Cyprus: Language Situation (Hadjioannou, Tsiplakou & Kappler)

This article was downloaded by: [Xenia Hadjioannou]On: 04 November 2011, At: 06:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Current Issues in Language PlanningPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclp20

Language policy and language planning

in Cyprus

Xenia Hadjioannou a , Stavroula Tsiplakou

b & Matthias Kappler

a Childhood and Early Adolescent Education, Penn State

University, Lehigh Valley Campus, 2809 Saucon Valley Road,

Center Valley, PA, 18034-8447, USAb School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Open University of

Cyprus, 13-15 Digeni Akrita Avenue, 1055, Nicosia, Cyprusc 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-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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 representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Language policy and language planning in Cyprus

Xenia Hadjioannoua*, Stavroula Tsiplakoub with a contribution by Matthias Kapplerc

aChildhood and Early Adolescent Education, Penn State University, Lehigh Valley Campus, 2809Saucon Valley Road, Center Valley, PA 18034-8447, USA; bSchool of Humanities and SocialSciences, Open University of Cyprus, 13-15 Digeni Akrita Avenue, 1055 Nicosia, Cyprus;cDepartment of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cyprus, PO Box 20537, 1678Nicosia, 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 andlanguage planning in Cyprus. Using both historical and synchronic data and adoptinga mixed-methods approach (archival research, ethnographic tools and insights fromsociolinguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis), this study attempts to trace theorigins and the trajectories of language polices in Cyprus and to relate these to issuesof ethnicity, community and national identity formation, language maintenance andlanguage shift, as well as the varying constructions of the role of language ineducation. It will be shown that, while linguistic variation and multilingualism werehistorically a core feature of the linguistic communities of Cyprus, the end of theanticolonial struggle and the separation of the island’s two major linguisticcommunities post-1974 has helped to establish effectively monolingual languagepolicies, with a strong prioritization of national standard languages as opposed tosociolinguistically stigmatized varieties and minority languages. The monograph willalso 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 thethird largest island of the Mediterranean; Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Libya andGreece are in its immediate vicinity.

The Mycenaeans settled in Cyprus extensively from the twelfth century B.C.E., andover the next millennia Cyprus underwent Phoenician, Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, Mace-donian, 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. Inter-national treaties established the territorial sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over thearea of the island (MFA, 2010a) and its Constitution (1960) was designed to represent itstwo major ethnic (also religious and linguistic) communities, the Greek Cypriots and the

*Corresponding author. Email: xuh12@psu.edu

Current Issues in Language Planning2011, 1–67, iFirst Article

Turkish Cypriots, which represented 77 and 18% of the population, respectively, accordingto the official census of 1960 (Panayotou & Pavlou, 2000). However, political unrest in therelationship between the island’s two major communities commenced shortly after theestablishment of the Republic of Cyprus and escalated into a war in 1974. As a result ofthe 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 theexchange of populations that followed the armed conflict has also led to the geopoliticalseparation of Cyprus’ two major ethnic/linguistic communities, with the Greek Cypriotsinhabiting the south part of the island and the Turkish Cypriots inhabiting the north; effec-tively, ‘contact between the two groups, including language/communication’ (Özerk, 2001,p. 260) has since been minimal. Although the impermeability of the buffer zone separatingthe two regions was somewhat relaxed in 2003, when the Turkish Cypriot administrationstarted allowing Cypriot Greeks (CGs) to enter the area under their control1 and robustcross-visiting developed (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2009), and despite a preponderance of bi-com-munal projects aiming at understanding and reconciliation (see, e.g. AMIDEAST, 2010;United Nations Development Program [UNDP], 2010), communication between the twocommunities remains sparse.

At present, Cyprus continues to be a divided country. The Republic of Cyprus is a Euro-zone-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 Cypruswas 68.9% (485,082 out of the total 703,529 inhabitants). In 2002 the Republic of Cyprushad a GDP per capita of €18,500 (equivalent to 80% of the EU average), and a low unemploy-ment rate (3.4%). The EU is Cyprus’s largest trading partner (54% and 52% respectively ofCyprus’s exports and imports in the year 2002). The services sector is the most importantone, employing 65% of the population. (n. p.)

Figure 1. Map of Cyprus.

2 X. Hadjioannou et al.

The population in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus is mostly GreekCypriot, though in recent decades a significant number of foreign nationals have movedthere for long-term or permanent settlement (CYSTAT, 2010).

The northern part of the island was declared an independent state in 1983 (self-pro-claimed as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti inTurkish); 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 ‘agricul-ture, industry, tourism and education’ but notes that the political isolation resulting from thelack of international recognition has not allowed for adequate development of the economicinfrastructure. According to the European Commission (2004), in the northern part ofCyprus ‘the economic situation is considerably weaker (in 2002 the GDP was estimatedaround €4500 per capita): there is no independent monetary policy, and trade is heavilydependent on the Turkish market’ (n. p.). The population mainly comprises TurkishCypriots who lived in Cyprus pre-1974 and their descendants, and settlers/immigrantsfrom Turkey. Tables 1 and 2 show various population distribution figures in the twoparts of the island.

In this monograph we examine the language situation and issues of language planningin Cyprus following a systematic, data-driven approach. Because the geopolitical separ-ation of Cyprus’ two major ethnic communities has established two de facto separateand fundamentally different entities, this study examines two distinct ‘cases’, namely thelanguage situation and issues of language policy and planning in the Republic of Cyprusand 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 severaldata sources and modes of data analysis. Specifically, we scrutinize policy-setting docu-ments produced by key language-planning agencies, both formal and informal; we under-take a meta-analysis of historical, linguistic and educational research directly or indirectlyaddressing language issues in the two communities under study; and we use sociolinguistic

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

PopulationaPercentage of thetotal populationa

Language(s)

NativeMedium ofeducation

Greek Cypriot 660,300 74.5 CG SMGTurkish Cypriotb 88,700 10.0 CT STArmenians 2700 0.3 CG and Western

ArmenianSMG andArmenian

Maronites 4800 0.5 CG and MaroniteArabic (residually)

Latinsc 900 0.1 CG SMGForeign Residentsd 128,200 14.5 VariousTotal 885,600

Note: Abbreviations: CG, Cypriot Greek; SMG, Standard Modern Greek; CT, Cypriot Turkish; ST, StandardTurkish.aInformation from Statistical Service (2009).bThis 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.cRoman Catholics of European or Levantine descent.dBetween 2002 and 2007, the most common countries of origin of immigrants to the Republic of Cyprus wereGreece, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, the Slovak Republic, Sri Lanka and the UK.

Current Issues in Language Planning 3

and Critical Discourse Analysis tools to analyze ethnographic data depicting language usein various Cypriot contexts.

In what follows, we first present the linguistic profile of Cyprus in order to familiarizereaders with the historical and synchronic linguistic context(s) of language-planning endea-vors on the island. We then provide information regarding language spread in the Republicof Cyprus, and we discuss language policy in terms of agents, content and stated andunstated objectives. We conclude with a discussion of issues of language maintenanceand prospects. The same issues are addressed in reference to the northern part of Cyprusin 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, Consti-tution of the Republic of Cyprus, 1960), which are also the official languages (i.e. themediums of instruction) in education. The two official languages of Cyprus are those ofthe two major ethnic/linguistic communities of the island (Greek and Turkish Cypriots).

Standard Modern Greek (SMG), the language constitutionally recognized as an officiallanguage of the Republic of Cyprus, belongs to the Indo-European language family. SMG isspoken in Greece; it is also spoken in Cyprus by the CG community as well as in variouscountries (e.g. Albania, Australia and the USA) where there are Greek minorities or immi-grant 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 thenational language of Greece occurred in 1976 after a protracted debate in literary, edu-cational, linguistic and political fora seeking to address Greece’s language question

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

Republic of Cyprusa

(thousands)Areas not controlled by the Republic of

Cyprusb,c (thousands)

803.2 256.7Population (de jure)

Males 398.1 138.6Females 405.1 118.1

Population distributionby age

(%) (%)

0–14 years 16.9 2015–64 years 70.1 7065 years and over 13.0 10

Share of urbanpopulation

70.2 39.8

aThe figures come from CYSTAT (2010) and they represent data collected at the end of 2009. They refer topopulation residing in the government-controlled area of the island. CYSTAT reports that the total population is892,400, in which the estimated number of Turkish Cypriots is included.bThe figures come from the 2006 census conducted in the area under Turkish Cypriot administration (StatePlanning Organization, 2006). As discussed in Section 6.2.4, the accuracy of these numbers has beenchallenged by scholars and political stakeholders.cThese figures include individuals from Turkey who moved to the northern part of Cyprus after the war in 1974 andtheir descendants. Though many have been granted citizenship by the Turkish Cypriot administration, the Republicof Cyprus considers them illegal settlers. According to the Statistical Service (2009), their numbers are estimated at160–170 thousand.

(γλωσσικό ζήτημα in Greek), which involved the diglossic situation between the vernacular(δημοτική/dimotiki) and katharevousa (καθαρɛύουσα), the official language of the state atthe time, ‘an artificial language “purged” of all non-Hellenic vocabulary and grammaracquired 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 wasbased on southern varieties (mainly Peloponnese ones), but at the same time, it incorporatedkatharevousa elements and loans and calques from other languages. Notably, the adoptionof SMG signalled the levelling of most regional varieties of Greek (Mackridge, 2009).

Standard Turkish (ST), which is recognized as the official language of the TurkishCypriots, belongs to the Turkic subgroup of the Altaic family of languages. Also the officiallanguage of Turkey, ST is spoken by about 55 million people in Turkey as well as in Bul-garia, Cyprus, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece. The modern periodfor the Turkish language commenced in 1928 with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s languagereform program; this involved a consistent attempt at breaking from Turkey’s Ottomanpast, which, in terms of language, meant that the Arabic script was abandoned in favorof an almost phonetic writing system based on the Latin alphabet. Moreover, a systematicattempt 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 Istanbuland it exhibits typical Turkic features such as vowel harmony, agglutination and head-finalstructures (Göksel & Kerslake, 2005).

In addition to the two official languages of the state, due to Cyprus’ history as a Britishcolony (1878–1960), English has also been used in various realms of public life in theRepublic of Cyprus, including the courts of law, various civic services and many fieldsof private enterprise. As is further discussed in the section on the historical developmentof language policies and practices, though English is still used residually in the publicsector, the translation of the Cyprus Law in 1995, combined with a series of policydecisions 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 theCatholicMaronite community of Cyprus (COE, 2011; PIO, 2010c), one of the three religiousminority groups recognized by theCyprus Constitution.2 TheMaronites originate fromSyriaand Lebanon (Goutsos & Karyolemou, 2004) and have been on the island since the tenthcentury (see Borg, 1985, 2004; Roth, 2004). Up until 1974, most members of the Maronitecommunity lived in the Kormakitis area, a somewhat isolated peninsula in the northeast (seeFigure 1). However, as Kormakitis came under Turkish control after 1974, most Maroniteschose to move to the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus (Trudgill & Schreier,2006). Though theMaronites have traditionally been bilingual in CG and CMA, the diasporaresulting from this move has led to a steady decline of CMA, which is presently tendingtoward moribundity (Roth, 2004; Trudgill & Schreier, 2006).

Borg (2004) describes Cypriot Arabic as the product of ‘a unique linguistic and culturalsynthesis, drawing on Arabic, Aramaic, and Greek’ (n. p.). Cypriot Arabic evolved as apurely oral dialect with virtually no contact with written Arabic or other Arabic dialectsafter the twelfth century (Roth, 2004); it shares most of its linguistic features with ‘the

sedentary dialects of Greater Syria, but it has also received considerable influence from thephonology of CG’ (Trudgill & Schreier, 2006, p. 1887). According to Roth (2004), the posi-tioning of Cypriot Arabic toward CG as a majority language and toward classical Arabic asthe standardized alternative ‘work against its preservation, since the language has alreadyceased 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 levelshave 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 conversionwith 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 ofCyprus, the second religious minority recognized by the Cyprus Constitution. ThoughArmenians have been present in Cyprus since the sixth century (Government WebPortal, 2010b; PIO, 2010a), their numbers significantly increased between 1894 and1923 as a result of the ethnic cleansing practices waged against Armenians who lived inthe Ottoman Empire. At that time, approximately nine thousand Armenians soughtrefuge 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 per-manently. Though originally Armenians elected to live in the Turkish Cypriot quarters ofCypriot cities because of their familiarity with the Turkish language and Turkish customs(Pattie, 1997), politically they chose to belong to the Greek Cypriot community followingthe Referendum of 1960, and they presently reside in the area controlled by the Republic ofCyprus (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 Armeniansliving in Cyprus before the twentieth century, as well as the refugees fleeing persecution inthe Ottoman Empire, spoke primarily Turkish. ‘To reverse this situation, a conscious effortto teach the [Armenian] language to the new generations was undertaken in the early twen-tieth century, including those families in which parents had very little knowledge, if any, ofthe language’ (Goutsos & Karyolemou, 2004, p. 11). Through a slow process of formallanguage 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 govern-ment as a minority language, according to the provisions of the European Charter forRegional or Minority Languages’ (Government Web Portal, 2010b, n. p.). Western Arme-nian is one of the languages of instruction in the three Armenian elementary schools (knownas Nareg) and in the junior high school added to Nareg Nicosia in 2005, after the closingdown of the Melkonian Boarding School, which had served as a secondary school forArmenian 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 theArmenian community and the structural peculiarities of the (Western) Armenian varietyspoken by its members’ (Goutsos & Karyolemou, 2004, p. 10).

The Latins, the third religious community recognized by the Cyprus Constitution, donot speak a distinct language variety of their own but have been linguistically assimilatedinto 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 spokenby 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

granted minority community status in the Constitution because of ‘uncertainty about theirnumbers, their life-style and the fact that most were Turkish-speaking (and Muslim), andonly a few were Greek-speaking (and Christian)’ (Trimikliniotis & Demetriou, 2009,n. p.); rather, they were deemed to be members of the Turkish Cypriot community. Until1974, they lived a nomadic lifestyle, but after the war most moved north, where theyswitched to a more settled way of life. According to Williams (2000), though it is com-monly thought that the shared Muslim religion is what led the Roma to move north, inreality ‘their affinity is more closely tied to the Turkish language than it is to a religiouspersuasion’ (n. p). Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha has received little scholarly attention, and it isnot recognized as a minority language by the European Charter for Regional and MinorityLanguages. It appears that, since 1974, Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha has for the most part beenreplaced by Turkish and at present it is known only by the older members of the Roma com-munity (Office of the Law Commissioner, 2009; Williams, 2000).

In its dealings with the European Union regarding the protection of national minoritiesand 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 ofthe establishment of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 and have Cypriot citizenship’ (Officeof the Law Commissioner, 2009, p. 3). However, this definition excludes a number of otherlinguistic communities who currently live in the Republic of Cyprus. As discussed in thesection on immigrant languages (Section 3.4), these communities represent immigrantgroups who have made their way to Cyprus since the 1980s, including groups fromGeorgia, 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), whichdiverge fromSMGand ST, respectively, inmany important aspects. CG belongs to the south-eastern 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 theisland since its colonization by theMycenaeans (twelfth century B.C.E.) and up until theHel-lenistic period (fourth century B.C.E.), when Hellenistic (Koiné) Greek substituted regionallanguages and dialects to become the common language used across the eastern Mediterra-nean 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 probablyevolved from Hellenistic (Koiné) Greek (Browning, 1983; Horrocks, 1997). The diachronicprocesses leading to the formation of CG, as, indeed, of the other Modern Greek dialects, areobviously hard to trace; it should however be noted that some of the earliest written texts in aModern Greek dialect are in Cypriot (and Cretan) Greek and date from the Early Renais-sance. We may assume that the geopolitical and linguistic isolation of Cyprus from theByzantine Empire and prolonged Frankish rule after the Fourth Crusade contributed signifi-cantly 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 ModernGreek dialects. The geopolitical and sociolinguistic situation also helped in the establishmentof a written literary tradition. Written documents in CG, namely theChronicles ofMachairasand Boustronios and the Assizes of the Lusignan Court, date as far back as the fourteenthcentury (Goutsos & Karyolemou, 2004).

Contemporary CG has largely retained the morphosyntax of Medieval CG (focus andwh clefts, clitic-second effects) as well as distinctive southeastern phonetic and phonologi-cal features (affrication/fronting of palatal fricatives, prenasalization of plosives, harden-ing), which render it quite distinct from Standard Greek (SG). As is expected, thelexicon displays heavy influence from Turkish, Middle French and, more recently,English (see Tsiplakou, 2006a; Tsiplakou, Coutsougera, & Pavlou, forthcoming). The prin-cipal 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 beinglevelled out, following the demographic and social changes post-1974, and a pancypriankoiné 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 tentativelyplaced 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, mor-phological and syntactic features, most striking among which are voicing of plosives word-initially, distinct tense forms, subjunctive/optative forms (Kappler & Tsiplakou, forthcominga), 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 rightwardsubordination (Kappler, 2008); the latter are variously attributed to the influence of Englishand Greek or to the historical origins of CT. Not much is known about CT regional varieties.Arguably, levelling and koinéization are also atwork inCT (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 respectivestandard variety each community considered to be its national language. As noted inSection 4, which discusses the historical development of language policies and practices,starting from the Ottoman period (1571–1878) each community developed and maintainedseparate institutions for fostering literacy.

At present, the language of literacy in all state schools operating in the area under thecontrol of the Republic of Cyprus is SMG. SMG became the official language of Greece in1976, and since then, it has been the language of literacy in both the Greek and the CG edu-cation systems.

As is explained in Section 4.2.2, though Turkish is also recognized as an official languageof the state by theConstitution of the Republic, the separation of the two education systems hasmeant 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 whichTurkish is an official language of literacy is the University of Cyprus. This determination wasmade after a long and largely ideologically driven debate in the Parliament of the Republic ofCyprus regarding the language or languages of instruction of the republic’s first public univer-sity. 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 civilservice of the Republic of Cyprus, and Turkish is only used in teaching in the Turkish andMiddle Eastern Studies Department.

3. Language spread

3.1 The languages of education

Education in the Republic of Cyprus is compulsory for children between 6 and 15 years ofage. As was previously mentioned, currently all state schools adhere to SMG as the officiallanguage of literacy. Language education is spread over at least 10 hours per week inelementary school and 6–8 hours per week in junior and senior high school. Language edu-cation in state schools is guided by the National Language Curriculum of the Republic ofCyprus, which, up until recently, has been virtually identical with the national curriculum ofGreece. Implementation of the Greek language curriculum in the Republic of Cyprus istypically assured by the exclusive use of language textbooks produced by the Greek Min-istry 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 elementaryschool onwards. All students take at least two hours of English per week throughout theirpublic school education. However, senior high-school (Lykeio) students have the option oftaking additional four or six periods of English per week (Tsiplakou, 2009b). The newnational curriculum (MOEC, 2010a), the implementation of which is scheduled to com-mence 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 forinfusing 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 culturalelements 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 commu-nities and cultures; and

. the cultivation of the students’ ability ‘for communication and interaction, oral andwritten, 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 learn-ing language, on students’ diverse learning needs and characteristics, on orientation towardmulticulturalism, on fostering life-long learning and on teaching English through its inte-gration in content-based learning.

