Spoken and written language

1 Johannes Kabatek Spoken and written language This chapter is dedicated to the relationship between spoken and written Galician, which will be discussed in two different parts: a first one that refers to historical aspects and a second one concentrating on the current differences and mutual influences between orality and writing. The chapter departs from some theoretical notions that allow for a clear distinction as to the medial difference between the spoken and the written code and the conceptual difference between what is generally associated with both: what Koch and Oesterreicher (2001) call the “language of immediacy” and the “language of distance”. The diachronic part will first discuss the emergence of a written variety in medieval Galician and then trace the basic evolution of the Galician language with regards to the tension between oral and written communication. It will be shown how the history of modern written Galician (from the first texts of the so-called “pre-rexurdimento” onwards) is marked by a process of “diaphasic differentiation” (Kabatek 1997a): here, the selection of elements considered to be adequate for the written language and the “sorting out” of others as well as the stylistic differentiation and widening of a certain range of written varieties will be focused. Some remarks on the orthographic debates will open the second part. The remainder of the text will be dedicated to the relationship between the contemporary written and spoken standards and the respective non-standard varieties. Galician language, orality and literacy, spoken and written language, orthography, Rexurdimento, medieval Galician, written code, diaphasic differentiation, language of immediacy, language of distance 1 Introduction In the phonocentric tradition of modern linguistics, the written language and the relationship between the spoken and the written code have largely been ignored or considered to be rather marginal (see, e.g. Saussure 1916, 45; Bloomfield 1933; Kabatek 2000a). However, during the last decades, this lack of attention has been almost completely overcome and numerous publications offer insights into historical, cultural and linguistic aspects of this relationship. In the case of a language as Galician, where due to the diglossic coexistence with Castilian, writing used to be (and partly still is) assigned to the closely related contact language, the tension between the spoken and the written varieties is an 2 absolutely central issue: on the one hand, the contact language has offered textual and linguistic models for Galician; on the other hand, the fact that both languages are very similar has led to a certain identification of written registers with Castilian or more castilianized Galician and spoken registers with Galician or Castilian with strong Galician influence. At the same time, speakers also have reacted against this identification rejecting Castilianisms and preferring forms considered to be Galician – with some tendencies towards hypercorrection and with difficulties when sorting out between elements suitable for written styles. In fact, writing in Galician is the product of a double selection process, in which authentically Galician features must be distinguished from Castilian elements, and features considered to be typically oral must be differentiated from elements suitable for written registers. To a lesser degree, this holds also, in some sectors of the Galician society, for Portuguese as a contact language. This chapter will begin introducing a series of general theoretical reflections on the relationship between the spoken and the written language and then trace some of the most important historical lines showing the tension between both in the history of Galician. The last part of the chapter will be dedicated to the situation of contemporary Galician. 2 Some general theoretical reflections The aforementioned marginality of the written language in linguistic research had two theoretical reasons: first, 20th century linguistics strongly concentrated on systemic factors, taking phonology as a departing discipline, and second, apart from important exceptions like the reflections on the written language in the Prague school, the relationship between orality and writing used to be considered as a hierarchical one between a primarily spoken language and its echo in writing. The evolutionary primacy of the spoken language is without doubt; however, it is characteristic for cultures with writing that the whole conception of language is somehow marked by the presence of the written language. In order to take this cultural importance fully into account, the difference between oral and written communication must not be restricted only to a difference in the medium: writing is not only, as Bloomfield (1933, 21) stated, “merely a way of recording language by means of visible marks”, but also a cultural technique involving, among others, institutional organization, social power as well as hierarchically organized knowledge of cultural memory and textual traditions. From a linguistic viewpoint, at least two dimensions of writing must be considered as relevant, both corresponding to what the German scholar Ludwig Söll in a groundbreaking contribution called the medium and the conception: according to Söll (1974), there is a frequent confusion between the oral and the written code as two different media, 3 and two different conceptions associated with written and oral communication. Referring to the example of contemporary French, Söll shows how basically any utterance can be realized in oral or written code, being the distinction between both a discrete one