3rd Sociolinguistic Map - euskara.euskadi.eus · 3rd Sociolinguistic Map 2001 Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2005 Eusko Jaurlaritzaren Argitalpen Zerbitzu Nagusia Servicio Central de Publicaciones

3rd Sociolinguistic Map

2001

Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2005

Eusko Jaurlaritzaren Argitalpen Zerbitzu Nagusia

Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco

KULTURA SAILA DEPARTAMENTO DE CULTURA

First published in February 2005

Print run: 500 copies

© Administración de la Comunidad Autónoma del País VascoDepartamento de Cultura

Internet: www.euskadi.net

Edited by: Eusko Jaurlaritzaren Argitalpen Zerbitzu Nagusia Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco Donostia-San Sebastián, 1 - E-01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz

Filmsetting by: Ipar, S. Coop. Zurbaran, 2-4 - E-48007 Bilbao

Printed by: Grafo, S.A.Avda. Cervantes, 51 - E-48970 Basauri (Bizkaia)

ISBN: 84-457-2239-5

Legal record: BI-588-05

3rd Sociolinguistic Map, 2001. – 1st ed. – Vitoria-Gasteiz : Eusko Jaurlaritzaren Argitalpen Zer-bitzu Nagusia = Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco, 2005

p. ; cm. + mapa y 1 CD-ROMISBN: 84-457-2239-5

1. Lengua vasca-Estadísticas. 2. Sociolingüística-Euskadi-Estadísticas. I. Euskadi. Departa-mento de Cultura.809.169(083.41)801:316(460.15)(083.41)

Contents

O. Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

I. Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. Spatial framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.1. Structure, surface area, location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2. Distribution and evolution of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.1. Distribution and density of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.2. Evolution of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.3. Population pyramid (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.4. Size and distribution of the population centres (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3. Origin of the population (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164. Educational teaching models in the BAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

II. Language competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1. The current situation regarding language competence (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271.2. Language competence according to municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291.3. Language competence according to age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301.4. The recovery of the Basque language, a young, urban phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2. Evolution of language competence (1981-2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.2. Evolution of language competence according to municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.3. Evolution of language competence according to age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

III. Language mobility index (BILA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

1. The current situation regarding the BILA index (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451.2. The BILA index according to municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5

1.3. Losses and gains in the Basque language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501.4. The BILA index according to age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521.5. The BILA index according to age and municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551.6. Losses and gains in the Basque language according to age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

2. Evolution of the BILA index (1986-2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612.2. Evolution of the BILA index according to age (1986-2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

IV. Index of the language used at home, ERABIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

1. Current situation regarding the ERABIL index (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671.2. Analysis according to municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 701.3. The ERABIL index according to age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 701.4. The language used at home, according to the density of bilingual speakers in the home . . . . . . . . . 72

V. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

VI. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

6

2001 3rd Sociolinguistic Map

Preface

A few months ago we presented the results of the Third Sociolinguistic Survey. The survey fieldwork wascarried out in 2001 and readers can access the information both in printed format (with the title TheContinuity of Basque III) or via the internet (www.euskara.euskadi.net). We are now offering readers who wishto know about the evolution of Basque a new piece of work: the Third Sociolinguistic Map. Both of themprovide us with information from 2001. They are complementary pieces of research, although there is onenotable difference between them: the Survey provided data on the whole of the Basque Country, whilst thepresent document is limited to the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC). Be that as it may, thesecomplementary pieces of work provide us with an appropriate tool to understand what course the results ofthe language policy that, over recent years, has been carried out and is being carried out in the BAC aretaking. And, moreover, to understand whether that course needs correction.

First of all, we are given information on the structure of the population of the BAC. In this regard, bearing inmind the influence of the education system, the distribution of school children, that is to say their distributionin the different bilingual educational models, is also presented.

Subsequently, we are given information on the language competence of Basque citizens, once againaccording to the 2001 census. That competence has evolved not only over time (we are shown the evolutionover the period 1981-2001), but also geographically. In this respect, this Map shows us the present situation,providing data by municipality. Finally, one can also examine this evolution from the standpoint of age. In thisregard, the Map portrays the losses and gains of Basque for us.

The census data also provide us with other sorts of information on Basque, i.e. on the degree to whichBasque is the language of the home. In fact, the main source of new Basque speakers is schooling, but weneed to know how far the Basque learnt at school is reaching the home. Basque cannot be restricted to theschool.

In short, that is the information the reader will find in this book. Conclusions will be able to be drawn from thedata provided. For example, we will be able to determine which areas we are doing best in and which onesrequire renewed effort. Year by year, the map of Basque is changing and we need information about thatchange.

Ms Miren AZKARATE VILLARMinister of Culture

Basque Government

7

I.Presentation

1.

Spatial framework

1.1. Structure, surface area, location

The Basque Autonomous Community (BAC), aregion of Spain that is part of the traditional

Basque Country, is made up by the Historical Terri-tories of Álava/Araba, Biscay and Gipuzkoa, and hasa total surface area of around 7,000 km2. It is loca-ted at the north of the Iberian Peninsula and is bor-dered by the Bay of Biscay to the north and flankedby the Pyrenees and the Cantabrian Mountain Range.

The Bay of Biscay – Mediterranean watershed runsthrough the region from east to west, dividing it intotwo halves with very different geographies andclimates. The result is that a wide variety of differentlandscapes can be found in a relatively small area.

11

Presentation

Figure 1. Location of the Basque Autonomous Community

2.

Distribution and evolutionof the population

2.1. Distribution and density of the population

According to a census carried out in 2001, thepopulation of the BAC totals 2,082,587, with a

density of 287.9 inhabitants per km2.

This population is distributed irregularly among thethree territories. Biscay, with more than a millioninhabitants (1,122,387) contains just over half of theentire population (53.9%), giving it an average densityof over 500 inhabitants per km2 (506.4). Gipuzkoa,with 673,563 inhabitants, encompasses just under athird of the population (32.3%) and has a somewhatlower density, 340.2 inhabitants per km2. Finally,despite being the largest territory, Araba has thesmallest population, and therefore a much lowerdensity of just 94.3 inhabitants per km2.

As regards municipalities, of the 250 municipalities inthe region, 51 are located in Araba, 111 in Biscayand 88 in Gipuzkoa. If we analyse them according tosize, we see that Araba is characterised by thesmallness of its municipalities; nearly 90% have lessthan 2,000 inhabitants, while in Biscay and Gipuzkoa,the municipalities of this size account (in each case)for just over half of the total. Medium-sized muni-cipalities, of between 2,000 and 10,000 inhabitants,account for around 25% in both cases and the diffe-rence lies in the medium-large (10,000-25,000 inhabi-

12


Figure 2. Population and surface area of the Historical Territories Figure 3. Evolution of the population, 1960-2001

Source: EUSTAT. 2001 Population and Housing Census and own sources. Source: EUSTAT.

0

125,000

250,000

375,000

500,000

625,000

750,000

875,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1991

Araba

1,000,000

1,125,000

1,250,000

Inhabitants

Biscay

Gipuzkoa

1981 1986 1996 2001

years

Biscay

BAC

Inh.: 2,082,587Sur.: 7,234 km2

Den.: 287.9 h/km2

Inh.: 1,122,637Sur.: 2,217 km2

Den.: 506.4 h/km2

Inh.: 286,387Sur.: 3,037 km2

Den.: 94.3 h/km2

Inh.: 673,563Sur.: 1,980 km2

Den.: 340.2 h/km2

Araba

Gipuzkoa

tants) and large (over 25,000 inhabitants) municipalities,with the percentage of the former being greater inGipuzkoa (17% vs 8.1%), whereas Biscay has moremunicipalities with over 25,000 inhabitants (9% vs4.6%).

2.2. Evolution of the population

Between 1960 and 1975, the population in-creased continuously in all the territories, with

the most intense growth taking place in the moreindustrialised regions. This process slowed with theadvent of the industrial crisis in the middle of the 70sand changed substantially from the beginning of the80s onwards. After this date, the population stabili-sed and even dropped, especially in the case ofBiscay. This was due to a series of factors includingthe economic crisis, the drop in birthrate and thereversal, in some cases, of migratory movements. Inthis sense, the population of the BAC has droppedby almost 60,000 inhabitants over the last 20 years,a decrease of almost 3 percent.

The situation varies in each territory. Between 1981and 2001 population of Araba increased by 11%,while that of Gipuzkoa dropped by 3% and that ofBiscay decreased by 6%.

2.3. Population pyramid (2001)

Over recent years, the main characteristic of theevolution of the population in the BAC has

been its general ageing as a result of an extremelylow birthrate. This, combined with other factors suchas a certain flow of in-migrants returning to their pla-ces of origin, has brought about the stabilisation andeven the decrease of the population.

One positive indicator is that, according to the 2001Census, for the first time in the last 20 years, the

youngest age group (0-4 years) is actually largerthan the group immediately above (5-9 years).

Although not enough time has yet passed to confirmthis, it seems that the drop in birthrate has slowed,and if the trend continues, we may be looking at thestart of a long, slow process of demographic reco-very.

The trends that can be seen in the BAC pyramid arerepeated with no significant variations in each of thethree historical territories.

13

Presentation

Figure 4. Population pyramid for the BAC

Source: EUSTAT.

90 and over

85-89

80-84

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

15-19

10-14

5-9

<5

ageMen Women

%5 4 3 2 1 0 %543210

2.4. Size and distribution of the population centres (2001)

The majority of the municipalities in the BAC aresmall, with 60.8% of them having 2,000 inhabi-

tants or less.

As we can see on the map, the historical territorieshave an uneven population distribution, the mostnotable example being the extreme polarisation inAraba, where almost 90% of the municipalities aresmall, while the capital, Vitoria-Gasteiz, encom-passes practically 75% of the entire population.

There is also a certain polarisation in Biscay, in thearea around Gran Bilbao, although it is much lessextreme. Gipuzkoa, on the other hand, has a moreeven distribution, in which the so-called medium-sized cities play a key role. These cities containbetween 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants and en-compass almost half of the population.

All this can be seen clearly on the map, where majorpopulation concentrations in the three capitals andmetropolitan areas are juxtaposed with large emptyspaces corresponding to areas that have beenmarginalised with respect to the main communicationroutes. These communication routes can easily betraced by simply following the medium-sized po-pulation centres, which line both the Irun-Bilbaomotorway and the National-1 dual carriageway whichruns through Gipuzkoa. In addition to these centres,the region also contains a number of so-called localcapitals (Bermeo, Gernika, Mungia, etc.) which are inturn located along secondary roads.

14


Figure 5. Distribution of the population according to municipality

Source: EUSTAT.

BilbaoInh.: 349,972

OrexaInh.: 83

The map shows the structure of the urban network,its density in the different territories and its relation-ship to the road network.

The urban framework is characterised by a closemesh, with a high density of medium-sized centresin Gipuzkoa, and a much more open structure inBiscay. In Araba, this network is practically non-existent due to the immense pull of the capital city.

As regards the metropolitan areas, that of Bilbao hasa denser urban network and a greater range thanthat of Donostia-San Sebastián.

15

Presentation

Figure 6. Diagram of the urban network of the BAC

Source: EUSTAT.

M.A. Population

> 100.000

50.000-99.000

25.000-49.000

10.000-24.000

Donostia-SanSebastián

Lasarte-Oria

AndoainHernani

Errenteria

Irun

HondarribiaPasaia

Donostia-S.S. M.A.

Bilbao MetropolitanArea

Donostia-San SebastiánMetropolitan Area

Vitoria-Gasteiz

MungiaBermeo

Gernika-Lumo

Amorebieta-Etxano

Durango

Arrasate-Mondragón

Llodio

ErmuaEibar Elgoibar

AzkoitiaAzpeitia

Bergara

Beasain

Zumarraga

Legazpi

Oñati

Ordizia

Zarautz

Ondarroa

Tolosa

Bilbao M.A.

Santurtzi

Getxo Sopelana

LeioaErandio

Bilbao

Galdakao

Basauri

PortugaleteSestao

BarakaldoArrigorriaga

V. de Trapaga/Trapagaran

3.

Origin of the population(2001)

When analysing the structure of the populationaccording to origin, we found that, according

to the 2001 Population and Housing Census, of the2,082,587 inhabitants of the BAC, 27% (564,656)had been born outside the region.

