the UTEP Catalog of (1969-1970) the course Spanish 3202

Competence in Spanish was the first course to be taken (p. 61). Implementation of knowing and

learning Spanish in our region was a requirement.

Our region would be highly impacted because there would not be any implementations

pertaining to the demand of knowing Spanish if the linguistics department did not exists.

Whereas, students who would want to learn Spanish would have to take Spanish as a foreign
LITERATURE REVIEW 8
language course instead as a linguistic course of study. Finally, the bilingual population would

remain pursuing English alike with the monolingual population within our region.

Not would there be an implementation to know a language but there would be no need

to know the aspects that define the specifics of language study within linguistics. Although

Blansitt (1970) argued that there might be similarities within the many aspects of language such

as in Phonology and semantics in that use of lexicons (p.16). This information would possibly

remain a mystery if the only course of study implemented were English and not the linguistic

field. The impact and effect to the existence of linguistics is crucial in a bilingual community

alike ours. Studies conducted in the 1970s by Ornstein (1970) and discoveries by Elerick (1970)

would not have taken place in our community. Therefore, the impact would possibly be that of a

monolingual oriented community instead of bilingual, where the academic environment would

have been very different that what it is today.

Even though the topic of linguistics and its aspects of authenticity are portrayed amongst

the last two sources mentioned, the information does not necessarily answer my question.

However, they provide evidence of the existence of the linguistics department and what have not

existed in such department did not exist at UTEP. Revealing the possibilities of so many

limitations that pertain to the linguistic field of study and how different the UTEP community

could have been.

Sharp (1970) would have not had an interest in learning non-standard lexical items and

aspects of the Spanish language (p. 207). Instead he probably would have been focused on a

different course of study, perhaps English and the integrated subfield of linguistics studies as in

the descriptive perspective pertaining to grammar. Therefore, Sharp would have not asked his

students for feedback that he would later compare its lexical categories and analyze the origin.
LITERATURE REVIEW 9
Does being bilingual necessarily mean that you are better off communicating within the El
Paso region than by being monolingual?

While it was true that in the early 1920s research demonstrated that being bilingual was

viewed as impairment it does not necessarily follow that bilingual individuals are impaired and

have an inability to learn at the same level as monolinguals. According to Hosch (1984), in the

1960s researchers suggested that bilinguals that fully developed a second language had the

opportunity to demonstrate cognitive skills superior to those of their monolingual peers (p. 3).

These findings had important consequences for the broader issue of demonstrating whether it is

better to be a monolingual or a bilingual individual within the El Paso, Texas community.

Therefore, this monograph was useful to compare the differences between a monolingual

and a bilingual person capability to learn and obtain cognitive skills that distinguishes between

the two aspects. However, this source was not useful enough to demonstrate if it is better to be

either a one-language speaker or a person who speaks more than one language in the El Paso,

Texas community.

However, Hosch included the topic of bilingual education programs that where

implemented in the southwestern states in the United States. In the early 1960s there was

interest in language as in its social context and concern for an increase in language education.

Therefore, in 1963 a program was created to implement the beginning of bilingual education in

regions such as Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California (p. 4). Therefore, creating an

opportunity for monolingual students to learn a second language and for the improvement in

learning within the bilingual community.

Enforcing bilingual education to assist bilingual speakers to learn in their native tongue

and improve their English speaking, writing and reading skills. Ultimately, what was at stake

here was that the bilingual students of Spanish and English speaking were learning how to write
LITERATURE REVIEW 10
and read in Spanish rather than English, while English speaking students were acquiring a

second language (p. 5). Although Spanish-speaking students were also obtaining higher scores in

math compared to the monolingual students only taught in English (p. 5). This can perhaps imply

that it is better to be bilingual rather than monolingual within a bilingual community, where a

second language acquisition and implementation can improve critical thinking skills of students.

Not only within the El Paso, Texas community but also within the entire regions where bilingual

education is being implemented.

On the one hand, Teschner (1981) was correct that the sociolinguistics aspects of the

bilingualism during a study were based on the environment of a bilingual speaker. On the other

hand, however, monolingual speakers although exposed to bilingual environments do not

necessarily acquire a second language. Therefore, bilingualism was not necessarily a requirement

for the study that was conducted to view connections between the other bilingual communities,

compare monolinguals and Hispanic bilingual communities to decipher the different behaviors

within their sociolinguistic capacities (p. 42). The study was conducted within the UTEP

community to explain relational bilingualism and within the environment of a bilingual speaker

who is exposed to both languages on a daily basis. However, this journal article does not answer

my question, even though in relation to bilingualism there is a wide range of facts to contribute

to description of aspects of this phenomenon of bilingualism.

