Dialogue on Dialect Standardization [1 ed.] 9781443872959, 9781443866613

Citation preview

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

Edited by

Carrie Dyck, Tania Granadillo, Keren Rice and Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization, Edited by Carrie Dyck, Tania Granadillo, Keren Rice and Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by Carrie Dyck, Tania Granadillo, Keren Rice, Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-6661-X, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-6661-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations .................................................................................... vii List of Tables .............................................................................................. ix Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 Introduction Carrie Dyck, Tania Granadillo, Keren Rice and Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada Chapter Two ................................................................................................ 9 Multidialectal Orthographies: An Approach to Systematically Spelling Differing Dialects Peter Unseth Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 23 Addressing Writing System Issues in Dialectical Lexicography: The Case of Cypriot Greek Spyros Armosti, Kyriaki Christodoulou, Marianna Katsoyannou and Charalambos Themistocleous Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 39 The Standardization of a Latin-based Orthography for Podlachian Jan Maksymiuk Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 55 The Importance of Identity and Affiliation in Dialect Standardization Mark E. Karan, Kerry M. Corbett Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 63 Orthography Development for the Greek Cypriot Dialect: Language Attitudes and Orthographic Choice Aspasia Papadima, Ioli Ayiomamitou, Stelios Kyriacou and Georgios Parmaxis

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Seven............................................................................................ 81 Orthography as a Marker of Group Identity in Dialects John M. Clifton Chapter Eight ............................................................................................. 99 The Development of a Writing System for Multiple Dialects of Caribbean English Creole Ken Decker Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 117 Negotiating the Roles of Orality and Literacy in Iroquoian Languages Carrie Dyck, Mary Joy Elijah and Amos Key, Jr. Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 127 Standardization in Language Revitalization André Bourcier Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 145 Individuality versus Unity in Mixean: Challenges in Orthography Design Carmen Jany References ............................................................................................... 161 Contributors ............................................................................................. 179 Index ........................................................................................................ 187

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

4-1. Podlachian Province ........................................................................... 43 6-1. Preferences regarding the Greek word [‫ޖ‬çéri] realised as [‫ݕޖ‬érin] in the dialect (Section 2-Question 1). .................................. 74 7-1. Location of Vanimo Language ........................................................... 83 7-2. Location of Kok Borok and Kau Brung Languages ........................... 86 7-3. Location of Bine Language ................................................................ 88 7-4. Location of Tanchangya and Chakma Languages .............................. 92 10-1 Northern Tutchone dialect variation ©YNLC, reprinted by permission ..................................................................................... 142

LIST OF TABLES

1-1. Language ISO codes............................................................................. 4 2-1. Majang 2nd person imperative prefixes from two dialects ................ 18 3-1. Common words between Cypriot Greek and Standard Modern Greek that are missing from all three dialectal dictionaries mentioned ............................................................................................ 33 4-1. Examples of local name misrepresentations in the Orla commune.............................................................................................. 44 4-2. The consonant inventory of Podlachian ............................................. 46 4-3. Comparison of Podlachian notation with Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish............................................................................................. 49 4-4. One sentence in different Podlachian orthographies .......................... 52 5-1. Language of Preference (Corbett 2012, 99): ...................................... 59 6-1. The phonological system of consonants in Greek Cypriot ................. 66 6-2. The phonological system of consonants in Standard Modern Greek.................................................................................................... 67 6-3. The frequency with which GCs encounter the written form of their dialect according to the occasion (Section 1-Question 1) .................... 71 6-4. The frequency with which GCs use each writing method (Section 1-Question 2). ...................................................................................... 72 6-5. GC participants’ orthography preferences for the six words (Section 2-Question 2) ....................................................................................... 75 6-6. The popularity of two writing methods in the case of the words [t‫ݕ‬i‫ݠ‬a]’belly’ and [stron‫ݶ‬i‫ޖ‬los] ‘round’. .............................................. 76 6-7. The distribution of the participants’ answers for three suggested writing methods (Section 2- Question 3). ............................................ 76 6-8. A two dimensional cross-tabulation of the extent of preference for each orthographic convention of the word [‫ݕޖ‬erin] in Section two, in relation to the extent of preference the typographic conventions GC speakers use in writing GC........................................ 77 7-1. Chakma Alphabet ............................................................................... 93 7-2. Tanchangya Alphabet......................................................................... 94 8-1. Scalability of attributes as presented by Fishman (2010) ................. 101 8-2. Some examples of phonological variation ....................................... 109 8-3. Examples of spelling preferences ..................................................... 110 8-4. Variation in some Creole pronouns and tense markers .................... 112 11-1. Orthographies compared ................................................................ 153

x

List of Tables

11-2. Comparison of graphemes for consonants...................................... 154 11-3. Comparison of graphemes for palatalized consonants ................... 155 11-4. Comparison of graphemes for vowels ............................................ 155

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION CARRIE DYCK, MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND TANIA GRANADILLO, WESTERN UNIVERSITY KEREN RICE, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO JORGE EMILIO ROSÉS LABRADA, WESTERN UNIVERSITY

This collection of papers grows out of a workshop presented at the conference Methods 14 at Western University in August 2011. The aim of the workshop was to provide a space for the development of dialogue between dialectologists, language community activists, and others working on the development of orthographies regarding the issues that arise during the creation of writing systems in places where there is dialect variation and there is no writing system, or there is a writing system for a national language but not for the particular language. Recent years have seen increased attention to issues related to the development of writing systems; see, for instance, Lüpke (2011), Sebba (2007), Seifart (2006), and Venezky (2004), among many others. We are, however, not aware of work that focuses on the pressure for standardization when there is dialect variation. In our own experiences in such situations, standardization to a single system of spelling for a language often comes prematurely, and can, in fact, be a barrier to the development of literacy rather than a support. This collection contains chapters based on many of the talks presented during the workshop, as well as an invited paper. The participants in the workshop left feeling what we might call a sigh of relief, realizing that they were not alone in seeing that complex issues underlie the assumption that standardization is to be valued. The chapters in this volume address two major themes. First, the imperative for standardization is influenced by non-neutral as opposed to “scientific” factors, including identity, age, ease of use of the language, and familiarity. Second, the assumption of the value of standardization in

2

Chapter One

many cases leads to overt or covert negotiations or conflicts in the process of language planning and orthography development. The book consists of ten chapters and is concerned with languages in various parts of the world, including Cyprus, Poland, Canada, the Caribbean, and Mexico, among others. Languages include those for which there have long been writing systems for “standard” dialects (e.g., Cypriot Greek and Podlachian, which is sometimes said to be a BelarusianUkrainian variety) and those for which writing has been only recently introduced (e.g., Cayuga and Oneida, Mixean). Table 1-1 below lists the languages and ISO codes for languages discussed in this volume. Many of the authors argue that standardization is problematic in the particular situation; others seek standardized systems, while at the same time recognizing barriers to this. What shines through all of the papers is the importance of considering factors such as individual varieties as well as languages, the role of identity and affiliation, choice of writing systems, and the history of writing in an area in thinking about writing systems. Language Anyi Arabic Awad Bing Belarusian

Code [any, mbt] [ara] [bcu] [bel]

Bine Bislama Bouyei Caribbean Englishlexified Creole

[bon] [bis] [pcc] [aig], [bah], [bzj], [bzk], [fpe], [gcl], [gpe], [gul], [gyn], [icr], [jam], [svc], [tch], [tgh], [trf], [vic] [cat] [cay] [ccp] [cmn] [ces] / [cze] [eng]

Catalan Cayuga Chakma Chinese Czech English

Location Côte d’Ivoire Middle East Papua New Guinea Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Poland Papua New Guinea Vanuatu China Caribbean

Spain Canada Bangladesh, India China Czech Republic USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and others

Introduction

3

Language French Fur Gbe

Code [fra] [fvr] [gbe], [gbs]

German Greek (Cypriot) Greek (Modern Standard) Haitian Ibo Indonesian Inuktitut (Inuinnaqtun; Ulukhaqtuuq) Jamaican Kabuverdianu Kaingang Kalenjin Kau Brung Kichwa

[deu] [ell] [ell]

Location France Sudan Togo, Ghana, Benin, Nigeria Germany Cyprus Greece, Cyprus

[hat] [ibo] [ind] [iku]

Haiti Nigeria Indonesia Canada

[jam] [kea] [kgp] [kln] [usi] [que], [quw], [qxl], [qvj], [qvi], [qug], [qxr], [qud] [trp] [mpe] [mco], [mir], [mto], [mxp], [mxq], [mzl], [neq], [pxm] [moh] [yrk] [oci] [one] [gax], [orm] [pap] [pcd] N/A

Jamaica Cape Verde islands Brazil Kenya Bangladesh Ecuador

Kok Borok Majang Mixe Mohawk Nenets Occitan Oneida Oromo Papiamentu Picard Podlachian (East Slavic vernacular) Polish Portuguese Russian

[pol] [por] [rus]

Bangladesh, India Ethiopia Mexico (Oaxaca) Canada, USA Russia France Canada Ethiopia, Kenya Curacao France north-eastern part of Poland Poland Portugal, Brazil Russia

Chapter One

4

Language Sango

Code [sag]

Seselwa Spanish

[crs] [spa]

Tanchangya Tetun Dili Tok Pisin Tonga

[tnv] [tdt] [tpi] [toi]

Tumbuka, Senga

[tum]

Tutchone (Northern) Ukrainian Vanimo Yao (ciYao)

[ttm] [ukr] [vam] [yao]

Location Central African Republic Seychelles Spain and Latin America Bangladesh East Timor Papua New Guinea Mozambique and South Africa Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia Canada Ukraine Papua New Guinea Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia

Table 1-1. Language ISO codes (http://www-01.sil.org/ISO639-3/codes.asp) Chapter 2, “Multidialectal Orthographies: an approach to systematically spelling differing dialects”, by Peter Unseth reviews four approaches to spelling dialects that differ in phonological characteristics and advocates a “systematic multidialectal approach” (p. 9) for creating a unified orthography. Unseth terms this approach “another tool in the tool kit” (p. 21) for developing orthographies. The principles of spelling for one dialect can differ from another dialect, as long as the resulting system is consistent and systematic. Some compromises (over- and underdifferentiation) may result. Unseth advocates using either “shallow” historical forms, or morphophonemic representations. One result of this is over-differentiation: for example, the orthography might represent contrasts that are retained in one dialect, but merged in another or represent sounds that are preserved in one dialect (or register) but not in another. Another potential result of the choice of “shallow” historical forms is under-

Introduction

5

differentiation: for example, using an historic phoneme to represent its reflexes in all dialects; e.g., in Niger-Congo Gbe using the spelling (from proto- *݊) to spell /݊, p, Ȥ‫އ‬/. Chapter 3, “Addressing writing system issues in dialectal lexicography: the case of Cypriot Greek”, by Spyros Armostis, Kyriaki Christodoulou, Marianna Katsoyannou, and Charalambos Themistocleous, together with chapter 6, deals with the interesting case of a dialect (Cypriot Greek, CG) which exists in the shadow of a standard dialect (Standard Modern Greek, SMG). Both chapters deal with the problem that the SMG spelling system does not adequately represent CG (in particular, the CG palatoalveolar phonemes). A related problem is the legacy and existence of alternative, informal orthographies for CG. For the authors of chapter 3, orthography standardization is driven by the need to have a standard way of representing CG words in a CG dictionary and related materials (the Syntychies project). The principles underlying the orthography developed for the Syntychies project are transferability to and from SMG, and a relatively close adherence to phonological form. The authors also discuss the problem of using characters (especially diacritics) that are not in the Unicode set; while they develop some work-arounds, they ultimately recognize the need to propose new glyphs for Cypriot Greek in the Unicode set (i.e., glyphs that would include diacritics, removing the need for using combining diacritics). Chapter 4, “The Standardization of a Latin-Based Orthography for Podlachian”, by Jan Maksymiuk addresses issues that have arisen in the attempt to design a writing system for Podlachian, an East Slavic vernacular related to Belarusian and Ukranian that is spoken in the northeastern part of Poland. Podlachian does not have a standardized writing system, in part because there is not official recognition of the Podlachian as an entity in Poland. There are at least six alternative orthographies to represent Podlachian; some are Latin-based, and some, Cyrillic-based. The author of chapter 4 and Aleksander Maksymiuk took it upon themselves to develop and promote a Latin- (as opposed to Cyrillic-) based orthography for Podlachian. Maksymiuk describes similarities and differences between Podlachian and related East Slavic (Belarusian and Ukranian) varieties, and proposes an orthography which accommodates three extra diphthongs and captures related processes of palatalization present only in Podlachian. From a practical perspective, the orthography represents Podlachian phonemically, and uses graphemes that are relatively accessible (for computer users or typists). The chapter also describes a fascinating, grass-

6

Chapter One

roots effort to promote an ethnic identity and unified orthography for Podlachian. Chapter 5, “The importance of identity and affiliation in dialect standardization”, by Mark E. Karan and Kerry M. Corbett argues that a particular group’s choice of language, dialect, and (by extension) orthography is not based on purely linguistic principles, but rather on community behaviour or the degree to which the group identifies with a larger group or standard. The authors underscore a common thread in the book, namely that social practices, not linguistic principles alone, help determine the success or failure of standardization efforts (c.f., Sebba 2007). Chapter 6, “Orthography Development for the Greek Cypriot Dialect: Language Attitudes and Orthographic Choice”, by Aspasia Papadima, Ioli Ayiomamitou, Stelios Kyriacou and Georgios Parmaxis, like chapter 3, addresses Cypriot Greek. In contrast to chapter 3, chapter 6 describes some of the sociocultural factors that influence the development a standardized orthography. For example, the authors point out that graphemes have a cultural meaning for their users, and are not solely an abstract means of representing sounds. The authors designed several sociolinguistic surveys to determine attitudes and preferences towards various ways of representing the palatoalveolar consonants particular to CG (and missing from MSG). They found that orthographic preferences were influenced by the similarity of CG spellings to the orthography of SMG, although this was more true of older speakers than of younger speakers; the transparency (the degree to which the grapheme(s) accurately represent CG sounds); and ease of use. They also uncovered a mismatch between CG user’s “beliefs or attitudes and their actual choices of orthographic conventions” (p. 79). Chapter 7, “Orthography as a Marker of Group Identity in Dialects”, by John M. Clifton draws on several fascinating, first-hand experiences in Papua New Guinea and Bangladesh. Clifton demonstrates the influence of identity and affiliation on the development of writing systems. The grassroots decision-making processes described in this chapter resulted in quite different solutions to the problem of over- and under-representation of phonemic contrasts in related dialects. Decisions were also greatly influenced by community members’ desire to either show or disavow similarities between mutually-intelligible dialects. Chapter 8, “The Development of a Writing System for Multiple Dialects of Caribbean English Creole”, by Ken Decker provides some historical context for the development of writing systems in general

Introduction

7

(discussing the development of written French). The author points out that writing systems for major European languages evolved organically over centuries. In contrast, with some notable exceptions (see CG in chapters 3 and 6), development of orthographies over the past century has been engineered, sometimes through negotiation; examples are provided. The author then turns to a discussion of English Caribbean Creole varieties. With some exceptions (e.g., Jamaica), English Creole varieties are perceived as low-status and are not used in official domains such as education, factors which inhibit the development of Creole writing systems. Decker advocates a pan-English Caribbean Creole writing system, but points out the many barriers to creating one (or more than one). The chapter includes an interesting discussion about speakers’ desires to preserve distinct allophonic pronunciations and even ad-hoc spellings, in order to emphasize the distinctness of their Creole. Chapter 9, “Negotiating the Roles of Orality and Literacy in Iroquoian Languages”, by Carrie Dyck, Mary Joy Elijah, and Amos Key, Jr. discusses the history and legacy of literacy among the Cayuga- and Oneida- (Iroquoian-)speaking peoples in Ontario, Canada. The discussion is framed within an Indigenist Research Paradigm, or holistic paradigm. The authors discuss both community-developed (including communitymodified) writing systems and orthographies developed by linguists. The manner in which the writing systems were developed is described as a hindrance to language (re-)vitalization. The authors discuss the tensions caused by developing a written dimension for historically oral cultures. For example, they discuss the problem of sacred oral texts, which, once written down, can theoretically be accessed by anyone, including people for whom the texts are not intended. They advocate developing a more coherent, holistic, and community-oriented approach to creating a written language that supports language vitalization efforts. Chapter 10, “Standardization in Language Revitalization”, by André Bourcier, in contrast to other chapters in this volume, questions whether language standardization is necessary and argues that it may be detrimental to language revitalization efforts. Bourcier argues that at least in a language endangerment context, orthographies should support the acquisition of, and preserve, dialect variation, instead of promoting a standard. He argues that standardization is an instance of language planning or engineering and discusses the political and economic underpinnings of language planning. Bourcier provides an example from the Inuinnaqtun dialect of Inuktitut, showing that the official orthography, which more accurately represents Inuinnaqtun pronunciations, fails to

8

Chapter One

acknowledge the community’s attachment to their traditional orthography (developed by the Anglicans). The result is a somewhat unsatisfactory hybrid system that “created major problems in language acquisition planning” (p. 135). The main problem is that, for Canadian Aboriginal languages in general, the first dialect to be recorded is treated as the “standard”, leading to a situation where language teachers who speak a different dialect perceive their own speech to be substandard; this in turn creates confusion for students, particularly in an endangerment context. Bourcier advocates a culturally-appropriate kind of literacy, which is based on knowing the author of the variety and utterance/speech being studied, instead of teaching an anonymous standard. Language speakers are encouraged to learn “…the dialect of their kin Elder, or to “adopt” an Elder as a speaker model” (p. 141). Bourcier presents this model as an intermediate stage in language planning, one which avoids confusion while promoting language revitalization. Chapter 11, “Individuality versus unity in Mixean: Challenges in Orthography Design”, by Carmen Jany discusses a language group (Mixean) which is robust, rich, diverse, and not endangered, a very different situation from those addressed in chapters 9 and 10. The main challenge for orthographic standardization in this case is the hundreds of Mixean dialects, many of which are mutually unintelligible and whose genetic affiliation is not well understood. Like other authors in this volume, Jany claims that orthography design is not based solely on linguistic principles but also on “pedagogical, sociopolitical, and practical” principles (p. 145), including the degree of similarity to Spanish orthography. Depending on how Mixean communities balanced these principles, quite different solutions to orthography design have been implemented, leading to a situation where it is difficult to develop a unified writing system that facilitates standardized reading and writing practices. Jany’s chapter is a detailed case study, illustrating these points by describing the phonemic inventory of Mixean varieties, their genetic affiliation, and the orthographies that have been developed for these communities. We hope that this volume provides more food for thought for those considering orthography development and dialects. If anything is clear from these case studies, it is that there is no simple solution to the problems that arise, and that first and foremost, the practices, ideas and opinions of the users should be sought out to develop a truly practical and useful orthography that will be used by the speakers.

CHAPTER TWO MULTIDIALECTAL ORTHOGRAPHIES: AN APPROACH TO SYSTEMATICALLY SPELLING DIFFERING DIALECTS PETER UNSETH GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND SIL, INTERNATIONAL

1. Introduction This chapter reviews different approaches to spelling dialects and related languages. It advocates and illustrates an approach that is informed by both phonology and sociolinguistics: a systematic multidialectal approach that advocates spelling in ways that allow all dialects to read and pronounce literature by systematically applying the rules of their own dialect’s phonology. This is written with small but vital language communities in mind, not for revitalization efforts such as described by Bourcier (this volume). This is written for contexts where communities want to write their languages in a uniform way and actively produce literature in their languages, in contrast to the approach described by Dyck, Elijah, and Key (this volume). Also, I am writing this for situations where different dialects actually want to write in a uniform way, unlike the situation in Bangladesh described by Clifton (this volume). A variety of approaches has been tried to spell languages that have significant dialect variation. These can be broadly classified into four categories.1 The “Unilectal” approach represents a single, standard dialect and all readers spell it the same way. The “Union” approach is the result of writing different language features according to different dialects, so that all dialects are included in some way, though not systematically. The 1

My work builds on and expands Simons (1994).

10

Chapter Two

“Incomplete” approach lists symbols, without working out the details by which they will be used in spelling dialects. The “Multidialectal” approach works to systematically spell in a way that is psycholinguistically accessible to multiple dialects. This chapter advocates building on shared linguistic features in orthography development (Simons 1994 and Schroeder 2010), but opposes the idea of creating unified orthographies that are so driven by sociolinguistic motivations that they ignore significant linguistic differences, an approach which sometimes requires readers to learn another language rather than learning to read their own. Examples will be drawn from a variety of languages, including the author’s field work in Ethiopia. I admit that the examples, the sources cited, and some of the topics addressed will reflect the fact that much of the writing on this topic has dealt with African languages. I trust that the principles I present are clear and equally applicable to readers and language communities around the world. By way of definition, an orthography is much more than just a set of symbols. It encompasses the rules to map sounds to the symbols, spelling rules for loan words, rules for morphophonemic changes, often spelling some irregular forms, etc. When language names are cited, they are usually followed by the ISO 639-3 three letter identifying code in square brackets (as best as I can identify it), e.g., Tonga [toi]. I have inserted these into quoted lists of languages, also.

1.1 What this paper does NOT address This paper specifically does not address two types of situations. First, it does not address the question of methods to use for related, but nonintelligible varieties using the same basic orthography, as envisioned by Prah: We have found that practically all the South Central Bantu languages can use the same orthography. These include languages in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia. They include languages which are as varied as ciTumbuka/ciSenga [tum], ciYao [yao], eLomwe [lon and ngl]... These languages are not all mutually intelligible to any significant degree. They are separate languages, but structurally so similar that they can utilise the same basic orthography. (Prah 2009, 19)

Multidialectal Orthographies

11

As evidence that such unified orthographies can be done, Prah cites A Unified Standard Orthography for South-Central African Languages (Banda et al. 2001), but this book is an incomplete description of an orthography. If people cannot understand what each other say or write, what is the benefit from adopting a common orthography? If I understand the position correctly, it would be similar to advocating that all Romance languages (e.g., French, Italian, Romanian) use the same orthography. The users of such an orthography would not understand what was written in the other languages, they could only share a mystical orthographic unity. However, I admit that my opinion on this is at odds with Kwesi Kwaa Prah (1998, 2002a, 2002b, 2009), Phillip Oketcho (2010), and a number of other writers from Africa, many published by the Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society, CASAS. They have made several calls for having a standard set of symbols used across related languages, different writers calling for varied degrees of scope, across various degrees of language relationship. It is not always clear which of these writers are merely calling for similar orthographies among related languages and which writers optimistically assume that a harmonized orthography will enable readers of different languages to read the same materials with comprehension. Those who assume greater widespread intelligibility across speech varieties may mentally minimize the difference between these two categories. It is worth noting that among Bantu languages, there seems to be more shared phonological similarity than among some other language families, leading to the possibility of greater orthographic similarity than among some other language families (Schroeder 2010). It is not coincidental that many of the CASAS authors have written about Bantu languages. The second topic that I am not addressing is the harmonising of existing orthographies for single languages that overlap national borders. Nguna and Sitoe (2003, 44) lay out plans for harmonizing the spelling of Tonga [toi] across the border of Mozambique and South Africa. Similarly, Borana Oromo [gax] is spelled quite differently in Ethiopia and Kenya. Cross-border coordination on orthography is a worthwhile goal, but is not the topic of this paper. However, I will briefly point out a complexity some have overlooked, a point that some will see as major but others will see as minor: if the official language on different sides of a border is different, there will likely be pressure (from inside and outside the language community) to spell local languages in ways that are harmonized with the official language.

12

Chapter Two

For example, Chumbow called for harmonising the spelling of languages that straddle the Nigeria-Cameroon border (Prah and King 1998, 58). On the Cameroon side French-based spellings are generally used, but on the Nigerian side English-based spellings are used. Should the vernacular languages be spelled according to French spelling conventions or English spelling? If a unified orthography is used in such areas, it would inevitably reduce the transfer of orthographic and reading skills between the vernacular and (at least one) of the official languages. Similar challenges arise on the border of Mozambique (Portuguese official) and Zambia (English official), and also the border of Equatorial Guinea (Spanish official) and Gabon (French official), and also for the Sámi languages spanning the borders of Norway and Finland. In some places, cross-border spellings are even more complicated by the fact that different scripts are used on each side of the border, such as Belarus and Poland (Maksymiuk, this volume), India and Pakistan, Serbia and Croatia.