that allows no intermediate states. But he also shows that we typically associate certain texts or styles with the spoken or written code and that it is far more frequent to find e.g. colloquial communication in the oral medium, on the one hand, and philosophical texts in the written, on the other. While the distinction between both media is a discrete one, between a written and an oral conception there is a continuum. In the 1980s, Peter Koch and Wulf Oesterreicher (Koch/Oesterreicher 1985) picked up Söll’s distinction and inserted it in a theoretical framework that is fundamentally based on Eugenio Coseriu’s conception of language “architecture” as a three-dimensional building within time (see, e.g., Coseriu 1980). Koch and Oesterreicher replace Söll’s notion of two conceptions by a continuum between what they call “language of immediacy” and “language of distance”. Conceptionally “distant” texts or discourses are not necessarily written and they exist also in societies without writing, but when writing exists, it is likely for distant text to appear in the written code and for texts of immediacy to be uttered phonically. The continuum between immediacy and distance is linked to the three coserian dimensions of linguistic variation: immediacy is associated with diatopically marked, diastratically low and diaphasically informal texts whereas distance is associated with diatopically unmarked, diastratically high and diaphasically formal texts. The texts along the continuum between immediacy and distance are not only pragmatically determined by their position on the continuum, they are also realized according to established traditions (so-called discourse traditions in Koch’s terminology, cf. Koch 1997 and Kabatek 2008). In a diglossic society such as the one in Galicia, the continuum between immediacy and distance is generally split up into areas of the continuum with dominance of one of the languages and areas with dominance of the other. However, as we will see in the historical overview, the separation is not necessarily a strict one and in several sections of the continuum the two languages may overlap or exist in parallel way, and intermediate varieties may also exist with different functions. Two further theoretical concepts must be introduced before we can pass over to the empirical part. In relationship to the dichotomy of immediacy and distance, Oesterreicher (1994) introduced a distinction between “Verschriftung” (‘scriptization’) and “Verschriftlichung” (‘scripturalization’). The former is the mere process of code transference (the emergence of a writing system for a formerly spoken code) and the latter is the process of “elaboration” of written norms in a linguistic Ausbau-process (Kloss 1967). Both processes are of course deeply related, however, it seems convenient to consider them separately. Finally, as both processes can depend more or less on the adoption of models created in other areas, it seems convenient to distinguish between primary and secondary scriptization 4 and scripturalization, the former being the independent creation of writing systems and written texts and the latter consisting in the adoption or adaptation of foreign models. Here as well we have to deal with a continuum, with rather unlikely occurring extreme points: in practice, no creation is made completely ex nihilo and no adoption is only adoption without any creative modification. 3 A historical view on spoken and written Galician 3.1 The emergence of written Romance The denomination “Romance languages” is intimately linked to the history of writing since the traditional linguistic historiography used to consider the emergence of the first doubtless Romance written texts as a kind of “birth” of the Romance languages. Spoken Romance is obviously older and nothing but the continuity of spoken Latin, but after the decay of the Roman Empire, the spoken language evolved more or less independently according to the respective area and the difference between the spoken and the written language increased, giving place to diglossic situations. However, there is no evidence for the spoken and the written registers to be regarded as representing different languages until the Carolingian spelling reform and its unification of Latin. The “Carolingian Renaissance” opened the gap between the spoken varieties and the “invention” of Carolingian Latin (Wright 1982). A well-known manifestation of a conscious reaction to the new situation is the Council of Tours in 813, when it is officially permitted to use the “rusticam romanam linguam” in the Mass. The first instances of written Romance like the Strasbourg oaths in the 9th century are thus manifestations of a paradox: it is not a kind of direct ‘emancipation of the popular language’ against classical Latin that makes Romance writing appear but rather the changes in Latin pronunciation and writing which lead to a substitution of the inner-Latin diglossia by an diglossia between Latin and Romance (see Kabatek 2016). In the case of the Iberian Peninsula, this emergence is delayed due to a certain distance with regards to the influences of the Carolingian Empire. According to Wright (1982), the influence of the movement is perceptible only from the late 11th century onwards, when after the Council of Burgos the Carolingian rite is introduced in Spain and Romance texts like the first glosses appear: like in the Strasbourg oaths, “sporadic” Romance arises within the context of Latin (Kabatek 2013). As for Galicia, it is probably due to a stronger presence of Latin that we do not find any written texts from this very early period (yet their existence should not be excluded). However, even without written evidence, a gap between the spoken vernacular and the written texts will obviously also have marked the lin- 5 guistic situation in the Northwest of the Peninsula (as for discussion, see Mariño Paz 1998, 74 ff.). 