BOUNDARIES BETWEEN STANDARD MODERN GREEK

AND CYPRIOT GREEK AS PERCEIVED BY THEIR NATIVE

SPEAKERS

19th ICL. Geneva, 21-27 July 2013

Eleni Savva University of Cambridge

1

AIM OF PROJECT

To investigate to what extent native speakers of Standard Modern Greek and native speakers of Cypriot Greek agree on what is Standard Greek and what is not, by comparing their judgments on real samples of Cypriot Greek.

2

DEFINING (ROUGHLY) THE VARIETIES IN COMPARISON

Standard Modern Greek (SMG):

The official language of Greece and the variety used by native speakers mainly in the urban centers of the country.

One of the two official languages of the Republic of Cyprus, used there mainly in the public sphere.

Cypriot Greek (CG): The non-standardized native variety of the Greek-speaking population of Cyprus, used by Cypriots mainly in the private sphere.

3

MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE PROJECT 1. Subjectivity and arbitrariness involved in

defining boundaries between related linguistic varieties.

Whether a linguistic variety is considered a distinct language or a dialect of another not exclusively a linguistic matter based on objective/structural factors. Geographical, historical, political and social factors are also involved in it. (See Chambers and Trudgill 1998).

Boundaries between related varieties: not straightforward.

4

THE SPECIFIC CASE OF SMG AND CG Neither speakers nor linguists seem to deny that the two varieties are related. The degree and type of this relation is not clear-cut. Standard-with-dialect or two distinct languages ? Criterion of mutual intelligibility complicated due to asymmetrical exposure of CG and SMG speakers to each other’s variety. Linguistic point of view: Structural similarities and differences can be observed between the two. But neither is internally homogenous This complicates things further.

5

Internal variability:Standard Modern Greek (SMG)

Due to a diglossic past much more internal variability than standard languages are expected to involve (Joseph & Tserdanelis 2003).

Characterized by an availability of alternative forms for the same meaning (known as politipia/ πολυτυπία) which reflects both regional and stylistic variation (Holton et al 1997).

6

Internal variability

Cypriot Greek (CG)As used in the present day Cyprus also not homogenous.

Roughly speaking

Cyprus : a diglossic setting in Ferguson’s (1959) sense.

CG used in the private sphere.

SMG used in the public sphere.

7

In reality this dichotomy does not apply fully:

CG a continuum of varieties

‘Heavy’ CG spoken in isolated villages I I I I I I I I ‘Urban’ CG resembling SMG

In each point different proportions of dialectal and standard features occur, depending on the

speaker, the setting, etc. (Karyolemou 2005, Katsoyiannou et al. 2006).

8

Internal variability within both varieties problem: What to compare, when talking about how different or similar SMG and CG are. The determination of two varieties belonging to the same language should depend on the common perception of speakers, not on technical decisions of linguists (Siegel 2010).

The way the relation between SMG and CG is perceived by speakers is usually complicated due to political and ideological issues (see Terkourafi 2007). Given all the above, how do speakers perceive the difference, not in an abstract level but when dealing with specific language- samples? Question of metalinguistic awareness.

9

MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE PROJECT 2a. The issue of linguistic awareness in bi-

dialectal settings (e.g. Cyprus)Argument: when two related/similar varieties co-exist in a speech community speakers face difficulties in drawing the distinction between the two and in becoming aware of the subtle differences. Their performance of the standard is often not successful, because of interference of dialectal elements. (Haugen 1964:125, Wolfram & Schilling-Estes 1998:287)

Further difficulties for bi-dialectal speakers because the dialect is often excluded from the educational system. (Siegel 2010, Yiakoumetti 2006).

10

MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE STUDY 2b. The issue of linguistic awareness: Lack of awareness on Cypriots’ part led to the emergence of ‘Standard Cypriot Greek’. Arvaniti (2006, 2010): the variety used by Cypriots in the public sphere, although supposedly SMG, differs systematically in all linguistic levels from SMG as used in the mainland Greece. Striking characteristic of this so-called ‘Standard Cypriot Greek’: its speakers are unaware that it exists.

