regional varieties of italian in the linguistic repertoire

0165–2516/11/0210–0009 Int’l. J. Soc. Lang. 210 (2011), pp. 9–28©WalterdeGruyter DOI10.1515/IJSL.2011.028

Regional varieties of Italian in the linguistic repertoire

MASSIMO CERRUTI

Abstract

This paper focuses on regional Italian as a special observatory for both syn-chronic and diachronic variation in Italian. After a brief overview of some key concepts (Section 1) and the state of the art (Section 2), I consider regional Italian in a language-contact perspective (Section 3). In addition, I analyze it from the viewpoint of the reciprocal relationship between dimensions of lin-guistic variation (Section 4). The topics addressed here range from the process of language shift from Italo-Romance dialects toward Italian to the decreas-ing regional markedness of contemporary Italian. They therefore include issues related to native-like competence, ongoing restandardization, and de-velopmental tendencies in Italian.

Keywords: linguistic variation; language contact; regional Italian; standardization.

1. RegionalvarietiesofItalianandItalo-Romancedialects

The sociolinguistic situationof Italy is characterizedby thepresenceof re-gionalvarietiesofItalian,whichisspokenalongsidemorethanfifteenItalo-Romancedialects1andaboutfifteenhistoricallinguisticminorities(besidesacertainnumberofnewlinguisticminorities).LikethegeographicaldialectsofBritishandAmericanEnglish,theregionalvarietiesofItalianarevarietiesofthenationallanguagethatarespokenindifferentgeographicalareas.Theydif-ferbothfromeachotherandfromstandardItalian(henceforthSI)atalllevelsof the languagesystem,especiallywith regard tophonetics,phonologyandprosody,andrepresenttheItalianactuallyspokenincontemporaryItaly.Com-mon Italian speakers regularly speak a regional variety of Italian,which istermedregional Italian(henceforthRI).Accordingto theCoseriandistinctionamongprimary,secondary,andter-

tiarydialects(Coseriu1980),regionalvarietiesofItalianshouldhenceforthbe

10 M. Cerruti

understoodastertiarydialects;theyarevarietiesresultingfromthegeographi-cal differentiation of the standard language after its social diffusion. Italo-Romancedialectsshouldinsteadbeunderstoodasprimarydialects,sincetheyarecoevalgeographicalvarietiesofthedialectfromwhichthestandardlan-guagedescends(Berruto2005:81–83).Therefore,wehavetodowithintra-linguistic variation in the former case, andwith interlinguistic variation inthelattercase.

2. ResearchonregionalItalian:twentyyearson(andbeyond)

ThereisgenerallyagreementthatscientificresearchonRIbegunafterthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,withaninvestigationcarriedoutbyRüegg(1956)onthegeographicalvariationofItalianlexicon.Thispioneeringworkwasfol-lowed by fundamental theoretical discussions and descriptive surveys. Theformerhadfocusedontheboundariesandthereciprocalrelationshipsamongdialects,RI,andsocialandsituationalvarietiesofItalianwithinthelinguisticrepertoire(cf.thebibliographyinBerruto1989:9–12).Thelatterdevelopedparticularly in thesecondhalfof the1970sandweremainlydevoted to thedetection of linguistic features that could describe and distinguish each re-gionalvarietyofItalian.CortelazzoandMioni(1990)offerafirstassessmentof both perspectives, following approximately thirty years of research (cf.Cerruti[2009:17–25]foranupdatedbibliographicreview).Although less steadily thanbefore, the last twodecadeshaveproduceda

wealthofresearchinRI,whichalsocontributedtotheongoingtheoreticalandmethodological debate in the field (cf. Telmon 1990, 1993; Benincà 1994;D’Achille2002;FuscoandMarcato2001;amongothers).Morerecently,stud-iesonRIhavemostlyfocusedonspecificaspects(evenspecificlinguisticfea-tures)ofsingleregionalvarieties,takingvariousperspectivesbasedondiffer-ent research traditions.Alongwith thewell-establishedapproachwithin theframeworkofthehistoryoftheItalianlanguage(e.g.Bruni1992)andthemorerecentapproachesthatdealwithComputationalLinguistics(Cucurulloetal.2006)andCorpusLinguistics(Pandolfi2006,2009),itispossibletopinpointatleastfiveprevalentapproaches(partiallyoverlapping),whichrelateinvari-ouswaystodifferentsubfieldsofLinguistics:

a) GeneralLinguistics,withaparticularfocusonsyntactic theory(cf.e.g.BenincàandPoletto2006;Garzonio2008;PenelloandPescarini2008;Berruto2009);

b) Contact Linguistics, mainly devoted to the study of substratum inter-ferencephenomena(cf.e.g.Berruto2005;Sornicola2006;BenincàandDamonte2009;CardinalettiandMunaro2009;Cerrutiforthcominga);

Regional varieties of Italian 11

c) Sociolinguisticsandvariationanalysis,alsobroadeningoutintomattersofSociologyofLanguage(cf.e.g.ContiandCourtens1992;Alfonzetti1997; Binazzi 1997;Amenta 1999, 2008; Berruto 2003;Miglietta andSobrero 2003; D’Achille and Viviani 2003; Fusco 2004; Regis 2006;Sobrero2006;Boario2008;Cerruti2007,2009);

d) Geolinguistics(cf.e.g.Sobreroetal.1991;Ruffino1995;Tempesta2002);e) Folk Linguistics and Perceptual Dialectology (cf. e.g. Stehl 1995;

AntoniniandMoretti2000;CiniandRegis2002;Binazzi2007).

TheapproachIfollowherederivesfromperspectivestakenfrombothCon-tactLinguisticsandSociolinguistics,andaimstoofferalsosomefindingsthatmaybeofinteresttothoseinvolvedintheSociologyofLanguage.

3. RegionalItalianintheframeworkoflanguagecontactphenomena

Until the early twentieth century, Italian was almost exclusively used inwritingandformalstyles.Itwasinadiglossicrelationshipwithadialect(thelanguagefordailyuse),anditwasmasteredbyaminorityofthepopulation(cf.DalNegroandVietti,thisissue).TheuseofItalianhasprogressivelyincreasedduringthetwentiethcentury

due to factorsofsocialchangesuchas thegradualspreadofeducation, theintroductionofcompulsorymilitaryservice(thatbroughttogetherforthefirsttimespeakersfromdifferentregions,hencespeakersofdifferentdialects),thetransitionfromanagrariansocietytoanindustrialsociety,andtheadventofmodernmasscommunication.Italianhasthusgraduallyenjoyeddiffusionbothindomainsformerlyreservedtotheuseofdialectandamongthepreviouslymonolingualdialectspeakers.At that time,dialectspeakerswereengagedinaprocessofgroupsecond

languageacquisition. Italian scholarshave suggested toconsiderRI, and inparticularitssocialvarietiesspokenbylesseducatedspeakers—theso-calleditaliano regionale popolare (‘folk’ RI), or simply italiano popolare (‘folk’Italian)—along the lines of interlanguages in second language acquisition(Telmon2001).TheimperfectlearningofItalianbydialectspeakershassub-sequentlyfavoredtheoccurrenceofdialectfeaturesinvarietiesofItalian.TheregionalvarietiesofItalianhavethereforederivedfromthisprocess.Substratuminterferencesarethustobeattributedtotheeffectsofaprocess

oflanguageshiftfromdialectstowardItalian(aprocessthatisstillunderway).Withrespect tothetypical language-shiftscenario, thecontactbetweendia-lectsandItaliandisplayshoweversomeexceptions,whicharemostlyduetotheparticularlingua cum dialectisrepertoire.OneoftheclearestexamplesiscertainlythatthesociolinguisticsituationofItalydoesnotshowtheexistence

