Towards a typology of loanword integration in Arbëresh
Abstract
Centuries of language contact with Italo-Romance varieties have strongly affected the Italo-Albanian dialects in many respects. The following study focuses on loan words (MAT loans), on the one hand, with regard to their integration into the Italo-Albanian sound system and, on the other hand, with regard to the morphological integration of verbs into the historically given system. As for the sound level, especially geminates and laterals are prone to deviations from simple phonetic integration, with the laterals being characterised by a considerable interdialectal and intradialectal variation. Moreover, the study shows that the results of the originally phonetic type of integration were dynamised over time when the donor language changed from the local dialect to Italian, thus resulting in a purely analogical way of integrating newer borrowings. Consequently, Italian loanwords, until recently, have continued to be integrated with (assumed) dialectal characteristics, which make it often difficult to assign the borrowings to a specific period. A similar phenomenon is observed with respect to the morphological integration of verbs in some dialects, where the dialectal merger of infinitive classes is transferred to Italian loan verbs. However, the integration of loan verbs follows different regional principles, whereby a group of dialects from southern Apulia via northern Basilicata to Campania is characterised by the preservation of the original integration mechanism based on the shortened infinitive with the ending class in -oɲ.
1 Matter borrowing in historical linguistics
It is generally known that in the situations of bilingualism, such as those encountered in linguistic islands (Sprachinseln), in particular, more or less extensive borrowings of linguistic matter (so called MAT loans, cf. Matras and Sakel 2007) can occur. With this, I am referring to lexical borrowing here. Outside the lexical level, matter borrowings are practically non-existent apart from word-forming elements and grammatical function words. In contrast, lexical borrowings have always played an important role in the history of linguistic research, in the sense that they must be disregarded when determining genetic language relations. However, lexical borrowings provide information about cultural relationships in the past. Due to the great importance of lexical borrowings in various fields, there is an overwhelming amount of literature on the subject. While historical comparative grammar initially focused on the concrete phonetic adaptation processes and the relationship to the inherited words that had developed according to phonetic law, the classification and terminological coverage of borrowing processes, including structural borrowings, later became the main focus, e.g. in Haugen (1950). Specific interest in MAT loans has grown again in connection with the flourishing research on bilingual speech since the 1970s, especially on so-called “code-switching”, as the question of the relationship or distinction between ad hoc lexical borrowings and the switch to another language has been and still is the subject of intense debate. In the Loanword Typology Project carried out in the early 2000s, the focus was then on the proportion and distribution of matter borrowings in semantic areas in a comparable sample of the equivalents of around 1,500 meanings in 41 languages (Haspelmath and Tadmor 2009: 1), representing also different contact situations.
As far as the languages analysed in contact-linguistic research are concerned, constellations with English as the contact language prevail, especially in the more recent literature. The specific conditions in language enclaves with long-lasting language contact have rarely been considered so far, although the typological studies in Haspelmath and Tadmor (2009) do concern different minority constellations with languages such as Selice Romani, Lower Sorbian, Kildin Saami and others. The particular sociolinguistic situation of minority languages in total language contact calls for a comparison with languages in a comparable situation, as was carried out in Adamou et al. (2016) for some Slavic minority languages.
The Italo-Albanian (Arbëresh ∼ Arbërisht) dialects of southern Italy show a large number of matter borrowings due to the contact with the Romance-speaking environment that has existed since immigration in the 16th century, which have been dealt with in various individual studies, such as Matranga (2018), Turano (2012), Altimari (2011), Savoia (2008, 2010, 2015), Mandalà (2005), Shkurtaj (1994), Birken-Silverman (1993, 1997), Glaser (1991, 2018), Stassi (1983, 1991) and Di Sparti (1983) following earlier studies on the topic, such as Camaj (1974), Castellano Marchianò (1978).[1]
The rather large number of municipalities with very similar but also differing dialects, which are located in basically similar sociolinguistic conditions with southern Italian neighbouring dialects and Italian as a standard language or regional language, provides a large amount of data for the systematic comparison of loanword integration and distribution. A characteristic feature of all regions is the gradual replacement of earlier loanwords from dialects by those from Italian, i.e. the replacement of the source language by a closely related variety. A comparison of the integration mechanisms of the loans reveals patterns of analogical integration, which are of more general significance for contact-linguistic theorising (cf. Breu and Glaser 1979).
2 Layering of loanwords
Every contemporary conversation between Arbëresh speakers contains a whole series of borrowings from Italian or an Italo-Romance dialect. There were similar reports already a century ago (e.g. Çabej 2017 [1933]: 60–64). Some of the loans are no longer recognised as borrowings by today’s speakers, e.g. if the contacts no longer exist as such, as, for example, with modern Greek, or if the corresponding words have disappeared from the contact dialects themselves. In the present paper, I am concerned with the part of borrowings adopted only after emigration and therefore characteristic of Italo-Albanian dialects alone. Depending on the dialect, this also includes some Modern Greek borrowings, which are, however, not subject of the following analysis.[2]
It should be noted that the Arbëresh dialects scattered from Sicily to Abruzzo are not a homogeneous group, even if their general origin in the Tosk dialect area is clear (Matranga 2019; Savoia 2015). There can be considerable differences with regard to the exact region of origin, the wave of immigration and possible internal migration as well as the preservation of the original religious rite, characteristics which are then also reflected in the language. As with studies in other areas, this heterogeneity presents some obstacles to an overall analysis of lexical borrowings. Even if the necessary preliminary studies were available for all areas, it would be impossible to do justice to the diversity in this brief overview. We will therefore start from studies on Frascineto/Ejanina (province of Cosenza, CS[3]) (cf. Breu and Glaser 1979) and look for documented similarities and differences with respect to the other regions.
The earliest phase of immigration is characterised by contact with the Italo-Romance dialects. Since the majority of the Arbëresh villages are located in Calabria, the local Calabrian dialects play a central role in the oldest layer of borrowings, in addition to the Italo-Romance dialects of Sicily, Apulia, Basilicata, Campania and Molise, to indicate the most important other areas of settlement. It was only after the unification of Italy that the role of the standard language gradually increased. It is difficult to say in detail what the contact situations looked like in the past, as the situation of the language communities may have been quite different, for example depending on how strongly a village was integrated within the Italo-Albanian community, which was large in the case of Calabria, or how many external contacts existed at all and which part of the population maintained contacts with the Italo-Romance environment. Different contact situations are reflected, at least until the end of the 20th century, by the fact that individual Albanian communities had varying degrees of knowledge of the surrounding Italo-Romance dialects. While there are localities such as Frascineto where, traditionally, the local Calabrian dialect was not part of the language repertoire of most speakers, other places, such as Ginestra (PT) and Vena di Maida (CZ), are reported to have a special Italo-Romance local dialect (Savoia 2008). In the Siculo-Albanian communities, Italian is said to have become more widespread than Sicilian since the middle of the last century (Guzzetta 1978: XI). Monolingual Arbëresh speakers have probably not existed anywhere since this time at the latest.[4] In general, full bilingualism with Italian can be assumed in all localities for some time now, see Altimari (2011: 3). It is partly supplemented by the passive or active competence of an Italo-Romance surrounding dialect (Turano 2012). Birken-Silverman documents gender-specific differences (1997: 100) in the knowledge of Calabrian for the dialects of the Crati Valley around 1990.
The first layer of dialectal borrowings is soon followed by a layer borrowed from standard or regional Italian. In principle, there are various methods of distinguishing dialectal from Italian forms, as well as older and more recent borrowings. In most cases, these two pairs of terms coincide. However, there are nevertheless instances where younger dialectal forms and especially older Italian borrowings can be identified.
In some cases, it is possible to establish an absolute chronology for a particular location by consulting older texts. The possibilities of a language-internal, relative chronology are quite limited. Note, however, that a given specific word can certainly indicate whether it is of dialectal (Calabrian, Sicilian, etc.) or of Italian origin, for example, when a corresponding word is not attested as such in Italian at all or is not recognisable as such, cf. gua′ɲun ‘boy’ < cal. guagnune (NDDC 316a),[5] kots ‘head’ < cal. cozza (NDDC 197) or tʃot ‘silly’ < cal. ci(u)otu (NDDC 185), for Calabria, and e.g. spi′dzjaghi ‘pharmacist’ (< sic. spizziali, Guzzetta 1978: XX), ðik ‘hunger, desire’ (< sic. dica), dʒipun ‘bodice, traditional costume’ < sic. jippuni, for Sicily.
The phonetic form of a loanword can also give an indication of its origin, if corresponding words are found in both Italian and dialect, but with clearly different pronunciations, as in the case of cats ‘place’ < cal. chiazza (NDDC 165b), which reflects the Calabrian (and Sicilian) pronunciation of the initial labial consonant cluster in it. piazza in many places as a palatal occlusive (cf. Turano 2012 for San Nicola dell’Alto; Breu and Glaser 1979 for Frascineto, and Guzzetta 1978 for Piana degli Albanesi). The same applies e.g. to ku′lur ‘colour’ < cal. culure (NDDC 217a) versus it. colore. However, great care must be taken when judging phonetic form, because of processes of analogy, as discussed in the following section.
In some cases, older and more recent integration mechanisms can also be distinguished, especially in the field of morphology. In Frascineto, for example, older loan verbs of Calabrian origin – in continuation of the older Albanian integration of Latin verbs – are still integrated into the -oɲ-class, cf. (1).
| pen'dzoɲ ‘think’ < cal. penzari (NDDC 525a)6 |
| fǝr'noɲ ‘finish’ < cal. furnire (NDDC 286b) |
- 6
Since Arbëresh, like Standard Albanian, does not have an infinitive, I take the form of the 1st singular present tense as a citation form.
Younger loan verbs are assigned to the -eɲ-class, just like all subsequent Italian borrowings, cf. (2).
| mbi'tareɲ ‘invite’ < cal. mbitare (NDDC 405a) |
| mbruʃ'nareɲ ‘stain’ < cal. mbruscinare (NDDC 407b) |
| stud'jareɲ ‘study’ < it. studiare |
In this case, the basic form of the borrowing also changes. While in the first type it coincides with the stem of the source verb, it corresponds to the entire infinitive in the second. The integration mechanisms will be discussed in more detail in the following section.
3 Loanword integration
In contrast to code-switching, in which, put simply, elements of the contact language including grammatical morphemes are inserted into the mixed speech, lexical borrowings must be adapted to the language system of the receiving language in such a way that they can be used just like native vocabulary in a sentence frame, which is done by morphological integration. In principle, however, the phonetic form of the wordform is also affected, as the phonological systems of the two languages in contact usually differ in various respects, which leads to a more or less strong adaptation to the recipient language. In the next section, this process of phonological integration will be outlined in the main features, following Breu (1991).[7]
3.1 Phonological integration
3.1.1 Types of systematic integration
One basic difference between Italian and the southern Italo-Romance dialects on the one hand and the Italo-Albanian dialects on the other is the occurrence of long consonants/geminates. Geminate consonants therefore tend to be simplified in the oldest dialectal borrowing layer as well as in the older Italian borrowings (cf. Birken-Silverman 1997: 223; Breu and Glaser 1979: 45; Stassi 1991: 205; Turano 2012: nota 5). However, some variation can be noted, especially with retained geminates in certain suffixes, such as -elle (Turano 2012: 4), possibly more so in bidialectal speakers of certain regions.[8] Apart from this, the dialectal, e.g. Calabrian, word forms can largely be integrated with their original sound due to the rich consonant systems of most Italo-Albanian dialects. This also applies to [dʒ], which is usually only marginally present in the hereditary vocabulary of Arbërisht (Guzzetta 1978: 26), but frequently occurs in borrowings.
