‘Asserting the dignity of our words’: envisioning Cypriotness through local vernaculars

ABSTRACT

While language is widely recognized as one of the elements upon which nations have been built, emphasis has been placed on codified languages, rather than the uncodified vernacular spoken within a particular territory. Drawing on thematic analysis of qualitative surveys and political documents, this paper examines how Cypriot Greek, a local language variety, is claimed by counter-hegemonic perspectives in Cyprus to foster a sense of collective belonging designating the island as an independent cultural entity. By highlighting how such perspectives challenge the hegemony of Greek Cypriot nationalism, the paper underlines that uncodified vernaculars can shape senses of national belonging.

KEYWORDS:

• Linguistic nationalism
• national identity
• collective belonging
• Cyprus
• Cypriotism

Introduction

Focusing on its deployment by counter-hegemonic perspectives within the Republic of Cyprus, the paper explores how Cypriot Greek has been utilized in the Greek Cypriot community as a potent tool in the negotiation of identity and cultural differentiation. Serving as a distinctive marker of identity, this local language variety has been evoked to challenge the conventional expressions of national belonging articulated by Greek Cypriot nationalism. This evocation unfolds against the backdrop of a broader narrative, where Cyprus is asserted as an independent and autonomous entity, diverging from the homogenizing currents of ethnonationalism that associate the island with Greece.

Language is undoubtedly recognized as one of many elements upon which nations have been built. However, in contrast to ethnicity, claimed common history, homogeneous culture, territory and religion, language has often been given a secondary role in analysis, with other factors being prioritized (Safran, 2004, p. 1). For Étienne Balibar (1990), for example, emphasis is placed on the centrality of the modern state, with its accompanied political and civic distinctions, while Eric Hobsbawm (1996) linked the prioritization, codification, and standardization of a single language variety with political, ideological, and pragmatic concerns, emerging through the necessity of universal literacy in modernity, instituted via a centralized educational system (p. 1072). For Ernest Gellner (1983), language relates to homogenization, as nation-states emerge in industrial society in need of a common language enabling efficient communication within an increasingly complex set of socio-economic relations – language is thus perceived primarily through its functionality, as well as through the broader processes of rationalization and cultural homogenization accompanying the emergence of modern political, economic, and social structures (p. 21).

In the work of Michael Billig (1995), little attention is paid to linguistic differentiation and its relation to national identity, a dimension of social relations that does not fit well with his thesis of banal nationalism – linguistic difference can seldom become a mere banality, while under specific circumstances, it can carry the social implications of the stigmatized individual described extensively in Erving Goffman’s Stigma (1990). As William Safran (2004) pointed out, the downplaying of language in the analysis of nationalism is not merely linked to the observation that national consciousness can emerge, crystallize and survive without necessarily evoking, or prioritizing linguistic identification, but also due to the inherent flexibility of language, vis-à-vis other identity markers in modern society (pp. 2–3). An individual can learn or adapt to a new language variety depending on societal expectations and potential improvements to her social mobility, but cannot simply change her ethnicity, would usually not be readily willing to convert to a different faith, or her background might not appropriately fit within existing perceptions of common ancestry and territory (Safran, 2004, pp. 2–3).

The paper follows Benedict Anderson’s (2006) theoretical framework, which views nations as imagined communities (p. 6). According to Andreson, members of a national group maintain a collective perception of their shared identity, even though they never meet most fellow members of their group. Essentially, all communities larger than intimate, traditional villages are imagined entities, distinguished not by their truthfulness as such, but by the manner in which they are imagined. While theoretically comprehensive, Anderson’s framework retains its relevance because it continues to capture the diverse expressions of national formations, focusing on their mode of imagination, rather than placing a set of fixed key elements necessary to define a particular imagined community as national. For Anderson language remains central to the concept of the national imagined community, at least during the formative years of nation-building, through the formation of a collective identity connected with territory; and consolidated by the printed press (p. 44). Nonetheless, Anderson’s focus is placed on the codification of vernacular languages in written form, rather than on the central role that language can potentially play in-itself as a marker for self-identification.

Cyprus has historically been burdened by ethnic conflict between the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot communities, ever since the rise of Greek and Turkish nationalism in the early twentieth century. These tensions continued following the island’s independence with the formation of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960. The conflict has been fuelled by opposing ethnonationalisms that imagine each community, and thus the island they inhabit, to be an extension of their corresponding ‘motherlands’, Greece and Turkey (Ioannou, 2020, p. 14). Since the Turkish invasion of 1974, Cyprus has been further de-facto partitioned between two opposing state formations, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a non-recognized Turkish Cypriot state in the north; and the Republic of Cyprus in the south, the original state declared independent in 1960, which enjoys international recognition and has remained under the control of the Greek Cypriot community (Athanassiou, 2010, p. 16). While the two communities have continuously engaged in diplomatic negotiations since the late 1970s in search for a consensus allowing for the reunification of the island under a bi-communal federal structure (Ker-Lindsay, 2009, p. 16), reunification has remained evasive, while ethnonationalism has retained its hegemony at different levels of intensity on both sides of the divide.

