Research & Response

Influences on the standardisation of modern Italian: Applying the frameworks of Haugen and Joseph

GEORGINA FOLLOWS (UPPER SIXTH)

Today 34 native Italian dialects are spoken, central to Italy’s cultural identity and reflecting its history as independent states until 1861. Since its unification, however, Italy has adopted Florentine as its standard language, officially since 2007. I explored the process of this standardisation, relating to frameworks composed by linguists John Earl Joseph and Einar Haugen.

Joseph writes that for a ‘standard’ language to exist there must exist non-standard varieties, a normative grammar, an established writing system and the ability to translate into another standard (Joseph, 1987). Haugen identifies four stages of standardisation: (1) selection of norm (2) codification (creation of a model of standard usage), (3) elaboration of function (enhancement into a ‘developed’ language), and (4) acceptance by community (Haugen, 1966). These stages are not necessarily chronological or mutually exclusive, though selection generally occurs first. I mainly explored Italian’s selection and acceptance, many influences over which correlate with Joseph’s factors affecting standardisation: (1) redefinition of a speech community; (2) emergence of a dominant dialect; (3) change in degree of ‘abstand’; (4) change in the emerging dialect’s prestige to outsiders and changes in attitudes of speakers within the speech community; (5) change or increase in influence of cultural avant-garde; (6) change in the language’s writing system and use in writing; (7) codification of the dialect’s grammar; (8) change in functional range; (9) desire to change (usually reduce) internal variation within a speech community; and (10) change in the standard’s status (Joseph, 1987).

As Romance languages, Italian dialects descend from Vulgar Latin, the heterogeneous colloquial forms of the Roman Empire’s lingua franca. Due to the vast extent of Latin’s imposition, great linguistic variation developed on regional and social levels. The distinguishable development of Italian began in the fifth century, after the fall of the Roman Empire. At this point, most people spoke local vernaculars evolved from Vulgar Latin, although Classical Latin, Europe’s established written language, was still used in European universities and churches (J:4,5). Of all the modern Italian dialects, Florentine is closest to Classical Latin, which already had a codified grammatical system and elaborated vocabulary (H:2,3), facilitating Florentine’s establishment as a standard language.

Florentine’s selection as standard was influenced perhaps most significantly by Dante Alighieri (1265–1321), arguably the early Renaissance’s most influential writer. Dante’s Commedia (1307–1321), unparalleled in other dialects, first formalised Florentine and, thanks to its wide-reaching publication and popularity, established this as Italy’s ‘literary’ language (J:4,5,6). Meanwhile, other dialects were predominantly spoken, failing to meet Joseph’s requirement for a standard language to have an established writing system. Florence was also a renowned place for learning and home to the House of Medici’s vastly influential political and artistic dynasties (1434–1737), with clients such as Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Machiavelli and Galileo reinforcing the prestige of Florence’s culture and dialect (J:4,5). Dante’s extensive writing along with Renaissance Florence’s cultural and political significance meant that when a universal language was needed Florentine would almost inevitably be selected.

With Italy’s unification in 1861 came a desire to reduce the country’s internal linguistic variation to facilitate nationwide communication and create a sense of national identity (J:1,8,9). Florentine had already emerged as dominant, and by the 19th Century had spread widely enough to be selected as a common language (J:2/H:1). Being an intermediary between Italy’s northern and southern dialects, already DANTE’S COMMEDIA (1307–1321), UNPARALLELED IN OTHER DIALECTS, FIRST FORMALISED FLORENTINE AND, THANKS TO ITS WIDE-REACHING PUBLICATION AND POPULARITY, ESTABLISHED THIS AS ITALY’S ‘LITERARY’ LANGUAGE.

having an established writing system and having gained prestige through cultural significance made Florentine a logical choice for a standard (J:4,5,6). However, it wasn’t until ubiquitous standardised schooling exposed a wider demographic to the standard that many abandoned their native dialects in its favour.

Haugen writes that ‘every self-respecting nation needs […] a fully developed language. Anything less marks it as underdeveloped’ (Haugen, 1966). Endeavouring to create such a nation, Mussolini’s Fascist regime (1922–1943) sought to reduce linguistic variation (J:9), prohibiting dialects across Italy and formally codifying and ‘fully developing’ the imposed standard (H:2,3/J:7). The Accademia d’Italia thus composed an official standard (Florentine-based) vocabulary, as well as rules of pronunciation and orthography, rigidly imposed throughout the Fascist era. Many foreign loanwords were ‘Italianised’ during this period to reinforce external distinction. However, by 1951 only 18% of the population had abandoned their native dialect and in the post-Fascist era many returned to speaking regional mother tongues.

The 20th Century Italian army was enormously impactful in dialectal levelling and the population’s uptake of the standard language (H:4). Mandatory military service exposed millions of soldiers to varying dialects from distant regions; linguistic diversity caused issues here, both with communication and in creating a shared national identity. To reduce variation within the speech community (J:9), the recently standardised Italian (‘italiano popolare’) was accepted (H:4) as a lingua franca, allowing communication among troops of differing origins. Many also learnt to write in the trenches – in the standard form as local dialects were only spoken – meaning that, in order to communicate, families also had to

learn this supraregional ‘italiano popolare’. Although unmentioned in either of the frameworks I studied, I would therefore hypothesise that increased popular mobility plays a key role in dialectal levelling.

Arguably the most influential factor in the acceptance of standard Italian was late-20th Century advancement in mass media distribution, especially radio and television broadcasting. Television broadcasting in the standard was introduced in 1954, but it was not until Italy’s economic boom (1958–62) that programmes in the standard were broadcast to most households and the population’s exposure to and acceptance of the language drastically increased (H:4). I would also suggest that emigration, globalisation and an increase in mobility in the twentieth century encouraged the adoption of a common language to aid universal communication (J:9).