2. Two general positions When considering the creation of an orthography to span dialects, there are two general positions. Some orthographers are more strongly influenced by ethnic identity. Others are more strongly influenced by linguistics. When the ethnic identity is consciously shared, there is more pressure to create an orthography that unifies dialects, despite linguistic differences, such as work among the Oromo [orm] groups of Ethiopia. When the ethnic identity is divided, there is pressure to create different orthographies, despite linguistic similarities, such as among the Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, and Bosnians. Unfortunately, some start with the overwhelming conviction of ethnic unity, believing that a multidialectal orthography can be designed for a certain group of speech varieties before the requisite linguistic research is conducted. However, when these “comprehensive descriptions” are eventually done, might the studies show that the language varieties differ so much that they cannot use a single comprehensive orthography after all? When a comprehensive description of each of the various varieties has been done, we can approach the issue of standardising the varieties. This can be done through the development of a comprehensive orthography for these varieties. (Eno-Abasi 2002, 25)

Multidialectal Orthographies

13

Beginning from a similar position, in 1837 Ján Kollár called for “a uniform, philosophic orthography [...] which all Slavs can use” (Maxwell 2003, 135). Then he outlined a three-level plan for education as Slavs learned not only to read their own “dialects”, but to read other Slavic dialects. But his plan was too ambitious, ordinary people could not learn to read these multiple levels of Slavic, but only scholars: “The “nation” remains in this way a living-room plant; only philologists can be real Slavs” (Theodore Locher quoted by Maxwell 2003, 136). Based in Cape Town, and led by Kwesi Kwaa Prah, CASAS has worked hard to promote the idea of unified and harmonized spellings across dialect and national borders (Prah 1998, 2002a, 2002b, 2009). Much of their work is on harmonising different orthographies for identical languages across the borders of countries, in situations fraught with politics more than phonology. But some of their work aims to create orthographies that will span not just dialects, but even languages. They have produced over a dozen proposed harmonized broad orthographies. These are great goals, but they have not yet demonstrated that they can implement these proposed orthographies. Another example of overly optimistic hopes for a broad harmonized orthography comes from Botswana: With various dialectal variants that are so distinct phonetically, the greatest challenge among the speakers has been how to harmonize and create a common orthography that will promote a linguistic convergence for all dialectal tendencies falling within Shekgalagarhi. Without a proper framework to undertake this important codification exercise, speakers are often at loss as to how best to resolve basic writing problems, and without a defined role for linguists, speakers do not understand that outsiders could help them better plan for the development of their language. (Monaka 2005, 2)

It appears that the role envisioned by this writer for linguists is to engineer orthographic unity, not to evaluate whether it is advisable or even possible. Below, I discuss four approaches to unified orthographies, comparing their weaknesses and calling for systematic multi-dialectal approaches.

2.1. Unilectal approach In this approach, one dialect is chosen as the standard for use by all dialects. The written form of the language follows the norms of that

14

Chapter Two

standard dialect, and speakers of other dialects must learn the pronunciation of this standard dialect. This has been acceptable to people when there is common agreement that a particular dialect is preferred, for a variety of criteria, such as “It is the old, pure way of speaking”, “It is the most geographically central dialect”, “It is the dialect spoken in the area where important facilities are located, such as government offices, schools, markets, church headquarters, etc.”. In some cases, this has required language learning so that students can read what is said to be the students’ “own language”. The unilectal approach has been implemented in a number of places, including major languages, e.g., French, Chinese, Indonesian, where the dialect that is standardized is often that of the capital city. The unilectal approach provides the “simplest” solution to lexical variation across dialects; it simply requires speakers of other varieties to learn the vocabulary and relevant phonology of the selected dialect.

2.2 Union Approach In the union approach, the orthography does not reflect any single dialect. “standardization may be [...] by attempting to create a composite of all the main dialects” (W. H. Whitely quoted by Ansre 1971, 681; emphasis added by Ansre). The problem with this sort of union orthography is that it represents nobody’s speech. Everybody has to adjust to another dialect, at least in some parts of the orthography. The results have usually been orthographic orphans, unclaimed by any of the dialects. Also, a union approach makes it difficult for the writers to remember how to write words consistently. In some places, it has been taken to extremes and union languages have been created, e.g., Union Kalenjin in Kenya. The motivation was based on sociolinguistic desires for unity rather than on linguistic similarity. It is an admirable idea, but it generally does not work (Angogo 1982, Karan and Corbett, this volume). The promoters of the written language have created a synthesis from existing dialects; they by so doing have created a new form of language [...]. This method of standardization has not gained much success. Language speakers did not feel comfortable in the promoted standard language which seemed to them to be a foreign language with no affective and cultural attachment or background as a native language often does. It was as if they were called to learn a new language, under the pretext of

Multidialectal Orthographies

15

neutrality and unity of the concerned linguistic group. (Sadembouo 1989, 13)

One famous example of a union approach is Union Ibo of Nigeria from the 1800’s. Missionaries in Nigeria worked to publish in a form of Igbo [ibo] that could be understood by all speakers of Igbo, an engineered form of the language known as Union Ibo. As people discussed and negotiated, there were strong advocates for certain dialects to be used or preserved. “The delegates from Bonny [...] claimed that their Igbo was the real Isuama, the “Parent Ibo language”, and if there were to be one translation for all Igbo-speaking people it had to be theirs” (van den Bersselaar 1997, 283). The chief proponent of the project “stressed that the endeavour was not to produce a translation in the dialect of one district, but one which would be understood in any district” (van den Bersselaar 1997, 283). They “tried to mingle the Bonny and Onitsha [Scripture] translations in such a way as to make it comprehensible to people from either place [...] Union Ibo was not a written form of Owerri Igbo but a newly created dialect” (van den Bersselaar 1997, 283- 284). The Union vs. [version] is not the language of any one district, and as the majority of the readers of Ibo are in this [Onitsha] district they do not see why their own language should be displaced and superseded by that which is a compound of nearly all the Ibo dialects. (Letter from S. R. Smith 1910, quoted by van den Bersselaar 1997, 284.)

Despite the goal of a unified Igbo, others eventually produced an Onitsha Igbo version (van den Bersselaar 1997, 285) for the Onitsha area.

2.3 Incomplete approach In some cases, enthusiastic orthography promoters have published lists of symbols and announced an orthography, but have not actually worked out how these symbols will be used by the various language varieties involved. For example, in Guatemala, the Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala, produced a set of symbols to be used in writing all Mayan languages. It was recognized by the government in “1987 as the official version of the alphabet for Mayan languages. It was made up of 51 graphemes” (French 2004, 253-254). An earlier 1976 attempt at a Pan-Mayan orthography had contained “61 graphemes” (French 2003, 493 fn. 17). But announcing a unified orthography and implementing it are not

16

Chapter Two

the same. “The Academy has done almost no work on standardization beyond the establishment of the alphabet” (Grenoble and Whaley 1998, 112).

2.4 Systematic multi-dialectal approach There have been two emphases when developing orthographies for multi-dialectal situations. Most attempts are either ethnically sensitive or linguistically sensitive. On the one end of the continuum we find linguistically sensitive work (e.g., Fine 2003 and Simons 1994), where the sound differences between speech varieties have been systematically compared and then mapped to standardized sets of symbols. These authors recognized different phonemes in the present speech varieties and specifically set out to represent them in a way that as many speakers as possible would be able to read them, each using their own symbol-tosound mappings. At the other end of the continuum, we find people doing ethnically sensitive work, attempts to include large number of speakers, ethnic unity overriding linguistics. Orthographies at both ends of the continuum, and all points in between, are generally done by people of good will. However, the successful implementation of an orthography can be greatly enhanced by doing good linguistics, as argued below.

3. Multi-dialectal approach As mentioned in §2.4, it is also possible to develop an orthography that represents the sounds of different dialects in a systematic way, basically by spelling at different levels for different dialects. That is, the spelling system may be more morphophonemic for one dialect, but more surface level phonemic for another. There may also be some points of overdifferentiation and/or under-differentiation in various dialects that result. But the result is (ideally) an orthography that can represent all dialects’ speech patterns in a consistent, systematic way. This is a systematic multidialectal orthography.2 Developing such a multidialectal orthography is useful when two or more speech forms are different primarily on the phonological level, but are still adequately similar in lexicon and syntax so that one set of written 2 Some orthographies that are labeled as “union” have actually incorporated some such systematic multidialectal features.

Multidialectal Orthographies

17

materials is seen to be adequate. A multidialectal orthography cannot eliminate the problems of different affixes, roots, or other elements of the dialect’s grammar. The simplest examples of this are to spell historical forms (historical at a somewhat shallow level, not ancient levels). Very different dialects may have the same or a very similar system of underlying representations. If this is true, then the same system of representations for underlying forms will be found over long stretches of space and time. (Kreidler 2001, 325)

This seems to be similar to the “neo-language” approach of Capo (1989).3 Some have misunderstood this, fearing that spelling proto-forms could lead to languages losing identity (Miti 2003, 60), but this objection seems to misunderstand the difference between spelling a common, phonologically accessible underlying form as opposed to learning of proto-forms. This highlights the tension between ethnic distinctions and unity. Koffi (2006, 8) gives an instructive example of spelling a more historical form to cover present day dialect differences from Anyi varieties [any, mbt, etc.] in Côte d’Ivoire. There is a rule that reduces or deletes vowels in initial syllables before approximants. Therefore, in some dialects, “woman” is pronounced in phonetically different forms, such as [blă] and [bԥ‫ݐ‬a], the last form also undergoing a change of [l] to [‫]ݐ‬. Koffi claims that if the word is spelled , then all dialects will be able to read it and pronounce it according to their own phonology. The following data, based on Majang [mpe] (Ethiopia) show how two dialects vary in their pronunciation of the plural prefix in the imperative mood:

3 A specific difference is that Capo proposes that his neolanguage become a spoken form of the language (1989, 56).

Chapter Two

18

gloss “run” “swim” “return” “try” “come” “believe” “drink” “eat” “deceive”

root reerleymurpaarkusnadut‫ܪ‬am݄un-

northern dialect Irreere Illeye Immure Impaare Iƾkuse Innade in‫ݦ‬ute in‫ܪ‬ame i݄݄une

southern dialect inreere inleye inmure inpaare iƾkuse innade in‫ݦ‬ute in‫ܪ‬ame in݄une

Table 2-1. Majang 2nd person imperative prefixes from two dialects

The solution to this orthographic problem is to spell at the morphophonemic level, keeping the visual shape of the prefix consistent. This allows everybody to read one set of materials, but pronounce it in their own way. For example, if the plural imperative of “run” is spelled , northern dialect speakers could read it, but southern dialect speakers would have difficulty. But if it is spelled , then speakers from both can read and understand it. Sometimes, a multidialectal orthography uses forms that are close to the shape of morphemes historically, though they may be pronounced differently in the various dialects today. This concept is misunderstood by some. If we were to harmonise the speech forms of these varieties, we would apply the strategies used in comparative reconstruction, namely majority rules strategy and phonetic plausibility. (Miti 2003, 60)

In some cases, a historical phoneme may be pronounced quite differently in related varieties. Emenanjo (1990, 5) gives a good example from Niger-Congo Gbe (varieties spoken in Togo, Ghana, Benin, Nigeria), where /݊/ in some dialects corresponds to /p/ in others, and /Ȥw/ in others. By spelling in the “neo-Gbe orthography”, it will be pronounced as [à݊á], [àpá], [àȤw á] according to the dialect. Among the Picard dialects of France, the spelling is pronounced differently according to the local dialect: [kw], [kj], [k] (Auger 2011). The one spelling allows each dialect to pronounce it their own way, but still read the same written materials.

Multidialectal Orthographies

19

3.1 Lost contrasts in some dialects Sometimes a phonemic contrast is lost in some dialects, but preserved in others. Or there may have been a phonemic split, resulting in new contrasts in some dialects. In such cases, if the orthography continues to mark the higher number of contrasts, readers of both kinds of dialects can learn to read and pronounce it in their own way. Readers from the dialects that have lost the contrast will pronounce two spellings the same way, such as with English “which” and “witch”, but they will have to learn to spell them differently. A basic principle (with many exceptions) for orthography preparation is to represent only phonemes, not allophones. This is worth repeating in a discussion of spelling dialects. In his discussion of multidialectal orthography, Capo (1989, 36) gave some good examples of this for Gbe: In some dialects [...] /s/ and /z/ are palatalized to [‫ ]ݕ‬and [‫ ]ݤ‬before front close vowels, whereas in other dialects they are not; in addition in Ajá dialects only, they are also optionally palatalized before back close vowels. It is recommended that in the dialects concerned, [s] and [ ‫ ] ݕ‬on the one hand, and [z] and [‫ ]ݤ‬on the other, be represented with same graphemes, viz “s” and “z” respectively... For example, Ajá and Awlan [ ‫ ݕ‬i ] would be written “respect” and [‫ݤ‬ƭ] would be “push”.

Some dialects of Kaingang [kgp] of Brazil have merged /a/ and /e/. The same literature is being used in all dialect areas, with the /a/ and /e/ distinction preserved in the orthography. In those dialects that have merged these two vowels, they simply “pronounce them alike” (Wiesemann 1989, 7). In Bouyei [pcc] of China, some varieties have preserved the contrast between /m/ and /ƾ/, but in the Shuicheng variety the contrast has been lost, leaving only /ƾ/ (Fine 2003, 60). For this situation, Fine recommends spelling the two distinct phonemes, and , and letting varieties like Shuicheng pronounce them both as [ƾ] while other phonologically conservative varieties will pronounce them as /m/ and /ƾ/. Similarly, some varieties have distinct vowel phonemes /a/ and /‫ܣ‬/, but some varieties have lost the distinction. A proposal to spell them based on pronunciation that had lost the phonemic distinction used only the symbol , but the current orthography uses for /‫ܣ‬/ and for /a/, allowing other dialects to have the clue to pronounce words according to their phonology.

20

Chapter Two

3.2 Unpronounced segments In some speech varieties, some segments are not pronounced in casual speech. For example, in Puerto Rican Spanish of Ponce, syllable-final obstruents are deleted, e.g., [komo eta] for ¿cómo estás? “how are you?”. Also, word-final nasals are pronounced as [ƾ]. As a result, Spanish bien “well” comes out as [bieƾ]. However, when reading and writing, the consonants are all still spelled in the standard way, so that readers from any dialect can understand Puerto Ricans’ writing, and Puerto Ricans can read other dialects. Similarly, in Andalusian Spanish, final /s/ is deleted, but there is a phonological change to preceding vowels to indicate its loss. Thus, instead of the contrast comes/come “you (familiar/polite) eat” or libros/libro “books/book”, one has the contrast comĊ/come or librІ/libro (where /Ċ ۠/ indicate more open vowels). (Hochberg 1986, 610)

The Andalusians pronounce words in their own way, but spell them according to a universally accepted Spanish orthography so that there is no confusion in reading.

3.3 Different morphophonemic rules Between some speech varieties, there are different morphophonemic rules. By spelling the underlying form, all can read it with full understanding and each can pronounce it their own way. In some Pennsylvania dialects of English, word final /l/ is pronounced as [w]. I was once baffled when my Pennsylvania friend told me to turn at [khanaw] Street. When she finally showed me the written form , then I understood perfectly. My former pastor’s accent led him to pronounce word final of [ș] as [f]. He writes by the rules of standard English spelling, but pronounces my last name Unseth with a final [f]. In both of these cases, standard English spelling allows us all to spell with the same orthography and still pronounce such words in our own ways. In Awad Bing [bcu] of Papua New Guinea, “forehead” is damo-. Between the Eastern and Western dialects, in the third person possessive the root final vowel alternates before [j]: [damo-j] (Eastern) and [dama-j] (Western) “his/her forehead” (Simons 1994:23). If the orthography follows the Western form of this could cause some confusion to

Multidialectal Orthographies

21

Eastern readers. The underlying vowel at the morphophonemic level is /o/ and it can be spelled that way. Speakers of the Western dialect will pronounce it their own way since /o/ will be automatically altered to [a] by the /j/ suffix.

4. Conclusion/summary I have shown reasons for preferring a systematic multidialectal orthography over other approaches to orthographies for multiple dialects. Spelling in ways that allow all dialects to use the same orthography but still follow systematic rules to pronounce words in their own way is preferable to non-systematic ways or orthographies that actually require language learning. I do not pretend that these orthographic principles, mostly phonological, will solve all the types of problems encountered in orthographic development. But they are another tool in the tool kit, another set of categories available to those developing orthographies. I also remind readers that orthographies for multi-dialect situations will also require special alertness in preparing pedagogical materials and teacher training. Also, my chapter assumes that communities want to share a common orthography, which is not always true (Jany, this volume).

Acknowledgements Simons’ work (1994) has been my starting point. Students at the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics have helped me refine my ideas over the years. I have benefited greatly from the work of Ms. Emma Chmura who worked extensively with Simons’ original article for a course project. Ms. Ferne Weimer, director of the GIAL library, graciously fulfilled my request for the acquisition of publications from CASAS. My wife Carole has helped me with both knowledgeable discussion of the phonological issues and more emotional support than this sentence can describe.

CHAPTER THREE ADDRESSING WRITING SYSTEM ISSUES IN DIALECTAL LEXICOGRAPHY: THE CASE OF CYPRIOT GREEK SPYROS ARMOSTIS, KYRIAKI CHRISTODOULOU, MARIANNA KATSOYANNOU, AND CHARALAMBOS THEMISTOCLEOUS UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS

1. Introduction Cypriot Greek is a variety of Modern Greek spoken by almost a million people in the Republic of Cyprus. Even though Greek Cypriots predominantly speak Cypriot Greek in their everyday interaction, their variety has never been standardized; instead, the standard variety of the state of Greece, namely Standard Modern Greek, is used as one of the two official languages of Cyprus (the other being Standard Turkish). The standardization of Cypriot Greek, in the sense of promoting it as an official language, has never been a desideratum for the vast majority of Greek Cypriots, due to the complex sociolinguistic and political situation in Cyprus. Thus, overt language policies have never been officially declared by the state (Papapavlou 2010, 127), nor has the standardization of the dialect, even in the narrow sense of writing system codification, been promoted. Nevertheless, there is a need for codifying the writing system (i.e., script and orthography) of Cypriot Greek; in fact, this need is evident both from the increasing academic interest on the subject by scholars in various fields (e.g., sociolinguistics, lexicography, typographic design, education), and also from a range of situations wherein writers choose to or must write in Cypriot Greek, and hence are inevitably faced with the quandary of how to write in this non-codified variety. Dialectal dictionaries play an

24

Chapter Three

important role in tackling this problem, as writers may resort to dictionaries for help on how to represent Cypriot Greek. This paper aims to explore the interrelation of dialectal dictionaries and the codification of the dialect’s writing system: it will be argued that dialectal lexicography, in the case of Cypriot Greek, can facilitate the codification of its writing system, but—at the same time—also benefit from it. In the following sections the linguistic situation in Cyprus will be presented (§2), followed by a brief description of the dialect’s written tradition and contemporary usage in writing (§3). On the basis of the above, the need for standardization of the dialect’s writing system will be discussed, especially in relation to dialectal lexicography (§4) and in particular with the case of the Syntychies project (§5). Finally, the possible contribution of lexicography and scholarly work in general to the standardization of the dialect’s writing system will be discussed (§6).

2. Sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus Cypriot Greek differs from Standard Modern Greek with regard to all levels of linguistic analysis (See for example Terkourafi 2007, Arvaniti 2010); this is not surprising, as the turbulent history of the island kept it isolated for long periods of time from mainland Greece. Nowadays, with language contact and the increasing presence of mass media, Cypriot Greek is influenced by Standard Greek, especially in urban areas. At first instance, the relationship between the two varieties in Cyprus could arguably be described in terms of Ferguson’s (1959) diglossia model, which defines diglossia as the situation whereby two linguistic codes, the standard “official” form and a dialect, coexist and are used on a daily basis. According to that model, the two codes are distinguished both in form (i.e., on the basis of linguistic criteria) and in function. Regarding the latter distinction, Ferguson’s model predicts that the high-prestige code is used in public or formal situations, whereas the low-prestige code is used in private or informal situations. Researchers such as Moschonas (2002) have described the relationship of Cypriot Greek and Standard Modern Greek as prototypical diglossia based on native speakers’ language attitudes towards the two varieties: Greek Cypriots perceive Cypriot Greek to be the Low variety, while they perceive Standard Modern Greek to be the High variety. However, the situation in Cyprus is rather different from Ferguson’s original definition of diglossia with regard to the formal and functional distinction between the standard and the dialect: as Karyolemou (1992, 2007) argues, the linguistic situation in Cyprus should not be

Addressing Writing System Issues in Dialectical Lexicography

25

described on the basis of language attitudes only, but also on the basis of language practices. Pavlou (2010) explored the relationship between the two varieties in Cyprus by comparing their predicted usage (according to Ferguson’s model) with their actual oral and written usage in four domains of language usage, namely public administration, the media, education, and everyday communication. Pavlou concluded that the presence of Cypriot Greek is robust (especially in oral speech) at all levels of language usage. Even in domains in which Ferguson’s model would predict no usage of the Low variety, such as public administration and the media, Cypriot Greek appears to be used to various degrees. Hence, actual language practices do not conform to the Fergusonian model, as the two codes are not in strict complementary distribution (i.e., with the usage of the High and Low varieties confined to formal and informal situations respectively). Rather, both varieties are used to varying degrees in a range of communicative contexts depending on various factors that influence stylistic choices, such as the topic of conversation, the familiarity between the speaker and the hearer, and their level of education (Papapavlou 2010). In actuality, both Standard Modern Greek and Cypriot Greek can be used by the same speaker even within the same sentence; however, it is somewhat difficult to describe these stylistic choices by employing the terms “code-switching” and “code-mixing”, as the two codes are linguistically related varieties that appear in a contact situation (c.f., Tsiplakou 2010). This observation is in line with the empirical data of Sivas (2004), who demonstrated that speakers of Cypriot Greek combine features of both varieties irrespective of the formality of the communicative context. Furthermore, Sivas showed that different speakers make different combinations of features of the two linguistic codes, something that resulted in an observed range of intermediary varieties between the two codes. Thus, as many authors maintain (e.g., Tsiplakou et al. 2006, and Katsoyannou et al. 2006), the linguistic situation can be described in terms of a dialect continuum from basilectal to acrolectal forms (or registers): the basilectal pole comprises the regional rural subvarieties of Cypriot Greek, while the acrolectal pole approaches (but does not coincide with) Standard Modern Greek. In that sense, the acrolectal pole can be considered a variety of Standard Modern Greek, namely Cypriot Standard Greek (Arvaniti 2010), which differs from the Standard used in Greece in various ways (e.g., intonation, pronunciation of consonants that do not exist in Standard Greek, lexical items unique to Cypriot Standard Greek or with different meaning or usage, morphosyntactic

26

Chapter Three

differences, etc.). Finally, an important area of the continuum is the mesolect, which is occupied by what other researchers have called “Urban/Koiné Cypriot Greek” (e.g., Terkourafi 2005; Tsiplakou et al. 2006). This variety appears to be emerging as the outcome of the on-going processes of koinéization and levelling of the regional sub-varieties of Cypriot Greek after the demographic changes caused by the 1974 war. It should be noted here that while language practices reveal the existence of the above-mentioned dialect continuum, Karyolemou (1992, 2007) suggested that the notion of a continuum is not incompatible with the diglossia notion, as Greek Cypriots perceive the two varieties in terms of the High vs. Low dichotomy. In other words, Karyolemou argues that the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus should be described both in terms of a continuum (regarding language practices) and of diglossia (regarding language attitudes). Thus, the relationship between the two varieties can be described as gradient in usage and as categorical in perception (hence the term “perceptual diglossia” that Karyolemou employs).

3. Written usage of Cypriot Greek The sociolinguistic situation described above reveals that the oral usage of Cypriot Greek penetrates virtually all domains of language usage. As for its written usage, it is rather restricted compared with the written usage of (Cypriot) Standard Greek; nevertheless, Cypriot Greek is visible in written speech both synchronically and diachronically, as described below.

3.1 Written tradition and contemporary usage Cypriot Greek is one of the first varieties of Modern Greek to have exhibited written records (e.g., Symeonidis 2006, 319–374). Its earlier written document, namely the Assizes (Frankish law code) of the Lusignan Court, dates as far back as the 13th century CE. Subsequent works of the 15th and 16th centuries written in Cypriot Greek include the Chronicles written by Machairas (Dawkins 1932) and Boustronios (Kehayoglou 1997), some love poems (Siapkara-Pitsillidou 1976), and the translation of the Italian work “Fior di Virtù” in Cypriot Greek (Kakoulidi-Panou & Pidonia 1994). In the modern history of Cypriot literature, several poets and writers have produced works in Cypriot Greek, such as Michaelides (c. 1849– 1917), Lipertis (1866–1937), Liasidis (1901–1985), Montis (1914–2004)

Addressing Writing System Issues in Dialectical Lexicography

27

and many more (c.f., Kehayoglou and Papaleontiou 2010). Cypriot Greek also features in realistic and historical fiction novels, a genre that has gained in popularity during the past couple of decades (c.f., Hadjioannou, Tsiplakou, and Kappler 2011, 16). Apart from printed local literature, Cypriot Greek is used in scripts for theatrical plays, television series, and radio folkloric sketches (c.f., Roussou 2006). In mass media, the linguistic code selected for most purposes is the High variety, as expected: apart from television series and radio sketches, the usage of Cypriot Greek in broadcasting media is not the norm. Be that as it may, Cypriot Greek is visible, especially in oral speech, in broadcasting excerpts from live interviews and in off-script comments made by programme hosts (Pavlou 2004). Regarding the written usage of Cypriot Greek, it is encountered on televisionʊfor exampleʊin the popular news satire programme “Patates Antinachtes” (by Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation). During the programme’s mock newscast segment, video excerpts from actual reportages, interviews, newscasts, etc. are accompanied by satirical captions written in Cypriot Greek. Regarding print media, again (Cypriot) Standard Greek is the norm, with Cypriot Greek still being visible, usually in the form of jestful commentary or verbatim reports of spoken language (Pavlou 2004). Certain popular journals and magazines, such as “City Free Press”, exhibit such a considerable usage of written Cypriot Greek that oftentimes they reach “the level of hybrid, code-mixed productions” (Hadjioannou, Tsiplakou, and Kappler 2011, 16). However, the area which is par excellence associated with written Cypriot Greek is electronic communication, namely mobile phone text messaging and the internet. It is well known that Cypriot Greek is thriving in computer-mediated communication, such as instant messaging (online chat), email, social connection networks, and weblogs (Themistocleous 2009, 2010; Sophocleous and Themistocleous forthcoming). Especially in synchronous communication, due to its proximity to oral speech, the code used is unsurprisingly the one predominantly used in actual oral speech, i.e., Cypriot Greek (Themistocleous 2009, 483). This increasing usage of Cypriot Greek in electronic communication is arguably facilitated by the use of the Roman alphabet for representing sounds that do not exist in Standard Greek and hence cannot be adequately represented by the Greek alphabet: in fact, the subjects in Themistocleous’ (2009) study reported that they use the Roman alphabet because the Greek alphabet does not provide letters for some Cypriot Greek sounds. Thus, Cypriot Greek is written in electronic communication in various non-standardized ways by

28

Chapter Three

means of the Roman alphabet, a writing trend that has permeated other areas of writing, such as note-passing in class among female students (Sophocleous 2012). Themistocleous (2009) observes that the use of written Cypriot Greek in synchronous communication is increasingly becoming emblematic of the Cypriot Greek youth identity; thus, positive language attitudes towards the Low variety are reinforced through its written usage in electronic communication. Weblogs present an interesting case of online communication. The blogs’ function is rather different from the function of synchronous communication: blogs can be seen as online diaries or informative articles; thus bloggers assume the role of author rather than of speaker. Such a role in Cyprus is associated through schooling with not just the High variety but also with its rendering with the Greek alphabet; thus, bloggers usually write in Standard Greek rendered in the Greek alphabet. Nonetheless, more and more bloggers appear to consciously choose to post entire blog entries written in Cypriot Greek, while others choose to write all their posts in Cypriot Greek (e.g., Andreou 2011 and Aceras Anthropophorum 2009), arguably due to the association of Cypriot Greek with online communication and the positive attitudes towards this usage. Consequently, blogs differ from other online usages of Cypriot Greek in that they retain the usage of the Greek alphabet for writing Cypriot Greek also. So far, we have reviewed the written usage of Cypriot Greek in informal and semi-formal situations. However, Cypriot Greek is not only confined to those situations, as it is regularly written in two of the most formal situations: courtroom transcripts (Georgiou 2012) and the proceedings of the Cypriot House of Representatives (Papageorgiou 2009). In both cases, it is crucial to transcribe as accurately as possible not only what was said but also the way it was worded. The speech of the participants in either setting is mainly acrolectal, but it often slides towards mesolectal or even basilectal regions of the dialectal continuum; thus Cypriot Greek finds its way into the official records of these two branches of government. In publishing the proceedings of the House of Representatives some editing does take place (e.g., correcting grammatical errors), but the policy is “to retain the Cypriot variety where it is used, because eliminating it would alter the Representative’s linguistic style” (Papageorgiou 2009, 27).