12 M. Cerruti

ofashiftingminoritygroupofspeakersofthesourcelanguage(i.e.anItalo-Romancedialect)separatedfromamajoritygroupofnativespeakersof therecipientlanguage.Moreover,ifbyrecipientlanguagewemeanSI,therearesurelynonativespeakersofsuchavariety(seebelow).Hence,RIrepresentsontheonehandtheoutcomeofaprocessofunilateral

convergence,oradvergence (Advergenz [Mattheier1996:34]) fromdialectstowardItalian,andontheotherhand,as in the typicalcaseofformationoftertiarydialects(seeSection1),RIisalsotheoutcomeofaprocessofdiver-genceofgeographicalvarietiesfromthenationallanguage;itresultsfromaso-called“dialectizationof(varietiesof)Italian”(Berruto2005:83).Farfromdetermining linguistic unification, advergence has caused an increasing dif-ferentiationacrossthenationallinguisticrepertoire.Theformationof“folk”regionalvarietiesofItalianhasthenturnedintoa

set of shared interference features transcending regional boundaries, whichwasthebasisforthepresumedstandardizationofmodernitaliano regionalepopolare (Berretta1988:768;Stehl1995:56 –57).Putmoresimply,afterafirststageinwhichindividuallearnerscreatedtheirowninterlanguages,someofthepreviouslyidiosyncraticdialectinterferenceshavepresumablybecomefossilized,resultingintoanewestablishedcommongrammar,whichischarac-terizedbysub-systemsofco-occurrentfossilizedinterferences.Thiscommongrammarofitaliano regionale popolare,comprisingregion-specificfeaturesinminordetails,hasthusbecomeavailableasatargetlanguageforyoungpeopleinvolved in theprimarysocializationprocess, at leastuntil theyentered theschoolsystem.Asamatteroffact,sincethemidtwentiethcenturymostdialectspeakers

havestartedspeakingtotheirchildrenintheirownsocio-geographicalvarietyofItalian.EducatingchildrentospeakonlyItalianwasbelievedtoensureso-cialenhancement.Thosesocio-geographicalvarietiesofItalianhavethereforebecomethemothertongueofthosenewgenerations.TheyoungergenerationsrepresentbynowasubstantiallycompactagegroupofnativespeakersofRI,whoseparentsareinmanycasesnativespeakersofanItalo-Romancedialect.AsdiscussedinBerruto(2003),thiscanbeoffurthertheoreticalinterestforissuesrelatedtonative-likecompetenceand,moregenerally,itcancastdoubtsonsometraditionaldefinitionsoftheconceptofnativespeaker.Rulingoutpossibleexceptions,therearenonativespeakersofSI(especially

withregardtophonetics,phonologyandprosody;seeSection4.1).Inciden-tally,notevenanativespeakeroftheTuscanorFlorentinevarietyofItaliancouldbeconsideredanativespeakerofSI,sinceinTuscanorFlorentineItaliantherearecertainfeaturesthatdonotbelongtotheso-calledfiorentino emen-dato(literally‘amendedFlorentine’[Gallide’Paratesi1984:57]),whichformsthebasisforSI.Inotherwords,typicalTuscanfeatures,suchasthepresenceofthirdpersonsubjectclitics(e.g.la parla‘SCl-shetalks’)orthewell-known


gorgia (seeSection4.1), inaddition tovarious regional lexicalpeculiarities(cf.Binazzi1997),areexcludedfromthenormofSI.Toreturntoalanguage-contactperspective,theprocessofformationofRI

brieflysketchedaboverecallssometypicalaspectsofgroupsecondlanguageacquisition:1)fossilizationmainlyaffectssub-systemsoftheinterlanguage;2)acommongrammararisesafterinitialidiosyncratictransfers;and3)differentdevelopmentalstagesintheacquisitionprocessentaildifferentversionsofthetargetlanguage.Thisprocessisalsocharacterizedbysubstratuminterferenceswhichresult,asintypicalcases,“fromimperfectgrouplearningduringapro-cess of language shift” (Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 38). The fact thatRIhasthenbecomethemothertongueofthefollowinggenerations,andthe(spoken) language of the entire national speech community, recalls typicalaspectsofcreoleformation(obviouslyretainingclearlyvisiblesociolinguisticdifferences; cf.D’Achille 2002).More specifically, similarities can be seenwiththosecreolesemergingfromlearningvarietiesofasuperstratelanguage(cf.Cerrutiforthcominga).

3.1. Standard regional Italian and neo-standard Italian

Thediffusionofcertainregionalfeaturesbothin“folk”RI andinRIspokenbyeducatedspeakers(alsotermed“educatedRI”)hasconsequentlygivenrisetoaregionalnormthatissociallyacceptedandshared;thisnormmaybereferredtoas“standardRI”(Berruto1987:19).Concerningpronunciationinparticular,anumberofstandardregionalvarietiesofItalianhavethusgrown,i.e.varietiesofItalianthat,inspiteoftheirgeographicalmarkedness,arecommonlyspokenbymoreandlesseducatedspeakersandconstituteanacceptednorm,whichcoexistswiththestandardnationalone(cf.alsoFusco2004:282–286).ContemporaryItalianisundergoingarestandardizationprocess,causedby

themutualinterrelationbetweenspokenandwrittenlanguage(andrelatedtotheongoingspreadofItalianas languagefordailyuseinthecontextof thesocialchangesmentionedinSection3)andtheconsequentacceptanceofpre-viouslynonstandardfeaturesintothestandardones.Thisnewemergingstan-dardvariety,whichistermed“neo-standardItalian”(Berruto1987:23),allowsa certain amount of regional differentiation. In otherwords, region-specific(standardRI) featuresareequallyacceptedandcommonlyusedalsoby themosteducatedspeakersandareembeddedinanumberofnationallysharedlinguistictraits,mainlyconcerningmorphosyntax.Itisaprocessthataffectspronunciationlikewise.Itisleadinginparticular

toapronunciationthatdisregardsphoneticandphonemicdistinctionsnotcon-veyedinwriting.Wemaysingleoutdifferent(neo-)standardvariants.Canepari(2005: 23–26), for example, sees the coexistence of four types of standard

14 M. Cerruti

pronunciations:“traditional”(Florentinebased),“modern”,“acceptable”and“tolerated”,eachoneofthemusedbybroadcasters,dubbersandactors,andnoonestronglyregionallymarked.Atthesametime,differentstandardregionalpronunciationshavebeenestablished.Thismayrestonafuzzycategorizationoftheconceptofstandardlanguage

itself.AsremarkedbyAmmon(2004),thestandardvarietyofalanguagecanindeed be considered as having a core of undoubtedly standard forms andsomehowfuzzyboundaries,aswellasanumberofborderlinecases,whichcanaccountforacomplexgradationbetweenstandardandnonstandard.Suchaprototypicalconceptofstandardrestsupontheexistenceofa“colloquialstan-dard”aswell;inparticular,itcallsupontheconceptofUmgangssprache.Itisnotbychancethatneo-standardItalianitselfdisplaysUmgangssprachechar-acteristics(cf.Berruto1987:141).2ThecaseofSwitzerlandItalianshouldbetreatedseparately.Italianisoneof

thefourofficialnationallanguagesinSwitzerland;itisspokenintheCantonsofTicinoandinpartofGrisons,andmustnotbeconsideredmerelyasaRI.InactualfactsitisanationalstandardlanguagepartlydifferentfromtheItalianone(mainlyatthelexicallevel).Itdisplayssomepeculiarnormsandtenden-ciesofdevelopment,whicharerelatedbothtothecontactwiththeotherna-tionallanguagesofSwitzerlandandtothepoliticalandadministrativeorgani-zationofthestatebody.InthisperspectiveitwashenceproposedtoconsiderItalianasapluricentriclanguage(Pandolfi2009:12–13).

