Cover not available
Part of
Language Variation - European Perspectives VII: Selected papers from the Ninth International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 9), Malaga, June 2017
Edited by Juan-Andrés Villena-Ponsoda, Francisco Díaz Montesinos, Antonio Manuel Ávila-Muñoz and Matilde Vida-Castro
[Studies in Language Variation 22] 2019
► pp. 71–84

Chapter 4
C’era i fascisti e i tedeschi

Instances of linguistic simplification in a corpus of Italiano popolare

 | University of Torino
 | University of Torino
The aim of this paper is the discussion of preliminary results of the ongoing study of an Italian substandard variety (italiano popolare) with the ParVa spoken corpus (Guerini 2016). The focus is on the interplay of two structural factors: contact with Italo-Romance dialects and linguistic simplification. The corpus shows previously overlooked syntactic features, which may improve the view of this subvariety and also allows a quantitative analysis of agreement in existential constructions.
Keywords: italiano popolare, social variation, simplification, existential constructions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.On italiano popolare
  • 3.Linguistic simplification in italiano popolare
  • 4.Research questions and methodology
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1New features
    • 5.2Case study: Existential constructions
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.22.04bal
References (31)
References
Adger, David and Jennifer Smith. 2010. Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 120. 1109–1134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alisova, Tatiana. 1965. Relative limitative e relative esplicative nell’italiano popolare. Studi di Filologia Italiana 23. 299–333.Google Scholar
Ballarè, Silvia. 2015. La negazione di frase nell’italiano contemporaneo: un’analisi sociolinguistica. Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 39. 37–71.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia, Francesco Maria Ciconte and Silvio Cruschina. 2013. Existential constructions in cross-linguistic perspective. Rivista di Linguistica 25 (1). 1–13.Google Scholar
Bernini, Giuliano and Paolo Ramat. 1996. Negative sentences in the languages of Europe. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano. 1983. L’italiano popolare e la semplificazione linguistica. Vox Romanica 42. 38–79.Google Scholar
. 1987. Lingua, dialetto, diglossia, dilalìa. In Romania et Slavia Adriatica. Festschrift für Zarko Muljačić, 57–81. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
. 2012 [1987]. Sociolinguistica dell’italiano contemporaneo. 2nd edn. Roma: Carocci (1987: Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica).Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano and Massimo Cerruti. 2015. Un esercizio di analisi variazionista: l’accordo verbale nel costrutto locativo-esistenziale-presentativo. In Grazia Busà and Sara Gesuato (eds.), Lingue e contesti. Studi in onore di Alberto A. Mioni, 609–620. Padova: CLEUP.Google Scholar
Cerruti, Massimo. 2011. Regional varieties of Italian in the linguistic repertoire. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210. 9–28.Google Scholar
. 2014. From language contact to language variation: a case of contact-induced grammaticalization in Italo-Romance. Journal of Language Contact 7. 288–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Costruzioni relative in italiano popolare. In Federica Guerini (ed.), Italiano e dialetto bresciano in racconti di partigiani, 77–116. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
Cerruti, Massimo and Riccardo Regis. 2014. Standardization patterns and dialect/standard convergence: A North-Western Italian perspective. Language in Society 43 (1). 83–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. 2004. Dynamic typology and vernacular universals. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 128–145. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cini, Monica. 2008 (ed). I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle varietà dialettali. Stato dell’arte e prospettive di ricerca, Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cortelazzo, Manlio. 1972. Avviamento critico allo studio della dialettologia italiana. In Lineamenti di italiano popolare. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1980. ‘Historische Sprache’ und ‘Dialekt’. In Joachim Göschel, Pavle Ivi and Kurt Kehr (eds.), Dialekt und Dialektologie, 106–22. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Crocco, Claudia. 2015. Corpora e testi di italiano contemporaneo. In M. Iliescu and Eugeen Roegiest (eds.), Manuel des anthologies, corpus et textes romans, 509–534. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio 1970[1963]. Storia linguistica dell’Italia unita. Seconda edizione, Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Goria, Eugenio and Caterina Mauri. 2018. Il corpus KIParla: una nuova risorsa per lo studio dell’italiano parlato. In Francesca Masini & Fabio Tamburini (eds.) Club Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 2. Bologna: Circolo linguistico dell'Università di Bologna.Google Scholar
Guerini, Federica (ed.) 2016. Italiano e dialetto bresciano in racconti di partigiani, Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter and Wulf Oesterreicher. 1990. Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch. Tubinga: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2009. World Englishes between simplification and complexification. In Thomas Hoffmann and Lucia Siebers (eds.), World Englishes – Problems, properties and prospects: Selected papers from the 13th IAWE conference (Varieties of English around the world): 263–286, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita and Leonardo Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa, Alessandra: Dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron and Jeanette Sakel. 2007, Investigating mechanism of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 31 (4). 829–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John H. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5. 125–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2008. Grammatical complexity in cross-linguistic perspective. In Miestamo Matti, Kaius Sinnemakl and Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity. Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Linguistic diversity and complexity. Lingue e Linguaggio vol XVI(2): 227–253.Google Scholar
Sanga, Glauco. 1980. Lettere dei soldati e formazione dell’italiano popolare unitario. In La grande guerra. Operai e contadini lombardi nel primo conflitto mondiale, 43–65. Milano: Silviana.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2009. There was universals; Then there weren’t: A comparative sociolinguistic perspective on ‘Default Singulars’. In Markku Fillpula, Juhani Klemola and Heli Paulasto (eds.), Vernacular universals and language contacts: Evidence from varieties of English and beyond, 103–129. New York-Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and R. Harald Baayen. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24 (2). 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar