Mediterranean Language Review 19 (2012)old.staff.neu.edu.tr/~cise.cavusoglu/Evripidou Dimitris... · 2015. 10. 9. · As indicated, “the notion of appropriateness depending on situation

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

MEDITERRANEANLANGUAGE

REVIEWedited by

Matthias Kappler, Werner Arnold and Till Stellino

with the editorial assistance ofIngeborg Hauenschild

19 (2012)

Contents

Articles

Klaus Beyer Die Entstehung des Alphabets .................................................................................. 1

Adolfo Zavaroni Il suffisso di compagnia -pi, -pe ed il suffisso agentivo/pertinentivo -si/-osio in etrusco e falisco .................................................................................................... 13

Michael Waltisberg Zur Syntax eines arabischen Beduinendialekts ....................................................... 35

Dimitris Evripidou Factors Influencing Greek Cypriot Senior-Adults’ Attitudes Towards Cypriot Greek and Standard Modern Greek ............................................ 59

Ibrahim Bassal Hebrew and Aramaic Substrata in Spoken Palestinian Arabic .............................. 85

Edward Y. Odisho Mechanisms for Lexical Enrichment in Modern Aramaic....................................... 105

Book Reviews

Scott N. Callaham Modality and the Biblical Hebrew Infinitive Absolute (Christian Stadel) ....................................................................................................... 117

Gianluca Frenguelli & Laura Melosi (eds.) Lingua e cultura dell’Italia coloniale (Francesco Bianco) .................................................................................................... 121

Jared Greenblatt The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Amәdiya (Steven E. Fassberg) ................................................................................................. 131

Annette Herkenrath Wh-Konstruktionen im Türkischen (Jaklin Kornfilt) ......................................................................................................... 134

Veronika Ritt-Benmimoun Texte im arabischen Beduinendialekt der Region Douz (Südtunesien) (Judith Rosenhouse) ................................................................................................... 146

Factors Influencing Greek Cypriot Senior-Adults’ Attitudes Towards Cypriot Greek and Standard Modern Greek

Dimitris Evripidou (Frederick University, Cyprus)

1 Linguistic Context of Cyprus Diglossia and bidialectism are viewed as related phenomena. Diglossia, according to Ferguson (1959) is found in places where two forms of the same language, the standard, official form and a dialect are used side by side on a daily basis. The dis-tinction can be between a high (H) and a low (L) variety in some language situa-tions, while in others between the classical and colloquial form of the language. A bidialectal situation, however, is one in which both a standard and a non-standard variety of the same language are used alongside each other. These may differ lingu-istically but are at the same time sufficiently related, thus overlapping to some extent in pronunciation, grammar and lexicon (Yiakoumetti 2006, 2007). As Richards & al. (1985) point out, a bidialectal person is one who knows and can use the two differ-ent varieties, which are often a prestige one, such as the standard language which is used at school or at work, and a non-prestige one which may be used only at home and among friends.

Cyprus has been characterised as a bidialectal or even diglossic case (Sciriha 1995; Moschonas 1996; Papapavlou 1998; Papapavlou & Pavlou 1998; McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001; Arvaniti 2002; Tsiplakou 2003; Terkourafi 2005; Tsiplakou 2006; Yiakoumetti 2007) with Standard Modern Greek (henceforth SMG) as the formal language of education, the media, and the written code, while Cypriot Greek (henceforth CG) as the home and everyday spoken variety. The linguistic situation of Cyprus has also been described as a dialectal continuum (Davy & al. 1996; Karyolemou & Pavlou 2001; Goutsos & Karyolemou 2004) where a continu-um of numerous other language levels exists between the two poles of H and L, described as registers (Katsoyannou & al. 2006; Tsiplakou & al. 2006) which range from bearing basilectal items, i.e. features of CG placed at one end of the spectrum, less heavy CG bearing both CG and SMG features and acrolectal items, at the oppo-site end of the spectrum, whose users mainly employ features of the standard varie-ty. A similar register continuum was also proposed by Sophocleous (2006), in which basilectal features refer to what she calls ‘Heavy Greek-Cypriot Dialect’, mesolectal features to ‘Tidied-up Greek-Cypriot Dialect’ and ‘Polite Greek-Cypriot Dialect’ and acrolectal features to ‘Cypriot Standard Greek’.

The most notable differences between the two varieties exist at the lexical level (Newton 1972a, 1972b; Papapavlou 1994; Davy & Panayotou 1999), where some

Dimitris Evripidou 60

words used in CG bear no linguistic relation to corresponding words in SMG. As Papapavlou (1994) points out, what makes CG almost incomprehensible to most SMG speakers is its inventory of loanwords from Turkish, Arabic and English. How-ever, the two varieties also differ significantly at the phonological, morphological levels and, to a lesser degree at the syntactic level (Pavlou & Papapavlou 2004; Pavlou & Christodoulou 2001; Terkoufari 2005; Kontosopoulos 2001; Hadjiioannou 1990; Arvaniti 2002; Agouraki 2003; Grohmann, Panagiotidies & Tsiplakou 2006).

As was already implied, CG has not been standardised as yet. As Papapavlou & Sophocleous (2009) claim, it bears no power and prestige as opposed to the official variety, even though a substantially rich Greek Cypriot literature – albeit with vary-ing orthographic conventions – flourished in the past (Papapavlou 2004). The fact that CG has not been codified or standardised and does not have a generally ac-cepted orthography has resulted in reinforcing the perception among Greek Cypriots that SMG is more prestigious (Arvaniti 2006), while the prospect of granting CG official status meets with unqualified resistance (Karyolemou 2001).

2 Language Attitude Studies on Cypriot Greek The linguistic situation in Cyprus has spurred the investigation of a large number of studies on language attitudes, whose results are ambivalent in the sense that CG may be a stigmatised variety for some, but not for others, depending on numerous factors such as the nationality of the speakers involved, the topic of conversation, the regis-ter of CG used, the formality or not of the setting etc. (Sciriha 1995, 1996; Pavlou 1997, 1999; Papapavlou 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007; Pavlou & Papapavlou 2004; McEntee & Pouloukas 2001; Tsiplakou 2003, 2004; Papapavlou & Sophocleous 2009).

In an effort to examine the motivational, attitudinal, and sociocultural factors that encourage lexical borrowing in CG, Papapavlou (1988) investigated the attitudes of Greek Cypriot upper-secondary school students towards the two language varieties. The results showed that the subjects believed that although CG is not as rich in vocabulary as SMG, it was not less precise or lacking in clarity or expression com-pared to SMG. Papapavlou (1998) also investigated the attitudes of Greek Cypriot university students by employing the matched-guise technique. The subjects were asked to evaluate the qualities of a number of speakers using CG on one occasion, and SMG on another. The speakers were evaluated along a semantic differential scale of 12 personality traits. The results showed that Greek Cypriots hold more favourable attitudes towards SMG than towards their own language variety (CG) for eight out of twelve dimensions. Furthermore, Pavlou (1999) found that pre-school children from higher socioeconomic classes tended to show a preference for SMG, whereas children from lower socioeconomic classes associated themselves more with CG. Findings arising from Papapavlou and/or Pavlou’s studies (Pavlou 1999; Papapavlou 2001, 2004; Pavlou & Papapavlou 2004) report that Greek Cypriot speakers of SMG are more favourably evaluated than their CG counterparts on status-related traits, but also on a number of social attractiveness-related traits.

Factors Influencing Greek Cypriot Senior-Adults’ Attitudes 61

According to Tsiplakou (2003, 2004), however, who investigated the linguistic attitudes among teenagers (lower and upper secondary school students) and young adult (university students) CG speakers – via the use of a questionnaire aimed to gauge the participants’ perceptions and evaluations of their own linguistic produc-tion, that of their peers and also that of their instructors – suggests the existence of a definite trend towards the disappearance of prescriptive attitudes either way, as sup-ported by the minimal expression of negative attitudes towards both language varie-ties. As indicated, “the notion of appropriateness depending on situation replaces the commonly-held notion of linguistic ‘correctness’” (Tsiplakou 2003: 9), and these attitudes may well correlate with the participants’ increased confidence in their pro-ficiency in SMG, achieved through schooling and attending university.