In summary, Italy’s unification in 1861, redefining the speech community’s geo-political borders (J:1), meant an unprecedented need to reduce internal linguistic variation (J:9). Florentine had already become dominant due to prestigious Renaissance culture and literature and its established writing system (J:2,4,5,6), making it appropriate for selection (H:1). Grammatically codified and elaborated, increasing its functional range, under the Fascists (H:2,3/J:7,8), the standard was accepted most successfully in the 20th Century due to popular movement and integration in the army, and later as technological advancements facilitated increased movement, communication and mass media distribution (H:4). The standard thus gained a heightened status, becoming Italy’s official language in 2007, accepted today by the majority of Italians (J:10/H:4). Additionally, I would update Joseph’s framework to consider influences of increasing mobility and globalisation on dialectal levelling.

Response

PROFESSOR DAVID YEANDLE, MA, PHD (CANTAB.) (1973)

This is a mature essay on a complex subject. It bodes very well for Nina’s university studies. She has not only shown herself capable of producing work of which any undergraduate would be proud, but has also thought carefully about the topic and contributed some original ideas to the advancement of the subject. Moreover, she treats a subject – the standardisation of the Italian language – which she has not been studying at school and which is still relevant in terms of its continuing development in the 21st Century. She is to be warmly congratulated on having won The Perse’s Rouse Research Award.

I should begin by explaining that, although I am a linguist, my specialism is the German language. The standardisation of the language is one of the major topics in German historical linguistics and shares several points of comparison with Italian, but there are also differences. The first obvious similarity is that both Italy and Germany were unified politically at approximately the same time, in the latter part of the 19th Century, after having been comprised for many years previously of independent states. The standardisation of the language frequently goes together with the unification of a country. Linguistic standardisation will often begin before political unification and will usually be accelerated as a result of the latter. It is usually based on the language of the capital city (as in England). In the case of both Italy and Germany, there was no capital city until after political unification, so both linguistic standards emerged for different reasons.

Nina shows how there are many factors that affected the standardisation of Italian, using a theoretical framework of two sociolinguists, Einar Haugen and John Joseph. She fits data that she has gleaned for Italian into this framework, with positive results.

Lingua toscana in bocca romana is a well-known Italian phrase—a maxim to indicate the ‘best’ form of Italian: ‘the language of Tuscany as spoken by the inhabitants of Rome’. Pronunciation is secondary, but one of the most important aspects of linguistic standardisation is geographical area. In the case of Italian, the regional language of Tuscany became paramount. Nina shows how cultural and political factors led to the emergence of Tuscan as the basis of a national standard language.

Florence, the capital city of Tuscany, was, of course, the hub of the Renaissance and was therefore very significant culturally as well as linguistically. The great Florentine poet Dante Alighieri (1265–1321), author of one of the greatest works of world literature, The Divine

Comedy, was one of the major factors affecting the emergence of this form of Italian for the standard. A parallel in German is Martin

Luther (1483–1546), whose brilliant Bible translation, based on the language of Meißen, helped establish East Central German as the basis for standard German. When Johann Christoph Gottsched came to codify German

in the 18th Century, he asserted that the standard language should be based on the best dialect and the best authors. Luther was often regarded as the father of the German language, which in turn was regarded as a Protestant dialect. Clearly, with Italian, the religious dimension was lacking, but beginning with Dante and continuing with Petrarch (1304–74) and Boccaccio (1313–75), the Florentine language became established as the literary language par excellence. Likewise, Dante is often regarded as the father of Italian. Indeed, as Nina shows, his language is very close to the modern standard, so that present-day editions of his works do not need to be modernised.

Of course, there are many further factors that contribute to the standardisation of a language. Nina investigates many of these, for example dialectal levelling amongst soldiers in the two world wars, the rise of fascism and the proscription of dialects by Mussolini. The introduction of universal primary education further played a significant role, as did the introduction of broadcasting in the 20th Century.

To conclude, I should like to highlight some of the original aspects of this essay, where Nina has drawn conclusions that are not to be found in the literature that she consulted. The first is the impact of increased mobility of a population on linguistic standardisation. This is certainly seen in the case of

German standardisation (c. 1350), where settlers from different areas converged in East Central Germany, resulting in much dialectal levelling. It would be well worth pursuing this aspect for Italian. The second aspect is globalisation, which Nina mentions briefly at the end of her essay. The use of Italian internationally in the media and especially in the internet is a developing phenomenon which is bound to affect standardisation. It is worth remembering that a living language is always changing. It may have been codified as a standard language at a time of linguistic convergence, but it can similarly begin to diverge for a variety of reasons. Twitter, Facebook, the internet generally, youth language, the inexorable rise of global English are all factors that are affecting, and will continue to influence, standard Italian. The interplay between colloquial Italian and the ‘literary’ standard will also offer much scope for further (empirical) research.

Professor David Yeandle is an Affiliated Lecturer in German at the University of Cambridge, and Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Fellow at King’s College London, where he taught for over 30 years and was Professor and Head of Department before taking early retirement in 2010. His principal teaching interests are in the History of the German Language, from the earliest times to the present day and German translation. He has published widely on linguistic and medieval topics, including medieval literature and the sociolinguistics of German. In addition to journal articles and essays, he is the author of three books. He has co-edited and contributed to volumes on Old High German, lexicography and lexicology. He is currently working on 19th-century ecclesiastical history.

SHE HAS NOT ONLY SHOWN HERSELF CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WORK OF WHICH ANY UNDERGRADUATE WOULD BE PROUD, BUT HAS ALSO THOUGHT CAREFULLY ABOUT THE TOPIC AND CONTRIBUTED SOME ORIGINAL IDEAS TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE SUBJECT.