Metaphors, Moral Cognition, and Language Myths Antonio Reyes Washington and Lee University

Constructing the standard language: metaphors, moral cognition, and language myths Antonio Reyes Washington and Lee University

Abstract This study addresses language myths that users evoke when reacting to institutional language changes proposed by the Spanish Royal Academy (Real Academia Española: RAE). These users’ comments are part of language ideological debates (Blommaert, 1999) online, where participants discuss, define, and re-construct an idealized standard language through communication participatory culture (Rymes, 2014, p. 5). This project analyzes 500 comments posted online in reaction to an article in the Spanish newspaper El País that presented new orthographic and spelling changes proposed by the RAE. Using moral cognitive frames, participants of language ideological debates attempt to explain abstract notions about language through conceptual metaphors (Watts, 2011). Metaphorical mappings allow participants to make sense of linguistic abstractions within moral, familiar terms. Examples include language is a human being, language can be weak and language can deteriorate. This study found that participants justify their comments mainly by reproducing two related conceptual metaphors expressed in the following entailments: language can deteriorate and language needs to be regulated. These metaphorical uses construct knowledge collectively (Jenkins, 2006), contributing to the formation of knowledge as a unified understanding of a shared linguistic reality, reconstructed as unique perspective and truth. When these metaphors about language uses become part of a logical system and a shared belief, they constitute language myths, widely believed and accepted by the community (Watts, 1999 & 2011).

1. Introduction

Language institutions regularly launch new editions of orthographies or dictionaries in an attempt to set rules about language use. In the case of the Spanish language, the Spanish Royal Academy (Real Academia Española: RAE) presented a new edition of the orthography for the Spanish language in 2010, replacing the one published in 1999. The latest changes proposed in 2010 triggered debates in many different venues, including online platforms. Cyber users create and negotiate meaning through computer-mediated discourse (CMD) thanks to Web 2.0, a platform for “user-generated content and social interaction” often in response to online content (Herring & Androutsopoulos, 2015, p. 130). CMD has provided a new set of nuances and complexities about the nature of human interaction in virtual spaces around a common interest, allowing individuals to display their communicative repertoires and exchange information within a social network (Rymes & Leone, 2014, p. 30). These spaces generate an Internet-based participatory culture (Rymes & Leone, 2014, p. 41) by producing virtual commu- nities of different natures (Varis and Wang, 2011). Some of these gatherings are defined as affinity spaces (Gee, 2004), where users simply share an interest and maintain digital interaction around

186 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 a topic, by posting or uploading their comments or views on it. In some of these virtual gatherings, they share an interest for the Spanish language as a cultural product (Kytölä, 2013). Digital communication is shaping the way we connect, and the current study explores communication in online spaces, where participants interact in ideological debates around language. This study analyzes comments posted in response to an article published online by the paper El País in relation to the new orthographic and spelling reforms for the Spanish language proposed by RAE in 2010. These comments display conceptual metaphors as linguistic tools that users employ to make sense of language changes. These conceptual metaphors evoke recogniz- able and identifiable language myths in relation to an ideal of the standard language (Bauer & Trudgill, 1998; Groupe RO, 2012). This study investigates which language myths emerge and how often they appear around the Spanish language in a prominent and relatively new setting for human interaction. It also addresses two main, related myths around the language we speak: the myth that language can deteriorate and the consequential myth that language needs to be regulated.

2. Background and literature review

When individuals discuss the notion of a standard language, including its uses and rules, they are revealing the preconceptions they have about the language they speak. According to Woolard (1998, p. 3), language ideology refers to “representations, whether explicit or implicit, that construe the intersection of language and human beings in a social world.” The ideal of a standard language is closely associated with standard language ideology (Milroy, 1999). In this respect, since standardization processes are never finished (Cameron, 1995), ideals about them allow social actors to produce (and reproduce) ideologies around a standard language. Language ideology, therefore, is crucial in these language debates (Blommaert, 2009; Edwards, 2009) and, like other ideologies, is transmitted culturally as shared beliefs that social actors accept and ac- quire as unquestionable statements that explain the nature of things. The process by which an ideology becomes part of that “logical coherent system” (Watts, 1999, p. 68) has been described by Fairclough (1985) as naturalization in the following terms: “Naturalization gives to particular ideological representations the status of common sense and it thereby makes them opaque, i.e. no longer visible as ideologies” (Fairclough, 1985, p. 752). Participants in language ideological debates (Blommaert, 1999) reveal with their comments beliefs “to help them make sense of the socially-structured language variability that they observe every day” (Milroy & Milroy, 2012, p. 162). These debates reinforce the ideology of the standard language through correctness (Milroy, 2001, p. 535). Debates in virtual spaces around language use offer a fertile field of research as it constitutes a new ground for the “language battle” (cf. Del Valle & Gabriel-Stheeman, 2001) in modern times around the valorization of normative discourse and the decisions concerning hablar bien or le bon usage. Indeed, new actors appear to be fighting this battle in Facebook groups (Damar, 2010 & 2011), comments in online media (Hanna & De Nooy, 2009; Reyes, 2013) or public online forums (Osthus, 2004; Meunier & Rosier, 2012; Bonnin, 2014) with singular engagement and virulence. Authors have studied ideological language debates in different settings and around different languages. In relation to institutional language reforms, language users’ reactions vary, and often they are not accepted by the speech community, at least not at first (Singh, 1975). That was the case with the spelling reform proposed in France in 1990, where language users opposed

187 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 and challenged the reform proposed institutionally, making it unsuccessful. In other cases, the resistance of language users delayed the incorporation of the changes, as in Germany, where the language reform presented in 1995 was not introduced into the curricula in schools until around 1999 (Ball, 1999, p. 276-7). Furthermore, the community can protest legally by taking the reform to the Federal Constitutional Court, as in the case with a reform to the German language (Ball 1999, Johnson 2005). People’s reactions to language reforms have been addressed in the past by researchers who conducted interviews and surveys with different groups in society, such as teachers (Groupe RO., 2012) and college students1 (Singh, 1986), or by simply analyzing headlines, the opinions of newspaper editors, academic critics, and anti- and pro-reformers in general (Ball, 1999), or by clas- sifying argumentation schemes in online posted comments refuting or accepting the changes proposed (Reyes, 2013). These studies analyzed and classified public opinions toward language reforms into major groups or thematic structures, accounting for the most common ways to react in favor of or against a language reform. Reactions against the reforms appeal to arguments related to aesthetics, nostalgia, history (and etymology), and identity. Comments also reveal a concern about ambiguity with the new rules, a worry about assimilating the new rules and en- tering a period of confusion, or concern with the belief that a simplification of the rules will impoverish the writing production. On the other hand, participants in these studies support the reforms claiming that language evolves, that a reform would benefit society in general, or that a limited reform is necessary (Ball, 1999; Groupe RO., 2012). The present study contributes to the previous work not only by analyzing and identifying those common themes around language change but by going beyond description to explain the cognitive frames employed by people to make sense of their relationship with language. Reyes’s main argumentation schemes from online debates (2013) are further developed and framed in this study within the discipline of moral cognition, in order to describe the relationship between (1) our reaction to language changes and (2) the language myths reproduced around our understanding of language in moral terms. This work contributes to a better understanding on how individuals conceptualize language metaphorically, revealing crucial nuances about the cognitive process involved in explanations around language uses within moral terms. Finally, those conceptual metaphors evoke language myths when people react to language changes in virtual spaces.