A more recent study carried out by Papapavlou & Sophocleous (2009) to investi-gate university students’ language attitudes towards four broad register levels of CG indicated that participants approve of their peers’ language use when a combination of both SMG and CG is employed, whereas they criticise speakers who employ basilectal features of CG, whom they described as socially ‘inferior’ and less refined than themselves.

3 Aims of the Present Study To date, scholars in their discussion and investigation of the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus have highlighted the complexity of Greek Cypriots’ language attitudes, with some attempting to offer a useful sociocultural analysis. No one has, however, drawn conclusions about the language attitudes of the older generations of Greek Cypriots in particular. Also, very little research evidence, if any, has been presented by combining the matched-guise technique (Lambert & al. 1960; Lambert 1967) and interviews either.

This study examines the attitudes of senior-adult Greek Cypriots quantitatively by employing the matched-guise technique, and also qualitatively by employing in-depth interviews to identify the reasons their language attitudes are formed, affected or changed. In particular, it examines:

a) the language attitudes of senior-adult Greek Cypriots today towards their native language variety and SMG;

b) the reasons that led to the development of the attitudes maintained by senior-adults.

It is hoped that the results of this study will not only lead to a better understanding of language attitudes, but also provide insights into the beliefs, thoughts and opin-ions of senior-adult Greek Cypriots’ towards their language variety.


4 Methods

4.1 Guises and passages The matched-guise experiment in the present study employed two actors (cf. Connor 2008; Evripidou 2011) – a Greek-Cypriot man and a woman, who had completed their studies in Greece, were unknown to the public and were also fluent in both lan-guage varieties. Their studies in acting gave them the advantage of controlling voice qualities such as speed, volume, timbre and tone more effectively. As a result, their participation in the study ensured the concealment of the fact that the different voices were produced by the same speakers, while at the same time they maintained key voice-features, such as age and sex, which are important variables for the con-duction of the matched-guise test (cf. Solis Obiols 2002). It is significant to point out that in terms of the CG register of the guises used Cypriot koine (henceforth CK) was employed, which is placed at the acrolectal end of the dialectal continuum (Davy & al. 1996; Karyolemou & Pavlou 2001; Goutsos & Karyolemou 2004), covering urban areas of the island (Terkourafi 2003).

In terms of the passages used (see Appendix A), they were selected so that they appeared culturally neutral in the sense that both Greek Cypriots and mainland Greeks could have produced them. Nothing used in the texts explicitly revealed the speakers’ social class, background, nationality or gave away any personal characte-ristics. Furthermore, the content of the passages was related to the judges’ routine life in an attempt to avoid stimulating their interest in such undesirable ways that the focus would shift from the linguistic features used to the content of the passages (Evripidou 2011).

4.2 Judges A total of 20 Greek Cypriots participated in the study: ten male and ten female. All were born at least 60 years ago in Cyprus, their native language is CG and both their parents were born and raised in Cyprus. All of them live permanently on the island and have limited exposure to the subject of linguistics. Additionally, they were un-familiar with the matched-guise technique, and also all assumed that they had heard twice as many people as they actually had, as was attested after the matched-guise experiment was completed. As for their education, three judges had completed uni-versity or college studies, nine had completed either lower-secondary school or both lower- and upper-secondary school, and eight had finished the elementary school: Table 1: Judges’ Educational Background

Level of Education No. of Male Judges No. of Female Judges Total University / College 2 1 3 Secondary School 4 5 9 Elementary School 4 4 8


4.3 Procedures and rating scale The two Greek Cypriots were each recorded reading the same one-minute passage twice, once in CK and once in SMG. The twelve recordings produced by the two guises were arranged so that the CK versions alternated with SMG ones and no voice was followed immediately by its matched-guise. The 20 judges were told at the beginning of the test that they would hear twelve recordings, some in CK and some in SMG. The fact that they would hear the same speakers’ voices was con-cealed from them. The experiment took place in a study room, where each judge used an individual study booth while completing the matched-guise rating scale, in an attempt to avoid any communication among them, which could affect the results.

The judges were required to rate the speakers for each of the traits presented in Table 2 on a five-point rating scale. For the selection of the adjectives, a four-step process suggested by Williams (1974), which involved a pilot study and discussions on a different sample group of senior-adults, was taken into consideration in order to maximise the relevance of traits and make the data more meaningful. A large num-ber of adjectives were elicited from this procedure; the most common ones were compared and contrasted with those used in previous matched-guise tests in Cyprus (Papapavlou 1998). A combination of both, in an attempt to enable possible com-parisons in the analysis, resulted in selecting the adjectives used here; with the ex-ception of ‘hard-working/lazy’ which was not used in Papapavlou’s (ibid) study, but was very prominent in the sample group’s discussions.

The judges listened to the voices one at a time and were given ample time to make their judgements and complete the matched-guise rating scale (Table 2). Table 2: Matched-guise Rating Scale

Traits: 5 4 3 2 1 Traits: Sincere 5 4 3 2 1 Insincere

Educated 5 4 3 2 1 Uneducated Ambitious 5 4 3 2 1 Unambitious Attractive 5 4 3 2 1 Unattractive Friendly 5 4 3 2 1 Unfriendly Modern 5 4 3 2 1 Old fashioned

Kind 5 4 3 2 1 Unkind Humorous 5 4 3 2 1 Lacking humour

Hardworking 5 4 3 2 1 Lazy Intelligent 5 4 3 2 1 Unintelligent

4.4 Statistical analysis The judgments of the group of the ten polar traits of the two speakers (twelve voices, six in CK and six in SMG) were coded and analysed using SPSS computer software (Version 13). Statistical analysis used paired T-tests, since, in the study, each parti-cipant judged both guises in terms of both language varieties.


4.5 Interviews For the interviews, six participants offered to be interviewed from the pool of judges of the matched-guise test. Table 3 summarises their gender, age, educational back-ground and occupation. Semi-structured interviewees (Cohen & al. 2000; Kvale 1996) were conducted with minimal direction or control. Interviewees were presen-ted with Table 5, which summarises the matched-guise test results and after having explained the findings to them, they were free to express their subjective feelings as fully and as spontaneously as they wished. Table 3: Senior-Adults’ Background Details

Senior-Adult Interviewees Gender Age Education Level Occupation Senior-Adult A F 65 Elementary Cleaner Senior-Adult B M 62 University Lecturer Senior-Adult C M 60 College Accountant Senior-Adult D F 64 Elementary Cleaner Senior-Adult E F 60 College Secretary Senior-Adult F M 63 Secondary School /

Police Acad. Policeman

5 Presentation and Discussion of Results

5.1 Matched-guise test results The findings of the matched-guise test showed that senior-adults perceived the CK guises more favourably than the SMG ones. Table 4 presents the means of all ten traits for both language varieties and their p-value. Table 4: Means of the 10 traits for SMG and CK

Traits: Education Sincerity Ambition Attractiveness Friendliness SMG-Means:

3.96 3.21 3.53 3.78 3.38

GC-Means:

3.06 3.75 3.45 2.86 3.90

p-value: < 0.001 < 0.001 n.s. < 0.01 < 0.01

Traits: Modernity Kindness Humour Hardworking Intelligence SMG-Means:

3.50 3.31 2.68 3.05 3.35

GC-Means:

3.31 3.93 3.60 4.10 3.40

p-value: n.s. p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.001 n.s. Key: n.s.: not significant, p < 0.05: significant, p < 0.01: very significant, p < 0.001: highly significant


The comparisons with a significant statistical difference between the two language varieties indicate that the guises on one occasion were significantly more positive than on the other. Specifically, the results show that those who used CK are judged as (a) more sincere, (b) friendlier, (c) kinder, (d) more humorous, and (e) more hard-working than those who used SMG. Nevertheless, CK guises were not found to be more or less ambitious, modern or intelligent than SMG guises, as there was no sta-tistical difference for these traits. Although senior-adults’ attitudes towards CK are mainly positive, they do not hold the same beliefs for traits such as education and attractiveness. The results revealed that those who used SMG are judged as more educated and attractive than those who used CK.

Concerning education and being hard-working, the findings were specifically salient since there was a highly significant difference between the two varieties for both traits. In no other comparison between CK and SMG is such a uniform and absolute agreement found. Consequently, it can be stated that judges believed that speakers who used SMG are educated, while those using CK are not. In a similar vein, those who used CK are judged as hard-working, whereas those using SMG are not.