If the divergent way in which Cypriots use SMG is due to interference of dialectal features Cypriots may not be fully aware of subtle differences between SMG and CG.Is this really the case?

11

METHODOLOGY

PART ONE: CREATING A CG CORPUSCreation of a corpus of CG samples on which I would ask speakers’ judgments about what is standard and what is not.

20 Cypriot Greeks X 10 emails sent to Cypriot Greek friends = a CG corpus of around 15000 written words.

12

WHY A CORPUS CONSISTING OF EMAILS?Real data:

To sound natural to the participants and to involve greater variation of features.Written:

To minimize the role of phonetics/phonology levels on which the most prominent differences between the two varieties are found (Kontosopoulos 2001,Trudgill 1986).

From internet communication:

CG does not have an official orthography and is not normally used for written purposes. Informal communication through the internet is the only setting were CG is widely used in written form. 13

METHODOLOGYPART TWO: THE EXPERIMENT

Using samples of the CG corpus:

Experiment with 20 participants and 2 tasks

14

PARTICIPANTS

10 representative native speakers of CG (from the two bigger cities Nicosia and Limassol).

10 representative speakers of SMG (from Athens).

Both groups: of both genders, of ages between 22-35, with a university degree.

15

TASKS 1: Highlighting 29 short excerpts, around 1000 words.

‘In these excerpts from real emails, written by young Cypriots, highlight all the elements, which you think would not appear, or would appear in different form, if the emails had been written by young Athenians’.

2: Transformation8 short excerpts, around 250 words.

‘Transform the following excerpts from real emails, written by young Cypriots, in the way you think an Athenian would have written them’.

16

CLASSIFICATION OF DISTINCTIVELY CG FEATURESIn most studies of CG the distinctively CG

features are usually presented classified in linguistic levels (phonology, morphology, syntax etc.) Distinction between linguistic levels in general not so clear-cut.

Alternative classification which may be more meaningful when discussing how the difference is perceived by speakers themselves and not linguists:

Features Different in Form (DIF)Features Different in Usage (DIU)

17

DISTINCTIVELY CG FEATURES:DIFFERENT IN FORM Exclusively Cypriot in form and thus not expected to occur in a purely SMG context. They can be identified as CG even if found in isolation/out of context. Examples: sounds that are not part of the inventory of SMG, /tʃ/, / ʃ/, and /ʒ/ (in the case of this study, the attempts of Cypriots to represent them with combinations of Latin and Greek letters (e.g. tz, j, τζ, sh etc.))

Retention of syllabic augment /e/ in verbs as a marker of past tense, even when not stressed, e.g. CG: [eδjˈavasa] vs. SMG: [δjˈavasa] (‘I read’).

Characteristic verb endings, e.g. CG: -usi/-asi, [kratˈusi(n)] vs. SMG [kratˈun] (‘they hold’),CG: -isko, [minˈisko] vs. SMG: [mˈeno] (‘I stay’), CG: -ˈefko [δulˈefko], vs. SMG: [δulˈevo] (‘I work’).

Particular lexical items, e.g. [δamˈe] (vs. SMG [eδˈo] ‘here’) [tʃamˈe] (vs. SMG [ecˈi] ‘there’), [ksitimˈazo] (‘to curse’), [aθkiaserˈos] (‘a person with too much free time’) .

18

DISTINCTIVELY CG FEATURES:DIFFERENT IN USAGE

Features which as forms belong to the inventory of both varieties, but the way they are combined or used in context differs. Examples:Use of simple past where SMG would use present perfect. Also, ‘to be + passive participle’ construction instead of present perfect , e.g. [ˈime teliomˈenos]vs. [ˈexo teliˈosi] (I’m done/I’ve finished) (see Agouraki 2006). Lexical items with subtle semantic differences, e.g. κυβερνητικός [civernitikˈos] in CG ‘civil servant’ vs. in SMG ‘governmental’; διασταυρώνω[ðiastavrˈono] in CG ‘to cross the road’ vs. in SMG ‘to cross-check’ .

