See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256115499
Language attitudes in Galicia: Using the matched-guise test
among high school students
Article in Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development · March 2013
DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2012.729591
CITATIONS
READS
47
1,375
3 authors, including:
Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez
University of Manitoba
27 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The History of Spanish in the United States View project
Language attitudes and ideology in Galicia View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez on 10 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
This article was downloaded by: [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez]
On: 16 October 2012, At: 12:34
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20
Language attitudes in Galicia: using the
matched-guise test among high school
students
a
Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez , May M. Boggess
c
Goldsmith
b
& Anne
a
Department of Linguistics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
MB, Canada
b
School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State
University, Phoenix, AZ, USA
c
Department of Statistics, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX, USA
Version of record first published: 16 Oct 2012.
To cite this article: Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez, May M. Boggess & Anne Goldsmith (2012):
Language attitudes in Galicia: using the matched-guise test among high school students, Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, DOI:10.1080/01434632.2012.729591
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.729591
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
2012, 1 18, iFirst article
Language attitudes in Galicia: using the matched-guise test among high
school students
Veronica Loureiro-Rodrigueza*, May M. Boggessb and Anne Goldsmithc
Department of Linguistics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada; bSchool of
Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA;
c
Department of Statistics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
a
(Received 7 February 2012; final version received 4 September 2012)
Adolescents’ attitudes towards standard Galician, non-standard Galician and
Spanish are examined in this study using a matched-guise test. Results show that
adolescents perceive standard and non-standard Galician differently and that
different values are attached to the three linguistic varieties investigated. Our
findings confirm that certain stigmas are still attached to speaking non-standard
Galician and to having a Galician accent when speaking Spanish. Finally, results
provide evidence of gender-related trends in regard to standard and non-standard
Galician, and also reveal a covert social disapproval of women.
Keywords: Galician; Spanish; standard; adolescents; matched-guise
This section is divided into three main parts. The first part of the paper will
introduce former studies around the world and in Fiji that have focused on
attitudinal studies towards language. The second part of the paper will look
at the language situation in Fiji. The last part will look at the methodology
which will introduce the Match Guise test.
Introduction: attitudes and language
A cornerstone in the field of social psychology (Edwards 1994, 97), the concept of
‘attitude’ has been the core of numerous sociolinguistic studies since Labov’s
groundbreaking study on the social stratification of English in New York City
(1966), although it has proved to be difficult to define. One of the most widely used
definitions is the one formulated by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 6), who describe
attitudes as the individual’s learned predisposition to react favourably or unfavourably towards a given object. However, recent work suggests that this perspective is
overly simple, as attitudes ‘may subsume both positivity and negativity’ (Haddock
and Maio 2004, 1), which speaks of the multilayered and complex nature of attitudes.
The idea of attitudes as an internal, not directly observable, mental state (Appel and
Muysken 1987, 16; Fasold 1984, 147) reflects the mentalist approach, upon which
most research work on attitudes is based (see Baker 1992). In contrast, the
behaviourist approach views attitudes as overt responses, and thus directly
observable.
Traditionally, attitudes are described as having three components: affective,
which refers to a person’s feelings about the attitude object; behavioural, which
entails how such attitude influences our behaviour; and cognitive, which involves a
person’s knowledge about the attitude object. The three components are usually
linked, although recent research in social psychology suggests that not all three are
always present in a given attitude, nor can they always be distinguished from one
*Corresponding author. Email: V.Loureiro-Rodriguez@ad.umanitoba.ca
ISSN 0143-4632 print/ISSN 1747-7557 online
# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.729591
http://www.tandfonline.com
2
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journal
et of
al.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
2
Heavy goods driver and heavy psv driver looking for a good job suva
nausori
9529385
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
44
2 Comments
Like
Comment
Share
another (Bohner and Wanke 2002). Also, it has been shown that the cognitive and
affective components sometimes do not match with an individual’s behaviour
towards the attitude object (see Garrett 2010). This is particularly relevant to the
study of language attitudes, as a speaker may deem a specific linguistic variety
important and profess positive feelings towards it, but choose not to include it in his/
her everyday linguistic repertoire.
Investigation of language attitudes is especially important in the case of minority
languages1 because attitudes play a key role in their successful transmission,
revitalisation and survival. Galician, once a linguistic variety of low prestige
associated with lack of education and low socioeconomic status, received the official
recognition of ‘language’ with the instauration of the Spanish democracy in 1978.
Within this newly established democratic system that acknowledged and celebrated
the linguistic and cultural pluralism within Spain, the region of Galicia was given
exclusive control of certain areas, such as education and culture, essential to the
defence and promotion of the autochthonous language. These political and
structural changes resulted in a process of linguistic normalisation involving the
standardisation of Galician, the expansion of its social functions and the creation of
public bilingual immersion programmes. All these measures have helped to partially
raise the status of Galician, but ironically, they have not prevented the dramatic
decline of L1 Galician speakers among adolescents. In fact, as the Galician Secretary
of Language Planning recently stated, ‘A mocidade é un dos principais retos para a
lingua galega’ (‘Adolescents are the main challenge for the Galician language’).2
Despite the stark reality of minority language loss among adolescents, there is a
surprising lack of sociolinguistic studies focusing on this age group. Our study begins
to fill some of these gaps by examining, from a mentalist perspective and by means of
a matched-guise test, urban and rural Galician adolescents’ covert attitudes towards
standard Galician, non-standard Galician and Spanish.
Mapping Galicia(n)3
When the region now known as Galicia came under the rule of the Crown of Castile
in the twelfth century, the linguistic variety spoken in that area started to
differentiate itself from Portuguese.4 Spanish was introduced by the dominant
classes first as a received speech and later as a spoken variety (Ramallo 2007), and as
a consequence, Galician began to steadily lose social prestige and speakers to
Spanish. The following centuries witnessed an increase in the use of Spanish by the
more privileged groups, along with a gradual devaluation of Galician dialects, which
came to be associated with the uneducated, rural and poor speakers (Freixeiro Mato
1997; Lorenzo Suá rez 2009; Mariñ o Paz 1998; Monteagudo Romero 1999).
In the nineteenth century, Spain underwent several sociopolitical and socioeconomic changes that exacerbated the process of social replacement of Galician and
3
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journal
et of
al.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
3
its loss of prestige. The process of urbanisation, along with the devaluation of the
traditional self-sustained economy, the implementation of mandatory schooling and
the increased influence of the central administration made knowledge of Spanish not
only socially valuable in Galicia but also necessary (Freixeiro Mato 1997; Lorenzo
Suá rez 2009; Mariñ o Paz 1998; Monteagudo Romero 1999). Consequently, Galician
stereotypes grew stronger and were even internalised by Galician speakers themselves
(Labrañ a 1999; Lorenzo Suá rez 2009).