3.2 Medieval Galician Given the spoken-written diglossia, long before the appearance of entire texts written in Galician in the Middle ages, the purely graphical problem of reproducing vernacular forms in the Latin writing system appears in the context of Latin texts. Here, Galician names with a clear background of local pronunciation must be represented and graphemes like <ch>, <ll> or <nn>, with several variants, are introduced in order to offer signs for sounds not existing in Latin (like [ʧ], [ʎ] or [ɲ]). With the appearance of written vernacular texts from the beginning of the 13th century onwards, local scriptae emerge (Monjour 1995, Monteagudo 2009), but there seems to be no clear line separating clearly different linguistic areas in the West, even if the area of Portuguese and the area of Galician are already politically separated since the 11th century. This situation of apparent unity with only slight local difference changes by the end of the 13th century, when the Portuguese king Dinis, nephew of Castile’s Alphonse the Wise, introduces the Occitan graphemes <lh> and <nh> into the Royal chancellery and creates thus a visible and symbolic separation of the Portuguese orthography with regards to the neighbouring varieties. Medieval Galician is attested as a written language in different areas: first, there is an important corpus in the legal tradition of autochthonous pre-notarial and notarial prose, second, there are important extensive texts of historical prose and third, there exist extensive collections of lyric texts in the so-called Cancioneiros. The first of these traditions is linked to Latin models and to a vernacularization of legal application texts spreading from the south of France to different European regions from the 12th century onwards, with an important text corpus still partially unedited. Some sections of these texts are formulaic, repetitive, strictly genre-specific and highly depending on foreign models, but others, especially the central parts of the documents, represent an important source of the medieval Galician language. It must not be forgotten that these elaborated written texts are originally made for an oral performance and an act of public reading in front of the implied parties. The second tradition is the main source of written Galician medieval prose. It derives indirectly from the movement called the “Renaissance of the 12th century”, a cultural renewal reflected mainly in Latin writings on different areas of knowledge (law, religion, historiography, among others) which opens the way to creation of exhaustive written vernacular texts, first, in the second half of the 12th century, in the Occitan region and later in other areas like Catalonia or Castile. From 1230 onwards and above all under king Alphonse 6 the Wise (reigning from 1252–1284), Castile becomes one of the most important intellectual centres in Europe and a voluminous corpus of elaborated Castilian prose is created. The exhaustive alphonsine chronicles and legal texts are partially translated into Galician and represent thus a case of secondary scripturalization. The most independent and original Galician medieval tradition is the third one, with exhaustive collections of so-called Cantigas. Apart from the Mozarabic Kharjas, the Galician trobador poetry represents the oldest vernacular poetry tradition in the Iberian Peninsula. The transmission of the early Galician-Portuguese poetry (from the end of the 12th century onwards) was oral; with one exception from the late 13th century (the Cancioneiro da Ajuda) the large collections of poetry in the Cancioneiros were compiled in the 16th century. Some of the early trobador texts, with obvious Occitan influence, are marked by memorization techniques typical for oral traditions; others, such as the highly elaborated Cantigas de Santa María composed by the aforementioned Alphonse the Wise, king of Castile, in the second half of the 13th century, are clearly part of a written culture with a learnèd background. Galician is one of the flourishing medieval written vernacular languages of the Iberian Peninsula, with supra-regional significance above all in the third of the mentioned tendencies since Galician trobador poetry is produced in Galicia as well as abroad (like in the Castilian court in Toledo, see Beltran 2009). However, it soon falls under the linguistic influence of Castile due to reasons of power. Already in the 13th century, some Castilianims are observable in Galician documents, and by the end of the 14th century, Galician documentation is more and more substituted by Castilian writings. 3.3 The “séculos escuros” The political and cultural circumstances in Europe in the time between the Middle Ages and the 19th century lead, on the one hand, to an evolution characterized by the emancipation of spoken vernaculars, their penetration into the domain of writing and their standardization mainly from the Renaissance onwards. On the other hand, there is an early separation between those languages (like French, German, Italian or Portuguese) that undergo such a more or less linear process and others which fall, to different degrees, under their domination and only appear again on the scenario of written languages after Romantic revival movements in the 19th century. If we look at the history of Galician, Asturian, Catalan, Occitan, Sardinian etc. we will see differences in the degree of their decay, in the continuity of written traditions and in the moment, the strength and the sustainability of their revivals, but all of them have in common that they do not have a continuous history of a written language and that they do not participate in the modern nationbuilding processes since the 16th century. 