Chapter 4. Mixing methods in linguistic classification
-
Lissander Brasca
Abstract
The scholarly literature unanimously describes Gallo-“Italic”1 as showing all the structural traits that distinguish Gallo-Romance from the other Romance varieties. Nonetheless, while some scholars classify Gallo-“Italic” as Gallo-Romance, others classify it as Italo-Romance (‘pro-Italo- scholars). These two labels (‘Gallo-Romance’ and ‘Italo-Romance’) are irreconcilable, as they are normally used in the family tree model to name two cousin taxa: Gallo-Romance is a Western Romance daughter, while Italo-Romance is an Eastern Romance daughter. In this chapter I argue that this problem can best be understood by applying Kloss’s distinction of Abstand vs. Ausbau. I will show that, in their proposed classifications, the pro-Italo- scholars mix the Abstand and the Ausbau criteria and that this is inconsistent with the aims of classificatory science. In fact, following Kloss (1993), the status of Abstand language and that of Ausbau language are defined on two dimensions – namely, according to two variables – that are ontologically and conceptually independent (see also Tamburelli 2014). Indeed, however a linguistic variety is classified along one of these two dimensions, it does not affect its classification along the other dimension. Therefore, Abstand and Ausbau must be seen as classificatory criteria for two independent classifications. I argue that, in science, classifications have an informative function, and that by employing mixed criteria, pro-Italo- scholars have provided a flawed “classification” that is informative neither of the Abstand nor of the Ausbau status of the varieties being classified, hence it is not useful for scientific purposes and should therefore be rejected. The final section sketches out how future research might consider how the acknowledgment of Gallo-“Italic” as Gallo-Romance collides with assumptions of nationalism, possibly constituting a taboo, which suggests that the unexpected classification of Gallo-“Italic” as Italo-Romance may be due to extra-linguistic reasons. In a preliminary analysis, I propose that contesting2 the Gallo-Romance genealogical-structural profile of Gallo-“Italic” varieties could be a means of preventing (many of) their speakers from developing awareness of the fact that they speak languages distinct from Italian3 (and not “Italian dialects”, as the nationalist rhetoric assumes), and consequently, inhibiting or containing a possible movement claiming the right of these languages to official public support.4
Abstract
The scholarly literature unanimously describes Gallo-“Italic”1 as showing all the structural traits that distinguish Gallo-Romance from the other Romance varieties. Nonetheless, while some scholars classify Gallo-“Italic” as Gallo-Romance, others classify it as Italo-Romance (‘pro-Italo- scholars). These two labels (‘Gallo-Romance’ and ‘Italo-Romance’) are irreconcilable, as they are normally used in the family tree model to name two cousin taxa: Gallo-Romance is a Western Romance daughter, while Italo-Romance is an Eastern Romance daughter. In this chapter I argue that this problem can best be understood by applying Kloss’s distinction of Abstand vs. Ausbau. I will show that, in their proposed classifications, the pro-Italo- scholars mix the Abstand and the Ausbau criteria and that this is inconsistent with the aims of classificatory science. In fact, following Kloss (1993), the status of Abstand language and that of Ausbau language are defined on two dimensions – namely, according to two variables – that are ontologically and conceptually independent (see also Tamburelli 2014). Indeed, however a linguistic variety is classified along one of these two dimensions, it does not affect its classification along the other dimension. Therefore, Abstand and Ausbau must be seen as classificatory criteria for two independent classifications. I argue that, in science, classifications have an informative function, and that by employing mixed criteria, pro-Italo- scholars have provided a flawed “classification” that is informative neither of the Abstand nor of the Ausbau status of the varieties being classified, hence it is not useful for scientific purposes and should therefore be rejected. The final section sketches out how future research might consider how the acknowledgment of Gallo-“Italic” as Gallo-Romance collides with assumptions of nationalism, possibly constituting a taboo, which suggests that the unexpected classification of Gallo-“Italic” as Italo-Romance may be due to extra-linguistic reasons. In a preliminary analysis, I propose that contesting2 the Gallo-Romance genealogical-structural profile of Gallo-“Italic” varieties could be a means of preventing (many of) their speakers from developing awareness of the fact that they speak languages distinct from Italian3 (and not “Italian dialects”, as the nationalist rhetoric assumes), and consequently, inhibiting or containing a possible movement claiming the right of these languages to official public support.4
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
-
Introduction
- Chapter 1. What are contested languages and why should linguists care? 3
-
Section 1. The broader picture
- Chapter 2. Contested languages and the denial of linguistic rights in the 21st century 21
- Chapter 3. Democracy 41
-
Section 2. Identifying and perceiving contested languages
- Chapter 4. Mixing methods in linguistic classification 59
- Chapter 5. The cost of ignoring degrees of Abstand in defining a regional language 87
- Chapter 6. Deconstructing the idea of language 105
- Chapter 7. Surveying the ethnolinguistic vitality of two contested languages 125
- Chapter 8. Contested orthographies 143
- Chapter 9. Revitalising contested languages 163
-
Section 3. Working with contestedness
- Chapter 10. Community-based language planning 185
- Chapter 11. Teaching Piedmontese 199
- Chapter 12. Publishing a grammar and literature anthology of a contested language 209
- Chapter 13. Which Sardinian for education? 221
-
Section 4. Beyond contested languages
- Chapter 14. Citizenship and nationality 237
- Chapter 15. The language ideology of Esperanto 247
- Index 269
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
-
Introduction
- Chapter 1. What are contested languages and why should linguists care? 3
-
Section 1. The broader picture
- Chapter 2. Contested languages and the denial of linguistic rights in the 21st century 21
- Chapter 3. Democracy 41
-
Section 2. Identifying and perceiving contested languages
- Chapter 4. Mixing methods in linguistic classification 59
- Chapter 5. The cost of ignoring degrees of Abstand in defining a regional language 87
- Chapter 6. Deconstructing the idea of language 105
- Chapter 7. Surveying the ethnolinguistic vitality of two contested languages 125
- Chapter 8. Contested orthographies 143
- Chapter 9. Revitalising contested languages 163
-
Section 3. Working with contestedness
- Chapter 10. Community-based language planning 185
- Chapter 11. Teaching Piedmontese 199
- Chapter 12. Publishing a grammar and literature anthology of a contested language 209
- Chapter 13. Which Sardinian for education? 221
-
Section 4. Beyond contested languages
- Chapter 14. Citizenship and nationality 237
- Chapter 15. The language ideology of Esperanto 247
- Index 269
