1Media and Sociolinguistics

The media are a relevant research domain in sociolinguistics. The interest of sociolinguists in media communication can be explained by multiple reasons, such as (i) the relevance of the media in the processes of social change and development; (ii) the variety of discursive genres; and (iii) their role as agents in language policy and linguistic normalization. On the one hand, it should be remembered that the media mediate. They intervene upon reality providing interpretive schemata in a double process of mediation, both structural and cognitive (Martín Serrano 32004). The media select the events they portray and design communicative strategies to change or uphold power structures. On the other hand, diversity of the media favors a notable multiplicity of traditional and innovative (cyber)discursive genres, with social networks as the most obvious example of continuous innovation in mobile communication. Finally, the media play a crucial role in the management of multilingualism, especially in contexts of language minorization, where they are a relevant agent in the production and/or reproduction of the statu quo, attitudes and ideologies (cf. Kelly-Holmes 2012; Kelly-Holmes/Milani 2013). This chapter is framed within this third perspective.

Among the many objects of study provided by media analysis, multilingualism has attracted the attention of a large number of researchers in the last few decades. These studies have been conceptualized both from a static perspective, which sees multilingualism as a sum of monolingualisms, as well as from a dynamic perspective, prioritizing practices over languages, and focusing the analysis on the hybridity of everyday speech (cf. Martin-Jones/Blackledge/Creese 2012). The static perspective on multilingualism, based on the existence of languages and codes as autonomous, immanent and discrete entities, dominated the field of linguistics in the 20th century. This conception entered a period of crisis in the 1980s, and a number of new (and old) notions that insist on a dynamic perspective acquired a central place in describing language practices. This is the case of heteroglossia, a term proposed by Bakhtin in the 1930s as well as of more current terms such as translanguaging, crossing, polylanguaging, hybridization or metrolingualism (cf., e. g., Pennycook/Otsuji 2015; García/Lin 32017). This conceptual change visualizes a new paradigm, which draws from the view of language socialization as an integrated practice within a network of other practices and social relations (cf. Blommaert/Rampton 2011). In fact, the current approaches to multilingualism are related not only to linguistic diversity in a vacuum but also to social, cultural, political and labor dynamics which distinguish the current phase of economic development with an unprecedented mobile and globalized communication.

Linguistics approaches multilingualism from multiple perspectives. Here we choose a sociolinguistic one, focused on linguistic minorities, insofar as they are predominantly multilingual social groups. Traditionally, language minorization has been a process derived from the expansion of majority groups into new territories; currently, it is also related to the great transnational mobility of the last half-century. In fact, most populations live in super-diverse cities, configured as increasingly complex linguistic clusters (cf. Vertovec 2007; Duarte/Gogolin 2013).

This chapter takes Galician as an example. This language has been official in Galicia since 1981, the moment when the media became an axis in language policy, with some satisfactory achievements within the public media. At the same time, the media have shown clear limitations in helping the process of social normalization of the Galician language (cf. Lorenzo Suárez/Ramallo/Casares Berg 2008).

2Media and linguistic minorities

The relationship between linguistic minorities and the media is complex. If we look at majority language media, the usual practice is to treat linguistic minorities like any other minority: rendering them invisible and marginal. In cases where they get some visibility, the image portrayed is often stereotypical (cf. Alia/Bull 2005). However, there have been exceptions to this. In his historical review, Browne (1996) shows some illustrative examples. In the 1930s and 1940s the BBC, for example, took the initiative to make Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales more visible. At the same time, the Kurds also had a presence on Iraqi television and France created a radio station for minority languages such as Provençal, Basque and Breton.

Studies of minority language media have been consolidated in recent years, particularly with respect to European minorities (cf. Cormack/Hourigan 2007; for a historical review cf. Browne/Uribe-Jongbloed 2013; Androutsopoulos 2014 [section VI]), Latin American indigenous communities (cf. Uribe-Jongbloed 2011 and 2014), African indigenous communities (cf. Salawu/Chibita 2016) or immigrant minority languages (cf. Amezaga/Arana 2012). According to these studies, the media have undoubtedly influenced linguistic minorities. This influence is conceived from two opposing views. On the one hand, it is seen as a positive phenomenon, since it can present an opportunity for multilingualism in general and for minority languages in particular; on the other hand, it is considered as negative because it can be a threat to minority languages (cf. Cormack 2007).