2.1. Metaphors

As with other abstract notions, humans tend to make sense of language uses in metaphorical terms. This cognitive process allows for a more concrete and familiar understanding of abstract issues through metaphorical meaning. A metaphor appears when “an identity relation is created between two phenomena that, in the given context, belong to different categories” (Bounegru and Forceville, 2011, p. 213). The Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), developed by George Lakoff and others in the 1970s and 1980s, describes the ways we conceptualize abstractions and construct an understanding of our language in metaphorical terms (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Examples, such as “time is money”, constitute a metaphor conceptualizing time as money. In order to comprehend abstract notions, individuals rely on concrete-abstract mappings (Wehling, 2016). CMT contends

1 This survey is about reactions to hypothetical changes in the writing system, which would favor national integration (Singh, 1986).

188 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 that “metaphor is not just an aspect of language, but a fundamental part of human thought” (Gibbs, 2011, p. 529). However, conceptual metaphors stand as complex semantic relationships to identify, classify and systematically trace in the corpora. In addition, some authors claim the need of an interdisciplinary approach (involving the discipline of psychology, for instance) to reveal more nuances between structuring aspects of conventional language use and human rea- soning (Gibbs, 2011, p 533-534). In order to address these possible shortcomings, Pragglejaz Group developed the Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) (2007) to systematically approach the semantic relationship between lexical items to account for their metaphorical meaning (see section 3 on methodology). This current study adopts the Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) (Pragglejaz Group, 2007) to provide an accurate account of metaphorical uses in those language ideological debates. Despite the critiques, CMT provides essential insights to understand the interaction of embodiment, language, thought, and culture (Gibbs, 2006).

2.2. Moral cognition

Conceptual metaphors cognitively link abstract notions with values, virtues, and moral concerns related to personhood. This relationship explains powerful metaphors such as the nation as person metaphor due to the direct experiential access to the source of personhood but not the target domain of nationhood (Wehling, 2016, p. 191). In fact, authors have analyzed political discourse, for instance, under a moral cognition frame (Lakoff, 1996; Abdel-Raheem, 2014). In this respect, Lakoff observed that moral cognition allows political groups to frame political issues in terms of purity or impurity (Lakoff, 1996). In the process of framing issues, metaphor choices can directly impact people’s judgments (e.g. political judgment) by granting different moral perspectives (Abdel-Raheem, 2014, p. 373). Furthermore, individuals commonly base their political positions on multiple values rather than relying on just one holistic political principle (Feldman and Zaller, 1992; Lakoff, 1995). Those values constitute moral understandings of issues displayed through metaphorical use. Morality, in relation to language, refers then to the understanding of language uses under moral parameters, perceiving them as right and wrong or good and bad. In language ideological debates, a metaphor that emerges recurrently is language as person, a conceptual metaphor that personifies language with human qualities and moral values due to the experience with personhood but not the target domain of languagehood (Wehling, 2016). Through this moral framing, language can be pure, proper, rich, beautiful, sophisticated, strong, complex, superior, etc. The results are metaphoric mappings portraying language as a human being to later judge linguistic uses, through a moral filter, capable of displaying human attributes, allowing associations such as language can be strong or weak. As in political discourse, purity is often the basis of language myths such as the myth that language can deteriorate or the consequential myth that language needs to be regulated. language can deteriorate defines a common shared belief and a myth not only about the Spanish language but also about French (Groupe RO, 2012) and English (Watts, 2011). Conceptual metaphors around language often evoke some sort of axiomatic truths; that is, they are accepted understandings and interpretations of linguistic realities, becoming part of a “logical coherent system” (Watts, 1999, p. 68) and developing into myths, which are difficult to challenge or dismantle (Watts, 2011). This apparently logical system is created and shaped through the discourse formation of knowledge (Foucault, 1972) as a unified understanding that reconstructs our reality as unique events, perspectives and truths. These cognitive frames are crucial in the formation of public opinion (Iyengar, 1991) and language ideologies since ideolo-

189 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 gies are often conceptualized and re-negotiated through language myths shared by society. Therefore, conceptual metaphors such as “RAE protects the language” or “RAE is not taking care of the language”, even if they reveal different opinions about the RAE’s role, are both nurturing a general language myth reflecting the belief thatlanguage needs to be regulated. In- grained in the cognitive system as a shared belief, “language myths are communally shared sto- ries, which regardless of their factual status, are believed and propagated as the cultural proper- ty of a group” (Watts, 2000, p. 33). Those moral narratives construct and shape a specific ideology about language structure, use, and function. Language myths are consequently normative beliefs representing moral perspectives about language use that have been first conceptualized metaphorically and then fossilized after a cognitive process and naturalized through discourse. Language myths are at the core of the ideology of prescriptivism, the idea that there are right and wrong, good and bad, proper and improper language uses (Watts, 2000, p 44-45). In relation to language myths, Bauer and Trudgill (1998) edited a volume in which several authors discussed 21 Language Myths. These authors simply describe a piece of cultural wisdom about language and, as professional linguists, they discuss and analyze that shared belief about language use. Some of these myths are Some languages are harder than others (Anderson, 1998) or children can’t speak or write properly anymore (Milroy, 1998). It is important to understand, by observing these labels, that authors have encapsulated myths in a title for practical reasons, but by no means should they be considered the only way this myth is refer to or known by. For instance, the myth The media are ruining English (Aitchi- son, 1998) and the myth America is ruining the English language (Algeo, 1998) would be represented under the myth language can deteriorate, since they represent a general belief that language can be ruined and therefore it can deteriorate. Bagno (1999) discusses prejudices that people share about the Portuguese spoken in Brazil, underlining a number of myths such as the belief that people without formal education speaks with many errors (Myth 4), or that it is necessary to know grammar to speak and write well (Myth 7). Bagno also discusses the common belief that Brazilians don’t know Portuguese and only in Portugal do people speak good Portuguese (Myth 2). In his book Language Myths and the History of English, Watts reviews myths around the En- glish Language such as the “Myth of the ancient language” representing the effort to establish a linguistic pedigree by tracing the language as far back as possible in time (Watts, 2011, p 28). Sim- ilarly, Watts debates the “Myth of greatness” that derives from the “superiority of English myth”. This myth is associated with notions such as remarkability, excellence, power, and influence (Watts, 2011, p.140). Closely connected to the idea of nation-state, this myth is often employed as a political argument to emphasize a sense of uniqueness and historical significance. (Ibid.). These myths embrace a similar moral narrative to the myth that language can deteriorate, emphasizing different aspects that are causing a supposed decadence of the language. In Spanish, studies about language myths are few and sparse. Montes de Oca (2011), however, provided a list of myths. Myths such as There are good and bad words (Myth 10) are semanti- cally related to the idea that language can deteriorate. Myth 16 discusses how Castilian Spanish is considered the norm to follow, taking RAE as a referent (Montes de Oca, 2011, p. 29). This myth is related to the idea that language needs to be regulated. These authors discuss myths with their own examples, or with well-known ones from the literature, but without looking at a concrete corpus on human communication to observe how common they are and how often they appear in an actual corpus.

