See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233452859

Linguistic landscape as a reflection of the linguistic and ideological conflict in the

Article in International Journal of Multilingualism · May 2011 DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2010.550296

CITATIONS READS 36 1,532

1 author:

Beatriz Lado City University of New York City - Lehman College

19 PUBLICATIONS 214 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Beatriz Lado on 08 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. International Journal of Multilingualism Vol. 8, No. 2, May 2011, 135Á150

Linguistic landscape as a reflection of the linguistic and ideological conflict in the Valencian Community Beatriz Lado*

Languages and Literatures, University of San Diego, 5998 Alcala´ Park, San Diego, CA 92110-2492, USA (Received 4 November 2009; final version received 16 December 2010)

The Valencian Community is an area in where Valencian, a variety of Catalan, is the co-official language along with Spanish. Differently from other bilingual areas in Spain, the unique historical circumstances that the Valencian Community underwent have led to the current linguistic and ideological conflict in the area. The historical division between Spanish versus Valencian, with Spanish being the high prestige language, was reinforced during Franco’s dictatorship. After Franco’s death, there was a slow process of language normalisation intended to reinforce the use of the local language. In , this situation was hindered by the birth of a secessionist movement claiming that Valencian and Catalan were two different languages. This ideological situation frames the language policy in Valencia and is reflected in the public space. This paper analyses 248 linguistic landscape items collected in two urban sites representing public and private institutions. The data uncover existing conflicts such as the inconsistency between institutional norms and language practices, and provide evidence of the implicit and explicit mechanisms that determine ‘de facto language policies’. Keywords: linguistic landscape; Valencia; Catalan; Valencian; minority language; linguistic and ideological conflict

Introduction According to Spolsky (2004), there are three components that need to be considered when exploring the language policy of a speech community: (a) language practices (the actual languages that are spoken), (b) language beliefs or ideology, and (c) language management or intervention. Language management includes not only those explicit regulations coming from the government, but also implicit forms of language policy, such as those present in education, tests, myths, propaganda, and language in the public space. By language in the public space, Shohamy (2006) understands any language item that is found in streets, shopping centres, schools, markets, offices and other public (and often private) spaces. Shohamy argues that the presence or absence of certain languages in the public arena sends a message that reveals the centrality versus the marginality of these languages in the society. For that reason, language in the public space may be a reflection of the ideological conflicts taking place within a society that need to be considered as part of the broader view of language policy.

*Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1479-0718 print/ISSN 1747-7530 online # 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2010.550296 http://www.informaworld.com 136 B. Lado