Therefore, it is evident that many minority language communities have been able to create their own communicative space using their own languages as an opportunity to promote language maintenance, linguistic diversity and multilingualism (cf. Kelly-Holmes/Moriarty/Pietikäinen 2009 for a comparative review of Basque, Irish and Sami). This self-owned communicative space can be conceived by public means, privately or via the community as a whole. In the case of the community, this way of designing and putting in place a media outlet, known as the third sector of communications, could be considered “a democratic response to the limitation of capitalism” (Curran 2003, 247). Unlike public and private minority language media sources, the existence of media produced and consumed by language minorities from the community approach means that there is a responsible initiative that empowers the local community. This is accomplished through non-profit practices that demonstrate a full awareness of the right of a community to be informed in its own language, beginning with its cultural constructs. In this way, the media contribute to promoting the critical plurality and diversity necessary to move toward a mature democracy that works toward ending social inequality (cf. Curran 2011; AMARC 2014; Lema Blanco/Meda González 2016).

Minority media have helped to alter the sociolinguistic order in several ways, encouraging the social prestige of minority languages through the creation of a market directly conceived from the interests of these linguistic minorities and linked to them. Media also stimulates the formal and functional visibility of minority languages. Moreover, the steady presence of a minority language in the media, particularly with audiovisual production, can contribute to the social cohesion of a given community. Finally, the high differential value of media in a minority language should not be overlooked. It can become an incentive for gaining space within a very ethnolinguistically-identified population (cf. Ramallo/Rei-Doval 1997; Vincze/Moring 2013).

However, it would be disingenuous to forget that the media are without a doubt institutions at the service of the social majority groups, including speakers of official languages. This is why the domination of the media within the processes of subjectification, the construction of social imaginaries and the movement by the elite toward “naturalizing” the dominant ideological structure presents a serious challenge to democracy (not to be understood as participatory democracy, which, undoubtedly, this way of understanding the media helps to strengthen, but rather, direct democracy). We must bear in mind that information and opinion are produced in order to satisfy a market which has been created, targeted and ruled by the interests these same social majority groups mobilize, marginalizing minorities due to their lack of cost-effectiveness. According to Cormack (2007, 56): “the more limited audiences of many minority language communities are likely to be seen as uneconomic”, and this is also happening in the public media. The dominance of the economic value of the media as a requirement for its existence is an affront to democracy. As a result of their marginalization in the media, many minority languages constitute one of the sectors that are most affected by this democratic deficiency (cf. Salawu/Chibita 2016 for a detailed approach to the African case).

The importance of minority language media is instrumental in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) of the Council of Europe. This international convention, ratified by 25 European states to date (2017), devotes Article 11 to the media. Although this article is only relevant for Part III languages, it is applicable to approximately 140 minority languages (cf. Dunbar/Moring 2012, for a clear review of the Committee of Experts’ reports and Committee of Ministers’ recommendations on media).

The fact that the ECRML includes the media as a special protection domain is an argument on behalf of minority language media based on human rights (cf. Cormack 2005). In accordance with its Explanatory Report:

“The time and space which regional or minority languages can secure in the media is vital for their safeguard. Today no language can keep its influence unless it has access to the new forms of mass communications. The development of these throughout the world and the progress of technology are leading to the weakening of the cultural influence of less widely-spoken languages” (Council of Europe 1993, 31).

This being said, it must be noted that follow-through on the acquired commitments on the part of the states after ratifying the Charter has been varied. Although the Charter is an instrument for international rights with a wide margin for flexibility (in other words, after taking into account the situation of each language within the territory it is used, different options are offered in Article 11), the reports from the Committee of Experts identify significant advances and good practices, along with clear incompliance. In the case of incompliance, the reports are conclusive with respect to the indications regarding the steps that each State should take with the goal of fulfilling the acquired commitments. It is important to bear in mind that the media are very sensitive to technological change and since the Charter’s approval in 1992, these changes have been tremendous, meaning that it is urgent that the instrument in this area is updated to correspond with said changes. As such, many minority languages are witnessing a radical transformation in the technological strategies employed by minority language media, particularly in written media (cf. 2.2). As Moring points out, the ECRML “will be less functional for minority languages, and the communities that seek to maintain them, if reasonable measures are not taken to match support for increasingly dominant digital platforms with that allocated to more traditional legacy media” (Moring 2013, 49).

Furthermore, language quality is a key aspect in the production of media communication in minority languages. Given the relevance the media have in creating models (including language models), media professionals need to be proficient in speaking and writing in the minority languages. This is essential for every communications professional, but it should be even more important with minority languages in order to contribute to strengthening the prestige of the language and to avoid trivialization and discredit. Zabaleta et al. (2008) compared journalists’ insights on their knowledge and their linguistic use in ten European minority languages. They found out that 90.7% of the interviewees consider their language proficiency to be adequate. Nevertheless, when the journalists had to evaluate their colleagues’ proficiency the percentage decreased to 59.1%. This results from the fact that, more often than not, those journalists working in minority languages are not typically speakers of these languages.