Nonetheless, while remaining hegemonic, ethnonationalism is not unopposed, as new senses of collective belonging began to appear in a consistent fashion following 1974, collectively referred to as ‘Cypriotism’ within the academic literature (Mavratsas, 1997, p. 718). Cypriotist positions maintain support for the island’s federal reunification, promote a de-ethnicized Cypriot identity in contradistinction to the hegemonic Greek and Turkish national identities, envisioning a more inclusive sense of belonging (Mavratsas, 1997, p. 723). Cypriotism is associated with, but not reduced to the broader extra-parliamentary left, a term encompassing local grassroots pro-peace, left-wing, and anti-authoritarian initiatives. Cypriotism presents a counter-hegemonic political position surrounding collective belonging, remaining dominant within grassroots pro-reunification, anti-racist, and socially progressive political movements (Rakopoulos, 2022, p. 9).

The literature surrounding Cypriotism has primarily focused on the ideological expressions of a de-ethnicized notion of Cypriotness, interpreting Cypriotism as an alternative form of nationalism formulating a national identity that encompasses both ethnic communities in its senses of collective belonging (Pastellopoulos, 2022c). Viewing Cypriot identity as oppositional to Greek and Turkish cultural colonialism, Andreas Panayiotou (1996) connected Cypriotism to the survival and adaptation of ‘residuals’, of cultural, social, historical and political remnants that were neither subsumed; nor eradicated through Greek and Turkish national homogenization (p. 2). Ranging from Cypriot folk culture and linguistic difference to the historical experience of inter-communal co-existence and specific elements of modernism inherited from British colonialism, these residuals act for Panayiotou as the foundations for the subsequent development of a specifically Cypriot consciousness in the twentieth century (Panayiotou, 1996, p. 2).

However, the role ascribed to language in Cypriotist perspectives has remained unexplored, as most academic research on language use in Cyprus has directed its attention to pedagogical and linguistic concerns (Hajisoteriou et al., 2012; Ioannidou, 2012; Papapavlou & Pavlou, 1998). By examining political magazines and the opinions of protestors active within the grassroots networks of the Greek Cypriot extra-parliamentary left, this paper aims to alleviate this gap, by exploring how counter-hegemonic political actors have drawn on local vernaculars to signify Cyprus as a cultural space inherently different and autonomous from Greece and Turkey. In doing so, an alternative mode of collective belonging is fostered, utilizing local language varieties as identity markers of differentiation, designating an extended conception of Cypriotness which stands both in opposition and in contradiction to the imagined communities of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot nationalism.

Context

Cyprus presents an interesting linguistic terrain, where multiple language varieties have historically co-existed on different levels of formal and informal interaction. Varieties employed in everyday speech have included Cypriot Greek and Cypriot Turkish, the linguistic variants of Greek and Turkish particular to the island, Sanna, an Arabic variant spoken historically by Cypriot Maronites; and Western Armenian, spoken by the Cypriot Armenian community (Tsiplakou, 2006, p. 337). Prior to the de-facto partition of the island, individuals belonging to a minority community were often also speakers of the Cypriot Greek language variety. For example, in several Turkish Cypriot villages, the mother tongue of the local population was Cypriot Greek, while bilingualism was not uncommon (Özerk, 2001, p. 259).¹ The increase of immigration to the island on both sides of the divide from the 1970s onwards has further enriched this linguistic plurality, as demographic changes suggest that there is a notable increase, among other linguistic groups, in speakers of Russian, Filipino, French, and Arabic (Akçali, 2007, p. 69).

In parallel to the spoken vernaculars, codified versions of Greek and Turkish have been predominantly employed in education, mass media and formal politics, since the early twentieth century. These codified versions have consistently corresponded to the language varieties formally employed by the Greek and Turkish states. For the majority of Greek Cypriots, Cypriot Greek remains the language variety employed in everyday life, a variety that is largely unintelligible to a mainland Greek speaker, maintaining significant differentiation in vocabulary, phonetics, and syntax, with extensive incorporation of Arabic, Turkish, French, English and Italian loanwords (Arvaniti, 2006, p. 18).² Nonetheless, while increasingly employed in musical production, film, television, theatre and literary writing, Cypriot Greek is not taught in public education and has not been formally standardized (Pastellopoulos, 2022b). The difference between the vernacular spoken, and the language variety taught and formally employed, carves the linguistic terrain of Cyprus, which is characterized, as Andreas Papapavlou and Pavlos Pavlou (1998) have pointed out, by diglossia, since Cypriot Greek remains dominant in the informal, personal dimensions of speech, while Modern Standard Greek is expected to be utilized in specific contexts, ranging from writing and formal documentation, to the mass media, public education and political discourse (p. 213).³

Diglossia is further symbolically entrenched through associations of superiority and inferiority attached to the use of each language variety. Cypriot Greek has historically been perceived and presented as merely another dialect of Greek, inherently inferior to the Modern Standard variety, and thus inadequate for artistic expression, sophisticated dialogue, complex thinking, or even polite engagement (Papapavlou, 1998, p. 25). Placed within this dialectic of inferiority and superiority, the Cypriot Greek vernacular is presented as a localized, underdeveloped dialect, while the mainland variety is perceived as an advanced, proper language, leading to the consistent undermining of Cypriot Greek as a respectable language variety (Hadjioannou, 2021, p. 60).

In Cyprus, the formal employment of a specific variety of Greek has been inherently connected with the hegemony and ideological claims of Greek Cypriot nationalism. In all its variations, Greek nationalism asserts the transhistorical existence of the Greek nation, through a grand narration identifying the nation’s survival from antiquity onwards, with the pivotal moment in the nation’s history remaining the Greek Revolution of 1821 (Triandafyllidou & Paraskevopoulou, 2002, p. 80). This narration paints the image of a common history for the members of the nation, who are defined through a combination of ancestral, religious, cultural, and historical characteristics. One aspect of this claimed transhistoricity is the presentation of a unified, single Greek language, evolving and surviving during periods of conquest and foreign occupation, until the establishment of the modern Greek state (Mackridge, 2009, p. 232).