Addressing Writing System Issues in Dialectical Lexicography

29

3.2 Orthographic representation of Cypriot Greek In the medieval literature mentioned above, Cypriot Greek was written with the use of the Greek alphabet, without any modifications (such as diacritics or non-Greek characters). Post-alveolar consonants (for which the Greek alphabet does not provide distinct graphemes) can be traced in Machairas’ chronicle (see §3.1 above) in the form of peculiar spellings, such as instead of for the word [‫ޖ‬i‫“ ]ܣݕ‬straight” (Symeonidis 2006, 337). A systematic representation of Cypriot Greek was introduced by Menardos (1884) in his phonetic study of the Cypriot variety. This author represented post-alveolar consonants again without resorting to foreign characters or diacritics; instead, he used mainly boldface characters or capitalization, e.g., or = [e࡜ kli‫“ ]ܣݕޖ‬church”. Later authors and editors either adopted Menardos’ system (in particular, the use of boldface characters), or modified it in various ways (See Coutsougera and Georgiou (forthcoming), and Papadima, Ayiomammitou and Kyriacou (2013) for a thorough account of the various systems.) Some of those systems introduced diacritics over, below, or next to certain graphemes for the accurate rendition of Cypriot Greek: e.g., , , , etc. = [‫ޝݕ‬i‫“ ]ܣޝ݄ޖ‬ropes” (See Papadima and Kafaridou 2008 for examples of the various systems developed.) A writing system that makes use of combining diacritics was proposed by the Greek Communal Chamber in 1962 (Yiangoullis 2009, 9–10) as the appropriate way to render Cypriot Greek. The Chamber was at the time the constitutional body responsible for the education of Greek Cypriots.1 Despite the authority of the Chamber’s decision, different authors, scholars, editors, and lexicographers followed various orthographic conventions that ranged from slight variations of the proposed system to more substantial differentiations. The most recent proposal for an orthographic system of Cypriot Greek was the one by Coutsougera and Georgiou (forthcoming), which is based on linguistic criteria.

1

The Greek Communal Chamber was superseded by the Ministry of Education in 1965.

30

Chapter Three

4. The need for codification Taking into account the diachronic and contemporary usage of Cypriot Greek in written speech and also the interest shown by scholars in representing it, it would appear odd that its writing system shows such variation and lack of standardization. However, if the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus presented above is taken into consideration, this situation can be accounted for. Even though the existence of the dialect continuum attests to the usage of Cypriot Greek in virtually all domains of oral and written speech, the perceptual diglossia recognized above entails that despite their actual usage, Standard Modern Greek and Cypriot Greek are perceived as the High and Low code respectively. In this setting, it is not surprising that Cypriot Greek has never been standardized, as the role of the standard is occupied by the High variety, i.e., Standard Greek.2 More importantly though, language in Cyprus is strongly associated with ethnicity, community, and national identity formation and insecurities, which prohibit any perceived elevated use of the Low variety. This results in a polarization that promotes the High variety over the stigmatized Low variety and minority languages.3 Therefore, if the sociolinguistic and political situation in Cyprus is taken into account, it can be understood that standardization in the sense of promoting Cypriot Greek as an official language has never been a desideratum of the vast majority of Greek Cypriots.4 Be that as it may, it is not the case that standardization (i.e., codification) of the dialect’s writing system is either unnecessary or unwanted, as evident at least in the work of the scholars mentioned above. 2

Negative language attitudes towards Cypriot Greek lead its speakers to perceive it as inherently unable to be associated with the communicative contexts in which the standard is found, despite of the actual usage of Cypriot Greek even in those formal contexts. 3 See Hadjioannou, Tsiplakou, and Kappler (2011) and references therein for a detailed exposition of the relation between the sociolinguistic situation and language policies in Cyprus. 4 There is a currently a facebook group called “Cypriot Greek [to be] the official language of Cyprus” (https://www.facebook.com/groups/kypriakidialextos/); however, it can be considered marginal, since its approach to the subject is more romantic than activistic. In contrast to people pursuing the promotion of the dialect as an official language of Cyprus, scholars’ interest in the codification of the dialect’s writing system stems from “rational or esthetic reasons” (Bourcier this volume:128).

Addressing Writing System Issues in Dialectical Lexicography

31

In addition to scholars, the importance of the codification of the dialect’s writing system is becoming widely acknowledged by the public: in a survey conducted by Papadima and Kafaridou (2008, 55), 68% of the participants stated that the designing of special characters for the accurate transcription of Cypriot Greek is important. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the increasing usage of the dialect rendered with the Greek alphabet in the blogosphere has led bloggers to fervent discussions on what orthographic conventions to follow, often resulting in impressive levels of linguistic and sociolinguistic analysis of the dialect. For example, the commentators on Stratis’ (2007) post on writing in Cypriot Greek made it clear that what they pursue is writing system codification and not the standardization of the dialect in the sense of promoting it as an official language. The need for a standardized code is also evident in the case of the afore-mentioned formal contexts wherein Cypriot Greek has to be transcribed in official records. Papageorgiou (2009, 28) detected this need, and reported that the editors of the proceedings of the House of Representatives have compiled an in-service memo, which includes a list of common Cypriot words with their proposed spelling in the Greek alphabet. Finally, the educational reform currently taking place in Cyprus has created a new dynamic, as it makes Cypriot Greek more visible in education. As Hadjioannou, Tsiplakou, and Kappler (2011, 30) mention, the new curriculum ...focuses on deploying the naturalistic acquisition of [Cypriot Greek] as a means of fostering metalinguistic knowledge and sociolinguistic awareness with regard to the two varieties of Greek spoken on the island within the radical genre/critical literacy perspective.

The immediate effect of this elevated utilisation of Cypriot Greek in education is the resulting urgent need from the teachers’ part for language resources in Cypriot Greek and also for a stabilized writing system and codified grammatical rules of the dialect to be taught. This demand can be met with adequate dictionaries and school grammars of Cypriot Greek.

4.1 Existing dictionaries and grammars There are indeed a couple of dictionaries and grammars that use the Cypriot Greek writing system. However, due to methodological shortcomings, they may not be optimal to serve as the basis for the

32

Chapter Three

standardization of the dialect, for they fail to represent contemporary Cypriot Greek, to a lesser or greater degree (c.f., Katsoyannou 2010). Regarding grammars of Cypriot, there exist currently two: Newton (1972) and Chatziioannou (1999). Newton’s (1972) work is written in English, hence it is not readily accessible to all students and teachers. More importantly, it is a not a pedagogical grammar, but rather a descriptive grammar (focused mainly on phonology and morphology) written by a linguist within the generative framework. Inevitably, its linguistic jargon is not suitable for non-linguists, such as primary and secondary school teachers. Furthermore, it was published before the Turkish invasion of 1974 and the fleeing of thousands of Greek Cypriots to the south, something that led to a new geo-linguistic situation on the island. Therefore, it is not informed of new developments, such as the levelling of subdialectal features and the emergence of a Cypriot Urban Koiné that has taken place during the last couple of decades, as mentioned earlier. Finally, many of its examples are not in use any more, or are confined to rural areas. Notwithstanding, Newton’s (1972) grammar is still the reference descriptive grammar of Cypriot Greek. Concerning Chatziioannou’s (1999) grammar, it is written in Standard Greek, but its analysis is more philological than linguistic. For instance, it tends to analyse Cypriot Greek in terms of grammatical notions of Ancient Greek, it excludes syntax, and it reports regional variants without systematic indication of their geo-linguistic distribution. As for dialectal lexicography, there are a number of dialectal dictionaries and glossaries of Cypriot Greek,5 the most notable of which are the following (in chronological order): Chatziioannou (1996), Papangelou (2001), and Yiangoullis (2009). These three dictionaries run into certain methodological issues such as the following: x

x

5

They include words that are not in use today. Some of the lexicographers are philologists, thus they include words that have been obsolete for centuries, in order to facilitate philological work with texts of those periods. However, this practice results in a considerable amount of words in the current dictionaries that for centuries have ceased to be standard Cypriot words. Thus, they diverge from the contemporary lexicon of the dialect. They tend to include only the differences from Standard Modern Greek. Because Cypriot Greek and Standard Modern Greek are See Katsoyannou (2010) for a review.

Addressing Writing System Issues in Dialectical Lexicography

33

varieties of the same language, they show a considerable amount of vocabulary overlap. It is a common practice in dialectal lexicography to represent only how the dialect “diverges” from the Standard; thus, many everyday words are left out of dialectal dictionaries because they are found in the standard. The result of this practice is that these dictionaries function primarily as indexes of differences from the standard, rather than as representative dictionaries of the actual vocabulary of the dialect. For instance, none of the everyday words shown in Table 3-1 are found in any of the three dialectal dictionaries mentioned above, because they exist in both varieties and are allegedly pronounced the same. But in most cases they are not pronounced the same, something that the existing dialectal dictionaries fail to notice (and thus they exclude these words). Even if they are pronounced and mean the same, such as the word for “left”, there is no reason for them to be excluded from the dictionariesʊif these dictionaries aim to be representative of the dialect’s actual lexicon, and not of its differences from the standard.6 Standard Modern Greek

Gloss

Cypriot Greek

Spelling Ƚɏɇɐɒɂɏə

Pronunciation [‫ݐܣ‬iste࡜ ‫]ܣݐޖ‬

Spelling ĮȡȚıIJİȡȐ

Pronunciation [‫ݐܣ‬iste࡜ ‫]ܣݐޖ‬

ȽɈɍɠɘ

[‫ޖܣ‬kuo࡜ ]

Ƚɉɉə

[‫ޖܣ‬l‫]ܣ‬

“I hear”

ĮțȠȪȦ

[‫ޖܣ‬kuo࡜ ]

“but”

ĮȜȜȐ

ȽɓɒɍɈɜɋɄɒɍ

[‫ܣ‬fo࡜ ‫ޖ‬cinito࡜ ]

[‫ޖܣ‬l‫]ܣޝ‬

“car”

ĮȣIJȠțȓȞȘIJȠȞ

[‫ܣ‬fto࡜ ‫ޖ‬cinito࡜ n]

ɔɠɉɉɍ

[‫ޖ‬filo࡜ ]

“ceaf”

ijȪȜȜȠȞ

[‫ޖ‬fil‫ޝ‬o࡜ n]

ɀɂɋɇɈɟɑ

[‫ݯ‬e࡜ ni‫ޖ‬ko࡜ s]

“ceneral”

ȖİȞȞȚțȩȢ

[‫ݯ‬e࡜ n‫ޝ‬i‫ޖ‬ko࡜ s]

ȭȽȾȾȽɒɍɈɠɏɇȽɈɍ

[s‫ܣ‬v‫ܣ‬to࡜ ‫ޖ‬ci‫ܣݯݐ‬ko࡜ ]

“weekend”

ȈĮȕȕĮIJȠțȣȡȓĮțȠȞ

[s‫ܣ‬v‫ܣ‬to࡜ ci‫ݐޖ‬i‫ܣ‬ko࡜ n]

“left (adv.)”

Table 3-1. Common words between Cypriot Greek and Standard Modern Greek that are missing from all three dialectal dictionaries mentioned. x

6

They ignore words that appear to belong to Standard Modern Greek but are actually false friends or non-existent in Standard Modern Greek. Oftentimes, words that sound (virtually) the same in both the

The practice of including lexical items that are identical between the standard and the dialect in a dialectal dictionary is followed, for example, in Rohlfs’ (1964) dictionary of the Greek dialects of Southern Italy.

34

x

Chapter Three

Standard and Cypriot Greek but have different meanings in each of the two varieties (i.e., false friends) are excluded from the dictionaries because the lexicographers in many cases are arguably not aware of the difference in meaning. For instance, the adjective [‫ݯ‬e࡜ ‫ޖ‬lio࡜ s] (not included in any of the three dictionaries) means “funny” in Cypriot Greek and “ridiculous” in Standard Greek. They choose (pronunciation or spelling) variants of Cypriot words that diverge the most from the Standard at the expense of selecting a variant that is actually more commonly used (albeit closer to the Standard).

In the case of a non-standardized dialect, multiple variants of words are expected. One of those variants usually enters in the dictionary as the main lemma, whereas the remaining variants are considered phonologically or morphologically different versions of the main lemma. Lexicographers of Cypriot Greek tend to select the variant that diverges the most from Standard Greek as the main lemma (or as the only lemma). Thus they end up selecting basilectal or even obsolete variants as more emblematic of the dialect (hence “justified” for entering their dictionaries). However, this choice does not reflect actual use: for instance, the basilectal (and rare) [ܵ‫ݐ‬u‫ޖ‬so࡜ s] “golden” exists in all three dictionaries, whereas the usual word for “golden”, [x‫ݐ‬i‫ޖ‬so࡜ s], exists in none, because it does not differ from the word for “golden” of the standard variety. Regarding the written usage of Cypriot Greek by these dictionaries, there appears to be a consistent way in which the dialect is written within each of these works, but there is no uniformity across different works, something that does not facilitate orthography standardization. In the case of the biggest dictionary (in terms of number of entries), Papangelou (2001), there are several spelling variants of the same word, but only one is the main lemma, to which all other variants redirect. In some cases, there can be as many as 13 different spelling variants of the same lemma across a number of different (and not necessarily adjacent) pages of the dictionary. Multiple spelling variants of the same lemma are not helping the standardization of the dialect’s orthography (c.f., Sebba 2007). Any codification of the dialect’s writing system for teaching purposes should be based on representative dictionaries and grammars of contemporary Cypriot Greek and it becomes apparent from the previous discussion that the existing ones are not.

Addressing Writing System Issues in Dialectical Lexicography

35

5. The Syntychies project The accurate representation of the contemporary lexicon of Cypriot Greek was one of the main research goals of the Syntychies project, a research program for the creation of language resources, which was developed at the University of Cyprus between 2006 and 2010. One other research goal of the program was the creation of a concrete proposal for the written representation of the dialect. The applied part of the program included the creation of a dynamic database, whose content can be used for the creation of one or more printed and/or online dictionaries. “Syntychies” (which means “conversations” in Cypriot Greek) was the first phase of the ambitious goal of creating an electronic dictionary, available on the internet. Currently, the output of the program is a free online database7 consisting of a list of lemmas and their basic info, such as grammatical category, IPA transcription, morphological and spelling variants of the lemma; finally, Syntychies provides the audio version of each database entry generated by a built-in text-to-speech synthesiser.

5.1 Representation of the contemporary dialectal lexicon Regarding the vocabulary of Cypriot Greek, the Syntychies project followed a different methodology from previous dictionaries, in order to be more representative of the contemporary lexicon of the dialect. Some of the ways the project’s methodology diverged from the practices followed by other dictionaries were the following: obsolete words were not included in the database; everyday basic vocabulary that overlaps with Standard Greek was included; false friends between the standard and the dialect were identified and included in the database; loan words currently used but missing from other dictionaries were included; multiple morphological variants of a single lemma were dealt with in a more systematic way (c.f., Katsoyannou et al. 2013); and multiple spelling variantsʊsomething that arguably hinders orthography standardizationʊwere avoided as much as possible.

5.2 Considerations for reaching an effective writing system The intended contribution of the Syntychies project to the codification of the dialect’s writing system is the stabilization of its script and 7

Syntychies website is available at http://lexcy.library.ucy.ac.cy/.

36

Chapter Three

orthography. The writing system advanced by the project was based on certain theoretical and practical considerations, chief among which was linguistic soundness: the principles of systematicity and phonetic transparency followed by Coutsougera and Georgiou (forthcoming) were also adopted by Syntychies, although Syntychies allowed for more phonological information in the orthography. For instance, while Coutsougera and Georgiou represent the word for “one-FEM” closer to its phonetic form [m݄‫ ]ܣ‬as , Syntychies represents it closer to its phonological form /mi࡬ ‫ܣ‬/ as . Thus, even though in both cases transferability to and from Standard Greek was the basis of the proposed writing system, Syntychies opted for not as extensive a divergence from the Greek orthography. These principles result in a writing system that greatly approximates or even virtually coincides with certain existing proposals, such as the one advanced by the Greek Communal Chamber and the ones used by the dictionaries of Chatziioannou (1996) and Yiangoullis (2009). One other important parameter that was taken into account was the acceptability and usability of the system by native speakers, a parameter that it is essential to investigate empirically (Cahill and Karan 2008). In the present case, this parameter was investigated by formally testing aspects of the proposed system. Armosti et al. (2012) investigated the writing trends of 155 Greek Cypriot teachers and concluded that the participants not only accepted but were able to learn the conventions employed by Syntychies regarding the amount of orthographic depth and morphophonological-etymological information admitted in the system, and the use of a diacritic and certain digraphs.

5.3 Practical production factors A final parameter that is a challenge for orthography development is the issue of special symbols adapted in an already existing alphabet regarding their support by available fonts. In the case of Cypriot Greek, glyphs consisting of characters of the Greek alphabet bearing diacritics are not part of the Unicode set. Thus, traditionally the print production of works containing these special characters had to resort to non-Unicode practices. Papadima et al. (this volume, 68) discuss in detail the typographical problems of those practices, such as the correct placement of the diacritics, concluding that the solutions selected “…have been insufficient, amateurish, time-consuming and ineffective at the level of homogeneity of the text and typographic aesthetics ”.

Addressing Writing System Issues in Dialectical Lexicography

37

For an online dictionary, non-Unicode practices are not really an option: even if a special typeface were designed, it would be identifiable only on computers where the special font had been installed. Syntychies ran into this problem, and the solution chosen under the circumstances was the typing of the diacritic over certain consonants as a combining character.8 This solution was possible owing to the recent advancement of various Clear Type Fonts by Microsoft, which—contrary to most other fonts—place the combining diacritics at the correct position, depending on the height of the individual characters upon which the diacritic is placed. Having selected this solution, Charalambos Themistocleous, member of the project, designed a special keyboard layout (available from the project’s site) to facilitate typing with these conventions.9 However, this solution is again not optimal, as the fonts used, albeit Unicode ones, are very limited in number. Therefore, a text in Cypriot Greek using this method cannot be composed nor converted into most other fonts, whether or not they are Unicode. This situation calls for an expansion of the Unicode set to include glyphs for Cypriot Greek; this will follow the stabilization of its writing system. This expansion cannot include all glyphs employed in all competing writing system proposals, but only the glyphs of a standardized writing system. However, since currently none of the orthographies proposed is considered to be the “standard”, the selection of one proposal over the other could be problematic. Meanwhile, standardization of the dialect’s writing system would facilitate dialectal lexicography, and conversely, lexicography would provide support to the standardization process of the dialect.

6. The contribution of current scientific research For a writing system to become standardized, it must be adopted by the end users. From the above discussion it is evident that the codification of the dialect’s writing system is considered important to meet the needs of people who wish to or who are required to write in Cypriot Greek. The first place to which they would turn would be the existing dialectal 8 All diacritics traditionally used in writing Cypriot Greek are available as combining characters in the Unicode set. 9 The difficulty in producing diacritics on standard computer keyboards is indeed a shortcoming, as is the case with the diacritics used for writing Podlachian (see Maksymiuk, this volume). However, the freely available keyboard created for Syntychies seems to be favoured by people who wish to write in the dialect, both online and for print productions.

38

Chapter Three

dictionaries, not so much in search of the meaning of certain wordsʊa need associated more with the reading than with the writing processʊbut mostly in search for the “correct” spelling of particular words. An online lexicographical database, such as Syntychies, can fulfil this need effectively, since it comprises a more representative picture of the contemporary lexicon of Cypriot Greek, and efficiently, by means of the search power and speed offered by its search tools. Moreover, the keyboard layout developed for the purposes of the project can facilitate writing in Cypriot Greek for all other purposes mentioned above. Current scholarly work seems to indicate that dialectal lexicography, and Syntychies in particular, can also play a very important role in education, especially with the curriculum reform taking place in Cyprus (Tsolakidis 2012). Furthermore, Eteokleous et al. (2012) suggest that the Cypriot keyboard can also be used as an effective tool in education. Another indispensable tool that teachers demand due to the educational reform is a modern grammar of contemporary Cypriot Greek. Such a grammar is in preparation (Tsiplakou, Coutsougera, and Pavlou, forthcoming) and apart from the detailed description of the dialect’s phonology and morphosyntax on the basis of contemporary linguistic principles, it suggests a simple transcription system of Cypriot Greek, which is in line with the one proposed by Syntychies. As mentioned above, the empirical investigation of the acceptability of the writing system by native speakers is of great importance. Such investigation is currently undertaken by scholars (most of them mentioned above) specialising in various fields, such as (socio)linguistics, lexicography, typographic design, education, and psychology. Papadima et al. (this volume) is one of the studies that examined language attitudes towards the various orthographic choices within the “orthography as a social practice” analytical framework of Sebba (2007). This dimension of orthography is not much studied and surely deserves future attention.

7. Conclusion This paper argued for the need for standardization of the writing system of Cypriot Greek on the basis of its actual written usage in various domains. It was shown that dialectal lexicography can facilitate this process in various ways. At the same time though, the very lack of standardization negatively influences the practical production of lexicographical work, especially online. It is argued that if the writing system is codified, dialectal lexicography will be greatly facilitated.

CHAPTER FOUR THE STANDARDIZATION OF A LATIN-BASED ORTHOGRAPHY FOR PODLACHIAN JAN MAKSYMIUK INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR

1. Introduction In this chapter, I will discuss a proposed Latin-based orthography for Podlachian and the reasons behind this proposal. Podlachian is an East Slavic vernacular that is still in use among the Narew and Bug Rivers in the north-eastern part of Poland, which bears the historical name of Podlachia (Podlasie in Polish) and administratively belongs to Podlachian Province (województwo podlaskie). There were modest demonstrations of literary creativity and publishing initiative in Podlachian in the past, which resulted in several collections of poetry (e.g., Saþko 1991, 1995; Stachwiuk 2002), a Podlachian-Polish dictionary (Wróblewski 2008), and a dozen literary translations from English, Norwegian, French, German, and some other languages. Judging by the 2002 census in Poland 1 , at least 32,000 people in Podlachia, or nearly 70 percent of people who declared Belarusian ethnicity in this region, speak a Podlachian local dialect at home2. Despite this demographic predominance of Podlachian-speaking Belarusians, Podlachian is only sporadically used in print media and local radio and television programs intended for the Belarusian minority in the region. As a rule, journalists use the literary Belarusian that is taught as a subject in more than 40 elementary, middle, and high schools in Podlachia. Similarly to the situation of Cypriot Greek (Armostis et al., this volume), 1

Census results can be found on the official website of Poland’s Central Statistical Office: http://old.stat.gov.pl/gus/8185_PLK_HTML.htm. 2 There were 48,737 people who declared Belarusian ethnicity in the 2002 census in Poland; of these, 46,420 lived in Podlachian Province.

40

Chapter Four

orthographically uncultivated varieties of Podlachian can primarily be spotted in the internet, in chat forums or social network groups discussing Belarusian minority issues in Poland. But the role of written Podlachian may grow in connection with the 2005 law that allows national and ethnic minorities in Poland to preserve their cultural and historic heritage by putting traditional place names on road signs alongside with the official Polish names. Most Belarusian communities in Podlachia speak Podlachian local dialects, which are markedly different from standard Belarusian. For this reason, developing and spreading a consistent and easy-to-learn writing system for Podlachian seems to be a task of utmost importance for the Belarusian minority in Poland. The present paper describes one such accomplished task.