3.2. One common grammar, different grammars?

In the framework of language contact phenomena, research on standardRIseekstoshedlightonwhichfactors,principlesormechanismsaffecttheselec-tion(orconventionalization)oflinguisticfeaturesasapartofacommongram-mar.TheresultsofarecentresearchcarriedoutinTurinshowthatthesetofmorphosyntacticfeaturesofPiedmontesestandardRIcanbecharacterizedasfollows(Cerruti2009:235–270):

a) high consistency with universal (that is, system-independent) natural-ness principles; besides cases of naturalness conflicts, it shows only afewcasesofmarkedfeatures,mainlyontheborderbetweenlexiconandmorphosyntax;

b) general structuraladequacy to thesystemofSI; that is,generalconsis-tencywithsystem-dependentnaturalnessprinciples;

c) linguistic features that fit in with restandardization tendencies in neo-standardItalian,eventhoughshowingpeculiardistributionalorstructuralfeatures; for example, the regional progressive periphrasis essere quì/lì


che+Verb (literally, ‘to be here/there that’+Verb) undergoes the samedevelopmentof thecorrespondingneo-standardstare+Gerund (literally,‘stay’+Gerund)alongthecommonpathof“progimperfectivedrift”(Ber-tinetto2000),but,unlikethat,itembracesamoreadvanceddevelopmen-talstage;differentlyfromstare+Gerundinneo-standardItalian(seeSec-tion3.3),essere quì/lì che+Verbturnsouttobecompatiblewithfocalizedaswell as non-habitual and habitual durative contexts (cf. alsoCerruti2007);

d) linguisticfeaturesthatdonotmatchanygrammaticalizedconstructioninstandardorneo-standardItalian(cf.anexampleinSection4.1).

FacilitatingfactorsplayaroleintheretentionofsubstratumfeaturesandtheestablishingofsomeofthemasapartofacommonstandardregionalgrammarofItalian.Suchfactorsaresimilartothoseatworkinbothgroupsecondlan-guageacquisitionandcreoleorpost-creolecontinuumformation.Inaddition,theycanbefoundinvarious languagecontactsituations(amongwhich, thecontactbetweenItalo-Romancedialects;cf.e.g.Parry2006).Theyinclude:a)naturalnessandtransparency;b)systemadequacy;c)congruitywithinnova-tionaltendenciesoftherecipientlanguage;d)fillingofstructuralgapsintheinventoryoftherecipientlanguage(cf.Cerrutiforthcominga).Theseinternalfactorsobviouslyinterplaywithexternalorextralinguisticforcesofasocial,pragmatic, interactional, psychological, and demographic kind (cf. e.g.MigliettaandSobrero[2003]onthecontactbetweenItaliananddialects).Factorsb)andc)inPiedmontesestandardRIareofparticularinterestforthe

general issueconcerningstructuraldifferencesbetweenregionalvarietiesofItalianandSI.Itmustberememberedthatthepresenceofconstructionsthatarenotconsistentwithstandardorneo-standardItalian is indeedwidelyat-tested inPiedmontese “folk”RI and inothervarietiesof italiano regionale popolare.Anemblematiccaseisthedoublyfilledcomplementizer(e.g.quando che è

arrivato‘whenthathearrived’vs.SIquando è arrivato‘whenhearrived’),whichoccursinmanyvarietiesofitaliano regionalepopolare (Piedmontese,Lombard,Ticinese,Emilian,Veneto,Friulian,Abruzzese,Calabrian,Apulian,Sicilian,etc.;cf.Berruto2009).Due to itsover-regionalpresence, itcanbeconsideredasoneofthosefossilizedinterferencesthatformthebasisfortheaforementionedcommongrammarofitaliano regionalepopolare (seeSection3). Itviolates theso-calledDoublyFilledCompFilter,arestrictionthatex-cludestheco-occurrenceofwh-phraseandcomplementizerinaCompposi-tion,andthatisfullyoperativeinSI.Thisraisesthequestionofwhetherdeep-leveldifferencesexistbetweenSIandsocialvarietiesofRI.Uptonow,italiano regionalepopolare ischaracterizedbyrelativelylasting

co-occurrencesoffossilizeddialectinterferences—thatgenerallyfalloutside

16 M. Cerruti

thecoregrammar—resultingincertaincasesinsub-systemsofinterrelatedfeatures, which differ from the corresponding sub-systems of SI (Berretta1988:763–768).ConsiderforinstanceTable1,whichreportsthesetofsingu-larpersonalpronouns(withananimatereferent)in“folk”NorthernRIcom-paredwiththeoneinSI.Fromatheoreticalperspective,thesedifferencescanbeattributedeitherto

theexistenceofseparateorcompetinggrammarsspeakerschoosefrom(whichentailsmorethanonesystemofgrammaticalknowledgeinthecompetenceofnative speakers) or to the existence of a unique grammatical systemwhichembodiesvariabilitythroughdifferentkindsofmechanisms(e.g.optionalorvariablerules).Itmaybealsopossibletolocalizevariationoutsidethegram-maticalsystemitself,asaseparatemechanismthatinteractswiththesyntax(recentminimalistapproacheslocalizevariationinthechoiceoflexicalitems).These aspects, which are also of fundamental interest for the issue of thenative-likecompetenceofItalian(seeSection3),havebeenaddressedinre-cent research (cf. amongothersBerruto2009;BenincàandDamonte2009;Cerruti forthcoming a). According to the so-called micro-comparative ap-proachappliedtotheItalo-Romancesituation,variationbetweengrammarsisconsideredinparticularasvariationregardingspecificconstructionsbetweenotherwiseidenticalgrammars(BenincàandDamonte2009:186).

3.3. Italo-Romance dialects and regional varieties of Italian: common paths of development

Italo-Romance dialects and regional varieties of Italian are generally goingthroughsimilarstagesofcommondevelopmentalpaths,whicharefurthermoreoftenwidely shared byRomance languages.Thewell-known conditions ofintensiveandlong-termcontactbetweendialectsandItaliancertainlyplayaroleinthisprocess, togetherwithfactorsrelatedtothecommoninheritanceandgeneticdrift.4Interestingly,SIisfrequentlyatadifferentdevelopmental

Table1. Singular personal pronouns in “folk” Northern RI (italics) and in SI (roman)

Sbj obj (strongpronouns) obj (cliticpronouns)

1Sg mfio/me mfme/me mfmi/mi2Sg mftu/te mfte/te mfti/ti3Sg

refl

V-form3

megli(lui)/luif ella(lei)/lei

–mflei/mluiflei

mlui/luif lei/lei

mfsé/mluifleimflei/mluiflei

mlo /lo ‘him’, fla/la‘her’m gli‘tohim’,f le‘toher’/mfci‘tohim,toher’

mfsi/mfsimfla ‘you’/m lofla‘you’mfle‘toyou’/m cifle‘toyou’


stagewhencomparedtoitsregionalvarieties;broadlyspeaking,itseemstobemoreconservativethanitsnon-standardvarieties.Itmaybeworthconsideringthefollowingfewexamplesregardingverbalmorphology.Asforthetendencytogeneralizeahave-typeauxiliaryasperfectauxiliary,

whichislastingandwidespreadinRomance,SIistheRomancelanguagethatmakes thegreatestuseofabe-typeauxiliary (essere).Some Italo-Romancedialects and non-standard varieties of Italian tend instead to generalize thehave-typeauxiliary,accordingtothegeneralRomancetendency.Inparticular,SouthernandNorth-Easterndialectsshowanadvancedstagealongthispath(Posner1996:15–24),andtherelatedregionalvarietiesofItalianseemtopro-ceedinthesamedirection(asrecentlypointedoutinCordin[2009]regardingTrentinoRI).The generalizationof thehave-type auxiliary also emerges inneo-standardItalian(cf.Berruto1987:120).InmostRomancelanguages,aswellasinotherEuropeanandnon-European

languages,progressiveperiphrasesareundergoingtheevolutionintomerelyimperfectiveforms(thatis,toageneral-purposeimperfectivetense).TheItal-ianprogressiveperiphrasisstare+Gerundisexpandinginuseinneo-standardItalianaswell.Ithasfocalizedprogressivityasitsmainreading,anditisavail-able to thenon-habitualdurativemeaningatonce.Conversely, it is still re-strictedtofocalizedcontextsinSI.SomeregionalvarietiesofItalian,suchastheSicilianandSardinianones,areatamoreadvancedstagealongthisimper-fectivedrift,reflectingthedevelopmentalstageofthesubstrata;stare+Gerundoccurswithfocalizedaswellasnon-habitualandhabitualdurativemeaninginSicilianRI(Amenta1999;cf.essere quì/lì che+VerbinPiedmonteseRI,Sec-tion3.2)andevenwithstativeverbsinSardinianRI(LoiCorvetto1982:149–153).Contemporary Italian showsamarked tendency todevelopphrasalverbs

(e.g.dare indietro‘togiveback’;tirare su‘tobringup’,literally‘topullup’;scappare via ‘togetaway’,literally‘toescapeaway’,etc.).Notonlyaretheseconstructionstypologicallyinconsistentwiththeverb-framedtypethatgener-allycharacterizes theRomance languages,but their spreadingacross ItalianseemstohavenoequalinotherRomancelanguages.Theyareespeciallywide-spreadinNorthernvarietiesofItalian,aswellasinNortherndialects(cf.Cini2008).Thecaseofphrasalverbsisalsoagoodexampleofthewaycloselyrelated

languagessharedevelopmentalpaths,partlybecauseofcontact-inducedevo-lutionandpartlybecauseofsimilarbutindependentinnerdynamics.Thecon-tactofItalianwithNortherndialects,aswellaswithborderingGermaniclan-guages(thatfallintothesatellite-framedtype),hasinevitablycontributedtothegreatdevelopmentofphrasalverbsinNorthernregionalvarietiesofItalian.Nevertheless,thecreationofphrasalverbsderivesfromstructuralandtypo-logicalchangeswhichhavetakenplacebothindialectsandinItalian.Among

18 M. Cerruti

others, it isworthmentioning the shift fromLatin SOV toRomance SVOorder,thedisappearanceoftheLatininflectionalcasesysteminmodernRo-manceanditsreplacementbyprepositions, theprogressivelossof transpar-encyandproductivityofprefixes(cf.IacobiniandMasini2009).Evidenceofthis can be found in the spread of phrasal verbs even in regional varietieswhose substratum dialect does not show an equallywide diffusion of suchconstructions(asinSicilianRI;Amenta2008).Moreover, conflicting contact-induced tendencies and language-internally

motivatedtendenciescancoexistwithinthesameregionalvarietyofItalian.Bywayofexample,CompoundPast (e.g.ho scritto,sono arrivato, ‘Ihavewritten’, ‘I have arrived’) is taking over the functions of Simple Past (e.g.scrissi,arrivai,‘Iwrote’,‘Iarrived’)incontemporaryItaliananditisinclinedtogeneralizeintoperfective,accordingtoapan-RomanceandEuropeanten-dency(Bybeeetal.1994:81–87).NorthernvarietiesofItalianuniformlyshowanadvancedstagealongthispath.Onthecontrary,someSouthernvarietiesare characterized by conflicting tendencies. In SicilianRI, for instance, thelanguage-internallymotivatedCompoundPastdiffusion is restrainedby thecontact-induced maintenance of Simple Past, which is well-established intheSiciliandialect(Alfonzetti1997:15–17).Thesefewexamplesseemtosuggestthataprocessofconvergenceamong

thedifferent regionalvarietiesof Italian is in factunderway.Suchprocesstends to reduce the (socio-)geographical markedness of previously markedconstructions.Nevertheless,withrespecttoagivenphenomenon,eventhesameregional

variety can embrace different stages of development according to socio-demographicandsituationalfactors.ThegeneralizationofCompoundPastinSicilianRIshowsalaterstageinyoungerspeakersandininformalstyle(Al-fonzetti1997:43– 44);phrasalverbsaremorewidespreadincolloquialvari-eties of Italian, without relevant regional differences (Iacobini andMasini2009);stare+GerundinSicilianRIbehavesmorelikeapurelyimperfectiveforminlesseducatedspeakersandininformalstyles(Amenta1999:98);thegeneralization of thehave-type auxiliary inTrentino is at amore advancedstagein“folk”RI(Cordin2009:88–93),etc.Inconclusion, it isworth remembering that in thesecases—as inmany

others—restandardizationtendenciesdonotleadtothecreationofconstruc-tions formerlyunattested in Italian.Mostneo-standard features, that atfirstglanceappeartoberecentinnovations,arealreadypresentinancientItalian(cf.D’Achille1990).Despitetheirexclusionfromthestandardliteraryvariety,theyhavesurvivedoverthecenturiesinnon-standardvarieties,andhavesub-sequentlystandardizedincontemporaryItalianonly.Hence,whatseemstrulynewistheacceptanceoftheseconstructionsintotheItaliannorm(cf.Section3.1).


4. Dimensionsoflinguisticvariation

Asiswellknown,everylanguageiscomposedbyanumberofhierarchicallyrelatedvarieties,dependingonthereciprocalrelationshipbetweenthedimen-sions of linguistic variation. According to the continental European tradi-tion,we refer to the threemain dimensions of synchronic variation asdia-dimensions: diatopia (variation across space), diastratia (variation acrosssocio-economic classes and social groups) and diaphasia (variation acrosssituations).As for Italian, diatopia is considered the primary dimension ofvariation:everyregionalvarietyofItalianhasitssocialvarieties(“folk”RI,educatedRI,standardRI)and—aswellaseachofitssocialvarieties(exceptforpopularRI,insomeways;seebelow)—encompassessituationalvariabil-ity.Hence,ItaliandiffersfromEnglish,whoseprimarydimensionisoftencon-sideredtobediastratia(accordingtoBell’sAudienceDesignmodel;diaphasiainsteadisthoughttobethebasicdimensionaccordingtoFineganandBiber’sRegisterAxiom;cf.BiberandConrad[2009:264 –267]);also,considerFrench,whoseprimarydimensionisconsideredtobediaphasia(Gadet2007).Ingeneral,regionalvarietiesofItalianarenotemployedassituationalvari-

eties.AnexceptionalcaseiscurrentlyrepresentedbyRomanItalian:Mainlyamongtheyoungergeneration,itseemstobespreadingnation-wideasanin-formalstyleofItalian(andparticularlyincomputer-mediatedcommunication;cf.Scholz2003:135).NosocialvarietiesofRIaregenerallyemployedassituationalvarietiesei-

ther.Anexceptionistheuseof“folk”RIas“elderspeak”,whichistheuseofitaliano regionale popolare—evenbyhighlyeducatedyoungspeakers—incross-generationaltalkwithelders(cf.Sogni2004).Anotherexceptioncon-cernsuneducatedspeakers:italiano regionale popolarerepresentsasituationalvarietyoftheirlinguisticrepertoire.ItistheonlyvarietyofItalianthesespeak-ersmaster—itdoesnotencompassdiaphasicvariability5—andtheyuseitonlyinformalsituations,notablyinwriting.Onthewhole,“folk”RIthereforerepresentsthehighvarietyoftherepertoireofuneducatedspeakers,whilethedialectrepresentsthelowone.

4.1. Diatopia and diaphasia

CertainfeaturesofRIalsoworkasmarkersofinformalstyle.Theproductionofagivenregionalfeatureissubject togreatercontrol informalstyles.Forinstance,thesociolinguisticvariable(ʎ)inRomanItalianisrealizedaspalatalapproximantincolloquialspeech(e.g.RomanItalian[bi'j:et:o]vs.SI[bi'ʎ:et:o],‘ticket’);instead,theproductionofthestandardvariant[ʎ]oftheregionalvari-ant[ j]isaclearsignofshifttowardsamoreformalstyle(D’Achille2003:33).