Linguistic landscape Linguistic landscape (LL), as mentioned by Shohamy (2006), could be one way to frame language in the public space. Landry and Bourhis (1997) defined the LL of a territory as ‘the language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings’ (p. 25). Landry and Bourhis also stated that LL can serve two functions: informational and symbolic. On one hand, the LL is informational when it provides details about the linguistic characteristics, territorial limits, and language boundaries of the region, thus reflecting the language or languages that are used to communicate in a community. In addition, LL may inform about the sociolinguistic composition of the language groups in a certain area, indicating its language diversity or lack thereof. On the other hand, the LL is symbolic when it reflects the value and status of the language, i.e. dominant versus subordinate, or symbolises the strength or weakness of different ethnolinguistic groups. Laundry and Bourhis (1997) also mentioned the distinction between private and government signs, which were later named as ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ signs respectively (Ben-Rafael, Shohamy, Hasan Amara, and Trumper-Hecht, 2006). Private signs are those included on storefronts and business establishments, commercial advertising on billboards, and advertising signs displayed in public transport and on private vehicles. Government signs are those used by national, regional, or municipal governments in areas such as road signs, place names, street names and inscriptions on government buildings. Both types of signs shape the LL and provide invaluable information about the sociolinguistic situation of a given region. Scollon and Scollon (2003) give a more detailed classification of discourse in urban places: (1) signs produced by official organs (municipal regulatory and infrastructural discourses), (2) commercial discourses (e.g. shop signs), and (3) transgressive discourses (i.e. signs that violate the conventional semiotics expected, e.g. graffiti). Spolsky (2009) argues that both private and government signs could be regulated ‘from above’ and that government signs could be under more or less local control. In addition, Ben-Rafael also questions whether we can still talk about bottom-up as ‘from below’ at a time in which private international corporations seem to be controlling directions ‘from above’. In any case, investigating the differences between top-down and bottom-up signs is still a good way to help reveal whether the norms behind the LL items reflect conflicting trends between public and private sectors (Ben-Rafael, 2009, p. 52). Scollon and Scollon (2003) also talk about ‘place semiotics’ in reference to the arrangement of two or more languages on a sign (code preference), and how it affects the intended message. Thus, a language can appear on the left, centre, or top of the sign when it is preferred over another language marginalised to the right, bottom, or margins of a sign. Font sizes or the use of different signs for different languages are other tactics that indicate preference. Finally, the presence or absence of languages on multilingual signs can also provide valuable information about their role in society. Reh (2004) mentions four possible types of arrangements: (1) duplicating multilingualism, in which the same text is presented in more than one language, (2) fragmentary multilingualism, in which the full information is provided in one language, but with some parts translated into one or more additional languages, (3) overlapping multilingualism, International Journal of Multilingualism 137 in which only parts of the information are repeated in at least one other language, and (4) complementary multilingualism, in which different parts of the information are provided in different languages. As mentioned by Reh (2004), by investigating the relationship between these data and the language knowledge of a certain community we can learn about ‘the social layering of the community, the relative status of the various societal segments, and the dominant cultural ideals of the community’ (p. 28). The increasing number of publications and conferences devoted to LL reveals a growing interest in the field, with many new questions being posed since the first studies were conducted. The areas under investigation have expanded, as shown in Shohamy and Gorter (2009), where theoretical perspectives and methodological concerns are presented among other considerations such as the relationship between LL and identity, awareness, or language policy. One of the areas that has received more attention is the study of the relationship between top-down and bottom-up signs. As already mentioned, this area can provide invaluable information about the sociolinguistic reality of a region. Some of the studies that have examined this issue are those by Backhaus, 2006; Ben-Rafael et al., 2006; Cenoz and Gorter, 2006; Coluzzi, 2009; Gorter, 2006; and Huebner, 2006. Ben-Rafael et al. (2006) looked into sociological theories to investigate the relationship between top-down and bottom-up signs in the context of the relation- ship between Israeli Jews, Palestinian Israelis and Palestinians in East Jerusalem. The findings revealed that the top-down signs reflect the official status of the languages (Hebrew and ), and the bottom-up signs reflect both the importance of the market value, with a strong presence of English, as well as ideological and political considerations: Whereas in East Jerusalem Arabic and English are the most present languages in the LL of the area, in Israeli-Palestinian communities, Hebrew is preferred over English. In addition, the presence of Arabic is very rare in Israeli-Jewish communities, where Hebrew is the most common language, followed by English. Cenoz and Gorter (2006) compared the languages in one central shopping street in Donostia-San Sebastia´n (Basque Country) and a comparable street in Ljouwert- Leeuwarden (Friesland) in order to investigate the use of the various languages, the differences between official top-down and bottom-up signs, and the use of English. Both domains have a majority language (Spanish in the Basque Country, and Dutch in Friesland) and a minority language (Basque in the Basque Country, and Frisian in Friesland) as official languages. The LL revealed that the majority languages were the dominant languages. In addition, it was observed that Basque was more present than Frisian due to a strong language policy in support of the minority language in the Basque Country. This policy appears to have an effect not only on top-down but also on some bottom-up signs. English was found to be more present in Friesland than in the Basque Country. Therefore, the LL in both cities gives a clear picture of the status of the languages in the two areas: the majority language is the most prominent language. Nevertheless, while in the Dutch city English is located in second place and Frisian in third place, in the Basque Country, Basque is the second most frequent language. More than informative, the presence of Basque has a powerful symbolic function as it is considered a symbol of identity. Finally, Cenoz and Gorter also find a strong presence of English in the LL of both areas, which is a sign of the global spread of this language as the language of international communication. 138 B. Lado

Huebner (2006) investigated language contact, language mixing, and language dominance in 15 neighborhoods in Bangkok. A discrepancy was found between top-down and bottom-up signs in terms of the languages used (Thai, English, Chinese, and other languages), with Thai being the most present language on all official signs, followed by English, which was revealed to be replacing Chinese as the language of wider communication in the city. This tendency was quite consistent across the neighborhoods analysed. On the contrary, the bottom-up signs showed substantial differences in the presence or absence of Thai, English, Chinese, or other minority languages. Overall, Huebner concluded that the LL of Bangkok revealed not only the discrepancy between official policies and the private sector, but also the linguistic diversity of the city, and again the importance of English as a global language. Backhaus (2006) investigated the relationship between top-down and bottom-up signs in Tokyo (presence of Japanese, English and Chinese). The findings revealed that Japanese was more frequent on top-down than bottom-up signs, and that it was given preference (in terms of size and order) on top-down multilingual signs when sharing a sign with the other languages. However, overall, English was more frequent than Japanese on top-down and bottom-up multilingual signs. Backhaus explained these findings in terms of power and solidarity. Whereas language choice on top- down signs was determined by power relations (language as a way to declare power over the space designated), on bottom-up signs, the tendency was to use English in order to express solidarity or identity (Spolsky & Cooper, 1991, as cited in Backhaus, 2006). Finally, a recent study by Coluzzi (2009) investigated the LL in two northern Italian cities: Milan and Udine. In both places, Italian is the official language, but Milanese is also spoken in Milan, and Friulian, a protected language, is spoken in Udine. The study investigates two streets in these cities and shows that the LL does not reflect the linguistic reality in the areas, given that Milanese and Friulian’s presence is almost anecdotic. The signs also reflect the prestige of Italian and English over the minority languages. Finally, the results show that although Friulian is a protected language, efforts to raise its presence have not resulted in increased visibility on top-down signs. Looking back at these studies, several common findings arise: LL is not only informative but also has a symbolic function, i.e. it reflects power, prestige, and the status of the language. Moreover, LL reflects discrepancies between top-down and bottom-up signs due to ideological or political considerations. Finally, all studies reveal a strong presence of English on both top-down and bottom-up signs, as a clear indicator of the rapid spread of English worldwide as the language of global communication. The present study, as previous studies (e.g. Backhaus, 2006; Ben Rafael et al., 2006; Huebner, 2006), presents data representing both top-down and bottom-up LL items. The goal of the study is to investigate LL in the Valencian Community in order to provide evidence of the ideological and practical linguistic conflict in the region. Like Cenoz and Gorter (2006) and Coluzzi (2009), this study explores LL in the main streets of two cities in which a minority and a majority language share the linguistic territory. Differently from the studies already mentioned, this paper compares two cities in the same region and where the same two languages are spoken in an attempt to better understand the linguistic debates in the area. The next section describes the historical background and the recent events that have shaped the sociolinguistic International Journal of Multilingualism 139 situation of the Valencian Community, which make this area different from other bilingual regions in Spain.