Of these 564,656 non-native residents1, the majority(52.9%) came from one of the bordering regions:Navarre, Rioja, Cantabria or Castile and Leon, withthis last region accounting for 40% of this group.

In addition to these regions, other places of origininclude those regions that have a traditionally highrate of emigration: Extremadura (11.9%), Galicia(9.9%) and Andalusia (7.1%).

We should also highlight the number of peopleresident in the BAC who were born abroad (49,030).This group constitutes 8.6% of the non-native po-pulation (2.3% of total population), and is the fourthlargest non-native group.

The main places of origin for the non-native popu-lation are the same in the three Historical Territories,although the figures oscillate somewhat depending

16


Figure 7. Non-native population of the BAC, according Figure 8. Non-native population in Araba, according to placeto place of birth. 2001 (%) of birth. 2001 (%)

Source: NSI. 2001 Population and Housing Census.

Navarre

La Rioja

Galicia

Cantabria

Principality of Asturias

Andalusia

Extremadura

Castile and Leon

Castile-La Mancha

Madrid Region

Aragon

Catalonia

Other aut. com.

Abroad

Autonomous Communityof birth

1.1

8.9

6.52.3

8.9

5.7

1.11.2

2.32.0

1.07.7

39.6

11.5

1.2

4.0

9.9

4.8

8.6

5.3

1.21.3

2.22.5

1.37.1

38.8

11.9

1 The concept of the “non-native” population refers solely toplace of birth.

0 Mapa Sociolinguistico III (I) 15/3/05 17:01 Página 16

on the individual characteristics of each of theseterritories.

Araba, with a figure of 32.2%, has the highest non-native population in the BAC. In general terms, itsdata coincide with those of the BAC in general, withCastile and Leon being the number one place of non-native origin, followed by Extremadura. However, weshould point out the significant reduction in thenumber of people born in the Cantabrian area, aswell as the importance acquired by the neighbouringregion of La Rioja (8.9%), which is the birthplace of

the third largest group of non-native residents, alongwith those born abroad (also 8.9%).

The percentage of the non-native population inBiscay (27%) is similar to the average, and the mainnon-native regions of birth are the same as for theBAC in general: Castile and Leon, Galicia, Extrema-dura and abroad. Nevertheless, we should underlinethe greater presence of residents from the Cantabrianarea, and the lower presence of Navarre and LaRioja. All other regions have near average values.

Finally, Gipuzkoa is the territory with the lowestpercentage of non-native residents (23.3%), withCastile and Leon (as in previous cases) being thenumber one region of origin (31.5%), followed byExtremadura, some distance behind. The mostimportant element here is the high percentage ofthose born in the neighbouring region of Navarre,with a figure of 11.5%, double that of the average forthe BAC in general. This region is the place of birthof the third largest non-native group. The number ofGipuzkoan residents born abroad is also the highest

17

Presentation

Figure 9. Non-native population in Biscay, according Figure 10. Non-native population in Gipuzkoa, accordingto place of birth. 2001 (%) to place of birth. 2001 (%)


1.2

3.4

9.0

2.0

9.2

11.5

1.51.7

2.62.3

1.25.7

31.5

17.2

Navarre

La Rioja

Galicia

Cantabria

Principality of Asturias

Andalusia

Extremadura

Castile and Leon

Castile-La Mancha

Madrid Region

Aragon

Catalonia

Other aut. com.

Abroad

Autonomous Communityof birth

1.1

2.9

11.3

7.0

8.1

2.0

1.01.0

2.02.8

1.57.6

42.1

9.3

in the BAC, and this group occupies fourth position,along with those born in Galicia.

If we analyse the group of foreign residents2 living inthe BAC, we see that it consists of 30,017 people,according to the data provided by the NSI (NationalStatistics Institute) in its 2001 Population and Hou-sing Census. This figure may seem merely symbolic,but in fact, the trend detected over recent years inrelation to the arrival of foreign citizens in the BACshows a gradual increase which, if it continues, mayresult in this group having a much greater weightwithin the population as a whole.

Therefore, this phenomenon should be taken intoconsideration and, although it may still be somewhatearly to carry out an in-depth analysis, we shouldpay attention to both its evolution and the effectsthat the social-demographic and cultural peculiaritiesof this group may have in our society.

In confirmation of the above, we can state that54.9% (16,493) of all foreign citizens living in theBAC in 2001 arrived between 1996 and 2001. Thosethat arrived during this last year outnumber those whoarrived in 1996 by almost five to one.

As regards the analysis according to HistoricalTerritory, the distribution of foreigners correspondsto the demographic weight of each territory (54%,32% and 14% of the population, respectively), with50% (15,054) being concentrated in Biscay, 31%(9,282) in Gipuzkoa and 19% (5,681) in Araba. Fi-nally, the proportion of foreigners in relation to thetotal population in each of the territories is fairlysimilar, oscillating between 1.4% and 2%, althoughthere are some differences as regards the processof arrival, as we will see below.

Araba is the territory with the highest proportion ofrecent arrivals, since almost two thirds of residents(64%) arrived during the 1996-2001 period. At thebeginning, the number of arrivals was fairly low,increasing sharply from 1999 onwards. Indeed, in1999, the number of arrivals was three times that for1996. In 2001, this number was almost five times ashigh as in 1996.

The group of foreign citizens in Biscay has beenliving there for slightly longer than the group in Araba,since the percentage of people who arrived between

18


Figure 11. Evolution of the number of foreigners arriving in the BAC between 1996 and 2001. Year by year and accumulative data


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

1996 20011997 1998 1999 2000

Cumulative total

2 Foreign: those people who have a single nationality other thanSpanish.

1996 and 2001 is just 57%. Nevertheless, we shouldbear in mind that, of all those who arrived during thisperiod, over 56% did so in the last two years.

Finally, in Gipuzkoa only 46% of foreign residentsarrived during the 1996-2001 period. Nevertheless,in general terms, the intensity of the process in allthree territories during this period is similar: after asharp increase during 1998 and 1999, the number ofarrivals tailed off slightly, although Araba experiencedanother sharp increase in the year 2001.

In any case, the phenomenon is a recent processwith a generally upward trend that, for the moment,does not seem to be affected by the specific upsand downs observed.

19

Presentation

Figure 12. Evolution of the number of foreigners arriving in the Historical Territories between 1996 and 2001. Year by year and cumulative data


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1996 20011997 1998 1999 20000

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

1996 20011997 1998 1999 2000

Cumulative totalCumulative total

Biscay Gipuzkoa

1996 20011997 1998 1999 2000

Araba

Cumulative total

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

4.

Educational teachingmodels in the BAC

a) Current situation in the BAC

If we analyse the distribution of students in non-university education in the BAC, we see that during

the 2002-03 academic year, the D model (Basquemedium with Spanish as subject) accounts for thehighest percentage (47%), followed by the A model3

(Spanish medium with Basque as subject) with 30%and the B model (Spanish and Basque medium) with22%.

The distribution of students among the different modelsvaries according to Historical Territory (HT), withAraba having the lowest percentage of students inthe D model (30%), and Gipuzkoa having the highest(over 60%).

The distribution also varies noticeably from one levelto another. According to the data obtained fromEUSTAT4, the lower the teaching level, the higherthe number of students enrolled in the D model. Thisgeneral trend has been detected (with different levelsof intensity) in all three Historical Territories.

With regard to Preprimary Education in the BACduring the 2002-2003 academic year, 60% of stu-dents were enrolled in the D model, while the figure

20


3 The X model (with no Basque taught) is now a merely residualoption, and its students have been added to those studying in theA model.

4 EUSTAT. “Students according to level and bilingual teachingmodel. 2002-2003” table.

Figure 13. Students according to level and teaching model. BAC. 2002-2003

Figure 14. Infant education according to model. 2002-2003

Source: EUSTAT.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BAC GipuzkoaAraba Biscay

Educationalmodels

«A»

«B»

«D»

100 80 60 40 20 0 10080604020%

Vocational Training

Post compulsorysecondary

Secondary (ESO)

Primary

Infant

21

Presentation

Figure 15. Primary education according to model. 2002-2003 Figure 16. Compulsory Secondary Education (DBH) according to model. 2002-2003

Figure 17. Post compulsory Secondary. 2002-2003 Figure 18. Vocational Training according to model. 2002-2003

Source: EUSTAT.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Educationalmodels

«A»

«B»

«D»

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BAC GipuzkoaAraba Biscay0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


for those enrolled in the A model did not even reach10%. In the HTs, the percentage of students enrolledin the D model oscillates between over 75% in Gi-puzkoa to almost 40% in Araba. The A model is, inall cases, the model with the lowest percentage ofstudents, with a maximum figure of 20%. We shouldunderline the high percentage of students enrolled inthe B model in Araba (46.7%), where this model is themost popular option.

The D model is the most popular also in PrimaryEducation, accounting for over half of all students inthe BAC, while the A model accounts for no morethan 20%. As regards the HTs, the trends as regardsdistribution are similar to those described for InfantEducation.

In the next level, DBH (equivalent to secondary school),during the 2002-03 academic year, the percentagesfor the number of students enrolled in the B and Dmodels were 30% and 40% respectively. Over 30%of students were enrolled in the A model. If we ana-lyse the data according to territory, we see that Arabaand Biscay are fairly similar, and the D model is thesecond most popular option, with the A model takingfirst place. In Gipuzkoa, however, the D model is theclear favourite.

As regards academic post compulsory secondaryeducation, the A model is the most popular (55%).This is true also for both Araba and Biscay. In Gipuz-koa, however, the most popular model is the D model,encompassing nearly 60% of all students. The Bmodel also has a certain weight (5%).

Vocational Training (VT) or Further Education in theBAC can be considered a special case, since themodel-based distribution is noticeably different from

the other educational levels. Only 13.6% of studentsare enrolled in the D model, the presence of the Bmodel is merely symbolic (3.5%) and the vast majorityof students opt for the A model (82.9%). Never-theless, as in the previous cases, there is a clear diffe-rence between Araba and Biscay on the one hand,and Gipuzkoa on the other. In Gipuzkoa, the percen-tage of students studying in the D model is almost20 percent higher than the average for the BAC(30.7% vs. 13.6%), while the figure for the A modelis below the regional average (64.5 vs. 82.9%).

b) Evolution of enrolment according to model,1983-84 to 2002-03

Over the last 20 years, the evolution of en-rolment according to language models at all

levels and in all areas shows an inverse trend of theD and A models, with a sharp increase in the num-ber of students opting for the D model, a less pro-nounced increase in those choosing the B modeland an uninterrupted, fairly sharp drop in thoseenrolling in the A model.

22


Figure 19. Evolution of enrolment according to language model. 1983-84 to 2002-2003

Source: EUSTAT and the Government Dept. of Education.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Model A

School years

Model B

Model D

1983

-84

1987

-88

1991

-92

1985

-86

1989

-90

1993

-94

1995

-96

1997

-98

1999

-00

2001

-02

1984

-85

1988

-89

1992

-93

1986

-87

1990

-91

1994

-95

1996

-97

1998

-99

2000

-01

2002

-03

In general terms, in the BAC, the A model has droppedfrom 78% during the 1983-84 academic year to just31% during the 2002-03 academic year, a decreaseof 47 percent. This sharp drop in the A model isdistributed unevenly between the other two models.During the same period, the number of studentsopting for the B model rose from 8.1% to 22.4%(+14.3%) while those choosing the D model rosefrom 14.2% to 46.5% (+32.3%).

During the first decade, the B and D models evolvedin parallel, undergoing a similar increase in bothcases. However, during the second decade, the risein the D model increased sharply, while that of the Bmodel slowed down slightly. Therefore, while duringthe first growth period both showed percentages ofaround 10-12%, during the second period, the Dmodel rose by 20% while the B model increased byonly 5%. The drop in the A model remained constantthroughout the entire period.

From the 1999-2000 academic year onwards, the Dmodel, which accounted for 41% of students, becamethe largest group, a position which then becamegradually more consolidated over the following years.

