Talk:Corsican language

"Corsican has been regarded as a dialect of Italian"

Corsican has been regarded as a dialect of Italian historically, similar to the Romance lects developed on the Italian peninsula

This is problematic in numerous ways. I've been engaged in Romance linguistics for a bit more than forty years, and I don't recall anyone knowledgeable ever referring to Corsican as a dialect of Italian, nor to the Romance lects of the peninsula as dialects of Italian.

The most obvious glitch is that the Romance lects on the Italian peninsula simply are not and are not regarded as dialects of Italian. Perhaps the statement above stems from conflating the ambiguity of the term "Italian dialects", which can mean 'dialects of Italian' or 'dialects of Italy'? The Romance lects of Italy, known in Italian as dialetti, are (geographically, and usually typologically) dialects of Italy; they are not in any way variants of Italian. Most Corsican lects are typologically Italian, but Italian there refers to linguistic features common to the local indigenous Romance lects of Central Italy (dialetti toscani, or more broadly, dialetti dell'Italia centrale). 47.32.20.133 (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. The following expert on Corsica has no problems with admitting that Corsican is an Italian dialect: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HLp4NHrtwwQ

The fact of the matter is, that if Corsica was an Italian province instead of a French, nobody would talk about a “Corsican language” but rightfully refer to it as an Italian dialect.

192.38.142.212 (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in the sense of a collection of local lects sharing many fundamental features with the local lects of Tuscany. But definitely not a "dialect of Italian". Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I've finally taken the time to listen to the youtube piece. She's definitely an expert on Corsica. Unfortunately, she also definitely misunderstands the linguistic landscape of Italy, and thus also Corsican's status and position within the relevant linguistic typology. She recognizes that Corsican varieties are part of a dialect continuum (making allowances, one hopes, for the inevitable discontinuity of sea-induced breaks), but she conceives of that as being "a dialect continuum with varieties of Italian" (italics added by me), which she declares Calabrian, Sicilian, Neapolitan to be -- referring not to the italiano regionale of those areas, but to the local native Romance languages that long pre-date the existence of "Italian", customarily labeled dialetti in Italian.

This misunderstanding vitiates entirely her statement that "If Corsica had remained part of Italy, Corsican wouldn't be considered a language; it would be considered a dialect of Italian." No, it would not, not by anyone with understanding of the fundamentals of Italia linguistica, just as the local languages from Torino to Trapani are not dialects of Italian. She's clearly a serious scholar, almost certainly not given to tripping over basic concepts. But she's not a historical linguist steeped in Italian linguistic history and typology, and it looks as though she may have assumed that Italian dialect = dialect of Italian. Oops. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

An interesting article here... Alex2006 (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the author of the youtube piece expressed himself wrongly: what he meant was that if Corsica had belonged to Italy, Corsican would not have evolved into an autonomous language, but would have remained one of the many dialects of Italian. However, the word dialect must be used in the sense you say, that is, an idiom that is a child of Latin having equal status with Tuscan. Belonging to Italy would have meant the erosion of Corsican and the adoption of a variety of Italian, as has happened in all Italian regions. I think you know that the evolution of Corsican into a real language had mainly political reasons: France in the island always favored dialect at the expense of Italian, because the use of the latter would have strengthened irredentist currents (which existed in Corsica before World War II). Fascism and the occupation of the island by the Italians in 1943 definitively severed ties with the peninsula, and so Corsican was finally able to rise to the rank of language. Alex2006 (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

"what he meant was that if Corsica had belonged to Italy, Corsican would not have evolved into an autonomous language, but would have remained one of the many dialects of Italian." That's sort of what she said. And it makes no sense, whether in her version or in the "would have remained" version. Corsican does not derive from Italian; it is not a dialect of or a variety of Italian, just as Napoletano, Palermitano... Romanesco, Bolognese, Mantovano... etc. are not dialects of Italian. All of those are "sister languages" of Italian.

"Belonging to Italy would have meant the erosion of Corsican and the adoption of a variety of Italian, as has happened in all Italian regions." It's completely up to the local people whether they want to maintain their local language or not. The use of local language (dialetto) has died out, or nearly so, in some places in Italy, but most certainly not everywhere. It's still not uncommon to encounter people who are "bilingual" (diglossic, actually) in Italian and their local language. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

What she means is that Corsican would have followed the fate of other Italian dialects, regardless of whether they are sister languages (and they are) of Italian or not. Regarding your second point, unfortunately it is not up to the local people to decide whether to continue speaking their idiom or not. There are very strong forces (television, radio, internet, language in the workplace, etc.) pushing in the same direction, and that is the abandonment of the local idiom. In italy there is a constant erosion of local idioms and a distortion of them (with constant infiltration of Italian) even where these were strongest, as in Sardinia (you will surely be familiar with "Storia linguistica dell'Italia unita," by de Mauro, and since the last edition (i think 1984) the situation has certainly worsened). In Corsica the same thing is happening. The last time I was there (five years ago) in ten days of travel in the northern part of the island we met only two families who spoke preferably Corsican (one in Balagna and one in Castagniccia), all the others were Francophone, even in places like Castagniccia and Boziu that should theoretically be more sheltered from outside influences. At the same time, we noticed a sharp decrease in the number of business names in Corsican. Interestingly, knowledge of the Corsican does not seem to be a prerequisite for being a nationalist: in Capocorso the owner of our b&b was an ardent nationalist but did not speak a word of the language. Lately there is an attempt by the local (autonomist) government to re-learn the Corsican (the so-called "riacquistu") but the result is something that has little to do with the original language. In particular, the pronunciation is completely Frenchified. Alex2006 (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

We've drifted way off topic here, but yes, the centuries-long assault on the local languages of France by political authority has been markedly successful in Corsica, and in far less time than on the mainland. For the usual reasons, Corsicans have to a very large degree abandoned their language. They have allowed it to fall victim to the strong forces you describe, to which can be added others among which should not be minimized their own agency, whether overtly purposeful or merely the result of careless neglect.

As for whether some or all varieties of Corsican would have eventually homogenized into the status of varieties of Italian had the island been politically Italian rather than French, the hypothetical answer is unknown. Some Italian intrusions would have been inevitable, but the degree of Italianization of syntax, morphology, phonology, prosody and lexicon would have been entirely up to Corsicans. The result might have been anywhere on the continuum of dialetto vigor in today's Italy, ranging from abandonment (thus leaving Corsican italiano regionale) to pride in local language that results in fluent diglossia.

One thing is certain at present: Corsican is not a "dialect of Italian" and shows no signs of becoming one. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Many good comments in this discussion. One thing that is important to keep in mind is that dialetto in Italian linguistics is sometimes used somewhat differently than in several other linguistic traditions. More importantly, even though the level of discussion is very good, it is not for any of us to make an argument one way or the other as that would violate WP:OR, but rather to summarise what reliable sources say and what terminology they use. Jeppiz (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the clash between what Italianists mean by dialetto (when writing in English, dialect) and the usual usage of dialect by anglophone linguists (similar in Germanistik) leads to all sorts of misunderstandings and misconceptions. Thus the discussion here, meant to guide in the direction of the norms adopted by scholars of Italian and Romance Linguistics. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both of you: about the last statement of Barefoot, what you write was clear already at the beginning of last century (see for example "Italia dialettale" by Giulio Bertoni, Hoepli, Milan, 1916, for that). It is also interesting to know that there are Corsicans which think that the survival of their language passes through the recovery of a diglossia with Italian. Bye, Look here and here (above all "Perché in Italiano", top left) for that. Alex2006 (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Corsican as an Italian dialect

This article keeps referring to Corsican as a “language”, but in reality it’s more of an Italian dialect than a language in its own right.

The article should do more to point this out.

If Corsica was a part of modern Italy instead of France, nobody would refer to a “Corsican language”, but would correctly classify it as an Italian dialect, not unlike Calabresean or Sicilian.

192.38.142.212 (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Are all Italian "dialects" mutually intelligible? —Tamfang (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

No. The label "Italian dialects" is, unfortunately, ambiguous and can be very misleading in meaning, and the term dialect itself is not helpful. "Italian dialects" are local languages, "dialects" (minor languages) of Italy, not varieties of Italian. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

word-final o-u

This sentence

Perhaps the biggest difference between standard Italian and Corsican is that the latter uses the u termination, whereas standard Italian has switched to the o ending.

was changed (anonymously) to

The only unifying, as well as distinctive, feature which separates the Corsican dialects from the mainland Tuscan ones, with the exception of Amiatino, Pitiglianese, and Capraiese, is the retention of word-final o-u. (book ref omitted)

Now, I don't know what word-final o-u is. Does this mean "retention of word-final contrast between /o/ and /u/", or something else?

Perhaps the sentence should say "Unlike most Tuscan dialects, Corsican has not shifted final /u/ to /o/"? —Tamfang (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It is still debatable whether Corsican is an Italian dialect or a distinct language

The confusion continues. There's no debate among (modern) linguists. Dialetti italiani are minor(ity) Romance languages. Varieties of Italian are called just that: italiano regionale. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This whole debate and most people commenting on the 8 distinct talk page headings about it are missing the point spectacularly. "Is [variety] a language or dialect?" isn't even something that linguists could "debate" about. "Language" and "dialect" simply are not opposing concepts in the field of linguistics. For that matter, neither is even a precisely defined technical term. (Well, maybe within some sub-fields.)

This is because linguists don't understand language variation in those sorts of binary, arbitrary terms. Debates about what counts as a "language" versus a "dialect" (or other contested terms like "slang," "accent," etc) typically have much more to do with politics and identity than with linguistics.

Studying language scientifically has led us to more complex tools for understanding variation. Today, our understanding of variation takes into consideration degrees of mutual intelligibility, dialect continua, as well as historical and sociological factors. Why people on this website still insist on edit-warring about this on every article about a minority language variety is beyond me. It has no basis in actual linguistics, and fails to hide the nationalist agendas of everyone who engages in it. Aquaticonions (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Minority language in Cuba?

I just removed an unsourced bit of info in the infobox claiming that Corsican is a recognized minority language in Cuba. I wasn't able to verify this with any online sources, except for a few articles that either cite this Wikipedia page, seem to paraphrase it, or appear AI-generated and are full of falsehoods. I also haven't seen any evidence of significant Corsican immigration to Cuba (and SardinianCorsican does not seem to still be spoken on neighboring Puerto Rico, which did experience such a wave of immigration).

If I'm missing any important information here, please feel free to revert this edit. But as it stands, I think this is a case of misinformation originating on Wikipedia that we can hopefully nip in the bud. Aquaticonions (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)