3Case study: Galician language in media

For the remainder of this chapter, we will have a look at the specifics of the Galician context. Firstly, we will present a brief historical contextualization. Secondly, we will explain the current situation of the media in the Galician language. This part concludes with an outline of the strengths and weaknesses of Galician media.

Galician is Galicia’s own language. Despite the numerous vicissitudes it has gone through since the end of the Middle Ages, it has been and still is the most widely spoken language in Galicia, with approximately 1.2 million people using it on a daily basis (cf. Instituto Galego de Estatística 2013). Even so, the vitality of the language has undergone a gradual decline and it has reached the beginning of the 21st century in a delicate situation. The language shift process, strengthened since the second half of the 20th century, is still in progress. Indeed, according language use, the population of Galicia is divided into three linguistic groups with the following distribution: 31% monolingual Galician speakers, 26% monolingual Spanish speakers and 42% bilingual speakers. Furthermore, 1% speak other languages, this being a residual percentage due to the low incidence of immigration in Galicia. In comparison, it should be taken into account that in 2003 the percentage for Galician monolingual speakers was 43% and for Spanish monolingual speakers 20% (cf. Instituto Galego de Estatística 2013). This marked decline in only 10 years highlights a very worrying reality for the future of the language.

The most positive piece of data is that nearly the entire population understands Galician and the majority are able to speak and read it. This is relevant when it comes to creating an autochthonous communicative space. Compare this to other territories where the minority languages remain distant from the dominant language, in which case the comprehension of the minority language is inferior, as is the case the Basque Country, Navarra, Wales or Scotland, to name a few examples (cf. Salces-Alcalde/Amezaga 2016).

Regarding its use in the media, since the late 19th century Galician has had a presence, albeit very unevenly (cf. Lorenzo Suárez/Ramallo/Casares Berg 2008). During this time, there have been several milestones that should be highlighted. In 1876, O Tio Marcos da Portela, the first newspaper drafted in Galician, appeared. Previously, the presence of Galician in the press was residual and it was limited to some literary collaborations. Due to the success of this publication, other journalism projects emerged in different Galician cities in the years that followed. In 1916 a fundamental change took place when A Nosa Terra, a key publication for the defense and visibility of the Galician in the press, came out. Its pages often included political, socioeconomic and linguistic contributions as well as literary and cultural themes in Galician language. Indeed, linguistic topics were a constant in A Nosa Terra.

During the Second Spanish Republic (1931–1936) the radio began broadcasting in Galicia but the presence of Galician was very limited. In any case, any glimmer of progress was severed during the Franco dictatorship (1939–1975). This period was a huge setback for the presence of Galician in the media. All the progressive and cultural press was silenced and the monolingual press in Galician language disappeared completely. Therefore, since the beginning of the Civil War (1936–1939) the only presence that Galician had in the media was in the clandestine press or in those media made and disseminated by people in exile, mainly in Latin America. It was not until the 1960s, in the grip of the dictatorship, when the Galician language started to retrieve part of its vitality in the communications media. In 1963, Grial appeared. This publication was at first bilingual but it progressively opted for Galician monolingualism. In 1964, Terra e Tempo was founded. It was initially edited in Mexico and was considered the first post-war publication completely in Galician. During the last years of the dictatorship, the first broadcasts in Galician started and in 1974 the language was used for the first time on a TV program (TVE).

Since 1975 the social demand for media in Galician has increased. By the end of the decade some publications that had been frustrated by the war and the dictatorship were resumed. Thus, in 1976 Teima came out in Santiago de Compostela and in 1977 the edition of A Nosa Terra was resumed on a weekly basis. Even so, it was not until 1994 that O Correo Galego, the first newspaper completely in Galician language, appeared. Concerning audiovisual media, a significantly relevant milestone took place in 1985, when Compañía de Radio/Televisión de Galicia (CRTVG) was founded. This meant a public radio-television in Galician language 24 hours a day (except for part of the commercial advertising). From that moment on, until today, CRTVG’s programming has played a significant role in configuring its own communicative space, with a planned market for fostering the Galician audiovisual sector which stems from a strategy focused on the value of local communication, without ignoring general information (cf. Hermida Gulías 2012; López García/Soengas Pérez/Rodríguez Vázquez 2016).

Despite the achievements reached since the beginning of the democratic period (1978), the current situation of Galician in the media is delicate, particularly within the private media. The analysis is complex due to the variety of media, formats and technologies, which compete for an increasingly selective and broadly-diversified audience. The diagnosis is therefore clear: the supply of Spanish media increases whereas the presence of Galician in the media decreases.