In Pre-school and Preprimary Education, the generaltrend is similar, although the initial correlation (in1983-84) between the different models is different:the D model and the B model had similar per-centages (26% and 23% respectively), whereas theA model accounted for 50% of all students. This less

23

Presentation

Figure 20. Evolution of enrolments in Pre-school and Preprimary Figure 21. Evolution of enrolments in Primary Education Education according to language models. 1983-84 to 2002-03 according to language models. 1983-84 to 2002-2003

Source: EUSTAT.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Model A

School years

Model B

Model D

1983

-84

1987

-88

1991

-92

1985

-86

1989

-90

1993

-94

1995

-96

1997

-98

1999

-00

2001

-02

1984

-85

1988

-89

1992

-93

1986

-87

1990

-91

1994

-95

1996

-97

1998

-99

2000

-01

2002

-03

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Model A

School years

Model B

Model D

1983

-84

1987

-88

1991

-92

1985

-86

1989

-90

1993

-94

1995

-96

1997

-98

1999

-00

2001

-02

1984

-85

1988

-89

1992

-93

1986

-87

1990

-91

1994

-95

1996

-97

1998

-99

2000

-01

2002

-03

pronounced difference between the models meantthat the turning point at which the A model lost itsleading position arrived much earlier (1988-89 aca-demic year). During the 1991-92 academic year, theD model became the largest group, with a percen-tage of around 37%. The intensification of the growthof the D model from the 1992-93 academic yearonwards has served to consolidate this position, andduring the 2002-03 academic year, it accounted for60% of the entire student population. The B modelhas been the second largest group for the past 15years, a position it has maintained with minor va-riations oscillating between 25% and 35%. After itssharp drop, the A model accounted for just 10% ofthe student population during the 2002-03 acade-mic year.

In relation to Primary Education, the trends aresimilar to those described above. The D model hasrisen sharply from 15% to over 50%, while the B modelhas undergone a less pronounced change, risingfrom 7% to 30%. The drop in students opting for theA model is even more intense than in the previousstage, falling from nearly 80% at the beginning of theperiod (1982-83 academic year) to under 20% in2002-03.

24


II.Language competence

1.

The current situationregarding languagecompetence (2001)

1.1. Introduction1

The language competence variable refers to anindividual’s level of basic language skills in

relation to Basque (comprehension, reading, writingand speaking).

By crossing the different states of these variables,we have established a typology of 3 main groups:bilingual speakers, passive bilingual speakers andmonolingual non-Basque speakers. The main differen-ce between the groups is their mastery of the spokenlanguage. In this sense, bilingual speakers are thosewho speak Basque well or fairly well, passive bilingualspeakers are those who speak the language withdifficulty but understand it well, and monolingualnon-Basque speakers are those who do not speak thelanguage at all.

In accordance with these types and on the basis ofthe information provided by the 2001 Population andHousing Census, we can state that in the BasqueAutonomous Community, the group of monolingualnon-Basque speakers (i.e. those who do not speakBasque) accounts for more or less half of the po-pulation (49.6%). Almost one third (32.2%) speak thelanguage correctly (i.e. belong to the bilingual group)and the remaining 18.2% are passive bilingual speakers.

If we analyse the distribution according to HT, wesee that Araba and Biscay have a lower-than-average percentage of bilingual speakers (16% and24.8% respectively), and a higher-than-averagepercentage of monolingual non-Basque speakers.The group of passive bilingual speakers is similar inboth territories and is above the average in bothcases. As regards Gipuzkoa, the distribution is verydifferent, since the bilingual group is well above the

average for the BAC and accounts for over half ofthe population. On the other hand, the percentageof both passive bilingual speakers and, especially,monolingual non-Basque speakers is well below theaverage. This difference in the distribution of thepopulation is due to the different sociolinguistic cha-racteristics of each territory, and has been that waysince the first census data regarding language be-came available.

27

Language competence

1 The whole study refers only to citizens aged 5 or over.

Figure 22. Language Competence in the BAC. 2001

Source: EUSTAT. 2001 Population and Housing Census.

18.2%32.2%

49.6%

Bilinguals

Passive bilinguals

Monolingual non-Basquespeakers

28


Figure 23. Language competence in the historical territories. 2001


Araba Biscay

Gipuzkoa

16.0%

19.6%

64.3%

19.8%24.8%

55.4%

33.6%

51.5%

14.9%

Bilinguals

Passive bilinguals


1.2. Language competence according to municipality

The distribution of the municipalities according totheir percentage of bilingual speakers shows a

number of clearly differentiated areas.

The most Basque-speaking zone, whose municipalitiesare characterised by their small size and rural nature,is that zone in which the Basque-speaking populationaccounts for over 80% of all inhabitants. This zonecomprises two compact areas, the first located inthe NE of Biscay, encompassing the entire Markina-Ondarroa area and most of the Gernika-Bermeoarea; and the second is located in the centre of Gipuz-koa, encompassing most of the Urola Kosta, Goierriand Tolosaldea areas. In general terms, we could saythat the larger coastal municipalities and those loca-ted along the Tolosa-Beasain corridor are excludedfrom this zone.

In addition to the two areas mentioned above, thereis also another region comprised by the municipalitieslocated in the Arratia valley, and several of the munici-palities bordering the Duranguesado area, as well asAramaio, the only municipality in Araba that belongsto this category. Finally, there are also a number ofisolated municipalities, although in general, they tendto be located near the areas described above.

The zones with a Basque-speaking population ofbetween 50% and 80% tend to be located in thegaps between the areas described above. The result isa greater compacting of the space which encompassespractically all of Gipuzkoa, with the exception of Donos-tia-San Sebastián and a few of the municipalities inits Metropolitan Area, and the eastern half of Biscay,with, again, the exception of a few isolated municipalities.

The municipalities with a percentage of bilingualspeakers of between 25% and 50% constitute thesmallest group in the BAC and are generally scatte-red around the region in an isolated manner, withthe exception of a small concentration located in thearea around Donostia-San Sebastián and anotheralong the Plentzia-Txorierri-Bajo Ibaizabal line (Ba-sauri-Galdakao), which delimits the “line of contact”between Bilbao Handia (Greater Bilbao) and themore Basque-speaking neighbouring areas.

Finally, the areas with a concentration of bilingualspeakers of less than 25% encompass practicallythe whole of Araba and a large part of the westernhalf of Biscay, with municipalities with a level ofbetween 10% and 25% being the most numerous inalmost all this latter area, with the exception of Ba-rakaldo and some municipalities in Enkarterria. InAraba also, the majority of the municipalities have apercentage of bilingual speakers of between 10%and 25%, with those with the lowest percentages

29

Language competence

Figure 24. Percentage of bilingual speakers according to municipality. 2001


Percentage

>– 80

50-79.9

25-49.9

10-24.9

0.1-9.9

0

being mainly concentrated in the western-most areas:Ribera Alavesa, Montaña Alavesa and, particularly,Valles Alaveses.

1.3. Language competence according to age

The language competence according to agegraph clearly shows three clearly differentiated

moments; firstly, you can see how the percentage ofbilingual speakers among the older age groups gra-dually drops until it reaches a minimum of around 20%,in the 50 to 60-year-old age group.

From this moment on, there is a gradual increase inthe percentages, with the figures rising slowly at first and then more quickly, until they reach theirmaximum level in the youngest age groups: over60% of the population aged between 5 and 14 isbilingual.

As regards the Historical Territories, in general termsthe data for all three are similar to those for the BAC,although they differ slightly in accordance with eachterritory’s individual characteristics. In Araba, thepercentage of bilingual speakers is lower in the olderand mid-range age groups. Only those under the

age of 30 show percentages near or over 20, andthere is a sharp increase among the youngest agegroups. The data for Biscay are more or less the sameas for the BAC in general. In Gipuzkoa, on the otherhand, we should highlight the high percentage of bilin-gual speakers in all age groups, with no group showinga figure of under 40%.

As regards the municipalities, practically all of themreflect the general trends identified above for thedifferent territories. Nevertheless, given their demo-graphic importance, a brief analysis of the three capitalsof the BAC is given below.

30


Figure 25. BAC. Language competence according to age, 2001 Figure 26. Araba. Language competence according to age, 2001


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

Bilinguals

Passive bilinguals


Language competence

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

As you can see, the graph corresponding to Vitoria-Gasteiz is practically identical to that of Araba ingeneral; this is due to the fact that the vast majorityof the population lives in the capital city. As evidentin the graph, the situation is characterised by theyouth of the bilingual population, the majority of whomare aged under 20. The presence of bilingual speakersin the over 50 age groups is almost non-existent.Another important element is the high percentage of passive bilingual speakers, generally in the under30 age groups.

The situation in Bilbao is very similar to that of Vitoria-Gasteiz, the only significant difference being the higherpercentage of bilingual speakers among the older agegroups.

Finally, the situation in Donostia-San Sebastián differssignificantly from both the other two capitals and Gi-puzkoa in general. In the Gipuzkoan capital, the diffe-rence between the different age groups is morenoticeable and the percentages of bilingual speakersare significantly lower that those for the territory as awhole. Nevertheless, in comparison with the other

capitals, Donostia-San Sebastián occupies the sameposition as Gipuzkoa among the other territories, withhighest percentages of bilingual speakers and thelowest percentage of passive bilingual speakers,particularly among the younger generations.

In summary then, we can say that, with the exceptionof the oldest age groups, the general trends are fairlysimilar, reflecting a gradual increase in the number ofboth bilingual speakers and passive bilingual speakersfrom the mid-range groups to the youngest gene-rations.

31

Language competence

Figure 27. Gipuzkoa. Lang. competence according to age, 2001 Figure 28. Biscay. Language competence according to age, 2001


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

Bilinguals

Passive bilinguals


Language competence

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

32


Figure 29. Vitoria-Gasteiz. Language competence according to age, 2001

Figure 30. Bilbao. Language competence according to age, 2001 Figure 31. Donostia-San Sebastián. Language competence according to age, 2001


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

Bilinguals

Passive bilinguals


Language competence

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

1.4. The recovery of the Basque language,a young, urban phenomenon

Two factors have stood out throughout both theanalysis of the current situation of bilingual

speakers and the analysis according to age: thespecial link between bilingual speakers and themetropolitan areas and the sharper increase amongthe younger age groups. Are these two factors really

the key features of the process that has been takingplace over the last 20 years? Can we affirm that theincrease in bilingual speakers is really a young, urbanphenomenon?

In the year 2001, the age groups in the BAC inwhich bilingual speakers constituted the majority (i.e.accounted for over 50% of all citizens in the group)were those corresponding to the population aged

between 5 and 19 (5-9, 10-14 and 15-19). Fur-thermore, we should also add that the percentageincreases as we move down the age scale. In the15-19 age group, 56.3% are bilingual; in the groupaged between 10 and 14, this percentage rises to65.5%, almost as high as the percentage for theyoungest age group (5-9): 65.9%. Moreover, it is notonly that the younger age groups contain the highestpercentages of bilingual speakers; in absolute num-

33

Language competence

Figure 32. Age pyramids for language competence. BAC, 2001


In percentagesAge groups

% 100 75 50 25 100 %7550250

>=85

80-84

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

15-19

10-14

5-9

In absolute numbersAge groups

125 75 50 25 1257550250

>=85

80-84

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

15-19

10-14

5-9

100miles 100 miles

Bilinguals

Passive bilinguals


Language competence

bers also, the highest number of bilingual speakersis concentrated in the under 30 age groups. In fact,almost half of all bilingual speakers in the BAC(47.6%) are encompassed within these age groups.

As regards the urban nature of the phenomenon, wehave already mentioned the high number of bilingualspeakers located in the capital cities. In fact, thecapitals account for just over 20% of all bilingualspeakers in the region (21.9%). If we widen this areato include centres with over 20,000 inhabitants (17 mu-nicipalities), then the percentage rises to 42.7%. Fi-nally, if we follow the criteria used by the NSI, whichconsiders all towns containing over 10,000 inhabi-tants as being urban centres, we see that two thirdsof all bilingual speakers in the BAC (66.3%) live inurban areas. However, the concentration of inhabitantsliving in urban areas is higher still, since these areasencompass almost 80% of the population (79.3%).This means that although the phenomenon we areanalysing is indeed an urban one, the presence ofBasque speakers in the rural environment remainshigher than the population average.

The map opposite gives a clear picture of the spatialdistribution of bilingual speakers and their concen-tration in urban zones, particularly the metropolitanareas. We can therefore see how the majority ofbilingual speakers live in and around the three capitalcities, in the Ibaizabal corridor, the Deba Valley andthe Beasain-Tolosa axis. Furthermore, there is also aseries of isolated towns with a high percentage ofbilingual speakers, generally located along the coast(Ondarroa, Zarautz, Bermeo, etc.).

