Lissander Brasca
Genealogical, dialectometric, and intelligibility studies unanimously describe Gallo-“Italic” as closer to Gallo-Romance than to Italo-Romance. Nonetheless, a significant body of scholarship refers to Gallo-“Italic” as part of Italo-Romance (pro-Italo- tradition). Recent research has identified several formal inconsistencies in these pro-Italo- classifications, which suggest that the inclination for the pro-Italo- models among linguists could have extra-linguistic motivations. This paper argues that referring to Gallo-“Italic” as part of Italo-Romance has the effect of representing Italy as an ethno-linguistic taxon – a concept historically perceived as essential to the Italian nation-building process. By adopting the hypothesis of ideological interference from a mono-ethnolinguistic framework, this study provides an economical explanation for various classificatory inconsistencies found in the literature. These include the incongruous use of nomenclature forms, the use of the questionable “bridge variety” category, and the arbitrarily decisive classificatory weight assigned to the loss of final -s. The study suggests that the pro-Italo- terminological and classificatory choices may obscure the deep ethno-linguistic diversity of Italy, potentially preventing speakers from developing awareness that, rather than “Italian dialects” – as Italian academia and institutions call them – they speak distinct languages deserving, as such, of institutional recognition and support. Furthermore, it is proposed that the prevalence of these views is partly sustained by the structural position of linguistics within Italian university curricula, particularly within literature-based Bachelor of Arts programmes. The paper concludes by advocating for the development of alternative channels for disseminating knowledge of linguistic sciences other than the university courses in literature, to foster a more nuanced understanding of Italy’s linguistic heritage.