Extensive use of verb-complements in genitive instead of accusative, e.g. CG [ˈipa tu Pˈetru] vs. SMG [ˈipa ston Pˈetro] (‘I told Petros’).

‘it-clefts’ which are not used in SMG [ine epiˈδi ecˈinos θa arʝˈisei pu to ˈeγrapsa eγˈο] (‘It’s because he will be late that I wrote it myself’) (see Agouraki 2010).

Seen in isolation the features involved in the above constructions are perfectly standard. It is the way they are used in context that is distinctively CG.

19

METHODOLOGY. PART THREE: COMPARING THE TWO GROUPS’ RESPONSES

For each feature occurring in the tasks: How many native speakers of CG and how many native speakers of SMG highlighted/ transformed it.

Computation of percentage of overall occurrences of each feature that was marked/ transformed by each group.

Highlighting/ transformation of a feature was taken to indicate that the participant did not accept it as standard.

Computation and comparison of the overall mean values of highlighting/transformation of feature for the two groups of speakers.

20

RESULTS

21

RESULTS

CG speakers SMG speakers44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58 56.7

MEAN

OF

FEA

TURE

S HI

GHLI

TED

AS

NON

-STA

NDAR

D

48.3

56.7 vs. 48.3, Wilcoxon: p<0.001

Overall identification of features as distinctively CG

Task 1: Highlighting

22

RESULTS

CG speakers SMG speakers0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 71.9

MEAN

OF

FEAT

URES

TRA

NSFO

RMED

TO

BECO

ME S

TAND

ARD

59.1

71.9 vs. 59.1, Wilcoxon: p<0.0001

Overall identification of features as distinctively CG

Task 2: Transformation

23

RESULTS

Different in form Different in usage 0102030405060708090100

CG speakers

TYPE OF FEATURE

MEAN

PER

CEIV

ED N

ON-S

TAND

ARDN

ESS

SCOR

E

87.1

29.1%

37.8

29.1

82.6

87.1 vs. 37.8, 82.6 vs. 29.1, Mann-Whitney U test, p<0.0001

Identification of features by DIF/DIU classification

Task 1: Highlighting

RESULTS

Different in form Different in usage

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

CG speakers

TYPE OF FEATURE

MEAN

OF

FEAT

URES

TRA

NSFO

RED

TO

BECO

ME S

TAND

ARD

38.1

100

100 vs. 56.5, 100 vs. 38.1, Mann-Whitney: p<0.0001

Identification of features by DIF/DIU classification

Task 2: Transformation

56.5

DISCUSSION Speakers of CG appeared overall more sensitive than speakers of SMG in

judging features as non-standard. This result: unexpected. On the basis of discussions about linguistic

awareness of bi-dialectal speakers and of CG speakers in particular, CGs could be expected to face difficulties in recognizing the subtle differences between CG and SMG.

Two opposite explanations: Because Cypriots are bi-dialectal familiar with both varieties,

opportunities to compare the two and become aware of the differences. They identified them in the samples.

Speakers of SMG are rarely exposed to CG focused on identifying marked features that are well known as typical of CG (most of them of the DIF category), ignored more subtle differences they were unaware of.

Alternatively, the higher scores of CG speakers in identifying features as non-standard perhaps instance of over-compensation/hypercorrection.

Tendency towards hypercorrection due to linguistic insecurity common when a person’s native variety is not the ‘prestigious’ standard (see Labov 1972).

Not necessarily a matter of either/or: the two explanations might be intertwined.

26

DISCUSSION

How internal variability in SMG may have influenced results:

The forms used in casual talk in SMG do not overlap completely with the standard forms used in formal/written contexts. SMG conversational style is likely to be very different from the written one (Mackridge 1985:338-9).

E.g.: [milˈo] vs. [milˈao] (‘I’m talking), [thˈelis] vs. [thes] (‘You want’). 2nd variant of each pair: more common in SMG informal

speech, less common in SMG formal/written speech, not used in CG at all.

1st variant: more common in SMG formal/written speech, the one used in CG.