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
4
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journal
et of
al.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
4
At the turn of the century, Galician found itself in a precarious situation. Spanish
was enjoying social prestige and was being used in familiar contexts, those in which
Galician had traditionally been used, and Galician was undervalued and associated
with lack of social mobility. This situation worsened as Galicia became more
urbanised and industrialised, and certain areas became economically and socially
isolated (Freixeiro Mato 1997; Lorenzo Suá rez 2009; Mariñ o Paz 1998; Monteagudo
Romero 1999).
Later, during Franco’s highly centralised, right-wing dictatorship (1936 1975),
Galician was not explicitly prohibited, but his regime exercised educational,
administrative and political practices that supported the use of Spanish only. During
this period, the deep-seated stigmas towards Galician and the high/low dichotomy
between both languages became more apparent, leading to the consolidation of the
process of linguistic substitution (i.e. Galician being replaced by Spanish) and to a
steady increase in bilingualism (Lorenzo Suá rez 2009; Ramallo 2007).
With Franco’s death in 1975 came a period of transition to a democratic
constitutional monarchy that entailed the decentralisation of power and the ensuing
reshaping of Spain into Autonomous Communities, making the new system ‘one of
the most decentralised in the Western world’ (Mar-Molinero 2000, 92). The new
administrative mapping of Spain was directly connected to one of the first
achievements of the 1978 democratic government, namely, the restoration of the
basic and fundamental rights that had been suppressed by Franco’s regime (Beswick
2007, 72; Mar-Molinero 2000, 84 6). Under this newly established democracy that
recognised Spain’s multilingualism and people’s linguistic rights (see Article 3:3 of
the Spanish Constitution below), the Autonomous Communities were afforded some
degree of self-governance, allowing Galicia, Catalonia and the Basque regions to
‘have their languages recognized and established as official markers of their
distinctive identities’ (Beswick 2007, 79). Thus, although the 1978 Spanish
Constitution clearly states that Spanish is the official language of Spain, the coofficial status of Galician, Catalan and Basque is also recognised:
3:1 El castellano es la lengua españ ola oficial del Estado. Todos los españ oles tienen el
deber de conocerla y el derecho a usarla.
(Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State. All Spaniards have a duty to
know it and the right to use it.)
3:2 Las demá s lenguas españ olas será n también oficiales en las respectivas Comunidades Autó nomas de acuerdo con sus Estatutos.
(The other Spanish languages will also be official in their respective Autonomous
Communities, in accordance with their Statutes.)
3:3 La riqueza de las distintas modalidades lingüı́sticas de Españ a es un patrimonio
cultural que será objeto de especial respeto y protección.
(The wealth of Spain’s distinctive linguistic varieties is a cultural patrimony that will be
the object of special respect and protection.)
Constitució n españ ola (Spanish Constitution)5
The Galician Statute of Autonomy, ratified in 1982, gave back certain administrative
powers to Galicia, such as the exclusive control of the educational system and the
cultural and linguistic issues. As a consequence, in 1983, the regional government
endorsed the Law of Linguistic Normalisation (Lei de Normalizació n Lingü ı́stica),
which until today constitutes the main body of the legislation for the use, protection
and promotion of Galician. It should be noted, though, that this legislative scenario
has failed to allow Galician to reach full legal equality with Spanish, as Galicians
5
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journal
et of
al.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
5
have the duty to know Spanish (see Article 3:1 of the Spanish Constitution above),
but only the right to know Galician (Garcı́a Negro 1991):
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
Artigo 1: O galego é a lingua propia de Galicia.
Tó dolos galegos teñ en o dereito de coñ ecelo e de usalo.
(Article 1: Galician is the own language of Galicia.
All Galicians have the right to know it and use it.)
Lei de Normalización Lingü ı́stica (Law of Linguistic Normalisation)6
The goal of Galicia’s language policy is to accomplish the restoration of Galician in
all domains through corpus, status and acquisition efforts. As part of the corpus
planning measures, a standard variety that unified Galicia’s dialectal variation and
that would be suitable for a modern-day society was developed and promoted.7
However, several issues have complicated its codification. First, while interdialectal
comprehensibility is high, most spoken Galician dialects are strongly influenced by
Spanish due to the historical language contact. Thus, for standard Galician to be
more Galicianised and also to avoid assimilation into the Spanish out-group, it has
become necessary to ‘purify’ the standard norm of these forms (Ramallo 2007;
Recalde 2002). On the other hand, the existence of two differing ideological
interpretations of the sociolinguistic reality of Galicia has led to unremitting heated
debates and disputes regarding orthographic norms (Herrero-Valeiro 2003). Summed
up briefly, reintegrationists view Galician as a diachronic variety of Portuguese and
suggest that it conforms to the Portuguese orthographic standard, while isolationists
consider Galician an autonomous language, and thus propose a standard variety as
uninfluenced as possible by Spanish and Portuguese (Beswick 2007; Herrero-Valeiro
2003). In the latest version of the standard (approved in July 2003 by the Galician
Royal Academy and the Galician Language Institute), certain reintegrationists’
proposals were incorporated, such as the use of the suffix -bel (singular)/-beis (plural)
as in amá bel/amá beis ‘friendly’. This inclusion of Portuguese elements in the
standard variety may be interpreted as ‘an attempt to build a consensus among
different sides of the debate and to put an end to the so-called normative wars’
(O’Rourke 2011, 73).8
From a status planning perspective, multiple measures were taken with the aim to
change negative attitudes towards Galician and to increase its presence in formal
domains where Spanish had traditionally been the norm, such as public administration and official events (Lorenzo Suá rez 2009, 28 29). As for acquisition
planning, the most significant provisions were made in education (O’Rourke 2011,
75) and involved promoting the acquisition of Galician through its incorporation
into the school curriculum, both as subject matter and as language of instruction. In
Galicia’s bilingual programmes, both Spanish and Galician are used to teach
content, and students are never segregated into groups according to their L1
(Ferná ndez Paz et al. 2008). Because of this approach to language and content
teaching, the Galician model has been described as one of immersion (Pérez Vidal
1998), although in reality, it is an ‘additive language learning situation, for the
authorities did not envisage the functional replacement of Castilian in all contexts’
(Beswick 2007, 92).