34


Table 1. Urban concentration of bilingual speakers

20 10-19.999 287.429 150.561 23,6

11 20-49.999 353.586 91.278 14,3

3 > 50.000 222.936 41.511 6,5

3 Capitals 710.921 140.288 21,9

Total 1.574.872 423.638 66,3


Number of municipalities Range Inhabitants (2001) Bilingual speakers (2001) % of bilingual speakers

Figure 33. Sociolinguistic zones and real distribution of bilingual speakers, according to municipality. 2001


Sociolinguistic zones

Bilingual 80%

Bilingual 45-79%

Bilingual 20-44%

Bilingual <– 20%

1 dot = 250 bilingual sp.

2.

Evolution of languagecompetence (1981-2001)

2.1. Introduction

Between 1981 and 2001, the percentage of bilin-gual speakers in the BAC rose from 22% to 32%.

The absolute figures clearly show the true scope ofthis process. In this way, between 1981 and 2001, thenumber of bilingual speakers in the BAC1 has in-creased from 431,136 to 639,296. In other words, overthe last 20 years, 200,000 potential new speakershave joined the bilingual group, a figure that is roughlyequivalent to the population of the city of Donostia-San Sebastián.

A gradual increase in the percentage of bilingualspeakers has been noted also in the Historical Terri-tories, accompanied by a sharp drop in the numberof monolingual non-Basque speakers. The number ofpassive bilingual speakers has also increased con-tinuously, except in the case of Gipuzkoa, where thefigure has remained at a stable 13-15%.

Despite the different sociolinguistic circumstances ofeach territory, the variation in the percentage of bilingualspeakers is similar in all three (an increase of between10% and 12%). In Araba, the percentage of bilingualspeakers has quadrupled over the last 20 years, in-creasing from 4% to 16%. In Biscay, the figure hasrisen from 15% to 25%, and in Gipuzkoa from 40%to 51.5%.

35

Language competence

2 Unless expressly stated otherwise, throughout the whole reportwe refer to the population aged 5 and over.

Figure 34. Evolution of language competence according to HT. 1981, 1991 and 2001

Source: EUSTAT. 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996 and 2001 Population and Housing Censuses.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

Monolingual non-Basque speakers

Bilinguals

Passive bilinguals

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001


Bilinguals

Passive bilinguals

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001


Passive bilinguals

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001


Bilinguals

Passive bilinguals

80

90

100

Bilinguals

BAC Gipuzkoa

Araba Biscay

2.2. Evolution of language competenceaccording to municipality

Before beginning the analysis, we would like topoint out that in the case of small municipa-

lities (almost half the municipalities in the BAC havea population of no more than 1,000 inhabitants), eventhe smallest variation in the number of individuals inany of the groups may have a disproportionate effecton the percentages, and give rise to situations thatmay seem contradictory.

As regards general trends, we could say that in thevast majority of municipalities in the BAC there hasbeen a (more or less marked) increase in the percen-tage of bilingual speakers.

Nevertheless, the best way of observing the intensityof this trend is through an analysis of the mapswhich represent the percentage values of bilingualspeakers at a municipal level. Such an analysis showsus how those municipalities with high percentages ofbilingual speakers (mainly located in the eastern half

of Biscay and almost all Gipuzkoa) have maintainedfairly similar values over the years, with no significantvariations. Nevertheless, in the municipalities in therest of Biscay and in Araba, where the percentage ofbilingual speakers in 1981 was very low, we can seea generalised upward trend which has resulted in agradual increase in the percentage. In consequence,many of these municipalities have risen up the percen-tage scale with regard to their bilingual populations.

The evolution of each of the three capitals has beeninfluenced to a certain extent by their different startingpercentages (i.e. the percentages shown in 1981). Inthis sense, Vitoria-Gasteiz, which had a percentageof 3.5% in 1981, had the lowest starting percentageand has experienced the highest percentage increa-se, with the figure rising to 7.6% in 1991 and 14.7%in 2001, practically four times the initial number. Bilbao,which had a percentage of 6.4% in 1981, has morethan doubled this figure over the last twenty years, toreach a percentage of 15.3% in 2001. Finally, Donos-tia-San Sebastián, which had a significantly higherstarting percentage than the other two capitals, hasexperienced a lower percentage increase, rising from21.4% in 1981 to 34.6% in 2001.

If we analyse these increases in absolute terms, wesee that all three capitals have experienced fairlysimilar increases, oscillating between 24,000 and28,000 new bilingual speakers.

36


Figure 35. Evolution of the percentage of bilingual speakers in the capitals. 1981-2001


0%

5%

15%

25%

30%

40%

Donostia-San Sebastián

Years

Vitoria-Gasteiz

Bilbao

1981 20011986 1991 1996

20%

35%

10%

Bilinguals

37

Language competence

Figure 36. Evolution of the percentage of bilingual speakers between 1981 and 2001

Source: EUSTAT, 1981, 1991 and 2001 Population and Housing Censuses.

1981

1991

2001

Percentage of bilingualspeakers

80-100

50-79,9

25-49,9

10-24,9

0,1-9,9

0

2.3. Evolution of language competenceaccording to age

Our analysis of the situation has given us a clearidea of the structure of language competence

according to age groups, and we have seen howthe percentage of both bilingual speakers and passi-ve bilingual speakers increases as we move downthe age scale, to the detriment of monolingual non-Basque speakers, who have decreased sharply.

We will now analyse the evolution of the differentage groups throughout the period in question. To dothis, we will first attempt to simplify the classificationby uniting those groups with common characteristics,bearing in mind the current distribution of the popu-lation according to language competence and age.Thus, we have divided the population into four groups:

• 5-24 years of age: this group is characterised bya high percentage of both bilingual and passivebilingual speakers, and a low percentage of mo-nolingual non-Basque speakers.

• 25-44 years of age: this group is characterised bya reversal in the trend, and it is here that we beginto catch a glimpse of the language recovery pro-cess.

• 45-64 years of age: it is in this age group that thenumber of bilingual speakers is at its lowest.

• 65 years of age: in this group, the percentage ofbilingual speakers is somewhat higher, althoughthe percentage of passive bilingual speakers is atits lowest point.

If we look at the graph which shows the evolution ofbilingual speakers in each of the different age groupsthroughout the period in question, we see that theolder age groups show a regressive trend. This trendis reversed in the two youngest groups and there isa continuous increase, although there is still a largegap between the 25-44 group and the youngest group(under 25s). In this last group, the growth rate isspectacular, with the figure rising from 19.3% in 1981to 55.5% in 2001.

As regards the evolution in the different HistoricalTerritories, and bearing in mind the individual charac-teristics of each one (the percentages are muchlower in Araba than in Biscay, and lower in Biscaythan in Gipuzkoa), the trends are fairly similar, withthe exception of a few small differences in intensity.The only significant change is that which appears inthe two oldest age groups in Araba; given the charac-teristics of this territory, and given that the percen-tages of both groups are extremely low, a downwardtrend is more difficult to detect, which is why thevalues are stable and even increase slightly duringthe period in question.

The passive bilingual speaker group is the one which,in general, has the lowest percentages. In the oldestage groups, the percentages for 1981 are extremelylow, and remain stable until the final phase of theperiod, during which they increase slightly. This evo-lution is similar for the two groups over the age of 45,both in the BAC in general and the individual Histo-rical Territories. In the younger groups, the evolutionis different. In the 25-44 group in the BAC, the per-centage of passive bilingual speakers increases bothcontinuously and significantly throughout the entireperiod, a process similar to that which occurs in the

HTs, with the exception of Gipuzkoa. In this territory,the growth rate is much lower. As regards the youn-gest group (5-24 years of age), during the first half ofthe period, up until 1991, there is a notable increasein the number of passive bilingual speakers in theHTs, with the exception again of Gipuzkoa, wherethe figures remain stable. During the second half ofthe period however, between 1991 and 2001, thereis a certain drop in the percentage of this group in theBAC, which coincides with the increase in the num-ber of bilingual speakers.

Finally, the number of monolingual non-Basque spea-kers in the BAC increases slightly in the over 65 agegroup. The 45-64 age group also started the periodwith a slight upward trend, but this was reversedduring the second decade. The other two groups arecharacterised by their sharp decrease. Among thoseaged between 25 and 44, the rate of this decreaseis lower in the first decade, although it speeds up from1991 onwards. In the youngest age group the dropis much sharper, and is particularly spectacular in thecase of Araba, where monolingual non-Basque spea-kers accounted for 80% of the 5-24-year-old popu-lation in 1981, and only just over 20% in 2001.

38


39

Language competence

Figure 37. Evolution of language competence according to age in the BAC. 1981-2001


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

>= 65

80

90

100Bilinguals

45-64 25-44 5-24

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

>= 65

80

90

100Passive bilinguals

45-64 25-44 5-24

%

1981

Years

1986

1991

1996

2001

Age groups

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

>= 65

80

90

100Monolingual non-Basque speakers

45-64 25-44 5-24

%

Age groups

Age groups

40


Figure 38. Evolution of bilingual speakers according to age in the HTs. 1981-2001


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

>= 65

80

90

100Araba

45-64 25-44 5-24Age groups

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

>= 65

80

90

100Biscay

45-64 25-44 5-24Age groups

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

>= 65

80

90

100Gipuzkoa

45-64 25-44 5-24Age groups

%

1981

Years

1986

1991

1996

2001

We will now analyse whether the general trendsdetected for the BAC and the three Historical Terri-tories are also true for the municipalities; to do so,we will focus our analysis on the evolution of thethree capital cities.

As regards the evolution of language competence inaccordance with age in the three capitals, in Vitoria-Gasteiz the trend is very similar to that of Araba ingeneral, with bilingual and passive bilingual speakersin the over 45 age groups showing very low percen-tages which remain under 5% throughout the entireperiod, with only slight modifications. The 25 to 44 agegroup began the period with similar percentages,but later experienced a continuous, if not particularlysharp increase throughout the period, with the per-centages of passive bilingual speakers being alwayshigher than those of bilingual speakers. In the 25 to44 age group, the percentage of passive bilingualspeakers increased from 6.6% to 24.6%, while thefigure for bilingual speakers rose from 2.6% to 12.7%.As regards monolingual non-Basque speakers, thepercentages hardly change at all among the older agegroups. However, as we move down the age scale,the drop in this language competence group becomesincreasingly sharp. In the 45-64 age group the dropis hardly noticeable, whereas in the 25-44 group, thefigure decreases from 90.8% to 62.7%, although it stillretains an ample majority. Nevertheless, among theyoungest sector of the population, those aged between5 and 24, the drop is quite spectacular, falling from79.2% to just 23.8%.

Bilbao and Donostia-San Sebastián have evolutionsthat are similar to those of their respective territories.

In Bilbao the two oldest age groups have very lowpercentages of both bilingual and passive bilingualspeakers, and show a fairly stable evolution throughoutthe period in question, with a slightly downward trendas regards bilingual speakers and a slightly upwardtrend as regards passive bilingual speakers, althoughthis percentage levels out during the final years of theperiod among the younger group. As regards mono-lingual non-Basque speakers, although the percentageamong the older age groups remains stable, andeven increases slightly, there is a clear drop amongthe younger groups. This drop is sharpest in theyoungest group, and becomes even sharper as wemove towards the end of the period.

Donostia-San Sebastián is characterised by its relati-vely high percentage of bilingual speakers in compa-rison with the other two capitals, which has led to aslightly different evolution, particularly as regardspassive bilingual speakers, although the evolution ofbilingual speakers and monolingual non-Basquespeakers is fairly similar. In this sense, the number ofpeople in the oldest group of bilingual speakers re-mained constant between 1981 and 1986, and thendropped slightly more sharply than in Bilbao (althoughwe should not forget that the starting percentagewas three times as high), falling from 34.5% to 26%.In the 45-64 group, this drop did not occur and thepercentages remained stable, with small fluctuations,through the entire period, with figures oscillatingbetween 24% in 1981 and 22.5% in 2001. As withthe previous two capitals, the evolution of the youngergenerations is characterised by a continuous in-crease which lasts throughout the entire period, and

is more intense among the youngest age group,whose percentage rose from 18% to 63% in 2001.Monolingual non-Basque speakers also experiencedan evolution similar to that recorded for the othercities, with the older age groups undergoing a slightincrease, although in the case of the 45-64 yearolds, this increase was interrupted in 1991 and thepercentage dropped back down to its initial level(59.6% in 1981, 65.3% in 1991 and 58.4% in 2001).The 25 to 44 group underwent a number of smallvariations during the first part of the period in question(between 1981 and 1991), but then adopted a de-cidedly downward trend, dropping from 57.2% in1991 to 40.4% in 2001. As always, the most drasticchange occurred among the youngest generation,i.e. those aged between 5 and 24, whose percentagefigure dropped sharply from 49.3% to 13.7%,making it the minority social group in this age range.

