Greco. My mother could understand her, but she did not speak the language. Because both my mother and father were working in administrative positions they did not speak Greco because the language was considered inferior to the official Italian. But I remember my grandmother speaking to me in Greco and her voice was the best music to my ears. I still have her voice in my mind calling us; “Elate pedía”GO (“come children”). At that age I loved my language deeply. When we first formed Jonica no one was really interested in the language and its salvation. They were saying that the language is outdated and has no use in finding a job. But then, after changes in legislation that made it easier to find funding (she rubs her thumb against her index finger, a gesture which indicates money) suddenly everyone started loving both the Grecanico language and the culture. Especially after the interest of the EU in the linguistic minorities, numerous books were written and you could see action towards language promotion and preservation. In those days I hoped that something could happen, something could change and the new generation would love to speak the language. How young and innocent we were, running from village to village talking to the people and trying to make them see things from a different perspective. But now I do not believe that something can change. They say that the only way to move forward is to introduce Modern Greek into our language. I really do love (Modern) Greek but I would like my language (Grecanico) to be spoken too (she sighs).
Apart from directly criticizing the general policy of Grecanico associations past and present as set up only to exploit funding opportunities, Antonella further reflects on the issue of “salvaging” the Grecanico language. In her narrative she purposely refers to her language as il Greco (the Greek)—the term Grico, often spelled Griko, is also sometimes used when Grecanici refer to their language. According to Filippo Violi (2004) the terms “Grecanico” and “Grico” are widely accepted with reference to the language and culture of the Greek autochthonous populations of Calabria and Puglia (Lecce) respectively. The two terms—Grecanico and Grico—are not distinguished by Italian law as two different languages; they are both referred to as one Greek language (Greco) spoken by the linguistic minorities of Calabria and Puglia.
The term “Grecanico”—indicative of language, culture, and territory (Violi 2004)—that is adopted by researchers as well as administrative and cultural representatives, appears to pose a problem in terms of origin. Grecanici intellectuals like Violi and Mosino, despite drawing on Gerhard Rohlfs (1966, 1972) and Anastasios Karanastasis (1984), fail to give a satisfactory answer as to the origin of the term (Violi 2004). Nevertheless, the term “Grecanico”—first introduced in Rohlfs’ Lexicon Graecanicum Italiae inferioris in 1964—is widely adopted. Antonella as well as a small number of Grecanici oppose the term, believing it is derogatory. Greco di Calabria (Greek of Calabria), Grecofono (Grecophone), Ellenofono (Hellenophone), Ellenofono di Calabria (Hellenophone of Calabria), Calabrogreco (Calabrian Greek) are some of the alternatives proposed. However, these terms have failed to gain popular support. The aforementioned linguistic proposals are not devoid of political interest related to the direct sympathies of their supporters. Especially when the word ends in fonoGO (from foniGO, meaning “voice”), it calls to mind Bakhtinian notions of language where language is never unitary. Mikhail Bakhtin (1981:288) argues,
Actual social life and historical becoming, create within an abstractly unitary national language a multitude of concrete worlds, a multitude of bounded verbal-ideological and social belief systems; within these various systems (identical in the abstract) are elements of language filled with the various semantic and axiological content and each with its own different sound.
Literary language—both spoken and written—although it is unitary not only in its shared, abstract, linguistic markers but also in its forms for conceptualizing these abstract markers, is itself stratified and heteroglot in its aspect as an expressive system, that is, in the forms that carry its meanings.
Foni (voice) is ideologically loaded, resulting in heteroglossia. Despite a direct reference to the “High” and “Low” linguistic traditions of the Italian Renaissance (Lepschy et al. 1996:71), it further reflects discourses of authority—be it ethnic, national or anthropological (Clifford 1986). In the present case, foni, expresses the associations’ heteroglossia and echoes nationalistic discourses, albeit on a micro level, as they have been developed around Europe. Similar to various European cases where linguistic minorities carve a historical niche that could possibly legitimize their ethnic claims, Grecanico associations at once make a case for belonging to both Ancient and Modern Greece.
Tracing the Roots 1960–1980: La Jonica dei Greci
Since their inception in the 1960s, Grecanico associations have produced fearless regimes of truth regarding how Grecanico language and culture should be handled on local and global scales. The key protagonists of the associations proclaim truths about the minority and have managed to condense Grecanico language and culture into their own personas—they stand as “culture keepers”. The truths, filtered into channels of local and global governance, have secured legal recognition, copious sources of funding, international partnerships, and opportunities for cultural tourism.
The first association dealing with Grecanico language and culture, La Jonica dei Greci di Calabria4 was formed during the late 1960s in Reggio Calabria and dedicated to addressing the Questione Grecanica, the “entire recovery of the cultural heritage of the Greek linguistic minority” (Nucera 1984/5:43). Alluding to political, economic, and cultural urgency, the Questione Grecanica, implicated in a wider parliamentary interrogation of Calabria (Pellicano 1970), was one aspect of the “politics of difference” (Poppi 1992) taking place across Italy. For instance, the “Ladin question” was a debate over the consolidation of cultural and linguistic difference of the Ladins in northern Italy. The debate that began in the late 1970s or early 1980s in the Val di Fassa found partial resolution through the proposal of the Ladin language as the primary distinctive feature of the minority. Ladin was eventually recognized as a dialect, although this was “not enough to constitute the difference that mattered” (117).
The Questione Grecanica was addressed by a group of local intellectuals and was the outcome of the intense linguistic interest in the Grecanico language that commenced as far back as 1820 after the research of Karl Witte in the region of Aspromonte (Karanastasis 1984:xiv). In 1820 commenced a continuous argument over the origin of Grecanico—does it stem from Ancient Greek or from later Greek vernaculars spoken by populations who moved to Calabria during the Byzantine era?5 The origin of the language is not only a matter of linguistics but also conceals deeper claims to cultural ownership and appropriation.
Professors Domenico Minuto, Franco Mosino, Barone Adesi and Father Engels—none of Grecanico origin—were the first people to conceive of the creation of a Grecanico association, La Jonica, based on ethnic and linguistic claims (Campolo 2002:234–35). Together with a small number of young intellectuals originating from the area Grecanica, the professors initiated a public campaign to raise awareness of the Grecanici minority and improve their living conditions. It was imperative for the founders of La Jonica to restore the “collective consciousness of pride” of the Calabrian Greeks and introduce them to their glorious past. This invitation was extended to the inhabitants of the Grecanici villages in the area Grecanica and Grecanici migrants residing in Reggio Calabria. The inclusive character of the association made membership also open to non-Grecanici (2002:236).
Jonica’s policy revolved around what was perceived as a collective good6 of an inclusionist nature (Olson 1965), the collective “awakening” of the Grecanici who were plagued by feelings of inferiority. According to the association’s rhetoric, the Grecanici should fully comprehend and embrace the value of their glorious Hellenic past. Based on this principle they should re-evaluate their whole political existence. In the public discussion that followed during the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, cultural and linguistic matters were conflated with what was colloquially termed cultura Grecanica (Grecanico culture). In publications that
