Coll. Antropol. 28 Suppl. 1 (2004) 263–274 UDC 811.163.42'282(450.67) Original scientific paper Vitality and Erosion Of Molise Croatian Dialect* Anita Sujold`i} Department for Sociocultural and Linguistic Anthropology, Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia ABSTRACT This paper gives a presentation of the condition of an endangered language located on the southern part of the Italian peninsula, spoken by a small community of trans- planted Slavic population who fled the Eastern Adriatic coast during the Turkish inva- sion of the Balkan peninsula and have lived in complete isolation from related Slavic languages for five centuries surrounded by a majority of Italian speaking population. The overview of contact induced changes shows a high level of interferences at all struc- tural levels resulting in a relatively stable mixed idiom. Preservation and revitalization efforts are discussed particularly in relation to the importance of writing and codifica- tion of the language as well as possible steps that can be undertaken in view of the link between language and the group cultural identity. Key words: language shift, language maintenance, minority, group identity, literacy Introduction A Croatian dialect has been spoken for siderably both from the Standard Cro- about 500 years in three villages of the atian and the current vernaculars of its Italian province of Molise, since an emi- ancient homeland representing a chal- gration from the hinterland of central lenge for scholars interested in the study Dalmatia. Throughout a long period of of contact-induced linguistic changes and isolation from other Croatian dialects, in the historical development of Croatian di- contact with Italian and Molisian dia- alects. Spoken today by about 2000–2500 lects, this idiom has changed in many speakers this archaic dialect has been se- ways, adapting lexical, phonological and riously threatened to disappear due to a morphological features of the languages high rate of economic emigration. How- with which it is in contact. It differs con- ever, in spite of, until recently, complete * This research is funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia (project no. 0196002). Received for publication November 25, 2003 263 A. Sujold`i}: Molise Croatian Idiom, Coll. Antropol. 28 Suppl. 1 (2004) 263–274 lack of institutional support, the langua- 16th century. At that time, the Turks were ge shows a remarkable vitality as the ma- advancing through the Balkan Peninsula jority of natives of these villages still speak to the Adriatic and much of the popula- it on a daily basis and transmit it to their tion from the continental interior fled to- children. ward the Adriatic coast, resettling in the The settlements in question are lo- coastal area, on the Dalmatian islands cated in the mountainous interior 40–50 and, crossing the Adriatic, in southern re- km west of the Adriatic coast (at the port gions of Italy (Figure 1). At the same time of Termoli) with about 5–10 km of mutual large groups of Albanians also came and distance between them. The main and formed a number of compact settlements largest village is @iva-Voda Kru~ (Acqua- in Molise (Montecilfone, Portocannone, Uru- viva Collecroce), the second is Mundi- ri etc.). According to historic sources1,2 mitar (Montemitro) and the third is Fili} there were fifteen Slavic communities in (San Felice Slavo). The major economic the beginning, with a total of seven to activity of the population has always been eight thousand inhabitants. With popula- agriculture and, until recently, cattle rai- tion growth, their number increased to sing. Until forty years ago, these villages over 15 thousand and later gradually de- were almost inaccessible and even today creased partly due to assimilation with they are linked only by narrow curving the Italian population and partially due roads. to emigration to overseas countries. Al- The ancestors of the present inhabit- though today their descendents live in ants came to this part of Italy during the nine councils of Molise: Kru~ (Acquaviva Fig. 1. Historic migrations from the Dalmatian hinterland in 15th and 16th century. 264 A. Sujold`i}: Molise Croatian Idiom, Coll. Antropol. 28 Suppl. 1 (2004) 263–274 Fig. 2. Population movement in the three villages during the last 140 years. Collecroce), Fili} (San Felice Slavo), Mun- main distinctive feature of their cultural dimitar (Montemitro), Mafalda (Ripalta), identity. Tavenna, Palata, Montelongo, Stijakov Despite the fact that the Slavic lan- (San Giacomo degli Schiavoni), San Biase guage is still spoken in all three villages, and Petacciato, the Slavic language was the number of individuals and families preserved only in the three villages. With speaking it has greatly decreased through the development of transportation and economically motivated migrations to other the modernisation of lifestyle, the assimi- regions of Italy and overseas countries. lation of Slavs in southern Italy has in- The statistical data show a clear depopu- creased, the process of cultural assimila- lation