Notably, despite the significant presence of English in the weekly schedule of publiceducation, an overwhelming majority of Greek Cypriot school children also take privateclasses in English. This trend signals a deep commitment on the part of Greek Cypriotparents to ensuring that their children become fluent in English, but also a mistrust of thestate school system’s capacity to accomplish this objective adequately.

French is introduced as a required two-hours-per-week subject in the first grade ofjunior high school (Gymnasio) and remains so until the end of the first grade of seniorhigh school (Lykeio). Beginning from the second grade of Lykeio, foreign language elec-tives and options are expanded. The foreign languages offered at this level are English,French, German, Italian, Russian and Turkish. The minimum language requirement forthe last two grades of junior high school involves the study of at least two of theselanguages for no less than two teaching periods per week for each language. Studentsmay choose to include up to 20 hours of foreign languages per week, with each language

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

The general purpose of the teaching of Foreign Languages is for the students to acquire thenecessary communicative competencies for communicating effectively in languages beyondtheir native one, thereby broadening their cultural experiences and developing positive attitudesand 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 bothby the increasing percentage of school-aged children attending private schools and by thesignificant upsurge in the number of private schools at all levels of education.5 Thoughsome 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 preparestudents for successful participation in the British education system and in British tertiaryeducation 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 forcertain 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 mostrecent curricular reform, which was initiated in 2008 and yielded the new Cyprus curriculaof 2010, whose implementation is scheduled to commence in the academic year 2011–2012(MOEC, 2011a), the CG public education system adopted and implemented the nationalcurriculum of Greece, with small deviations in subjects other than language.

Prior to the early 1980s, following similar trends in other school systems around theworld, language education was approached through a fragmented view on the basis ofwhich reading, composition/writing and grammar were treated as completely separatesubjects and occupied distinct periods in students’ weekly schedule. The explicit andexhaustive teaching of grammar was a fundamental aim, fuelled by the assumptionthat such instruction and learning would facilitate students’ development as writers,readers and speakers (Karantzola, 2000). The primary focus of grammar teaching wasinflectional morphology (Karantzola, 2000) and grammar was taught through traditionalapproaches 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 heelsof (a) a political reform by the newly elected socialist government of Greece (Charalambo-poulos, 1999; Karantzola, 2000), and (b) the uneasy settlement of a protracted debate inschool systems around the world between advocates of the extensive teaching ofgrammar 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 ofseveral research studies consistently suggesting that ‘the teaching of formal grammar has anegligible or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in actual compo-sition, 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

inmany education systems in favor ofmore naturalistic, communicativemodels that assumedthat 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 indi-vidual teachers varied greatly, this often meant that the elimination of decontextualizedformal grammar instruction from school curricula was not counterbalanced by alternativesystematic approaches to grammar (Kolln & Hancock, 2005; Mulroy 2004).

The education reform in Greece involved the authoring of the National Greek Curricu-lum of 1982–1984, in which the stated objectives of language education included studentsbecoming capable users of the language and being exposed to written texts that are ‘repre-sentative of the various forms of written communication’, with a provision for special atten-tion to oral language (Charalambopoulos, 1999, n.p.). In addition, this reform, whichendorsed a structural approach to language, promoted a reconceptualization of the pre-viously fragmented subject of Language Arts as a single entity. These objectives under-pinned a series of textbooks for the elementary grades known as the My Language [HΓλώσσα μου] textbooks. These textbooks, which were adopted as required textbooks inCG 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 wellas writing prompts. According to Charalambopoulos (1999), the authors of this materialsought to move language education away from traditional grammar-centric approachesand toward more scientifically informed practices:

the curricula and textbook authors tried, as they have stated, on the one hand to draw from theGreek tradition and experience, avoiding negative elements and using all valuable ideas, and onthe other hand to utilize lessons from linguistics, psychology and education, as well as the rel-evant experiences of other countries in these areas. (n. p.)

With regard to grammar, this new series of textbooks attempted the ‘organic inclusionof grammar in an integrated language lesson’, expanded the examination of grammaticalphenomena 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 metalanguageand rules. As Karantzola notes, ‘the authors of the new textbooks believe that what isneeded is activation of the productive mechanism rather than transmission of knowledgeabout language, since language demands mostly practical skill rather than knowledge’(n. p.).

Charalambakis (2005) discusses a 1991 study conducted 17 years after the introductionof the My Language textbooks to investigate the perceptions of teachers regarding literacyinstruction. The findings suggest that most study participants desired the reinstatement of[presumably formal] grammar instruction and stated that they still used traditionalapproaches to teaching grammar, despite the recommendations to the contrary of thenational curriculum and of the textbooks. In addition, teachers continued to conceive ofgrammar as morphology and phonology exclusively and many continued to strugglewith 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 textbooksprivilege and promote have praised them for endorsing ‘collaboration and mutual under-standing’, for their spirit of ‘anti-authoritarianism’ and their ‘ample keenness to supportand encourage’ (Leontaki, 2008, p. 17). In addition, when compared with the language text-books of the past, these books show a marked improvement in their representation of more

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

. promotes an ideology of urbanization by representing urban living and a serviceeconomy as the only possible future while relegating rural living to romanticizedand 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 theparents’ (p. 16);

. palliates social issues stemming from the socioeconomic stratification of society;

. conspicuously fails to make visible the causes behind social, political and environ-mental issues, thus promoting fatalism and acceptance of the status quo;

. oversimplifies the role and the implications of technology in modern life and oftenillustrates a pessimistic stance toward it.

In addition, the National Curriculum of 1982–1984 and its complementary languagetextbooks have been criticized for exhibiting disregard for language variation both interms of geographic and social dialects and in terms of register/style. The language text-books 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 Leon-taki, 2008, p. 14; see also Kostouli, 2002). The rare texts that do include some dialectelements are traditional songs and poems or narratives in which some excerpts of conversa-tions among characters are rendered in a variety other than the standard. Notably, the factthat such texts belong to historical fiction genres invariably frames non-standard dialects asa 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 theparticular circumstances of communicative situations influence the structure, the vocabulary oreven the style (as cited in Leontaki, 2008, p. 14).

The next language curriculum reform after the language education overhaul of the1980s came in 2003 when the Interdisciplinary Unitary Study Framework (ΔιαθɛματικόΕνιαίο Πλαίσιο Σπουδών, IUSF) was introduced. According to the IUSF, which is effec-tively the national curriculum currently implemented in Greece and the Republic of Cyprus,the aims of language education are:

(1) to make children competent users of the language;(2) to prioritize the development of the spoken language;(3) to help students attain proficiency in spoken and written language through use;(4) to promote the idea that language is a whole containing several interacting com-

ponents; 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

appropriateness of use; this approach, which was also a trademark of the previous curricu-lum, incorporared an attempt at reversing long-established practices that privileged writtenlanguage (Mousena, 2010) and signalled a concerted effort for a fundamental methodologi-cal shift in the teaching of Greek by promoting the Communicative Approach to FirstLanguage Education (CAFLE). The CAFLE is informed by sociolinguistic and psycholin-guistic research indicating that the ability to communicate effectively involves not onlyphonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic knowledge, but also knowledge ofthe practices of language use in the learners’ linguistic community (Hymes 1971, 1974).In other words, native speakers of a language are endowed with communicative compe-tence, ‘that is, the capacity to modify and adjust their language in deference to the audienceand the social conventions and expectations regulating the interaction’ (Tsiplakou, Had-jioannou, & Constantinou, 2006, p. 381).

It is also worth noting that the goals of language education as articulated in the IUSFinclude an explicit reference to the recognition and appreciation of language variation,thus presumably suggesting legitimization of non-standard dialects and their study in edu-cation. However, as Tsiplakou (2007a, 2007b) notes, despite this last objective, the curri-culum still treats SG as the language of education (i.e. as both the target language andthe language of instruction), with no proviso for substantive treatment of non-standard var-ieties or of stylistic/register variation. In the CG context, this translates as a formal exclu-sion 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 onesextremely closely in terms of content and methodology and, crucially, also in terms ofwhat is constructed as the target language (SMG). Ioannidou (2011) shows succinctlythat adhering to the Greek curricula and Greek language policies has been standard prac-tice since Cypriot independence; thus, policy documents from the 1960s do not in anyway address particularities of the Cypriot linguistic context such as the existence oftwo 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 theGreek military junta (1967–1974) makes the teaching of katharevousa compulsory,Greek Cypriot education follows suit; conversely, when dimotiki becomes the officiallanguage of Greece (and of Greek education) in 1976, the Republic of Cyprus againfollows. Similarly, the 1981 and 1994 curricula, which, according to Ioannidou (2011),differ only slightly in terms of relative emphasis in their rhetoric on ‘Greekness’ andon Cyprus’ spiritual and national ties with Greece, adopt fully whatever changes incontent and methodology are proposed in the Greek curricula, together with their proble-matic aspects and misconceptions, as discussed above. It is abundantly clear that the mainconcern is alignment with Greek language and education policies; this ‘outward-looking’stance, which has been a striking characteristic of Cypriot formal and informal languageand education policies up until the present, ultimately amounts to symbolic indexing ofunity 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 assess-ment literacy translates into the ability to produce long narratives and descriptions inprimary education and critical ‘essays’ in secondary education. These assessment textsare often produced in response to teacher- or textbook-provided prompts during specialwriting-time sessions, often following a series of lessons during which students haveread texts and participated in discussions on the topic of the prompt. Though in recentyears there has been some movement toward promoting genre literacy, the instruction

prior to writing typically focuses mostly on the theme of the assessment text rather thanon genre-specific authoring techniques (Hadjioannou, 2008). Other assessment toolsinclude in-class written tests, which mostly focus on text comprehension, vocabularyand grammar. In junior and senior high school these assessments make up the trimestergrade 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 aheavily weighted essay, comprehension questions on texts taught during the year andsome grammar and vocabulary items. The final examinations at the end of the finalyear of senior high school also serve as university entrance examinations, on the basisof which candidates are allocated positions in Cypriot and Greek public tertiary educationinstitutions.

Cyprus does not have high-stakes standardized testing for any subject or grade level.However, the Cypriot education system does participate in the international assessmentinitiatives of Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and Trends inInternational Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (NCES, 2007). Cyprus does nottake part in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which ismanaged by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus, Cyprus’ appli-cation for membership in the OECD has been repeatedly vetoed by Turkey, which hasprecluded the Republic of Cyprus’ participation in several OECD programs (includingPISA) (MFA, 2010b).

3.3 The languages of the media; local literature

Until the early 1990s, the state-operated Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation (CyBC, CyprusBroadcasting Service during British rule) was the only lawfully operating broadcaster in thecountry. CyBC’s programming was launched in 1953 for radio and 1959 for television.During the years of its broadcasting monopoly, CyBC’s Greek language programmingwas 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 ofEnglish-language productions recorded in the USA and broadcast with SMG subtitles. Inaddition, the CyBC regularly airs programming in Turkish, Armenian and English, aspart of its charter as a public broadcaster. In fact ‘the Constitution guarantees sound andvision 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,’ ahumorous genre representing a romanticized, folkloric view of rural living, which wasunfailingly written in antiquated, broad CG for comic effect. Roussou (2006) notes thatthese 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 thenational-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 theclimate that Brundson (2000: 168) describes as “the public service ethos”, i.e., they were morecommercially oriented with regard to aesthetics, content and social perspectives. (Roussou,2006, p. 90)

During the early years of media privatization, SMG programming dominated theCypriot airwaves as many of the new stations were connected to sister stations in Greeceand, therefore, directly imported programming from them. In 1997, the popularity ofGreek programming and the changing broadcast media terrain in the Republic of Cyprusled 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 comediesgrappling with topics such as urbanization and modernity, but later soap operas andmore ‘serious’ programs were added to the roster (Georgiou, 2010; Tsiplakou, 2003/inpress). Also, as the subject matter evolved to include more modern-day situations, theantiquated CG of the old Cypriot sketches was abandoned in favor of more authenticuses of contemporary CG (Georgiou, 2010; Tsiplakou 2003/in press; Tsiplakou & Had-jioannou, 2010). However, Cypriot-produced news and informational programming stilluses SMG, in adherence to the CG community’s communication norms, which dictatethe use of SMG in formal situations. Interestingly, as Pavlou (2004) explains, CG alsoappears in such programming, particularly when excerpts from live interviews are broad-cast or the program hosts make off-script comments. In general, the presence of CG insuch occasions is the result of inadvertent code-switching ‘occurring because thespeaker 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 demoticculture, which reflects the social transition of the country from postcolonial to late moder-nity’ (p. 93), and wonders whether it also marks ‘a type of autochthonous cultural resistanceto the embraces of Europeanization and globalization’ (p. 89). Additionally, in her study ofyoung Greek Cypriots’ attitudes toward language, Tsiplakou (2003/in press, 2004) theo-rizes that the reported positive attitudes of informants toward both CG and SMG (whichshe takes to be a result of increased linguistic confidence due to the emergence of the pan-cyprian koiné as an intermediate stage in a potentially ongoing process of diglossia resol-ution) 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 gov-erned by the Republic of Cyprus as well as a number of local television stations, whoserange is limited to certain urban areas. The stations of national range feature Cypriot pro-ductions, Greek programming procured from sister Greek media networks, as well as sig-nificant programming produced in the USA and in Latin America. Interestingly, in a trendthat has evolved over the past decade, most of the programming that is not in Greek orEnglish is broadcast with voice-over in SMG. Though none of the TV stations in theRepublic of Cyprus are owned or openly controlled by specific political parties, sympathiestoward certain political orientations are frequently apparent both in programming choicesand in news programs. Beyond broadcast TV, there also are a few subscription-based TVservices (cable, satellite TV), which feature Cypriot stations, Greek stations, as well asnumerous other stations from around the world.

With regard to print media, Cyprus boasts two English-language newspapers and a hostof newspapers in Greek (see Table 3 for title numbers and circulation information). Most ofthese newspapers have nation-wide distribution, whereas recent decades have alsowitnessedthe emergence of a number of mostly weekly local newspapers and periodicals. In these pub-lications, SG is the predominant language. However, CG occasionally surfaces in the form ofhumorous commentary or of quotations from spoken language. In Pavlou’s (2004) survey ofnewspaper journalists, his informants verified these uses and asserted that they employed CG

selectively, noting that they thought that more extensive use would potentially hinder readersas CG is rarely written, and would be met with reproof by their audience.

In periodicals, especially popular ones, CG is considerably more visible, often reachingthe level of hybrid, code-mixed production (see, e.g. columns in the weekly City free list-ings journal for Nicosia). Even more so than the TV stations with national range, nationallydistributed newspapers have fairly explicit, though not readily admitted, associations withspecific political ideologies and Cypriot political parties, which may be expected to affectthe standard language-dialect interplay in these publications. However, major broadsheetnewspapers 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 certainextent (Kehayoglou & Papaleontiou, 2010). In a trend that has grown in both productionand readership over the past couple of decades, local authors often write realistic and his-torical 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 thebooks are published by Greek publishing houses and are distributed both in Cyprus and inGreece, whereas others are published and distributed locally, their publication often fundedby the authors themselves. The writing style and range of themes can, for the most part, betraced to parallel trends in literary production in Greece. However, this is not always thecase (see, e.g. Georgiou, 2006; Georgiou & Kyriakou, 2010; Marangou, 2007 forCyprus-specific motifs and a concomitantly increased use of the dialect).8

It is significant that CG, in varying non-standardized written versions, thrives in elec-tronic communication, notably electronic chat, weblogs and on facebook (Sophocleous& Themistocleous, forthcoming; Themistocleous, 2009, forthcoming). In their examinationof 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 ubiqui-tously present and that users have very positive attitudes toward the use of CG in this type ofcomputer-mediated discourse (cf. the discussion in Section 5).

3.4 Immigrant languages

Fairly strict immigration laws did not allow for any significant incoming immigration overthe first few decades of Cyprus’ status as an independent country. However, law changes, incombination 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 effectin the early 1980s brought the first wave of modern-day legal immigration into Cyprus. Theearlier immigrants to arrive in significant numbers were individuals from Southeast Asia,including Cambodians, Filipinos and Sri Lankans. These immigrants arrived in Cypruson special temporary immigrant worker visas. In the years that followed, individualsfrom former Eastern Bloc countries (mostly from Bulgaria, Poland and Romania) arrived

Table 3. Print media circulation in the Republic of Cyprus.

Print medium Circulation Circulation per capita (per 1000 people)

Newspaper circulation 87,000 111.519Daily: 8 titles 53,000 79.016Non-daily: 38 titles

Periodicals: 50 titles 372,000 536.023

Source: Figures from Nationmaster.com (2011).

on the island using the same type of visas. Notably, such visas are only made available tothe workers themselves and are not extended to their families. In addition, to disallow theopportunity for attaining permanent resident status and naturalization, immigrant workers’visas are only renewable for up to 5 years. As a result, the immigrant-worker communitiesare 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 withthe intention of, and the legal grounds for, seeking permanent residency. These were thePontic (Black Sea) Greeks, members of a Greek minority from the former USSR (primarilyfrom Georgia), who, upon the demise of the former superpower, established connectionswith Greece, were awarded Greek citizenship, and through that, were able to move toCyprus 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 homelanguage; many others speak Georgian, whereas other subgroups speak Pontic Greek orTurkish (or any combination of two or more of these languages; see Tsiplakou &Georgi, 2008). Additionally, the members of this group have varying degrees of fluencyin SG. Unlike the temporary immigrant workers, most Pontic Greeks came to Cypruswith their families with the intention of staying on the island for prolonged periods oftime. This immigrant group (and the languages spoken by them) is significantly morevisible in public life than were immigrant worker groups because of the sheer numbersof 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 thelanguages 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 mostother members of the community, is used in community-based periodicals and also has amodest presence in a regional TV station serving Paphos, an urban area where manyPontic 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 publicopinion and language policy respond to this presence are issues on which research is notyet available.

Since Cyprus joined the European Union in 2004, there has been an impressive increasein the number of European immigrants who arrive on the island with diverse residencyobjectives: young individuals, mostly from Bulgaria, Poland and Romania, come withthe intention of working in Cyprus for a few years and then returning to their homecountries; young families from the same countries come with the intention of long-termstays; and retirees, mostly from Great Britain, use Cyprus as their retirement or winter resi-dence. With the exception of English, which, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, has always helda prominent position in the Republic of Cyprus, the languages of the other European immi-grants have had a moderate impact on the Cypriot linguistic landscape: the presence ofimmigrant children in the education system has increased the need for multicultural prac-tices and second language acquisition support, but the languages themselves are notvisibly 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 idiosyncra-sies, due largely to the particularities of the island’s colonial history, the nature of the linksbetween the two major linguistic communities of the island and the historical and political

ties of the Greek Cypriot community with Greece. The major feature of language policy andplanning in the Republic of Cyprus is the absence of official policy-makers or relevantorganizations, parallelling the situation in Greece. Issues pertaining to (covert) languagepolicy and language planning are typically relegated to the Ministry of Education andCulture, to the Parliament, to political pressure groups and, on occasion, to the courts oflaw. Viewed from a theoretical perspective, the Cyprus situation epitomizes the complex-ities inherent in attempts to model the thorny issues of language policy and planningacross 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, hasevolved over the centuries in the unique geographic and sociopolitical context ofCyprus. The various rulers of Cyprus, for the most part, adopted a laissez-faire attitudetoward the language of the island’s natives. Attempts at altering the natives’ identitywere very infrequent and highly localized in small regions of the island. These intrusionswere related mostly to short-term bursts of localized forced religious conversion toRoman Catholicism during the Lusignan reign (1191–1489) and to Islam during theOttoman period (1571–1878). These isolated, short-lived attempts were not particularlysuccessful, and variants of the Greek language continued to be spoken by the Greek Ortho-dox Cypriots (Cobham, 1908; Jennings, 1993; Nikolaou-Konnari & Schabel, 2005; Papa-dopoullos, 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 remainingunder the sovereignty of the Sultan. However, in 1914, after Turkey entered World War I onthe side of Germany, Britain annexed Cyprus and declared it a British Crown Colony in1925 (Webb & Groom, 2009). Language policy in Cyprus during British rule (1878–1960), particularly as this can be traced through educational policy, can be characterizedas ‘an elusive “adapted education” policy’which was significantly influenced by ‘local con-ditions’ (Persianis, 1996, p. 46).