However, studies indicate that there is a potential market for media using Galician written language (cf. Barreiro/Pérez Pena 2013). It is not an easy task to explain why this situation is happening, as the results of the many factors that come into play. Whatever the case, it can be partially explained by the operation of a market which is both continuously innovating and very volatile. Conversely, the business structure related to the media in Galicia is weak and does not have any solvent business plans (cf. Barreiro/Pérez Pena 2013, 241). However, it is also a consequence of the public policies aimed to protect and foster Galician. While it is true that a large part of the cultural and social prestige of Galician came from its mandatory presence in administration, education and the public media, it is also true that the linguistic policy in Galicia has not been very favorable for the promotion of Galician in the private media. Obviously, media supporting Galician are in a difficult position to compete in a market strongly dominated by Spanish-language media. In this context, a top-bottom impulse is needed; an impulse to promote those media committed to quality information, which make a formal, careful and rigorous use of language and reach both majority and minority segments of the population. And every impulse designed within public policies should be planned regardless of the editorial line to guarantee plurality, rigor and maximum disclosure of those media opting for Galician.

Paradoxically, language policies related to the use of the Galician language in the media have been widely criticized over the last few years. We start from the point that every language policy regarding media is undesirable if the objective is not to promote a minority language, but rather to create a positive image for those responsible for that language policy. Only from a naïve point of view can we consider a government’s support of the media as working towards the common good. The reality is just the opposite. The Political Economy of Communication strengthens media that, by means of conventional and consistent discourse forms, create representations of the world in favor of power structures and social control, “criminalizing unhindered communication and prosecuting the messenger” (Castells 2009, 264). Due to obvious reasons, this implies a huge democratic deficit. To exemplify this in Galicia it has to be taken into account that not only the budget for the autonomous government for the promotion of the Galician language in the media was drastically reduced in recent years, but also that the biggest allocation is devoted to media that hardly use Galician but have a majority dissemination and that intervene daily in the political agenda.

A brief overview of media in Galician reveals some important gaps that we summarize hereafter. There is not any mainstream daily printed media in Galician. Some years ago the picture was different, with different newspapers occupying this communicative space. Conversely, there are some online media written exclusively in Galician, such as: Praza pública, Galicia Confidencial and Sermos Galiza, which also publishes a weekly paper entirely in Galician (cf. Vaqueiro/Xamardo 2017). Moreover, there is a wide range of weekly and regular publications aimed at broadly diverse audiences: cultural, youth, satirical or financial publications. Furthermore, daily collaborations in Galician can be frequently found in the main newspapers in which Spanish is the dominant language, such as La Voz de Galicia or Faro de Vigo. In these media, Galician language usually appears in opinion articles within the local or cultural section. In contrast, it is rather infrequent to find this language in the economic or international sections. What’s more, given the possibilities that current technology offers, frequently those media that only have their printed version in Spanish offer an automatic translation into Galician in their electronic versions.

In the radio, the main media outlet is Radio Galega (RG), a public entity with coverage all over Galicia. There are also interesting local options such as a municipal radio network called Emisoras Municipais Galegas (EMUGA), with sixteen radio stations which opt for communicating only in Galician under a shared initiative called Radiofusión. Nevertheless, there is still a large gap between these and radio broadcasts in Spanish, which means that public policies have failed to create a space in radio for content in minority languages (cf. Pousa 2016). Something similar happens with the audiovisual media. In addition to Televisión de Galicia (TVG), a public entity, some local TV channels choose to broadcast mainly in Galician.

It should be stressed that the structure of the Galician communicative system is relatively small compared to other linguistic minorities. According to Zabaleta et al. (2014), Galicia has 45 monolingual communication companies and three relevant media. In Catalonia there are 796 companies of monolingual media and in the Basque Country there are 108. Furthermore, the Galician communicative system relies heavily upon the public sector, with a market share of 64.4%. Comparing the Galician scenario to that of other European minority languages highlights that only the Scottish-Gaelic (with 100%) has a higher percentage of media under the public domain. It should be taken into account that Catalan is the common language in six newspapers, five weekly publications, six radio channels and six television channels.

The low presence of Galician in the media is viewed negatively by the Galician population, even among those who speak only Spanish. Every time public opinion is consulted on the fields in which the presence of the language is more positively valued, the media are at the top of the list. In this regard, the majority of the population is in favor of an increase in the use of Galician in the media. The demand is higher than 50% in TV, radio, newspapers or the Internet. This demand is more consistent among the young population (particularly among new speakers of Galician), with a higher level of education and living in the city, which, paradoxically, is also the average Spanish speaker’s profile (cf. Lorenzo Suárez/Ramallo/Casares Berg 2008; Monteagudo/Lorenzo/Vázquez 2017). Consumption of Galician language media varies widely and is directly linked to the supply thereof. Television is by far the most public media outlet, followed by the radio.