190 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 The present study contributes to the field of language ideology by exploring language users’ ideas about the language they speak. Similarly, this study approaches the analysis under a moral frame, contributing to the field of moral cognition. Moral cognition has been employed, for instance, to account for metaphorical uses in political discourse (cf. Abdel-Raheem, 2014; Lakoff 1995, 1996; Wehling, 2016; Wehling, Bartlett and Norrie, 2015) but not to explain metaphorical uses in language ideological debates. In addition, language myths have been presented and described in the literature mainly in an unsystematic way without a concrete corpus (c.f. Aitchison, 1998; Algeo, 1998; Bagno, 1999; Milroy, 1998; Watts, 2000 & 2012). This study traces and elicits myths from a specific corpus of digital communication, observing frequency of appearances, in a bottom-up analysis, and comparing them with the language myths authors have discussed in previous literature. Finally, the current study addresses language myths that appear in a Span- ish corpus, contributing to the sparse literature that discusses language myths in the Spanish language.

3. Data and methodology

Interaction in language debates in the cyber-newspaper is displayed in an asynchronous internet-mediated communication (Yus, 2011). Individuals who partake in those debates are considered “citizen sociolinguists,” (Rymes & Leone, 2014, p. 26) that is, laypeople participating pub- licly in sociolinguistic exploration using “their senses and intelligence to understand the world of language around them” (Rymes & Leone, 2014, p. 26). In 2010, the Spanish Royal Academy (RAE) published new orthographic and spelling reforms for the Spanish language. An article presenting those orthographic and spelling reforms was published online on 5 November 2010 by El País (Rodríguez Marcos, 2010). Both in print and online, El País is the most widely circulated newspaper in Spain and it commands the high- est numbers of readers2. Ideologically speaking, El País is considered as a center-left newspaper (Menéndez Alarcón, 2010, p. 401). This study collected, analyzed, and classified the first 500 comments posted in response to an article published on El País’s website. The online version of the article remained on El País’s homepage for 24 hours. Most of the comments (966) were posted in the first 24 hours. On 6 November 2010, the online article was no longer located on the homepage and a search engine was necessary to find it. As mentioned before, conceptual metaphors convey complex semantic relationships to identify and classify. The Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) (Pragglejaz Group, 2007) is a method that was developed to address these possible shortcomings, disambiguating semantic relationship between lexical items by contrasting literal with figurative meaning (Pragglejaz Group, 2007). In order to identify metaphorical uses of words in discourse, this study employs Pragglejaz Group’s Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) (2007). After reading the text and establishing the meaning within the contexts, this study contrasts the basic and concrete dictionary meaning of lexical items with the contextual meaning in the specific context of language debates in order to determine if a particular lexical unit has been used metaphorically (see Prag- glejaz Group, 2007, p. 3). In the example below, we apply the MIP to analyze the expression idioma pobre “poor language”, which displays a metaphorical use.

(1) Acabaremos teniendo un idioma pobre y para lelos [We will

2 Retrieved from http://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/es/122/3990/9873 and http://www.pressreference. com/Sa-Sw/Spain.html

191 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 end up having an impoverished language for dummies] (al 34) 3.

The expression contains two lexical units, and the basic meaning of pobre “poor” in the dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy (2014) contrasts with its contextual meaning. pobre (in “idioma pobre” [poor language]). (a) contextual meaning: Context relates to the semantic field of the words that accompany the lexical item. In this context, “poor” indicates lack of resources, without the necessary linguistic means to communicate or express meaning successfully. (b) basic meaning: The basic meaning of the adjective “poor” in the dictionary consulted from the RAE (2014) is: “Necesitado, que no tiene lo necesario para vivir.” [Needy, someone who does not have the basic needs to live.] (c) contextual meaning versus basic meaning: The contextual meaning contrasts with the basic meaning and can be understood by comparison with it: lacking linguistic resources to communicate is as dire as lacking basic needs to live. Metaphorically used? Yes. Metaphorical uses have been identified within the posted comments by applying the “Met- aphor Identification Procedure” (MIP) (Pragglejaz Group, 2007), consisting of carefully reading and understanding the contextual meanings of lexical items to later contrast them with the basic-concrete denotation in dictionaries of those lexical items. For instance, the author of the comment (2) employs the Spanish verb “destrozar” [to destroy] with the object “language.” The application of the “Metaphor Identification Procedure” (MIP) (Pragglejaz Group, 2007) reveals a metaphorical use. This metaphorical use evokes the myth of language can deteriorate since it implies that language can be damaged or destroyed by certain actions or uses.

(2) De acuerdo en que estos académicos parece que nos destrozan la lengua [I agree that it seems that these academicians destroy our language] (Mercedes 73).

These opinions on language represent cognitive understandings about how language works, and they evoke different language myths that users share about the language they speak. The present study applies the MIP to identify metaphorical uses representing conceptual- izations around language and language uses. Those conceptual metaphors represent language ideologies that shape general shared beliefs around language: language myths. Those myths are the result of cognitive processes where individuals evaluate language uses in terms of morality. This study analyzes the data and looks for general patterns (myths) that embrace the semantics of those metaphorical terms. This study focuses on two common and related myths about language: language can deteriorate and language needs to be regulated, their frequency of appearances in a Spanish corpus.