2. Podlachian as a separate entity The term Podlachian language (pudlaĞka mova) covers a variety of East Slavic dialects in Podlachian Province, which were categorized by linguists as either a) Belarusian-Ukrainian transitional local dialects (Polish: gwary przejĞciowe biaáorusko-ukraiĔskie); or b) local dialects with Ukrainian traits (gwary o cechach ukraiĔskich); or c) Ukrainian local dialects (gwary ukraiĔskie) (Glinka and ObrĊbska-JabáoĔska 1980). I use the term Podlachian to describe specifically the East Slavic local dialects spoken between the Narew and Bug Rivers in Podlachian Province (województwo podlaskie) in Poland. As a speaker, I classify Podlachian as a stand-alone language, for reasons described below. I and Aleksander Maksymiuk have been developing a standardized written version of Podlachian since mid-2004, and have disseminated our research via the Svoja.org website http://svoja.org/ since March 2008. A comprehensive description of the phonological and morphological system of Podlachian can be found in Pietruczuk (1977) and Maksymiuk (2008). In producing a standardized version of Podlachian, the Svoja.org adopted a unilectal approach (see Unseth, this volume). As the standard for codification we chose the Podlachian dialect spoken in areas around the cities of Bielsk Podlaski, Hajnówka and Siemiatycze (see Fig. 4-1). According to our estimate, this standard dialect is spoken by nearly twothirds of all Podlachian speakers. It is difficult to say exactly how many people use the Podlachian vernacular today. However, an estimate can be made based on the 2002 census in Poland, which for the first time after World War II included a question about ethnicity and another one about language spoken at home.

The Standardization of a Latin-based Orthography for Podlachian

41

The results of the census regarding the ethnicity and language spoken at home in Podlachian Province, broken down by communes (gminy, basic administrative units in Poland) were made public in 20043. An estimate of the number of Podlachian speakers outside the provincial center of Bialystok can be made on the assumption that those declaring their language as Belarusian or Ukrainian and living in communes south of the River Narew—Narew, CzyĪe, Orla, Bielsk Podlaski (rural commune), Bielsk Podlaski (urban commune), Hajnówka (rural commune), Hajnówka (urban commune), Dubicze Cerkiewne, Kleszczele, Czeremcha, and some others—actually speak Podlachian. The number of Podlachian speakers in Bialystok was estimated on the assumption that its ratio in the total number of Belarusians in the city is the same as the ratio of Podlachian speakers among Belarusians in the communes outside the city. According to my estimate, there are more than 33,000 Podlachian speakers in Podlachian Province (among them, some 32,000 identified their language as Belarusian, while nearly 1,500 said they speak Ukrainian at home). As a rule, those identifying their Podlachian vernacular as Belarusian declared their ethnic origin as Belarusian, while those identifying it as Ukrainian said they were Ukrainians. Nevertheless, there is a general awareness among the speakers of Podlachian that their mother tongue is neither literary Belarusian nor literary Ukrainian. The 2002 census paradox in Podlachian Province can primarily be explained by the absence of a generally accepted name for this spoken language. In informal situations Podlachian people usually refer to their East Slavic vernacular as “our own language” (svoja mova, naša mova, po-svojomu, po-našomu). The terms “Belarusian” or “Ukrainian” serve as more formal, though imprecise identifiers. The confusion surrounding the status of Podlachian is reflected in official policy with respect to Podlachian place names, as shown in the next section.

3

There was another census in Poland in 2011, which also included questions about ethnicity and languages spoken at home, but no data regarding the geographical distribution of Belarusians and Ukrainians in Podlachia (and, consequently, the distribution of Podlachian speakers in the region) have been published to date.

42

Chapter Four

3. Problems with traditional Podlachian names The importance of developing and adopting an accurate writing system for Podlachian became obvious in early 2005, when the Polish parliament passed a “Law on national and ethnic minorities and regional languages”4. In particular, this law provides for the introduction of the so-called “supporting languages” (jĊzyk pomocniczy) in written and oral contacts between the local administration and citizens in the areas inhabited by national and ethnic minorities5. The 2005 law also allows such minorities to place “additional names” of towns and villages in a minority language beside Polish official names on road signs. There are 12 communes in Podlachia where Belarusians (as attested by the 2002 census) account for no less than 20 percent of the population and may accordingly claim their legal right to address the local authorities in their mother tongue and write “additional names” of their localities on road signs. However, a major problem is that in 10 of these 12 communes Belarusians speak Podlachian at home, not Belarusian. These communes are Narew, CzyĪe, Orla, Bielsk Podlaski (rural commune), Bielsk Podlaski (urban commune), Hajnówka (rural commune), Hajnówka (urban commune), Dubicze Cerkiewne, Kleszczele, Czeremcha (see Fig. 4-1). Therefore the additional place names in these communes should be in Podlachian rather than in standard Belarusian. Regrettably, Podlachian cannot count on legal protection and official support because it is not listed as a regional language in Poland’s 2005 law on ethnic minorities. To overcome this problem at least partly, three Podlachian communes—Orla, Hajnówka (rural commune), and CzyĪe—voted circumspectly for the introduction of “the language of the Belarusian minority” as their “supporting language”, without specifying further what language they had in mind. However, thus far no clever solution has been found to the problem of rendering the Podlachian traditional place names in script and writing them on road signs.

4

The text of the law in Polish can be found on the official website of Poland’s Ministry of the Interior: https://www.msw.gov.pl/pl/bezpieczenstwo/ochronapraw-czlowieka/dokumenty/informacje-szczegolowe/5063,Zalacznik-nr-7-ustawao-mniejszosciach-narodowych-i-etnicznych-oraz-o-jezykureg.html?search=559434732. 5 At least 20 percent of the population in the area ought to belong to a national or ethnic minority to be allowed such a privilege.

The Standardizationn of a Latin-bassed Orthography hy for Podlachiaan

43

Figure 4-1. Podlachian Province (wojew wództwo podlasskie). Commun nes where Podlachian sppeakers constittute more than 20% of the loccal population are in the lower part oof the map: Narew, N Bielsk Podlaski, Hajnnówka, CzyĪe, Dubicze Cerkiewne, K Kleszczele, Czeeremcha. Other communes witth significant numbers n of Podlachian speakers: Boüüki, Milejczycce, Nurzec-Sta tacja, Mielnik. Source: http://pl.wikippedia.org/wiki/Wojew%C3%B B3dztwo_podlaaskie.

Chapter Four

44

In September 2009, commune councilors in Orla made a decision to use the Cyrillic spelling of traditional names of villages in their commune. Their solution was problematic because out of the proposed list of 25 additional names, 15 distort their actual pronunciations in the local dialect. The proposed spelling of a majority of these additional names also violates the orthography of standard Belarusian. Despite the fact that the Orla commune councilors went against the 2005 law, which explicitly forbids the violation of the orthographic rules of minority languages in adopting the additional names of localities, Poland’s Ministry of the Interior approved the above-mentioned defective list for Orla in November 2010 6 . The bilingual road signs in the Orla commune were established in September and October 2011. Below are some examples of those local name misrepresentations: Official name in Polish Orla Wólka Gregorowce Moskiewce

Name in Belarusian

Name in Podlachian

Approved misrepresentation

Ɉɪɥɹ ȼɨɥɶɤɚ Ɋɵɝɨɪɚʆɰɵ Ɇɨɫɤɚʆɰɵ

Vôrla Vôlka Ryhóruvci Móskuvci

Ɉɪɥɹ7 ȼɨɥɶɤɚ8 Ɋɵɝɨɪɨʆɰɵ9 Ɇɨɫɤɨʆɰɵ10

Table 4-1. Examples of local name misrepresentations in the Orla commune On the one hand, the case of traditional names in the Orla commune can be seen as a disturbing example of official misrepresentation of the historical and cultural legacy of an ethnic minority, whose rights the state formally seeks to safeguard. On the other, the case underlines an urgent need for both the state authorities and local communities in Podlachia to find an orthographic compromise in order to represent the traditional 6

The full list of official and additional names of localities in the Orla commune can be found on the official website of Poland’s Ministry of the Interior: http://www.knmiof.mswia.gov.pl/portal/kn/72/1979/8_9_listopada_2010_r.html 7 The initial v is omitted; the diphthong ô is misrepresented by o. 8 The diphthong ô is misrepresented by o. 9 The vowel u is misrepresented by o; the consonant v is misrepresented by the semi-vowel ʆ [w]; the final i [i] is misrepresented by ɵ [ܺ]. 10 The vovel u is misrepresented by o; the consonant v is misrepresented by the semi-vowel ʆ [w]; the final i [i] is misrepresented by ɵ [ܺ].

The Standardization of a Latin-based Orthography for Podlachian

45

Podlachian names correctly in those communes that are entitled to this right by law. It is also essential to place Podlachian on the list of Poland’s regional languages that are in need of official support and protection. Before describing our orthographic compromise, I will first describe the Podlachian phonemic inventory.

4. Podlachian phonemic inventory 4.1 Vowels There are six vowels in Podlachian which can also be found in the phonemic inventories of Belarusian and Ukrainian: /i/, /ܺ/, /u/, /e/, /o/, /a/. However, there are three more vowels in Podlachian, which do not appear in standard Belarusian or Ukrainian. These are diphthongs [uo], [ie], [ܺe]. The diphthong vowel [uo] represents an individual phoneme /uo/. The diphthong vowels [ie], [ܺe] are allophones of another phoneme which can be denoted as /ܺe /: [ie] appears only after palatalized consonants while [ܺe] appears only after the non-palatalized Podlachian consonants [‫]ݕ‬, [‫]ݤ‬, [‫]ݹ‬, [‫]ݶ‬, [r]. Neither the standard Belarusian nor the Ukrainian or Polish alphabet is able to satisfactorily represent these three Podlachian diphthongs. In Podlachian texts that sporadically appeared in the past and were printed in Cyrillic script, the diphthong /uo/ was represented by the digraph after consonants and the digraph in isolated positions. Some publications occasionally added a diacritic—the so-called top ligature—to represent this diphthong. Thus, we could see the following spellings. 1) Spellings of the diphthong /uo/ ɬɜɭɨɣ—ɬɜ ɭࢎ ɨɣ ɬɜɨɸɨɦ—ɬɜɨ ࢎɸɨɦ Similar devices were used to represent the diphthongs [ie], [ܺe] in the Cyrillic script.

Chapter Four

46

2) After consonants ɫɿɷɦ—ɫ ࢎɿɷɦ—ɫɿɟɦ ɪɵɷɠɷ—ɪ ࢎɵɷɠɷ—ɪɿɟɠɟ 3) In isolated positions ɣɿɷɫɬɿ—ɣ ࢎɿɷɫɬɿ—ʀɟɫɬɿ The use of the top ligature is evidently helpful in making the meaning of a Podlachian word with a diphthong easier to grasp for readers familiar with Cyrillic script but it has one major shortcoming—this diacritic is hard to produce on standard computer keyboards.

4.2 Consonants

f v

‫ݸ‬j ۨj sj zj

nj tj dj

kg

‫ݶݹ‬ ‫ݤݕ‬

ܽ r

x

glottal

postalveolar

palataliz alveolar

dental/ alveolar n td ‫ۨݸ‬ sz

velar

m pb

palatal

nasal stop affricate fricative approximant lateral trill

labiodental

bilabial

The consonant inventory of Podlachian consists of 31 phonemes and is the same as that of Ukrainian except for the phoneme /rj/ which does not appear in the Podlachian phonemic system:

ܵ

j l

Table 4-2. The consonant inventory of Podlachian Unlike Belarusian, Podlachian does not include the palatalized consonants /pj/, /bj/, /fj/, /vj/, /mj/, /kj/, /gj/, /xj/, /ܵj/; on the other hand, Podlachian has the palatalized consonants /tj/, /dj/, which do not appear in Belarusian.

The Standardization of a Latin-based Orthography for Podlachian

47

Problems with spelling Podlachian consonants primarily stem from the fact that those writers in Podlachia who are familiar either with the Belarusian or the Ukrainian orthography or both do not always realize that Podlachian has a different phonemic inventory. Those modeling Podlachian spelling rules on the Belarusian orthography usually fail to take into account that the Podlachian consonants [p], [b], [f], [v], [m] cannot be palatalized before [a], [u], [o], [e]. Therefore, the Belarusian-like spellings such as ɩɹɬɵ “fifth”, ɦɹɫɨ “meat”, ɜɹɥɵ “withered”, ɮɺɪɞ “fjord”, ɛɸɪɨ “office” are incorrect because they suggest the forbidden palatalization of consonants; the correct spellings should be ɩ’ɹɬɵ, ɦ’ɹɫɨ, ɜ’ɹɥɵ, ɮ’ɺɪɞ, ɛ’ɸɪɨ. On the other hand, those modeling Podlachian spelling rules on the Ukrainian orthography usually fail to notice that the Podlachian consonants [‫]ݕ‬, [‫]ݤ‬, [‫]ݹ‬, [‫]ݶ‬, [r] are always non-palatalized, therefore such Ukrainian-like spellings as ɲɿɟɫɬɶ “six”, ɧɨɠɿɟ “knives”, ɧɨɱɿɟ “night” (genitive), ɪɿɟɠɟ “to cut” (3rd person singular in Present Tense) are misleading because they also suggest the forbidden palatalization of consonants in Podlachian.

5. The Svoja.org standardization of Podlachian Our solution to the problems described above and some others discussed below is a modified version of the Latin alphabet—a combination of Polish and Czech (Slovak) graphemes plus the symbols ô and ê. This orthographic choice is not arbitrary because an alphabet combining Polish and Czech (Slovak) graphemes have long been used by Belarusian scholars and writers under the name of “Belarusian Latin alphabet” (bieáaruskaja áacinka) to transliterate Belarusian Cyrillic texts into the Latin script. Quite recently a version of the bieáaruskaja áacinka, which is very similar to our proposal, has been approved by Belarus authorities for official transliteration purposes. The primary reason for the choice of the Latin alphabet for this standardization project lies in the observation that the younger generations of ethnic Belarusians and Ukrainians in Podlachia are no longer familiar with the Cyrillic script to the extent that could allow them to fluently read, let alone write, Cyrillic texts. The Russian language was a mandatory school subject in Poland during the communist era. But since the 1989 political transformation, the teaching of Russian at Polish schools has decreased dramatically. For instance, in the school year 2009-2010, just 4.5% of students were taught Russian at Polish schools nationwide (Braunek 2013).

48

Chapter Four

According to official data, there were 3,041 students of Belarusian and 304 students of Ukrainian at primary and secondary schools in Podlachian Province in the school year 2011-201211. In addition, the circulation of the Belarusian-language weekly “Niva”, which has been published with financial support from the Polish government since 1956, currently fluctuates between 1,000 and 1,300 copies. These examples somewhat wrongly imply that ethnic minorities in Podlachia have the ability to use Cyrillic scripts to express themselves in Podlachian. However, visitors to Podlachian websites and chat forums, when leaving comments in their vernacular, do so mostly in Latin script 12 . The working knowledge of Cyrillic script in Podlachia is effectively limited to a narrow circle of journalists employed in the media outlets that serve the Belarusian and Ukrainian ethnic minorities in the region. Apart from familiarity with the alphabet, we took into account several other considerations in the development of a standardized Latin-based orthography for Podlachian. The intent was to make the spelling rules comprehensible “at first glance”, without any additional instruction as no classes or courses of Podlachian have been available thus far. We assumed that since all speakers of Podlachian are familiar with Polish orthography, the Podlachian spelling rules should reproduce to a considerable extent those used in Polish. In general, our Podlachian orthography is morphophonemic, combining spelling rules used in the Polish and Ukrainian and, to a lesser extent, the Belarusian orthography (Maksymiuk, 2008). Our proposed Podlachian alphabet comprises 43 letters, representing the 39 Podlachian phonemes. Five of the 43 Podlachian letters are digraphs: iê, ch, dz, dĨ, dž. The alphabetical order of Podlachian letters is as follows: Aa, Bb, Cc, ûü, ýþ, Dd, Dzdz, DĨdĨ, Dždž, Ćć, Ee, Êê, Ff, Gg, Hh, Chch, Ii, Iêiê, Jj, Kk, Ll, àá, Mm, Nn, ēĔ, Oo, Ôô, Pp, Qq, Rr, Ss, ĝĞ, Šš, Tt, ġĢ, Uu, Vv, Ww, Xx, Yy, Zz, ħĨ, Žž.

11 The data supplied by the Education Office in Bialystok: http://www.kuratorium.bialystok.pl/kuratorium2/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3 &tabid=1563. 12 For example, the Gazeta.pl Forum Orla website http://forum.gazeta.pl/forum/f,44324,Orla.html; and the Howorymo po swojomu community on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/howorymoposwojomu?ref=ts&fref=ts.

The Standardization of a Latin-based Orthography for Podlachian

49

5.1 Proposed Podlachian vowel orthography The six Podlachian monophthong vowels are represented by the following letters: /a/ , /e/ , /i/ , /o/ , /u/ , /ܺ/ . The diphthongs /uo/, /ie/, /ܺe/ are denoted as respectively. The primary reason for choosing the grapheme to represent the diphthong /uo/ lies in the fact that a similar diphthong in the Slovak language is represented by the same symbol. We choose the symbol to represent the diphthongs [ie] and [ܺe] for reasons of visual unity (here, as in , the circumflexed letter is used to denote a diphthong sound). The dipthong [ܺe] may appear only after the non-palatalized consonants [‫]ݕ‬, [‫]ݤ‬, [‫]ݹ‬, [‫]ݶ‬, [r] while the diphthong [ie] may follow only palatalized consonants, therefore these two diphthong sounds can be regarded as allophones of the Podlachian phoneme / ܺe /. The notation for the allophone [ie] indicates palatalization of the preceding consonant. What is also important in this notation, the graphemes can be relatively easily produced in a standard word processor with standard keyboard layouts. Moreover, such a notation allows grasping the meaning of Podlachian words very easily for those who are familiar only with Polish, Belarusian or Ukrainian, or any combination of these languages. Let’s compare: Podlachian kôĔ podôbny siêm chrên

English “horse” “similar” “seven” “horseradish”

Belarusian ɤɨɧɶ ɩɚɞɨɛɧɵ ɫɟɦ ɯɪɷɧ

Ukrainian ɤɿɧɶ ɩɨɞɿɛɧɢɣ ɫɿɦ ɯɪɿɧ

Polish koĔ podobny siedem chrzan

Table 4-3. Comparison of Podlachian notation with Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish The grapheme representing the Podlachian diphthong [ie] is written not only after the consonants palatalized by this diphthong (for example, ) but also after the palatal and , in order to provide orthographic uniformity in all cases when this diphthong appears. Examples include: diêžka “kneading trough”, tiêsto “dough”, miêstie “place”, siêno “hay”, na koziê “on a goat”, jiêsti “to eat”, jiêchati “to go; to travel; to drive”, koliêno “knee”, liêto “summer”.

50

Chapter Four

5.2 Proposed Podlachian consonant orthography The correspondence between the Podlachian consonant phonemes and graphemes is as follows: /p/

, /b/ , /f/ , /v/ , /m/ , /n/ , /nj/ , /t/ , /d/ , /tj/ , /dj/ , /ۨ/ , /ۨj/ , /‫ݸ‬/ , /‫ݸ‬j/ , /s/ , /sj/ , /z/ , /zj/ , /l/ , /ܽ/ , /‫ݕ‬/ , /‫ݤ‬/ , /‫ݹ‬/ , /‫ݶ‬/ , /r/ , /j/ , /k/ , /g/ , /x/ , /ܵ/ . The letters , , appear only in foreign proper names and are not used in Podlachian words. As is the case in Polish, our written standard for Podlachian denotes palatalization by inserting i between the palatalized consonant and the following vowel or by utilizing a diacritic sign or if the palatalized consonant is followed by another consonant or stands in a final position.

5.3 Examples of palatalization x

x

Inserting i between the palatalized consonant and the following vowel: biêáy “white”, jicie “egg”, jicia “egg” (genitive), jiciom “egg” (instrumental), diuha “streak”, dziavkati “to yammer”, dziubak “beak”, giez “horsefly”, hieroj “hero”, niuch “sense of smell”, spotkanie “meeting”, niôs “to carry” (3rd person singular masculine in Past Tense), sioáo “village”, porosia “piglet”, koáôsie “ears of grain”, tiota “aunt”, ziachati “to flash”. Utilizing a diacritic sign or if the palatalized consonant is followed by another consonant or stands in a final position: oleĔ “deer”, ôĞka “axle” (diminutive), áoĞ “elk”, Ģma “darkness”, maĨ “axle grease”, áôĔĞki “last year’s”, miêć “copper”, kuneü “end”.

In addition, following the Polish orthography, we introduce the grapheme á for a dental-alveolar lateral consonant in Podlachian local dialects and the grapheme l for its palatalized companion. Examples: áava “bench”, áob “forehead”, áôžko “bed”, koáyska “craddle”, vôá “ox”, lis “fox”, liês “forest”, lakati “to frighten”, lubiti “to like; to love”, môl “moth”. The Podlachian consonant phoneme /v/ has two allophones: the labiodental [v] and the semi-vocalic [৶]. In some cases the labiodental [v] and the semi-vocalic [৶] alternate with the vowel [u]. Although there is no consistency in this alternation in Podlachian local dialects, the Svoja.org orthography regularizes it by putting the grapheme u in the absolute

The Standardization of a Latin-based Orthography for Podlachian

51

beginning of a phrase, after a pause or after a consonant. The grapheme is written following a vowel or preceding a consonant (or a consonant cluster), either within a word or at a word boundary. Examples of the spelled alternation between [v]/[৶] and [u]: vôn u chati “he is in the house”; vona v chati “she is in the house”; uže vtekáa “she has already run away”; utekáa vže “she has already run away”; uvažaj “to look out” (imperative 2nd person singular), zavvažyti “to notice”.

6. Conclusions Although Podlachia’s East Slavic vernacular is spoken by a relatively small number of people and is hardly known to anybody outside the area of its use, it has already spawned no less than half a dozen writing systems based on both Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. Let us provide an overview of orthographic strategies for Podlachian, taking a single sentence as an example. It is the opening sentence of the novel Spring Night by Norwegian author Tarjei Vesaas, which was translated into Podlachian by Jan Maksymiuk13. In an English translation done by Kenneth G. Chapman (Vesaas 2004), this sentence reads: The whole house felt different because both father and mother were away. One sentence in different Podlachian orthographies 1.

Ciêáy dôm odþuvajetsie inaþej, koli ba´ko z matereju choþ raz na jakiĞ þas joho pokinut.

2.

Ciyeáy duom odczuvajetsie inaczej, koli ba´ko z matereju choþ raz na jakiĞ czas joho pokinut.

3.

ɐɿɷɥɵ ɞɭɨɦ ɨɞɱɭɜɚɟɬɫɟ ɿɧɚɱɷɣ, ɤɨɥɿ ɛɚɬɶɤɨ ɡ ɦɚɬɷɪɷɸ ɯɨɱ ɪɚɡ ɧɚ ɹɤɿɫɶ ɱɚɫ ɺɝɨ ɩɨɤɿɧɭɬ.

4.

ɐ ࢎɿɷɥɵ ɞ ࢎɭɨɦ ɨɞɱɭɜɚɟɬɫɟ ɿɧɚɱɷɣ, ɤɨɥɿ ɛɚɬɶɤɨ ɡ ɦɚɬɷɪɷɸ ɯɨɱ ɪɚɡ ɧɚ ɹɤɿɫɶ ɱɚɫ ɺɝɨ ɩɨɤɿɧɭɬ.

5.

ɐ ࢎɿɷɥɵ ɞ ࢎɭɨɦ ɨɞɱɭɜɚɟɬɫ´´ɟ ɿɧɚɱɷj, ɤɨɥɿ ɛɚɬ´´ɤɨ ɡ ɦɚɬɷɪɷjɭ ɯɨɱ ɪɚɡ ɧɚ ɹɤɿɫ´´ ɱɚɫ joɝɨ ɩɨɤɿɧɭɬ.

13

Available at http://svoja.org/17.html

Chapter Four

52

One sentence in different Podlachian orthographies 6.

ɐɿɟɥɢ ɞɭɨɦ ɨɞɱɭɜɚɽɬɫɽ ɿɧɚɱɟɣ, ɤɨɥɿ ɛɚɬɶɤɨ ɡ ɦɚɬɟɪɟɸ ɯɨɱ ɪɚɡ ɧɚ ɹɤɿɫɶ ɱɚɫ ɣɨɝɨ ɩɨɤɿɧɭɬ.

7.

Cieáy duom odczuwajetsie inaczej, koli bat´´ko z matereju chocz raz na jakiĞ czas joho pokinut.

Table 4-4. One sentence in different Podlachian orthographies. Notes to the overview: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The Svoja.org orthography presented in this chapter. This orthography solves the problematic notation of Podlachian diphthongs by introducing the symbols and which are easy to produce by means of a standard word processor with standard keyboard layouts. The symbols and make written Podlachian words immediately recognizable for people familiar with closely related languages like Ukrainian and Belarusian. Moreover, this orthography, in contrast to the orthographies 2, 3, 4 and 5, introduces consistent notation of vowels after the consonants [p], [b], [m], [v]. An orthography based on the Polish alphabet. Source: Stachwiuk (2006). Main features: ô, iê, ê are denoted as uo, iye, ye; þ, š, ž are denoted as cz, sz, Ī; the palatalized d and t are denoted as ć and Ģ; v represents the labiodental [v]; w represents the semi-vocalic [৶]. The notation of diphthongs is cumbersome and the words including them are not immediately recognizable. An orthography based on the Belarusian alphabet. Source: Saþko (1991) . Main features: ô, iê, ê are denoted as ɭɨ, ɿɷ, ɵɷ. The notation of diphthongs is cumbersome and the words including them are not immediately recognizable. An orthography based on the Belarusian alphabet. Source: Saþko (1995). Main features: ô, iê, ê are denoted as ɭɨ, ɿɷ, ɵɷ with the top ligature. The top ligature makes the words with diphthongs more palatable but it is very difficult to produce this diacritic by means of a standard word processor with standard keyboard layouts. An orthography based on the Cyrillic alphabet. Source: Fionik (2011). Main features: ô, iê, ê are denoted as ɭɨ, ɿe, ɵe with the top ligature; j is used to represent iotation; the apostrophe ’ denotes palatalization of consonants. The same problem as in the preceding example.

The Standardization of a Latin-based Orthography for Podlachian

6.

7.

53

An orthography based on the Ukrainian alphabet. Source: Hawryluk (2009). Main features: ô is denoted as ɭɨ, ɿê and ê are denoted as ie. The representation of the diphthong /ê/ by after the nonpalatalized consonants [‫]ݕ‬, [‫]ݤ‬, [‫]ݹ‬, [‫]ݶ‬, [r] is misleading since it suggests their forbidden palatalization. An orthography based on the Polish alphabet. Source: Hawryluk (2009). Main features: ô is denoted as ɭɨ, ɿê and ê are denoted as ie; þ, š, ž are denoted as cz, sz, Ī; w represents the labiodental [v]; the palatalized d and t are denoted as ć and Ģ. The same reservation as in the preceding example.

Our Podlachian orthography is based on a modified version of the Latin alphabet, which does not visually affiliate the Podlachian writing system to the Belarusian or Ukrainian alphabet. Our proposed Latin-based orthography for Podlachian is also the first attempt to deal with this vernacular as an individual language, that is, a phonological and morphological system distinct from both the Ukrainian and Belarusian systems. Given the diminishing Cyrillic literacy in Podlachia and the demographic dominance of Podlachian-speaking Belarusians among the Belarusian ethnic minority in the region, it ought to be expected that the role of written Podlachian in an orthography based on the Latin alphabet will only grow in the future. The idea to adopt such orthography for Podlachian and make this vernacular a full-fledged written language of the Belarusian ethnic minority in Poland was first voiced at a literary seminar in Podlachia in July 2004. A relevant paper was published the following year in Annus Albaruthenicus, a yearly collection of materials presented at the seminar which has been organized every year since 1999 by Belarusian-language writer in Poland Sokrat Janowicz (Maksymiuk 2005). Our orthographic proposal was shown in use to a wider readership in two dozen articles in Podlachian authored by Jan Maksymiuk or Aleksander Maksymiuk and printed in 2005-2010 in Czasopis, a bilingual Polish-Belarusian monthly which is published in Bialystok by the Association of Belarusian Journalists in Poland14. Moreover, the Svoja.org website has continued since March 2008 to regularly publish texts in standardized Podlachian as well as to stimulate discussion via its chat forum15 over the need to use the Latin-based orthography for Podlachian. 14

These articles are republished on the Svoja.org website: http://svoja.org/artykuly.html 15 The Svoja.org website: http://svoja.org/forum/

54

Chapter Four

The Svoja.org orthography for Podlachian scored a notable success in early 2013, when the Howorymo po swojomu (in Podlachian: We Speak Our Own Language) community in Facebook, which emerged in midDecember 2012, adopted the symbols and to represent the Podlachian diphthongs in its written messages. The community, which strives to promote a wider use of Podlachian dialects in speech and writing among younger generation of Belarusians and Ukrainians in Podlachia and thus to reinforce their ethnic identities as distinct from the Polish one (c.f., Karan and Corbett, this volume), mobilized more than 6,000 friends and followers by the beginning of October 2014. The Howorymo po swojomu community has not yet adopted a single Podlachian orthography but a purposeful effort is being made to follow most of the orthographic and grammatical rules mapped out for Podlachian by Svoja.org. It is apparent, however, that major advances in promoting both written and spoken Podlachian are possible only after including this language in the list of Poland’s regional languages and extending to it at least some measure of the official support that the Belarusian and Ukrainian languages currently enjoy in Podlachia. In particular, a wider use of standardized Podlachian in the state-sponsored media of Podlachia’s Belarusian and Ukrainian ethnic minorities could give this vernacular a second life and reinvigorate both minorities. Unfortunately, no plans for this purpose have been worked out to date.

CHAPTER FIVE THE IMPORTANCE OF IDENTITY AND AFFILIATION IN DIALECT STANDARDIZATION MARK E. KARAN, SIL INTERNATIONAL KERRY M. CORBETT, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA

In this chapter, we argue that dialect standardization involves a shift in language choice and use. While many factors are important for this shift, we argue that identity and affiliation play a critical role. Our argument mirrors the findings of Sebba (2009, 35) for orthographic standardization. Our contribution in this chapter is to illustrate the critical role that identity and affiliation play in dialect standardization.

1. The process of standardization: an introduction In this section we describe the process of dialect standardization. We begin with an overview of factors involved in language change drawn from the sociolinguistic literature and then extend these to a study of shift in community language choice.

1.1 Background Before a standardization process, speakers use their local dialects for all of their speech functions. After a standardization process, speakers use the standardized variety for at least some of their speech functions. For example, reading and writing and conversation in high formality situations often call for the use of the standardized variety. Thus, the standardization process is fundamentally a shift in language use patterns. Standardization involves community behavioral shift from monodialectalism to diglossic bidialectalism. Diglossia is usually used to refer to functional distinctions in the use of two languages in the same

56

Chapter Five

community. One language is often used for High (H) functions such as education, literature, formal meetings, and the like. The other language is used for Low (L) functions such as buying and selling, communication at home and work, and the like. This same functional distinction can hold between the use of two dialects of the same language, creating bidialectal diglossia. In the standardization process, large parts of the population are often faced with this shift from monodialectalism to a bidialectal form of diglossia. They need to shift from basically using their own regional variety to also using the standard variety, or defining a standard variety, in certain domains (the domains associated with the H variety in a diglossic situation). This shift often involves the need to acquire this new standard H dialect, which could be the dialect of a different regional group or some kind of compromise dialect. Based on a specific model of why language shift happens, which we will outline below, we will see that dialect shift toward the standard dialect in the appropriate domains must be motivated in order for it to actually happen. And within this model, identity and affiliation are demonstrated to be key motivators in the dialect standardization process. Having established that dialect standardization involves a dialect shift process, it is helpful to review what we know about such processes. Rogers (1962) argued that diffusion of innovation (anything new being introduced into a community) most often follows an S-shaped model, a pattern where there are first a few innovators, then a relatively few early adopters, then many in an early majority, then many again in a late majority, then a few who lag behind. In other words, first there is only a little change or shift, followed by much more in the middle, with a slow change or shift again at the end. Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog (1968) also demonstrate that language change does not happen all at once in a community, but rather involves variation, where some people adopt the change sooner than others. They also point out that this variation is observable through quantitative analyses of which segments of the population have adopted the change by comparing social groups. Women and young people are more often on the forefront of change than men and older people, for example. Social factors that have been seen to be relevant in the spread of change include age, education, social class, occupation, wealth, gender, and position on an urban-rural continuum. Also, it has been observed that change often disperses from larger population centers to smaller population centers (Trudgill 1974, Chambers and Trudgill 1999). For example, a change

The Importance of Identity and Affiliation in Dialect Standardization

57

would likely spread from Los Angeles to Chicago before getting to a smaller town in Nebraska. The study of language change has gained deep insights from this understanding that diachronic language change can be synchronically observed through the quantitative analysis of different social groups vis-àvis the change. For example, Milroy and Milroy (1985) demonstrated the importance of social networks. Labov (2001) described the role and importance of leaders and innovators of change.

2. The Perceived Benefit Model While the work discussed above identifies a number of factors that are involved in language and dialect shift, other factors are discussed less frequently in the linguistic literature. For example, language shift is influenced by the whole fabric of society (Edwards 1985, 95), with a type of market economy of languages that results in language shift (Bourdieu 1982). Based on these observations, Karan (2001) proposed the Perceived Benefit Model of Language Shift (and Change). In this model, change and shift are explained by individuals choosing languages, styles and dialects that will bring them the most perceived benefit. People choose to use language forms that they think will do them good. They also acquire those languages, dialects and styles that are of benefit to them. Shift in the speech community is then seen as the conglomerate of individually motivated choices where people are seeking what they perceive to be advantageous for them or for their offspring.

2.1 Motivations Implicit in Language Choice A major component of the Perceived Benefit Model is that languagerelated changes come about because of a fairly restricted set of motivations, including communicative function, perceived economic benefit, power and prestige, nationalism, religious functions, and identity and affiliation (Karan 2011). When someone makes a decision to use a particular language or dialect in a particular circumstance, it is almost invariably influenced by one of these factors. We maintain that the same set of motivational factors seen in language shift and change are relevant in the diglossia choices that ultimately determine the success or failure of standardization.

Chapter Five

58

2.2 Motivations Implicit in Shift Processes Two particular motivational factors, identity and affiliation, play a key role in the language use patterns that lead to standardization. There is ample evidence for the importance of identity and affiliation in language use patterns. For example, Sergey Haruchi (2002), a member of the Nenets minority people in the north of Russia, calls for the maintenance and revival of his Nenet language because it is their native language. It belongs to them. The very title of his paper, Who am I in this land? What people am I part of?, speaks to the importance of identity and affiliation. Similarly, one of the authors of this chapter, Mark E. Karan, has heard this theme repeated by speakers of minoritized languages for over 30 years, in many different parts of the world: We are X people. We belong to the X group. The X language is our language; thus, we must speak the X language. Identity and affiliation are among the chief motivators of minoritized language use. 2.2.1 Fur Study A recent study by Corbett (2012) reinforces the point that language choice is deeply linked to identity and affiliation. Corbett (2012, 98-100) investigated attitudes as they impacted language shift and preservation of the Fur language in Darfur, Sudan. She notes that the Fur language “has been threatened by the encroachment of Arabic and its prevalence in the arenas of education, religion, and socioeconomics” but that “conflict in the region over the past decade and subsequent changes in the geographic location and socioeconomic situation of the Fur community have brought about greater awareness of ethnolinguistic identity and a partial reversal of the previously-documented shift to Arabic” (Corbett 2012, 1). Maintaining that the attitude of the community toward its own language is crucial, Corbett used surveys to ask 270 Fur individuals of all ages not only which language(s) they most preferred to speak (the marginalized Fur language or the more dominant Arabic), but also the reason for their preference. 231 of the respondents stated a preference for Fur, the minoritized language, and 39 respondents stated a preference for Arabic, the more dominant language. Dozens of reasons for the preferences were given, which Corbett arranged into the following eight categories, influenced by the above taxonomy of language change motivations:

The Importance of Identity and Affiliation in Dialect Standardization

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)

59

Origin (family’s language, original language) Culture (tribe’s language, part of identity, culture, heritage) Education (education, language of science and knowledge) Communication (community’s language, communication) Status (country’s language, official language, international language) Religion (language of the Quran, Islam) Proficiency (easy, clear, language best known, only language known) Sentiment (pride, love for it, language that taught love for all people)

Her results, as seen in the table below, show very strongly that origin and culture are the categories that largely inspire Fur use, while other categories (communication, proficiency, religion, education, and status) largely inspire Arabic use. Reason for Preference origin culture proficiency religion education status communication sentiment miscellaneous Total

Language of Preference Fur Arabic 161 70% 3 8% 44 19% 2 1% 4 10% 4 10% 8 21% 1 .4% 4 10% 21 9% 16 41% 1 .4% 1 .4% 231 100% 39 100%

Table 5-1. Language of Preference (Corbett 2012, 99) As can be seen above, those who prefer to speak Fur do so because it is their language of origin (70%) or a part of their culture (19%). Those who prefer to speak Arabic do so for communication (41%) or educational (21%) purposes. Others (10% each) prefer to speak Arabic because they are proficient in it, because it is the language of religion, or because of its status. Similar results were obtained from asking the respondents what language they were proud of and for what reason. Out of the 231 respondents who stated they were proud of the Fur language, 133 (58%) attributed this pride to their origin, and 54 (23%) to their culture (Corbett 2012, 100-102).

Chapter Five

60

Origin and culture have to do with who people are (identity) and what group they belong to (affiliation). These Darfur data demonstrate that the motivations that are most important in the use of a minoritized language are those associated with identity and affiliation. The Darfur study shows that minority group identity and affiliation provides the primary motivation for people to prefer their minority language over the majority one. Where this strong identity does not exist, the primary motive for minority language use is lost and there is usually a rapid shift to a majority language with its perceived benefits. In summary, the Darfur study illustrates the motivations behind a shift from one language to another, and highlights the general point that language choice is linked to identity and affiliation. Although the Darfur study is about choosing separate languages, we maintain that the same motivations apply to the choice of dialects as well. In particular, when a language group composed of different dialectal sub-groups is motivated to see itself as one group, the conditions for dialect standardization will exist. If, however, the larger group is motivated to identify itself as two or more separate groups, the conditions for dialect standardization will not exist. In order for the dialectal language-use shift that is intrinsic to a dialect standardization to happen, the different dialect groups involved must be motivated to want to see themselves as one larger group. We illustrate with the case of Kichwa. 2.2.2 Kichwa Study Wroblewski (2012) discusses how planned Kichwa ethnolinguistic unification by Kichwa activists in Ecuador is experiencing resistance from a growing “indigenous identity” related to local Kichwa dialects. The goal of Kichwa political activism and literacy planning has been “indigenous empowerment through pan-ethnic solidarity” (2012, 67). Opponents of this approach are seeing pan-Indianist or pan-Kichwa standardization as “threats to cultural distinction and local ethnic survival” (2012, 68). Wroblewski (2012, 68) states, Local dialect has become the hallmark of territorial ethnic identity and traditional, vernacular indigenous culture more generally. Its use is being imbued with ideological significance, as representative of a threatened indigenous way of life.

A 52 year old Tena Kichwa speaker quoted by Wroblewski (2012, 73) states,

The Importance of Identity and Affiliation in Dialect Standardization

61

I am a defender of [the idea] that in every region, every grouping, we should be Kichwas, Amazonians as much as highlanders. But in every region there is linguistic variation and this linguistic variation has to be respected, because it is the identity of a people. That is where differentiation between cultures is [. . .] We are born with a language and we go on evolving. But evolving does not mean unifying all the languages in the universe, because the identity of a people is in their own form and their own manifestation.

Wroblewski states that those who are against dialect standardization believe that “using Unified Kichwa essentially implies denying one’s own territorial roots and, ultimately, one’s indigeneity” (2012, 74). This very much supports the importance of identity in the dialect standardization processes. When groups find their identity in local, indigenous groups rather than the larger language group they are not motivated to make the dialect choice/shift decisions necessary to larger group standardization. Conversely, when groups find or modify their identity to that of the larger group, standardization is possible and often occurs.

3. Conclusions Dialect standardization, and choice of language varieties in general, is a language shift process grounded in community behavior. If the people involved do not identify and affiliate at least partially with the larger group, they will not be motivated to modify their dialectal repertoire to include the standard dialect, and standardization will not happen. Dialect standardization only happens when the people involved have enough of their identity and affiliation associated with the larger group to motivate them to shift in the appropriate domains of use to the dialect associated with that larger group. The Darfur data shows the importance of identity and affiliation as the primary motivators in minoritized language use choice. The Kichwa case shows how identity and affiliation affect choice on a dialectal level as well. Clifton, in this volume, demonstrates how orthographies can be markers of group identity in dialects because dialect groups who do not have shared identities often refuse to share orthographies while dialect groups who do have shared identities choose to show their unity by sharing orthographies. Decker (this volume) mentions how Mixe leaders desired a unified Mixe orthography in order to keep the Mixe society unified. These and other language shift scenarios around the world confirm the importance of identity and affiliation as intrinsic and necessary considerations in the dialect standardization processes. This

62

Chapter Five

highlights the importance of learning about and working with the identity and affiliation patterns of groups when dealing with dialect standardization.

CHAPTER SIX ORTHOGRAPHY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE GREEK CYPRIOT DIALECT: LANGUAGE ATTITUDES AND ORTHOGRAPHIC CHOICE ASPASIA PAPADIMA, IOLI AYIOMAMITOU, STELIOS KYRIACOU AND GEORGIOS PARMAXIS CYPRUS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

1. Introduction This chapter discusses the orthography of a non-standardized language variety, the Greek Cypriot (GC) dialect, one of the main Greek dialects natively spoken by the Greek Cypriots (GCs) in Cyprus. Although the dialect is the most intimate variety for the GCs and it is extensively used in everyday verbal communication, its use is limited to informal, oral communication, while the Standard Modern Greek (SMG) language caters for all formal and writing purposes. The absence of a set orthography for the dialect has not prevented GCs from writing their dialect using various—non-systematic—ways to represent its particular phonological units. In the GC case this issue is especially significant due to the recent efforts to devise a uniform way to represent the dialect in writing. It is important to note that despite the apparent diversity in the way the dialect is written, the choice of an orthographic system is not unconstrained; it is underpinned by deeper social symbolisms and reflects an ideological stance on the part of the user (Papadima, Ayiomamitou and Kyriacou 2011). In particular orthography proposals are intertwined with GCs’ language ideologies, as well as their views regarding their national identity (Georgiou 2010, Papadima, Ayiomamitou and Kyriacou 2014). This chapter considers the use of and attitudes to written GC. It is crucial to study users’ language attitudes, in order to understand how they

64

Chapter Six

perceive their language and to predict how they might receive the implementation of a new orthography (Sebba 2007, Rajah-Carrim 2008). The material presented in this paper is based on the results of an online questionnaire which aimed at investigating: a) GCs’ language attitudes towards the highly complex—both linguistically and politically—issue of devising a spelling system for a non-standard dialect; b) GCs’ language preferences for the various non-systematic orthographic models already in use; and c) GCs’ stances on adopting a less etymological orthography and accepting new characters other than those offered by the Greek alphabet for representing distinct dialectal sounds in writing (Newton 1972, Coutsougera and Georgiou forthcoming, Pavlou 2010). In what follows, the (socio)linguistic situation in the GC speech community will be presented. The next section includes a brief discussion on issues related to the orthographic representation of the dialect while some insights on general orthography principles are also provided. The sections thereafter focus on providing a detailed presentation of the current study. The methodology adopted for the collection of the data as well as for the analysis of the obtained findings is outlined. Furthermore, the study’s findings are comprehensively presented and the most salient results are underlined and discussed. Finally, the chapter ends by briefly pointing out the major concluding remarks of the study.

2. Sociolinguistic Background The present-day linguistic situation in the GC community involves the parallel use of two linguistic varieties: the local GC dialect and the official SMG language. Since the independence of the island in 1960, SMG is along with Turkish one of the two official languages of Cyprus and among the two of them the only one that is actually spoken in the southern part of the island. The standard variety is learnt mainly through formal education and its use is pervasive in formal settings such as administration, media, education and in writing since it is the only variety that is standardized and codified. On the other hand, the GC dialect is natively acquired by the GCs who are almost exclusively exposed to the dialect until they enter formal education. The dialect is, thus, the most intimate language code for GCs and the one employed for their everyday oral communication (Karyolemou 2001, Pavlou and Papapavlou 2004, Papapavlou and Pavlou 2007, Yiakoumetti 2007). Linguistically speaking, the two varieties exhibit differences on all linguistic levels with the phonological, morphological and lexical levels

Orthography Development for the Greek Cypriot Dialect

65

showing the highest degree of divergence (Goutsos and Karyolemou 2001, Yiakoumetti 2006). In addition to the linguistic and functional differences, the two varieties have also acquired a distinct status and prestige inside the GC community. The GC dialect is considered as having a relatively lower status compared to the SMG which is typically highly regarded. This is reinforced by negative attitudes and beliefs the GC speakers hold towards their mother dialect (Sciriha 1996, Papapavlou 1998, 2001, Sivas 2003, Goutsos 2004, Sophocleous 2011). Finally, it must be noted that, based on the existing literature, scholars appear to reach no consensus in defining the (socio)linguistic status of the GC community (Rowe and Grohmann 2012). The GC dialect has been claimed to stand in a diglossic relationship with the SMG language (based on the criteria of classic diglossia defined by Ferguson (1959)). Others have claimed that GC and SMG form some kind of linguistic continuum (Karyolemou 2001, Tsiplakou 2009) while a third group appears to define the Greek-speaking Cyprus as a bidialectal community (Papapavlou 2001, Pavlou and Papapavlou 2004).

3. Writing in the Greek Cypriot dialect The non-standardized status of the GC dialect has limited its proper use to oral and informal communication while it led to the monopoly of the standard variety in formal writing (Themistocleous 2009). Despite the lack of an officially agreed orthography for the dialect, evidence of written GC can be found as early as the 14thcentury with the earliest document being the Frankish law code The Assizes and later in the 15thcentury the Chronicles of Machairas and Boustronios (Symeonidis 2006). In the history of written GC, multiple writers and poets used the dialect as a means of expressing themselves in print and, thus, today a significant amount of literary documents exists in the dialect. Apart from folk literature, a number of authors attempted to describe the dialect producing GC dictionaries and grammars (e.g., Chatziioannou 1996, 1999, Papangelou 2001, Yiangoullis 2009). In contemporary times, written GC is also extensively used in nonprint environments such as in Computer-mediated Communication (CMC) and text-messaging. Prior studies have shown that the form of language used in these areas which exhibits spoken linguistic features allowed the GCs to use their native dialect in writing. Regarding the form of written GC that the users employ, the lack of a codified GC orthography and the inadequacy of the standard orthography to represent the dialect have led to

Chapter Six

66

the emergence and use of a novel Romanized form of GC in online environments (Themistocleous 2005, 2009).

3.1 Greek Cypriot orthography The graphic representation of the non-standard dialect has been largely based on the Greek historical orthography (Arvaniti 2010) and on the palette of symbols offered by the Greek alphabet. However, the great discrepancies between the phonological systems of the two language varieties (Pavlou and Papapavlou 2004, 248) leave the Greek letters and the norms of the SMG orthography inadequate to render the dialect. The GC consonantal inventory is rich and complex, particularly when compared to that of SMG. The GC system includes additional consonants, both allophones and independent phonemes, which do not constitute part of the phonological system of SMG (Coutsougera and Georgiou forthcoming). For instance, the GC system includes post-alveolar consonants, which are missing from SMG, as well as palatal consonants and a trill, which are present, but non contrastive in SMG (Arvaniti 2010). In addition to this, the GC consonantal system involves the presence of geminated consonants, including in word-initial position, which function as separate phonemes (Newton 1972). It is worth also mentioning that in the case of Cypriot stops, in particular, gemination is also associated with aspiration (Armosti 2011). The phonological inventories of the two varieties are presented in Tables 6-1 and 6-2: Bilabial

Labiodental

Dental

Alveolar

Postalveolar

Palatal

Velar

Plosive

p p‫ ޝހ‬mb

t t‫ ޝހ‬d

c c‫ܱ ޝހ‬

k k‫ ޝހ‬g

Nasals

m m‫ޝ‬

n n‫ޝ‬

݄ ݄‫ޝ‬

ƾ

ç ç‫ݯ ޝ‬

x x‫ܵ ޝ‬

Trill Fricative

r r‫ޝ‬ f f‫ ޝ‬v

ș ș‫ ޝ‬į

s s‫ ޝ‬z‫ޝ‬

Lateral

l l‫ޝ‬

Affricate

tsh‫ޝ‬

‫ޝݤ ޝݕ ݕ‬

‫ޝݠ ݠ‬ t‫ ݕ‬t‫ݕ‬h‫ ޝ‬d‫ݤ‬

Table 6-1. The phonological system of consonants in Greek Cypriot

Orthography Development for the Greek Cypriot Dialect Bilabial Plosive

pb

Nasals

m

Labio-dental

Dental td

n

Trill Fricative Lateral Affricate

Alveolar

67

Palatal

Velar

cܱ

kܳ

݄

ƾ

ç‫ݯ‬

xܵ

r fv

șį

sz

l

‫ݠ‬ ts dz

Table 6-2. The phonological system of consonants in Standard Modern Greek It is important to note that we have limited this study to the presentation of the orthographic conventions that have emerged for the representation of only the post-alveolar GC consonants: [‫]ݕ‬, [‫]ݤ‬, [‫]ݹ‬, [‫]ݶ‬. These sounds are considered the most distinctive features of the dialect and as shown above, they differ consistently from the standard language. Due to the absence of the post-alveolars in the standard Greek phonological system, the Greek alphabet does not provide letters for the representation of these GC sounds. Due to the lack of distinctive Greek graphemes, writers who chose to write in the dialect are at loss as to how to best resolve basic writing problems and to adequately represent GC. Inevitably, writers have to resort to alternative spelling conventions which usually involve the use of diacritics, foreign characters and/or peculiar combinations of various Greek characters. The establishment of a uniform and systematic method of writing the GC dialect has never been more urgent due to a number of factors; these primarily pertain to the extension of the use of the contemporary GC dialect in domains in which it was traditionally considered inappropriate, as well as in the emergence of new uses of the written form of the dialect outside of folk literature (Armostis, Chistodoulou, Katsoyannou and Themistocleous this volume, Coutsougera and Georgiou forthcoming). As shown by prior studies, the absence of an agreed, unified orthographic system has gradually led to the emergence of multiple nonsystematic typographic conventions and accordingly to the inconsistent representation of the dialect in written discourse (Papadima and Kafaridou 2008). Consequently, a general confusion regarding the “correct” orthography of the dialect prevails, while numerous debates have been

68

Chapter Six

raised among linguists and lexicographers underpinned by competing language ideologies and political stances (Georgiou 2010). In addition, the lack of a properly designed typeface and Unicode characters, which would support the writing of the dialect in print and permit the use of diacritics and other spelling marks, has created numerous problems for publishers, who, consequently, resort to the use of alternative printing methods. However, any proposed solutions have been insufficient, amateurish, time-consuming and ineffective at the level of homogeneity of the text and typographic aesthetics.