Language policies in British colonies are commonly perceived as ardently anglicizingin nature, tinged by racism and lack of respect for the indigenous populations, theirlanguages and their cultures. Although such perceptions are not unfounded, a closer exam-ination of language policies in various British colonies reveals a process of century-long,gradual, uneven evolution of policy characterized by significant variation across differentcolonies and at different times; this situation has been engendered both by shiftinglocale-specific sociohistorical contexts and by an apparent lack of a coherent and purposefulpolicy plan on the part of colonial officials (Whitehead, 2005a, 2005b). Adding to this com-plexity is the fact that ‘British imperial education policy was highly contended during thecolonial era and remains a contentious issue among many contemporary historians’, whohave offered ‘widely divergent interpretations… from contrasting ideological perspectives’(Whitehead, 2005a, p. 315). Though this analysis is not necessarily shared by all scholars ofcolonial educational policy, according to Evans (2002, 2008) and Pennycook (2002),language policies in the various colonies were decisively influenced by variables such asthe ideological orientations of colonial administrators toward the natives under their rule,parsimony considerations, the local desire for learning English, and sociopolitical eventsthat had the potential to instigate anticolonial sentiments in the local population. Forexample, an anglicizing agenda became activated in Hong Kong during the governorship

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 ofthe Chinese community, who increasingly came to see that proficiency in English openedup 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 thesuperiority of the English language and culture, but also by ‘his desire to enhance the statusof the territory’s Chinese community’ (p. 52), and his understanding that ‘it would be moreeconomically viable to “train up” English-speaking Chinese youths to “discharge the dutiesof clerks”’ (p. 55).

Pennycook (2002) points out that anglicizing policies were not the only means of pur-suing 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 partici-pate in colonial capital as both producers and consumers, more willing to accept the conditionsof foreign occupation, was to be found not so much through the provision of an education inEnglish, but rather through the far more widespread provision of education in vernacularlanguages. (p. 16)

Even in Macauley’s fervently pro-English-language 1835 ‘Minute’, which decisivelyinfluenced 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 themasses. Rather, the objective was to create an elitist system that would ‘form a classwho may be interpreters between us [the British] and the millions whom we govern – aclass of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in moralsand in intellect’ (quoted in Evans, 2008, p. 271). In fact, as Pennycook (2002) reports, colo-nial administrators were often opposed to widespread English education, fearing that itwould create a class of discontented locals who could destabilize Britain’s control overcolonies. Instead, colonial authorities often promoted vernacular education as a means ofinstilling good labor habits, assuaging the locals’ negative perceptions of the colonialistsand preserving ‘cultures as viewed through the exoticizing gaze of the colonial administra-tor’ (p. 16).In Cyprus, according to Persianis (1996), colonial education policy was deter-mined by the following factors:

1. The uncertain political status of Cyprus within the British Empire for approximately50 years.

2. The racist ideology of a considerable number of British colonial officials, includingHigh 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 ofCyprus at the end of the nineteenth century. (p. 45)

The interplay of these variables during colonial rule in Cyprus brought about two dis-tinct 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, admin-istration, finances and teaching practices on the part of the colonial government (1931–1960) (Persianis, 1996, 2003).

During the early years of British rule, the colonial administration had to govern a ter-ritory that did not formally belong to the British Empire, which had fallen under Britishrule without a preceding war with the local population, which already had two establishededucation systems (Greek and Turkish), and where the majority of the population wasChristian and had a European culture.9 Given this stable, already functional situation andfor reasons of parsimony,10 the colonial administration forwent the enactment of radicalanglicizing (as in Hong Kong and India) or pro-vernacular (as in Malaya) educationagendas. Instead, for the most part, the British rulers allowed the CG and CT communitiesto manage their own language matters and their fledgling education systems. In effect, thismeant little cost to the colonial authorities, but it also progressively reinforced ties betweenCyprus’ two main communities and their perceived national centers. Therefore, the periodfrom 1878 to 1931 can be characterized as a time of relative laissez-faire, as British inter-vention in the curricula and the school systems was minimal. During this time Cypriot edu-cation was loosely ‘supervised’ by the Colonial Office Permanent Advisory Committee onnative education, and the colonial government placed emphasis on primary education, dis-couraged academic education and promoted industrial and agricultural training (Persianis,1996, 2003).

In colonial Cyprus, schools were funded largely by the two major communities, andschoolteachers were appointed by community administrations. Crucially, the colonial gov-ernment treated the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities as religious rather than ethniccommunities, and each was therefore granted educational freedom under the ElementaryEducation Act of 1870 (Persianis, 2003). As already mentioned, both communities hadlong-established strong ties with their respective ‘motherlands’; Greek Cypriot schools inparticular were provided with free textbooks from Greece, Greek Cypriot teachers weregiven pensions by the Greek government and Greek Cypriot secondary education graduateswere admitted to the University of Athens without examinations. Thus, knowledge ofEnglish was not a prerequisite for higher education, which, in any case, was by-and-large discouraged by the colonial government on practical grounds.

Similar to the exoticizing orientalist perceptions that heavily influenced pro-Indianlanguage policies in the early period of British colonialism in India (see Evans, 2002), itappears that ‘romantic’, quasi-philhellenic discourses on the part of the colonial rulershad 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 Commis-sioner of Cyprus, Sir R. Biddulph, ‘to make English a general vehicle of education’. He rec-ommended that ‘considering the rich and varied literature of ancient Greece and the greatprogress which modern Greece had made in its work of education since the war of indepen-dence, […] Greek […] affords ample means not only for an ordinary education but for theattainment of a high degree of mental culture.’ (p. 356)

The reported flourishing of Hellenika Grammata (‘Greek letters’) in Cyprus before andduring the colonial period (Myrianthopoulos, 1946; Persianis 1966, 1978, 1994) may beseen as the outcome of a constellation of factors, prominent among which are the Britishlaissez-faire policy and the promotion of a Hellenizing agenda by the Cypriot OrthodoxChurch (see Gregoriou, 2004 for a critique).

The period of laissez faire in language policy ended in 1931 in response to (a) theincreased financial and political interests of Great Britain in the south-east Mediterraneanand the declaration of Cyprus as a British Crown Colony in 1925, which warranted the

adoption of more active policies; and (b) the mounting agitation of Greek Cypriots overtheir desire for an end to colonialism and instead union (enosis) with Greece, which culmi-nated in a massive uprising in 1931. These conditions led the colonial administration toreassess their previous policy stance of low interference, deeming that it had contributedto Cypriots’ mounting desire for further educational opportunities and to galvanizing theGreek Cypriots’ Greek identity.

The colonial government’s response ushered in a policy period of ‘planned cultural andeducational lending’ whose major thrust was to orient Greek and Turkish Cypriots awayfrom their perceived ethnic centers and toward ‘a higher conception of their responsibilitiesas Cypriots and of the position of Cyprus as part of the British Empire’ (Cyprus GovernorSir H. Richmond Palmer as quoted in Persianis, 1996, p. 56). In addition, similar to theobjectives outlined in Macauley’s 1835 ‘Minute’, the new policies aimed at ‘creating anew middle class which would be culturally dependent and politically supportive’(p. 56), and which would become vested in the colonial government by holding adminis-trative posts.

Toward these ends, a series of steps were taken to centralize education and to controlschool curricula. One such step was Governor H. Richmond Palmer’s (1933–1939) 1933law decree making the governor ‘the central authority for all matters relating to elementaryeducation’. Consequently, the governor could control, approve, or veto ‘the books to beused in schools and school libraries; the classification, examination, registration and pro-motion of teachers […] the curriculum, syllabus, and courses of instruction to be followedin schools’ (cited in Rappas, 2008, p. 372). Subsequent Education Laws designated Englisha compulsory subject in the last two grades of elementary school and made the allocation ofgrants to high schools conditional on the increase of English Language Teaching (ELT) andthe concomitant independence from ‘alien governments’, i.e. Greece and Turkey (Rappas2008, p. 373). Finally, legislation imposed control on the suitability of Greek andTurkish textbooks, and prohibited the raising of the Greek flag and the celebration ofGreek national holidays.

The colonial government also enacted several anglicizing policies beyond community-based public education. First, provisions were made for more funds to be allocated to theEnglish School, which was taken over by the government and was reorganized to pursuea curriculum aimed at preparing students for the London Matriculation Examinations. Itwas 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, thegovernment established a series of multiracial ‘public-aided’ schools and a multiracialTeacher Training College in which the medium of instruction was English. Lastly, the colo-nial government rendered English proficiency a prerequisite for participation in the devel-oping administrative and professional structure of Cyprus: success in English languageexaminations was required for the recruitment and promotion of teachers and for employ-ment in the civil service, and British qualifications were ‘indispensable by law for the legalprofession’ and strongly endorsed for doctors and dentists (Persianis, 1996, p. 58).

It also seems that an anglicizing agenda underlay plans for establishing a British Uni-versity in Cyprus (or, possibly, in Palestine). Arthur Mayhew, then chief education advisorto the Secretary of State for the Colonies and joint-secretary of the Education AdvisoryCommittee, who was also involved in the shaping of the Education Laws discussedabove, envisaged a teacher-training college as an essential part of the prospective BritishUniversity, and recommended courses in English Literature and Language, History,Geography, Economics and Social Science, suggesting that such courses ‘would play animportant part in the formation of a sounder opinion and would give […] an opportunity

for popularising British culture and traditions’ (quoted in Persianis 2003, p. 364). GovernorPalmer anticipated that a British University ‘might go far to solve the Cyprus problem notonly educationally but politically’ (quoted in Persianis 2003, p. 359). These plans weresoon abandoned for practical reasons, not least because of the advent of World War II (seePersianis, 2003 for detailed discussion). In 1949 the proposal for a (British-run) teacher-train-ing college again met with strong opposition from the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus andwas abandoned in favor of providing scholarships to British Universities.

During the years of the anti-colonial struggle (1955–1959), Greek Cypriot studentsrefused 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 auth-orities (Karyolemou, 2001a, p. 44). The year 1960 saw the end of the colonial period andthe official abolition of English in elementary education.

In general, the various centralizing and pro-English policies enforced in Cyprus duringthe 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 nation-alist, revolutionary ideas (Pennycook, 2002),

(b) the promotion of British education in an effort to secure Britain’s hold on HongKong 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 intermediariesbetween the British and the masses’ (Evans, 2002, p. 262).

Despite these similarities, however, in Cyprus neither legislation nor practice involvedanglicization in the radical sense encountered in Hong Kong and India. This was most likelythe result of the colonial administration’s unwillingness and/or inability to impose suchmeasures and the Cypriots’ (particularly the Greek Cypriots’) opposition to them. Casein point: when the colonial government imposed English as one compulsory subjectamong many (while maintaining the teaching of the two major native languages) as a pre-requisite for high schools receiving government funds, only one Greek Cypriot high schoolagreed to increase its ELT hours to secure government funding (Karyolemou, 2001a).Moreover, the Cypriots’ well-established perceptions of British racism and the already agi-tated feelings of Greek Cypriots over the colonial government’s refusal to entertain theirdesire for union with Greece decisively shaped public opinion and the proposed reformsmet with fervent resistance by the people and the Church (Gregoriou, 2004; Myrianthopou-los, 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 toschools, the promise of a place in administration and in elite colonial circles). While it isdoubtful whether such incentives were adequate in ensuring English language competencefor a substantial part of the population (Rappas, 2008, pp. 386ff.), they may well have led tothe sociocultural construction of English as linguistic and social capital (Tsiplakou, 2009b)within a framework of ‘liberal’, ‘cosmopolitan’ colonialism, as is suggested by recentanthropological 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 con-stitutionally recognized official languages (SG and ST), English-based civil service and

judiciary systems inherited from colonial times, strong nationalist trends gravitating towardthe perceived national centers of each community and a CG majority that felt disdain mixedwith admiration over the English language and British civil government structures. The ten-sions resulting from such complexities have heavily influenced language policy in theRepublic of Cyprus and are still reverberating in contemporary decisions. The events of1974 and the subsequent de facto segregation of the two major communities of theisland, coupled with the prolongation of what has come to be known as the ‘Cyprusissue’, have had major effects on formal and informal language policies in such areas asthe national curricula for language and the language of education, the attempt at standard-ization of toponyms, the language(s) of administration and the courts, etc. In the followingsections 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 Greeklanguage. However, Karyolemou notes, this apparent shift is not demonstrative of a corechange in aims and orientations but rather ‘can be better explained as an activation of analready existing policy (at times retreating but never completely disappearing) by a set ofconcrete 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 inheritedlanguage practices and policies that had been formed through inter-communal practiceand/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 standardlanguage 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 treat-ment of the two official languages and at the creation of a bilingual state. According toArticle 3 of the Constitution:

. ‘legislative, executive and administrative acts and documents shall be drawn up inboth official languages’;

. administrative or other official documents must be drawn in the language of the reci-pient (Greek or Turkish; 3 Section 2/3);

. judicial proceedings and judgments should reflect the language(s) of the partiesinvolved (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’ (3Section 7) and

. ‘every person shall have the right to address himself to the authorities of the Republicin either of the official languages’ (3 Section 8, 11 Section 4, 11 Section 6, 12 Section5; Government Web Portal, 2010a).

Karyolemou (2010) aptly notes that, considering that the constitution of Cyprus was puttogether in 1959 and officialized in 1960, it can be argued to be one of the earliest cases ofrecognition and establishment of linguistic rights in European history.

However, the enactment of these provisions did not last long, since as early as 1963skirmishes between the Greek and Turkish communities of Cyprus led first to isolation,as Turkish Cypriots retreated from government in 1964, and to complete geopolitical sep-aration in 1974. In the Republic of Cyprus, which has continued to recognize the Consti-tution of the Republic of Cyprus as its source of constitutional law, SMG and STcontinue to appear together on such formal government documents as government-issuedIdentification Cards, passports, currency bills and government-issued forms. However,the fact that the vast majority of Turkish Cypriots do not currently reside in the geographicregion controlled by the Republic of Cyprus has meant that Turkish ‘has attained a zerodegree of use within the Greek-Cypriot community since it no longer responds to anyreal communicative need’ (Karyolemou, 2001a, p. 27). Most official and unofficial inter-actions take place in Greek, since they are rarely directed toward Turkish-speakingCypriots. Furthermore, the ‘doctrine of necessity’, adopted in 1964, ‘in the name ofpublic interest’, ‘allowed the bi-communal requirements of the Constitution to be over-looked when compliance was impossible’ (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2009, p. 191).

The trend toward language regulation through legislative action peaked in the 1980swith the extensive and highly controversial discussion in Parliament (October 1980–January 1981, October–December 1986, July 1989) and in other realms of governmentabout the languages of instruction at the University of Cyprus. The debates were highlypoliticized, 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 KommaErgazomenou Laou, ‘Progressive Party for the Working People’), respectively, bothargued in favor of Greek and Turkish, the two official languages of the Republic ofCyprus. The argument for three official languages, Greek, Turkish and English, as pre-sented by some legislators, hinged on the importance of English as a lingua franca, asthe language of academic discourse and as a means of allowing Turkish Cypriot studentsto study at the University of Cyprus. Those arguing for Greek and Turkish expressed thefear that English, which was constructed as unquestionably dominant on the island,would supplant Greek, which was, in their view, already ‘endangered’ in Cyprus. Thelatter prevailed (Karyolemou, 2002). The final decision, which was reached in 1989, estab-lished Greek and Turkish as official languages, setting English aside (‘On the University’,Law 144/1989; see also Karyolemou, 2001a; Karoulla-Vrikki, 2001). Given the geopoliti-cal separation of the two communities, this decision has in effect excluded Turkish, essen-tially 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 alarge part of the 1990s in Cyprus (p. 251). This trend was made manifest in otheraspects of enacted or proposed legislature; namely, in legislation regarding the languageof the courts, street names, driving licenses, public signs, toponyms, etc., as well as inthe 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 aconsiderably more complex matter. The use of English as the official language of the legalsystem for decades after Cyprus’ independence, albeit in violation of constitutional

provisions, was facilitated by practical concerns and was endowed with legal substancethrough the ‘doctrine of necessity’. Laws and archives inherited from colonial timeswere in English and lawyers and judges were trained in England. In practice, this meantthat principally Greek-speaking judges and advocates used English to conduct legal pro-ceedings involving principally Greek-speaking litigants, whose limited knowledge ofEnglish often rendered them unable to understand the events of the trial (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2001, 2002, 2009).

The Constitution provided for a five-year period during which the law was to be trans-lated, though the target languages were not specified. However, the process of translatingthe law was very slow, leading to consecutive extensions of the validity of the Englishversion of the law (‘On Laws and Courts (text and process)’, Law 51/1965). In a movethat marked a shift toward the legal regulation of language matters, the Parliament of Repre-sentatives 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 numerousdelays and repeated legislative action by the Parliament, the Greek translation of thelaws was adopted in 1996 – i.e. 36 years after Article 3 Section 4 of the Constitution estab-lished Greek and Turkish as the languages of the judiciary (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2001; Karyo-lemou, 2001a; Tsiplakou, 2009b). Research indicates that the long process of translating,confirming, regularizing and finalizing the translation of Cyprus law into Greek is intri-cately 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 ofCyprus) and has had significant implications for all attempts at language policy-making inthe polity.