Inheriting these ideological claims, Greek Cypriot nationalists asserted that Cyprus is but a particular part of a broader Hellenic commonwealth and subsequently converted the Cypriot state into a mono-communal polity through symbolic and structural alterations, aiming to reaffirm the claimed Hellenic heritage and identity of the island. As an integral part of this transformation, the Ministry of Education was established in 1965 (Kızılyürek, 2019, p. 588) crystalizing Greek Cypriot education as the universal education of the Republic. Public educational policy, in turn, acquired a heavily monocultural character, placing Greek Cypriot nationalist values and historical narration at its core. Modern Standard Greek thus became the undisputed language of universal public education, with the use of Cypriot Greek either banned, or discouraged within the classroom (Hajisoteriou et al., 2012, pp. 393–394).

As Roger Christofides (2010) has argued, the symbolic prioritization of Modern Standard Greek over and above the Cypriot Greek variety is situated within broader ideological claims regarding national identity, as the use of Modern Standard Greek ‘presents Greek identity as a natural, obvious and organic Cypriot trait’ (p. 424). The employment, preservation, and maintenance of Modern Standard Greek’s status is thus equated with the reproduction and preservation of a Greek national identity (Christofides, 2010, p. 423). Attempts to elevate the status of Cypriot Greek have therefore been typically met with suspicion, opposition, and refusal on an institutional level, since such an elevation is understood to entail the potentiality of de-Hellenization, a suspicion that has been raised in similar cases throughout the Greek-speaking world (Babiniotis, 2022, p. 401; Exertzoglou, 1999, p. 81). The depreciation of the status of Modern Standard Greek vis-à-vis Cypriot Greek is thus perceived as an erosion of Greek national identity. Greek Cypriot nationalist argumentation over the ‘essence’ of Cypriot Greek has however remained contradictory. On the one hand, Cypriot Greek has been presented as an inferior dialect, polluted with ‘oriental’ loanwords and foreign phonetics, and on the other, it has been projected as a language variety standing closer to ancient Greek, reaffirming the historical roots of Hellenism in Cyprus (Christofides, 2010, p. 423).

Methodology

In 2003, internal checkpoints opened in Cyprus, allowing people to cross the buffer zone dividing the island for the first time since 1974 (Demetriou, 2007, p. 987). Being part of the first post-partition Cypriot generation with access to both sides of the divide, crossing the buffer zone significantly altered my perceptions of Cyprus’ history. Accessing the ‘other’ side challenged entrenched depictions, shaping my critical interest in nationalism, particularly as the opening of checkpoints facilitated the flow of information, contributing to the dismantling of official historical narratives. My interest in marginalized Cypriot political perspectives is thus inevitably intertwined with these experiences, as well as with the opportunities for critical inter-communal engagement afforded to my generation.

The paper thus aims to address the following research question: How does Cypriot Greek contribute to claiming a Cypriot identity in Cypriotism? The paper rests empirically on data collected in the Republic of Cyprus from September of 2020 to December of 2021. During this period, data were collected through participant observation of extra-parliamentary left-wing public protests, the carrying out of qualitative surveys amongst protest participants,⁴ and the collection of political documents, consisting of left-wing Greek Cypriot political magazines. In contrast to participant observation and qualitative surveys, which record and generate data reflecting contemporary events and concerns, the collected documentary data cover a broader historical period, having been originally produced and circulated between 1999 and 2011. The analysis of qualitative survey data and documentary data from different time periods was strategically combined to provide a comprehensive understanding of extra-parliamentary Greek Cypriot perspectives on language. Integrating multiple data sources allowed for a more nuanced exploration, confirming that views raised by participants in surveys were also present and entrenched within a broader historical period.

Qualitative surveys have been more consistently employed in the field of psychology (Braun et al., 2017, p. 251), as well as in quantitative research, which occasionally allows for limited input of qualitative data by participants (Braun & Terry, 2017, p. 16). It is therefore necessary to reflect briefly here on the type of data generated by the method. A qualitative survey, much like its quantitative counterpart, is characterized by the generation of data through the responses of participants to a predesigned set of questions. However, the generated data are primarily or exclusively qualitative in nature, as participants are asked to provide their responses in writing, rather than to provide responses to close-ended questions that are readily and easily quantifiable. Unlike semi-structured interviews, which are characterized by the spontaneity of response on the part of the interviewee, qualitative surveys are intrinsically reflective.

18 surveys were collected from participants. On average, participants were in their early 30s, and all of them were under 45 years old. Six were females, ten were males, one person didn’t disclose such information, and two were genderqueer individuals. All participants had been educated to the tertiary level; one lacked a postgraduate degree, and three were pursuing or had a doctorate. All belonged to the Greek Cypriot community. Participants consisted of individuals that were either members of extra-parliamentary Greek Cypriot political groups, or were actively participating in the actions and mobilizations of such groups at the time of data collection. Participants were asked to express their views on collective belonging, the island’s reunification, Cypriot identity and ethnonationalism, with language and its relationship to identity emerging consistently as a key topic in their responses. The two questions consistently returning answers involving language were:

1. In your view is there a Cypriot identity specific to the island, and if so, how would you describe or define it?

2. Would you describe yourself as a Cypriot/Greek Cypriot/Greek or in any other way, and why?

Two archives were utilized for the collection of documentary data. The first was the Cyprus Movements Archive, an initiative that began in 2016 with the purpose of establishing an online, open-access digital archive concentrating various material from the extra-parliamentary leftist, anarchist, and radical milieu of Cyprus (Charalambous, 2021, p. 376). Additional archival research was carried out in the archive of social space Kaymakkin, a self-managed social space located in Nicosia, which was originally opened in 2015 by the anti-authoritarian group Syspirosi Atakton (Pastellopoulos, 2022a, p. 60).

