Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issue raised in the study is important and relevant, as the author analyzes the linguistic effects of a current social process. I agree with the author's main findings, but I suggest some modifications and clarifications to certain points of the text.

It is not clear what the author means by the term sociolinguistic right, (Lines 27 and 28: ’This paper explores how linguistic profiling and discrimination contribute to the fear of using Spanish in public spaces, ultimately violating sociolinguistic rights and exacerbating social inequalities’). Linguistic human rights from sociolinguistic perspective? I should be clarified.

The author quite rightly gives some examples of the effects of English-Spanish language contact (lines 55, 56), which may also be useful in analysing language use in other minority communities. However, a more detailed analysis of the language examples is needed for those who do not speak Spanish.

Also, the legal background to the use of Spanish in education and religion is not clear from the text, and I recommend that this be clarified. Can Spanish be used in schools for the indigenous minority there based on general customary law? In other words, does bilingualism have a legal foundation, for example, regarding languages used in schools, churches, signage, or is the recognition of bilingualism merely a social effort?

A better understanding of the current situation would also require an explanation of whether the indigenous Spanish population has any minority rights, how the exercise of these rights is related to the rights of illegal immigrants, and what human rights illegal immigrants are entitled to.

The study confuses the situation of the indigenous Spanish community with that of illegal immigrant Spaniards, even though their current circumstances are heavily influenced by political factors, which is clearly reflected in the author's statements. To gain a clearer understanding of the situation, I suggest clarifying the text.

The author's next statement is open to debate: 'The push for English-only movements is symbolic rather than practical, as language cannot be legislated out of existence' (lines 227, 228). However, in dictatorships, the use of certain languages in public spaces and written communication can indeed be banned, as numerous historical examples show.

As the paper does not contain any research of its own, I recommend that the paper be amended on the basis of the information provided.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you so much for taking the time to read my manuscript and commenting on it. I've followed most of your suggestions and have modified big parts of the original manuscript. This is how I followed your comments:

Comment 1:  It is not clear what the author means by the term sociolinguistic right, (Lines 27 and 28: ’This paper explores how linguistic profiling and discrimination contribute to the fear of using Spanish in public spaces, ultimately violating sociolinguistic rights and exacerbating social inequalities’). Linguistic human rights from sociolinguistic perspective? I should be clarified

• I have added a brief conceptualization of the term “sociolinguistic rights,” following the Linguistic Justice Foundation. This should help clarify how these rights relate to the broader discussion in the paper (lines 28-31, highlighted in yellow).

Comment 2: The author quite rightly gives some examples of the effects of English-Spanish language contact (lines 55, 56), which may also be useful in analysing language use in other minority communities. However, a more detailed analysis of the language examples is needed for those who do not speak Spanish.

• I have expanded on the language examples I mentioned and included additional references for readers who wish to explore the specifics of Spanish language use in the U.S. I believe this approach takes a balance between the scope of the paper and your suggestion. Thank you for noticing this; I didn't consider it when I first wrote the paper.

Comment 3: Also, the legal background to the use of Spanish in education and religion is not clear from the text, and I recommend that this be clarified. Can Spanish be used in schools for the indigenous minority there based on general customary law? In other words, does bilingualism have a legal foundation, for example, regarding languages used in schools, churches, signage, or is the recognition of bilingualism merely a social effort?

• I agree that a clearer explanation of the legal background would be beneficial. However, as the focus of the paper is on the symbolic and sociocultural implications rather than the legalities of bilingualism in schools and churches, I have opted not to dive deep in the specific legal frameworks. I mention "sacred cities", but policies vary by state. Since the paper does not aim to be a legal analysis, I have not expanded further on the issue of bilingualism in education or religion.

Comment 4: A better understanding of the current situation would also require an explanation of whether the indigenous Spanish population has any minority rights, how the exercise of these rights is related to the rights of illegal immigrants, and what human rights illegal immigrants are entitled to.

• I have included additional context on the Chicano community’s educational "limbo", and how their sociolinguistic situation is often marginalized. However, I chose not to explore furter the specifics of immigrant rights, as the focus of the paper is on the sociolinguistic effects of language policies.

Comment 5: The study confuses the situation of the indigenous Spanish community with that of illegal immigrant Spaniards, even though their current circumstances are heavily influenced by political factors, which is clearly reflected in the author's statements. To gain a clearer understanding of the situation, I suggest clarifying the text.

• I have made clarifications to distinguish between the experiences of the Spanish-speaking communities and those of undocumented immigrants. The political dynamics you pointed out are important, and I have ensured that the text more clearly differentiates between these two groups.

COMMENT 6: The author's next statement is open to debate: 'The push for English-only movements is symbolic rather than practical, as language cannot be legislated out of existence' (lines 227, 228). However, in dictatorships, the use of certain languages in public spaces and written communication can indeed be banned, as numerous historical examples show

•  I understand your argument about historical examples of language suppression. While the paper was being reviewed, there was an executive order to proclaim English as the symbolic language of the U.S. I've added a new subsection to the manuscript addressing this issue. My original comment was intended to focus on the symbolic nature of “English-only” movements in the context of current political debates, rather than the potential for practical language bans under authoritarian regimes. So far, there is no ban in the States about the usage  of other languages... but my argument in the paper is that the fear among hispanic community would create a sort of auto-ban of the language.

Once again, I appreciate your comments and your time for reviewing my manuscript. 

Wishing you the best,

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Trump recently declared English the official language of the United States.  Discussion of this new reality is necessary given your main argument.  What additional threats do you perceive due to this outrageous pronouncement? 

In your description of Spanish language varieties in the US (the two paragraphs beginning with line 44)  you make it seem as if the varieties are different because they are in contact with English. Please clarify that all varieties of Spanish are distinct and some of the variation seen in US Spanish is the same or similar to the Spanish in home environments. For example deletion or elision of /S/ is also found in the Caribbean Spanish which is not in contact with English, variation in personal pronouns tutee and voseo exists across the Spanish-speaking world.  

Author Response

Comment 1: Trump recently declared English the official language of the United States.  Discussion of this new reality is necessary given your main argument.  What additional threats do you perceive due to this outrageous pronouncement?

Response 1: I have added an entire section discussing the new executive order, its implications, and the potential threats it poses to linguistic diversity in the U.S. (section 2). The executive order took place after I submitted the original manuscript, so your comment is very relevant. Thank you so much.

Comment 2: In your description of Spanish language varieties in the US (the two paragraphs beginning with line 44)  you make it seem as if the varieties are different because they are in contact with English. Please clarify that all varieties of Spanish are distinct and some of the variation seen in US Spanish is the same or similar to the Spanish in home environments. For example deletion or elision of /S/ is also found in the Caribbean Spanish which is not in contact with English, variation in personal pronouns tutee and voseo exists across the Spanish-speaking world

Response 2: I have clarified that while some features of U.S. Spanish result from contact with English, many variations exist independently and are also found in monolingual Spanish-speaking regions. I have expanded included additional examples and cited relevant references in case readers want to explore the topic further. However, as the primary focus of the paper is on the sociopolitical dimensions of language rather than its morphosyntactic/lexical properties, I have aimed to keep a balance by providing enough clarification without shifting the paper’s emphasis.

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to read and comment my  manuscript. Your feedback is highly appreciated. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been significantly updated and is ready to publish.