One particular area of extensive academic debate in Galicia has to do with the quality of spoken Galician in the media, particularly in the CRTVG. Research over the last few years has shown problems at all the linguistic levels (cf. Hermida Gulías 2008; Regueira 2013). The most common are:

Over the last few years, problems with grammar and lexicon are less visible, partly because there is a team of professional linguists correcting them prior to transmissions. Conversely, phonetic, phonologic and prosodic features are in clear need of improvement. This is because improving oral expression relies to a great extent upon the efforts of journalists themselves, and it should be taken into account that a large proportion of the professionals do not normally speak Galician.

Consequently, it is frequent among linguists to define the oral models of the communication media as inauthentic, since they are very much based on models in Spanish that, as we have just mentioned, is the language of the majority of media professionals, including dubbing actors (cf. Dobao 2008). The relevance CRTVG has had in the social promotion of Galician, in spreading the standard variation and in disseminating prestigious linguistic models is unquestionable. For this reason, including oral models from outside has had a dramatic consequence for some of the oldest traditional speakers. Among this population, it is frequent to identify the variety used in TVG as a reference, well-spoken Galician, degrading their own use of the language (cf. O’Rourke/Ramallo 2013, 294s.). In fact, the lack of authenticity of the language in TVG is a widespread perception among the population. Therefore, 48% of the Galician population consider the language in the autonomic public television to be artificial, leading to a demand for increasing the visibility of more natural Galician (cf. Observatorio da Cultura Galega 2012). For these reasons, there is and has been for years an urgent need to create a standard oral model to be used on a regular basis in the media (cf. Dobao 2008; Regueira 2012; 2013). This could be based on the Dicionario de pronuncia da lingua galega (cf. Regueira 2010).

Far from being anecdotal, it is necessary to highlight that TVG is the media with the largest audience in Galicia. Thus, 61% of the population claim to use TVG as a communications media on a daily basis (cf. Lorenzo Suárez/Ramallo/Casares Berg 2008, 206). For some years now, the news on the public channel is the most viewed of all the TV channels operating in Galicia. Its ratings are much higher than those of the state private channels (Telecinco, Antena 3, La Sexta).

In the written media (printed and electronic), the quality of the Galician language has also been the subject of many studies. The main problems are accent marks, punctuation and mostly syntactic issues: placement of atonic pronouns, use of prepositions, incorrect use of verb tenses, and lack of consistency. There are also many examples of lexical interference from Spanish, along with hipergaleguismos205 (cf. Hermida Gulías 2008).

Despite being a minority language, Galician has an acceptable presence in information and communications technologies (cf. García Mateo/Arza Rodríguez 2012). This is partly due to its large demography, since it is ranked second among European minority languages in terms of number of speakers, only surpassed by Catalan. Some highlights include: as of January 2017, Galipedia (the Galician Wikipedia) includes over 136,000 articles; since 2013, the language has its own domain name (.gal) with more than 3,500 registered domain names; the main social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Google+) have interfaces in Galician; and there are also Galician social networks like Cabozo, Latri.ca or Galegram, in addition to dozens of blogs on culture, economics, politics, etc. (cf. blogaliza.org). According to Negreira Rey and López García (2017, 124), 48% of the exclusive online media (web natives) are monolingual in Galician and 25% are bilingual.

The use of Galician by young people on social networks is reduced, even among Galician speakers. However, this same population group is the one demanding an increase in the use of Galician on the Internet, in order to contribute to the social standardization of the language (cf. Domínguez/Ramallo 2012). This represents an opportunity for linguistic policy.

The difficulties faced by Galician in private media can be explained by the lack of institutional support that the language receives. Even though from a more liberal perspective one could argue that these are private companies that must act according to the laws of the market, it’s surprising that most public grants aimed at promoting Galician in the media clearly benefit the major media outlets that publish and broadcast primarily in Spanish. For example, the two most widely-read newspapers in Galicia (La Voz de Galicia and Faro de Vigo), whose use of Galician is minimal, received approximately 1,000,000 euros (from a total of 1,135,000) in 2016 for the promotion of Galician, which is an unacceptable insult to smaller but all-Galician newspapers.

