Language policy and language planning in Cyprus

5 downloads 5796 Views 628KB Size Report
Nov 1, 2011 - particular were provided with free textbooks from Greece, Greek Cypriot ...... use exclusively ST; the only one hosting weekly columns in CT on ...
This article was downloaded by: [Xenia Hadjioannou] On: 04 November 2011, At: 06:17 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Current Issues in Language Planning Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclp20

Language policy and language planning in Cyprus a

b

Xenia Hadjioannou , Stavroula Tsiplakou & Matthias Kappler

c

a

Childhood and Early Adolescent Education, Penn State University, Lehigh Valley Campus, 2809 Saucon Valley Road, Center Valley, PA, 18034-8447, USA b

School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Open University of Cyprus, 13-15 Digeni Akrita Avenue, 1055, Nicosia, Cyprus c

Department of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cyprus, PO Box 20537, 1678, Nicosia, Cyprus Available online: 01 Nov 2011

To cite this article: Xenia Hadjioannou, Stavroula Tsiplakou & Matthias Kappler (2011): Language policy and language planning in Cyprus, Current Issues in Language Planning, DOI:10.1080/14664208.2011.629113 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2011.629113

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Current Issues in Language Planning 2011, 1–67, iFirst Article

Language policy and language planning in Cyprus Xenia Hadjioannoua*, Stavroula Tsiplakoub with a contribution by Matthias Kapplerc

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

a Childhood and Early Adolescent Education, Penn State University, Lehigh Valley Campus, 2809 Saucon Valley Road, Center Valley, PA 18034-8447, USA; bSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Open University of Cyprus, 13-15 Digeni Akrita Avenue, 1055 Nicosia, Cyprus; c Department of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cyprus, PO Box 20537, 1678 Nicosia, Cyprus

(Received 30 June 2009; final version received 30 September 2011) The aim of this monograph is to provide a detailed account of language policy and language planning in Cyprus. Using both historical and synchronic data and adopting a mixed-methods approach (archival research, ethnographic tools and insights from sociolinguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis), this study attempts to trace the origins and the trajectories of language polices in Cyprus and to relate these to issues of ethnicity, community and national identity formation, language maintenance and language shift, as well as the varying constructions of the role of language in education. It will be shown that, while linguistic variation and multilingualism were historically a core feature of the linguistic communities of Cyprus, the end of the anticolonial struggle and the separation of the island’s two major linguistic communities post-1974 has helped to establish effectively monolingual language policies, with a strong prioritization of national standard languages as opposed to sociolinguistically stigmatized varieties and minority languages. The monograph will also discuss language moribundity and prospects for potential reversal of language shift. Keywords: Armenian; attrition; Cypriot Arabic; Cypriot Greek; Cypriot Turkish; de-dialectization; diglossia; koinéization; Kurbetcha; levelling

1.

Introduction

The island of Cyprus is located in southeast Europe at the intersection of three continents: Europe to the northwest, Africa to the south and Asia to the east and north. Cyprus is the third largest island of the Mediterranean; Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Libya and Greece are in its immediate vicinity. The Mycenaeans settled in Cyprus extensively from the twelfth century B.C.E., and over the next millennia Cyprus underwent Phoenician, Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, Roman, Frankish (1192), Venetian (1489), Ottoman (1571) and British rule (1878– 1960) (Cobham, 1908; Hitchens, 1997). The modern Cypriot state, the Republic of Cyprus, was founded in 1960 after the island gained its independence from the British Empire. International treaties established the territorial sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the area of the island (MFA, 2010a) and its Constitution (1960) was designed to represent its two major ethnic (also religious and linguistic) communities, the Greek Cypriots and the *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1466-4208 print/ISSN 1747-7506 online © 2011 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2011.629113 http://www.tandfonline.com

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

2

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Turkish Cypriots, which represented 77 and 18% of the population, respectively, according to the official census of 1960 (Panayotou & Pavlou, 2000). However, political unrest in the relationship between the island’s two major communities commenced shortly after the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and escalated into a war in 1974. As a result of the war, 36.2% of the sovereign area of the Republic of Cyprus is under Turkish occupation (Government Web Portal, 2010a; see map of Cyprus in Figure 1). The war itself and the exchange of populations that followed the armed conflict has also led to the geopolitical separation of Cyprus’ two major ethnic/linguistic communities, with the Greek Cypriots inhabiting the south part of the island and the Turkish Cypriots inhabiting the north; effectively, ‘contact between the two groups, including language/communication’ (Özerk, 2001, p. 260) has since been minimal. Although the impermeability of the buffer zone separating the two regions was somewhat relaxed in 2003, when the Turkish Cypriot administration started allowing Cypriot Greeks (CGs) to enter the area under their control1 and robust cross-visiting developed (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2009), and despite a preponderance of bi-communal projects aiming at understanding and reconciliation (see, e.g. AMIDEAST, 2010; United Nations Development Program [UNDP], 2010), communication between the two communities remains sparse. At present, Cyprus continues to be a divided country. The Republic of Cyprus is a Eurozone-participating member of the European Union, with a primarily service-based economy (CIA, 2010). According to the European Commission (2004), Cyprus’ main economic activities are banking, tourism, craft exports and merchant shipping […] In 2001 the degree of urbanization in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus was 68.9% (485,082 out of the total 703,529 inhabitants). In 2002 the Republic of Cyprus had a GDP per capita of €18,500 (equivalent to 80% of the EU average), and a low unemployment rate (3.4%). The EU is Cyprus’s largest trading partner (54% and 52% respectively of Cyprus’s exports and imports in the year 2002). The services sector is the most important one, employing 65% of the population. (n. p.)

Figure 1.

Map of Cyprus.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

3

The population in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus is mostly Greek Cypriot, though in recent decades a significant number of foreign nationals have moved there for long-term or permanent settlement (CYSTAT, 2010). The northern part of the island was declared an independent state in 1983 (self-proclaimed as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti in Turkish); this entity is recognized only by Turkey and Pakistan. Katircioglu (2006) reports that the major sectors of the economy of the northern part of the island are ‘agriculture, industry, tourism and education’ but notes that the political isolation resulting from the lack of international recognition has not allowed for adequate development of the economic infrastructure. According to the European Commission (2004), in the northern part of Cyprus ‘the economic situation is considerably weaker (in 2002 the GDP was estimated around €4500 per capita): there is no independent monetary policy, and trade is heavily dependent on the Turkish market’ (n. p.). The population mainly comprises Turkish Cypriots who lived in Cyprus pre-1974 and their descendants, and settlers/immigrants from Turkey. Tables 1 and 2 show various population distribution figures in the two parts of the island. In this monograph we examine the language situation and issues of language planning in Cyprus following a systematic, data-driven approach. Because the geopolitical separation of Cyprus’ two major ethnic communities has established two de facto separate and fundamentally different entities, this study examines two distinct ‘cases’, namely the language situation and issues of language policy and planning in the Republic of Cyprus and in the northern part of the island, which is under the Turkish Cypriot administration. We use historical and synchronic data and a mixed-methods approach involving several data sources and modes of data analysis. Specifically, we scrutinize policy-setting documents produced by key language-planning agencies, both formal and informal; we undertake a meta-analysis of historical, linguistic and educational research directly or indirectly addressing language issues in the two communities under study; and we use sociolinguistic

Table 1. Distribution of population by ethnic/religious community and language (2008). Populationa

Percentage of the total populationa

Language(s) Native

Greek Cypriot Turkish Cypriotb Armenians Maronites Latinsc Foreign Residentsd Total

660,300 88,700 2700

74.5 10.0 0.3

4800

0.5

900 128,200 885,600

0.1 14.5

CG CT CG and Western Armenian CG and Maronite Arabic (residually) CG Various

Medium of education SMG ST SMG and Armenian SMG SMG

Note: Abbreviations: CG, Cypriot Greek; SMG, Standard Modern Greek; CT, Cypriot Turkish; ST, Standard Turkish. a Information from Statistical Service (2009). b This number does not include settlers who arrived in the northern part of Cyprus after 1974 or their descendants. According to the Statistical Service (2009), their numbers are estimated at 160–170 thousand. c Roman Catholics of European or Levantine descent. d Between 2002 and 2007, the most common countries of origin of immigrants to the Republic of Cyprus were Greece, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, the Slovak Republic, Sri Lanka and the UK.

4

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Table 2. Distribution of population by sex, age and urban/rural residence.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Population (de jure) Males Females Population distribution by age 0–14 years 15–64 years 65 years and over Share of urban population

Republic of Cyprusa (thousands)

Areas not controlled by the Republic of Cyprusb,c (thousands)

803.2

256.7

398.1 405.1 (%)

138.6 118.1 (%)

16.9 70.1 13.0 70.2

20 70 10 39.8

a

The figures come from CYSTAT (2010) and they represent data collected at the end of 2009. They refer to population residing in the government-controlled area of the island. CYSTAT reports that the total population is 892,400, in which the estimated number of Turkish Cypriots is included. b The figures come from the 2006 census conducted in the area under Turkish Cypriot administration (State Planning Organization, 2006). As discussed in Section 6.2.4, the accuracy of these numbers has been challenged by scholars and political stakeholders. c These figures include individuals from Turkey who moved to the northern part of Cyprus after the war in 1974 and their descendants. Though many have been granted citizenship by the Turkish Cypriot administration, the Republic of Cyprus considers them illegal settlers. According to the Statistical Service (2009), their numbers are estimated at 160–170 thousand.

and Critical Discourse Analysis tools to analyze ethnographic data depicting language use in various Cypriot contexts. In what follows, we first present the linguistic profile of Cyprus in order to familiarize readers with the historical and synchronic linguistic context(s) of language-planning endeavors on the island. We then provide information regarding language spread in the Republic of Cyprus, and we discuss language policy in terms of agents, content and stated and unstated objectives. We conclude with a discussion of issues of language maintenance and prospects. The same issues are addressed in reference to the northern part of Cyprus in Section 6, contributed by Matthias Kappler.

2. The language profile of Cyprus 2.1 The national/official languages The official languages of the Republic of Cyprus are Greek and Turkish (Article 3, Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, 1960), which are also the official languages (i.e. the mediums of instruction) in education. The two official languages of Cyprus are those of the two major ethnic/linguistic communities of the island (Greek and Turkish Cypriots). Standard Modern Greek (SMG), the language constitutionally recognized as an official language of the Republic of Cyprus, belongs to the Indo-European language family. SMG is spoken in Greece; it is also spoken in Cyprus by the CG community as well as in various countries (e.g. Albania, Australia and the USA) where there are Greek minorities or immigrant Greek communities. SMG, which is spoken by approximately 12–15 million people, is written in the Greek alphabet, which has 24 graphemes. The establishment of SMG as the national language of Greece occurred in 1976 after a protracted debate in literary, educational, linguistic and political fora seeking to address Greece’s language question

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

5

(γλωσσικό ζήτημα in Greek), which involved the diglossic situation between the vernacular (δημοτική/dimotiki) and katharevousa (καθαρɛύουσα), the official language of the state at the time, ‘an artificial language “purged” of all non-Hellenic vocabulary and grammar acquired over the centuries and therefore very close to Ancient Greek’ (Persianis, 1998, p. 74). The form of SMG adopted in education and in formal public interactions was based on southern varieties (mainly Peloponnese ones), but at the same time, it incorporated katharevousa elements and loans and calques from other languages. Notably, the adoption of SMG signalled the levelling of most regional varieties of Greek (Mackridge, 2009). Standard Turkish (ST), which is recognized as the official language of the Turkish Cypriots, belongs to the Turkic subgroup of the Altaic family of languages. Also the official language of Turkey, ST is spoken by about 55 million people in Turkey as well as in Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece. The modern period for the Turkish language commenced in 1928 with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s language reform program; this involved a consistent attempt at breaking from Turkey’s Ottoman past, which, in terms of language, meant that the Arabic script was abandoned in favor of an almost phonetic writing system based on the Latin alphabet. Moreover, a systematic attempt was made to ‘purge’ the Turkish vocabulary of Arabic and Persian elements (Göksel & Kerslake, 2005, p. ix; Lewis, 1999). ST is based on the variety spoken in Istanbul and it exhibits typical Turkic features such as vowel harmony, agglutination and head-final structures (Göksel & Kerslake, 2005). In addition to the two official languages of the state, due to Cyprus’ history as a British colony (1878–1960), English has also been used in various realms of public life in the Republic of Cyprus, including the courts of law, various civic services and many fields of private enterprise. As is further discussed in the section on the historical development of language policies and practices, though English is still used residually in the public sector, the translation of the Cyprus Law in 1995, combined with a series of policy decisions which, at face value, sought to enforce constitutional provisions on language, led to Greek becoming the only language used in the courts and in the civil service. 2.2

Minority languages

Up until fairly recently, three main minority languages were spoken in Cyprus: Cypriot (Maronite) Arabic (CMA), Western Armenian and Romani/Romany (Trudgill & Schreier, 2006). CMA, called Sanna by its speakers, is spoken by about 900 of the 6000 members of the Catholic Maronite community of Cyprus (COE, 2011; PIO, 2010c), one of the three religious minority groups recognized by the Cyprus Constitution.2 The Maronites originate from Syria and Lebanon (Goutsos & Karyolemou, 2004) and have been on the island since the tenth century (see Borg, 1985, 2004; Roth, 2004). Up until 1974, most members of the Maronite community lived in the Kormakitis area, a somewhat isolated peninsula in the northeast (see Figure 1). However, as Kormakitis came under Turkish control after 1974, most Maronites chose to move to the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus (Trudgill & Schreier, 2006). Though the Maronites have traditionally been bilingual in CG and CMA, the diaspora resulting from this move has led to a steady decline of CMA, which is presently tending toward moribundity (Roth, 2004; Trudgill & Schreier, 2006). Borg (2004) describes Cypriot Arabic as the product of ‘a unique linguistic and cultural synthesis, drawing on Arabic, Aramaic, and Greek’ (n. p.). Cypriot Arabic evolved as a purely oral dialect with virtually no contact with written Arabic or other Arabic dialects after the twelfth century (Roth, 2004); it shares most of its linguistic features with ‘the

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

6

X. Hadjioannou et al.

sedentary dialects of Greater Syria, but it has also received considerable influence from the phonology of CG’ (Trudgill & Schreier, 2006, p. 1887). According to Roth (2004), the positioning of Cypriot Arabic toward CG as a majority language and toward classical Arabic as the standardized alternative ‘work against its preservation, since the language has already ceased to be actively used by the younger generations’ (Goutsos & Karyolemou, 2004, p. 10). Roth (2004) reports that the recent transformations of the dialect at various levels have led to the development of a new variety exhibiting instability at the level of syntax (heavily influenced by CG), and stability at the phonological level. Still, where conversion with CG ‘is not possible, the final outcome is attrition and loss of the language’ (Goutsos & Karyolemou, 2004, p. 10). Western Armenian is spoken residually by the 3000-strong Armenian community of Cyprus, the second religious minority recognized by the Cyprus Constitution. Though Armenians have been present in Cyprus since the sixth century (Government Web Portal, 2010b; PIO, 2010a), their numbers significantly increased between 1894 and 1923 as a result of the ethnic cleansing practices waged against Armenians who lived in the Ottoman Empire. At that time, approximately nine thousand Armenians sought refuge in Cyprus. Most used Cyprus as a transitional home before relocating elsewhere (mostly to Britain and the USA), whereas approximately 1300 chose to settle in Cyprus permanently. Though originally Armenians elected to live in the Turkish Cypriot quarters of Cypriot cities because of their familiarity with the Turkish language and Turkish customs (Pattie, 1997), politically they chose to belong to the Greek Cypriot community following the Referendum of 1960, and they presently reside in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus (Dietzel & Makrides, 2009; Hadjilyra, 2009). Cypriot Armenians identify the (Western) Armenian language as their first language. However, this was not truly the case until the mid-twentieth century, since the Armenians living in Cyprus before the twentieth century, as well as the refugees fleeing persecution in the Ottoman Empire, spoke primarily Turkish. ‘To reverse this situation, a conscious effort to teach the [Armenian] language to the new generations was undertaken in the early twentieth century, including those families in which parents had very little knowledge, if any, of the language’ (Goutsos & Karyolemou, 2004, p. 11). Through a slow process of formal language learning, Armenian started to take hold in the Cypriot Armenian community, and by the 1940s ‘its use came to be considered natural’ (Goutsos & Karyolemou, 2004, p. 11). The Western Armenian language ‘is recognised and protected by the Cyprus government as a minority language, according to the provisions of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages’ (Government Web Portal, 2010b, n. p.). Western Armenian is one of the languages of instruction in the three Armenian elementary schools (known as Nareg) and in the junior high school added to Nareg Nicosia in 2005, after the closing down of the Melkonian Boarding School, which had served as a secondary school for Armenian youth from all over the world (Government Web Portal, 2010b; PIO, 2010a). Unfortunately, ‘there is a complete lack of studies on the sociolinguistic situation of the Armenian community and the structural peculiarities of the (Western) Armenian variety spoken by its members’ (Goutsos & Karyolemou, 2004, p. 10). The Latins, the third religious community recognized by the Cyprus Constitution, do not speak a distinct language variety of their own but have been linguistically assimilated into CG and SMG. The third minority language traditionally spoken in Cyprus is Kurbetcha or Gurbetcha, a variety of Romani about which little is known. Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha is residually spoken by the Roma or Kurbet of Cyprus, whose (reported) numbers vary between 500 and 1000, and who have traditionally also spoken Turkish. In 1960, the Roma of Cyprus were not

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

7

granted minority community status in the Constitution because of ‘uncertainty about their numbers, their life-style and the fact that most were Turkish-speaking (and Muslim), and only a few were Greek-speaking (and Christian)’ (Trimikliniotis & Demetriou, 2009, n. p.); rather, they were deemed to be members of the Turkish Cypriot community. Until 1974, they lived a nomadic lifestyle, but after the war most moved north, where they switched to a more settled way of life. According to Williams (2000), though it is commonly thought that the shared Muslim religion is what led the Roma to move north, in reality ‘their affinity is more closely tied to the Turkish language than it is to a religious persuasion’ (n. p). Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha has received little scholarly attention, and it is not recognized as a minority language by the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. It appears that, since 1974, Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha has for the most part been replaced by Turkish and at present it is known only by the older members of the Roma community (Office of the Law Commissioner, 2009; Williams, 2000). In its dealings with the European Union regarding the protection of national minorities and minority languages, the Republic of Cyprus has chosen to designate as minorities only ‘those national minority groups who had a traditional presence on the island at the time of the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 and have Cypriot citizenship’ (Office of the Law Commissioner, 2009, p. 3). However, this definition excludes a number of other linguistic communities who currently live in the Republic of Cyprus. As discussed in the section on immigrant languages (Section 3.4), these communities represent immigrant groups who have made their way to Cyprus since the 1980s, including groups from Georgia, Russia and the Ukraine (see Roussou & Hatzigianni-Yangou, 2001). 2.3

Language variation: The dialects of Cyprus

The two major spoken varieties on the island are CG and Cypriot Turkish (CT), which diverge from SMG and ST, respectively, in many important aspects. CG belongs to the southeastern Greek dialect group, together with the dialects of the Dodecanese (Newton, 1972a; Trudgill, 2003; Tsiplakou, 2006a; Tsiplakou, Papapavlou, Pavlou, & Katsoyannou, 2006). An ancient CG dialect (more traditionally known as Arcado-Cypriot) was spoken on the island since its colonization by the Mycenaeans (twelfth century B.C.E.) and up until the Hellenistic period (fourth century B.C.E.), when Hellenistic (Koiné) Greek substituted regional languages and dialects to become the common language used across the eastern Mediterranean during Macedonian and Roman rule (Hintze, 1993; Horrocks 1997; Karali, 2007; Masson, 2007; Panayotou, 2007; Varella 2006; see also Karageorghis & Masson, 1988). As is the case with most other Modern Greek dialects, the modern form of CG probably evolved from Hellenistic (Koiné) Greek (Browning, 1983; Horrocks, 1997). The diachronic processes leading to the formation of CG, as, indeed, of the other Modern Greek dialects, are obviously hard to trace; it should however be noted that some of the earliest written texts in a Modern Greek dialect are in Cypriot (and Cretan) Greek and date from the Early Renaissance. We may assume that the geopolitical and linguistic isolation of Cyprus from the Byzantine Empire and prolonged Frankish rule after the Fourth Crusade contributed significantly to the formation, by the fifteenth century, of a stable dialect system (Varella, 2006), which has retained its particular phonological and morphosyntactic features to the present; indeed, Cypriot is thought to be one of the most structurally ‘conservative’ of the Modern Greek dialects. The geopolitical and sociolinguistic situation also helped in the establishment of a written literary tradition. Written documents in CG, namely the Chronicles of Machairas and Boustronios and the Assizes of the Lusignan Court, date as far back as the fourteenth century (Goutsos & Karyolemou, 2004).

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

8

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Contemporary CG has largely retained the morphosyntax of Medieval CG (focus and wh clefts, clitic-second effects) as well as distinctive southeastern phonetic and phonological features (affrication/fronting of palatal fricatives, prenasalization of plosives, hardening), which render it quite distinct from Standard Greek (SG). As is expected, the lexicon displays heavy influence from Turkish, Middle French and, more recently, English (see Tsiplakou, 2006a; Tsiplakou, Coutsougera, & Pavlou, forthcoming). The principal differences between Cypriot and SG are presented in the Appendix (see also Arvaniti, 2010b; Coutsougera, 2002; Grohmann, Panagiotidis, & Tsiplakou, 2006; Tsiplakou, 2006a, 2009a, 2010; Tsiplakou & Papanicola, 2009; Tsiplakou et al., forthcoming). As is further discussed in Section 5.1, CG regional varieties are in the process of being levelled out, following the demographic and social changes post-1974, and a pancyprian koiné variety is fast emerging (Tsiplakou et al., 2006; Tsiplakou et al., forthcoming), which stands in a diglossic3 relationship with SG (Papapavlou, 1998; Tsiplakou, 2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b). Similarly, CT stands in a diglossic relationship with ST. The CT dialect can be tentatively placed in the Anatolian dialect group (Johanson & Demir, 2006, p. 2; but see Jennings, 1993; Oakley, 1993). The few existing studies of CT indicate that it displays distinctive phonetic, morphological and syntactic features, most striking among which are voicing of plosives wordinitially, distinct tense forms, subjunctive/optative forms (Kappler & Tsiplakou, forthcoming a), subject-verb-object constituent order, the Cypriot-specific use of the particle mIş (Demir, 2003; Johanson, 2002; Kappler &Tsiplakou, forthcoming), focus and wh clefts and rightward subordination (Kappler, 2008); the latter are variously attributed to the influence of English and Greek or to the historical origins of CT. Not much is known about CT regional varieties. Arguably, levelling and koinéization are also at work in CT (for further details see Section 6.2.3). 2.4 The languages of literacy Traditionally, the languages of literacy in Cyprus have been those of its two major ethnic/ religious communities (Greek and Turkish Cypriots), and, more precisely, the respective standard variety each community considered to be its national language. As noted in Section 4, which discusses the historical development of language policies and practices, starting from the Ottoman period (1571–1878) each community developed and maintained separate institutions for fostering literacy. At present, the language of literacy in all state schools operating in the area under the control of the Republic of Cyprus is SMG. SMG became the official language of Greece in 1976, and since then, it has been the language of literacy in both the Greek and the CG education systems. As is explained in Section 4.2.2, though Turkish is also recognized as an official language of the state by the Constitution of the Republic, the separation of the two education systems has meant that the Turkish language has had virtually no place in the education of Greek Cypriots. The only public education institution in the area controlled by Republic of Cyprus for which Turkish is an official language of literacy is the University of Cyprus. This determination was made after a long and largely ideologically driven debate in the Parliament of the Republic of Cyprus regarding the language or languages of instruction of the republic’s first public university. Ultimately, Greek and Turkish were adopted to the exclusion of English (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2001; Karyolemou, 2001a, 2010; see Section 4.2.1 for detailed discussion). In actuality, however, the language situation at the University of Cyprus mirrors the situation in the civil service of the Republic of Cyprus, and Turkish is only used in teaching in the Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies Department.

Current Issues in Language Planning

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

3.

9

Language spread

3.1 The languages of education Education in the Republic of Cyprus is compulsory for children between 6 and 15 years of age. As was previously mentioned, currently all state schools adhere to SMG as the official language of literacy. Language education is spread over at least 10 hours per week in elementary school and 6–8 hours per week in junior and senior high school. Language education in state schools is guided by the National Language Curriculum of the Republic of Cyprus, which, up until recently, has been virtually identical with the national curriculum of Greece. Implementation of the Greek language curriculum in the Republic of Cyprus is typically assured by the exclusive use of language textbooks produced by the Greek Ministry of Education and Culture and the Greek Pedagogical Institute for use across all Greece (MOEC, 2002; PI, 2001). The CG dialect is not formally taught at any level. Currently, English is taught for two hours per week from the fourth grade of elementary school onwards. All students take at least two hours of English per week throughout their public school education. However, senior high-school (Lykeio) students have the option of taking additional four or six periods of English per week (Tsiplakou, 2009b). The new national curriculum (MOEC, 2010a), the implementation of which is scheduled to commence in the fall of 2011 (MOEC, 2011a), provides for an expansion of English instruction, which is currently set to begin as early as kindergarten, and provisions have been made for infusing English language mini-lessons in all subjects. According to the new curriculum, the teaching of English in public schools aims at: . . . .

‘adequate perception and comprehension’ of the English language and of the cultural elements associated with it; the enhancement of students’ self-image and awareness of their own culture; the development of positive attitudes toward people from other linguistic communities and cultures; and the cultivation of the students’ ability ‘for communication and interaction, oral and written, initially in rudimentary and ultimately in developed and complex form’ (MOEC, 2010b,4 p. 455).

