Chapter published in:
Contested Languages: The hidden multilingualism of EuropeEdited by Marco Tamburelli and Mauro Tosco
[Studies in World Language Problems 8] 2021
► pp. 59–86
Chapter 4Mixing methods in linguistic classification
A hidden agenda against multilingualism? The contestedness of Gallo-“Italic” languages within the Romance family
Lissander Brasca | 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
https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.8.04bra
https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.8.04bra
References
Bartoli, Matteo Giulio
Bailey, Kenneth D.
Ehret, Christopher, and Margaret Kinsman
Fishman, Joshua A.
Gigante, Claudio
Goebl, Hans
Greenberg, Joseph Harold
Hull, Geoffrey
Kloss, Heinz
Kloss, Heinz and Grant D. McConnell
Lausberg, Heinrich
Lewis, Paul, Gary Simons, and Charles Fennig
Manzoni, Alessandro
Moseley, Christopher
Muljačić, Žarko
Pellegrini, Giovan Battista
Rohlfs, Gerhard
Salamon, Eszter
Sanga, Glauco
Simpson, George Gaylord
Soria, Claudia
Tamburelli, Marco
Tamburelli, Marco, and Lissander Brasca
Thiesse, Anne-Marie
Tosco, Mauro
Trudgill, Peter
Wartburg, Walther von