In summarising the matched-guise findings in Table 5, it can be seen that senior-adults clearly favour CK, with five out of the ten traits attributed positively to its guises, while only two to the SMG ones. Four traits out of the ten used did not achieve any statistically significant difference. As previously mentioned, the two findings that were very prominent were those related to being educated and hard-working which were attributed to the SMG and CK guises correspondingly. Table 5: Summary of Findings

Standard Modern Greek Cypriot Koine Not Significant Educated Attractive

Sincere Friendly

Kind Humorous

Hard-working

Ambitious Modern

Intelligent

Reflecting on the findings, they were admittedly somewhat expected. One would ex-pect people from this age group to attribute the particular traits to each of the parti-cular varieties. Concerning the two traits with a highly significant difference (being educated and hard-working), it can be said that most of the judges, from all three educational backgrounds (elementary school, secondary school, and university/ college) seem to relate SMG with one being educated and CK with one being hard-working. In comparing these findings with Papapavlou’s (1998) matched-guise study on the language attitudes of Greek Cypriot university students, it can be ob-served that both groups of judges perceive those who use SMG to be more educated and attractive, and those who use CG to be more sincere, friendlier, kinder, and


more humorous (where trait comparisons could be made). However, university students seemed to have overall more favourable attitudes towards SMG than CG for eight of the twelve dimensions used; results which are dissimilar to this study, seeing as senior-adults seem to have overall more favourable attitudes towards CG. Dissimilar to senior-adults are also the findings concerning ambition, intelligence and being modern. In Papapavlou’s study (ibid) these traits were also attributed to those using SMG, whereas in this study they were not found to have a significant p-value.

5.2 Interview results In trying to make sense of the matched-guise test findings, six judges were inter-viewed. The aim was to investigate the reasons for their language attitudes towards the two language varieties. Based on the results of the matched-guise test, the rea-sons identified by the interviewees were: (a) politicians’ use of CG, (b) self-concept, (c) language abilities, (d) history, name and insecurity, and (e) dramatic experiences. These will be discussed and explained in the following section, based on selectively chosen extracts from the interviewees’ comments which captured the essence of the various reasons presented, after they had been transcribed and translated from SMG or CG to English in accordance with a number of practical stages suggested by Kvale (1996) and Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2000).

5.2.1 Politicians’ use of CG According to Baker (1995), human role models need to be highly regarded, respec-ted, admired and credible in what they say and do, and they can range from parents, siblings, peers, teachers to cultural and media figures. Observing the attitudes or lan-guage use of a role model can become positively reinforcing. Therefore, certain language attitudes can come as a result of the content of a role model’s speech, conversational characteristics or choice of language.

The results of the matched-guise test showed that senior-adults’ language atti-tudes towards CK are more positive than towards SMG concerning traits such as friendliness and sincerity; a reason could be their human role models. The following remarks of Interviewee C, about the way some politicians speak, were particularly telling:

“… the last few years and especially since the last presidential elections I be-lieve things started to change in favour of Cypriot [CG]. The president now… doesn’t always speak in Greek [SMG]. He sometimes speaks in Greek Cypriot [CG]… this makes him sound friendlier, more genuine, and at the same time no-one can openly accuse him of being uneducated or simplistic since he is the president. I like this; it makes me feel good.”

The particular interviewee believes that by using CG, certain politicians sound friendlier and perhaps more sincere; also implications of being uneducated or using inadequate language are dismissed due to their social status, and the fact that they


are perfectly understood respectively. Similar observations were also made by other interviewees (D, E and F), who were also pleased by the use of CG in the media, provided that it is smart Cypriot or job Cypriot as Interviewees E and F remarked respectively, as opposed for example to home Cypriot (Interviewee F). According to these interviewees, therefore, CG is not restricted to cultural and political satire neither is its use limited in Greek Cypriot TV series, as it is typically believed. It has recently become more common for politicians to use CG and not SMG, even in formal public settings, justifying what Winsa (1998) stressed about local, regional and national politicians who had previously maintained an almost complete neglect of a local language, but now appreciate its value for the community identity.

The fact that, nowadays, CG is heard more than it used to be during formal events was also noticed by Interviewee B who, however, found this “surprising” and “rather inappropriate”:

“When he read it out, his Greek [SMG] was very good… but when he wasn’t reading aloud and he was speaking about his past or explaining something in his speech, he used the dialect [CG]. It was very surprising because you would expect him to speak in demotic [SMG], especially due to his position in the ministry… it was rather inappropriate, if you ask me.”

As Karyolemou (2001) pointed out, some people deplore the fact that many poli-ticians and important personalities make extensive use of CG instead of SMG in formal occasions such as interviews and public discussions. It is worth noting that, in this case, the official from the Ministry of Education and Culture, who is con-sidered to be a rather significant figure, as the interviewee emphasised, was using CG to share his experiences with the audience and elucidate various points of his written speech, while it was being delivered in SMG. When he became more per-sonal and more emotional, he used CG; this surprised the interviewee who found it inappropriate, as he was expecting him to use SMG.

It is noticed that the interviewees observed the more frequent use of CG in public formal settings; which they either ratify, declaring that it makes its users sound friendlier and more sincere or disapprove because they find its use in formal settings inappropriate. In terms of the former, the tendency by some political figures to use CG has increased the variety’s popularity since some senior-adults seem to take joy in encountering certain politicians expressing themselves in CG and not SMG, as re-marks such as I like this, it makes me feel good illustrated. The reasons were clari-fied by the interviewees themselves: the use of CG makes one sound friendlier and more sincere. Additionally its use makes them more comprehensible and also ele-vates the variety’s status. Concerning the interviewees’ educational background, no obvious associations could be made except that the use of CG in the media was seen positively by interviewees who completed lower, secondary and tertiary education, with the exception of Interviewee B, who disapproved its use, and A, who made no remarks. As for C, D, E and F’s possible differences in socioeconomic status, these


do not seem to affect their attitudes towards the use of CG by political figures in the media, since they all approve of it.

5.2.2 Self-concept Katz (1960) suggested that attitudes are expressed and activated when they are con-gruent with personal values and one’s self-concept. Similarly, Herman (1969) point-ed out that deep-rooted personality characteristics and self-conceptualisation need to be considered, if they are evident. Additionally, Bain & Yu (1984) and Baker (1995) stated that the psychological notion of self-concept, the picture we hold of ourselves, can be a powerful determiner of our attitudes.

It seems that interviewees who value their local cultural forms, or who regard themselves as Cypriot, that is whose core self-identity is Cypriot rather than Greek, may express attitudes logically emanating from such values. A reason for someone’s beliefs about and attitudes towards a certain language variety is the idea of self-con-ceptualisation and how one perceives oneself. A language can act “as a symbol of group consciousness, a mark of ethnic or national identity, an emblem of solidarity and a signal of a particular ideological orientation” (Papapavlou 2010: 121). This is an aspect which was found to be very prominent in the senior-adults’ interviews, commented on by all interviewees. A characteristic extract is the following by Seni-or-Adult C:

“There will always be people who see themselves as Cypriots and people who see themselves as Greek… based on how they understand themselves, they vote, they like or dislike certain people, they act, behave and speak. They feel closer to one group or differentiate themselves from another group… if you consider yourself Cypriot, then you feel safer when you are called Cypriot, speak Cypriot [CG] and you definitely see Cypriots as closer to you, as friend-lier and more honest and generally as better people for you.”

Yet what Interviewee B stated is equally important. Apart from identifying language varieties being related to how one perceives oneself, he also took a step further to relate his self-concept with language abilities:

“We’re all Cypriots but choose different things, we choose to be what we are, we view ourselves the way we want. This though doesn’t mean we’ve got to choose one or the other. And this is not the only reason; it is also related with your skills to use the two languages [varieties]. I mean all Cypriots speak the dialect [CG], but not everyone can speak in the demotic [SMG] ... and also it is related to how responsible you are towards the demotic [SMG].”

The above interviewee believes that self-concept, in terms of identity along with their language abilities, can affect attitudes towards SMG and CG. In particular, con-cerning the latter, Tsiplakou (2003) pointed out that attitudes may well correlate with one’s confidence regarding proficiency in SMG. Based on the interviewees’ comments, it can be said that when they perceive themselves as being Cypriot, they favour CG, whereas when they perceive themselves as Greek, they are also positive


towards SMG. This, however, does not necessarily mean that if they can use SMG, they consider themselves Greek. Interviewee E’s comments are particularly telling:

“There are also some people who consider themselves Greeks but can’t speak it [SMG]. These people like to stress that Cypriot [CG] is just another dialect, a dialect of Greek in order to excuse… their Greekness, they hide behind the phrase ‘dialect of Greek’. I can use both but this doesn’t stop me from always using Cypriot [CG].”

It seems that, as far as senior-adults are concerned, proficiency in SMG cannot affect one’s attitudes towards it, also it does not seem to affect the picture they hold of themselves in terms of identity. Nevertheless, what a variety is called is important because, as Interviewee E points out, they might not be able to use SMG, but are able to use ‘a dialect of Greek’. Also, it can be said that when E uses CG, she does not just use a regional variation of SMG, as those she refers to believe they do, but she uses a variety that verbalises the nature of her self-conceptualisation, since she consciously chooses not to speak in SMG.

Moreover, for some it is also a moral issue or loyalty towards one’s language variety. This highlights the difference between Interviewees B, and C above. Inter-viewee B believes it is a matter of choice, whereas Senior-Adult C believes it is a matter of being able to understand one’s self. It might be possible for one to choose who they are in terms of identity, but it might not be possible to choose the language variety one uses, regardless of how they perceive themselves, unless they are pro-ficient in both. One cannot be ‘responsible’ towards a variety he/she are unable to speak. As Thornborrow (2004) points out, the identity individuals wish to portray to others will affect the linguistic choices they make, however, a speaker is only able to choose from the various linguistic choices available to them. Bilingual or bidialectal speakers can be faced with a choice, but not monolinguals.

The quote above by Senior-Adult B also gives a different perspective: This though doesn’t mean we’ve got to choose one or the other. A study carried out by McEntee & Pouloukas (2001: 33) focussing on identity and power in Cyprus con-cluded that “Greek Cypriots want to maintain and preserve both their national codes (SMG and CG)”. Both varieties are part of the Cypriot cultural heritage and the study reported a desire for their preservation and use more than of any other variety, such as English. Equally significant, albeit evident to every Greek Cypriot is that all Cypriots speak the dialect [CG], but not everyone can speak in the demotic [SMG], which, however, raises questions from Interviewees C, E and F as to why it has not yet been officially acknowledged as a formal variety of the Cypriot state. Distinctive were E’s comments:

“Since a lot of us use it, if not all, and all of us understand it, why is it not recognised officially by the government? Isn’t it a wonder to ignore what is beyond your own eyes?”


Concerning Interviewee E’s comments about how she writes in SMG but finds it tiring to speak in SMG and always chooses to speak in CG (cf. section 5.2.3), one might say that her speech separates her from Greekness and her writing separates her from Cypriotness. Her remarks about CG’s official recognition by the Cypriot Gov-ernment are not particularly surprising, especially since she does not see CG a just a dialect of SMG.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Greek Cypriots do not perceive them-selves in a single way. There are those who perceive themselves as more Cypriot or more Greek; whose self-perception is either more Cypriot or more Greek. This af-fects their language attitudes which are, as a result, more positive towards either CG or SMG, which also seems to affect the variety they choose to use (when a choice is available), the way they label the variety they use, and also their loyalty towards one variety or the other.

5.2.3 Language abilities According to Gardner, Lalonde & Pierson (1983), there is considerable evidence that ability in a language and attitude to that language are linked. Brustall & al. (1974) argued that attitudes and achievement may both be the cause and effect of each other. It is also possible that it is the person’s perception of proficiency or achieve-ment rather than their actual proficiency or achievement, that are, primarily, influ-ential.

Interviewee A commented on her own abilities in the two language varieties un-der discussion and also mentioned a third variety taught at school:

“At school I wasn’t taught in demotic [SMG]… I was taught to write and read in… katharevousa [puristic Greek],… in Cyprus we spoke in Cypriot [GC]. My parents talked to me in Cypriot [CG], they didn’t and couldn’t use katharevousa [puristic Greek] or demotic [SMG]… sometimes it’s not clear why we need it [SMG] when we talk in Cyprus. Is it just to say that he or she is more or less educated? For labelling people?”

This interviewee commented on her abilities at school about 50 years ago when text-books in Cyprus, as in Greece, were written in puristic Greek and not in SMG. She explained puristic Greek was regarded as the language of the educated and those who were considered to have prestige, while SMG was not used in Cyprus because people used CG to communicate in their daily lives. The use of both, puristic Greek and SMG, were therefore significantly absent from the life of the older generations of Greek Cypriots, especially in spoken language, since neither was used regularly by Greek Cypriots after their school years. Whereas in Greece the language of the state was unified with SMG in 1976, abandoning an unrealistic ideal of puristic Greek, in Cyprus CG would have to change of the people’s own accord in order to match that of the Cypriot state, which along with Greece, recognised SMG as its official language (Christofides 2010). As for today, she questions the use of SMG in Cyprus as everyone can communicate in CG. She also raised the question Why does


Cypriot [CG] have to be an unofficial or a less prestige language in a country where everyone speaks and understands it?

From the early research of Jones (1950) to the more recent modelling of Gardner (1985), the higher the achievement, proficiency and ability in a language, the more favourable the attitude is. In terms of language proficiency, Interviewee D, offered some explanations, while talking about the three language varieties (CG, SMG and puristic Greek), she pointed out that 50 or 60 years ago not everyone attended school, and, as a result, their preference (especially for CG) was reasonable, since in those times, it was the variety they understood better and could communicate in more efficiently. Characteristic were her comments referring to her genealogical tree’s language use and also the Cypriot Annan Plan Referendum in 2004 when Cypriots were asked to choose between ratifying or rejecting a 5th revision of a United Nations proposal considering the settlement of the Cyprus dispute:

“My grandparents, parents, myself, my children and grandchildren speak in Cypriot [GC]. We show anger, happiness, sadness everything… They sent us documents explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the plan on whether we should say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, the documents were in Greek [SMG] and they were so difficult to understand… there I was trying to make a decision through papers I didn’t understand, about my country as if everyone can understand or speak Greek [SMG].”

It cannot be questioned from her comments that she is content with the use of CG, nevertheless, sometimes her language abilities in SMG make it difficult for her to understand significant documents or information sent by the state which require her understanding in making an appropriate decision. According to Papadakis (2000) and Tsiplakou (2003) the two varieties are sufficiently different to be mutually un-intelligible without adequate previous exposure. However, because younger Greek Cypriots are much less likely to experience comprehension problems due to their greater exposure to SMG, this would apply only to the less educated senior-adults. It seems that CG is not only a choice, but also a necessity in being able to communi-cate and understand one another. As she explained later on, especially concerning schooling, there were aspects of their lives that were much more significant in those days than being careful with one’s language use, such as working and earning one’s living than having to think about how to change Cypriot [CG] words and other things to Greek [SMG].

As it can be seen from the comments of Interviewees A and D, one could con-clude that education is directly related to one’s attitudes towards a language variety as it is related to one’s language abilities; however, this does not seem to be the case. Interviewee E explained that although both her written and spoken performances in SMG are very efficient, she does not eagerly use SMG in speech:

“I believe I can write in Greek [SMG] perfectly because of my job. I can speak it very well too, not the way I write it of-course, but… I don’t want to speak in Greek [SMG] or feel I should switch like other people. It’s tiring. I


always use Cypriot [GC] either I speak to my boss’ clients or my sister… this is who I am.”

The difference between the two previous ones and Interviewee E is that the latter’s abilities in SMG are proficient, but she still prefers to use CG in speech irrespective-ly to whom she may address. The differences in education with the previous two are also obvious, but their attitudes towards CG are the same. Thus, attitudes towards CG are not affected by education as much as one’s language abilities are. It is also evident that proficiency in SMG does not necessarily lead to positive attitudes to-wards it. It seems that the way she understands herself overshadows her language abilities and also defines her attitudes towards the two varieties. Only when one’s language abilities correlate with their self-conceptualisation, can the former affect language attitudes, otherwise language abilities alone cannot affect language atti-tudes as they cannot affect one’s self-conceptualisation. Additionally, even if the interviewee states she is proficient in SMG in speech, it seems it is not done effort-lessly, or straightforwardly, or even inherently given the fact that it’s tiring, which alone highlights the construction of her self-conceptualisation.

It is therefore evident from the interviewees’ comments that in their every-day lives their relationship with SMG is not as efficient or sound as it is with CG. For some, their school years did not familiarise them as much with SMG, their lives did not always allow them to complete their education (beyond elementary school), and their preference towards CG with which they can communicate well is clearly mani-fested. Possibly, this is because their communication in CG is adequate, successful and effective, whereas their understanding of SMG is not as much. For those, never-theless, who believe are proficient in both, a choice is required as to which variety they should use, at least in speech, and this is primarily based on the way they per-ceive themselves in terms of identity and also their willingness as to whether or not they wish to switch from one variety to the other. Needless to say, such a choice might also depend on other factors such as the setting, interlocutor, the situation’s formality, the topic of conversation etc, depending again on whether these are con-sidered important enough to the speakers themselves or not. Despite CG’s lack of codification and standardisation, this very unwillingness to switch to SMG, even when there is proficiency in it, may prove to be significant enough to discontinue the general perception of SMG as more prestigious than CG.

5.2.4 History, name and insecurity As Winsa (1998) explains exo- and endolexicon are characteristics found when wit-nessing a redefinition of what it is to be a language and the imposition around the globe of a new concept of standard national languages. Redefining what it means to be a language was also an issue raised by Interviewee C, as a reason for holding such attitudes towards the two language varieties under question:

“I think the history of the Cypriot language [CG] should be written down or re-written by scholars… Where did it [CG] come from?… it has a past. A


plethora or words. Why don’t they write it down and teach it at schools? It should be valued more and be given more ‘weight’. Then perhaps we wouldn’t sound less educated, attractive…”

It could be assumed from what this interviewee said that Greek Cypriots sound less educated or attractive just because CG and its history have not received adequate attention by linguists or scholars. As Giles & al. (1977: 312) pointed out “a lan-guage’s history, prestige value, and degree to which it has undergone standardisation may be sources of pride or shame for members of a linguistic community” and as Winsa (1998) explained, lack of historical research is an important reason for the creation of positive or negative attitudes. Only over the last few decades, and especi-ally during the 1990s and onwards has CG gained some interest or been the subject of empirical sociolinguistic research, as well as have several topics related to it been the focus in local newspapers in the Greek Cypriot press (Phileleftheros1; Simerini2).

It also seems that some uncertainty deriving from the label of CG. As Winsa (1998) points out, repeated labelling or relabelling and the disagreement of linguists on whether a variety is a language or not, has quite significant consequences for its speakers’ attitudes, its status and perhaps for its viability. In an attempt to express his feeling further, the same interviewee (C) said:

“… do we speak Cypriot as in Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot? No. Do we speak Greek [SMG]? No. Do we speak Greek Cypriot? No? Our formal lan-guages are Greek [SMG] and Turkish. What is it we speak?… isn’t it within our rights to speak in our language [CG] without being… and criticised or called uneducated in our own country. How will we get rid of all these if the government doesn’t officially recognise it.”

Similarly, another interviewee (D) stated:

“… is it a dialect, a language, something in between, are we too something in between? No, we aren’t!… and also to my grandchildren, should I speak to

1 Phileleftheros. 1994. Η καταδίκη των λέξεων σε ευθανασία και η πτώχευσή του ελληνικού λεξιλογίου [The condemnation of words to euthanasia and the impoverishment of the Greek vocabulary], December 9.

Phileleftheros. 1996. Δεν ξέρουµε να µιλούµε [We do not know how to speak], March 12. Phileleftheros. 2012. Διάλεκτος και όχι γλώσσα η Κυπριακή [Cypriot Greek: a Dialect and not

a Language], February 12. 2 Simerini. 1994. Η ελληνική γλώσσα σήµερα στην Κύπρο [The Greek Language in Cyprus To-

day], August 14. Simerini. 2001. Τα αρχαία Ελληνικά στην Ε.Ε. και η γλωσσική µας διαστροφή [Classical

Greek in the EU and our linguistic perversion], November 20. Simerini. 2002. Ανώτεροι δηµόσιοι υπάλληλοι δεν γνωρίζουν καλά ελληνικά [Senior civil

servants do not know Greek well], March 22. Simerini. 2003. Η ορθή χρήση της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας [The correct use of the Greek Lan-

guage], March 20.


them in Greek [SMG]. I don’t know what’s right and I don’t know how [to speak in SMG]. They will laugh at me.”

The fact that there are different labels for CG affects senior-adults’ attitudes towards it and, thereafter, towards SMG; and it also causes a certain insecurity about which language one uses, should use or should pass on to one’s children or grandchildren. Baker (1995) states that basic inner security – even one concerning language – is essential. People who hold attitudes which lead to insecurity, embarrassment and anxiety are likely to change their attitudes to achieve greater security and less anxi-ety, however, that does not mean ability to master a language. There also seems to be a strong desire for their language variety to be more recognised by the Govern-ment in an attempt to eliminate possible negative reactions and/or comments to-wards it and them.

Nonetheless, for Interviewee B, the issue of what CG is called was not a serious one:

“I don’t think it’s such a serious issue; everyone has dialects in their coun-tries… It’s a matter of knowing when and where to use one or the other… you should use the appropriate language [variety] according to where you are and whom you’re talking to. I don’t appreciate it, for example, when students talk to me in the dialect [CG].”

The difference, however, from the two previous interviewees was that he could master both varieties equally well. It was clear that the particular interviewee was able to code-switch according to which variety he wished to use. He did not find the situation confusing and it did not cause any feelings of uncertainty or insecurity as to which variety he should use. He stated that it did not affect his attitudes towards the two varieties; however, it seems that the use of a certain variety could affect his atti-tudes towards the people who used it. These contracted significantly with Inter-viewee F, who believes that there should not be a need for code-switching between CG and SMG in Cyprus:

“… if Cypriot [GC] was given more status than it has now, there wouldn’t be a need to try to change languages [varieties] when we speak. I understand that when you speak to someone important… at work, you should be more polite or careful… but not shift to Greek [SMG].”

It also seems that Interviewee B perceives Cyprus and CG as an extension of Greece and SMG respectively given that everyone has dialects in their countries, nonethe-less, Interviewee F seems to differentiate among registers of CG. For the former, code-switching occurs between SMG and CG, for the latter between two registers of CG: home Cypriot, job Cypriot (cf. section 5.2.1). This implies that for some, CG can be more or less formal according to a situation or setting without the need of SMG to mark their formality at least in speech. Between what varieties or registers of a variety code-switching should occur depends probably also on the loyalty one


has towards SMG and CG or as Interviewee B stated, how responsible one is to-wards their language or varieties.

Overall, it is thus believed that CG should be examined more, given more status and used in more formal communicative settings too. CG’s various labels cause feel-ings of confusion and insecurity to some of the speakers and also displease some with what it is called. There is a desire for it to be identified as more than a dialect and be recognised officially by the Government.

5.2.5 Dramatic experiences An implicit assumption in language attitude change is often that a change occurs slowly and gradually. Changes evolve and develop rather than occur dramatically and quickly (Baker 1995). Nevertheless, as McQuire (1985: 254) argues, there can be revolutionary rather than gradual changes in attitudes: “The possibility of sudden ideological shifts deserves sympathetic consideration to counterbalance the strong gradualist bias of twentieth-century science”. Such a dramatic experience which af-fected attitudes towards SMG and CG was also mentioned by the interviewees who identified the 1974 events in Cyprus as being one of the reasons their attitudes to-wards SMG changed. The remarks of Interviewee A were characteristic:

“After 1974 things have changed a lot. We don’t trust Greeks [mainland Greeks] as much as we did in the past… in 1974 when Greece interfered and Turkey attacked, things changed a lot. How is it possible to trust a country that didn’t help you, after causing a problem? Help was expected, but never came… it’s not easy to want and like the language of someone whom you don’t trust however good that [SMG] might be.”

Unquestionably, the extract above shows that some negative feelings are held to-wards mainland Greeks and SMG, due to the events of 1974. As Baker (1995) em-phasises, while the clashes may be wide in their political nature, in which language is just one element, confrontations may easily affect language attitudes. A maiming or killing, personal or non-personal violence, mass protest or guerrilla activity by whatever group may change language attitudes overnight. Whether the significant event is enacted or imposed by government, or caused by a group in radical oppo-sition, attitudes may quickly change in an intended or unintended manner. The publicity of a single significant event, not to mention an act of war in the case of Cyprus, can change language attitudes in different directions for different people.

Language attitudes are thus found to be aligned with the events of 1974. Inter-viewees A, C, D and F have all related language with the dramatic experiences of 1974. In particular, Interviewee D stressed:

“… They just talk and talk with their fancy way of talking. Half of what they say is true, it just sounds nice… sometimes you just can’t set aside people and their language. Things of course aren’t that simple. In Greece the junta ruled, it was chaos, but still we were under attack because of them too.”


One cannot fail to see that the events of 1974 increased or created the psychological distance between Greek Cypriots and mainland Greeks. Something which, as Mavratsas points out, should come as a surprise to no-one, “especially since the motherland did not come to the defence of the Greek Cypriots when Turkey invaded the island” (1997: 721). This psychological distance, however, which also affected language attitudes is not only affiliated with the involvement of the Greek junta, but also with some Greek Cypriots too. Particularly telling are Interviewee F’s com-ments:

… on [date], I was on my way from [city] to [village] to…, I was seen by… and was told to join them. I gave them a false identity… at night we were at… their battle cry was ‘We kill the Turks first and then the Leftists [Greek Cypriots who supported the Left Wing]’. I was caught between two wars, …”

According to some of his elaborations the Greek junta was not sufficient in inflicting suffering on Greek Cypriots without the help of some of us [Greek Cypriots]. Using CG, in all circumstances, was a way for him to differentiate himself inexplicitly from Greeks [mainland Greeks] and those who see themselves Greeks. These would also explain the reasons Interviewee F felt he had been caught between two wars:

“I was worrying about my family’s safety… I use only Cypriot, whether it’s home Cypriot or job Cypriot, it’s something I do that makes me feel good about myself along with other… small things… which I feel set me apart from… other Cypriots.”

As Mavratsas (1997: 731) argues “the battle between nationalism and Cypriotism is, above everything else, ideological and symbolic”, which focuses on issues con-cerning both social memory and identity. Cypriotism refers to the idea that Cyprus has its own sui generis character and therefore should be viewed as an entity inde-pendent from both Greece and Turkey (Mavratsas 1997). Even though, one can easi-ly identify F’s political affiliations, it should be stated that, as Mavratsas indicates, Cypriotist elements and orientations can be found in almost all political parties, and that a reduction of the contest between nationalism and Cypriotism into a left-right opposition cannot be fully sustained.

Consequently, five senior-adult interviewees have identified this fact and related it to the two language varieties in Cyprus, while Interviewee B made no comments. According to what they stated, some of them felt that Greeks were unworthy of trust as Greek Cypriots were betrayed by the country they had looked up to as their mother land. As Terkourafi (2007) points out, the events of 1974 led to the fuelling of the ideology of Cypriotism, as opposed to Hellenism, which along with the poli-tical and economic developments have led to a newly-found linguistic confidence translating into increased visibility for, and identification with, CG. Such views are understandable; some Greek Cypriots, including some interviewees, wished to dis-tance themselves even linguistically from mainland Greeks who had, indirectly, caused the Cyprus problem. As Mar-Molinero (2000: 192) aptly notes “language use


and language practices are inextricably bound up with politics”. Of course, in this case they mainly respond negatively to mainland Greeks and not directly to SMG, although, a negative implication can be clearly derived from their quotes.

It is shown from the interviewees’ comments that dramatic experiences can easi-ly affect language attitudes. Senior-adults seem to hold relatively negative feelings towards SMG because of the 1974 events and what followed. It is clear that they do not separate language from politics or history, and for some, using only CG and/or several of its registers separates them not only from mainland Greeks but other groups of Cypriots too.

6 Conclusions No one study can easily fill the gaps in language attitude research; it can only at-tempt to fill in some of the space and glimpse at the areas yet to be covered. The results of the matched-guise test reveal that senior-adult speakers appear to hold positive feelings towards CK and not SMG: even though those who use SMG, ac-cording to senior-adults, are believed to be more educated and more attractive than those who use CK. However, those who use CK are judged as friendlier, kinder, more sincere, more humorous and more hard-working. With traits such as being am-bitious, modern or intelligent, statistical differences were not achieved. In comparing the results with previous matched-guise studies, which focused on younger genera-tions of Greek Cypriots (Papapavlou 1998, 2001), it appears that although, younger people seem to favour mainly SMG, the present findings indicate that the older ge-nerations favour and respond more positively to CK.

To some extent, the above can be explained by taking into consideration the reasons given by the interviewees. Even though, those who use SMG are judged as more educated and attractive than those who use CK (matched-guise test); the appre-ciation some senior-adults have towards some politicians’ use of CG in the media cannot be disputed. This is so, especially when their education and to some degree their attractiveness cannot be questioned due to their status. Sincerity, friendliness, and kindness were characteristics attributed to those who used CG, since these traits were regarded as elements of the CK guises. In spite of the matched-guise tests’ re-sults, in which education was attributed to SMG guises, CG’s use by certain poli-ticians questions it. Also, senior-adults seem to hold certain negative feelings and perhaps prejudices towards mainland Greeks. They do not perceive mainland Greeks as friendly or kind because according to the reasons given in their interviews, most of them mainly feel closer to their own distinctive Cypriot culture. They seem to prefer the use of CG, which makes them feel more comfortable and enables (at least some of them) to understand better; in general they perceive themselves as being Greek Cypriots and not Greeks which affects the variety they use (or choose to use), the way they identify it or wish it to be identified and in terms of which variety their loyalty lies with.

As far as their language abilities are concerned, those who are more educated and also believe are proficient in SMG seem to be aware of the several registers of CG


and code-switch among those, depending on the situation they are in. Furthermore, those who (believe) they are proficient in SMG do not necessarily have more posi-tive attitudes towards it, unless their language abilities correlate with their self-conceptualisation. As for what CG is called, they desire for it to be identified as more than a dialect and officially acknowledged by the Cypriot Government. This would stop the need to switch from CG to SMG and encourage code-switching among registers of CG.

Some also seem to be unwilling to differentiate between language and the poli-tics. They appear unable to forgive or forget the Greek state’s involvement in the 1974 events and, as a result, do not find Greeks sincere or trustworthy. Additionally, the use of CG by some does not only differentiate them from mainland Greeks, but also other Greek Cypriots. As for the other two traits relating to being humorous and hard-working, not much was revealed from the interviews to establish a possible link between the matched-guise test and the interview results.

The implications of this study on senior-adults’ language attitudes highlight the perception of their variety as a positive asset and believe it to be a symbol of their state, either it is considered just a dialect or not. Despite the prevalence of SMG in the public domains, senior-adults are not neutral or negative towards their own variety; they mainly see it as essential in their country; a key symbol of their iden-tity; adequate and effective. Not only do senior-adults value their language variety, but they also seem to question its unofficial use. In combining the matched-guise test and interviews, this study’s results imply that a more formal introduction of CG in both official and other domains in Cyprus is necessary, not only because it may please, define and unite them, but also because it seems to be the sole linguistic code of communication which they can all master and understand well. It is primarily because of this that a need might arise for CG to be identified and given the status, along with SMG, of an official variety, at least in oral formal communicative situ-ations, even if it has not as yet a written form. Senior-adults’ use of CG and its registers in all circumstances might also indicate that it is already achieving an ‘unofficially’ official character and status.

The issue of language attitudes and factors affecting them cannot be fully an-swered by this paper. The reported phenomenon, however, merits further research. A larger number of participants may offer more insights into the phenomenon of lan-guage attitudes; ratings statistically treated using ordinal regression would probably lead to more accurate results, especially so if interactions between ratings and parti-cipant gender and political affiliations were also to be considered.