The documents analysed from the archives consist of issues from two political magazines produced and circulated by the Greek Cypriot extra-parliamentary left. The first is the magazine ‘Eks Iparhis’ (Εξ Υπαρχής, From the Beginning), located in the Kaymakkin archive. The magazine circulated from 1999 to 2004, running for 52 issues. While maintaining a leftist ideological orientation, it further accommodated various political perspectives during its publication history, ranging from positions associated with the New Left and social liberalism, to Trotskyism and the pro-reunification movement. The general openness to discussion and debate is notable, as the magazine’s editorial team appears to have facilitated the publication of a diverse array of critical perspectives on key issues, including national identity, electoral campaigns, and the proposed federal solution to the island’s de-facto partition.

The second magazine thoroughly examined is ‘Kalemi’ (Καλέμι, The Chisel) which ran from 2008 to 2011, numbering a total of 18 issues. The magazine was located in the Cyprus Movements Archive. It was officially published by the Greek Cypriot section of the pro-reunification Platform ‘United Cyprus’, a bi-communal teachers’ group. The magazine accommodated perspectives that we can associate with social liberalism and the broader political left, focusing on educational policy, nationalism and the reunification of the island.

While Kalemi was published following the opening of checkpoints, Eks Iparhis was published prior, during, and after their opening. From the 70 issues comprising the two magazines, 10 articles, ranging from short statements to long opinion pieces, were identified as relevant to the study. Articles were selected if they discussed local language varieties, language policy, and the relation between language and identity.

Qualitative thematic analysis was employed for the scrutinization of the collected data. As a method, thematic analysis is well established in qualitative social research and is typically employed for the analysis of interviews and documents (Prior, 2008, p. 833), entailing the establishment of close familiarization with the collected data, which in turn enables the researcher to detail the perspectives and accompanied meaning emanating from these data (Bowen, 2009, p. 32). Surveys and magazines were coded as separate data sets and in total, 13 codes were identified. The codes were subsequently grouped in the following three themes: Cypriot identity, ethnonationalism and bilingualism.

The identification of themes was established through the employment of a standard coding process (Ayres, 2008, p. 867) in five stages. Initially, coding was initiated through a first evaluation and organization of the data, by identifying which articles, texts and participants’ responses were relevant to the focus of the research. This process was followed by the evaluation and establishment of a first familiarity with the data, as each set of data was examined independently to establish deeper familiarization. Following the establishment of a first set of themes, the collected data were then examined a second time, to establish in-depth familiarization and evaluate the established themes. This second round of familiarization gave rise to more precise themes, which were compared with the initial themes and evaluated in relation to the data. This process was then followed by the further scrutinization of themes, to examine internal differentiations and divergences. At the final stage, the data corresponding to each theme were again examined in detail independently, in order to enable their presentation in a consistent fashion.

Findings

Opposition to Greek Cypriot nationalism

Disputes over language are not solely reducible to inter-ethnic conflict, but can reflect broader political contestations, including those of class, religion, as well as relations between ruler and ruled. Thus, languages are not merely employed in the formation and reproduction of nation-states but are further utilized as a means of political control (Safran, 2004, p. 4), and opposition to a particular language policy, or status of a language variety, can itself act as a ‘a form of protest against political domination’ (Eriksen, 1993, p. 110). In the context of Cyprus, disputes surrounding language are primarily connected with the hegemony of, and opposition towards, Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot nationalism. For example, Paris,⁵ a Greek Cypriot man in his late 30s, described Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot nationalism in colonial terms, connecting their dominance with the negative status surrounding Cypriot Greek and Cypriot Turkish:

Rather than an ethnic cleansing, it’s a purification over the years, to sound more Greek, or sound more Turkish. Have you heard how Greek Cypriots raise their child? They speak to it with guidance, in Greek-Greek, not Cypriot Greek. Imagine how that cultivates the identity of the kid. I also see this with people who have kids, on the Left. The nationalist discourse is so pervasive that it’s normal. […] Somewhat self-determination is still implicated in a colonial leftover, of being only Greek or only Turkish. I think that the domination of nationalism now is pervasive because it implicates identity by shaping education, by going hand in hand with the Church, and Hellenizing language to sound and be more ‘pure’.

The dominance of Modern Standard Greek in public education, as well as its employment within inter-personal contexts typically reserved for Cypriot Greek, are here identified with (Greek Cypriot) nationalism, as expressions of broader processes of cultural homogenization aiming to Hellenize the vernacular, in an attempt to cultivate an exclusively Greek identity. Described through terms suggesting a colonial relation, Modern Standard Greek is here signified as a language variety external and imposed, rather than integral to the Greek Cypriot community. Placed within this relation of power, it is implied that the use of Cypriot Greek, as well as Cypriot Turkish, expresses a form of subtle resistance towards nationalist attempts to culturally ‘purify’ the island by fading out elements signifying differentiation with the broader Greek and Turkish national communities.