Together with the verbs mentioned above, the following short list of common borrowings can give an insight into some of the typical dialectal, especially Calabrian, characteristics (compared to standard Italian they show i instead of e, u instead of o, ð instead of d, and ʃ instead of s, as well as apocope):
| kria'tur ‘child’ (it. creatura)9 |
| mu'lun ‘melon’ (it. melone) |
| 'kruðu ‘raw’ (it. crudo) |
| ʃurð ‘deaf’ (it. sordo) |
| vudʒ ‘voice’ (it. voce) |
| a'lura ‘then, so’ (it. allora) |
| 'ðopu ‘then’ (it. dopo) |
| a'tuornu ‘around’ (it. attorno) |
- 9
Unless otherwise stated, in the following, the examples are given in the form of the Frascineto variety (see Breu and Glaser 1979) together with Standard Italian equivalents. The collections in Shkurtaj (2006: 54–57) as well as the lists for Ginestra, Vena di Maida, and Casalvecchio in Savoia (2008) show numerous lexical correspondences, but also a considerable variation in the concrete phonology and word formation of these widely scattered places. Further examples of borrowings can also be found in Turano (2012) and in numerous dialect descriptions of various regions. A quick comparison reveals a significant amount of common borrowed vocabulary.
Examples of further types of dialectal integration, which I cannot treat in detail here, could be added from all regions, e.g. from Siculo-Albanian (Piana degli Albanesi PA, see Guzzetta 1978):
| cump ‘lead’ (cf. it. piombo) |
| dʒarrə ‘big jug’ (it. giara) |
Other dialectal loans show the local Calabrian change f > h, as in Vena di Maida (CZ, Savoia 2010: 720, cf. also AIS 772, maps 464, 892):
| hɔrmikulə ‘ant’ (it. formica) |
| hinestra ‘window’ (it. finestra) |
While the southern Italian voiced dental fricative [ð] can be integrated without problems due to its existence in hereditary words, the voiced velar fricative [ɣ], which is just as widespread in southern Italian dialects, does not show up in borrowings with the same regularity.
In the vast majority of dialects that have not developed a voiced velar fricative anyway, e.g. from old [h]/[x] (see Solano 1994 [1979]: Tavola II), or from the velar lateral (Solano 1994 [1979]: Tavola III; cf. ADGJSH: map 23), corresponding words are integrated with velar [g], as in Frascineto. In places that know the fricative [ɣ], dialectal or Italian words can also be integrated with this fricative, as was previously the case with Greek words, whereby often only a few lexemes are involved.[10]
| Piana degli Albanesi (PA) |
| ɣaluts ‘young rooster’ < sic. gadduzzu (Guzzetta 1978: 39) (cf. it. gallo) |
| San Nicola dell’Alto (KR) |
| righah ‘gift’ (Turano 2012: 3), (NDDC 578) rigalía, cf. it. regalo |
| Greci (AV) |
| maɣi ‘the magician’ (Camaj 1971), (NDDC 380) magu, cf. it. mago11 |
- 11
But cf. gufi ‘the eagle owl’ < it. gufo.
| San Giorgio (CS) |
| ɣras ‘bacon’ (Birken-Silverman 1997: 34) cf. it. grasso |
The Italo-Albanian laterals, which phonetically vary somewhat between a more palatal and a more neutral or velar l, contrast with those of Italian and the southern Italian dialects, where there is an opposition between the singleton consonant and the geminate. In Italo-Romance, the quality of the laterals varies. In addition, it depends on the position in the word, but tends to be closer to neutral or velar l, at least for the singleton (cf. Rohlfs 1966: 216–218, 308–309). Due to these phonetic differences, adaptations are to be expected in this domain (see Çabej 2017 [1933]: 96–97), whose complexity would merit a separate study. I can therefore only give a brief outline of the main deviations from direct phonetic integration in a number of areas.
In Siculo-Albanian (Çabej 2017 [1933]: 97; Guzzetta 1978; Mandalà 2005: 16; Matranga 1996: 198) as well as in the Calabrian provinces of Crotone (e.g. San Nicola dell’Alto, see Turano 2012: 3) and Catanzaro (following Lessico 2011, but cf. Solano 1994 [1979]: Tavola III), the lateral consonant is integrated as a velar fricative [ɣ] <gh>, see the following examples:
| Piana degli Albanesi (PA) |
| ghemb ‘bowl’ < sic. lemmu (Çabej 2017 [1933]: 97) |
| xhighat ‘ice-cream’ (Mandalà 2005: 16) (it. gelato) |
| San Nicola dell’Alto (KR) (Turano 2012: 3) |
| ghordu ‘dirty’ < cal. lordu (NCCD 375a) |
| dhebughe ‘weak’ (it. debole) |
| ghokagh ‘restaurant’ (it. locale) |
| Pallagorio (KR), Caraffa (CZ) (Lessico 2011) |
| tʃitroɣi ‘the cucumber’ < cal. citrolu (NCCD 184) |
| ɣitər ‘letter’ < cal. littera (NCCD 370) |
Following Lambertz (1923: 280–282) the same is true, although to a lesser extent, in Molise.[12]
| Portocannone, Ururi, Montecilfone (CB) |
| ɣatrun ∼ atrun ‘robber’ < molis. latrunə |
| kuɣur ∼ ku′ur ‘colour’ < molis. culurə |
In Falconara – a somewhat more remote Calabrian settlement on the Tyrrhenian Sea – the palatal lateral has become a retroflex dental [ɖ], which also renders Italian l in the borrowings, although dialectal cacuminal/retroflex models may be reflected here, too (see Camaj 1977: 25; Rohlfs 1966: 217–218), cf. ɖiber ‘book’ (it. libro), i-ɖurtmi ‘the last’ (cf. it. l’ultimo, Camaj 1977: 125). In some borrowings, the Romance l also seems to have been identified with the (slightly) velarised lateral consonant, e.g. limun ‘lemon’ (it. limone) (Camaj 1977: 134).