Demographics and language practices The Valencian Community is located on the east coast of Spain. According to the Spanish National Institute of Statistics (Instituto Nacional de Estad´ıstica, 2009), the total population in the Community in January 2006 was 4,806,908 inhabitants distributed throughout three different provinces: Castello´n (559,761), Valencia (2,463,592) and (1,783,555). Although today the Valencian Community can be considered mostly bilingual, repopulations from either the Catalan area or from Aragon after the Christian conquest by Jaume I (1232Á1244), together with the repopulation that took place after the expulsion of the Moorish Community, and the incorporation of several counties (Plana d’ Utiel and Alt Vinalopo´) in the nineteenth century led to the present division between the ‘Valencian-speaking area’1 (VS) and the ‘Spanish-speaking area’ (SS), respectively. For these historical reasons, in each of the three provinces there are several comarcas (counties) that are considered to be monolingual and where people use mainly Spanish in everyday life.2 However, only 15% of the entire population in the region lives in an SS area. Moreover, the area cannot be seen as totally monolingual since exposure to Valencian is provided not only through media but also through school. Therefore, most of the inhabitants of this area are considered receptive bilinguals (i.e. they understand but they don’t speak the language). Furthermore, not all counties in the VS region have the same degree of bilingualism. Some areas are considered bilingual with predominance of Valencian, while others are considered bilingual with predominance of Spanish (Gimeno-Mene´ndez & Go´mez-Molina, 2007). Added to this situation is that Valencia is one of the Spanish communities with the highest recent influx of immigrants. According to the Spanish National Institute of Statistics, in 2007, the number of foreigners living in the community had quadrupled since 1998. At the time the present study was conducted, in 2006, 13.9% of the entire population was foreign (a total of 668,075). As shown in Table 1, almost 15% of the foreigners living in the community come from Great Britain. The other two most represented nationalities are Romanians and Moroccans. With regard to knowledge and use of the minority language in the community, a survey that was administered during 2004 by the Valencian Academy of the Language (published in the Llibre Blanc de L’u´s del Valencia`), reveals that more than 80% of the population in the VS area understands Valencian and 58% can speak it, but only 27% is able to write it. In the SS area, however, 35% understands Valencian, and only 11% is able to write it (see Table 2). As for the use of the languages in the VS area, the survey shows that Spanish is clearly the dominant language in all contexts, including speaking at home, with friends, or at work (see Table 3). The descriptive information provided in this government report shows that the use of Valencian is higher among people over 64 (51% always speak Valencian, generally at home, and 33% speak Valencian outside home). Interestingly, as mentioned by Blas Arroyo (2002), the results in the report are closely linked to the presence of Valencian in today’s education system, given that the best-educated individuals achieve the highest levels of competence overall, and that reading and writing skills decrease with age. 140 B. Lado

Table 1. Foreign population according to country of origin (percentage of entire foreign population).

Country of origin Percentage

Great Britain 14.9 Romania 11.5 Morocco 7.6 Ecuador 6.5 Germany 5.5 Colombia 5.5 France 5.3 Argentina 4.6 Bulgaria 3.4 Bolivia 3.1 Others 32.1

It could be argued that, to some degree, the attempts made to recover the have succeeded since the declared knowledge has improved. However, the actual use of the language has not increased as much as expected, which suggests that the top-down policy that has tried to promote language use through schooling has not fully succeeded. No information is given in this government report about the language practices of immigrants. Nevertheless, what could be expected is that their practices vary depending on factors such as the status of the immigrants’ L1 within the community and the need (or the requirement) to use the language in the workplace and in society in general. Immigrants whose first language is Spanish may or may not speak Valencian depending on the time spent in the area and on factors such as job requirements. Immigrants from non-EU Europe,3 Africa and other countries where no Spanish is spoken use their native languages at home and may learn Spanish, but not necessarily Valencian since their jobs may not require them to have knowledge of Valencian. Finally, foreigners coming from the EU (not considered immigrants) are largely people who decide to move to Valencia to escape from the cold weather. They form small communities on the coast and tend to speak their native language at home and with friends. This situation is very common on the coast of Alicante, where some towns have a greater foreign than local population. As previously mentioned, the largest community of foreigners within the Valencian Community comes from Great Britain (see Table 1). This group admits that they do not integrate into the host community or try to speak its language (Turell & Corcoll, 2001). In sum, as seen in the report by the Valencian Academy of the Language, in terms of language practices, Spanish is still the predominant language despite the knowledge of Valencian having improved (Llibre Blanc, 2004). This situation is reinforced due to the presence of American immigrants who can communicate in Spanish. Finally, the linguistic reality in the community includes an important

Table 2. Declared knowledge of Valencian (in percentages).

