Literary translations

Península de La Magdalena Cabezón

la Peninsuta de La Magdalena pertenece aL rostro más

___ .

sensible de la ciudad de Santander. Sus oJos azulosos

serpentean los abruptos acantilados. su frente aL horizonte desde la playa de

resbala

hasta la arbolada ReIna

Victoria. Sus delicadas comisuras entreLazan el espíritu

an tiguo de El

con la antesala de la propia urbe,

abriéndose paso por la marinera

fotogénica Bahía. La

Magdalena tiene expresión cómplice para

santanderinos. A veces, esgnme el histónco. natal. convidado a perdurar en su geografía más allá de tos libros. Olras veces. d bUJa en sus VISitantes un sembLante de tUJo y envidia por tan

magna de arte, naturaleza y arquItectura La Península de La MagdaLena eL placer de la huída, el disfrute de otra dimensión ajena al tiempo: su ritmo se opone aL tráfico. a los humos grises de ciudad, a la verticalidad de Los edificios, a la Sin fonía moderna de los deCibelios. Desde un ángulo casi arrancado de la tierra. sus jardines extienden no ya linos de hierba pura esenCia de verde, olreciéndose a unos ciudadanos enamorados de este hermoso pero limitado espacio. Se trata de formar parte del emblema que Santander reconoce. Así, el temtorio de la península fluye en sociedad como una herencia perpetua. disponible y abierta . Un engrandecido por los reyes Alfonso XIII y Victona Eugenia al haber escogido eL palacio para su veraneo durante casi dos decenios. La Monarquía se enamoró de este rincón paradisiaco. con tribuyendo a dorarlo de perfección. Edificaron las Caballerizas atendiendo a premisas de elegancia, estilo y claSicismo: hiCieron florecer policromos parterres: diseñaron Incluso un distingUido y deportivo campo de polo. El eco de aquellos tiempos resuena en aire.

La suave piel de La muda dependiendo de las

estaclQnes. y desprende siempre una Influenda y reveladora. En apacigua anSias de mar que bordean su cintura. ofrece SilenCIO y vacuidad. En primavera recupera el esplendor deL coLor, del arcoíris cruzando Jardines muy Horidos. En el estio la península se vuelve enérgica, sabia y seductora. Sabe el éxtasis de sus rincones naturales con La riqueza cul tural de una Universidad InternacionaL de Verano y con La animación Lúcida de los huéspedes de las Caballenzas. las noches se suman a dar un contorno aL recinto. También en verano, La transforma su inmensa campa en punto de encuentro para musica. con conciertos y actuaciones. En otoño a bostezar la brisa y EL PalaCIO Real prosigue su línea ImpolUla abarcando congresos. eventos institucionales, reuniones.

Siendo así centro neurálgico de las acllvldades relevantes.

Dentro de sus paredes, eL paLacio es cuna y nombre escnto en mayúsculas deL saber y la cul tura española y universal. La UniverSIdad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo IUIMP] dispone la enseñanza y el aprendizaje en manos de jóvenes y adultos, nacionales o extranjeros, por igual Por sus venas han pasado elluvios tan genrales como Dámaso Alonso. Pedro SaLinas.

Jorge GUI\tén. Ataúlfo Argenta.

Hierro... la su voz consolidada de foro y encuentro multldlsClpllnar con

precisión, y la penínsuLa proporciona naturalmente el complemento Idóneo para la desconexión de clases y cursos.

El de la PenínsuLa de La Magdalena desprende sabor a mar por cuaLqu iera de sus puntos el paisaje con contrastes de tonalidad y movimiento. Desde los las aguas de Bahía se posan mansas al arenaLes de relUC ir y deja r hacer al Juego ná utico de la Más arr iba , Junto al palacio, el horizonte parece que transgreda la pa z en tos días de calma o la furia cuando arremeten oleajes de azulón intenso que cubren las rocas de espuma. Tan sólo la Isla de Mouro, con su faro estoico, saluda con cierta gracia desde mar abierto. Con su oJo de luz giratoria va avisando a la península de que es hora de ret irarse para el de La noche. JunIo zoo de focas y el cantábr ico se encalla en una finísima capa amarillenta de aren a que con forma el esplendor de EL Sardinero. MotiVOS como encajan el palacio y su entorno en la zona donde Santander comenzÓa prestiglarse. Los Baños de Ola de El Sardinero. después de Siglo y mediO, acentüan eLblorntmo sociaL y de la Ciudad, gracias a las multitudes entregadas 'J aSiduas. Hoy en día se conmemoran los fesleJos y se organizan llamativas actividades que recuperan el estilo de la época.

La mirada que abarcan los ojos extendién dose desde La Magdalena es una Visión rotun da '1 descript iva de una orografía camuflada por fuera, de playas, de valles y recovecos de costa manna, de navíos de un mar sentimental, de luces de ciu dad lejanas en la cercania. embargo. el de sus parq ues ten ores arbolados. de sus umbrosas sendas, de La blodlVersldad tan prolífica que engloba, de sus esculturas, de su incomparable palaCIO o de su inagotabLe tren tur ístiCO Magdalena, a apreciar la sensibilidad de un paisaje au todidacta , In def inible y eté re o.

01 ItS

slIps

01

BIkinIS

lo the 01 El

up onlo

liS

books,

01 to lO th e From an ang le 01

tImes, In ItS of art, nalure and

lown fumes, lo out 01 to manner, and A

I1

ilS

lO 01 Penlnsula tIme: lis IS lO of unlurl nol 01 Dile 01 XIII

Ior

and lo

The

lo

bultl the

•

cl5m;

polo

La Magdalena Peninsula de

I

Pén insule de La Magdalena

'a.1

lle B

nlS El

au.

qUI habltanls au ·de l; en lui

pnme 10ute

une

lemps , son ns

parlols momenls, elle aussl p1alS_r la t"ag'lal,on, un d

un a.r de IUle et La au la

11 i

la

un ROl pendanl

Xlll

la,sanl du La

leur

Language as a diacritical in terms of cultural and resistance identities in Galicia Ana Iglesias-Álvarez Universidade de Santiago de Compostela Departamento de Literatura Española, Teoría da Literatura e Lingüística Xeral Facultade de Filoloxía Universidade de Santiago de Compostela Avda. de Castelao, s/n E-15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain aiglesia@usc.es

Fernando Ramallo Universidade de Vigo Departamento de Traducción e Lingüística Facultade de Filoloxía e Traducción Universidade de Vigo As Lagoas-Marcosende, s/n E-36200, Vigo, Spain framallo@uvigo.es

Abstract In this paper, we present an approximation of the relationship between language and identity in Galicia. Specifically, we focus on the discursive strategies reproduced by subjects in processes of identity construction. In light of the fast socio-economic changes caused by the current phase of globalization, there is a need for identities to be (re)-defined, and within this context minority languages have begun to take special relevance in traditional spheres, becoming a category of resistance. Here we shall analyze the strategies developed by social actors in order to maintain an identity of their own within the context of globalization, with particular attention to the Galician language and its social representations. Furthermore, we shall verify if these representations differ from the rural to the urban world, or if these two worlds also tend to merge (processes of suburbanization and contra-urbanization).

Key words: identity, discourse analysis, Galicia, resistance, globalization.

Copyright © Estudios de Sociolingüística 3(2) 2002 & 4(1) 2003, pp. 255-287

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

Resumo Neste artigo presentamos unha aproximación á relación entre lingua e identidade cultural en Galicia baseada na análise de nove grupos de discusión. En concreto, estamos interesados nas estratexias discursivas que reproducen os suxeitos nos procesos de construcción identitaria.

Ante os rápidos cambios socioeconómicos que está provocando a fase actual da globalización, as identidades deben (re)definirse, e neste contexto as linguas minorizadas comezan a adquirir unha especial relevancia nos espacios tradicionais, converténdose nunha categoría de resistencia. Así, analizaremos as estratexias que desenvolven os actores sociais co fin de manter unha identidade propia no contexto da globalización, centrándonos especialmente na lingua galega e nas súas representacións sociais. Por outra banda, comprobaremos se estas representacións son diferentes no mundo rural e no urbano, ou ben estes dous mundos tenden tamén a fusionarse (procesos de suburbanización e contraurbanización).

Palabras clave: identidade, análise do discurso, Galicia, resistencia, globalización.

1. Introduction In this paper we present an approximation of the relationship between language and identity in Galicia. Specifically, we focus on the discursive strategies used to claim language as a diacritic in constructing a cultural identity of resistance among the Galician rural population (Hall, 1992, 1996; Castells, 1997). In order to analyze such strategies, we have taken discourses produced in nine discussion groups as our starting point. These discussion groups took place in various places in Galicia throughout 20001. The discussion group, as a data generating technique, is characterised by its ability to provide access to collective discourse practices, with a high rate of expressive spontaneity and self-regulation. Although this is a technique with a relevant tradition in social research (Morgan, 1998; Callejo, 2001), only recently has it been applied in sociolinguistics, particularly in works dealing with the analysis of the linguistic construction of identity (de Cillia et al., 1998; Kjaerbeck, 2001).

Galicia is an Autonomous Community, located in northwest Spain. It is characterised by a demographic structure which is noted for the presence of rural settlements. At the turn of the 21st century, almost half of the Galician population now lives in municipal districts of less than 5,000 inhabitants. These are structured into several dozens of thousands of localities, often inhabited by a very low number of families2. This rural tradition has played a vital role in constructing a collective cultural identity. Indeed, until very recently, Galician urban culture has been fed by the values rooted in a rural tradition and continues today feeding off rural symbols, among which the Galician language takes pride of place (Rodríguez Campos, 1999).

1 See §3 and Appendix 1. These nine discussion groups comprise the most important part of the corpus

in a more extensive research programme (Iglesias, 2002).

2 In Galicia, from 1970 onwards, several socio-demographic changes have occurred, with the result that

many rural districts (< 5,000 inhabitants), generally of emigrant tradition, have changed their trend, which has been partially responsible for its socioeconomic and demographic recovery (Ferrás Sexto, 1996).

256

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

The notable vitality of the Galician language within the Galician territory as a whole, has been linked to this eminently traditional nature of a self-sufficient based economy and to the rational exploitation of natural resources. Over the last few decades, economic changes in Galicia is at the same time bringing about linguistic change, which has given rise to an accentuated dichotomy between the urban and rural habitats. While at the turn of the 20th century Galician was a widely used language among the population that was —as noted above— mostly rural, at the turn of the 21st century, this situation has changed considerably as a result of the dismantling of the traditional systems of production. This has led to a notable internal migratory flow, moving from the rural to the emerging —and somewhat late in comparison with other European regions— urban centres. The wish to integrate into the urban network as swiftly as possible leads new town-dwellers to take on the reference system associated with towns which includes the Spanish language. From that point onwards, Galician was labelled as the rural language, while Spanish was labelled as the urban language3. This label, for a long time a stigmatized one, has now become a potential resource of localist identity which, in the rural world, promotes the construction of a conscious, demand-orientated identity within Galicia.

This process of constructing identity should be viewed in the light of the globalization process and its repercussions on the local.

One of the most significant characteristics of modern day societies is their sustenance in a new technological digital industry, with internet as their most widespread tool. This new technology has given rise to notable changes in social representations and in discourses. Indeed, it is common to characterise the current era by a dialectic between the global and the local which is causing change in the way we view what is closest to us. Globalizing policies are fed by the diversity offered from the local, in a synergy termed by some as “glocalization” or “re-localization” (Beck, 1999) and one where local discourses become particularly relevant in the resistance to homogenization, in turn making it possible to construct new identities. In other words, attempts are made, from the peripheries, to put forward solutions to the globalization network by setting up local communicative areas of one’s own, thus giving central importance to localization in contemporary societies (Lash & Urry, 1994).

2. Identity/identities A good deal has been penned on identity and identities, from diverse disciplinary fields. Review of the bibliography over the last few decades reveals a 3 This simplification should not cover up the diversity of the communication practices found in Galicia.

Even in highly Castilianized towns, Galician also has its domains, this being both the traditional varieties, as in the family environment of rural immigrants and of their descendants, and the institutionalized variety, commonly found, for example, in public discourse.

257

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

“discursive explosion” (Hall, 1996), with one constant: promoting a critique of the classical consideration of the concept of identity, which understood identity as something unified, permanent and essential. This critique arose precisely within a context of crisis in the legitimization of the system of values particular to traditional societies which has led to the fracturing of some representation models previously assumed to be unchangeable.

In this particular instance, the relationship between language and identity has frequently drawn the attention of social research. Over the last few years, the question of identity arises once again at the core of scientific programmes linked to sociolinguistics, discourse analysis or to the field of cultural studies “in the attempt to rearticulate the relationship between subjects and discursive practices” (Hall, 1996: 2). Some recent examples include, among others, Blommaert & Verschueren (1998), de Cillia, Reisigl & Wodak (1999), Argenter (2000), Fernández (2000), Barker & Galasin¤ski (2001), Blackledge & Pavlenko (2001), Piller (2001), Sunderland & Litosseliti (2002) and Sebba & Tate (2002).