The Italian lateral geminate <ll> appears in Sicily as a simplex lateral (and not as a cacuminal consonant), cf. kulanë ‘chain’ < it. collana (Guzzetta 1978: 38–39; Mandalà 2005: 15–16). The geminate is also simplified in Calabria, with palatal [ʎ] appearing in the borrowings in north-east Calabria, especially in suffixes like -elle (Birken-Silverman 1997: 303–305), e.g. kaseʎe ‘hut’ < cal. casellǝ, seʎe ‘saddle’ < it./cal. sella.
Due to the different phonemic oppositions in the donor and recipient languages, the lateral consonants show different integration mechanisms that would require a deeper examination from a comparative perspective.
3.1.2 Analogical integration
With the gradual expansion of Standard Italian in southern Italy, words from this variety are also increasingly being borrowed in Italo-Albanian. This is shown on the one hand by the lack of corresponding dialectal Italo-Romance source words, but on the other hand by the fact that it is the vocabulary for more modern habits and objects that is typical of the standard language.
However, this does not mean that these borrowings from Italian are also adopted in their standard pronunciation. Even in modern times, they are phonetically integrated according to certain rules, as if originating from an Italo-Romance dialect. This can be illustrated, for example, by a comparison with Standard Albanian, where in some cases the same words have been adopted in a form closer to the donor language Italian, see, for example, Italo-Albanian dokumend, llimunad, rað ‘document’, ‘lemonade’, ‘radio’ as compared to dokument, limonatë, radio in Standard Albanian (both from it. documento, limonata, radio).[13]
The phonetic changes are only to a small extent due to the differences between current donor and recipient languages. In most cases, a more direct rendition of the Italian sound, for example with o instead of u, would have been perfectly possible in the Italo-Albanian dialect in question. The words thus exhibit a specific loanword pronunciation when compared with Italian. Since a comparison with the standard Italian form was possible for a number of loanwords from the Italo-Romance dialect, as shown above with some examples from Calabria, these equivalents, ð for d, u for o, i for e, as in ′kruðu ‘raw’, kria′tur ‘child’ and others, could be dynamically reinterpreted as integration mechanisms for Italian as the donor language. Thus, in more recent borrowings, ð also appears for Italian d and u for o, as in ′ðultʃe ‘sweet’ < it. dolce. Modern borrowings therefore look like older ones from Calabrian due to the inherent dynamics of the integration mechanism. For the speakers of Arbërisht, a phonetic form ′ðultʃe, compared to it. dolce, appears as a sign of integration into their dialect. Strictly speaking, this means that borrowings with these characteristics, as already indicated above, cannot be claimed to be borrowed from Calabrian without closer scrutiny. This can only be said with some certainty if the lexeme has no equivalent in Italian, as is the case with the above-mentioned mbruʃ′nareɲ ‘stain’ or gua′ɲun ‘boy’. Since not all phonetic differences between Italian and Calabrian participate in dynamisation, such as Calabrian r compared to Italian l, it is possible to cautiously infer a borrowing from Calabrian on the basis of such sounds, as in the above-mentioned case of i-ɖurtmi ‘the last’ (it. l’ultimo); on the other hand, ′ðultʃe indicates borrowing from Italian, since otherwise ′ðurtʃe would be expected (cf. NDDC 245b).
Another argument in favour of Italian as the source language of a given borrowing may result from its reference to an object or concept of the modern world, in examples such as ′rað ‘radio’ or litʃens′jarem ‘take the school leaving examination’ < it. licenziarsi, stu′ðendra ‘students’ < it. studenti. Even though such lexemes may also have entered the Calabrian dialects, it would be highly unlikely that they were borrowed from the dialect in the case of Frascineto, for example, since the Calabrian dialect plays no role in modern everyday life. In the course of time, cases of direct phonetic integration appear, in which dynamic adaptation no longer plays a role, such as abas′tandza ‘enough, quite’ < it. abbastanza, disko′teka ‘discotheque’ < it. discoteca, ′masimo ‘at most’ < it. massimo, skambi′jarjen ‘they swap’ < it. scambiare, in′zoma ‘all in all’ < it. insomma (taken from a modern dialogue).
However, certain adaptations, such as sonorisation after nasal consonants, mp > mb, nt > nd and others, are partially preserved, whereby regional southern Italian pronunciation variants may also play a role in addition to the phonotactics of Arbërisht. However, the typical u, i and ð become more and more unusual. In some cases, this can also lead to double forms for the same meaning, such as younger mines′trone ‘vegetable soup’ versus traditional minis′trun.
All in all, it can be concluded, that – apart from a few clear cases of lexemes restricted to the Italo-Romance dialects on the one hand and modern standard-language lexemes without phonetic adaptation on the other – the external form of a large number of borrowings does not provide a decisive indicator of their age and the source variety. For lexemes that exhibit the phonetic characteristics mentioned above, additional criteria must be used to decide whether they are borrowed from the dialect or from Italian. This can be a merely partial adaptation, but also the affiliation to a certain semantic field, which speaks for or against a borrowing from the dialect. If it is possible to include historical evidence, the appearance in older texts can provide a clear indication, usually connected with the dialect as the source variety.
Due to the dynamised integration process, which causes borrowings from Italian to look like older dialectal borrowings, many borrowings cannot be judged from the phonetics alone without knowledge of the exact circumstances and contact varieties. Compare the following examples, which are classified as borrowings from Italian but show some typical quasi-dialectal modifications:
| risto'randi ‘the restaurant’ < it. ristorante |
| in'vetʃi ‘but, however’ < it. invece |
| 'timiðu ‘shy’ < it. timido (Guzzetta 1978: 16) |
The conclusion that can be drawn from these findings for historical linguistics is that it is not possible to deduce the age of the borrowings only from their sound shape.[14] This means that a chronological stratification cannot be derived directly from the form of the borrowings, which has important consequences for using them in diachronic phonology.[15]
3.2 Morphological integration
Loanwords must have certain morphological characteristics in order to be used in a syntactic context. To this end, they must be shaped into a specific form that allows them to be used according to the grammatical rules of the target language. In principle, this applies to all inflectional parts of speech, although here I am concentrating on verbs, which in turn have special characteristics, as will be explained using the dialect of Frascineto (cf. Breu and Glaser 1979: 46–47). Here, too, a certain formal layering can be noted.