Understands Speaks Reads Writes

SS area 35.2 14 20.2 10.6 VS area 81.6 58.4 51.1 27.3

Note: SS, Spanish-speaking area; VS, Valencian-speaking area. International Journal of Multilingualism 141

Table 3. Language practices in the Valencian-speaking area (in percentages).

At home With friends At work

Predominantly Valencian 36.5 32.8 27.3 Predominantly Spanish 55.5 52.2 56 Both interchangeably 5.5 15 16.4

Note: Not all the percentages add up to 100. The numbers are taken straight from the Llibre Blanc de l’u´s del Valencia`: Enquesta sobre la situacio´ social del Valencia` (2004). group of non-Spanish speakers who refuse to integrate and speak any of the local languages (Turell & Corcoll, 2001). The description of the language practices of the Valencian Community is in line with Casesnoves Ferrer and Sankoff (2004), who predict that the progress of language shift and linguistic normalisation in the Valencian Community within the next 50 years will be determined not only by language educational programmes but also by the linguistic integration of immigrants. The two cities investigated in the present study, Gand´ıa and Valencia, are both located in the VS area. However, whereas Gand´ıa is considered to have Valencian as the predominant language in the family domain and Spanish in the economic domain, Valencia has Spanish as the predominant language in both the family and the economic domains (Gimeno-Mene´ndez & Go´mez-Molina, 2007). According to the local government of the city, in 2006 Gand´ıa had a total of 78,693 inhabitants, of whom approximately 20% were foreign. The most represented continent among the foreign population was Europe, with a large number of immigrants coming from Bulgaria and Romania. South American countries such as Bolivia and Ecuador were also extensively represented, as well as several countries in the north of Africa like Morocco and Algeria. Valencia, the capital of the Valencian Community, had a population of 807,396 in 2006, of which roughly 12% was foreign. Ecuador, Colombia, and Bolivia were the most represented countries followed by Romania and Argentina.

Historical background and language ideology The present linguistic conflict in the Valencian Community finds its origins in the fifteenth century with the unification of the Hispanic reigns (Alcaraz-Ramos, 1999). Following the unification, the use of Spanish was spread among higher classes in what Ninyoles (1969) has called a horizontal process. Despite the fact that Valencian was still official at the end of the sixteenth century, Spanish was essentially the only language used by the nobility. The social changes that took place during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, where the middle classes suffered substantial losses and Valencian lost its status as an official language, intensified the social and linguistic distance between classes (Ninyoles, 1969). During the nineteenth century, due to the restructuring of the Valencian society, the spread of Spanish moved vertically, reaching the middle classes as a way to gain prestige (Ninyoles, 1969). Valencian was restricted to the lower classes who tried to speak Spanish in an attempt to improve their social status. In this context, Spanish was considered the language of the elite which, in Safran’s terms (1999), could have been used to promote a nationalist goal (Spain as one nation). 142 B. Lado

