17 Linguistic diversity in Spain

In: Ayres-Bennett, Wendy & Carruthers, Janice (ed.) (2018), Manual of Romance Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Fernando Ramallo

17 Linguistic diversity in Spain Abstract: This chapter uses a sociolinguistic and glottopolitical approach to examine the Romance languages in Spain. The theoretical framework positions language conflict as an analytical instrument, to the extent that the current language distribution is considered not to be a result of consensus but one of control by authority that gives way to a four-tier linguistic hierarchy: official language, co-official languages, protected languages and unprotected languages. A critical evaluation of the situation for each language in the different territories in which they are spoken is presented, and the chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the emergence of the minority language “new speaker”, a social (and political) subject who, with their praxis, is responsible for the future of some of these languages.

Keywords: minority languages, language policy, European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, new speakers, Spain

1 Introduction Spain is a plurinational and plurilingual state with certain features that make it unique within the European context. Besides Spanish, the only official language in all of territorial Spain, there is a large group of languages, the presence of which, in most cases, precedes the current configuration of the Spanish state. These are languages that have undergone a process of linguistic minoritization as a result of the historical changes that have taken place within the Iberian Peninsula, as well as Northern Africa, over many centuries. The different languages are as follows (in alphabetical order):1 Aragonese, Aranese, Astur-Leonese, Basque, Ceutan Arabic (Darija), Catalan (Valencian), Galician, Portuguese and Tamazight. Along with these territorialized languages, we must add the Spanish and Catalan sign languages and the Romani Caló, which was spoken at the beginning of the fifteenth century by the Romani community and is currently undergoing a process of revitalization.2

1 Like almost everything that refers to the political dimension of languages, the glottonyms used in this chapter are not exempt from controversy. In any case, the fact that a language has multiple autoglottonyms may be due to many different reasons, although in general, it is wise not simply to create languages just because there are different names for dialectal varieties spoken in different territories. In the case of Catalan in the Valencian Country and Murcia, I use both Catalan and Valencian interchangeably. 2 The ethnolect spoken mostly by the Romani population in present-day Spain is a mixed variety paraRomani with phonological and grammatical structures from Spanish (Spanish Caló), Catalan (Catalan https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365955-018

Linguistic diversity in Spain

463

Although the diversity of Spain’s minority languages is similar to that of other European states, there are two features which together help to characterize its linguistic situation: the total number of speakers of these languages, and the fact that they are not major languages in neighbouring states. Some languages boast a total number of speakers much higher than the average for European minority languages (and even majority languages in some cases), such as Catalan, Galician and Basque. On the other hand, with the exception of Portuguese and Ceutan Arabic, none of the other minority languages is a majority language in another state as is frequently the case in Central and Eastern Europe, with the exception of Catalan in Andorra, where it is the only official language. From a legal standpoint, the treatment given to linguistic diversity as a whole, and particularly to minority languages, is uneven. While some of these languages hold official status in their corresponding territories, others, including the most vulnerable, lack even the slightest protection and their use is becoming increasingly marginalized. In this chapter I will present a very general panorama of the sociolinguistic situation for the Romance languages spoken in Spain.3

2 Romance languages in Spain 2.1 Historical context The gradual expansion and evolution of Vulgar Latin throughout the Iberian Peninsula gave way to the type of linguistic diversity that can be seen in other territories once under Roman control. The contact between Latin and other local vernaculars was favourable for the flourishing, consolidation and, in some cases, the expansion of the following Romance languages in Spain (in alphabetical order): Aragonese, Aranese, Astur-Leonese, Catalan, Galician and Spanish. The fact that Portuguese is spoken in some towns in Extremadura and Castile and Leon can be explained by the continual border tensions between the neighbouring states. A sociolinguistic analysis of the Romance languages currently spoken in Spain must begin with an interpretation of the different political processes that empowered certain languages to the detriment of others (Andreose/Renzi 2013; Klump/Kramer/ Willems 2014; Vàrvaro 2013). Such processes stretch from the Arab conquest in the

Caló) or Basque (Errumantxela), and with numerous lexical elements and some morphological features from Romani (see Gamella et al. 2011; Krinková 2015). 3 This chapter does not aim to provide a linguistic description of the Iberian Romance languages, such as the linguistic consequences of the contact between languages, diatopic variation or the standardization process. On these questions, see, for example, Frías Conde (2007), Gargallo Gil/Bastardas (2007) and d’Andrés Díaz (2013). For a historical perspective on the standardization of Romance languages, see Metzeltin (2004). For a sociolinguistic introduction to the minority Romance languages, see Fernández Rei/Santamarina Fernández (1999).

464

Fernando Ramallo

eighth century all the way to the latter half of the twentieth century with the fall of the Franco dictatorship. Throughout this long period, the success of the different Romance languages was quite uneven. After an initial southward expansion by AsturLeonese, Aragonese, Spanish, Catalan and Galician(-Portuguese) there was a progressive strengthening of Spanish as the language of power which began at the end of the Middle Ages and has lasted up to the present day (Kabatek 2013).4 There have been periods of resistance to this hegemony that have attempted to empower the other Romance languages, especially Catalan and Galician, with uneven results. In any case, the predominance of Spanish over the other languages led to strong discrimination against the groups with a first language other than Spanish, a discrimination which has continued to the present day (Medina/Del Valle/Monteagudo 2013). There thus came a point when only Spanish remained ideologically connected to ideas of modernity, progress and reason, forcing the other languages to remain in the realm of traditions and emotions; in other words, considered informal and only useful within the family context. In fact, the Romance languages other than Spanish – some of which had even been the languages of kingdoms, boasting a prominent literary tradition and social and cultural prestige with standardized usage in their respective societies (Vàrvaro 2013) – began to decline once excluded from written use (sixteenth and seventeenth centuries), only to partially recover their status when the written language was revived in the nineteenth century, a period generally referred to as the Renaissance (Sanson 2013; ↗16 Language policies in the Romance-speaking countries of Europe). It is important to bear in mind that the fact that these languages were relegated to oral use did not mean a loss in terms of vitality. In fact, most Romance languages had become the most spoken languages in their respective territories by the beginning of the twentieth century, although transformations from that point onward led to their rapid decline. With the specific goal of stopping that decline, the most relevant legal changes occurred during the Second Republic (1931–1939, cf. Monteagudo 2013) and after 1975 when the situation for the minority languages began to change, although not always in a satisfactory or favourable way. It is important to note that the Spanish Constitution of 1978, and the subsequent creation of the Autonomous Communities within Spain, could have been a good opportunity for the minority languages to recover their status. However, the Constitution contributed to the minoritization of these languages, and as a result Spanish remains in a very privileged position to the extent that it is the only language that all Spaniards are required to know (Vernet i Llobet 2007). Other languages received their status through the recognition mandated at the regional level, but not all were as lucky. Languages such as Astur-Leonese in Asturias and Castile and Leon, Aragonese 4 Furthermore, I should mention the disappearance of Mozarabic, the Romance language spoken by non-Muslims and converts in the area of the peninsula under Muslim control. Its extinction was not so much due to the pressure from Muslim authority in Al-Andalus as it was to the linguistic shift that occurred thanks to the expansion of Spanish once the Reconquista began (Sayahi 2014, 210).


465

in Aragon, Catalan in Aragon and Murcia, Galician in Asturias, Castile and Leon and Extremadura, and Portuguese in Castile and Leon and Extremadura never earned coofficial status.5 It should not, however, be forgotten that this co-official status as a result of the Constitution has inevitably led to the question of territoriality, which, among other things, has caused the issue of linguistic diversity to be redirected to the territories with more than one language. This has allowed the Spanish government to downplay its responsibility with respect to a nation-wide language policy aimed at the strategic promotion of minority languages within the country, despite the commitments it made upon ratifying the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) in 2001. On the other hand, the principle of territoriality is not uniform in its application, as it depends on whether the language in question is Spanish (in which case speakers’ rights apply to the entire State territory) or one of the co-official languages (in which case speakers’ rights are limited to their territories). Thus, a Galician or Catalan speaker, despite the right to freely choose his or her language, cannot expect public institutions to use what they consider to be their own language outside of the territory in which these languages have achieved co-official status (Caamaño 2014, 247).

2.2 Sociolinguistic classification of the languages As a result of historical events and the political decisions accompanying them, the current sociolinguistic situation for the Romance languages spoken in Spain is one of inequality. In order to carry out a comparative analysis of each language, I have created the sociolinguistic status6 variable which takes into account the following four factors: intergenerational transmission; legal protection and recognition; level of institutionalization (the language’s presence in areas such as education, the media, public services and the legal system); and social prestige, which is understood as the value of a language in relation to social mobility (Williams 2005). I have assigned one of the following values to each criterion: zero (0), very low (1), low (2), intermediate (3), high (4) and very high (5).7 The results for each language and context are shown in Table 1:

5 Amongst the languages of non-Roman origin, Basque is an official language in the Basque Country and in part of Navarre. Neither Ceutan Arabic in Ceuta nor Tamazight in Melilla has official status. 6 This variable was inspired by the scales proposed in Euromosaic (see Nelde/Strubell/Williams 1996), the pioneer study on minority linguistic groups that served as the basis for some of the linguistic policies carried out by the EU in the last twenty years. 7 I am aware of the risk of simplification that results from classifications combining quantitative and qualitative data from different sources. However, it should be noted that I chose, whenever possible, to use variables employed in sources with official data, such as the 4th Report on Spain’s compliance with the ECRML (Council of Europe) adopted by the Committee of Experts in March 2015 (Committee of Experts 2015). See Table 2.