Up until 2007, the study of Galician was compulsory at non-university level, and
at least two other non-language subjects had to be taught in Galician in every grade,
a decision ultimately determined by the demographics of each school and by
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
6
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journal
et of
al.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
6
teachers’ L1. For example, while collecting our data in 2006, up to 70% of nonlanguage subjects were taught in Galician at the rural high school, while its urban
counterpart strictly adhered to the minimum of two non-language subjects. In June
2007, with the regional government ruled by a coalition between the Partido dos
Socialistas de Galicia (Galician Socialist Party) and the Bloque Nacionalista Galego
(Galician Nationalist Bloc), a new education decree was issued (124/2007)9 requiring
that a minimum of 50% of non-language subjects be taught in Galician, a
requirement that was already being met and even exceeded by some schools (such
as the rural high school in our study). In another effort to further normalise the use
of Galician among the younger generations, this coalition government created the socalled galescolas,10 nursery schools for children aged from 0 to 3 years where Galician
is the only language used. When the conservative Partido Popular de Galicia
(Galicia’s People’s Party) took office in 2009, attempts were made to introduce a
trilingual decree11 that would entail teaching a third of the school subjects in
Spanish, a third in Galician and a third in English. This initiative caused an uproar
for it was perceived as a direct attack to the Galician language and an attempt to
diminish its presence in schools (Moreno 2010). In May 2010, the regional
government issued the multilingual decree (decree 79/2010),12 a revised version of
the 2009 trilingual proposal, whose main stated objective is to guarantee that, by the
end of secondary education, students have achieved full and equal competence in
Spanish and Galician and have acquired knowledge in one or more foreign
languages. Under this decree, only Spanish and Galician are the languages of
instruction of content subjects, while in foreign language subjects, the target
language is also the language of instruction (e.g. English is to be taught in English).
A decade after the implementation of legislative measures, the Sociolinguistic
Map of Galicia (Gonzá lez Gonzá lez et al. 1994, 1995, 1996), the first large-scale
survey on language attitudes, use and competence in the region, reported that
attitudes towards Galician were in general favourable, receiving 4 on a scale from 1 to
5. However, a decrease in the number of Galician speakers among the youth was also
revealed: only 34.4% of the 16- to 20-year-olds spoke Galician habitually, as opposed
to 81.8% in the group aged 65 years and over. The younger group, though, reportedly
displayed the most positive attitudes towards the autochthonous language (1996).
The latest Sociolinguistic Map of Galicia (Gonzá lez Gonzá lez et al. 2007) shows
that, after three decades of language planning and bilingual education, the number
of L1 Galician speakers continues to decline, while the presence of Spanish is
becoming stronger among the youth. In fact, only 16.6% of the speakers in the 15- to
24-year age group have Galician as L1 (as opposed to 30.8% in the 45- to 54-year age
group), which represents a drop of almost 50% since 1996. Furthermore, the majority
of L1 Galician speakers still belong to a lower economic status, are less educated and
work in the fishing and agricultural sectors (Gonzá lez Gonzá lez et al. 2007).
In the past decade, smaller-scale studies have confirmed that Galician youth show
strong support for the maintenance and transmission of Galician (O’Rourke 2011).
However, they have also shown that the distribution of Galician rural/Spanish
urban has become consolidated (Iglesias Álvarez 2003), and that deep-rooted
prejudices against the language have not been fully dissipated among the youth. For
example, O’Rourke’s participants, undergraduate students from the city of Vigo,
produced adjectives such as ‘ugly’,‘inferior’, ‘uncultured’ or ‘stupid’ when referring to
speaking Galician (2006, 193), and Gonzá lez Gonzá lez et al. (2003) found that people
who spoke with a Galician accent were perceived as less socially successful by the youth.
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
7
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journal
et of
al.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
7
Recent research also shows that new stigmas and conflictive attitudes are
projected onto standard Galician and its speakers. While standard Galician is
considered more appropriate for formal uses, such as writing (Loureiro-Rodrı́guez
2008), it is also viewed negatively because of its phonetic closeness to Spanish, and
thus is described as ‘artificial’, ‘fake’ or ‘unnatural’ (Iglesias Á lvarez 2003; LoureiroRodrı́guez 2008). Speakers of standard Galician or neofalantes, ‘new speakers’, those
individuals (often young, middle class and urban) who are raised speaking Spanish
and later in life make the conscious choice of switching to Galician as their habitual
language for ideological reasons, are considered innovative and socially successful
(Gonzá lez Gonzá lez et al. 2003). However, their behavior is considered deviant, as it
is perceived as politically motivated (Loureiro-Rodrı́guez 2008; O’Rourke and
Ramallo 2011) or trendy (Iglesias Á lvarez
2003).talk about radio sargam saga
During the 1996 census, the Rakiraki district had a population of 29,137, with
15,325 in the smaller Rakiraki sub-district. However, the 2017 census showed
a huge decline in the population dropping to 13,908 (Fiji Constitution 2013).
These declines were due to urban migration and a better standard of living
especially by the younger generation (Bureau of Statistics, 2017). More
than half of the population in Rakiraki is made up of Indigenous Fijians
which is gradually increasing whereas the Indo Fijian population has
showed a huge decline.
Methodology
Research questions
To investigate language attitudes towards standard Galician, vernacular Galician
and Spanish among bilingual adolescents, we administered a modified version of the
matched-guise test in an urban high school and a rural high school in northwestern
Galicia. The high schools were chosen based on (1) our ease of access to them (we
have acquaintances working in both schools), (2) the rural/urban quality of their
location (with population sizes of approximately 1500 and 240,000, respectively) and
(3) the fact that they are located within the same isogloss (i.e. the same dialectal
variety of Galician is spoken in both locations). Carrying out research in high
schools also allowed us to test a large number of subjects at the same time in a
context where the completion of a listening test is considered a meaningful activity
(Woolard 1989).
Based on recent research findings on language attitudes among the Galician
youth (see Mapping Galicia(n)), our matched-guise test was designed to answer the
following questions:
(1) Do urban adolescents hold different language attitudes from rural adolescents?
(2) Do male adolescents hold different language attitudes from female adolescents?
8
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journal
et of
al.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
8
(3) Does adolescents’ habitual language influence their perception of nonstandard, standard and Galician speakers?
(4) Are standard and non-standard Galician speakers perceived differently when
speaking Spanish?
(5) Are male and female speakers regarded similarly, independent of the
language they speak?
Matched-guise test
The matched-guise test is an indirect approach to study language attitudes originally
developed by Lambert et al. (1960) to unearth covert attitudes towards English and
French in Montreal. In this methodology, speakers record several controlled samples
(the same passage) in different linguistic varieties. Then, research subjects are asked
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
9
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journal
et of
al.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
9
to listen to these recordings and rate each voice they hear (i.e. each ‘guise’), unaware
that each speaker has spoken more than once. The matched-guise test is considered
an indirect approach because participants, although aware that it is an attituderating task, do not know what exactly they are rating (Garrett 2010, 41).
