Language attitudes in Galicia: using the matched-guise test among highschool students

Veronica Loureiro-Rodrigueza*, May M. Boggessb and Anne Goldsmithc

aDepartment of Linguistics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada; bSchool ofMathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA;cDepartment of Statistics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

(Received 7 February 2012; final version received 4 September 2012)

Adolescents’ attitudes towards standard Galician, non-standard Galician andSpanish are examined in this study using a matched-guise test. Results show thatadolescents perceive standard and non-standard Galician differently and thatdifferent values are attached to the three linguistic varieties investigated. Ourfindings confirm that certain stigmas are still attached to speaking non-standardGalician and to having a Galician accent when speaking Spanish. Finally, resultsprovide evidence of gender-related trends in regard to standard and non-standardGalician, and also reveal a covert social disapproval of women.

Keywords: Galician; Spanish; standard; adolescents; matched-guise

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 unfavour-

ably 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

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

2012, 1�18, iFirst article

ISSN 0143-4632 print/ISSN 1747-7557 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.729591

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

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 e 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 Suarez 2009; Marino Paz 1998; Monteagudo Romero 1999).

In the nineteenth century, Spain underwent several sociopolitical and socio-

economic changes that exacerbated the process of social replacement of Galician and

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

Suarez 2009; Marino Paz 1998; Monteagudo Romero 1999). Consequently, Galician

stereotypes grew stronger and were even internalised by Galician speakers themselves

(Labrana 1999; Lorenzo Suarez 2009).

2 V. Loureiro-Rodriguez et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

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 Suarez 2009; Marino 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 Suarez 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 thatrecognised 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 co-

official status of Galician, Catalan and Basque is also recognised:

3:1 El castellano es la lengua espanola oficial del Estado. Todos los espanoles tienen eldeber de conocerla y el derecho a usarla.(Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State. All Spaniards have a duty toknow it and the right to use it.)3:2 Las demas lenguas espanolas seran tambien oficiales en las respectivas Comuni-dades Autonomas de acuerdo con sus Estatutos.(The other Spanish languages will also be official in their respective AutonomousCommunities, in accordance with their Statutes.)3:3 La riqueza de las distintas modalidades linguısticas de Espana es un patrimoniocultural que sera objeto de especial respeto y proteccion.(The wealth of Spain’s distinctive linguistic varieties is a cultural patrimony that will bethe object of special respect and protection.)

Constitucion espanola (Spanish Constitution)5

The Galician Statute of Autonomy, ratified in 1982, gave back certain administrativepowers 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 Normalizacion Linguıstica),

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

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

have the duty to know Spanish (see Article 3:1 of the Spanish Constitution above),

but only the right to know Galician (Garcıa Negro 1991):

Artigo 1: O galego e a lingua propia de Galicia.Todolos galegos tenen o dereito de conecelo 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 Normalizacion Linguıstica (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 amabel/amabeis ‘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 adminis-

tration and official events (Lorenzo Suarez 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

(Fernandez Paz et al. 2008). Because of this approach to language and content

teaching, the Galician model has been described as one of immersion (Perez 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

4 V. Loureiro-Rodriguez et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

teachers’ L1. For example, while collecting our data in 2006, up to 70% of non-

language 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 so-

called 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 todiminish 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 (Gonzalez Gonzalez 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, reportedlydisplayed the most positive attitudes towards the autochthonous language (1996).

The latest Sociolinguistic Map of Galicia (Gonzalez Gonzalez 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 (Gonzalez Gonzalez 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 Alvarez 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 tospeaking Galician (2006, 193), and Gonzalez Gonzalez et al. (2003) found that people

who spoke with a Galician accent were perceived as less socially successful by the youth.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

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-Rodrıguez

2008), it is also viewed negatively because of its phonetic closeness to Spanish, and

thus is described as ‘artificial’, ‘fake’ or ‘unnatural’ (Iglesias Alvarez 2003; Loureiro-

Rodrıguez 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 habituallanguage for ideological reasons, are considered innovative and socially successful

(Gonzalez Gonzalez et al. 2003). However, their behavior is considered deviant, as it

is perceived as politically motivated (Loureiro-Rodrıguez 2008; O’Rourke and

Ramallo 2011) or trendy (Iglesias Alvarez 2003).