4. Results and discussion

Out of all the comments analyzed (n=500), most of the comments (483) contained identifi-

3 The bolded text in this article represents linguistic choices relevant to the analysis. Each comment displays the pseudonym of the cyber user and a number that corresponds with the order in which the comment was posted. Names are displayed unless they seem like a full name. For ethical reasons. in those cases, the last name is represented by the first letter of the word.

192 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 able metaphorical uses evoking different language myths (Table 1). This work found that participants justify their comments against or in favor of the changes by evoking and reproducing two related main conceptual metaphors: language can deteriorate (23% of comments) and language needs to be regulated (30.4%).

Table 1. Percentages (and numbers) of comments containing metaphorical uses evoking language myths. (n=500) Comments with metaphorical uses evoking language myths Percentages Numbers

language needs to be regulated 30.4% 152

language uses are rational and logical 30.4% 152

language can deteriorate 23.0% 115

language belongs to its users 12.8% 64 Comments with non-identifiable metaphorical uses 3.4% 17 100% 500

The rest of the comments display metaphorical uses related to the myth that language belongs to its users (12.8%) and the language uses are rational and logical myth (30.4%). The remaining 3.4% are comments without identifiable metaphorical uses, for instance, by simply expressing agreement or disagreement. Two different subcategories appear under the mythlan - guage needs to be regulated (30.4): Comments against the RAE for not fulfilling its duties (27.7%) and praising the RAE as an institution for their job (2.7%). These myths constitute thematic structures that represent argumentation schemes used in the comments against or in favor language changes (Reyes, 2013). They encompass general ideas evoking different metaphorical uses around a main general topic. This study focuses on the myths language can deteriorate and language needs to be regulated for three main reasons, the first being the logical causality these two beliefs entail: if language deteriorates, it must be controlled, supervised and preserved. Secondly, together both myths constitute the majority (53.4%) of the comments analyzed, and finally they reflect on organi- zations and institutions that, by attempting to regulate the language, promote a standard that inevitably marginalizes other varieties and their speakers to the peripheries of the bon usage. Two main language myths are evoked through internet-based participatory culture (Rymes & Leone, 2014) in these affinity spaces where citizen sociolinguists (Rymes & Leone, 2014) build knowledge collectively (Jenkins, 2006), constructing a “cultural product” (Kytölä, 2013) such as the ideal of a standard language. The two myths evoked metaphorically within a moral frame are the myths that language can deteriorate and language needs to be regulated. These myths reveal how social cognition frames language use for participants in ideological language debates about the Spanish language.

4.1. The myth that language can deteriorate

This myth refers to the general shared belief that conceptualizes language as a social practice, which can be evaluated comparatively in moral terms within the time dimension, in relation to other stages of its own history (diachronically) and through the space dimension, comparatively with contemporary parallel uses, dialects or languages elsewhere (synchronically). This

193 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 myth is based in the belief that language can get better or worse depending on subjective moral criteria around beauty and complexity. The conceptualization of this myth develops around a historical comparison of language uses through time. There is a shared belief about a narrative, socioculturally reproduced in the community (Watts, 1999, p. 68), that associates the prestige of a language with a historical period when it is believed that that language displayed its most prestigious version. For English, the language used during the time of Shakespeare represents that peak, and for Spanish it is the language during Cervantes’s era. From that time onwards, the use of language is believed to have declined, losing the splendor and glory that it once enjoyed. In this study, 23% of the comments analyzed reflected this myth, with different subtleties (cf. Ta- ble 1). There is an idea that the use of language has worsened, partly because of the way young people talk nowadays or due to the amount of foreign words (currently mainly anglicisms) that users incorporate in their repertoires. Paradoxically, those two elements, young people’s rep- ertoire and loan words, are important signs that a language is changing, evolving and healthy (Milroy, 1998). The examples below reveal reactions to the changes proposed, evoking the myth that language can deteriorate, emphasizing different aspects that are causing a supposed decadence of the language, according to the participants of those debates. This general myth can be conceptualized under binary opposed subcategories such as easiness/ difficulty, simplicity/ complexity, and poverty/ richness. These subcategories emerge from beliefs, framed in moral terms, that users have about language use. These subcategories evoke the language myth that language can deteriorate. They constitute interconnected mental spaces (Fauconnier and Turner, 2002, p. 40) where individuals store themes and concepts around the framework that language can deteriorate. Even if many would agree with the idea that the main purpose of language is to communicate, there is a belief conceptualized in the myth that language can deteriorate that claims that language has to be complex. Comments under this category reveal a negative perception regard- ing any attempt to simplify the use of language.

(3) Cambiar un idioma para hacerlo más "fácil" no es bueno, es reconocer que ha fracasado la misión de la escuela [To change a language to make it “easier” is not good, it is to recognize that the mission of the school has failed] (John L. 16).

In excerpt (3), a user affirms that making language easier is not the right way to proceed and it would mean that the mission of education has failed. It is not unusual to complain about the educational system and to claim that the educational standards are declining (Milroy, 1998, p. 58). There is an implication that acquiring and using a language should not be easy, but rather should take effort and formal education. That comment expresses a similar moral ideology to the following one, fragment (4).

(4) Las simplificaciones creo que se hacen en detrimento de la lengua. [The simplifications, I believe, are done in detriment of the language] (Sally 97).

The new rules seem to challenge the status of some language users who, until now, have mastered the language rules and, therefore, the normative-established use of language. More

194 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 specifically, the advantage of knowing the rules is being challenged if language norms become easier to learn and more social groups have access to le bon usage of language. In other words, “[T]he more linguistic capital that speakers possess, the more they are able to exploit the system of differences to their advantage and thereby secure a profit of distinction” (Bourdieu, 2001, p. 18). Simplifications in the language are also seen as limitations to the capacity to think, as expressed in fragment (5).

(5) Lamento que se simplifique el lenguaje porque es una forma de simplificar el pensamiento [I feel sorry that language gets simplifiedbecause that is a way to simplify thought] (Ana 170).

This conceptual association equating language complexity with intellectual capacity is another conceptual metaphor revealing moral perspectives: the more complex language rules are, the more opportunities to convey complex thought processes. The next excerpt expands on this conceptual correlation. If the language gets simpler, it will get poorer (less rich) and then it will be no longer a language for intelligent people.

(6, previously 1) Acabaremos teniendo un idioma pobre y para lelos [We will end up having an impoverished language for dummies] (al 34).