The curriculum calls for a focus on the communicative approach to teaching and learning language, on students’ diverse learning needs and characteristics, on orientation toward multiculturalism, on fostering life-long learning and on teaching English through its integration in content-based learning. Notably, despite the significant presence of English in the weekly schedule of public education, an overwhelming majority of Greek Cypriot school children also take private classes in English. This trend signals a deep commitment on the part of Greek Cypriot parents to ensuring that their children become fluent in English, but also a mistrust of the state school system’s capacity to accomplish this objective adequately. French is introduced as a required two-hours-per-week subject in the first grade of junior high school (Gymnasio) and remains so until the end of the first grade of senior high school (Lykeio). Beginning from the second grade of Lykeio, foreign language electives and options are expanded. The foreign languages offered at this level are English, French, German, Italian, Russian and Turkish. The minimum language requirement for the last two grades of junior high school involves the study of at least two of these languages for no less than two teaching periods per week for each language. Students may choose to include up to 20 hours of foreign languages per week, with each language

10

X. Hadjioannou et al.

being taught 2, 4 or 6 hours per week, depending on the preference of the student. The curricular requirements for foreign languages in secondary education are delineated in a unified foreign language curriculum. The preamble to this curriculum states:

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

The general purpose of the teaching of Foreign Languages is for the students to acquire the necessary communicative competencies for communicating effectively in languages beyond their native one, thereby broadening their cultural experiences and developing positive attitudes and behaviors toward diversity. All citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, as European citizens, should henceforth learn at least two European languages beyond their native language. (MOEC, 2010b, p. 140)

Private education is a rapidly growing enterprise in the Republic, as is evidenced both by the increasing percentage of school-aged children attending private schools and by the significant upsurge in the number of private schools at all levels of education.5 Though some of the private elementary and high schools have SMG as the language of instruction, in most the language of instruction is English, as a good number of them aim to prepare students for successful participation in the British education system and in British tertiary education in particular. Though language curriculum practices vary across different schools, most tend also to include SMG as a separate subject and/or as an instructional medium for certain subjects. 3.2

Objectives of language teaching and assessment

The objectives of language teaching in public education as well as in many private schools6 in the Republic of Cyprus are delineated by the national curriculum. Up until the most recent curricular reform, which was initiated in 2008 and yielded the new Cyprus curricula of 2010, whose implementation is scheduled to commence in the academic year 2011–2012 (MOEC, 2011a), the CG public education system adopted and implemented the national curriculum of Greece, with small deviations in subjects other than language. Prior to the early 1980s, following similar trends in other school systems around the world, language education was approached through a fragmented view on the basis of which reading, composition/writing and grammar were treated as completely separate subjects and occupied distinct periods in students’ weekly schedule. The explicit and exhaustive teaching of grammar was a fundamental aim, fuelled by the assumption that such instruction and learning would facilitate students’ development as writers, readers and speakers (Karantzola, 2000). The primary focus of grammar teaching was inflectional morphology (Karantzola, 2000) and grammar was taught through traditional approaches seeking to prevent and eliminate errors in language usage (Kolln & Hancock, 2005). The early 1980s brought about an attempt at education reform, which came at the heels of (a) a political reform by the newly elected socialist government of Greece (Charalambopoulos, 1999; Karantzola, 2000), and (b) the uneasy settlement of a protracted debate in school systems around the world between advocates of the extensive teaching of grammar and of other approaches to language instruction (Karantzola, 2000; Kolln & Hancock, 2005; Locke, 2005). The debate over the place of grammar in language instruction was fuelled by findings of several research studies consistently suggesting that ‘the teaching of formal grammar has a negligible or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in actual composition, even a harmful effect on the improvement of writing’ (Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, & Schoer, 1963, p. 37). Such reports led to the abandonment of formal grammar instruction

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

11

in many education systems in favor of more naturalistic, communicative models that assumed that native speakers of a language did not need explicit instruction in its grammar (Kolln & Hancock, 2005; Locke, 2005; Mulroy, 2004). Though practices in individual schools by individual teachers varied greatly, this often meant that the elimination of decontextualized formal grammar instruction from school curricula was not counterbalanced by alternative systematic approaches to grammar (Kolln & Hancock, 2005; Mulroy 2004). The education reform in Greece involved the authoring of the National Greek Curriculum of 1982–1984, in which the stated objectives of language education included students becoming capable users of the language and being exposed to written texts that are ‘representative of the various forms of written communication’, with a provision for special attention to oral language (Charalambopoulos, 1999, n.p.). In addition, this reform, which endorsed a structural approach to language, promoted a reconceptualization of the previously fragmented subject of Language Arts as a single entity. These objectives underpinned a series of textbooks for the elementary grades known as the My Language [H Γλώσσα μου] textbooks. These textbooks, which were adopted as required textbooks in CG education in 1986 and remained in use until 2006, had a text-centered orientation, with each text followed by drills on grammar, vocabulary and spelling exercises, as well as writing prompts. According to Charalambopoulos (1999), the authors of this material sought to move language education away from traditional grammar-centric approaches and toward more scientifically informed practices: the curricula and textbook authors tried, as they have stated, on the one hand to draw from the Greek tradition and experience, avoiding negative elements and using all valuable ideas, and on the other hand to utilize lessons from linguistics, psychology and education, as well as the relevant experiences of other countries in these areas. (n. p.)

With regard to grammar, this new series of textbooks attempted the ‘organic inclusion of grammar in an integrated language lesson’, expanded the examination of grammatical phenomena to include a wider range of topics beyond parts of speech and conjugation, and promoted the awareness of grammatical patterns through examples (Karantzola, 2000, n. p.). This objective was pursued with minimal use of grammatical metalanguage and rules. As Karantzola notes, ‘the authors of the new textbooks believe that what is needed is activation of the productive mechanism rather than transmission of knowledge about language, since language demands mostly practical skill rather than knowledge’ (n. p.). Charalambakis (2005) discusses a 1991 study conducted 17 years after the introduction of the My Language textbooks to investigate the perceptions of teachers regarding literacy instruction. The findings suggest that most study participants desired the reinstatement of [presumably formal] grammar instruction and stated that they still used traditional approaches to teaching grammar, despite the recommendations to the contrary of the national curriculum and of the textbooks. In addition, teachers continued to conceive of grammar as morphology and phonology exclusively and many continued to struggle with how to teach grammar, a finding consistent with those reported by Locke (2005) and Kolln and Hancock (2005) for New Zealand and the USA, respectively. Content analyses that sought to explore the underlying values these required textbooks privilege and promote have praised them for endorsing ‘collaboration and mutual understanding’, for their spirit of ‘anti-authoritarianism’ and their ‘ample keenness to support and encourage’ (Leontaki, 2008, p. 17). In addition, when compared with the language textbooks of the past, these books show a marked improvement in their representation of more

12

X. Hadjioannou et al.

flexible family and gender roles. However, Leontaki (2008) reports that several researchers have also identified the presence of a hidden curriculum – one that: .

.

.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

. .

promotes an ideology of urbanization by representing urban living and a service economy as the only possible future while relegating rural living to romanticized and nostalgic reminiscing of a long-gone life style; represents a view of childhood in which conflicts with other generations are absent as ‘the child does not take any initiatives, does not take on any responsibilities and his/ her selections, personal and professional, are often made by others, namely the parents’ (p. 16); palliates social issues stemming from the socioeconomic stratification of society; conspicuously fails to make visible the causes behind social, political and environmental issues, thus promoting fatalism and acceptance of the status quo; oversimplifies the role and the implications of technology in modern life and often illustrates a pessimistic stance toward it.

In addition, the National Curriculum of 1982–1984 and its complementary language textbooks have been criticized for exhibiting disregard for language variation both in terms of geographic and social dialects and in terms of register/style. The language textbooks in particular have been described as using ‘a language of relative homogeneity, without any elements of dialect (regional and social)’ (Anthogalidou, 1989 as cited in Leontaki, 2008, p. 14; see also Kostouli, 2002). The rare texts that do include some dialect elements are traditional songs and poems or narratives in which some excerpts of conversations among characters are rendered in a variety other than the standard. Notably, the fact that such texts belong to historical fiction genres invariably frames non-standard dialects as a relic of the past rather than as current variations of the living Greek language. In addition, as Anthogalidou aptly remarks, the language of these textbooks is a special form of the ‘standard,’ a standard outside of social and communicative situations; a ‘non-situated’ language. Everyone speaks in the same way; neither their social identity nor the particular circumstances of communicative situations influence the structure, the vocabulary or even the style (as cited in Leontaki, 2008, p. 14).

The next language curriculum reform after the language education overhaul of the 1980s came in 2003 when the Interdisciplinary Unitary Study Framework (Διαθɛματικό Ενιαίο Πλαίσιο Σπουδών, IUSF) was introduced. According to the IUSF, which is effectively the national curriculum currently implemented in Greece and the Republic of Cyprus, the aims of language education are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

to make children competent users of the language; to prioritize the development of the spoken language; to help students attain proficiency in spoken and written language through use; to promote the idea that language is a whole containing several interacting components; language teaching should bring out this integrative character of language; (5) to cultivate appropriate use of language; (6) to make children able to recognize and appreciate linguistic variation (Kostouli, 2002; Tsiplakou, 2007b).

Such stated objectives indicate that the IUSF upholds a by-and-large ‘functionalist’ approach to language instruction, as is evidenced by the emphasis on competence and

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

13

appropriateness of use; this approach, which was also a trademark of the previous curriculum, incorporared an attempt at reversing long-established practices that privileged written language (Mousena, 2010) and signalled a concerted effort for a fundamental methodological shift in the teaching of Greek by promoting the Communicative Approach to First Language Education (CAFLE). The CAFLE is informed by sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic research indicating that the ability to communicate effectively involves not only phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic knowledge, but also knowledge of the practices of language use in the learners’ linguistic community (Hymes 1971, 1974). In other words, native speakers of a language are endowed with communicative competence, ‘that is, the capacity to modify and adjust their language in deference to the audience and the social conventions and expectations regulating the interaction’ (Tsiplakou, Hadjioannou, & Constantinou, 2006, p. 381). It is also worth noting that the goals of language education as articulated in the IUSF include an explicit reference to the recognition and appreciation of language variation, thus presumably suggesting legitimization of non-standard dialects and their study in education. However, as Tsiplakou (2007a, 2007b) notes, despite this last objective, the curriculum still treats SG as the language of education (i.e. as both the target language and the language of instruction), with no proviso for substantive treatment of non-standard varieties or of stylistic/register variation. In the CG context, this translates as a formal exclusion of the dialect from the learning process. It is quite striking that the Cypriot national curricula for language (MOEC, 1981, 1994, which was effectively substituted by the Greek IUFS) followed the Greek ones extremely closely in terms of content and methodology and, crucially, also in terms of what is constructed as the target language (SMG). Ioannidou (2011) shows succinctly that adhering to the Greek curricula and Greek language policies has been standard practice since Cypriot independence; thus, policy documents from the 1960s do not in any way address particularities of the Cypriot linguistic context such as the existence of two major community languages and the diglossic situation between Cypriot and SG, but instead the focus is on the katharevousa-dimotiki debate, as in Greece. When the Greek military junta (1967–1974) makes the teaching of katharevousa compulsory, Greek Cypriot education follows suit; conversely, when dimotiki becomes the official language of Greece (and of Greek education) in 1976, the Republic of Cyprus again follows. Similarly, the 1981 and 1994 curricula, which, according to Ioannidou (2011), differ only slightly in terms of relative emphasis in their rhetoric on ‘Greekness’ and on Cyprus’ spiritual and national ties with Greece, adopt fully whatever changes in content and methodology are proposed in the Greek curricula, together with their problematic aspects and misconceptions, as discussed above. It is abundantly clear that the main concern is alignment with Greek language and education policies; this ‘outward-looking’ stance, which has been a striking characteristic of Cypriot formal and informal language and education policies up until the present, ultimately amounts to symbolic indexing of unity with Greece. Assessment in CG public education focuses primarily on proficiency in written SG. Despite the curricular provision for engaging with a variety of genres, in formal assessment literacy translates into the ability to produce long narratives and descriptions in primary education and critical ‘essays’ in secondary education. These assessment texts are often produced in response to teacher- or textbook-provided prompts during special writing-time sessions, often following a series of lessons during which students have read texts and participated in discussions on the topic of the prompt. Though in recent years there has been some movement toward promoting genre literacy, the instruction

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

14

X. Hadjioannou et al.

prior to writing typically focuses mostly on the theme of the assessment text rather than on genre-specific authoring techniques (Hadjioannou, 2008). Other assessment tools include in-class written tests, which mostly focus on text comprehension, vocabulary and grammar. In junior and senior high school these assessments make up the trimester grade of each student in the Greek subject. The yearly grade also includes students’ scores on a final examination taken at the end of the year, which typically involves a heavily weighted essay, comprehension questions on texts taught during the year and some grammar and vocabulary items. The final examinations at the end of the final year of senior high school also serve as university entrance examinations, on the basis of which candidates are allocated positions in Cypriot and Greek public tertiary education institutions. Cyprus does not have high-stakes standardized testing for any subject or grade level. However, the Cypriot education system does participate in the international assessment initiatives of Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (NCES, 2007). Cyprus does not take part in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which is managed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus, Cyprus’ application for membership in the OECD has been repeatedly vetoed by Turkey, which has precluded the Republic of Cyprus’ participation in several OECD programs (including PISA) (MFA, 2010b).

3.3

The languages of the media; local literature

Until the early 1990s, the state-operated Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation (CyBC, Cyprus Broadcasting Service during British rule) was the only lawfully operating broadcaster in the country. CyBC’s programming was launched in 1953 for radio and 1959 for television. During the years of its broadcasting monopoly, CyBC’s Greek language programming was mostly in SMG and included news programs produced locally, as well as movies, made-for-TV movies and comedic and dramatic series imported from Greece (Roussou, 2006; Sophocleous, 1995). The majority of the programming however consisted of English-language productions recorded in the USA and broadcast with SMG subtitles. In addition, the CyBC regularly airs programming in Turkish, Armenian and English, as part of its charter as a public broadcaster. In fact ‘the Constitution guarantees sound and vision broadcasting for both the Turkish (no less than 75 hours in a seven-day period) and Greek communities’ (U.S. English Foundation Inc., 2009). Prior to 1990, the only program type using CG was the so-called ‘Cypriot sketch,’ a humorous genre representing a romanticized, folkloric view of rural living, which was unfailingly written in antiquated, broad CG for comic effect. Roussou (2006) notes that these sketches were ‘rather poor in terms of esthetics, language or mise-en-scène principles’ (p. 90), ‘generally portrayed a countryside lifestyle, moving from tradition to modernity’ (p. 92), and seemed to be ‘a postcolonial move towards the consolidation of the national-cultural identity of Greek-Cypriots’ (p. 90). With the advent of private media in 1990, the broadcast terrain changed significantly as the ensuing pluralism brought to the screens a number of programmes rather different from the climate that Brundson (2000: 168) describes as “the public service ethos”, i.e., they were more commercially oriented with regard to aesthetics, content and social perspectives. (Roussou, 2006, p. 90)

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

15

During the early years of media privatization, SMG programming dominated the Cypriot airwaves as many of the new stations were connected to sister stations in Greece and, therefore, directly imported programming from them. In 1997, the popularity of Greek programming and the changing broadcast media terrain in the Republic of Cyprus led to a rapid expansion of CG programming not only in volume but also in content (Roussou, 2006) and eventually in range of material. In the early post-privatization era, CG programming consisted mainly of comedies grappling with topics such as urbanization and modernity, but later soap operas and more ‘serious’ programs were added to the roster (Georgiou, 2010; Tsiplakou, 2003/in press). Also, as the subject matter evolved to include more modern-day situations, the antiquated CG of the old Cypriot sketches was abandoned in favor of more authentic uses of contemporary CG (Georgiou, 2010; Tsiplakou 2003/in press; Tsiplakou & Hadjioannou, 2010). However, Cypriot-produced news and informational programming still uses SMG, in adherence to the CG community’s communication norms, which dictate the use of SMG in formal situations. Interestingly, as Pavlou (2004) explains, CG also appears in such programming, particularly when excerpts from live interviews are broadcast or the program hosts make off-script comments. In general, the presence of CG in such occasions is the result of inadvertent code-switching ‘occurring because the speaker is unable to sustain discourse in the more acrolectal levels of the continuum’ (p. 106). In her analysis of several post-privatization popular programs in CG, Roussou (2006) argues that this programming has ‘been creating and expressing a new style of demotic culture, which reflects the social transition of the country from postcolonial to late modernity’ (p. 93), and wonders whether it also marks ‘a type of autochthonous cultural resistance to the embraces of Europeanization and globalization’ (p. 89). Additionally, in her study of young Greek Cypriots’ attitudes toward language, Tsiplakou (2003/in press, 2004) theorizes that the reported positive attitudes of informants toward both CG and SMG (which she takes to be a result of increased linguistic confidence due to the emergence of the pancyprian koiné as an intermediate stage in a potentially ongoing process of diglossia resolution) may be linked to the recent upsurge in the presence of CG in broadcast media.7 There are currently six television stations broadcasting in most of the entire area governed by the Republic of Cyprus as well as a number of local television stations, whose range is limited to certain urban areas. The stations of national range feature Cypriot productions, Greek programming procured from sister Greek media networks, as well as significant programming produced in the USA and in Latin America. Interestingly, in a trend that has evolved over the past decade, most of the programming that is not in Greek or English is broadcast with voice-over in SMG. Though none of the TV stations in the Republic of Cyprus are owned or openly controlled by specific political parties, sympathies toward certain political orientations are frequently apparent both in programming choices and in news programs. Beyond broadcast TV, there also are a few subscription-based TV services (cable, satellite TV), which feature Cypriot stations, Greek stations, as well as numerous other stations from around the world. With regard to print media, Cyprus boasts two English-language newspapers and a host of newspapers in Greek (see Table 3 for title numbers and circulation information). Most of these newspapers have nation-wide distribution, whereas recent decades have also witnessed the emergence of a number of mostly weekly local newspapers and periodicals. In these publications, SG is the predominant language. However, CG occasionally surfaces in the form of humorous commentary or of quotations from spoken language. In Pavlou’s (2004) survey of newspaper journalists, his informants verified these uses and asserted that they employed CG

16

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Table 3. Print media circulation in the Republic of Cyprus. Print medium Newspaper circulation Daily: 8 titles Non-daily: 38 titles Periodicals: 50 titles

Circulation

Circulation per capita (per 1000 people)

87,000 53,000

111.519 79.016

372,000

536.023

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Source: Figures from Nationmaster.com (2011).

selectively, noting that they thought that more extensive use would potentially hinder readers as CG is rarely written, and would be met with reproof by their audience. In periodicals, especially popular ones, CG is considerably more visible, often reaching the level of hybrid, code-mixed production (see, e.g. columns in the weekly City free listings journal for Nicosia). Even more so than the TV stations with national range, nationally distributed newspapers have fairly explicit, though not readily admitted, associations with specific political ideologies and Cypriot political parties, which may be expected to affect the standard language-dialect interplay in these publications. However, major broadsheet newspapers still only make sparse use of CG, mainly for satirical purposes. Local literature has always existed, and it can even be said to be thriving to a certain extent (Kehayoglou & Papaleontiou, 2010). In a trend that has grown in both production and readership over the past couple of decades, local authors often write realistic and historical fiction novels as well as memoirs in historical and contemporary Cypriot contexts. Most of this work is written in SG, and some features occasional use of CG. Some of the books are published by Greek publishing houses and are distributed both in Cyprus and in Greece, whereas others are published and distributed locally, their publication often funded by the authors themselves. The writing style and range of themes can, for the most part, be traced to parallel trends in literary production in Greece. However, this is not always the case (see, e.g. Georgiou, 2006; Georgiou & Kyriakou, 2010; Marangou, 2007 for Cyprus-specific motifs and a concomitantly increased use of the dialect).8 It is significant that CG, in varying non-standardized written versions, thrives in electronic communication, notably electronic chat, weblogs and on facebook (Sophocleous & Themistocleous, forthcoming; Themistocleous, 2009, forthcoming). In their examination of the use of CG in internet chat and of the users’ attitudes toward such use, Themistocleous (2009) and Sophocleous and Themistocleous (forthcoming) have found that CG is ubiquitously present and that users have very positive attitudes toward the use of CG in this type of computer-mediated discourse (cf. the discussion in Section 5).

3.4

Immigrant languages

Fairly strict immigration laws did not allow for any significant incoming immigration over the first few decades of Cyprus’ status as an independent country. However, law changes, in combination with Cyprus’ joining the European Union, have led to increased immigration, and these changes have introduced a number of new languages. Law changes put into effect in the early 1980s brought the first wave of modern-day legal immigration into Cyprus. The earlier immigrants to arrive in significant numbers were individuals from Southeast Asia, including Cambodians, Filipinos and Sri Lankans. These immigrants arrived in Cyprus on special temporary immigrant worker visas. In the years that followed, individuals from former Eastern Bloc countries (mostly from Bulgaria, Poland and Romania) arrived

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

17

on the island using the same type of visas. Notably, such visas are only made available to the workers themselves and are not extended to their families. In addition, to disallow the opportunity for attaining permanent resident status and naturalization, immigrant workers’ visas are only renewable for up to 5 years. As a result, the immigrant-worker communities are highly transient and are not represented in education or in public fora in significant ways (CYSTAT, 2008). In the early 1990s, however, a new group of immigrants started arriving in Cyprus with the intention of, and the legal grounds for, seeking permanent residency. These were the Pontic (Black Sea) Greeks, members of a Greek minority from the former USSR (primarily from Georgia), who, upon the demise of the former superpower, established connections with Greece, were awarded Greek citizenship, and through that, were able to move to Cyprus utilizing a long-standing agreement between Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. Many of the Pontic Greeks who immigrated to Cyprus speak Russian as their home language; many others speak Georgian, whereas other subgroups speak Pontic Greek or Turkish (or any combination of two or more of these languages; see Tsiplakou & Georgi, 2008). Additionally, the members of this group have varying degrees of fluency in SG. Unlike the temporary immigrant workers, most Pontic Greeks came to Cyprus with their families with the intention of staying on the island for prolonged periods of time. This immigrant group (and the languages spoken by them) is significantly more visible in public life than were immigrant worker groups because of the sheer numbers of the new group, their substantial culturally defining presence in specific urban regions, as well as the participation of their children in public education. Furthermore, though the languages of the Greek Pontic community are not represented in mainstream media, Russian, which serves both as a home language for some and as lingua franca for most other members of the community, is used in community-based periodicals and also has a modest presence in a regional TV station serving Paphos, an urban area where many Pontic Greeks live (see Figure 1). The linguistic profile of the Pontic Greek community, the sociocultural impact of their presence in the Republic and the ways in which public opinion and language policy respond to this presence are issues on which research is not yet available. Since Cyprus joined the European Union in 2004, there has been an impressive increase in the number of European immigrants who arrive on the island with diverse residency objectives: young individuals, mostly from Bulgaria, Poland and Romania, come with the intention of working in Cyprus for a few years and then returning to their home countries; young families from the same countries come with the intention of long-term stays; and retirees, mostly from Great Britain, use Cyprus as their retirement or winter residence. With the exception of English, which, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, has always held a prominent position in the Republic of Cyprus, the languages of the other European immigrants have had a moderate impact on the Cypriot linguistic landscape: the presence of immigrant children in the education system has increased the need for multicultural practices and second language acquisition support, but the languages themselves are not visibly present either in the schools or in public life (Hadjioannou, 2006; Tsiplakou & Georgi, 2008). 4.

Language policy and planning

Language policy and planning in the Republic of Cyprus displays a number of idiosyncrasies, due largely to the particularities of the island’s colonial history, the nature of the links between the two major linguistic communities of the island and the historical and political

18

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

ties of the Greek Cypriot community with Greece. The major feature of language policy and planning in the Republic of Cyprus is the absence of official policy-makers or relevant organizations, parallelling the situation in Greece. Issues pertaining to (covert) language policy and language planning are typically relegated to the Ministry of Education and Culture, to the Parliament, to political pressure groups and, on occasion, to the courts of law. Viewed from a theoretical perspective, the Cyprus situation epitomizes the complexities inherent in attempts to model the thorny issues of language policy and planning across communities (Ager, 2001; Bugarski, 1992; Calvet, 1998; Cooper, 1989; Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997; Karyolemou, 2010; Spolsky, 2004). 4.1 The historical perspective As mentioned in Section 2.1, the native language of Greek Cypriots, the CG dialect, has evolved over the centuries in the unique geographic and sociopolitical context of Cyprus. The various rulers of Cyprus, for the most part, adopted a laissez-faire attitude toward the language of the island’s natives. Attempts at altering the natives’ identity were very infrequent and highly localized in small regions of the island. These intrusions were related mostly to short-term bursts of localized forced religious conversion to Roman Catholicism during the Lusignan reign (1191–1489) and to Islam during the Ottoman period (1571–1878). These isolated, short-lived attempts were not particularly successful, and variants of the Greek language continued to be spoken by the Greek Orthodox Cypriots (Cobham, 1908; Jennings, 1993; Nikolaou-Konnari & Schabel, 2005; Papadopoullos, 1965; Sant Cassia, 1986; Terkourafi, 2005; Wallace & Orphanides, 1990). In 1878, Cyprus came under British rule as a result of the Convention of Istanbul, according to which the island was to be leased by the British while still formally remaining under the sovereignty of the Sultan. However, in 1914, after Turkey entered World War I on the side of Germany, Britain annexed Cyprus and declared it a British Crown Colony in 1925 (Webb & Groom, 2009). Language policy in Cyprus during British rule (1878– 1960), particularly as this can be traced through educational policy, can be characterized as ‘an elusive “adapted education” policy’ which was significantly influenced by ‘local conditions’ (Persianis, 1996, p. 46). Language policies in British colonies are commonly perceived as ardently anglicizing in nature, tinged by racism and lack of respect for the indigenous populations, their languages and their cultures. Although such perceptions are not unfounded, a closer examination of language policies in various British colonies reveals a process of century-long, gradual, uneven evolution of policy characterized by significant variation across different colonies and at different times; this situation has been engendered both by shifting locale-specific sociohistorical contexts and by an apparent lack of a coherent and purposeful policy plan on the part of colonial officials (Whitehead, 2005a, 2005b). Adding to this complexity is the fact that ‘British imperial education policy was highly contended during the colonial era and remains a contentious issue among many contemporary historians’, who have offered ‘widely divergent interpretations… from contrasting ideological perspectives’ (Whitehead, 2005a, p. 315). Though this analysis is not necessarily shared by all scholars of colonial educational policy, according to Evans (2002, 2008) and Pennycook (2002), language policies in the various colonies were decisively influenced by variables such as the ideological orientations of colonial administrators toward the natives under their rule, parsimony considerations, the local desire for learning English, and sociopolitical events that had the potential to instigate anticolonial sentiments in the local population. For example, an anglicizing agenda became activated in Hong Kong during the governorship

Current Issues in Language Planning

19

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

of Sir John Pope Hennessy, an ardent proponent of English education, but, as Evans (2008) explains, anglicization flourished because of ‘the demand that arose from certain sections of the Chinese community, who increasingly came to see that proficiency in English opened up the prospect of social and economic mobility in the colonial milieu’ (p. 51). Interestingly, according to Evans, Hennessy’s pro-English stance was fuelled not only by his belief in the superiority of the English language and culture, but also by ‘his desire to enhance the status of the territory’s Chinese community’ (p. 52), and his understanding that ‘it would be more economically viable to “train up” English-speaking Chinese youths to “discharge the duties of clerks”’ (p. 55). Pennycook (2002) points out that anglicizing policies were not the only means of pursuing the objective of enhancing British control over colonial states. Indeed, the need for education to produce a new generation of colonial subjects, more able to participate in colonial capital as both producers and consumers, more willing to accept the conditions of foreign occupation, was to be found not so much through the provision of an education in English, but rather through the far more widespread provision of education in vernacular languages. (p. 16)

Even in Macauley’s fervently pro-English-language 1835 ‘Minute’, which decisively influenced colonial language policies in India and British Colonial Africa (see Kaplan, 2010), the articulated goal was not the creation of an English educational system for the masses. Rather, the objective was to create an elitist system that would ‘form a class who may be interpreters between us [the British] and the millions whom we govern – a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect’ (quoted in Evans, 2008, p. 271). In fact, as Pennycook (2002) reports, colonial administrators were often opposed to widespread English education, fearing that it would create a class of discontented locals who could destabilize Britain’s control over colonies. Instead, colonial authorities often promoted vernacular education as a means of instilling good labor habits, assuaging the locals’ negative perceptions of the colonialists and preserving ‘cultures as viewed through the exoticizing gaze of the colonial administrator’ (p. 16).In Cyprus, according to Persianis (1996), colonial education policy was determined by the following factors: 1. The uncertain political status of Cyprus within the British Empire for approximately 50 years. 2. The racist ideology of a considerable number of British colonial officials, including High Commissioners and Governors. 3. The lack of sufficient contact between the administrators and the governed people. 4. The rural society and the lack of industrial production on the island. 5. The financial constraints, which were the result of the colonial policy of economic self-sufficiency. 6. The strong social demand for education and its internal dynamic. 7. The specific sociohistorical context of Cyprus at the end of the nineteenth century. (p. 45) The interplay of these variables during colonial rule in Cyprus brought about two distinct periods in educational and language policies: a period of relative laissez-faire (1878– 1931) and a period of centralization and attempts at control over school curricula, administration, finances and teaching practices on the part of the colonial government (1931– 1960) (Persianis, 1996, 2003).

