Why do some norms take root and others don't? The case of Catalan in the Balearic media

PalmaFor years we have been returning to the same examples: the neutral ‘lo’’, direct complements with ‘a’, prepositions that appear before ‘que’ when grammars insist they shouldn't be there, etc. The examples are well-known and the arguments too. Sometimes, in fact, it gives the impression that the Catalan linguistic conversation is trapped in a kind of loop in which we always end up discussing the same things.

The situation has a certain charm. Anyone who has frequented social networks, WhatsApp groups, or family gatherings must have noticed it at some point. As soon as someone writes ‘lo millor’, says that something ‘està bona’ or claims to be sure ‘de que no vendrà’

arguments that seem preserved in formaldehyde reappear. Someone may remember what the norm says, another defends the real uses of speakers, and there may also be someone who takes the opportunity to lament the state of the language. The examples don't change much (and neither do the participants).

Talking about identity

This tendency to discuss language is not exclusive to Catalan speakers, but among us it seems particularly ingrained. It must be said that this is not by chance. We live in a linguistic community accustomed to thinking about its own language, and the history of Catalan has forced many generations to consider issues that other linguistic communities take for granted. To all of this, another element is added: for many people, talking about language is also a way of talking about identity, culture, and politics without having to do so so explicitly.

Be that as it may, there is a question that we tend to ask much less often. Why do some recommendations take root and others don't? Why are some constructions incorporated with relative ease into formal usage while others continue to generate hesitation after decades of corrections, explanations, and awareness campaigns?

The media offer a good observatory to try to answer this question. They do not represent exactly the spontaneous language of the street, but neither do they represent the completely planned language of administrative or academic texts. They move in an intermediate zone. The language we hear on the radio or television is conditioned by normative recommendations, but also by the habits of professionals, by the haste of live communication, and by the forms that circulate daily among speakers. It is precisely in this intermediate space that some issues reappear time and again.

The best-known case is probably that of the neutral ‘lo’’. Expressions such as ‘lo millor’’, ‘lo més important’’, and ‘lo que passa’’, among others, continue to appear with notable vitality, even though grammars have been recommending alternatives for over a century. The issue is so well-known that it is almost part of what we could call (with apologies to folklorists), ‘Catalan linguistic folklore’. Even people not very interested in linguistics know what is being talked about when the topic comes up.

Something similar happens with prepositions before ‘que’’. Anyone who has attended a Catalan class will surely remember hearing at some point that one should say ‘estic segura que vindrà’’ and not ‘estic segura de que vindrà’’, and ‘m’he adonat que tenia raó’’ and not ‘

m’he adonat de que tenia raó’’. Despite this, these prepositions continue to appear even in relatively formal contexts.

The same can be said of certain direct objects introduced by the preposition ‘a’. Expressions such as ‘we will interview the president’ and ‘they have invited the participants’ are common in the media. And, in some cases, normative alternatives may be less intuitive for those who have grown up systematically hearing the construction with a preposition.

These phenomena have one characteristic in common: they do not disappear even though the recommendations are known. To some extent, they are part of the linguistic habits of many people, including people with language studies, media professionals, and speakers with a clear linguistic awareness.

This forces us to go a little beyond simple explanations. If everything depended on ignorance of the norm, these cases would probably have been resolved long ago. If everything depended on a lack of interest in formal usage, it would also not be understood why they appear precisely in contexts where language is the subject of special attention.

Perhaps that is why it is worth looking at the problem from another perspective. When we think about the influence of one language on another, we usually think, above all, about words. Lexical loans are visible, easily detected, generate comments (and sometimes controversies). Syntax is another matter. We don't usually stop to think about the order of complements, prepositions, and the structures we use to relate ideas. They are much less visible elements and, precisely because of this, they often go unnoticed.

Syntax, more resistant

However, when two languages coexist for a long time, the contact does not necessarily stop at vocabulary. Sometimes it goes deeper, into parts that, in principle, seem more stable. While words enter and leave with relative ease, syntax tends to be more resistant, slower, and deeper.

This does not mean that Catalan is in danger every time someone says ‘lo millor’’ nor that Catalan syntax is falling apart. However, between the apocalyptic view and absolute indifference, there is an interesting space from which to observe these phenomena.

It should be taken into account that, after all, these hesitations explain things. They tell us which languages speakers know, in which contexts they use them, which structures they have heard all their lives, and to what extent language normalization processes coexist with social dynamics much broader than any grammar.