20 M. Cerruti

Nevertheless,sociolinguisticvariablesinItaliandonotgenerallyshowthetypicalLabovianprestigepattern,particularly inphonetics.Pronunciation islesssubjecttothepressureofthestandardnormthanotherlevelsofthelan-guagesystem;evenatschool,phoneticregionalornon-standardvariantsthatdonotclearlyconflictwithphoneticandphonemicdistinctionsconveyedinwritingarewidelytolerated(cf.Section3.1).Pronunciationswithoutanyregionalfeaturesareextremelyrareevenamong

educatedspeakersandinveryformalsituations(cf.alsoSobrero2006:331–333).For instance,a researchcarriedoutonBolognese Italian (Rizzi1989:113–119)pointsoutthatthesociolinguisticvariables(ʎ),(ɲ),and(ʃ)arereal-ized with the typical Northern variants even by educated speakers and incarefulspeech:i.e.as[lj],[nj],and[sj],respectively(e.g.NorthernRI['a:ljo]‘garlic’,['so:njo]‘dream’,['sjarpa]‘scarf’vs.SI['aʎ:o],['soɲ:o],['ʃarpa]).ThecaseofTuscanregionalItalianrepresentsanexceptioninthisscenario

(partlyduetoitssociolinguisticpeculiarities).Sociolinguisticvariablesoftenshow a typicalLabovian pattern.With regard to theTuscangorgia, for in-stance,thespirantizationofintervocalicvoicelessplosivesissensitivebothtostyleandsocialstratification.Asforthevariable(k),theproductionofthere-gional variants [x], [h], andØ inFlorentine ismuchmore commonamonglowerclassesandlessformalstylesthanamongupperclassesandmoreformalstyles(GiannelliandSavoia1978).Moreover,accordingtooneofthemainsociolinguisticfindingsuponstyle

(cf.Labov2001:86),style-shiftingisrelatedtothesocialawarenessofaso-ciolinguisticvariable.Inotherwords,theunawarenessofthesociolinguisticmarkednessofagivenlinguisticfeaturecancausethisfeaturetobeinsensitiveto style stratification.This is evenmore so for regionalmarkedness. Italianspeakersareoftenunawarethatagivenlinguisticfeatureisregionallymarkedand,allthemoreso,thatthisisduetosubstratuminterference.Allthingsbeingequal, the older speakers are obviouslymore aware of substratum interfer-ences,whiletheyoungerspeakersarelessso.Asaresult,theformertendtoavoidusingthesefeatures,especiallyinformalstyle,whilethelattermaynotrejecttheirusageeveninformalstyle(cf.e.g.Poletto2009).Inaddition, the lackofsocialmarkednessofagivenregionalfeaturecan

favoritsoccurrencebothininformalandinformalstyles.FeaturesofstandardRImaythusbescarcelysensitivetostylevariation,sincetheyarecommonlyshared—andthensociallyunmarked—withinacertaingeographicalarea.Asformorphosyntax,forinstance,thefocusadverbialsolo più (literally‘onlymore’;e.g.c’è solo più un biglietto‘thereisjustoneticketleft’),afeatureofPiedmontesestandardRIthatdoesnotmatchanygrammaticalizedconstruc-tioninSI,isfoundtooccurequallyincolloquialspeechandinessaywriting,fiction,journalism,andbureaucraticprose(Regis2006:276 –279).Incontrast,itispossibletofindstandardRIvariantsthataresensitivetostylevariation,


asinthecaseofcertainphrasalverbs(e.g.PiedmontesestandardRImettere addosso,mettere su,informalvariantsof(indossare)‘towear’;Cerruti2009:131–133).InagivenregionalvarietyofItaliantherearethusvariablesthathavestylis-

ticvariationbutsubstantiallynosocialvariation(see(indossare)inPiedmon-tesestandardRI)6andvariablesthathavesocialvariationbutsubstantiallynostylisticvariation(seethecomplementizervariable,Section3.2).Thisstateofaffairsisgivenhighrelevanceinthetheoreticalframeworkoftherelationshipamonglanguagevarieties,inparticularwithreferencetotheaforementionedBell’sandFineganandBiber’sstances(seeSection4;cf.Cerrutiforthcomingb).Asgenerallyknown,Bellclaims that theprimacyofsocialvariation (inEnglish)makestherangeofsocialvariationtobewiderthantherangeofstylevariation,whileFineganandBiberclaimthat theprimacyofstylevariationcausestheopposite.Inprinciple,itfollowsthatintheformercasenovariablewillhavestylevariationonly,andinthelatternonewillhavesocialvariationonly.InordertofullyunderstandwhyItalianseemstobehavedifferentlyfromEnglish, one should bear inmind that the former has neither diastratia nordiaphasiaasitsprimarydimensionofvariation.

4.2. From contact-induced changes to intra-linguistic variation

AsImentionedearlier(seeSection3;DalNegroandVietti,thisissue),Ital-ianhasbeenusedalmostexclusivelyinwritingandinformalstylesforcentu-ries.During the twentiethcentury ithasenjoyedmass-diffusionandgainedexpressivemeansforinformalstyles.Substratuminterferenceshavecontrib-uted to widening the range of style variation, giving rise to regional vari-antsthatarestylisticallystratified.Italo-Romancedialectshavethuscometocreate sets of variants previously not existing in Italian; see for instance inPiedmonteseRI the following set that ranges from themost formal varianttothelessformalone:investirsi (SI),scontrarsi (SI),bocciare (standardRI),andarsi addosso (SI), darsi dentro (popular RI) ‘to collide’ (said ofmotorvehicles).Intra-linguistic variation often originates from contact-induced changes.

Somepeculiaroutcomescanbesummarizedasfollows.InPiedmonteseRI,thesociolinguisticvariables(benché)‘although’,(finché)‘until’,and(perché)‘so that’ are realizedwith two regional variants each:ben che,fin che,per che,i.e.withanalyticstructure—asinthesubstratumdialect,sourceoftheinterference—byoldandlesseducatedspeakers(withPiedmontesedialectasL1);bénche, fínche,pérche, i.e.withsyntheticstructure—asinSIbenché,finché,perché —andstressonthepenultimatesyllableareusedbyyoungandmoreeducated speakers (native speakersofPiedmonteseRI).Bothvariants

22 M. Cerruti

havethesamephonologicalform:['beŋke],['fiŋke],['perke].Thesevariableshave,therefore,onlyoneregionalvariantatthesurfacelevel,['beŋke],['fiŋke],['perke],whichisthestandardRIvariant,buttwodifferentstructuralvariantsatadeeplevel:ben che,fin che,per cheandbénche,fínche,pérche;theformeristypicallythe“folk”RIvariant,whereasthelatteristheeducatedRIvariant.Itisthusarguablethat,afterthetransferfromdialecttoItalian,theoriginallymorphosyntacticfeaturehasfossilizedandthenpassedfromonegenerationtoanotherbyturningintoaprosodicfeatureofRI.Weproposetheterm“covertvariants”torefertosociolinguisticvariantsofthiskind,whicharehiddenatthesurfacelevel(Cerrutiforthcominga).Asimilarexample,takenfromVenetoRI,isgivenbyconstructionssuchas

li si leggono (literally ‘themone read’ vs. SI li si legge ‘one reads them’),whereimpersonalsioccurswithaverb,leggono,thatseemstoagreewiththethirdpluralpersonobjectcliticli.Incontrast,theverbdoesnotagreewiththeobjectinSI.AnexplanationmaylieinthecontactbetweendialectandItalian:inVenetian,aswellasinotherNortherndialects,theorderli sicorrespondstoapassiveconstruction, i.e. formedwitha li-typesubjectcliticandasi-typepassiveclitic(e.g.Venetiani se leze‘theyareread’).Thus,inItalianlimaybepresumablyreanalyzedasasubjectclitic,whichtriggerstheagreement(Car-dinaletti 2009: 37– 41).According to our framework, it seems furthermorelikelythatliisreanalyzedasasubjectcliticonlybydialect-speakinggroups(presumablyoldandlesseducatedpersons,nativespeakersofdialect),whileforotherspeakerslifunctionsasanobjectclitic(andinthiscasetheexplana-tionoftheconstructionmaylieelsewhere,cf.e.g.Cardinaletti2009:41– 42).Again,wewouldbedealingwith“covertvariants”.Finally,wemustconsiderwhetheragivenlinguisticfeatureisobligatoryor