3.1Strong and weak points

Based on the above, the relationship between language and the media in Galicia has strengths and weaknesses. Table 1 gathers some points that can shed light on the possibilities for a more thoroughgoing Galician communicative system. The diagnosis is based on four dimensions: general questions, public sector, private sector and language policy.206

Table 1: Strong and weak points related to media and Galician

4Conclusion

Media are a basic tool of democratic life and minority language media can contribute very significantly to strengthen it, even by encouraging the participation of minorities in the public sphere (cf. Le 2015). First, the development of any modern society is closely linked to the communication mediated as a basic strategy for social cohesion. Therefore, it is desirable that any linguistic community has its own communicative space dedicated to public and business development projects that take into account the idiosyncrasies of that particular society, including of course their language. The goal of the promotion of minority language media is also related to their ability to preserve the identity of the society in which they operate and, at the same time, be able to articulate social action to provide accurate and representative information. Otherwise it will be harmful to society itself. Second, we must recognize the importance of the local community in the information society. Proximity communication (in minority languages) is increasingly necessary to guarantee decentralization, pluralism and democratic values themselves (access, identity, diversity, debate). The local and global spaces are complementary and not contradictory. Finally, digital media provide an excellent opportunity to promote and protect minority languages, even though it is not difficult to imagine that the existing linguistic tradition has been strengthened with current technology.

5References

Alia, Valerie/Bull, Simon (2005), Media and Ethnic Minorities, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

AMARC (2014), Promoting minority languages through community media. Recommendations from AMARC to the European Parliament and the Commission, in: Davyth Hicks (coord.), Radio Broadcasting in Regional or Minority Languages. Conference report, Brussels, ELEN, EUROLANG and European Free Alliance in the European Parliament, <https://cuacfm.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMARC-2014-Promoting-minority-languages-through-community-media-1.pdf> (10.03.2017).

Amezaga, Josu/Arana, Edorta (2012), Minority language television in Europe: commonalities and differences between Regional Minority Languages and Immigrant Minority Languages, Zer 17:3, 89–106.

Androutsopoulos, Jannis (ed.) (2014), Mediatization and sociolinguistic change, Berlin/Boston, de Gruyter.

Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981), The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. by Michael Holquist, Austin, University of Texas Press.

Barreiro, Manuel M./Pérez Pena, Marcos (2013), Hai sociedade para os medios en galego?, in: Xosé López García/Manuel Rivas Barrós/Rosa Aneiros Díaz (edd.), A comunicación en Galicia 2013, Santiago de Compostela, Consello da Cultura Galega, 235–244.

Barton, Davis/Lee, Carmen (2013), Language online. Investigating digital texts and practices, New York, Routledge.

Blommaert, Jan/Rampton, Ben (2011), Language and superdiversity, Diversities 13:2, 1–21.

Browne, Donald R. (1996), Electronic media and indigenous people: A voice of our own, Ames, University of Iowa Press.

Browne, Donald R./Uribe-Jongbloed, Enrique (2013), Ethnic/linguistic minority media – What their history reveals, how scholars have studied them and what we might ask next, in: Elin Haf Gruffydd Jones/Enrique Uribe-Jongbloed (edd.), Social Media and Minority Languages. Convergence and the Creative Industries, Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto, Multilingual Matters, 1–28.

Campos Freire, Francisco (2016), A terceira década dixital, in: Xosé López García/Rosa Aneiros Díaz, A comunicación en Galicia 2015, Santiago de Compostela, Consello da Cultura Galega, 11–44.

Castells, Manuel (2009), Communication power, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Cormack, Mike (2004), Developing minority language media studies, <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.525.84&rep=rep1&type=pdf> (10.03.2017).

Cormack, Mike (2005), The cultural politics of minority language media, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 1:1, 107–122.

Cormack, Mike (2007), The media and language maintenance, in: Mike Cormack/Niamh Hourigan (edd.), Minority language media. Concepts, critiques and case studies, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, 52–68.

Cormack, Mike (2013), Concluding remarks: towards an understanding of media impact on minority language use, in: Elin Haf Gruffydd Jones/Enrique Uribe-Jongbloed (edd.), Social Media and Minority Languages. Convergence and the Creative Industries, Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto, Multilingual Matters, 255–265.

Cormack, Mike/Hourigan, Niamh (edd.) (2007), Minority language media. Concepts, critiques and case studies, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.

Council of Europe (1993), European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and Explanatory Report, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing.

Cunliffe, Daniel/Herring, Susan C. (2005), Introduction to minority languages, multimedia and the web, New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 11:2, 131–137.

Curran, James (2003), Media and power, New York, Taylor & Francis.

Curran, James (2011), Media and democracy, New York, Routledge.

Dobao, Antón (2008), Os modelos orais nos medios de comunicación, in: Elisa Fernández Rei/Xosé Luis Regueira (edd.), Perspectivas sobre a oralidade, Santiago de Compostela, Consello da Cultura Galega/Instituto da Lingua Galega, 219–234.