Because of its broad use in the investigation of language attitudes in multilingual
and multicultural contexts since Lambert et al.’s study, the matched-guise test has
attracted a great deal of scrutiny mainly concerning the content of the reading
passage and the authenticity of the linguistic variables being measured (Garrett 2010
for a detailed overview). Another issue concerns the validity of this technique; thus, it
is recommended that the matched-guise test be supported with direct approaches
(Edwards 1982). Accordingly, recent language attitude studies have employed a
combination of questionnaires and matched-guise tests, such as Pieras-Guasp’s work
on Catalan and Spanish in Mallorca (2002), Hoare’s (2001) work on Breton and
French in Brittany and Ihemere’s (2006) work on Nigerian Pidgin English and
Ikwerre in Port Harcourt City, among others. To overcome the validity issue, we also
used open-ended questionnaires and interviews (Loureiro-Rodrı́guez 2008) to
investigate language attitudes in this population.
In our matched-guise test, respondents listened to four people reading the same
passage, a description of a TV show, twice. One male speaker and one female speaker
read the passage in Spanish and standard Galician. Both these speakers had Spanish
as their first language. Another set of male and female speakers with vernacular
Galician as their first language read the passage in Spanish and vernacular Galician.
The speakers were not required to read in all three linguistic varieties because it is
difficult to find an L1 Spanish speaker who can read vernacular Galician without
sounding artificial, as this is a variety acquired at home and not at school. In fact,
having learned (standard) Galician as an L2, new speakers of Galician commonly
superimpose certain phonetic and prosodic characteristics of Spanish on their
Galician (Regueira 2004, 83 4). For example, when reading the passages in standard
Galician, our two Spanish speakers replaced the open
with a close [o] in the word
votar, as it would be pronounced in Spanish.13 They also omitted the gheada, which is
a stigmatised phonetic phenomenon (Kabatek 2000; Thomas 2005) present in the
dialectal variety of the area and which consists of producing a velar fricative /x/ in
place of the voiced velar / /. This feature, traditionally associated with social
backwardness and lack of education, appears in many Galician dialects, but has not
been incorporated into the standard variety. Finally, the passages contained several
lexical differences between the standard and vernacular passages (e.g. standard lixo
vs. vernacular basura ‘trash’).14
In the classrooms, respondents were told that they would listen to eight different
speakers. In order to reduce the possibility that respondents would notice the
repetition of speakers, we arranged the recordings so that the two versions of each
speaker (i.e. each speaker’s guise) were maximally spaced apart. Within each high
school, all students were surveyed, and all respondents listened to the recordings in
the same order. In order to assure data quality, the following inclusion and exclusion
criteria were established: we only included responses from subjects of Galician origin,
and responses with evidence of malingering (e.g. all responses were ‘0’) were
disregarded (n 10).
After listening to each speaker, respondents rated the speaker on 25 personal
attributes on a Likert scale (0 not at all, 5 very) (Table 1).15 The list of traits was
inspired by Woolard’s use of the matched-guise test to investigate language attitudes
1
0
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journal
et of
al.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
Table 1.
Rating sheet given to participants.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
10
Intelligent
Amusing
Improper
Attractive
Trustworthy
To have a sense of
humour
7. Conservative
8. Ambitious
9. Rustic
10. Kind
11. Hard-working
12. Vulgar
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
Note: The person who speaks seems . . . (0
not at all 5
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Introverted
Open-minded
Caring
Refined
Efficient
Ignorant
Boring
Polite
Cosmopolitan
Educated
Unrefined
Modern
Apt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
very much).
in Catalonia (1989) and by some of the attitudinal questions employed in the 1996
Sociolinguistic Map of Galicia (Gonzá lez Gonzá lez et al. 1996). Attributes were
grouped a priori into four sets of traits and ordered randomly on the rating sheet:
personal appeal (attributes n. 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 15 and 19), social correctness
(attributes n. 3, 12, 16, 20 and 23), progressiveness (attributes n. 7, 9, 14, 21 and 24)
and capability (attributes n. 1, 8, 11, 17, 18, 22 and 25). The quantitative score for
each trait is the average of its contributing attributes.
Statistical
methods
The five trait scores were modelled separately for the two subsets of guises.16 That is, for
each trait, the male and female speaking Spanish and dialectal Galician were compared,
and the male and female speaking Spanish and standard Galician were compared. Each
trait score was modelled with linear regression with fixed effects of speaker gender,
speaker language, student language, student gender and student location. A random
effect was included for individual students to account for possible dependence on trait
scores obtained from the same student (Johnson 2008). The assumption of normality of
the residuals was assessed graphically with box plots and numerically with the
Kolmogorov Smirnov goodness-of-fit test (Gibbons 1971). All data manipulations
and statistical analyses were carried out using Stata version 11.2 MP.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Participants (n 288) ranged in age between 16 and 20 years, and attended public
bilingual programmes in an urban (n 129) and a rural (n 159) location. Fifty-one
per cent of the participants were female (n 146) and 49% were male (n 142). In
terms of habitual language (Figure 1), 12% of the respondents in the rural high
school reported using only Galician, as opposed to 71% who reported using both
Galician and Spanish. In the urban high school, the percentage of bilinguals was
lower (62%) but the percentage of only-Spanish users was substantially higher than
that in the rural location (38% vs. 17%). Additionally, no students from the urban
location reported using only Galician.
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
1
1
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journal
et of
al.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
Figure 1.
11
Participants by location and habitual language.
In both locations, the percentage of bilingual speakers was higher among males,
while the percentage of Spanish-only users was significantly higher among females
(Table 2). The percentage of Galician-only users was higher among males, although
this group was small (n 19) in comparison with the other two.
Statistical analysis
Participant language
No statistically significant differences were found when
comparing participants’ scores according to their habitual
language (for all four traits, p-values were
0.05 for F-test of
student language indicators when comparing Spanish vs. standard Galician and
Spanish vs. non-standard Galician). In other words, the language or languages
participants use every day did not affect how they perceived the speakers.
Spanish and non-standard Galician guises
Progressiveness. No statistically significant differences were found between each
speaker’s guises for the progressiveness trait (all p-values were
0.05 when
comparing Spanish vs. non-standard Galician; see Table 3). The same is true for
the female speaker. Urban and rural listeners found both speakers equally
Table 2.
Participants by location, gender and habitual language.