A major reason for the delay was the fact that Cyprus law is based on English CommonLaw, while the Greek civil code displays some French but mostly German influences(Hatzis, 2002). The differences between the two systems have hindered the translationprocess significantly, also resulting in numerous translation errors and neologisms (Kar-oulla-Vrikki, 2002; Pavlou & Georgiou, 2010).11 Furthermore, the delay could be attributedat least partly to the fact that there was reluctance on the part of English-trained lawyers andjudges to relinquish the status and privilege afforded them by their professional trainingabroad and their command of English (Karyolemou, 2010). It is also important to notethat the legislative attempts to abide by the constitution (‘On the Official Languages ofthe Republic’, Law 67/1988) ultimately led to a series of decisively pro-Greek languagepolicy actions – i.e. the replacement of English by SMG in judicial proceedings and thetranslation of the Law into SMG. These actions may be seen as part of an overarching ‘pro-tectionist’ trend favoring Greek at the expense of Turkish, as no attempt has been made todate 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 civilservice for many years (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2009; Trudgill & Schreier, 2006), e.g. in forms,reports and departmental archives in ministries, public hospitals, the Department ofLands and Surveys, etc. Such practices were somewhat limited by a 1994 decision bythe Council of Ministers requiring that ‘official documents issued by all government depart-ments and semi-government organizations should be issued in the official languages of theRepublic rather than in English’, and were further curtailed by the 1998 Law on the OfficialLanguages of the Republic (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2009, p. 195). Ultimately, these regulationshave meant that English has been replaced by SMG and that English has remained inuse only in areas of the civil service where the use of an international language, in additionto the official languages, makes sense for ‘obvious reasons’, e.g. in passports and drivinglicenses (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2009, p. 195).12

Following the practices of the public sector, until very recently there has been vestigialuse 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 in1991 and 1996, respectively, proposing that names, advertisements and other signs dis-played in public should be in one of the two national languages and that alternativelanguages 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 andof various ministry departments required the use of Greek in various aspects of businessand industry, such as restaurant menus, used car manuals, medicine package inserts,product descriptions, etc. These attempts, which appear to have been feeding off aperceived ‘crisis’ of the Greek language in Cyprus (Christodoulou, 1993; Papapavlou,2001), sought to buttress the position of Greek against the potentially corrosive forces ofEnglish and/or CG (Karyolemou, 2001b).

The attempt at standardization of toponyms is similar (Georgiou, 2009, 2010; Karyo-lemou, 2001b). Work on the standardization of geographical names had started as early as1967, as part of a larger, UN-led project, but a permanent committee (Mόνιμη KυπριακήEπιτροπή Tυποποίησɛως Γɛωγραφικών Oνομάτων ‘Permanent Cypriot Committee for theStandardization of Geographical Names’) whose purpose was to continue working on thestandardization of Cypriot toponyms and their rendering in romanized characters wasestablished in 1977 under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and Culture. TheCommittee proposed the rendering of Cypriot toponyms in SMG, purportedly takinginto account historical/etymological considerations, but in practice excluding fromwritten representation Cypriot-specific phones, for which the SG alphabet has no equival-ent. The proposed standardization resulted in frequently comic distortions of place-names.In 1987 the Committee submitted the Complete Toponymic Gazetteer of Cyprus to therelevant UN forum, where it was ratified. However, the commencement of implementationof 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 theCommittee’s recommendations by local authorities, notably the metropolitan municipali-ties of Latchia (/laˈtʃa/) and Aglandja (/aγlaˈndƷa/), whose names would have ended upcomically mispronounced as /laˈc:ha/ and /aγlaˈɲɟa/ under the proposed hypercorrectivelystandardized renditions (Λακκιά/Lakkia and Aγλαγγιά/Aglangia, respectively), but alsoMPs, journalists and members of the public. The Parliament passed the 1996 Law ‘Onthe standardization process of geographical toponyms of the Republic of Cyprus’,which limited the authority of the Committee; a compromise was reached as far as thetwo contested toponyms were concerned and University of Cyprus linguists wereappointed 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 tradition-ally 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 itsrespective religious establishments and used as languages of instruction standard varietiesof 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 ofCyprus and particularly to its monasteries, the subject matter leaning heavily on the

study of Christian religious texts; the language of literacy was indebted to the archaic Greekin which religious texts were written. Similarly, the schools of the budding CT communitywere connected to the Mosque, and ‘courses were mainly based on rote learning of religiouspsalms and on training in reading and writing’ in languages that differed greatly from thespoken variety (p. 256; see also Section 6).

As discussed in Section 4.1, during the British rule (1878–1960), education in Cypruswas not subjected to systematic anglicization. With the exception of intervention attemptsmade by the colonial administration related to the content of instruction in history and toadding English as a foreign language to the curriculum, the Greek and Turkish Cypriotcommunities 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 bythe colonial government. The education systems serving each community thereforeremained separate during the colonial period. In great part due to the two communitiesestablishing and maintaining strong ties with their respective ‘motherlands’, language cur-ricula and the content and objectives of language teaching largely reflected correspondingobjectives and concerns in Greece and Turkey.

With the formation of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960, the school systems of the twomajor 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 commu-nal 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 curriculaadopted by each educational system were closely matched to the curricula of the two“mother nations.” Interestingly, neither of the two educational systems offered the languageof the other community as a subject. Instead the only other languages offered were Englishand 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 inter-communal clashes of 1963 led to the members of the Turkish Cypriot community retreatingfrom the public life of the Republic. ‘Following the separation [of the two communities] in1965, all of the administrative functions of the Greek communal chamber were transferredby 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 alignedto the one in Greece, mirroring not only the curricula but also the language textbooks, whichup until 2011 were sent gratis from Greece14. This level of closeness, particularly in termsof language policy, reflects the widespread sentiment among CGs that having a commonlanguage with Greeks is paramount as ‘in modern day Cyprus SMG serves […] to dis-tinguish GCs [Greek Cypriots] from the “other”, and […] as an identity marker that con-structs kinship associations with Greece’ (Ioannidou & Sophocleous, 2010, p. 299).Within this frame of reference, the CG education system instantaneously echoed allmajor language policy decisions adopted in Greece over the years: In 1976, demoticGreek (known at present as SMG), was formally adopted as the official language of edu-cation following the language reform in Greece; in 1982, the Greek Parliament approvedthe adoption of the single-accent (μονοτονικό ‘monotonic’) system, which eliminated anumber 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, kathar-evousa, with a standard spoken variety, even if that variety was only spoken in the

mainland, was of particular significance for the Cypriot context as it went some way towardearning CG some legitimacy in the Cypriot school curriculum by allowing for the first timethe 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-dialectalliteracy. No formal attempt was ever made to introduce contemporary CG as a vehicle forschool literacy. Ministry of Education policies oscillated from tolerance toward the sporadicuse of CG orally in the classroom (for ‘psychological’ reasons) to outright prohibition dueto prescriptive attitudes toward the dialect and to the overarching trend of promoting SG asthe major means of solidifying a Hellenic ethnic identity.

Despite the negative policy climate regarding the use of CG in schools, a variety ofstudies of language-in-use in classroom settings have shown that CG is ubiquitouslypresent and serves a range of communicative purposes, but that it is also associated withvarious negative attitudes and stereotypes (Hadjioannou, 2008; Ioannidou, 2002; Tsipla-kou, 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 SMGand CG to serve varying communication objectives and that the students ‘were aware oftheir code-switching and felt competent in both dialects, but carried some negative stereo-types regarding their home dialect’ (p. 275). Similarly, Ioannidou’s (2009a) analysis of eth-nographic data suggests that the ‘choice of linguistic variety depends on the occasions ofcommunication, with the Standard associated with formality and appropriateness and thedomain of actual lessons, while the dialect is mostly associated with naturally occurringtalk and informality’ (p. 263). However, Ioannidou also found that non-compliance withthese expectations can have significant implications: students using CG were interrupted,corrected and failed to be praised for substantially appropriate responses, which has astrong negative impact on ‘students’ language attitudes, their self-perceptions and ulti-mately their educational achievement’ (p. 265; see Tsiplakou, 2007b for similar findings).

The dynamics among the Greek, Turkish and English languages particular to theCypriot context are also visible in public education. Karoulla-Vrikki (2005), in a historicalanalysis of language policy in public education in the Republic of Cyprus, traces oscillatorymovements between hellenization and cypriotization trends that seem to be in constantdynamic opposition to each other. As Karoulla-Vrikki (2005) notes, policies in publicGreek 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 pre-ceded the formation of the Republic of Cyprus led the Communal Chambers managing eachof the two communal education systems (Greek and Turkish Cypriot) to language policieswhich 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 officiallanguage of instruction was the standard language of each of the perceived ‘mothernations’ and no policy provisions were ever put in place to encourage bilingualism (Had-jioannou, 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 jureconfirmation of a de facto policy in educational matters’, the Greek Communal Chamberannounced the formal alignment of Greek Cypriot Education with Greece, and in 1965transferred its educational responsibilities to the newly formed Ministry of Education(later renamed Ministry of Education and Culture, MOEC). From that point on, in theabsence of specifically designated language policy agencies, the MOEC became a majorinitiator and implementer of language policy in Greek Cypriot education.

During the period between 1960 and 1974, language textbooks were the same as thoseused in Greece and Turkey respectively, and so were the curricula for literacy education (see

also Sections 2.4 and 3.1). During that period, the CG education system also mirrored thedecisions taken in Greece regarding the teaching of Ancient Greek as well as the adoptionof dimotiki/SMG to replace the purist and artificial katharevousa (see Section 2.1). Englishcontinued to be taught as a foreign language in both education systems, though initially itwas pulled out of the elementary education curriculum of CG education. However, Englishwas reintroduced in the sixth grade (the last grade of CG elementary schools) as early as1964 (Tsiplakou, 2009b).

After the 1974 war, which devastated the socioeconomic structures of the island andbrought a de facto geopolitical separation of the CG and CTcommunities, language policiesseemed to turn toward a cypriotization trajectory. According to Karoulla-Vrikki (2005),during this period (1974–1993), language policy was influenced by:

. a feeling of betrayal by Greece;

. the realization that the hope of enosis (union with Greece), which had driven thestruggle 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 arti-ficial, archaic variety (katharevousa) engendered conversations about the status of CG andits place in education. Though a Greek ethnic identity was still definitely a focus, this newtrajectory resulted in MOEC policies that promoted the view of Cyprus as an independentstate, 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 theclassroom.

In 1993, the socio-political context in the Republic of Cyprus precipitated another oscil-lation toward hellenization in language policy (Karoulla-Vrikki, 2005). By that time, theRepublic of Cyprus had successfully exited the survival mode in which it had beenthrown after the war in 1974 and, as previously described, a number of regulatory initiativesfavoring the Greek language had already been undertaken by the Parliament of Represen-tatives and other public institutions (Karyolemou, 2001a). Added to these initiatives was agrowing sense of unease over the perceived Greek language ‘crisis’ in Cyprus as well asfears over the loss of the Greek Cypriots’ Greek ethnic identity as a result of extensiveprior contact with English as well as of globalization (Christodoulou, 1993; Papapavlou,2001). Therefore, when a rightist government came to power and Cleri Angelidou, a con-servative politician and former high-school teacher with training in classical philology, wasappointed as Minister of Education (1993–1997), language policies aiming at hellenizationwere a natural consequence. Within the remit of a strong political rhetoric of ‘strengtheningour bonds with Greece on every level, political, economical and cultural’ (Mavratsas, 1998,p. 54), Angelidou reinforced the existing connections with the Greek Ministry of Educationand Religious Affairs, engineered an increase in the hours of Ancient Greek languageinstruction, organized professional development seminars for teachers in which thebeauty and eloquence of the Greek language were emphasized, and sent out memorandato schools exalting the Greek language (see also Karoulla-Vrikki, 2005).

After 1997, the intensity of hellenizing language policies by the MOEC subsided some-what. However, ministry memoranda continued to remind students and teachers that ‘ourlanguage, Greek, constitutes a crucial aspect of national capital and an essential indicatorof our identity’ (Hoplaros, Skotinos, & Erotokritou, 2004). In the absence of officiallanguage-planning bodies, MOEC officials, school inspectors, school principals, etc. under-took the role of informal language planners and enforcers of a covert language policy and of

interpreting and implementing the national curricula, which remained indeterminate on theplace and role of linguistic variation in the school system. The agenda seemed to be, cov-ertly yet univocally, to marginalize the use of the dialect, as it was purportedly unsuitablefor the cultivation of demanding aspects of (school) literacy (Ioannidou, 2009b; Tsiplakou,2007a, 2007b); in contrast, the only form of language deemed appropriate for literacy wasSMG. As is shown in Ioannidou (2011) and Tsiplakou (2006b, 2007a, 2007b), a direct con-sequence of this prescriptive attitude was that, by a rather circular logic, mere competencein SMG was treated as equivalent to literacy learning, with pedagogically rather disastrousconsequences. The purported unsuitability of CG for the purposes of (school) literacy wascoupled with endorsement of the symbolic role of SG in forging strong links with the rest ofthe 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 ofCyprus have become interested in the study of the CG dialect and have posed research ques-tions as well as theoretical/methodological questions regarding the sociolonguistic status ofthe dialect in the polis in general and in classrooms in particular.15 These works describe thediglossic situation between SG and CG in the Greek Cypriot community, trace the extensivepresence of CG in classrooms and, particularly through the work by Papanicola (2010), Tsi-plakou and Hadjioannou (2010) and Yiakoumetti (2006, 2007), recommend legitimizingthe presence of CG in the classroom and rendering it an object of explicit and systematicstudy within the context of literacy education. This scholarly work has become part ofthe course content of Language Arts programs at the University of Cyprus, as well as ofprofessional development courses offered to teachers through the university, thus unoffi-cially impacting public education. More recently, understandings gained from this bodyof work have indirectly influenced official language policy-making as well, as insightsfrom the aforementioned research have been incorporated into the new national curriculumfor language (MOEC, 2010a).

The new national curriculum for language, the first draft of which was completed inJune 2010, deserves some consideration because of its potential implications for languagepolicy. The curriculum, which was co-authored by one of the contributors to this mono-graph, does not take any position with respect to assigning official language status toeither SG or CG. Rather, the curriculum focuses on deploying the naturalistic acquisitionof CG as a means of fostering metalinguistic knowledge and sociolinguistic awarenesswith regard to the two varieties of Greek spoken on the island within a radical genre/criticalliteracy perspective. The new curriculum states its critical literacy agenda at its outset:

Critical literacy involves understanding and capitalizing on the ideological dimension oflanguage; 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 socialrelations, the construction of political and cultural values, the perpetuation of stereotypes or thereversal of relations of power and inequality among social groups. […] [L]iterate students areaware that social relations, gendered identities and ideologies are constructed not only throughthe content of language/of texts but, crucially, through the form of language, through genre andalso 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 regardto standard language and dialect and geographical/socio-linguistic variation:

Students are expected to acquire a full overview of the structure of Standard Greek and of theCypriot 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 simi-larities between Standard and Cypriot Greek and to be able to identify elements fromother varieties/languages in hybrid, mixed or multilingual texts; to view the Cypriotdialect 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 languagealternation 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 italso becomes an object of instruction. Contrastive analysis between CG and SG isexpected to foster higher levels of metalinguistic awareness, not only at the structural/grammatical level, but, crucially, at the textual and communicative level. It is expectedthat the CG dialect will be exploited as a means of fostering awareness of sociolinguis-tic/register/stylistic variation depending on genre and community of practice and, ulti-mately, 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 curricu-lum does not aim to ‘compartmentalize’ SG and CG or to indicate prescriptively that eachis reserved for particular communicative situations; rather, the curriculum aims to makestudents critically aware of the dynamics of linguistic communication and literacy prac-tices in their sociocultural contexts; to this end, awareness not only of dialect differencesbut also of various forms of textual and generic hybridity are expected to play a crucialrole.

The educators (school inspectors and teachers) participating in the project have beenvoicing some concerns regarding the systematic teaching of the dialect as opposed to thesporadic cultivation of dialect awareness and positive attitudes toward CG. The concernsstem mainly from the novelty of the endeavor and the absence of teaching materials inthe dialect, as well as from the absence of a standardized orthographic system. It ishoped that these concerns will be alleviated with the publication of the Grammar of Con-temporary Cypriot Greek (Tsiplakou et al., forthcoming), in which a simple, Greek alpha-betic transcription system is proposed, and the phonology and morphosyntax of the dialectare described in detail following principles of contemporary linguistics. It is too soon topredict whether the concerns about making CG visible in the education system covertlyrelate to issues of sociolinguistic prestige and/or to issues of ethnic/national identity for-mation. 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 curriculumwill longitudinally have an effect on the linguistic situation in the Republic of Cyprus (seealso Section 5 below).

4.2.4 Multilingualism and education

Linguistic variation has been historically ubiquitous in Cyprus, given the presence of the twoCypriot dialects as well as SG and ST. Nonetheless, as Hadjioannou (2006) notes, such vari-ation 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. Sincethe 1990s, however, the immigration trends described earlier precipitated the increasing pres-ence in public education of students who are not fluent in Greek. This has brought on a novellanguage policy challenge facing the MOEC and other informal language policy-makers inthe Republic of Cyprus. In response to this challenge, the MOEC:

. has established a set of basic multicultural education principles to guide educationalpractice,

. has created ‘Educational Priority Zones’ to identify and support schools with highnumbers of second language learners and

. has routinely organized in-service professional development seminars on teachingGreek as a second language.

However, as reported by Hadjioannou (2006) and Tsiplakou and Georgi (2008), despitea purported commitment to principles of multicultural education, language policies andinstructional praxis are unmistakably assimilative in nature and monolingual in scope.

The challenge posed by the presence of European and other nationals in public edu-cation and in the polity at large is one that, at the current sociohistorical juncture, can nolonger be dealt with as a local issue with local solutions. Rather, European Union member-ship has significant implications for language policy-making and policy implementation.European Union language policy entails a firm commitment to linguistic diversity and mul-tilingualism (European Commission for Multilingualism, 2008). Therefore, the Republic ofCyprus must reshape its language policies to protect and promote minority languages withinits domain, to support multicuturalism substantively and to promote language learningdirected 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 asdefined by Ferguson (1959). The L variety is the naturally acquired CG dialect and the Hvariety is SG. Prior to the 1974 war, the CG dialect included a number of geographical sub-varieties (Kontosopoulos, 2001; Newton, 1972a). However, the geopolitical and demo-graphic changes caused by the war brought about a trend toward ‘homogenization’ andhave 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 Cypriotvocabulary;

. morphological changes due to the replacement of Cypriot grammatical morphemeswith equivalent morphemes from SG;

. changes in phonology;

. syntactic changes (treated as instances of an emerging mixed grammatical systemrather than as code-mixing; see Tsiplakou 2009a, 2009c, 2010).

