Cover not available
Part of
Contested Languages: The hidden multilingualism of Europe
Edited by Marco Tamburelli and Mauro Tosco
[Studies in World Language Problems 8] 2021
► pp. 59–86

Chapter 4
Mixing methods in linguistic classification

A hidden agenda against multilingualism? The contestedness of Gallo-“Italic” languages within the Romance family

 | Bangor University
The scholarly literature unanimously describes Gallo-“Italic” as showing all the structural traits that distinguish Gallo-Romance from the other Romance varieties. Nonetheless, while some scholars classify Gallo-“Italic” as Gallo-Romance, others classify it as Italo-Romance (‘pro-Italo- scholars). These two labels (‘Gallo-Romance’ and ‘Italo-Romance’) are irreconcilable, as they are normally used in the family tree model to name two cousin taxa: Gallo-Romance is a Western Romance daughter, while Italo-Romance is an Eastern Romance daughter. In this chapter I argue that this problem can best be understood by applying Kloss’s distinction of Abstand vs. Ausbau. I will show that, in their proposed classifications, the pro-Italo- scholars mix the Abstand and the Ausbau criteria and that this is inconsistent with the aims of classificatory science. In fact, following Kloss (1993), the status of Abstand language and that of Ausbau language are defined on two dimensions – namely, according to two variables – that are ontologically and conceptually independent (see also Tamburelli 2014). Indeed, however a linguistic variety is classified along one of these two dimensions, it does not affect its classification along the other dimension. Therefore, Abstand and Ausbau must be seen as classificatory criteria for two independent classifications. I argue that, in science, classifications have an informative function, and that by employing mixed criteria, pro-Italo- scholars have provided a flawed “classification” that is informative neither of the Abstand nor of the Ausbau status of the varieties being classified, hence it is not useful for scientific purposes and should therefore be rejected. The final section sketches out how future research might consider how the acknowledgment of Gallo-“Italic” as Gallo-Romance collides with assumptions of nationalism, possibly constituting a taboo, which suggests that the unexpected classification of Gallo-“Italic” as Italo-Romance may be due to extra-linguistic reasons. In a preliminary analysis, I propose that contesting the Gallo-Romance genealogical-structural profile of Gallo-“Italic” varieties could be a means of preventing (many of) their speakers from developing awareness of the fact that they speak languages distinct from Italian (and not “Italian dialects”, as the nationalist rhetoric assumes), and consequently, inhibiting or containing a possible movement claiming the right of these languages to official public support.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Geographical introduction
    • 1.2Problem statement. Two competing groupings for Romance varieties
    • 1.3Some representative contributions of the two competing traditions
    • 1.4Ausbau vs. Abstand
    • 1.5Classificatory criteria and distinct classifications
    • 1.6Possible causes for the disagreement between pro-Gallo- and pro-Italo- traditions
      • 1.6.1First possible cause
      • 1.6.2Second possible cause
      • 1.6.3The third possibility
  • 2.Issues with the “Mixed criterion tradition”
    • 2.1Scientific classifications
    • 2.2The ontological problem in Pellegrini (1975), ‘The five systems of Italo-Romance’
    • 2.3Pellegrini and the exceptional “diversity of the ‘Italo-Romance’ idioms”
    • 2.4The ad hoc problem in Loporcaro (2009), ‘Linguistic profile of Italian dialects’
      • 2.4.1The misleading use of the expression “roof-language” in Loporcaro (2009)
  • 3.Preliminary conclusions
  • 4.Some considerations and questions for future research
    • 4.1Nationalist ideology
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.8.04bra
References (51)
References
Alinei, Mario. 2000. Origini delle lingue d’Europa. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Bartoli, Matteo Giulio. 1936. Caratteri Fondamentali delle Lingue Neolatine. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 28: 97–133.Google Scholar
Bailey, Kenneth D. 1994. Typologies and taxonomies: an introduction to classification techniques. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bec, Pierre. 1970–1971. Manuel pratique de philologie romane. Paris: Picard.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano. 1995. Fondamenti di sociolinguistica. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1998. Historical linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coluzzi, Paolo. 2007. Minority language planning and micronationalism in Italy. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2009. Endangered minority and regional languages (‘dialects’) in Italy. Modern Italy 14 (1): 39–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devitt, Michael. 2008. Resurrecting biological essentialism. Philosophy of Science 75(3): 344–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devoto, Giacomo, and Gabriella Giacomelli. 1972. I dialetti delle regioni d’Italia. Firenze: Sansoni.Google Scholar
Diez, Friedrich. 1838–1872. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Bonn: Weber.Google Scholar
Ehret, Christopher, and Margaret Kinsman. 1981. Shona dialect classification and its implications for Iron Age history in southern Africa. The International Journal of African Historical Studies 14 (3): 401–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fishman, Joshua A. 2008. Rethinking the Ausbau–Abstand dichotomy into a continuous and multivariate system. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 191: 17–26.Google Scholar
Gensini, Stefano. 2005. Breve storia dell’educazione linguistica dall’Unità a oggi. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Gigante, Claudio. 2011. ‘Fatta l’Italia, facciamo gli Italiani’. Appunti su una massima da restituire a d’Azeglio. Incontri. Rivista europea di Studi Italiani 26 (2): 5–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 2008. La dialettometrizzazione integrale dell’AIS: presentazione dei primi risultati. Revue de Linguistique Romane 285: 25–113.Google Scholar