optional inacertain socialor situationalvarietyofRI.Broadly speaking,afeatureorasetoffeatureswhichisobligatoryinadialect,butnotinSI,maytendtooccurobligatorilyin“folk”RI,whereinterrelatedfossilizedinterfer-encesmaygiverisetorelativelylastingsub-systemssubstantiallyinsensitivetostylevariation(cf.Sections3.2and4).However,theydonotobligatorilyoccur insituationalvarietiesofRI.Acase inpoint isobjectcliticdoubling,whichisdiagnosticforthedevelopmentofaverbalobjectmarkinginItalian.IncertaincontextsitobligatorilyoccursinsomeItalo-Romancedialectsandtendstooccurequallyobligatorilyin“folk”RI(e.g.whencliticdoublesafirstorsecondsingularpersonindirectobject,asinti dico a te‘Isaytoyou’,liter-ally‘toyouIsaytoyou’),whileitiswidelyoptionalanddependsonpragmaticfactors insituationalvarietiesofRI. Inparticular, its frequencyincreases incolloquialandcasualspeech.ThisreflectsanongoingtendencyinRomance.Asforverbalobjectmarking,thelow-prestigevarietiesofRomancelanguagesaregenerallyatamoreadvanceddevelopmentalstagewhencomparedtotheirhigh-prestigecounterparts(cf.Cerruti2008).


4.3. Regional markedness in contemporary Italian

AsIsaidearlier(Section3.3),theongoingprocessofconvergenceamongtheregionalvarietiesofItaliantendstoreducetheregionalmarkednessofcertainfeatures.Similarly,duetobothinternalmigrationsandincreasingexchangesandmobility,regionalvarietiesofItalianareincludinglinguisticfeaturesthatcomefromotherregionalvarieties,especiallyamongtheyoungergeneration.TheregionalmarkednessofspokenItalianisthusnoticeablydecreasingnowa-days.Thepresentyoungergenerationinparticularspeaksasortof“compos-ite”RI,consistingoflinguisticfeaturescomingfromdifferentregionalvari-etiesofItalian,atleastintermsofphoneticsandphonology.AresearchcarriedoutinRomeintheearlyNineties(ContiandCourtens

1992) has already provided signs of this tendency. Teenagers of the lowermiddle class,whose parentsmoved to Rome from various regions of Italyeither before or soon after their birth, showed remarkable speech conver-gence towards thepronunciationpatternsof theirRoman schoolmates, thusproducingsomeofthemostcharacteristictraitsofRomanItalian;e.g.degem-ination of intervocalic geminate alveolar trills (as in ['bi:ra] vs. SI ['bir:a]‘beer’), gemination of intervocalic voiced bilabial plosives (['ab:ile] vs. SI['a:bile] ‘able’) and intervocalic voiced postalveolar affricates (['ad:ʒile] vs.SI['a:dʒile]‘agile’),deaffricationofintervocalicvoicelesspostalveolaraffri-cates (['vo:ʃe]vs.SI ['vo:tʃe] ‘voice’),etc.Nonetheless, the regionalvarietyspokenbytheirRomanschoolmatesdidnotshowagreatamountofregionallymarkedfeatures.As iswell known, speech convergence generally undertakes social func-

tions.Thefollowingexampleprovidesevidenceofthis.Theso-calledraddop-piamento fonosintattico (‘phonosyntactic doubling’;7 e.g. ['va:do a'r:o:ma],vado a Roma ‘Igo toRome’) isaphonological featureofSI thatoccurs inCentralandSouthernregionalvarietiesofItalianbutnotintheNorthernvari-eties.Yet,itisattestedinTurinItalian.Presumablyasaresultofthetwentiethcenturymassive internalmigration from Southern Italy, it enjoys diffusionamongcertainadolescentgroups(thatpresentthemselvesas“communitiesofpractice”,cf.Boario[2008:181–187]),whichcomprisebothnativespeakersofItalian,whoseparentscomeasmuchfromSouthernItalyasfromTurin,andnon-nativespeakers,whoseparentshaverecentlyimmigratedtoItaly.Itfunc-tionsasasocialmarkerofgroupmembershipandidentity,closelyassociatedwiththesocialpracticesofthegroup;besides,asforthenon-nativespeakers,itcontributestotheattainmentofanative-likeidentity(Boario2008).Finally,inpeculiarcircumstances,internalmigrationsmayleadtothecre-

ationof a similar “composite”RI, leaving asidegeneration-specificusesoflanguage.LetusconsiderthesociolinguisticsituationofLatina,atownsouthofRome.Itwasbuiltinthe1920sand1930sonalandthatwasonceaswamp

24 M. Cerruti

andfoundedin1932followinglandreclamation.LatinawaspopulatedatfirstbythecompulsorysettlementoffarmhandscomingfromvariousregionsofItaly,mainlyfromVeneto.Thesespecialcircumstanceshaveledtotheforma-tionofalocalvarietyofItalianthatisstillnowcharacterizedbythecoexis-tenceofRomanandNorthernregionalfeatures,8thelattercomingfromVenetoRI.Examplesofthismergingprocesscanbeseenintheco-occurrenceofaf-fricationofpre-nasalvoicelessalveolarfricative,aRomanfeature,andraisingofopen-midfrontunroundedvowel,aNorthernRIfeature,in[intsala'tje:ra](vs.SI[insala'tjɛ:ra]‘saladbowl’;Stefinlongo[2003:100 –101]).

5. Conclusion

Insum,researchonRIoffersagreatdealofinsightintoawiderangeofissues.Amongothers,IhavedealtwiththepeculiaritiesoftheprocessoflanguageshiftfromdialectstowardItalian,thequestionofthenativespeakerofItalian,theongoingrestandardizationofthenationallanguage,theexistenceof“deep-level”structuraldifferencesbetweenSIandsocialvarietiesofRI,thesocio-geographical diffusion of developmental tendencies of Italian, the relation-shipbetweendiatopia,diastratia,anddiaphasia,and thedecreasingregionalmarkednessofcontemporaryItalian.TheregionalvarietiesofItalianclearlydemonstratetobeanoutstandingobservatoryforsynchronicanddiachronicvariationinItalian.

Università degli Studi di Torino

Correspondenceaddress:[email protected]

Notes

1. Anyestimateshouldhowevertakeintoaccountthateachdialectcomprisesseveraldifferences(thatis,eachvillagehasitsownvariety,whichcanhavefurtherdifferencesfromhamlettohamlet);onthebasisofstructuralcriteria,ItalianscholarshaveidentifiedmorethanahundredvarietiesofdialectsinNorthernItalyalone(cf.Benincà2001).

2. AlbeittheconceptofUmgangsspracheisnotperfectlysuitabletothelinguisticrepertoireofItaly(Berruto1987:140 –142).

3. Notethatboth“folk”NorthernRIandSIhaveaT-Vdistinction;moreover,inbothvarietiessecond-personpronounsareusedastheT-formsofaddress.

4. Aswellasothers,whicharerelatedforexampletotheinfluenceofEnglishandthedemandtobeconsistentwithStandardAverageEuropean.

5. Itfollowsthatsomeregionalfeaturesaresociallymarkedbutnotsensitivetostylisticvaria-tion(e.g.if-clauseswithconditionalmooddoubling:folkRIse potrei partire lo farei vs.SIse potessi partire lo farei ‘ifIcouldleaveIwould’).