The verbs from the older phase of Calabrian loanword incorporation inflect according to the class of verbs ending in -oɲ, such as ʃkoɲ ‘go’, which was still productive in Arbërisht at that time, with the aorist following the v-class and past participles in -uar. As already mentioned in Section 2, the stem for the integration into the verbal grammar of Arbërisht was created by deleting the infinitive ending of the Calabrian verb, i.e. the basis of the integration was a shortened infinitive. As can be seen from the following examples, the two inflectional classes in -are and -ire were treated equally:
| pen'dzoɲ ‘think’ | aor pendzova | ptcp.pst pendzuar | < cal. penzare |
| fir'noɲ ‘finish’ | aor firnova | ptcp.pst firnuar | < cal. firnire |
In contrast to Albanian this class has now become unproductive. Note, however, that in earlier times (before the immigration) loan verbs could also be integrated as consonant-stems like ′etseɲ ‘to go’, namely Greek loan verbs, with the stem of the Greek aorist subjunctive serving as the integration base,[16] such as διαβάσ-, stem of the aorist subjunctive of διαβάζω ‘read’, in (16):
| ðjo'vaseɲ ‘read’ < gr. διαβάζω | aor ðjo′vasa | ptcp.pst ðjo′vasur < cal. firnire |
The more recent, still productive type of integration of Italian or dialectal verbs also shows the ending -eɲ, however, with the infinitive of the donor language taken as the derivational basis; cf. the following younger borrowings from Calabrian:[17]
| mbruʃ'nareɲ ‘stain’ < cal. mbruscinare (NDDC 407b) |
| kri'ðireɲ ‘believe’ < cal. cridere, cri′diri (NDDC 202a) |
| mbi'tareɲ ‘invite’ < cal. mbitari (NDDC 405a) |
The borrowings from Calabrian, following the dialectal systems, distinguish two infinitive classes as the basis for integration, characterised by the endings -are and -ire, whereby the Italian verbs of the -ire and the stressed and unstressed -ere-classes coincide.[18] The same is, however, also true for the more recent borrowings from Italian. This means that a mechanism was dynamised here for morphological integration, similar to that one found at the phonological level, which results from the comparison of earlier Calabrian loan verbs with the corresponding Italian ones. The system of Arbërisht cannot motivate such a coincidence of classes. It is a specific integration process that has arisen due to the change in the donor language. This dynamised incorporation mechanism has been productive until recently, as the following modern borrowings from Frascineto show:
| inva'ðireɲ ‘invade’ < invadere |
| pja'tʃireɲ ‘like’ < piacere |
| stud'jareɲ ‘study’ < studiare |
| ka'pireɲ ‘understand’ < capire |
Similar to phonological integrational dynamics, morphological dynamism also poses problems for historical classification. In such cases, it is neither possible to infer certain infinitive endings of the donor languages from the borrowings, nor can a certain chronology be read off directly. Again, other criteria, such as the type of lexeme, which, for example, in mbruʃ′nareɲ refers to Calabrian dialect, must be used to determine the age of the borrowing.[19] In many cases, the allocation to a specific stratum can therefore only be made with a certain degree of uncertainty.
The dynamisation of morphological integration according to the system of Calabrian verb endings is a speciality of the Arbëresh core area in Northern Calabria, as results from Birken-Silverman (1997: 431–444) and Altimari (2011). To this dominant type, as described for Frascineto, with the dynamised derivation from the full infinitive and the ending class in -eɲ (with a certain variation in the unstressed vowel), we can add San Nicola dell’Alto (province of Crotone) to the south, although, here, the paradigm presents a small deviation in having the ending -i in the 1sg (Turano 2012: 4–5):
| kontrolari ‘control’ < controllare |
| ghudhiri ‘enjoy’ < godere |
| viviri ‘live’ < vivere |
| riushiri ‘achieve’ < riuscire |
Another variant of this type of integration can be seen in the isolated dialect of Falconara, which also uses the full infinitive as a base. But at least for the verbs of the -are-class, they classify as consonantal stems with Ø-ending in the singular, although there is variation i ∼ Ø in the 1sg (Birken-Silverman 1997: 440–441; Camaj 1971: 67):[20]
| salutari ‘greet’ < salutare |
| skuzari ‘apologize’ < scusare |
San Costantino Albanese (PT) in south-eastern Basilicata, in the immediate vicinity of the northern Calabrian dialects, can also be placed in this group. In addition to the older integration type with the shortened infinitive and the ending -oɲ, there is a modern integration with the full infinitives in a dynamised way. In this case, the singular shows a variation between endingless present tense forms and the extension -(e)ɲ/en (Scutari 2010):[21]
| figuroɲ ‘look’ < figurare |
| pudʒar(eɲ) ‘lean’ < appoggiare |
| findʒir(eɲ) ‘play’ < fingere |
Once the verbs have been integrated in this way, they can be used with the entire inflectional inventory in the appropriate tenses and modes (Altimari 2011: 6–7; Turano 2012: 5), although the inflectional inventories can, of course, vary. For reasons of space, this cannot be dealt with in this article, especially as no systematic survey has yet been carried out.
In the southern Calabrian Arbëresh settlements of the province of Catanzaro, however, a different integration system is found with the ending -ɲa (1sg), attached to the present stem ending in -a or -i, so that there are verbs in -iɲa and -aɲa (cf. Savoia 2008: 10, 2010: 720, on Vena di Maida),[22] showing the same merger of endings with respect to the Italian classes in -ire and -ere as in the other Calabrian places discussed above. Again the integration system is dynamised for Italian loanwords.
| kriδiɲa ‘believe’ < credere |
| kapiʃiɲa ‘understand’ < capire |
| preγaɲa ‘pray, bid’ < pregare |
Finally, a brief overview of the occurrence of various systems outside Calabria will be given.
