![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
The Italian linguistic situation is characterised by a remarkable number of language varieties, although the development of Italian in the past 150 years has been the cause of a language shift from local languages to Italian. The degree of endangerment suffered by so-called ‘Italian dialects’ is shown using the Major Evaluative Factors of Language Vitality drawn up by a UNESCO ad hoc expert group in 2003, and the data offered by the 2006 ISTAT survey on language use. The debate in Italy on the vitality of ‘dialects’ and their future has done little to activate mechanisms and strategies to reverse the worrying language shift that both minority languages and ‘dialects’ are undergoing.
Notes
Notes
Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are by the author.
1. According to Suzanne Romaine (Citation2000, 35), a ‘minority language’ is ‘one with a relatively small number of speakers living within the domain of a more widely spoken language, whose knowledge is usually necessary for full participation in society’. While this definition could apply to what are known as ‘Italian dialects’ as well, in the Italian context the term ‘minority language’ is used only for those languages that have been recognised by Law 482/1999 and perhaps for a few more that activists are trying to get included in this Law (such as Romany).
2. Twelve minority languages are recognised and protected by Law 482/1999: French, Provençal, Franco-Provençal, German, Ladin, Friulian, Slovene, Sardinian, Catalan, Albanian, Greek and Croatian. The thirteenth language appearing in the original bill, Romany, had to be excluded as a condition required by the opposition (Forza Italia and Alleanza Nazionale) for not hindering the passing of the law. As a matter of fact, both these parties subsequently abstained from voting in the Senate (Bogaro Citation2003, 8).
3. It is quite common, particularly outside Italy, to use the term ‘dialect’ to refer to ‘subdivisions of a particular language’ (Chambers and Trudgill Citation1998, 3) or, as Manuel Alvar (Citation1996, 13) puts it, as ‘a system of signs deriving from a common language, living or defunct, normally with a concrete geographical limitation, but not strongly differentiated vis-à-vis others of the same origin’. Quite clearly these definitions do not apply to the Italian context, unless, obviously, we define all Romance varieties as dialects of Latin.
4. The percentage of people speaking mainly the local dialect added to those speaking both Italian and the local dialect within the family. At the time of the first ISTAT survey on the use of dialects in 1987/1988 this percentage was 56.9%.
5. Almost 28,500,000 dialect speakers, plus about 2 million minority language speakers, out of a total population of 58,751,711 in 2006 (ISTAT).
6. It should be noted, however, that other estimates have been made of the percentage of the Italian population who could speak Italian at the time of Unification, which differ considerably from De Mauro's one. For example, according to Arrigo Castellani (Citation1982) this percentage was under 10, whereas Luca Serianni (Citation1990, 41–67) calculated it as being 12%.
7. The Prose della volgar lingua by Pietro Bembo was published in 1525.
8. E.g., St Francis of Assisi's and Jacopone da Todi's poems (XIII century, Umbrian), or Bonvesin de la Riva's writings (XIV century, Lombard), or the poets of the Sicilian School (XIII century, Sicilian), among others.
9. Among the intellectuals who were in favour of the dialects was the linguist Graziadio Isaia Ascoli (1829–1907), one of the main figures involved in the nineteenth-century Questione della lingua. He ‘highlighted the richness of the linguistic and cultural traditions represented by the dialects, and the advantages that could be drawn, in the learning of the national language, from a comparison of dialects and Italian. On the other hand, [he] maintained that it was useful rather than harmful to have a situation of bilingualism, with speakers who could master both their dialect and Italian’ (Lepschy and Lepschy Citation1993, 27).
10. ‘For many children starting primary school or, even before that, nursery school and hearing Italian being spoken, and having to write in Italian, was equivalent to emigrating’ (De Mauro and Lodi Citation1979, 20).
11. For a brief but clear account of the Questione della lingua, see, e.g., Lepschy and Lepschy (Citation1993, 16–35) and Moss (Citation2000).
12. Dialects like Neapolitan, Sicilian or Venetian, e.g., are still spoken by a large percentage of the population (72.2%, 71.7% and 69.9%, respectively) and their demise looks far away yet.