6. Thevariable(indossare)canindeedberealizedeitherwiththeregionalvariantsmettere ad-dossoandmettere suorthepan-Italianvariantsmettereandindossare,theformerbeinglessformalandthelattermoreformal;noneoftheseissubstantiallysensitivetosocialvariation.

7. Aprocessthatcausesgeminationoftheinitialconsonantofawordinspecificmorphosyntac-ticenvironments(e.g.aftercertainprocliticsandoxytonicwords).

8. Toalesserextent,inadditiontoSouthernregionalfeatures(Stefinlongo2003).

References

Alfonzetti,Giovanna.1997.“Oralalunasinascose,maprimaerabellissima”.Passatoprossimoepassato remoto nell’italiano di Sicilia. In Mari D’Agostino (ed.), Aspetti della variabilità,11– 48.Palermo:Centrodistudifilologicielinguisticisiciliani.

Amenta,Luisa.1999.Tralinguaedialetto:leperifrasiaspettualinell’italianoregionalediSicilia.Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia23.87–111.

Amenta,Luisa.2008.Esistonoverbisintagmaticineldialettoenell’italianoregionalediSicilia?InMonicaCini(ed.),I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle varietà dialettali. Stato dell’arte e prospettive di ricerca,159–174.FrankfurtamMain:Lang.

Ammon,Ulrich.2004.Standardvariety.InUlrichAmmon,NorbertDittmar,KlausJ.Mattheier&PeterTrudgill(eds.),Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society,2ndedn.,vol.1,273–283.Berlin&NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.

Antonini,Francesca&BrunoMoretti.2000.Le immagini dell’italiano regionale. La variazione linguistica nelle valutazioni dei giovani ticinesi.Locarno:Dadò.

Benincà,Paola.1994.Checosacipuòdirel’italianoregionale.InTullioDeMauro(ed.),Come parlano gli italiani,157–165.Scandicci:LaNuovaItalia.

Benincà,Paola.2001.“Lingua”e“dialetto”allalucedellateorialinguistica.InGiannaMarcato(ed.),I confini del dialetto,13–24.Padova:Unipress.

Benincà, Paola& Federico Damonte. 2009.Varianti sintattiche inter- e intra-individuali nellegrammatichedialettali. InLuisaAmenta&GiuseppePaternostro (eds.), I parlanti e le loro storie,185–194.Palermo:Centrodistudifilologicielinguisticisiciliani.

Benincà,Paola&CeciliaPoletto.2006.PhrasalverbsinVenetianandRegionalItalian.InFransHinskens(eds.),Language variation: European perspectives,9–22.Amsterdam-Philadelphia:Benjamins.

Berretta,Monica.1988.Italienisch:VarietätenlinguistikdesItalienischen/Linguisticadellevari-età. InGünterHoltus,MichaelMetzeltin&ChristianSchmitt (eds.),Lexicon der Romanist-ischen Linguistik,vol.4,762–774.Tübingen:Niemeyer.

Berruto,Gaetano.1987.Sociolinguistica dell’italiano contemporaneo.Roma:LaNuovaItalia.Berruto,Gaetano.1989.MaintopicsandfindingsinItaliansociolinguistics.International Journal

of the Sociology of Language 76 [Special issue: Italian sociolinguistics:Trends and issues].5–30.

Berruto,Gaetano.2003.Sulparlantenativo(diitaliano).InHansI.Radatz&RainerSchlösser(eds.), Donum grammaticorum. Festschrift für Harro Stammerjohann, 1–14. Tübingen:Niemeyer.

Berruto,Gaetano.2005.Dialect/standardconvergence,mixing,andmodelsoflanguagecontact:thecaseofItaly.InPeterAuer,FransHinskens&PaulKerswill(eds.),Dialect change. Conver-gence and divergence in European languages,81–97.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Berruto,Gaetano.2009.Περίσυντάξεως.Sintassievariazione.InAngelaFerrari(ed.),Sintassi storica e sincronica dell’italiano. Subordinazione, coordinazione, giustapposizione,vol.1,21–58.Firenze:Cesati.

26 M. Cerruti

Bertinetto,PierMarco.2000.TheprogressiveinRomance,ascomparedwithEnglish.InÖstenDahl(ed.),Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe,559– 604.Berlin&NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.

Biber,Douglas&SusanConrad.2009.Register, genre and style.Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-sityPress.

Binazzi,Neri.1997.Le parole dei giovani fiorentini: variazione linguistica e variazione sociale.Roma:Bulzoni.

Binazzi,Neri.2007.L’appartenenzarivelata.Lessicoetradizionideldiscorsonelparlatofioren-tino.Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze17.137–168.

Boario,Anna.2008.Community of practiceediffusionediunfenomenoalloctonoaTorinotra-smessoaparlantiimmigratinonnativi.InGaetanoBerruto,JosephBrincat,SandroCaruana&CeciliaAndorno (eds.),Lingua, cultura e cittadinanza in contesti migratori. Europa e area mediterranea,165–189.Perugia:Guerra.

Bruni, Francesco (ed.). 1992. L’italiano nelle regioni. Lingua nazionale e identità regionali.Torino:UTET.

BybeeJoan,ReverePerkins&WilliamPagliuca.1994.The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the language of the world.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Canepari,Luciano.2005.MaPI. Manuale di pronuncia italiana. Bologna:Zanichelli.Cardinaletti,Anna.2009.Siimpersonaleedimostrativi:duecasidiinfluenzadeidialettisull’ita-liano?InAnnaCardinaletti&NicolaMunaro(eds.),Italiano, italiani regionali e dialetti,29–54.Milano:FrancoAngeli.

Cardinaletti,Anna&NicolaMunaro(eds.).2009.Italiano, italiani regionali e dialetti.Milano:FrancoAngeli.

Cerruti,Massimo.2007.Sullacaratterizzazioneaspettualeelavariabilitàsocialed’usodialcuneperifrasiverbalidiatopicamentemarcate.Archivio Glottologico Italiano92(2).203–247.

Cerruti,Massimo.2008.Condizionieindizidiconiugazioneoggettiva:idialettiitalianisettentri-onalitralelingueromanze.Rivista italiana di dialettologia32.13–38.

Cerruti,Massimo.2009.Strutture dell’italiano regionale. Morfosintassi di una varietà diatopica in prospettiva sociolinguistica.FrankfurtamMain:Lang.

Cerruti,Massimo.Forthcominga.Unfenomenoalconfinetramorfosintassieprosodiainunasi-tuazionedicontattoverticale: lecongiunzionisubordinantiben che,fin che,per che. InRitaFranceschini,RaffaellaBombi,MariD’Agostino&SilviaDalNegro(eds.),Lingue e culture in contatto.Perugia:Guerra.

Cerruti,Massimo.Forthcomingb.Premesseperunostudiodellavariazionediregistroinitaliano.Rivista italiana di dialettologia33.

Cini,Monica(eds.).2008.I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle varietà dialettali. Stato dell’arte e prospettive di ricerca.FrankfurtamMain:Lang.

Cini,Monica&RiccardoRegis(eds.).2002.Che cosa ne pensa oggi Chiaffredo Roux? Percorsi della dialettologia percezionale all’alba del nuovo millennio.Alessandria:Dell’Orso.

Conti,Maria&GaelleCourtens.1992.StandardizzazioneeintegrazionefonologicanellasecondagenerazionediimmigratiaRoma:indaginesuungruppodigiovani.Rivista italiana di dialet-tologia16.255–281.

Cordin,Patrizia.2009.Gliausiliariessereeaverenell’italianoregionaletrentino.InAnnaCardi-naletti&NicolaMunaro (eds.), Italiano, italiani regionali e dialetti,69–98.Milano:FrancoAngeli.

Cortelazzo,MicheleA.&AlbertoM.Mioni(eds.).1990.L’italiano regionale.Roma:Bulzoni.Coseriu,Eugenio.1980.“HistorischeSprache”und“Dialekt”.InJoachimGöschel,IvicPavle&KurtKehr(eds.),Dialekt und Dialektologie,106 –122.Wiesbaden:Steiner.