Arguably more formal registers of the koiné display dense code-switching and codemixing between CG and SG (Tsiplakou, 2009a, 2009c, 2010). These changes shouldnot, however, be seen as indications of moribundity of the dialect, but rather as natural pro-cesses of language shift correlating with the novel sociolinguistic situation on the islandpost-1974. In fact, the emergence of a structurally mixed Cypriot koiné, which is sociolin-guistically juxtaposed to stigmatized basilectal sub-varieties and therefore acquires bothovert and covert prestige, may go a long way toward dialect maintenance in the face of

the decade-long ‘invasion’ of SG in education, the media, etc. It is therefore envisaged thatde-dialectization is a long way from taking place in Cyprus. In fact, the contemporary vitalpresence of varying registers of CG in the media (Georgiou, 2010; Tsiplakou & Hadjioan-nou, 2010) and on the internet (Sophocleous & Themistocleous, forthcoming; Themistocl-eous, 2009, forthcoming), as well as the availability of a dictionary17 and a grammaticaldescription of the CG koiné following linguistic criteria,18 together with the on-goingnational language curriculum reform, may be operative in reversing language shift andarresting potential de-dialectization.19

5.2 Cypriot Arabic: a moribund variety

At 900 speakers (COE, 2011) CMA is by-and-large moribund; attrition and pidginizationhave been operative for generations (Roth, 2004) and speakers over the age of 30 are prob-ably the terminal speakers of this language. Morbidity has been expedited with the reloca-tion to the south of the CMA-speaking population, who mostly lived in the village ofKormakiti in the north of Cyprus pre-1974. Since 2002, Cypriot Arabic is one of theUNESCO-designated severely endangered languages (UNESCO, 2009). The communityhas expressed a wish for standardization and language maintenance (see Kermia Ztite,2006), with which the MOEC has complied by putting together a committee of linguiststo work on the standardization and revival of Cypriot Arabic since 2008, following a rec-ommendation of the Council of Europe (COE, 2006). The Committee has produced anaction 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 northernpart of Cyprus; issues discussed in the previous chapters on the Republic of Cyprus (par-ticularly concerning Turkish in the Republic of Cyprus) are not addressed. After the inter-vention (‘invasion’ according to Greek sources and ‘peace movement’ according to Turkishsources) of the Turkish army in the summer of 1974, and the declaration of the indepen-dence of the (officially largely unrecognized) Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in1983, the northern part of Cyprus is de facto outside the jurisdiction of the Republic ofCyprus, but has been included in this review because it forms an historical and culturalpart of Cyprus as a whole. Given that the political situation has resulted in the use of differ-ing and often conflicting terminologies in the two parts of Cyprus to describe the area underTurkish 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-GovernmentOrganizations (NGOs) and other organizations, avoiding any use of signs (e.g. the use ofquotation marks or modifiers such as ‘pseudo-’ or ‘so-called’) which have ideological con-notations. In the following pages, words such as government, university orministry are usedwithout quotation marks when referring to institutions in the northern part of Cyprus (in

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 ideologicalor political positioning of the author.

6.2 Language profile

6.2.1 Official language

The only official language in the northern part of Cyprus is Turkish.20 The officially usedvariety is ST, i.e. the variety used in the Republic of Turkey (see Section 2.1). ST is also thesole 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 acknowledgeminority languages. A number of local and immigrant languages and varieties are unoffi-cially ‘tolerated’, but do not appear in public life.

CMA, which, as mentioned in Section 2.2, is identified as one of the endangeredlanguages of the world, is spoken in Kormakitis/Koruçam (see map in Figure 1), theonly historically Maronite village that still has a CMA-speaking population. Thoughmost Maronites who lived in the Kormakitis area prior to 1974 moved to urban centersof the south, approximately 130 individuals ‘have chosen to remain under Turkish admin-istration’ (Karyolemou, 2010, p. 3). Since the opening of the borders in 2003, many Mar-onites 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 secondor vacation homes. Recently, 27 Maronites who had moved to the area under the control ofthe Republic of Cyprus post-1974 have been granted permission to move back to Korma-kitis and reclaim their status as residents of the village (Kormakitis.net, 2011). Because ofincreased traveling of individuals living in the southern part of the island to the Kormakitisarea, during the last few years Greek street signs, alongside the official Turkish ones, havebeen installed in Kormakitis, but no public signs in CMA have been put up in the village. Inan attempt to revitalize CMA (see Section 5.2) and to solidify a connection betweenMaronite youth and Kormakitis, annual language immersion camps for children aged7–16 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 andArmenian speakers fled to the south of Cyprus. CG is still spoken in the village of Rizokar-paso/Dipkarpaz and surrounding areas, where a limited number of Greek Cypriots (520 in1994 according to Brey, 1998; 343 in 2011 according to the Press and Information officeof the Republic of Cyprus; PIO, 2011) have remained after 1974. The immigrant populationthat 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 languagefor a small number of Turkish Cypriots in the Lurucina region and inKaleburnu (Karpaz); theolder generation is almost exclusively Greek-speaking, whereas the younger people arebalanced bilinguals (Johanson & Demir, 2006; Ioannidou, 2009c; Kappler, 2010).

Another important, yet usually neglected, local minority language is Kurbetcha/Gur-betcha, the language of the Cypriot Muslim Roma, or Gurbet (an Arabic term thatreached Romani through Turkish). Many of the Cypriot Muslim Roma have migratedsouth after 2003, but there is still a small number of Roma living in the Morfou/Güzelyurtand Famagusta/Mağusa districts; their precise number is unknown due to the mobility of the

group. Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha seems to be a kind of creole with mainly Romani lexicon andCT grammar (Pehlivan, 2009, p. 150), but the language is still completely unexplored (seeSection 2.2).

The most important immigrant languages are Kurdish and Arabic; the latter is a Syrianvariety from the Antiocheia/Hatay region of Turkey; the exact number of speakers of eitherof 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 workersor students. In addition, the use of Russian and Rumanian is consistently increasingbecause 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 speak-ers of English residing permanently in the northern part of Cyprus may be found in theKeryneia/Girne and Lapithos/Lapta areas; some villages (e.g. Karmi/Karaman) arealmost exclusively English-speaking. A smaller German-speaking community residespermanently in these areas (see figures in Section 6.2.4). As a result of the massive emigra-tion 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 returnedto 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 Ana-tolian Turkish dialect group, but differ from it in many respects, primarily in syntax and inthe lexicon. Similar to the situation in the south regarding SMG and CG, CTand ST stand ina diglossic relationship (see Ferguson, 1959 and note 4). CT is the L, naturally acquiredvariety 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 fromthat of other Anatolian varieties, which have experienced substantial ‘homogenizing’ influ-ences by prestige dialects, and are converging toward ST. The distinct (socio)linguisticstatus of CT can be attributed to the fact that prior to 1974 the dialect had evolved in acontext of relative geographical isolation from other varieties of Turkish and in ‘intensiveinteraction’ with CG and English (Johanson & Demir, 2006, p. 3). CT has several sub-var-ieties (Demir, 2002; Duman, 1991; Kappler, 2008), which are undergoing levelling and koi-néization (Menteşoğlu, 2009; Pehlivan, 2003; Theocharous, 2009). This process appears tohave been accelerated after 1974 as:

. groups of speakers of various geographical sub-varieties became inter-mixed aftermoving to the northern part of the island,

. ‘intensive linguistic contacts with both STandAnatolian dialects’ took place as a resultof significant influx of immigrants from Turkey (Johanson & Demir, 2006, p. 2); and

. ST was adopted ‘as the official language of education, bureaucracy, and the massmedia’ (Menteşoğlu, 2009, p. 76).

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

including television discussions, parliament debates, television series, public politicalspeeches, etc. Still, CT is generally absent from the daily press (with the exception of satiricalperiodicals) and news broadcasting (cf. Section 6.3.2). Although, as a rule, CT is used in oralcommunication, dialect interference has been documented inwritten language, e.g. in officialrecords, 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 immigrantsfrom Turkey usually adopt CT dialect features when speaking to Cypriots, or, if theirlanguage acquisition process has been completed on the island, their oral production displaysdominant CT features (Johanson & Demir, 2006).

On the other hand, the influence of ST through the mass media, the influx of immigrantsfrom Turkey and the re-immigration of Turkish Cypriots from Turkey (most of whom returnto Cyprus after attending university in Turkey) have played a significant part in the levellingof CT in recent years.

Turkish-speaking immigrants from Turkey and other countries (e.g. Bulgaria) broughtwith them a large number of dialect varieties from central, southern, eastern and northernAnatolia, as well as from the Balkans. Although recent numbers are not available (seeSection 6.5), it is assumed that immigrants from Turkey form the majority of the populationin the northern part of Cyprus. Immigrants tend to use their dialects within their own speechcommunities, and may switch to STwhen speaking to people from other regions. Moreover,as was pointed out above, they use CT features when addressing Cypriots. Given the over-whelming influence of immigrants in the society, Turkish Cypriots use their dialect moreand more in order to differentiate themselves from non-Cypriots as a means of creating/defending identity (European Commission, 2004). Specific epithets are used to denotepejoratively immigrant or even standard speech (e.g. the verb karasakallaşmak ‘to speaklike a karasakallı’, from karasakallı ‘black-bearded’ for ‘Anatolian [peasant]’), and newslang forms (such as turist ‘tourist’, Amerikalı ‘American’, karşıyakalı ‘from the oppositeside’, mavro (Gr.) ‘black’, apaçi ‘Apache’) which serve to mark social and linguisticdissociation 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 currentlyunder 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 TurkishCypriots, but also villages inhabited by members of both communities. As a rule,Greek Cypriots spoke Cypriot and SG, and, depending on the sociolinguistic andgeographical 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 dis-tribution of the population in Cyprus changed as Turkish Cypriots retreated to territor-ial enclaves accross the island. According to Kliot andMansfeld (1994), ‘from 1962 to1964most of the Turkish Cypriots moved or were forced tomove to larger villages andtowns and some 42 Turkish-controlled enclaves were formed, each containing bothlocal populations and the displaced persons from neighbouring villages’ (p. 329).

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

as Greek Cypriots were forced to leave the northern part of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriotsfrom all over Cyprus moved to the areas under Turkish Cypriot control.

A population census conducted in 1960 by the Republic of Cyprus counted 104,320Turkish Cypriots, constituting 18.2% of the population of Cyprus21 (European Commis-sion, 2004). However, various sources report that a significant portion of this populationand 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, pri-marily to Great Britain and Australia, for economic and political reasons (Hatay, 2007; Issa,2006; Robins & Aksoy, 2001). According to the European Commission (2004) ‘at least36,000 Turkish Cypriots emigrated in the period 1975–1995, with the consequence thatwithin 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 ofCyprus, Hatay (2007) suggests that claims of massive post-1974 immigration of TurkishCypriots (some reports allege up to 57,000 outbound immigrants) are exaggerated and mis-leading, and refutes claims that the ‘native’ Turkish Cypriot population is dwindling.

Another significant section of the current population of the northern part of Cyprus com-prises persons who immigrated to Cyprus from Turkey after 1974.22 ‘Between 1975 and1981, Turkey encouraged its own citizens to settle in northern Cyprus’ (InternationalCrisis Group, 2010, p. 2). Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot administration maintain thatthis was in order to encourage economic development and render the northern part ofCyprus self-sufficient, but the Greek Cypriot side asserts that the policy was aimed at alteringthe demographic character of the area and at raising the proportion of the Turkish communityto the total population ofCyprus (EuropeanCommission, 2004;Hatay, 2007). This facilitatedmigration policy resulted in a significant influx of Turkish immigrants ‘from various regionsof 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 thispolicy received empty Greek Cypriot properties and citizenship in the Turkish Cypriot statealmost upon arrival’ (pp. 2–3), but notes that the allocation of property was discontinued after1982 and that citizenship criteria were made more stringent in 1993.

The passage of time (and the birth of children to immigrant families), the absence ofcomprehensive immigration records (particularly in the first few years after the war), theimmigrants’ acquisition of citizenship in the self-proclaimed state of the north and intermar-riage between immigrants and ‘native’ Turkish Cypriots render determining the exactnumbers of Turkish immigrants impossible. According to the International Crisis Group(2010), ‘perhaps half the estimated 300,000 residents of the Turkish Cypriot north wereeither born in Turkey or are children of such settlers’ (p. 2).

The current demographic makeup of the northern part of Cyprus is unclear, as thereis 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 includeditems related to citizenship as well as items related to respondents’ and their parents’ place ofbirth. 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 trustworthi-ness was challenged by various scholars and political stakeholders, the credibility of thiscensus has been seriously questioned. Hatay (2007) acknowledges that some under-count-ing (particularly of immigrants) did occur, but notes that ‘the exact number of uncounted

persons is not known’ (p. 27). Others, such as Muharrem Faiz, the Director of the CyprusSocial and Economic Research Centre (Kıbrıs Toplumsal ve Ekonomik AraştırmalarMerkezi, KADEM), which did poll research for Eurobarometer, offers considerably moredamning critiques: ‘30% of the population of the northern part of Cyprus was not includedin the 2006 census’ and ‘the de facto population and the de jure population definition werenot clear’ (Kanatlı, 2010, p. 3; cf. Faiz, 2008).

According to the census, 49.5% of the de facto population of the northern part of Cyprusin 2006 consisted of individuals who the Turkish Cypriot administration did not consider ascitizens. Though this number also included college students as well as other persons whowere in Cyprus for short-term stay, presumably the majority consisted of immigrants. Insome areas, such as Keryneia/Girne or the inner (old) city of Nicosia/Lefkoşa (northernpart), the distribution is even more in favor of the immigrant population. Thus, accordingto the 2006 census, 65% of the population in inner Nicosia are citizens of Turkey, 15% havedual nationality and 25% are TRNC citizens (Yeni Kıbrıs Partisi (YKP), 2008).

Interesting information may also be gauged from a recent survey by the Turkish CypriotTeachers’ Trade Union (KTÖS, 2008) regarding the composition of school classes. Accord-ing to this survey, both parents of 34% of primary school students are citizens of the Republicof 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 havedouble (TRNC-Turkish) citizenship (which means that they have a Turkish background andwere granted the TRNC citizenship at a later stage), and the parents of 37%of the students arecitizens of the Republic of Turkey. In other words, the survey results show thatmore than halfof the students have a non-Cypriot background. In some cities the balance shifts even moretoward the non-Cypriot side (e.g. in Kyreneia/Girne 54.5% have only Turkish citizenshipand 10.1% have dual citizenship, i.e. TRNC-Turkish citizenship).

The population issue is particularly relevant for the linguistic profile of the north ofCyprus. However, the general oscillation of demographic data and the contradictory state-ments of government and opposition forces25 reflect the unreliability of population data as

Table 4. 2006 Population census results according to citizenship.

De facto De jure

Population Share % Population Share %

General total 265,100 100.0 256,644 100.01. TRNCa 133,937 50.5 135,106 52.62. TRNC and other 42,795 16.1 42,925 16.7

(a) TRNC – Turkey 33,870 12.8 34,370 13.4(b) TRNC – UK 4185 1.6 3854 1.5(c) TRNC – Other 4740 1.8 4701 1.8

3. Turkey 77,731 29.3 70,525 27.54. Other 10,637 4.0 8088 3.2

(a) UK 4458 1.7 2729 1.1(b) Bulgaria 831 0.3 797 0.3(c) Iran 775 0.3 759 0.3(d) Moldovia 485 0.2 354 0.1(e) Pakistan 490 0.2 475 0.2(f) Germany 343 0.1 181 0.1(d) Other 3255 1.2 2793 1.1

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

well as the lack of official sources on the numbers of speakers of the various languages anddialects of the area.26 Therefore, it is fair to say that the actual number of speakers of thevarieties mentioned in Section 6.2.3 (CT, Turkish dialects, local minority languages, immi-grant 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 stemmingfrom the figures for citizenship. However, these figures provide rather poor informationabout the actual speakers of CT or of other Turkish varieties since:

(1) the statistics about citizenship do not fully reflect the varieties used by thepopulation;

(2) no statistics are available about the regions of origin of the immigrants fromTurkey; such statistics would be important in order to establish the numbers ofspeakers of the various Anatolian dialects; furthermore, a reported recent increasein immigration from Turkey and the subsequent granting of TRNC citizenships haschanged the population profile of the area and contributes to the lack of reliable dataabout 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 untilthe age of 15. Basic compulsory education includes 5 years of primary school (ilkokul) and3 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 sec-ondary colleges (kolej) which provide six-year instructional programs, their diploma beingequivalent to a lise diploma (Yaratan, 1998, p. 613). Access to colleges (e.g. the prestigiousTürk Maarif Koleji) formerly required an entrance examination, but that requirement waswaived in 2009.

The school curriculum of 1999 was reformed following an initiative of the left-winggovernment in 2004, when the Ministry of Education and Culture introduced a new edu-cation system. The main differences between the two curricula lie in their differentialfoci – on ‘mainland Turkey’ in the former curriculum versus the inclusion of localCypriot 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 instruc-tion is English. CT was not acknowledged in the curriculum before 2004. New curricularguidelines regarding CT are in deference to recommendations by Turkish Cypriot research-ers that ‘particular attention has to be paid to the differences between the standard and thedialect’ and that ‘the implementation of bidialectal programs could be useful for the NorthCyprus educational context’ (Pehlivan, in Schroeder & Strohmeier, 2006, p. 295; see alsoPehlivan & Adalıer, 2010, p. 394). According to the curriculum of the period between 2004and 2009, the teacher is expected to place ‘emphasis on the active use of the Turkishlanguage and [must] continuously make efforts to develop the Cypriot Turkish culture’(MEC, 2005, p. 8). The curriculum also includes a newly-established Turkish Cypriot Lit-erature course (school year 2004/2005); one of the objectives of this course was to ‘contrib-ute to the students’ ability to perceive the differences between CT and Turkish spoken in

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

English is taught in incremental steps:

. first to second grades: ‘familiarization education’ ( farkındalık eğitimi) with use ofaudio-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 inDecember 2010), primary school education in English (grades 1–5) is problematic since theteachers have no TEFL training. In 2005, the Ministry of Education and Culture introduceda reform within the framework of the new education system according to which studentswho reach a satisfactory level in Turkish language study by the end of the sixth grademay opt into English-medium courses in subjects (called akademik dersler ‘academiccourses’) such as Mathematics, History, Science and Geography. This can result in a ‘hori-zontal’ transition to both Turkish and English programs, depending on the abilities of eachindividual student (MEC, 2005, pp. 16–17).

From the sixth grade onwards, pupils may choose either French or German as an elec-tive 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 optionalsubject 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 Inter-national University (Nicosia), which opened some of its courses to extramural students.Since 2003 the KTÖS (the Teachers’ Trade Union) has been offering Greek languagecourses, which are open to everyone; instructors usually come from the southern part ofthe island. Private institutes also offer Greek courses, while some Turkish Cypriots go tothe southern part of Cyprus in order to take Greek courses, e.g. the courses of the Schoolof Greek Language at the University of Cyprus. In a survey among Turkish Cypriot Edu-cation students at the Near East University, Pehlivan and Atamtürk (2006) found that atti-tudes toward Greek language learning were generally positive, yet participants wereundecided as far as the Greek Cypriot community and culture were concerned (asopposed 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 Univer-sity, Cyprus International University), one in Famagusta (Eastern Mediterranean Univer-sity), one in Keryneia (Girne American University) and one in Lefke (EuropeanUniversity); moreover, it hosts branches of several Turkish universities. Three of the fiveuniversities are private, while the Eastern Mediterranean University and the European

University are state-trust institutions. Students come from Cyprus, Turkey and othercountries. To accommodate students who do not know Turkish, the universities offercourses to help students develop the requisite Turkish-language skills (e.g. the one-semestercompulsory course TUR 101 at the Cyprus International University, which offers two hoursof Turkish per week). The major language of instruction in all universities is English, exceptin the departments of Turkish Language and Literature and the Schools of Education, Lawand (partly) Communication.

Informal education includes practical vocational schools, centers of vocational coursesfor women in towns and villages, a number of private tutoring schools (dersane) and after-school private tutoring sessions (Yaratan, 1998, p. 622).

6.3.1.2 Objectives and assessment. The new objectives of the 2005 education systeminclude the following two statements on language:

The child

. acquires communication skills in a second language apart from English in accordancewith the ‘European Language Portfolio’;

. develops the attitude that Greek (Modern Greek) is ‘the language of the neighboringsociety’ (MEC, 2005, p. 12).

