Is the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus diglossic?

ABSTRACT

The present article aims to scrutinize the widely expressed assertion that the Greek Cypriot sociolinguistic situation is diglossic. Rather than thoroughly examining whether code-switching depends on the formality of the context, and whether Greek Cypriots only acquire the Cypriot Greek dialect, the relevant literature takes these for granted, uses them as points of departure and defines the relationship between the Cypriot Greek dialect and the Standard Greek as diglossic. Hence, it is no wonder that the relevant scholarship leaves unseen and unanswered important questions about the Greek Cypriot context. At the same time, the uncritical assertion that the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus reflects diglossia is framed by an unjustifiable and sweeping incrimination of the Greek ethnic identity of Greek Cypriots. These lead the scholars who adhere to the assumption of diglossia in Cyprus to perform a “one-way” transfer of theory to the Greek Cypriot context by unwittingly elevating this theory to a grand narrative applicable to just any seemingly fitting situation. Thus, while advancing a current metanarrative function of diglossia and jumping on the bandwagon that its theoretical dispersal creates the relevant scholarship renders the term of diglossia ideological and tailors the Greek Cypriot sociolinguistic context to its parameters.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. Thus, in the present article I focus on the following criteria of diglossia: functional distribution, acquisition, stability of the low variety and the gap in lexicon, phonology and grammar. The criteria of prestige (which is not adequately distinctive, since in the Standard-with-dialects situations the Standard is also the prestige language), standardization and literary heritage are not discussed here because my main purpose is to show what questions and aspects of the sociolinguistic situation of Cyprus are left unseen and unanswered by the scholars who assert that diglossia applies to the Greek Cypriot context.

2. Since the issue of pernicious identity politics and of facile escape routes from them goes well beyond the confines of the Cyprus example, the present article has a broader relevance to Europe and other parts of the world. But this can only be stated here rather than argued out because the main focus of my article is the sociolinguistic issue of diglossia in Cyprus.

3. I am using the strong verb “incriminated” in a sense that becomes clearer in later sections of the article and it is more clearly explained in Drousioti (2019).

4. Exploring the functional distribution of the two codes, Marianna Kyriakou (2015) holds that Greek Cypriot students utilize the Standard Greek to speak to their teachers or to the school principal. She interprets this as a functional distribution of the two codes based on the formality of the context. However, such a functional distribution in Kyriakou’s example does not necessarily reflect the formal – informal distinction, because education is generally connected with the Standard language; consider that in Standard-with-dialects cases the Standard prevails in the field of education.

5. Arvaniti (2006) and Κariolemou (2008) present some linguistic types as representative of the supposedly Cypriot Standard. However, as I shall show later on, these types are ambiguous in ways that question the assertion that a Cypriot Standard has emerged and prevailed.

6. The only case in which a high variety may influence a low variety in a diglossic situation is when the former is the mother tongue of an elite group of a neighborhood area (Schiffman, 1997).

7. Indicative of this neglect is that in her more recent work Tsiplakou (2019) holds that the Standard Greek has influenced the Cypriot Greek to a great extent (p. 987). Yet, she has not mentioned let alone explained how this affects her assumption about diglossia, given that a drastic influence is not operative in the case of diglossia.

8. I shall return to this point later.

9. The structure gap between the Greek Cypriot and the Standard Greek will be separately discussed later on, especially in terms of how this gap has been overemphasized.

10. In playgrounds one can listen to the Greek Cypriot parents singing to their toddlers numerous songs mainly in the Standard Greek.

11. The usage of numerous forms of the Standard Greek by the parents when they address their children constitutes an almost unexplored research domain, probably due to the theoretical hegemonization of the assertion that the Cypriot sociolinguistic situation is diglossic.

12. A typical and illustrative example of diglossia could be the usage of the English language in the Cypriot legal and juridical system for quite some time. Such a usage was promoted for specific reasons whose historical explanation has been given by Nikitas E. Hatzimihail (2013) in his article “Cyprus as a Mixed Legal System.” Let me parenthetically mention here that diglossia usually regards two varieties of the same language, yet this is not always the case (Hudson, 2002, p. 15).

13. It has been argued that the broadness of the structure gap per se is a rather subjective matter and, thus, what should be defined is the collective, social perception of its wideness (Fishman, 1967, p. 38). As for the Greek Cypriot context, research outcomes are contradictory: On the one hand, some researchers claim that Greek Cypriots consider the two codes as not mutually understandable (Papadakis, as cited in Arvaniti, 2006, p. 18; Tsiplakou, as cited in 2006, p. 18). On the other hand, they also argue that Greek Cypriots believe that there are tiny differences between the two codes (Papapavlou, as cited in Arvaniti, 2006, p. 2; Tsiplakou, as cited in, 2006, pp. 2, 18). Obscuring further this point since she defines the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus as diglossic, Arvaniti holds that the perception that the two codes are very similar allows the speakers to classify the relationship of the two codes as a Standard-with-dialects, and not as a diglossic one.