466

Fernando Ramallo

Table 1: Sociolinguistic status of each of the Romance languages in Spain

CRITERIA IntergeneraLegal protectional transmis- tion and sion recognition

Level of institutionalization

Social prestige

Sociolinguistic status

Spanish

5

5

5

5

20

Catalan (Catalonia)

4

4

4

3

15

Catalan (Balearic Islands)

4

4

3

3

14

Catalan (Valencia)

3

4

3

3

13

Galician (Galicia)

3

4

3

3

13

Aranese

3

4

2

2

11

Astur-Leonese (Asturias)

3

3

3

1

8

Catalan (Aragon)

4

2

1

0

7

Aragonese

3

2

1

0

6

Galician (Extremadura)

4

0

1

0

5

Galician (Asturias)

3

1

1

0

5

Galician (Castile and Leon)

3

1

1

0

5

Astur-Leonese (Cas- 1 tile and Leon)

1

1

0

3

Portuguese (Extremadura)

1

1

1

0

3

Catalan (Murcia)

3

0

0

0

3

Portuguese (Castile and Leon)

1

0

0

0

1

We can put the languages into five different groups according to their sociolinguistic status score: 1. Excellent: Spanish 2. Good: Catalan in Catalonia, the Balearic Islands and Valencia, and Galician in Galicia 3. Acceptable: Aranese in Catalonia 4. Deficient: Astur-Leonese in Asturias, Catalan in the area of Aragon that still speaks it (La Franja) and Aragonese


5. 6.

467

Very deficient: Galician in Extremadura, Asturias and Castile and Leon Negligible: Astur-Leonese in Castile and Leon, Portuguese in Extremadura and Castile and Leon, and Catalan in Murcia

At one extreme we find Spanish, the only official language in the entire State territory, and at the other extreme we find the remnants of Portuguese spoken throughout various towns in Castile and Leon, Catalan in Murcia, Portuguese in Extremadura and Astur-Leonese in Castile and Leon, all in limited situations and in urgent need of protection and promotion. On an imaginary line between these two extremes, we find all the other languages. Catalan, which is present in a substantial portion of the regions along the Mediterranean, is the most widely spoken minority language, with a high level of institutionalization in Catalonia and an intermediate level in the Valencian Country and the Balearic Islands, and an intermediate level of social prestige (Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Valencian Country). Nevertheless, Catalan is in a dire situation in eastern Aragon and, as I previously mentioned, in Murcia (specifically in the area of El Carxe), both being territories in which the amount of protection is low or non-existent. Galician in Galicia shows intermediate levels of intergenerational transmission, institutionalization and social prestige, along with a high level of legal recognition. Yet, its viability is most compromised in the western region of Castile and Leon, the western region of Asturias and in the three towns in Extremadura where a variety of Medieval Galician-Portuguese has been spoken since the Reconquista. Aranese, spoken in the Aran Valley in the Catalonian Pyrenees, is an official language in Catalonia despite only having a few thousand speakers. Due to its only recent legal recognition, challenges regarding institutionalization and social prestige still lie ahead. Astur-Leonese has a good number of speakers in Asturias, although it suffers from a lack of protection and inadequate promotion. It is worst off in certain areas of Castile and Leon where the number of speakers is very low. Aragonese is spoken in the Pyrenees valleys of Aragon and only as of 2016 have the first steps been taken towards its protection. As for the co-official languages (Catalan in Catalonia, Balearic Islands and Valencian Country; Galician in Galicia; Aranese in Catalonia), Table 2 includes some of the commitments made by Spain when it ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (see Committee of Experts 2015).

468

Fernando Ramallo

Table 2: Evaluation by the Committee of Experts of a selection of the commitments made by Spain with regards to the official languages in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

Domain

Undertaking

Catalan (Catalonia)

Catalan Valencian Galician Aranese (Balearic (Valencian (Galicia) (Catalonia) Islands) Country)

Art. 8. Education

– to make available pre- Fulfilled school, primary, secondary education in the relevant regional or minority languages

Partly fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Not fulfilled

No conclusion (pre-school) Fulfilled (primary) Not fulfilled (secondary)

– to make available tech- Fulfilled nical and vocational education in the relevant regional or minority languages

Not fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Not fulfilled

Not fulfilled

– to set up a supervisory Fulfilled body or bodies responsible for monitoring the measures taken and progress achieved in establishing or developing the teaching of regional or minority languages and for drawing up periodic reports of their findings, which will be made public

Not fulfilled

Fulfilled

Not fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Art. 9. – in criminal, civil and Partly Judicial administrative proceed- fulfilled authorities ings: to provide that the courts, at the request of one of the parties, shall conduct the proceedings in the regional or minority languages

Partly fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

No conclusion

– to make available in the Fulfilled regional or minority languages the most important national statutory texts and those relating particularly to users of these languages, unless they are otherwise provided

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Partly fulfilled


469

Table 2: (continued)

Domain

Undertaking

Catalan (Catalonia)


Art. 10. Within the administrative Partly Administra- districts of the State fulfilled tive autho- – to ensure that the rities and administrative authoripublic serties use the regional or vices minority languages

Partly fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

No conclusion

– to make available widely Partly used administrative fulfilled texts and forms for the population in the regional or minority languages or in bilingual versions

Partly fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

With regard to – Regio- Fulfilled public services nal le– to ensure that vel the regional or – State Partly minority lanlevel fulfilled guages are used in the provision of the service

Partly fulfilled

No Partly conclusion fulfilled

No conclusion

Partly fulfilled


No conclusion

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Not fulfilled

– recruitment – Regio- Fulfilled and, where nal lenecessary, vel training of the – State Partly officials and level fulfilled other public service employees required

470

Fernando Ramallo


Domain

Undertaking

Catalan (Catalonia)

Art. 11. Media

To the extent that radio Fulfilled and television carry out a public service mission: – to ensure the creation of at least one radio station and one television channel in the regional or minority languages

Fulfilled

Not fulfilled Fulfilled

No conclusion

– to encourage and/or Fulfilled facilitate the creation of at least one radio station in the regional or minority languages

Fulfilled


No conclusion

– to encourage and/or Fulfilled facilitate the creation of at least one television channel in the regional or minority languages

Fulfilled


Partly fulfilled

– to encourage and/or Fulfilled facilitate the production and distribution of audio and audiovisual works in the regional or minority languages

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

– to encourage and/or facilitate the creation and/or maintenance of at least one newspaper in the regional or minority languages

Fulfilled

No No conclusion conclusion

Fulfilled


Fulfilled

No conclusion


471


Domain

Undertaking

Catalan (Catalonia)


Art. 12. – to foster the different Fulfilled Cultural ac- means of access in other tivities and languages to works facilities produced in regional or minority languages by aiding and developing translation, dubbing, post-synchronization and subtitling activities

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

– to encourage direct Fulfilled participation by representatives of the users of a given regional or minority language in providing facilities and planning cultural activities

Fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

Fulfilled

No conclusion

– to encourage and/or Fulfilled facilitate the creation of a body or bodies responsible for collecting, keeping a copy of and presenting or publishing works produced in the regional or minority languages

Partly fulfilled

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

472

Fernando Ramallo


Domain

Undertaking

Catalan (Catalonia)


Art. 13. Economic and social life

– to include in their Fulfilled financial and banking regulations provisions which allow, by means of procedures compatible with commercial practice, the use of regional or minority languages in drawing up payment orders (cheques, drafts, etc.) or other financial documents, or, where appropriate, to ensure the implementation of such provisions

No conclusion

Not fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

No conclusion

– in the economic and social sectors directly under their control (public sector), to organize activities to promote the use of regional or minority languages

Fulfilled

No conclusion

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

No conclusion

– to ensure that social Fulfilled care facilities such as hospitals, retirement homes and hostels offer the possibility of receiving and treating in their own language persons using a regional or minority language who are in need of care on grounds of ill-health, old age or for other reasons

Partly fulfilled

Not fulfilled

Partly fulfilled

No conclusion

– to ensure by appropriate Partly means that safety fulfilled instructions are also drawn up in regional or minority languages

Fulfilled

Fulfilled

Not fulfilled

No conclusion


473

3 Languages and policy The language policies that have been implemented since the country returned to democracy have had varied results throughout different domains of the Romance languages. The relationship between language and society cannot be explained without discussing the political dimension therein and the power relations derived from it. In this section I will present a sociolinguistic description of each Romance language spoken in Spain, and in the case of the co-official languages, I will briefly refer to the four criteria that make up the sociolinguistic status variable (see § 2.2).