Urban high school (N
Male
Galician only
Spanish only
Bilingual
Total
0
17
31
48
0%
35.4%
64.6%
100%
129)
Rural high school (N
Female
0
32
49
81
0%
39.5%
60.5%
100%
Male
12
6
46
64
18.8%
9.4%
71.9%
100%
159)
Female
7
21
67
95
7.4%
22.1%
70.5%
100%
10
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journaletofal.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
Table 3.
Mean trait scores for Spanish vs. non-standard Galician speakers.
Trait
Progressiveness
Capability
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
10
Personal appeal
Social correctness
Listeners’
gender
Speakers’
gender
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
Malec,d
Female
Femalea,b,c,d
Malec,d
Maled
Femalea,b,c,d
Femalec,d
Male
Malea,b,c,d
Femalea,b
Femalea,b,c,d
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Urban high school
Non-stand
Spanish
Galician
2.43
2.71
2.42
2.68
2.53
3.35
2.56
3.32
2.40
2.89
2.69
2.87
2.53
1.36
2.44
1.17
2.39
2.66
2.36
2.61
2.57
3.23
2.43
3.03
2.26
2.98
2.46
2.87
2.70
1.62
2.87
1.69
Rural high school
Non-stand
Spanish
Galician
2.48
2.75
2.54
2.79
2.42
2.97
2.59
3.09
2.16
2.67
2.36
2.55
2.68
1.91
2.29
1.42
2.38
2.64
2.42
2.65
2.49
2.89
2.48
2.82
1.97
2.70
2.06
2.49
2.86
2.18
2.73
1.95
a
Spanish and non-standard Galician different at the 5% level for urban adolescents (comparing adjacent
cells across row in same location).
b
Spanish and non-standard Galician different at the 5% level for rural adolescents (comparing adjacent
cells across row in same location).
c
Urban and rural adolescents give different trait scores to Spanish speakers at the 5% level (comparing
cells across row in Spanish column).
d
Urban and rural adolescents give different trait scores to non-standard Galician speakers at the 5% level
(comparing cells across row in non-standard Galician column).
progressive when speaking either linguistic variety. All listeners found the female
speaker to be more progressive than the male speaker when speaking either linguistic
variety.
Capability. Rural and urban female listeners found the female speaker more capable
when speaking Spanish. The female speaker was found more capable than the male
in both guises, with the urban high school showing the largest effect size. Urban
listeners found the female speaker more capable than rural listeners in either guise.
Personal appeal. Urban and rural female listeners perceived the male speaker more
personally appealing when speaking Spanish than when speaking non-standard
Galician. Rural males found the male speaker to be more personally appealing when
he spoke Spanish. The female speaker was perceived more personally appealing than
the male in either guise, with male participants showing the largest effect size. Urban
listeners gave higher personal appeal scores than rural listeners to both speakers
when speaking non-standard Galician. Female urban listeners gave higher personal
appeal scores than female rural listeners when both speakers were speaking Spanish,
although this difference was not found for male listeners.
Social correctness. Male and female participants found the female speaker less
socially correct when speaking Spanish, while only female participants perceived the
male speaker as less socially correct when using Spanish. However, this difference did
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
11
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journaletofal.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
Figure 2.
11
Spanish vs. non-standard Galician: social correctness trait.
not reach significance at the 5% level for males listening to a male speaker.
Furthermore, the female speaker was found less socially correct than the male
speaker when speaking either Spanish or non-standard Galician, with urban
participants showing the largest effect size (Figure 2). Urban listeners found the
female speaker less socially correct than rural listeners in either guise.
Spanish and standard Galician guises
Progressiveness. No statistically significant differences were found between each
speaker’s guises for the progressiveness trait (all p-values were
0.05 when
comparing Spanish vs. standard Galician; see Table 4). In other words, the male
speaker was found to be equally progressive when speaking Spanish as when
speaking standard Galician by all listeners, regardless of their gender or location.
The same is true for the female speaker. All participants except for rural males, who
found both speakers equally progressive, found the female speaker more progressive
than the male speaker in either linguistic variety. Urban and rural listeners found
both speakers equally progressive when speaking either linguistic variety.
Capability. All participants found the male speaker more capable when speaking
standard Galician than when speaking Spanish. Urban males found the female
speaker more capable when speaking standard Galician, but this difference did not
reach significance at the 5% level for urban females and rural participants. The
female speaker was found to be more capable than the male in both guises. Urban
females found the male speaker more capable when speaking standard Galician than
rural females. Urban males found the female speaker more capable when speaking
12
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journaletofal.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
Table 4.
Mean trait scores for Spanish vs. standard Galician speakers.
Urban high school
Trait
Progressiveness
Capability
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
12
Personal appeal
Social correctness
Rural high school
Listeners’
gender
Speakers’
gender
Spanish
Standard
Galician
Span
Standard
Galician
Male
Male
Female
Female
Malea,b
Malea,d
Femalea,b,d
Female d
Male
Maleb
Femalec
Femalea,b,c
Malea
Malea,c,d
Femalea,c
Femaleb,c,d
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
2.29
2.50
2.18
2.61
1.98
3.19
2.28
3.40
1.96
2.5
2.26
2.64
2.99
1.67
2.56
1.28
2.27
2.52
2.17
2.64
2.61
3.47
2.78
3.54
1.94
2.66
2.23
2.79
2.55
1.44
2.30
1.22
2.50*
2.59*
2.35
2.66
2.03
2.97
2.35
3.19
1.94
2.47
2.01
2.39
2.79
1.95
2.32
1.52
2.43*
2.56*
2.28
2.64
2.39
2.98
2.57
3.06
1.97
2.68
2.03
2.59
2.74
2.10
2.45
1.84
a
Spanish and standard Galician different at the 5% level for urban adolescents (comparing adjacent cells
across row in same location).
b
Spanish and standard Galician different at the 5% level for rural adolescents (comparing adjacent cells
across row in same location).
c
Urban and rural adolescents give different trait scores to Spanish speakers at the 5% level (comparing
cells across row in Spanish column).
d
Urban and rural adolescents give different trait scores to standard Galician speakers at the 5% level
(comparing cells across row in standard Galician column).
*All differences by speaker gender are significant except for rural male listeners.
standard Galician than rural males. Urban and rural male listeners found the male
speaker equally capable when speaking either linguistic variety.
Personal appeal. Female participants found the female speaker more personally
appealing when speaking standard Galician than when speaking Spanish, but this
difference did not reach significance at the 5% level for male participants. The male
speaker was found to be equally appealing when speaking either linguistic variety.
The female speaker was found to be more personally appealing than the male when
speaking Spanish and standard Galician. Urban females found the male speaker
more personally appealing when speaking Spanish than rural females. Urban females
also found the female speaker more personally appealing in either linguistic variety
than their rural counterparts.