Defence of Cypriot Greek was also commonly expressed when language was discussed in the collected documents. In two articles located in Eks Iparhis examining the adoption of standardized toponyms by the government, the official selections are challenged, opposed, and questioned. The standardization of toponyms, which began in the 1960s, has been surrounded by controversy, as the proposed renditions have systematically excluded Cypriot phonetics, resulting in constructed pronunciations that had not previously existed in everyday speech (Hadjioannou et al., 2011, p. 26). The controversy has further extended to romanized versions of toponyms, with critics arguing that some versions are at best questionable, adopted at the expense of historically present toponymical renditions.

In the first article, titled ‘Paphos or Pafos?’ and published in issue 1 of Eks Iparhis in 1999, the adoption of ‘Pafos’; instead of ‘Paphos’ as the romanized rendition of the city’s name; is heavily criticized as ‘completely artificial’ (Georgiadis, 1999, p. 40), originating in historical misspellings from non-native writers. While phonetically identical, the first spelling corresponds closely to the Greek version of the city’s name (Πάφος), converging the romanized standardization with the Greek rendition. After presenting a series of historical texts utilizing the second spelling to show the rendering’s historical continuity, the article concluded by stating that:

Today it is a universally accepted axiom to preserve the elements of the oldest civilizations that have survived to the present day. […] Changing the historical writing of a toponym is no different than the demolition of a church and the construction of a new one. It is an act of violent eradication, or of a forgery of the past, and for this reason it is condemnable. (Georgiadis, 1999, p. 40)

Concerns of eradication are further reflected in the second article, titled ‘Sillourokampos, or perhaps Shilourokampos?’, published in issue 5 of Eks Iparhis in 1999, which addresses the systematic alteration of toponyms through a standardization that consciously avoids rendering local phonetics appropriately:

The problem of proper spelling in the writing of the Cypriot dialect through the Greek alphabet, does not appear to have seriously bothered anyone up to this point. The reverse, in fact, appears to be taking place in the translation of Cypriot toponyms in the Latin alphabet, where a clear attempt has been made to eradicate the unique pronunciation found in the Cypriot dialect. The result, in my opinion, has been that the Cypriot toponyms have been translated between two coordinates, that of the ridiculous and the incomprehensible. (Pagiatas, 1999, p. 58)

Continuing by arguing that ‘[…] the false rendering, or intentional distortion of the dialect we speak, is nothing less than an undermining of our own history’ (Pagiatas, 1999, p. 59), the article presents a documentation of the various influences identifiable in Cypriot Greek, including Doric and Byzantine Greek, the enrichment of the vernacular’s vocabulary by Italian and French words during Frankish and Venetian rule, and the subsequent influence of Turkish during the Ottoman period.

It is worthwhile to briefly examine this genealogy, as it reflects a perception of Cypriot history in contradiction with dominant Greek Cypriot nationalist narrations. This incompatibility is located, fundamentally, on the emphasis placed on multiple linguistic, and thus cultural influences on the vernacular, in contrast to the claim of a continuous Hellenic culture being maintained uninterrupted and unaffected throughout the unfolding of Cypriot history. The historical trajectory evoked here through the vernacular is thus one that is particular to Cyprus, rather than subsumed under a universal Hellenic history, painting an image of specificity and contextuality. As noted by Christofides (2010) in his theoretical reflections on Cypriot Greek, the multiplicity of cultural influences characterizing the vernacular enables the possibility of signifying an alternative historical experience to Hellenic monoculturalism, as ‘Cypriot Greek contains, despite the drive to decontaminate it, the mark of Cypriot polyculturalism’ (p. 424).

In another article titled ‘Forms of Cultural Repression and Legitimization of Power’, published in issue 41 of Eks Iparhis in 2003, the New Cyprus Association, one of the first self-described Cypriotist organisations, heavily criticized the Ministry of Education for continuing to forbid the employment of Cypriot Greek in the classroom, arguing that the policy is rooted in Greek Cypriot nationalist ideology, which views Cypriot Greek as an inferior and undesirable linguistic element in Cypriot society:

The treatment of the Cypriot dialect by the powers of the state, which was ideologically based on Greek nationalism, tended at best to treat it as a folklore soon to disappear, or as a barbaric linguistic version that had to be replaced by the correct Greek recorded in the books imported from Athens. In the most extreme cases, officials of the ministry have led the fight against the Cypriot dialect, in the name of Hellenocentrism and the Hellenization of toponyms. (New Cyprus Association, 2003, p. 17)

Describing the Ministry of Education as the ‘local Ministry of the natives’ (New Cyprus Association, 2003, p. 18), echoing parallelisms of colonial relations between metropole and periphery, the article further critiqued the primacy of Greek educational policy over Greek Cypriot educational institutions, concluding with the necessity of permitting the use of Cypriot Greek in the classroom:

Is it not time to be openly asserting the dignity of our words, our sounds? However, beyond this assertion of dignity, it is also an imperative educational need to recognize the use of Cypriot in the classroom as a right of the students. As a right to knowledge, since this linguistic code is their mother tongue and the requirement to express themselves only in modern Greek condemns many of them to silence. (New Cyprus Association, 2003, p. 18)

Thus, the relationship between Cypriot Greek and Modern Standard Greek is perceived as conflictual, reflecting ideological tensions over (national) identity, as well as of unequal relations of power located in formal institutions, with particular focus placed on the state and its educational policy. Cypriot Greek is further claimed to maintain a historicity that is at the very same time both worth preserving, but also particular to Cyprus, forming a first level of differentiation from dominant narrations aiming to reaffirm the island’s transhistorical belonging to the Hellenic world. This differentiation appears at first glance, rather subtle. It becomes however more evident when we reflect on the claims of Cypriot Greek as a mother tongue, a position in direct contradiction with Greek nationalist perspectives, in which all speakers of Greek language varieties are claimed to speak Greek as their mother tongue, with little to no recognition or differentiation ascribed between each variety.