13. However, it has to be said that the evidence given is not entirely convincing. In fact, it is based on anecdotal examples and on the DOXA data, which is less reliable than the ISTAT data. In addition, even the more optimistic figures given in the DOXA surveys may be due to the increased prestige that dialects have enjoyed in recent years, as Berruto himself recognizes (Berruto Citation2002, 49).
14. This group is made up of the following scholars: M. Brenzinger, A. M. Dwyer, T. de Graaf, C. Grinevald, M. Krauss, O. Miyaoka, N. Ostler, O. Sakiyama, M. E. Villalón, A. Y. Yamamoto and O. Zepeda.
15. The corresponding endnotes will show the very different results obtained by three Spanish examples of regional/minority languages that share similar sociolinguistic traits to the Italian ones examined here: Galician (comparable with Friulian), Asturian (comparable with many Italian dialects) and Aranese (comparable with Cimbrian).
16. Another major problem that has not been highlighted is that even when people do write in their own ‘dialect’, most of them do so in an idiosyncratic way, as they are not literate in their own language. Schools could play an important role in obviating this problem.
17. This was the text of the first three articles of the bill: Article 1 (Aims) 1. The regions, implementing the aims with respect to the promotion of the historical and cultural heritage in their own territories, will protect and promote the local dialects in their oral and literary use. These dialects should be those present and recognizable in parts of the regional territory, whether these coincide with subregional administrative districts or not. Article 2 (Initiatives) 1. The regions will support the activities aimed at the protection and promotion of dialects and their literary heritage, such as fiction, theatre, poetry and singing. 2. The activities referred to in paragraph 1 include the following sectors: i. studies and research; ii. production of teaching aids; iii. school initiatives aimed at the promotion of regional dialects in their various expressive forms; iv. training and refresher courses, seminars and conferences; v. publication of books, records, audiovisual aids, multimedia and exhibitions; vi. establishment and development of libraries and sound archives; vii. events, shows, radio and television programmes, artistic productions related to the regional dialects; viii. research and studies on place names. Article 3 (Agreements) 1. For the implementation of the initiatives envisaged in article 2, the regions can: stipulate agreements with universities, documentation and research centres, both public and private, non-profit-making bodies and cultural associations, school collective bodies in collaboration with provinces, consortia of communes in mountain areas and other communes; award scholarships and prizes for degree dissertations on the dialects of the regions. (http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg14/lavori/stampati/sk1500/frontesp/1059.htm)
18. Not to be confused with a regional variety of Italian, or ‘regional Italian’, which is a variety of Italian showing some traits, particularly in phonology and lexicon, that derive mostly from the local ‘dialect’.
19. In another part of his paper, Wicherkiewicz (Citation2001, 5–6) makes a list of the sociolinguistic processes regional languages tend to undergo, which are: ‘[T]hey are used actively predominantly in the cultural life of the region; they usually lack the proper instruments of language planning; the bodies responsible for their protection and promotion are mainly various [recently founded] cultural associations [and] scholarly institutions …; rarely bilingualism can be observed within the regional language communities, the most common situation being diglossia; monolinguals of regional languages can no longer be found; the education in, and teaching of, regional languages is still hardly developed, [which] deepens [further] the generation gap in active language use; the regional languages are present in the mass-media only at a (sub)regional level: local press, regional radio broadcasting stations, hardly any televisions; religious services in regional languages are still rare; literature in these languages covers only [few] literary domains: mainly regional folklore and traditions, children's literature, poetry, etc.’ In this case, too, most or all of these processes characterise the so-called Italian ‘dialects’.
20. It has also been claimed that minority/regional languages could be an economic asset, e.g., through cultural tourism and related enterprises (see, e.g., Istitut de Sociolingüística Catalana 1996; Grin Citation2003).
21. Galician and Aranese would score 5, while Asturian would score 4.
22. Galician would score 4, Aranese would score 3 and Asturian would score 2.
23. Galician and Aranese would score between 5 and 4, whereas Asturian would score 4.
24. Galician would score 5, Aranese 3 and Asturian between 3 and 2.
25. Galician, Aranese and Asturian would score 5.
26. Galician and Aranese would score 5, whereas Asturian would score between 5 and 4.
27. Galician and Aranese would score 5, whereas Asturian would probably score 4.
28. Galician would score 5 and Asturian would score 4, whereas Aranese would probably score between 4 and 3.