Social correctness. Urban participants found the male speaker more socially correct
when speaking Spanish than when speaking standard Galician. Urban males found
the female speaker more socially correct when speaking Spanish, but this difference
did not reach significance at the 5% level for female participants. The female speaker
was found to be less socially correct than the male speaker when speaking either
Spanish or standard Galician, with urban participants showing the largest effect size
(Figure 3).
Rural participants found both speakers equally socially correct when
speaking either linguistic variety. Rural participants found the female speaker
more socially
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
13
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journaletofal.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
Figure 3.
13
Spanish vs. standard Galician: social correctness.
correct than urban participants in either linguistic variety. Urban female participants
found the male speaker more socially correct than their urban counterparts in either
linguistic variety.
Discussion
Galicia’s current sociolinguistic landscape, with the number of bilingual adolescents
outnumbering the Galician- and Spanish-only users, is accurately represented in the
high schools surveyed in our study. This widespread bilingualism suggests that the
regional government has succeeded in achieving its goal of encouraging the learning
of Spanish and (standard) Galician, a concept introduced through the diverse
mechanisms of language planning and, more specifically, through textbooks and the
educational system (Domı́nguez-Seco 1995). However, as Gonzá lez Gonzá lez et al.
(2007) note, the advance of bilingualism is detrimental to the vitality of the
autochthonous language, a trend we have also observed, as only 12% of adolescents
in the rural high school reportedly speak only Galician. Additionally, our data show
a higher percentage of monolingual Spanish speakers in the urban high school
(38%), corroborating previous studies that point to an increase of Spanish-only users
in urban and semi-urban locations (Ferná ndez 1993; Rodrı́guez Neira 2002).
Just as in Gonzá lez Gonzá lez et al.’s (2003) matched-guise experiment, we found
that participants’ habitual language did not determine their attitudes. However, in
our research, the urban/rural variable did prove significant. Standard Galician was
rated higher in the urban high school than in the rural school, in spite of rural
participants receiving more exposure to this variety through their school curricula
(as mentioned earlier, 70% of their content courses were being taught in standard
Galician vs. 30% in the urban school). Nevertheless, while non-standard Galician is
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
14
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journaletofal.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
14
associated with and used in rural areas, standard Galician has become the linguistic
variety of choice for the urban and more educated new speakers of Galician
(Bouzada Ferná ndez 2003). These characteristics associated with new speakers of
Galician, along with the institutional uses of standard Galician, as well as its
presence in both the media and in the culture, may help explain why standard
Galician guises are rated as progressive as Spanish guises.
We have previously demonstrated that adolescents consider standard Galician to
be circumscribed to an elite group of politicians and intellectuals (LoureiroRodrı́guez 2008). Taking into account that this elite is mostly composed of males,
it is understandable that the male speaker was found more capable when speaking
standard Galician than when speaking Spanish. It should also be noted that
speaking standard Galician implies a high degree of bilingualism, as it is a schoolacquired bilingualism, which accounts for its association with higher capability.
However, urban adolescents found speakers more socially correct when speaking
Spanish than when speaking standard Galician, which shows that Spanish is still
more socially valued in the cities.
Our findings support recent research claiming that attitudes towards Galician
among the younger generations may not be as favourable as the Sociolinguistic Maps
of Galicia had suggested (Gonzá lez Gonzá lez et al. 2003; Iglesias Á lvarez 2003;
O’Rourke 2011). While it is true that both speakers were found equally progressive
when speaking Spanish and non-standard Galician, suggesting that the traditional
association between non-standard Galician and lack of sophistication may be
starting to fade away, certain stigmas towards the vernacular continue to exist. For
instance, female participants perceived the male speaker more personally appealing
when speaking Spanish than when speaking non-standard Galician, and male
participants agreed to a lesser extent. This difference in ratings could be explained by
the fact that women generally have more positive attitudes towards standard varieties
and use more standard forms than men to signal their social status linguistically
(Milroy 1987; Trudgill 1972). Interestingly, though, the female speaker was found to
be more socially correct when using non-standard Galician than when using Spanish
by all participants, as was the male speaker by female participants, which suggests
that the Galician pitch pattern in Spanish is still stigmatised. In other words, having a
noticeable Galician ‘accent’, although acceptable and expected when speaking
Galician (Loureiro-Rodrı́guez 2008), is socially disapproved of when speaking
Spanish, especially for women. This apparent trend of assessing women’s linguistic
behaviour more severely than men’s is supported by Gonzá lez Gonzá lez et al. (2003),
who found that women speaking Spanish or Galician with a Galician accent were
also given lower ratings.
Finally, we have found a striking contradiction regarding how adolescents
perceive females. Our analysis reveals that, regardless of the linguistic variety they are
speaking, women are perceived as more capable and personally appealing than men.
We could argue that the higher ratings for the personal appeal trait might be due to
the fact that the characteristics associated with it (i.e. being kind, attractive, etc.) have
traditionally been more highly valued or expected in women than in men. As for
adolescents’ perception of women as being more capable, it may be attributable to
the greater presence of women in post-secondary education,17 as well as their entry
into the workplace and, in particular, into high-prestige professions historically only
accessible to men, in the past decades. The contradiction resides in that, despite
receiving higher ratings than men for the aforementioned traits, women were
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
15
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journaletofal.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
15
considered less socially correct by all raters. We speculate that these results indicate a
covert disapproval of Galician women breaking traditional gender roles, moving
away from spaces traditionally allocated to females.
We are aware that the dynamics of each Galician community are different, and
that the use of the vernacular language is uneven across this region, making our
findings not easy to extrapolate to all Galician adolescents. We also recognise that,
since we collected our data in 2006, Galicia has undergone substantial political and
educational transformations, making language attitudes more liable to change. For
all these reasons, and the fact that ours is a small-scale study focusing on a specific
age group and location, we do not claim far-reaching conclusions based on these
findings. That being said, our study offers a valuable account of the attitudes towards
standard Galician, non-standard Galician and Spanish among this particular
subgroup and area, and our sample is large enough to support recent research
findings about the status of Galician among the youth.
We have shown that adolescents’ location and gender, as well as the speaker’s
gender, play a decisive role in language attitudes. We have also provided evidence of
new gender-related trends in regard to standard and non-standard Galician, which
indicates that future attitudinal research needs to address gender differences as well
as distinguish between both linguistic varieties. Furthermore, our results have
demonstrated that, while speaking non-standard Galician is held in high regard, it
has yet to achieve the social acceptance that Spanish enjoys in urban areas. Finally,
our findings indicate that certain stigmas are still attached to speaking non-standard
Galician and to having a Galician accent when speaking Spanish, which may help
understand the current loss of speakers of Galician to Spanish among adolescents.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Irene Moyna, Virgina Fajt, Frances Getwick, Jill Zarestky, and
Georgianne Moore for their extensive feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. We are also very
grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments and valuable observations.