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 dialectalvariety 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 adoles-

cents?

(2) Do male adolescents hold different language attitudes from female adoles-

cents?

(3) Does adolescents’ habitual language influence their perception of non-

standard, 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

6 V. Loureiro-Rodriguez et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

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 attitude-

rating 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 alsoused open-ended questionnaires and interviews (Loureiro-Rodrıguez 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 isa 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

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

in Catalonia (1989) and by some of the attitudinal questions employed in the 1996Sociolinguistic Map of Galicia (Gonzalez Gonzalez 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 ofthe 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 urbanlocation reported using only Galician.

Table 1. Rating sheet given to participants.

1. Intelligent 0 1 2 3 4 5 13. Introverted 0 1 2 3 4 52. Amusing 0 1 2 3 4 5 14. Open-minded 0 1 2 3 4 53. Improper 0 1 2 3 4 5 15. Caring 0 1 2 3 4 54. Attractive 0 1 2 3 4 5 16. Refined 0 1 2 3 4 55. Trustworthy 0 1 2 3 4 5 17. Efficient 0 1 2 3 4 56. To have a sense of 0 1 2 3 4 5 18. Ignorant 0 1 2 3 4 5

humour 19. Boring 0 1 2 3 4 57. Conservative 0 1 2 3 4 5 20. Polite 0 1 2 3 4 58. Ambitious 0 1 2 3 4 5 21. Cosmopolitan 0 1 2 3 4 59. Rustic 0 1 2 3 4 5 22. Educated 0 1 2 3 4 510. Kind 0 1 2 3 4 5 23. Unrefined 0 1 2 3 4 511. Hard-working 0 1 2 3 4 5 24. Modern 0 1 2 3 4 512. Vulgar 0 1 2 3 4 5 25. Apt 0 1 2 3 4 5

Note: The person who speaks seems . . . (0 �not at all 5 �very much).

8 V. Loureiro-Rodriguez et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

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 �0.05for 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 eachspeaker’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

Figure 1. Participants by location and habitual language.

Table 2. Participants by location, gender and habitual language.

Urban high school (N �129) Rural high school (N �159)

Male Female Male Female

Galician only 0 0% 0 0% 12 18.8% 7 7.4%Spanish only 17 35.4% 32 39.5% 6 9.4% 21 22.1%Bilingual 31 64.6% 49 60.5% 46 71.9% 67 70.5%Total 48 100% 81 100% 64 100% 95 100%

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

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 speakerswhen 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 themale speaker as less socially correct when using Spanish. However, this difference did

Table 3. Mean trait scores for Spanish vs. non-standard Galician speakers.

Urban high school Rural high school

TraitListeners’

genderSpeakers’

gender SpanishNon-standGalician Spanish

Non-standGalician

Progressiveness Male Male 2.43 2.39 2.48 2.38Male Female 2.71 2.66 2.75 2.64Female Male 2.42 2.36 2.54 2.42Female Female 2.68 2.61 2.79 2.65

Capability Male Male 2.53 2.57 2.42 2.49Malec,d Female 3.35 3.23 2.97 2.89Female Male 2.56 2.43 2.59 2.48Femalea,b,c,d Female 3.32 3.03 3.09 2.82

Personal appeal Malec,d Male 2.40 2.26 2.16 1.97Maled Female 2.89 2.98 2.67 2.70Femalea,b,c,d Male 2.69 2.46 2.36 2.06Femalec,d Female 2.87 2.87 2.55 2.49

Social correctness Male Male 2.53 2.70 2.68 2.86Malea,b,c,d Female 1.36 1.62 1.91 2.18Femalea,b Male 2.44 2.87 2.29 2.73Femalea,b,c,d Female 1.17 1.69 1.42 1.95

aSpanish and non-standard Galician different at the 5% level for urban adolescents (comparing adjacentcells across row in same location).bSpanish and non-standard Galician different at the 5% level for rural adolescents (comparing adjacentcells across row in same location).cUrban and rural adolescents give different trait scores to Spanish speakers at the 5% level (comparingcells across row in Spanish column).dUrban 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).