But just what is understood by identity? There is no doubt about the fact that we are dealing with one of those concepts where, in common with “communication”, “discourse” or “language”, inter alia, the colloquial use of the term has blurred the outlines of its technical meanings. Furthermore among the technical meanings themselves there are notable differences. When posing the “question of cultural identity”, Hall (1992) starts from three very different concepts of identity, each linked to a particular type of social subject. In the first place, the identity related to the Enlightenment subject, characterised by being a subject, fully centred, unified individual, endowed with the capacities of reason, consciousness and action, whose ‘centre’ consisted of an inner core which first emerged when the subject was born, and unfolded with it, while remaining essentially the same throughout the individual’s existence.

(Hall, 1992: 275)

Thus, this conception reflects an individualistic subject, with an equally individualistic identity. The other two historically identified subjects, according to Hall, are the “sociological subject” and the “post-modern subject”. Both are the result of the complexity of modern day societies. Although both conceptions present notable similarities —in comparison with the first— they also maintain their differences. The main difference is that the sociological subject, still has an inner core or essence that is the ‘real me’, but this is formed and modified in a continuous dialogue with the cultural worlds ‘outside’ and the identities which they offer.

(Hall, 1992: 276)

As far as the post-modern subject is concerned, he/she “assumes different identities at different times, identities which are not unified around a coherent “self ”

258

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

(277)4. Despite the foregoing statement, we are not always aware of the multiplicity of our identities, since the socialization agents —family, educational system, media, etc.—, favour producing a narrative that induces us to imagine ourselves (Anderson, 1991) as a unified identity. This narrative of a structured, coherent and unified identity is an ideology with a good deal of the fantastic (Hall, 1992).

Nevertheless, here, we take identities to be constructs, often fragmented, of discursive projection, deriving from a conglomerate of social representations that are acquired —mostly in an unconscious manner— during the socialization process and that are gradually altered in the course of our existence. If identities are constructed in discourse, it is in discourse that we have to look in order to understand these identities, analyzing the structures made by the social subjects within a given historical context: Precisely because identities are constructed within, not outside, discourse, we need to understand them as produced in specific historical and institutional sites within specific discursive formations and practices, by specific enunciative strategies. (Hall, 1996: 4)

If we assume that different cultures convey different representations, we may equally assume that identities are culturally determined. In the words of Barker & Galasin¤ski (2001: 87) “identities are wholly cultural and cannot ‘exist’ outside of representations”. In this sense, identities have a relative nature, i.e., they entail a “positioning” rather than an essence (Hall, 1990)5. Furthermore, in line with its inherent contradiction, the subject in modern day societies is a decentred subject, who assumes different identities at different times. Identities are not always coherent, and are often unstable and diffused. This conglomeration of representations, transformed into significant units, at all times mould opposing identities. In other words, identities arise in the presence of the other, of the opposite, of its negation, in a negotiated dialectic that is at all times an unfinished process of construction and deconstruction: identities are constructed through, not outside, difference. This entails the radically disturbing recognition that it is only through the relation to the Other, the relation to what it is not, to precisely what it lacks, to what has been called its constitutive outside that the ‘positive’ meaning of any term —and thus its identity— can be constructed.

(Hall, 1996: 4-5, emphasis in original) 4 For this reason, we tend towards using the term in the plural rather than in the singular, since the former “captures the idea of people identifying simultaneously with a variety of social groups. One or more of these identities may be foregrounded at different times; they are sometimes contradictory, sometimes interrelated” (Ivanic, 1998: 11).

5 We therefore opt for a non-essentialist conception of identities. It is essential to make this distinction since “directly contrary to what appears to be its settled semantic career, this concept of identity does not signal the stable core of the self, unfolding from beginning to end through all the vicissitudes of history without change” (Hall, 1996: 3).

259

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

In accordance with Castells (1997: 8), we consider three ways of forming identities, taking into consideration that the social construction of identity always occurs in situations where power relationships are present: a) Legitimizing identity: introduced by the dominant institutions of society to extend and rationalize vis à vis social actors. b) Resistance identity: generated by those actors that are in positions/conditions devaluated and/or stigmatized by the logic of domination, thus building trenches of resistance and survival on the basis of principles different from, or opposed to, those permeating the institutions of society. c) Project identity: when social actors, on the basis of whichever cultural materials are available to them, build a new identity that redefines their position in society and, by so doing, seek the transformation of overall social structure.

The latter type would entail one step further in terms of resistance identity, as it would mean evolving from the passivity of resistance to action which calls for a change of society. Castells assumes that these will be the identity constructions of the future.

In this paper, we focus on the analysis of discursive strategies related to reproducing the first two types. Legitimizing identities prevailed during the 20th century and still continue to be interiorized by social groups, even when traditional social systems start to succumb. Resistance identities would be contra-hegemonic identities, opposed to the powers-that-be and to their dominant semiotic (Gal, 1998).

For Blackledge (2000: 29), subordinated groups “may not always accept the symbolic power of the dominant group, but may symbolically resist the power by adopting linguistic practices which are counter to those of the dominant group”.

These identity constructions become particularly relevant in globalizing situations such as the current one. In this regard, Hall (1992: 300), in his analysis of the consequences of the final stages of globalization, puts forward three possible solutions: 1. National identities are being eroded as a result of the growth of cultural homogenization and “the global post-modern”.

2. National and other “local” or particularistic identities are being strengthened by the resistance to globalization.

3. National identities are declining but new identities of hybridity are taking their place.

In the rest of this paper, we will verify just to what extent, in Galicia, these solutions have been incorporated into semi-public discourse. Our objective, however, is to focus on an analysis of the second, i.e., on the creation of new local resistance identities as opposed to homogenization.

260

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

3. Methodology As stated earlier, our data is derived from nine discussion groups held in Galicia in 2001. A discussion group is: a socialized conversation project where setting up a group communication situation is used to capture and analyse ideological discourses and symbolic representations that are linked to any social phenomenon.

(Alonso, 1998: 93, our translation)

The important point in research, therefore, through discussion groups, is to analyze salient social representations in the conversational communicative situation.

In our case, this is a matter of the discursive production of representations on identity and language.

In the Spanish-speaking world, the discussion group enjoys a long tradition in sociological research, particularly since Ibáñez’s theoretical re-casting (1979)6. The origins of the technique, however, are to be found in the North American sociology of between the wars, although in this case, the technique goes by the name of focus group, as coined by Merton (Morgan, 1998; Myers, 1998). In the field of Galician sociolinguistics research, the discussion group has scarcely been applied, despite being an extremely useful technique to supplement the numerous and diverse quantitative studies conducted, over the last few decades, on the Galician linguistic conflict, particularly regarding research into linguistic attitudes and ideologies (see, for example, Seminario de Sociolingüística, 1996).

Within the area of conversational techniques, we tend towards the discussion group mainly for two reasons. Firstly, because the interaction between various informants experienced in a group reduces the effects of observation. The debate between the participants and the scarce intervention of the moderator help to draw out the different positions of the subjects, which also highlight their contradictions.

In the words of Callejo: Several people taking part in an observation situation structured in such a manner as to allow for spontaneous expression, opens the door to contradictions. Furthermore, it is as if, by allowing the group to speak, there were a search for its incoherencies.

(Callejo, 2002: 93, our translation)

This is the main advantage of the discussion group as opposed to the interview, as it favours rationalization in its responses. Interviewees attempt to give a coherent “face” or style to the interviewer, resorting to discursive strategies aimed at “saving face” (Goffman, 1967).

6 As this is understood in the Spanish-speaking tradition, the theoretical grounding of the discussion

group lies in fields of knowledge closely linked with the sources of structuralism: psychoanalysis, semiology and linguistics.

261

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

Secondly, we tend towards the discussion group inasmuch as it produces a collective discourse. Since our objective is to analyze group social phenomena and, in short, to gather a reconstruction of a social group, one appropriate way to go about this is by setting up a group. For this reason, we conceive the group as a “witness micro-group” of the “reference macro-group” (Ortí, 1989: 188).

The design of these groups involved control variables such as educational level, age and type of habitat, these being the most appropriate for explaining linguistic distribution in Galicia (Seminario de Sociolingüística, 1995). Characteristics of the nine groups are shown below schematically.

20-30 years of age

30-40 years of age

Over 40’s

Higher education

GD1

GD5

Primary or secondary education

GD2

GD3

GD4

Higher education

GD6

Primary or secondary education

GD7

GD8

GD9

Urban habitat

Rural habitat

4. Analysis In the majority of public narratives dealing with the Galician identity, the autochthonous language takes a predominant place. The Galician language is conceived as the cohesive element of the multiple dimensions of said identity. These narratives are often re-contextualized in private or semi-private discourses where, nevertheless, an immense diversity of positions appears in this respect (de Cillia et al., 1999). So different identities develop in the course of the discussion groups which, in some cases, we can associate with certain sociolinguistic profiles, in terms of the language used and type of habitat —rural/urban— although without following the traditional formulae linking language to identity, but rather, as we shall see later, in a more complex manner. Also, in accordance with the base theoretical framework, our data confirm the co-existence of diverse identities in the same given social group, identities that are not only accumulative, but also dynamic and, in many cases, contradictory.

4.1. Construction of a localist identity by ruralites Those who confer the Galician language with the fundamental diacritic value of

262

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

self-acknowledgement do so by constructing a localist resistance identiy (Castells, 1997), essentially developed by the rural inhabitants more sensitive to symbols and traditional values. In effect, we note the construction of a local identity among the Galician speaking ruralites, according to the so-called process of re-localization (Beck, 1998). As we shall see, in the case of this identity, language —Galician— plays a vital role as a diacritic, linked to the type of habitat —small village. These are the most important, but certainly not its only elements, as a complex identity with multiple identity reference points are involved.

The enormous relevance of these two reference points is evidenced in the process of self-categorization, i.e., in the presentation and negotiation of identities in the discourse. We agree with Ciapuscio and Kesselheim (1997: 110) when they state that, “the main question is: in which group (out of the possible ones) are they included at a given moment of the interaction and with which discursive function” (our translation). Thus, in a debate focusing on the situation of languages in Galicia, ruralites present themselves, in their initial interventions, as belonging to the country, using an explicit form of self-categorization —“son da aldea” [“I’m from the country”] (DG4: 49, DG7-22)— and as Galician speakers, insist on their close relationship with this language. They present two categories, namely speaking Galician and being from the country where one category implies the other. A discursive cause-effect strategy is promoted, where the habitat of belonging —the rural world— and of language —Galician— give rise to forming a group — ruralites— as opposed to the urbanites who would constitute the exogroup.

Explicitly, being from the country implies speaking Galician and —implicitly— not being from the country implies speaking Spanish. The pronoun “nós” (“we”) and the place adverb “aquí” (“here”) take on a special relevance in their discourse as markers of the endogroup. They do not, however, use the word “a country person” (“aldeán” or “aldeano”) as an identifying term, but rather they resort to the circumlocution of “from the village” (“da aldea”), perhaps because of the negative connotations that, for a long time, have been associated with the term7: “aquí toda a xente:: das aldeas daquí e aquí se fala galego” (DG7: 43) [“here everybody:: from the villages from here and Galician is spoken here”]

7 The self-categorizing term “aldeano” (“a country person”) is only used in an urban context and,

consequently, by rural emigrants. In this case, the urbanites are the first to use the term, who also associate it with old prejudices, so that its use by those who present themselves as ruralites may be interpreted as a demand: “o galego sigue esis- sigue esistindo gracias ós ós aldeanos á xente coma min” [“Galician still exi- still exists thanks to people from the country, – people like me”] (DG4: 628). The informant is included in the group of those “people from the country”, who are termed as “country bumpkins” and “country folk”. But now associating them with something more positive: keeping Galicia’s native language, Galician, alive. As we explained when describing the profile of each group (appendix 1), in Discussion Group 4, we intentionally mix rural emigrants with born and bred urbanites.

263

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

“falei toda a vida o:: gallego” (DG8: 1337) “falamos o galego máis que nada no rural” (DG8: 361) [“I’ve spoken Galician all my life”] [“we speak Galician more than anything in the country”] “falando aquí co: con todos aquí nos entendemos en gallego” (DG8: 108) [“talking here with everybody here we understand each other in Galician”] “o teu (...) idioma é unha cultura:: é a cultura dos (xx) dos nosos pais dos nosos avós todo o mundo aquí: e:h as: (miserias as) pasamos en gallego (non as pasamos) (...) en castellano” (DG9: 1730-4) [“your […] language is a culture:: it’s a culture of our parents of our grandparents everybody here: and the [miseries] we suffer them in Galician (we don’t suffer them) in Spanish”]

It should be noted that rural emigrants, despite their now residing in a town, construct a discourse leaning more towards country dwellers, generally including themselves within the group of ruralites, “eu por exemplo son da aldea e toda a vida falei galego toda a vida” (DG4: 49) [“I, for example, am from the country and I’ve spoken Galician all my life”] (DG4: 49).