3.1 The situation of Spanish Spanish (also known as Castilian) is the language with the greatest number of speakers and dialectal variety, the most widespread geographically, and the most expansive outside of the peninsula (Moreno Fernández 2015). It is a language without problems in terms of intergenerational transmission; on the contrary, thanks to its prestige, it is continuously gaining more speakers whose mother tongue is a language other than Spanish. These speakers may come from immigrant communities or have been born speaking a minority language, such as Galician, Asturian, Aragonese, etc. It boasts a level of protection and promotion unrivalled by the other languages to the extent that it is the privileged language of the Spanish Constitution (1978), as article 3.1 states that “el castellano es la lengua española oficial del Estado. Todos los españoles tienen el deber de conocerla y el derecho a usarla”. In order to guarantee this duty and this right, the teaching of Spanish is mandatory throughout Spain at all educational levels. In legal terms, we would say that the personality principle, i.e. the guarantee of linguistic rights regardless of territory, applies to native speakers of Spanish. Being the predominant language with the most speakers, its level of institutionalization and social prestige is very high. It is this privileged position of one language over all others that justifies using the paradigm of language conflict (Darquennes/Mac Giolla Chríost 2015) as an analytical tool to examine the sociolinguistic situation of the Romance languages in Spain. This conflict arises whenever one group carries out measures to increase its capital in all its forms and is met with resistance from other people or groups who benefited from the previous status quo. This is the basis of inequality and social division, and it is from this perspective that we can understand how Spain’s linguistic situation is one of conflict and irresolution – indeed, it has been a cause of continuous political debate from often divergent ideological positions (Kabatek 2007; Moreno Fernández/Ramallo 2013).

474

Fernando Ramallo

It is in this way that the construction of Spanish as a “common language” has had a permanent influence over the way the other languages are valued and has led to a state of constant tension as to how linguistic diversity is managed in territories with their own languages, particularly concerning the duties and rights of the population. It is an ideology with a long history that has been maintained since its origins through offensive-expansionist nationalism designed to circumvent the linguistic and cultural diversity by means of marginalization and abatement (Senz 2011). According to López García (2009), the idea of a “common language” is the result of a historical necessity for communication between communities which speak different languages. The idea of Spanish as a koiné has garnered much criticism (see Garrido 2010; Moreno Cabrera 2011). In any case, if there is a common language, it is the result of renunciation and relinquishment, which, although generally unnoticed, has been taking place since Spanish was identified and empowered as the common language. If there has been an astonishing rise in the number of Spanish speakers in the last few centuries, it is not only a matter of reproduction, but also of production in that it is a language which actively gains speakers for whom it is not a first language. This “common language” ideology has been justified as a way of criticizing the “imposition” of the minority languages within their territories. However, this myth of imposition is a topos, an ideologeme that is supported by an idealized naturalness of the common language – that which unites, identifies and binds us together, as those who support this claim would say (cf. Narvaja de Arnoux/Del Valle 2010). For Moreno Cabrera (2008), it is a “destructive ideology” which transformed a language into the common language based on a strategy of expansion and domination (cultural, economic, symbolic), which is how the so-called international languages have expanded and continue to do so (Del Valle 2011; 2013). In contrast to this viewpoint, Moreno Fernández (2015) describes this history of the Spanish language as a “marvellous” adventure. Beyond the academic debate, this conflict is a feature of everyday life in territories that have native languages other than Spanish, to the extent that identity – and language as one of the few criteria that can be inferred objectively in its formation (Hobsbawm 1992) – emerges as a key framing symbol of imagined communities (Anderson 1983). This has given way to endless newspaper articles, civil movements and popular books from both sides (those in defence of a “common language” and those in favour of diversity); this demonstrates the contention and the inequality between social groups who speak different languages.

3.2 The situation of Catalan/Valencian Catalan is an official language in Catalonia, the Valencian Country and the Balearic Islands, but not in Aragon (La Franja) or Murcia (El Carxe). It is also spoken in Andorra as an official language, southern France (Northern Catalonia) and in Alghero


475

(Sardinia). Thus, it is spoken in four European states in an array of situations, demographics, and sociolinguistic and glottopolitical contexts. In terms of overall numbers, Catalan is one of the minority languages with the largest demography in Europe. With approximately 13 million people who understand it and 10 million able to speak it, Catalan has more speakers than languages like Finnish, Danish or Lithuanian, to name just a few examples of official languages within the EU. Thus, if we place Catalan on the majority-minority continuum based strictly on demographics (and Galician among the other Romance languages in Spain), it is an example of a medium-sized language (Boix-Fuster 2015). Around 60 % of its total numbers of speakers live in Catalonia, 29 % in the Valencian Country, and 8 % in the Balearic Islands. However, beyond demographics, the figures indicate that the language is far from being in an ideal situation. On the one hand, knowledge of the language is uneven. Thanks to its proximity to Spanish, speakers of these two languages experience few problems in terms of comprehension. However, the ability to speak Catalan varies depending on the territory. In Catalonia, 80.4 % of people aged fifteen and older are able to speak it (53 % among foreigners, Direcció General de Política Lingüística 2015); the same figure applies in the Balearic Islands (Melià 2015); that number is reduced to 51 % in the Valencian Country (Direcció General de Política Lingüística 2016). In the area of Aragon where it is still used (La Franja) but lacks adequate legal protection, 80 % are able to speak it (Sorolla 2015). The figures showing competence in the written language are significantly lower in all the Catalan-speaking territories. In order to understand these figures, we should not forget that there is large immigrant population in the Catalan-speaking countries, reaching 20 % in the Balearic Islands and 50 % throughout the different towns in the Valencian Country, with notable increases in recent decades, especially amongst those aged between 15 and 44 (Domingo i Valls 2014; Comellas 2016). The arrival of a particularly superdiverse immigrant population (Vertovec 2007) is moving the traditional sociolinguistic order in an uncertain direction. On the one hand, it is clear that it enriches the linguistic situation. According to data from Grup d’Estudi de Llengües Amenaçades, there are over 300 languages in Catalonia (GELA 2016). On the other hand, the praxis of the allophone community with respect to the languages of those taken in is quite varied, which includes new speakers of Catalan and Spanish, or those who do not speak either language. According to Comellas (2016, 155), in the case of Catalonia (in the other territories the dynamics are different), the recent “immigration, much more than language shift, has been the leading cause behind the drop in the percentage of the population whose first language is Catalan”. This means looking beyond the framework of bilingualism in order to explain the sociolinguistic complexity of the contemporary Catalan-speaking society. On the other hand, the figures regarding first language and the language of everyday use vary significantly by territory (Table 3). Thus, in Catalonia, Catalan is the

476

Fernando Ramallo

first language of only a third of the population – reaching 51 % for those born in Catalonia – while over half learned to speak Spanish. The percentage of people claiming that their language of everyday use is Catalan reaches 36 %. There has been a minoritization in the number of first language Catalan speakers in recent years, due both to changing demographics and sociolinguistic reasons (Sorolla 2015). The situation is similar in the Valencian Country and the Balearic Islands. The figures change substantially once birthplace is taken into account. For example, the figure reaches 64 % for those born in the Balearic Islands who predominantly speak Catalan (Melià 2015). In La Franja (approximately 47,000 inhabitants), the prevalence of Catalan as a first language is greater (Table 3). However, the language in this territory of the Aragon border finds itself in a difficult situation due to both a stagnation in its linguistic vitality compared to only a few decades prior and the area’s changing demographics, with a significant increase in the allophone population (Sorolla 2015). We must also factor in the historical abandonment of public policies and the lack of legislation aimed at promoting and safeguarding the language. Viewed this way, it is no exaggeration to say that Catalan is severely endangered in Aragon (Seminario Aragonés de Sociolingüística 2015, 10). In his interactional analysis of linguistic choices by the youth in La Franja, Sorolla (2016) identifies the first signs of language shift in the in-group rules among the Catalan-speaking youth. A southern variety of Catalan has been spoken in the administrative region known as El Carxe – an enclave within the Spanish-speaking Autonomous Community of Murcia – since the mid-nineteenth century as a result of the repopulation of these lands by Catalan-speaking populations from the Valencian Country (Montoya 2014). Here, the language is in sharp decline and lacks any type of protection; it is not even used in the educational system. In recent years, El Carxe has seen a decrease in the number of native inhabitants together with the arrival of people from elsewhere who show no interest in the language. In his sociolinguistic analysis, Montoya (2014, 205) concludes that 77 % of the native population speaks Catalan while that number falls to 57 % among the native youth. Furthermore, the native population shows no interest in the revitalization of the language, in part due to an emic lack of awareness that they are members of a linguistic enclave. The greatest contributor to the decline in the language’s intergenerational transmission is the rise in linguistically mixed couples who prefer to educate their children in Spanish rather than Catalan. In the cases of Catalan-speaking Aragon and Murcia, we could directly apply one of the recommendations made in 2016 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Spanish authorities upon the release of the 4th Report monitoring Spain’s compliance with the commitments made in the ECRML (see Committee of Experts 2015). It recommends to “consider extending the recognition of those regional or minority languages with a co-official status in six Autonomous Communities to other


477

Autonomous Communities provided that there is a sufficient number of users of the regional or minority languages involved”.8 Table 3: Macro-sociolinguistic data for Catalan

First Language

Everyday Language

Catalonia

Valencian Country*

Balearic Islands

La Franja

El Carxe

Catalan

31

N/A

38

52

42

Spanish

55

N/A

49

34

29

Bilingual

2

N/A

4

2

29

Catalan

36

24

37

50

N/A

Spanish

51

46

50

41

N/A

Bilingual

7

27

10

6

N/A

*Valencian-speaking area Sources: Direcció General de Política Lingüística (2015); Direcció General de Política Lingüística (2016); Melià (2015); Sorolla (2015); Montoya (2014)

Differences between the territories can also be observed by examining how Catalan is used within the family (intergenerational transmission). At the conclusion of his study, Torres-Pla (2014, 180) identifies three groups within the territories where Catalan is spoken: a) Those that show noticeable advancements: Catalonia, the Balearic Islands and Andorra b) Those that neither advance nor retreat: Valencian Country and La Franja c) Those witnessing the consequences of a break in intergenerational transmission: Alghero and Northern Catalonia In their research, Montoya/Mas i Miralles (2011) identify the main problems associated with the complex situation of the language’s intergenerational transmission since the nineteenth century in the Valencian Country. On the one hand, there are practical and ideological reasons which have led many families to break this transmission. On the other hand, the revernacularization that has taken place in Valencian society as a process of production and not of reproduction has contributed to the emergence of a new social subject, the new speaker (see § 4).