Domínguez, Ángel/Ramallo, Fernando (2012), Mocidade, lingua e redes sociais, Santiago de Compostela, Xunta de Galicia, <http://www.lingua.gal/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=1647069&name=DLFE-10646.pdf> (14.10.2016).

Duarte, Joana/Gogolin, Ingrid (2013), Introduction: Linguistic superdiversity in educational institutions, in: Joana Duarte/Ingrid Gogolin (edd.), Linguistic superdiversity in urban areas. Research approaches, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 1–24.

Dunbar, Robert/Moring, Tom (2012), Media, in: Alba Nogueira López/Eduardo J. Ruiz Vieytez/Iñigo Urrutia Libarona (edd.), Shaping language rights. Commentary on the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in light of the Committee of Experts’ evaluation, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 373–424.

Eisenlohr, Patrick (2004), Language revitalization and new technologies: Cultures of electronic mediation and the refiguring of communities, Annual Review of Anthropology 33, 21–45.

Fishman, Joshua A. (1991), Reversing language shift, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, Joshua A. (2001), From Theory to Practice (and Vice Versa): Review, Reconsideration and Reiteration, in: Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), Can Threatened Languages be Saved?: Reversing Language Shift, Revisited : A 21st Century Perspective, Clevedon et al., Multilingual Matters, 451–483.

García, Ofelia/Lin, Angel L. M. (32017), Translanguaging in bilingual education, in: Ofelia García/Angel L. M. Lin/Stephen May (edd.), Bilingual and multilingual education, Cham, Springer, 117–130.

García Mateo, Carmen/Arza Rodríguez, Montserrat (2012), The Galician Language in the Digital Age, Berlin, Springer.

Gruffydd Jones, Elin Haf/Uribe-Jongbloed, Enrique (edd.) (2013), Social Media and Minority Languages. Convergence and the Creative Industries, Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto, Multilingual Matters.

Hermida Gulías, Carme (2008), A calidade do galego nos medios de comunicación audiovisuais, in: Miguel Túñez (coord.), Emitindo en dixital: deseños de futuro en radio e television, Santiago de Compostela, Consello Asesor de RTVE en Galicia, 165–176.

Hermida Gulías, Carme (2012), A contribución da radio e da televisión públicas de Galicia á normalización e normativización da lingua galega, in: Margarita Ledo Andión/Xosé López/María Salgueiro (edd.), Anuário Internacional de Comunicação Lusófona 2012, Santiago de Compostela, LUSOCOM/AGACOM, 43–51.

Instituto Galego de Estatística (2013). Enquisa de condicións de vida das familias. Módulo de Lingua galega, Santiago de Compostela, Instituto Galego de Estatística.

Jones, Rhys James/Cunliffe, Daniel/Honeycutt, Zoe R. (2013), Twitter and the Welsh language, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34:7, 653–671.

Kelly-Holmes, Helen (2012), Multilingualism and the media, in: Marilyn Martin-Jones/Adrian Blackledge/Angela Creese (edd.), The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism, London, Routledge, 333–346.

Kelly-Holmes, Helen/Milani, Tommaso M. (edd.) (2013), Thematising Multilingualism in the Media, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins.

Kelly-Holmes, Helen/Moriarty, Máiréad/Pietikäinen, Sari (2009), Convergence and divergence in Basque, Irish and Sámi media language policing, Language Policy 8, 227–242.

Lackaff, Derek/Moner, William J. (2016), Local languages, global networks: Mobile design for minority language users, Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the design of communication, art. n° 14, New York, ACM.

Le, Elisabeth (2015), Media in minority contexts: Toward a research framework, Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies 4:1, 3–24.

Lee, Carmen (2017), Multilingualism online, Oxford, Routledge.

Lema Blanco, Isabel/Meda González, Miriam (2016), Linguistic diversity and communication rights: the role of community media in the promotion of regional or minority languages in Europe, Radio, Sound & Society Journal 1:1, 26–41.

López García, Xosé/Soengas Pérez, Xosé/Rodríguez Vázquez, Ana Isabel (2016), La televisión de proximidadcomoeje de la oferta visual cercana. El papel de TVG de Galicia, adComunica 11, 61–73.

Lorenzo Suárez, Anxo M./Ramallo, Fernando/Casares Berg, Håkan (2008), Lingua, sociedade e medios de comunicación en Galicia, Santiago de Compostela, Consello da Cultura Galega.

Martín Serrano, Manuel (32004), La producción social de comunicación, Madrid, Alianza.