Still, at the beginning of the twentieth century, out of 1,641,139 inhabitants, it was said that 1,300,388 spoke Valencian and 340,751 spoke Spanish regularly (Alcaraz-Ramos, 1999). However, Valencian was not part of any educational or language policy. After the civil war, the prestige of Spanish over Valencian continued. As mentioned in Blas Arroyo (2002), during Franco’s dictatorship, several factors such as the spread of compulsory teaching in Spanish, the presence of the Spanish- only press, and the changeover from a mainly agrarian society to an industrial one together greatly damaged the linguistic loyalty of generations of Valencian people. In Ninyoles’s (1969) terms, this neglect of the native language has terrible consequences because it disconnects individuals from their own sociocultural group, which results in a lack of congruent social behaviour and leads towards a process of ‘self-hate’ (Ninyoles, 1969). However, during the 1960s there was also a strong reaction in favour of the use of Valencian, attempting to push back against Franco’s imposition. Throughout the democratic transition of the 1970s and 1980s, all bilingual areas in Spain began a process of recovery of the minority languages (Catalan, Basque, and Galician). In Valencia, the situation during these years became more and more controversial due to the birth of a secessionist movement called blaverisme.4 This movement started in the city of Valencia in an attempt to hold on to the old regime by positioning itself as the defender of the Valencian language against Catalan, which was considered a different language (Bello, 1988). The blaverist movement spread its ideology among the middle classes, who felt threatened by the new political environment and who were afraid to lose the privileges they had obtained in the old regime (Bello, 1988), where Spanish was the prestige language. Despite most linguists’ agreement that Catalan settlers brought their language to the Valencian Community during the Middle Ages (Universitat de Vale`ncia 1998), the controversy about whether Valencian and Catalan are the same language has lasted up to the present day. As Alcaraz-Ramos (1999) states, more than linguistic, it seems that this controversy is political. Whereas supporting the unity of the (i.e. considering Valencian a variety of Catalan) was associated with the left-wing political parties, the branch that considered Valencian and Catalan to be two different languages was situated more towards the conservative right. Nevertheless, between 1982 and 1995, the left-wing party in office (PSOE)5 developed a very weak linguistic normalisation policy. This lack of determination paved the way for the right-wing coalition (PP6 and UV7) that gained power in 1995 to continue using the language for political purposes (Guia Conca, 2001). The new government showed ambiguity in issues regarding linguistic policy and the name of the language by adopting secessionist ideas that went against the unity of the Catalan language, but at the same time advocating for the rules that were based on Catalan (Guia Conca, 2001). Within this context, it is said that the conflict between Catalan and Valencian is artificial and has been created to hide the real conflict between Valencian and Spanish (Pradilla, 2001). This atmosphere clearly hurts the normalisation process of the minority language and promotes the use of Spanish over Valencian. Thus, this situation reveals that the linguistic conflict in the Valencian Community is framed by ideological and political factors that may lead to complex identity problems. Figure 1 shows a graffiti found in the streets of Gand´ıa that illustrates one side of the conflict, i.e. speaking Catalan does not mean being Catalan; one can have a Valencian identity speaking Catalan. International Journal of Multilingualism 143

In an attempt to throw light on the controversial issue of the language, a Valencian Academy of the Language was created in 2001 after being hastily approved by parties from the right and left in the summer of 1998. As mentioned by Alcaraz-Ramos (1999), the competences assigned to the academy were somewhat ambiguous in terms of whether they had the right to decide how to name the language. In any case, the institution was created and controlled by the (the government of the Valencian Community), which implied that the decisions made by the academy would be linked to the party in office and, therefore, would be political decisions after all. In fact, in February 2005, the Academy of the Valencian Language publicly stated that Valencian was a variant of Catalan that could be called Valencian. This decision was met with angry reactions from some groups who thought that the government was being disloyal to the land and its language. However, the conservative government continued to play with the ambiguity of the term Valencian by stating that the Valencian language would continue to be defended in an attempt to calm some of the reactions that emerged from the secessionists. With regard to the legislation on the use of both Spanish and Valencian, the Statute of Autonomy (1982) made Valencian co-official with Spanish. The main points of this statute were:

“ The Valencian government will guarantee the normal and official use of both languages. “ No one can be discriminated against based on the language they speak. “ Special protection and respect should be given to the restoration of Valencian.

In 2006, the new Statute of Autonomy considered Valencian the autochthonous language, rather than just co-official. However, ambiguity continued regarding the denomination of the language, mentioning only Valencian language (not addressing whether Valencian is a variety of Catalan). However, this statute declared the

Figure 1. Graffiti in Gand´ıa. # The Author. Note: This translates as ‘Always Valencian and we speak Catalan’. 144 B. Lado

Valencian Academy of the Language the one responsible for the language, which, as previously mentioned, claims that Catalan and Valencian are the same language. In sum, in terms of language ideology and beliefs in the Valencian Community, the historical division between Spanish and Valencian speakers, with Spanish being the high prestige language and Valencian being the low prestige language, together with the birth of the secessionist movement during the transition years, and the constant ambiguity shown by the parties in office, significantly damaged the process of normalisation of Valencian. The situation is complex, and previous language policies may need to be updated in order to promote the use of the minority language. The present paper offers examples from top-down and bottom-up signs as an attempt to investigate whether the LL in the Valencian Community reveals the linguistic and ideological conflicts of the area. As previously stated, examples come from two places: a semi-urban city (Gand´ıa), and the capital of the Community (Valencia). At the time the data were collected, Gand´ıa was governed by a left-wing party, which had been in office since 1983. The city of Valencia, however, had had a right-wing party in office since 1991, the same party (PP) that was in the government in the Valencian Community. In terms of the top-down policy from institutions in both cities, the law states that whenever possible, both languages should be included on all public signs but that local governments may make the final decision regarding which language to use. Despite this statement, the law also claims that special effort should be given to promote the use of Valencian in the public space, which includes providing extra funding and help for those individuals who decide to hang either exterior or interior signs in Valencian in their businesses. The data should show, then, that official signs were provided in both languages and that individuals take advantage of the law that gives them funding to use Valencian in their businesses. In the two cities this paper investigates, the local law gives Valencian preference; i.e. the names of the streets and signs should have Valencian as the official language. Taking into account previous research in the LL literature and the current sociolinguistic situation in the Valencian Community, the present study will attempt to answer the following research questions (RQ):

RQ1 Which languages are displayed on top-down versus bottom-up signs in the main streets of two Valencian cities? Is there a difference between the two cities in the languages displayed in each category (top-down vs. bottom-up)? RQ2 What is the message sent by this distribution regarding the centrality versus the marginality of the two languages in each city? RQ3 Are the linguistic and ideological conflicts revealed in the LL? (Is ideology turned into practice?)