Of course, all errors are our own.
Notes
1. For a typology of minority language situations, see Edwards (1997, 2010).
2. http://www.xunta.es/linguagalega/noticias/2148
3. For a comprehensive sociolinguistic history of Galician, see Mariñ o Paz (1998),
Rodrı́guez (1991) and Beswick (2007).
4. Mariñ o Paz (1998) and Monteagudo Romero (1999) point out that a GalicianPortuguese koiné was spoken in the west of the Iberian Peninsula up until the thirteenth
century.
5. http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/
6. http://galego.org/lexislacion/xbasica/3-83titI.html
7. The Real Academia Galega ‘Galician Royal Academy’ and the Instituto da Lingua Galega
‘Galician Language Institute’ collaborate in the standardisation and publication of the
standard variety.
8. For further information regarding standardisation in Galicia, see Regueira (1999, 2004)
and Beswick (2007).
9. http://www.xunta.es/linguagalega/arquivos/Ref.ED_5.pdf
10. http://escolasinfantis.net/
11. http://www.xunta.es/hemeroteca/-/nova/001206/feij%C3%B3o-avanza-novo-modelo-educativo-trilingue-que-blinda-equilibrio-entre-linguas
16
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
17.
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journaletofal.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
16
http://www.edu.xunta.es/web/node/939
The Galician vocalic system comprises seven oral vowel phonemes in tonic and pretonic
position (/o/, / /, /a/, / /, /e/, /i/, and /u/), while Spanish comprises five (/o/, /a/, /e/, /i/, and
/u/).
For an account of the differences between standard and non-standard varieties of
Galician, see Beswick (2007, 131 7) and Regueira (1999, 2004).
Participants were given the option to fill out a standard Galician and a Spanish version
of the rating sheet.
The grouping was done a priori and not based on responses, thus no further statistical
testing was needed.
Ministerio de Educació n, Cultura y Deporte: http://www.educacion.gob.es
References
Appel, R., and P. Muysken. 1987. Language contact and bilingualism. London: Edward
Arnold.
Baker, C. 1992. Attitudes and language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Beswick, J. 2007. Regional nationalism in Spain: Language use and ethnic identity in Galicia
linguistic diversity and language rights. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bohner, G., and M. Wanke. 2002. Attitudes and attitude change. Hove: Psychology Press.
Bouzada Ferná ndez, X.M. 2003. Change of values and the future of the Galician language.
Estudios de Sociolingüı́stica 3, no. 2: 321 41.
Domı́nguez-Seco, L. 1995. Na construçã o do galego como lı́ngua legı́tima. Uma aná lise dos
textos de lı́ngua do bacharelato. Agália 34, no. 1993: 147 66.
Edwards, J. 1982. Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers. In
Attitudes towards language variation: Social and applied contexts, ed. R. Bouchard and H.
Giles, 20 33. London: E. Arnold.
Edwards, J. 1994. Multilingualism. London and New York: Routledge.
Edwards, J. 1997. Language minorities and language maintenance. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 17: 30 42.
Edwards, J. 2010. Minority languages and group identity: Cases and categories. Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Fasold, R. 1984. The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ferná ndez, M.A. 1993. La lengua maternal en los espacios urbanos gallegos. Plurilinguismes
6: 27 53.
Ferná ndez Paz, A., A. Lorenzo Suá rez, and F. Ramallo. 2008. A planificación lingüı́stica nos
centros educativos [Language planning in schools]. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de
Galicia.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Freixeiro Mato, X.R. 1997. Lingua galega: normalidade e conflicto [The Galician language:
Standardisation and conflict]. A Coruñ a: Laiovento.
Garcı́a Negro, M.P. 1991. O galego e as leis: unha aproximació n sociolingüı́stica [Galician and
the law: A sociolinguistic assessment]. Pontevedra: do Cumio.
Garrett, P. 2010. Attitudes to language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbons, J.D. 1971. Nonparametric statistical inference. New York: McGraw Hill.
Gonzá lez Gonzá lez, M., M. Ferná ndez Rodrı́guez, M.A. Rodrı́guez Neira, L. Domı́nguezSeco, M. Ferná ndez Ferreiro, F. Ferná ndez Ramallo, M. Recalde Ferná ndez, and G. Rei
Doval. 1994. Lingua Inicial e Competencia Lingüı́stica en Galicia. Compendio do I Volume
do Mapa Sociolingüı́stico de Galicia [Mother tongue and linguistic competence in Galicia.
A compendium of the first volume of the sociolinguistic map of Galicia]. A Coruñ a: Real
Academia Galega.
Gonzá lez Gonzá lez, M., M. Ferná ndez Rodrı́guez, M.A. Rodrı́guez Neira, L. Domı́nguezSeco, M. Ferná ndez Ferreiro, F. Ferná ndez Ramallo, M. Recalde Ferná ndez, and G. Rei
Doval. 1995. Usos Lingüı́sticos en Galicia. Compendio do II Volume do Mapa Sociolingüı́stico de Galicia [Linguistic uses in Galicia. A compendium of the second volume of
the sociolinguistic map of Galicia]. A Coruñ a: Real Academia Galega.
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
17
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journaletofal.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
17
Gonzá lez Gonzá lez, M., M. Ferná ndez Rodrı́guez, M.A. Rodrı́guez Neira, L. Domı́nguezSeco, M. Ferná ndez Ferreiro, F. Ferná ndez Ramallo, M. Recalde Ferná ndez, and G. Rei
Doval. 1996. Actitudes Lingüı́sticas en Galicia. Compendio do III Volume do Mapa
Sociolingüı́stico de Galicia [Linguistic attitudes in Galicia. A compendium of the third
volume of the sociolinguistic map of Galicia]. A Coruñ a: Real Academia Galega.
Gonzá lez Gonzá lez, M., M. Rodrı́guez Neira, A. Dosil Maceira, J. Pérez Vilariñ o, E. Real
Deus, H. Casares Berg, A. Ferná ndez Salgado, X. Loredo Gutiérrez, A. Pereiro Rozas,
and I. Suá rez Ferná ndez. 2003. O galego segundo a mocidade [Galician according to the
youth]. A Coruñ a: Real Academia Galega, Seminario de Sociolingü ı́stica.