8 All of the recommendations made by the Committee of Ministers are available at http://www.coe.int/ t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/Recommendations/SpainCMRec4_en.pdf (last access 18.02.2018).

478

Fernando Ramallo

In Catalonia, Catalan is a language with prestige, backed by highly implemented legislation at the regional level. The approval of the modified Statute of Autonomy in 2006 created a normative instrument that boldly proposed a model that would dignify the language by giving it priority over Spanish in Catalonia and creating a more transparent description of the rights and duties that arise from the legislation. Nevertheless, the Spanish Constitutional Court, in a controversial decision in 2010, undermined some of the most ambitious articles in the Statute by ruling them unlawful, such as the article that prioritized Catalan over the other official language (see Sánchez Miret 2011; Pons Parera 2013).9 Catalan in Catalonia boasts the highest level of institutionalization among the minority Romance languages. It has a firm presence in the media with dozens of TV channels and radio stations that broadcast daily in Catalan. It is also the most commonly used language within public administration and education. However, there are shortcomings when it comes to the legal system and certain social services such as healthcare and assistance for the elderly (see Table 2 and Committee of Experts 2015). Of course, the educational system is recognized as being one of the most beneficial ways the language has been promoted. Since the 1960s, it has been designed as a progressive and exemplary model to guarantee prestige, vitality and standardization for Catalan without preventing complete fluency in Spanish. In recent years, this model has been called into question by state legislators and a variety of Catalonian civic associations (Pradilla Cardona 2016). With regards to social prestige, knowing Catalan in Catalonia represents a type of recognized social capital. Knowing and speaking the language affords access to more job opportunities and slightly increases the possibility of employment (Alarcón 2011). A significant number of companies use Catalan as the language of business for all their activities, from production and distribution to customer service or advertising. Conversely, there are many companies that do not use Catalan as their language of business either in Catalonia or in any other Catalan-speaking areas (Plataforma per la Llengua 2015). In the Valencian Country, the modified Statute of Autonomy, adopted in 2006, proclaims Valencian as the official language but also states that public policies will take the Spanish-speaking territories into special account as specified in the Law of Use and Education of Valencia (1983). This distinction between territories has had consequences in language policies regarding education. In the Valencian-speaking areas, the language is compulsory in education, with different bilingual programmes

9 Given the current political circumstances, it is not inconceivable to imagine an independent Catalonia in the medium term. In this context, the key question is how linguistic diversity will be handled in a hypothetical new European state. Although this is not the place to speculate on these possible circumstances, the issue has given rise to a very enlightening discussion on how identities, loyalties, power, democracy, cohesion and conflict are all constructed in present-day Europe. For further information, see Sendra/Vila (2016).


479

available, including Catalan immersion. In the Spanish-speaking area, Valencian is optional and the decision is left to the families. In fact, it is possible for Valencian not even to form part of the curriculum. Furthermore, just as in the Balearic Islands (and in Galicia), the educational system is considering strengthening English as part of a model aimed at trilingualism, which tends to create both academic and social controversy in contexts where a minority language is involved (Mas Castells/MestreMestre 2015). The level of institutionalization in Valencia is lower than that in Catalonia, although they share the same previously mentioned shortcomings when it comes to the legal system and certain social services. However, there is an alarming decline in the use of Catalan in the media, especially in television and public radio (Committee of Experts 2015). The language’s social prestige is also lower, to the extent that it is less effective for achieving social mobility within the community. Yet, as in Catalonia, there are a number of companies that use Catalan in business. In the Balearic Islands, the base framework for its language legislation is the Law of Linguistic Normalization (1986, partially modified in 2016). Just as in other areas with a co-official language (except Catalonia), it was drawn up at a moment in history when it was necessary to lay the foundations for the protection and promotion of Catalan. The implementation of this law has experienced a fair amount of controversy, leading to problems for the Catalan language. One such case is the passing of Decree 15/2013 regarding the integrated treatment of languages in non-university education. This law created a trilingual educational model to be applied universally (across the entire population), equating a foreign language (preferably English) to a minority language. This system has received a strong social backlash, both from teachers and families (Observatori de la Llengua Catalana 2015). Besides the problems within the educational system, the language is also in a delicate situation when it comes to the legal system, administration and public services (Committee of Experts 2015). Therefore, as noted in Table 1, its level of institutionalization is intermediate. In terms of social prestige, it is in a delicate situation, in part due to constantly rising numbers of non-immigrants who come from outside the territory and lack a strong interest in learning the language. In some parts of the islands, English is becoming relevant to an extent previously unknown.

3.3 The situation of Galician Galician finds itself in a very uneven situation throughout the different territories where it is spoken, both in legal terms and in the level of institutionalization and everyday use. As a result, the challenges it faces are quite different. In Galicia, it has a good level of formal protection, to the extent that it is the official language and has the legal backing of the Law of Linguistic Normalization (1983). Nevertheless, the legislative implementation of the law has been unsatisfactory insofar as, except in a

480

Fernando Ramallo

few areas, the sections dealing with linguistic content are very scarce, especially compared to Catalonia or the Basque Country (Ferreira Fernández et al. 2005). In 2004, the General Plan for the Normalization of the Galician Language was passed, considered the most important instrument in terms of language policy but whose implementation has been slower than originally hoped. Despite its decline in recent decades, Galician continues to be the most widely spoken language in Galicia, particularly in non-urban areas. Nevertheless, it is heading towards a major setback. From 2003 to 2013 Galician lost vitality and, if it continues along this path, it will not be long before it loses its status as the most widely spoken language in Galicia (Seminario de Sociolingüística 2016). Note the changes in first language and everyday language in Galicia in Table 4 (2003–2013):

Table 4: Macro sociolinguistic data for Galician in Galicia

First language

Everyday language

2003

2013

Difference (in percentages)

Galician

52

41

-21 %

Spanish

30

31

+3 %

Bilingual

16

25

+56 %

Galician

43

31

-28 %

Spanish

20

26

+30 %

Bilingual

37

42

+13 %

Source: Instituto Galego de Estatística (2014).

Thus, the process of language shift continues to be a reality in Galicia.10 Although the shift is more apparent in cities, it is also occurring in rural areas that have traditionally been monolingual in Galician. Monolingualism in Galician fell from 72 % to 54 % from 2003 to 2013 in towns with less than 10,000 inhabitants while the level of bilingualism rose from 23 % to 35 % in the same period. This can be seen as traditional language shift taking place through transitional bilingualism. In other words, given that it is not necessary to change languages in order to have a completely satisfactory conversation in Galicia, the movement toward bilingualism by traditionally monolingual Galician speakers can be seen as evidence for language shift. Nevertheless, if we look at what

10 A crucial moment for such a process of linguistic shift occurred during the Franco dictatorship, a period when Galician speakers – like those of other minority languages in Spain – experienced great linguistic repression (Freitas Juvino 2008) carried out by ideological institutions such as the educational system, the Catholic Church and the media. The dramatic consequences of that period explain why, when the time came to change the rules of the game in 1978, the language was in serious decline, although with a good demographic foundation.


481

has happened in those cities where bilingualism seems to have reached a standstill while monolingual language use has risen (more so in Spanish than in Galician), we can reach a different conclusion: in the decades to come, Galicia will be comprised of a receptively bilingual and actively monolingual population. The language has an intermediate level of institutionalization with a healthy presence in audio-visual media and the internet, but without a daily printed newspaper. Furthermore, as with Catalan, Galician lacks a presence in the legal system and public administration, especially in administrative offices pertaining to the Spanish State in Galicia (See Table 2 and Committee of Experts 2015). In Galicia bilingual education is based on a 50 % Spanish – 50 % Galician model, regardless of the context of the individual schools, except in early childhood education where the students’ predominant language is used. This model aims at an ideal balance between the languages within society that is far from reality (Vila/Lasagabaster/Ramallo 2017). This model has also been heavily questioned at the political and social level to the extent that it has been considered ineffective at stopping the current linguistic shift. On the other hand, trilingualism has also become more prevalent in the Galician educational system, notably with English as a third language. Therefore, the “4th Report from the Committee of Experts” from the ECRML (see Committee of Experts 2015) has concluded that the commitments made by Spain with respect to the use of Galician in the educational system have not been upheld in Galicia (see Table 2). In recent years, the language has lost value as a reference point for social mobility, insofar as public employment has dropped considerably and the requirements for becoming a civil servant have become less restrictive. Although it is a language of everyday use in the private sector, it is rarely even considered in job offers. The autonomous government has enacted the Plan for the Galician Language in the Economic Fabric with measures aimed at different sectors (the hotel industry, banking, commerce, marketing, etc.) for the period of 2015 to 2020. In the other territories where Galician has been historically present (Asturias, Castile and Leon and Extremadura),11 the situation is much more delicate as they lack the necessary protection that allows for an intervention in the declining populations that speak so-called “exterior Galician” (Frías Conde 1999).