In fact, speaking Galician is presented as one of the prerequisites to become integrated in “life in the country”, since Galician in this habitat is not only the language par excelence in the family environment, but is also the language of relationships between friends, so that its use attains the status of a social behaviour norm. Thus, in the small villages, the use of Spanish becomes a marked behaviour, an “abstract code” (Rodríguez Campos, 1999) and, therefore, something that attracts the attention to the extent of even being the object of criticism, which reflects the vitality of a new eco-linguistic consciousness: “pero na aldea como todo o mundo fala en galego bueno pues:: xa sólo por:: un pouco de cortesía ou de:: meterte no:: (...) ambiente” (DG7: 846-8), “é como si vas a inglaterra co inglés (...) o mismo ti vas máis a intentar falalo xa sólo pa decir estou aquí son coma vós para unirte a eles (...) meterte no mundo” (DG7: 847-50), “coa xente que conoces non lle vas falar o castellano” (DG7: 988), “cheghamos á aldea póñense a falar o castellano non lle entende ninguén” (DG8: 748) [“but in the country as everybody speaks Galician well:: just out of:: a bit of courtesy or to get yourself into the swing of things” (DG7: 846-8), “it’s like if you go to England speaking English (…) or even if you go to try to speak it just by saying I’m here I’m like you to link up with them (…) getting into their world” (DG7: 847-50), “with people you know you’re not going to speak in Spanish to them” (DG7: 988), “we get to the village they start talking in Spanish nobody understands you” (DG8: 748)] MD:

F: A: F:

que incluso pode estar mal visto agora o que está mal visto é fala::r castellano? [that can even be looked down upon now what’s looked down upon is speaking in Spanish?] eu penso que a veces pode ser eh? = [I think it can be sometimes, you know?] = na aldea si = [it is in the country] = si a veces [(xx)]> [yes sometimes]

264

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

R: MD: F:

<[(sobre todo cos) amigos xa] = [especially with friends] = i por que? o sea <3> eso = [and why? in other words that] = é que non pega [non pega]> [it’s just that it doesn’t sound right doesn’t sound right] (DG7: 780-6)

Another behaviour norm with which the ruralites identify themselves and that constitutes a specific life style lies in the type of neighbourly relations established in the rural world. Therefore, to be considered a member of the endogroup, it is not sufficient to live in the country, but rather it is necessary to share this life style, where relationships among neighbours are very closely knit —dense and multiple social networks— as opposed to what is normally the case in towns, with low density and low multiplicity social networks: “na vida da aldea todos se coñecen (...) falas con todo o mundo” (DG7: 877-9) “despois depende o que te asimiles o que te metas na aldea na vida da aldea na xente porque hai xente que para vivir na aldea fai a súa casa i:: non sabemos nin que é (...) non se relaciona” (DG7: 872-4) [“everybody knows each other in the country (…) you talk to everybody”] (DG7: 877-9) [“then it depends on what you assimilating what you put into the small village into small village life into people because there are people who to live in the village make their home and we don’t even know what they are (…) they don’t relate”] (DG7: 872-4)

Furthermore, ruralites have certain ideological beliefs in common, a very important factor in group forming. On the one hand, they put themselves forward as guardians of the language in the past and protagonists in its restoration and reinforcement in the present and into the future: “o que si está claro é que o galego sigue esis- sigue existindo gracias ós ós aldeanos á xente coma min (...) si non chega a ser os aldeanos (...) houbérano borrado xa do mapa fai:: fai:: muitos anos porque cando se:: prohibía pois os aldeanos erre que erre” (DG4: 628) “en nós vai estar de verdá o cambio” (DG7: 1379), “A: mentres haxa aldeas o galego non morre / F: si niso estou dacordo con el” (DG7: 98-9), “e o galego si se está conservando estase conservando nas aldeas (...) é donde... é donde se está conservando i donde se vai a seguir conservando vai ser nas aldeas” (DG7: 1254) “por que sigue vivo [o galego]? (...) gracias a que se mantivo no rural” (DG8: 363-5), “o galego:: mantúvose deica agora gracias á lareira... durante séculos” (DG8: 1787) “o que pasa que todo está... todo está en nós mismos non? e nós (xx) os gallegos (...) o que esto siga a evolución de cara ben todo depende de nós” (DG9: 2050) [“it’s plain to see that Galician still exi- still exists thanks to to villagers people like me (…) if it weren’t for the villagers (…) they’d have scrubbed it off the map a long:: a long:: time ago because when it was:: forbidden well country people carried on”] (DG4: 628) [“change is really going to lie with us”] (DG7: 1379), [“A: as long as there are small villages Galician isn’t going to die / F: I agree with him on that”] (DG7: 98-9), [“and if

265

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

Galician is being kept alive it’s being kept alive in the country (…) that’s where … that’s where it’s being kept and where it’s going to carry on being kept alive is in the country”] (DG7: 1254) [“why does [Galician] carry on? (…) thanks to it being kept alive in the country”] (DG8: 363-5), [“Galician:: has been kept alive till today thanks to the hearth and home … for centuries”] (DG8: 1787) [“what happens is that it’s all … it’s all in ourselves isn’t it? it’s us (xx) the Galician people (…) the fact that this carries on all depends on us”] (DG9: 2050)]

This discourse implicitly stands up for its ownership over the language — Galician is theirs— since if it were not for them, it would have been lost. This same topic —the villagers as guardians of the language— also appears in isolated cases among the urbanites thus, “se sigue manteniendo por la gente de los pueblos” (“it’s still preserved by the people in the country”) (DG5: 422). When this demand comes from a ruralite, however, within an urban group (DG4), voices arise that attempt to lessen its importance, adducing that country people did not speak Spanish because they did not know how to (“porque tampoco sabían hablar el castellano”) [“because they couldn’t speak Spanish either”] (DG4: 643), and not out of linguistic consciousness. The difference between the use of Galician out of necessity —lack of knowledge of Spanish— and its selective use, using one’s own free will, are noted at this point, so that the ruralites insist on the latter viewpoint. In fact, as we can see here, they convert their resistance and that of their ancestors towards Spanish, into a group symbol.

More precisely, we note the different degree of interiorization of Galician among the ruralites and the urbanites in their respective ways of constructing discourse in terms of this issue. In clear contrast with the ruralites, the urbanites usually speak of language revitalization in the third person or using an impersonal construction, without involving themselves directly in the process: “lo de que se intente conservar el gallego también me parece normal” (DG1: 302), “hay que mantenerla (a lingua)” (DG1: 868-70), “si quieren mantenerla de verdad porque lo que les interesa es mantener la cultura” (DG1: 875), “sería interesante conservarlo” (DG2: 203) [“the idea of trying to keep Galician seems normal to me too”] (DG1: 302), [“you have to keep it up (the language)”] (DG1: 868-70), [“If they really want to keep it because what they’re interested in is keeping the culture”] (DG1: 875), [ “it would be interesting to keep it”] (DG2: 203)

Conversely, the ruralites insist on the fact that the use of Galician is on the rise thanks to them, “porque a xente está tirando a máis” [“because people are making more of an effort”] (DG7: 1177), “i o vamos facendo nós” (DG7: 764)” [“and it’s us who are doing it”] (DG7: 764). As regards the lack of interest shown by the authorities, in their opinion, all their efforts on revitalizing the language are focused

266

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

on the people. At least in this aspect, they show considerable distrust towards the politicians, so that their discourse is generally marked by a highly sceptical tone, even going so far as to refer to a “cosmetic” language policy (“de maquillaxe”) (DG8: 2049). In this regard, politicians also lie in the exogroup. Although they now attempt to draw nearer to the people through the use of Galician —the people’s language— this conduct is widely rejected by the ruralites, in other words, by those who have spoken Galician all of their lives and not only since it has become “fashionable”: “a política é sempre eu creo que sempre vai a a:: remolque da: da vida (...) eles se apuntan as medallas entendes? nada máis pero non fan nada” (DG7: 1388) “paréceme que ós políticos tanto lle dá o idioma que vaias falar ou que deixes de falar (...) con tal de que lle déa-lo voto” (DG7: 182-4) “eu no tema dos políticos non creo muito / eu creo que son todos iguales” (DG8: 14078), “[os políticos] falan o galego pa presumir / porque lle convén e nada máis” (DG8: 119-20), “os políticos xa se sabe máis ou menos por qué poden facer todo non? por intereses” (DG8: 207) “[os políticos falan galego] porque vende” (DG9: 1504) [“politics, I think, always lags:: lags behind life (…) they pin medals on themselves, you know what I mean? nothing else but they don’t do anything else”] (DG7: 1388) [“it seems to me that politicians couldn’t care less if you speak the language or if you stop speaking it (…) as long as you give them your vote”] (DG7: 182-4) [“as for politicians I don’t have too much faith in them / I think they’re all the same”] (DG8: 1407-8), [“(politicians) speak Galician to show off / because it suits them and nothing else”] (DG8: 119-20), [“politicians you know more or less the reason why they do things, don’t you? out of interest”] (DG8: 207) [“(politicians speak Galician) because it sells”] (DG9: 1504)

On this point, once again we noted a considerable difference from the urbanites who, in general, do trust in the government —the Xunta of Galicia— as a protector of the language (institutionalization), even despite their being aware of the fact that, in many cases, the law is not applied, as occurs, for instance, in the use of Galician in education. Although from this angle, they criticize the language policy in force, the urbanites continue to focus on the government as the maximum responsible body for the future of Galician. This contrasts sharply with the ruralites who, as we have just seen, consider that the future of Galician exclusively depends on themselves.

C: J:

no porque mientras haya [administración o algo así que diga]> <[mientras esté la xunta y haya administración] y la administración esté comprometida con el gallego no [yo creo que no va a desaparecer]> (DG1: 749-750)

267

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

C: J:

no because as long as there’s [the administration or something of the sort]> <[as long as there’s the xunta and there’s the administration] and the administration is committed to Galician I don’t [think it’s going to disappear]> (DG1: 749-750)

As far as the language is concerned, we should clarify the fact that Galician, a group identification symbol for the ruralites, is a certain type of Galician, the type spoken by “xente que o falou toda a vida” [“people who have spoken it all their lives”] (DG7: 1270). This type of Galician is defined by opposition, so that all geographical differences are abstracted —a fact of which the social actors are fully aware— in order to construct a supra-dialectal variety opposed to the “new Galician”. This “new Galician” has been introduced as a result of the standardization processes —standard Galician. In fact, the ruralites make a clear distinction between their Galician, the Galician “that has always been spoken” or “the Galician as it is spoken in the country” from the “new”, “bookish” or “TV” Galician. This “new Galician” is mainly recognized by two characteristics: the lexicon and its phonetic characteristics and is associated with a particular group of speakers, namely the neospeakers, who are also characterized by their Spanish-speaking origins as opposed to the Galicians who have always spoken the language, “xente que o falou toda a vida” [“people who have spoken it all their lives” (DG7: 1270)]. On this issue, the ruralites give considerable importance to the dimension termed by Fishman (1977) as “paternity”, i.e., on the value of the language as a symbol of the collective roots passed on from parents to children —cultural inheritance. Thus an intergroup differentiation is established. This differentiation applies both to the Spanish speakers —who are for the most part linked to the urban world— and the neoGalician speakers who use this other type of Galician. These neo-Galician speakers are also located in the towns, but who are neither accepted into the endogroup. The Galician spoken by the neo-speakers appears loaded with negative connotations, associated with qualifying adjectives such as “asceptic”, “insipid”, “from the dictionary”, “artificial”, “false”, “assumed”, “forced”, etc.8: “falan en gallego pero non teñen pronunciación” (DG7: 439) F: a esos os diferencias tamén moi ben MD: ós que falan o galego de libro?

F: si (si si porque é como) oír a tele ... si... son marabillosos (DG7: 681-3)

8 One of the most serious problems in spreading the standard variety of Galician is that the majority of presenters on Galicia’s television (television, without a doubt has become one of the most powerful instruments for language broadcasting) belong to this group. Thus, those who have always been Galician speakers fail to identify with them. They also reject the language that presenters endeavour to spread, a standard Galician transmitted by the television with a Castilianized ortophony and which, therefore, is seen as foreign.

268

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

[“they speak in Galician but they haven’t got the pronunciation”] (DG7: 439) F: you can tell them apart really well MD: them who speak bookish Galician?

F: yes (yes yes because it’s like) listening to the TV … yes … they’re wonderful (DG7: 681-3) “na televisión galega hai hai hai:: presentadores e presentadoras que o falan ben pero hai outros que vamos que son eses e::h (...) de los que a mí no me gustan (que son) como forzados non? entonces de:: deses galegos que que é unha inmensa maioría eh? os que habían hoxe (xx) están cambiando un pouco pero había aqueles gallegos que eran gallegos castellanizaos sabes? co:: co acento ese castellano” (DG9: 696-700) [“on Galician television there are are are:: male and female presenters who speak properly but there are others who, well, the ones I (…) don’t like myself (they’re) sort of forced, you know? those Galicians that’s an immense majority, you know? those nowadays (xx) they’re changing a bit but there used to be those Galicians that were Castilianized Galicians you know? with:: with that Spanish accent”] (DG9: 696-700)

Consequently, the standard variety takes on these same connotations due to the phonetic characteristics of the groups of speakers (the neo-speakers) with which it is linked, being closer to Spanish (the dominant language for centuries) than to Galician.