7 As for Galician, the decay of the written usage is comparably early and there are several centuries when Galician almost disappears from writing: this is what Galician linguistic historiography commonly calls the “séculos escuros”, the ‘dark centuries’; a period of a newly established diglossia, with Castilian as written language of a very small bilingual minority and Galician as the only language spoken by the vast majority of the population. Research in the last decades has helped to uncover several written testimonies from this period (including Galician fragments in Spanish texts or parodies of Galician in Spanish literature, see Álvarez/González Seoane 2016), but there is no stable maintenance of written discourse traditions in Galician. 3.4 The “Rexurdimento” The political and cultural dynamics in 18th century Europe change the mentality of important sectors among the intellectuals and open the way for a series of 19th century movements. Some of the leading figures of the Spanish Enlightenment are from the Northwest of the Peninsula; in particular the Benedictine monk Martín Sarmiento, with personal links to Galicia, is interested in all aspects of Galician nature and culture and collects popular verses, giving written testimony of a considerable oral culture. The Enlightenment prepared the ground for the French Revolution and its ideal of education and complete social unification, and Romanticism, even if partly adopting the new ideals, reacted against cultural and linguistic unification stressing on medieval roots and local diversity. In Galicia, it is in the context of the Napoleonic invasions when anti-French texts written in the vernacular appear and open the way to what is later called the “Rexurdimento”, the “newly flourishing” of the (written) Galician language. The term is somewhat misleading, since there is little “re” in the “xurdimento” at the beginning: the medieval tradition is not present and the reference for the new writing is the spoken language, on the one hand, and the Castilian models of writing, on the other. As to Castilian, it serves as a model for the orthographic system, with only a few diverging points due to the slightly different phonology. Like in the case of early medieval texts with reference to Latin, also this time different solutions appear in the texts, particularly for the representation of palatal [ʃ] and the velar intervocalic [ŋ] (see Mariño Paz 1992). But Castilian also serves as a negative model, when differential elements appear with high frequency and typically oral elements are used to stress the distance of Galician with respect to the closely related contact language. A striking example is the highly frequent appearance of the dative pronoun che used in its “solidarity function” in early 19th century texts such as the Proezas de Galicia, one of the first Galician texts from that period, a propagandistic dialogue written by José Fernández Neira and printed in 1810 in Coruña. In Galician, 8 in contrast to Spanish, second person singular dative and accusative clitics are morphologically distinct; and second person dative pronouns can be used in a purely pragmatic function in order to indicate the presence of the interlocutor, like in the following example, where a Galician called Mingote tells about his personal experiences with the French invaders. The frequently inserted pronoun che, without any propositional value, indicates the presence of his interlocutor Chinto: coller-on=che as galiñas TAKE-PST.3.PL=DAT2.SG DET CHICKEN ‘They took as many chickens as they could, que COMP puideron, CAN-PST.3.PL repelar-on=ch-as, derreter-on=che nùn-a PLUCK-PST.3.PL=DAT.2.SG-ACC.3.PL MELT-PST.3.PL=DAT.2.SG IN.IDF.DET they plucked them, they melted in a caldeira canta graxsa è pot as much lard and pot as much lard and grease as they found pingo encontraron, grease find-pst.3.pl è ali meteron=ch-as AND PUT.PST.3.PL=DAT.2.SG-ACC.3.PL THERE and they put them in there’ Now, the “solidarity pronoun” could be considered a typical oral element not adequate for writing, like ethic datives, modal particles or interjections that are sorted out and left in the domain of orality when languages become scripturalized (see Kabatek 1997b). But it is precisely here where the Galician authors search for originality and authenticity: being alphabetized in Spanish, their textual models for writing are models in the contact language, and writing in Galician is accompanied by the attempt to escape the Spanish influence and to create independent traditions. These are found in lexicon as well as in grammatical features considered as “typically Galician”. By the middle of the century, there is a certain consolidation of writing traditions in Galician, and they follow the typical path of Kloss’ (1967) scheme. Poetry and popular prose are the main domains of Galician writing, with some outstanding representatives such as the poetess Rosalía de Castro, one of the central figures of Spanish late Romanticism, who publishes several books of Galician poems. An interesting textual exception with regards to Kloss’ scheme (an elaborated text of distance) is a Galician translation of the gospel of St. Mathew published in 1861 in London by Louis Lucien Bonaparte, a nephew of Napoleon who was a 9 passionate collector of bible translations for philological interest. Bonaparte did not have direct contacts to Galicia but indirectly got in touch with