Nevertheless, as stated above, passive bilingualspeakers in Donostia-San Sebastián underwent asomewhat different evolution from their counterpartsin the other two capitals. The three groups agedover 25 all showed a similar pattern, with a small dropbetween 1981 and 1986, followed by a slow butsure recovery that took them back up to slightly abovetheir original levels. However, the group aged between5 and 24 hardly varied at all during the first half ofthe period (32.7% in 1981 and 32.3% in 1991), butthen decreased slowly but surely during the secondhalf.

41

Language competence

As evident during the analysis of the BAC as a whole,the individual HTs and the three capital cities, theevolution of each of the language groups over thelast 20 years has been, with the exception of a fewspecific variations, more or less similar in all areas.

The number of bilingual speakers dropped slightly orremained constant among the over 45 groups, andincreased fairly sharply among the younger gene-rations, with the most drastic increase occurringamong the youngest age groups.

The passive bilingual speaker group is the one withthe most variations. In the least Basque-speakingareas, the number of passive bilingual speakersremained constant in the older age groups, andincreased both consistently and fairly sharply in the25 to 44 age group. This upward trend occurredalso in the youngest group, although it was interrup-ted during the middle of the period in question,remaining stable or even dropping slightly on someoccasions. In zones with a slightly higher percentageof bilingual speakers, the over 25 age groups allshowed a similar evolution: a slight drop followed bya continuous rise which brought the figures back upto their original level, and even somewhat higher insome cases. Among the youngest age group, howe-ver, the numbers remain stable at first, and thendrop fairly sharply.

Finally, the evolution of monolingual non-Basquespeakers is always the same: small fluctuations or aslight increase among the older age groups, and asharp drop among the population under the age of45, although at the beginning of the period, the 25to 44 group remained stable for a while. Among theyoungest age group the drop is truly spectacular.

42


III.Language mobility

index (BILA)

1.

The current situationregarding the BILA index (2001)

1.1. Introduction

The BILA index is a category obtained by crossingthe language competence and mother tongue

variables. The category comprises seven groups1

which reflect the various possibilities in an individual’slanguage development. In this case, the differentgroups were established in accordance with eachindividual’s mastery of the Basque language, anddepending on whether his or her mother tongue isBasque alone, or Basque and Spanish together. Anindividual for whom Basque is their mother tongue,can either maintain or lose the language, either to-tally or partially. And an individual for whom Basqueis not their mother tongue can learn it (or not), eitherpartially or totally.

This index serves to assess the losses and/or gainsin the Basque language, as well as the maintenanceof the language by an individual throughout his orher whole life.

Based on the data provided by the 2001 Census, wecan say that, in general, the vast majority of peoplemaintain their language skills, with the exception of afew losses that are amply exceeded by gains. Infact, the group of partially Spanishised and totallySpanishised speakers account for just 2.1% of thepopulation, as opposed to the 10.9% corresponding

to new Basque speakers (who represent the gains inthe language). The group of partial new-Basquespeakers was not included in the analysis, since itwas impossible to determine whether their numbersrepresented a process of language loss or gain.

According to the BILA index, the structure of the po-pulation varies significantly from one territory to thenext, depending on the sociolinguistic characteristicsof each. In Araba, the group of Spanish speakers isthe largest group (64%) and the group of Basquespeakers is very small (2.9%), as is the native bilingualspeaker group (1.5%). The groups which indicate lan-guage loss are practically non-existent, since betweenthem both they total just 1% of the population. Ne-

vertheless, we must highlight the importance of thenew-Basque speaker group, which accounts foralmost 12% of the population, the highest percen-tage in the three HTs.

In Biscay also the largest group is the Spanishspeaker group, which accounts for over half of thepopulation (55%). Nevertheless, Basque speakersalso account for a significant percentage of thepopulation (12.1%), although this is not the case fornative bilingual speakers, whose percentage barelyreaches 2%. The groups representing losses, al-though slightly higher than in Araba, do not exceed2%. New Basque speakers account for 10.4% ofthe population and partial new Basque speakers

45

Language mobility index (BILA)

1 See the definition of the groups in the glossary.

Figure 39. Language mobility index (BILA). BAC. 2001

Source: Sub-Ministry for Language Policy. Basque Government. 2004.

49.1%

10.9%

0.5%1.6%

16.6%

2.9%

18.4%

Basque speakers

True bilingual speakers

New Basque speakers

Partial new Basque speakers

Partially Spanishised speakers

Totally Spanishised speakers

Spanish speakers

46


Figure 40. Language mobility index (BILA). 2001


12.7%

33.0%

4.5%

11.2%

35.7%

0.6%2.2%

Gipuzkoa

55.0%

2.3%

0.5%1.4%

10.4%

12.1%

18.3%

Biscay

64.0%

11.6%

0.3%0.7%

19.0%

1.5%

2.9%

Araba

Basque speakers


New Basque speakers




Spanish speakers

(who are studying or have studied Basque) alsoconstitute an important group (18.3%), althoughtheir impact is not clearly defined.

Gipuzkoa is by far the most Basque-speaking terri-tory, with Basque speakers accounting for 35.7% ofthe population and forming the largest group, closelyfollowed by Spanish speakers (33%). The percen-tage of new Basque speakers is similar to in the othertwo territories (11.2%) and both native bilingual spea-kers and the groups representing losses are slightlylarger than in Araba and Biscay, despite still beingfairly small.

1.2. The BILA index according to municipality

In order to give a general overview of the situationat a municipal level, we will base our analysis on

two maps which show the municipal percentages ofthe two most significant groups: Basque speakersand new Basque speakers.

In the previous section on language competence,we showed how the recovery of the Basque lan-guage is a young, urban phenomenon. We will nowattempt to verify whether the analysis of the twoprincipal bilingual groups (Basque speakers and new

Basque speakers) reflects these same tendencies, afinding which would ratify our initial conclusions.

As we can see, the two maps look completely diffe-rent. On the one hand, we have the map which showsthe percentage of Basque speakers, which is verysimilar in appearance to the one showing the per-centage distribution of bilingual speakers, with verylow values in Araba and the western half of Biscay,and a compact area of values over the 80% thresholdin the north-east of Biscay and inland Gipuzkoa. Themap which shows the percentages of new Basquespeakers, however, is completely different. Never-

47


Figure 41. % of Basque speakers per municipality. 2001 Figure 42. % of new Basque-speakers per municipality. 2001


Percentage

80-10050-79.925-49.910-24.90-9.9

Percentage

20-2515-19.910-14.95-9.90-4.9

theless, before comparing the two, it is important toremember a point that, despite being fairly self-evident, is often forgotten: those areas with a highpercentage of Basque speakers (over 80-90%) willnecessarily have a low percentage of new Basquespeakers, which is why we can say that there is aninverse relationship between the two groups, whichis clearly shown on the maps, if you notice that thered areas on the Basque speaker map become blueareas on the new Basque speaker map. This type ofinverse relationship also occurs (although less radically)

in the majority of municipalities in the zone in whichthe percentage of Basque speakers is relatively high.

In the other areas there is a heterogeneous com-bination of percentages, although the mid-levelvalues tend to predominate. In any case, we shouldbear in mind that in small municipalities, the variationof a very small group of individuals may cause majorchanges in the corresponding percentages, meaningthat such changes are often insignificant in realterms.

When we analysed the distribution, in absolutefigures, of bilingual speakers in the language com-petence section, we saw that they tend to live mainlyin metropolitan areas, which to a certain extent islogical, since these zones contain the highest con-centrations of inhabitants.

In the case of Basque speakers, however, there area number of significant variations in their distribution,since the metropolitan areas (with the exception ofDonostia-San Sebastián) lose their leading position

48


Figure 43. Distribution, in absolute figures, of Basque speakers Figure 44. Distribution, in absolute figures, of new Basque speakers among the municipalities. 2001 among the municipalities. 2001


Pop. of the municipalities

>– 50,00025,000-49,99910,000-24,9995,000-9,9991,000-4,999< 1,000No data

in favour of mid-size towns. In this sense, both themid-size cities that form the backbone of the Gipuz-koan urban network (Eibar, Tolosa, Arrasate/Mon-dragón, etc.) and those that constitute the localcapitals in eastern Biscay (Durango, Gernika, Bermeo,Ondarroa, etc.) become increasingly important.Despite this, however, the majority of Basque speakersstill tend to be located in or near urban areas.

We shall now analyse the distribution, in absolutefigures, of the two aforementioned groups (Basquespeakers and new Basque speakers) in more detail.

In the case of new Basque speakers, the variation isexpressed in an extreme concentration or “polarisation”of this group around the three capital cities and theirmetropolitan areas. The number of new Basquespeakers is directly related to the demographic sizeof each zone. As such, Gran Bilbao is by far the areawith the largest population of new Basque speakers,followed by Donostia-San Sebastián and its surroun-ding area, with Vitoria-Gasteiz coming third.

One notable element is the sensation of desertifi-cation of inland areas, which can be seen clearly if

we compare both maps. The only exception to thisis a number of specific areas which generally tend tocoincide with mid-size urban centres (Durango, Eibar-Ermua, Arrasate/Mondragón, etc.).

Although this phenomenon could be attributed tothe parameters used to compile the map, if wechange these parameters and make each dotrepresent a lower number of people (in the first caseeach dot represented 250 people, and in the se-cond, just 50 people), we see that obviously there aremore dots spread over more areas, but in general,the result is a greater density of dots in same areas.Furthermore, although the sensation of desertifi-cation may be less apparent, the phenomenonremains the same. If we look closely at the map wecan see how the distribution of new Basque speakerscorresponds, in general terms, to the main urbannetwork of the BAC, which serves to highlight evenfurther the urban nature of the phenomenon.

49


Figure 45. Distribution, in absolute figures, of new Basque speakers among the municipalities. 2001

Source: EUSTAT. Compiled in-house.

1 dot = 50 Basque or New Basque speakers

1.3. Losses and gains in the Basque language

We have just analysed two of the differentgroups from the category obtained using the

BILA index. One of them, new Basque speakers, ismade by those whose mother tongue is a languageother than Basque who have nevertheless learned tospeak Basque well. This group can therefore be con-sidered as the group of new speakers, those whorepresent a gain in the language. On the other hand,there are another two groups which represent thosewho, despite having Basque as their mother tongue,have lost the ability to speak it well either totally orpartially (totally or partially Spanishised). Thesegroups represent losses in the language. A compa-rison between the two groups gives us an idea ofthe progression of the language, and shows whetherwe are faced with an upward or downward trend.

If we look at the graph which shows the results ofthe said groups, we can see that in both the BAC ingeneral and in each of the individual historical terri-tories, gains in the language far outnumber losses. Avisual comparison highlights this great differenceand the existence of a positive result which implies afavourable evolution of the language.

We will now attempt to analyse the distribution oflosses and gains at a municipal level, using thecorresponding maps.

The majority of the municipalities in Biscay and Gi-puzkoa which show above average gain percentagesare mid-size or medium to large-size municipalities,or are located near such a municipality. In Gipuzkoa,the main centres are Donostia-San Sebastián andthe towns located in the surrounding area, as well asother mid-size cities such as Eibar, Zumarraga, Arra-sate and Beasain, etc. In Biscay, the principal muni-cipalities are Getxo and its environment, a number ofmunicipalities located along the Left Bank of GranBilbao and the main centres along the Ibaizabal axis:

Basauri, Galdakao and Durango. In addition to allthese municipalities, there is also a continuous strip ofmunicipalities with above average percentages, runningNW-SE along the contact zone between two areaswith very different characteristics: the zone with thehighest percentage of bilingual speakers, and thezone with the lowest percentage of such speakers.Nevertheless, these two areas do have something incommon, namely that they both have a lower-than-average percentage of language gains.