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

20

X. Hadjioannou et al.

During the early years of British rule, the colonial administration had to govern a territory that did not formally belong to the British Empire, which had fallen under British rule without a preceding war with the local population, which already had two established education systems (Greek and Turkish), and where the majority of the population was Christian and had a European culture.9 Given this stable, already functional situation and for reasons of parsimony,10 the colonial administration forwent the enactment of radical anglicizing (as in Hong Kong and India) or pro-vernacular (as in Malaya) education agendas. Instead, for the most part, the British rulers allowed the CG and CT communities to manage their own language matters and their fledgling education systems. In effect, this meant little cost to the colonial authorities, but it also progressively reinforced ties between Cyprus’ two main communities and their perceived national centers. Therefore, the period from 1878 to 1931 can be characterized as a time of relative laissez-faire, as British intervention in the curricula and the school systems was minimal. During this time Cypriot education was loosely ‘supervised’ by the Colonial Office Permanent Advisory Committee on native education, and the colonial government placed emphasis on primary education, discouraged academic education and promoted industrial and agricultural training (Persianis, 1996, 2003). In colonial Cyprus, schools were funded largely by the two major communities, and schoolteachers were appointed by community administrations. Crucially, the colonial government treated the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities as religious rather than ethnic communities, and each was therefore granted educational freedom under the Elementary Education Act of 1870 (Persianis, 2003). As already mentioned, both communities had long-established strong ties with their respective ‘motherlands’; Greek Cypriot schools in particular were provided with free textbooks from Greece, Greek Cypriot teachers were given pensions by the Greek government and Greek Cypriot secondary education graduates were admitted to the University of Athens without examinations. Thus, knowledge of English was not a prerequisite for higher education, which, in any case, was by-andlarge discouraged by the colonial government on practical grounds. Similar to the exoticizing orientalist perceptions that heavily influenced pro-Indian language policies in the early period of British colonialism in India (see Evans, 2002), it appears that ‘romantic’, quasi-philhellenic discourses on the part of the colonial rulers had a role in shaping a laissez-faire language policy in Cyprus. For example, Persianis (2003) reports that in 1880 the Earl of Kimberley, Secretary of State for the Colonies, rejected a plan of the High Commissioner of Cyprus, Sir R. Biddulph, ‘to make English a general vehicle of education’. He recommended that ‘considering the rich and varied literature of ancient Greece and the great progress which modern Greece had made in its work of education since the war of independence, […] Greek […] affords ample means not only for an ordinary education but for the attainment of a high degree of mental culture.’ (p. 356)

The reported flourishing of Hellenika Grammata (‘Greek letters’) in Cyprus before and during the colonial period (Myrianthopoulos, 1946; Persianis 1966, 1978, 1994) may be seen as the outcome of a constellation of factors, prominent among which are the British laissez-faire policy and the promotion of a Hellenizing agenda by the Cypriot Orthodox Church (see Gregoriou, 2004 for a critique). The period of laissez faire in language policy ended in 1931 in response to (a) the increased financial and political interests of Great Britain in the south-east Mediterranean and the declaration of Cyprus as a British Crown Colony in 1925, which warranted the

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

21

adoption of more active policies; and (b) the mounting agitation of Greek Cypriots over their desire for an end to colonialism and instead union (enosis) with Greece, which culminated in a massive uprising in 1931. These conditions led the colonial administration to reassess their previous policy stance of low interference, deeming that it had contributed to Cypriots’ mounting desire for further educational opportunities and to galvanizing the Greek Cypriots’ Greek identity. The colonial government’s response ushered in a policy period of ‘planned cultural and educational lending’ whose major thrust was to orient Greek and Turkish Cypriots away from their perceived ethnic centers and toward ‘a higher conception of their responsibilities as Cypriots and of the position of Cyprus as part of the British Empire’ (Cyprus Governor Sir H. Richmond Palmer as quoted in Persianis, 1996, p. 56). In addition, similar to the objectives outlined in Macauley’s 1835 ‘Minute’, the new policies aimed at ‘creating a new middle class which would be culturally dependent and politically supportive’ (p. 56), and which would become vested in the colonial government by holding administrative posts. Toward these ends, a series of steps were taken to centralize education and to control school curricula. One such step was Governor H. Richmond Palmer’s (1933–1939) 1933 law decree making the governor ‘the central authority for all matters relating to elementary education’. Consequently, the governor could control, approve, or veto ‘the books to be used in schools and school libraries; the classification, examination, registration and promotion of teachers […] the curriculum, syllabus, and courses of instruction to be followed in schools’ (cited in Rappas, 2008, p. 372). Subsequent Education Laws designated English a compulsory subject in the last two grades of elementary school and made the allocation of grants to high schools conditional on the increase of English Language Teaching (ELT) and the concomitant independence from ‘alien governments’, i.e. Greece and Turkey (Rappas 2008, p. 373). Finally, legislation imposed control on the suitability of Greek and Turkish textbooks, and prohibited the raising of the Greek flag and the celebration of Greek national holidays. The colonial government also enacted several anglicizing policies beyond communitybased public education. First, provisions were made for more funds to be allocated to the English School, which was taken over by the government and was reorganized to pursue a curriculum aimed at preparing students for the London Matriculation Examinations. It was specified that the English School’s mission would henceforth be to train civil servants (Persianis, 1996). Second, in an effort to circumvent the community-run school systems, the government established a series of multiracial ‘public-aided’ schools and a multiracial Teacher Training College in which the medium of instruction was English. Lastly, the colonial government rendered English proficiency a prerequisite for participation in the developing administrative and professional structure of Cyprus: success in English language examinations was required for the recruitment and promotion of teachers and for employment in the civil service, and British qualifications were ‘indispensable by law for the legal profession’ and strongly endorsed for doctors and dentists (Persianis, 1996, p. 58). It also seems that an anglicizing agenda underlay plans for establishing a British University in Cyprus (or, possibly, in Palestine). Arthur Mayhew, then chief education advisor to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and joint-secretary of the Education Advisory Committee, who was also involved in the shaping of the Education Laws discussed above, envisaged a teacher-training college as an essential part of the prospective British University, and recommended courses in English Literature and Language, History, Geography, Economics and Social Science, suggesting that such courses ‘would play an important part in the formation of a sounder opinion and would give […] an opportunity

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

22

X. Hadjioannou et al.

for popularising British culture and traditions’ (quoted in Persianis 2003, p. 364). Governor Palmer anticipated that a British University ‘might go far to solve the Cyprus problem not only educationally but politically’ (quoted in Persianis 2003, p. 359). These plans were soon abandoned for practical reasons, not least because of the advent of World War II (see Persianis, 2003 for detailed discussion). In 1949 the proposal for a (British-run) teacher-training college again met with strong opposition from the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus and was abandoned in favor of providing scholarships to British Universities. During the years of the anti-colonial struggle (1955–1959), Greek Cypriot students refused to attend English classes as a means of protest against colonial rule; in response, 418 out of 499 primary schools and all state high schools were closed by the colonial authorities (Karyolemou, 2001a, p. 44). The year 1960 saw the end of the colonial period and the official abolition of English in elementary education. In general, the various centralizing and pro-English policies enforced in Cyprus during the colonial era are in many ways reminiscent of tactics employed in other colonies, such as: (a) the attempt to control locally run schools in Hong Kong in order to counter nationalist, revolutionary ideas (Pennycook, 2002), (b) the promotion of British education in an effort to secure Britain’s hold on Hong Kong by ‘integrating the Chinese elite into the colonial establishment’ (Evans, 2008, p. 52), and (c) the plan to create a local élite in India that would act as ‘cultural intermediaries between the British and the masses’ (Evans, 2002, p. 262). Despite these similarities, however, in Cyprus neither legislation nor practice involved anglicization in the radical sense encountered in Hong Kong and India. This was most likely the result of the colonial administration’s unwillingness and/or inability to impose such measures and the Cypriots’ (particularly the Greek Cypriots’) opposition to them. Case in point: when the colonial government imposed English as one compulsory subject among many (while maintaining the teaching of the two major native languages) as a prerequisite for high schools receiving government funds, only one Greek Cypriot high school agreed to increase its ELT hours to secure government funding (Karyolemou, 2001a). Moreover, the Cypriots’ well-established perceptions of British racism and the already agitated feelings of Greek Cypriots over the colonial government’s refusal to entertain their desire for union with Greece decisively shaped public opinion and the proposed reforms met with fervent resistance by the people and the Church (Gregoriou, 2004; Myrianthopoulos, 1946; Rappas, 2008). Although the colonial governments did not forcibly impose the teaching of English, they provided financial and social incentives for learning the language (financial aid to schools, the promise of a place in administration and in elite colonial circles). While it is doubtful whether such incentives were adequate in ensuring English language competence for a substantial part of the population (Rappas, 2008, pp. 386ff.), they may well have led to the sociocultural construction of English as linguistic and social capital (Tsiplakou, 2009b) within a framework of ‘liberal’, ‘cosmopolitan’ colonialism, as is suggested by recent anthropological research (Bryant, 2004; Gregoriou, 2004; see also Constantinou, 2005).

4.2 Language policy and planning in the Republic of Cyprus Upon Cyprus’ independence in 1960, the Republic of Cyprus had to contend with two constitutionally recognized official languages (SG and ST), English-based civil service and

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

23

judiciary systems inherited from colonial times, strong nationalist trends gravitating toward the perceived national centers of each community and a CG majority that felt disdain mixed with admiration over the English language and British civil government structures. The tensions resulting from such complexities have heavily influenced language policy in the Republic of Cyprus and are still reverberating in contemporary decisions. The events of 1974 and the subsequent de facto segregation of the two major communities of the island, coupled with the prolongation of what has come to be known as the ‘Cyprus issue’, have had major effects on formal and informal language policies in such areas as the national curricula for language and the language of education, the attempt at standardization of toponyms, the language(s) of administration and the courts, etc. In the following sections we address each of these issues in turn. In her analysis of language policies in the Republic of Cyprus, Karyolemou (2001a) describes an overarching context of linguistic liberalism in the early years of the Republic, which by the 1980s evolved into a context of legal intervention favoring the Greek language. However, Karyolemou notes, this apparent shift is not demonstrative of a core change in aims and orientations but rather ‘can be better explained as an activation of an already existing policy (at times retreating but never completely disappearing) by a set of concrete legal measures’ (p. 41).

4.2.1

The official languages of the Republic of Cyprus

Upon the formation of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960, the fledgling state inherited language practices and policies that had been formed through inter-communal practice and/or through the colonial administration of the British period: . . . .

most of Cyprus’ citizens spoke geographic variants of CG; many of its Turkish Cypriot citizens spoke geographic variants of CT; the youth of each of its two major communities was schooled into the standard language of their perceived mother nation; much of the state’s official business, including the courts of law and the civil service, was conducted in English.

The Cyprus constitution adopted in 1960 is informed by an attempt at evenhanded treatment of the two official languages and at the creation of a bilingual state. According to Article 3 of the Constitution: . . . . . .

‘legislative, executive and administrative acts and documents shall be drawn up in both official languages’; administrative or other official documents must be drawn in the language of the recipient (Greek or Turkish; 3 Section 2/3); judicial proceedings and judgments should reflect the language(s) of the parties involved (Greek, Turkish or both; 3 Section 4); the Gazette of the Republic shall be published in both official languages; ‘[t]he two official languages shall be used on coins, currency notes and stamps’ (3 Section 7) and ‘every person shall have the right to address himself to the authorities of the Republic in either of the official languages’ (3 Section 8, 11 Section 4, 11 Section 6, 12 Section 5; Government Web Portal, 2010a).

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

24

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Karyolemou (2010) aptly notes that, considering that the constitution of Cyprus was put together in 1959 and officialized in 1960, it can be argued to be one of the earliest cases of recognition and establishment of linguistic rights in European history. However, the enactment of these provisions did not last long, since as early as 1963 skirmishes between the Greek and Turkish communities of Cyprus led first to isolation, as Turkish Cypriots retreated from government in 1964, and to complete geopolitical separation in 1974. In the Republic of Cyprus, which has continued to recognize the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus as its source of constitutional law, SMG and ST continue to appear together on such formal government documents as government-issued Identification Cards, passports, currency bills and government-issued forms. However, the fact that the vast majority of Turkish Cypriots do not currently reside in the geographic region controlled by the Republic of Cyprus has meant that Turkish ‘has attained a zero degree of use within the Greek-Cypriot community since it no longer responds to any real communicative need’ (Karyolemou, 2001a, p. 27). Most official and unofficial interactions take place in Greek, since they are rarely directed toward Turkish-speaking Cypriots. Furthermore, the ‘doctrine of necessity’, adopted in 1964, ‘in the name of public interest’, ‘allowed the bi-communal requirements of the Constitution to be overlooked when compliance was impossible’ (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2009, p. 191). The trend toward language regulation through legislative action peaked in the 1980s with the extensive and highly controversial discussion in Parliament (October 1980– January 1981, October–December 1986, July 1989) and in other realms of government about the languages of instruction at the University of Cyprus. The debates were highly politicized, and the protracted discussion brought to the fore ideological perspectives, sociolinguistic stances and anxieties of policy-makers and of the public (Karyolemou, 2002, 2010). The right-of-center party DI.KO (Dimokratiko Komma, ‘Democratic Party’) argued equivocally for a Greek-only university, while the right- and left-wing parties, DI. SY. (Dimokratikos Synagermos, ‘Democratic Rally’) and A.K.E.L. (Anorthotiko Komma Ergazomenou Laou, ‘Progressive Party for the Working People’), respectively, both argued in favor of Greek and Turkish, the two official languages of the Republic of Cyprus. The argument for three official languages, Greek, Turkish and English, as presented by some legislators, hinged on the importance of English as a lingua franca, as the language of academic discourse and as a means of allowing Turkish Cypriot students to study at the University of Cyprus. Those arguing for Greek and Turkish expressed the fear that English, which was constructed as unquestionably dominant on the island, would supplant Greek, which was, in their view, already ‘endangered’ in Cyprus. The latter prevailed (Karyolemou, 2002). The final decision, which was reached in 1989, established Greek and Turkish as official languages, setting English aside (‘On the University’, Law 144/1989; see also Karyolemou, 2001a; Karoulla-Vrikki, 2001). Given the geopolitical separation of the two communities, this decision has in effect excluded Turkish, essentially establishing a monolingual institution. Karyolemou (2010) sees this as one of the many instances of ‘linguistic protectionism’ in favor of Greek, which appears to be a trademark of policies in the 1980s and during a large part of the 1990s in Cyprus (p. 251). This trend was made manifest in other aspects of enacted or proposed legislature; namely, in legislation regarding the language of the courts, street names, driving licenses, public signs, toponyms, etc., as well as in the national curricula for language and surrounding discourses (on which see Section 4.2.2). The language policies pertaining to the presence of English in the judiciary constituted a considerably more complex matter. The use of English as the official language of the legal system for decades after Cyprus’ independence, albeit in violation of constitutional

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

25

provisions, was facilitated by practical concerns and was endowed with legal substance through the ‘doctrine of necessity’. Laws and archives inherited from colonial times were in English and lawyers and judges were trained in England. In practice, this meant that principally Greek-speaking judges and advocates used English to conduct legal proceedings involving principally Greek-speaking litigants, whose limited knowledge of English often rendered them unable to understand the events of the trial (KaroullaVrikki, 2001, 2002, 2009). The Constitution provided for a five-year period during which the law was to be translated, though the target languages were not specified. However, the process of translating the law was very slow, leading to consecutive extensions of the validity of the English version of the law (‘On Laws and Courts (text and process)’, Law 51/1965). In a move that marked a shift toward the legal regulation of language matters, the Parliament of Representatives discussed and adopted a motion for translating Cyprus Law into Greek in 1988 (‘On the Official Languages of the Republic’, Law 67/1988). Eventually, after numerous delays and repeated legislative action by the Parliament, the Greek translation of the laws was adopted in 1996 – i.e. 36 years after Article 3 Section 4 of the Constitution established Greek and Turkish as the languages of the judiciary (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2001; Karyolemou, 2001a; Tsiplakou, 2009b). Research indicates that the long process of translating, confirming, regularizing and finalizing the translation of Cyprus law into Greek is intricately connected to ambivalent linguistic attitudes within the Republic (also made manifest, for example, during the discussion over the language(s) of instruction at the University of Cyprus) and has had significant implications for all attempts at language policy-making in the polity. A major reason for the delay was the fact that Cyprus law is based on English Common Law, while the Greek civil code displays some French but mostly German influences (Hatzis, 2002). The differences between the two systems have hindered the translation process significantly, also resulting in numerous translation errors and neologisms (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2002; Pavlou & Georgiou, 2010).11 Furthermore, the delay could be attributed at least partly to the fact that there was reluctance on the part of English-trained lawyers and judges to relinquish the status and privilege afforded them by their professional training abroad and their command of English (Karyolemou, 2010). It is also important to note that the legislative attempts to abide by the constitution (‘On the Official Languages of the Republic’, Law 67/1988) ultimately led to a series of decisively pro-Greek language policy actions – i.e. the replacement of English by SMG in judicial proceedings and the translation of the Law into SMG. These actions may be seen as part of an overarching ‘protectionist’ trend favoring Greek at the expense of Turkish, as no attempt has been made to date to translate the laws of the Republic into its other official language. Beyond the court system, English was used vestigially in various sectors of the civil service for many years (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2009; Trudgill & Schreier, 2006), e.g. in forms, reports and departmental archives in ministries, public hospitals, the Department of Lands and Surveys, etc. Such practices were somewhat limited by a 1994 decision by the Council of Ministers requiring that ‘official documents issued by all government departments and semi-government organizations should be issued in the official languages of the Republic rather than in English’, and were further curtailed by the 1998 Law on the Official Languages of the Republic (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2009, p. 195). Ultimately, these regulations have meant that English has been replaced by SMG and that English has remained in use only in areas of the civil service where the use of an international language, in addition to the official languages, makes sense for ‘obvious reasons’, e.g. in passports and driving licenses (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2009, p. 195).12

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

26

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Following the practices of the public sector, until very recently there has been vestigial use of English in many fields of private enterprise, including receipts, bank statements, prescriptions (also those issued by state hospitals), business names, advertisements, etc. (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2008, 2010, forthcoming). Two legislative attempts were launched in 1991 and 1996, respectively, proposing that names, advertisements and other signs displayed in public should be in one of the two national languages and that alternative languages could be used only secondarily. Though neither proposal was voted into law, according to Karoulla-Vrikki (2009) a series of decisions of the Ministers’ Cabinet and of various ministry departments required the use of Greek in various aspects of business and industry, such as restaurant menus, used car manuals, medicine package inserts, product descriptions, etc. These attempts, which appear to have been feeding off a perceived ‘crisis’ of the Greek language in Cyprus (Christodoulou, 1993; Papapavlou, 2001), sought to buttress the position of Greek against the potentially corrosive forces of English and/or CG (Karyolemou, 2001b). The attempt at standardization of toponyms is similar (Georgiou, 2009, 2010; Karyolemou, 2001b). Work on the standardization of geographical names had started as early as 1967, as part of a larger, UN-led project, but a permanent committee (Mόνιμη Kυπριακή Eπιτροπή Tυποποίησɛως Γɛωγραφικών Oνομάτων ‘Permanent Cypriot Committee for the Standardization of Geographical Names’) whose purpose was to continue working on the standardization of Cypriot toponyms and their rendering in romanized characters was established in 1977 under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and Culture. The Committee proposed the rendering of Cypriot toponyms in SMG, purportedly taking into account historical/etymological considerations, but in practice excluding from written representation Cypriot-specific phones, for which the SG alphabet has no equivalent. The proposed standardization resulted in frequently comic distortions of place-names. In 1987 the Committee submitted the Complete Toponymic Gazetteer of Cyprus to the relevant UN forum, where it was ratified. However, the commencement of implementation of Gazetteer suggestions on road signs, maps, etc. gave rise to what Karyolemou (2010) calls a ‘linguistic civil war’ (p. 253), as there was vehement public opposition to the Committee’s recommendations by local authorities, notably the metropolitan municipalities of Latchia (/laˈtʃa/) and Aglandja (/aγlaˈndƷa/), whose names would have ended up comically mispronounced as /laˈc:ha/ and /aγlaˈɲɟa/ under the proposed hypercorrectively standardized renditions (Λακκιά/Lakkia and Aγλαγγιά/Aglangia, respectively), but also MPs, journalists and members of the public. The Parliament passed the 1996 Law ‘On the standardization process of geographical toponyms of the Republic of Cyprus’, which limited the authority of the Committee; a compromise was reached as far as the two contested toponyms were concerned and University of Cyprus linguists were appointed as consultants to the Committee, whose work is ongoing13 (Georgiou, 2010; Papapavlou, 2004). 4.2.2 Curricula and education As mentioned earlier, the two major ethnic/religious communities of Cyprus have traditionally had separate education systems – a tradition dating back to the Ottoman period (1571– 1878), when, according to Özerk (2001), the schools of each community were linked to its respective religious establishments and used as languages of instruction standard varieties of Greek and Turkish that differed significantly from the oral varieties used in everyday life. The schools of the CG community were connected to the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus and particularly to its monasteries, the subject matter leaning heavily on the

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

27

study of Christian religious texts; the language of literacy was indebted to the archaic Greek in which religious texts were written. Similarly, the schools of the budding CT community were connected to the Mosque, and ‘courses were mainly based on rote learning of religious psalms and on training in reading and writing’ in languages that differed greatly from the spoken variety (p. 256; see also Section 6). As discussed in Section 4.1, during the British rule (1878–1960), education in Cyprus was not subjected to systematic anglicization. With the exception of intervention attempts made by the colonial administration related to the content of instruction in history and to adding English as a foreign language to the curriculum, the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities were, for the most part, allowed to manage their respective school systems, in virtue of the fact that they were treated as religious rather than ethnic communities by the colonial government. The education systems serving each community therefore remained separate during the colonial period. In great part due to the two communities establishing and maintaining strong ties with their respective ‘motherlands’, language curricula and the content and objectives of language teaching largely reflected corresponding objectives and concerns in Greece and Turkey. With the formation of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960, the school systems of the two major ethnic communities remained separate, as the Cyprus Constitution provided for ‘two parallel communal chambers’ managing the education system of each community (Pashiardis, 2007, p. 203). Under this provision, both systems received public funding while maintaining the right to shape the organization and the curricula of schools on a communal basis. […] The language of instruction was Katharevousa (the Standard Greek of the time) for the Greek Cypriot system and Turkish for the Turkish Cypriot system, and the curricula adopted by each educational system were closely matched to the curricula of the two “mother nations.” Interestingly, neither of the two educational systems offered the language of the other community as a subject. Instead the only other languages offered were English and French. (Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, 1991 cited in Hadjioannou, 2006, p. 396; Persianis and Polyviou, 1992)

The Chamber-based system remained in effect only for a very short time as the intercommunal clashes of 1963 led to the members of the Turkish Cypriot community retreating from the public life of the Republic. ‘Following the separation [of the two communities] in 1965, all of the administrative functions of the Greek communal chamber were transferred by law to a new ministry, the Ministry of Education’ (Pashiardis, 2007, p. 203). In the years that followed, the CG education system continued to be very closely aligned to the one in Greece, mirroring not only the curricula but also the language textbooks, which up until 2011 were sent gratis from Greece14. This level of closeness, particularly in terms of language policy, reflects the widespread sentiment among CGs that having a common language with Greeks is paramount as ‘in modern day Cyprus SMG serves […] to distinguish GCs [Greek Cypriots] from the “other”, and […] as an identity marker that constructs kinship associations with Greece’ (Ioannidou & Sophocleous, 2010, p. 299). Within this frame of reference, the CG education system instantaneously echoed all major language policy decisions adopted in Greece over the years: In 1976, demotic Greek (known at present as SMG), was formally adopted as the official language of education following the language reform in Greece; in 1982, the Greek Parliament approved the adoption of the single-accent (μονοτονικό ‘monotonic’) system, which eliminated a number of accents from SMG with the aim of simplifying the written language. The political decision in 1976 to replace the artificial and archaic form of Greek, katharevousa, with a standard spoken variety, even if that variety was only spoken in the

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

28

X. Hadjioannou et al.

mainland, was of particular significance for the Cypriot context as it went some way toward earning CG some legitimacy in the Cypriot school curriculum by allowing for the first time the study of literary texts written in literary registers of the Greek Cypriot dialect. However, these were treated as pieces of national literary heritage and not as vehicles for bi-dialectal literacy. No formal attempt was ever made to introduce contemporary CG as a vehicle for school literacy. Ministry of Education policies oscillated from tolerance toward the sporadic use of CG orally in the classroom (for ‘psychological’ reasons) to outright prohibition due to prescriptive attitudes toward the dialect and to the overarching trend of promoting SG as the major means of solidifying a Hellenic ethnic identity. Despite the negative policy climate regarding the use of CG in schools, a variety of studies of language-in-use in classroom settings have shown that CG is ubiquitously present and serves a range of communicative purposes, but that it is also associated with various negative attitudes and stereotypes (Hadjioannou, 2008; Ioannidou, 2002; Tsiplakou, 2007a, 2007b). In a discourse-analytic study of a sixth-grade Greek Cypriot classroom, Hadjioannou (2008) found that both teachers and students code-switched between SMG and CG to serve varying communication objectives and that the students ‘were aware of their code-switching and felt competent in both dialects, but carried some negative stereotypes regarding their home dialect’ (p. 275). Similarly, Ioannidou’s (2009a) analysis of ethnographic data suggests that the ‘choice of linguistic variety depends on the occasions of communication, with the Standard associated with formality and appropriateness and the domain of actual lessons, while the dialect is mostly associated with naturally occurring talk and informality’ (p. 263). However, Ioannidou also found that non-compliance with these expectations can have significant implications: students using CG were interrupted, corrected and failed to be praised for substantially appropriate responses, which has a strong negative impact on ‘students’ language attitudes, their self-perceptions and ultimately their educational achievement’ (p. 265; see Tsiplakou, 2007b for similar findings). The dynamics among the Greek, Turkish and English languages particular to the Cypriot context are also visible in public education. Karoulla-Vrikki (2005), in a historical analysis of language policy in public education in the Republic of Cyprus, traces oscillatory movements between hellenization and cypriotization trends that seem to be in constant dynamic opposition to each other. As Karoulla-Vrikki (2005) notes, policies in public Greek Cypriot education during the early years of the Republic of Cyprus (1960–1974) were characterized by an overt hellenization agenda. The national polarization that had preceded the formation of the Republic of Cyprus led the Communal Chambers managing each of the two communal education systems (Greek and Turkish Cypriot) to language policies which sought to emphasize and strengthen students’ connection to their community’s ‘ethnic center’ and to galvanize their sense of ethnic identity. In each system, the official language of instruction was the standard language of each of the perceived ‘mother nations’ and no policy provisions were ever put in place to encourage bilingualism (Hadjioannou, 2006; Karyolemou, 2001a). In 1964, in a decision which, as Karyolemou (2001a) notes, was ‘a logical outcome of a long-lasting policy in education, namely the de jure confirmation of a de facto policy in educational matters’, the Greek Communal Chamber announced the formal alignment of Greek Cypriot Education with Greece, and in 1965 transferred its educational responsibilities to the newly formed Ministry of Education (later renamed Ministry of Education and Culture, MOEC). From that point on, in the absence of specifically designated language policy agencies, the MOEC became a major initiator and implementer of language policy in Greek Cypriot education. During the period between 1960 and 1974, language textbooks were the same as those used in Greece and Turkey respectively, and so were the curricula for literacy education (see

Current Issues in Language Planning

29

also Sections 2.4 and 3.1). During that period, the CG education system also mirrored the decisions taken in Greece regarding the teaching of Ancient Greek as well as the adoption of dimotiki/SMG to replace the purist and artificial katharevousa (see Section 2.1). English continued to be taught as a foreign language in both education systems, though initially it was pulled out of the elementary education curriculum of CG education. However, English was reintroduced in the sixth grade (the last grade of CG elementary schools) as early as 1964 (Tsiplakou, 2009b). After the 1974 war, which devastated the socioeconomic structures of the island and brought a de facto geopolitical separation of the CG and CT communities, language policies seemed to turn toward a cypriotization trajectory. According to Karoulla-Vrikki (2005), during this period (1974–1993), language policy was influenced by:

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

. . .

a feeling of betrayal by Greece; the realization that the hope of enosis (union with Greece), which had driven the struggle against the British, was not attainable (or even necessarily desirable); the adoption of dimotiki as the new standard.