10 V. Loureiro-Rodriguez et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

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

Figure 2. Spanish vs. non-standard Galician: social correctness trait.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

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 speakermore 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 speakingeither linguistic variety. Rural participants found the female speaker more socially

Table 4. Mean trait scores for Spanish vs. standard Galician speakers.

Urban high school Rural high school

TraitListeners’

genderSpeakers’

gender SpanishStandardGalician Span

StandardGalician

Progressiveness Male Male 2.29 2.27 2.50* 2.43*Male Female 2.50 2.52 2.59* 2.56*Female Male 2.18 2.17 2.35 2.28Female Female 2.61 2.64 2.66 2.64

Capability Malea,b Male 1.98 2.61 2.03 2.39Malea,d Female 3.19 3.47 2.97 2.98Femalea,b,d Male 2.28 2.78 2.35 2.57Female d Female 3.40 3.54 3.19 3.06

Personal appeal Male Male 1.96 1.94 1.94 1.97Maleb Female 2.5 2.66 2.47 2.68Femalec Male 2.26 2.23 2.01 2.03Femalea,b,c Female 2.64 2.79 2.39 2.59

Social correctness Malea Male 2.99 2.55 2.79 2.74Malea,c,d Female 1.67 1.44 1.95 2.10Femalea,c Male 2.56 2.30 2.32 2.45Femaleb,c,d Female 1.28 1.22 1.52 1.84

aSpanish and standard Galician different at the 5% level for urban adolescents (comparing adjacent cellsacross row in same location).bSpanish and standard Galician different at the 5% level for rural adolescents (comparing adjacent cellsacross row in same location).cUrban and rural adolescents give different trait scores to Spanish speakers at the 5% level (comparingcells across row in Spanish column).dUrban 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.

12 V. Loureiro-Rodriguez et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

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 (Domınguez-Seco 1995). However, as Gonzalez Gonzalez 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 (Fernandez 1993; Rodrıguez Neira 2002).

Just as in Gonzalez Gonzalez 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

Figure 3. Spanish vs. standard Galician: social correctness.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

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 Fernandez 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 (Loureiro-

Rodrıguez 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 school-

acquired 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 stillmore 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 (Gonzalez Gonzalez et al. 2003; Iglesias Alvarez 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 Spanishby 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-Rodrıguez 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 Gonzalez Gonzalez 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 entryinto 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

14 V. Loureiro-Rodriguez et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

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, andGeorgianne Moore for their extensive feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. We are also verygrateful 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/21483. For a comprehensive sociolinguistic history of Galician, see Marino Paz (1998),

Rodrıguez (1991) and Beswick (2007).4. Marino Paz (1998) and Monteagudo Romero (1999) point out that a Galician-

Portuguese koine was spoken in the west of the Iberian Peninsula up until the thirteenthcentury.

5. http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/6. http://galego.org/lexislacion/xbasica/3-83titI.html7. The Real Academia Galega ‘Galician Royal Academy’ and the Instituto da Lingua Galega

‘Galician Language Institute’ collaborate in the standardisation and publication of thestandard 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.pdf10. http://escolasinfantis.net/11. http://www.xunta.es/hemeroteca/-/nova/001206/feij%C3%B3o-avanza-novo-modelo-edu-

cativo-trilingue-que-blinda-equilibrio-entre-linguas

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

12. http://www.edu.xunta.es/web/node/93913. 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/).

14. For an account of the differences between standard and non-standard varieties ofGalician, see Beswick (2007, 131�7) and Regueira (1999, 2004).

15. Participants were given the option to fill out a standard Galician and a Spanish versionof the rating sheet.

16. The grouping was done a priori and not based on responses, thus no further statisticaltesting was needed.

17. Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte: http://www.educacion.gob.es

References

Appel, R., and P. Muysken. 1987. Language contact and bilingualism. London: EdwardArnold.

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 Fernandez, X.M. 2003. Change of values and the future of the Galician language.