The planned objectives were intended to be implemented in the school years 2005–2008for the second foreign language, whereas the introduction of optional courses in ModernGreek had not been allocated a time frame (MEC, 2005, p. 49). According to representa-tives of the Teachers’ Trade Union (interview with the author, December 2010) the objec-tives have been implemented in the period 2005–2008; however, the additional foreignlanguage courses are currently (2010) offered only at the elective level. Greek coursesare offered in some schools in urban areas, but still only as electives.

Many science textbooks used in both primary and secondary education are stillimported from Turkey. Textbooks produced in Cyprus include:

. the Turkish language and Cyprus geography textbooks (Ülkemizi tanıyorum ‘I get toknow 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 theCypriot 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 futurebecause of recent political changes (a right-wing government since April 2009, a right-wingpresident since April 2010).27

6.3.1.3 History of language policies in the Turkish Cypriot Education System. During theOttoman period (1571–1878), education was primarily offered by religious institutions; thetwo major religious communities (Muslims and Orthodox Christians) had separateeducation systems and structures, and there were no inter-group relations in the domainof education (Özerk, 2001, p. 256). Primary education was offered in the sıbyanmektebi (school for young children, primary school), and it involved writing and Kur’an

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 secondaryschools established at the end of the Ottoman period and the beginning of the Britishrule, added English to their programs (Behçet, 1969; Pehlivan, forthcoming); in therüşdiye curricula English was not introduced until 1896 and French was offered as an elec-tive (Özerk, 2001, p. 257). In the same year, Greek was introduced as an academic subjectin the rüşdiyes, whereas in 1902 the Turkish Cypriot School Board ‘decided to hire bilin-gual (Turkish-Greek) teachers at the primary schools in areas where Greek was in use aslingua franca’ (Özerk, 2001, p. 257). Arabic and Persian were also retained as electivesuntil the 1920s, when these subjects were abolished due to the influence of the Kemalistlanguage reforms. As explained in Section 4.1, the British retained and encouraged thepractice 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 ethniccenters of Turkey and Greece, respectively. Similar to the situation in Greek Cypriot edu-cation discussed in Section 4.2.2, Turkish Cypriot education after the 1930s was stronglyoriented toward Turkey; textbooks and teachers came from Turkey, and Greek courseswere abolished. However, English gained importance due to its role as the officiallanguage of Cyprus as a British colony and was introduced in the schools as the languageof administration. Teachers with insufficient knowlegde of English often had to quitservice (Pehlivan, forthcoming; Weir, 1952). On the history of education between 1960and 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 weeklyZaman, which started publishing in December 1891 (Azgın, 1998, p. 642). Like othernewspapers of that time, it was oriented against the Greek press and against British colonialrule, 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 surviveson the island of Cyprus’ (Azgın, 1998, p. 642). Also under the British ‘Newspaper, Booksand Printing Press Law’, which replaced the Ottoman Press Law (Matbuat Nizamnamesi) aslate as 1930, the newspapers were mostly in Turkish and most took a strong position againstenosis (union with Greece) and Greek expansionism. After 1960, the newly-founded paperCumhuriyet ‘Republic’ tried to encourage harmonious relations between the Turkish andthe 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 electionsin the ‘Turkish Federative State of Cyprus’), a number of new newspapers were launchedas instruments of the political parties involved in the elections.

At present (November 2010), there are 12 daily Turkish-language newspapers pub-lished in the northern part of Cyprus; most of them have strong affiliations with thevarious political parties, while a few of them are independent. All the newspapersuse exclusively ST; the only one hosting weekly columns in CT on specific days andon specific topics (mostly in satirical and humorous articles, but also as a means ofindexing its dissociation from Turkey-centered policies) is the opposition paperAfrika. In a few cases, the various dialects of the immigrants (or rather, written represen-tations of the perception an average Cypriot has of these dialects) are also used for sati-rical purposes.

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 thejournalist Reşat Akar in 2004 after the opening of the borders.

Bayrak Radyo Televizyon Kurumu (‘Flag Radio Television Organization’, BRT), thestate 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

to take measures to secure that broadcasting is made in an easily understandable language usingTurkish without violating its peculiarities and rules, and to contribute to the development andenrichment of the language of education and science.

(Yayınların kolayca anlaşılabilecek bir dille yapılmasını sağlayıcı önlemleri almak, bunu yapar-ken Türkçe’nin özellikleri ve kuralları bozulmadan kullanılmasına, çağdaş eğitim ve bilim dilihalinde gelişmesine ve zenginleşmesine katkı koymak [Section 2.4.3. of “Bayrak Radyo Tele-vizyon Kurumu Yasa Tasarısı”; KKTC-CM, 2010]).

This means that the only variety used in BRT programs is ST (for details on languagepolicy practices in the media see Section 6.4.2). Apart from Turkish, news is broadcast dailyin Greek and English; weekly news is also available in Arabic, French, German andRussian.

Apart from BRT, there are seven private TV channels; some make moderate use of CTin a koinéized form, mostly in talk shows or debates. Additionally, the radio station RadyoMayıs, which belongs to the Teachers’ Trade Union, broadcasts a program in threelanguages (Turkish, Greek and English) for 1.5 hours per week in cooperation with thebi-communal Association for Historical Debate and Research (AHDR); the programfocuses mostly on history topics.

6.3.3 Local literature

As early as the Ottoman period, Turkish-language non-oral literature in Cyprus was writtenonly 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 lit-erary production on the island. Only very few Turkish Cypriot authors sporadically use CTin 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 standar-dized morphology. Literature is an important symbol of Cypriot identity, especially forthe generation writing after 1974 (Yaşın, 1990; Yashin, 1997). Consequently, financialsupport for it depends on the political landscape. Between 2004 and 2009, during thetime in power of a left-leaning administration, local literature flourished both in terms ofpublications and in terms of publicity in the media. After 2009, mostly NGOs (e.g. theNicosia-based European and Mediterranean Art Association) support local literaturethrough 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 orien-tation 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 veryown country’, in 2005 ideals such as ‘the acquisition of Cypriot national identity and cul-tural values’ were foregrounded (Pehlivan, 2007, p. 38) and Turkey was considered a‘neighboring country’; similarly, the southern part of Cyprus was termed the ‘neighboring

society’. The ways in which this development has recently been halted and reversed will bediscussed in Sections 6.4 and 6.5. The innovations proposed by the previous governmentalso involved a new ‘Turkish Cypriot Literature’ course with a textbook produced inCyprus; the course, which was designed for grades 9–11, was first taught in the schoolyear 2004–2005. According to Pehlivan (2007), the course was well received by both tea-chers and students, although there was some disagreement regarding content, ideology andinstruction. In spite of the political changes in 2009, this course is still part of thecurriculum.

Concerning literature in other, essentially unrecognized, languages (e.g. such minoritylanguages as CMA, Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha or immigrant languages) there has been no offi-cial or unofficial support whatsoever.

6.3.4 Immigrant languages

As was reported in Section 6.2.2, the main immigrant languages other than Turkish var-ieties are Kurdish and Arabic. The speakers of these languages are typically bilingual anduse Turkish in their everyday interactions with speakers of Turkish and with Cypriots, theonly exception being the village of Rizokarpasos/Dipkarpaz, where Greek seems to be thelingua franca between immigrants and (Greek) Cypriots. There are no Turkish courses,either state-run or private, to improve competence in Turkish, especially in the writtenlanguage, among immigrants. However, in certain colleges of secondary educationsuch as Bayraktar Türk Maarif Koleji and some private colleges, immigrant childrenare pulled out during Turkish/Language Arts to attend special Turkish languageclasses. Fluency in Turkish is not an entrance requirement at universities, as the languageof instruction in most departments is English. Nonetheless, compulsory Turkish coursesare offered in some universities for first-year non-Turkish-speaking students (see Section6.3.1.1).

As shown in Table 4, the 2006 census indicated that 4% of the de facto population of thenorth part of Cyprus did not hold TRNC or Turkish citizenship. In general, tourist residentsand persons who come to the northern part of Cyprus for business purposes have verylimited knowledge of Turkish; they speak mainly English and Russian and they tend touse English when communicating with Cypriots. English and Russian have had someimpact 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 wes-ternization and democratization process had essentially two objectives:

(1) the alphabet reform, which involved a change from the Arabic-Ottoman script tothe Latin alphabet and

(2) corpus planning, which involved effecting ‘changes in the form of the languageitself (e.g. the words, the grammar, the orthography)’ (Haig, 2003, p. 121); signifi-cantly, corpus planning was coupled with the campaigns for the purification of theTurkish language and the ‘purging’ of Arabic and Persian lexical elements (Lewis,1999).

The Turkish language reform exerted an immense influence on the sociocultural struc-ture of Turkey. The alphabet reform was officially introduced in 1928, while the languagepurification 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 period-ical 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 conceivedby the reformers and by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk himself, the Turkish language changeddrastically, and many of the committee’s suggestions on lexicon and terminology havebeen widely accepted (Brendemoen, 1990; Heyd, 1954; Lewis, 1999).

Both aspects of the reform were very soon implemented in Cyprus. In 1930, two yearsafter the Turkish alphabet reform, a printing machine with the Latin alphabet was sent to theeditor of the Cypriot newspaper Söz as ‘a present by the Turkish government on the per-sonal orders of Kemal Atatürk’ (Azgın, 1998, p. 646). Söz, which had been founded in1920, was thus the first Turkish Cypriot newspaper to publish in Latin characters asearly as 1931; other papers followed suit years later (Azgın, 1998, p. 646). Kızılyürekand Gautier-Kızılyürek (2004) report that ‘the language [sic; i.e. alphabet] reform did notreach 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). Theauthors attribute this interruption to the fact that many Cypriots could not read newspapersin the new script. However, it seems that the slower spread of the new alphabet in Cypruswas rather the result of the prohibitive new British Press Law and the lack of paper duringwar years (Azgın, 1998) rather than of less effective educational activities regarding thenew alphabet compared with the efforts in Turkey. Apart from facilitating the introductionof the new alphabet, the newspapers played a key role in the spread of language purifi-cation. At present the vocabulary used by Cypriots in formal oral communication and inwriting 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 textbooksand other school material, together with the presence of teachers from Turkey, have beeninstrumental 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 andthe pressure of nationalist underground organizations such as EOKA (Εθνική ΟργάνωσιςKυπρίων Aγωνιστών ‘National Organization of Cypriot Fighters’) and TMT (Türk Muka-vemet Teşkilatı ‘Turkish Resistance Organization’) respectively, led to diminished contactbetween 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, theinfamous Vatandaş Türkçe Konuş! (‘Citizen, speak Turkish!’) campaign, which started in1958, imposed the use of Turkish and the avoidance of Greek, and introduced a monetaryfine for every Greek word spoken (Kızılyürek & Gautier-Kızılyürek, 2004, p. 46). Otheroutcomes of linguistic nationalism in the late 1950s were the beginnings of initiatives tochange Greek names of towns and villages to Turkish (Özerk, 2001, p. 258) and the edu-cational mobilization of the Turkish Cypriot Youth Organization, who sometimes brutallyimposed Turkish language courses on (Muslim) speakers of Greek or on those whoseTurkish was considered insufficient (Kızılyürek & Gautier-Kızılyürek, 2004, p. 46).After 1960, ‘asymmetrical bilingualism’ shifted to ‘zero bilingualism’ among Greeks and

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

In the northern part of Cyprus, there is currently no official language-planning institutioncomparable to the Society for Turkish Language (TDK) in Turkey. Restrictive languagepolicies do, however, surface in the state media. Immediately after the governmentchanged in April 2009, a number of instructions were informally (orally) communicatedto the journalists of BRT (the state television and radio broadcasting company) regardingpreferred linguistic choices. A precise pattern of verbal forms has been developed inorder to differentiate political statements of the Turkish versus the Greek side (interviewwith television journalist, Nicosia 25.10.2010):28

Utterances of the Turkish side Utterances of the Greek sidesay (söyle-) claim (iddia et-)stress (vurgula-) defend (savun-)underline (altını çiz-) express (ifade et-)add (kaydet-)criticize (eleştir-)

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 wordada (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 (‘Mother-land’) when refering to Turkey.

To sum up, although there are no official language-planning agencies in the northern partof Cyprus, it seems that a trend toward ‘turcification’ has emerged in the last two years. More-over, 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 complexlevelling process with the concomitant emergence of a koinéized variety and the mainten-ance of several varieties on the basilectal end of the dialect continuum. Levelling occurs inall aspects of grammar (phonology, morphology, syntax); code-switching and mixingbetween ST and CT in informal communicative situations may also be seen as an aspectof the shift in the diglossic relationship between ST and CT (Theocharous, 2009). Never-theless, CT still retains its relatively high status due to its connection to a TurkishCypriot identity and attitudes of dissociation from the immigrant population. In spite ofthe significant influx of immigrants from Turkey and the consequent trend for nativeTurkish Cypriots to become a minority in the northern part of Cyprus, it is not expectedthat CT will become moribund in the near future, since the current complex sociopoliticalsituation seems to reinforce CT as an identity symbol:

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

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 ofTurkish nationalism, according to which Turkish Cypriots were simply ‘Turks whohappened 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-Kızı-lyürek (2004) report, after the establishment of substantive contact betweenTurkish Cypriots and mainland Turks (e.g. the Turkish army stationed in Cyprus,Turkish immigrants, close political ties with Turkey), the cultural differencesbecame apparent and in response ‘many Turkish Cypriots are highlighting the inti-mate “Cypriot” cultural aspects as vital factors in reasserting their Turkish Cypriotethic identity’ (Arbuckle, 2008, p. iii), in a trend that ‘can be considered as a politicalact of resistance’ (Kızılyürek & Gautier-Kızılyürek, 2004, p. 45).

. In deciding on how to cast their vote in the 2004 Referendum, which, had it beenapproved, would have led to the reunification of Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots had todecide between adherence to the dogma of sameness with mainland Turks or to aCyprocentric identity. The endorsement of the referendum by 64.9% of voters inthe 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 ofGreek Cypriots who live in Rizokarpasos, some older Turkish Cypriot bilingual speakersand the small Greek-speaking Muslim community in Lurucina. It is also used as a linguafranca 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 reasonsrelated to the speakers’ determination to assert their Greek Cypriot identity. Anotherfactor potentially aiding the preservation of CG in the northern part of Cyprus is itsincreased usefulness after the relaxing of travel restrictions between the northern andsouthern part of Cyprus. The other local languages (CMA and Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha) arelikely to have a different fate; CMA has already been officially defined as moribund (seeSection 5.2), and Kurbetcha/Gurbetcha, despite being an emerging creole, has a diminish-ing number of speakers due to continued emigration to the southern part of Cyprus, mainlyfor economic and family reasons.

7. Conclusions

In this monograph an attempt has been made to provide a comprehensive account oflanguage policies and language planning in Cyprus. Language policies and planning areusually extremely complex issues, depending, as they do, on a host of political, socialand cultural factors.

The Cyprus Constitution (1960) provides for a dual-language approach to languagematters in assigning official language status to Greek and Turkish, in deference toCyprus’ two main linguistic communities. Though this provision in isolation seems topoint to a bilingual society, the Constitution document as a whole established structuresand procedures pertaining to a society where mutual bilingualism was not required oreven promoted: citizens could conduct official business in the state language of theirchoice, vote only for representatives of their own community and attend independent, com-munity-based educational systems. These consitutional provisions in many ways reflect and

solidify a centuries old status quo, based on which each community managed its own lin-guistic (and other) affairs.

Since the de facto geopolitical separation of Cyprus’ two main communities, first in the1960s and, even more decisively, in 1974, language policies and language planning in theRepublic and in the northern part of Cyprus have remained ultimately separate from oneanother. Despite the separation, however, the trajectory and the ideological underpinnings ofactivities directly or indirectly infuencing language matters exhibit notable parallels, such asthe levelling of subvarieties, koinéization and a partial restructuring of the functions of the natu-rally acquired varieties of each community and the superposed standard languages; the essen-tial absence of official language-planning agencies; a dynamic tension between cypriotizingand outward-looking trends; finally, the wielding of language policy as a tool for connectingwith, or, more frequently, for dissociating from, other communities.

As discussed in Section 2, the naturally-acquired varieties are CG for Greek Cypriotsand CT for Turkish Cypriots. Though many dialects in both the Greek- and the Turkish-speaking worlds have become moribund or have significantly converged with the respectivestandard languages, it appears that both CG and CTare thriving; this may well be because oftheir status as koiné varieties at the expense of local sub-varieties, which have been subjectto levelling. Both koinés seem to be slowly acquiring the status of prestige varieties, poss-ibly a combination of overt prestige vis-à-vis stigmatized basilectal sub-varities and ofcovert prestige vis-à-vis the externally superposed standard languages (or, in the case ofCT, overt prestige vis-à-vis the dialects of Turkish immigrants). Whether these processesof koinéization will eventually lead to diglossia resolution in both communities is stillunclear; it is certainly not to be expected that diglossia resolution will take place as aresult of any kind of political decision given the absence of concrete language policiesand, crucially, of identifiable and stable language policy agents in both communities.

The Cyprus Constitution does not include provisions for state language planning andlanguage policy agencies, and since neither of the two main communities has formedsuch community-based bodies, the absence of official language policy-makers and oflanguage-planning organizations is a common feature of the two major communities ofthe island. This absence is due to a host of factors, principal among them being the longtradition of implicitly relegating language issues to the education systems, which werekept separate and were community-based throughout the prolonged period of colonialrule, concomitantly with a relatively non-interventionist colonial policy toward languageuse on the island (with the brief exception of the quasi-centralizing and de-ethnicizing Edu-cation Laws of the 1930s). The two community-based education systems have consistentlydrawn upon the education systems of their respectively acknowledged ‘motherlands’,Greece and Turkey, for pedagogical models, for ideological orientation, and for policiesregarding language use on the island. This lacuna has resulted in a strong orientationtoward 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 theisland, at least as far as their written status and their visibility in education and literacy prac-tices are concerned. The perpetuation of this situation is largely due to the events of 1974and the still unresolved ‘Cyprus issue’.

That both communities still remain by and large ‘outward-looking’ in terms of theirlanguage policies may well explain the absence of official language policy-making entitieson the island (or, indeed, the fact that the creation of such entities is not envisaged) and therelegation 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, thelanguages of the media, the languages of the law, the languages of the state universities,

etc.) to entities and individuals as varied as (officials of) the Ministry of Education, the Insti-tute of Education, school inspectors, the members of occasional and ad hoc committees ofexperts, academics at large, the Press and Information Office, journalists, Members of Par-liament and, on occasion, the courts of law and individual citizens.