Opposed to the claim of Valds and her colleagues (2008), when they claimed that the

Latino community is becoming more monolingual after the third generation in the United States

(p. 4). However, there is an apparent opposition to the claim of Hosch (1984), when he claimed

bilingual people where viewed as retarded (p. 3). Where it can be observed that Valds et al.

(2008) had a concerned of the Latino community developing a more monolingual community
LITERATURE REVIEW 11
amongst there children than developing into bilingual by maintaining Spanish. Furthermore,

Hosch (2008) had a more analytical aspect of bilingualism opposed to remaining monolingual

with the goal of maintaining both the Spanish and the English languages, where the bilingual

education was integrated to many states in the southwest region of the United States (p. 4).

Conclusion

In conclusion, after observations of the (1998-00) UTEP undergraduate catalogs there

was evidence that the linguistics program differs completely in comparison to the

communications program. The catalog provided a clear list of the curriculum offered by both

departments to ensure understanding of what each course of study is. Following the existence of

the linguistics department was idea of imagining what UTEP would be like without the

department. It was interesting to imagine that all the subfields of linguistics, gone like they never

existed. Along that path are the ideas of studies that were conducted to compare the monolingual

and the bilingual speaking populations and whether it was better to be one or the other.

Observed, the details of the implementation of bilingual education in southwest regional

states amongst the United States. In summary, there were studies that were conducted

specifically to test and compare the differences in academic performances of the monolingual

speaking students and the bilingual speaking students. Demonstrating accordingly to Hosch

(1984) that bilingual speaking students had the opportunity to acquire superior cognitive skills in

comparison to their monolingual peer (p. 3). The context and concept of this idea was that since

the bilingual student was able to think in two different languages, could expanded the

understanding of these bilingual students in learning, reading and processing skills.

 References

Berk-Seligson, S. (1980). A sociolinguistic view of the Mexican-American Speech Community:

A review of the literature. Latin American Research Review, 15(2), 65-110.

Blansitt, Jr., E. L., (1970). Phonology, Grammar, and Semology. In Ewton, Jr. R., Ornstein, J.

Studies in language and linguistics 1969-70. (pp. 15-32) . Texas Western Press.

Elerick, C. (1970). The Contrastive Semology of Spanish and English Verbs of Visual

Perception. In Ewton, Jr. R., Ornstein, J. Studies in language and linguistics 1969-70. (pp. 93-

125). Texas Western Press.

Hosch, H. M. (1984). Attitudes toward bilingual Education: A view from the border. El Paso:

Texas Western Press, University of Texas at El Paso.

Ornstein, J. (1970). Sociolinguistics and New perspectives in the study of Southwest Spanish. In

Ewton, Jr. R., Ornstein, J. Studies in language and linguistics 1969-70. (pp.127-145). Texas

Western Press.

Sharp, J. M. (1970). The Origin of some non-standard lexical items in the Spanish of El Paso. In

Ewton, Jr. R., Ornstein, J. Studies in language and linguistics 1969-70. (pp.207-232). Texas

Western Press.

Teschner, R. V. (1981). Historical-psychological investigations as complements to

Sociolinguistic Studies in Relational Bilingualism: Two Mexican-American cases. Bilingual

Review / La Revista Bilinge, 8(1), 42-55. Retrieved from http://0-

www.jstor.org.lib.utep.edu/stable/25743926

UTEP Catalog Archive. (1969-70) Undergraduate Studies. Retrieved from

http://academics.utep.edu/Portals/1795/UTEPCombined/THE%20UNIVERSITY%20OF

%20TEXAS%20AT%20EL%20PASO%201969-1970.pdf

UTEP Catalog Archive. (1998-2000) Undergraduate Studies. Retrieved from

http://academics.utep.edu/Portals/1795/UTEPSeperated/Undergrad/UNDERGRADUATE

%20STUDIES%201998-2000.pdf

Valds, G., Fishman, J. A., Chvez, R., & Prez, W. (2008). Maintaining Spanish in the United

States: Steps toward the effective practice of heritage language.