50


Figure 46. Losses and gains in the Basque language. 2001


12

10

8

6

4

2

0

–2

–4

–6

BAC Araba Biscay Gipuzkoa

%

Losses and gains

New Basquespeakers

PartiallySpanishised

TotallySpanishised

Before talking about losses2, whether they be partialor total, we must remember a point that is self-evident, but which is often forgotten during analy-ses of this type: nothing can be lost if it was notpossessed in the first place. This is the reason whythere are practically no losses of any kind on the LeftBank of Gran Bilbao and in Las Encartaciones (bothlocated in Biscay), as well as throughout the wholeof Araba.

If we analyse the map we see that only a fewmunicipalities have a high percentage of losses.Furthermore, these tend to be scattered about withno discernible pattern. Nevertheless, if we look atthe group of municipalities with higher-than-averageloss percentages, we see that they are generallylocated in a series of specific areas. In Alava, the fewmunicipalities that have recorded losses are almostall concentrated in the most Basque-speaking areaof the territory, around Aramaio, as well as the neigh-

bouring Biscayan municipalities of Ubide and Otxan-dio. In Biscay, losses tend to be concentrated inthree main areas, which are interlinked to form atilted “�” which begins in the Ibaizabal corridor (fromDurango to Basauri), continues along the Right Bankof Gran Bilbao and finishes along the Biscayan coast,stretching from Getxo towards the east to Ea, affectingmunicipalities such as Mungia and Gernika also.Finally, there is also another small conglomerationencompassing a number of municipalities from theArratia area and Llodio, a municipality on the Arabanborder.

As regards Gipuzkoa, there are three main zones.The first is the Donostia-San Sebastián metropolitanarea, the second the Tolosa-Beasain area and finally,the municipalities located along the Deba corridor.These three areas are, without a doubt, the most in-dustrialised areas in Gipuzkoa, a situation that goeshand in hand with better communications and amore advanced urban development process, as wellas a more intense change in lifestyles. The same patterncan also be seen in Bizkaia. We can therefore statethat the concentration of language losses in the afore-mentioned areas is linked, to a greater or lesser extent,to one or all of these factors.

51


Figure 47. Distribution of gains


Gains (%)(New Basque speakers)

20-50

15-19.9 > mean

11-14.9

10.9 mean

< 10.9 < mean

2 A loss is a case in which an individual for whom either Basquealone or Basque and Spanish were their mother tongues, but whospeaks Basque with difficulty (partial loss) or does not speak it atall (total loss).

Despite everything outlined above regarding langua-ge losses, however, we should not forget that themean percentage of gains in the BAC is 10.8%, afigure that is well above the mean percentages ofboth partial (1.6%) and total (0.5%) losses. In generalterms, therefore, we can say that losses are minimal,and much lower than gains. If we look at the data inabsolute numbers, the magnitude of both phenomenabecomes clearer. While just over 40,000 people(41,689) have lost their ability to speak the language,

the number of people who have learned it exceeds200,000 (215,220).

1.4. The BILA index according to age

When analysing the BILA index according toage group, we will focus, as in the previous

case, on the Basque speaker and new Basque speakergroups. The highest percentages correspond to

Basque speakers, with a figure of nearly 30% amongthe over 80 population, followed by gradually lowerfigures down to the 30-34 mark, which is where theyreach their minimum, with a percentage of less than20%. After this age, the percentages increase slightlyto give a figure of around 25% in the youngest group(5-9 years of age). For their part, new Basque spea-kers show very low percentages in all groups overthe age of 50. Below this threshold, there is a slow,gradual increase in their numbers, which then beco-

52


Figure 48. Distribution of partial losses. 2001 Figure 49. Distribution of total losses. 2001


Partial losses (%)(Partially Spanishised)

5-12

2.5-4.9 > mean

1.7-2.4

1.6 media

< 1.6 < mean

Partial losses (%)(Partially Spanishised)

> 1.5

0.6-1.4

0.6

< 0.6

> mean

mean

< mean

mes more pronounced as we pass the 30 year mark,to reach its highest point among young people aged10 to 14. In short, we can say that as in the case oflanguage competence, the phenomenon of newBasque speakers is characterised by its youth, whilethat of Basque speakers reaches its highest per-centage among the older age groups, although inabsolute figures, the largest number of individualsare grouped in the 25-45 age range.

The language mobility index (BILA) for the historicalterritories generally coincides with the characteristicsoutlined for the BAC as a whole. The more Basque-speaking the territory, the greater the percentage ofBasque speakers, with the figures for the older agegroups being fairly high. These percentages thendrop slightly in the mid-range age groups, andfinally, in the under 30 population, there is a certainincrease which is more intense in Gipuzkoa than inBiscay. The percentages for Basque speakers inAraba are low in all age groups.

As regards new Basque speakers, the generalprocess is more similar throughout the three territories.The percentages are fairly low up until the 40 year oldthreshold, at which point the numbers increasesharply, with this rise being more pronounced in Arabathan in Biscay. The figures reach their maximum pointat around the 20-30 year mark. In Gipuzkoa the datais slightly different, with the phenomenon of newBasque speakers occurring slightly earlier, reaching itsmaximum point in the 30-35 age range, and thendropping again among the youngest generations.

53


Figure 50. Language mobility index, BILA, Figure 51. Pyramid of the language mobility index, BILA, of the BAC according to age. 2001 of the BAC according to age. 2001


Age groups

150 75 50 25 1507550250

>=85

80-84

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

15-19

10-14

5-9

100miles 100 miles125 125

Basque speakers


New Basque speakers




Spanish speakers

Language competence

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

54


Figure 52. Language mobility index, BILA, of the historical territories, according to age. 2001


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

Araba

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

Biscay

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

Gipuzkoa

Basque speakers


New Basque speakers




Spanish speakers

Furthermore, the phenomenon was never as pre-valent in Gipuzkoa as in the other two territories,probably due to the fact that the percentage ofBasque speakers has always been fairly high.

In any case, with the exception of the differencesproduced by the greater or lesser extent to whichBasque has become integrated into society in thedifferent territories, the process analysed here followsa pattern that is fairly similar to that identified for theBAC in general. In the majority of cases, the numberof Basque speakers has increased. As regards newBasque speakers, the fact that the sharp increase inthe percentage of this group is then followed by agradual decrease among the younger generationsmay seem contradictory, but it is in fact due to theparallel increase in both Basque speakers and truebilingual speakers.

1.5. The BILA index according to age andmunicipality

In general terms, we can see a similarity betweenthe distribution of Basque speakers and the dis-

tribution of bilingual speakers shown in the languagecompetence section. Nevertheless, the percentagesdiffer depending on the age group, particularly in theBasque-speaking areas. These differences show adecrease in the percentage values as we movedown the age scale, with the low values being rea-ched in the group aged between 25 and 44. Fromhere on, there is an upturn in the trend and the per-centage values start to increase once again.

Current trends show a gradual, intense increase inthe size of the true bilingual and new Basque speak-er groups.

The increase in the percentage of new Basque speak-ers and true bilingual speakers is a modern pheno-menon that has really come to the fore over the last 20-25 years. In fact, if we look at the maps, wesee that in both cases there is a radical differencebetween the youngest group (5 to 24 years of age)and the three other groups. Nevertheless, there arecertain differences between the two phenomena.While the increase in the number of new Basquespeakers has had a major effect on practically all theBAC, with the exception of those zones with veryhigh percentages of Basque speakers (generallyover 80%), the appearance of true bilingual speakersis much more sporadic.

If we look carefully at the municipalities in which thepercentages of true bilingual speakers are highest,we see that, in the majority of cases, these tend tobe mid-size urban centres and bordering municipa-lities, something which confirms the urban nature ofthis phenomenon. Furthermore, all these municipalitiesare located along the BAC’s main roads: the Bilbao-Donostia-San Sebastián motorway, the Nacional-1and the Getxo-Bermeo-Gernika-Mungia zone. Inboth Bilbao and Vitoria-Gasteiz, the percentage weightof true bilingual speakers is still very low.

55


56


Figure 53. Distribution of Basque speakers by age groups. 2001 (%)


Basque speakers agedbetween 5 and 24



Basque speakers aged 65 or over

Percentages

80-10045-79.920-44.90.1-19.90

57


Figure 54. Distribution of new Basque speakers according to age. 2001


New Basque speakers agedbetween 5 and 24



New Basque speakersaged 65 or over

Percentages

50-10030-49.915-29.95-14.90.1-4.90

58


Figure 55. Distribution of bilingual speakers according to age. 2001 (%)


True bilingual speakers agedbetween 5 and 24



True bilingual speakersaged 65 or over

Percentage

20-10015-19.910-14.95-9.90.1-4.90

1.6. Losses and gains in the Basque language,according to age

When analysing the classification establishedduring the compilation of the BILA index, two

groups were identified which reflect the losses sufferedin the Basque language: “partially Spanishised” and

“totally Spanishised”; and another one: “new Basquespeakers”, which indicates gains in the language.

As we can see in the images, the general trend in allcases is the same. Gains increase spectacularly aswe move down the age scale, to reach their highestpoint among the 10-14 age group.

The figures representing losses are very low in allage groups and are practically non-existent in thegroups under the age of 25. The highest figures can befound in the central groups, between 35 and 50 yearsof age, and are lower in the older age groups.

59


Figure 56. Losses and gains according to age. 2001


Losses and gains

Gains

Partial losses

Total losses

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

–5>=65

Age group

60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

BAC*%

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

–5>=65

Age group

60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

Araba*%

* Losses of around –0,5 or less are not shown

Mean gain in the BAC Mean gain in Araba

60


Figure 57. Losses and gains according to age. 2001


45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

–5

Biscay*%

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

–5

Gipuzkoa*%

* Losses of around –0,5 or less are not shown

Mean gain in Biscay Mean gain in GipuzkoaLosses and gains

Gains

Partial losses

Total losses

>=65

Age groups

60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 >=65

Age groups

60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

2.

Evolution of the BILA index (1986-2001)

2.1. Introduction

The size of each group in the BILA Index varieswidely both in the BAC as a whole and in the

individual Historical Territories. Furthermore, in somecases, groups have varied significantly over the last15 years.

While the number of Basque speakers and nativebilingual speakers has remained stable or increasedslightly, that of new Basque speakers has risensharply, although this increase is lower in the case ofpartial new Basque speakers.

The positive evolution of these two last groupsmainly affects the group of Spanish speakers, whosepercentage has dropped notably (by an average of10.6% in the BAC). For their part, the numbers of par-tially and totally Spanishised speakers have generallydecreased slightly.

The different trends outlined above are very similar(although taking place at different levels) in both theBAC as a whole and the three historical territories.

61


Figure 58. BILA index BAC. 1986 Figure 59. BILA index BAC. 2001

Figure 60. Evolution of the BILA index in the BAC. 1986-2001


59.7%

0.9%

2.2%

12.5%3.5% 2.2%

18.9%

49.1%

0.5%1.6%

16.6%

10.8% 2.9%

18.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Years

1986 1991 1996 2001

Basque speakers


New Basque speakers




Spanish speakers

BILA index

62


Figure 61. Evolution of the BILA index in the Historical Territories. 1986-2001


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1986 1991 1996 2001

Araba

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1986 1991 1996 2001

Biscay

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1986 1991 1996 2001

Gipuzkoa

Basque speakers


New Basque speakers




Spanish speakers

BILA index

2.2. Evolution of the BILA Index according to age (1986-2001)

In the older age groups (over 65s), the populationis more or less divided into Basque speakers and

Spanish speakers, with the latter group being thepredominant one with percentages that oscillatebetween 60% and 70% in all of the dates analysed.After this threshold, however, and as we move downthe age scale, the minority groups grow in size andimportance, with the exception of totally and partiallySpanishised speakers, whose percentages hardlyvary at all.

As regards the rest of the minority groups, the onewith the lowest increase is that of native bilingualspeakers, whose numbers remain constant amongthe over 40 sector of the population and increasegradually from this age downwards. The rate of in-crease remains constant throughout the entire period,which means that the values increase year by year,particularly among the youngest generations. Des-pite this, however, the percentages hardly everexceed 10%.

The new Basque group is the one with the highestincrease, with the rate of growth rising as the periodprogresses. From 1996 onwards, this group is thelargest one among the youngest generations (underthe age of 15).

As regards Basque speakers and Spanish speakers,the dominant groups among the population aged over65, their evolutions are very different. In the 1986graph we can see how the percentage of Basquespeakers decreases slightly and then levels outamong the under 20 segment of the population. Thefirst part of the evolution is similar for the other yearsalso; however, as the period progresses, the resultingstagnation undergoes a renewed boost and beginsto increase, slowly but surely, throughout the rest ofthe period among the younger age groups.