14. Hence, the presentation of the structure differences between the two codes is beyond the purposes of the present article. I here indicatively (and by no means exhaustively) present some differences: As for the syntax, the following types are prominent in the Cypriot Greek dialect and deviant from the Standard: (a) the neutral, plural article [ta] is also used as a referential pronoun (meaning those which). (b) The usage of the emphatic negation [en tzie], instead of the simple one [(d)en] (Κοntosopoulos, 2008, pp. 24–25). Finally, according to Hadjioannou et al. (2011), (c) the pronoun comes after the verb and not before it, e.g., [ides to], instead of [to ides], something that is a distinctive feature of other Greek dialects too (Κοntosopoulos, 2008), such as the Dodecanesian dialects. Regarding morphology, some Greek Cypriot deviations are the following: [tes] (instead of [tis]), [men] (instead of [min]) and [enna] (instead of [tha]) (Hadjioannou et al., 2011, p. 568). Regarding phonology, in the Cypriot Greek dialect the final [–n] is preserved and also generated in cases where the final [-n] did not exist in ancient Greek; in addition, some consonants are pronounced as they were double (Κοntosopoulos, 2008, p. 21). These deviations are also observed in the Dodecanesian dialects, the one of Chios and of some islands of the Cyclades. The consonants [k], [p], [t] are (usually) aspirated (p. 21); we also observe the aspirated consonants with a hissing sound (p. 22), and the aspirated tsitakism, e.g., [tsie] (instead of [ke]) (p. 22). Analogous deviations from the Standard are remarked in Cretan and Dodecanesian dialects, yet without ideologically declaring them different languages. (The lexical differences will be discussed later on and in the main part of the present article to show that these differences do not concern lexical doublets stamping the formality of the context, as it happens in diglossia.

15. Let me present here some examples taken from the Greek Cypriot Press in which (a) [opos] is not accompanied by [na], and (b) the subjunctive is formed only with [na]: [Parakaloume to kino opos epikinonei me to Soma Ethelonton] (I Simerini Newspaper, August 22^nd, 2017, p. 32); [Simantiko eine episis opos oi goneis gnorizoun (…)] (I Simerini Newspaper, August 1^st, 2017, p. 16); [Gia perissoteres plirofories parakaleiste opos epikoinoneitai me (…)] (I Kathimerini Newspaper, April 23^rd, 2017, p. 5); [Parakalountai oi endiaferomenoi na apevthinontai (…)] (I Simerini Newspaper, December 21^st, 2014, p. 52); [Oi endiaferomenoi/es parakalountai na (…)] (I Simerini Newspaper, August 22^nd, 2016, pp. 11, 30).

16. Consider the following examples taken from the Greek Cypriot Press: [Polla einai ta stoixeia ton sintagmatikon allagon, opos i katargisi tis diakrisis ton eksousion] (I Kathimerini Newspaper, April 23^rd, 2017, p. 15); [Diafonies pou vriskoun prosforo edafos sto xoro ton kommaton, eidika se proeklogiki period, opos i parousa] (Ikonomiki Kathimerini Newspaper, May 10^th, 2017, p. 3); [I texnologia mporei na enteinei tin automatopoiisi akoma kai ton pio apaititikon epaggelmaton, opos i xeirourgiki] (Ikonomiki Kathimerini Newspaper, May 12^th, 2017, p. 12). Whereas: [endexomenos na provoun se mia nea apopeira, opos autin tis 15is Iouliou] (I Simerini Newspaper, August 1^st, 2016, p. 19).

17. It is worth mentioning that in this grammatical form (genitive of feminine nouns in plural) in the Standard Greek the last syllable is stressed, yet in the Cypriot Greek dialect the accent is usually on the penult.

18. Furthermore, the words [frigania], [psonia] and [dimosios upallilos] constitute types of the Cypriot Greek dialect and the fact that this is silenced shows once again the tendency to overemphasize the differences between the two codes.

19. Both an Athenian and a Rhodian speaker may have some difficulty in comprehending some words of the Cypriot Greek dialect, yet not to the same degree. Thus, we shall not homogenize all Greek speakers.

20. Kontosopoulos (2008, pp. 25–26) presents a list of Cypriot Greek words, many of which have vanished and are unknown to younger generations. In support of my argument, let me mention some: [kalotarin], [porantithes], [kakanarestos]. This point indicates not only that the two codes are mutually comprehensible in a larger degree than they were in the past, but also the absorption of the dialect into the Standard as it happens in Standard-with-dialects cases and not in diglossic ones (for reasons I have already discussed and explained).

21. Some scholars, who argue that the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus is diglossic, totally ignore the fact that the caricature quotes are also written in the Standard Greek (something that someone might easily verify using the Google searching engine). For instance, Spyros Moschonas (2002) naively asserts that the caricature quotes in the Greek Cypriot Press are exclusively written in Cypriot Greek and this, he continues, “confirms” that diglossia applies in the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus.

22. For a further explanation and critique of the politico-philosophically obsolete identification of ethnos with the nation-state at the expense of multi-ethnic statehood see, Papastephanou (2012).

23. On the neoliberal touch in some anti-ethnic approaches in Cyprus, see, Drousioti (in press).

24. This by no means implies that an ethnic identity deconstruction per se is problematic. In Ernesto Laclau’s term (1996), society is not stable and the process of identification is reversible. In other words, ethnic identification might vanish and, then, people might consent to other predominant meaning(s) in the place of ethnicity. However, the undemocratic, even violent ethnic deconstruction (e.g., via educational policies that do not reflect the broad ethnic affect and identification) is problematic and should not be theoretically legitimized.

25. Reconceptualization of identities as potentially multi-dimensional allows us to understand the relationship between multiple identities in more complex terms (see, Appiah, 2005), and not necessarily in terms of conflict.

26. Beck (2002) uses this term to describe and criticize the equalization of society with the society of the modern ethnos/nation-state, wherein the interpretation of every social aspect occurs on the basis of the narrow confines of the state.

27. For a further elaboration on why ethnic identity and affect are not by definition connected with pathologies of racism and chauvinism see, Drousioti (2019).

28. For a detailed critique of Papadakis’ positions and suggestions see, Drousioti (in press).

29. This term has been theorized by Michel Foucault (1977; 1978) to criticize large-scale manipulation and control of mazes.

30. Consider also the position of International Law on the issue of Israel and settler colonialism in the Gaza Strip.