The belief expressed in excerpt (6) associates simplification of language with simplification of thought. Previously, in the data and methodology section, the metaphorical use of the word “pobre” [poor] is explained following the “Metaphor Identification Procedure” (MIP) by Prag- glejaz Group (2007). In fragment (7), a participant associates those simplifications with a collective ignorance and degradation and blames RAE for proposing that path.

(7) Nunca he entendido la evolucion del lenguaje como la adapta- cion a la ignorancia colectiva. Eso no es evolucion, es degrada- cion. Y se esta institucionalizando, que es lo mas grave de todo [I have never understood the evolution of the language as the adap- tation to collective ignorance. This is not evolution, it is degradation. And it is institutionalized, which is the worst thing of all] (Asqueado 451).

The lexical item “degradación” [degradation] is an example of metaphorical use (Pragglejaz Group, 2007) and constitutes a conceptual metaphor displaying moral attitudes towards language. These examples reveal a cognitive understanding; that is, mental representations that people have around language uses, resulting in attitudes towards uses and language variation (Geeraerts et al., 2010). Some users look at the past while facing what they portray as a dramatic scenario of the current status of the language. The glorious past of the Spanish language is associated with Cervantes’ era and in particular, with his writings.

(8) LaRAEen su afan de modernizar(?) la lengua la estan em-

195 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 pobreciendo. Cervantes debe estar ‘revolviendose’ en su tumba [RAE in its effort to modernize(?) the language is impoverishing it. Cervantes must be ‘rolling over’ in his grave] (Fabio 324).

This comment refers to Cervantes himself, being in his grave unable to rest in peace because of what is currently done to the Spanish language. However, Cervantes’ masterpiece of Don Quijote contains language uses that are highly stigmatized now, for instance, the form “haiga” (current “haya”) subjunctive form of “hay” [there is] which was considered then as part of the standard language and that nowadays is highly stigmatized. Similarly for English, Shakespeare's use of English was considered to represent the most prestigious English ever written or spoken. However, as Aitchison (1998, p. 16) points out, in The Merchant of Venice, the merchant Antonio declares: “All debts are cleared between you and I” (Shakespeare, 1994), breaking the standard use of pronouns after prepositions: “you and me.” This myth conceptualizes the belief that language had a glorious past and it is currently losing its splendor. According to Watts (2011, p.4), “despite all the factual evidence to the contrary, the major reason for the survival of these sorts of myths is that they ‘fulfill a vital function in explaining, justifying and ratifying present behavior by the narrated events of the past.” For other users, the ability to locate a language use in the past and to trace its evolution, that is, to account for a word or expression etymologically, validates the current use of that word or expression. Citizen sociolinguists (Rymes & Leone, 2014) value explanations about diachronic developments on language uses, as expressed in (9).

(9) …podrían concederle también un poquito de importancia a la "unidad diacrónica". Cada mordisco que le dan innecesariamente no hace más que crear o agrandar una ruptura entre la lengua actual y su tradición […they could concede some importance to the “diachronic unity”. Each unnecessary bite they give it creates and increases the rupture between the current language and its tradition] (Ah les Lumières 350).

Following Pragglejaz Group’s MIP (2007), several lexical items convey metaphorical uses by contrasting their basic and contextual meanings. These lexical items such as “mordisco” [bite] or “ruptura” [rupture] in (9) or “rica” [rich] and “robusta” [robust] in (10) stand as conceptual metaphors that contribute to the moral account scheme well-being is wealth (Lakoff, 1995, p. 180). The moral narrative implies that certain language uses and changes can hurt the language, evoking again, as result of moral cognitive processes, the metaphor of language is a living being. Individuals construct these cognitive understandings around language use in terms of health and well being, which reveals crucial aspects of social cognition modus operandi in relation to language. A past associated with prestige, richness, and glory of the Spanish language is a common moral belief, as displayed in expressions like “rico pasado” [rich past]. (Nathán 424). That richness is a constant denominator associated with language, present again in fragment (10), which is threatened by these institutional changes.

(10) …quitando elemento que hacen a nuestra lengua más rica y robusta [taking away elements that make our language richer

196 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 and more robust] (Luis C. 158). The process of language deterioration is morally conceptualized by attributing animated characteristics to language. The entity becomes a living being through conceptual metaphors representing the image of language with human attributes. a language is a human being constitutes a conceptual metaphor (Watts, 2012, p. 592), a personification that allows us to think of language often in terms of wealth or strength (as in the excerpt 10). As a human being, language can also be hurt or killed. In example (11), language becomes a living being with human characteristics and will receive, according to this participant, a stabbing in the back.

(11)... la cuchillada trapera que sufrirá el castellano ... [the back stabbing that Castilian Spanish will suffer] (Juan Ramón 218).

language is a human being constitutes a conceptual metaphor (Watts, 2012, p. 592), a personification that dramatizes a situation and allows the user to position language as a victim of a crime. The notion of richness is also constructed in association with other human attributes such as robustness. The fragments below show other occurrences of the metaphor language can be rich. (12) Tenemos un idioma muy rico [We have a very rich language] (YE,NO; GRACIAS 183).

(13) orgullosa del idioma castellano, una lengua llena de riqueza lingüística [proud of the Castillian language, a language full of linguistic richness] (Itxaso 222).

(14) es quitarle riqueza a nuestro idioma y hacernos más tontos todos [it is to take away richness from our language and make us all dumber] (Dogma 426).

(15) El idioma castellano es de los mas ricos y completos, permite expresar lo que otros idiomas no pueden [The Castillian language is one of the richest and most complete languages, which permits one to express that which other languages cannot] (Guillermo de J. 442).

(16) Nuestro idioma es muy rico y se que esta siendo golpeado por el ingles y la horrenda mezcla que se llama Spanglish y ahora la academia quiere proponer cambios innecesarios [Our language is very rich and I know that it is being beaten up by English and the horrible mix that is called Spanglish and now Academia wants to propose unnecessary changes] (Margui 485)

In the previous examples, richness is associated with strength or completeness, which are abstract concepts connected with an ideal of language. Even the use of a more technical term such as “linguistic” raises questions around what the user means by “linguistic richness.” These associations often appear with the notion of beauty and aesthetics. For some, richness equates with the beauty and the complexity of the Spanish language, as in the comment below:

197 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 (17) Si no aprecian la belleza de la complejidad del español, no deben estar ahí [If they do not appreciate the beauty and complexity of the Spanish language, they should not be there] (Sara 52).