Specifically, the espousal of a spoken variety of Greek as a standard (SMG) over an artificial, archaic variety (katharevousa) engendered conversations about the status of CG and its place in education. Though a Greek ethnic identity was still definitely a focus, this new trajectory resulted in MOEC policies that promoted the view of Cyprus as an independent state, sponsored the compilation of an Anthology of Cypriot literature for school libraries, and for the first time, legitimized the ‘parenthetical’ or ‘occasional’ use of CG in the classroom. In 1993, the socio-political context in the Republic of Cyprus precipitated another oscillation toward hellenization in language policy (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2005). By that time, the Republic of Cyprus had successfully exited the survival mode in which it had been thrown after the war in 1974 and, as previously described, a number of regulatory initiatives favoring the Greek language had already been undertaken by the Parliament of Representatives and other public institutions (Karyolemou, 2001a). Added to these initiatives was a growing sense of unease over the perceived Greek language ‘crisis’ in Cyprus as well as fears over the loss of the Greek Cypriots’ Greek ethnic identity as a result of extensive prior contact with English as well as of globalization (Christodoulou, 1993; Papapavlou, 2001). Therefore, when a rightist government came to power and Cleri Angelidou, a conservative politician and former high-school teacher with training in classical philology, was appointed as Minister of Education (1993–1997), language policies aiming at hellenization were a natural consequence. Within the remit of a strong political rhetoric of ‘strengthening our bonds with Greece on every level, political, economical and cultural’ (Mavratsas, 1998, p. 54), Angelidou reinforced the existing connections with the Greek Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, engineered an increase in the hours of Ancient Greek language instruction, organized professional development seminars for teachers in which the beauty and eloquence of the Greek language were emphasized, and sent out memoranda to schools exalting the Greek language (see also Karoulla-Vrikki, 2005). After 1997, the intensity of hellenizing language policies by the MOEC subsided somewhat. However, ministry memoranda continued to remind students and teachers that ‘our language, Greek, constitutes a crucial aspect of national capital and an essential indicator of our identity’ (Hoplaros, Skotinos, & Erotokritou, 2004). In the absence of official language-planning bodies, MOEC officials, school inspectors, school principals, etc. undertook the role of informal language planners and enforcers of a covert language policy and of

30

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

interpreting and implementing the national curricula, which remained indeterminate on the place and role of linguistic variation in the school system. The agenda seemed to be, covertly yet univocally, to marginalize the use of the dialect, as it was purportedly unsuitable for the cultivation of demanding aspects of (school) literacy (Ioannidou, 2009b; Tsiplakou, 2007a, 2007b); in contrast, the only form of language deemed appropriate for literacy was SMG. As is shown in Ioannidou (2011) and Tsiplakou (2006b, 2007a, 2007b), a direct consequence of this prescriptive attitude was that, by a rather circular logic, mere competence in SMG was treated as equivalent to literacy learning, with pedagogically rather disastrous consequences. The purported unsuitability of CG for the purposes of (school) literacy was coupled with endorsement of the symbolic role of SG in forging strong links with the rest of the Hellenic world (Ioannidou, 2009b; see also Pavlou, 2001).

4.2.3

The current curriculum and education reform

Since the 1990s several linguists working as faculty at the then newly formed University of Cyprus have become interested in the study of the CG dialect and have posed research questions as well as theoretical/methodological questions regarding the sociolonguistic status of the dialect in the polis in general and in classrooms in particular.15 These works describe the diglossic situation between SG and CG in the Greek Cypriot community, trace the extensive presence of CG in classrooms and, particularly through the work by Papanicola (2010), Tsiplakou and Hadjioannou (2010) and Yiakoumetti (2006, 2007), recommend legitimizing the presence of CG in the classroom and rendering it an object of explicit and systematic study within the context of literacy education. This scholarly work has become part of the course content of Language Arts programs at the University of Cyprus, as well as of professional development courses offered to teachers through the university, thus unofficially impacting public education. More recently, understandings gained from this body of work have indirectly influenced official language policy-making as well, as insights from the aforementioned research have been incorporated into the new national curriculum for language (MOEC, 2010a). The new national curriculum for language, the first draft of which was completed in June 2010, deserves some consideration because of its potential implications for language policy. The curriculum, which was co-authored by one of the contributors to this monograph, does not take any position with respect to assigning official language status to either SG or CG. Rather, the curriculum focuses on deploying the naturalistic acquisition of CG as a means of fostering metalinguistic knowledge and sociolinguistic awareness with regard to the two varieties of Greek spoken on the island within a radical genre/critical literacy perspective. The new curriculum states its critical literacy agenda at its outset: Critical literacy involves understanding and capitalizing on the ideological dimension of language; it involves the ability to investigate the ways in which various aspects of language (grammar, vocabulary, genres, information structure in texts) contribute to the creation of social relations, the construction of political and cultural values, the perpetuation of stereotypes or the reversal of relations of power and inequality among social groups. […] [L]iterate students are aware that social relations, gendered identities and ideologies are constructed not only through the content of language/of texts but, crucially, through the form of language, through genre and also through practices of production and reception of texts in particular communities. (MOEC, 2010a, p. 1)

This is the first Greek language curriculum that adopts a very explicit stance with regard to standard language and dialect and geographical/socio-linguistic variation:

Current Issues in Language Planning

31

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Students are expected to acquire a full overview of the structure of Standard Greek and of the Cypriot Greek variety (phonetics and phonology, inflectional and derivational morphology, syntax); […] to realize that various aspects of grammar perform specific language functions, depending on genre and communicative situation […]; to know the basic structural similarities between Standard and Cypriot Greek and to be able to identify elements from other varieties/languages in hybrid, mixed or multilingual texts; to view the Cypriot dialect as a variety which displays systematicity in its phonology, syntax and vocabulary; to be able to analyze a range of hybrid texts produced through code-switching and language alternation in a multilingual and multicultural society such as that of Cyprus. (MOEC, 2010a, p. 2)

Not only does the dialect acquire ‘visibility’ within the language classroom, but it also becomes an object of instruction. Contrastive analysis between CG and SG is expected to foster higher levels of metalinguistic awareness, not only at the structural/ grammatical level, but, crucially, at the textual and communicative level. It is expected that the CG dialect will be exploited as a means of fostering awareness of sociolinguistic/register/stylistic variation depending on genre and community of practice and, ultimately, as a means of fostering critical language awareness and critical literacy skills. As can be seen from the last sentence of the quotation above, the new language curriculum does not aim to ‘compartmentalize’ SG and CG or to indicate prescriptively that each is reserved for particular communicative situations; rather, the curriculum aims to make students critically aware of the dynamics of linguistic communication and literacy practices in their sociocultural contexts; to this end, awareness not only of dialect differences but also of various forms of textual and generic hybridity are expected to play a crucial role. The educators (school inspectors and teachers) participating in the project have been voicing some concerns regarding the systematic teaching of the dialect as opposed to the sporadic cultivation of dialect awareness and positive attitudes toward CG. The concerns stem mainly from the novelty of the endeavor and the absence of teaching materials in the dialect, as well as from the absence of a standardized orthographic system. It is hoped that these concerns will be alleviated with the publication of the Grammar of Contemporary Cypriot Greek (Tsiplakou et al., forthcoming), in which a simple, Greek alphabetic transcription system is proposed, and the phonology and morphosyntax of the dialect are described in detail following principles of contemporary linguistics. It is too soon to predict whether the concerns about making CG visible in the education system covertly relate to issues of sociolinguistic prestige and/or to issues of ethnic/national identity formation. In any case, it will be interesting to examine, from an ethnographic perspective, how such concerns will be addressed, and, crucially, whether the new language curriculum will longitudinally have an effect on the linguistic situation in the Republic of Cyprus (see also Section 5 below). 4.2.4 Multilingualism and education Linguistic variation has been historically ubiquitous in Cyprus, given the presence of the two Cypriot dialects as well as SG and ST. Nonetheless, as Hadjioannou (2006) notes, such variation never challenged ‘the linguistic and cultural homogeneity of Greek Cypriot education’ (p. 399); by design, Turkish Cypriots never had a significant presence in CG schools. Since the 1990s, however, the immigration trends described earlier precipitated the increasing presence in public education of students who are not fluent in Greek. This has brought on a novel language policy challenge facing the MOEC and other informal language policy-makers in the Republic of Cyprus. In response to this challenge, the MOEC:

32

X. Hadjioannou et al. . .

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

.

has established a set of basic multicultural education principles to guide educational practice, has created ‘Educational Priority Zones’ to identify and support schools with high numbers of second language learners and has routinely organized in-service professional development seminars on teaching Greek as a second language.

However, as reported by Hadjioannou (2006) and Tsiplakou and Georgi (2008), despite a purported commitment to principles of multicultural education, language policies and instructional praxis are unmistakably assimilative in nature and monolingual in scope. The challenge posed by the presence of European and other nationals in public education and in the polity at large is one that, at the current sociohistorical juncture, can no longer be dealt with as a local issue with local solutions. Rather, European Union membership has significant implications for language policy-making and policy implementation. European Union language policy entails a firm commitment to linguistic diversity and multilingualism (European Commission for Multilingualism, 2008). Therefore, the Republic of Cyprus must reshape its language policies to protect and promote minority languages within its domain, to support multicuturalism substantively and to promote language learning directed toward multilingualism.16

5.

Language maintenance and prospects

5.1 Levelling and Koinéization As noted in Section 2.3, the linguistic situation of the CG community is one of diglossia as defined by Ferguson (1959). The L variety is the naturally acquired CG dialect and the H variety is SG. Prior to the 1974 war, the CG dialect included a number of geographical subvarieties (Kontosopoulos, 2001; Newton, 1972a). However, the geopolitical and demographic changes caused by the war brought about a trend toward ‘homogenization’ and have led to the ongoing rapid formation of the CG koiné (Arvaniti, 2010a; Karyolemou & Pavlou, 2001), together with levelling of regional CG sub-varieties (Tsiplakou et al., 2006). According to Tsiplakou (2003/in press, 2009a, 2009c, 2010; Tsiplakou et al., 2006) the CG koiné exhibits strong influences from SG which are manifested as: . . . .

heavy borrowing of lexical elements from SG and concomitant loss of Cypriot vocabulary; morphological changes due to the replacement of Cypriot grammatical morphemes with equivalent morphemes from SG; changes in phonology; syntactic changes (treated as instances of an emerging mixed grammatical system rather than as code-mixing; see Tsiplakou 2009a, 2009c, 2010).

Arguably more formal registers of the koiné display dense code-switching and code mixing between CG and SG (Tsiplakou, 2009a, 2009c, 2010). These changes should not, however, be seen as indications of moribundity of the dialect, but rather as natural processes of language shift correlating with the novel sociolinguistic situation on the island post-1974. In fact, the emergence of a structurally mixed Cypriot koiné, which is sociolinguistically juxtaposed to stigmatized basilectal sub-varieties and therefore acquires both overt and covert prestige, may go a long way toward dialect maintenance in the face of

Current Issues in Language Planning

33

the decade-long ‘invasion’ of SG in education, the media, etc. It is therefore envisaged that de-dialectization is a long way from taking place in Cyprus. In fact, the contemporary vital presence of varying registers of CG in the media (Georgiou, 2010; Tsiplakou & Hadjioannou, 2010) and on the internet (Sophocleous & Themistocleous, forthcoming; Themistocleous, 2009, forthcoming), as well as the availability of a dictionary17 and a grammatical description of the CG koiné following linguistic criteria,18 together with the on-going national language curriculum reform, may be operative in reversing language shift and arresting potential de-dialectization.19

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

5.2

Cypriot Arabic: a moribund variety

At 900 speakers (COE, 2011) CMA is by-and-large moribund; attrition and pidginization have been operative for generations (Roth, 2004) and speakers over the age of 30 are probably the terminal speakers of this language. Morbidity has been expedited with the relocation to the south of the CMA-speaking population, who mostly lived in the village of Kormakiti in the north of Cyprus pre-1974. Since 2002, Cypriot Arabic is one of the UNESCO-designated severely endangered languages (UNESCO, 2009). The community has expressed a wish for standardization and language maintenance (see Kermia Ztite, 2006), with which the MOEC has complied by putting together a committee of linguists to work on the standardization and revival of Cypriot Arabic since 2008, following a recommendation of the Council of Europe (COE, 2006). The Committee has produced an action plan for the codification and revitalization of CMA, which involves: (a) a general description and a pre-assessment of the current state of CMA; (b) an action plan for the revitalization of CMA; (c) a proposal for the adoption of an alphabetical codification of CMA. Whether these measures will help arrest morbidity unfortunately remains doubtful. 6. Language policy and language planning in the northern part of Cyprus (contribution by Matthias Kappler) 6.1 Preamble The following sections describe the language policy and planning situation in the northern part of Cyprus; issues discussed in the previous chapters on the Republic of Cyprus (particularly concerning Turkish in the Republic of Cyprus) are not addressed. After the intervention (‘invasion’ according to Greek sources and ‘peace movement’ according to Turkish sources) of the Turkish army in the summer of 1974, and the declaration of the independence of the (officially largely unrecognized) Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983, the northern part of Cyprus is de facto outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Cyprus, but has been included in this review because it forms an historical and cultural part of Cyprus as a whole. Given that the political situation has resulted in the use of differing and often conflicting terminologies in the two parts of Cyprus to describe the area under Turkish Cypriot administration, we will use the terms ‘northern part of Cyprus’, or the ‘north of Cyprus’, which are widely used by Cypriot and international Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and other organizations, avoiding any use of signs (e.g. the use of quotation marks or modifiers such as ‘pseudo-’ or ‘so-called’) which have ideological connotations. In the following pages, words such as government, university or ministry are used without quotation marks when referring to institutions in the northern part of Cyprus (in

34

X. Hadjioannou et al.

contrast to established practice in Greek Cypriot official language policy; cf. Floros, 2009, 2011a) for reasons of simplifying text flow. This does not imply any particular ideological or political positioning of the author.

6.2

Language profile

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

6.2.1 Official language The only official language in the northern part of Cyprus is Turkish.20 The officially used variety is ST, i.e. the variety used in the Republic of Turkey (see Section 2.1). ST is also the sole language of literacy (on local varieties, see Section 6.2.3).

6.2.2

Major minority languages

The constitutional document in effect in the northern part of Cyprus does not acknowledge minority languages. A number of local and immigrant languages and varieties are unofficially ‘tolerated’, but do not appear in public life. CMA, which, as mentioned in Section 2.2, is identified as one of the endangered languages of the world, is spoken in Kormakitis/Koruçam (see map in Figure 1), the only historically Maronite village that still has a CMA-speaking population. Though most Maronites who lived in the Kormakitis area prior to 1974 moved to urban centers of the south, approximately 130 individuals ‘have chosen to remain under Turkish administration’ (Karyolemou, 2010, p. 3). Since the opening of the borders in 2003, many Maronites who currently reside in the southern part of Cyprus visit Kormakitis regularly, and, having reclaimed their real estate property, have had their houses restored for use as second or vacation homes. Recently, 27 Maronites who had moved to the area under the control of the Republic of Cyprus post-1974 have been granted permission to move back to Kormakitis and reclaim their status as residents of the village (Kormakitis.net, 2011). Because of increased traveling of individuals living in the southern part of the island to the Kormakitis area, during the last few years Greek street signs, alongside the official Turkish ones, have been installed in Kormakitis, but no public signs in CMA have been put up in the village. In an attempt to revitalize CMA (see Section 5.2) and to solidify a connection between Maronite youth and Kormakitis, annual language immersion camps for children aged 7–16 have ben held in the village since 2008 (Bielenberg & Constantinou, 2010). CG and Armenian are almost completely out of use since 1974, when most Greek and Armenian speakers fled to the south of Cyprus. CG is still spoken in the village of Rizokarpaso/Dipkarpaz and surrounding areas, where a limited number of Greek Cypriots (520 in 1994 according to Brey, 1998; 343 in 2011 according to the Press and Information office of the Republic of Cyprus; PIO, 2011) have remained after 1974. The immigrant population that moved into Rizokarpaso as the local Greek Cypriots departed is often bilingual (in Kurdish or Anatolian varieties of Turkish and CG). CG is also still the dominant language for a small number of Turkish Cypriots in the Lurucina region and in Kaleburnu (Karpaz); the older generation is almost exclusively Greek-speaking, whereas the younger people are balanced bilinguals (Johanson & Demir, 2006; Ioannidou, 2009c; Kappler, 2010). Another important, yet usually neglected, local minority language is Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha, the language of the Cypriot Muslim Roma, or Gurbet (an Arabic term that reached Romani through Turkish). Many of the Cypriot Muslim Roma have migrated south after 2003, but there is still a small number of Roma living in the Morfou/Güzelyurt and Famagusta/Mağusa districts; their precise number is unknown due to the mobility of the

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

35

group. Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha seems to be a kind of creole with mainly Romani lexicon and CT grammar (Pehlivan, 2009, p. 150), but the language is still completely unexplored (see Section 2.2). The most important immigrant languages are Kurdish and Arabic; the latter is a Syrian variety from the Antiocheia/Hatay region of Turkey; the exact number of speakers of either of these languages is unknown. Other languages (i.e. other Arabic varieties, French, Spanish, Persian, Turkic languages of the Caucasus and Central Asia and of Iran, African languages and Urdu) are mostly spoken by such temporary migrants as workers or students. In addition, the use of Russian and Rumanian is consistently increasing because of the increasing presence of residents and workers from Eastern Europe, especially in the Keryneia/Girne area. English is still widely used in interethnic communication and in tourism. Native speakers of English residing permanently in the northern part of Cyprus may be found in the Keryneia/Girne and Lapithos/Lapta areas; some villages (e.g. Karmi/Karaman) are almost exclusively English-speaking. A smaller German-speaking community resides permanently in these areas (see figures in Section 6.2.4). As a result of the massive emigration of Turkish Cypriots to English-speaking countries after 1974 (primarily to the UK), there is a small number of Turkish–English bilingual speakers, who have either returned to Cyprus, come from linguistically mixed backgrounds, or are merely occasional tourists. 6.2.3

Dialects and language variation

In terms of phonology, and partly of morphology, CT varieties belong to the Central Anatolian Turkish dialect group, but differ from it in many respects, primarily in syntax and in the lexicon. Similar to the situation in the south regarding SMG and CG, CT and ST stand in a diglossic relationship (see Ferguson, 1959 and note 4). CT is the L, naturally acquired variety and ST is the H, superposed variety used in literacy and formal communication (see also Section 2.3). CT ‘is generally described as an extension of Anatolian Turkish’ (Johanson & Demir, 2006, p. 2). However, its (socio)linguistic profile appears to be significantly different from that of other Anatolian varieties, which have experienced substantial ‘homogenizing’ influences by prestige dialects, and are converging toward ST. The distinct (socio)linguistic status of CT can be attributed to the fact that prior to 1974 the dialect had evolved in a context of relative geographical isolation from other varieties of Turkish and in ‘intensive interaction’ with CG and English (Johanson & Demir, 2006, p. 3). CT has several sub-varieties (Demir, 2002; Duman, 1991; Kappler, 2008), which are undergoing levelling and koinéization (Menteşoğlu, 2009; Pehlivan, 2003; Theocharous, 2009). This process appears to have been accelerated after 1974 as: . . .

groups of speakers of various geographical sub-varieties became inter-mixed after moving to the northern part of the island, ‘intensive linguistic contacts with both ST and Anatolian dialects’ took place as a result of significant influx of immigrants from Turkey (Johanson & Demir, 2006, p. 2); and ST was adopted ‘as the official language of education, bureaucracy, and the mass media’ (Menteşoğlu, 2009, p. 76).

According to Johanson and Demir (2006), unlike the situation in Turkey, where dialects are typically stigmatized, in the northern part of Cyprus the emerging CT koiné carries quite some prestige as it is ‘spoken, alongside ST, at various levels of public communication’ (p. 3),

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

36

X. Hadjioannou et al.

including television discussions, parliament debates, television series, public political speeches, etc. Still, CT is generally absent from the daily press (with the exception of satirical periodicals) and news broadcasting (cf. Section 6.3.2). Although, as a rule, CT is used in oral communication, dialect interference has been documented in written language, e.g. in official records, minutes and school essays (Pehlivan, 2000; Pehlivan & Adalıer, 2010; Vancı-Osam, 2006). The relatively high prestige of CT is indicated by the fact that children of immigrants from Turkey usually adopt CT dialect features when speaking to Cypriots, or, if their language acquisition process has been completed on the island, their oral production displays dominant CT features (Johanson & Demir, 2006). On the other hand, the influence of ST through the mass media, the influx of immigrants from Turkey and the re-immigration of Turkish Cypriots from Turkey (most of whom return to Cyprus after attending university in Turkey) have played a significant part in the levelling of CT in recent years. Turkish-speaking immigrants from Turkey and other countries (e.g. Bulgaria) brought with them a large number of dialect varieties from central, southern, eastern and northern Anatolia, as well as from the Balkans. Although recent numbers are not available (see Section 6.5), it is assumed that immigrants from Turkey form the majority of the population in the northern part of Cyprus. Immigrants tend to use their dialects within their own speech communities, and may switch to ST when speaking to people from other regions. Moreover, as was pointed out above, they use CT features when addressing Cypriots. Given the overwhelming influence of immigrants in the society, Turkish Cypriots use their dialect more and more in order to differentiate themselves from non-Cypriots as a means of creating/ defending identity (European Commission, 2004). Specific epithets are used to denote pejoratively immigrant or even standard speech (e.g. the verb karasakallaşmak ‘to speak like a karasakallı’, from karasakallı ‘black-bearded’ for ‘Anatolian [peasant]’), and new slang forms (such as turist ‘tourist’, Amerikalı ‘American’, karşıyakalı ‘from the opposite side’, mavro (Gr.) ‘black’, apaçi ‘Apache’) which serve to mark social and linguistic dissociation from Turkish immigrants, have recently been coined.

6.2.4 Speakers/the population issue Up until 1974, the population and distribution of linguistic varieties in the area currently under Turkish Cypriot administration paralleled the state of affairs in the rest of Cyprus: .

.

Up until 1963, there were villages inhabited by Greek Cypriots or by Turkish Cypriots, but also villages inhabited by members of both communities. As a rule, Greek Cypriots spoke Cypriot and SG, and, depending on the sociolinguistic and geographical context, Turkish Cypriots spoke either Cypriot and ST, or only CG, or they were bilingual in (Cypriot) Turkish and (Cypriot) Greek. During the turbulent time of intercommunal conflict between 1963 and 1970, the distribution of the population in Cyprus changed as Turkish Cypriots retreated to territorial enclaves accross the island. According to Kliot and Mansfeld (1994), ‘from 1962 to 1964 most of the Turkish Cypriots moved or were forced to move to larger villages and towns and some 42 Turkish-controlled enclaves were formed, each containing both local populations and the displaced persons from neighbouring villages’ (p. 329).