References Agouraki, Y. 2003. Future WH-Clauses in DP-Positions. Proceedings of the Conference

“sub-Sinn and Bedeutung”. Arbeitspapier Nr. 114. FB Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, Germany.

Available at http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/conferences/sub7/ proceedings/download/sub7_agouraki.pdf (accessed 11 February 2008).

Arvaniti, A. 2002a. Διµορφία, Διγλωσσία και η Εµφάνιση της Κυπριακής Κοινής [Dimorphy, diglossia and the emergence of Cypriot Standard Greek]. In: Recherches en linguistique grecque. Vol. I. Paris: 75–78.

—. 2002b. The maintenance of diglossia in Cyprus and the emergence of Cypriot Standard Greek. Ms. University of California, San Diego.

Bain, B. & Yu, A. 1984. The development of the body percept among working and middle class unilinguals and bilinguals. In: M. Paradis & Y. Lebrun (eds.), Early Bilingualism and Child Development. Lisse: 193–212.

Baker, C. 1995. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon. Bekker, I. 2005. Language attitudes and ethnolinguistic identity in South Africa: A critical re-

view. In: L. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad & J. MacSwan (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism. Somerville: 233–239.

Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S. & Hargreaves, M. 1974. Primary French in the Balance. Windsor.

Christofides, R. M. 2010. The Politics of Cypriot Greek in Postcolonial Cyprus. Interventions 12/3: 415–427.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. 2000. Research Methods in Education. London. Connor, R. T. 2008. Computer Simulation and New Ways of Creating Matched-Guise Tech-

niques. International Multilingual Research Journal 2: 102–108. Davy, J., Ioannou, Y. & Panayotou, A. 1996. French and English loans in Cypriot diglossia.

In: Chypre hier et aujourd’hui entre Orient et Occident. (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen. 25.) Lyon: 127–136.

Davy, J. & Panayotou, A. 2001. Strident palatals in Cypriot Greek. In: Angouraki, Y. & al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Thessalo-niki: 338–345.

Evripidou, D. 2011. Assisting the Matched-Guise Technique: Procedures and Considerations when Measuring Language Attitudes. 1st International Conference on Emerging Research Paradigms in Business and Social Sciences. Dubai, CD-Rom.

Ferguson, C. A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15: 325–340. Gardner, R. C. 1985. The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery. Technical Support. Ontario. Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N. & Pierson, R. 1983. The socio-educational model of second

language acquisition: An investigation using LISREL casual modelling. Journal of Lan-guage and Social Psychology 2/5: 51–65.

Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y. & Taylor, D. M. 1977. Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In: H. Giles (ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. London: 307–348.

Goutsos, D. & Karyolemou, M. 2004. Introduction. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 168: 1–17.

Grohmann, K., Panagiotidis, P. & Tsiplakou, S. 2006. Properties of WH-Question Formation in Cypriot Greek. In: M. Janse, D. Brian, & A. Ralli (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Inter-national Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Patras: 83–98.


Herman, F. 1969. Attitudes toward death: a psychological perspective. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33/3: 292–295.

Ihemere, K. U. 2006. An integrated approach to language attitudes: the case of the Ikwerre of Port Harcourt City, Nigeria. In O. F. Arasanyin & M. Pemberton (eds.), Shifting the Cen-ter of Africanism in Language Politics and Economic Globalization. Somerville: 194–207.

Jones, W. R. 1950. Attitude towards Welsh as a second language. A further investigation. British Journal of Educational Psychology 20/2: 117–132.

Karahan, F. 2007. Language attitudes of Turkish students towards the English language and its use in Turkish context. Journal of Arts and Sciences 7: 72–87.

Karyolemou, M. 2001. From Linguistic Liberalism to Legal Regulation: The Greek Language in Cyprus. Language Problems and Language Planning 25/1: 25–52.

Karyolemou, M. & Pavlou, P. 2001. Language attitudes and assessment of salient variables in a bi-dialectal speech community. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Language Variation in Europe. Barcelona: 110–120.

Katsoyannou, M., Papapavlou, A., Pavlou, P. & Tsiplakou, S. 2006. Bidialectal communities and the linguistic continuum: the case of Cypriot [in Greek]. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Patras: 156–171.

Katz, D. 1960. The functional approach to the study of attitude. Public Opinion Quarterly 24/2: 163–204.

Kontosopulos, N. 2001. Διάλεκτοι και Ιδιώµατα της Νέας Ελληνικής [Dialects and Idioms of Modern Greek]. Athens.

Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews: An introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London. Lambert, W. E. 1967. A Social Psychology of Bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23/2:

91–109. Lambert, W. E., Hodson, R. C., Gardner, R. C. & Fillenbaum, S. 1960. Evaluational Reac-

tions to Spoken Language. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66/1: 33–51. Mar-Molinero, C. 2000. The Politics of Language in the Spanish-Speaking World. London. Mavratsas, C. 1997. The ideological contest between Greek-Cypriot nationalism and Cypri-

otism 1974–1995: Politics, social memory and identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies 20/4: 717–737.

McEntee-Atalianis, L. J. & Pouloukas, S. 2001. Issues of Identity and Power in a Greek-Cypriot Community, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22/1: 19–38.

McQuire, W. J. 1985. Attitudes and Attitude Change. In: G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. 3. New York: 136–314.

Moschonas, S. 1996. Γλωσσική διµορφία στην Κύπρο [Language Dimorphia in Cyprus]. In: Weak-Powerful languages in the European Union. Thessaloniki: 121–128.

Newton, B. 1972a. Cypriot Greek: Its Phonology and Inflexions. The Hague. —. 1972b. The Generative Interpretation of Dialect: A Study of Modern Greek Phonology.

Cambridge. Papadakis, Y. 2000. On linguistic bea(u)tification and embarrassment: Linguistic boundaries

in Cyprus. Ms. University of Cyprus. Papapavlou, A. 1988. Motivational, attitudinal and sociocultural factors in lexical borrowing.

Journal of Business and Society 1/2: 151–163. —. 1994. Language contact and lexical borrowing in Greek Cypriot dialect: sociolinguistic

and cultural implications. Athens.


Papapavlou, A. 1998. Attitudes toward the Greek Cypriot dialect: Sociolinguistic implica-tions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 134/1: 15–28.

—. 2001. Mind your speech: Language attitudes in Cyprus. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22/6: 491–501.

—. 2004. Verbal fluency of bidialectal speakers of Standard Modern Greek and the role of language-in-education practices in Cyprus. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 168: 91–100.

—. 2010. Language planning in action: Searching for a viable bidialectal program. Language Problems and Language Planning 3/2: 120–140.

Papapavlou, A. & Pavlou, P. 1998. A review of the sociolinguistic aspects of the Greek Cypriot Dialect. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 19/3: 212–220.

Papapavlou, A. & Sophocleous, A. 2009. Language attitudes and folk perceptions towards linguistic variation. In: M. Karyolemou, P. Pavlou & S. Tsiplakou. (eds.), Studies in Lan-guage Variation – European Perspectives II. Amsterdam: 179–190.

Pavlou, P. 1999. Children’s language attitudes in a bidialectal setting. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Athens: 882–891.

Pavlou, P. & Christodoulou, N. 2001. Bidialectism in Cyprus and its impact on the teaching of Greek as a foreign language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11/1: 75–92.

Pavlou, P. & Papapavlou, A. 2004. Issues of dialect use in education from the Greek Cypriot perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14/2: 243–258.

Richards, J., Plat, J. & Weber, H. 1985. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London. Sciriha, L. 1995. The interplay of language and identity in Cyprus. The Cyprus Review 7/2: 7–

34. Solis Obiols, M. 2002. The Matched Guise Technique: a Critical Approximation to a Classic

Test for Formal Measurement of Language Attitudes. Available at http://www6.gencat.net/llengcat/noves/hm02estiu/metodologia/a_solis.pdf

(accessed 3 April 2007). Sophocleous, A. 2006. Identity formation and dialect use among young speakers of the

Greek-Cypriot community in Cyprus. In R. Kiely, P. Rea-Dickins, H. Woodfield & G. Clibbon (eds.), Language, Culture and Identity in Applied Linguistics. London: 61–77.

Terkourafi, M. 2003. The Cypriot Koine: A recent development? In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greek Linguistics.