Cypriot identity as difference

The employment of a different language variety to Modern Standard Greek has therefore been mentioned systematically in relation to self-identification, as a cultural marker differentiating (Greek) Cypriots from mainland Greeks, often articulated as a tensioned, exclusionary relation. For example, Nicolas, a Greek Cypriot man in his 30s, directly connected his personal rejection of a Greek national identity by evoking linguistic differentiation. As he clarified, ‘Cypriot identity could mean the Cypriot language (the dialects of Greek and Turkish)’, further stating that ‘I do not feel Greek, only because I speak the Cypriot dialect of the Greek language’. Cypriot identity is here presented as independent of, and incompatible with Greek identity, in contrast to alternative perspectives, which either synthesize the two identifications, or subsume the former under the latter (Peristianis, 2008, p. 243). The highlighting of both Cypriot Greek and Cypriot Turkish language varieties produces a further claim of differentiation from the national ‘motherlands’ for both sides of the divide. Both language varieties are represented here as equally legitimate for the claiming of an autonomous Cypriot identity, despite the fact that they linguistically belong to different language groups.

Another notable example is the response of Thanasis, a Greek Cypriot man in his early 20s:

[A]s there are so many cultural ties with everyone in our region I, on many occasions, say what helps me in a specific situation. For example, I can be a Turk, a Greek or a Cypriot whenever I choose to be. Fundamentally however, I consider myself Cypriot based upon the fact that I grew up in Cyprus, I follow Cypriot politics ‘as my own’, and feel ‘at home’ when I am in Cyprus and/or speak the Cypriot dialect/language.

Thanasis’ response suggests the ability to pass as a member of a different national group depending on a specific social context, a phenomenon that has been previously documented in the work of Caesar Mavratsas, on the construction of Greek Cypriot national identity (1997, pp. 167–168). Nonetheless, Thanasis concludes his response by identifying fundamentally as a Cypriot, citing, among other key factors, his use of Cypriot Greek. Like other participants, Thanasis’ response further implicitly challenges the depreciated status of Cypriot Greek, by including the term ‘language’ alongside the term ‘dialect’ in his answer.

Similarly, Alexandra, a Greek Cypriot woman in her 30s, mentioned language as a key element for her self-identification, stating that ‘I would describe myself as a Greek-speaking Cypriot, because I was born and live in Cyprus, I have adopted, culturally, Cypriot culture and my mother tongue is Cypriot Greek’. While Cypriot Greek is again presented as central for self-identification, being distinguished from Modern Standard Greek by being described as a mother tongue, the self-description of Alexandra as a ‘Greek-speaking Cypriot’ adds a further layer of differentiation. By specifically employing language in her self-description, Greekness is removed as an ethnic prefix; while Cypriots are not reduced to the Greek speakers of the island, in contrast to narratives claiming Cyprus as an inherently and undeniably Greek cultural space.

For Marios, a Greek Cypriot man in his 30s, linguistic differentiation is again considered central to the claiming of a Cypriot identity. However, the ongoing division of the island is identified as a fundamental barrier for its clear consolidation and crystallization:

Cypriot identity exists, but not as a clearly structured independent identity. It is important to note that during the previous years the Cypriot element was ridiculed and scorned. Nonetheless, it is clearly present in speech and cultural traditions. Even though the dialect exists in both communities and Cypriot elements can be located in the Turkish Cypriot and the Greek Cypriot dialects, but also in the common Cypriot words, it is not common and structured, following the division of the two communities.

In yet another response, Max, a genderqueer Greek Cypriot, pointed out that Cypriot identity ‘is connected […] with our language, Cypriot Turkish and Cypriot Greek, our music, our dances, food, history, costumes, celebrations, folk customs, and traditions’. While the various cultural markers identified are presented as unified entities, language, similarly to the responses of Paris, Nicolas and Marios, is conceptualized as multi-layered, incorporating both Cypriot Greek and Cypriot Turkish as integral aspects of the island’s linguistic heritage.

This dimension becomes more evident if we reflect on the terms employed. In everyday speech, Cypriot Greek is simply referred to as Kypriaka, translating directly to ‘Cypriot’, lacking any specified prefix, emanating a sense of universality. In contrast, participants tended to employ terms that are typically uncommon when speaking about the vernacular, such as ‘Greek Cypriot dialect’ and ‘Cypriot Greek’, and/or making direct references to Cypriot Turkish.⁶ Thus, while Cypriot Greek is evoked to demarcate difference in relation to Greece, signifying a local Cypriot identity independent from the claims of Greek (Cypriot) nationalism, the vernacular itself is presented as a particularity, rather than the universal language variety of Cyprus – Cypriotness is therefore not subsumed under one community, consistently being conveyed as bi-communal instead.

Cypriot Greek is therefore, on the one hand, utilized as a marker of differentiation, upon which a uniquely Cypriot identity, independent of the national ‘motherlands’, can be affirmed. As part of this process, the inferior status attached to Cypriot Greek is further challenged, conflicting with hegemonic positions downplaying the linguistic character and value of the vernacular. It is worth pointing out that another notable practise in challenging the status of Cypriot Greek, is the production and circulation of political texts written exclusively in the vernacular, despite its ongoing non-standardization.⁷ Such texts rarely address questions surrounding language as such. But as they are typically produced by individuals and groups opposing Greek Cypriot nationalism, the very act of producing these texts is a political statement in-itself.