A significant parallel tension characterizing debates about language both in the areacontrolled by the Republic of Cyprus and in the area under Turkish Cypriot administrationis the conflict between ‘cypriotizing’ trends and ‘outward-looking’ trends toward the com-munities’ perceived national centers (hellenizing trends in the south and turcification trendsin the north). On a surface level, this means that cypriotization trends involve the endorse-ment of a Cypriot identity as the principal one and a rather positive disposition toward theCypriot dialects, whereas ‘outward-looking’ trends in each community involve the endor-sement of a primarily Greek or Turkish identity and the promotion and protection of thestandard languages from potential erosion. The conflict between these two trends hasfuelled several language-related debates, including the polemic regarding the standardiz-ation of toponyms in the Republic of Cyprus (see Section 4.2.1) and, in the north, thetension between the dogma of sameness with mainland Turks and the desire to assert aunique Cypriot identity, which is often expressed through the wielding of CT as amarker of ‘Cypriotness’ and as a tool for distinguishing Turkish Cypriots from Turkishimmigrants (see Sections 6.4 and 6.5). However, as indicated by such cases as the pro-tracted debate over the language(s) of instruction at the University of Cyprus, and the aban-donment of English in the civil cervice in the Republic of Cyprus, the actors, processes, andoutcomes of the tension between ‘cypriotizing’ and ’outward-looking’ trends can be quitevaried, 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 immi-grants in both communities, the linguistic implications of globalization, the new curricularreforms, financial developments and, crucially, any new developments toward the resol-ution of the ‘Cyprus issue’, will result in a set of overtly stated and consistent language pol-icies and language-planning measures, whether these will be Cyprus-centered or outward-looking and what agents (other than government and education) will be involved in theinstantiation of such policies and aspects of language planning on the island.

Notes1. 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 uncom-mon. Crossing over to the northern part of the island was highly restricted; it was allowed onlythrough special permission from the Turkish Cypriot administration. Public crossings have onlybecome possible since April 23, 2003, when, in a surprise move, the Turkish Cypriot adminis-tration announced a relaxing of the restrictions over cross-travel. ‘This meant that people wereable to cross in both directions without the requirement for any special permission, as was thecase before, simply by showing their passports or identity cards’ (Şahin, 2011, p. 586).

2. 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 CatholicChurch; the Armenian Cypriots; and the Latins, who are Roman Catholics of European orLevantine descent (Dietzel & Makrides, 2009; Government Web Portal, 2006; Hadjilyra,2009; PIO, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c)). The identification of the three minorities as religiousgroups rather than as national minorities/communities by the constitution was significant as itmeant that upon the formation of the Republic they were ‘compelled to choose to belong toone of the two main and constitutionally equal communities’ (Varnava, 2010, p. 207). Allthree minority religious groups opted through the Referendum of 1960 to join the CypriotGreek community politically.

3. ‘Diglossia is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects ofthe 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 alarge and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another speechcommunity, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written andformal spoken purposes but is not used by any section of the community for ordinary conversa-tion’ (Ferguson, 1959, p. 336). Ferguson terms the superposed variety ‘High’ (H) to denote itshigher prestige, and the set of naturally acquired, low-prestige varieties is termed ‘Low’ (L).

4. All quotations from documents originally in Greek or in Turkish are rendered into English bythe authors.

5. According to EUROSTAT 2006, 10.1% of 15-year-olds in the Republic of Cyprus attendedprivate schools.

6. The programs of study in a number of private schools fully mirror or partially parallel the cur-ricula and course schedules of public schools.

7. Gerogiou (2010) shows very convincingly that, despite the current preponderance of CG insitcoms, its continued relative invisibility in other types of programs points to its constructionas ‘non-serious’, i.e. as unsuitable for types of communication other than the ‘light’/comedicone 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. Tsipla-kou and Ioannidou (2010, September) discuss the use of hyperdialectal forms coupled withcode-switching and code-mixing between CG, SMG and English in the recent sitcom AigiaFouxia (‘The Fuchsia Goat’, Ant1 Cyprus, 2009–2010) and argue that extreme dialect styliza-tion together with aberrant filmic techniques make for a postmodern, deconstructive take onconstructions of language and identity in Cyprus.

8. The excellent translation/adaptation into the Cypriot Greek koiné of Asterix in the OlympicGames by linguist Loukia Taxitari (2007) merits special mention here. The author uses aconsistent, linguistically informed orthographic system which is very close to that of the‘Syntychies’ (Συντυσ̌ιές) [sindiˈʃɛs] Project (see note 17) and the one in Tsiplakou, Coutsou-gera and Pavlou (forthcoming).

9. In other colonies, such as India and Hong Kong, Christian proselytism and tensions betweenOrientalism and Anglocentrism were key forces in determining language and education pol-icies; see, e.g. Carnoy (1974), Phillipson (1992), Sweeting and Vickers (2005), Whitehead(1988, 1995, 2005a, 2005b).

10. See Evans (2002) for an analysis of the impact of parsimony concerns on colonial education andlanguage policy.

11. Such neologisms can, surprisingly, also be found in the translations of EU documents producedin 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 languagepolicy, on par with similar practices in media and law translation (cf. Floros 2009, 2011a).

12. Court cases demanding the exclusive or privileged use of Greek on passports and drivinglicences are discussed in detail in Karoulla-Vrikki (2010). A citizen of the Republic ofCyprus, Ms. Thekla Kittou, sued the Republic in 1984 and again in 1988 and 1994 demandingthat she be issued (a) a drivers’ license in Greek and (b) a passport in Greek or in Greek withEnglish as a secondary language, in deference to her linguistic and national rights as a Greek. In1985, to avoid taking the first case to trial, the Republic’s lawyer submitted to the court ‘adrivers’ license in Greek, specially printed for the plaintiff’ (p. 265). The passport suits wererejected in 1994 on the grounds that (a) passports do not fall under the constitutionallyderived obligation of the Republic to communicate with Greek-speaking citizens in Greek, asthey 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 elementsof 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 daysafter 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 andin Turkish for Cypriot Turks, followed by transcriptions in the Latin alphabet. Karoulla-Vrikki speculates that, given Ms. Kittou’s stated intent to pursue the matter further throughthe European Court, this decision may have been precipitated by a desire to avoid potentially

negative implications for Cyprus’ then pending application for ascension into the EuropeanUnion.

13. It is interesting that other comic distortions of Greek Cypriot toponyms (e.g. the name of thevillage of /apeˈʃa/, whose unfortunate standardized rendering is AΠAIΣIA, which coincidesorthographically with the word /aˈpesia/ ‘horrible’ in SMG) were not at the center of the con-troversy. As Karyolemou (2010) aptly notes, the debate was centered around the distortion ofwhat are deemed salient phonetic variants in folk-linguistic perceptions of CG.

14. Beginning from the academic year 2011–2012 Greece discontinued the gratis dispatchment oftextbooks to the Cypriot public schools as part of the austerity measures enacted in response tothe economic crisis. The Republic of Cyprus was set to purchase the textbooks from Greece at adiscounted rate (Hasapopulos, 2011; MOEC, 2011b).

15. 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).

16. It should be noted that very little is known to date about emerging immigrant ethnolects andtheir properties.

17. The University of Cyprus ‘Syntychies’ (Συντυσ ̌ιές) [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 lin-guistically informed proposal for orthographic standardization. The project, whose output is adynamic electronic web-based dictionary of CG, including a speech synthesizer (http://lexcy.library.ucy.ac.cy/), addresses theoretical problems and discrepancies in traditional CypriotGreek lexicography (Hadjioannou, 1996; Papaggellou, 2001; Yangoullis, 2005) such as (a)the exclusion of CG vocabulary that overlaps with SMG; (b) the erroneous treatment of falsefriends, i.e. homophonous words which have different meanings in Cypriot and StandardGreek; (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-stan-dardized orthography (which may result in many allographs, especially of CG speech soundssuch as the postalveolar fricative and affricate, which are unavailable in SMG). The problemswith lemma selection and description have been resolved, and an orthographic system has beenproposed 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 fri-catives/affricates. The Cypriot Greek keyboard (developed by linguist Charalambos Themis-tocleous) can be found at http://www.charalambosthemistocleous.com/downloads.aspx.

18. The two available older grammars of Cypriot Greek (Hadjioannou 1999; Newton 1972b) eachhave their own particularities, Newton’s is seminal, theoretically informed work based on exten-sive fieldwork carried out in the 1960s; however, it does not reflect the current state of CypriotGreek, and, crucially, it only focuses on phonology and (aspects of) morphology. Althoughvaluable in terms of data, Hadjioannou (1999) is a classic example of traditional philologicalwork which is not informed by contemporary linguistic principles, often following theauthor’s own ad hoc principles of grammatical classification and describing geographical var-iants from presumably different regions, without any systematic indication of the variant’s geo-graphical distribution; syntax is naturally excluded. In contrast, the forthcoming Grammar ofCypriot Greek by Tsiplakou et al. focuses on the pancyprian koiné and on register/stylistic vari-ation within the koiné, leaving aside geographical variation due to the absence of systematic lin-guistic research; the phonology, morphology and syntax of the Cypriot Greek koiné areexamined systematically following linguistic principles of grammatical description and bring-ing in insights from phonological, morphological and syntactic theories where appropriate.

19. The strong public interest in the dialect and its maintenance is indicated by the vast and ever-expanding number of webpages in Cypriot Greek, including the facebook groups KυπριακέςΛέξɛις [Cypriot Words] (http://www.facebook.com/groups/cypruswords/), I speak CYPRIOTand I’m proud of it (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7013787203) (cf. the equivalentTC facebook group Kıbrıs Türkçesi (Cypriot Turkish Language) (http://www.facebook.com/groups/GIBRIZ/), which boasts mixed Greek and Turkish Cypriot membership, and the recentCypriot Greek lexicon Γουικυπριακά [Wikicypriot] (http://www.wikipriaka.com/cy). Andreas

Andreou, one of the officers of the I speak CYPRIOTand I’m proud of it facebook group and thecreator ofΓουικυπριακά [Wikicypriot], has gone as far as to compile the 185-page longΣύγρονηΓραμματιτζ΄ή της Tζ΄υπραίιτζ΄ης Γρούσσας –A Contemporary Grammar of the GreekcypriotIdiom [sic] (2009), which is heavily based on Hadjioannou (1999). Although the grammardoes not follow any recognizable linguistic principles and actively promotes as ‘genuine’Cypriot Greek a rather inaccurate mélange of basilectal sub-varieties and registers, includingobsolete 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.

20. ‘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 aforementionedarticle under those which ‘cannot be changed and cannot be recommended to be changed’(‘[…] değiştirilemez ve değiştirilmesi önerilemez’).

21. The 1960 population census, ‘the only census covering the whole population in the Republic ofCyprus [...] 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.)

22. The Republic of Cyprus treats all individuals who arrived in the northern part of Cyprus after1974 as well as their descendants as illegal settlers.

23. Ilican (2011) reports that population estimates ‘range from 500,000 in Cyprus to 500,00 aroundthe world’ (p. 95) and notes that Turkish nationals ‘are thought to constitute up to 50%’ of thepopulation of the north (p. 97).

24. 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 theTurkish military.

25. During the recent visit (6.10.2010) to Cyprus of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic ofTurkey, Cemil Çiçek, the Turkish Cypriot Prime Minister İrsen Küçük could not reply to thequestion how large the population in the northern part of Cyprus was. Çiçek questioned thereliability of the official numbers (which oscillate between 250,000 and 300,000) and rec-ommended a ‘serious state reform’ (Kanatlı, 2010, p. 1). The discussion was commented onin detail, especially by the opposition press (see, e.g., Kıbrıs, 07.10.2010).

26. For this reason, the sources used in this chapter, with the exception of SPO (2006), are mostlyunpublished papers and surveys by agents whose political orientation is opposition-friendly.

27. After the most recent political changes history textbooks were modified (in August 2010) tofocus on more Turkey-oriented content and (Islamic) religion has been (re)-introduced as a com-pulsory course in grades 4 and 5 (before 2009 religion courses were elective). The effects ofthese changes on language policy need to be investigated.

28. 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 beensubstituted by the term Kıbrıs Türkü (‘Turk of Cyprus’) in BRT news broadcasting.

Notes on contributorsDr Xenia Hadjioannou holds a bachelor degree in the Sciences of Education from the University ofCyprus (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 Univer-sity of Florida (2003). Currently, Dr Hadjioannou is assistant professor of Language and Literacy Edu-cation at the Lehigh Valley Campus of Penn State University. Her research interests include classroomdiscourse, language arts methodology, linguistic diversity in education and equity pedagogy. Herwork has appeared in various scholarly publications including the American Educational ResearchJournal, the Journal of Early Education and Development and English Teaching: Practice and Cri-tique.

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 ofOriental 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 Educationof the University of Cyprus (2001–2008). Currently, she is Academic co-ordinator of the Greek Lin-guistics and Literature M.A. Program at the Open University of Cyprus. Her research areas includesyntax, sociolinguistics, language acquisition and literacy. She is a co-author of the forthcoming

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

DrMatthias 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 JohannWolfgang Goethe-University in Frank-furt/Main. Prior to his appointment at the University of Cyprus in 2001, he taught at the University ofVenice and at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University in Frankfurt/Main. His research interestsinclude Balkan Turkology and Turkish influence on South-East European languages, languagecontact between Turkish and Greek, Ottoman language and literature of the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies, 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 ofTurkish Language Contacts in South-Eastern Europe (2002) and Türkischsprachige Liebeslyrik ingriechisch-osmanischen Liedanthologien des 19. Jahrhunderts [Turkish Love Poetry in Ottoman-Greek Poetry Anthologies of the 19th Century] (2002).

ReferencesAger, 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-global-understanding/cyprus-america-scholarship-pr.

Arbuckle, J.R. (2008). The cultural contexts of Turkish Cypriot ethnic identity in contemporary northCyprus (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 inCypriotGreek:The need for standardisation and its importance fordialectal lexicography. Paper pre-sented atMethods inDialectology 14, The University ofWestern 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 τηναρχαιότητα 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 massmedia. InK.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: Currentefforts and recommendations for Cypriot Maronite Arabic (pp. 67–73). Oslo: InternationalPeace Research Institute.

Borg, A. (1985). Cypriot Arabic: A historical and comparative investigation into the phonology andmorphology of the Arabic vernacular spoken by the Maronites of Kormakiti village in the Kyreniadistrict 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.

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 τηςKύπρου [Language teaching:The case of Cyprus]. Glossa, 22, 69–94.

Charalambopoulos, A. (1999). H στροφή προς την ɛπικοινωνιακή προσέγγιση για τη διδασκαλία τηςΕλληνικής γλώσσας στη δɛυτɛροβάθμια ɛκπαίδɛυση [The turn toward the communicativeapproach for the teaching of the Greek language in secondary education]. GlossikosYpologistis, 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 ɛλληνικήςγλώσσας στην Kύπρο [Emanating Greek sounds: The alienation of the Greek language inCyprus]. 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: CambridgeUniversity Press.

COE (Council of Europe). (2006). Recommendation RecChL (2006)3 by the Committee of Ministersfor 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. Thirdperiodical report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordancewith 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 colonial-ism: A counter-narrative of insurrection beckoning to the decolonisation of reason. CyprusReview, 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 dis-

sertation). 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.pdfEuropean Commission for Multilingualism. (2008). EU language policy. Retrieved May 20, 2011,

from http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/eu-language-policy/index_en.htmEvans, 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

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 identitymarkers. 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 ofSouthampton, UK.

Georgiou, V. (2010). Circularity in the (re)production of language ideology: The case of GreekCypriot 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 alanguage 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 inva-sion 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 InformationTechnology 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 ofeducation. Comparative Education, 40, 241–266.

Grohmann, K., Panagiotidis, P., & Tsiplakou, S. (2006). Some properties of wh-question formation inCypriot Greek. In M. Janse, B. Joseph, & A. Ralli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd InternationalConference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory (pp. 83–98). Patras: Universityof 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 dictionaryof spoken Cypriot Greek: history, explanation and phonetics of words; with an appendix of topo-nyms]. Nicosia: Tamassos.

Hadjioannou, K. (1999). Γραμματική τής oμιλουμένης κυπριακής διαλέκτου [A grammar of thespoken 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 froma Greek Cypriot class. In J. Scott, D. Straker, & L. Katz (Eds.), Affirming students’ rights to theirown 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 στηνKύπρο [Nomore free textbooks from Greece to Cyprus]. To Vima. Retrieved from August 15, 2011 http://www.tovima.gr

Hatay, M. (2007). Is the Turkish Cypriot population shrinking? An overview of the ethno-demographyof Cyprus in the light of the preliminary results of the 2006 Turkish Census, PRIO Cyprus CentreReport. 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 ofEducation 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 identityamong Greek Cypriot students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University ofSouthampton, UK.

Ioannidou, E. (2009a). Using the ‘improper’ language in the classroom: The conflict betweenlanguage 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 languagepolicy in Europe, Orbis/Supplementa 33 (pp. 111–132). Louvain: Peeters.

Ioannidou, E. (2009c, October). Greek-speaking Turkish Cypriots: The ‘other’ linguistic group ofCyprus. 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 inlanguage 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 tea-chers’ language practices in primary and secondary state education in Cyprus. Linguistics andEducation, 21, 298–313.

Issa, T. (2006). An ethnographic case study of code switching and language choice: The uses ofCypriot 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.

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 historyand culture (pp. 285–295). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Kappler, M. (2010). Coexistence linguistique sur une île séparée: le cas du turc et du grec à Chypre. InM. 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 onTurkic Linguistics. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.

Kappler, M., & Tsiplakou, S. (forthcoming b). Miş and miʃimu: An instance of language contact inCyprus. In C. Bulut (Ed.), Proceedings of the Turkic Speaking Minorities in the Middle Eastand 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: Fromthe 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 thecourts in Cyprus. Language Problems & Language Planning, 25, 259–288.

Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (2002). H αγγλική ως κυρίαρχη γλώσσα στα δικαστήρια της KυπριακήςΔημοκρατίας [English as the dominant language in the courts of law of the Republic ofCyprus]. 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, TheNetherlands.

Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (2009). Greek in Cyprus: Identity oscillations and language planning. In A.Georgakopoulou & M. Silk (Eds.), Standard languages and language standards: Greek, pastand present (pp. 187–219). London: Ashgate.

Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (2010). H ɛλληνικη ως ζήτημα ταυτότητας και γλωσσικού σχɛδιασμού στηνKύπρο: Άδɛιɛς οδήγησης, διαβατήρια και πινακίδɛς κυκλοφορίας οχημάτων [Greek as anissue of identity and language planning in Cyprus: Driving licenses, passports and licenseplates]. In A. Voskos, D. Goutsos, & A. Moser (Eds.), H ɛλληνική Γλώσσα στην Kύπρο απότην 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 δημόσιουςχώρους στην Kύπρο: Kοινοβουλɛυτική συζήτηση, ταυτότητα και γλωσσική πολιτική [Brandnames, advertisements and other signs in public spaces in Cyprus: Parliament debate, identityand 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 tolanguage]. 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 [Cypriotreality and sociolinguistic description]. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 20, 203–214.

Karyolemou, M. (2001a). From linguistic liberalism to legal regulation: The Greek language inCyprus. Language Problems and Language Planning, 25, 25–51.

Karyolemou, M. (2001b). ‘Ne touchez pas à mon dialecte’: Nominalisation des noms géographiqueset saillance des variables à Chypre. Journal de l’ Association Canadienne de LinguistiqueAppliquée, 2, 1001–1013.

Karyolemou, M. (2002). Mακρογλωσσικός και μικρογλωσσικός σχɛδιασμός στην Kύπρο [Macro-and 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 con-struction 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 [Languagepolicy and language planning in Cyprus]. In A. Voskos, D. Goutsos, & A. Moser (Eds.), Hɛλληνική Γλώσσα στην Kύπρο από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμɛρα [The Greek language inCyprus from antiquity to the present] (pp. 242–261). Athens: National Capodistrian Universityof Athens.

Karyolemou, M., & Pavlou, P. (2001). Language attitudes and assessment of salient variables in a bi-dialectal speech community. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on LanguageVariation in Europe (pp. 110–120). Barcelona: Universitat Pompey Fabra.

Katircioglu, S. (2006). Causality between agriculture and economic growth in a small nation underpolitical 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 ofCypriot Greek: history and typology]. In A. Voskos, D. Goutsos, & A. Moser (Eds.), Hɛλληνική γλώσσα στην Kύπρο από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμɛρα [The Greek language inCyprus from antiquity to the present] (pp. 174–191). Athens: National Capodistrian Universityof Athens.

Kehayoglou, G., & Papaleontiou, L. (2010). Iστορία της νɛότɛρης κυπριακής λογοτɛχνίας [Historyof modern Cypriot literature]. Nicosia: Center for Scientific Research.

Kermia Ztite (2006). Πρόγραμμα διάσωσης της γλώσσας του Kορμακίτη [Program for the preser-vation of the language of Kormakitis]. Nicosia: Kermia Ztite.

Kızılyürek, N., & Gautier-Kızılyürek, S. (2004). The politics of identity in the Turkish Cypriot com-munity and the language question. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 168 [TheSociolinguistics 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 compari-son. Journal of Refugee Studies, 7, 328–359.

Kolln, M., & Hancock, C. (2005). The story of English Grammar in United States schools. EnglishTeaching: Practice and Critique, 4, 11–31.

Kontosopoulos, N.G. (2001). Διάλɛκτοι και ιδιώματα της νέας ɛλληνικής [Dialects and sub-var-ieties of Modern Greek]. Athens: Grigoris.

Kormakitis.net. (2011, July 19). Επανɛγκατάσταση Mαρωνιτών στον Kορμακίτη (Εγκρίθηκαν 27άτομα) [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 theTurkish Cypriot Teachers’ Trade Union.

Leontaki, V. (2008).Παιδική ηλικία και ελεύθερος χρόνος στα καινούρια βιβλία της γλώσσας τουδημοτικού σχολείου [Childhood and free time in the new language textbooks for elementaryschools] (Master’s thesis, Aristoteleion University of Thessaloniki, Greece). Retrieved fromhttp://invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/113659?ln=el

Lewis, G. (1999). The Turkish language reform: A catastrophic success. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

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: OxfordUniversity Press.

Marangou, N. (2007). Ο δαίμων της πορνɛίας [The demon of fornication]. Athens: Melani.

Masson, O. (2007). Eteocypriot. In A.-F. Christidis (Ed.), A history of Ancient Greek: From the begin-nings to late antiquity (pp. 243–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mavratsas, C. (1998). Όψɛις του ɛλληνικού ɛθνικισμού στην Kύπρο [Facets of Greek nationalism inCyprus]. Athens: Katarti.

MEC. (2005). The Cyprus Turkish education system. TRNC National Ministry of Educationand 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 TurkishCypriots. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 200, 75–82.

MFA(MinistryofForeignAffairs of theRepublic ofCyprus). (2010a).Treatyofguarantee.RetrievedMay5, 2011, from http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/All/484B73E4F0736CFDC22571BF00394-F11/$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 compulsoryEducation]. 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 ΕλληνικήΓλώσσα [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]. RetrievedMay 5, 2011, from http://www.moec.gov.cy/analytika_programmata/nea-analytika-program-mata/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. καιΟ.Ε.Δ.Β.), τɛτράδια, ɛπίσημα βιβλία και έντυπα [Textbooks (Ministry of Education andCulture and Organization for Publishing Instructional Books publications), notebooks, formalbooks and prints]. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://www.moec.gov.cy/dde/odigies-scholikis-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 thelanguage 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-mediaNCES (National Center for Education and Statistics). (2007). TIMSS 2007 results. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07.aspNewton, 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.

Oakley, R. (1993). The Turkish peoples of Cyprus. In M. Bainbridge (Ed.), The Turkic peoples of theworld (pp. 85–117). New York: Kegan Paul.

Office of the Law Commissioner (2009). Cyprus: Third periodic report of the application of the fra-mework 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 attitudesof 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 thebeginnings 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: ZavallisPress.

Papaggellou, R. (2001). Tο κυπριακό ιδίωμα: μέγα κυπρο-ɛλληνο-αγγλικό (και μɛ λατινικήορολογία) λɛξικό: ɛρμηνɛυτικό-ɛτυμολογικό-προφοράς-ορθής γραφής, [The Cypriot Greekdialect: Great Cypriot – Standard Greek – English (and Latin) dictionary of etymology – pronun-ciation – correct spelling]. Athens: Iolkos.

Papanicola, E. (2010).Φτάνοντας στo “και” από το δρόμο του “τζ ̌αι”. Διδιαλɛκτική διδασκαλία καιγλωσσική ɛνημɛρότητα στην A΄ Δημοτικού [Reaching “και” via “τ ζ̌αι”. Bidialectal teachingand 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 γλωσσικήδιδασκαλία [Capitalizing on linguistic variation in language teaching]. In H. Phtiaka, A.Symeonidou, & M. Socratous (Eds.), Proceedings of the X Pancyprian Conference of theCyprus 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 oftoponyms 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 inEducation. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Pashiardis, P. (2007). Cyprus. In W. Hörner, H. Döbert, B. von Kopp, & W. Mitter (Eds.), The edu-cation systems of Europe (pp. 202–222). Dordrecht: Springer.

Pattie, S.P. (1997). Faith in history: Armenians rebuilding community. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

Pavlou, S. (2001). Kυπριακή διάλɛκτος και πτώση παιδɛίας [The Cypriot dialect and the decline ofeducation]. Politis, 5.8.2001 (n. p.).

Pavlou, P. (2004). Greek dialect use in the mass media in Cyprus. International Journal of theSociology 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 αντιμɛτώπισήτους [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 αρχαιότηταως 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 terminologyinto 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 per-spective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 243–258.

Pehlivan, A. (2000). KKTC İlkokul Öğrencilerinin Yazılı Anlatımlarında Görülen Kıbrıs Ağzına AitSesbilimsel Özellikler [Phonetic peculiarities due to the Cypriot dialect in written essays of TRNCprimary 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: thechange 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 DilKullanımları [The attitudes of Gurbets in Northern Cyprus towards Turkish, and Gurbetcha andtheir language use]. Millî Folklor Yıl 21/Sayı, 82, 146–157.

Pehlivan, A. (forthcoming). Kıbrıs Türklerinde Eğitiminde Dil Politikası (1571–1974) [Languagepolicy in the education of Turkish Cypriots (1571–1874)]. Kıbrıs Dosyası Sempozyumu.

Pehlivan, A., & Adalıer, A. (2010). Beyond the prescriptive approach towards the language of edu-cation 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 Greeklanguage 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 thedialect 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 ofthe Sociology of Language, 154, 11–28.

Persianis, P. (1966). Mɛρικοί προσδιοριστικοί παράγοντɛς της ɛλληνικής ɛκπαιδɛυτικής πολιτικήςɛν Kύπρω: Iδɛολογίαι, ιδρύματα και αντικɛιμɛνικαί συνθήκαι ɛν Kύπρω [Some definingfactors of the Hellenic educational policy in Cyprus: Ideologies, foundations and material con-ditions 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 OrthodoxChurch 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 τηςαγγλικής [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 τιςαρχές του 20ου αιώνα [Dimensions of education in Cyprus towards the end of the 19th and inthe 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 intri-guing 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 theabortive educational reforms in Greece in comparison with those in France. ComparativeEducation, 34, 71–84.

Persianis, P. (2003). British colonial higher education policy-making in the 1930s: The case of a planto establish a university in Cyprus. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and InternationalEducation, 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 compul-sory 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, fromhttp://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/PIO/PIO.nsf/All/A37EFB0E68B1BD2DC2256FCE00335C7A?OpenDocument

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 duringthe 1930s. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 26, 363–397.

Robins, K., & Aksoy, A. (2001). From spaces of identity to mental spaces: Lessons from Turkish-Cypriot 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 linguistiquepluriséculaire. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 168 [The Sociolinguistics ofCyprus 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 ofCommunication, 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 northCyprus. 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 Republicof 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 πɛρίοδο1975–1994 [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 socioculturalelements 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.htmlStatistical 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 8thInternational Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 473–488). Ioannina: University ofIoannina. 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 ofthe 30th International Conference on Functional Linguistics: Special Session on theSociolinguistic 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-dis-crimination 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.

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/Eininternationales 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 ofCalifornia 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 InternationalConference on Greek Linguistics. Rethymno: Linguistics Lab. CD-Rom.

Tsiplakou, S. (2006a). Cyprus: Language situation. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language andlinguistics (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 foreducation. In A. Papapavlou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Sociolinguistic and pedagogical dimensions ofdialects in education (pp. 236–264). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Tsiplakou, S. (2007b). Γλωσσική ποικιλία και κριτικός ɛγγραμματισμός: Συσχɛτισμοί καιπαιδαγωγικές προɛκτάσɛις [Linguistic variation and critical literacy: Associations and pedago-gical 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 theblueprint. 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-nativeEnglishes: Exploring Second-language Varieties and Learner Englishes], 75–88.

Tsiplakou, S. (2009c). Γλωσσική ɛναλλαγή, ανταγωνιστικές γραμματικές και διαγλώσσα ακόμαμια 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 ofcontemporary Cypriot Greek. In A. Voskos, D. Goutsos, & A. Moser (Eds.), H ɛλληνική γλώσσαστην Kύπρο από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμɛρα [The Greek language in Cyprus from antiquity to thepresent] (pp. 228–241). Athens: National Capodistrian University of Athens.

Tsiplakou, S., Coutsougera, P., & Pavlou, P. (forthcoming). A grammar of contemporary CypriotGreek. 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 inEducation, XLV, 195–220.

Tsiplakou, S., & Hadjioannou, X. (2010). H διδασκαλία της γλωσσικής ποικιλότητας: μια διδακτικήπαρέμβαση. [Teaching language variation: a paedagogical intervention]. Studies in GreekLinguistics, 30, 617–629.

Tsiplakou, S., Hadjioannou, X. & Constantinou, C. (2006). ∆έκα μύθοι για την επικοινωνιακήπροσέγγιση ή«Κύριε, ελληνικά πότε εν να κάµουµε;» [10 myths regarding theCommunicative 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 fromCypriot Greek. In G. Giannakis, M. Baltazani, G. Xydopoulos, & T. Tsangalidis (Eds.),Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 1210–1223).

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 andtheir implications for bidialectism. In F. Hinskens (Ed.), Language variation – European perspec-tives. 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, fromhttp://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 [ContemporaryStudies in Descriptive Linguistics 7]. Bern: Peter Lang.

Varnava, A. (2010). The state of Cypriot minorities: Cultural diversity, internal-exclusion and theCyprus ‘Problem’. The Cyprus Review, 22, 205–218.

Wallace, P.W., & Orphanides, A.G. (1990). Sources for the history of Cyprus. Albany, NY: Institute ofCypriot 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 CyprusReview, 21, 81–96.

Weir, W.W. (1952). Education in Cyprus. Some theories and practices in education in the island ofCyprus 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 culturalimperialism or enlightened paternalism? History of Education, 24, 1–15.

Whitehead, C. (2005a). The historiography of British imperial education, part I: India. History ofEducation, 34, 315–329.

Whitehead, C. (2005b). The historiography of British imperial education, part II: Africa and the rest ofthe colonial empire. History of Education, 34, 441–454.

Williams, A. (2000). The gypsies of Cyprus: A DRC update. Kuri Journal of the DOM ResearchCenter 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 centuryCypriot Poetry. In V. Calotychos (Ed.), Cyprus and its people: Nation, identity and experiencein 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: FatalPublications.

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 inCyprus. Applied Linguistics, 27, 295–317.

Yiakoumetti, A. (2007). Choice of classroom language in bidialectal communities: To include or toexclude the dialect? Cambridge Journal of Education, 37, 51–66.

Yiakoumetti, A., Evans, M., & Esch, E. (2005). Language awareness in a bidialectal setting: The oralperformance and language attitudes of urban and rural students in Cyprus. Language Awareness,14, 254–260.

Appendix 1. Structural differences between standard and Cypriot GreekThe principal differences between Cypriot and Standard Greek are given in Tables A1–A3.

Table A1. Phonological differences.

Standard Greek Cypriot Greek Cypriot Greek feature

[cɛˈɾɔs] [t∫ɛˈɾɔs] weather affrication of [c] before front vowels [i]and [ɛ]a

[ˈɛçi] [ˈɛ∫i] has fronting of [ç[ before front vowels [i]and [ɛ]

[bɐˈbɐs] [pɐˈpɐs] dad absence of voiced stops [b], [d], [g]/[ɟ][ɛˈbɾɔs] [ɛˈmbɾɔs] forward (unless prenasalized)[mɐγɐˈzjɐ] [mɐxɐˈƷɐ] shops fronting of [z][ˈɐlɔ] [ˈɐl:ɔ] other consonant gemination

(frequently ‘spontaneous’,depending on stress placement,e.g. [stɐˈvrul:ɐ] ‘Stavroula’)

[ˈkupɐ] [ˈkuphɐ] cup[pɔˈtɛ] [pɔˈthɛ] never gemination (aspiration) of voiceless

plosives[ˈptɔsi] [ˈpthɔsi] fall gemination (aspiration) of voiceless

plosives in clusters[ˈktiɾiɔ] [ˈxtiɾiɔ] building spirantization of voiceless plosives

in clusters[ˈçɛɾi] [ˈ∫ɛɾin] hand word-final [n][ˈçɛɾjɐ] [ˈ∫ɛɾkɐ] hands Stop formation/‘hardening’ of [i]

before another vowel[tɾɐˈγuði] [tɾɐˈuin] song intervocalic fricative elision

(subject to levelling)[θɛɔˈɾɔ] I consider [θɔˈɾɔ]

[xɔˈɾɔ] I see [θ]/[x] allophony (subject to levelling)[xɔˈɾ(ɐ)ɔ] [f ɔˈɾɔ]

[xɔˈɾɔ] I fit [f]/[x] allophony (subject to leveling)[ɐˈ(ɲ)ɟɐ] [ɐˈndƷɐ] pots affrication of [ɟ] (subject to levelling)

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

Table A2. Morphological differences.

[tis] [tɛs] the.ACC.FEM.PL Different determiner form forthe feminine accusative plural

[ˈeksɔði] [eˈksɔði] exit.NOM.PL Penultimate stress in thenominative pluralof 2nd declension nouns

[kɔˈlɔn] [ˈkɔl:ɔn] leaf.GEN.PL Penultimate stress in thegenitive plural of1st declension feminine nouns

[tɔn ɛˈglɛzɔn] [tus ɛˈŋglɛzus] the English.GEN.PL Accusative morphology in thegenitive plural of 2nd declensionmasculine nouns(subject to levelling)

[ʝi] [ʝuˈðɛs] son.NOM/ACC.PL Cypriot-specific plural morphemes[ˈtutɔ] [tun] this Cypriot-specific demonstrative

pronoun[ˈɛxun] [ˈɛxusin] have.3PL Cypriot-specific 3rd person plural[ˈixɐn] [ˈixɐsin] had.3PL morpheme in present and past tenses

[ˈkɐnɐtɛ] [ɛˈkɐmɛtɛ] did.2PL Syllabic augment [ɛ] in the pasttenses

[ˈkɐnɐtɛ] [ɛˈkɐmɛtɛ] did.2PL Cypriot-specific 2nd personplural morpheme in the pasttenses

[θɐ] [ˈɛn:ɐ] future marker Cypriot-specific future marker[mi(n)] [mɛn] negation marker Cypriot-specific negation

marker in non-indicative mood

Table A3. Syntactic differences.

[tɔ ˈiðɛs] [ˈiðɛs tɔ] clitic-secondit.CL.ACC saw.2S saw.2S it.CL.ACC (Wackernagel)‘You saw it.’ ‘You saw it.’ effects[ðɛn tɔ ˈiðɛs] [ɛn tɔ ˈiðɛs]NEG it.CL.ACC saw.2S NEG it.CL.ACC saw.2S‘You didn’t see it.’ ‘You didn’t see it.’[ˈpɔtɛ tɔ ˈiðɛs] [ˈpɔtɛ tɔ ˈiðɛs]when it.CL.ACC saw.2S when it.CL.ACC saw.2S‘When did you see it?’

[ˈɛn tʃɛ ˈiðɛs tɔ] no clitic-second effectsNEG FOC saw.2S it.CL.ACC in emphatic negation‘You DIDN’T see it.’ with ɛn tʃɛ

[ti ˈiðɛs] [ˈindɐ m bu ˈiðɛs] obligatory cleftingwhat.ACC saw.2S what is that saw.2S in wh- questions‘What did you see?’ ‘What is it that you saw?’ introduced by

inda ‘what’[pçɔn ˈiðɛs] [pcɔn {em bu} ˈiðɛs] optional cleftingwho.ACC saw.2S who {is that} saw.2S in wh- questions‘Who did you see?’ ‘Who is it that you saw?’[tin ˈksɛɲɐ ˈiðɛs] [ɛn tin ˈksɛniɐn pu ˈiðɛs] focus cleftsXENIA.ACC saw.2s is XENIA.ACC that saw.2s (no syntactic focus‘You saw XENIA.’ ‘It’s XENIA that you saw.’ movement)[stilɛ tɔ mu] [stil mu to] Indirect Object>send.IMP it.ACC me.GEN send.IMP me.GEN it.ACC Direct Object‘Send it to me.’ ‘Send me it.’ order only with

postverbal cliticsor[stilɛ mu to]send.IMP me.GEN it.ACC‘Send me it.’

Cyprus: Language Situation (Hadjioannou, Tsiplakou & Kappler)

Documents

child rights - situation analysis - AWS

Introducing the Cyprus Syntaxfest

situation the district wiga

December 2021 - SITUATION - Traffic.org

Political Situation of Kashmir

Admiralty e-Navigation - Nautical Institute Cyprus |

Становлення мовної ситуації в Єгипті (Formation of the language situation in Egypt)

Wheat Situation and Outlook Yearbook

NOLLYWOOD AND THE NIGERIAN SITUATION

SITUATION ANALYSIS TOOL

Intensifiers between grammar and pragmatics. A lesson from a language contact situation

The Language Contact Situation in Prehistoric Northeastern Europe

Study Guide 2021-2022 - CBS Cyprus

Agricultural Situation in India

Marketing situation analysis on PepsiCo

Country Report: Cyprus

DIE SITUATION DER GEFLÜCHTETEN AUF

SITUATION UPDATE - AHA Centre

PARTIE 1 : SITUATION DU SECTEUR DES PRODUITS DE LA MER SITUATION DE LA CAPTURE SITUATION DE LA CONSOMMATION SITUATION DU SECTEUR HALIEUTIQUE MAROCAIN

Schools Guide - Cyprus Mail