11 As is the case with other border Romance languages (Gargallo Gil 2014), the dialectological classification of the Extremaduran speech varieties by Valverdi du Fresnu, Sa Martín de Trevellu and As Ellas continues to be a subject of debate, both for its nomenclature and its relationship to a linguistic diasystem, along with the proper direction for creating a standard. These speech varieties are often recognized as having originated from Galician (Frías Conde 1997; Fernández Rei 2007; Costas González 2013) although there is not a consensus on the issue (González Salgado 2009; Carrasco González 2010; Álvarez Pérez 2014). From an emic point of view, the local population prefers to refer to its language using the generic term fala (Ramallo 2011).

482

Fernando Ramallo

In Asturias, Galician is spoken in 18 different towns within the Eo-Navia region located in the westernmost part of the autonomous community along the Galician border.12 These different municipalities are comprised of about 70,000 people, 70 % of whom consider themselves Galician speakers. Here the language lacks any type of basic protection that can ensure its medium-term viability.13 The status of these different speech varieties has led to differing positions, not only politically but also academically. Thus, while some Asturian Romance scholars, including the Asturian Language Academy (Academia de la Llingua Asturiana), consider the language spoken in western Asturias to be a transition between Galician and Asturian (Academia de la Llingua Asturiana 2006; 2007; d’Andrés Díaz 2011), Galician philologists and dialectologists, including the Galician Language Academy (Real Academia Galega), have no doubt that these varieties are a dialectal variant of eastern Galician (Babarro González 2003; Frías Conde 2005; Asociación Abertal del Eo-Navia 2006; Costas González 2011). In Castile and Leon, Galician is spoken throughout different western regions. The language is in a vulnerable situation to the extent that it lacks any protection, is spoken by an ageing population and intergenerational transmission has been broken. The modified Statute of Autonomy, adopted in 2007, recognizes Galician as a language of the territory and guarantees respect and protection for it. However, there has not been any legislation in this regard. Unlike other border regions, the collaboration between those in charge of language policy in Galicia and Castile and Leon has borne some fruit. Most worthy of mention is a bilateral agreement to strengthen Galician within the educational system of the Castilian-Leonese regions where it is spoken. Since 2001, Galician has been present in the educational system either as part of the curriculum or as an extracurricular activity. The recommendation made by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe as described above is applicable to Galician in both Asturias and Castile and Leon. Compliance with this recommendation would lead to a substantial change in the language’s status in Galicia’s neighbouring territories. In Extremadura, local varieties are used by most of the population, although there has been a perceived rise in Spanish over the last few years. Unlike other enclave situations, fala shows favourable signs in terms of conservation, especially due to the stability of the resident population, low levels of immigration into the region, an agriculturally-based economy, geographic isolation until only recently, and the fact

12 Galician-Asturian is the official name recognized in Asturias (although not by the speakers) and has also been the glottonym chosen by the Spanish government when it ratified the ECRML; this is why it is referred to as such in the reports by the Committee of Experts. The Asturian Language Academy (Academia de la Llingua Asturiana) also used eonaviego as the glottonym. 13 In 2016, the Asturian township of Veiga declared Galician-Asturian as an official language. Although linguistic competencies are decided upon by the Autonomous Community and not by the townships, this gesture has helped to dignify and facilitate the day-to-day life of the people who express themselves in that language.


483

that the community has valued the language and never stopped passing it down through the generations (Ramallo 2011). However, with the changes that the region is currently undergoing (economically, demographically, etc.), a language policy is required that aims to promote a fala within the school system.

3.4 The situation of Aranese Aranese is a variety of Occitan spoken in Vall d’Aran, an administrative region in the Catalonian Pyrenees. It receives a high level of legal protection despite having a reduced number of speakers and being a minority language even in the region where it is most spoken. In fact, as of 2006 it is considered the native language of its territory, and more importantly on a functional level, it is an official language in Catalonia (as of 2006), making it a trilingual territory. In 2014, the Institute of Aranese Studies gained Academy status and became the Aranese language authority. It is responsible for establishing and updating a language standard for Aranese along with making recommendations regarding the language. Recently, it presented the first fruits of its labour, Gramatica basica der occitan aranés (‘Basic grammar of Occitan Aranese’, Acadèmia aranesa dera lengua occitán 2016) and Per escriure l’occitan (‘To write Occitan’, Taupiac 2015). The basic figures regarding the knowledge and use of the language are as follows (see Direcció General de Política Lingüística 2015, 70): – Among those 15 and older, 81 % describe themselves as having good oral comprehension of the language and 56 % claim to be able to speak it. Comprehension is greater among older groups. – However, only 21 % have it as a first language (cf. 16 % Catalan and 44 % Spanish) and it is the everyday language of 18 % of the population in the Aran Valley (cf. 16 % Catalan and 55 % Spanish). Between 2003 and 2013, there was a significant drop in favour of Spanish due to the arrival of non-natives to the Aran Valley. – Spanish is the dominant language in the realm of public services and in commerce, including the administrative departments of the Catalonian government. The Language Policy Law of Catalonia (1998), the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia (2006) and especially the Law of Occitan (2010) serve as the main instruments for linguistic policy, regulating the use of Occitan as it pertains to the civil service, the media and the educational system, among other areas. According to the ECRML, Aranese is a part III language, on a par with Catalan (Valencian), Galician and Basque. This means it deserves a high level of recognition, although it also requires a commitment by Catalonian authorities to promote the language in many of the areas covered by the ECRML. Thus, in the “4th Report” (see Committee of Experts 2015) a series of challenges were identified for the Aranese language in order to deliver the commitments made by Spain (see Table 2).

484

Fernando Ramallo

3.5 The situation of Astur-Leonese Astur-Leonese is the autochthonous Romance language that is spoken in the area between the Galician-Portuguese-speaking and Spanish-speaking territories in the western peninsula (García Gil 2008). Although an estimated 500,000 people speak Astur-Leonese, it is a language whose vitality is under threat in the medium term due to its low level of intergenerational transmission and the fact that it lacks a language policy strong enough to overcome the historical minoritization it has experienced for centuries in the areas where it still exists today. It is strongest in Asturias (where Asturian is the dominant language) while it is on the path to extinction in the northern and western parts of Castile and Leon (known as Leonese, see González Riaño/García Arias 2011) and in the north of Portugal, where it is known as Mirandese and is the only place where the language is officially recognized (Merlan 2009; Gómez Bautista 2013). The weakening of Astur-Leonese in Spain can be viewed from three different angles: first, as a minority language with respect to Spanish; second, as a language without a legal policy to promote and protect it and to make it an official language in Asturias and Castile and Leon; lastly, on account of its stigmatized and ideologically marked depiction, in line with Spanish linguistic traditions, as a dialect within the classifications of linguistic diversity in the peninsula, as it is still to a certain extent considered today (see d’Andrés Díaz 2012). Asturian is not an official language in any territory, although the Statutes of Autonomy of Asturias and Castile and Leon mention its protection and promotion. Furthermore, in 1998, Asturias passed a law specifying the use and promotion of the language, and in Castile and Leon, the Statute of Autonomy (2007) states that Leonese (auto-glottonym) will receive specific protection and assumes a commitment to the implementation of its own legislation. The consequences of the language lacking official status are clear in areas such as education, the media and public services. Furthermore, its low legal status has strengthened a tradition that has historically considered Asturian as a language lacking value and prestige compared to Spanish. In the Asturian educational system, Asturian Language can be chosen as an elective at an hour and a half a week. In public education, approximately half of all primary school students take this subject, but that percentage drops significantly among secondary school students and is non-existent in pre-primary education, even for native speakers (Selfa Sastre 2014). In terms of language promotion, a language policy geared toward teaching Asturian at all levels is urgently needed, one that goes from teaching the language to teaching in the language (Hevia Artime 2013). A new dialectal variety known as Amestáu has arisen in Asturian cities. Although its status as a dialect is still a matter of debate, it is considered a form of Asturian that is heavily influenced by Spanish. In the words of Teso (2015, 25), it is the “rostru llingüísticu más conocíu d’Asturies” (‘the most well-known linguistic face in Asturias’).