On the other hand, however, Cypriot Greek is not delineated as the only linguistic marker for differentiation. Opposition to the symbolic dominance of Modern Standard Greek is not therefore met with the demand of replacing it with Cypriot Greek, as the sole language variety identifiable with Cyprus. Rather, as we can observe in various responses, language difference is often approached bi-communally, with Cypriot Turkish and Cypriot Greek both being claimed as the genuine languages of the island, with no clear prioritization of one over the other, regardless of the number of their speakers, their linguistic differences, or their divergent histories. In a similar pattern surrounding claims regarding Cypriot Greek, the consideration of Cypriot Turkish, rather than Modern Turkish, highlights linguistic, and therefore cultural differences, between Turkish Cypriots and mainland Turks, demarcating lines of inclusion and exclusion in terms of belonging to the category of the ‘Cypriot’. In addition, the absence of other language varieties in participants’ responses, such as Western Armenian and Sanna, indicate a particular bi-communal schema at play, reflected in the representation of a Cypriot linguistic terrain characterized by two language varieties of equal symbolic status.⁸

Claims over language reflect an alternative imagined community to the one constituted by Greek Cypriot nationalism, understood as independent from both Greece and Turkey on an ontological level, as linguistic specificity is not subsumed under broader national categories, but is instead evoked through their rejection, and in opposition to them. In turn, this imagined community does not subsume one community under the other – despite not being speakers of Cypriot Turkish, participants acknowledged the vernacular commonly spoken by Turkish Cypriots to highlight both their co-islanders’ differentiation from Turkey, as well as their inclusion within a broader, non-ethnic Cypriot identity, on an equal symbolic level. Thus, despite the mutual unintelligibility and linguistic difference between the two vernaculars, both are claimed as identity markers of commonality internal to the island, at the very same time as they are evoked to differentiate Cyprus from its external ‘motherlands’.

This schema reflects the broader principle of bi-communality which is expected to be reinstated in practise under a future federal reunification. Taking this into consideration, we can note that linguistic bi-communality offers an additional challenge to Greek Cypriot nationalism. That is, if Cypriot Greek can be claimed as a mother tongue different from, and independent of, Modern Standard Greek, a claim disturbing Hellenic narratives over identity, the representation of both language varieties as having equal cultural importance further contradicts any claims to monoculturalism, placing the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot communities on an equal symbolic footing.

While the linking of language questions with desirable political structures was not directly addressed by most participants, Maria, a Greek Cypriot woman in her late 20s, highlighted it. Rejecting any notion of Greekness, she clarified that ‘we are all Cypriots who just speak different languages/dialects’, adding further that ‘[w]e should be able to live together harmoniously under one government, under one umbrella Cypriot identity […], with two official dialects and languages’. In Maria’s response, there is a direct connection between language and the state, with both languages and vernaculars entrenched as the formal language varieties of a unified Cypriot polity.

Bilingualism

The most vocal expressions linking language to state structures have, however, been located in the collected documents, expressing openly the demand for official bilingualism. For example, in an article titled ‘Two Proposals on the Cyprus Problem’ discussing problems of inter-communal communication, published in issue 6 of the left-wing magazine Kalemi, the mandatory teaching of Greek and Turkish for students of both communities is proposed, argued to be fundamental for reunification. Rejecting the employment of alternative languages, such as English, as an adequate solution, its author clarified that:

It is obvious that if we want to have a common federal state in the future, the citizens of this state must be able to communicate with each other. It is a matter of political decision and common will that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots should be taught each other's language. After all, language itself carries within it, cultural elements which can bring the two communities even closer and contribute to rapprochement and understanding. (Papageorgiou, 2009, p. 5)

Similarly, in a 2010 statement released by the pro-reunification group ‘United Cyprus Platform’ in issue 14 of Kalemi, commenting on the new school year, a similar demand is raised, arguing that bilingualism should become mandatory in public schools, in addition to being gradually incorporated as a requirement for future employment in the public sector:

The factor of ‘language’ is tremendously important for the promotion and encouragement of communication between the two communities in the future, but also for the functionality of the agreed solution plan. Therefore (a) fundamental knowledge of Greek and Turkish must be offered as part of mandatory teaching to all gymnasium and lyceum students on both sides (b) public servants should be encouraged to learn the language of the other community at least for the purposes of basic communication and (c) the certified knowledge of the language of the other community, even on a minimal level, should become a necessary prerequisite to be employed in the public sector. (United Cyprus, 2010, p. 3)

In another, critical article, titled ‘The School Towards the Road for a Bi-Communal Cyprus’ and published in issue 16 of Kalemi, the lack of Turkish Cypriot representation in the curriculum of Greek Cypriot public education is connected with the absence of a policy promoting bilingualism, as well as the lack of acknowledgment regarding the constitutional status of Turkish:

[The students] do not learn and are not educated at all on a very simple thing, that Cypriots are often not only Greek Cypriots […] Many students do not know that the Turkish language is an official language of the Republic of Cyprus,⁹ as I imagine, many teachers also do not. […] [We] suggest the promotion of learning the language of the other community through specific supportive measures, as is, for example, the reminding that both languages are the languages of our people. (Ahniotis, 2011, p. 13)

Calls for the (mandatory) promotion of bilingualism are not common and have not received wide support in the Republic of Cyprus, while inter-communal bilingualism remains a marginal phenomenon, with English acting as the new lingua franca. The aforementioned views have not been located consistently across the collected data – they express a minority position on a topic that is seldom addressed directly in the politics surrounding the Cypriot conflict, as formal bilingualism is assumed to be actively reinstated, at least for Modern Standard Greek and Modern Turkish, in a potential federal reunification. Nonetheless, taken as the more vocal expressions of a bi-communal understanding of language, the intersection of language use, state policy, and reunification, highlight the centrality which language can acquire within the political and symbolic fields of the Republic.