Vicente de Turnes, a doctor from Santiago de Compostela, who sent him a “purified” translation rather marked by Castilianisms. For an urban bilingual as Turnes, much of the differential vocabulary and several authentically Galician forms sounded rude and vulgar, so in many cases he prefers, for reasons of stylistic “elegance”, to introduce Castilianisms. Bonaparte is aware of this tendency and publishes a different version, by an unknown translator called Santamaría. The published version, however, is neither Santamaría’s original, but rather an edition prepared by Bonaparte on the basis of both manuscripts, with orthographic unification and clear rules for spelling and accentuation. Unfortunately, the gospel remained unknown in Galicia: it could have served as a model for the consolidation of an orthographic standard as early as in the middle of the 19th century. Instead, there was no official written standard until a century and a half later when (see below) in the 1980s an official standard is established – with still continuing discussions on spelling. With the increasing writing activities in Galician during the second half of the 19th century, also lexicographic and grammaticographic activities begin. In both cases, the struggle for an autonomous written norm shows the tension between the contact languages. In three 19th century Galician dictionaries, colloquial Spanish words such as cositas, currutaco, chiquilicuatro, espumilla or mingamona appear as “Galician” – the criterion for their selection being their unattestedness in the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy and a certain identification between “spoken” and “Galician” elements. In the first Galician grammar, published in 1864 in Santiago (Mirás 1864), undoubted Spanish verb forms as ha sido / habia sido / habré sido, are presented as “Galician”, probably as a result of a simple transposition of the paradigms found in Spanish grammars or maybe also indicating traces of an incipient urban tendency of hybrid mixture between the contact languages. However, other grammarians, like Juan A. Saco y Arce (with a grammar published in 1868), are much more conscious of a Galician system without Castilian influence. Some of the poets of the late 19th century also look at Portuguese as a model, but due to the generally not very positive attitudes towards Portuguese, these tendencies remain marginal until very recently. The still rather marginal exercise of writing in Galician largely remains a phenomenon of some intellectual urban and semiurban individuals, and even the foundation of the Galician Academy and other intellectual activities in the early 20th century do not change fundamentally the paradox. The largest part of the population speaks Galician but does not write it, and mainly within the more or less Castilianized minority some individuals and groups make use of Galician as a written language. 10 In the first decades of the 20th century, urban groups like the Irmandades da fala make attempts to change this chiasm by using Galician also in spoken formal discourse, but they remain marginal. In the 1930s, during the Second Republic, there is a first – but frustrated – attempt to officialise Galician, interrupted by the Civil War and the implantation of the Spanish national-catholic Franco regime which largely inhibits written activities in Galician (with some exceptions, such as some important publications in exile or the publications of the publishing house Galaxia from the 1950s onwards). Summing up this quick overview on the historical relationship between spoken and written Galician until the end of the Franco dictatorship, we can say: - that Galician has always been a predominantly spoken language and that writing has always been a matter of minorities - that both phases of emergence of Galician as a written language – the medieval one and the one in the 19th century – did neither lead to the implementation and stabilization of an orthographic system nor to an overall Ausbau of written discourse traditions - that both written and spoken Galician had been influenced by Spanish since the Middle Ages and that all the attempts of penetration into new areas of writing are – positively or negatively – marked by the tension between the two contact languages - finally, that apart from all these circumstances, Galician is probably the European minority language with the highest percentage of speakers and that the attitudes towards the language – including its extension – are not negative in a vast majority of the society (cf. Ayestarán/De la Cueva 1974). Now, at the end of the dictatorship, Spain enters a completely new historical period and the linguistic situation in the different Spanish bilingual regions comes to a complete turnover. This new situation of contemporary Galician will be addressed in the remainder of this chapter. 