In fact, the our informants insist on the fact that it is evident that it is people who have learnt to speak Spanish first and who do not use Galician as their everyday language: “o:: que máis noto i o que máis RABIA me dá incluso é que:: é xente que ti sabes e que lle notas que:: falan siempre en español e que SOLO falan en:: gallego no momento no que están alí” (DG4: 706) “xente que está acostumbrada a falar o castelán que nunca falou galego” (DG7: 469) “son personas ó millor que nin son galegas siquera” (DG8: 291) “non me gustaba nada non? víase que era desa xente que sempre falou en castelán” (DG9: 702) [“what:: I notice more than anything and what makes me FURIOUS is that:: it’s people who you know and who you can tell that:: they always speak Spanish and they ONLY speak:: Galician while they are there”] (DG4: 706) [“people who are used to speaking Spanish who’ve never spoken Galician”] (DG7: 469) [“they’re people who might even not be Galicians”] (DG8: 291) [“I didn’t like them at all, you know? you could tell that they were people who’ve always spoken Spanish”] (DG9: 702)

Closely linked to this issue is the subject of language appropriation by those who had forbidden its use in the past. The ruralites interpret the use of Galician by the higher social classes as an act of condescension since these classes only use it to address the “people” but “na súa familia e no seu círculo de amigos non o falan” [“in family or in their circle of friends they don’t speak it”] (DG8: 176). They are very concerned about the issue of language choice in terms of different domains, especially about the fact that Galician used when talking to people in the country: “falan o galego ante o público ante nós e despois...” [“they speak Galician in public

269

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

when we are there and after”] (DG8: 14). This behaviour is particularly noted in individuals belonging to the higher classes: politicians, radio and television presenters, doctors, etc. The people are under the impression that politicians, etc. speak Galician as a kind of strategy to draw near to the people, this being interpreted as a condescension strategy (Bourdieu, 1982): “a xente que fala o galego por aparentar eu o que non vexo ben os políticos médicos xente culta xente que teñan os seus… que falan o galego ante nós (...) pero despois falan despois falan sobre todo castelán” (DG8: 1618-20) “e ós rapaces lle fala o castellano cando están na casa porque cando andan ó millor de paseo e vén::: a xente da aldea ó millor pónselle a falar o gallego porque igual lle dá corte que (lle sintamos) falarlle o castellano” (DG8: 733) [“people who speak Galician to pretend to be something they’re not me I can’t take politicians doctors cultured people people who have... speaking Galician in front of us (…) but then later they speak Spanish more than anything”] (DG8: 1618-20) [“and they speak Spanish to the children when they’re at home because when they go out and they see::: people from the country they might start to speak in Galician because they might feel embarrassed (if we hear them) speaking Spanish to them”] (DG8: 733)

The feeling of distancing is further accentuated because these groups generally use a different linguistic variety. Therefore, the differences continue, although at another level. The opposition Galician/Spanish is now replaced by an opposition between two clearly differentiated varieties of Galician: traditional Galician and new Galician, thus maintaining the intergroup separation.

Following Castell’s terminology (1997), the identity explained above may be considered as a “resistance identity”, to the extent that it is generated by a social group which for centuries, has held a stigmatized and dominated position in Galician society, although quantitatively it is in the majority. For this reason, they develop a resistance identity based on Galician, one of the elements used to stigmatize them in the past, but which nowadays, with the arrival of democracy and the process of linguistic standardization, is being re-valued even by the very same people who used to look down on it. The highest degree of resistance is levelled precisely at these people, since the ruralites who have always spoken Galician consider this change as an attempt to appropriate their Galician (“o seu galego”), which constitutes an example of commodification of the language (Fairclough, 1992; Heller, 2000). In fact, urbanites’ taking over of Galician —a Castilianized Galician— is not accepted by the ruralites who have always spoken Galician, among other reasons because they consider it a way of “commercializing” the language, giving an ideological and political use to Galician through its urbanization. At all times, they show their considerable rejection towards this appropriation, by considering it a social injustice, since it was they who kept the language alive in difficult times and, therefore, the language “is theirs”. Furthermore, this appropriation causes the loss of power of the localist identity built by themselves, as it is extended to Galicia as a whole.

270

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

Although, as stated above, the intergroup difference is still maintained, but now in terms of two linguistic varieties of Galician: “the Galician that has always been spoken” on the one hand, and “the new Galician” on the other (traditional Galician as opposed to standardized Galician). Of course, the urbanites, apart from not speaking the same type of Galician, fail to comply with the other characteristics required to belong to the endogroup.

Ruralites (country)

Urbanites (town)

Those who have always spoken Galician

Spanish speakers or neo-Galician speakers

Traditional Galician

Standard Galician

Localist resistance identity

As noted in the discursive extracts recorded so far, the discourse of rural demand or of rurality are constructed more explicitly and with a higher level of awareness among the young people residing in this habitat (DG7), and to a lesser extent in the over thirties age group (DG8 and DG9) and in the ruralites residing in Santiago as university students (DG6)9. As regards rural immigrants (DG4), since their participation occurred along with urbanites and in a group formed in the town, their discourse was, at all times, kept on an individual basis, as noted in the use of the possessives (“a miña lingua”) [“my language”] and the first person singular pronoun (“Eu” [“I”], as opposed to the plural (“nós”) [“we”]. In the case of rural groups, following self-categorization in the first person (“eu son da aldea”) [I’m from the country”], and the acknowledgement of the other participants as belonging to the endogroup, the social actors now present themselves as a collective, expressed in the discourse by the use of the plural: “falar quen fala? seguen falando os nosos pais nós e a misma xente que (o) falaba hai dez anos penso eh?” [“speaking, who’s speaking? they carry on talking about our parents us and the same people that spoke (it) ten years ago, you know?”] (DG7: 65).

In conclusion, for the ruralites, the essence of Galician and of Galicia resides in the rural world: 9 We also found some exceptions. For instance, in DG6, one informant, who is the daughter of Galician

speaking ruralites and whose family residence is in the country, although she lives in Santiago during the academic course as a student, chooses the exclusive use of Spanish as her language option, and consequently, does not consider herself a part of this localist identity.

271

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

“a comunidade de galicia sigue sendo que somos un:: un pobo rural i:: agrícola” (DG7: 649), “a realidade galega non é o que hai en santiago nin o que hai en coruña esa é a realidade castelán de galicia (...) a realidade galega é a que hai en calquera aldea que te vaias por aí” (DG7: 1290-2) “a realidade (...) básica do galego no? que é unha realidade:: rural” (DG7: 1334-6), “que queres ser galegofalante i que non sepas a realidade (...) básica do galego no? que é unha realidade:: rural xente que está na cidade” (DG7: 1334-6) [“Galicia’s community is still the fact that we are a:: rural:: and farming people”] (DG7: 649), [“Galicia’s reality isn’t what there is in Santiago or what there is in Coruña that’s the Spanish reality in Galicia (…) the Galician reality is what there is in any village you care to go to”] (DG7: 1290-2), [“the basic (…) reality of Galicia, you know is that it is a rural:: reality”] (DG7:1334-6), [“so you want to be a Galician speaker and you don’t know the basic (…) reality of Galicia, is hat it is a reality:: a rural reality people who are in the town”] (DG7: 1334-6)

In terms of this, in any urban group, the informers insist on the fact that the future of Galician cannot depend on the rural habitat since “el futuro de galicia no está en el rural (...) ahora el rural está:: minguando y (el futuro está en) las ciudades y si en las ciudades no se habla gallego” [“the future of Galicia does not lie in the country (…) now that the rural environment is:: decreasing and (the future is in) the towns and if in the towns Galician is not spoken”] (DG5: 814-6). Also some ruralites express their concern over the disappearance of the rural environment: “queda menos rural cada vez” [“there’s less and less of the rural environment”] (DG8: 1842).

4.2. Being Galician = speaking Galician?

Apart from this localist identity constructed by the ruralites that have always spoken Galician —a differentiated identity within Galicia itself— these individuals also feel like Galicians in a generic sense, although now regardless of any linguistic adscription. In fact, in this sense, a Spanish speaker is considered as Galician as a Galician speaker. Thus we are not looking here at the relationship between identity and language group. This second type of Galician identity is also found among the Spanish speakers. The lack of association between identity and language is stated explicitly thus, “yo soy gallega pero con eso no quiere decir que usTED me obligue a hablar en gallego” [“I’m a Galician woman but that doesn’t mean to say that YOU can force me to speak Galician”] (DG3: 189).

The Spanish speakers The urbanite Spanish-speakers openly reject the link between “being or feeling Galician” with the fact of “speaking the Galician language” or even of “having a mastery of it”. In the case of these individuals, making language the key factor of the Galician identity would involve denying that identity to themselves, since they are not Galician speakers and the extent of interiorization of this language is low. In fact,

272

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

there are many who even express a considerable linguistic lack of security in Galician. Acknowledging that to feel Galician it is necessary to speak the language itself —at least, historically— would lead them to an internal conflict with only two possible solutions: either they would have to renounce their Galician identity — something which they are not willing to do— or they would have to, at least, make an effort to learn and speak Galician, an effort which they themselves regard as having to be a considerable one. So instead of this, they develop a series of self-justification strategies to avoid using Galician, which include their social origins as a Spanish speaker (“ya desde pequeñita no me la enseñaron poco puedo hacer”) [“since I was a little girl, they didn’t teach it to me, there’s not much I can do”] (DG3: 1151), the lack of competence (“para hablarlo y hablarlo mal prefiero hablar castellano”) [“speaking it and speaking it badly I prefer speaking Spanish”] (DG2: 304), etc., also constructing a Galician identity where the use of the language is not essential10.

H: A: H:

“M:

“R: H: A: H:

yo creo que es impor- es es un síntoma de cultura conocerlo y aprenderlo y demás y dominarlo pero:: [te puedes sentir tan gallego]> <[no tiene que (xx)] como cualquier otro sin saber [(hablar) en gallego]> (DG3: 1140-2) “la lengua no tiene nada que ver pa que lo que es ser gallego” (DG3: 1149) yo creo que por la influencia de la familia esta señora siempre habló gallego a su hija y:: a lo mejor estuvo en un entorno GALLEGO:: y y::otros que no hemos estado en el entorno ese gallego que no nos han hablado gallego de siempre AUNQUE YO ME SIENTA GALLEGA” (DG4: 840) [PUEDE] uno sentirse muy:: gallego a lo mejor igual aunque no:: no domine la lengua” (DG5: 1141-76) I think it’s impor- it’s a cultural symptom knowing it and learning it and all that and mastering it but:: [you can feel so Galician]> <[you don’t have to (xx)] just like any other without knowing [(how to speak) Galician]> (DG3: 1140-2) “language has nothing to do with being Galician” (DG3: 1149)

10 In the case of the only ruralite who presented herself as a Spanish speaker (GD6), she constructed a

discourse identical to the one being analyzed, “puedes tener cualquier:: tienes la misma cultura y hablar en cualquier idioma yo hablo:: castellano normalmente y sé hablar... sé hablar gallego y de hecho:: mucha gente me habla en gallego y yo lo entiendo perfectamente pero:: la cultura es la misma qué más da hablar en uno que hablar en otro? si tú te sientes más cómoda hablando gallego habrá otra gente que se sentirá más cómoda hablando castellano” [“you can whatever:: you have the same culture and speak any language I normally speak:: Spanish … I can speak Galician and in fact:: many people talk to me in Galician and I understand it perfectly but:: the culture is the same so what does it matter speaking in or speaking in the other language? If you feel more at home speaking Galician there’ll be other people who feel more at home speaking Spanish”] (GD6: 247).