3.2 Insights on orthography principles ǹ useful guide for a practitioner involved in the highly demanding procedure of devising a new orthography for a language are the basic principles of orthography design laid out by earlier scholars (Williamson 1984, Barnwell 1998). The vast majority of the principles are mainly grounded on linguistic considerations and deal with highly important linguistic factors such as the complex relationships between sounds and meanings. For example, the accuracy principle (Priestly 1992) investigates whether the relationship between phonemes and symbols reflects the elegant symmetry of the phonological system of a language (Sebba 2007, 17). The consistency principle (Stark 2010) expands beyond the basic phoneme-grapheme correspondence to the uniformity of each written occurrence of the same word or expression in every writing occasion. However, it would be naive to think that simple conformity to these principles is all that is necessary for orthography development. In realworld applications, the task of devising an acceptable spelling system for a particular speech community turns out to be mainly a socio-cultural issue (Garvin 1954, 129 in Sebba 2007, 7) rather than a purely linguistic one. In particular, the characters of a writing system are “symbols”, not merely in the narrow sense of representing phonemes, but in the wider sense of objects which have a cultural meaning for their users (Sebba 1998). Likewise, in the case of GC, it is important to keep in mind that any attempt at orthography development should not be narrowed by confines of strictly linguistic principles but a different framework should be adopted that will take into serious consideration the strong link between language and ethnic identity that exists in the GC community as well as additional political, national, religious and/or historical concerns (Georgiou 2010). As noted earlier in this volume by Unseth in situations where ethnic identity is shared, such as among Greeks and Cypriots,

Orthography Development for the Greek Cypriot Dialect

69

inevitably there is pressure to maintain a similar/common orthography, despite how much the two varieties vary on linguistic grounds. This act is seen to benefit and preserve ethnic unity. Apart from the principles that pertain merely to linguistic factors, there are those that deal with sociological elements and emphasise the importance of the language community’s perspective on orthography. First and foremost, the orthography should be acceptable within the language community (Barnwell 1998, 74), given that orthographies are designed to be used by the members of a linguistic community. Consequently, a proposed orthography should also be aligned with the principles of familiarity, simplicity and convenience (Stark 2010), and by extension be functional, so that the speakers of that language are inclined to use it (Priestly 1992). Taking the above into consideration, our aim was to give GC users themselves the chance to state their preferences and select among the multiple orthographic conventions options which they consider simpler, more accurate and functional. Therefore, at this initial stage of the attempt to develop a unified orthography for the dialect, we aim at emphasizing the criteria of social acceptability and usability, rather than the purely linguistic criteria.

4. Methodology The study was based on data gathered from an online survey questionnaire which was designed for the purposes of the study and administered by the methods of stratification and snowballing (De Vaus 2002). The sample included GC university students from the Cyprus University of Technology and the University of Cyprus. A second snowball sample was additionally utilised. The staff members of the Cyprus University of Technology were the initial recipients of the questionnaire and were instructed to forward it to their friends and colleagues. Questionnaires which did not meet the acceptable response levels (i.e., featured less than 20% answered items) were disregarded and in the end, 1446 questionnaires were deemed valid for further analysis. 39.1% of the fully completed questionnaires were answered by men and 60.9% by women. The participants were primarily in the age range of 25 to 34 years old (45.5%), or below the age of 24 (30.7%). The questionnaire was divided into three sections: Section 1 (three questions) examined issues relating to the written and spoken form of the GC dialect, on a five-point Likert scale; Section 2 (three questions)

70

Chapter Six

investigated the participants’ preferences as well as the consistency of their stated responses in the previous section, this time providing them with visual stimuli of selected words from the data corpus. The alveopalatal GC consonantal sounds in question were represented in the questionnaire by at least one word-stimulus. The particular word-stimuli were provided in multiple writings, each time using a different orthographic model or spelling convention. In each question of this section, a different issue or problem was addressed and a different type of convention was tested. Finally, Section 3 was used for demographic data. The data obtained from the questionnaires was analysed with SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), using descriptive and inferential statistics.

5. Results 5.1 Language behaviours and attitudes The results related to Section 1 of the questionnaire (i.e., language behaviours and language attitudes) showed that participants do not read and/or write frequently in their mother tongue. More specifically, 74% of the participants claimed that they “rarely” (44.9%) or “sometimes” (29.1%) read texts or words written in the GC dialect. More than half of the respondents (55.3%) said that they do not “usually” write in the GC dialect, while a significant 19.8% noted that they “never” write in GC. Regarding the contexts in which GCs read or write the dialect, the participants’ responses indicated a higher degree of occurrence in communicative contexts that are marked as informal, or are related to modern communicative technologies (text messaging, computer-mediated communication, etc). On the other hand, in cases of a higher level of formality (e.g., formal documents, advertisements, newspapers, and magazines) GCs reported that they almost never find texts in GC, nor do they choose to write in the dialect. The answers are summarized in Table 6-3.

Orthography Development for the Greek Cypriot Dialect Occasion

71

Frequency (%) Never Rarely

Sometimes

Frequently

Phone messages (SMS) Internet communication Formal documents Advertisements

3.7

7.1

14.1

29.4

Very Frequently 45.7

5.5

11.2

19.7

27.5

36.1

72.9

23.6

2.6

0.5

0.4

13.7

38.5

36.6

9.3

1.8

Newspapers/ Magazines

13.6

50.4

28.5

6.4

1.2

Table 6-3. The frequency with which GCs encounter the written form of their dialect according to the occasion (Section 1-Question 1). The second question in Section 1 examined the type of typographic conventions that the respondents use to represent the dialect. The results showed that GCs prefer to use various combinations of Greek letters (59.1% reported that they “frequently/very frequently” use this method). Similarly, a high percentage of frequency (49.4% “frequently/very frequently”) was reported for choice 3: “Latin characters/Greeklish” which corresponds to the newly emergent Romanized form of GC. However, this result is challenged by a similarly high percentage of participants (36.6%) who reported for the same method that they “never/rarely” use it. The abnormal distribution of answers for this choice might be attributed to a possible confusion on the part of the respondents regarding the writing medium. It was not clarified in the questionnaire whether we meant writing on-line or in print. The Romanized form of GC occurs frequently in computer mediated communication, but not in print. With regard to the use of “Latin characters embedded in Greek words”, as well as “diacritics and other symbols attached on Greek letters”, the vast majority of the participants claimed that they “never/rarely” use them in writing (Table 6-4).

Chapter Six

72 Writing Method

1. Various combinations of Greek characters/letters. (e.g.,ɒɃɇɂɏɜɋ,ɐɇɚɏɇɋ) 2. Latin characters embedded in Greek words. (e.g., Œɂɏɜɋ, ɐŠɚɏɇɋ) 3. Latin characters/ Greeklish. (e.g., –œ‹‡”‹, •Š‡”‹) 4. Diacritics and other symbols above or below Greek characters. (e.g., ɒɃǍɂɏɜɋ,ɐǍɚɏɇɋ)

Frequency (%) Never Rarely 9.1

13.2

Some times 18.5

Frequently 24.9

Very Frequently 34.2

59.1

19.4

9.2

7.6

4.7

25.7

10.9

14.0

18.4

31.0

83.1

10.1

3.3

2.3

1.2

Table 6-4. The frequency with which GCs use each writing method (Section 1-Question 2). In the last question of Section 1 participants were asked to give general views about a possible standardization of the dialect. More than half (58.8%) agreed that the GC dialect should have its own orthographic system. They maintained that orthography would provide a source of higher prestige for the GC dialect (60.4%) and strengthen their Cypriot identity (58.9%), while not undermining their “Greekness”. However, a high percentage of participants (58.3%) were reluctant to adopt a spelling system deviant from the orthography of the SMG language.

5.2. Preferences on examples of the typographic conventions In Question one-Section two of the questionnaire, we aimed at investigating GCs’ willingness to depart from the standard orthography, in order to best represent the GC dialect. The question involved five words, each one representing a different dialectal sound ([‫ݕޖ‬érin] “hand”, [t‫ݕ‬i‫ݠޖ‬a] “belly”, [‫ޝݕޖ‬il:os] “dog”, [‫ޝݕ‬i‫ޖ‬nin] “rope”, [stron‫ݶ‬i‫ޖ‬los] “round” ).The participants had to choose among five orthographic choices that formed a continuum with the more etymological orthographies holding the one end and those that diverge the most from SMG, the other end. The five

Orthography Development for the Greek Cypriot Dialect

73

orthographic options included in the questionnaire represent the five most frequently used spellings for the representation of the post-alveolar Cypriot consonants as they have been attested in all GC written records. Each orthographic convention differs from the other four to the extent that it modifies or retains standard Greek orthography. For example, the Cypriot sound [‫ ]ݕ‬in Option 1 is rendered by means of diacritics over certain Greek graphemes. To decide about which grapheme to use, users have to take into account etymological information and decide between two forms of spelling. Hence, when the dialectal sound stems from the velar sound /x/ the grapheme is used (e.g., [çeri] realized in GC as [‫ݕ‬erin] written as “hand”) otherwise when the GC sound comes from the alveolar /s/ the grapheme is employed (e.g., [isia] realized in GC as [i‫ݕ‬a] written as “straight”). However, it must be noted that while the use of the Greek grapheme , for example in the word [‫ݕ‬erin] “hand”, is driven by etymological motivations and serves maintaining standard orthography, it disregards phonological transparency. In all other options provided in the questionnaire phonological accuracy is promoted over etymological orthography and hence the grapheme is always used. As such in Option 2 the GC sound is realised by the use of the diacritic over the grapheme (e.g., “hand”). The Greek letter /i/ combined with the grapheme is utilised in Options 3 and 4 with or without the use of a diacritic accordingly to reflect the presence of post-alveolars (Arvaniti 2006). Finally, Option 5 which represents the least etymological orthographic systems involves the use of the Roman character combined again with the grapheme (e.g., “hand”) to ensure that the real pronunciation of the dialectal sound [‫ ]ݕ‬will be rendered as much as possible. The results illustrate that most of the participants (87%) opted for the Greek letter (see Fig. 6-1), which more closely corresponds to the pronunciation of the dialectal sound in question, [‫ ;]ݕ‬only 13% favoured the letter which maintains the Greek orthography of the word. The percentage of the participants that preferred to adopt characters of the Latin alphabet was negligible (6%), even if transparency were served to a greater degree. In general, it is worth mentioning that a very high percentage (68%) of the participants were favourably inclined towards a combination of the Greek letters /s/ (with or without the use of the diacritic), followed by /i/ to render the CG sound [‫]ݕ‬. Among those who preferred the use of the letter , the majority of the participants (35%) selected the third

Chapterr Six

74

convention , which combines thee use of the ddiacritic, as well w as the Greek letterr /‹Ȁ ; a sllightly lower percentage (333%) chose the fourth convention , whichh does not maake use of anny symbols/maarkers on the letters. Seriees1, 5. ıh-ȑȑȡȚȞ, 5.9, 6% Series1, 4. ıȚ-ȑȡȚȞ, 30.2, 33%

11. Ȥࡅ-ȑȡȚȞ [‫ݕ‬érrin] 'hand' 13% Series1, 2. ııࡅ-ȑȡȚȞ, 11.6, 13% Seriess1, 3. ıࡅȚ-ȑȡȚȞȞ, 31.8, % 35%

Figure 6-1. Prreferences regaarding the Greek k word [‫ޖ‬çéri] realised as [‫ݕޖ‬érin] in the dialect (Section 2-Queestion 1).

Questionn two-Section two of the qu uestionnaire aiimed at exam mining GC speakers’ prreferences forr the use of the t Greek lettter /i/ an nd/or of a diacritic to mark post-alvveolars. For this t purpose, Greek as welll as loan foreign wordds were selectted, divided in nto three majoor categories: 1. Greek words in w which the /ii/ follow wing the di alectal sound d is not etymologicaally evidencedd; 2. Greek words w in whichh the /i/ following f the dialectall sound is etym mologically ev videnced; 3. F Foreign loan words. w This tim me, the words were w transcrib bed in only thhree different ways, w the most recurreently used by writers to ren nder the dialecct. These threee writing methods em mphasized the use of thee two spellinng convention ns under question andd their combinnation (i.e., [‫ޖ‬ka‫ݕ‬a] “box”— —1: țȐıࡅĮ, 2: țȐıࡅȚĮ, 3: țȐıȚĮ). Thee results illusstrated that th he majority oof the GC paarticipants preferred opption two, irreespective of th he word originn. This pheno omenon is observed inn most of the words of thiis question; th thus, the most popular writing systeem is the one for which thee representatioon of the GC segments makes use of both typpographic con nventions to show the distinctive d dialectal souund, the diacrritic mark and d the Greek lletter /i/ combined c with other G Greek letters. The secoond most popuular writing method m is the use of the Grreek letter /i/ , com mbined with other Greek characters bbut without any a other markers or symbols beinng added (optiion three). Thhis preferencee is again

Orthography Development for the Greek Cypriot Dialect

75

independent of the origin of the word. The results for each word are presented in Table 6-5. Word

Option 1

%

Option 2

%

Option 3

%

Greek words (/i/ is not etymologically evidenced) [‫ޖ‬ka‫ݕ‬a] “box”

țȐıࡅĮ

IJȗࡅȠȚȜȚȐ [t‫ݕ‬i‫ݠޖ‬a] “belly” Loan foreign words

11.1

țȐıࡅȚĮ

48.2

țȐıȚĮ

31.8

38.9

IJȗࡅȚȠȚȜȚȐ

16.0

IJȗȚȠȚȜȚȐ

30.1

ıȚİʌȑIJIJȠȢ

34.2

țȠIJȗȚȐțĮȡȘ

41.9

ıࡅİʌȑIJIJȠȢ 15.8 ıࡅȚȑʌİIJIJȠȢ 37.5 [‫ݕ‬e‫ޖ‬pethos] “gun” [ko‫ޖ‬t‫ݕ‬akari] țȠIJȗࡅȐțĮȡȘ 13.0 țȠIJȗࡅȚȐțĮȡȘ 37.7 “old lady” Greek words (/i/ is etymologically evidenced) [‫ޖ‬i‫ޝݕ‬os] “equal” [klo‫ޖ‬t‫ޝݕ‬a] “hack”

ȓıࡅȠȢ

8.1

ȓıࡅȚȠȢ

50.5

ȓıȚȠȢ

34.8

țȜȦIJıࡅȐ

4.7

țȜȦIJıࡅȚȐ

48.9

țȜȦIJıȚȐ

40.7

Table 6-5. GC participants’ orthography preferences for the six words (Section 2- Question 2). A closer look at the results indicates that even though the writing method which accommodates only the use of diacritics (see Table 6-6) is generally not preferred, in the case of the word [t‫ݕ‬i‫ݠޖ‬a] “belly”, the trend changes. The option in which the representation of the sound [t‫ ]ݕ‬is achieved merely by means of a diacritic over the Greek letters , received the highest percentage of preference (38.9%). The same phenomenon was also observed in Question 1 of Section 2, with the word [stron‫ݶ‬i‫ޖ‬los] “round” (see Table 6-6). It can be inferred that when the dialectal sound in question is followed by the Greek phoneme /i/, realised in writing with different graphemes , , , , the participants do not feel the need to add the Greek letter /i/ as an additional typographic convention to signal the peculiar pronunciation of the GC sound and, therefore, in this case, they tend to use only the diacritics.

Chapter Six

76

Question 2 (Section 2) of questionnaire (3 writing methods tested) 1 (use of diacritics)

2 (use of diacritics+ Greek letter /i/ )

a [t‫ݕ‬i‫ݠޖ‬a] IJȗࡅ-ȠȚȜȚȐ 16.0% 38.9% IJȗࡅȚ-ȠȚȜȚȐ “belly” Question 1 (Section 2) of questionnaire (5 writing methods tested) b [stron‫ݶ‬i‫ޖ‬los] “round”

ıIJȡȠȞ-IJȗࡅȣȜȩȢ

37.5%

ıIJȡȠȞ-IJȗࡅȚȣȜȩȢ

13.0%

Table 6-6. The popularity of two writing methods in the case of the words [t‫ݕ‬i‫ݠ‬a]”belly” and [stron‫ݶ‬i‫ޖ‬los] “round”. In the last question of Section two of the questionnaire, we included foreign loan words. The words tested had the dialectal sounds, either at the end of the word or in the middle, followed by a consonant. The vast majority of the respondents (43.7 %) preferred the use of the diacritic over the Greek letters for the word [‫ޖ‬mi‫“ ]ݕ‬allegedly”. Similar percentages were observed in all the words of this question. The alternative options presented very low percentages, which are indicative of the participants’ dissatisfaction. One example of each case ([‫ޖ‬mi‫ ]ݕ‬and [kunu‫ޖݕ‬man] “laziness”) is provided in the Table 6-7 below. The highest preferences are highlighted. Position word-final [‫ޖ‬mi‫]ݕ‬ “allegedly”

e.g.,

word medial + consonant e.g., [kunu‫ޖݕ‬man] “laziness”

Option 1 Ɋɇɑɑ

% ͳ͵Ǥ͸

Option 2 Ɋɇɑ

% ͺǤ͵

Option 3 Ɋɇæ

% 43.7

ɈɍɓɋɍɓɐɐɊəɋ

ͳͶǤ͵

ɈɍɓɋɍɓɐɊəɋ

ͳ͹Ǥͻ

ɈɍɓɋɍɓɐɐǍɊəɋ

48.6

Table 6-7. The distribution of the participants’ answers for three suggested writing methods (Section 2- Question 3).

Orthography Development for the Greek Cypriot Dialect

SECTION1: What conventions I use to represent the GC dialect in writing (Question 2): 1. Various combinations of Greek characters/letters. 2. Latin characters embedded in Greek words.

3. Latin characters/ Greeklish.

4. Diacritics and other symbols above or below Greek characters.

NeverRarely Sometimes FrequentlyVery freq NeverRarely Sometimes FrequentlyVery freq NeverRarely Sometimes FrequentlyVery freq NeverRarely Sometimes FrequentlyVery freq

77

SECTION 2: Orthography preferences regarding the word [‫ݕ‬erin] (Question1): ɖǍɚɏɇɋ ɐǍɚɏɇɋ ɐǍɇɚɏɇɋ ɐɇɚɏɇɋ ɐŠɚɏɇɋ

13.5%

10.0%

30.9%

27.4%

10.4%

11.4% 7.7%

13.4% 11.3%

34.7% 35.7%

28.2% 37.2%

6.9% 3.5%

10.6%

12.2%

33.6%

33.9%

3.6%

4.1% 9.1%

9.2% 9.1%

37.8% 37.1%

30.6% 27.3%

12.2% 15.9%

8.6%

10.5%

31.9%

38.1%

4.6%

12.5% 9.8%

10.5% 12.3%

32.2% 36.9%

34.9% 28.9%

5.3% 7.2%

9.1%

11.1%

34.8%

33.5%

5.9%

14.7% 17.1%

11.8% 25.7%

41.2% 31.4%

26.5% 22.9%

2.9% 2.9%

Table 6-8. A two dimensional cross-tabulation of the extent of preference for each orthographic convention of the word [‫ݕޖ‬erin] in Section 2, in relation to the extent of preference the typographic conventions GC speakers use in writing GC.

5.3. Consistency of answers One of the goals of Section two of the questionnaire was to provide the participants with visual stimuli so that their responses and attitudes could be compared to the results in Section one of the questionnaire. For this purpose, we picked the word [‫ݕޖ‬erin] “hand” tested in Question oneSection two and investigated how our sample was distributed in the five writing options, in relation to how the participants’ responded to Question two-Section one “What conventions do I use to represent the GC dialect in writing?” As shown in Table 6-8, participants’ answers in Section one of the questionnaire tended to deviate from what they eventually selected in Section two. Irrespective of how frequently participants claimed to be employing each of the spelling conventions (Section one-Question two), in the second Section the majority of the participants opted for the method

78

Chapter Six

(option three). This method combines two ways to signal the dialectal sounds: a) the use of the diacritic mark over the Greek letter(s) e.g., , which more transparently renders the sound [‫]ݕ‬, compared to the etymologically evident letter(s) e.g., and b) the Greek letter /i/ . In a nutshell there seems to be a mismatch between GC users’ beliefs or attitudes and their actual choices of orthographic convention

5.4. The role of age and gender The effect of gender on the participants’ language attitudes and choices was not statistically significant in the vast majority of the questions. However, there was considerable statistical discrepancy between the age groups in several questions. In general, there was a strong association between age and orthographic preferences regarding the following words tested in Question one-Section two of the questionnaire, as shown by Pearson Chi-square tests: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

[‫ݕޖ‬erin] “hand” (Ȥ2=55.542, df =18, pVVC

In example (1), represents a mid to high central vowel, stands for a palatalized bilabial stop, in naahx signals an aspirated vowel nucleus VV‫ހ‬, and is the grapheme used for /‫ݔ‬/. While Mixean dialects vary greatly in their vowel systems, the phonemic distinctions in consonants are invariant comprising the following: /p, t, k, ‫ސ‬, m, n, ‫ݔ‬, ts, (t‫)ݔ‬, h, w, j/. Additional consonantal phonemes occur in Spanish loans and other loan words. The consonant system in Mixean remains stable across dialects and languages and so do major grammatical features, such as hierarchical and inverse grammatical marking, noun incorporation, and the distinction between “dependent” and “independent” predicate marking, among others. Dialectal variation is not well documented in Mixean. There are only a few published grammars, dictionaries, and phonological descriptions of the many Mixean varieties: De la Grasserie (1898), Dieterman (2008), Hoogshagen and Hoogshagen (1997), Jany (2011), Romero-Méndez (2008), Ruiz de Bravo Ahuja (1980), Schoenhals and Schoenhals (1965), Van Haitsma and Van Haitsma (1976). Given that there is no widely used uniform orthography, each documentation uses its own spelling system. However, as linguists and others develop new orthographies for Mixean, they are faced with similar challenges, such as using Spanish spelling conventions, finding easy-to-use symbols to represent all vowel distinctions, and dealing with suprasegmental palatalization. The next section discusses these challenges.

148

Chapter Eleven

3. Challenges in Orthography design for Mixean Each Mixean dialect, if documented, has established its own orthographic conventions (Jany 2010). Efforts to create a unified writing system for all Mixean dialects have met with limited success (Suslak 2003). The first attempt to develop a Mixean orthography dates back to the colonial period when a Dominican friar wrote a grammar, dictionary, and translations of various religious texts (De Quintana 1729 in De la Grasserie 1898). According to Suslak (2003), the Dominican order was then forced to withdraw from the region and De Quintana’s “writing system ended up forgotten” (Suslak 2003, 557). Much later, in the 1950s and 1960s, the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) started to work on several Mixean languages. Interestingly, they often used the same symbols for the same phonemes in distinct varieties but different orthographic conventions for each variety. For instance, /k/ was identified as a phoneme in all Mixean varieties, but the grapheme(s) used to represent it vary from one grammar to the next. While Van Haitsma and Van Haitsma (1976) and Ruiz de Bravo Ahuja (1980) employ , Hoogshagen and Hoogshagen (1997) use and Schoenhals and Schoenhals (1965) . SIL’s strategies employed in orthography design are summarized in Benton (1999), who also addresses the issue of uniformity among related languages. SIL produced grammars, dictionaries, and bible translations. Acunzo (1991) and others claim that introducing different orthographies was a strategy aimed at linguistically and socially fragmenting the Mixean community. As a reaction to this belief, the idea of a unified Mixean orthography, following a “union approach” as described by Unseth (this volume), was proposed at a regional summit in 1979 to serve as a vehicle of Mixean unification (Suslak 2003). A local task force was created for this endeavor, but they were faced with the problem of great linguistic diversity, lack of resources, and local politics. As a result, the orthography was never successful, likely in part due to the problematic nature of committee work in the establishment of a unified othrography, as discussed by Decker (this volume). Since 2005, a unified orthography has received more support, and its implementation has been somewhat successful, since it included a series of local workshops to train teachers and community members (Reyes Gómez 2005). Each Mixean orthography has been faced with similar challenges mainly relating to three topics: (1) the inclusion of Spanish spelling conventions, (2) the representation of vowel qualities and laryngeal

Standardization in Language Revitalization

149

features, and (3) the spelling rules for suprasegmental palatalization. These topics are briefly discussed here.

3.1 Spanish Conventions Using orthographic conventions from the dominant language Spanish can have its advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include familiarity with the spelling conventions for literate users, which can aid literacy, technological usability, and the possibility to gain status for the non-dominant language. Disadvantages comprise the possibility of internal inconsistencies and the reduction in emblemacy (Seifart 2006, Sebba 2007, Grenoble and Whaley 2006). The main reason for choosing to adopt Spanish spelling conventions is the sociopolitical relation to the dominant language. While indigenous communities in Latin America often favor Spanish spelling conventions, some have opted against Spanish orthography rules to distance themselves from the dominant language (Grenoble and Whaley 2006). In Mexico, indigenous communities generally want their language to look like Spanish (Benton 1999). This is reflected in the Mixean orthographies. There are at least three places where Spanish spelling conventions may be applied in Mixean: (a) Spanish loans retain their original spelling, (b) certain Mixean allophonic distinctions relate to Spanish phonemes: while Spanish phonemically distinguishes the voiced obstruents /b, d, g/, Mixean does not, and (c) choosing the grafeme for the glottal fricative /h/, since initial is not pronounced in Spanish; and for /k/. Spanish loans largely retain their original spelling in Mixean, unless any phonological adaptations are present, as shown for Chuxnabán Mixe. 2) a. b. c. d.