4 Radical changes in contemporary Galician 4.1 Language “normativation” and “normalization” The two crucial terms that allow for the description of the oral/written relationship in Galician since the 1970s were imported from Catalan: “normativation” (normativización, Cat. normativització) and “normalization (normalización, Cat. normalització). This terminological distinction roughly standing for the distinc- 11 tion between corpus planning and status planning refers to the fact that Catalan, Basque and Galician (and, to a lesser degree, other varieties like Asturian) enter into a period of conscious and explicit language planning by the end of Francoism. Catalonia, where a written standard had been established already through Fabra’s proposals at the beginning of the century and where the local middle class and partly even the upper class were among the supporters of Catalan, had already exported its discourse on linguistic emancipation during the Second Republic. In the 1970s Catalan initiatives were the motor for the official recognition of “the other Spanish languages” in a very prominent place of the 1978 Spanish constitution. However, even if Galician participated plainly and profited from these changes, the situation was by no means comparable to that of Catalonia: there was neither an established standard nor a middle or upper class standing behind the local language. The following sections will describe how in spite of this apparently problematic starting point, Galician not only underwent an efficient and fast standardization process but also entered into practically all possible domains of the written language. 4.2 The debate on the orthographic standard At the beginning oft he 1970s, Galician did not yet dispose of a unified and generally accepted orthographic norm. There were three main tendencies in the history, a dominant one based on Spanish and with some particularities that had led to more or less stable, but still varying traditions; a second one, very minoritarian, looking for orientation in Portuguese, and a third one, even more marginal, proposing a phonetic spelling system. The first tendency was represented by the vast majority of written production since the 19th century and had been codified in Ricardo Carballo Calero’s 1966 Galician Grammar. In the early 1970s, the Galician Academy, which had not been successful up to that moment in creating any exhaustive normative work nor in giving prestige to Galician, published some very reduced normative proposals. In parallel, the recently founded Instituto da Lingus Galega, a research institute at the University of Santiago de Compostela, from that moment onwards the centre of Galician studies, published the textbook Galego I, which contained a clear orthographic norm. Almost simultaneously, the aforementioned second tendency was strongly articulated by some Portuguese and Galician intellectuals (including Carballo Calero, who called himself from that moment onwards symbolically Carvalho Calero). According to the Portuguese Philologist Manuel Rodrigues Lapa, the orthography of Galician existed since long ago in the form of Portuguese. The whole debate led to a series of proposals in the following years, with “autonomist” orthographies based on the Spanish/Galician tradition on the one hand and “reintegrationist” spellings rang- 12 ing from a “minimal” proposal close to autonomism but partly adopting Portuguese accents to a “maximum” solution consisting in the adoption of Portuguese. In between, a half-way reintegrationist system gained some popularity, but it had several disadvantages. It was neither Spanish-like nor Portuguese, it introduced graphic distinctions not existing in the Galician phonological system (like between <s> and <ss>, both pronounced voiceless in Galician) and it used the graphemes <m> as well as <mh> to represent the velar nasal phoneme /ŋ/, a solution which caused interference phenomena and creations of traditionally inexisting spellings like naçom [naˈsom]. The orthographic debate was finished officially by giving the authority in language matters to the Royal Galician Academy in the 1981 Statute of Autonomy and the subsequent Lei de normalización lingüística (‘Law for language normalization’) from 1983. This meant that the aforementioned Instituto da Lingua Galega became in fact the responsible institution for standardization, and the Institute published, together with the Academy, a fundamental normative manual, the Normas ortográficas e morfolóxicas do idioma galego, in 1982. However, the debate did not stop with this officialization, and after several years of discussion, the Academy published a new version in 2003 with a few modifications, generally allowing for more tolerance towards Portuguese forms and allowing two parallel solutions in different cases. The debate is not over, but the fact that the orthographic discussion had led to more and more insecurity in the society and finally had favoured Castilian and not Galician made place for a more and more pragmatic acceptance of the official spelling system even by groups originally opposed to it. 4.3 The conceptual problem: creating discourse traditions of distance The radical changes after the Franco dictatorship had enormous consequences on the relationship between spoken and written language. First of all, the officialization of Galician in all areas of the society made it necessary to create completely new discourse traditions in Galician. There was of course the established tradition of the spoken language and a certain tradition in written genres – mainly in literature – but there were neither administrative nor contemporary legal texts; there was no Galician scientific tradition and even in mass media most of the spoken and written genres were only known in Spanish. The establishment of new discourse traditions and the need for a diaphasic differentiation is a partly still ongoing process involving all levels of linguistic structure. I will sketch some factors that have marked this process giving some examples of its lexical, morphosyntactic and, finally, phonetic and prosodic consequences. The most striking, cognitively most salient and metalinguistically most discussed area is the lexicon. Galician almost suddenly had to fulfil a series of func- 13 tions previously not relevant for the language due to the division of tasks between the contact languages in the diglossia. This process of elaboration was partly a spontaneous one carried out “by doing”, but it was