The war in 1974 brought about significant population shifts and led to a radical differentiation of the distribution of the population in the northern and southern parts of Cyprus,

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

37

as Greek Cypriots were forced to leave the northern part of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots from all over Cyprus moved to the areas under Turkish Cypriot control. A population census conducted in 1960 by the Republic of Cyprus counted 104,320 Turkish Cypriots, constituting 18.2% of the population of Cyprus21 (European Commission, 2004). However, various sources report that a significant portion of this population and their descendants do not currently reside in the northern part of Cyprus (Faiz, 2008): beginning from the time of the intercommunal skirmishes of the 1960s, peaking in 1974, and continuing well into the 1980s, significant numbers of Turkish Cypriots emigrated, primarily to Great Britain and Australia, for economic and political reasons (Hatay, 2007; Issa, 2006; Robins & Aksoy, 2001). According to the European Commission (2004) ‘at least 36,000 Turkish Cypriots emigrated in the period 1975–1995, with the consequence that within the occupied area the native Turkish Cypriots have been outnumbered by settlers’ (n. p.). However, in her analysis of the 2006 census conducted in the northern part of Cyprus, Hatay (2007) suggests that claims of massive post-1974 immigration of Turkish Cypriots (some reports allege up to 57,000 outbound immigrants) are exaggerated and misleading, and refutes claims that the ‘native’ Turkish Cypriot population is dwindling. Another significant section of the current population of the northern part of Cyprus comprises persons who immigrated to Cyprus from Turkey after 1974.22 ‘Between 1975 and 1981, Turkey encouraged its own citizens to settle in northern Cyprus’ (International Crisis Group, 2010, p. 2). Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot administration maintain that this was in order to encourage economic development and render the northern part of Cyprus self-sufficient, but the Greek Cypriot side asserts that the policy was aimed at altering the demographic character of the area and at raising the proportion of the Turkish community to the total population of Cyprus (European Commission, 2004; Hatay, 2007). This facilitated migration policy resulted in a significant influx of Turkish immigrants ‘from various regions of Anatolia, mostly from the southern coastal regions such as Mersin, Adana, and Antalya’ (Johanson & Demir, 2006, p. 3). Hatay (2007) reports that ‘immigrants who were part of this policy received empty Greek Cypriot properties and citizenship in the Turkish Cypriot state almost upon arrival’ (pp. 2–3), but notes that the allocation of property was discontinued after 1982 and that citizenship criteria were made more stringent in 1993. The passage of time (and the birth of children to immigrant families), the absence of comprehensive immigration records (particularly in the first few years after the war), the immigrants’ acquisition of citizenship in the self-proclaimed state of the north and intermarriage between immigrants and ‘native’ Turkish Cypriots render determining the exact numbers of Turkish immigrants impossible. According to the International Crisis Group (2010), ‘perhaps half the estimated 300,000 residents of the Turkish Cypriot north were either born in Turkey or are children of such settlers’ (p. 2). The current demographic makeup of the northern part of Cyprus is unclear, as there is significant variation among the demographic information reported in various sources.23 The most recent census in the north of Cyprus was conducted in 2006. The census included items related to citizenship as well as items related to respondents’ and their parents’ place of birth. However, it did not include questions about language. This was a de facto census but ‘information necessary for determining the de jure population was also compiled’ (Hatay, 2007, p. 26).24 Table 4 shows the population census results according to citizenship (source: TRNC State Planning Organization/KKTC Devlet Planlama Örgütü; SPO, 2006): However, similarly to past censuses and officially reported numbers whose trustworthiness was challenged by various scholars and political stakeholders, the credibility of this census has been seriously questioned. Hatay (2007) acknowledges that some under-counting (particularly of immigrants) did occur, but notes that ‘the exact number of uncounted

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

38

X. Hadjioannou et al.

persons is not known’ (p. 27). Others, such as Muharrem Faiz, the Director of the Cyprus Social and Economic Research Centre (Kıbrıs Toplumsal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Merkezi, KADEM), which did poll research for Eurobarometer, offers considerably more damning critiques: ‘30% of the population of the northern part of Cyprus was not included in the 2006 census’ and ‘the de facto population and the de jure population definition were not clear’ (Kanatlı, 2010, p. 3; cf. Faiz, 2008). According to the census, 49.5% of the de facto population of the northern part of Cyprus in 2006 consisted of individuals who the Turkish Cypriot administration did not consider as citizens. Though this number also included college students as well as other persons who were in Cyprus for short-term stay, presumably the majority consisted of immigrants. In some areas, such as Keryneia/Girne or the inner (old) city of Nicosia/Lefkoşa (northern part), the distribution is even more in favor of the immigrant population. Thus, according to the 2006 census, 65% of the population in inner Nicosia are citizens of Turkey, 15% have dual nationality and 25% are TRNC citizens (Yeni Kıbrıs Partisi (YKP), 2008). Interesting information may also be gauged from a recent survey by the Turkish Cypriot Teachers’ Trade Union (KTÖS, 2008) regarding the composition of school classes. According to this survey, both parents of 34% of primary school students are citizens of the Republic of Cyprus (which means that they must have been born in Cyprus); one of the parents of 9% of the students is a citizen of the Republic of Cyprus, both parents of 19% of the students have double (TRNC-Turkish) citizenship (which means that they have a Turkish background and were granted the TRNC citizenship at a later stage), and the parents of 37% of the students are citizens of the Republic of Turkey. In other words, the survey results show that more than half of the students have a non-Cypriot background. In some cities the balance shifts even more toward the non-Cypriot side (e.g. in Kyreneia/Girne 54.5% have only Turkish citizenship and 10.1% have dual citizenship, i.e. TRNC-Turkish citizenship). The population issue is particularly relevant for the linguistic profile of the north of Cyprus. However, the general oscillation of demographic data and the contradictory statements of government and opposition forces25 reflect the unreliability of population data as Table 4. 2006 Population census results according to citizenship. De facto

General total 1. TRNCa 2. TRNC and other (a) TRNC – Turkey (b) TRNC – UK (c) TRNC – Other 3. Turkey 4. Other (a) UK (b) Bulgaria (c) Iran (d) Moldovia (e) Pakistan (f) Germany (d) Other

De jure

Population

Share %

Population

Share %

265,100 133,937 42,795 33,870 4185 4740 77,731 10,637 4458 831 775 485 490 343 3255

100.0 50.5 16.1 12.8 1.6 1.8 29.3 4.0 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.2

256,644 135,106 42,925 34,370 3854 4701 70,525 8088 2729 797 759 354 475 181 2793

100.0 52.6 16.7 13.4 1.5 1.8 27.5 3.2 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.1

a The term TRNC is used to reflect the data as reported by the census agency and not as a political statement on the status of the area under Turkish Cypriot administration.

Current Issues in Language Planning

39

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

well as the lack of official sources on the numbers of speakers of the various languages and dialects of the area.26 Therefore, it is fair to say that the actual number of speakers of the varieties mentioned in Section 6.2.3 (CT, Turkish dialects, local minority languages, immigrant languages) is not known. The 2006 census, as others before it, did not deploy language as a criterion; therefore, the only language-related information that can be drawn from it are inferences stemming from the figures for citizenship. However, these figures provide rather poor information about the actual speakers of CT or of other Turkish varieties since: (1) the statistics about citizenship do not fully reflect the varieties used by the population; (2) no statistics are available about the regions of origin of the immigrants from Turkey; such statistics would be important in order to establish the numbers of speakers of the various Anatolian dialects; furthermore, a reported recent increase in immigration from Turkey and the subsequent granting of TRNC citizenships has changed the population profile of the area and contributes to the lack of reliable data about the demographic situation in the northern part of Cyprus.

6.3 Language spread 6.3.1 Education 6.3.1.1 Education system, foreign languages and attitudes toward dialects in education. As in the Republic of Cyprus, education in the northern part of Cyprus is compulsory until the age of 15. Basic compulsory education includes 5 years of primary school (ilkokul) and 3 years of secondary school (ortaokul). High-school education (lise) lasts 3–4 years, depending on the type of school (MEC, 2005). Alternatively, there are state and private secondary colleges (kolej) which provide six-year instructional programs, their diploma being equivalent to a lise diploma (Yaratan, 1998, p. 613). Access to colleges (e.g. the prestigious Türk Maarif Koleji) formerly required an entrance examination, but that requirement was waived in 2009. The school curriculum of 1999 was reformed following an initiative of the left-wing government in 2004, when the Ministry of Education and Culture introduced a new education system. The main differences between the two curricula lie in their differential foci – on ‘mainland Turkey’ in the former curriculum versus the inclusion of local Cypriot culture in the curricula after 2004/2005 (see Section 6.3.3). The language of instruction is ST in all schools, while in colleges the medium of instruction is English. CT was not acknowledged in the curriculum before 2004. New curricular guidelines regarding CT are in deference to recommendations by Turkish Cypriot researchers that ‘particular attention has to be paid to the differences between the standard and the dialect’ and that ‘the implementation of bidialectal programs could be useful for the North Cyprus educational context’ (Pehlivan, in Schroeder & Strohmeier, 2006, p. 295; see also Pehlivan & Adalıer, 2010, p. 394). According to the curriculum of the period between 2004 and 2009, the teacher is expected to place ‘emphasis on the active use of the Turkish language and [must] continuously make efforts to develop the Cypriot Turkish culture’ (MEC, 2005, p. 8). The curriculum also includes a newly-established Turkish Cypriot Literature course (school year 2004/2005); one of the objectives of this course was to ‘contribute to the students’ ability to perceive the differences between CT and Turkish spoken in

40

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Turkey’ (Pehlivan, 2007, p. 39). Research by Pehlivan and Menteşoğlu (forthcoming) on the attitudes of primary school teachers to dialects shows that most teachers claim that they always use ST in the classroom, that they ‘correct’ students if dialect is spoken, and that they think that education programs should not take into account the students’ linguistic diversity. Crucially, as is evidenced by the figures in Section 6.2.4 showing the origins of the student population, a large variety of different dialects and languages (i.e. CT, several Anatolian dialects, Balkan dialects, other languages) is present in the classrooms of the northern part of Cyprus today. In an interview with representatives of the Teachers’ Trade Union (conducted by the author in December 2010), informants (primary school teachers) reported that many teachers use CT in the classroom. English is taught in incremental steps:

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

. . . .

first to second grades: ‘familiarization education’ (farkındalık eğitimi) with use of audio-visual material (especially songs) third grade: 3 hours weekly fourth to fifth grades: 5 hours weekly sixth grade onwards (secondary education): 6 hours weekly

According to informants from the Teachers’ Trade Union (interviewed by the author in December 2010), primary school education in English (grades 1–5) is problematic since the teachers have no TEFL training. In 2005, the Ministry of Education and Culture introduced a reform within the framework of the new education system according to which students who reach a satisfactory level in Turkish language study by the end of the sixth grade may opt into English-medium courses in subjects (called akademik dersler ‘academic courses’) such as Mathematics, History, Science and Geography. This can result in a ‘horizontal’ transition to both Turkish and English programs, depending on the abilities of each individual student (MEC, 2005, pp. 16–17). From the sixth grade onwards, pupils may choose either French or German as an elective course. According to the new curriculum (2005), it was planned to include ‘Greek [Modern Greek], the language of the neighboring society, in the programs as an optional subject from the 6th grade after pilot implementation in some schools whenever possible’ (MEC, 2005, p. 16). Greek courses are also offered optionally in some universities, e.g. at the Cyprus International University (Nicosia), which opened some of its courses to extramural students. Since 2003 the KTÖS (the Teachers’ Trade Union) has been offering Greek language courses, which are open to everyone; instructors usually come from the southern part of the island. Private institutes also offer Greek courses, while some Turkish Cypriots go to the southern part of Cyprus in order to take Greek courses, e.g. the courses of the School of Greek Language at the University of Cyprus. In a survey among Turkish Cypriot Education students at the Near East University, Pehlivan and Atamtürk (2006) found that attitudes toward Greek language learning were generally positive, yet participants were undecided as far as the Greek Cypriot community and culture were concerned (as opposed to the rather negative attitude of Greek Cypriots toward Turkish; see Osam & Ağazade, 2004). The northern part of Cyprus hosts five universities: two in Nicosia (Near East University, Cyprus International University), one in Famagusta (Eastern Mediterranean University), one in Keryneia (Girne American University) and one in Lefke (European University); moreover, it hosts branches of several Turkish universities. Three of the five universities are private, while the Eastern Mediterranean University and the European

Current Issues in Language Planning

41

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

University are state-trust institutions. Students come from Cyprus, Turkey and other countries. To accommodate students who do not know Turkish, the universities offer courses to help students develop the requisite Turkish-language skills (e.g. the one-semester compulsory course TUR 101 at the Cyprus International University, which offers two hours of Turkish per week). The major language of instruction in all universities is English, except in the departments of Turkish Language and Literature and the Schools of Education, Law and (partly) Communication. Informal education includes practical vocational schools, centers of vocational courses for women in towns and villages, a number of private tutoring schools (dersane) and afterschool private tutoring sessions (Yaratan, 1998, p. 622). 6.3.1.2 Objectives and assessment. The new objectives of the 2005 education system include the following two statements on language: The child . .

acquires communication skills in a second language apart from English in accordance with the ‘European Language Portfolio’; develops the attitude that Greek (Modern Greek) is ‘the language of the neighboring society’ (MEC, 2005, p. 12).

The planned objectives were intended to be implemented in the school years 2005–2008 for the second foreign language, whereas the introduction of optional courses in Modern Greek had not been allocated a time frame (MEC, 2005, p. 49). According to representatives of the Teachers’ Trade Union (interview with the author, December 2010) the objectives have been implemented in the period 2005–2008; however, the additional foreign language courses are currently (2010) offered only at the elective level. Greek courses are offered in some schools in urban areas, but still only as electives. Many science textbooks used in both primary and secondary education are still imported from Turkey. Textbooks produced in Cyprus include: . . . .

the Turkish language and Cyprus geography textbooks (Ülkemizi tanıyorum ‘I get to know my country’); the textbooks for social sciences; the new history books and Turkish Cypriot Literature books.

The texts of the last two textbook categories have been designed to represent the Cypriot situation as it was in 2004 under the left-wing government of Mehmet Ali Talat (cf. 6.3.3). It can be expected that the curricula and objectives are going to change in the near future because of recent political changes (a right-wing government since April 2009, a right-wing president since April 2010).27 6.3.1.3 History of language policies in the Turkish Cypriot Education System. During the Ottoman period (1571–1878), education was primarily offered by religious institutions; the two major religious communities (Muslims and Orthodox Christians) had separate education systems and structures, and there were no inter-group relations in the domain of education (Özerk, 2001, p. 256). Primary education was offered in the sıbyan mektebi (school for young children, primary school), and it involved writing and Kur’an

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

42

X. Hadjioannou et al.

classes, whereas secondary education was provided by the medrese (theological school), and, in later times, by the rüşdiye (Ottoman junior high school), where Turkish (Ottoman), Arabic and Persian grammar were taught. The idadiye, the secondary schools established at the end of the Ottoman period and the beginning of the British rule, added English to their programs (Behçet, 1969; Pehlivan, forthcoming); in the rüşdiye curricula English was not introduced until 1896 and French was offered as an elective (Özerk, 2001, p. 257). In the same year, Greek was introduced as an academic subject in the rüşdiyes, whereas in 1902 the Turkish Cypriot School Board ‘decided to hire bilingual (Turkish-Greek) teachers at the primary schools in areas where Greek was in use as lingua franca’ (Özerk, 2001, p. 257). Arabic and Persian were also retained as electives until the 1920s, when these subjects were abolished due to the influence of the Kemalist language reforms. As explained in Section 4.1, the British retained and encouraged the practice of having two separate school systems for Turkish and Greek Cypriot students, which resulted in each of the two systems orienting itself toward the cultural and ethnic centers of Turkey and Greece, respectively. Similar to the situation in Greek Cypriot education discussed in Section 4.2.2, Turkish Cypriot education after the 1930s was strongly oriented toward Turkey; textbooks and teachers came from Turkey, and Greek courses were abolished. However, English gained importance due to its role as the official language of Cyprus as a British colony and was introduced in the schools as the language of administration. Teachers with insufficient knowlegde of English often had to quit service (Pehlivan, forthcoming; Weir, 1952). On the history of education between 1960 and 1974 see Section 6.3.1.1.

6.3.2 The languages of the media The earliest Turkish newspaper in Cyprus of which copies have survived is the weekly Zaman, which started publishing in December 1891 (Azgın, 1998, p. 642). Like other newspapers of that time, it was oriented against the Greek press and against British colonial rule, which were both felt to be a menace to the small community of Turkish Cypriots. Thus, one of the objectives of Zaman was ‘to make sure that the Turkish language survives on the island of Cyprus’ (Azgın, 1998, p. 642). Also under the British ‘Newspaper, Books and Printing Press Law’, which replaced the Ottoman Press Law (Matbuat Nizamnamesi) as late as 1930, the newspapers were mostly in Turkish and most took a strong position against enosis (union with Greece) and Greek expansionism. After 1960, the newly-founded paper Cumhuriyet ‘Republic’ tried to encourage harmonious relations between the Turkish and the Greek communities (Azgın, 1998, p. 652); however, only one Turkish newspaper (Halkın Sesi) survived until the post-1974 period. In 1976 (the year of the first elections in the ‘Turkish Federative State of Cyprus’), a number of new newspapers were launched as instruments of the political parties involved in the elections. At present (November 2010), there are 12 daily Turkish-language newspapers published in the northern part of Cyprus; most of them have strong affiliations with the various political parties, while a few of them are independent. All the newspapers use exclusively ST; the only one hosting weekly columns in CT on specific days and on specific topics (mostly in satirical and humorous articles, but also as a means of indexing its dissociation from Turkey-centered policies) is the opposition paper Afrika. In a few cases, the various dialects of the immigrants (or rather, written representations of the perception an average Cypriot has of these dialects) are also used for satirical purposes.

Current Issues in Language Planning

43

In addition to the Turkish press, there is a bi-weekly English newspaper, Cyprus Today, and a weekly trilingual (Turkish, Greek, English) one, Cyprus Dialogue, founded by the journalist Reşat Akar in 2004 after the opening of the borders. Bayrak Radyo Televizyon Kurumu (‘Flag Radio Television Organization’, BRT), the state television and radio organization, has two TV channels and seven radio stations. One of the missions of BRT, according to the new television draft law (2010), is

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

to take measures to secure that broadcasting is made in an easily understandable language using Turkish without violating its peculiarities and rules, and to contribute to the development and enrichment of the language of education and science. (Yayınların kolayca anlaşılabilecek bir dille yapılmasını sağlayıcı önlemleri almak, bunu yaparken Türkçe’nin özellikleri ve kuralları bozulmadan kullanılmasına, çağdaş eğitim ve bilim dili halinde gelişmesine ve zenginleşmesine katkı koymak [Section 2.4.3. of “Bayrak Radyo Televizyon Kurumu Yasa Tasarısı”; KKTC-CM, 2010]).

This means that the only variety used in BRT programs is ST (for details on language policy practices in the media see Section 6.4.2). Apart from Turkish, news is broadcast daily in Greek and English; weekly news is also available in Arabic, French, German and Russian. Apart from BRT, there are seven private TV channels; some make moderate use of CT in a koinéized form, mostly in talk shows or debates. Additionally, the radio station Radyo Mayıs, which belongs to the Teachers’ Trade Union, broadcasts a program in three languages (Turkish, Greek and English) for 1.5 hours per week in cooperation with the bi-communal Association for Historical Debate and Research (AHDR); the program focuses mostly on history topics. 6.3.3

Local literature

As early as the Ottoman period, Turkish-language non-oral literature in Cyprus was written only in Standard (Ottoman) Turkish; the use of dialect was confined to folk literature (Kappler, 2009). This is an important difference between Turkish- and Greek-language literary production on the island. Only very few Turkish Cypriot authors sporadically use CT in their work, and no one writes exclusively in dialect, as some Greek Cypriot authors do. On the other hand, folk literature (for the greater part poetry) is usually composed in CT; most of these texts are published, often with many transcription errors and using standardized morphology. Literature is an important symbol of Cypriot identity, especially for the generation writing after 1974 (Yaşın, 1990; Yashin, 1997). Consequently, financial support for it depends on the political landscape. Between 2004 and 2009, during the time in power of a left-leaning administration, local literature flourished both in terms of publications and in terms of publicity in the media. After 2009, mostly NGOs (e.g. the Nicosia-based European and Mediterranean Art Association) support local literature through literary contests and publications. As far as education is concerned, the new curriculum introduced in 2004/2005 by the – at the time left-wing – Ministry of Education (see Section 6.3.1) included a general orientation toward European and Cypriot values. While the goal of the 1999 curriculum had been ‘to bring up citizens … for their motherland Turkey, and the Turkish people and their very own country’, in 2005 ideals such as ‘the acquisition of Cypriot national identity and cultural values’ were foregrounded (Pehlivan, 2007, p. 38) and Turkey was considered a ‘neighboring country’; similarly, the southern part of Cyprus was termed the ‘neighboring

44

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

society’. The ways in which this development has recently been halted and reversed will be discussed in Sections 6.4 and 6.5. The innovations proposed by the previous government also involved a new ‘Turkish Cypriot Literature’ course with a textbook produced in Cyprus; the course, which was designed for grades 9–11, was first taught in the school year 2004–2005. According to Pehlivan (2007), the course was well received by both teachers and students, although there was some disagreement regarding content, ideology and instruction. In spite of the political changes in 2009, this course is still part of the curriculum. Concerning literature in other, essentially unrecognized, languages (e.g. such minority languages as CMA, Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha or immigrant languages) there has been no official or unofficial support whatsoever.

6.3.4

Immigrant languages

As was reported in Section 6.2.2, the main immigrant languages other than Turkish varieties are Kurdish and Arabic. The speakers of these languages are typically bilingual and use Turkish in their everyday interactions with speakers of Turkish and with Cypriots, the only exception being the village of Rizokarpasos/Dipkarpaz, where Greek seems to be the lingua franca between immigrants and (Greek) Cypriots. There are no Turkish courses, either state-run or private, to improve competence in Turkish, especially in the written language, among immigrants. However, in certain colleges of secondary education such as Bayraktar Türk Maarif Koleji and some private colleges, immigrant children are pulled out during Turkish/Language Arts to attend special Turkish language classes. Fluency in Turkish is not an entrance requirement at universities, as the language of instruction in most departments is English. Nonetheless, compulsory Turkish courses are offered in some universities for first-year non-Turkish-speaking students (see Section 6.3.1.1). As shown in Table 4, the 2006 census indicated that 4% of the de facto population of the north part of Cyprus did not hold TRNC or Turkish citizenship. In general, tourist residents and persons who come to the northern part of Cyprus for business purposes have very limited knowledge of Turkish; they speak mainly English and Russian and they tend to use English when communicating with Cypriots. English and Russian have had some impact on public life, as they can be seen in advertisement billboards and signs.

6.4 Language planning and policy 6.4.1 The historical dimension The Turkish language reform (Dil Devrimi) of the 1930s in the context of the Kemalist westernization and democratization process had essentially two objectives: (1) the alphabet reform, which involved a change from the Arabic-Ottoman script to the Latin alphabet and (2) corpus planning, which involved effecting ‘changes in the form of the language itself (e.g. the words, the grammar, the orthography)’ (Haig, 2003, p. 121); significantly, corpus planning was coupled with the campaigns for the purification of the Turkish language and the ‘purging’ of Arabic and Persian lexical elements (Lewis, 1999).

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

45

The Turkish language reform exerted an immense influence on the sociocultural structure of Turkey. The alphabet reform was officially introduced in 1928, while the language purification reforms began in 1932 with the foundation of the Türk Dili Tetkik Cemiyeti (Society for the Study of the Turkish Language), later called Türk Dil Kurumu (TDK), since both tetkik and cemiyet are Arabic words. The reforms continued until the 1970s, and, in certain circles, they are still ongoing; the TDK, the regular publisher of the periodical Türk Dili, is still the official institution for language and corpus planning in Turkey. Although the reform could not be implemented exactly as it had been initially conceived by the reformers and by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk himself, the Turkish language changed drastically, and many of the committee’s suggestions on lexicon and terminology have been widely accepted (Brendemoen, 1990; Heyd, 1954; Lewis, 1999). Both aspects of the reform were very soon implemented in Cyprus. In 1930, two years after the Turkish alphabet reform, a printing machine with the Latin alphabet was sent to the editor of the Cypriot newspaper Söz as ‘a present by the Turkish government on the personal orders of Kemal Atatürk’ (Azgın, 1998, p. 646). Söz, which had been founded in 1920, was thus the first Turkish Cypriot newspaper to publish in Latin characters as early as 1931; other papers followed suit years later (Azgın, 1998, p. 646). Kızılyürek and Gautier-Kızılyürek (2004) report that ‘the language [sic; i.e. alphabet] reform did not reach the majority of Turkish Cypriots until the period following the Second World War’ because of the interruption in the publication of newspapers after 1936 (p. 44). The authors attribute this interruption to the fact that many Cypriots could not read newspapers in the new script. However, it seems that the slower spread of the new alphabet in Cyprus was rather the result of the prohibitive new British Press Law and the lack of paper during war years (Azgın, 1998) rather than of less effective educational activities regarding the new alphabet compared with the efforts in Turkey. Apart from facilitating the introduction of the new alphabet, the newspapers played a key role in the spread of language purification. At present the vocabulary used by Cypriots in formal oral communication and in writing does not differ essentially, as far as the effects of the language reform are concerned, from the standard variety spoken and written in Turkey. Also, imported Turkish textbooks and other school material, together with the presence of teachers from Turkey, have been instrumental in the implementation of the reform on the island. During British rule, Turkish Cypriots were generally bilingual (Turkish L1–Greek L2), whereas bilingualism in Greek and Turkish among Greek Cypriots was only sporadic (Kappler, 2010; Karyolemou, 2003). In the 1950s, Greek and Turkish nationalism and the pressure of nationalist underground organizations such as EOKA (Εθνική Οργάνωσις Kυπρίων Aγωνιστών ‘National Organization of Cypriot Fighters’) and TMT (Türk Mukavemet Teşkilatı ‘Turkish Resistance Organization’) respectively, led to diminished contact between the two communities and reinforced resistance against the language of the ‘other’, which from that point on became the ‘language of the enemy’. In the case of Turkish, the infamous Vatandaş Türkçe Konuş! (‘Citizen, speak Turkish!’) campaign, which started in 1958, imposed the use of Turkish and the avoidance of Greek, and introduced a monetary fine for every Greek word spoken (Kızılyürek & Gautier-Kızılyürek, 2004, p. 46). Other outcomes of linguistic nationalism in the late 1950s were the beginnings of initiatives to change Greek names of towns and villages to Turkish (Özerk, 2001, p. 258) and the educational mobilization of the Turkish Cypriot Youth Organization, who sometimes brutally imposed Turkish language courses on (Muslim) speakers of Greek or on those whose Turkish was considered insufficient (Kızılyürek & Gautier-Kızılyürek, 2004, p. 46). After 1960, ‘asymmetrical bilingualism’ shifted to ‘zero bilingualism’ among Greeks and

46

X. Hadjioannou et al.

restricted bilingualism, confined to the older generation, among Turks (Karyolemou, 2001a, p. 27; Özerk, 2001, p. 259; Yağcıoğlu, 2003). 6.4.2

The current situation

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

In the northern part of Cyprus, there is currently no official language-planning institution comparable to the Society for Turkish Language (TDK) in Turkey. Restrictive language policies do, however, surface in the state media. Immediately after the government changed in April 2009, a number of instructions were informally (orally) communicated to the journalists of BRT (the state television and radio broadcasting company) regarding preferred linguistic choices. A precise pattern of verbal forms has been developed in order to differentiate political statements of the Turkish versus the Greek side (interview with television journalist, Nicosia 25.10.2010):28 Utterances of the Turkish side say (söyle-) stress (vurgula-) underline (altını çiz-) add (kaydet-) criticize (eleştir-)

Utterances of the Greek side claim (iddia et-) defend (savun-) express (ifade et-)

The only verb permitted for statements from both sides is the neutral de- (‘say’). An additional symptom of the tangled links between geopolitical ideology and language policies is the guideline that journalists working in state television must not use the word ada (island) when referring to the northern part of Cyprus (e.g. Cumhurbaşkanı yurda/ KKTC’ye döndü ‘the President came back to the country/to the TRNC’ (instead of ... adaya döndü ‘... came back to the island’), and they are obliged to use Anavatan (‘Motherland’) when refering to Turkey. To sum up, although there are no official language-planning agencies in the northern part of Cyprus, it seems that a trend toward ‘turcification’ has emerged in the last two years. Moreover, the sole language of literacy and the only language used in the courts is ST. 6.5

Language maintenance and prospects

The diglossic situation beteween Cypriot (L) and ST (H) is arguably affected by a complex levelling process with the concomitant emergence of a koinéized variety and the maintenance of several varieties on the basilectal end of the dialect continuum. Levelling occurs in all aspects of grammar (phonology, morphology, syntax); code-switching and mixing between ST and CT in informal communicative situations may also be seen as an aspect of the shift in the diglossic relationship between ST and CT (Theocharous, 2009). Nevertheless, CT still retains its relatively high status due to its connection to a Turkish Cypriot identity and attitudes of dissociation from the immigrant population. In spite of the significant influx of immigrants from Turkey and the consequent trend for native Turkish Cypriots to become a minority in the northern part of Cyprus, it is not expected that CT will become moribund in the near future, since the current complex sociopolitical situation seems to reinforce CT as an identity symbol: .