In Casalvecchio (FG) in northern Apulia (cf. Savoia 2008: 9), the integration patterns are similar to those in neighbouring Molise. There, the older integration type in -oɲ, which was initially used for various dialectal verb classes, continues to appear for source verbs ending in -are, while more recent borrowings of the Italian -ire, -ere-classes show the dynamised integration with -iriɲ,[23] as in most Calabro-Albanian varieties.
| Portocannone and Ururi (CB) |
| kər'ðoɲ ‘believe’ < credere |
| kumbər'doɲ ‘meet’ < confrontare |
| ka'piriɲ ‘understand’ < capire |
| sə'dʒirəɲ ‘withdraw money’ < esigere |
| raðu'dʒirəɲ ‘reduce’ < ridurre |
| u'ðirəɲ ‘enjoy’ < godere |
| Casalvecchio (FG) |
| tʃupǝ'koɲ ‘limp’ < zoppicare |
| ka'piriɲ ‘understand’ < capire |
| krǝ'ðiriɲ ‘believe’ < credere |
In southern Apulia (San Marzano TA), however, all verbs are integrated into the -oɲ(oj)-class, as in older Calabrian Arbëresh (cf. Altimari 2011: 5). The following examples, taken from De Padova (1987: 374, 386, 387, 391, 399), show verbs from different donor language classes.
| nkun'droj ‘meet’ < incontrare |
| sba'toj ‘beat’ < sbattere |
| npartə'noj ‘belong’ < appartenere |
| prəfə'roj ‘prefer’ < preferire |
| ka'poj ‘understand’ < capire |
A homogeneous integration into the traditional -oɲ-class also applies in the northern Basilicata dialects (cf. Savoia 2008: 8, 2010: 720–721, 2015: 265, on Ginestra and Barile PT) (25) and in the dialect of Greci in Campania (AV) (26), cf. C.T.P. (2004), Altimari (2011: 14):
| fu'moɲ ‘smoke’ < fumare |
| sfri'ʒoɲ ‘fry’ < friggere |
| mu'voɲ ‘move’ < muovere |
| Greci |
| spus'toɲ ‘shift’ < spostare |
| zmu'voɲ ‘move’ < smuovere |
| lə'dʒoɲ ‘read’ < leggere |
| ndərvə'noɲ ‘intervene’ < intervenire |
Finally, the Sicilian Arbëresh dialects again follow the infinitive-based system (Guzzetta 1978: XXI; Matranga 2012: 13, 2018; Stassi 1991: 203), more precisely the Falconara type where the present tense in the singular remains endingless:
| patir ‘suffer’ < sic. patiri |
| rradhir ‘shave’ < sic. radere |
| fukar ‘suffocate’ < sic. affucari |
| zbidhir ‘see badly’ < sic. sbidiri |
The morphological integration of Italo-Romance verbs thus reveals both diachronic changes and diatopic differences. The oldest type is undoubtedly the one that integrates verbs into the -oɲ-class on the basis of a shortened infinitive, without considering the donor verbal classes. This type of integration still applies today in some (in earlier times) rather remote settlements, which are located between Calabria and Molise. The currently dominant type, on the other hand, shows integration with the help of the donor language’s full infinitives, with the ending -eɲ, characteristic for the consonantal class, being predominantly chosen. This innovation probably originated in north-east Calabria. In some neighbouring areas, and also in Siculo-Albanian, this infinitive-based integration type also prevails, although the classification into ending classes varies. The Molise type, which does not recognise an -areɲ-class, probably forms a transitional type. The position of the southern Calabro-Albanian varieties in this classification remains open for the time being.
4 Conclusions
The study of the phonological integration of Italo-Romance borrowings and, in particular, the morphological integration of borrowed verbs into Italo-Albanian varieties has shown that in both areas an analogical dynamisation of certain integration processes has occurred due to the extra-linguistic change of the donor language. This calls for caution in the chronological evaluation of linguistic data, which does not mean that such an evaluation cannot be made at all, but it has to be confirmed by additional evidence.
As for the specific integration mechanisms, we noted a large degree of identical techniques concerning the phonological level, e.g. in the degemination of Italian geminates and the adoption of various southern Italian sounds. Recurrent problems affect the laterals, where both donor and recipient language variations play a role and contribute to a complex picture. With respect to morphological integration, where we focussed on the treatment of verbs, we noted only a limited number of integration mechanisms. The geographic distribution of the basic types (shortened and full infinitive as integration basis) provides certain indications of a diachronic development. As in other respects, the dialect zone of north-east Calabria seems at the heart of innovations.
List of abbreviations
- 1
-
1st person
- 3
-
3rd person
- aor
-
aorist
- AV
-
province of Avellino
- cal.
-
Calabrian
- CB
-
province of Campobasso
- CS
-
province of Cosenza
- CZ
-
province of Catanzaro
- FG
-
province of Foggia
- gr.
-
Greek
- it.
-
Italian
- KR
-
province of Crotone
- molis.
-
Molisian
- PA
-
province of Palermo
- pst
-
past tense
- PT
-
province of Potenza
- ptcp
-
participle
- sg
-
singular
- sic.
-
Sicilian
- TA
-
province of Taranto
References
Adamou, Evangelia, Walter Breu, Lenka Scholze & Rachel Xingjia Shen. 2016. Borrowing and contact intensity: A corpus-driven approach from four Slavic minority languages. Journal of Language Contact 9. 513–542. https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-00903004.Search in Google Scholar
AIS = Jaberg, Karl & Jakob Jud. 1928–1940. Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz, vol. 1–8. Zofingen, Bern: Ringier. Available at: https://navigais-web.pd.istc.cnr.it/ (accessed 5 September 2024).Search in Google Scholar
ADGJSH = Akademia e Shkencave e, Shqipërisë (ed.). 2007. Atlasi dialektologjik i gjuhës shqipe. Napoli: Università degli studi di Napoli.Search in Google Scholar
Altimari, Francesco. 1994. La parlata di Macchia Albanese: appunti fonologici. In Francesco Altimari & Leonardo Savoia (eds.), I dialetti italo-albanesi. Studi linguistici e storico-culturali sulle comunità arbëreshe, 239–256. Roma: Bulzoni.Search in Google Scholar
Altimari, Francesco. 2011. Sui prestiti dell’italiano e dei dialetti italoromanzi nel sistema verbale dell’albanese di Calabria. In Walter Breu (ed.), L’influsso dell’italiano sul sistema del verbo delle lingue minoritarie. Resistenza e mutamento nella morfologia e nella sintassi, 1–16. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Search in Google Scholar
Birken-Silverman, Gabriele. 1993. Concordanze e discordanze lessicali nelle parlate arbëreshe. In Antonino Guzzetta (ed.), Gli albanesi d’Italia e la Rilindja albanese, 65–84. Palermo: Università di Palermo.Search in Google Scholar
Birken-Silverman, Gabriele. 1997. Sprachkontakt Italienisch-Albanisch in Kalabrien (Teil 1–3). Frankfurt a. M.: Lang.10.1515/9783110151541.2.13.1371Search in Google Scholar
Breu, Walter. 1991. System und Analogie bei der Integration von Lehnwörtern: Versuch einer Klassifikation. Incontri Linguistici 14. 13–28.Search in Google Scholar
Breu, Walter. 1995. Il sistema verbale del dialetto arbresh di Montecilfone: La morfologia dell’indicativo. In Antonino Guzzetta (ed.), Lingua, Mito, Storia, Religione, 35–50. Palermo: Istituto di Lingua e Letteratura Albanese.Search in Google Scholar
Breu, Walter. 1997. Integrazione di prestiti e problemi della fonologia diacronica dell’albanese. In Francesco Altimari (ed.), Atti del 2° Seminario Internazionale di Studi Albanesi, Rende – San Giacomo di Cerzeto – San Cosmo Alb., 8–10 giugno 1994, 155–168. Roma: Herder.Search in Google Scholar
Breu, Walter. 2008. Aspetto verbale ed aspettualità nel dialetto italoalbanese di San Costantino Albanese. In Francesco Altimari & Emilia Conforti (eds.), Omaggio a Girolamo de Rada, 93–112. Rende: Università della Calabria.Search in Google Scholar
Breu, Walter. 2021. Italo-Albanian: Balkan inheritance and Romance influence. Journal of Language Contact 14(1). 147–183. https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-14010006.Search in Google Scholar
Breu, Walter & Elvira Glaser. 1979. Zur sprachlichen Situation in einer italo-albanischen Gemeinde. Münchner Zeitschrift für Balkankunde 2. 19–50.Search in Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea & W. Leo Wetzels. 2009. Loan phonology: Issues and controversies. In Andrea Calabrese & W. Leo Wetzels (eds.), Loan phonology, 1–10. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.307.01calSearch in Google Scholar
Camaj, Martin. 1971. La parlata albanese di Greci in provincia di Avellino. Firenze: Olschki.Search in Google Scholar
Camaj, Martin. 1974. Il Bilinguismo nelle oasi linguistiche albanesi dell’Italia meridionale. In Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Centro di Studio per la Dialettologia Italiana (ed.), Bilinguismo e diglossia in Italia, 5–13. Pisa: Pacini.Search in Google Scholar
Camaj, Martin. 1977. Die albanische Mundart von Falconara Albanese in der Provinz Cosenza. München: Trofenik.Search in Google Scholar
Castellano Marchianò, Angela. 1978. Infiltrazioni calabresi nelle parlate arbëreshe. Zjarri 10. 6–16.Search in Google Scholar
C.T.P. 2004. = Centro territoriale di educazione permanente, Comune di Greci (ed.), Fjalt jona. Dizionario italiano – arbëresh di Greci. Grottaminarda: Delta 3.Search in Google Scholar
Çabej, Eqrem. 2017 [1933]. In Heiner Eichner & Joachim Matzinger (eds.), Italoalbanische Studien. Wiener Dissertation aus dem Jahr 1933. Mit Beigaben von Oskar E. Pfeiffer und Joachim Matzinger. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.10.2307/j.ctv11sn4vvSearch in Google Scholar
De Padova, Carmine. 1987. Anketa gjuhësóre për të folmen arbëreshe të San Marcanos. Dialektologjia V. 372–413.Search in Google Scholar
Di Sparti, Antonino. 1983. Diaspora nel televisivo: lingue minoritarie e mass media. In Antonino Guzzetta (ed.), Etnia albanese e minoranze linguistiche in Italia, 177–258. Palermo: Università di Palermo.Search in Google Scholar
Glaser, Elvira. 1991. Zur Struktur des Lehnwortschatzes im Arbrisht. In Francesco Altimari, Gabriele Birken-Silverman, Martin Camaj & Ruprecht Rohr (eds.), Atti del congresso Internazionale di Studi sulla Lingua, la Storia e la Cultura degli Albanesi d’Italia, 129–142. Rende: CELUC.Search in Google Scholar
Glaser, Elvira. 2018. Code-switching and borrowing in Arbresh dialects. In Thede Kahl, Iliana Krapova & Giuseppina Turano (eds.), Balkan and South Slavic Enclaves in Italy: Languages, dialects and identities, 48–64. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Guzzetta, Antonino. 1978. La parlata di Piana degli Albanesi. Parte I – Fonologia. Palermo: Università di Palermo.Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Uri Tadmor. 2009. I. The loanword typology project and the world loanword database. Coanwords in the world’s languages, 1–34. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110218442.1Search in Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1950. The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26. 210–231. https://doi.org/10.2307/410058.Search in Google Scholar
Jochalas, Titos. 1994. Considerazioni sull’elemento greco nell’arbëresh. In Francesco Altimari & Leonardo Maria Savoia (eds.), I dialetti italo-albanesi, 141–160. Roma: Bulzoni.Search in Google Scholar
Lambertz, Maximilian. 1914. Albanische Mundarten in Italien. Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 2. 1–31.Search in Google Scholar
Lambertz, Maximilian. 1923. Italoalbanische Dialektstudien. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 51. 259–290.Search in Google Scholar
Lambertz, Maximilian. 1924. Italoalbanische Dialektstudien. 2. Teil. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 52. 43–90.Search in Google Scholar
Lessico 2011 = Lessico delle parlate albanesi del Catanzarese, raccolto sulla base del questionario ALE (Atlas Linguarum Europae). 2011. Rende: Università della Calabria.Search in Google Scholar
Mandalà, Matteo. 2005. Siculo-arbëresh e siciliano a contatto: alcune verifiche. In Walter Breu (ed.), L’influsso dell’italiano sulla grammatica delle lingue minoritarie. Problemi di morfologia e sintassi, 13–21. Rende: Università della Calabria.Search in Google Scholar
Matranga, Vito. 1996. Alcune considerazioni sui prestiti lessicali in ambito siculo-albanese. In Antonino Guzzetta (ed.), Nuovi orientamenti della linguistica e della letteratura albanesi, 187–199. Palermo: Università di Palermo.Search in Google Scholar
Matranga, Vito. 2012. Peculiarità nel lessico dei giochi fanciulleschi tradizionali delle comunità siculo-albanesi. RES ALBANICAE. Rivista di albanologia 1. 5–23.Search in Google Scholar
Matranga, Vito. 2018. L’adattamento dei prestiti siciliani nelle varietà siculoalbanesi. Un contributo alle questioni fonetiche del siciliano. Bolletino del centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani 29. 257–271.Search in Google Scholar
Matranga, Vito. 2019. Arbëreshë, Versione 2 (11/12/2019, 16:46). In Roland Bauer & Thomas Krefeld (eds.), Lo spazio comunicativo dell’Italia e delle varietà italiane (Korpus im Text 7), Versione 90. http://www.kit.gwi.uni-muenchen.de/?p=12805&v=2xxx (accessed 5 September 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel. 2007. Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 31. 829–865. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat.Search in Google Scholar
NDDC = Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1982. Nuovo dizionario dialettale della Calabria. Ravenna: Stampa.Search in Google Scholar
Pignoli, Maria Luisa & Guido Tartiglione. 2007. Dizionario albanese molisano (Parlate di Portocannone e Ururi). Rende: Università della Calabria.Search in Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1966. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. I. Fonetica. Torino: Einaudi.Search in Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Morfologia. Torino: Einaudi.Search in Google Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo Maria. 2008. Studi sulle varietà arbëreshe. Rende: Università della Calabria.Search in Google Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo Maria. 2010. Prestiti lessicali e code-mixing nei sistemi arbëreshë. In Nadia Prantera, Antonio Mendicino & Cinzia Citraro (eds.), Parole. Il lessico come strumento per organizzare e trasmettere gli etnosaperi, 717–738. Rende: Università della Calabria.Search in Google Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo Maria. 2015. La minoranza linguistica arbëreshe. In Giovanni Agresti & Silvia Pallini (eds.), Migrazioni tra disagio linguistico e patrimoni culturali, 253–278. Ariccia: Aracne.Search in Google Scholar
Scutari, Pasquale. 2010. Dizionario arbëresh di San Costantino Albanese. Rende: Università della Calabria.Search in Google Scholar
Shkurtaj, Gjovalin. 1994. L’influenza dell’italiano sulle parlate albanesi d’Italia. In Francesco Altimari & Leonardo Maria Savoia (eds.), I dialetti italo-albanesi, 129–139. Roma: Bulzoni.Search in Google Scholar
Shkurtaj, Gjovalin. 2006. Ligjërimet arbëreshe. “Gjuha e bukës” dhe “gjuha e zemrës”. Tirana: Redona.Search in Google Scholar
Solano, Francesco. 1994 [1979]. Per la definizione di alcune isofone nell’italo-albanese. In Francesco Altimari & Leonardo Savoia (eds.), I dialetti italo-albanesi, 169–178. Roma: Bulzoni.Search in Google Scholar
Stassi, Laura. 1983. La cultura siciliana nella parlata di Piana degli Albanesi. In Antonino Guzzetta (ed.), Etnia albanese e minoranze linguistiche in Italia, 97–105. Palermo: Università di Palermo.Search in Google Scholar
Stassi, Laura. 1991. Bilinguismo fonetico in area arbëreshe. In Francesco Altimari, Gabriele Birken-Silverman, Martin Camaj & Ruprecht Rohr (eds.), Atti del congresso Internazionale di Studi sulla Lingua, la Storia e la Cultura degli Albanesi d’Italia, 199–207. Rende: CELUC.Search in Google Scholar
Turano, Giuseppina. 2012. Strategie di assimilazione lessicale e morfosintattica nei dialetti arbëreshë: regolarità e devianze. In Bardh Rugova (ed.), Studime për nder të Rexhep Ismajlit në rastin e 65-vjetorit të lindjes, 729–747. Prishtinë: Koha.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Progressive and imminent in the verbal system of Albanian in Italy
- Sprachbund features in Italo-Albanian and the role of contact-induced change
- Towards a typology of loanword integration in Arbëresh
- The verbal system in the Arbëresh dialect of Contessa Entellina
- A new look at an old question: finite control and the copy relation with special reference to Arbëresh
- The space of DP in Arbëresh dialects: data and theory
- Italo-Albanian (Arbëresh) and Albanian: language and cultural contact and retransmission
- The distribution of complementizers in the Arbëresh varieties spoken in the province of Crotone (Calabria)
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Progressive and imminent in the verbal system of Albanian in Italy
- Sprachbund features in Italo-Albanian and the role of contact-induced change
- Towards a typology of loanword integration in Arbëresh
- The verbal system in the Arbëresh dialect of Contessa Entellina
- A new look at an old question: finite control and the copy relation with special reference to Arbëresh
- The space of DP in Arbëresh dialects: data and theory
- Italo-Albanian (Arbëresh) and Albanian: language and cultural contact and retransmission
- The distribution of complementizers in the Arbëresh varieties spoken in the province of Crotone (Calabria)