Possible: CG speakers compared samples of the tasks

to the informal talk of SMG speakers (presumably used in emails), whereas SMG speakers focused on identifying only strictly non-standard features disagreements about certain features, different scores.

27

DISCUSSION DIF/DIU distinction of features: DIF CG features were identified more often than DIU features by both groups in both tasks.

Difference in form more salient role in speakers’ perception of the difference than difference in usage.

Regarding argument that lack of awareness of subtle differences on CG speakers’ part has led to the emergence of ‘Cypriot Standard Greek’ (Arvaniti 2010):

Non-linguists native speakers of SMG more tolerant than linguists in their judgments about what is part of SMG and what not.

(?)Native-speakers’ judgment is a criterion used to define a variety.

28

CONCLUSIONS What features are judged to belong to each variety could vary depending on who judges. Such judgment is not straightforward Studies investigating dialectal interference in the use of SMG by Cypriots, in the educational context or elsewhere, should perhaps keep some flexibility.

Setting possible interpretations aside the results suggest that CG speakers and SMG speakers have an overall dissimilar perception of the difference between the two.

The relation between CG and SMG from their native speakers’ point of view one of asymmetrical exposure to each other’s variety that leads to asymmetrical intelligibility and also one of asymmetrical perception of the difference.

Results confirm the subjectivity involved in drawing boundaries between related varieties.

29

THANK YOU!

es572@cam.ac.uk

BIBLIOGRAPHY:Agouraki. Y. (2006). The Perfect Category: A Comparison of Standard

Greek and Cypriot Greek. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, 42-57.

Agouraki, Y. (2010). It-clefts and stressed operators in the preverbal field of Cypriot Greek. Lingua 120: 527-554.

Arvaniti, A.(2006). Erasure as a means of maintaining diglossia in Cyprus. San Diego Linguistics Papers 2: 25-38.

Arvaniti, A. (2010). Linguistic practices in Cyprus and the emergences of Cypriot Standard Greek. Mediterranean Language Review 17: 15-45.

Chambers, J. K; Trudgill, P. (1998). Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cheshire, J. (1982). Dialect Features and Linguistic Conflict in Schools. Educational Review 34: 1, 53 — 67.

Ferguson, C. (1959). ‘Diglossia’. Word 15: 325–340Haugen, E. (1964). ‘Bilingualism and bidialectalism’, in R. W. Shuy; A.

L. Davis and R. F. Hogan (eds.), Social Dialects and Language Learning. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 123–6.

Holton, D.; Mackridge, P. A.; Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1997). Greek: a comprehensive grammar of the modern language. London: Routledge.

30

Joseph, B.; Tserdanelis, G. (2003). Modern Greek, in T. Roelcke (ed.), Variationstypologie. Ein sprachtypologisches Handbuch zu den euopaischen Sprachen in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1-24.

Katsoyiannou, M.; Papapavlou A.; Pavlou A.; Tsiplakou S. (2006). ‘Διαδιαλεκτικές κοινότητες και γλωσσικό συνεχές: η περίπτωση της κυπριακής’. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Patras: University of Patras, 156-171.

Karyolaimou, M. (2005). Reproduction and innovation of communicative patterns in a former-‘diglossic’ community’. Paper presented at Trans 16: Innovations and Reproductions in Cultures and Societies. Vienna, 9-11 December 2005. Available online at: http://www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/01_4/karyolemou16.htm.

Kontosopoulos, N. (2001). Διάλεκτοι και Ιδιώματα της Νέας Ελληνικής. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Γρήγόρη.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell. Mackridge, P. A. (1985). The Modern Greek language: a descriptive analysis of Standard

Modern Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Siegel, J. (2010). Second dialect acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Terkourafi, M. (2007). Perceptions of the difference in the Greek

sphere; the case of Cyprus. Journal of Greek Linguistics 8, 60-96.Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Wolfram, W.; Schilling-Estes, N. (1998). American English: Dialects and

Variation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Yiakoumetti, A. (2006). A Bidialectal Programme for the Learning of

Standard Modern Greek in Cyprus. Applied Linguistics 27/2: 295/317.31