Cucurullo,Nella,SimonettaMontemagni,MatildePaoli,EugenioPicchi&EvaSassolini.2006.Unatlantedialettaleinrete:ALT-WEB.InElisaCorino,CarlaMarello&CristinaOnesti(eds.),


Proceedings of the 12th Euralex International Congress (Torino, 6th–9thSeptember, 2006).Alessandria:Dell’Orso.

D’Achille,Paolo.1990.Sintassi del parlato e tradizione scritta della lingua italiana. Analisi di testi dalle Origini al secolo XVIII.Roma:Bonacci.

D’Achille, Paolo. 2002.L’italiano regionale. InManlioCortelazzo,CarlaMarcato,NicolaDeBlasi&Gianrenzo P.Clivio (eds.), I dialetti italiani. Storia, struttura, uso, 26 – 42.Torino:UTET.

D’Achille,Paolo.2003.Le“varietà romane”di italiano. InPaoloD’Achille&AndreaViviani(eds.),La lingua delle città. I dati di Roma, Latina, L’Aquila e Catania.Roma:Aracne.

D’Achille,Paolo&AndreaViviani (eds.).2003.La lingua delle città. I dati di Roma, Latina, L’Aquila e Catania.Roma:Aracne.

Fusco,Fabiana.2004.Ruoloespaziocomunicativodell’italianoregionalenellesituazioniurbane.InRaffaellaBombi&FabianaFusco(eds.),Città plurilingui. Lingue e culture a confronto in situazioni urbane,275–289.Udine:Forum.

Fusco, Fabiana & Carla Marcato (eds.) 2001. L’italiano e le regioni. [Special issue]. Pluri-linguismo8.

Gadet,Françoise.2007.La variation sociale en français,2ndedn.Paris:Ophrys.Gallide’Paratesi,Nora.1984.Lingua toscana in bocca ambrosiana. Tendenze verso l’italiano

standard: un’inchiesta sociolinguistica.Bologna:IlMulino.Garzonio,Jacopo.2008. DiacroniaesincroniadellasintassidipuntoinFiorentino.Quaderni di

lavoro ASIt8.http://asis-cnr.unipd.it/papers.html(accessed5May2010).Giannelli, Luciano & Leonardo M. Savoia. 1978. L’indebolimento consonantico in Toscana.Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia2.23–58.

Iacobini,Claudio&FrancescaMasini.2009.Iverbisintagmaticidell’italianofrainnovazioneepersistenza:ilruolodeidialetti.InAnnaCardinaletti&NicolaMunaro(eds.),Italiano, italiani regionali e dialetti,115–135.Milano:FrancoAngeli.

Labov,William.2001.Theanatomyof style-shifting. InPenelopeEckert&John.R.Rickford(eds.),Style and sociolinguistic variation,85–108.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

LoiCorvetto,Ines.1982.L’italiano regionale di Sardegna.Bologna:Zanichelli.Mattheier,KlausJ.1996.Varietätenkonvergenz.ÜberlegungenzueinemBausteineinerTheoriederSprachvariation.Sociolinguistica10.31–52.

Miglietta,Annarita&AlbertoA.Sobrero.2003. Quantosonoregionalilevariantiregionali,oggi?InFedericoAlbanoLeoni,FrancescoCutugno,MassimoPettorino&RenataSavy (eds.), Il parlato italiano.Napoli:D’Auria(CD-Rom).

Pandolfi,ElenaM.2006.Misurare la regionalità. Uno studio quantitativo su regionalismi e fore-stierismi nell’italiano palato nel Canton Ticino.Locarno:Dadò.

Pandolfi,ElenaM.2009.LIPSI-Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato nella Svizzera italiana,Bellinzona:OLSI.

Parry,Mair. 2006. Il contatto linguistico: aspetti teorici emetodologici. InAlberto Sobrero&AnnaritaMiglietta(eds.),Lingua e dialetto nell’Italia del duemila,77–99.Galatina:Congedo.

Penello,Nicoletta&DiegoPescarini.2008.Osservazionisumicainitalianoealcunidialettive-neti.Quaderni di lavoroASIt8.http://asis-cnr.unipd.it/papers.html(accessed5May2010).

Poletto,Cecilia.2009.Icostruttiverbo+preposizione:l’interferenzatravenetoeitalianoregionale.InAnnaCardinaletti&NicolaMunaro(eds.),Italiano, italiani regionali e dialetti,155–172.Milano:FrancoAngeli.

Posner,Rebecca.1996.The Romance languages.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Regis,Riccardo.2006.Brevefenomenologiadiunalocuzioneavverbiale:ilsolo piùdell’italianoregionalepiemontese.Studi di lessicografia italiana23.275–289.

Rizzi, Elena. 1989. Italiano regionale e variazione sociale: l’italiano a Bologna. Bologna:CLUEB.

28 M. Cerruti

Rüegg, Robert. 1956. Zur Wortgeographie der Italienischen Umgangssprache. Köln: KölnerRomanistischeArbeiten.

Ruffino,Giovanni(eds.).1995.Percorsi di Geografia linguistica.Palermo:Centrodistudifilolo-gicielinguisticisiciliani.

Scholz,Arno.2003.Comunicazionegiovanileinrete:unamailinglistitalianadedicataallaculturahiphop. InFranzRainer&AchimStein (eds.), I nuovi media come strumenti per la ricerca linguistica,117–139.FrankfurtamMain:Lang.

Sobrero,AlbertoA.2006.Lecce:italianoedialettodegliadulti,fralavoroemedia.InAlbertoA.Sobrero&AnnaritaMiglietta(eds.),Lingua e dialetto nell’Italia del duemila,325–340.Gala-tina:Congedo.

Sobrero,AlbertoA.,MariaTeresaRomanello&ImmacolataTempesta.1991.Lavorando al Nadir: un’idea per un atlante linguistico.Galatina:Congedo.

Sogni,Alessandra.2004.“Desso vado e ce lo dico”. Parlare con gli anziani in italiano popolare.Turin:UniversityofTurinMAthesis.

Sornicola,Rosanna.2006.DialettoeprocessidiitalianizzazioneinunhabitatdelSudd’Italia.InalbertoA.Sobrero&AnnaritaMiglietta(eds.),Lingua e dialetto nell’Italia del duemila,195–242.Galatina:Congedo.

Stefinlongo,Antonella.2003.L’indaginenellacittàdiLatina.Analisisociolinguisticadeidati.InPaoloD’Achille&AndreaViviani(eds.),La lingua delle città. I dati di Roma, Latina, L’Aquila e Catania,83–105.Roma:Aracne.

Stehl,Thomas.1995.Ladinamicadiacronicafradialettoelingua:perun’analisifunzionaledellaconvergenzalinguistica.InMariaTeresaRomanello&ImmacolataTempesta(eds.),Dialetti e lingue nazionali,55–73.Roma:Bulzoni.

Telmon,Tullio.1990.Guida allo studio degli italiani regionali.Alessandria:Dell’Orso.Telmon,Tullio.1993.Varietàregionali.InAlbertoA.Sobrero(ed.),Introduzione all’italiano con-

temporaneo,vol.2,93–149.Roma-Bari:Laterza.Telmon,Tullio.2001.Italianiregionalitrainterlingua,interculturalitàeintervariazionalità.Pluri-

linguismo 8[Specialissue:L’italianoeleregioni].47–50.Tempesta,Immacolata.2002.Daldialettoalrepertorio,fraarchivieatlanti.Perunnuovoprogettoregionale.InGiannaMarcato(ed.),La dialettologia oltre il 2001,63–72.Padova:Unipress.

Thomason,Sarah&TerrenceKaufman.1988.Language contact, creolization, and genetic lin-guistics.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

regional varieties of italian in the linguistic repertoire

Documents