It had already been noted that among the first acts of the new government, in addition to a press release from Palazzo Chigi asking to call Meloni "Mr. Prime Minister" as if she were a man, the statement of the Minister of Culture Gennaro was highlighted Sangiulian according to which “a certain abuse of Anglophone terms” would belong “to a certain snobbery, a lot radical chic”.
This was discussed in the context of the discourse on the penetration of English words in Italian and what in my opinion should be done to respond to the phenomenon. In fact what should be done according to Sangiuliano's advice we never knew, because after that utterance our hero never spoke of the subject again. On the other hand, he fell into the arena none other than Fabio Rampelli, of the same party as Meloni and Sangiuliano, as well as deputy and vice president of the Chamber.
The bold Rampelli and the "idiomatic heritage"
On December 23, 2022, he became the first signatory to one bill entitled "Provisions for the protection and promotion of the Italian language and establishment of the Committee for the protection, promotion and enhancement of the Italian language". The text begins with a preamble stating that "The Italian language represents the identity of our nation, our unifying element and the our intangible heritage” and which must be protected from degradation produced by the following factors: “the intrusion of dialect jargon belonging to cinema and television; the indiscriminate use of neologisms from bureaucratic and scientific language; the excessive infiltration of borrowed words from English, which has reached dangerous levels in recent decades”.
All these factors are qualified as “obsessive strangers” which risk “leading to a collapse of the use of the Italian language until its progressive disappearance”. In practice, the "dialectal jargons" (are you perhaps angry with RAI dramas in Roman dialect? or with Alberto Sordi's films?) and "neologisms deriving from bureaucratic and scientific language" (perhaps "time schedule", "reporting", “synchrotron”, “neutrinos”?) would be “foreignerisms”.
Dialects and minority languages
Not only that: even if a large part of the initial fervour creative takes it out on English terms, the law imposes the use of the Italian language to the detriment of all foreign languages, since "The Italian language is mandatory for the promotion and use of public goods and services in the national territory" (art. 2 of the aforementioned bill). Many greetings, in short, alla freedom of enterprise: suffice it to say that, with this beautiful rule designed to combat English terms, it is no longer possible to write the label of a typical product, or the colophon of a book, in dialect. It may seem like a small thing, but labels and books like this exist, while they may no longer exist if the bold bill comes into force Rampels.
Too bad i dialects represent an "intangible heritage" some centuries older than the Italian language, with which they have always been in an interlocutory relationship, enriching the language itself.
Fortunately, the art. 1 of the aforementioned establishes at least that the law is applied "in respect of the protection of linguistic minorities", but even in this way the damage done to the cultural variety, and therefore to the attractiveness, of the country is somewhat vandalistic. And this despite, according to Rampel's preamble, it becomes “necessary, as in France, one legislation that protect ours idiomatic heritage on an economic, social, cultural and professional level as well as on any other level deemed important".
Assuming that for the protection of "our idiomatic heritage" we do not intend to promote the use of idiomatic phrases such as "beat the bush", "make fish in a barrel", "set fire to the straw" or "take whistles for fiascos", it is to be deduced from this limpid prose that the bold Rampelli wants to protect "our linguistic heritage", which includes, as is evident, also the dialects and minority languages. Instead, a law that imposes the Italian language indiscriminately in all contexts puts that heritage at risk.
A very disjointed articulate
Suffice it to say that, according to art. 3 of the bill, "All types and forms of communication or information present in a public place or in a place open to the public or deriving from public funds and intended for public utility is transmitted in the Italian company” and “For every event, conference or public meeting organized in Italy, the use of translation and interpreting tools, also in written form, which guarantee perfect understanding of the contents of the event in Italian”. But where is the respect for linguistic minorities? If in South Tyrol they want to present a book in German, must there be an interpreter? And who pays for it, Rampelli?
The art. 6 establishes that “In schools of all types and levels as well as in Italian public universities, training offers not specifically aimed at learning foreign languages must be in Italian. Any courses in a foreign language are admitted only if already provided in Italian" (but what does that mean?), "subject to exceptions justified by the presence of foreign students, in the context of specific training projects, teachers or foreign guests" ( and here the donkey falls, respectfully speaking: foreign students come if they can study in English, otherwise they go elsewhere, so the rule is either vexatious or useless).
The birth of a Committee for the protection of languages
The art. 7 of the bill establishes that “The Ministry of Culture establishes the guardianship committee, the promotion and enhancement of the Italian language in the national territory and abroad", among whose members there is the "Minister of Culture" (yes, exactly the one who says "snob" and "radical chic" in an utterance against non belpaesani terms).
Among the tasks of this Committee is "the enrichment of the Italian language for the primary purpose of making available to citizens terms suitable for expressing all the notions of the contemporary world, promoting the presence of the Italian language in the new information and communication technologies" (this certainly helps, but it is not clear why a Committee made up of "three members of Parliament" should do it, hoping that they will not choose Di Pietro or Razzi: in Italy there is already the Accademia della Crusca for this and in France, mentioned inappropriately in the preamble, there are special commissions at the ministries, since terms of a specialist field are needed, and that a Committee of 12 members it can hardly be the repository of all-encompassing science of science).
Furthermore, the aforementioned body should deal with "the correct use of the Italian language and its pronunciation in schools, in the media, in commerce and in advertising": what does this mean? Will they send inspectors to the schools to verify the "correct pronunciation"? And what will be the models, perhaps Rampelli, who has a clearly regional "pronunciation" and writes with the clear and elegant style we have seen so far?
To whom the fines foreseen from 5.000 to 100.000 euros?
The art. 8 is also the last one, as well as the one that ended up on the front pages of the newspapers: "The violation of the obligations under this law entails the application of a administrative sanction consisting in the payment of a sum from 5.000 euros to 100.000 euros”.
From there, open the sky: when the news came out, between the end of March and the beginning of April, headlines such as "Rampelli (FdI) wants a law to punish those who do not use Italian: fines of up to 100 thousand euros" (La Stampa ), “Rampelli (FdI): fine of up to 100.000 euros for those who use English terms (Il Corriere della Sera), “Italian language, FdI presents a bill to fine anyone who commits foreignism” (La Repubblica), and so on Street.
Now, as we have seen, the law is badly written, it is authoritative and in many respects inapplicable, in addition to creating a useless and probably even harmful organ, nevertheless it is not written at all that the fines are for anyone, even a private citizen, who uses an English term (otherwise, as the Huffington Post wittily wrote, "With Rampelli's fines for those who use foreign terms, a party would go bankrupt. His"). In short, the titles have sinned by sensationalism, thus triggering a debate tainted by bad information.
However, it must be admitted that, if the bill has received practically only negative comments, this is not only due to the headlines, or to the cryptic-asinine prose in which the law is written: there is a characteristic trait of public opinion Italian that comes into play. Let's take an example.
The conditioned reflex of the Net
Greek Angel is a well-known lawyer on YouTube: very prolific content creator. Greco publishes videos every day in which he dispenses legal advice on the most varied topics. As required by his role (as a lawyer who must start from the dictates of the law, as well as a youtuber with a vast audience, not to be contradicted with communicative slips on pain of losing followers), the character is usually light-hearted but neutral on the subject treated. He has recently begun to make some exceptions, first with a politely critical video about the tax shield ("take the digestive, you'll need it" and "damn Meloni, but what are you up to me"), and then, precisely, on the Rampelli law in which he speaks, among other things, of the "unsettling and demoralizing" waste of time in writing the text, of "sanctions so high" as to "call into question the scale of juridical negative values, so much so that the signatories of this bill would have them study jurisprudence", of a law that goes against freedom of expression and which "if it were to be approved it would be declared unconstitutional the day after" and of the need to defend the Italian language "not only from the ignorant, but also from the morons".
Evolution or involution
It seems clear to me that such harsh judgments against Rampelli and the other signatories (harder than those reserved for the drafters of the rules that save tax evaders) are not the result of a juridical reflection, but of a conditioned reflex: perhaps due to a developed allergy to purism fascist, perhaps due to inveterate Anglo (American) philia, perhaps due to (also) linguistic indiscipline, the fact is that the average Italian has always responded "language evolves" to any critical discourse relating to the quality of the language we speak every day, as if there were no need for a reflection on the subject. I have dedicated previous episodes to arguing that, instead, there would be a need; furthermore, I would soon like to talk about what is really meant by language evolution, beyond the convenient little phrase used to end discussions.
I anticipate that not everything that passes as "evolution" is such, for example reducing the field of application of one's own language in favor of another represents rather an involution.
How to promote the correct use of Italian?
Here I would like to reiterate that, in my opinion, the best way to promote a correct use of Italian (beyond the "pronunciation", which has nothing to do with the question of anglicisms and lexical property), is to give the good example: since Italians are allergic to impositions and also to fines (as this government knows very well when it comes to tax evasion), the best way to arrive at a public discourse that uses a better quality language is that whoever carries out and stimulates the public discourse, therefore above all politicians and journalists, speak better, rather than in an increasingly stereotyped and modular way (think of "pulling for the jacket", "an announced tragedy", "done on the head", "legitimately", "this is" , "somehow", etc.).
This new style would also include a drastic reduction in English terms used inappropriately, not so much out of xenophobia, but in order not to go down the register and maintain a coherent style. Then of course, politicians and journalists, as I have already argued, in order to really succeed in their intent they should get good advice: not from Rampelli and Sangiuliano, but from people with technical skills in the field of linguistics, i.e. from specific ministerial commissions on the French model and from 'Crusade Academy.
Crusca's opinion
Regarding the latter, here is what its president, Professor Claudio Marazzini, declared to the Adnkronos agency: "The proposal to sanction the use of foreign words by law, complete with a fine, as if one had passed with red light, risks nullifying and marginalizing the work that we, like Crusca, have been carrying out for years in order to defend Italian from the excesses of the grossest xenophilia, unfortunately very frequent”. And again: “Thepenalty excess exhibited in the bill is likely to throw into ridicule the whole front of Italian lovers. An intervention could possibly be agreed with those who have been dealing with the problem for years, like us. Now, alas, in this controversy, all those who, with the excuse of fascism and nationalism, hinder any attempt to achieve a balanced coexistence between the needs of internationalization and the legitimate attention to the national language, often trampled underfoot, will find even greater space and dismissed for no reason. Now they will scream: well, we were right!”. I get this information from the site https://italofonia.info, not affiliated with Crusca but in my opinion useful and competent in this matter. Among other things, this is the site that hosts the AAA repertoire, i.e. Alternatives to Anglicisms (aaa.italofonia.info), which is not a list of ridiculous inventions like certain gimmicks of the fascist era (not even all of them ridiculous, as I have tried to explain), but on the contrary it presents terms that are already used (for example "aftershave" for after-shave) or in any case transparent and intuitive.
Party games on television
To conclude, I would like to point out that television commentators on these things (and others?) are not really defending their opinions, but they are party game: I have already told readers of the squabble in "Otto e mezzo" between Tomaso Montanari, who criticized Sangiuliano's utterances praising the openness of language to foreign words, and Alessandro Giuli, who defended them because English words would be "uglier ” of the Italian ones. Well, a few days ago, in the same broadcast, the popular duet was staged again, this time with Montanari who spoke of "climate change" (rightly or nearly so, given that the most used term is "climate change") and Giuli who he replied by saying “climate change”. But how, the foreign terms weren't "ugly"? Perhaps bad faith is bad above all.