485

3.6 The situation of Aragonese Unlike in its golden age, when it expanded toward the south and the east of the Iberian Peninsula, the only place where Aragonese has survived throughout the centuries has been in its place of origin located in the Ansó and Benasque valleys of northern Aragon (Nagore Laín 1999). The total number of speakers is unknown due to the lack of any up-to-date census specifically designed to gather such data. Estimates place the figure in the range of 25,000–30,000 speakers, approximately 2 % of the total population of Aragon. This percentage rises in areas where it is spoken by the majority, although even in these cases it is far behind Spanish in terms of overall use (Seminario Aragonés de Sociolingüística 2015). It is generally spoken by an ageing population, although recent years have seen the emergence of new speakers in the main cities (López Susín 2013). If we add to this the fact that it lacks any type of coherent language policy that takes into account the heritage value of the linguistic diversity in the region, it becomes clear that Aragonese is one of the most endangered Romance languages, not only in Spain but in Europe (Gimeno/Sorolla 2014).14 It is hard to imagine a viable future for Aragonese without a structural change that is fully committed to both an ideological transformation of the social subject and creating new legislation and emancipatory public policies. We must begin with the fact that in many languages with a very reduced number of speakers, there reaches a point where the efforts of the population alone are not enough to save them. Regardless of how many centuries the languages have survived, as is the case of Aragonese, they have become much more vulnerable in modern societies due to the social, geographic, economic and ideological mobility associated with them. Therefore the efforts of speakers to transmit Aragonese need to be supported by public policy. Cases like this remind us that these languages, besides being a subject of political rhetoric, are a way of life, and public policy should firmly work to preserve them in order to facilitate the historical desire of the speakers to pass the language on to future generations. Advances in educational policy are a necessary first step. Since 1997, Aragonese has been available in the education system, although as an elective taught outside

14 The current Law of Use, Protection and Promotion of Languages and Linguistic Modalities of Aragon (Ley de Uso, protección y promoción de lenguas y modalidades lingüísticas de Aragón) (2013) ended up diminishing the language through a strategy of marginalization, invisibility and the delegitimization of the auto-glottonym. Thus, Aragonese came to be termed the “Aragonese Language Specific to the Pyrenees and Pre-Pyrenees” (Lengua Aragonesa Propia del Pirineo y Prepirineo), popularized as lapapyp. The same has happened with Catalan in Aragon, which came to be called the “Aragon Language specific to the Eastern Area” (Lengua Aragonesa Propia del Área Oriental), popularized as lapao. In other words, the law simultaneously manages to make linguistic diversity in Aragon invisible and unify it, two complementary effects, undesired and highly questioned both outside and within Aragon (see Garcés Sanagustín 2015; López Susín 2015). In 2016, a legal modification allowed the formal recovery of the original glottonyms of the minority languages of Aragon: Aragonese and Catalan.

486

Fernando Ramallo

normal school hours and not graded (Campos Bandrés 2015). As a language in clear danger of extinction, its presence at all levels within the education system is of great urgency, from pre-primary up through secondary, first and foremost in the places where it is spoken but also in urban school districts that might also play a role in safeguarding the language. The media is also a key factor, although results have been unsatisfactory up until now (Ramos 2014). Finally, a language plan is necessary that is directed toward non-speakers of Aragonese with the aim of eliminating preconceptions and building a new appreciation of the cultural and linguistic wealth inherent in linguistic diversity. It is important to keep in mind that Aragonese has undergone a certain devaluation within the fields of linguistics and philology due to the neverending, and therefore sterile, debate on the difference between languages and dialects (cf. Kabatek 2006; Moreno Cabrera 2012).

3.7 The situation of Portuguese Portuguese survives with great difficulty in some of the towns along the Luso-Hispanic border, forming a dialectal continuum that spreads throughout the southeast part of Salamanca (province of Castile and Leon) and Extremadura. Below I will examine the situation of Portuguese in the towns of Olivenza, Táliga, Herrera de Alcántara, Valencia de Alcántara, Cedillo and La Codosera, all located in Extremadura. The origins of Oliventine Portuguese (found in Olivenza and Táliga) can be traced back to the Treaty of Alcañices, which drew up the borders between Spain and Portugal at the end of the thirteenth century. At that time, many Castilian towns had been given over to the Portuguese. Portuguese control of Olivenza lasted until the end of the eighteenth century, returning briefly to Spanish control on occasions. This period was the community’s golden age, since it was when the Portuguese monarchy granted the town certain privileges that led to population growth and economic development. Spain took back control of Olivenza with the Treaty of Badajoz in 1801. Despite the historical events that have determined this territory’s fate, Oliventine Portuguese has continued to the present day without any real interruption, although it is currently undergoing a process of continual language shift that began in the midnineteenth century (Carrasco González 2006); it also lacks any structured language policy focused on its protection and promotion. It is considered an Alentejan variety of Portuguese with its own characteristics and a clear influence from the Spanish superstrate. Although no official data exist, it is estimated that there are around 200 speakers. According to a study done by the Além Guadiana cultural association (2013), Portuguese is spoken almost exclusively by those aged over 70 in Olivenza and Táliga, with hardly any young or middle-aged speakers. Nevertheless, there is a clear interest in the language’s preservation and revitalization among speakers, families and local authorities: steps have been taken to include it in the school curriculum, teach it to adults, use it for place names, and document it with aim of creating a


487

register of Oliventine Portuguese that could serve as a reference point for current and future language revitalization projects. From a different standpoint, many recent studies have looked at the attitudes and linguistic competences within Extremadura regarding Portuguese, examining both border territories and those areas in the interior of the autonomous community. Ossenkop (2010) looked at Portuguese in the small towns of Cedillo, Valencia de Alcántara and La Codosera along the Portuguese border, taking a qualitative approach to studying linguistic attitudes and providing an analysis of the formal consequences resulting from the contact between languages in these three towns. Although there were positive attitudes toward Portuguese, the historical stigmatization of its speakers has allowed Spanish to enter into traditional areas previously reserved for Portuguese. This language shift has reached a point of no return and has been moving toward the Spanish monolingualism that the society has been immersed in for decades. As for the inhabitants of Extremadura, attitudes towards Portuguese have improved substantially in recent years (Amador Moreno 2016). This should contribute not only to strengthening measures aimed at improving trans-border communication, but also to strengthening the linguistic diversity of the region. However, this last point is still far from reality. In fact, although article 71 in the Statute of Autonomy of Extremadura (2011) gathers together new perspectives on the dissemination and promotion of Portuguese language and culture, the Committee of Experts from the ECRML has reiterated its concern for the situation of Portuguese in Extremadura. In its 2015 report monitoring the languages in Spain, it stated, “the Portuguese language is endangered. It urges the Spanish authorities to take resolute action to protect the Portuguese language in Extremadura, by inter alia contributing to the current revitalization process based on private initiatives” (2015, 16).

4 Conclusion: “new speakers” of minority Romance languages One matter that is of great interest to communities with minority languages is the new speaker, that is, someone who has joined the language community as an active speaker once s/he has learned the language through secondary socialization. In the case of Spain, a prototypical new speaker is someone who grew up speaking Spanish and then goes on to learn a minority language, becoming an active user of that language. This phenomenon, referred to as “linguistic ‘mude’” by Pujolar/González (2012), has become a relevant object of sociolinguistic study in the realm of European minority languages (Hornsby 2015; O’Rourke/Pujolar/Ramallo 2015; Smith-Christmas et al. 2018). Its importance lies in the fact that these people are key to the future of minority languages, insofar as their language habits create a change in the sociolinguistic

488

Fernando Ramallo

order that has governed the traditional relationships between conflicting linguistic groups. In other words, through his or her disregard for the majority language, the new speaker breaks an ideological tradition that has come to represent the movement toward modernity, progress and social mobility – the transfer of speakers from a minority language to a majority language. This is a rupture in a normative habitus, moulded by a social structure that associates minority languages with the role of personal identity, traditions and emotions, and therefore leads to acquired dispositions (ways of feeling, acting and seeing the world), albeit in constant tension, toward the languages, the speakers and the varieties. For this reason, thanks to the mude, the praxis of the new speaker activates the practical function that connects the language to social mobility, prestige, innovation and progress (Williams 2005; May 2011). As a result, this type of cleft habitus (Bourdieu 2000) shows a contradiction that strengthens the tension inherent in the appearance of this new social subject. To the extent that his or her actions are conscious and non-reproductive, s/he breaks the embodied dispositions down to the subjectivity of the individual, which often results in the displacement of the new speaker into a type of no man’s land. On the other hand, the mude has led to a complete readjustment in the linguistic indexicality that traditionally operated within the Romance languages. This story is a familiar one: the praxis of the minority language speaker had always lacked symbolic capital and had been devalued and shunned by the existing power structures which control access to economic and cultural resources. Given that control of such resources is maintained by an “authority” that has the official language already inherent within itself, all capital (economic, cultural, social and symbolic) was indexically distributed according to one’s spoken language. The consequences of this historical process of linguistic minoritization are well-known within the production and reproduction of the minority Romance languages. Thus arises the extraordinary significance of the mude. Furthermore, the mude allows us to re-examine the complexity of linguistic diversity from new perspectives, such as the relationship between language and identity, the new legitimizations of what it means to be the speaker of a language, the crisis of linguistic authority or new purist forms that are reactivated as a form of control over new speakers. As Pujolar/González (2012) point out, changing languages is not just adopting a new way of speaking, but also marks a performative change that is fundamental to the identity of the new speaker.

5 Bibliography Acadèmia aranesa dera lengua occitana (2016), Gramatica basica der occitan aranés, Val d’Aran, Acadèmia aranesa dera lengua occitana. Academia de la Llingua Asturiana (2006), Informe sobre la “fala” o gallego-asturianu. Una perspeutiva hestórica, social y llingüística, Uviéu, Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.


