Monografico_1_EN_Doxa_31_Two_explorations_of_hate

the collected comments, we have been able to demonstrate this indeterminacy. When it is asked what Andalusian is, most of the people describe it is an “accent”; and, to a lesser extent, as a “dialect”; and even less as a “speech”.

The concepts of language, dialect and speech hide an ideological background commonly used for discriminatory purposes. This idealistic and fictitious concept of standard language contributes to this discrimination, to which Andalusian and the rest of the varieties are subject. The fact that the Castilian variety is the one that has historically been widely disseminated and imposed for different ideological reasons, has led many of the Spaniards, including Andalusians, to listen with displeasure to other varieties of the same language. Moreover, profane citizens in linguistic matters try to establish themselves, with their opinions, as experts who judge those who deviate from the standard, but not identified with the Castilian variety. Hence there are pejorative opinions such as the following:

Ahora resulta que el Andaluz es un dialecto... en vez de un castellano mal hablado (El Mundo, 08.01.2017).

El andaluz es una deformacion del castellano. No es un dialecto (El Español, 08.01.2017).

Ni el andaluz ni el canario son el idioma español, sino aberraciones del mismo (Voz Libre, 08.28.2014).

[N]o hay forma de entender a un andaluz hablando (El Mundo, 08.01.2017).

Similarly –without the intention of insulting, but with an obvious feeling of superiority– there are other users who define the “Andalusian accent” as “funny”, “peculiar” or “curious”. It is essential to make clear that the mockery is not directed at Andalusian as a linguistic variety, but at people, so that its speakers are the despised and undervalued. The problem is polyhedral and, therefore, its analysis is approached by linguists, but also by sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers...; in short, all those cultivators of the human sciences who pursue social interactions in relation to certain variables as an object of study. Undoubtedly, after the loss of prestige of the Andalusian, there are no linguistic reasons, but rather socio-political ones, since we must bear in mind that “language ideologies represent the perception of language and discourse that is constructed in the interest of a specific social or cultural group” (Kroskrity 2004: 501).

These ideologies, once created, are perpetuated, spread and very difficult to eradicate, even more so when the group suffering from oppression collaborates as an involved party. In fact, about this reality we have also found numerous testimonies of people who define themselves as Andalusians and are ashamed of the way they speak in Andalusia. It seems to be complicit victims, necessary collaborators in the perpetuation of the idea that there is a bad way to speak in the region. For all these reasons, we agree with Pierre Bourdieu (2000: 29) when he states that “[c]ualquier dominación simbólica implica, por parte de los que la sufren, una cierta complicidad”. Martín Rojo (1997: 24) warned that linguistic prejudices lead to a delegitimization of discourses based on excluding “lo que se dice y a quien lo dice, sobre la base de cómo lo dices”. And this is how we detect some comments from Andalusian speakers who agree with the topic that in Andalusia people speak a bad Spanish:

[L]os andaluces tenemos acentos graciosos (Libertad Digital, 11.29.2011).

[L]os andaluces hablamos mal pero tampoco hay que vanagloriarse de ello (El Mundo, 08.01.2017).