Martin-Jones, Marilyn/Blackledge, Adrian/Creese, Angela (2012), Introduction: A Sociolinguistics of Multilingualism for Our Times, in: Marilyn Martin-Jones/Adrian Blackledge/Angela Creese, The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism, London, Routledge, 1–26.

McMonagle, Sarah (2012), The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: Still relevant in the information age, Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe 11:2, 1–24.

Monteagudo, Henrique/Loredo, Xoaquín/Vázquez, Martín (2017), Lingua e sociedade en Galicia. A evolución sociolingüística 1992–2013, A Coruña, Real Academia Galega.

Moring, Tom (2006), Access of national minorities to the media: new challenges, Strasbourg, Council of Europe.

Moring, Tom (2013), Media Markets and Minority Languages in the Digital Age, Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe 12:4, 34–53.

Negreira Rey, María Cruz/López García, Xosé (2017), Web-native media in Galicia. Trends and characteristics of a booming model, in: Francisco Campos Freire et al. (edd.), Media and metamedia management, Cham, Springer, 121–126.

O’Rourke, Bernadette/Ramallo, Fernando (2013), Competing ideologies of linguistic authority amongst new speakers in contemporary Galicia, Language in Society 42, 287–305.

Observatorio da Cultura Galega (2012), A(s) lingua(s) a debate, Santiago de Compostela, Consello da Cultura Galega.

Pauwels, Anne (2016), Language Maintenance and Shift, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook, Alastair/Otsuji, Emi (2015), Metrolingualism: Language in the City, Abingdon/New York, Routledge.

Pousa, Xosé Ramón (2016), A radio en Galicia 2012–2014: máis emisoras, menos negocio, in: Xosé López García/Rosa Aneiros Díaz, A comunicación en Galicia 2015, Santiago de Compostela, Consello da Cultura Galega, 55–75.

Ramallo, Fernando/Rei-Doval, Gabriel (1997), Vender en galego. Comunicación, empresa e lingua en Galicia, Santiago de Compostela, Consello da Cultura Galega.

Reershemius, Gertrud (2016), Autochthonous heritage languages and social media: writing and bilingual practices in Low German on Facebook, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Online before print, 1–15.

Regueira, Xosé Luis (2010), Dicionario de pronuncia da lingua galega, A Coruña, Real Academia Galega.

Regueira, Xosé Luis (2012), Oralidades: reflexións sobre a lingua falada no século XXI, A Coruña, Real Academia Galega.

Regueira, Xosé Luis (2013), Estándar oral e modelos de lingua, A letra miúda 2, 1–23.

Salawu, Abiodun/Chibita, Monica B. (edd.) (2016), Indigenous language media, language politics and democracy in Africa, Hampshire/New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Salces-Alcalde, Gorka/Amezaga, Josu (2016), Mediacentric spaces and physical spaces in minority language use: A case study on the Basque language press, Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies 8:2, 227–243.

Sheyholislami, Jaffer (2011), Kurdish identity, discourse, and media, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Tagg, Caroline (2015), Exploring digital communication: Language in action, Abingdon, Routledge.

Tobar, Eduardo (2016), Comunidades “online” y revitalización lingüística: el ejemplo de Zamboanga de Antes, PhD thesis, Universidade da Coruña.

Uribe-Jongbloed, Enrique (2011), Estudios de medios de comunicación en idiomas minoritarios y la comunicación para el cambio social: diálogo entre Europa y América Latina, Investigación y Desarrollo 19:1, 2–25.

Uribe-Jongbloed, Enrique (2014), Minority language media studies beyond eurocentrism: Cormack’s seven conditions revisited, Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies 6:1, 35–54.

Uribe-Jongbloed, Enrique (2015), Issues of identity in Minority Language Media production in Colombia and Wales, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37:6, 615–627.

Vaqueiro, Vitor/Xamardo, Nicolás (2017), Da identidade à norma, Santiago de Compostela, Laiovento.

Vertovec, Steven (2007), Super-diversity and its implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies 29:6, 1024–1054.

Vincze, László/Moring, Tom (2013), Towards Ethnolinguistic Identity Gratifications, in: Elin Haf Gruffydd Jones/Enrique Uribe-Jongbloed (edd.), Social Media and Minority Languages. Convergence and the Creative Industries, Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto, Multilingual Matters, 47–57.

Xunta de Galicia (2004), Plan xeral de normalización da lingua galega, Santiago de Compostela, Xunta de Galicia.

Zabaleta, Iñaki, et al. (2008), Language development, knowledge and use among journalists of European minority language media, Journalism Studies 9:2, 195–211.

Zabaleta, Iñaki, et al. (2014), European minority language media and journalism: Framing their marginal reality, International Communication Gazette 76:3, 275–295.