Because of the demographic shifts currently under way, Turkish immigrants are increasingly felt as an overwhelming menacing majority, compelling Turkish

Current Issues in Language Planning

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

.

.

47

Cypriots to buttress aspects of Cypriotness (including CT) as a means of asserting (and preserving) their separate identity. Prior to 1974 and in the years that followed the partition of Cyprus, a narrative of Turkish nationalism, according to which Turkish Cypriots were simply ‘Turks who happened to live in Cyprus’, was formally espoused as a framework for guiding ‘public education and cultural policy’ (Kızılyürek & Gautier-Kızılyürek, 2004, p. 48) and efforts to increase ‘the “Turkishness” of north Cyprus’ (Arbuckle, 2008, p. iii) were systematically undertaken. However, as Kızılyürek and Gautier-Kızılyürek (2004) report, after the establishment of substantive contact between Turkish Cypriots and mainland Turks (e.g. the Turkish army stationed in Cyprus, Turkish immigrants, close political ties with Turkey), the cultural differences became apparent and in response ‘many Turkish Cypriots are highlighting the intimate “Cypriot” cultural aspects as vital factors in reasserting their Turkish Cypriot ethic identity’ (Arbuckle, 2008, p. iii), in a trend that ‘can be considered as a political act of resistance’ (Kızılyürek & Gautier-Kızılyürek, 2004, p. 45). In deciding on how to cast their vote in the 2004 Referendum, which, had it been approved, would have led to the reunification of Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots had to decide between adherence to the dogma of sameness with mainland Turks or to a Cyprocentric identity. The endorsement of the referendum by 64.9% of voters in the northern part of Cyprus suggests a preference for the latter.

As discussed in 6.2.2, in the northern part of Cyprus CG is spoken by a small group of Greek Cypriots who live in Rizokarpasos, some older Turkish Cypriot bilingual speakers and the small Greek-speaking Muslim community in Lurucina. It is also used as a lingua franca in parts of the Karpaz region. Despite having a very small number of speakers, CG can be expected to resist moribundity in the northern part of Cyprus for reasons related to the speakers’ determination to assert their Greek Cypriot identity. Another factor potentially aiding the preservation of CG in the northern part of Cyprus is its increased usefulness after the relaxing of travel restrictions between the northern and southern part of Cyprus. The other local languages (CMA and Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha) are likely to have a different fate; CMA has already been officially defined as moribund (see Section 5.2), and Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha, despite being an emerging creole, has a diminishing number of speakers due to continued emigration to the southern part of Cyprus, mainly for economic and family reasons. 7.

Conclusions

In this monograph an attempt has been made to provide a comprehensive account of language policies and language planning in Cyprus. Language policies and planning are usually extremely complex issues, depending, as they do, on a host of political, social and cultural factors. The Cyprus Constitution (1960) provides for a dual-language approach to language matters in assigning official language status to Greek and Turkish, in deference to Cyprus’ two main linguistic communities. Though this provision in isolation seems to point to a bilingual society, the Constitution document as a whole established structures and procedures pertaining to a society where mutual bilingualism was not required or even promoted: citizens could conduct official business in the state language of their choice, vote only for representatives of their own community and attend independent, community-based educational systems. These consitutional provisions in many ways reflect and

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

48

X. Hadjioannou et al.

solidify a centuries old status quo, based on which each community managed its own linguistic (and other) affairs. Since the de facto geopolitical separation of Cyprus’ two main communities, first in the 1960s and, even more decisively, in 1974, language policies and language planning in the Republic and in the northern part of Cyprus have remained ultimately separate from one another. Despite the separation, however, the trajectory and the ideological underpinnings of activities directly or indirectly infuencing language matters exhibit notable parallels, such as the levelling of subvarieties, koinéization and a partial restructuring of the functions of the naturally acquired varieties of each community and the superposed standard languages; the essential absence of official language-planning agencies; a dynamic tension between cypriotizing and outward-looking trends; finally, the wielding of language policy as a tool for connecting with, or, more frequently, for dissociating from, other communities. As discussed in Section 2, the naturally-acquired varieties are CG for Greek Cypriots and CT for Turkish Cypriots. Though many dialects in both the Greek- and the Turkishspeaking worlds have become moribund or have significantly converged with the respective standard languages, it appears that both CG and CT are thriving; this may well be because of their status as koiné varieties at the expense of local sub-varieties, which have been subject to levelling. Both koinés seem to be slowly acquiring the status of prestige varieties, possibly a combination of overt prestige vis-à-vis stigmatized basilectal sub-varities and of covert prestige vis-à-vis the externally superposed standard languages (or, in the case of CT, overt prestige vis-à-vis the dialects of Turkish immigrants). Whether these processes of koinéization will eventually lead to diglossia resolution in both communities is still unclear; it is certainly not to be expected that diglossia resolution will take place as a result of any kind of political decision given the absence of concrete language policies and, crucially, of identifiable and stable language policy agents in both communities. The Cyprus Constitution does not include provisions for state language planning and language policy agencies, and since neither of the two main communities has formed such community-based bodies, the absence of official language policy-makers and of language-planning organizations is a common feature of the two major communities of the island. This absence is due to a host of factors, principal among them being the long tradition of implicitly relegating language issues to the education systems, which were kept separate and were community-based throughout the prolonged period of colonial rule, concomitantly with a relatively non-interventionist colonial policy toward language use on the island (with the brief exception of the quasi-centralizing and de-ethnicizing Education Laws of the 1930s). The two community-based education systems have consistently drawn upon the education systems of their respectively acknowledged ‘motherlands’, Greece and Turkey, for pedagogical models, for ideological orientation, and for policies regarding language use on the island. This lacuna has resulted in a strong orientation toward the respective standard languages as vehicles of both literacy and national identity, to the detriment of the status of the local varieties of Greek and Turkish spoken on the island, at least as far as their written status and their visibility in education and literacy practices are concerned. The perpetuation of this situation is largely due to the events of 1974 and the still unresolved ‘Cyprus issue’. That both communities still remain by and large ‘outward-looking’ in terms of their language policies may well explain the absence of official language policy-making entities on the island (or, indeed, the fact that the creation of such entities is not envisaged) and the relegation of issues of (overt or covert) language planning, as they arise on occasion (e.g. with respect to language(s) and varieties of literacy learning, dialect standardization, the languages of the media, the languages of the law, the languages of the state universities,

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

49

etc.) to entities and individuals as varied as (officials of) the Ministry of Education, the Institute of Education, school inspectors, the members of occasional and ad hoc committees of experts, academics at large, the Press and Information Office, journalists, Members of Parliament and, on occasion, the courts of law and individual citizens. A significant parallel tension characterizing debates about language both in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus and in the area under Turkish Cypriot administration is the conflict between ‘cypriotizing’ trends and ‘outward-looking’ trends toward the communities’ perceived national centers (hellenizing trends in the south and turcification trends in the north). On a surface level, this means that cypriotization trends involve the endorsement of a Cypriot identity as the principal one and a rather positive disposition toward the Cypriot dialects, whereas ‘outward-looking’ trends in each community involve the endorsement of a primarily Greek or Turkish identity and the promotion and protection of the standard languages from potential erosion. The conflict between these two trends has fuelled several language-related debates, including the polemic regarding the standardization of toponyms in the Republic of Cyprus (see Section 4.2.1) and, in the north, the tension between the dogma of sameness with mainland Turks and the desire to assert a unique Cypriot identity, which is often expressed through the wielding of CT as a marker of ‘Cypriotness’ and as a tool for distinguishing Turkish Cypriots from Turkish immigrants (see Sections 6.4 and 6.5). However, as indicated by such cases as the protracted debate over the language(s) of instruction at the University of Cyprus, and the abandonment of English in the civil cervice in the Republic of Cyprus, the actors, processes, and outcomes of the tension between ‘cypriotizing’ and ’outward-looking’ trends can be quite varied, and conflicting idelogies may generate identical policies (Karyolemou, 2002, 2010; Karoulla-Vrikki, 2009). It will be interesting to see whether such recent developments as the influx of immigrants in both communities, the linguistic implications of globalization, the new curricular reforms, financial developments and, crucially, any new developments toward the resolution of the ‘Cyprus issue’, will result in a set of overtly stated and consistent language policies and language-planning measures, whether these will be Cyprus-centered or outwardlooking and what agents (other than government and education) will be involved in the instantiation of such policies and aspects of language planning on the island. Notes 1.

2.

After the ceasefire in 1974 and up until 2003, crossing the buffer zone established between the area under the control of the Republic of Cyprus and the northern part of the island was uncommon. Crossing over to the northern part of the island was highly restricted; it was allowed only through special permission from the Turkish Cypriot administration. Public crossings have only become possible since April 23, 2003, when, in a surprise move, the Turkish Cypriot administration announced a relaxing of the restrictions over cross-travel. ‘This meant that people were able to cross in both directions without the requirement for any special permission, as was the case before, simply by showing their passports or identity cards’ (Şahin, 2011, p. 586). The Cyprus Constitution (Articles 2 and 3) recognizes two communities (Greek and Turkish) and three minority religious groups: the Maronites, who belong to the Eastern Catholic Church; the Armenian Cypriots; and the Latins, who are Roman Catholics of European or Levantine descent (Dietzel & Makrides, 2009; Government Web Portal, 2006; Hadjilyra, 2009; PIO, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c)). The identification of the three minorities as religious groups rather than as national minorities/communities by the constitution was significant as it meant that upon the formation of the Republic they were ‘compelled to choose to belong to one of the two main and constitutionally equal communities’ (Varnava, 2010, p. 207). All three minority religious groups opted through the Referendum of 1960 to join the Cypriot Greek community politically.

50 3.

4. 5. 6.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

X. Hadjioannou et al. ‘Diglossia is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any section of the community for ordinary conversation’ (Ferguson, 1959, p. 336). Ferguson terms the superposed variety ‘High’ (H) to denote its higher prestige, and the set of naturally acquired, low-prestige varieties is termed ‘Low’ (L). All quotations from documents originally in Greek or in Turkish are rendered into English by the authors. According to EUROSTAT 2006, 10.1% of 15-year-olds in the Republic of Cyprus attended private schools. The programs of study in a number of private schools fully mirror or partially parallel the curricula and course schedules of public schools. Gerogiou (2010) shows very convincingly that, despite the current preponderance of CG in sitcoms, its continued relative invisibility in other types of programs points to its construction as ‘non-serious’, i.e. as unsuitable for types of communication other than the ‘light’/comedic one of the sitcom. This is the dominant view expressed by media producers/channel directors; facets of the current mediascape, however, provide a more subtle and intriguing picture. Tsiplakou and Ioannidou (2010, September) discuss the use of hyperdialectal forms coupled with code-switching and code-mixing between CG, SMG and English in the recent sitcom Aigia Fouxia (‘The Fuchsia Goat’, Ant1 Cyprus, 2009–2010) and argue that extreme dialect stylization together with aberrant filmic techniques make for a postmodern, deconstructive take on constructions of language and identity in Cyprus. The excellent translation/adaptation into the Cypriot Greek koiné of Asterix in the Olympic Games by linguist Loukia Taxitari (2007) merits special mention here. The author uses a consistent, linguistically informed orthographic system which is very close to that of the ‘Syntychies’ (Συντυσ̌ιές) [sindiˈʃɛs] Project (see note 17) and the one in Tsiplakou, Coutsougera and Pavlou (forthcoming). In other colonies, such as India and Hong Kong, Christian proselytism and tensions between Orientalism and Anglocentrism were key forces in determining language and education policies; see, e.g. Carnoy (1974), Phillipson (1992), Sweeting and Vickers (2005), Whitehead (1988, 1995, 2005a, 2005b). See Evans (2002) for an analysis of the impact of parsimony concerns on colonial education and language policy. Such neologisms can, surprisingly, also be found in the translations of EU documents produced in Cyprus, despite the fact that translators have ample recourse to translations from Greece. Floros (2011b) suggests that this is a ‘cypriotizing’ practice, an instance of covert language policy, on par with similar practices in media and law translation (cf. Floros 2009, 2011a). Court cases demanding the exclusive or privileged use of Greek on passports and driving licences are discussed in detail in Karoulla-Vrikki (2010). A citizen of the Republic of Cyprus, Ms. Thekla Kittou, sued the Republic in 1984 and again in 1988 and 1994 demanding that she be issued (a) a drivers’ license in Greek and (b) a passport in Greek or in Greek with English as a secondary language, in deference to her linguistic and national rights as a Greek. In 1985, to avoid taking the first case to trial, the Republic’s lawyer submitted to the court ‘a drivers’ license in Greek, specially printed for the plaintiff’ (p. 265). The passport suits were rejected in 1994 on the grounds that (a) passports do not fall under the constitutionally derived obligation of the Republic to communicate with Greek-speaking citizens in Greek, as they are ‘not addressed to Greeks’ and are intended for use outside the Republic (p. 267), (b) no law of the Republic made explicit provisions regarding the language or format elements of passports and (c) the use of English did not infringe upon Ms. Kittou’s legal rights. Despite the rejection of the passport suit by the Supreme Court of the Republic, just days after the judgment, the Cabinet of Ministers decided that identity information on passports, drivers’ licenses and identification cards would be rendered in Greek for Cypriot Greeks and in Turkish for Cypriot Turks, followed by transcriptions in the Latin alphabet. KaroullaVrikki speculates that, given Ms. Kittou’s stated intent to pursue the matter further through the European Court, this decision may have been precipitated by a desire to avoid potentially

Current Issues in Language Planning

13.

14.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

51

negative implications for Cyprus’ then pending application for ascension into the European Union. It is interesting that other comic distortions of Greek Cypriot toponyms (e.g. the name of the village of /apeˈʃa/, whose unfortunate standardized rendering is AΠAIΣIA, which coincides orthographically with the word /aˈpesia/ ‘horrible’ in SMG) were not at the center of the controversy. As Karyolemou (2010) aptly notes, the debate was centered around the distortion of what are deemed salient phonetic variants in folk-linguistic perceptions of CG. Beginning from the academic year 2011–2012 Greece discontinued the gratis dispatchment of textbooks to the Cypriot public schools as part of the austerity measures enacted in response to the economic crisis. The Republic of Cyprus was set to purchase the textbooks from Greece at a discounted rate (Hasapopulos, 2011; MOEC, 2011b). See, for example, Arvaniti (2010a), Charalambopoulos (1990), Hadjioannou (2006, 2008), Ioannidou (2002, 2009a, 2009b), Karyolemou (2000a, 2000b), Moschonas (1996), Papanicola (2010), Papanicola and Tsiplakou (2008), Papapavlou (1998), Papapavlou and Pavlou (2004, 2007), Pavlou and Papapavlou (2004), Tsiplakou (2003/in press, 2004, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b, 2009a), Tsiplakou et al. (2006, forthcoming), Tsiplakou and Hadjioannou (2010), Yiakoumetti, Evans, and Esch (2005), Yiakoumetti (2007). It should be noted that very little is known to date about emerging immigrant ethnolects and their properties. The University of Cyprus ‘Syntychies’ (Συντυσ̌ιές) [sindiˈʃɛs] Project (2006–2010) (Armostis, Christodoulou, Katsoyannou, & Themistocleous, 2011) deserves special mention in this regard, as it is the first attempt to implement theoretical principles of lexicography together with a linguistically informed proposal for orthographic standardization. The project, whose output is a dynamic electronic web-based dictionary of CG, including a speech synthesizer (http://lexcy. library.ucy.ac.cy/), addresses theoretical problems and discrepancies in traditional Cypriot Greek lexicography (Hadjioannou, 1996; Papaggellou, 2001; Yangoullis, 2005) such as (a) the exclusion of CG vocabulary that overlaps with SMG; (b) the erroneous treatment of false friends, i.e. homophonous words which have different meanings in Cypriot and Standard Greek; (c) the fact that criteria for the selection of lemmas are biased in favor of basilectal/ less frequent dialect words; (Katsoyannou, 2010; Pavlou, 2010); (d) the absence of a non-standardized orthography (which may result in many allographs, especially of CG speech sounds such as the postalveolar fricative and affricate, which are unavailable in SMG). The problems with lemma selection and description have been resolved, and an orthographic system has been proposed which is largely in accordance with the linguistically oriented one in Tsiplakou et al. (forthcoming); for example, the inverted brevis (caron) diacritic ( ˇ ) is used for postalveolar fricatives/affricates. The Cypriot Greek keyboard (developed by linguist Charalambos Themistocleous) can be found at http://www.charalambosthemistocleous.com/downloads.aspx. The two available older grammars of Cypriot Greek (Hadjioannou 1999; Newton 1972b) each have their own particularities, Newton’s is seminal, theoretically informed work based on extensive fieldwork carried out in the 1960s; however, it does not reflect the current state of Cypriot Greek, and, crucially, it only focuses on phonology and (aspects of) morphology. Although valuable in terms of data, Hadjioannou (1999) is a classic example of traditional philological work which is not informed by contemporary linguistic principles, often following the author’s own ad hoc principles of grammatical classification and describing geographical variants from presumably different regions, without any systematic indication of the variant’s geographical distribution; syntax is naturally excluded. In contrast, the forthcoming Grammar of Cypriot Greek by Tsiplakou et al. focuses on the pancyprian koiné and on register/stylistic variation within the koiné, leaving aside geographical variation due to the absence of systematic linguistic research; the phonology, morphology and syntax of the Cypriot Greek koiné are examined systematically following linguistic principles of grammatical description and bringing in insights from phonological, morphological and syntactic theories where appropriate. The strong public interest in the dialect and its maintenance is indicated by the vast and everexpanding number of webpages in Cypriot Greek, including the facebook groups Kυπριακές Λέξɛις [Cypriot Words] (http://www.facebook.com/groups/cypruswords/), I speak CYPRIOT and I’m proud of it (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7013787203) (cf. the equivalent TC facebook group Kıbrıs Türkçesi (Cypriot Turkish Language) (http://www.facebook.com/ groups/GIBRIZ/), which boasts mixed Greek and Turkish Cypriot membership, and the recent Cypriot Greek lexicon Γουικυπριακά [Wikicypriot] (http://www.wikipriaka.com/cy). Andreas

52

20.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

21.

22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27.

28.

X. Hadjioannou et al. Andreou, one of the officers of the I speak CYPRIOT and I’m proud of it facebook group and the creator of Γουικυπριακά [Wikicypriot], has gone as far as to compile the 185-page long Σύγρονη Γραμματιτζ΄ή της Tζ΄υπραίιτζ΄ης Γρούσσας –A Contemporary Grammar of the Greekcypriot Idiom [sic] (2009), which is heavily based on Hadjioannou (1999). Although the grammar does not follow any recognizable linguistic principles and actively promotes as ‘genuine’ Cypriot Greek a rather inaccurate mélange of basilectal sub-varieties and registers, including obsolete forms, it is indicative of the new-found interest in the dialect among its younger speakers, the expression of which is facilitated by computer-mediated communication. ‘Resmi dil Türkçe’dir.’ Constitution (Anayasa) of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), 15.11.1983, art. 2 (2). Article 9 of the Constitution includes the aforementioned article under those which ‘cannot be changed and cannot be recommended to be changed’ (‘[…] değiştirilemez ve değiştirilmesi önerilemez’). The 1960 population census, ‘the only census covering the whole population in the Republic of Cyprus [...] counted 573,566 inhabitants, of which 442,138 were Greek Cypriots (77.1%), 104,320 Turkish Cypriots (18.2%) and 27,108 others (4.7%), mainly Armenians, Maronites, Latins and British’ (European Commission, 2004, n. p.) The Republic of Cyprus treats all individuals who arrived in the northern part of Cyprus after 1974 as well as their descendants as illegal settlers. Ilican (2011) reports that population estimates ‘range from 500,000 in Cyprus to 500,00 around the world’ (p. 95) and notes that Turkish nationals ‘are thought to constitute up to 50%’ of the population of the north (p. 97). According to Hatay (2007), the 2006 census was designed as a single-day de facto census, aiming to count every single person in the north part of Cyprus, except members of the Turkish military. During the recent visit (6.10.2010) to Cyprus of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey, Cemil Çiçek, the Turkish Cypriot Prime Minister İrsen Küçük could not reply to the question how large the population in the northern part of Cyprus was. Çiçek questioned the reliability of the official numbers (which oscillate between 250,000 and 300,000) and recommended a ‘serious state reform’ (Kanatlı, 2010, p. 1). The discussion was commented on in detail, especially by the opposition press (see, e.g., Kıbrıs, 07.10.2010). For this reason, the sources used in this chapter, with the exception of SPO (2006), are mostly unpublished papers and surveys by agents whose political orientation is opposition-friendly. After the most recent political changes history textbooks were modified (in August 2010) to focus on more Turkey-oriented content and (Islamic) religion has been (re)-introduced as a compulsory course in grades 4 and 5 (before 2009 religion courses were elective). The effects of these changes on language policy need to be investigated. The interview was conducted by the author. The informant also stated that the term Kıbrıslıtürk (‘Cypriot Turk’), used until then in official as well as in informal oral communication, had been substituted by the term Kıbrıs Türkü (‘Turk of Cyprus’) in BRT news broadcasting.

Notes on contributors

Dr Xenia Hadjioannou holds a bachelor degree in the Sciences of Education from the University of Cyprus (1996), an M.Ed. in Elementary Education from the University of Florida (1998) and a Ph.D. in Instruction and Curriculum with a specialization in Language Arts/Literacy, also from the University of Florida (2003). Currently, Dr Hadjioannou is assistant professor of Language and Literacy Education at the Lehigh Valley Campus of Penn State University. Her research interests include classroom discourse, language arts methodology, linguistic diversity in education and equity pedagogy. Her work has appeared in various scholarly publications including the American Educational Research Journal, the Journal of Early Education and Development and English Teaching: Practice and Critique. Dr Stavroula Tsiplakou received her B.A. from the University of Athens in 1989; she holds an M. Phil. in Linguistics from the University of Cambridge and a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. She has taught at the University of Hull in the UK (1995–1998), at Simon Fraser University in Canada (1998–2001) and at the Department of Education of the University of Cyprus (2001–2008). Currently, she is Academic co-ordinator of the Greek Linguistics and Literature M.A. Program at the Open University of Cyprus. Her research areas include syntax, sociolinguistics, language acquisition and literacy. She is a co-author of the forthcoming

Current Issues in Language Planning

53

Grammar of Contemporary Cypriot Greek (Lincom Europa) and a member of the committee for the new National Curriculum for Language in Cyprus.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Dr Matthias Kappler received his B.A. in Turkish Language and Literature from the University ‘Ca’ Foscari’ in Venice and his Ph.D. in Turkology from the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University in Frankfurt/Main. Prior to his appointment at the University of Cyprus in 2001, he taught at the University of Venice and at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University in Frankfurt/Main. His research interests include Balkan Turkology and Turkish influence on South-East European languages, language contact between Turkish and Greek, Ottoman language and literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Turkish literature in Greek characters (‘Karamanlidika’), Modern Greek Islamic Philology, history of Greek-Ottoman grammarianism and languages and literatures in Cyprus. He is the author of Turkish Language Contacts in South-Eastern Europe (2002) and Türkischsprachige Liebeslyrik in griechisch-osmanischen Liedanthologien des 19. Jahrhunderts [Turkish Love Poetry in OttomanGreek Poetry Anthologies of the 19th Century] (2002).

References Ager, D. (2001). Motivation in language planning and language policy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. AMIDEAST (2010). Cyprus–America scholarship program (CASP). Retrieved from May 20, 2011, http://www.amideast.org/our-work/academic-and-cultural-exchange/expanding-globalunderstanding/cyprus-america-scholarship-pr. Arbuckle, J.R. (2008). The cultural contexts of Turkish Cypriot ethnic identity in contemporary north Cyprus (Master’s thesis, Purdue University, Indiana, USA). Retrieved from May 20, 2011, http:// purdue.academia.edu/JonathanArbuckle/Papers/208928/The_Cultural_Contexts_of_Turkish_ Cypriot_Ethnic_Identity_In_Contemporary_North_Cyprus Armostis, S., Christodoulou, K., Katsoyannou, M., & Themistocleous, C. (2011, August). Writing in Cypriot Greek: The need for standardisation and its importance for dialectal lexicography. Paper presented at Methods in Dialectology 14, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Arvaniti, A. (2010a). Linguistic practices in Cyprus and the emergence of Cypriot Standard Greek. Mediterranean Language Review, 17, 15–45. Arvaniti, A. (2010b). A (brief) overview of the phonetics and phonology of Cypriot Greek. In A. Voskos, D. Goutsos, & A. Moser (Eds.), H ɛλληνική γλώσσα στην Kύπρο από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμɛρα [The Greek language in Cyprus from antiquity to the present] (pp. 107–124). Athens: National Capodistrian University of Athens. Azgın, B. (1998). The Turkish Cypriot mass media. In K.D. Grothusen, W. Steffani, & P. Zevrakis (Eds.), Zypern [Südosteuropa-Handbuch, Vol. 8] (pp. 641–659). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Behçet, H. (1969). Kıbrıs Türk maarif tarihi (1571–1968) [Cypriot Turkish education history (1571– 1968)]. Lefkoşa: Halkın Sesi Yayınları. Bielenberg, B., & Constantinou, C. (2010). Conclusion and next steps. In B. Bielenberg & C. Constantinou (Eds.), The Sanna project – empowerment through language revival: Current efforts and recommendations for Cypriot Maronite Arabic (pp. 67–73). Oslo: International Peace Research Institute. Borg, A. (1985). Cypriot Arabic: A historical and comparative investigation into the phonology and morphology of the Arabic vernacular spoken by the Maronites of Kormakiti village in the Kyrenia district of north-western Cyprus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft. Borg, A. (2004). A comparative glossary of Cypriot Maronite Arabic (Arabic-English). Leiden: Brill. Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research in written composition. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from www.coe.uga.edu/~smago/Books/ Braddock_et_al.pdf Brendemoen, B. (1990). The Turkish language reform and language policy in Turkey. In G. Hazai (Ed.), Handbuch der türkischen Sprachwissenschaft (pp. 454–493). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Brey, H. (1998). Bevölkerungsstruktur. In K.D. Grothusen, W. Steffani, & P.A. Zervakis (Eds.), Zypern [Südosteuropa-Handbuch, Vol. 8] (pp. 488–515). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Browning, R. (1983). Medieval and modern greek. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bryant, R. (2004). Imagining the modern: The cultures of nationalism in Cyprus. London: I. B. Tauris. Bugarski, R. (1992). Language in Yugoslavia: Situation, policy, planning. In R. Bugarski & C. Hawkesworth (Eds.), Language planning in Yugoslavia (pp. 10–26). Columbus, OH: Slavica. Calvet, L.-J. (1998). Language wars and linguistic policies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

54

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Carnoy, M. (1974). Education as cultural imperialism. New York: David McKay Company. Charalambakis, A. (2005, March 26). Tο γλωσσικό μάθημα και η διδασκαλία της γραμματικής στο δημοτικό σχολɛίο [The subject of language and the teaching of grammar in elementary school]. Πατρίς [Motherland]. Retrieved from May 20, 2011, http://www.patris.gr/articles/56804? PHPSESSID=2tvr280qin0s4olhf5p0m10q50 Charalambopoulos, A. (1990). Γλωσσική διδασκαλία: η πɛρίπτωση της Kύπρου [Language teaching: The case of Cyprus]. Glossa, 22, 69–94. Charalambopoulos, A. (1999). H στροφή προς την ɛπικοινωνιακή προσέγγιση για τη διδασκαλία της Ελληνικής γλώσσας στη δɛυτɛροβάθμια ɛκπαίδɛυση [The turn toward the communicative approach for the teaching of the Greek language in secondary education]. Glossikos Ypologistis, Vol. 1. Retrieved from January 30, 2011, http://www.komvos.edu.gr/periodiko/ periodiko1st/articles/print/charalabopoulos/index.htm Christodoulou, M.N. (Ed.). (1993). Eλλάδος φθόγγον χέουσα: H αλλοτρίωση της ɛλληνικής γλώσσας στην Kύπρο [Emanating Greek sounds: The alienation of the Greek language in Cyprus]. Nicosia: Theopress Publications. CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) (2010). Cyprus. The World Factbook. Retrieved from April 8, 2010 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html Cobham, D.C. (1908). Exerpta Cypria: Materials for a history of Cyprus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. COE (Council of Europe). (2006). Recommendation RecChL (2006)3 by the Committee of Ministers for the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Cyprus. Retrieved from May 20, 2011, http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/ Recommendations/CyprusCMRec1_en.pdf COE (Council of Europe). (2011). European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Third periodical report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter. CYPRUS. Retrieved from May 20, 2011, http://www.coe.int/t/ dg4/education/minlang/report/PeriodicalReports/CyprusPR3_en.pdf Constantinou, M. (2005). Reckoning with anthropology’s replotting of narratives of liberal colonialism: A counter-narrative of insurrection beckoning to the decolonisation of reason. Cyprus Review, 17, 93–109. Cooper, R.L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coutsougera, P. (2002). The semivowel and its reflexes in Cypriot Greek (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of Reading, UK. CYSTAT (Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus). (2008). Statistics of education, 2006/2007. Retrieved from January 10, 2011, http://www.pio.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/ F4E5FA9A27EFD81AC225750800245170?OpenDocument CYSTAT (Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus) (2010). Population summary data 1995– 2009. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://www.cystat.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/ populationcondition_21main_en/populationcondition_21main_en?OpenForm&sub=1&sel=2 Demir, N. (2002). Kıbrıs Ağızları Üzerine [On Cypriot dialects]. In N. Demir & F. Turan (Eds.), Scholarly depth and accuracy – Lars Johanson Armağanı (pp. 101–110). Ankara: Grafiker. Demir, N. (2003). On imiş in Cypriot Turkish. Turkic Languages, 7, 268–274. Dietzel, I., & Makrides, V. (2009). Ethno-religious coexistence and plurality in Cyprus under British rule (1878–1960). Social Compass, 56, 69–83. Duman, M. (1991). Kıbrıs Ağzı Üzerine Bazı Notlar [Some notes on the Cypriot dialect]. Ilmî Araştırmalar, 8, 115–119. European Commission. (2004). Euromosaic III – Cyprus. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from http://ec. europa.eu/education/languages/archive/languages/langmin/euromosaic/cy_en.pdf European Commission for Multilingualism. (2008). EU language policy. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/eu-language-policy/index_en.htm Evans, S. (2002). Macaulay’s minute revisited: Colonial language policy in nineteenth-century India. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23, 260–281. Evans, S. (2008). Disputes and deliberations over language policy: The case of early colonial Hong Kong. Language Policy, 7, 47–65. Faiz, M. (2008). The population issue in North Cyprus. The Cyprus Review, 20, 175–187. Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325–340. Floros, G. (2009). News translation in Cyprus: Between report and national policy. In H. Anamur et al. (Eds.), Translation in all its aspects, with focus on international dialogue: Proceedings of the

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

55

International Conference on Translation, Istanbul, 21–23 October 2009 (pp. 82–86). Istanbul: Çeviri Derneği. Floros, G. (2011a). “Ethic-less” theories and “ethical” practices: On ethical relativity in translation. The Interpreter and Translation Trainer, 5, 65–92. Floros, G. (2011b). Towards ‘cypriotization’: Media translation and local terminology as identity markers. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cyprus. Georgiou, A. (2006). Γλυκιά bloody life, [Sweet bloody life]. Athens: Rodakio. Georgiou, A. & Kyriakou, M. (2010). Forget-me-not. Unpublished play, Nicosia. Georgiou, V. (2009). Debating place names, debating identity: the social construction of language and of Greek Cypriot identity in Cyprus (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southampton, UK. Georgiou, V. (2010). Circularity in the (re)production of language ideology: The case of Greek Cypriot TV series. In S. Johnson & T. Milani (Eds.), Language ideologies and media discourse: Texts, practices, politics (pp. 101–120). London: Continuum. Georgiou, V. (2010). Intended and unintended effects of language policy and planning: Insights from a language debate in Cyprus. Language Policy, 10, 159–182. Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Goutsos, D., & Karyolemou, M. (2004). Introduction. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 168. [The Sociolinguistics of Cyprus I: Studies from the Greek Sphere], 1–17. Government Web Portal. (2006). The constitution. Government web portal. Republic of Cyprus, Ministry of Finance, Department of Information Technology Services. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/portal/portal.nsf/0/C44572D7363776ACC2256EBD004F3BB3? OpenDocument Government Web Portal. (2010a). Cyprus problem – aspects of the problem – the 1974 Turkish invasion and its consequences. Government web portal. Republic of Cyprus, Ministry of Finance, Department of Information Technology Services. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www. moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/6F5DD418DD053ED1C2256D6D001E7571?OpenDocument Government Web Portal. (2010b). About Cyprus – religious groups – the Armenian Community. Government web portal. Republic of Cyprus, Ministry of Finance, Department of Information Technology Services. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/portal%5Cportal. nsf/All/C112361EFB9EB105C2257028003E25B3?OpenDocument&highlight=armenian Gregoriou, Z. (2004). De-scribing hybridity in ‘unspoiled Cyprus’: Postcolonial tasks for the theory of education. Comparative Education, 40, 241–266. Grohmann, K., Panagiotidis, P., & Tsiplakou, S. (2006). Some properties of wh-question formation in Cypriot Greek. In M. Janse, B. Joseph, & A. Ralli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory (pp. 83–98). Patras: University of Patras. Hadjilyra, A. (2009). The Armenians of Cyprus. Nicosia: Kalaydjian Foundation. Hadjioannou, K. (1996). Ετυμολογικό λɛξικό της ομιλουμένης κυπριακής διαλέκτου: ιστορία, ɛρμηνɛία και φωνητική των λέξɛων·μɛ τοπωνυμικό παράρτημα [An etymological dictionary of spoken Cypriot Greek: history, explanation and phonetics of words; with an appendix of toponyms]. Nicosia: Tamassos. Hadjioannou, K. (1999). Γραμματική τής oμιλουμένης κυπριακής διαλέκτου [A grammar of the spoken Cypriot dialect]. Nicosia: Tamassos. Hadjioannou, X. (2006). Linguistic variation in Greek Cypriot elementary education. In W. Wiater & G. Videsott (Eds.), School systems in multilingual regions of Europe (pp. 395–414). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Hadjioannou, X. (2008). Possibilities for non-standard dialects in American classrooms: Lessons from a Greek Cypriot class. In J. Scott, D. Straker, & L. Katz (Eds.), Affirming students’ rights to their own language: Bridging educational policies and pedagogical practices (pp. 275–290). New York: Routledge and NCTE (joint publication). Haig, G. (2003). The invisibilisation of Kurdish: The other side of language planning in Turkey. In S. Conermann & G. Haig (Eds.), Die Kurden: Studien zu ihrer Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur (pp. 121–150). Schenefeld: EB-Verlag. Hasapopulos, N. (2011, May 5). Tέρμα τα δωρɛάν σχολικά βιβλία από την Ελλάδα στην Kύπρο [No more free textbooks from Greece to Cyprus]. To Vima. Retrieved from August 15, 2011 http:// www.tovima.gr

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

56

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Hatay, M. (2007). Is the Turkish Cypriot population shrinking? An overview of the ethno-demography of Cyprus in the light of the preliminary results of the 2006 Turkish Census, PRIO Cyprus Centre Report. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://www.prio.no/Cyprus/Publications/ Hatzis, A. (2002). The short-lived influence of the Napoleonic civil code in 19th century Greece. European Journal of Law & Economics, 14, 253–263. Heyd, U. (1954). Language reform in modern Turkey. Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society. Hintze, A. (1993). A lexicon to the Cyprian syllabic inscriptions. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Hitchens, C. (1997). Hostage to history: Cyprus from the Ottomans to Kissinger. New York: Verso. Hoplaros, G., Skotinos, A., & Erotokritou, E. (2004). Εγκύκλιος μɛ θέμα διɛθνής μέρα μητρικής γλώσσας [Memorandum for the international mother-tongue day]. Nicosia, Cyprus: Ministry of Education and Culture. Horrocks, G.C. (1997). Greek: A history of the language and its speakers. New York: Longman. Hymes, D.H. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hymes, D.H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ilican, M. (2011). Cypriots, Turkish. In J. Cole (Ed.), Ethnic groups of Europe: An encyclopedia (pp. 95–98). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC. International Crisis Group. (2010). Cyprus: Bridging the property divide, Europe Report No. 210. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/turkey-cyprus/ cyprus/210-cyprus-bridging-the-property-divide.aspx Ioannidou, E. (2002). “This ain’t my real language, Miss”: On language and ethnic identity among Greek Cypriot students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southampton, UK. Ioannidou, E. (2009a). Using the ‘improper’ language in the classroom: The conflict between language use and legitimate varieties in education. Evidence from a Greek Cypriot classroom. Language and Education, 23, 263–278. Ioannidou, E. (2009b). Language policy and ethnic identity in Greek Cypriot education. In B. Cornille, J. Lambert, & P. Swiggers (Eds.), Linguistic identities, language shift and language policy in Europe, Orbis/Supplementa 33 (pp. 111–132). Louvain: Peeters. Ioannidou, E. (2009c, October). Greek-speaking Turkish Cypriots: The ‘other’ linguistic group of Cyprus. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (ICGL 9), University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Ioannidou, E. (2011). Critical or national? The tensions between national and pedagogical values in language policy: Some insights from Greek Cypriot Education. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Cyprus. Ioannidou, E., & Sophocleous, A. (2010). “Now, is this how we are going to say it?” Comparing teachers’ language practices in primary and secondary state education in Cyprus. Linguistics and Education, 21, 298–313. Issa, T. (2006). An ethnographic case study of code switching and language choice: The uses of Cypriot Turkish in London. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 181, 83–106. Jennings, R.C. (1993). Christians and Muslims in Ottoman Cyprus and the Mediterranean world, 1571–1640, [New York University Studies in Near Eastern Civilization XVIII]. New York: New York University Press. Johanson, L. (2002). Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. London: Curzon. Johanson, L., & Demir, N. (2006). Dialect contact in northern Cyprus. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 181, 1–9, doi:10.1515/IJSL.2006.047. Kanatlı, M. (2010, October). The situation of the population in the northern part of Cyprus. Unpublished speech given at the European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium. Kaplan, R.B. (2010). Whence applied linguistics: The twentieth century. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 3–33). New York: Oxford University Press. Kaplan, R.B., & Baldauf, R.B. (1997). Language planning: From practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kappler, M. (2008). Contact-induced effects in the syntax of Cypriot Turkish. Turkic Languages, 12, 196–213.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

57

Kappler, M. (2009). Toward a common Turkish and Greek literary history in Ottoman Cyprus. In M. N. Michael, M. Kappler, & E. Gavriel (Eds.), Ottoman Cyprus – a collection of studies on history and culture (pp. 285–295). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kappler, M. (2010). Coexistence linguistique sur une île séparée: le cas du turc et du grec à Chypre. In M. Bozdémir & L.-J. Calvet (Eds.), Politiques linguistiques en Méditerranée (pp. 279–293). Paris: Éditions Honoré Champion. Kappler, M., & Tsiplakou, S. (forthcoming a). The subjunctive in Cypriot Turkish and Cypriot Greek: A case of dialect contact? In E. Csato (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Turkic Linguistics. Uppsala: University of Uppsala. Kappler, M., & Tsiplakou, S. (forthcoming b). Miş and miʃimu: An instance of language contact in Cyprus. In C. Bulut (Ed.), Proceedings of the Turkic Speaking Minorities in the Middle East and Linguistic Minorities in Turkey Conference, Nicosia, 20–21 November 2009. Nicosia: University of Cyprus. Karageorghis, J., & Masson, O. (Eds.). (1988). The history of the Greek language in Cyprus. Proceedings of an International Symposium Sponsored by the Pierides Foundation, Larnaca, Cyprus, 8–13 September 1986. Nicosia: Pierides Foundation. Karali, M. (2007). The Cypriot syllabary. In A.-F. Christidis (Ed.), A history of Ancient Greek: From the beginnings to late antiquity (pp. 239–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karantzola, E. (2000). Γραμματική, γλωσσικό μάθημα και προγράμματα σπουδών στην Ελλάδα [Grammar, language education and programs of study in Greece]. Glossikos Ypologistis, Vol. 1. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.komvos.edu.gr/periodiko/periodiko2nd/ default.htm Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (2001). English or Greek language? State or ethnic identity? The case of the courts in Cyprus. Language Problems & Language Planning, 25, 259–288. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (2002). H αγγλική ως κυρίαρχη γλώσσα στα δικαστήρια της Kυπριακής Δημοκρατίας [English as the dominant language in the courts of law of the Republic of Cyprus]. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 22, 289–299. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (2005). Language planning in Cyprus: A reflection of an identity conflict (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of London, UK Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (2008, April). Language planning and identity in Cyprus: The case of English. Paper presented at the 17th Sociolinguistics Symposium, Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (2009). Greek in Cyprus: Identity oscillations and language planning. In A. Georgakopoulou & M. Silk (Eds.), Standard languages and language standards: Greek, past and present (pp. 187–219). London: Ashgate. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (2010). H ɛλληνικη ως ζήτημα ταυτότητας και γλωσσικού σχɛδιασμού στην Kύπρο: Άδɛιɛς οδήγησης, διαβατήρια και πινακίδɛς κυκλοφορίας οχημάτων [Greek as an issue of identity and language planning in Cyprus: Driving licenses, passports and license plates]. In A. Voskos, D. Goutsos, & A. Moser (Eds.), H ɛλληνική Γλώσσα στην Kύπρο από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμɛρα [The Greek language in Cyprus from antiquity to the present] (pp. 262–282). Athens: National Capodistrian University of Athens. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (forthcoming). Επωνυμίɛς, διαφημίσɛις και άλλɛς ɛνδɛίξɛις σɛ δημόσιους χώρους στην Kύπρο: Kοινοβουλɛυτική συζήτηση, ταυτότητα και γλωσσική πολιτική [Brand names, advertisements and other signs in public spaces in Cyprus: Parliament debate, identity and language policy]. Proceedings of the 6th day Conference on Linguistics on 22 May 2009. Ioannina: University of Ioannina. Karyolemou, M. (2000a). H ɛλληνική γλώσσα στην Kύπρο [The Greek language in Cyprus]. Hλɛκτρονικός ɛγκυκλοπαιδικός οδηγός για τη γλώσσα [Electronic encyclopaedic guide to language]. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.komvos.edu.gr/glwssa/odigos/thema_d7/ thema_pdf.pdf Karyolemou, M. (2000b). Kυπριακή πραγματικότητα και κοινωνιογλωσσική πɛριγραφή [Cypriot reality and sociolinguistic description]. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 20, 203–214. Karyolemou, M. (2001a). From linguistic liberalism to legal regulation: The Greek language in Cyprus. Language Problems and Language Planning, 25, 25–51. Karyolemou, M. (2001b). ‘Ne touchez pas à mon dialecte’: Nominalisation des noms géographiques et saillance des variables à Chypre. Journal de l’ Association Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée, 2, 1001–1013.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

58

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Karyolemou, M. (2002). Mακρογλωσσικός και μικρογλωσσικός σχɛδιασμός στην Kύπρο [Macroand micro- language planning in Cyprus]. In C. Clairis (Ed.), Recherches en linguistique grecque/ Γλωσσολογικές έρɛυνɛς για την ɛλληνική (Vol. I, pp. 277–280). Paris: L’Harmattan. Karyolemou, M. (2003). ‘Keep your language and I’ll keep mine’: Politics, language and the construction of identities in Cyprus. In M.N. Dedaič & D.N. Nelson (Eds.), At war with words (pp. 359–383). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Karyolemou, M. (2010). Γλωσσική πολιτική και γλωσσικός σχɛδιασμός στην Kύπρο [Language policy and language planning in Cyprus]. In A. Voskos, D. Goutsos, & A. Moser (Eds.), H ɛλληνική Γλώσσα στην Kύπρο από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμɛρα [The Greek language in Cyprus from antiquity to the present] (pp. 242–261). Athens: National Capodistrian University of Athens. Karyolemou, M., & Pavlou, P. (2001). Language attitudes and assessment of salient variables in a bidialectal speech community. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (pp. 110–120). Barcelona: Universitat Pompey Fabra. Katircioglu, S. (2006). Causality between agriculture and economic growth in a small nation under political isolation: A case from North Cyprus. International Journal of Social Economics, 33, 331–343. Katsoyannou, M. (2010). Tα λɛξικά της κυπριακής: ιστορία και τυπολογία [The dictionaries of Cypriot Greek: history and typology]. In A. Voskos, D. Goutsos, & A. Moser (Eds.), H ɛλληνική γλώσσα στην Kύπρο από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμɛρα [The Greek language in Cyprus from antiquity to the present] (pp. 174–191). Athens: National Capodistrian University of Athens. Kehayoglou, G., & Papaleontiou, L. (2010). Iστορία της νɛότɛρης κυπριακής λογοτɛχνίας [History of modern Cypriot literature]. Nicosia: Center for Scientific Research. Kermia Ztite (2006). Πρόγραμμα διάσωσης της γλώσσας του Kορμακίτη [Program for the preservation of the language of Kormakitis]. Nicosia: Kermia Ztite. Kızılyürek, N., & Gautier-Kızılyürek, S. (2004). The politics of identity in the Turkish Cypriot community and the language question. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 168 [The Sociolinguistics of Cyprus I: Studies from the Greek Sphere], 37–54. KKTC-CM. (2010). Yasa tasarı ve önerileri [Draft laws and proposals]. KKTC Cumhuriyet Meclisi [TRNC – Parliament of the Republic]. Retrieved from http://www.cm.gov.nc.tr/ YasaTasariOneri.aspx Kliot, N., & Mansfeld, Y. (1994). Resettling displaced people in north and south Cyprus: A comparison. Journal of Refugee Studies, 7, 328–359. Kolln, M., & Hancock, C. (2005). The story of English Grammar in United States schools. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4, 11–31. Kontosopoulos, N.G. (2001). Διάλɛκτοι και ιδιώματα της νέας ɛλληνικής [Dialects and sub-varieties of Modern Greek]. Athens: Grigoris. Kormakitis.net. (2011, July 19). Επανɛγκατάσταση Mαρωνιτών στον Kορμακίτη (Εγκρίθηκαν 27 άτομα) [Resettling of Maronites in Kormakitis (27 individuals have been approved)]. Kormakitis.net. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://www.kormakitis.net/web/index.php/ latest/news-categories/kormakitis/56-general-news/1683–27-.html Kostouli, T. (2002). Teaching Greek as L1: Curriculum and textbooks in Greek elementary education. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 2, 5–23. KTÖS. (2008). Eğitim İstatistikleri. Kıbrıs Türk Öğretmen Sendikası. Unpublished survey of the Turkish Cypriot Teachers’ Trade Union. Leontaki, V. (2008). Παιδική ηλικία και ελεύθερος χρόνος στα καινούρια βιβλία της γλώσσας του δημοτικού σχολείου [Childhood and free time in the new language textbooks for elementary schools] (Master’s thesis, Aristoteleion University of Thessaloniki, Greece). Retrieved from http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/113659?ln=el Lewis, G. (1999). The Turkish language reform: A catastrophic success. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Locke, T. (2005). “Grammar Wars” – beyond a truce. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4, 1–10. Mackridge, P. (2009). Language and national identity in Greece 1766–1976. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marangou, N. (2007). Ο δαίμων της πορνɛίας [The demon of fornication]. Athens: Melani.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

59

Masson, O. (2007). Eteocypriot. In A.-F. Christidis (Ed.), A history of Ancient Greek: From the beginnings to late antiquity (pp. 243–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mavratsas, C. (1998). Όψɛις του ɛλληνικού ɛθνικισμού στην Kύπρο [Facets of Greek nationalism in Cyprus]. Athens: Katarti. MEC. (2005). The Cyprus Turkish education system. TRNC National Ministry of Education and Culture. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from http://www.mebnet.net/sites/default/files/ CypTurEduSys.pdf Menteşoğlu, İ. (2009). Intergenerational phonological change in the Famagusta dialect of Turkish Cypriots. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 200, 75–82. MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus). (2010a). Treaty of guarantee. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/All/484B73E4F0736CFDC22571BF00394F11/$file/Treaty%20of%20Guarantee.pdf MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus). (2010b). International Organizations: Turkey’s attempts to exclude Cyprus’ membership. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from http://www.mfa. gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/All/826CB014C0CDE8DEC22571B100229450?OpenDocument MOEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). (1981). National curriculum for primary education. Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture. MOEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). (1994). National curriculum for primary education. Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture. MOEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). (2002). Διαθɛματικό Ενιαίο Πλαίσιο Σπουδών (Δ.Ε.Π.Π.Σ.) και Aναλυτικά Προγράμματα Σπουδών (A.Π.Σ.) ϒποχρɛωτικής Εκπαίδɛυσης [Interdisciplinary Unitary Study Framework (IUSF) and School Curricula (S.C.) for compulsory Education]. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from http://www.schools.ac.cy/klimakio/Themata/Glossa/ depps.html MOEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). (2010a). Aναλυτικά Προγράμματα -Nέα Ελληνική Γλώσσα [Curricula-Modern Greek Language]. Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www. moec.gov.cy/analytika_programmata/nea-analytika-programmata/nea_elliniki_glossa.pdf MOEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). (2010b). Ξένɛς Γλώσσɛς - Γυμνάσιο/Λύκɛιο. Aναλυτικά Προγράμματα [Foreign Languages – Gymnasium/Lykeio. Curricula]. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from http://www.moec.gov.cy/analytika_programmata/nea-analytika-programmata/xenes_glosses_gymnasio_lykeio.pdf MOEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). (2011a). Συχνές ɛρωτήσɛις. Aναλυτικά Προγράμματα [Frequently asked questions. National Curricula]. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://www. moec.gov.cy/analytika_programmata/sychnes_erotiseis.html MOEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). (2011b). Διδακτικά βιβλία (ɛκδόσɛις ϒ.Π.Π. και Ο.Ε.Δ.Β.), τɛτράδια, ɛπίσημα βιβλία και έντυπα [Textbooks (Ministry of Education and Culture and Organization for Publishing Instructional Books publications), notebooks, formal books and prints]. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://www.moec.gov.cy/dde/odigiesscholikis-chronias/30.pdf Moschonas, S. (1996). H γλωσσική διμορφία στην Kύπρο [Diglossia in Cyprus]. “Strong and “weak” languages in the European Union. Aspects of linguistic hegemony (pp. 123–124). Thessaloniki: Center for the Greek Language. Mousena, E. (2010). H προφορικότητα στα αναλυτικά προγράμματα για τη γλώσσα [Orality in the language curricula]. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from http://www.alfavita.gr/artra/art1_2_10_01128. php Mulroy, D. (2004). Reflections on grammar’s demise. Academic Questions, 17, 52–58. Myrianthopoulos, C. (1946). Η παιδεία στην Κύπρο επί Αγγλοκρατίας [Education in Cyprus during British rule]. Limassol: Myrianthopoulos. Nationmaster.com. (2011). Cyprus: media. NationMaster.com. Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http:// www.nationmaster.com/country/cy-cyprus/med-media NCES (National Center for Education and Statistics). (2007). TIMSS 2007 results. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07.asp Newton, B. (1972a). Cypriot Greek: Its phonology and inflections. The Hague: Mouton. Newton, B. (1972b). The generative interpretation of dialect. A study of Modern Greek phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nikolaou-Konnari, A., & Schabel, C.D. (2005). Cyprus: Society and culture 1191–1374 [The Medieval Mediterranean, v. 58]. Leiden: Brill.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