Methodology Data were collected in the summer of 2006 on two main streets in Gand´ıa8 (146 signs) and Valencia9 (102 signs). The streets chosen are comparable since they are considered among the most commercial in the downtown areas of both cities. Data were collected using pictures and check-sheets. The check-sheets were tables with different rows to be filled with information about the name of the store, the type of sign (top-down vs. bottom-up) and whether the signs were written in Valencian, International Journal of Multilingualism 145

Table 4. Languages displayed on top-down and bottom-up signs in Gand´ıa.

Top-down (%) Bottom-up (%)

Only Spanish 0 76 (n93) Only Valencian 83 (n20) 5 (n6) Valencian and Spanish 17 (n4) 5 (n6) English and Spanish 0 9 (n11) Others (French, Italian) and Spanish 0 5 (n6) Total 100 (n24) 100 (n122)

Spanish, both, or any other language or combination of languages. In addition, the researcher made any significant notes when there was something in need of clarification, such as the size and order of the font on bilingual signs.10 For the analyses, data were divided into top-down versus bottom-up signs and also divided according to language used: only Valencian, only Spanish, both Valencian and Spanish, both English and Spanish, and others.11 Percentages were calculated for each category. All signs visible from the street were considered in the final sample. However, as in Cenoz and Gorter (2006), in the case of shops and businesses, each establishment was considered one sign (nameadvertisements on the front).

Analysis and results RQ1. Which languages are displayed on top-down versus bottom-up signs in the main streets in two Valencian cities? Is there a difference between the two cities in the languages displayed in each category (top-down vs. bottom-up)? As shown in Table 4, in Gand´ıa, 83% of the top-down signs were written in Valencian, and only 17% (4 out of 24) included both, Valencian and Spanish. Of the four bilingual signs, two had Valencian first and the other two had Spanish first. In both cases, the size of the letters was the same. There were no signs written only in Spanish. The top-down signage in Valencia was quite different from that in Gand´ıa (Table 5). Whereas in Gand´ıa, Spanish was on only 17% of signs and never on monolingual signs, in Valencia, Spanish was present on 64% of the signs (32% were only in Spanish and 32% were in Valencian and Spanish). Of the bilingual signs in Valencia, two of them were names of streets that had Valencian first (see Figure 2). The rest of the bilingual signs varied in the amount of information provided in Valencian and Spanish, although on most of them Spanish was more prevalent than Valencian.

Table 5. Languages displayed on top-down and bottom-up signs in Valencia.

Top-down (%) Bottom-up (%)

Only Spanish 32 (n8) 65 (n50) Only Valencian 32 (n8) 0 Valencian and Spanish 32 (n8) 14 (n11) English and Spanish 4 (n1) 17 (n13) Others (French, Italian) and Spanish 0 4 (n3) Total 100 (n25) 100 (n77) 146 B. Lado

Figure 2. Top-up sign with street name in Valencia. # The Author.

With regard to the bottom-up signs in Gand´ıa, 76% of them were written only in Spanish, 5% used only Valencian, and 5% used both Valencian and Spanish. Interestingly, 9% of the signs included English in addition to Spanish. Moreover, 5% of the signs included either French or Italian as part of the name of the business, but with Spanish as the language of communication (i.e. Spanish was used on signs informing about prices, sales, etc.). As for the signs that included Valencian and Spanish (a total of six out of 122), the tendency was to use Valencian to name the store but to use Spanish (sometimes combined with Valencian, but not necessarily) as the language of communication. In the city of Valencia, the bottom-up tendency was very similar to that in Gand´ıa regarding the use of Spanish, the most frequent language on all signs. Sixty-five per cent of the signs were written only in Spanish, and 14% were bilingual signs that used Valencian and Spanish. Differently from Gand´ıa, there were no businesses or private establishments that used only Valencian as their language of communication with the public. English was even more present than in Gand´ıa with 17% of the signs having English and Spanish, but not Valencian. As in Gand´ıa, although the majority of businesses that included English used it as part of the name, sometimes English was combined with Spanish to address the public (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Bottom-up sign in Gand´ıa. # The Author. International Journal of Multilingualism 147

Figure 4. Bottom-up sign in Gand´ıa. # The Author.