Available at http://www.philology.uoc.gr/conferences/6thICGL/ebook/g/terkourafi.pdf (accessed 8 July 2005).

—. 2005. Understanding the present through the past. Processes of koineisation in Cyprus. Diachronica 22: 309–372.

—. 2007. Perceptions of difference in the Greek sphere: The case of Cyprus. Journal of Greek Linguistics 8l: 60–96.

Thornborrow, J. 2004. Language and Identity. In: I. Singh & J. S. Peccei (eds.), Language Society and Power: An Introduction. New York: 157–372.

Tsiplakou, S. 2003. Linguistic Attitudes and Emerging Hyperdialectism in a Dilgossic Set-ting: Young Cypriot Greeks on their Language. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society 29. [In press.]

—. 2004. Στάσεις απέναντι στη γλώσσα και γλωσσική αλλαγή: µια αµφίδροµη σχέση; [Attitudes towards language and language change: a two-way relationship?]. In: G. Catsi-mali, A. Kalokairinos, E. Anagnostopoulou & I. Kappa (eds), Proceedings of the 6th

International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Rethymno, CD-Rom.


Tsiplakou, S. 2006. Cyprus: language situation. In: K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed. Oxford: 337–339.

Tsiplakou, S., Papapavlou, A., Pavlou, P., & Katsoyannou, M. 2006. Levelling, koineization and their implications for bidialectism. In F. Hinskens (ed.), Language Variation, Euro-pean Perspectives. Selected Papers from the 3rd International Conference on Language Variation in Europe. Amsterdam: 265–276.

Williams, F. 1974. The Identification of Linguistic Attitudes. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 3/1: 21–32.

Winsa, B. 1998. Language Attitudes and Social Identity: Oppression and Revival of a Minor-ity Language in Sweden. Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.

Available at www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWePortal (accessed 10 April 2008). Yiakoumetti, A. 2006. A bidialectal programme for the learning of Standard Modern Greek in

Cyprus. Applied Linguistics 27/2: 295–317. Yiakoumetti, A. 2007. Choice of classroom language in bidialectal communities: To include

or to exclude the dialect? Cambridge Journal of Education 37/1: 51–66.

Appendix: Passages Used in the Matched-Guise Test

Passage 1:

Standard Greek Cypriot Greek Koine

Χθες το βράδι πήγαµε σινεµά κι είδαµε το «Blood Stones’ Night». Δε θα το έλεγα θρίλερ όπως είπανε στο περιοδικό, αλλά σε προβληµατίζει αρκετά τουλάχιστον σε ό,τι αφορά στη µοίρα και το ριζικό του καθενός. Η ζωή κάποιου µπορεί να αλλάξει ή κι ακόµα να καταστραφεί λόγω κάποιου ατυχήµατος, µιας χαζοµάρας ή και κάποιας τυχαίας σύµπτωσης. Και πόσα ‘καρφιά’ µπορείς να συναντήσεις στη ζωή σου, που είναι έτοιµοι να εκµεταλλευτούν τα προβλήµατα και τις αδυναµίες σου!

Εψές επήαµε σινεµά τζ’ είδαµε το «Blood Stones’ Night». Έν θα το έλεα θρίλερ όπως είπαν στο περιοδικό, αλλά προβληµατίζει σε αρκετά, τουλάχιστον µε ότι έσσιει να κάµει µε τη µοίρα τζιαι το ριζικό του καθενός. Η ζωή κάποιου µπορεί ν’ αλλάξει ή τζιαι να καταστραφεί λόγω κάποιου ατυχήµατος, µιας βλακείας ή κάποιας τυχαίας σύµπτωσης. Τζιαι πόσους ‘σπίουνους’ µπορείς νάβρεις στην ζωή σου, που εν έτοιµοι να εκµεταλλευτούν τα προβλήµατα τζιαι τες αδυναµίες σου!

Passage 2:


Τα καλοκαίρια µας δίνουν ευκαιρίες: την ευκαιρία να περάσεις χρόνο µε την οικογένεια σου, χωρίς το άγχος της καθηµερινής ρουτίνας. Δε θέλω µόνο να

Τα καλοκαίρια διούν µας ευκαιρίες: την ευκαιρία να περάσεις χρόνο µε την οικογένεια σου, χωρίς το άγχος της καθηµερινότητας. Εν θέλω µόνο να


παρατηρώ τα παιδιά µου να µεγαλώνουν αλλά και να τα απολαµβάνω. Θέλω να µαζεύω µούρα από ένα δέντρο που έχει καταφέρει να επιβιώσει πάνω σε µια πέτρα στην θάλασσα, και µετά να κάνω τη δική µου µαρµελάδα. Θέλω να έχω την ευκαιρία να κάνω κατάδυση µε το παλιό µου ψαροτούφεκο και να ψάχνω ψάρια και να εξακολουθώ να είµαι χαρούµενος/νη που δεν κατάφερα να βρω τίποτα και κατέληξα µε µια σαλάτα. Και την ευκαιρία, να βρω την τέλεια παραλία και να θάψω το κινητό µου στην άµµο και να το αφήσω εκεί για πάντα.

βλέπω τα µωρά µου να µεγαλώνουν αλλά τζιαι να τ’απολαµβάνω. Θέλω να µαζεύκω µαραπέλλες που ένα δέντρο που κατάφερε να επιβιώσει πάνω σε µιαν πέτρα πα’ στην θάλασσα, τζιαι µετά να κάµω τη µαρµελάδα µου. Θέλω να έχω την ευκαιρία να κάµνω κατάδυση τζιαι να γυρεύκω ψάρκα µε το παλγιό µου ψαροτούφεκκο τζιαι να’µαι ακόµα χαρούµενος/νη που έν έπια τίποτε τζιαι κατάληξα µε µια σαλάτα. Τζιαι την ευκαιρία, νά βρω την τέλεια θάλασσα τζιαι να θάψω το κινητό µου µες την άµµο τζιαι να τ’ αφήσω τζιαµέ για πάντα.

Passage 3:


Είναι ολοφάνερο ότι είναι κλισέ να µιλάς για τον ήλιο, τη θάλασσα, τις παραλίες και το φαγητό. Το καλοκαίρι που θυµάµαι πάντα, είναι το καλοκαίρι που αποφασίσαµε να µετακοµίσουµε. Τα παιδιά µας ήταν µεταξύ τριών και πέντε χρονών· ήταν µαζί µας και ο εντεκάχρονος ανιψιός µας. Μέναµε στο εξωτερικό τότε, και έτσι ο καλός καιρός κι η θάλασσα ήταν παράδεισος για µας. Εκείνο που θυµόµαστε όλοι δεν ήταν τα τυπικά όπως η παραλία, τα γλυκά, και το θερινό σινεµά. Αν και είµαι σίγουρη/ος, ότι όταν θα έρθουν οι γιοί µας να µας επισκεφθούν, µετά από τριάντα χρόνια, θα ψάχνουν εκείνα τα γλυκά και τις παραλίες.

Εν ολοφάνερο ότι εν κλισσιέ να µιλάς για τον ήλιο, τη θάλασσα, τες παραλίες τζιαι το φαΐ. Το καλοκαίρι που θυµούµαι πάντα, είναι το καλοκαίρι που αποφασίσαµε να µετακοµίσουµε. Τα µωρά µας ήταν µεταξύ τριών τζιαι πέντε χρονών· ήταν µαζί µας τζιαι ο εντεκάχρονος ανιπσιός µας. Τοτε εµεινίσκαµε εξωτερικό, τζι’ετσι ο καλός καιρός τζ’ η θάλασσα ήταν παράδεισος για µας. Τζείνο που θυµούµαστεν ούλλοι, έν ήταν τα τυπικά όπως η παραλία, τα γλυκά τζιαι το θερινό σινεµά. Αν τζ’ είµαι σίουρη/ος ότι που να ’ρτουν οι γιούδες µας να µας επισκεφτούν, µετά που τριάντα χρόνια, εννα γυρεύκουν τζείνα τα γλυκά τζιαι τες παραλίες.

Documents

Mediterranean Language Review 19 (2012)old.staff.neu.edu.tr/~cise.cavusoglu/Evripidou Dimitris... · 2015. 10. 9. · As indicated, “the notion of appropriateness depending on situation