Estudios de Sociolinguıstica 3, no. 2: 321�41.Domınguez-Seco, L. 1995. Na construcao do galego como lıngua legıtima. Uma analise dos

textos de lıngua do bacharelato. Agalia 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.Fernandez, M.A. 1993. La lengua maternal en los espacios urbanos gallegos. Plurilinguismes

6: 27�53.Fernandez Paz, A., A. Lorenzo Suarez, and F. Ramallo. 2008. A planificacion linguıstica nos

centros educativos [Language planning in schools]. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta deGalicia.

Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction totheory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Freixeiro Mato, X.R. 1997. Lingua galega: normalidade e conflicto [The Galician language:Standardisation and conflict]. A Coruna: Laiovento.

Garcıa Negro, M.P. 1991. O galego e as leis: unha aproximacion sociolinguıstica [Galician andthe 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.Gonzalez Gonzalez, M., M. Fernandez Rodrıguez, M.A. Rodrıguez Neira, L. Domınguez-

Seco, M. Fernandez Ferreiro, F. Fernandez Ramallo, M. Recalde Fernandez, and G. ReiDoval. 1994. Lingua Inicial e Competencia Linguıstica en Galicia. Compendio do I Volumedo Mapa Sociolinguıstico de Galicia [Mother tongue and linguistic competence in Galicia.A compendium of the first volume of the sociolinguistic map of Galicia]. A Coruna: RealAcademia Galega.

Gonzalez Gonzalez, M., M. Fernandez Rodrıguez, M.A. Rodrıguez Neira, L. Domınguez-Seco, M. Fernandez Ferreiro, F. Fernandez Ramallo, M. Recalde Fernandez, and G. ReiDoval. 1995. Usos Linguısticos en Galicia. Compendio do II Volume do Mapa Socio-linguıstico de Galicia [Linguistic uses in Galicia. A compendium of the second volume ofthe sociolinguistic map of Galicia]. A Coruna: Real Academia Galega.

16 V. Loureiro-Rodriguez et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

Gonzalez Gonzalez, M., M. Fernandez Rodrıguez, M.A. Rodrıguez Neira, L. Domınguez-Seco, M. Fernandez Ferreiro, F. Fernandez Ramallo, M. Recalde Fernandez, and G. ReiDoval. 1996. Actitudes Linguısticas en Galicia. Compendio do III Volume do MapaSociolinguıstico de Galicia [Linguistic attitudes in Galicia. A compendium of the thirdvolume of the sociolinguistic map of Galicia]. A Coruna: Real Academia Galega.

Gonzalez Gonzalez, M., M. Rodrıguez Neira, A. Dosil Maceira, J. Perez Vilarino, E. RealDeus, H. Casares Berg, A. Fernandez Salgado, X. Loredo Gutierrez, A. Pereiro Rozas,and I. Suarez Fernandez. 2003. O galego segundo a mocidade [Galician according to theyouth]. A Coruna: Real Academia Galega, Seminario de Sociolinguıstica.

Gonzalez Gonzalez, M., M. Rodrıguez Neira, A. Fernandez Salgado, X. Loredo Gutierrez,and I. Suarez Fernandez. 2007. Mapa sociolinguıstico de Galicia 2004. Vol 1: Lingua iniciale competencia en Galicia [2004 sociolinguistic map of Galicia. Volume 1: Mother tongueand linguistic competence in Galicia]. A Coruna: Real Academia Galega, Seminario desociolinguıstica.

Haddock, G., and Maio, G.R., eds. 2004. Contemporary perspectives on the psychology ofattitudes. Hove: Psychology Press.

Herrero-Valeiro, M. 2003. The discourse of language in Galiza: Normalisation, diglossia, andconflict. Estudios de Sociolinguıstica 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 Alvarez, A. 2003. Falar galego: ‘no veo por que’: aproximacion cualitativa a situacionsociolinguıstica de Galicia [Speaking Galician: ‘I don’t see why’. A qualitative assessmentof the sociolinguistic situation of Galicia]. 2nd ed. Vigo: Edicions Xerais de Galicia.

Ihemere, K.U. 2006. An integrated approach to the study of language attitudes and change inNigeria: The case of the Ikwerre of Port Harcourt City. In 36th annual conference onAfrican 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 linguistas: tradicion, innovacion e interferencias no galego

actual [Speakers as linguists: Tradition, innovation and interference in contemporaryGalician]. Vigo: Xerais.