Taking a closer look at the 11 bilingual signs (Valencian and Spanish), in all of them, Spanish was more present than Valencian: four of them included Valencian in second place in a standard smoking sign (see Figure 4), two of the signs used Valencian to inform about sales, and the remaining signs used Valencian anecdotally to name the store. RQ2. What is the message sent by this distribution regarding the centrality versus the marginality of the two languages in each city? As can be interpreted from the data presented, the minority language received support from local language policies, and it was more so in a middle-sized city ruled by a left-wing party than in the capital of the Community ruled by a right-wing party. Moreover, whereas Spanish was almost absent on top-down signs in Gand´ıa, it was present on almost 70% of the top-down signs in Valencia. The local legislation states that Valencian is the language that should be used on all public signs. The government in Gand´ıa changed all signs so that no monolingual Spanish signs were left in the streets. On the contrary, although it seemed that the government of the city of Valencia was changing the public signs to include Valencian (especially in new developments of the city), there were still many old signs in Spanish that had not been modified. From these results, it is logical to suggest that Valencian is definitively central in Gand´ıa, and that Spanish is marginal in top-down signage. However, both Valencian and Spanish are central on Valencia’s top-down signs, although the weaker presence of Valencian on some of the bilingual signs indicates that Valencian has not reached the status that Spanish has. Looking at the bottom-up tendencies, the scenery was quite different. Valencian was definitively in second place in both cities: it was only present in Gand´ıa on 10% of the signs and in Valencia on 14% of the signs. Gand´ıa had a small percentage of businesses (5%) that used only Valencian to address clients, but Valencia used it only together with Spanish. What the LL is telling us with regard to the centrality versus the marginality of the languages in both cities is that even though the minority language received support from the local government in both cities (albeit stronger in Gand´ıa) and businesses could get financial support if they used Valencian on their signs, the private sector preferred to use Spanish to address the community. Therefore, although Valencian was central on top-down signs, it was conclusively marginal in the bottom-up landscape. These results confirm that Gand´ıa is considered an area of active bilingualism with predominance of Valencian only in the family 148 B. Lado domain and not in the economic domain (Gimeno-Mene´ndez & Go´mez-Molina, 2007). In addition, these results are in line with the observed language practices: despite the government’s efforts to reinforce the use of Valencian, the actual use of the language (as seen in the Academy of the Valencian Language report) is not increasing (Llibre Blanc, 2004). RQ3. Are the linguistic and ideological conflicts revealed in the LL? As already mentioned, whereas the government in Gand´ıa was making a strong effort to protect and promote the use of the minority language by posting monolingual signs only in Valencian, the government in the city of Valencia was not fully supporting the law; i.e. changing the old monolingual signs to either bilingual or monolingual Valencian did not seem to be a priority in Valencia. The party in office in Valencia, then, shows lack of determination regarding the implementation of the language policy, which reveals that the linguistic conflict between Spanish and Valencian exists, and that Spanish is the preferred language. As for the bottom-up tendencies, language policy was not reflected on the LL signs of Gand´ıa and Valencia; i.e. Valencian was not the language of choice in the commercial domain even in a city considered to be actively bilingual. In the city of Valencia, Valencian was almost nonexistent since it was used to name the store but not necessarily to communicate with the clients (i.e. to inform about prices, products, sales, etc.). Instead, private sectors preferred to use English to address the community, which is in line with previous literature on the LL that has found a vast presence of English on signs all over the world (Backhaus, 2006; Ben-Rafael et al., 2006; Cenoz & Gorter, 2006; Gorter, 2006; Huebner, 2006). Valencian, then, did not appear to be considered a symbol of identity in either of the two cities, and this was even more obvious in the capital of the community. The lack of presence of the minority language in bottom-up tendencies reveals that the efforts to promote it are not reaching the private sector as desired even when there is public support (as in the case of Gand´ıa). Again, this seems to reflect the conflict between Valencian and Spanish. Finally, practical considerations also play a role, as English is preferred over Valencian in most cases.

Conclusions Differently from Cenoz and Gorter (2006), where the active policy to promote Basque in the Basque Country has an important effect on the visibility of the (both on top-down and bottom-up signs), in the Valencian Community, this policy did not affect the bottom-up signs. Valencian did not appear to be considered a symbol of identity as much as other minority languages within different regions in Spain. The lack of presence of the autochthonous language in the private sectors may be traced back to the dictatorship years, during which, as previously mentioned, the linguistic loyalty towards Valencian was severely damaged, which helped promote diglossia. In addition, the ambiguity shown by the government in the city of Valencia at the time in the public space is parallel to the ambiguity shown by the government of the community in the overall process of normalisation of the minority language and the unity of the language. These findings show that the LL can provide evidence of the implicit and explicit mechanisms that determine ‘de facto language policies’ (Shohamy, 2006): although Gand´ıa and Valencia share the same explicit language policies (i.e. to give priority to the minority language), the application of the policy International Journal of Multilingualism 149 is influenced by implicit (i.e. ideological and practical) tendencies. Therefore, overall, the visibility (or lack thereof) of the minority language in the streets seems to be a reflection of the socio-historical, linguistic, political and ideological factors mentioned, which favour the use of the majority language. In accord with what previous literature on the LL shows (e.g. Ben-Rafael et al., 2006; Cenoz & Gorter, 2006), this study reveals that the LL has both an informative and a symbolic function (Landry & Bourhis, 1997). The LL of the Valencian Community is informative because it shows which languages are being used in both cities to address the public. In addition to this informative function, the LL analysed has a symbolic function because it reflects the status of the languages present and reveals conflicting tendencies.