Graffi, Giorgio, and Sergio Scalise. 2002. Le lingue e il linguaggio. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph Harold. 1950. Studies in African linguistic classification: VII. Smaller families; Index of languages. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6 (4): 388–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Robert Anderson. 1976. Proto-Romance phonology. New York, London, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hull, Geoffrey. 1982. The Linguistic Unity of Northern Italy and Rhaetia. PhD Thesis, University of Sidney. Published in 2017. Sydney: Beta Crucis Editions.Google Scholar
. 1990. Idealist Nationalism and Linguistic Dogma in Italy. In The shared horizon: essays in Italian language and literature, ed. by Tom O’Neill, 149–183. Dublin: Irish Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kloss, Heinz. 1952. Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen von 1800 bis 1950. München: Pohl.Google Scholar
. 1993. ‘Abstand Languages’ and ‘Ausbau Languages’, Vol. 35, No. 1/4, A retrospective of the Journal Anthropological Linguistics: selected papers, 1959–1985, 158–170. First published in Anthropological Linguistics 1967, 9 (7): 29–41.Google Scholar
. 1969. Research possibilities on group bilingualism: a report. Quebec (Canada): International Centre for Research on Bilingualism.Google Scholar
Kloss, Heinz and Grant D. McConnell (eds.). 1978. The written languages of the world: a survey of the degree and modes of use. Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Lausberg, Heinrich. 1965. Lingüística románica, Biblioteca Románica Hispánica, Editorial Gredos, Madrid. Original title: alemán: Romanische Sprachwissenschaft. Zweite, durchgesehene Auflage. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963. First published by De Gruyter, Berlin 1956.Google Scholar
Lewis, Paul, Gary Simons, and Charles Fennig (eds.). 2013. Ethnologue: languages of the world, 18th edition. Dallas: Texas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Lipson, Ephraim. 1921. Europe in the nineteenth century, London: Black.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2009. Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Manzoni, Alessandro. 1868. Dell’unità della lingua e dei mezzi di diffonderla. Nuova antologia 7: 425–441.Google Scholar
Merlo, Clemente. 1937. Lingue e dialetti d“Italia. Vallardi.Google Scholar
Moseley, Christopher (ed.). 2010. Atlas of the world’s languages in danger, 3rd edition. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
Muljačić, Žarko. 1984. Il fenomeno Überdachung “Tetto”,“copertura” nella sociolinguistica (con esempi Romanzi). Linguistica 24 (1): 77–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Sul ruolo della koinè nell’elaborazione linguistica. In Koinè in Italia dalle origini al Cinquecento, ed. by Glauco Sanga, 185–194. Bergamo: Pierluigi Lubrina Editore.Google Scholar
Pellegrini, Giovan Battista. 1975. I cinque sistemi dell’italo-romanzo. In Saggi di linguistica italiana. Storia, struttura, società, ed. by Giovan Battista Pellegrini, 55–87. Torino: Boringhieri. First published in Revue roumaine de linguistique 1973, 18.2: 105–129.Google Scholar
. 1992. Il ‘cisalpino’ e l’italo-romanzo. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 77: 272–296.Google Scholar
Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance languages. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1967. L’Italia dialettale (dal Piemonte in Sicilia). Nuovi argomenti 5: 22–28. Roma: Editori Riuniti.Google Scholar
Salamon, Eszter. 2011. Minorities without language hinterland on the basis of the Friulian and Sardinian minorities in Italy, Ms., Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Sanga, Glauco. 1990. La lingua lombarda. Dalla koinè alto-italiana delle origini alla lingua cortegiana. In Koinè in Italia dalle origini al Cinquecento, ed. by Glauco Sanga, 79–163. Bergamo: Lubrina Editore.Google Scholar
Schmid, Heinrich. 1956. Über Randgebiete und Sprachgrenzen. Vox Romanica 15 (2): 19–80.Google Scholar
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin of American Museum of Natural History 85: 1–350. Reprinted 1962.Google Scholar
Soria, Claudia. (2015). Assessing the effect of official recognition on the vitality of endangered languages: A case study from Italy. In Policy and planning for endangered languages, ed. by Mari C. Jones, 123–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamburelli, Marco. 2014. Uncovering the ‘hidden’ multilingualism of Europe: an Italian case study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35 (3): 252–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamburelli, Marco, and Lissander Brasca. 2017. Revisiting the classification of Gallo-Italic: a dialectometric approach. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 33 (2): 442–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thiesse, Anne-Marie. 1999. La création des identités nationales. Europe XVIIIe–XXe siècle. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 2004. The case for a laissez-faire language policy. Language & Communication 24 (2): 165–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Between endangerment and Ausbau. In Language contact and language decay. Socio-political and linguistic perspectives, ed. by Emanuele Miola and Paolo Ramat, 227–246. Pavia: IUSS Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1992. Ausbau sociolinguistics and the perception of language status in contemporary Europe. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 (2): 167–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wartburg, Walther von. 1936. La posizione della lingua italiana nel mondo neolatino: tre conferenze. Leipzig: Keller.Google Scholar
. 1967. La fragmentation linguistique de la Romania. Paris: Klincksieck, 1967 (translated from German Die Ausgliederung der RomanischenSprachräume (Bern: Verlag Francke: 1950) by Jacques Allières and Georges Straka).Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Brasca, Lissander, Marco Tamburelli, Ianto Gruffydd & Florian Breit
2024. A matter of strength: language policy, attitudes, and linguistic dominance in three bilingual communities. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Screti, Francesco
2024. Contested languages in the contemporary Italian press: an analysis of language ideology. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.