273

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

M:

R:

“I think that through her family’s influence this lady always spoke Galician to her daughter and:: perhaps she lived in a GALICIAN environment:: and and:: others of us who haven’t lived in that Galician environment and haven’t always talked to us in Galician ALTHOUGH I FEEL GALICIAN” (DG4: 840) “[YOU CAN] feel very:: Galician perhaps even though you don’t: master the language” (DG5: 1141-76)

In summary, from the viewpoint of this social group, the Galician identity does not require —at least as a matter of necessity— to be inserted into Galician as the normal everyday language, although the fact of not being a Galician speaker certainly does require, as we have just seen, some self-justification. This identity seeks more flexible identity reference points, among which Galician appears only in a symbolic form, at the same level as traditional music, bagpipe music or the national flag. We see, therefore, how its function is limited to a merely ritual role: M:

M: M: MD: M: Ma: MD: Me: M: MD: Me: M: Me: MD: Me: M: Me:

D: Me: D: M:

de hecho ahora está surgiendo la gaita las:: el folclore gallego y todo eso que antes no lo había no se vendían discos de esos ni de broma y ahora como churros se venden porque yo en mi casa todos los tienen mis hijos = = sí: no tienen nada de esa música roquera ni nada todo es de folk gallego todo y y y sin embargo e::h pensades que (a xuventude) que consume productos galegos nese sentido que:: fala galego ou fala español? en xeral yo creo que la mayoría hablan español sí pienso que sí que factores credes que hai detrás deso? = = mira e::h [la prueba es]> que:: mi hijo <[no lo saben] no saben pero si aprenden na escola = = no mi hijo = = no saben seguirlo eh? (xx) la escuela = = era:: a ver es un defensor de galicia y de la lengua y todo sin embargo el habla castellano = = por eso yo también hablo por los míos porque yo tengo a dos = = y él tiene la bandera de galicia alli y el le:: le encanta pues todo lo que sea relacionado con galicia y además dice hay que esto porque es de aquí y conservarlo y tal y él habla castellano = = y mis hijos igual = = sí [algo choca ahí verdad?]> <[(xx)] de veintitrés años y de veinte y lo mismo = (DG4: 792-811) In fact the bagpipes are coming onto the scene the:: Galician folklore and all that there didn’t used to be any they couldn’t sell the records of that no way and now they’re selling like hotcakes they sell because me in my house everybody got them my children =

274

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

M: M: MD:

M: Ma: MD: Me: M: MD: Me: M: Me: MD: Me: M: Me:

D: Me: D:

= yes: they haven’t got any of that rock music none of all that it’s just all Galician folk and and and nevertheless e:h you’d have thought that (young people) who consume Galician products in that sense that:: they speak Galician or speak Spanish? in general I think that the majority speak Spanish Yes, I think so what factors do you think there are behind all this? = = you see e::h [the test is]> that:: my son <[they don’t know] they don’t know but they learn at school = = no my son = they don’t know how to carry it on eh = (xx) school = = he was:: let’s see stands up for Galicia and the language and yet he speaks Spanish = that’s why I’m speaking for my children because I’ve got two = = and he has the Galician national flag there and he:: loves everything to do with Galicia and he also says it’s because it’s from here and to keep it and so on and he speaks Spanish = = and my children as well = = yes [there’s a bit of a contradiction there isn’t there?]> <[(xx)] aged twenty three and twenty and the same = (DG4: 792-811)

In reference to this, we also find some exceptions with a timid demand of the relevance of one’s own language in identity construction, to the extent that it serves to mark the differences further in terms of “the others”, an intergroup difference with respect to the exterior, particularly in contrast with the other Spanish communities: “yo creo que sí hay una cosa es diferente lo de extremadura que lo de galicia (...) lo de galicia es más al tener un idioma propio es como más diferente al resto yo creo que sí” (DG1: 861-3) “no es una (xx) nacional pero evidentemente una parte de la cultura (...) una parte de lo que tienes diferente del resto” (DG5: 1137-9) [“I think that there is one thing that makes Extremadura different from Galicia (…)

Galicia with having its own language is sort of more different from the rest I think so”] (DG1: 861-3) [“it’s not a national (xx) but evidently a part of the culture (…) a part of what you have that’s different from the rest”] (DG5: 1137-9)

The Galician speakers It transpires that what is more relevant is the fact that, among the Galician speakers, we also found this discourse which does not link language

275

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

to the Galician identity —understood in the generic sense— as we note in the following fragments: L: I:

L: I:

<[(xx)] eu pódome sentir mui gallega e falar o castellano e quen me di a min que non son gallega? por non falar: o gallego? = (...) = eu penso que hai personas que desde nenas por as razóns que sean aprenderon a:: fala-lo:: o castelán e síntense tan galegas coma min que:: que falei toda a vida o:: gallego (DG8: 1337-8) <[(xx)] I can feel very Galician and speak Spanish and who’s going to tell me that I’m not Galician? For not speaking Galician? = (…) = I think that there are people who since they were little girls for one reason or another learnt to speak it:: Spanish and they feel as Galician as me and:: I’ve spoken:: Galician all my life (DG8: 1337-8)

Note that in this case, Galician speakers do not use their language to establish an intergroup opposition as far as Spanish speakers are concerned —as opposed to what occurred in the construction of a localist identity—, i.e., they do not resort to language as a differentiating factor. They also use the same justifying argument, as we saw in the case of the urbanites: the Spanish social origin. Being a Galician or Spanish speaker is attributed to the personal biography (they speak Spanish because that was what they learnt in their childhood), without considering the possibility of changing language. It appears, therefore, that the bi-univocal association of Galician identity and language is interpreted as a bias in the sense that it may entail a certain discrimination/marginalization towards Spanish speakers. As a consequence, nobody is denied Galician identity for not speaking the native language (Galician).

We are, in summary, witnessing a broad-based identity, common to all Galicians, which is constructed in terms of Galicia as a whole, as a unit, as opposed to the rest of Spain and Europe, and which arises, therefore, as a need for differentiation from the exterior. This is a matter of an assumed identity, both for Spanish and for Galician speakers. We observe, however, in the ruralites that have always spoken Galician, a need to become differentiated not only in terms of the exterior, but also in terms of the interior, i.e., within the Autonomous Community of Galicia itself. These people acknowledge themselves as Galicians, and likewise the Spanish speakers, but they go one step further by defining a kind of second degree of Galician-ness, which only refers to themselves. In this manner, they solve the conflict that would involve them not accepting Galician identity for Spanish speakers, to the extent that it may be interpreted as a discriminatory attitude, but at the same time, it maintains their differentiated identity within Galicia, by resorting to the strategy of creating a different identity at a more local level, i.e., one

276

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

associated with a certain type of habitat in inland Galicia (the small village) using a specific variety of the Galician language (traditional Galician as opposed to the new, standardized Galician). In this way, they differentiate themselves not only from the Spanish speaking Galicians, but also from the neo-Galician speakers, both groups being associated with the urban world.

4.3. Galician identity as a national identity As stated above, we consider localist identity as a resistance identity. However, it is necessary to explain this point more fully as it is not the same type of resistance in all cases. Firstly, it should be clarified that the generic Galician identity described under the previous heading is a merely cultural one, with no implicit nationalist connotations. Therefore, in none of the cases should the fact of considering oneself Galician be interpreted as a demand for a differentiated nationality. It is a matter of a cultural identity which should not be confused with a national or nationalist identity, since we still come across the widespread concept of nation-state. On this point, we agree with Fernández (2000: 54) who points to, “the importance still held by the nation-state as a source of social identity” (our translation). Since the ideology is maintained that equates a state with a nation, and the concept of a plurinational state has still not found acceptance, the Galician identity does not attain the category of national, but it is rather passed over to the Spanish national identity: “porque vale estamos en galicia pero también estamos en españa (...) pero es que:: cataluña lo veo que está dentro de un país y tampoco lo veo tan justo (...) claro pero:: un gobierno autonómico es una autonomía pero está dentro de un:: de una nación” (DG3: 268, 275, 279) [“because right we’re in Galicia but we’re in Spain too (…) but it’s just that:: Catalonia the way I see it it’s within a country and I don’t see that as so fair (…) of course but:: an autonomous regional government is an autonomy but it is within a: of a nation”] (DG3: 268, 275, 279)

The most relevant aspect lies in the fact that this identity is found both among the Spanish speakers and among the Galician speakers, so that it is fully compatible with the localist identity of the ruralites. “y no por hablar gallego vas a sentirte sólo gallego yo de hecho mi familia es gallegohablante de siempre y se consideran españoles” (DG5: 63) “eu síntome española antes de nada eh?” (DG8: 830), “siempre eu galega pero síntome española é decir para min a nación é españa (...) a min (iso) o país galego o país galego o país vasco cataluña (me) son:: (...) respeto pero dáme a risa (...) é españa tamén primeiro é españa (...) e despois sómo-lo resto” (DG8: 993-1001) [“and not by speaking Galician are you going to feel just Galician me in fact my family has always been Galician speaking and they consider themselves Spanish”] (DG5: 63)

277

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

[“I feel Spanish more than anything, you know?”] (DG8: 830), [“I’m always Galician but I feel Spanish in other words for me the nation is Spain (…) for me (that) the Galician country the Galician country the Basque country Catalonia (me) I:: (…) respect but it makes me laugh (…) it’s Spain as well first it’s Spain (…) and after it’s the rest of us”] (DG8: 993-1001)

So, we see that the union of state = nation is maintained, but the third element, language, however, is cut off. The latter which was traditionally associated with state-nation. In fact, the traditional concept of state was based on the equation “State = Nation = Language”11. In contrast, our informants acknowledge within the Spanish nation-state, different cultural identities (not necessarily national identities) which, in some cases, as occurs with the local identity of the ruralites, may be associated with a language different (Galician) from the state language.

As regards the survival of the nation-state concept, we find some informants who supports a non-state Galician national identity and in this case, language does take on considerable importance as a central element of the same: “O: pero é que (xx) é que tamén se está ven- tamén:: muito desde un:: punto de vista da realidade política é dicir da realidade (territorial) é dicir que esto sexa un:: estado non? onde hai varias:: mmh onde hai varia- varias nacións i tal é diferente non:: non van todos (facer) fronTERAS simplemente son territorios cunha lingua distinta i porque esto sexa españa non quere decir que haxa que que:: que vamos que:: que que teña que haber esa diferencia i que no no:: a min español aquí e neste sitio e neste i neste POIS NON i si vas a francia pois tes que estudiar en francés por que? porque (estás nunha) comunidade onde todos están en francés I SI queres comunicarte te comunicas te has de comunicar en francés i si vas a cataluña” (DG6: 511) [“O: but what happens (xx) is that it’s also the case – as well:: a lot from a:: point of view of political reality in other words from (territorial) reality in other words that this is a:: state, you know? where are there several:: mmh where there are seve- several nations and so on it’s different, isn’t it: it’s not all (making) BORders simply territories with a different language and just because this is Spain doesn’t mean to say that we have to to:: that we’re going to:: to to have to have that difference and not not:: for me Spanish here and in this place and here and here BUT NO and if you go to France well you have to study French why? Because (you’re in) a community where everything is in French AND IF you want to get yourself understood you have to communicate in French and if you go to Catalonia”] (DG6: 511) MD: B: O:

con... que importancia pensades que ten para a identidade o galego? crees que si que? = = (xx) fundamental na [(xx)]> <[e que é fundamental] =

11 The origin of the modern Nation-State dates back to the French Revolution, but although the formula extends world-wide, only in some cases has it become consolidated. The French Nation-State constitutes one of the paradigmatic examples of this.

278

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

B: Ma: O:

MD: Mt: O:

MD: B: O: B: Ma: O:

MD: Mt: O:

= o sea o:: o:: o TEU IDIOMA podes:: pero é que eu creo que o galego non se vai perder en (xx) é que o... é que a lingua é o que diferencia é... é... é o que diferencia vamos o que:: o que son as culturas é dicir que diferencia hai [entre:: un chino::]> <[vós pensades tamén::] = = (hai) unha parte de cada un:: = = é que ti que:: non (ves) ningunha diferencia real entre un africano i un chino simplemente que falan diferente porque son persoas iguais e teñen (xx) raros pero iso non quere decir é dicir si se entenderan tuveran o idioma entonces:: o idioma é fundamental porque é de onde se parte i de onde unha... parte a cultura i o idioma [(xx)]> (DG6: 237-45) with … what importance you thought Galician had for identity? Do you think that? = = (xx) fundamental in [(xx)]> <[and that it’s fundamental] = = in other words your:: your:: YOUR LANGUAGE you can: but what happens is that I think that Galician isn’t going to be lost in (xx) what happens is … is that language is what makes the difference it’s … it’s … it’s what makes the difference:: what cultures are in other words that make the difference [between:: a Chinese person::]> <[you think that too::] = = (there’s) a part of each:: = = it’s just that you:: you don’t (see) any real difference between an African and a Chinese just that they speak differently because they are people all the same and they have (xx) odd but that doesn’t mean to say if they understood each other they had the language then:: language is essential because that is where culture and language come from [(xx)]> (DG6: 237-45)

In this discourse, in contrast with the previous one, we see how the equation “nation = language” is clearly maintained, while the equivalence “state = nation” breaks down, calling for the possibility of a pluri-national state. We also consider this national Galician identity as a resistance identity, as opposed to the cultural identity integrated in the Spanish nation, which contributes to keeping up the idea of a single unified state. This is a matter of a different type of resistance to that found in the local identity of the ruralites, so that, depending on the case in point, both identities may be accompanied or may manifest themselves independently. In summary, the ruralites that have always spoken Galician may link their differentiated localist identity to the national demand, in other words, to the demand of a Galician nationality distinct from the Spanish or otherwise, making their localist identity compatible with a cultural Galician identity integrated in the Spanish nation. On the

279

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

other hand, it is also possible for the nationalist demand to derive from non-ruralite groups, i.e., from the Galician identity in a generic sense, although in this case it does appear to be accompanied, necessarily, by a demand from Galician as the first language of Galicia, although it may be formulated by Spanish speaking subjects.

