No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The interplay of dialect and the standard in anonymous street dialogues: Patterns of variation in northern Italy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 April 2006
Abstract
In this article we provide a quantitative view on the relationship between standard and dialect in Italy. In Italian sociolinguistics, the concept of dilalìa has been used to account for this kind of linguistic repertoire. This notion will be addressed as the main theoretical frame to our investigation on code choice. Italian sociolinguistics and dialectology so far have come to apparently contradictory results about the standard–dialect relationship and the vitality of dialects. On one side, the main post-war trend shows a fall in the number of dialect speakers (especially the young and the less educated); on the other, we are witnessing a change from above in attitudes and beliefs regarding dialects. We carried out an empirical study in the northwest of the country employing the method of rapid and anonymous street interactions. Our focus being on code choice, we wanted to know what factors affect the presence of dialect, making use of multivariate analysis.This research was part of a larger national project (Cofin 2002–2003) directed by Gaetano Berruto (University of Turin) with the title “Lingua e dialetto in Italia all'inizio del Terzo Millennio” (National language and dialect in Italy at the beginning of the Third Millennium) and involving the universities of Neaples, Lecce, and Rome. Both authors took part in the research unit of Turin. Although the research and the analysis of the data have been conceived and undertaken by both authors, Alessandro Vietti wrote “The results” and “Gender-based-variation” sections while all other parts were written by Silvia Dal Negro.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2006 Cambridge University Press
References
REFERENCES
Auer, Peter.
(1998).
Introduction: “Bilingual conversation”
revisited. In
P. Auer (ed.),
Codeswitching in conversation.
London:
Routledge.
1–24.
Bell, Allan.
(1984).
Language style as audience design.
Language in Society
13:145–204.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano.
(1989).
Main topics and findings in Italian sociolinguistics.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language
76:7–30.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano.
(2005).
Hochsprache und Dialekt als kritischer Fall für die
Kontaktlinguistik.
In
E. Eggers,
J. E. Schmidt, &
D. Stellmacher (eds.),
Moderne Dialekte-Neue Dialektologie. Akten des 1. Kongresses der
Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen
(IGDD).
Stuttgart:
Steiner.
27–52.
Chambers, J. K., &
Trudgill, Peter.
(1998).
Dialectology.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cheshire, Jenny.
(2002).
Sex and gender in variationist research. In
J. K. Chambers,
P. Trudgill, &
N. Schilling-Estes (eds.),
The handbook of language variation and change.
Oxford:
Blackwell.
423–443.
Cheshire, Jenny, &
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope.
(1998).
Code-switching and the sociolinguistic gender pattern.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language
129:5–34.Google Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio.
(1991).
Storia linguistica dell'Italia unita.
Bari:
Laterza.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope.
(1985).
Language selection and switching among Strasbourg shoppers.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language
54:117–135.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard,
Coupland, Nikolas, &
Coupland, Justine.
(1991).
Accommodation theory: Communication, context and
consequences. In
H. Giles,
N. Coupland, &
J. Coupland (eds.),
Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied
linguistics.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
1–68.
Hannerz, Ulf.
(1980).
Exploring the city: Inquiries toward an urban anthropology.
New York:
Columbia University Press.
ISTAT (Istituto Nazionale di Statistica).
(2003).
Letture e linguaggio. Indagine Multiscopo sulle famiglie “I
cittadini e il tempo libero”—Anno 2000. 〈http://www.istat.it/dati/catalogo/20021218_00/〉.
Kloss, Heinz.
(1987).
Abstandsprache und Ausbausprache. In
U. Ammon,
N. Dittmar, &
W. Mattheier (eds.),
Sociolinguistics / Soziolinguistik. Vol. I.
Berlin:
De Gruyter.
302–308.
Labov, William.
(1972).
The social stratification of (r) in New York City Department
Stores. In
W. Labov,
Sociolinguistic patterns.
Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
43–69.
Labov, William.
(1990).
The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic
change.
Language Variation and Change
2:205–254.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin, &
Parry, Mair (eds.).
(1997).
The dialects of Italy.
London:
Routledge.
Marcato, Gianna.
(1988).
Italienisch: Sprache und Geschlechter. Lingua e sesso. In
G. Holtus,
M. Metzelin, &
C. Schmitt (eds.),
Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik.
Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
237–246
Milroy, Lesley.
(2002).
Mobility, contact and language change: Working with contemporary
speech communities.
Journal of Sociolinguistics
6:3–15.Google Scholar
Parry, Mair.
(1997).
Piedmont. In
M. Maiden &
M. Parry (eds.),
The dialects of Italy.
London:
Routledge.
237–244.
Robinson, John,
Lawrence, Helen, &
Tagliamonte, Sali.
(2001).
GOLDVARB 2001. A Multivariate Analysis Application for
Windows, 〈http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/webstuff/goldvarb/manual/manualOct2001.html〉.
Sobrero, Alberto A.
(1992).
Il dialetto nella conversazione: Ricerche di dialettologia
pragmatica.
Galatina:
Congedo.
Tagliavini, Carlo.
(1938).
Modificazioni del linguaggio nella parlata delle donne. In
Scritti in onore di Alfredo Trombetti.
Milano:
Hoepli.
87–142.
Terracini, Benvenuto.
(1918/1922).
Il parlare di Usseglio.
Archivio Glottologico Italiano
18:105–186.Google Scholar