Spanish loans in Chuxnabán Mixe Mixean cebu [se‫ޖ‬ȕu] lugarë [lu‫ܵޖ‬a‫ޝ‬rܺ] Dios [djos] semanë [se‫ޖ‬ma‫ޝ‬nܺ]

“type of bull” “place” “God” “week”

Spanish cebú [se‫ޖ‬ȕu] lugar [lu‫ܵޖ‬a:r] Dios [djos] semana [se‫ޖ‬ma:na]

“type of bull” “place” “God” “week”

Chapter Eleven

150

e. f.

toronjë [to‫ݐޖ‬onhܺ] cartonochy [ka‫ݐ‬ton‫ސޖ‬ot‫]ݔ‬

“grapefruit” “inside the box”

toronja [to‫ݐޖ‬onha] cartón [ka‫ޖݐ‬ton]

g.

machetaajtëmë [mat‫ݕ‬et‫ސޖ‬a‫ހޝ‬tܺmܺ]

“our machete”

machete [ma‫ޖ‬t‫ݕ‬ete]

h.

lämyëtëëjk [læmjܺ‫ޖ‬tܺ‫ހޝ‬k]

“sheet metal house”

lámina [‫ޖ‬lamina]

“grapefruit” “box” + -ochy “inside” “machete” +-aajtëme “our” “sheet metal” + tëëjk “house”

Eight phonemes found in Mixean only occur in Spanish and other loans: /b, d, g, f, s, ‫ݐ‬, r, l/. A few loans show phonological adaptations, such as the final high central vowel , like in (2b), (2d), (2e), and (2h), or they contain Chuxnabán Mixe bound morphology, such as –ochy “inside” in (2f). Other Spanish loans entered Mixean earlier and have undergone several phonological changes. Therefore, they sometimes diverge from Spanish spelling conventions, such as for example krukts “cross” from Spanish cruz “cross” or nanwelë “grandmother” from Spanish abuela “grandmother” in Chuxnabán Mixe. The Spanish phonemes /b, d, g/ occur in Mixean as allophones of the phonemes /p, t, k/ respectively. In Mixean, obstruents are voiced if they occur between two voiced segments, such as intervocalically or after nasals. This is illustrated below for Chuxnabán Mixe (from Jany 2011). 3)

Voiced obstruents in Chuxnabán Mixe ankëëxp jëtu’un tëëpë

“above” “thus “the one who”

[aƾ‫ޖ‬gܺ‫ݔޝ‬pࡘ ] [hܺ‫ޖ‬du‫ސ‬un] [‫ޖ‬tܺ‫ޝ‬bܺ]

Mixean speakers are accustomed to seeing the voiced obstruents [b, d, g] represented in writing due to their literacy in Spanish. Orthography developers, thus, have to choose between a strictly phonemic writing system in Mixean and a system that allows for a representation of certain allophonic variations in order to conform to Spanish spelling conventions. The lexical items in (3) could equally be represented as angëëxp, jëdu’un, and tëëbë. It has to be noted, though, that in Spanish voiced stops which occur intervocalically are spirantized. In Mixean, the voiced allophonic stops are produced as stops and not as fricatives, except in Spanish loans.

Standardization in Language Revitalization

151

The third Spanish spelling convention to be considered in Mixean orthography design is the choice of grapheme to represent the glottal fricative /h/. In Spanish, the grapheme is not pronounced. Rather, Spanish uses the grapheme to represent the glottal fricative. Thus, using as the grapheme for the glottal fricative in Mixean can be potentially confusing for Mixean speakers who are literate in Spanish. Similarly, Spanish has special spelling rules for the voiceless velar stop /k/, which is represented with three different graphemes depending on its phonological environment and other factors: as in casa /kasa/ “house”, queso /keso/ “cheese”, and kilo /kilo/ “kilo”. Thus, using only for the voiceless velar stop /k/ in Mixean may hinder literacy development, or it can enhance it for those who are not literate in Spanish. See Section 4 for examples of how these issues have been solved in the past.

3.2 Vowel Qualities and Laryngeal Features In addition to Spanish spelling conventions, orthography developers face a series of challenges related to Mixean dialects. One such challenge is the complex vowel system. Each Mixean dialect has at least one phonemic vowel for which an International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) symbol is not readily found on standard keyboards. These vowels could be represented using IPA symbols or using dieresis over a vowel found on standard keyboards, e.g., . While the latter may facilitate reading and writing, the choice of a particular vowel with dieresis may not be obvious in each case (e.g., choice between and for [‫ ]ܫ‬or [݇] or between ö and ü for [‫)]ݜ‬. Moreover, orthography developers need to find a way to represent the laryngeal features in Mixean vowels, such as glottalization and aspiration. Again, either IPA symbols or a more user-friendly way can be adopted, such as an apostrophe for glottalization and the respective grapheme for the glottal fricative /h/, or , for aspiration. Section 4 discusses the choices made for each orthography.

3.3 Suprasegmental Palatalization A third challenge for Mixean orthography designers lies in suprasegmental palatalization, a morpheme-induced phonological process which affects entire consonant clusters and adjacent vowels (Dieterman 2008, Jany 2011). This is perceived as an onglide and an offglide and

Chapter Eleven

152

manifested by a change in the formant structure of adjacent vowels lowering F1 and raising F2. The latter indicates fronting. One exception is palatalized /j/, which does not undergo any changes (Dieterman 2008, Jany 2011). Orthography developers need to decide whether to write the phonetic effects of palatalization and to what degree. Furthermore, while suprasegmental palatalization in Mixean varieties manifests as a secondary articulation of the consonants /p, m, h, ‫ސ‬, w/, it also changes the primary position of the alveolar and velar consonants /t, k, x, ts, n/ moving them toward the palatal region (Dieterman 2008). This is most apparent for the alveolar affricate /ts/, which changes to /t‫ݕ‬/ or /t‫ݔ‬/, a phoneme in Spanish. It could be determined to adapt the orthography of a palatalized /ts/ to the grapheme ch, to conform to Spanish spelling conventions. Suprasegmental palatalization of /ts/ is illustrated below for Chuxnabán Mixe (from Jany 2011). 4)

Post-alveolar palatalization

affricate

/t‫ݕ‬/

resulting

from

suprasegmental

y- “3rd person POSS” + tëëjk “house” ĺ chëëjk [t‫ހޝܺݕ‬k] “his/her house” In Mixean, morpheme-induced suprasegmental palatalization occurs at word-edges, such as when the third-person possessive prefix y- is added, as in (4). A different type of palatalization process occurs in compounds word-medially and is not morpheme-induced. If a word ending in the palatal glide /j/ precedes another word in a compound, the first consonant of the second word is palatalized and voiced, as shown below for Chuxnabán Mixe (from Jany 2011). 5)

Palatalization in compounding tëy “truth” + kaapxp “to speak”ĺ tëykyaapxp [tܺj‫ޖ‬gja‫ޝ‬p‫ݔ‬p] “tell the truth”

Phonetically this process is different from morpheme-induced palatalization in that it also causes voicing of the following segment. An orthography may reflect the distinction between these two types of palatalization. However, this would imply certain grammatical and lexical knowledge of the language on the part of its users. The above discussed are only a few of the challenges orthography developers are faced with when attempting to create a new orthography for

Standardization in Language Revitalization

153

a particular Mixean dialect or a unified orthography for all Mixean dialects. The following section compares ten existing orthographies for different Mixean dialects and discusses how the presented challenges have been resolved in different ways.

4. Case study: Ten Mixean Orthographies Compared Given the lack of a widely used uniform orthography for Mixean dialects, each community where language documentation has taken place has developed its own spelling rules. Sometimes, different orthographies are even used within the same community. In this section, I compare ten existing Mixean orthographies summarized in Tables 11-2, 11-3, and 11-4. The ten orthographies include two different orthographies for Chuxnabán Mixe, four orthographies developed by SIL for four different Mixean dialects, an orthography for Ayutla Mixe, two uniform Mixean orthographies developed in different decades (National Institute for Adult Education INEA in the 1990s and Reyes Gómez in 2005), and the orthography used by the Dominican friar during the colonial period, as shown in Table 11-1. Dialect Chuxnabán

Language Midland

Source Jany

Year 2010

Code* Ch

Chuxnabán2

Midland

Gregorio Cirilo

2005

Ch2

San José El Paraíso

Lowland

SIL; Van Haitsma

1976

SJ

Coatlán

Lowland

SIL; Hoogshagen

1997

Coa

Totontepec

North Highland

SIL; Schoenhals

1965

Tot

Tlahuitoltepec

South Highland

SIL; Ruiz de Bravo Ahuja

1980

Tl

Ayutla

South Highland

Romero-Méndez

2008

Ay

All

All

Uniform; INEA

1997

INEA

All

All

Uniform; Reyes

2005

Rey

Juquila

Midland

De Quintana

1729

Qui

Table 11-1. Orthographies compared * Code used in Tables 11-2, 11-3, and 11-4

Chapter Eleven

154

The comparison of the ten orthographies illustrates divergence in four areas: (1) the adoption of certain allophonic variations, (2) the representations of /k/ and /h/ in regards to Spanish spelling conventions, (3) symbols for less commonly found vowel qualities, and (4) suprasegmental palatalization, as shown in Tables 11-2, 11-3, and 11-4. The three tables also include IPA symbols (IPA) and Spanish orthographic conventions (Spa) for comparison. Ch

Ch2

SJ

Coa

Tot

Tl

Ay

INEA

Rey

Qui

IPAb

Spa

p ba t d k

p b t d k

p b t d k

p b t d c, qu

p b t d k

p b t d k

p b, p t d, t k

p b t d k

g

g

g

g

g, k

g

p b, v t d c, k, qu g

’ m n x j ts

‫ݦ‬, ’c m n, ƾ š, ž h c, ‫ݢ‬

’ m n x j ts

‫ݦ‬ m n š h c

’ m n x j ts

’ m n x j ts

’ m n x j ts

m n x h, j tz

ch

’ m n x j ts, dz ch

cѺ

g (gu) ’ m n, ng x j tz, dz ch

p b t d c, k, qu g

[p, b] [b] [t, d] [d] [k, g]

g

p b t d k, qu g

ch

cy

tsy

y

y

y

y

y

y

tsy, ch y

ch

y

tsy, ch y

y

[‫]ݦ‬ [m] [n, ƾ] [‫ݕ‬,‫]ݤ‬ [h] [ts, dz] [t‫ݕ‬, d‫] ݤ‬ [j]

w f l r s

w f l r z

w f l Ĝ s, z

hu, v f l r s

v f l r s, z

w f l r s

w f l r s

w f l r s

w f l r s

hu f l r s

[w] [f] [l] [r] [s, z]

[g]

m n g, j tz ch ie, ll, y -, (u) f l r, rr c, s, z

Table 11-2. Comparison of graphemes for consonants a

b

c

Graphemes in cursive occur only in loans from Spanish and in loans from other languages Not all allophonic variations are included in the IPA column If part of the syllable nucleus

Standardization in Language Revitalization Ch py ty ky xy ch my

Ch2 py ty ky xy ch my

SJ pѺ tѺ kѺ šѺ cѺ mѺ

ny

ñ

ñ

Coa py, yp ty, yt ky, yk xy, yx ch my, ym ñ

155

Tot py ty ky xy ch my

Tla py ty ky šy cy my

Ay py ty ky xy tsy my

INEA py ty ky xy tsy my

Rey py ty ky xy tsy my

Qui -

IPA [p‫]ނ‬ [t‫]ނ‬ [k‫]ނ‬ [‫]ނݕ‬ [t‫]ݕ‬ [m‫]ނ‬

Spa ch -

ñ

ny

ny

ny

ny

ñ

[݄]

ñ

Table 11-3. Comparison of graphemes for palatalized consonants Ch

Ch2

SJ

Coa

Tot

Tla

Ay

INEA

Rey

Qui

IPA

Spa

a ä e i ë o ö u ü

a a e i ‫ݛ‬ o -a u -a

a e i ܺ o u -

a e i ܺ o u -

a e e i a o o u u

a ‫ܧ‬ e i ‫ݞ‬ o u -

a ä e i ë o u -

a ä e i ï, ë o ö u ü

a ä e i ë o ö u ü

a â e i, y ê, î o ô u û

[a] [æ, ‫]ܧ‬ [e] [i] [ܺ, ‫]ݛ‬ [o] [ø] [u] [‫]ݡ‬

a e i, y o u -

Table 11-4. Comparison of graphemes for vowels a

This vowel quality has not been found in the source due to the fact that it occurs only in verb forms, and only very few verbs were collected.

Tables 11-2, 11-3, and 11-4 illustrate the variation among the distinct orthographies, in particular among the four writing systems developed by SIL (SJ, Coa, Tot, and Tla). The main areas where the orthographies diverge are the allophonic voiced stops [b, d, g], and more generally the adoption of certain allophonic variations, the representations of /k/ and /h/ in regards to Spanish spelling conventions, less commonly found vowel qualities, and suprasegmental palatalization. For a discussion of these issues see Section 3.1. Some orthographies, such as one for Chuxnabán Mixe (Ch2), San José El Paraíso Mixe (SJ), and Coatlán Mixe (Coa), and the one used by De Quintana during the colonial period (Qui), represent some allophonic variations in their spelling conventions, such as the voiced stops [b, d, g], which are phonemic in Spanish, as in (6a-d).

Chapter Eleven

156

6)

Allophonic variations in spelling conventions a. b. c. d.

Ch2 SJ Coa Qui

mҁgoxk mѠd mѠgoox mitob

“five” “with” “five” “you will be”

[mܺ‫ޖ‬go‫ݔ‬k] [mܺd] [mܺ‫ޖ‬go‫]ݕޝ‬ [mi‫ޖ‬tob]

Similarly, some orthographies represent the voiceless velar stop /k/ and the glottal fricative /h/ following Spanish spelling conventions with the graphemes c, k, qu and j respectively, as in (7a-c) and (8a-c). 7)

Spanish spelling conventions for /k/ a. b. c.

8)

Coa Tot Qui

queemy caan caiba

“wild boar” “salt” “the one who eats”

[ke‫ޝ‬m‫]ނ‬ [ka‫ޝ‬n] [‫ޖ‬kayba]

Spanish spelling conventions for /h/ a. b. c.

SJ Tl Qui

haӄnc˾ hoӄn hanch

“really” “bird” “really”

[hant‫]ݕ‬ [ho‫ޝ‬n] [hant‫]ݕ‬

Other than the aforementioned distinctions, the representations of the consonantal phonemes demonstrate few differences. For instance, the representation for the glottal stop shows variation: in the San José El Paraíso and Tlahuitoltepec dialects the IPA symbol [‫ ]ݦ‬is used, while in the other dialects an apostrophe is used for practical reasons. Moreover, there is some variation with respect to the bilabial glide [w], which is represented as hu or v in (Coa), (Tot), and (Qui), as in (9a-c). 9)

Representation of [w] a. b. c.

Coa Tot Qui

huaay vaajy huindul

“hair” “hair” “before”

[w‫ހ‬a‫ޝ‬y] [wa‫ހޝ‬y] [w‫ހ‬in‫ޖ‬dul]

As explained before, the Mixean vowel system is a major challenge orthography developers are faced with for two reasons: (a) it is the source

Standardization in Language Revitalization

157

for most differences between Mixean dialects and (b) all dialects have one or more vowel qualities for which there is no symbol on a basic keyboard, and which does not occur in Spanish. As with the consonants, the four orthographies elaborated by SIL (Coa, SJ, Tot, Tla) show considerable variation, as in (10a-d). In general, either dieresis, diacritics, underlining, or the IPA symbols are used for the non-standard vowel qualities. 10)

Representation of non-standard vowel qualities a. b. c. d.

Coa SJ Tot Tla

mѠc mѠk mac h҄y

“strong” “strong” “strong” “brother-in-law

[mܺk] [mܺk] [mܺk] [hܺy]

The fourth major variation among the orthographies are the spelling conventions used for suprasegmental palatalization. Again, while some varieties follow Spanish spelling for the palatalized /n/, i.e., a superscript tilde, and for the palatlized /ts/, i.e., the grapheme , both phonemic palatalized consonants found in Spanish, others choose to represent suprasegmental palatalization for all consonants in the same manner, a consonant followed by a palatal glide . One of the orthographies, San José El Paraíso, applies the tilde to all palatalized consonants. None of the orthographies chooses to represent the onglide of the suprasegmental process. The different orthographies in regards to palatalization are illustrated in (11a-d). 11)

Representations of palatalization a. b. c. d.

Ch SJ Tla Ay

kach mac˾ cyik katsy

“basket” “he grabs it” “his chicken” “basket”

[kat‫]ݕ‬ [mat‫]ݕ‬ [t‫ݕ‬ik] [kat‫]ݕ‬

The two orthographies for Chuxnabán Mixe (Ch and Ch2) diverge only in two areas for the consonants: (1) in Ch2 allophonic voiced obstruents are represented, while in Ch they are not and (2) in Ch2 the palatalized alveolar nasal is represented following Spanish orthography as . The other Chuxnabán Mixe writing system (Ch) is exclusively phonemic and resorts to Spanish spelling conventions only in cases where confusion would result otherwise, such as with the glottal fricative /h/ and the

Chapter Eleven

158

post-alveolar affricate /t‫ݕ‬/. The representations of the vowel systems, however, are completely different. Ch2 only has seven vowels using underlining for [æ] and the IPA symbol for [‫]ݛ‬, while Ch includes nine vowels using dieresis for any additional vowel qualities. Such major differences make it difficult for those literate in one orthography to read the other. These differences are illustrated in (12a-d) 12) a. b. c. d.

Differences in Ch and Ch2 representations Phoneme /t/ /݄/ /æ/ /ܺ/

Ch tëtujk meeny mäjtsk xëëw

Ch2 tҁdujk meeñ majtsk xҁҁw

Translation “six” “money” “two” “party”

Transcription [tܺ‫ޖ‬du‫ހ‬k] [me‫]݄ޝ‬ [mæ‫ހ‬tsk] [‫ޝܺݕ‬w]

Overall, the comparison of Mixean orthographies illustrates the difficulties encountered by developers and users when attempting to consider dialectal idiosyncracies while trying to create a unifying orthography. The two uniform orthographies (INEA and Rey) are almost identical. Both avoid the representation of the allophonic voiced obstruents (except in loan words), thus being exclusively phonemic. Both consistently use a palatal glide to represent palatalization. Moreover, both chose for glottal fricative [h] following Spanish spelling conventions, and both employ an apostrophe for glottalization instead of the IPA symbol for ease of use. In addition, both uniform orthographies use dieresis for all additional vowel qualities. However, they differ in one symbol: while INEA uses either or , Rey uses only for the high central vowel. None of the dialects shows a phonemic distinction between the high central rounded vowel [‫ ]ݛ‬and the one which is not rounded [ܺ]. Using only one symbol for both vowel qualities, as in Rey, simplifies the writing system. In general, the uniform orthographies show consistency in being phonemic and in the choice of their symbols, while also opting for symbols which are readily found on standard keyboards. These factors help the learnability of the orthography and contribute to its ease of use, and, ultimately, to its widespread use.

Standardization in Language Revitalization

159

5. Discussion and Conclusions Overall, this chapter demonstrates the difficulties encountered when attempting to design a spelling system in a linguistically and dialectally diverse and understudied region. While Mixean communities generally favor Spanish spelling conventions, they also prefer dialectal particularity over multidialectal uniformity. This has been the case in my own fieldwork in the Chuxnabán Mixe community (Jany 2010). Thus, the paper highlights the complexity of orthography design and the challenges of language documentation in a region with limited intellectual and economic resources to unify local communities and to ensure widespread impact. Social, political, and cultural acceptability represents a key factor in the prosperity of an orthography (Sebba 2007), ultimately contributing to the success or failure of language documentation and revitalization. Nonetheless, in recent years the uniform orthography developed by Reyes Gómez (2005) has been somewhat successful largely due to the workshops organized to train local teachers and other community members. A unified writing system eases and contributes to the task of language and dialect documentation. At the same time, it leaves little opportunity for highlighting the particularity of a dialect or community. The Mixean uniform orthography is not an attempt at dialect standardization involving a language shift process, as discussed by Karan and Corbett (this volume); it is a way of allowing anyone literate in the orthography to read and write in any Mixean dialect.

REFERENCES

Aceras Anthropophorum. 2009. ǼȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ țȣʌȡȚĮțȒ įȚȐȜİțIJȠ / Queries about Cypriot dialect. Aceras Anthropophorum. http://acerasanthropophorum.blogspot.com/2009/04/blog-post_17.html. Acunzo, Mario. 1991. Educación e identidad étnica: el caso de la comunidad mixe de Santa María Tlahuitoltepec (México). Ecuador: Ediciones Abya-Yala. Allsopp, Richard. 1996. Dictionary of Caribbean English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Andreou, Andreas. 2011. īȡȐijȠȞIJĮ ȉȗȣʌȡĮȓȧțĮ: ȉİȜȚțȑȢ İȚıȘȖȒıİȚȢ / Writing Cypriot Greek: final suggestions. ȈțȑijIJȠȞIJĮ ȉȗȣʌȡĮȓȧțĮ / Thinking in Cypriot Greek. http://kypriaka.blogspot.com/2011/06/blogpost.html. Angogo, Rachel M. 1982. Dialect problems and Bible translation—a case study of a union version. The Bible Translator 33(1). 127–134. Ansre, Gilbert. 1971. Language standardization in Sub-Saharan Africa. Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa, vol. 7, 680–698. (Current Trends in Linguistics). The Hague: Mouton. Armosti, Spyros. 2011. The phonetics of plosive and affricate gemination in Cypriot Greek. PhD Thesis. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Armosti, Spyros, Marianna Katsoyannou, Kyriaki Christodoulou & Charalambos Themistocleous. 2012. ȉȐıİȚȢ IJȦȞ ȀȣʌȡȓȦȞ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ ȖȡĮʌIJȒ ĮʌȩįȠıȘ IJȦȞ ȝİIJĮijĮIJȞȚĮțȫȞ ıȣȝijȫȞȦȞ IJȘȢ țȣʌȡȚĮțȒȢ / Tendencies of Greek Cypriots in writing post-alveolar consonants of Cypriot Greek. In Zoe Gavriilidou, Angeliki Efthymiou, Evangelia Thomadaki & Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis (eds.), Selected papers of the 10th International Conference of Greek Linguistics, 663–678. Komotini, Greece: Democritus University of Thrace. Arvaniti, Amalia. 2006. Linguistic practices in Cyprus and the emergence of Cypriot Standard Greek. San Diego Linguistic Papers 2. 1–24. —. 2010a. A (brief) overview of the phonetics and phonology of Cypriot Greek. In Andreas Voskos, Dionysis Goutsos & Amalia Moser (eds.), Ǿ ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȒīȜȫııĮ ıIJȘȞȀȪʌȡȠ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ ȦȢıȒȝİȡĮ (The Greek language in Cyprus from antiquity to today), 107–124. Athens: University of Athens. —. 2010b. Linguistic practices in Cyprus and the emergence of Cypriot Standard Greek. Mediterranean Language Review 17. 15–45.

162

References

Auger, Julie. 2011. Traditional speakers, militants, and language change. Paper presented at Methods in Dialectology 14, University of Western Ontario, August 2-6, 2011. Banda, Felix, Al Mtenje, Lazarus Miti, Vincent Chanda, Gregory Kamwendo, Armindo Ngunga, Marcelino Piphola, Carlos Manuel, Langa Khumalo & Sylvester Simango. 2001. A unified standard orthography for South-Central African languages: Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia. Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). Barnwell, Katharine. 1998. Course notes on the introductory course in Applied Linguistics. Jos: Nigeria Bible Translation Trust. Béjoint, Henri. 2010. The lexicography of English: from origins to present. New York: Oxford University Press. Benton, Joseph P. 1999. How the Summer Institute of Linguistics has developed orthographies for indigenous languages of Mexico / Cómo el Instituto Lingüístico de Verano ha formado ortografías para las lenguas autóctonas de Mexico. http://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/39114 Bersselaar, Dmitri van den. 1997. Creating “Union Ibo”: Missionaries and the Igbo Language. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 67(2). 273–295. Blackman, Margot. 1982. Bajan Proverbs. Barbados: Caribbean Graphics and Letchwood Ltd. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1982. Ce que parler veut dire: L’économie des échanges linguistiques. Paris: Fayard. —. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Braunek, Anna. 2013. PowszechnoĞü nauczania jĊzyków obcych w roku szkolnym 2011/2012. Warszawa: OĞrodek Rozwoju Edukacji. Bute, Ruby. 1996. Floral Bouquets to the Daughters of Eve. San Francisco: Columbia Publishers. Cahill, Michael & Elke Karan. 2008. Factors in designing effective orthographies for unwritten languages. SIL Electronic Working Papers 2008-001(001). Capo, Hounkpati B. C. 1989. The neolanguage approach to orthography: The case of Gbe. In Ted G. Bergman (ed.), Proceedings of the round table on assuring the feasibility of standardization within dialect chains, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, September 1988, 31–62. Nairobi: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Casad, Eugene H. 1974. Dialect Intelligibility Testing. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

163

Cassidy, Frederic Gomes & Robert Brock Le Page. 1967. Dictionary of Jamaican English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chambers, Jack K. & Peter Trudgill. 1998. Dialectology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chatziioannou, Ȁyriakos. 1996. ǼIJȣȝȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȜİȟȚțȩ IJȘȢ ȠȝȚȜȠȣȝȑȞȘȢ țȣʌȡȚĮțȒȢ įȚĮȜȑțIJȠȣࣟ: ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ țĮȚ ijȦȞȘIJȚțȒ IJȦȞ ȜȑȟİȦȞ ȝİ IJȠʌȦȞȣȝȚțȩ ʌĮȡȐȡIJȘȝĮ / ȀȣȡȚȐțȠȣ ȋĮIJȗȘȚȦȐȞȞȠȣ. / An Etymological Dictionary of presently spoken Cypriot Greek: history, explanation and phonetics of words; with an appendix of toponyms. Nicosia: Tamassos. —. 1999. īȡĮȝȝĮIJȚț‫ ޣ‬IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݾ‬ȝȚȜȠȣȝȑȞȘȢ ȀȣʌȡȚĮț߱Ȣ ǻȚĮȜȑțIJȠȣ / Grammar of the Spoken Cypriot Dialect. Nicosia: Tamassos. Chatzopoulou, Constantinia. Forthcoming. False friends in Modern and Cypriot Greek. Proceedings of the XXX Colloque International de Linguistique Fonctionnelle / 30th International Conference on Functional Linguistics. Paris: L’Harmattan. Clandinin, D. Jean & F. Michael Connelly. 2000. Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Clifton, John M. 1995. Organized Phonology Data: Vanimo Language [vam]. Ms. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea. http://www.sil.org/pacific/png/pubs/928474542501/Vanimo_OPD.pdf (18 April, 2012). Clifton, John M. & Deborah A. Clifton. 1995. Vanimo orthography workshop. Read 30(2). 3–8. Conceição, Savio E. da, Jeanne Kurvers, Aone van Engelenhoven & Sjaak Kroon. 2011. Fataluku Language and Literacy Uses and Attitudes in Timor-Leste. Ms. http://www.tlstudies.org/pdfs/TLSA%20Conf%202011/chp_52.pdf (9 March, 2013). Condon, Richard Guy. 1996. The Northern Copper Inuit: A History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Cooper, Robert L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Kerry Mae. 2012. Forecasting the vitality of the Fur language: A study in language use patterns and attitudes in Darfur. MA Thesis. University of North Dakota. Coulmas, Florian. 1996. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Coutsougera, Photini & Giorgos V. Georgiou. Forthcoming. An Orthographic System for Cypriot Greek. Proceedings of the XXX

164

References

Colloque International de Linguistique Fonctionnelle / 30th International Conference on Functional Linguistics. Paris: L’Harmattan. Creswell, John W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cummins, Jim. 1979. Cognitive/Academic Language Proficiency, Linguistic Interdependence, the Optimum Age Question and Some Other Matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19. 121–129. —. 2005. Teaching the language of academic success: A framework for school-based language policies. In Charles F. Leyba (ed.), Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical framework, 3–31. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. Daniels, Peter T. & Edwards Bright (eds.). 1996. The World’s Writing Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dawkins, Richard McGillivray. 1932. Leontios Makhairas, Recital concerning the sweet land of Cyprus, entitled “Chronicle”. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Debbarma, Binoy (ed.). 2006. The National Seminar on Kokborok Script— with Special Reference to Its Tonal Representation. Agartala, India: Kokborok Tei Hukumu Mission. Decker, Ken. 2005. The Song of Kriol: A Grammar of the Kriol Language of Belize. Belize City: Belize Kriol Project. Department of Canadian Heritage. 2009. Indigenous Knowledge: Place, People and Protocol. http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/org/sectr/cp-ch/aa /trd/ppr-eng.cfm (15 July, 2013). Deutsch, Karl W. 1942. International Affairs: The Trend of European Nationalism—the Language Aspect. The American Political Science Review 36(3). 533–541. De Quintana, Agustín. 1729. Arte de la lengua Mixe. Puebla, Mexico De Vaus, David. 2002. Surveys in social research. Routledge: London Dieterman, Julia. 2008. Secondary palatalization in Isthmus Mixe: a phonetic and phonological account. Ms. Summer Institute of Linguistics. http://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/9252 (2 December, 2013). Dittmann, M. 2013. English in the Colombian Archipelago of San Andres. In Tometro Hopkins & Ken Decker (eds.), Central America, vol. III. (World Englishes). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Edgell, Zee. 1982. Beka Lamb. London: Heinemann. Edwards, John. 2010. Minority Languages and Group Identity: Cases and Categories. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

165

Edwards, John R. 1985. Language, Society, and Identity. Oxford [Oxfordshire]; New York, NY, USA: B. Blackwell in association with A. Deutsch. Eira, Christina. 1998. Authority and Discourse: Towards a Model for Orthography Selection. Written Language & Literacy 1(2). 171–224. Emenanjo, E. Nolue. 1990. Multilingualism, minority languages and language policy in Nigeria. Agbar, Nigeria: Central Books Ltd. in collaboration with the Linguistic Association of Nigeria. Eno-Abasi, E. Urua. 2002. The challenges of language development in the Lower Cross region. In Francis O. Egbokhare & S. Oluwole Oyetade (eds.), Harmonization and standardization of Nigerian languages, 12– 35. (CASAS Book Series 19). Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). Eteokleous-Grigoriou, Nikleia, Simos Tsolakidis & Nataly LoizidouIeridou. 2012. Pre-service teachers’ initial experiences with the firsttime developed Greek Cypriot dialect keyboard. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, I. Candel Torres (eds.), Proceedings of 6th International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain: International Association of Technology, Education and Development (IATED). 1993-2002. Ewert, Alfred. 1956. The French Language. London: Faber and Faber. Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15. 325–340. —. 1964. Diglossia. In Dell H. Hymes (ed.), Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology, 429–439. New York: Harper & Row. Fine, Cathryn. 2003. Extendibility in Bouyei orthography design: a multilectal approach. China: Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics. http://www.sil.org/resources/archives/9873 (18 November, 2013). Fionik, Doroteusz. 2011. Pisanki NadbuĪaĔskie. Bielsk Podlaski: Muzeum Maáej Ojczyzny w Studziwodach. Fishman, Joshua A. 1965. Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When? La Linguistique 1(2). 67–88. —. 1972 [1967]. Societal Bilingualism: Stable and Transitional. Language in Sociocultural Change: Essays by Joshua A. Fishman. Stanford: Stanford University Press. —. 2010. European Vernacular Literacy: A Sociolinguistic and Historical Introduction. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fleischmann, Lillian. 1984a. Bine Acnema Buka: Kunini Tage Pogogo Ca. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics. —. 1984b. Bine Acnoma Buka: Boje-Giringarede Tago Pogogo Ca. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

166

References

Fleischmann, Lillian & Sinikka Turpeinen. 1976. A dialect survey of Eastern Trans-Fly languages. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics (Pacific Linguistics A-45 19). 39-76. Canberra: Australian National University. —. 1977. Bine phonemes. Miscellaneous Paper in P.N.G. Linguistics. (Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 22). 99-144. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Fox, Cynthia. 2001. French. In Jane Garry & Carl R. Galvez Rubino (eds.), Facts about the world’s languages: an encyclopedia of the world’s major languages, past and present. New York: H.W. Wilson. French, Brigittine M. 2004. The politics and semiotics of sounds—Mayan linguistics and nation-building in Guatemala. Collegium antropologicum 28 Suppl 1. 249–255. —. 2003. The Politics of Mayan Linguistics in Guatemala: Native Speakers, Expert Analysts, and the Nation. Pragmatics 13(4). 483-498. Gardy, Philippe & Robert Lafont. 1981. La diglossie comme conflit: l’exemple occitan. Langages 15(61). 75–91. Garvin, Paul L. 1954. Literacy as a Problem in Language and Culture. In Hugo J Mueller (ed), Report of the Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Teaching. 117–129. (Georgetown University Monograph in Series in Language and Linguistics 7.) Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Georgiou, Giorgos V. 2012. Language struggle and power abuse through diglossia in a murder trial. In Samuel Tomblin, Nicci MacLeod, Rui Sousa-Silva and Malcolm Coulthard (eds.), Proceedings of The International Association of Forensic Linguists’ Tenth Biennial Conference, 10–20. Birmingham,UK: Center for Forensic Linguistics. Georgiou, Vasiliki. 2010. Competing discourses in the debate on place names in Cyprus: Issues of (symbolic) inclusion/exclusion in orthographic choices. Journal of Language and Politics 9(1). 140–164. Glinka, Stanisáaw & Antonina ObrĊbska-JabáoĔska (eds.). 1980. Atlas gwar wschodniosáowiaĔskich Biaáostocczyzny, Tom 1. WrocáawWarszawa: PaĔstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Goutsos, Dionysis. 2004. Working through and against assumptions of identity and language. Review of Question of Identity. Language Use in Cyprus, by Lydia Sciriha. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2004(168). 135–139. Goutsos, Dionysis & Karyolemou Marilena. 2004. Introduction. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 168. 1–17. Grasserie, Raoul de la. 1898. Langue zoque et langue mixe: grammaire, dictionnaire / Zoque and Mixe language: grammar, dictionary.

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

167

(Biliothèque Linguistique Américaine, Tome XXII). Paris : J. Maisonneuve. Gregorio Cirilo, Cosme. 2005. Vocabulario Mixe. Ms. Grenoble, Lenore A. & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds.). 1998. Endangered languages: language loss and community response. New York: Cambridge University Press. Grenoble, Lenore A. & Lindsay J. Whaley. 2006. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grierson, George Abraham. 1903. Linguistic Survey of India. Calcutta: Govt. of India, Central Publication Branch http://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_tam_morsyn-3 Grimes, Joseph & Raymond Gordon Jr. 1980. Design of new orthographies. In James Kavanagh & Richard L. Venezky (eds.), Orthography, reading, and dyslexia, 93–103. Baltimore: University Park Press. Hadjioannou, Xenia, Stavroula Tsiplakou & Matthias Kappler. 2011. Language policy and language planning in Cyprus. Current Issues in Language Planning 12(4). 503–569. Haitsma, Julia Dieterman Van & Willard Van Haitsma. 1976. A hierarchical sketch of Mixe as spoken in San José El Paraíso. Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of Oklahoma. Haruchi, Sergey. 2002. Who am I in this land? What people am I part of? In Thomas Köhler & Kathrin Wessendorf (eds.), Towards a New Millenium [sic]: Ten Years of the Indigenous Movement in Russia, 72– 88. Copenhagen: IWGIA. Haugen, Einar. 1966. Dialect, Language, Nation. American Anthropologist 68(4). 922–935. Hawryluk, Jurij. 2009. Po-swojomu: howoryti, pisati i—dumati! In Nad Buhom i Narwoju, 3 (103). Bielsk Podlaski: Związek UkraiĔców Podlasia. Hen, Yitzhak. 1995. Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul: A.D. 481751. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Hill, Rick. 2012. Hodinohso:ni/Rotinonhsyonni Intellectual Rights and Responsibilities. Ms. Six Nations Polytechnic. http://www.snpolytechnic.com/WEBSITEIKC%20doc%20Hodinohso ni%20Intellectual%20Rights%20and%20Resp.pdf (7 May, 2012). Hochberg, Judith G. 1986. Functional Compensation for /s/ Deletion in Puerto Rican Spanish. Language 62(3). 609–621. Holm, John. 1988. Pidgins and Creoles: Volume 1, Theory and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

168

References

—. 2000. An Introduction to Pidgins and Creoles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holm, John A. & Alison Watt Shilling. 1982. Dictionary of Bahamian English. New York: Lexik House Publishers. Holmes, Urban Tigner & Alexander Herman Schutz. 1938. A History of the French Language. New York: Biblo & Tannen Publishers. Hoogshagen Noordsy, Searle & Hilda Halloran Hoogshagen. 1997. Diccionario mixe de Coatlán, Oaxaca. 2nd ed. México, D. F: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Hornberger, Nancy H. (ed.). 1997. Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom Up. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language #75). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Igbo911. Igbo911. Igbo911. http://www.igbo911.com/lexi/lexi.php (8 July, 2011). INEA (Instituto Nacional para la Educación del los Adultos). 1994. Ayuk Ja’jy Y’ayuujk. Libro del Adulto, Población Mixe (Parte Baja). Oaxaca: INEA (Instituto Nacional para la Educación del los Adultos). —. 1997a. Ayuk Ja’jy Y’ayuujk. Libro del Adulto, Población Mixe (Parte Alta). Oaxaca: INEA. —. 1997b. Instructivo del Alfabetizador. Población Mixe. Oaxaca: INEA. —. 1997c. Já’ájy m’ayuujk. Cuaderno de Ejercicios, Población Mixe. Oaxaca: INEA. Jany, Carmen. 2010. Orthography design for Chuxnabán Mixe. Language Documentation and Conservation 4. 231–253. —. 2011. The Phonetics and Phonology of Chuxnabán Mixe. Linguistic Discovery 9(1). http://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Jour nals.woa/1/xmlpage/1/article/388 (2 December, 2013). Johns, Alana & Irene Mazurkewich. 2008. The Role of the University in the Training of Native Language Teachers, Labrador. In Leanne Hinton & Kenneth Locke Hale (eds.), The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice: Toward a Sustainable World, 355–366. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Kakoulidi-Panou, Eleni & Komnini D. Pidonia. 1994. DZȞșȠȢ IJȦȞ ȋĮȡȓIJȦȞ—ĭȚȩȡ įİ ǺİȡIJȠȪ: Ș țȣʌȡȚĮțȒ ʌĮȡĮȜȜĮȖȒ / Fior di Virtù: the Cypriot version. Nicosia: Centre for Scientific Research. Karan, Mark. 2001. The Dynamics of Sango Language Spread. Dallas: SIL International. http://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/6437 Karan, Mark E. 2011. Understanding and forecasting Ethnolinguistic Vitality. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 32(2). 137–149.

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

169

Karyolemou, Marilena. 1992. Statut de fait et statut subjectif: quelques remarques à propos de la communauté sociolinguistique chypriote. Studies in Greek Linguistics. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, University of Thessaloniki. 255–269. —. 2001. From linguistic liberalism to legal regulation: The Greek language in Cyprus. Language Problems & Language Planning 25. 25–50. —. 2007. Reproduction and innovation of communicative patterns in a former-“diglossic” community. In Rudolf Muhr (ed.), Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen, 39–56. Vienna: Peter Lang Verlag. Katsoyannou, Marianna. 2010. TĮ ȜİȟȚțȐ IJȘȢ țȣʌȡȚĮțȒȢ: ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ țĮȚ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ/ The dictionaries of Cypriot Greek: history and typology. In Andreas Voskos, Dionysis Goutsos & Amalia Moser (eds.), Ǿ ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȒ īȜȫııĮ ıIJȘȞ ȀȪʌȡȠ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ ȦȢ ıȒȝİȡĮ / The Greek language in Cyprus from antiquity to today, 174–191. Athens: University of Athens. Katsoyannou, Marianna, Spyros Armosti, Kyriaki Christodoulou & Charalambos Themistocleous. 2013. ȀĮIJȐȡIJȚıȘ ȜȘȝȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓȠȣ İȞȩȢ įȚĮȜİțIJȚțȠȪ ȜİȟȚțȠȪ: Ș ȕȐıȘ įİįȠȝȑȞȦȞ ȈȣȞIJȣȤȚȑȢ / Compiling a dialectal dictionary: the Syntychies database. In Michales Tsianikas, Nina Maadad, George Couvalis, & Maria Palaktsoglou (eds.), Greek Research in Australia: Proceedings of the Biennial International Conference of Greek Studies, Flinders University June 2011, 388–399. Flinders University Department of Language Studies—Modern Greek: Adelaide Katsoyannou, Marianna, Andreas Papapavlou & Stavroula Tsiplakou. 2006. ǻȚįȚĮȜİțIJȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ țĮȚ ȖȜȦııȚțȩ ıȣȞİȤȑȢ: Ș ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȘȢ țȣʌȡȚĮțȒȢ / Bidialectal communities and the linguistic continuum: the case of Cypriot. (Ed.) Mark Janse, Brian Joseph & Angela Ralli. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. 156–171. Patras: University of Patras. Kehayoglou, Giorgos. 1997. ǻȚȒȖȘıȚȢ ȀȡȠȞȓțĮȢ ȀȪʌȡȠȣ: ȉȗȫȡIJȗȘȢ (Ȃ)ʌȠȪıIJȡȠȣȢ (īİȫȡȖȚȠȢ ǺȠ(ı)ıIJȡ(ȣ)ȘȞȩȢ Ȓ ǺȠȣıIJȡȫȞȚȠȢ) / The Chronicle of George Boustronios, A critical edition. Nicosia: Centre for Scientific Research. Kehayoglou, Giorgos & Lefteris Papaleontiou. 2010. ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ȞİȩIJİȡȘȢ țȣʌȡȚĮțȒȢ ȜȠȖȠIJİȤȞȓĮȢ / History of modern Cypriot literature. Nicosia:

170

References

Centre for Scientific Research. http://www.protoporia.gr/istoria-tisneoteris-kypriakis-logotechnias-p-347841.html (20 November, 2013). Kim, Amy, Seung Kim, Palash Roy & Mridul Sangma. 2011. The Tripura of Bangladesh: A Sociolinguistic Survey. (SIL Electronic Survey Reports). http://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/41655 Kloss, Heinz. 1967. “Abstand Languages” and “Ausbau Languages.” Anthropological Linguistics 9(7). 29–41. Kloss, Heinz & Albert Verdoodt. 1969. Research Possibilities on Group Bilingualism: A Report. Quebec: Centre International de Recherches sur le Bilinguisme. Koffi, Etien. 2006. Designing optimal and supradialectal orthographies. West African Linguistics Society 25. Cotonou, Benn. http://anyiliteracy.org/publications/koffi_Ettien_2006_Designing_Opti mal_and_Supradialectal_Orthographies.pdf Kreidler, Charles W. 2001. Phonology: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. New York: Routledge. Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 2. (Social Factors). Massachussets: Blackwell. Lawrence, Joy. 2003. The Way We Talk and Other Antiguan Folkways. St Johns, Antigua and Barbuda: Antigua Printing & Publishing. Lowe, Ronald. 1983. Kangiryuarmiut uqauhingita numiktittitdjutingit / Basic Kangiryuarmiut Eskimo dictonary. Inuvik, Northwest Territories: Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement. —. 1985. Kangiryuarmiut Uqalungita Ilihautdjutikhangit: Basic Kangiryuarmiut Eskimo Grammar. Inuvik, Northwest Territories: Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement. —. 2001. Siglit Inuivialuit Uqautchiita Nutaat Kipuktirtait Aglipkaqtat / Siglit Inuvialuit Eskimo Dictionary. Quebec: Éditions Nota Bene. Lüpke, Friederike. 2011. Orthography development. In Peter Austin & Julia Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages, 312–316. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Maggard, Loren, Mridul Sangma & Sayed Ahmad. 2007. A Sociolinguistic Survey Among the Chakma and Tanchangya Communities. Ms. Dhaka, Bangladesh. Maksymiuk, Jan. 2005. An Unclaimed Creative Potential or the Trilingual Belarusians of Podlachia. Annus Albaruthenicus 6. 97-104. —. 2008. Zarys pisowni i gramatyki jĊzyka podlaskiego. Svoja.org. http://svoja.org/30.html. Mattingly, Ignatius G. 1992. Linguistic awareness and orthographic form. In Ram Frost & Marian Katz (eds.), Orthography, Phonology,

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

171

Morphology and Meaning, 11–26. (Advances in Psychology 94). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Maxwell, Alexander. 2003. Literary dialects in China and Slovakia: imagining unitary nationality with multiple orthographies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2003(164). 129– 149. McKitterick, Rosamond. 2005. The Carolingian renaissance of culture and learning. In Story, Joanna (ed.), Charlemagne: Empire and Society, 151–165. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Meek, Barbra A. 2011. We are our language: an ethnography of language revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan community. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Menardos, Simos. 1884. ĭȦȞȘIJȚț੽ IJોȢ įȚĮȜȑțIJȠȣ IJ૵Ȟ ıȘȝİȡȚȞ૵Ȟ ȀȣʌȡȓȦȞ / The phonetics of the dialect of contemporary Cypriots. Athena 6. 145–173. Millman, Liz. 2011. Charter for Language Rights in the Creole-Speaking Caribbean. Liz In Jamaica. http://lizinjamaicajan2011.blogspot.ca/p/charter-for-language-rightsin-creole.html (19 July, 2011). Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21(02). 339–384. Miti, Lazarus. 2003. Problems and possibilities: The harmonisation and standarisation of Nguni varieties. In Andy Chebanne, Mbulelo Jokweni, Makali Isabella Mokitimi & Sihawukele Ngubane (eds.), Unifying Southern African Languages: Harmonisation and Standardisation, vol. 32, 51–72. Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). Monaka, Kemmonye Collete. 2005. Language harmonization and orthography: A challenge to Bakgalagarhi lay translators of the Bible. Paper presented at the Conference on Biblical Interpretation and Translation in Africa University of Kwazulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg. Moschonas, Spiros. 2002. ȀȠȚȞȒ ȖȜȫııĮ țĮȚ įȚȐȜİțIJȠȢ: IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȖȜȦııȚțȒȢ įȚȝȠȡijȓĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȀȪʌȡȠ / Koiné and dialect: The question of diglossia in Cyprus. ȃȑĮ ǼıIJȓĮ 151(1745). 898–928. Newton, Brian. 1972a. Cypriot Greek. Its phonology and inflexion. The Hague: Mouton. —. 1972b. The Generative Interpretation of Dialect: A Study of Modern Greek Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nguna, Ar & Bento Sitoe. The unsolved questions: harmonization of Mozambican languages. In Andy Chebanne, Mbulelo Jokweni, Makali Isabella Mokitimi & Sihawukele Ngubane (eds.), Unifying Southern

172

References

African Languages. (Casas Book Series 32). Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). Nida, Eugene A. 1963. Practical limitations to a phonemic alphabet. In William A. Smalley (ed.), Orthography Studies: Articles on New Writing Systems, 22–30. London: United Bible Societies. Nigerian Wiki. Igbo Language. Nigerian Wiki. http://nigerianwiki.com/wiki/Igbo_language (8 July, 2011). Oketcho, Phillip. 2010. Orthography: The Concept of Unified [Harmonized] Orthography. Kampala, Uganda: National Curriculum Development Centre. Papadima, Aspasia, Ioli Ayiomamitou & Stelios Kyriacou. 2013. Typographic practices and spelling convention for the written representation of a non-standard dialect: the case of the Greek-Cypriot dialect. In Martin Lachout (ed.), Aktuelle Tendenzen der Sprachwissenschaft, 87–100. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac —. 2014. The Greek-Cypriot Dialect in Writing: Orthographic Conventions and Typographic Practices. In Evripides Zantides (ed) Semiotics and Visual Communication: Concepts and Practices, 86-98. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Papadima, Aspasia & Marianna Kafaridou. 2008. ȉȣʌȠȖȡĮijȚțȑȢ ıȣȝȕȐıİȚȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȠʌIJȚțȒ ĮʌȩįȠıȘ IJȦȞ ȒȤȦȞ IJȘȢ ȀȣʌȡȚĮțȒȢ įȚĮȜȑțIJȠȣ / Typographic practices for the visual representation of the sounds of the Cypriot dialect. ȊijȑȞ, ǺȒȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȉȣʌȠȖȡĮijȓĮ 7. 55–69. Papageorgiou, Elpiniki. 2009. Levels of editing in publishing the Cypriot House of Representatives proceedings. MA thesis University of Essex. Papangelou, Rois. 2001. ȉȩ țȣʌȡȚĮțȩ ‫ݧ‬įȓȦȝĮ: ȝȑȖĮ țȣʌȡȠ-İȜȜȘȞȠ-ĮȖȖȜȚțȩ (țĮȓ ȝȑ ȜĮIJȚȞȚțȒ ‫ݸ‬ȡȠȜȠȖȓĮ) ȜİȟȚțȩ: ‫݌‬ȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȩ—‫݋‬IJȣȝȠȜȠȖȚțȩ— ʌȡȠijȠȡߢȢ—‫ݷ‬ȡș߱Ȣ ȖȡĮij߱Ȣ / The Cypriot Greek dialect: Great Cypriot —Standard Greek—English (and Latin) Dictionary of etymology— pronunciation—correct spelling. Athens: Iolkos. Papapavlou, Andreas. 1998. Attitudes toward the Greek Cypriot dialect: sociocultural implications. International Journal of The Sociology of Language 1998(134). 15–28. —. 2001. Linguistic imperialism? The status of English in Cyprus. Language Problems & Language Planning 25(2). 167–176. Papapavlou, Andreas. 2010. Language planning in action: searching for a viable bidialectal program. Language Problems & Language Planning 34(2). 120–140. Papapavlou, Andreas & Pavlos Pavlou. 2007. Literacy and language-ineducation policy in bidialectal settings. In Anthony Liddicoat (ed.),

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

173

Language Planning and Policy: Issues in Language Planning and Literacy, 254–271. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pavlou, Pavlos. 2004. Greek dialect use in the mass media in Cyprus. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2004 (168). (The Sociolinguistics of Cyprus I: Studies from the Greek Sphere). 101–118. —. 2010. ȅȚ ȜİȟȚțȠȖȡĮijȚțȑȢ ĮȞȐȖțİȢ ȝȚĮȢ įȚ-įȚĮȜİțIJȚțȒȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ Ș ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȫʌȚıȒ IJȠȣȢ / The lexicographic needs of a bi-dialectal community and the way they are dealt with. In Andreas Voskos, Dionysis Goutsos & Amalia Moser (eds.), