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.
My presentation examines the factors which determine the national character of the film industry. Cinema has always been a global phenomenon in the sense that films are marketed internationally and are judged by the international community (awards, festivals, and cultural events). Films employ a universal language and use global generic conventions; this supranational feature is also true for the background institutions of film (production infrastructure, finance, and coproduction). My presentation overviews two national film industries: the Slovenian and the Belarus cinema. The culture of these two countries is situated within a larger political, cultural, and linguistic community, and thus affected by factors and forces associated with the centre and the periphery. The film industry in these two countries is shaped by the place of production, the nationality of the director, and language.
Chapter nine of Dezso Kosztolányi's 1933 work, Esti Kornél, lends itself to multiple interpretations, none complete or exhaustive. It is possible to look at this story from the perspective of the other - the Bulgarian train conductor - and it is possible to analyze it as an allegorical, danteesque descent into an inferno in which the Bulgarian train conductor is a guide, a kalauz, to Esti Kornél. A look at the story from the perspective of narratology would yield rich results, as would a rhetorical approach. I propose an analysis of this story through the prism of translation. It reveals that this is a type prose very much akin to poetry: in it, linguistic form is at least as important as semantic content, if not more. Here, the recognition of formal patterns leads to semantic discoveries. In this chapter, language has become the protagonist that manipulates the other characters. Translation points most straightforwardly to this fact because it is in translation that the loss and, therefore, the presence of the original's linguistic form is most acutely felt. The problems raised in translation illustrate how this text poses critical questions about linguistic and cultural relativism, about the nature of translation, about the possibility of communication between different linguistic communities as well as between individuals who share linguistic and cultural values.
. The following obituary was provided by Katalin É. Kiss. András Cser Editor-in-Chief Ferenc Kiefer, the doyen of Hungarian linguists, a highly esteemed member of the international linguisticcommunity, editor emeritus of Acta Linguistica Academica
within the linguisticcommunity in the last decades. These issues include, among others, the data problem with all its ramifications, the presence and the proper treatment of inconsistencies at different levels of syntactic theorizing, or various aspects
colonizing nations ever since. Understandably enough, linguists who were trying to convince the linguisticcommunity that creole vernaculars were like any other vernacular, and therefore that they should not be defined and segregated with reference to their
linguisticcommunity exemplifies the sort of division of linguistic labor […]; that is, it possesses at least some terms whose associated »criteria« are known only to a subset of the speakers who acquire the terms, and whose use by the other speakers depends