The participant in (18) claims that the previous name used to refer to the grapheme (“i griega”) is more beautiful and poetic than the new one proposed by RAE (“ye”).

(18) “I griega” es mucho más bonito y poético que ye [The “Greek I” is much prettier and more poetic than “ye”] (La Gran Enchila- da 206).

The orthographic accent previously used in the disjunctive coordination between numbers is described below as more aesthetic.

(19) …seguiré poninedo tilde en 4 ó 5, queda muchisímo mejor esteticamente [I will keep writing an accent in 4 ó 5, it appears much better aesthetically ] (josé 245).

In the previous comments, richness is associated with complexity, beauty, poetics, and aesthetics. These metaphorical uses project moral values on language uses. All of those attributes and qualities seem to be threatened by foreign lexical terms. Here, the concept of purity emerges implicitly when users describe the effects of foreign words in the Spanish language, in particular Anglicisms or the use of Spanglish described by Margui in (16) as “la horrenda mezcla que se llama Spanglish [the horrible mix that is called Spanglish].” The next fragment calls the proposed changes a conspiracy plotted by the English-speaking world to decompose the Spanish language.

(20) ...esto es una variante más del jalogüín, vamos, que ni la lengua se salva de la descomposición anglodirigida [ …this is another variant of jalogüín [Halloween], that is, not even language can be saved from the anglo-directed decomposition] (laura 220).

As it has been analyzed in political discourse (Lakoff, 1996), language uses are also morally framed in terms of purity or impurity. Citizen sociolinguists reproduce, in those examples (16 and 20), a common ideology among language users who consider Spanglish as a stigmatized variety used by people who do not use either of the two languages involved properly. As with other languages, including English, there is a constant concern about the language purity, health, and destruction (Aitchison, 1998, p. 15) that is conceptualized in metaphors within a moral frame. The myth that language can deteriorate is conceptualized by participants of language debates online, presenting abstract notions of language under moral standards (good and bad), revealing metaphors “we continually and unconsciously use in language” (Watts, 2011, p. 7) about language use, and providing understandings of socio-cognitive processes around language.

198 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 4. 2. The myth that language needs to be regulated

It seems only consequential that if there is a shared belief about language getting worse, there may be a need for some apparatus that regulates and prevents language deterioration. Language institutions and academies have emerged as authoritative voices answering the de- mands to regulate language and, at the same time, serve as political tools for governments to control the language spoken by their citizens (Del Valle, 2013). Government-related institutions around the world such as the Spanish Royal Academy (RAE), the French Academy, the Acade- my of the Hebrew Language, and the Council for German Orthography regulate several widely spoken languages in the world. The mere existence of language academies and institutions reveals several myths that we, as a society, believe about language, such as the belief that a language needs to or can be normalized, controlled, and protected by a regulatory body. Many languages do not have an academy to regulate their use, including English, and very few will argue that the English language is under some type of threat or danger without an academy. A lack of language academy does not mean that a society does not have references for authority in language use, such as prestigious dictionaries. Similarly, in each society, some people will always see a threat in the way technology or young generations change or modify the language. Nevertheless, the English language does not have an academy where arbitrary chosen individuals choose and vote on the language used by millions of people. Another myth associated with the existence of language academies is the belief that changes motivated by ordinary people are mainly negative and need to be controlled and regulated by an institution. The belief that an academy can protect a language from the influence of foreign words, for instance, or that it can preserve its “purity” is also part of those conceptual metaphors understanding the use of language in moral terms. The motto of some of those institutions provides clear evidence of their roles and intentions. The RAE's motto until very recently, was "Lim- pia, fija y da esplendor" ("[It] cleans, [it] fixes, and [it] casts splendor"). From a linguistic point of view, a language cannot be cleaned, fixed, or shined. Those are subjective understandings, or moral concerns, around a language and its uses. Furthermore, the motto implies that a language can get dirty, damaged, destructed, dark, or dull. If there are users who maintain the cleanliness of the language, there are users who degrade the language. These types of cognitive identifica- tions are the basis to understand how language planning often results in the marginalization of specific social groups (Phillipson, 1992). The standard variety of any language is socially accepted and recognized as the variety spoken by cultivated people. It is understood as a necessary model and a linguistic reference to the speech community and it is considered better than other varieties of the same language. However, those beliefs are part of a myth, since a standard variety is not a variety spoken by any speakers, if language is understood as a real activity that speakers exercise in social interaction (Bagno, 1999, p. 12). A standard variety is an artificial product, a cultural product (Kytölä, 2013), an ideal in the minds of language users, a cognitive construction of a language spoken by ideal speakers. Those understandings constitute the myth of the standard language as part of language ideologies. This myth becomes explicit by the request for authority in users’ comments and the references to RAE itself as a source for correctness in the use of language. Comments against both the changes alleging that RAE is failing to fulfill its duties (27.7%) and comments in favor of the changes soliciting respect for the institution (2.7%) represent beliefs that language needs to be

199 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 regulated. A substantial percentage (27.7%) of comments manifests criticism towards the RAE for not doing its job, but they are not, however, questioning its language moral authority. Besides the bitter and fierce criticism towards the institution of RAE, its members, and its duties, language users rarely advocate for the RAE’s disappearance as a regulating agency of the Spanish language. The comment below alleges that the proposed changes are a consequence of RAE losing rigor.

(21) me parece que la RAE está perdiendo su rigor [It appears to me that RAE is losing its rigor] (sassy 106).

Through the comments (21) and (22), language users discuss the RAE’s duties. The myth that language needs to be regulated is evoked again. According to these citizen sociolinguists (Rymes & Leone, 2014, p. 26), RAE’s duty is to preserve language and its proper use (22) and to encourage the use of words in Spanish to avoid the “abuse” of foreign words (23).

(22) Tendrían que aplicarse en simplificar el lenguaje, no en com- plicarlo, que para eso están, para cuidar de la Lengua y su buen uso [they should apply themselves in simplifying the language, not in complicating it, that is why they are there, to take care of the Language and its proper use] (Alfredo 37).

In example 22, the Metaphor Identification Procedure (Pragglejaz Group, 2007) reveals that the unit “cuidar” [take care], referring to language, conceptualizes a metaphor under a moral frame. The basic meaning of the entry in the dictionary contrasts with the contextual meaning of the expression “cuidar de la lengua” [take care of the language]. The expression displays a metaphorical use reflecting a shared belief that language can be taken care of and that an institution like RAE can perform that duty. This metaphorical use evokes the language needs to be regulated myth. In similar ways, the term “abuso” [abuse] in (23) or “preservar” [preserve] in (25) also reflect metaphorical uses.