5. Conclusions The data analyzed above allows us to confirm the fact that, in Galicia, we are witnessing the construction of a localist identity, as a result of resistance to globalization and the cultural homogenization that it implies. The main reference point for this identity is the Galician language, although as stated earlier, it is by no means the only one. Those, we observe how the current globalizing movements, contrary to what was initially expected, may end up providing a new boost to minority, peripheral languages, since it is precisely within this global context that its localist character acquires an enormous symbolic capital. In the case of Galicia, it is the ruralites who have always spoken Galician, linked to the rural habitat, who develop this cultural, localist identity, in opposition to the Spanish speakers and neo-Galician speakers, linked to the urban habitat. Precisely for this identity to function with all its potential, those who have always spoken Galician, who present themselves as protagonists of the guardianship and fostering of Galician, reject the fact that other social groups should begin to use “their language” (Galician). They consider this attitude as an attempt to appropriate themselves of their identity, based on symbols and values that they have known how to preserve over the centuries and through which language takes on a special importance, their vernacular tongue, not the new standard Galician.

Nevertheless, despite the forming of this resistance identity linked to the language (the ruralites’ local identity), we found no clearly constructed national identity based on this same reference point. In fact, the discourse demanding a different nationality within the state and which resorts to language as its main diacritical, does not arise as a solidly structured collective discourse, but rather appears in an isolated form and, in some cases, with diffuse reference points. For this reason, we consider that a “project identity” has not been established in Galicia, or at least, only at a very low level. In other words, in modern day Galicia, the Galician language is seen as an indubitable structuring element of a cultural, but not so much of a national, identity.

To conclude we provide a schematic presentation of the different types of identities described in this article12. However, we should not overlook the fact that 12 As in any schematic representation of society, this is, needless to say, a simplification. We should point out that in the group of Galician speakers developing a localist identity, we also find town dwellers, especially those who, either themselves or their parents, come from the rural environment and who, therefore, use vernacular varieties of Galician and not the standard Galician of the neo-speakers.

As we have already seen, this difference becomes particularly relevant.

280

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

only in the case of the localist identity is a clear and close relationship established with language (Galician), whereas in the case of the Galician identity, understood in the generic sense, the role of Galician as a diacritic is far more limited. It is reduced to a liturgical or ritual function where its preservation is important only in this respect —its use is reduced to public acts, artistic manifestations (music or theatre), toponomy and anthroponomy, etc.— but not as a language for daily use. Thus, in the localist identity only those who have always been Galician speakers are admitted, whereas this latter identity also embraces the Spanish speakers: Galician speaking (ruralites) → Localist identity → Galician identity = Cultural identity (within the Spanish nation) Galician speaking (ruralites) → Localist identity → Galician identity = National identity (within the National identity) Spanish urbanites or neo-Galician speakers → Galician identity = Cultural identity (within the Spanish nation) Spanish urbanites or neo-Galician speakers → Galician identity = National identity

Appendix 1: Sociolinguistic profile of discussion groups When designing the groups, as control variables we selected the level of education, age and original habitat of the subjects involved. As far as the level of education was concerned, we set out to avoid forming groups with units unable to communicate with each other. In this way, we were able to guarantee a certain degree of intra-group symmetry which, at least in a certain sense, avoided a greater argumentative capacity or greater command of specific terminology would lead to some participants standing out above the others, giving these the power and control of the group while silencing the rest. For this reason, we ensured that no informer had a professional relationship with the world of language. The choice of age and place of residence is justified by being the two most outstanding variables to explain the social distribution of the linguistic varieties in Galicia. Quantification of the linguistic variation is very clear in this respect: the most unfavourable profile for the use of Galician corresponds to the younger population residing in one of the seven urban centres (Seminario de Sociolingüística, 1995). On the other hand, as we climb the age scale and as the degree of ruralness increases, in a more or less proportional manner, the use of Galician, especially of traditional Galician, also increases.

In terms of the habitat, we looked for the extremes, i.e., we formed groups both in the most rural habitat (“small villages”) and in the centre of towns13, leaving out the intermediate points, such as the small towns and villages. Thus, when we talk of “ruralites”, it is important to note that we refer to the maximum degree of ruralness.

13 Urban groups were conducted in the town of Vigo, the most urbanized and industrialized in Galicia

(with approximately 300,000 inhabitants).

281

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

A brief description follows of the most important features of each of the nine groups involved in this work: Discussion Group 1: University students. Urban habitat.

In the case of the five participants in this group, their socialization —both at primary and secondary levels— took place in the town of Vigo (Galicia, Spain), so that we may consider them as urbanites.

Intra-group heterogeneity arose through the different linguistic characteristics of their members. Three of them are initial Spanish speakers and normally speak Spanish. Also, their parents only use this language. The other two participants, on the other hand, are initial bilinguals and, in fact, their parents normally speak Galician.

Discussion Group 2: Under 28 year olds with primary or secondary school education. Urban habitat.

All the participants in this group were born and have always lived in Vigo, with the exception of one, who was born in Madrid but resides there since the age of seven. Therefore, as in the previous group, they are young people and urbanites. The only difference between these first two groups is the level of education. In this group, none of the participants had attended university. Once again, intra-group heterogeneity is the result of the different linguistic characteristics of its members.

Three participants have Spanish as their initial and daily language (one chose the option “more Spanish than Galician”, while the other two opted for “only Spanish”) and their parents are also Spanish speakers. The other two live, on the other hand, in a Galician-speaking family environment and state that they normally speak “more Spanish than Galician”. These two informers belong to parishes in the peri-urban area of Vigo, whereas in the case of the informants with Spanish speaking parents, the family resided in the town centre.

Discussion Group 3: Persons aged from 30 to 40, with primary or secondary school education. Urban habitat.

All members of the group reside in Vigo and are Galicians by birth —both they and their parents— with the exception of one informants from Zamora, although from the area bordering on Galicia (the so-called exterior Galicia). In fact, only she and another female participant belong to Galician speaking families. Thus, while these two participants claim that they speak “more Galician than Spanish”, the others acknowledge that they are exclusively or mostly Spanish speaking and we only found the presence of Galician among their ancestors in the generation of their grandparents. In summary, this groups comprises urbanites belonging to the middle socio-economic class. They are mostly Spanish speaking: out of the six participants, only two have Galician as their initial language and normally speak it.

282

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

Discussion Group 4: Persons aged from 40 to 50, with primary or secondary school education. Urban habitat.

This was the only case in which we deliberately looked for heterogeneity in terms of the geographic origin of the informants, the aim being for this difference to highlight the linguistic consequences. Three of the participants were born in a small village, in their youth having moved to Vigo where they now live. In line with their rural origins, these subjects speak Galician as their initial language. As far as the Vigo natives are concerned, three speak mostly Spanish which is their initial language, while the fourth mostly uses Galician and acknowledges herself as an initial bilingual. In any case, we should differentiate this informants from the other three, since they were born and live in the town centre, the latter belongs to the periurban area. As in other groups, we noted that this difference is important, since the presence of Galician in the peri-urban area is far greater. In summary, on the one hand, this group mixes immigrants from the rural environment with born and bred urbanites, and on the other, habitual Galician speakers with mostly or exclusively Spanish speakers.

Discussion Group 5: Persons aged from 30 to 40 with higher education.

Urban habitat.

All the informants in this group currently live in Vigo and the majority are Galicians, with the exception of one, who is Asturian and has only lived nine years in Galicia and another born in Cádiz, although as he himself says “yo me he criado aquí me considero de galicia no y me considero gallego” [“I’ve been brought up here and consider myself to be from Galician, you know, and I consider myself to be Galician”] (DG5: 13). This is a highly homogenous group in terms of the initial and habitual language spoken. All participants mostly or exclusively use Spanish.

Furthermore, all are initial Spanish speakers, with the sole exception of one female informer, who learnt to speak in both languages.

Discussion Group 6: University students. Rural habitat.

Eight students, resident during the university course in Santiago de Compostela, participated in this group, but who are from rural Galicia, their family residence being in a village or small village.

This group is fairly homogenous in terms of linguistic profile. Firstly, all the informants are from Galician-speaking families, since according to the information that they provided, all their ancestors are Galician speakers, in the generations of their parents and grandparents. Thus, as was to be expected, the majority state having Galician as their initial language, either exclusively or, as in two cases, alongside Spanish. Only one person stated having learnt to speak only in Spanish, despite her parents being Galician speakers. This informer is the only one to state using Spanish

283

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

exclusively as her normal language and, in fact, she is the only one to use it in the course of the debate. In the other cases, four participants chose the “only Galician” option, another two were mostly Galician speakers and finally, one informants mostly used Spanish.

Discussion Group 7: Persons under 28 years of age with primary or secondary school education. Rural habitat.

In this group, all the informants and their families are ruralites and are also from Galician speaking families. Consequently, Galician was the first language transmitted to them by their parents. As far as their habitual language is concerned, three of them stated that they use Galician exclusively, a fourth opted for the majority use of this language, whereas the final informants uses Galician less frequently than Spanish. This scale from a greater to a lesser use of Galician is caused by the social networks in which they are integrated, since language shift in the final two informants always occurs to adapt to the interlocutor.

Discussion Group 8: Persons aged from 30 to 41, with primary or secondary school education. Rural habitat.

As in the previous group, here we find ruralites with only primary or secondary school education. The difference between both lies, therefore, in the age of the informants.

From a linguistic point of view, all the participants state having Galician as their initial language and also as the language habitually used. Two informants mark the option “only Galician”, whereas the rest state that they speak “more Galician than Spanish”. Additionally, they all state that both their parents and their grandparents are Galician speakers, with one single exception: one informer identifies her mother as a Spanish speaker (in fact, she is the only one to acknowledge herself as an initial bilingual).

Discussion Group 9: Persons aged from 40 to 50, with primary or secondary school education. Rural habitat.

Once again, this is a group comprising ruralites with no higher education, although covering a higher age range than in the previous groups. All belong to Galician-speaking families and, as a result, speak Galician as their initial language.

Currently, they also claim themselves to be Galician speakers, exclusively (two of them) or mostly (the remainder of the group).

284

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

Appendix 2: Transcription conventions [abc ]> <[ def ] (xx) : = ... <> CAPITALS

truncated segment voices overlapping unintelligible fragment sound lengthening superimposed voices short pause (less than 0.2 sec.) pause lasting more than two seconds enhanced volume of certain sounds

Bibliographical references Alonso, L.E. (1998). La mirada cualitativa en sociología. Madrid: Fundamentos.

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities. London: Verso.

Argenter, J. (2000). “Cultural identity and heteroglossia”. Estudios de Sociolingüística 1 (1), 27-39.

Barker, Ch. & D. Galasi´nski (2001). Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis. A Dialogue on Language and Identity. London: Sage.

Beck, U. (1999). What is Globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.

Blackledge, A. (2000). “Monolingual ideologies in multilingual states: Language, hegemony and social justice in Western liberal democracies”. Estudios de Sociolingüística 1 (2), 25-45.

Blackledge, A. & A. Pavlenko (2001). “Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts”. The International Journal of Bilingualism 5 3, 243-257.

Blommaert, J. & J. Verschueren (1998). “The role of language in European nationalist ideologies”. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard & P. Kroskrity (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 189-210.

Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire. L’économie des échanges linguistiques.

Paris: Fayard.

Callejo, J. (2001). El grupo de discusión: introducción a una práctica de investigación. Barcelona: Ariel.

Callejo, J. (2002). “Grupo de discusión: la apertura incoherente”. Estudios de Sociolingüística 3 (1), 91-109.

Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ciapuscio, G. & W. Kesselheim (1997). “Usted, ¿qué es?’: Categorizaciones y contexto institucional”. In K. Zimermann & C. Bierbach (eds.), Lenguaje y

285

ANA IGLESIAS-ÁLVAREZ & FERNANDO RAMALLO

comunicación intercultural en el mundo hispánico. Frankfurt am Main: Madrid: Vervuert / Iberoamericana, 105-130.

De Cillia, R. Reisigl, M. & R. Wodak (1999). “The discursive construction of national identities”. Discourse & Society 10(2), 149-73.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. London: Polity Press.

Fernández, M.A. (2000). “Cuando los hablantes se niegan a elegir: multilingüismo e identidad múltiple en la modernidad reflexiva”. Estudios de Sociolingüística 1(1), 47-58.

Ferrás Sexto, C. (1996). “Movementos migratorios, cambio socioeconómico e desenvolvemento rexional en Galicia (1970-1990)”. Estudios Migratorios 2, 85-121.

Fishman, J.A. (1977). “Language and Ethnicity”. In H. Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press, 15-57.

Gal, S. (1998). “Multiplicity and contention among language ideologies: A commentary”. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard & P. Kroskrity (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 31731.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. Essays on face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY.: Anchor.

Hall, S. (1990). “Cultural identity and diaspora”. In J. Rutherford (ed.), Identity.

Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 222-37.

Hall, S. (1992). “The question of cultural identity”. In S. Hall, D. Held & T. McGrew (eds.). Modernity and its Future. Oxford: Polity Press.

Hall, S. (1996). “Introduction: Who needs identity”. In S. Hall & P. de Gay (ed.), Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage.

Heller, M. (2000). “Bilingualism and identity in the post-modern world”. Estudios de Sociolingüística 1 (2), 9-24.

Ibáñez, J. (1979). Más allá de la sociología. El grupo de discusión, técnica y crítica.

Madrid: Siglo XXI. Iglesias Álvarez, A. (2002). Actitudes e ideoloxías lingüísticas a través do discurso: a situación en distintas comunidades de España. Ph. D. dissertation.

Universidade de Santiago.

Ivani., R. (1998). Writing and identity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kjaerbeck, S. (2001). “‘Nosotros los españoles’ y ‘los de afuera’: un estudio de focus group sobre la identidad cultural y la formación de la opinión”.

Discurso y Sociedad 3 (1), 43-74.

Lash, S. & J. Urry (1994). Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.

Morgan, D.L. (1998). The focus group guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Myers, G. (1998). “Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups”.

Language in society, 27, 85-111.

286

LANGUAGE AS A DIACRITICAL IN TERMS OF CULTURAL

Ortí, A. (19892). “La apertura y el enfoque cualitativo o estructural, la entrevista abierta o estructural y la discusión de grupo”, en M. García Ferrando et alii (eds.), El análisis de la realidad social. Métodos y técnica de investigación, Madrid, Alianza Universidad, 171-203.

Piller, I. (2001). “Naturalization language testing and its basis in ideologies of national identity and citizenship”. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 5 (3), 259-57.

Rodríguez Campos, X. (1999). “A lingua e a identidade no campesiñado galego”. In M. Gondar Portosany (coord.), Galicia como feito diferencial. Santiago: Museo do Pobo Galego, 107-17.

Sebba, M. & S. Tate (2002). “’Global’ and ‘Local’ identities in the discourses of British-born Caribbeans”. The International Journal of Bilingualism 6 (1), 75-89.

Seminario de Sociolingüística (1995). Usos lingüísticos en Galicia. A Coruña: Real Academia Galega.

Seminario de Sociolingüística (1996). Actitudes lingüísticas en Galicia. A Coruña: Real Academia Galega.

Sunderland, J. & L. Litosseliti (2002). “Gender identity and discourse analysis: Theoretical and empirical considerations”. In L. Litosseliti & J. Sunderland (ed.), Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3-39.

Valles, M.S. (1997). Técnicas cualitativas de investigación social. Reflexión metodológica y práctica profesional. Madrid: Síntesis.

287

•

Las políticas culturales en la España moderna: orígenes y orientaciones – Cultural policies in modern Spain: origins and orientations. Dr. X. Bouzada, Departamento de Sociología, Universidad de Vigo. Del gallego al inglés. (Loisir et Société/Society and Leisure, Vol. 22, número 2, otoño 1999, p. 453-485, Presses de l’Université du Québec).

•

Completing the Galician migratory cycle: emigration, return and immigration. Dr. X. Bouzada, Departamento de Sociología, Universidad de Vigo. Del español al ingles.

(Journal of Ethics and Emigration Studies). Presented in August 2005.

•

Catálogos de Conxemar 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. Canal Uno, Vigo.

•

Páginas web del Astillero Vulcano, Armadora Vieirasa, otras.

•

Artículos científicos (publicados en Scientia Marina, Fisheries Research, Estuarine, NAFO Scientific Council Studies, Coastal and Shelf Science, Acquacultural Engineering, Acquacultural Science, Marine Chemistry, Geochimica et Cosmochimica …) de ciencias marinas, oceanografía, economía aplicada, economía financiera. Para el Instituto Español de Oceanografía en Vigo, Coruña, Ferrol, Santander, Murcia; Centro de Investigación Marina – Vilaxoán; Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas – Bouzas, Vigo,; Universidades de Santiago, Vigo, A Coruña, Cantabria, Alicante …

Volume 3,2 (2002) & 4,1 (2003) Monográfico / Special Issue: Sociolinguistics in Galicia: Views on diversity, a diversity of views Manuel Fernández-Ferreiro & Fernando Ramallo (eds.)

•

© “Corpus of Galician/Spanish bilingual speech of the University of Vigo” X. Paulo Rodríguez Yáñez & Håkan Casares-Berg. Estudios de Sociolingüística, Universidad de Vigo (Servicio de Publicacións, ISBN …., Vol. 3 (2002) & 4 (1 ) 2003)). Abril de 2003.

•

© “Language as a diacritical in terms of cultural and resistance identities in Galicia” F. Ramallo & A.Iglesias Álvarez. Estudios de Sociolingüística, Universidad de Vigo (Servicio de Publicacións, ISBN …., Vol. 3 (2002) & 4 (1 ) 2003. Abril de 2003.

•

© “Gendered emotive displays in complaint discourse”.

V. Acuña. Estudios de Sociolingüística, Universidad de Vigo (Servicio de Publicacións, ISBN …., Vol. 3 (2002) & 4 (1 ) 2003)). Abril de 2003.

•

© Introduction, “Sociolinguistics in Galicia: Views on diversity, a diversity of views”. M. Fernández-Ferreiro & F. Ramallo. Estudios de Sociolingüística, Universidad de Vigo (Servicio de Publicacións, ISBN …., Vol. 3 (2002) & 4 (1 ) 2003). Abril de 2003.

•

Sociolinguistics of Spanish in Galicia. F. Ramallo. Departamento de Sociolingüística.

Universidad de Vigo. August 2005. International Journal of the Sociology of Language.

•

Carlos Núñez – A Irmandade das Estrelas” (textos literarios del gallego al inglés, en portada del CD)

•

•

Editorial El Ojo Vizor, Cantabria, “Santillana del Mar”, ISBN 84-95210-25-8, 2006.

•

Editorial El Ojo Vizor, Cantabria, “Liébana, Land of Jubilee”, ISBN 8495210-26-6, 2006.

•

Danny o Campeón do mundo, (en colaboración con E. Fernández Campo) Roald Dahl. 1989. Editorial Xerais. Del ingles al gallego. ISBN 84-7507-404-9

An introduction to mobile communications engineering. Artech House Publishers, Boston, London, August 1999, ISBN 0-89006-391-5, J.M. Hernando and F. Pérez-Fontán (Universidad de Vigo).

•

Entroido Antergo – Traditional Carnival in Galicia.

Edicións do Cumio, 2002. Del gallego al inglés. Carlos Puga, Nacho Gómez, Xerardo Dasairas. I.S.B.N.: 848289-209-6

TRADUCCIONES PUBLICADAS POR IR INDO EDICIÓNS •

Galicia – Camilo José Cela (ISBN 84-7680-04-1)

•

Santiago - Xosé Filgueira Valverde (ISBN 84-7680-025-8)

•

Vigo, fronteira do alén - Xosé Luís Méndez Ferrín (ISBN 84-7680-009-6)

•

Mondariz – Francisco Fernández del Riego (ISBN )

•

El Vino - Victoriano Reinoso (ISBN 84-7680-140-8)

•

Ferrol, mar adentro - Gonzalo Torrente Ballester (ISBN 84-7680-160-2)

•

Ourense, de auga e pedra - Carlos Casares (ISBN 84-7680-039-8)

•

Baiona – Xosé Francisco Armesto Faginas (ISBN 84-7680-086-X)

•

Ribadavia – Camilo Franco (ISBN 84-7680-139-4)

•

Allariz – Marcial Suárez (ISBN 84-7680-044-4)

•

Soutomaior – Diego Bernal (ISBN 84-7680-285-4)

•

Moaña – Manuel Pérez Rúa (ISBN 84-7680-043-6)

Textos breves (del gallego al inglés) de autores clásicos contenidos en los libros publicados por Ir Indo Edicións OURENSE: Alfonso X el Sabio Manuel Murguía - Galicia (1888) E.Blanco Amor - La catedral y el niño (1948) Camilo José Cela - Del Miño al Bidasoa. Notas de un vagabundaje L.Cuevillas - Prosa galega (1962) V.Lamas Carvajal - Gallegada, tradición, costumes, tipos e contos d’a terriña (1887) Alvaro CunqueiroVicente Risco - El Orense perdurable (1961) Saco y Arce - Poesías (1877) Celso Emilio Ferreiro - Libro dos homenaxes (1979) Antonio Tovar - Arredores (1962) Curros Enríquez - Aires da miña terra Xosé Luís Méndez Ferrín - Limiar de “Contra Serenou “de M.Guede (1985) FERROL Manuel Murguía R.Carvallo Calero Miguel de Unamuno Xohana Torres Madoz SANTIAGO Romance vello de Don Gaiferos (1137) Rosalía de Castro - Follas Novas (1880) Alvaro Cunqueiro - San Gonzalo (1945) Per Amigo de Sevilla - Pastorela (S. XIII) Federico García Lorca - Seis poemas galegos (1935) Américo Castro - Santiago de España (1957) José María Castroviejo - Galicia (1960) C.Sánchez Albornoz - Estudios sobre Galicia en la temprana Edad Media (1981) Gonzalo Torrente Ballester - Compostela y su ángel (1948) Ramón Otero Pedrayo - O espello na serán (1966) Miguel de Unamuno - Andanzas y visiones españolas (1912) Gabriel García Márquez - El País (11-05-1983)

VIGO Martín Codax Manoel Antonio - De catro a catro (1928) Valentín Paz Andrade - Do discurso en resposta á homenaxe que Vigo lle rende (1966) Xohana Torres - Adiós María (1971) Alvaro Cunqueiro - Luces de la Ciudad (1956) José María Castroviejo (1955) Xosé María Alvarez Blázquez - La ciudad y los días (1960) GALICIA Rosalía de Castro Manuel Núñez González – Morriña Ramón Cabanillas Antonio Noriego Varela Alvaro de las Casas Ramón Otero Pedrayo – Balada de otoño Antonio Zapata García – A campana da soidade Ramón Piñeiro Raúl Alfonsín Vicente Risco Miguel de Unamuno Gerardo Diego M.Curros Enríquez García Sabell Rubén Darío Strabón Hidacio Castelao Juan Ramón Jiménez Eduardo Pondal Celso Emilio Ferreiro Ramón Cabanillas Xosé Filgueira Valverde Valle Inclán Lorca BAIONA Martín Barreiro Alvaro Cunqueiro Pascual Madoz Antonio Fraguas MOAÑA Hipólito de Sá (1972) Xosé C.Villaverde (1988)

Pascual Madoz (1846) Xerardo Alvarez Limeses (1936) Antón Lousada Diéguez (1927) José María Castroviejo (1957)

ROBERTO GONZÁLEZ FERNÁNDEZ MUNOOS OCULTOS z OC:UllOS

O

• • z u

z

a de Roberto

libres o trabal lo

na (Mon forte

19481 certa dencia- Que sobre as de xénero celebrando dende a década Non é caso IlIado. Q Interese pola obra forma amplo: unha tigación do critica. a produción en nos do artíst,ca de diferen tes franQuismo e os pflmelros anos da Non trata, non obstante. dunha de artistas A dos creadores non é a que en tanto non implica mente unha concienc,a polít,ca ou ou unha reflexión sobre o concepto de masculinidade e a súa representación artes Da forma Que non cremos en premisas listas como para artistas mulleres, non considera r o de maniteste de na obra de calQue,a creador. mostras

l.

1974

4

para o traballo cenllámonos, por en Como exemplos por homes. En este é un que foi traba liado na non unha de forma t,po de mani/estacións entre os anos oitenta. sob re determinados artistas. e obra de mal tos outres creadores a partir da dos pero no que anos de democrac ia hai unha critica incomp rensible; espec'almente. cando bes exemplos como directamente con art,stas e dun internacional.

Este proxecto non pretende nin moito menos cubrir ese espazo , nin reco· todos os artistas e obras lorma Iler de forma au menos Intenclonada- pola algo cuestionable e l edef,nlble.

Intenta unha un tanlo e critica a dalgúns artistas aprove'tando oca· para o termo camp e a súa pol encla como te rra menta polll,ca.