On the other hand, in 1986 the number of Spanishspeakers increases steadily until it reaches its highestpoint in the 45-49 age group, after which it drops aswe move down the age scale, with this decrease beingparticularly sharp among the youngest age groups.This trend continues, and even intensifies, as the pe-riod progresses, with this group undergoing a pro-nounced ageing process, since the same values aremaintained in the same group as that group growsgradually older (the maximum value occurs in the45-49 group in 1986, in the 50-54 group in 1991, inthe 55-59 group in 1996 and in the 60-64 group in2001). Furthermore, the drop in the percentage valuesfor this group becomes increasingly sharp as theperiod progresses.

63


64


Figure 62. Evolution of the BILA index according to age group, BAC. 1986-2001


1986Age groups

% 100 75 50 25 100 %7550250

>=8580-8475-7970-7465-6960-6455-5950-5445-4940-4435-3930-3425-2920-2415-1910-14

5-9

1996Age groups

% 100 75 50 25 100 %7550250

>=8580-8475-7970-7465-6960-6455-5950-5445-4940-4435-3930-3425-2920-2415-1910-14

5-9

1991Age groups

% 100 75 50 25 100 %7550250

>=8580-8475-7970-7465-6960-6455-5950-5445-4940-4435-3930-3425-2920-2415-1910-14

5-9

2001Age groups

% 100 75 50 25 100 %7550250

>=8580-8475-7970-7465-6960-6455-5950-5445-4940-4435-3930-3425-2920-2415-1910-14

5-9

Basque speakers


New Basque speakers




Spanish speakers

BILA index

IV.Index of the language used at home, ERABIL

1.

Current situationregarding the ERABILIndex (2001)

1.1. Introduction

The ERABIL index is obtained by crossing theBILA Index (combination of mother tongue and

language competence) with the language used athome variable.

The resulting index reflects the level of Basque useat home of each of the groups obtained from theBILA index, i.e. it tells us whether or not each groupactively uses the Basque language in the home en-vironment.

The groups which make up the ERABIL index, then,are the same as those in the BILA index multipliedby three, depending on the language or languagesmainly used at home (Basque, Basque and Spanishand Spanish alone). The group made up by Spanishand totally Spanishised speakers is different in thatsince its members do not speak Basque, they canonly be active in Spanish.

Firstly, we will analyse the distribution of the popu-lation of the BAC in accordance with the ERABILindex. As we can see, almost half the population ismade up by Spanish and totally Spanishised speakers.

Basque speakers represent 18.5% of the populationand are the group which contains almost all thoseinhabitants who are active in Basque, a group whichrepresents 13% of the total population. In this group,active Basque speakers constitute the majority,

accounting for almost three quarters of the group,while approximately one fifth are active in both lan-guages and one tenth are passive in Basque.

As regards native bilingual speakers (3% of the total),the largest subgroup within this group is that madeup by those active in both languages (62%), followedby those who are passive in Basque (30.1%), withthose who are active in Basque making up thesmallest subgroup (7.4%). Among new Basque spea-kers (10.8% of the total population), those who are

passive in Basque constitute the clear majority(84.1%), with those who are active in both accountingfor just over 10% (11.8%) and those active in Basqueaccounting for just 4% (4.1%).

The results for the two remaining groups, i.e. partialnew Basque speakers and partially Spanishisedspeakers, are very different. While the former accountsfor over 15% of the total population (16.6%), the latterbarely accounts for 2%. Nevertheless, although theyhave a number of common characteristics (neither

67

Index of the language used at home, ERABIL

Figure 63. ERABIL Index, BAC. 2001 (%)


Spanish and totally Spanishisedspeakers

New Basque speakers

PartiallySpanishisedspeakers

Partial New Basquespeakers

Native bilingual speakers

Basque speakers

49.6

1.00.6

15.8

0.8

9.1 1.30.9

0.41.8

0.2

1.83.8

12.9

Active in Basque

Active in both

Passive in Basque

group contains any individuals who are active in theBasque language, and in both cases passive Basquespeakers constitute the majority group), their internalpercentage distributions vary significantly. Thus, whilejust over a third (38.1%) of partially Spanishised spea-kers are active in both languages, this percentage islower than 5% (4.7%) among partial new Basquespeakers.

In the analysis of the different historical territories, weshould bear in mind that the structure of the popu-lation varies considerably as a result of each area’sindividual characteristics. As is only logical, the moreBasque-speaking a territory, the greater the use ofBasque and the higher the proportion of those activein the Basque language and those active in bothlanguages, and the lower the proportion of thosepassive in Basque. Furthermore, the group of Spanishand totally Spanishised speakers is considerablysmaller in such territories.

Therefore, this last group, which in Araba representsalmost two thirds of the population (64.3%), is almosthalf as small (33.6%) in Gipuzkoa. At the other ex-treme are those active in Basque, who represent just1.9% of the population of Araba, 8.5% of the popula-tion of Biscay and 27% of the population of Gipuzkoa.

If we analyse the different groups in each territory,we see that, with the exception of Basque speakers,the distribution of the population is fairly similar asregards the relative position of the groups, althoughnot in relation to their percentage values.

As mentioned above, Basque speakers are the excep-tion; in Araba, just under half are active in Basque, apercentage which increases to two thirds in Biscayand to almost three quarters in Gipuzkoa. This increase

is accompanied by a slight decrease in the numberof people active in both languages, whose percen-tages oscillate between 28% in Araba and 19% inGipuzkoa, and a sharp drop in the number of peoplewho are passive in Basque, whose percentages varybetween 24% and 8% respectively.

As regards the other groups, the three territories showsimilar trends and the relative position of the differentlevels of use is the same in each. Thus, among native

bilingual speakers, the largest group is made up bythose who are active in both languages, while amongnew Basque speakers, partial new Basque speakersand partially Spanishised speakers, those who arepassive in the Basque language are in the majority,although we should point out the high proportion ofthose active in both languages among the partiallySpanishised speakers, a phenomenon no doubt rela-ted to the fact that Basque (either alone or in conjunc-tion with Spanish) is their mother tongue.

68


Figure 64. Basque use at home, according to territory. 2001 %


Biscay

Araba

Gipuzkoa

Speak Basque a bit or well

Active in Basque

Active in both

Passive in Basque

Do not speak Basque orhave completely forgotten it

55.4

29.96.2

8.5

33 .6

25.6

13.8 27.0

64.3

30.5 3.4

1.9

69


Figure 65. ERABIL Index, Araba. 2001 (%)

Figure 66. ERABIL Index, Biscay. 2001 (%) Figure 67. ERABIL Index, Gipuzkoa. 2001


33 .6

26.0

6.92.80.4

3.01.10.6

1.8

8.8

1.2

11.5

0.91.3 Spanish and totally

Spanishised speakers

New Basquespeakers


Partial NewBasque speakers

Native bilingualspeakers

Basque speakers

Active in Basque

Active in both

Passive in Basque55.4

0.90.5

17.7

0.69.0

1.00.3

0.81.4

0.2

1.42.6

8.0

Spanish and totallySpanishised speakers

New Basque speakers




Basque speakers

Spanish and totallySpanishised speakers

New Basque speakers




Basque speakers

64.3

18.5

10.2

1.10.4 0.6

0.80.1

0.70.81.4

0.20.5

0.5

1.2. Analysis according to municipality

The principal trends described for the historicalterritories coincide with those observed in re-

lation to the individual municipalities. In other words,the use of Basque varies considerably depending onwhether or not the municipality is located in a Basque-speaking zone, which confirms the importance of thedensity of Basque speakers in an individual’s networkin relation to selecting a language of use.

1.3. The ERABIL Index according to age

As we said earlier, almost all those inhabitantsthat mainly use Basque at home are located

within the group of Basque speakers. The majorityare aged over 65; from that age onwards, as we movedown the age scale, the percentage of people whomainly use Basque at home drops considerably,with those aged between 30 and 34 being the oneswho least use this language at home. Among theunder 30 population, the proportion of those who useBasque rises once again, to recover more or less thelevel of use recorded for those aged between 65and 75 among the youngest generations.

However, the percentage of people who habituallyuse Basque at home never rises above 20% of theentire population in any given age group, and onlyaccounts for one forth of the over 80 and under 10population, even taking into account those who useBasque in conjunction with Spanish.

In any case, the use of the Basque language variesconsiderably depending on an individual’s mothertongue, with Basque speakers being those whomost use Basque in the home. The percentage ofBasque speakers who usually express themselves inBasque at home is very similar in all age groups, andhas an average value of around 70%. The number ofpeople who primarily use Basque is slightly higheramong the over 50 and under 15 segments of thepopulation.

Similarly, one out of every five Basque speakers usesboth Basque and Spanish at home. In this case, thepercentages rise as we move down the age scale,reaching its highest point in the 35 to 39 age group.Finally, one out of every ten Basque speakers mainlyuses Spanish at home. In this case, the differencesaccording to age are very clear: the proportion ofpeople who use only Spanish at home drops sharplyas we move down the age scale, with the figure forthe youngest group (6.9%) being half that for theoldest group (13.4%).

70


Figure 68. BAC, ERABIL Index per age group. 2001


Age groups Basque speakers New Basque speakers

20 10 0 4030201003040% %

>=85

80-84

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

15-19

10-14

5-9

Active in Basque

Active in both

Passive in Basque

71


Figure 69. BAC, Basque speakers per age group. 2001

Figure 70. BAC, new Basque speakers per age group. 2001 Figure 71. BAC, native bilingual speakers per age group. 2001


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

Active in Basque

Active in both

Grupos de edad

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

>=85

Age groups

80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9

The use of Basque at home among new Basquespeakers varies widely. The average percentage ofthose who mainly use Basque is 4.1%, althoughthere are major differences between the various agegroups. Among new Basque speakers under theage of 30, the average percentage of those whogenerally use Basque at home is less than 2%, whileamong those aged between 35 and 60, the averageis around 13%. This figure drops once again amongthe over 60s. The average percentage of those whouse both languages is considerably higher (11.8%),but the trend regarding use according to age groupis similar to that of those who mainly use Basque; lowpercentages among the under 30s and over 60s, andaverage figures that are twice as high among thoseaged between 35 and 60.

The results given above clearly show that the vastmajority of new Basque speakers (84.1%) use onlySpanish at home. Furthermore, among the under 30s,the use of Spanish is higher than the mean (around90%).

The fact that Basque use at home is so low amongnew Basque speakers is due both to the low densityof bilingual speakers in their respective homes andto the fact that they generally express themselvesbetter in Spanish.

Native bilingual speakers, on the other hand, mainlyuse both languages (62.6%), and there are hardly anydifferences between age groups, although we shouldpoint out that the percentages of use are higher thanthe mean among those aged between 35 and 60.On average, native bilingual speakers that mainly useBasque account for 5% in the under 25 age groupand over 10% among those aged between 30 and 55.

The figure then drops once again among the oldergenerations. Finally, almost one out of every threenative bilingual speakers (30.1%) use only Spanishat home. The differences between the age groupsare not particularly significant in this case, although itis worth highlighting that the proportion is higher thanthe mean among those under the age of 25.

1.4. The language used at home, according to the density of bilingual speakers in the home

Speaker density, together with a relative facilityto express oneself in one or other language are

the determining factors when it comes to using aspecific language. The relevance of both factors hasbeen solidly proved on the basis of the results of thethree sociolinguistic surveys carried out in the BasqueCountry to date. In the case of Basque we furtherknow that the density of bilinguals exerts a greaterinfluence when it comes to using Basque in the homethan in other domains of use, for example withfriends or at work. Moreover, for Basque to be thelanguage habitually used in the home all members ofthe family need to be able to speak it. It is enoughfor a single member of the family not to knowBasque for its use to drop noticeably.

The results of this survey fully confirm that premise.That is to say, when the density of bilinguals in homesin the BAC is over 80%, Basque is the language habi-tually used at home in 72.3% of the cases; in a further17.4% both Basque and Spanish are used. The re-maining 10.3% mainly uses Spanish.

But it only takes Basque language density in the familyto drop below 80% for the use of Basque, even in thebest case, that is to say when the density falls between60% and 80%, to drop to 16.5%, although it is alsotrue that the use of both languages rises to 33.7%.Below a 60% density of bilinguals in the home,hardly anybody uses Basque alone and even theuse of both languages is only 13%.