60

X. Hadjioannou et al.

Oakley, R. (1993). The Turkish peoples of Cyprus. In M. Bainbridge (Ed.), The Turkic peoples of the world (pp. 85–117). New York: Kegan Paul. Office of the Law Commissioner (2009). Cyprus: Third periodic report of the application of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. Retrieved July 17, 2011, from http:// www.olc.gov.cy/olc/olc.nsf/all/F685A7AC901415FAC225758D00366E26/$file/THIRD %20PERIODIC%20REPORT%20FRAMEWORK%20CONVENTION.pdf?openelement Osam, N., & Ağazade, A.S. (2004). The status of Turkish in the Republic of Cyprus and the attitudes of Greek Cypriots towards Turkish language learning. Turkic Languages, 8, 271–288. Özerk, K.Z. (2001). Reciprocal bilingualism as a challenge and opportunity: The case of Cyprus. International Review of Education, 47, 253–265. Panayotou, A. (2007). Arcado-Cypriot. In A.-F. Christidis (Ed.), A history of ancient Greek: From the beginnings to late antiquity (pp. 417–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Panayotou, A., & Pavlou, P. (2000). Language in Cyprus today. Cyprus 2000 CD-ROM. Nicosia: Press and Information Office. Papadopoullos, T. (1965). Social and historical data on population: 1570–1881. Nicosia: Zavallis Press. Papaggellou, R. (2001). Tο κυπριακό ιδίωμα: μέγα κυπρο-ɛλληνο-αγγλικό (και μɛ λατινική ορολογία) λɛξικό: ɛρμηνɛυτικό-ɛτυμολογικό-προφοράς-ορθής γραφής, [The Cypriot Greek dialect: Great Cypriot – Standard Greek – English (and Latin) dictionary of etymology – pronunciation – correct spelling]. Athens: Iolkos. Papanicola, E. (2010). Φτάνοντας στo “και” από το δρόμο του “τζ̌αι”. Διδιαλɛκτική διδασκαλία και γλωσσική ɛνημɛρότητα στην A΄ Δημοτικού [Reaching “και” via “τ ζ̌αι”. Bidialectal teaching and linguistic awareness in Grade A]. In H. Phtiaka, S. Symeonidou, & M. Socratous (Eds.), Proceedings of the XI Conference of the Cyprus Pedagogical Association (pp. 375–384). Nicosia: Cyprus Pedagogical Association & University of Cyprus. Papanicola, E., & Tsiplakou, S. (2008). H αξιοποίηση της γλωσσικής ποικιλότητας στη γλωσσική διδασκαλία [Capitalizing on linguistic variation in language teaching]. In H. Phtiaka, A. Symeonidou, & M. Socratous (Eds.), Proceedings of the X Pancyprian Conference of the Cyprus Pedagogical Association (pp. 623–644). Nicosia: University of Cyprus. Papapavlou, A. (1998). Attitudes toward the Greek Cypriot dialect: Sociocultural implications. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 18, 15–28. Papapavlou, A. (2001). Linguistic imperialism? The status of English in Cyprus. Language Problems & Language Planning, 25, 167–176. Papapavlou, A. (2004). Implementing language policies: The standardization and transliteration of toponyms in Cyprus. In G. Catsimali, A. Kalokairinos, E. Anagnostopoulou, & I. Kappa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Rethymno: Linguistics Lab. CD-Rom. Papapavlou, A. & P. Pavlou (2007) (Eds.). Linguistic and Pedagogical Dimensions of Dialects in Education. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pashiardis, P. (2007). Cyprus. In W. Hörner, H. Döbert, B. von Kopp, & W. Mitter (Eds.), The education systems of Europe (pp. 202–222). Dordrecht: Springer. Pattie, S.P. (1997). Faith in history: Armenians rebuilding community. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pavlou, S. (2001). Kυπριακή διάλɛκτος και πτώση παιδɛίας [The Cypriot dialect and the decline of education]. Politis, 5.8.2001 (n. p.). Pavlou, P. (2004). Greek dialect use in the mass media in Cyprus. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 168 [The sociolinguistics of Cyprus I: Studies from the Greek sphere], 101–118. Pavlou, P. (2010). Οι λɛξικογραφικές ανάγκɛς μιας δι-διαλɛκτικής κοινότητας και η αντιμɛτώπισή τους [The lexicographic needs of a bi-dialectal community and the way they are dealt with]. In A. Voskos, D. Goutsos, & A. Moser (Eds.), H ɛλληνική γλώσσα στην Kύπρο από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμɛρα [The Greek language in Cyprus from antiquity to the present] (pp. 192–210). Athens: National Capodistrian University of Athens. Pavlou, P., & Georgiou, G. (2010). Rendering applied linguistic and forensic linguistic terminology into Greek. Actes du 30e Colloque Internationale de Linguistique Fonctionnelle. Paris: L’Harmattan. Pavlou, P. & Papapavlou, A. (2004). Issues of dialect use in education from the Greek Cypriot perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 243–258.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

61

Pehlivan, A. (2000). KKTC İlkokul Öğrencilerinin Yazılı Anlatımlarında Görülen Kıbrıs Ağzına Ait Sesbilimsel Özellikler [Phonetic peculiarities due to the Cypriot dialect in written essays of TRNC primary school pupils]. In İ. Bozkurt (Ed.), Üçüncü Uluslararası Kıbrıs Araştırmaları Kongresi (Vol. 2, pp. 1–13). Famagusta: Centre for Cyprus Studies Publications. Pehlivan, A. (2003). Aya İrini’den Akdeniz’e Kıbrıs Ağzının Değişimi. [From Aya Irini to Akdeniz: the change of the Cypriot dialect]. Lefkoşa: Adım Yayınları. Pehlivan, A. (2007). Turkish Cypriot literature course in emerging cultural and educational policies. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 7, 35–51. Pehlivan, A. (2009). Kuzey Kıbrıs’taki Gurbetlerin Türkçe ve Gurbetçeye Yönelik Tutumları ile Dil Kullanımları [The attitudes of Gurbets in Northern Cyprus towards Turkish, and Gurbetcha and their language use]. Millî Folklor Yıl 21/Sayı, 82, 146–157. Pehlivan, A. (forthcoming). Kıbrıs Türklerinde Eğitiminde Dil Politikası (1571–1974) [Language policy in the education of Turkish Cypriots (1571–1874)]. Kıbrıs Dosyası Sempozyumu. Pehlivan, A., & Adalıer, A. (2010). Beyond the prescriptive approach towards the language of education regarding the writings of Turkish Cypriot children. In G.T. Papanikos & N. Pappas (Eds.), Horizons in education (pp. 393–407). Athens: Athens Institute for Education and Research. Pehlivan, A., & Atamtürk, H. (2006). The attitudes of Turkish Cypriot students towards Greek language learning. In M.S. Giannakaki, G.T. Papanikos, Y. Pozios, & J.K. Richards (Eds.), Research on education (pp. 177–185). Athens: Atiner. Pehlivan, A., & Menteşoğlu, İ. (forthcoming). The attitudes of Turkish Cypriot teachers towards the dialect use in North Cyprus Primary Education. Proceedings of the 6th IAIMTE Conference, University of Exeter. Pennycook, A. (2002). Mother tongues, governmentality, and protectionism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 154, 11–28. Persianis, P. (1966). Mɛρικοί προσδιοριστικοί παράγοντɛς της ɛλληνικής ɛκπαιδɛυτικής πολιτικής ɛν Kύπρω: Iδɛολογίαι, ιδρύματα και αντικɛιμɛνικαί συνθήκαι ɛν Kύπρω [Some defining factors of the Hellenic educational policy in Cyprus: Ideologies, foundations and material conditions οn Cyprus]. Bulletin of the Cyprus Association for Pedagogical Research, 9–10, 74–93. Persianis, P. (1978). Church and state in Cyprus education: The contribution of the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus to Cyprus education during the British administration, 1878–1960. Nicosia: Violaris Printing Works. Persianis, P. (1994). O ιδɛαλισμός της ɛλληνοκυπριακής ɛκπαίδɛυσης και ο πραγματισμός της αγγλικής [The idealism of Greek-Cypriot education and the pragmatism of English education]. In P. Persianis (Ed.), Πτυχές της ɛκπαίδɛυσης της Kύπρου κατά το τέλος του 19ου και τις αρχές του 20ου αιώνα [Dimensions of education in Cyprus towards the end of the 19th and in the beginnings of the 20th century] (pp. 33–37). Nicosia: Cyprus Institute of Education. Persianis, P. (1996). The British colonial education ‘lending’ policy in Cyprus (1878–1960): An intriguing example of an elusive ‘adapted education’ policy. Comparative Education, 32(1), 45–68. doi:10.1080/03050069628920 Persianis, P. (1998). ‘Compensatory legitimation’ in Greek educational policy: An explanation for the abortive educational reforms in Greece in comparison with those in France. Comparative Education, 34, 71–84. Persianis, P. (2003). British colonial higher education policy-making in the 1930s: The case of a plan to establish a university in Cyprus. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 33, 351–368. Persianis, P., & Polyviou, P. (1992). Iστορία της ɛκπαίδɛυσης στην Kύπρο: Kɛίμɛνα και πηγές [History of education in Cyprus: Texts and sources]. Nicosia: Cyprus Institute of Education. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PI (Pedagogical Institute of Greece). (2001). Διαθɛματικό Ενιαίο Πλαίσιο Σπουδών (Δ.Ε.Π.Π.Σ.) και Aναλυτικά Προγράμματα Σπουδών (A.Π.Σ.) ϒποχρɛωτικής Εκπαίδɛυσης [Interdisciplinary Unitary Study Framework (I.U.S.F.) and School Curricula (S.C.) for compulsory Education]. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://www.pi-schools.gr/programs/depps/ PIO (Press and Information Office). (2010a). The Armenian community. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/DBF419D7DF6CC18EC2256FCE00331E37 PIO (Press and Information Office). (2010b). The Latin community. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/PIO/PIO.nsf/All/A37EFB0E68B1BD2DC2256FCE00335C7A? OpenDocument

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

62

X. Hadjioannou et al.

PIO (Press and Information Office). (2010c). The Maronite community. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/ED662F2A7A8231EDC2256FCE0032C789? OpenDocument PIO (Press and Information Office). (2011). The enclaved. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http:// www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/803883940B86E8D3C2256D6D001EB5CA? OpenDocument Rappas, A. (2008). The elusive polity: Imagining and contesting colonial authority in Cyprus during the 1930s. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 26, 363–397. Robins, K., & Aksoy, A. (2001). From spaces of identity to mental spaces: Lessons from TurkishCypriot cultural experience in Britain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27, 685–712. Roth, A. (2004). Le parler arabe Maronite de Chypre: Observations à propos d’un contact linguistique pluriséculaire. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 168 [The Sociolinguistics of Cyprus I: Studies from the Greek Sphere], 55–76. Roussou, N. (2006). Research note: Cypriot television, dialect productions and demotic culture. Urbanization, westernization or new resistance identities? European Journal of Communication, 21, 89–99. Roussou, M., & Hatzigianni-Yangou, E. (2001). Διαπολιτισμική αγωγή και ɛκπαίδɛυση στην Kύπρο [Multicultural education and teaching in Cyprus]. Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture. Şahin, S. (2011). Open borders, closed minds: The discursive construction of national identity in north Cyprus. Media, Culture & Society, 33, 583–597. Sant Cassia, P. (1986). Religion, politics and ethnicity in Cyprus during the Turkocratia (1571–1878). European Journal of Sociology, 27, 3–28. Schroeder, C. & Strohmeier, M. (2006). Workshop on ‘Turkish as a Foreign Language in the Republic of Cyprus’, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, November 19–20, 2004. Turkic Languages, 10, 285–297. Sophocleous, A. (1995). H ανάπτυξη των μέσων μαζικής ɛνημέρωσης στην Kύπρο την πɛρίοδο 1975–1994 [The development of the mass media in Cyprus from 1975 to 1994]. In N. Peristianis & G. Tsaggaras (Eds.), Anatomy of a transformation (pp. 213–227). Nicosia: Intercollege Press. Sophocleous, A., & Themistocleous, C. (forthcoming). ‘En exun aipin!’: Linguistic and sociocultural elements in the use of the Greek-Cypriot dialect on Facebook, Mikroglottika Research Group (Eds.), Minority languages and the social web. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. SPO. (2006). TRNC State Planning Organization, census 2006. Retrieved from http://nufussayimi. devplan.org/Census%202006.pdf Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. State Planning Organization. (2006). 2006 Population and Housing Unit Census. Retrieved from http://nufussayimi.devplan.org/index-en.html Statistical Service (2009). 2008 Demographic report, Population Statistics, Series II, Report No. 46. Nicosia, Cyprus: Republic of Cyprus. Sweeting, A., & Vickers, E. (2005). On colonizing ‘colonialism’: The discourses of the history of English in Hong Kong. World Englishes, 24, 113–130. Taxitari, L. (2007). Ο Aστɛρίκκος στους Ολυμπιακούς Aγώνɛς [Asterix at the Olympic Games]. Athens: Mammoth Comix. Terkourafi, M. (2005). Understanding the present through the past: Processes of koineisation in Cyprus. Diachronica, 22, 309–372. Themistocleous, C. (2009). Written Cypriot Greek in online chat: Usage and attitudes. In G. Giannakis, M. Baltazani, G. Xydopoulos, & T. Tsangalidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 473–488). Ioannina: University of Ioannina. Retrieved January 5, 2011, from http://www.linguist-uoi.gr/cd_web/docs/english/ 036_themistocleousICGL8_OK.pdf Themistocleous, C. (forthcoming). The use of Cypriot Greek in CMC: First findings. Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Functional Linguistics: Special Session on the Sociolinguistic Situation in Cyprus. Paris: L’Harmattan. Theocharous, A. (2009). H Tουρκοκυπριακή koiné [The Cypriot Turkish koiné] (Unpublished B.A. dissertation). Department of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cyprus. Trimikliniotis, N., & Demetriou, C. (2009). The Cypriot Roma and the failure of education: anti-discrimination and multiculturalism as a post-accession challenge. In N. Coureas & A. Varnava (Eds.), The minorities of Cyprus: Development patterns and the identity of the internal-exclusion.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Current Issues in Language Planning

63

Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Retrieved January 5, 2011, from http://works. bepress.com/nicos_trimikliniotis/6 Trudgill, P. (2003). Modern Greek dialects. A preliminary classification. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 4, 45–64. Trudgill, P. & Schreier, D. (2006). Greece and Cyprus/Griechenland und Zypern. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K.J. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), International handbook of language and society/Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft (pp. 1881–1888). Berlin: de Gruyter. Tsiplakou, S. (2003/in press). Linguistic attitudes and emerging hyperdialectism in a diglossic setting: Young Cypriot Greeks on their language. In C. Yoquelet (Ed.), Berkeley Linguistic Society 29 [Special Volume: Minority and diasporic languages of Europe]. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley. Tsiplakou, S. (2004). Στάσɛις απέναντι στη γλώσσα και γλωσσική αλλαγή. Mια αμφίδρομη σχέση [Attitudes towards language and language change: A two-way relation?]. In G. Catsimali, A. Kalokairinos, E. Anagnostopoulou, & I. Kappa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Rethymno: Linguistics Lab. CD-Rom. Tsiplakou, S. (2006a). Cyprus: Language situation. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 337–339). Oxford: Elsevier. Tsiplakou, S. (2006b). The emperor’s old clothes: Linguistic diversity and the redefinition of literacy. The International Journal of Humanities, 2, 2345–2352. Tsiplakou, S. (2007a). Linguistic variation in the Cypriot language classroom and its implications for education. In A. Papapavlou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Sociolinguistic and pedagogical dimensions of dialects in education (pp. 236–264). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Tsiplakou, S. (2007b). Γλωσσική ποικιλία και κριτικός ɛγγραμματισμός: Συσχɛτισμοί και παιδαγωγικές προɛκτάσɛις [Linguistic variation and critical literacy: Associations and pedagogical implications]. In E.G. Matsagouras (Ed.), School literacy (pp. 466–511). Ahens: Grigoris. Tsiplakou, S. (2009a). Code-switching and code-mixing between related varieties: Establishing the blueprint. The International Journal of Humanities, 6, 49–66. Tsiplakou, S. (2009b). English in Cyprus: Outer or expanding circle? In C. Bongartz & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Anglistik – International Journal of English Studies (Vol. 20) [Special Issue: Non-native Englishes: Exploring Second-language Varieties and Learner Englishes], 75–88. Tsiplakou, S. (2009c). Γλωσσική ɛναλλαγή, ανταγωνιστικές γραμματικές και διαγλώσσα ακόμα μια διάσταση του “κυπριακού” [Language alternation, competing grammars and interlanguage: Another facet of the Cyprus problem]. In G. Giannakis, M. Baltazani, G. Xydopoulos, & T. Tsangalidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 1195–1209). University of Ioannina Retrieved April 5, 2010, from http://www.linguist.uoi. gr/cd_web/docs/greek/044_Tsiplakou.icgl8.pdf Tsiplakou, S. (2010). Code-switching and code-mixing in situations of language contact: The case of contemporary Cypriot Greek. In A. Voskos, D. Goutsos, & A. Moser (Eds.), H ɛλληνική γλώσσα στην Kύπρο από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμɛρα [The Greek language in Cyprus from antiquity to the present] (pp. 228–241). Athens: National Capodistrian University of Athens. Tsiplakou, S., Coutsougera, P., & Pavlou, P. (forthcoming). A grammar of contemporary Cypriot Greek. München: Lincom Europa. Tsiplakou, S., & Georgi, F. (2008). Aspects of language alternation in a trilingual classroom setting. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis – International Journal of Experimental Research in Education, XLV, 195–220. Tsiplakou, S., & Hadjioannou, X. (2010). H διδασκαλία της γλωσσικής ποικιλότητας: μια διδακτική παρέμβαση. [Teaching language variation: a paedagogical intervention]. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 30, 617–629. Tsiplakou, S., Hadjioannou, X. & Constantinou, C. (2006). ∆έκα μύθοι για την επικοινωνιακή προσέγγιση ή«Κύριε, ελληνικά πότε εν να κάµουµε;» [10 myths regarding the Communicative Approach]. Proceedings of the IX Pedagogical Association Conference (pp. 381–390), Nicosia, Cyprus. Tsiplakou, S., & Ioannidou, E. (2010, September). Stylizing stylization: The case of Aigia Fuxia. Paper presented at the 18th Sociolinguistics Symposium, University of Southampton, UK. Tsiplakou, S., & Papanicola, E. (2009). On the origin of phonotactic constraints: Evidence from Cypriot Greek. In G. Giannakis, M. Baltazani, G. Xydopoulos, & T. Tsangalidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 1210–1223).

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

64

X. Hadjioannou et al.

University of Ioannina. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from http://www.linguist-uoi.gr/cd_web/ docs/greek/045_Tsiplakou_PapanicolaICGL8-1.pdf. Tsiplakou, S., Papapavlou, A., Pavlou, P., & Katsoyannou, M. (2006). Levelling, koineization and their implications for bidialectism. In F. Hinskens (Ed.), Language variation – European perspectives. Selected Papers from the 3rd International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 3), University of Amsterdam, 23–25 June 2005 (pp. 265–276). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. UNESCO. (2009). UNESCO Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. Retrieved May 21, 2010, from http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/index.php?hl=en&page=atlasmap United Nations Development Program. (2010). Annual Report 2009–10. Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http://www.undp.org/publications/UNDPaction2010/pdf/wUNDPinAction-E-full.pdf U.S. English Foundation Inc. (2009). U.S. English foundation research. Cyprus. Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http://www.usefoundation.org/foundation/research/olp/viewResearch.asp?CID= 17&TID=1 Vancı-Osam, Ü. (2006). The impact of oral language features in written language in Cypriot Turkish. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 181 [The Sociolinguistics of Cyprus II: Studies from the Turkish Sphere], 23–24. Varella, S. (2006). Language contact and the lexicon in the history of Cypriot Greek [Contemporary Studies in Descriptive Linguistics 7]. Bern: Peter Lang. Varnava, A. (2010). The state of Cypriot minorities: Cultural diversity, internal-exclusion and the Cyprus ‘Problem’. The Cyprus Review, 22, 205–218. Wallace, P.W., & Orphanides, A.G. (1990). Sources for the history of Cyprus. Albany, NY: Institute of Cypriot Studies, University at Albany, State University of New York. Webb, K., & Groom, A.J.R. (2009). Settlements in unended conflicts: The case of Cyprus. The Cyprus Review, 21, 81–96. Weir, W.W. (1952). Education in Cyprus. Some theories and practices in education in the island of Cyprus since 1878. Nicosia: Cosmos Press. Whitehead, C. (1988). British colonial education policy: A synonym for cultural imperialism? In J.A. Mangan (Ed.), ‘Benefits bestowed?’ Education and British imperialism (pp. 211–230). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Whitehead, C. (1995). The medium of instruction in British colonial education: A case of cultural imperialism or enlightened paternalism? History of Education, 24, 1–15. Whitehead, C. (2005a). The historiography of British imperial education, part I: India. History of Education, 34, 315–329. Whitehead, C. (2005b). The historiography of British imperial education, part II: Africa and the rest of the colonial empire. History of Education, 34, 441–454. Williams, A. (2000). The gypsies of Cyprus: A DRC update. Kuri Journal of the DOM Research Center 1.2. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from http://www.domresearchcenter.com/journal/12/ cyprus.html Yağcıoğlu, D. (2003). Kıbrıs’ta çokdillilik olgusu [The phenomenon of multilingualism in Cyprus’]. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 13, 27–39. Yangoullis, K. (2005). Θησαυρός κυπριακής διαλέκτου [Thesaurus of the Cypriot dialect]. Nicosia: The Philips College. Yaratan, S.H. (1998). Education in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. In K.D. Grothusen, W. Steffani, & P. Zevrakis (Eds.), Zypern, [Südosteuropa-Handbuch, Vol. 8] (pp. 610–628). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Yashin, M. (1997). Three generations, three identities, three “patriae” within twentieth century Cypriot Poetry. In V. Calotychos (Ed.), Cyprus and its people: Nation, identity and experience in an unimaginable community (1955–1997) (pp. 223–231). San Francisco: Westview Press. Yaşın, M. (1990). The question of identity and its socio-historical basis in Turkish Cypriot Literature. Turkish Cypriot identity in literature/Edebiyatta Kıbrıslı Türk Kimliği (pp. 33–78). London: Fatal Publications. Yeni Kıbrıs Partisi (YKP). (2008). The demographic composition of the northern part of Cyprus [Public panel discussion organized by YKP (Yeni Kıbrıs Partisi) at Arabahmet Cultural Centre/ Nicosia, 6.5.2008]. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from http://www.ykp.org.cy/nufus.htm Yiakoumetti, A. (2006). A bidialectal programme for the learning of standard modern Greek in Cyprus. Applied Linguistics, 27, 295–317.

Current Issues in Language Planning

65

Yiakoumetti, A. (2007). Choice of classroom language in bidialectal communities: To include or to exclude the dialect? Cambridge Journal of Education, 37, 51–66. Yiakoumetti, A., Evans, M., & Esch, E. (2005). Language awareness in a bidialectal setting: The oral performance and language attitudes of urban and rural students in Cyprus. Language Awareness, 14, 254–260.

Appendix 1. Structural differences between standard and Cypriot Greek

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

The principal differences between Cypriot and Standard Greek are given in Tables A1–A3. Table A1. Phonological differences. Standard Greek

Cypriot Greek

[cɛˈɾɔs]

[t∫ɛˈɾɔs]

weather

[ˈɛçi]

[ˈɛ∫i]

has

[bɐˈbɐs] [ɛˈbɾɔs] [mɐγɐˈzjɐ] [ˈɐlɔ]

[pɐˈpɐs] [ɛˈmbɾɔs] [mɐxɐˈƷɐ] [ˈɐl:ɔ]

dad forward shops other

[ˈkupɐ] [pɔˈtɛ]

[ˈkuphɐ] [pɔˈthɛ]

cup never

[ˈptɔsi]

[ˈpthɔsi]

fall

[ˈktiɾiɔ]

[ˈxtiɾiɔ]

building

[ˈçɛɾi] [ˈçɛɾjɐ]

[ˈ∫ɛɾin] [ˈ∫ɛɾkɐ]

hand hands

[tɾɐˈγuði]

[tɾɐˈuin]

song

[θɛɔˈɾɔ] I consider

[θɔˈɾɔ] [xɔˈɾɔ] [f ɔˈɾɔ] [xɔˈɾɔ] [ɐˈndƷɐ]

[xɔˈɾ(ɐ)ɔ] [ɐˈ(ɲ)ɟɐ] a

Cypriot Greek feature affrication of [c] before front vowels [i] and [ɛ]a fronting of [ç[ before front vowels [i] and [ɛ] absence of voiced stops [b], [d], [g]/[ɟ] (unless prenasalized) fronting of [z] consonant gemination (frequently ‘spontaneous’, depending on stress placement, e.g. [stɐˈvrul:ɐ] ‘Stavroula’) gemination (aspiration) of voiceless plosives gemination (aspiration) of voiceless plosives in clusters spirantization of voiceless plosives in clusters word-final [n] Stop formation/‘hardening’ of [i] before another vowel intervocalic fricative elision (subject to levelling)

I see

[θ]/[x] allophony (subject to levelling)

I fit pots

[f]/[x] allophony (subject to leveling) affrication of [ɟ] (subject to levelling)

In the Appendix we provide a narrow phonetic transcription of the Cypriot Greek data for the purposes of accurate exposition; transcriptions in the main text are phonological, as accurate phonetic description is not necessary for the data discussed there.

66

X. Hadjioannou et al. Table A2. Morphological differences.

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

Standard Greek

Cypriot Greek

[tis]

[tɛs]

the.ACC.FEM.PL

[ˈeksɔði]

[eˈksɔði]

exit.NOM.PL

[kɔˈlɔn]

[ˈkɔl:ɔn]

leaf.GEN.PL

[tɔn ɛˈglɛzɔn]

[tus ɛˈŋglɛzus]

the English.GEN.PL

[ʝi] [ˈtutɔ]

[ʝuˈðɛs] [tun]

son.NOM/ACC.PL this

[ˈɛxun] [ˈixɐn]

[ˈɛxusin] [ˈixɐsin]

have.3PL had.3PL

[ˈkɐnɐtɛ]

[ɛˈkɐmɛtɛ]

did.2PL

[ˈkɐnɐtɛ]

[ɛˈkɐmɛtɛ]

did.2PL

[θɐ] [mi(n)]

[ˈɛn:ɐ] [mɛn]

future marker negation marker

Cypriot Greek feature Different determiner form for the feminine accusative plural Penultimate stress in the nominative plural of 2nd declension nouns Penultimate stress in the genitive plural of 1st declension feminine nouns Accusative morphology in the genitive plural of 2nd declension masculine nouns (subject to levelling) Cypriot-specific plural morphemes Cypriot-specific demonstrative pronoun Cypriot-specific 3rd person plural morpheme in present and past tenses Syllabic augment [ɛ] in the past tenses Cypriot-specific 2nd person plural morpheme in the past tenses Cypriot-specific future marker Cypriot-specific negation marker in non-indicative mood

Current Issues in Language Planning

67

Table A3. Syntactic differences. Standard Greek

Downloaded by [Xenia Hadjioannou] at 06:17 04 November 2011

[tɔ ˈiðɛs] it.CL.ACC saw.2S ‘You saw it.’ [ðɛn tɔ ˈiðɛs] NEG it.CL.ACC saw.2S ‘You didn’t see it.’ [ˈpɔtɛ tɔ ˈiðɛs] when it.CL.ACC saw.2S ‘When did you see it?’

[ti ˈiðɛs] what.ACC saw.2S ‘What did you see?’ [pçɔn ˈiðɛs] who.ACC saw.2S ‘Who did you see?’ [tin ˈksɛɲɐ ˈiðɛs] XENIA.ACC saw.2s ‘You saw XENIA.’ [stilɛ tɔ mu] send.IMP it.ACC me.GEN ‘Send it to me.’ or [stilɛ mu to] send.IMP me.GEN it.ACC ‘Send me it.’

Cypriot Greek

Cypriot Greek feature

[ˈiðɛs tɔ] saw.2S it.CL.ACC ‘You saw it.’ [ɛn tɔ ˈiðɛs] NEG it.CL.ACC saw.2S ‘You didn’t see it.’ [ˈpɔtɛ tɔ ˈiðɛs] when it.CL.ACC saw.2S

clitic-second (Wackernagel) effects

[ˈɛn tʃɛ ˈiðɛs tɔ] NEG FOC saw.2S it.CL.ACC ‘You DIDN’T see it.’ [ˈindɐ m bu ˈiðɛs] what is that saw.2S ‘What is it that you saw?’

no clitic-second effects in emphatic negation with ɛn tʃɛ obligatory clefting in wh- questions introduced by inda ‘what’ optional clefting in wh- questions

[pcɔn {em bu} ˈiðɛs] who {is that} saw.2S ‘Who is it that you saw?’ [ɛn tin ˈksɛniɐn pu ˈiðɛs] is XENIA.ACC that saw.2s ‘It’s XENIA that you saw.’ [stil mu to] send.IMP me.GEN it.ACC ‘Send me it.’ postverbal clitics

focus clefts (no syntactic focus movement) Indirect Object> Direct Object order only with