Labov, W. 1966. The social significance of speech in New York City. Washington, DC: Centerfor Applied Lingusitics.

Labrana, S. 1999. Prexuızos linguısticos e identificacion social. In Cinguidos por unha arelacomun. Homenaxe o profesor Xesus Alonso Montero [Linguistic prejudice and socialidentification]. 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 tospoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60: 44�51.

Lorenzo Suarez, A.M. 2009. A situacion actual da lingua galega: unha ollada desde asociolinguıstica e a polıtica linguıstica. Galicia 21, no. A: 20�39.

Loureiro-Rodrıguez, V. 2008. Conflicting values at conflicting ages. Linguistic ideologies inGalician adolescents. In Bilingualism and identity: Spanish at the crossroads with otherlanguages, ed. M. Nino-Murcia and J. Rothman, 63�86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mar-Molinero, C. 2000. The politics of language in the Spanish-speaking world. London: Routledge.Marino 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

traves do tempo [The social history of Galician. Language, society and culture across theages]. Vigo: Galaxia.

Moreno, M. 2010. El trilinguismo de Feijoo se atasca [Feijoo’s multilingualism gets stuck]. ACoruna: Publico.es. http://www.publico.es/espana/286003/el-trilinguismo-de-feijoo-se-atasca (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 languagein the spanish-speaking world. Macro and micro perspectives, ed. C. Mar-Molinero and M.Stewart, 178�96. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2

O’Rourke, B. 2011. Galician and Irish in the European context: Attitudes towards weak andstrong minority languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

O’Rourke, B., and F. Ramallo. 2011. The native-non-native dichotomy in minority languagecontexts: Comparisons between Irish and Galician. Language Problems & LanguagePlanning 35, no. 2: 139�59.

Perez Vidal, C. 1998. Language teacher training and bilingual education in Spain. ELC report onteacher training for bilingual education. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla.

Pieras-Guasp, F. 2002. Direct vs. indirect attitude measurement and the planning of Catalan inMallorca. Language Problems & Language Planning 26, no. 1: 51�68.

Ramallo, F. 2007. Sociolinguistics of Spanish in Galicia. International Journal of the Sociologyof Language no. 184: 21�36.

Recalde, M. 2002. The Castilianist theory of the origin of the ‘gheada’ revisited. Estudios deSociolinguıstica 3, no. 2 and 4, no. 1: 43�74.

Regueira, X.L. 1999. Estandar oral e variacion social da lingua galega. In Cinguidos por unhaarela comun: homenaxe o profesor Xesus Alonso Montero [The oral standard and socialvariation of the Galician language], ed. R. Alvarez and D. Vilavedra, 855�75. Santiago deCompostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

Regueira, X.L. 2004. Estandar oral [The oral standard]. In Norma Linguıstica e Variacion.Unha Perspectiva desde o Idioma Galego [Linguistic norm and variation: A Galicianlanguage perspective], ed. R. Alvarez and H. Monteagudo, 69�96. Santiago deCompostela: Consello da Cultura Galega/Instituto da Lingua Galega.

Rodrıguez, F. 1991. Conflicto Linguıstico e Ideoloxıa na Galiza [Linguistic conflict andideology in Galicia]. Santiago de Compostela: Laiovento.

Rodrıguez Neira, M.A. 2002. Language shift in Galicia from a sociolinguistic viewpoint.Estudios de Sociolinguıstica 3, no. 2: 75�112.

Thomas, J.A. 2005. La divergencia entre actitudes y conducta linguısticas: la gheada gallega yla formacion de un registro culto oral. In Selected proceedings of the second workshop onSpanish 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 ofNorwich. Language in Society 1: 179�95.

Woolard, K.A. 1989. Double talk. Bilingualism and the politics of ethnicity in Catalonia.Stanford: Stanford University Press.

18 V. Loureiro-Rodriguez et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ver

onic

a L

oure

iro-

Rod

rigu

ez]

at 1

2:34

16

Oct

ober

201

2