Concluding remarks

Greek Cypriot socio-political life remains fragmented between competing national visions surrounding the island’s history, identity and desirable future (Papadakis, 1998, p. 162). Perceptions surrounding language are intrinsically entrenched within this fragmentation, formulating antithetical conceptions surrounding collective belonging. However, it is not the continuous use of the local vernaculars as such which gives rise to these competing conceptions, but language ideologies presenting ‘morally and politically loaded representations of the nature, structure, and use of languages in a social world’ (Woolard, 2020, p. 1). Thus, Greek Cypriot nationalism signifies Cypriot Greek as part of a broader Hellenic heritage, designating its speakers as an integral part of the broader Greek nation, while Cypriotist positions evoke the very same language variety as a marker of differentiation, placing Cyprus outside of, and beyond the confines of Greekness. Cypriot Greek and Modern Standard Greek are viewed in an antagonistic relation, with Cypriot Greek perceived to be distinctly Cypriot, in contrast to Modern Standard Greek, which is often argued to be an imposed language variety external to the island.

The rejection of Modern Standard Greek is further highlighted by the symbolic recognition of both Cypriot Greek and Cypriot Turkish as equal carriers of Cypriotness, designating the vernaculars as fixed points of differentiation, representing the island as a cultural entity autonomous from Greece. Acting as a residual (Panayiotou, 1996, p. 2) of past cycles of national homogenization, the case of Cypriot Greek indicates that a local, uncodified vernacular can still acquire a central role in the formulation of an alternative notion of national identity. Thus, language varieties still remain one of the building blocks upon which alternative visions of the nation can potentially be built in the twenty-first century.

Contrary to prevailing theories emphasizing the relationship between codified languages and nationalism, the Cypriot case highlights the continuing significance of uncodified language varieties in shaping and reshaping identity, particularly in political environments where national identity remains disputed in public discourse. Examining the impact of non-codified vernaculars on identity thus enriches our comprehension of the intricate links between language, culture, and collective belonging. By acknowledging and further exploring the influence of non-codified vernaculars in shaping national identity within a multiplicity of contexts, we can acquire a deeper understanding into the dynamics enabling shifts and changes in national identity formation.

The perception Cypriots have surrounding their identity remains significant beyond the island’s ethnic conflict. As Cyprus is becoming more multicultural since the 1990s, driven by migration flows introducing new population groups, local perceptions play a pivotal role in either fostering the integration of these diverse demographic groups, or perpetuating exclusionary dynamics rooted in ethnonationalist ideologies. Cypriotist perspectives, characterized by a degree of cultural flexibility, emerge as more adept in navigating this complex terrain. Embracing Cypriotist perspectives could provide a better foundation for addressing the challenges posed by linguistic and cultural diversity, fostering a more inclusive and harmonious societal fabric that reflects the dynamic realities of contemporary Cyprus.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Antonis Pastellopoulos

Antonis Pastellopoulos holds a PhD in Sociology awarded by the University of Warwick (UK), with his thesis analysing Cypriotism in the 21st Republic of Cyprus. His work focuses on nationalism and its alternatives, exploring counter-hegemonic perspectives surrounding national identity and collective belonging.

Notes

1 Following the island’s de-facto partition, this bilingualism has been lost, with English becoming the new lingua franca.

2 A similar situation exists between Cypriot Turkish and Standard Turkish, entrenching perceptions of difference amongst Turkish Cypriots in relation to mainland Turks (Kızılyürek & Gautier-Kızılyürek, 2004, p. 49).

3 Diglossia has also existed within the confines of the Greek state at least until the replacement of Katharevousa, an artificially constructed version of Greek, with Demotic Greek, following the fall of the Greek military junta in 1974 (Pavlidou, 1991, p. 280). However, this shift has not resolved the diglossia found in Cyprus, as Demotic Greek and Cypriot Greek are also extensively different.

4 The research design was approved by the Humanities & Social Sciences Research Ethics Sub-Committee (HSSREC) of the University of Warwick under approval number 1911639965785. All participants were informed of the aims and scopes of the research prior to the filling-in of surveys; and a consent form was acquired for each participant.

5 All presented names are pseudonyms, in order to maintain the anonymity of participants.

6 In contrast, collected documents have instead employed the term ‘Kypriaka’. This difference can be largely attributed to the medium itself, as articles in political magazines were written to address a general audience and have therefore tended to employ more familiar terms.

7 Notable examples include the circulation of a pro-federation text produced by the anti-authoritarian group Syspirosi Atakton (2016) in English, Modern Standard Greek, and Cypriot Greek.

8 It is not claimed here that participants considered members of smaller Cypriot communities, such as Maronite, Armenian and Latin Cypriots, as well as their corresponding language varieties, as external to a Cypriot identity, but rather, that the identification of two specific language varieties instead of others, indicates a prioritization of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities as equal political subjects.

9 Both Greek and Turkish were declared as the official languages of the Republic of Cyprus when the island received its independence in 1960.