(23) La Academia de la lengua debe dedicarse a asuntos más serios y necesarios, como son recordar el uso de palabras que existen en castellano, fomentando así el uso de la alternativa propia, ante el abuso de los extranjerismos [The language academy should dedicate itself to more serious and necessary matters, like to re- mind [us] of the use of words that exist in Castilian, encouraging the use of its own alternative, given the abuse of foreign words] (Luis Eduardo Schroeder Soto 108).

Despite some criticism towards the RAE, many participants of these debates argue in favor of this authoritative body, contributing to the myth that language needs to be regulated. Respect for the institution RAE is an argument that language users present in 2.7% of the cases alluding to the authority, wisdom, and role of the RAE as an institution to preserve and update the Span- ish language. Below, some language users refer explicitly to the authority of the institution. Even if the user in (24) does not see the need of these changes, the mere fact that RAE proposed them

200 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 is enough to comply with them.

(24) En fin, yo no entiendo ni veo la necesidad de algunos de estos cambios, pero si los académicos lo dicen, pues habrá que acatar- las [Well, I do not understand nor see the necessity of some of the changes, but if the academicians say so, then the changes will have to be complied with] (Daniel 15).

These comments allow for an introspection of the social and moral cognitive system by revealing social beliefs and values that participants of these debates construct, maintain, and per- petuate linguistically. Other comments reference the belief that an academy would preserve the language, as in example (25).

(25) Las lenguas están vivas y evolucionan. Una academia es muy útil para preservarla [Languages are alive and they evolve. An academy is very useful to preserve them] (Ruben 65).

Example (25) evokes the thematic structure of normal evolution, a language myth also found in French language speakers (Groupe RO, 2012, p. 71). In excerpt (26), a participant of online language ideological debates not only defends RAE’s changes, claiming that the RAE is doing ex- actly what it should do, but also asserts that language users should celebrate having an academy.

(26) ... debemos felicitarnos de tener una Academia (o un conjun- to de Academias) que cumplen con su lema a rajatabla (Limpia, fija y da esplendor) y que permite que nuestra lengua sea tan rica como accesible ... [we should congratulate ourselves for having an Academy (or a group of academies) that achieves its motto to the letter (It cleans, it fixes and gives splendor) and allows our language to be as rich as it is accessible] (Lobo 304).

The myth of RAE as a regulatory instrument to control the Spanish language is also rein- forced under the assumption that RAE attempts to register transatlantic changes in both Spain and the Americas. The changes are justified by the language user below as RAE’s need to maintain homogenization of the language through the Spanish-speaking world:

(27) ... la RAE no solo tiene competencia en España, sino tam- bién en Iberoamérica ... Las modificaciones a las reglas, pues re- sponden a su uso no solo en España, sino al uso en Latinoamérica, por favor abrn [sic] sus ojos a la realdad [The RAE not only has authority in Spain, but also in Latin America ... The modifica- tions to the rules respond to the use not only in Spain but also in Latin America, please open your eyes to reality] (Las lenguas, entes vivos 74).

These conceptual metaphors employed by language users reflect a moral uptake, a cognitive

201 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 understanding that is socially constructed for the need of an authoritative role granted to RAE and its decisions. They constitute references to the myth that language needs to be regulated.

5. Conclusion This study analyzes the creation of an ideal notion of a standard language by citizen sociolinguists who discuss and defend ideological positionings on language uses under moral judgments in online settings. Participants construct and share language myths as conceptual metaphors that become part of a shared belief, non-questionable axioms that constitute our moral perception of how language works. This work addresses the main language myths evoked by language users online in order to understand the moral frames participants employ to make sense of the language they speak, as they justify or reject language uses and changes. This study bases its findings empirically in a corpus of digital communication, revealing nuances about human interaction and the way participants relate to language within cognitive moral frames. Even if these ideological language debates are not institutionally regulated, they still reflect language myths that reproduce a pre- scriptive bias around language uses, by considering them right or wrong and proper or improper (Watts, 2000, p 44-45). The data show that participants’ comments reproduce and justify two important language myths through conceptual metaphors: the myth language can deteriorate (23.0%) and language needs to be regulated (30.4%). While for instance, political decisions, opinions, and arguments have been well document- ed in the literature of political communication under the prism of moral cognition (e.g. Ab- del-Raheem, 2014; Lakoff, 1995, 1996, 2004 & 2008; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Wehling, 2016; Weh- ling et al., 2015), very little research has been done with moral cognition in the field of language ideological debates where individuals or language planning institutions make moral judgments about others’ language uses. The results of this study are limited to the online setting under analysis. I encourage future studies to include additional settings of human interaction to observe the occurrence of language myths in a broader context. Similarly, future studies could observe if the myths reproduced in these ideological debates also appear in publications by the RAE, such as on prologues of new orthographies, where RAE justifies language changes. From a linguistic point of view, language does not deteriorate or need to be regulated. Those ideas are socially constructed as myths, which after shared in a given culture and promoted by governmental regulatory agencies, stand as real rules that people apply unquestionably to specific language uses, making them legitimate or illegitimate. These myths reveal the belief of societies in inherent properties of a standard language and project moral judgments towards alternative uses of language. Consequently, this metaphorical connection between language and personhood results in the marginalization of social groups whose language uses do not match standard usages. Those language uses are relegated morally to the peripheries of the bon usage for being considered impure, improper, poor, simple, or weak.