trend of these villages over the last tion being aided by the fact that they do 140 years (Figure 2)3. Two major waves of not refer to themselves by a specific eth- migration affected them: the first occur- nic name, and simply say that their an- red at the beginning of the 1900s and the cestors came »z one bane mora« (from the second took place in the 1950s. The first other side of the sea). It should be men- wave was to the United States and South tioned, however, that in the Slavic settle- America while the second wave involved ments undergoing a process of Italianisa- northern Europe and Western Australia tion, there was also a process of Slavicisa- where today Molisian Slavic is also spo- tion of the Italian population. When an ken by a relatively large number of bilin- Italian woman married a Slavic man, she gual English-Molise Croatian speakers. usually had to learn the Slavic language spoken in the house in which the children Language Type and Status were raised2. As sociologically and ethno- logically today this group does not differ The linguistic research carried out by significantly from the surrounding popu- various authors throughout the last cen- lation, its active bilingualism remains the tury shows that despite its truly unfavor- 265 A. Sujold`i}: Molise Croatian Idiom, Coll. Antropol. 28 Suppl. 1 (2004) 263–274 able position, this linguistic idiom is still in our way) indicating the new collective recognisably a {tokavian-ikavian dialect identity. According to the reports from with a number of ~akavian elements and the beginning of the last century when that it is genetically close to Croatian dia- they were discovered, they were comple- lects spoken in Middle Dalmatia.3,4 How- tely unaware of the existence of similar ever, this dialect from the late 15th and language groups anywhere in the world. early 16th century, in the new circum- By the neighboring groups they are called stances, gradually underwent some evo- Schiavone – [kavun or Slavo while offi- lutionary processes which have resulted cially and by language professionals the in an idiom, considerably different from idiom has been recently labeled Croato those of the original language spoken on Molisano – Molise Croatian. In spite of a the other side of the Adriatic sea5. It has few attempts at creating an own litera- undergone considerable contact induced ture, which started already in the 19th changes – under the influence of stan- century, and continued sporadically until dard Italian and neighboring dialects of today, Molisian Slavic still must be seen Molise and Abruzzo regions. It was ex- as a spoken language without written cluded from the Ausbau (standardization norms. It is also included among seri- and development) process of the Stan- ously endangered languages listed by dard Croatian and unlike varieties of UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Lan- Croatian spoken within Croatia was also guages. excluded from the possibility of borrow- ing from Standard Croatian. The conse- quences were a considerable reduction of Contact induced changes the possible sources of internal growth The intensity of specific external fac- and reduced opportunity of regeneration tors have changed throughout the history by borrowing from both other Croatian with gradually increasing contact be- varieties and Standard Croatian. Instead, tween the Slavic population and neigh- it has depended on the lexicon of the sur- boring communities. So, today we can rounding Italian dialects to satisfy the find evidence of such changes at all lev- communicative demands of the speakers els, in both lexicon and structure of this with subsequent processes of mixing and idiom. They include all possible phenom- code switching as well as gradual func- ena observed in contact situations else- tional and domain shrinkage of this vari- where, such as: loss of features, addition ety. Sociolinguistically, it is not consid- of features and replacement of features. ered as a subvariety of an overarching They are most obvious at the level of lexi- linguistic unit, but as a language by dis- con and evidenced by numerous borrow- tance (Abstand) with one unrelated roof ings from both the neighboring dialects language – Italian and one related roof (spoken in the regions of Molise, Abbru- language, i.e. Standard Croatian.6, which zzo, Campania and Puglia) and Italian means that it should be regarded as a compensating the communicative needs language in its own right, due both to its related to modernization of lifestyle and isolation from Standard Croatian and to changes in the socio-economic ecologies of its minority position. speakers. Though it has preserved some This unique manifestation of this lan- archaic Slavic words which disappeared guage situation is also reflected in differ- from related Croatian idioms, it also ex- ent emic and etic labels of the idiom. By perienced a significant loss of vocabulary the members of the speech community it related to ancestral traditions and activi- is simply referred to as Na-na{o (to speak ties that ceased to exist.