Limitations and future research The conclusions provided are based on data from only two cities in the area. It would be interesting to include other cities and small towns to better account for the situation in the whole community. Additionally, it would be interesting to follow up on these same cities to find out whether the situation has changed within the last three years and whether the majority language is still more visible than the minority language. Finally, a way to better understand what the LL reflects would be to include the sign authors’ point of view by asking them about their reasons for including one language or another on their signs. Incorporating this human element would give us a better idea of what people really think of the situation.

Notes 1. The term Valencian is used throughout to refer to the Catalan variety spoken in the Valencian Community. 2. The SS area includes the following counties (names in Valencian): Alt Vinalopo´, Vinalopo´ Mitja, Baix Segura (in Alacant), Plana Baixa, Alt Palencia, Alt Millares (in Castello´) and Raco´ d’Ademu´s, Serras, Camp the Turia (in Vale`ncia). 3. At the time the study was conducted, Romania was not yet part of the EU 4. In reference to the colour of the flag that they support, which has blue (blau in Valencian) on it. 5. PSOE stands for Partido Socialista Obrero Espan˜ol. 6. PP stands for Partido Popular. 7. UV stands for Unio´n Valenciana (Unio´ Valenciana). 8. The streets in Gand´ıa were the Calle Mayor and a section of Paseo German´ıas. 9. The streets in Valencia were the Calle Ja´tiva and a section of Calle Colo´n. 10. The researcher decided to use check-sheets instead of pictures in several businesses such as jewellery stores after one of the owners requested the researcher to stop taking pictures of the shop window. 11. French and Italian were the only languages found included under ‘others’, and always in combination with Spanish.

References Academia valenciana de la Llengua. Llibre blanc de l’u´s del Valencia`: Enquesta sobre la situacio´ social del Valencia` [The white book of the use of Valencian: Survey on the social situation of Valencian]. (2004). Valencia: Col.leccio´ Recerca. Alcaraz-Ramos, M.F. (1999). El re´gimen jur´ıdico de las lenguas en la Comunidad Valenciana [The legal status of the languages in the Valencian Community]. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. 150 B. Lado

Backhaus, P. (2006). Multilingualism in Tokyo: A look into the linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 52Á66. Bello, V. (1988). La pesta blava [The blue plague]. Valencia: Tres i Quatre. Ben-Rafael, E. (2009). A sociological approach to the study of linguistic landscapes. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 40Á54). New York: Routledge. Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Hasan Amara, M., & Trumper-Hecht, N. (2006). Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 7Á30. Blas Arroyo, J.L. (2002). The languages of the Valencian educational system: The results of two decades of language policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(6), 318Á338. Casesnoves Ferrer, R., & Sankoff, D. (2004). Transmission, education, and integration in projections of language shift in Valencia. Language Policy, 3, 107Á131. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic landscape and minority languages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 67Á80. Coluzzi, P. (2009). The Italian linguistic landscape: The cases of Milan and Udine. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(3), 298Á312. Gimeno-Mene´ndez, F., & Go´mez-Molina, R. (2007). Spanish and Catalan in the community of Valencia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 184, 95Á107. Gorter, D. (2006). Further possibilities for linguistic landscape research. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 81Á89. Guia Conca, A. (2001). La llengua negociada [The negotiated language]. Valencia: Tres i Quatre. Huebner, T. (2006). Bangkok’s linguistic landscapes: Environmental print, codemixing and language change. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 31Á51. Instituto Nacional de Estad´ıstica. (2009). INEbase/Demograf´ıa y poblacio´n/Cifras de poblacio´n y Censos demogra´ficos [Database of the Spanish national institute of statistics/demography and population/population figures and demographic census]. Retrieved from http://www. ine.es/inebmenu/mnu_cifraspob.htm Landry, R., & Bourhis, R.Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23Á49. Ninyoles, R. (1969). Conflicte lingu¨ istic Valencia` [The Valencian linguistic conflict]. Valencia: Tres i Quatre. Pradilla, M. (2001). The Catalan-speaking communities. In M. Teresa Turell (Ed.), Multi- lingualism in Spain: Sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic aspects of linguistic minority groups (pp. 58Á90). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Reh, M. (2004). Multilingual writing: A reader-oriented typology*with examples from Lira Municipality (Uganda). International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 170,1Á41. Safran, W. (1999). Nationalism. In J.A. Fishman (Ed.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity (pp. 77Á93). New York: Oxford University Press. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge. Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. New York: Routledge. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. (2009). Prolegomena to a sociolinguistic theory of public sphere. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. New York: Routledge. Spolsky, B., & Cooper, B.L. (1991). The languages of Jerusalem (pp. 25Á39). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Turell, M.T., & Corcoll, C. (2001). The UK community. In M.T. Turell (Ed.), Multilingualism in Spain: Sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic aspects of linguistic minority groups (pp. 355Á 372). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Universitat de Vale`ncia. Sobre la llengua dels . Informes i documents [About the Valencian language: Reports and documents]. (1998). Valencia, Spain: Universitat de Vale`ncia. Copyright of International Journal of Multilingualism is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats