• The Conference
  • Home
  • Programme
  • Venue & directions
  • Organizing Committee
  • Scientific Committee
  • Exhibitors & sponsors
  • Satellite events
  • Conference Party
• Past & future
  • Previous symposia
  • Finland 2014
  • Spain 2016
• About FU Berlin
  • University homepage
  • Humanities at FU

Programme: accepted abstracts

Search for abstracts --- authors title abstract

---

Abstract ID: 783

Part of Session 130: Language in Multilingual Cities (Other abstracts in this session)

How Do Italian Policies Regulate and Manage Language in Multilingual Contexts?: Immigrant Languages between Authorized Use and Negation of Existence

Authors: Bagna, Carla
Submitted by: Bagna, Carla (University for Foreigners of Siena, Italy)

Structural analysis of the five million immigrants in Italy and their language use, especially in urban contexts, confirms that immigrant groups have assumed an active role in the make-up of the Italian urban linguistic landscape. This is a prevalently bottom-up manifestation of plurilingualism as lived and made visible, and contrasts with top-down policies such as:

a) Recognition of immigrant languages (restricted to certain sectors such as cultural mediation).

b) Choices made in education.

c) Choices made in language policy (regulations making it obligatory for monolingual signs in immigrant languages to become bilingual, with the Italian more prominent).

d) Making it obligatory to have knowledge of Italian in order to have a long-term resident’s permit and live in Italy.

 

These factors are rapidly modifying linguistic landscapes: a first cycle characterized by a maximum visibility of immigrant languages (thanks also to a boom period for immigrant businesses) is giving way to a LL where language use and presence are controlled and regulated. The urban context, the site of maximum linguistic freedom, becomes a site of ‘sanctionable’ visibility. 

 

A recent annual report (December 2011) on the quality of life in Italy, confirming that in medium/small cities (thanks sometimes to local policies) immigrant languages are not in contrast to urban and social integration, has not prevented these bans (as in Bologna in January 2012).

 

Another top-down choice that we hypothesize may influence immigrant language use and visibility is the Accordo di Integrazione. On 11 November 2011 the Accordo di integrazione tra lo straniero e lo Stato (Agreement on Integration between Foreign [i.e., non-EU] Citizens and the State) became law in Italy, and will come into force 12 March 2012. This law, following on from an article contained in the 1998 law on immigration imposes a specific integration programme on new arrivals in Italy. It establishes that the Agreement is to be written in Italian and the foreigner’s home language, but it also specifies that if translation into this language is not available then the languages to be used will be English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Albanian, Russian and Filipino (Tagalog). This is the only point where reference is made to immigrant languages. The focus of the Agreement is on use of Italian. Competence in immigrant languages, which is never measured in migrant-flow final-destination countries, is only considered if instrumental for the Agreement on Integration or other state policies on language and/or immigration (or for social work involving immigrant communities).

We intend to base ourselves on these choices of language policy and analyse how immigrant languages coexist between authorized use and negation/refusal of their existence in Italian urban contexts.