also a very conscious one, with the intervention of explicit language planning. For the latter, the goal had been formulated in the 1982 Normas: the standard language should be a supradialectal system rooted in the spoken language and harmonic with the neighbouring languages. However, if we think at Haugen’s dictum “The planner proposes, but the community disposes” (Haugen 1966, 24), the language planners could only prepare the way of the lexical standardization, leaving over the implementation to the disposal of the language users. The dynamic relationship between the spoken and the written language is an continuous process which was particularly accelerated in the 1980s. To a large extent, it is a very unproblematic scriptization process, with formerly oral elements passing over to take part of new written traditions. But it is also a process of selection and of differentiation between elements considered to be suitable for written (above all formal) traditions and other that are “sorted out” or left in orality. Here, different categories can be distinguished: first, there is the problem of the so-called vulgarisms. When a mainly oral language in a diglossic situation is written, the distinction between “spoken” elements, “vernacular” elements and “vulgar” elements is not always clear, especially in a diglossia with a closely related language. In a Galician language course published in 1985, several body parts were described with the Galician terms tetas, cona, carallo, pirola and collóns. The corresponding, homophonous or almost homophonous Spanish forms are considered to be vulgarisms. This led to strong criticism, but it also showed a problem: should the diaphasic indexation of lexical elements simply be adopted from Spanish or was this only a sign of dependency? Or was it equally a dependency trying to change the status of vulgar forms because the “elaborated” counterparts peito, vaxina, pene und testículos sounded too Spanish? Whichever way was chosen, a positive or negative influence of the omnipresent contact language could not be excluded. A second problem is the Castilianism itself: how many elements may be directly adopted from the contact language without giving up the identity of the language? A third problem is the acceptance of spontaneous integration processes, often based on synchronic analyses rather than on diachronic evolutions and criticized as “pseudogaleguisms” in the past: should a form like carreteira (created on the basis of Spanish carretera, ‘road’ in analogy to other forms like Sp. otero / Gal. outeiro ‘hill’) be accepted? The language planners proposed estrada, the Portuguese form attested in medieval Galician, but the most popular form is the simple Castilianism carretera. This example leads to a fourth problem: the creation of new forms by conscious language planning. At the beginning of the planning process, the linguists at the Instituto created exhaustive lists of forms, some of them adopted from Portuguese, some of them created by means of Galician word formation, like beirarrúa ‘sidewalk’ (from beira ‘side’, rúa ‘street’), as a substi- 14 tute for the Castilianism acera. Since 1997, an own institution for the creation of terminology, Termigal, was founded following the model of the Catalan Termcat. The main problem of terminology creation, however, is not the one of lexical creativity in Galician but rather the problem of diffusion: the strong presence of the contact language makes it difficult to compete with Galician terms against a very common habit of lexical adoption. In the domain of morphosyntax, the written language, allowing more metalinguistic reflection and planning, tends to more openly reject Castilianisms such as proclitic pronouns in unmarked sentences, a phenomenon more and more frequent in spoken urban contact varieties. Conscious intervention in writing even revitalizes or boosts certain more or less marginal or dialectal phenomena of the spoken language which due to their contrast to Spanish are considered to be typical Galician. An interesting example is the inflected infinitive, a form still alive in spoken Galician but more and more marginalized due to the converging contact with Spanish. In written texts, the form is quite prolific. Its high frequency in texts like the Galician bible translation from 1989 shows that it can even indicate solemnity (Kabatek 2000b, 175–178). In those groups defending reintegrationist attitudes towards Portuguese, written texts are diaphasically marked by a high frequency of Portuguese features absent in current spoken Galician. The tension described in the lexicon also is present on other levels: in oral texts of communicative distance, some characteristics of spoken Galician are generally avoided and replaced by forms which converge with Spanish (like the so-called gheada or the seseo). There is a rather marginal tendency that enhances the usage of these features also under formal circumstances. The relationship between the spoken and the written language strongly affects formal spoken discourse: when reading out written texts, the traditional and contemporary presence of rhetoric models from the contact language (together with the high degree of Castilianization of the urban classes protagonizing these texts) strongly influences the performance and castilianizes reading styles, and authentic models are difficult to defend (Dobao 2008). However, all the problems that emerged due to the completely different situation of contemporary Galician as compared to the long history before 1975 seem little if we look at what has been achieved. Today, Galician is a language with the whole range of imaginable oral and written texts, from scientific prose to comics, from formal speeches to colloquial dialogue. Even if the tension between independence and dependence regarding the contact language has been and will be an unavoidable characteristic of spoken and written Galician, the different solutions created in the complex process of textual ausbau and diaphasic differentiation during the last decades also show the impressive vitality of Galician. 15 5 Literature Álvarez Blanco, Rosario/González Seoane, Ernesto (2016), Iluminar los Séculos Escuros: Gondomar, un corpus para el estudio del gallego en la Edad Moderna, in: Johannes Kabatek (ed.), Lingüística de corpus y lingüística histórica iberorrománica, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 75–92. Ayestarán Aranaz, Margarita/de la Cueva Alonso, Justo (1974), Las familias de la provincia de Pontevedra en 1974. Galleguidad y conflicto lingüístico gallego, Sevilla, Instituto de Ciencias de la Familia. Beltran, Vicenç (2009), La corte de Babel. Lenguas, poética y política en la España del siglo XIII, Madrid, Gredos. Bloomfield, Leonard (1933), Language, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Carballo Calero, Ricardo (1966), Gramática elemental del gallego común, Vigo. Coseriu, Eugenio (1980), ‘Historische Sprache’ und ‘Dialekt’, in: J. Göschel, P. Ivic, K.Kehr (edd.), Dialekt und Dialektologie. Ergebnisse des internationalen Symposiums ‘Zur Theorie des Dialekts’, Marburg/Lahn 1977, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 106– 115. Dobao, Antón (2008), Os modelos orais nos medios de comunicación, in: Fernández Rei/Regueira Fernández (2008), 219–234. Fernández Rei, Elisa/Regueira Fernández, Xosé Luís (edd.) (2008), Perspectivas sobre a oralidade, Santiago de Compostela, Consello da Cultura Galega. Haugen, Einar (1966), Language Conflict and Language Planning. The Case of Modern Norvegian, Cambridge/Mass., Harvard University Press. Instituto da Lingua Galega/Real Academia Galega (1982), Normas ortográficas e morfolóxicas do idioma galego, Vigo. Kabatek, Johannes (1997a), A diferenciación diafásica do galego actual, in: Rosario Álvarez Blanco/Francisco Fernández Rei/Antón Santamarina Fernández (edd.), A lingua galega: Historia e actualidade. Actas do 1º congreso internacional. 16-20 de Setembro de 1996, Vol. II., Santiago de Compostela, Instituto da Lingua Galega / Consello da Cultura Galega, 379-388. Kabatek, Johannes (1997b), Strengthening identity: differentiation and change in contemporary Galician, in: Jenny Cheshire/Dieter Stein (edd.): Taming the Vernacular. From Dialect to Written Standard Language, London – New York, Longman, 185–199. Kabatek, Johannes (2000a), L’oral et l’écrit – quelques aspects théoriques d’un ‘nouveau’ paradigme dans le canon de la linguistique romane, in: Wolfgang Dahmen/ Günter Holtus/Johannes Kramer/Michael Metzeltin/Wolfgang Schweickard/Otto Winkelmann (edd.): Kanonbildung in der Romanistik und in den Nachbardisziplinen. Romanistisches Kolloquium XIV, Tübingen, Narr 305–320. Kabatek, Johannes (2000b), Os falantes como lingüistas. Tradición, innovación e interferencias no galego actual, Vigo, Xerais. 16 Kabatek, Johannes (ed.) (2008), Sintaxis histórica del español y cambio lingüístico: Nuevas perspectivas desde las Tradiciones Discursivas, Frankfurt am Main/Madrid, Vervuert-Iberoamericana. Kabatek, Johannes (2013), Koinés and Scriptae, in Adam Ledgeway/John C. Smith/Martin Maiden (edd.), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Cambridge/UK, CUP, 624–633. Kabatek, Johannes (2016), Diglossia, in: Adam Ledgeway/Maiden, Martin (edd.): The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Kloss, Heinz (1967), ‘Abstand Languages’ and ‘Ausbau Languages’, Anthropological Linguistics 9, 7, 29–41. Koch, Peter/Oesterreicher, Wulf (1985), Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36, 15–43. Koch, Peter/Oesterreicher, Wulf (2001), Langage parlé et langage écrit, in: LRL I,2, 584–627. Koch, Peter (1997), Diskurstraditionen: zu ihrem sprachtheoretischen Status und ihrer Dynamik, in: B. Frank/T. Haye/D. Tophinke, (edd.), Gattungen mittelalterlicher Schriftlichkeit, Tübingen, Narr, 43–79. Mariño Paz, Ramón (1992), Estudio fonético, ortográfico e morfolóxico de textos do prerrexurdimento galego (1805–1837), Santiago de Compostela, Universidade de Santiago. Mariño Paz, Ramón (1998), Historia da lingua galega, Santiago de Compostela, Sotelo Blanco. Mirás, Francisco (1864/1978): Compendio de gramática gallega-castellana, Santiago 1864 (ed. facs. Madrid 1978). Monjour, Alf (1995), Galegische und portugiesische Skriptae, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, vol. II, 2, Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete vom Mittelalter bis zur Renaissance / Les différentes langues romanes et leurs regions d’implantation du Moyen Age à la Renaissance, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 692–720. Monteagudo Romero, Henrique (2009), A elaboración do galego escrito no período primitivo, Estudos de Lingüística galega 1, 85–111. Oesterreicher, Wulf (1994), Verschriftung und Verschriftlichung im Kontext medialer und konzeptioneller Schriftlichkeit, in: U. Schaefer, (ed.), Mündlichkeit im frühen Mittelalter, Tübingen, Narr, 265–90. Saco y Arce, Juan A. (1868), Gramática gallega, Lugo 1868. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916), Cours de Linguistique Générale, Lausanne – Paris, Payot. Söll, Ludwig (1974), Gesprochenes und geschriebenes Französisch, Berlin, Schmidt. Wright, Roger (1982), Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France, Liverpool, Francis Cairns. 17 Proezas de Galicia: http://academia.gal/documents/10157/403940/Proezas+de+Galicia.pdf (24.5.2016)