489

Academia de la Llingua Asturiana (2007), Normas ortográficas del gallego-asturiano, Uviéu, Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. Alarcón, Amado (2011), Economia de la llengua, Treballs de sociolingüística catalana 21, 19–27. Além Guadiana (2013), Muito Frágil, Olivenza, Associação Cultural Além Guadiana. Álvarez Pérez, Xosé Afonso (2014), Correspondencias léxicas entre a fala de Cáceres e o portugués, Estudos de lingüística galega 6, 5–28. Amador Moreno, Silvia (2016), Español y portugués en contacto. Las actitudes lingüísticas en zona fronteriza: Extremadura y el Alentejo, doctoral thesis, Badajoz, Universidad de Extremadura. Anderson, Benedict (1983), Imagined Communities, London, Verso. Andreose, Alvise/Renzi, Lorenzo (2013), Geography and Distribution of the Romance Languages in Europe, in: Martin Maiden/John Charles Smith/Adam Ledgeway (edd.), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 2: Contexts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 283–334. Asociación Abertal del Eo-Navia (2006), Informe lingüístico sobre a nosa terra Eo-Navia (Occidente de Asturias), Navia, Asociación Abertal del Eo Navia. Babarro González, Xoán (2003), Galego de Asturias: Delimitación, caracterización e situación sociolingüística, A Coruña, Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza. Boix-Fuster, Emili (edd.) (2015), Urban Diversities and Language Policies in Medium-Sized Linguistic Communities, Bristol, Multilingual Matters. Bourdieu, Pierre (2000), Pascalian Meditations, Stanford, Stanford University Press. Caamaño, Francisco (2014), Democracia federal. Apuntes sobre España, Madrid, Turpial. Campos Bandrés, Iris Orosia (2015), Un acercamiento a la situación sociolingüística del aragonés en la escuela. Las actitudes del profesorado. Estudio de caso, in: AIDIPE (edd.), Investigar con y para la sociedad, vol. 1, Cádiz, Asociación Interuniversitaria de Investigación Pedagógica, 223–232. Carrasco González, Juan M. (2006), Evolución de las hablas fronterizas luso-extremeñas desde mediados del siglo XX: Uso y pervivencia del dialecto, Revista de estudios extremeños 62(2), 623–635. Carrasco González, Juan M. (2010), Traços galegos e não galegos do dialecto fronteiriço de Xalma (manhego, lagarteiro e valverdeiro), in: Mª João Marçalo et al. (edd.), Lingua portuguesa: Ultrapasar fronteiras, juntar culturas, Évora, Universidade de Évora, 1–14. Comellas, Pere (2016), Immigration and Linguistic Diversity. A New and Poorly Understood Situation for Catalan, International Journal of Multilingualism 13(2), 149–164. Committee of Experts (2015), 4º Report on the Application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in Spain, Strasbourg, Council of Europe. Costas González, Xosé-Henrique (2011), A lingua galega no Eo-Navia, Bierzo Occidental, As Portelas, Calabor e o Val do Ellas: Historia, breve caracterización e situación sociolingüística actual, A Coruña, Real Academia Galega. Costas González, Xosé-Henrique (2013), O valego. As falas de orixe galega do Val do Ellas (CáceresExtremadura), Vigo, Xerais. D’Andrés Díaz, Ramón (2011), Fronteras lingüísticas y geotipos, con atención a la zona Eo-Navia, in: Ramón d’Andrés (ed.), Lengua, ciencia y fronteras, Uviéu, Trabe, 121–151. D’Andrés Díaz, Ramón (2012), El asturiano y el aragonés en la taxonomía lingüística peninsular: Ciencia e ideología, Alazet 24, 11–30. D’Andrés Díaz, Ramón (2013), Gramática comparada de las lenguas ibéricas, Xixón, Trea. Darquennes, Jeroen/Mac Giolla Chríost, Diarmait (edd.) (2015), Language Conflict, Special Issue, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 235. Del Valle, José (ed.) (2011), Language beyond the Nation: A Comparative Approach to Policies and Discourses, Special Issue, Sociolinguistic Studies 5(3). Del Valle, José (ed.) (2013) A Political History of Spanish. The Making of a Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

490

Fernando Ramallo

Direcció General de Política Lingüística (2015), Anàlisi de l’Enquesta d’usos lingüístics de la població 2013. Resum dels factors clau, Barcelona, Generalitat de Catalunya. Direcció General de Política Lingüística (2016), Coneixement i ús social del valencià, València, Generalitat Valenciana. Domingo i Valls, Andreu (2014), Balanç i prospectiva demogràfica del conjunt dels territoris de llengua catalana, in: Direcció General de política Lingüística (edd.), II jornada sobre llengua i societat als territoris de parla catalana, Barcelona, Generalitat de Catalunya, 7–69. Fernández Rei, Francisco (2007), Plurilingüismo y contacto de lenguas en la Romania europea, in: José Enrique Gargallo Gil/Maria Reina Bastardas (edd.), Manual de lingüística románica, Barcelona, Ariel, 477–516. Fernández Rei, Francisco/Santamarina Fernández, Antón (edd.) (1999), Estudios de sociolingüística románica: Linguas e variedades minorizadas, Santiago de Compostela, Universidade de Santiago. Ferreira Fernández, Antonio Xavier, et al. (2005), Estatuto xurídico da lingua galega, Vigo, Xerais. Freitas Juvino, María Pilar (2008), A represión lingüística en Galiza no século XX, Vigo, Xerais. Frías Conde, F. Xavier (1997), Sobre os bloques dialectais do galego: unha nova proposta, Revista de filología románica 14(1), 241–256. Frías Conde, F. Xavier (1999), O galego exterior ás fronteiras administrativas, Xixón, VTP. Frías Conde, F. Xavier (2005), O relativo do continuum entre galego e asturiano en Asturias, Ianua. Revista philologica romanica 5, 93–106. Frías Conde, F. Xavier (2007), Curs de lingüística iberoromànica, Andorra, Govern d’Andorra. Gamella, Juan F., et al. (2011), La agonía de una lengua. Lo que queda del caló en el habla de los gitanos. Parte I. Métodos, fuentes y resultados generales, Gazeta de Antropología 27(2), 1–32. Garcés Sanagustín, Ángel (2015), La legislación aragonesa reguladora de sus lenguas: Una emersión frustrada, Revista catalana de dret públic 50, 184–208. García Gil, Héctor (2008), Asturian-Leonese: Linguistic, Sociolinguistic and Legal Aspects, Barcelona, CIEMEN. Gargallo Gil, José Enrique (2014), Romances de frontera na Península Ibérica, in: Xulio Sousa/Marta Negro Romero/Rosario Álvarez (edd.), Lingua e identidade na fronteira galego-portuguesa, Santiago de Compostela, Consello da Cultura Galega, 259–283. Gargallo Gil, José Enrique/Bastardas, Maria Reina (edd.) (2007), Manual de lingüística románica, Barcelona, Ariel. Garrido, Joaquín (2010), Lenguas frente a hablantes. La lengua común en la España plurilingüe de Ángel López García, Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación 44, 68–91. GELA (2016, February 25), 300 llengües, Vilaweb, http://www.vilaweb.cat/noticies/300-llengues (last access 16.02.2018). Generalitat Valenciana (2010), Coneixement i ús social del valencià, València, Generalitat Valenciana. Gimeno, Chabier/Sorolla, Natxo (edd.) (2014), Actas II jornadas de sociología aragonesa, Zaragoza, Gara d’Edizions. Gómez Bautista, Alberto (2013), El mirandés. Contexto y procesos de formación de palabras, doctoral thesis, Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. González Carrasco, Juan M. (2007), Falantes de dialectos fronteiriços na Extremadura española no último século, Límite 1, 51–69. González Riaño, Xosé Antón/García Arias, Xosé Lluís (2011), Estudio sociollingüísticu de Zamora (Fastera occidental), Uviéu, Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. González Salgado, José Antonio (2009), Las hablas de Jálama en el conjunto de la dialectología extremeña, Revista de filología románica 26, 51–70. Hevia Artime, Isabel (2013), Valir cultural y educativu de la escolarización de la llingua asturiana, Uviéu, Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.


