I would like to talk about the great consumption of quotations newspapers and television talk show do. Let's start with a curiosity: which are, in Italy, the most quoted authors? According to an early dictionary, Dante Alighieri leads the list with 98 quotations.  
Following in the order Seneca (79), Leopardi (73), Goethe (69), Shakespeare (48), Horace (43), La Rochefoucauld (42), Aristotle together with Cicero, (39), Cervantes (38), Machiavelli (35), Alessandro Manzoni (34), Karl Kraus (32)...  
Comparing a phrase of the German philosopher Walter Benjamin and one of the English biographer Thomas Pearson, it is proved how much sundry and contradictory is the attitude toward this learned prop of our writing and speech.  
For Benjamin, quotations are “ like bandits at the edges of a route, that jump out armed and extract the consent of the idler wayfarer “. According to Pearson, “a man having read a lot never quotes exactly “. 
But it is dutiful, this point, to express some preferences. I like a lot this one-liner, real and paradoxical at the same time, of the English novelist E. M. Forster that in “Howard's  end” writes: “The Beethoven Fifth Sym phony is the most sublime noise human hearing has ever heard”. 
And I like a lot and at the same time it troubles me the assertion by Jean Paul Sartre, the leader of the existentialism movement according to which : “We are condemned to be free “. 
Nevertheless the quotation I prefer is : “Love is the infinitive within the reach of poodles”. On my opinion is a stroke of genius. You may find it at the beginning of that twentieth century masterpiece that is the novel “Voyage au bout de la nuit” by Louis-Ferdinand Céline. 
Every now and then it sounds the alarm. Till we are on time, let's try to save the Italian language. Too much “foreign infiltration “, too much spreading use of Anglicism.  
But before going full tilt against, let's think about a danger: The risk, as it has been stated by a linguist, “of exaggerations as during the fascism, risking falling in a ridiculous purism “. 
If it keeps incontrovertible that bureaucracy keeps on committing the grimmer horrors in damage of our linguistic identity, it is true the same that our past and today history offers a heinous range of 'Italianizations': an ugly word this, introducing further ugly things. 
There's who does not want “hobby”, who rejects “foulard” and proposes to replace it with “neck handkerchief “ or “head handkerchief “. There's who think to change “marketing” inventing the neologism “vendistica” (deriving from vendere = to sell). “Smog” too is under indictment and it is recommended to replace it with “fubbia”, coming from the contraction of  “fumo” (smog) and “nebbia” (fog), as in English “smog” is the contraction of “smoke” and “fog”. 
There are foreign words that must be already accepted since they can be deemed as irreplaceable and it's right that our dictionaries record them.  
It's impossible to make a full list, but I would like to remember besides hobby, foulard, marketing and smog, already mentioned, also gag, best seller, puzzle, camper, sexy, spider, revival, identikit, show, sketch, quark, blitz, poster, hotel, fan. record, pullman, zoom, stress, derby, tunnel, recital... 
History teaches us that also in the eighteenth century it was feared that French would defeated Italian.  
But the result was, with the loan of many Gallicisms, that the Italian became instead richer. 
The same is happening with English. So, if there's a danger of sclerosis hanging over our language, it is not due to the number of foreign terms accepted, but if ever, to the impoverishment, the employ of platitudes, the mediocrity of studies, the always very low reading index. 
As regard to the complaints and the despondence of purists, I entrust, to reply to, the words of that real genius of knowledge that was the count Giacomo Leopardi.  
In his “Zibaldone”, written between 1817 and 1832, Leopardi left us these thoughts: “Man must be free and direct in manipulating his language. Freedom in language must come from the perfect science and not from ignorance “.  
And then he goes on saying that purists “are always suspicious and so stiff that it seems they walk among eggs “.