Gonzá lez Gonzá lez, M., M. Rodrı́guez Neira, A. Ferná ndez Salgado, X. Loredo Gutiérrez,
and I. Suá rez Ferná ndez. 2007. Mapa sociolingüı́stico de Galicia 2004. Vol 1: Lingua inicial
e competencia en Galicia [2004 sociolinguistic map of Galicia. Volume 1: Mother tongue
and linguistic competence in Galicia]. A Coruñ a: Real Academia Galega, Seminario de
sociolingü ı́stica.
Haddock, G., and Maio, G.R., eds. 2004. Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of
attitudes. Hove: Psychology Press.
Herrero-Valeiro, M. 2003. The discourse of language in Galiza: Normalisation, diglossia, and
conflict. Estudios de Sociolingüı́stica 4, no. 1: 289 320.
Hoare, R. 2001. An integrative approach to language attitudes and identity in Brittany.
Journal of Sociolinguistics 5, no. 1: 73 84.
Iglesias Á lvarez, A. 2003. Falar galego: ‘no veo por qué’: aproximació n cualitativa á situació n
sociolingüı́stica de Galicia [Speaking Galician: ‘I don’t see why’. A qualitative assessment
of the sociolinguistic situation of Galicia]. 2nd ed. Vigo: Edició ns Xerais de Galicia.
Ihemere, K.U. 2006. An integrated approach to the study of language attitudes and change in
Nigeria: The case of the Ikwerre of Port Harcourt City. In 36th annual conference on
African Linguistics, ed. O.F. Arasanyin and M.A. Pemberton, 194 207. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Johnson, K. 2008. Quantitative methods in linguistics. Boston, MA: Blackwell.
Kabatek, J. 2000. Os falantes como lingüistas: tradició n, innovación e interferencias no galego
actual [Speakers as linguists: Tradition, innovation and interference in contemporary
Galician]. Vigo: Xerais.
Labov, W. 1966. The social significance of speech in New York City. Washington, DC: Center
for Applied Lingusitics.
Labrañ a, S. 1999. Prexuı́zos lingü ı́sticos e identificació n social. In Cinguidos por unha arela
común. Homenaxe ó profesor Xesús Alonso Montero [Linguistic prejudice and social
identification]. Vol. 1, ed. R. Alvarez and D. Vilavedra, 519 32. Santiago de Compostela:
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
Lambert, W., R. Hodgson, R. Gardner, and S. Fillenbaum. 1960. Evaluational reactions to
spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60: 44 51.
Lorenzo Suá rez, A.M. 2009. A situació n actual da lingua galega: unha ollada desde a
sociolingü ı́stica e a polı́tica lingüı́stica. Galicia 21, no. A: 20 39.
Loureiro-Rodrı́guez, V. 2008. Conflicting values at conflicting ages. Linguistic ideologies in
Galician adolescents. In Bilingualism and identity: Spanish at the crossroads with other
languages, ed. M. Niñ o-Murcia and J. Rothman, 63 86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mar-Molinero, C. 2000. The politics of language in the Spanish-speaking world. London: Routledge.
Mariñ o Paz, R. 1998. Historia da lingua galega [History of the Galician language]. Santiago de
Compostela: Sotelo Blanco.
Milroy, L. 1987. Language and social networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Monteagudo Romero, H. 1999. Historia social da lingua galega. Idioma, sociedade e cultura a
través do tempo [The social history of Galician. Language, society and culture across the
ages]. Vigo: Galaxia.
Moreno, M. 2010. El trilingü ismo de Feijóo se atasca [Feijó o’s multilingualism gets stuck]. A
Coruñ a: Pú blico.es. http://www.publico.es/espana/286003/el-trilinguismo-de-feijoo-seatasca (accessed June 15, 2012).
O’Rourke, B. 2006. Language contact between Galician and Spanish: Conflict or harmony?
Young people’s linguistic attitudes in contemporary Galicia. In Globalization and language
in the spanish-speaking world. Macro and micro perspectives, ed. C. Mar-Molinero and M.
Stewart, 178 96. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Downloaded by [Veronica Loureiro-Rodriguez] at 12:34 16 October 2012
18
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journaletofal.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
18
O’Rourke, B. 2011. Galician and Irish in the European context: Attitudes towards weak and
strong minority languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
O’Rourke, B., and F. Ramallo. 2011. The native-non-native dichotomy in minority language
contexts: Comparisons between Irish and Galician. Language Problems & Language
Planning 35, no. 2: 139 59.
Pérez Vidal, C. 1998. Language teacher training and bilingual education in Spain. ELC report on
teacher training for bilingual education. Jyvä skylä : University of Jyvä skylä .
Pieras-Guasp, F. 2002. Direct vs. indirect attitude measurement and the planning of Catalan in
Mallorca. Language Problems & Language Planning 26, no. 1: 51 68.
Ramallo, F. 2007. Sociolinguistics of Spanish in Galicia. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language no. 184: 21 36.
Recalde, M. 2002. The Castilianist theory of the origin of the ‘gheada’ revisited. Estudios de
Sociolingüı́stica 3, no. 2 and 4, no. 1: 43 74.
Regueira, X.L. 1999. Está ndar oral e variació n social da lingua galega. In Cinguidos por unha
arela común: homenaxe ó profesor Xesús Alonso Montero [The oral standard and social
variation of the Galician language], ed. R. Álvarez and D. Vilavedra, 855 75. Santiago de
Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
Regueira, X.L. 2004. Está ndar oral [The oral standard]. In Norma Lingüı́stica e Variació n.
Unha Perspectiva desde o Idioma Galego [Linguistic norm and variation: A Galician
language perspective], ed. R. Álvarez and H. Monteagudo, 69 96. Santiago de
Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega/Instituto da Lingua Galega.
Rodrı́guez, F. 1991. Conflicto Lingüı́stico e Ideoloxı́a na Galiza [Linguistic conflict and
ideology in Galicia]. Santiago de Compostela: Laiovento.
Rodrı́guez Neira, M.A. 2002. Language shift in Galicia from a sociolinguistic viewpoint.
Estudios de Sociolingüı́stica 3, no. 2: 75 112.
Thomas, J.A. 2005. La divergencia entre actitudes y conducta lingüı́sticas: la gheada gallega y
la formació n de un registro culto oral. In Selected proceedings of the second workshop on
Spanish sociolinguistics, ed. L. Sayahi and M. Westmoreland, 54 66. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Trudgill, P. 1972. Sex, covert prestige, and linguistic change in the urban British English of
Norwich. Language in Society 1: 179 95.
Woolard, K.A. 1989. Double talk. Bilingualism and the politics of ethnicity in Catalonia.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
19
View publication stats
V. Loureiro-Rodriguez
Journaletofal.Multilingual and Multicultural Development
19