This paper examines the historical events and the linguistic consequences of a number of migratory movements from Italy to Southern European and Mediterranean countries between the end of the 17th century and the first few decades of the 18th century. Such directions and destinations are lesser known than those migrations generally associated “historically” with Italian emigration (North and South America, and, more recently, Northern Europe and Australia); nevertheless, the linguistic heritage of such movements is still very much alive or else has become extinct in only very recent times. Those who migrated from Veneto and Trentino to the Balcans, from Puglia to Crimea, the Sicilians who emigrated to Tunisia, the Piedmontese who went to province, the Ligurians who moved to various locations from Gibraltar to the Black Sea, all gave birth to small linguistic communities, to real dialectal
, to important phenomena of mixing codes and lexical borrowing from the local languages. An overall picture will be built up in order to evaluate the importance of these phenomena and to posit a series of hypotheses of a sociolinguistic and political nature.
The present paper deals with the history of the vulgar in Genova in the 15th and 16th century. As a starting point, the author discusses the very close relationship between the city's political and literary-linguistic history. It is shown that two systems had coexisted since the Middle Ages: one in enconomastic poems and another for vernacular ones. The period examined was already a time of subordination for Genova compared with Tuscany; therefore, it is important that we show the elements of the vulgar in different types of texts.
This paper illustrates the problems that arose after the approval of a law in Italy (Act no. 482/1999) on the safeguarding and enhancement of traditional linguistic minorities by examining a number of specific examples. The law proved to be not only seriously insufficient, but even had negative repercussions, both with regard to the overall judgement expressed on Italy’s linguistic heritage seen as a cultural heritage, and with regard to the fact that in many situations the very principal of protection was distorted: from the refusal to finance a number of groups rightfully and meritoriously entitled to such funds to the financing of local realities which have very little if nothing to do with linguistic varieties. In general, “language policy” in Italy is negatively influenced by the confusion between “national minority” and “linguistic minority”, one of the major factors in accounting for the failure of initiatives attempting to help the linguistic minorities.