The results for the use of Basque at home in accor-dance with the density of bilingual speakers in eachof the three historical territories confirm the im-portance of the two main factors mentioned at thebeginning of this section, i.e. the relative ease withwhich an individual expresses him or herself in thelanguage and the density of bilingual speakers in hisor her environment. In Biscay and, mainly, in Gipuz-koa, where the percentage of bilingual speakers ishigh and the proportion of Basque speakers is noti-ceably higher than in Araba, the percentages for useat home are significantly higher than in that territory.In Araba, the low density of bilingual speakers andthe fact that the majority of them are new Basquespeakers (which means that the majority expressthemselves better in Spanish), means that Basqueuse in the home drops sharply, even when all oralmost all family members can speak the language.

72


73


Figure 72. Language used at home according to the density of bilingual speakers. 2001 (%)


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Density of bilingual in the home<25 25-44 45-59 60-80 >80

Gipuzkoa

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Biscay

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Araba


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%BAC

Basque. 2001

Both. 2001

Spanish. 2001

Language of use at home

V.Conclusions

Conclusions

The progress made over the last twenty years asregards knowledge of the Basque language in

the Basque Autonomous Community or Region (BAC)is evident. Bilingual speakers have increased fromone fifth of the population in 1981 to practically onethird in 2001, which means that during this time, morethan 200,000 new potential speakers have joined theBasque-speaking community. Furthermore, this in-crease is fairly generalised, i.e. it has occurred in allthree territories and, with the exception of the over65 segment of the population, in all age groups also.

At the same time, the quantitative advance of theBasque language has gradually established the charac-teristics that define a new type of bilingual speaker thathas less and less in common with the traditionalconcept of a person living in the countryside with amainly Basque-speaking family and social environment.Currently, the majority of bilingual speakers (66.3%)live in urban centres, mainly in the metropolitan areasof the three capitals and in municipalities with over10,000 inhabitants, located along the BAC’s main roadnetworks, as well as in a few isolated towns along thecoast. In other words, the majority of bilingual speakerslive in zones with higher population densities,characterised by a greater number of monolingual non-Basque speakers, something which has a clearinfluence on the possibilities available to such speakersin terms of using the language.

However, before analysing the situation of the Basquelanguage in greater detail, we should consider twophenomena that will have an important effect on theevolution of our language in both the short andmedium term. These phenomena are, on the one

hand, the accelerated ageing of the population, dueto the extremely low birth rate, and on the other, thearrival from the last decade of the previous centuryonwards of people born abroad. The ageing of the po-pulation is not a new phenomenon, although the arrivalof (mainly young) people from foreign countries is. Inorder to ensure the full integration of these peopleinto our society, it is vital that new initiatives be pro-posed to enable them to access the Basque languageas easily and naturally as possible.

As mentioned above, the increase in the number ofbilingual speakers has been spectacular over the lasttwenty years. However, it is also certain that practicallyhalf of the population of the BAC cannot speakBasque. There is therefore still much work to be done.

This has prompted us to analyse the main channelsfor learning Basque. We know that the intergenera-tional transmission of language occurs either throughthe family or through the education and adult learningsystems. In the case of the Basque language, therate for family transmission in the BAC is practically100%. Losses are few and far between and almostnon-existent among the younger generations. Further-more, although we are awaiting confirmation of thisphenomenon by a new study on family transmissionthat is due to be carried out shortly, we can never-theless state that family transmission of the Basquelanguage does not only occur in the best conditions,i.e. when both parents are bilingual, but also occurswith increasing frequency when only one parent speaksthe language, although in such cases, Basque isgenerally learned in conjunction with Spanish as ajoint first language.

The principal channel for Basque language learning,however, is without doubt the education system.Since the setting up of the various language models,the number of students enrolled in the B and D mo-dels has increased steadily, and this increase isdirectly proportional to the decrease in the numberof students enrolled in the A model. Nevertheless, itis true that the situation still varies widely from oneeducational level to the next. In Vocational Training,for example, the A model is the most popular, whilein Preprimary Education, nine out of every ten studentsare enrolled in the B or D model.

We can therefore define the increase in bilingual speak-ers as a young phenomenon. Bilingual speakersconstitute the majority group among the under 20segment of the population. Furthermore, the percen-tage of bilingual speakers increases as we move downthe age scale. In absolute figures also, the majority ofbilingual speakers (47.6%) are under the age of 30.

The majority of these young bilingual speakers havea totally Spanish-speaking family and social envi-ronment. They come from families in which no onespeaks Basque, and live in densely populated andmainly Spanish-speaking metropolitan areas. This isthe group known as new Basque speakers, i.e.people whose mother tongue is not Basque, but who,as mentioned above, have learned the language atschool.

The largest group within the group of bilingual speak-ers continues to be Basque speakers, i.e. those forwhom Basque is their mother tongue and who speakthe language correctly. However, a detailed analysisaccording to territory, municipality or age group showsus a different situation. While in Gipuzkoa and Biscay

77

Conclusions

Basque speakers generally outnumber new Basquespeakers, in Araba, almost three out of every fourbilingual speakers are new Basque speakers. Thesespeakers also constitute the majority group in thelarge metropolitan areas and among young peopleunder the age of 25.

The environment in which young bilingual speakerslive is not the most conducive to Basque languageuse, and the home environment in particular still hasa long way to go. The results of the three sociolin-guistic surveys of the Basque Country carried out todate show that the factors which most influenceBasque use are the density of bilingual speakers inan individual’s environment and the ease with whichthat individual expresses him or herself in Basque, afactor closely related to mother tongue. Similarly, theresults show that Basque use at home is only guaran-teed when all members of the family speak Basque,and that if just one of them does not speak the lan-guage, the percentage of use drops sharply.

If we analyse the real use of Basque at home, or inother words, if we ask ourselves whether, bearing inmind the entire population of the BAC, Basque iscurrently used more in the home environment thanten years ago, we see that, in general, its use hashardly varied at all, although it has increased slightlyamong young people under the age of 25. This in-crease is due to the fact that a growing number ofparents learned Basque at some point in their livesand, although they are unable to express themselvescorrectly (they are passive bilingual speakers), theynevertheless speak Basque with their children.

If we want this growing number of bilingual speakerswho have learned Basque at school or through Bas-quisation and adult literacy programmes to use thelanguage as their habitual form of communication, ifwe want an increasing number of people to speak inBasque, to use it more and more often not only athome, but in all areas of life, then we need to ensurethat bilingual speakers are able to express themselvesfluently and naturally in the Basque language.

This premise, which is not less true for being self-evident, constitutes the purpose and objective of allactions aimed at promoting Basque language use.We will never speak more Basque in more placesand with more people if the language is not an easy,satisfying form of communication; and in order toensure that it is, we need to improve speakers’ lan-guage competence and give bilingual speakers theopportunity to use Basque in their everyday lives.

In this sense, it is not unreasonable to assume thatthe growing number of attractive activities, servicesand products in Basque will, over time, change thehabits and customs of consumers and users, en-couraging them to see the use of Basque in theirdaily activities, relationships and habits as an entirelynatural occurrence.

78


VI.Glossary

Glossary: definition of the variables and conceptsused in the sociolinguisticanalysis (1981-2001)

Language competence (VPL)1

Category which combines the different levels ofbasic language skills (comprehension, speaking,reading and writing) in order to establish the level ofmastery of the language (Basque).

Bilingual speakers

Those who at least understand and speak Basque“well”.

Passive bilingual speakers (VPL)

Those who speak Basque “with difficulty” or whounderstand or read it “well”, even though they cannotspeak it.

Monolingual non-Basque speakers (VPL)

Those who neither speak Basque nor understand orread it “well”.

Language spoken at home

The language spoken most frequently in the homeenvironment.

Language mobility (BILA)

A typology established by crossing Mother tongueand Language competence (VPL) variables, whichaims to analyse the language evolution of individuals.The cross gives rise to 15 different categories,although they have been re-grouped into 7 categoriesfor the purposes of analysis.

Basque speakers

Those for whom Basque is their mother tongue, andwho understand and speak it “well”.


Those for whom both Basque and Spanish are mothertongues, and who understand and speak Basque“well”.


Those for whom either Basque alone or Basque andSpanish are mother tongues, but who speak Basque“with difficulty” or do not speak it at all, despite un-derstanding or reading it “well”.


Those for whom either Basque alone or Basque andSpanish are mother tongues, but who do not speakBasque, nor understand nor read it “well”.

New (L2) Basque speakers

Those for whom either Spanish or another languageother than Basque is their mother tongue, but whounderstand and speak Basque “well”.


Those for whom either Spanish or another languageother than Basque is their mother tongue, and whospeak Basque “with difficulty” or who understand orread it “well”, despite not speaking it.

Spanish speakers

Those for whom either Spanish or another languageother than Basque is their mother tongue, and whodo not speak Basque nor understand nor read it“well”.

Use of Basque in the home (ERABIL)

A typology established by crossing the reduced Lan-guage Mobility category and the Language spokenat home variable. Its aim is to assess individuals’level of language “activity”. The typology includes 36 different categories, although they have been re-grouped into 15 categories for the purposes of analysis.

Active Basque speakers

Those for whom Basque is their mother tongue, whounderstand and speak it “well”, and whose primarylanguage at home is Basque.

Basque speakers active in both languages

Those for whom Basque is their mother tongue, whounderstand and speak it “well”, and whose primarylanguages at home are both Basque and Spanish.

81

Glossary

1 VPL: Classification established by the Sub-Ministry for LanguagePolicy’s Service for Basque Studies and Promotion.

Passive Basque speakers

Those for whom Basque is their mother tongue, whounderstand and speak it “well”, but whose primarylanguage at home is Spanish.

Active native bilingual speakers

Those for whom both Basque and Spanish aremother tongues, who understand and speak Basque“well” and whose primary language at home isBasque.

Native bilingual speakers active in both languages

Those for whom both Basque and Spanish aremother tongues, who understand and speak Basque“well” and whose primary languages at home areboth Basque and Spanish.

Passive native bilingual speakers

Those for whom both Basque and Spanish are mothertongues, who understand and speak Basque “well”but whose primary language at home is Spanish.

Active partially Spanishised speakers

Those for whom either Basque alone or Basque andSpanish are mother tongues, but who speak Basque“with difficulty” or do not speak it at all, despiteunderstanding or reading it “well”, and whose primarylanguage at home is Basque.

Partially Spanishised speakers active in both languages

Those for whom either Basque alone or Basque andSpanish are mother tongues, but who speak Basque“with difficulty” or do not speak it at all, despite un-derstanding or reading it “well”, and whose primarylanguages at home are both Basque and Spanish.

Passive partially Spanishised speakers

Those for whom either Basque alone or Basque andSpanish are mother tongues, but who speak Basque“with difficulty” or do not speak it at all, despite un-derstanding or reading it “well”, and whose primarylanguage at home is Spanish.

Active new Basque speakers

Those for whom either Spanish or another languageother than Basque is their mother tongue, but whounderstand and speak Basque “well” and whoseprimary language at home is Basque.

New Basque speakers active in both languages

Those for whom either Spanish or another languageother than Basque is their mother tongue, but whounderstand and speak Basque “well” and whoseprimary languages at home are both Basque andSpanish.

Passive new Basque speakers

Those for whom either Spanish or another languageother than Basque is their mother tongue, but whounderstand and speak Basque “well” and whoseprimary language at home is Spanish.

Active partial new Basque speakers

Those for whom either Spanish or another languageother than Basque is their mother tongue, and whospeak Basque “with difficulty” or who understand orread it “well”, despite not speaking it and whoseprimary language at home is Basque.

Partial new Basque speakers active in both languages

Those for whom either Spanish or another languageother than Basque is their mother tongue, and whospeak Basque “with difficulty” or who understand orread it “well”, despite not speaking it and whoseprimary languages at home are both Basque andSpanish.

Passive partial new Basque speakers

Those for whom either Spanish or another languageother than Basque is their mother tongue, and whospeak Basque “with difficulty” or who understand orread it “well”, despite not speaking it and whoseprimary language at home is Spanish.

82


Price: 10 €

9 788445 722398

ISBN 84-457-2239-5

3rd Sociolinguistic Map - euskara.euskadi.eus · 3rd Sociolinguistic Map 2001 Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2005 Eusko Jaurlaritzaren Argitalpen Zerbitzu Nagusia Servicio Central de Publicaciones

Documents