202 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 Works Cited Abdel-Raheem, A. (2014). The journey metaphor and moral political cognition. Pragmatics & Cognition, 22 (3), 373-401. Aitchison, J. (1998). The media are ruining English. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.). Language myths (pp. 15-22). New York: Penguin. Algeo, J. (1998). America is ruining the English language. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.) Lan- guage Myths (pp. 176-182). New York: Penguin. Anderson, L. (1998). Some languages are harder than others. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.) Lan- guage myths (pp. 50-57). New York: Penguin. Bagno, M. (1999) Preconceito Lingüístico: o que é, como se faz. São Paulo, Brasil: Edições Loyola. Ball, R. (1999). Spelling reform in France and Germany: Attitudes and reactions. Current Issues in Language and Society, 6 (3-4), 276-280. Bauer, L., & Trudgill, P. (1998). Language Myths. London: Penguin. Blommaert, J. (1999). Language Ideologial Debates. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. Blommaert, J. (2009). A market of accents. Language Policy, 8 (3), 243–259. Bonnin, J. E. (2014). Pensar el castellano en Internet: discursos sobre la norma en los foros de WordReference.com [Thinking Spanish online: Discourses about the norm at WordRef- erences.com forums]. In E. B. N. de Arnoux (Ed.), Temas de glotopolítica: Integración regional sudamericana y panhispanismo [Topics on glottopolitics: South American regional integration and panhispanism] (pp. 351–372). Buenos Aires: Biblos. Bounegru, L., & Forceville, C. (2011). Metaphors in editorial cartoons representing the global financial crisis.Visual Communication, 10 (2), 209–229. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Language and symbolic power (6th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge. Damar, M. E. (2010–2011). De la polymorphie du purisme linguistique sur l’Internet [About the multiple forms of linguistic purism about the internet]. Langage et Société, 131, 113–130. doi:10.3917/ls.131.0113 Del Valle, J. (2013). Language, politics and history: an introductory essay. In J. del Valle (Ed.), A political history of Spanish: The making of a language (pp. 3-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Del Valle, J., & Gabriel-Stheeman, L. (2001). Nationalism, hispanismo and monoglossic culture. In J. Del Valle & L. Gabriel-Stheeman (Eds.), The battle over Spanish between 1800 and 2000: Language ideologies and Hispanic intellectuals (pp. 1–13). London: Routledge. Edwards, J. (2009). Language and identity: An introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Fairclough, N. (1985). Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 9 (6), 739-763. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 268–307. Foucault, M. (1972). Archeology of Knowledge (2nd ed.). New York: Pantheon. Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-31777-0. Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.) (2010). Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics.

203 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 Berlin: de Gruyter. Gibbs, R. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ______. (2011). Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48 (8), 529-562, DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 Groupe RO (2012). Pour ou contre une réforme de l’orthographe française ? Comme un parfum d’imaginaire [For or against a reform of French orthography? Like an imaginary per- fume]. Glottopol: Revue de Sociolinguistique en Ligne, 19, 69–98. Hanna, B. E., & De Nooy, J. (2009). Learning language and culture via public internet discussion forums. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian. Herring, S. C., & Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Computer-mediated discourse 2.0. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, (2nd ed.) (pp. 127-151). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? How television frames political Issues. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New York, NY: New York University Press. Johnson, S. A. (2005). Spelling trouble: Language, ideology and the reform of German orthograph. Cle- vedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kytölä, S. (2013). Multilingual language use and metapragmatic reflexivity in Finnish internet football forums. A study in the sociolinguistics of globalization. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä Universi- ty Printing House. Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, morality, and politics, or, why conservatives have left liberals in the dust. Social Research, 62 (2), 177–213. ______. (1996). Moral politics. How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ______. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junc- tion, VT: Chelsea Green. ______. (2008). The political mind: Why you can’t understand 21st century politics with an 18th century brain. New York, NY: Viking. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Menéndez Alarcón, A.V. (2010). Media representation of the European Union: Comparing newspaper coverage in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Com- munication, 4, 398–415. Meunier, D., & Rosier, L. (2012). La langue qui fâche: quand la norme qui lâche suscite l’insulte [The languages that angers: when the lack of a norm raises the insult]. Argumentation et Analyse du Discourse, 8, 2–13. doi:10.4000/aad.1285 Milroy, J. (1998). Children can’t speak or write properly anymore. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.) Language Myths (pp. 59-65). New York, NY: Penguin. Milroy, J. (1999). The consequences of standardisation in descriptive linguistics. In T. Bex, & R. J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The Widening debate (pp. 16–39). London: Routledge. Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Socio- linguistics, 5 (4), 530-555. Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in language: Investigating standard English (4th ed.). London: Routledge. Montes de Oca, M. P. (Ed.). (2011). Mitos de la lengua. Reflexiones sobre el lenguaje y nosotros, sus hablentes. Mexico, D. F., Mexico: Lectorum.

204 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205 Osthus, D. (2004). Le bon usage d’internet – le discours normatif sur la toile [The proper use of the internet – Normative discourse about screens]. Retrieved from http://www.diet- mar-osthus.de/norme.htm Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22 (1), 1–39. Real Academia Española. (2010) Ortografía de la lengua española. Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa. Real Academia Española. (2014) Diccionario de la lengua Española. (23rd ed.) Madrid: Espasa. Reyes, A. (2013). Don’t touch my language: Attitudes toward institutional language reforms. Cur- rent Issues in Language Planning, 14, 337–357. Rodríguez Marcos, J. (2010, November 5). La “i griega” se llamará “ye.” [‘I griega’ will be called ‘ye’]. El País. Retrieved from https://elpais.com/cultura/2010/11/05/actuali- dad/1288911609_850215.html Rymes, B. (2014). Communication beyond language: Everyday encounters with diversity. New York, NY: Routledge. Rymes, B., & Leone, A. R. (2014). Citizen sociolinguistics: a new media methodology for understanding language and social life. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 29, 25–43. Shakespeare, W. 1564-1616. (1994). The merchant of Venice. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman. Singh, U. N. (1975). Linguists’ prescriptions and users’ reactions. Paper presented at the Seminar on Linguistics and Languages Teaching. Northern Regional Language Centre (CIIL). Pati- ala. Singh, U. N. (1986). Scriptal choice and spelling reform in Bengali: An attitudinal survey. Lan- guage Planning: Proceedings of an Institute, 8, 405-417. Varis, P., Wang, X., (2011). Superdiversity on the internet: a case from China. Diversities, 13 (2), 70–83. Watts, R. J. (1999) The ideology of dialect in Switzerland. In J. Blommaert, (Ed.), Language ideological debates (pp. 67- 103). Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. Watts, R. J. (2000). Mythical strands in the ideology of prescriptivism. In L. Wright (Ed.), The development of standard English 1300-1800: Theories, descriptions, conflicts. (pp. 29-48). Cam- bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Watts, R. J. (2011). Language myths and the history of English. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Watts, R. J. (2012) Language myths. In J.M. Hernandez-Campoy, & J.C. Conde-Silvestre (Eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Wehling, E. (2016) Moral disgust at its best: The important role of low-level mappings and struc- tural parallelism in political disgust and disease metaphors. Metaphor and Communica- tion, 189-200. doi 10.1075/milcc.5.10weh Wehling, E., Bartlett, J. & Norrie, R. (2015). Using moral politics theory to understand populist politics: Populism and its moral siblings. London: Demos. Woolard, K.A., (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In: B. Schieffelin, A. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity, (Eds.) Language ideologies: Practice and theory. (pp. 3-47). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics. Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam: John Ben- jamins.

205 - Hispanic Studies Review - Vol. 4, No. 2 (2020): 186-205