Qulra razón

I

42.31

centrarnos en de xénero ou non, que inleresarOll pola

que artis enl re mulleres

nlil

lhe

U

de -few and far

19 48) unnollced in atlhough important- held our

the on Our interest In hls w,lh,n lhe 01 In 01 lhls ยกs nol, lhe nol

the

to Ihe alllstic production 01 01 lhe and 01 Ihe 01 it clltlcal Ihell s,l ua( lon on lhe maleness and 11 , epresen(ed (he In lhe ma nne we do not In premlS/lS 101 a,t crealed can that al is unmlslakably In a cfealor's work

As

101 tor e amples produced meno il Is In lhls area In done in there Is no lhls type 01 lhe (O lhe w u en On cellam aOO lhe olher analyzed the bu t as lhe In'I IOI 01 lhe'e is incomprehenSIble lhe shall laler Ihere a,e line link an In(ernol,ona1 natule Thls does nol, any Ihal orea no, to make an 01 all Ihe a,I,S(S and works a more or manner01 Ihe Questlonab le It me ely 81lempls lO a crltlcal Ih,ough lhe a rt ists, Ihe opporlunlty lo le'm and lo lIs a

lurthel fOl oor lesbians or in Ihe or roles, calied all

wllhln o

male ar(ISIS Ihal Ihe lema le inlerest In between ยกom lls femlnlsl theory 01 In lhe mOle .ludied.

ot

In

ew \he

lo (2) Br.nd

produced of

In(o

1995

01 lhe

Ihal oo

IL (3) (41

120

aOO lhat a ll

(2)

121

of

lhe

aOO

are

of

..

I

En

-

,

_ ..

..

..

......

LUIS SEOANE r.

_

11I

\1

ISI

lit

•

_ ..

_

o EDlCIÓNS DO CUM IO, S.A ., DA EDICIÓN. TRAVESIA DE VIGO, 156/36206 VIGO TEL: 986 266 272 1 250 767

e CARLOS PUGA E NACHO GOMEl,

FOTOGRAFfAS.

e XERARDO DASAIRAS, DOS TEXTOS. editorial e maqueta MAN OEL SANTOS

IANEMMETT

Traducci6n 6 ANTONIO

VAlCOGRAF

C.A.

OISTRIBUOONS ARNOlA, SAo

DEPóSITO I.S.B. N.:

e

RES(RVADQS

VG-850-2002

DUElTOS

CO SER CON PENAS DE MULTA E DE UBERDADE AQUElES QUE REPRODUZAN OU PLAXIEN. EN TODO OU EN UNHA OBRA UTERARIA. OU EN CAl.QUERA nPO A DO

PENAl. VlXENTE.

O

perder a do Maragato só se consen'a n hoxc. neste diu. os se lanza n sen e a dOUlán os IIrlS

os auuos. e

nada a que vislcn de limpo. Pola tarde é sac a Morena. que. proveniente trndicional- do barrio de Cimu(h.'vila. ( ise acompai'iar de casados e vellos que portan laxos e Cúciros. pretenden das mulleres que non lIes crga a SClIS (:0010$. e na acción danllc cos laxos ndes. cnchcndoos de pugas. E dado que as mullercs. ó se fender <lela. lIc as mans os cornos. sofrcn a picadura dos laxos e quedan indefensas os propósitos da

;

Consta a Morcllll dunha de madcira de coma quell. imitando a dunha vaca. pero (.oou cornos Va¡ a un que. cllbcno <.:1.II1h3 pe! de carnciro fni d e lomba e quen a Trapos de cor vermclla simulan a lingua. ollas e orcllas. Os ellloar coplas ó e que nel sacn:

cflOfl/l

e

s lhe

ligure gradun lly nowadays o nly lhe are left. thrown indiscriminalcly a l cach . and morc weari ng dea n In [he afternooll. Ihe Onc appea rs. from Ihe Cimadevila area. as is traditional. hersclf wilh and c1derly men furl.e ka lc l1lC do Ihcir lO kcep hcr frOlll wumen. \O SIOp her from up skins w¡th horns. in doing so. grob ho ld of lhe horos 10 be by [he defcneek'Ss al the cow's ;'d ishoncst intentiOlls.

M

Dar\.: One has a hendo a horned oow. It is licd lO sl ick which.

Wi lh black (:owhide as ilS back. com:eals lhe pcrson rags aet as a longue. eyes a nd insicle. lhe row usually strike cars. lllOSC a nd the masks. up songs a lluding 10 fo llows:

de madera a Consla la Morena de una de la de Ulla pero cucrnos Va a un palo que. con de lomo y a una piel de cam ero negro. quien la maneja. Trapos de color rojo simulan lengua . los oios y las orejas. Los suc1es entonar coplas nlusivus al y que en él salen: AI/m/lfe /l1Je1111 y

Come

IIPVt'.

Ir

Olle

as;

perder ligura del conservan. en Maragato hoy sólo este los harapos. que lam 'n si scrim inación y a rienda los unos los Olros. y sobre IOdo a aClucIlos que limpia mente \'cslidos. Por la larde sale Morena. que. provenieme es tradicional- del barrio acompa ñar de casados y de Cimadcvila. se mayores que portan !.Ojos tallos de col. Estos intentan alejarla de las para que no les levante la falda con sus euemos. y en la acción le los en los cuernos. cubricndolos. y dado que las cons igu ientemente. de muieres. intentar defenderse de ella. le ceha n las manos los cuernos. sufren la picadura de los tojos y quedan indefensas ante los propósitos de la vaca.

(lml i[

1((

01/1.

y si sigue Ilsí

I/Cller sIol1S

cI/fl/lge illto (/Ilcks.

;mollos

/líCIIt' fl slIlir.

u

l/OS

rcm/remos

1/;

IIill

I/QII

!ormiYfls

l/tIi /lOlltrll rcrm:

FOllr

1101 /0

flre

Cmltro COSflS lit/yen

itl

be

IJ JI/lImgtllos Olfe.

110

CIICIlClllrWf

IIIS /lOrm;!I(ls y ItI

gran o Xoves de Compadres. dia no grupos de rapaces e saco á facendo grandes de dcspois das cales se adoitan reunir para ccur e con algún monifatc.

O

Emroido \'crincnsc

Convocal.Oria sClTIcllantc. pero en fcminino.

lugar o Xovcs dc data en que se xUllIan en exclusiva ccntos de mulleres nos e cea. restaurantes para celebraren unha dela todas mulleres t:oncorrcn lugar. quc ser Praza Maiar. para asistircn do do Esta celebración é de recente e vénsc celebrando desde hui UIl S poueos anos. mais o seu gmndc éxito e SOIlIl a convcrtcla nun dos principais e de renomc do Entroido vcrinensc.

I 00

1

OH

o

Ol

El

r DE

1

e

amiva l in Verin is no", widcly known for Godfalhcr's lllU rsday, lhe doy when grou ps of youngslers men go OUI 01110 the lelling off lremendous bangers. followcd by el'ening meal and a puppcl sito\\'. A simila r event. for Ihe \\'omen folk. un GodmOl.hcr's lllU rsday, wilen of \Vomen meel in bars and reslaurants lO l:c1ebrnte with an evening meal together. Aftcr Ihe mea!. a1l lhe gather in o ne place. normally lhe Main lO Ihe Square, lo lisIen lO the Opening Cam ival. This is a rclalivcly pan Ihe cclebrations. although its grcal succcss and fame il one of th e main evenlS. ond one of Ihe mosl known. in Vcrín's C1.rnival .

"crinense con gran forn a en la aetua lidadc el Xoves de en el que grupos de Compadres. mozos y hombres salen a la calle realizando una gran descarga de petardos. de las cuales se suelen reunir para cenar y divertirse con algún monigote. Convocaloria similar. pero en feme nino, el Xovcs de fedla en que se liene cientos de muieres cn los bares junlan en para <:elebrar una cena . y muieres se juntan en un A su término. todas Maior. para Jugar, que acostumbra a ser la asistir en grupo a la del Pregón do Emroido. Esla celebración es de reciellle factura se viene llevando cabo hacc unos años. y fam a la conviniendo en pero Sil gran uno de los actos de renombre del Carnaval \'crinense.

CATÁlOGO

de

de

Cubll'o e

26 e 76)

77) Gordo

de Camilo

Traducci6n: Compos Ion EmmeM

S

e

EXPOSICiÓN Dirección e Combo Abol e

PO 193 2008

ASOMARSE A VER QUE PASA

Un día osámoste

00

exterior e

comezas o ver ritmos e

e

comezos o mirar o poisoxe en

manchas de cor como se fosen

abstracto. Hai que ser

mapas do lempo e olgunhos

e ter unho

hoi

con vislos ou

que se. afortunado e

dos que

non

copaz

de debuxor en ningunho

mirar.

ofertas. Quizois

AsOmaste e osisles o

que as causas

e

intre

lúcido cando cheguemos o pensar

aparecen os cores coos súos formas.

no abstracción ou no libre albedrío

Posas polo transición cun pouco de

da interpretación poro decotamos

medo porque en Occidente somos

de que a abstracción

culturalistos, pero dun culturolismo

móis de descompoñer o reoJidade,

tirondo o práctico e osúslonos

de buscarHe as voltos e morcar cutro

perder os referencias do

e

pensamos que o reolidode

é univoca,

inexorable.

punto de visla. Deconstrución poro quen gusle

hai un posomóns no que apeiarse.

Ternos medo cando nolo quilan.

Estomos mol afeitas o mirar e

no que vemos sen

que Iomén

un procesa no que Iomén

non

un día

exterior e comezos a ver

que

moitas maneiras. Pero hai resistencia

as de sempre, pero

entendes do mesmo xei to.

oto

00 seu CQróC!er e encontra

doulra xeilo.

O

participon cousos que mirernos

00

un pero podemos miralo de

dificultade que distancio

que o que conseguirnos ver é

miras

hai

é como admilir que

amarro o que como quen

menos o reolidode. Con/iamos

suma o experiencia. Por

neste

o cambiar de ollado. Codo q uen

que lodo é relolivo

Camilo Franco

que hoi móis

é un territorio no que sempre

dun proceso

que chegon

e posan.

algo de medo Europa

é unha formo

o

logo chego

e do

ver os

0tJ

eo

o mundo resúltolle máis doodo un xeilo de mirar que ir usando maneiros alternativamente.

O mundo. sen embargo. aconsello unha actitude móis óxi!.

77

PEEPING OUT TO SEE

Thot wh y, one doy, o look 000 thot

WHAT 15 GOING QN

been

Camilo Franco

!here, bul

them

loil

One doy you the works

by Xoquín Choves, and 'eolized lha1 could fO/ see in oble lo use

the

One doy 000

peeped begon lo

if

000

be lucky

10

000 hove o window o view, or you hove ro be ond know how to toke o look. You peeped lo loke por! in ¡his

disoppeOl while colours, in

rheir forms,

oppeor, You 90 thfough wirh

degree

al feol because. in ore

bur

of a

of colou, mops of Hollywood

unoble in its lilms. ?erhops it a t that lucid point when we slort to ponder the or exercise our freewill in its interpretation, Ieoding us ,eolize onother of leolily, of sifling oround il 000 selling 001 point

view.

kind

IeIms. and we Ole afloid

oIlosing

becouse thar reolity ¡s univoco!. and inexorable. We ore

$Omewhot ofroid Europe ¡s o

rhere

where

o

15

01'1

which lo rest. We ole afloid il

We ore 000 ¡s lrus!

¡s

001

'rom

used reolity. We we see

Sloting thol there ore WOIlds bul lhal ore in one is odmilling Iho! there is only one bul we con it in mony woys.

Bul Ihere is resistonce lO chonging the woy we things.

Ole 10. an their more thon diSlOnce in seeing things educOlion,

come

wilhoul

inlo play 000 much eosier

involving things Ihol we hove previously, o in which tokes

o woy of things thon differenl woys of The world, hawever, colls for a mOle ogile oPP'ooch.

in

loel rhOl we do manage lo ¡s Ihe resuh of o process

88

!he

000

000

Iondscope in obslrocl

You

on

!he

chonged

By

in fOlms chonge

photo. Since impressionism down lO modelO times, of seeing only chonges,

be

000 il might thot this shih

al

IOwOIds videocteoling, en in in

his honds, in the oppeorooce thal objecls token en pul lhrough o loborotory to be divested of feo lily, to be mobilized fOl o ther uses. This is speculoting wi1h not only thar filstly, becouse speculoting meons selling the befO/e the mirlO/ ood, on iranic on invilotian lo al somerhing dil/arentfy os on iniliol Slep 000 inlo rhythm of the piece Ioter, ore whol Ihe orlist's interpretatian. lhis ¡nvilolien a conslont In Choves' work, O will to mobilize the speclotor into Othel him or of o certoin Immobilily in

the

of Iooking 01 things, or ro on oreo

Ioking him

in poinling 000 in il is is o lo !he speclOtor lo il, lo toke port in the joorney.

One of Ihe in inlerpreling pointing slnce the 1Qth century is to uOOersloOO It os o sel

has something do o shih owoy frcm o quielisl opprooch lo seeing interpreting poinling is ene thlng ond the poinling is onolher. people, even intelligenr people, believe thal the is quiet, ¡mmobile, o lhis moy ¡,0m on

ene sees

000

ore.

Due ore In !he

os we

work by

londscope since ¡he

see them.

!he o is awore Ihot

everylhing we 000 some Ihings tha! we sense ore IoOOscope. Needless

01 the

lo not in the bucolic sense of o ogo. o with how we see things os in rhe

lhis is on bndscope os on envifanmenl, is con be seen.

A Iondscope exlended 10 surrouOOing us, on the understonding Ihal the woy we humons.see th ings goes beyond sight. thon o decision, it is