491

Hobsbawm, Eric J. (1992), Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hornsby, Michael (2015), Revitalizing Minority Languages. New Speakers of Breton, Yiddish and Lemko, London, Palgrave Macmillan. Instituto Galego de Estatística [IGE] (2014), Enquisa de condicións de vida das familias. Coñecemento e uso do Galego. Ano 2013, Santiago de Compostela, Instituto Galego de Estatística. Kabatek, Johannes (2006), Requisitos para ser lengua: El caso del asturiano y de otras modalidades lingüísticas de España, in: Johannes Kabatek/Mónica Castillo Lluch (edd.), Las lenguas de España. Política lingüística, sociología del lenguaje e ideología desde la Transición hasta la actualidad, Frankfurt, Vervuert, 141–158. Kabatek, Johannes (2007), Dos Españas, dos normalidades: Visiones bipolares sobre la situación lingüística en la España actual, in: Gero Arnscheidt/Pere Joan Tous (edd.), Una de las dos Españas. Representaciones de un conflicto identitario en la historia y en las literaturas hispánicas, Madrid, Iberoamericana, 803–816. Kabatek, Johannes (2013), Koinés and Scriptae, in: Martin Maiden/John Charles Smith/Adam Ledgeway (edd.), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 2: Contexts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 143–186. Klump, Andre/Kramer, Johannes/Willems, Aline (edd.) (2014), Manuel des langues romanes, Berlin/ Boston, De Gruyter. Krinková, Zuzana (2015), From Iberian Romani to Iberian Para–Romani Varieties, Prague, Charles University. López García, Ángel (2009), La lengua común en la España plurilingüe, Madrid, Iberoamericana. López Susín, José Ignacio (edd.) (2013), El aragonés en el siglo XXI, Zaragoza, Fundación Gaspar Torrente. López Susín, José Ignacio (2015), A Lai 3/2013, de 9 de mayo, u a infraproteuzión churidica de as luengas minoritarias d’Aragón, Revista llengua i dret 63, 186–199. Maia, Clarinda de Azevedo (1977), Os falares fronteiriços do concelho de Sabugal e da vizinha região de Xalma e Alamedilla, Coimbra, Instituto de Estudos Românicos. Mas Castells, Josep A./Mestre-Mestre, Eva M. (2015), Latest Language Policy Proposals in Education in the Valencian Country, Prosodia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 178, 151–156. May, Stephen (2011), Language Policy, in: Michael Grenfell et al. (edd.), Bourdieu, Language and Linguistics, London, Continuum, 147–169. Medina, Alberto/Del Valle, José/Monteagudo, Henrique (2013), Introduction to the Making of Spanish: Iberian Perspectives, in: José del Valle (ed.), A Political History of Spanish. The Making of a Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 23–30. Melià, Joan (2015), El català a les Illes Balears. 2014, primera aproximació, Llengua i ús 57, 61–74. Merlan, Aurelia (2009), El mirandés. Situación sociolingüística de una lengua minoritaria en la zona fronteriza portugueso-española, Uviéu, Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. Metzeltin, Miguel (2004), Las lenguas románicas estándar, Uviéu, Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. Monteagudo, Henrique (2013), Spanish and other Languages of Spain in the Second Republic, in: José del Valle (ed.), A Political History of Spanish. The Making of a Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 106–122. Montoya, Brauli (2014), Reproducció primària de la llengua i sistema escolar al Carxe, un enclavament catalanoparlant en una regió castellanoparlant (Múrcia), in: Joan Argenter (ed.), Enclavaments lingüístics i comunitats locals. El català a Sardenya, al Carxe i entre els gitanos catalans de França, Barcelona, Institut d’Estudis Catalans, 187–208. Montoya, Brauli/Mas i Miralles, Antoni (2011), La transmissió familiar del valencià, València, Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua.

492

Fernando Ramallo

Moreno Cabrera, Juan Carlos (2008), El nacionalismo lingüístico. Una ideología destructiva, Barcelona, Península. Moreno Cabrera, Juan Carlos (2011), “Unifica, limpia y fija”. La RAE y los mitos del nacionalismo lingüístico español, in: Silvia Senz/Montserrat Alberte (edd.), El dardo e la Academia, vol. 1, Barcelona, Melusina, 157–314. Moreno Cabrera, Juan Carlos (2012), El aragonés, la lingüística y el imperialismo filológico, Alazet 24, 59–75. Moreno Fernández, Francisco (2015), La maravillosa historia del español, Madrid, Instituto Cervantes/ Espasa Libros. Moreno Fernández, Francisco/Ramallo, Fernando (2013), Las lenguas de España a debate, Valencia, Uno y Cero. Nagore Laín, Francho (1999), O aragonés, in: Francisco Fernández Rei/Antón Santamarina Fernández (edd.), Estudios de sociolingüística románica: Linguas e variedades minorizadas, Santiago de Compostela, Universidade de Santiago, 155–212. Narvaja de Arnoux, Elvira/Del Valle, José (2010), Las representaciones ideológicas del lenguaje: Discurso glotopolítico y panhispanismo, Spanish in Context 7(1), 1–24. Nelde, Peter/Strubell, Miquel/Williams, Glyn (1996), Euromosaic: The Production and Reproduction of the Minority Language Groups of the EU, Bruxelles, European Commission. Obserbatorio de l’aragonés (2015), Informe añal sobre a situazión d’a luenga aragonesa, Zaragoza, Fundación Gaspar Torrente. Observatori de la Llengua Catalana (2015), VIII Informe sobre la situació de la llengua catalana, Barcelona, Observatori de la Llengua Catalana. O’Rourke, Bernadette/Pujolar, Joan/Ramallo, Fernando (edd.) (2015), New Speakers of Minority Languages: The Challenging Opportunity, Special Issue, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 231. Ossenkop, Christina (2010), Contacto de lenguas en la frontera luso-extremeña: La situación del español y del portugués en la franja fronteriza de Cedillo, Valencia de Alcántara y La Codosera, in: Mª Jesús Fernández García/Silvia Amador Moreno (edd.), Al límite. I congreso de la SEEPLU, Cáceres, Avuelapluma, 5–14. Plataforma per la Llengua (2015), Català i empresa, Barcelona, Plataforma per la Llengua. Pons Parera, Eva (2013), The Effects of Constitutional Court Ruling 31/2010 Dated 20 June 2010 on the Linguistic Regime of the Statute of Catalonia, Catalan Social Sciences Review 3, 67–92. Pradilla Cardona, Miquel Àngel (2016), El model lingüístic educatiu a Catalunya. Crònica glotopolítica d’una involució, Estudis romànics 38, 295–310. Pujolar, Joan/González, Isaac (2012), Linguistic “Mudes” and the De-Ethnicization of Language Choice in Catalonia, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16(2),138–152. Ramallo, Fernando (2011), O enclave lingüístico de Xálima: Una análise sociolingüística, Estudos de lingüística galega 3, 111–135. Ramos, Rubén (2014), L’aragonés y os media…¿Una historia d’amor imposible?, in: Chabier Gimeno/ Natxo Sorolla (edd.), Actas II jornadas de sociología aragonesa, Zaragoza, Gara d’Edizions, 121–138. Sánchez Miret, Fernando (2011), El estatus de las lenguas romances de España en los Estatutos de Autonomía (1932–2010), in: Anja Overbeck/Wolfgang Schweickard/Harald Völker (edd.), Lexikon, Varietät, Philologie. Romanistische Studien Günter Holtus zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 243–253. Sanson, Helena L. (2013), The Romance Languages in the Renaissance and After, in: Martin Maiden/ John Charles Smith/Adam Ledgeway (edd.), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 2: Contexts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 237–282.

493


Sayahi, Lotfi (2014), Diglossia and Language Contact: Language Variation and Change in North Africa, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Selfa Sastre, Moisés (2014), Lengua y escuela: Hacia un modelo de conjunción en la escuela asturiana, Lletres Asturianes 111, 171–184. Seminario Aragonés de Sociolingüística (2015), El censo de 2011 en Aragón. Avance de resultados sobre el aragonés y el catalán, Zaragoza, Seminario Aragonés de Sociolingüística. Seminario de Sociolingüística (2016), Lingua e sociedade en Galicia. A evolución sociolingüística 1992–2013, A Coruña, Real Academia Galega. Sendra, Montserrat/Vila, F. Xavier (2016), L’estatus de les llengües a la República Catalana: Una breu anàlisi del desenvolupament del debat, Els Marges 108, 33–50. Senz, Silvia (2011), Una, grande y (esencialmente) uniforme. La RAE en la conformación y expansión de la “lengua común”, in: Silvia Senz/Montserrat Alberte (edd.), El dardo e la Academia, vol. 2, Barcelona, Melusina, 9–302. Smith-Christmas, Cassie, et al. (edd.) (2018), New Speakers of Minority Languages: Ideologies and Practices, London, Palgrave Macmillan. Sorolla, Natxo (2015), El català a la Franja. Any 2014, Llengua i ús 57, 75–88. Sorolla, Natxo (2016), Tria de llengües i rols sociolingüístics a la Franja des de la perspectiva de l’anàlisi de xarxes socials, doctoral thesis, Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona. Taupiac, Jacme (2015), Per escriure l’occitan, Val d’Aran, Acadèmia aranesa dera lengua occitana. Teso, Enrique del (2015), L’amestáu urbanu. Cuestiones de normativa y llingua escrita, Lletres Asturianes 113, 11–26. Torres-Pla, Joaquim (2014), Està assegurada la transmissió lingüística?, in: Direcció General de Política Lingüística (edd.), II jornada sobre llengua i societat als territoris de parla catalana, Barcelona, Generalitat de Catalunya, 170–183. Vàrvaro, Alberto (2013), The Sociology of the Romance Languages, in: Martin Maiden/John Charles Smith/Adam Ledgeway (edd.), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 2: Contexts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 334–360. Vernet i Llobet, Jaume (2007), El pluralismo lingüístico, in: Jaume Vernet i Lobet/Ramón Punset, Lenguas y Constitución, Madrid, Iustel, 17–60. Vertovec, Steven (2007), Super-Diversity and its Implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies 29(6), 1024–1054. Vila, F. Xavier/Lasagabaster, David/Ramallo, Fernando (2017), Bilingual Education in the Autonomous Regions of Spain, in: Ofelia Garcia/Angel M. Lyn/Stephen May (edd.), Bilingual and Multilingual Education, London, Springer, 505–517. Williams, Glyn (2005), Sustaining Language Diversity in Europe. Evidence from the Euromosaic Project, Basingstoke, Palgrave.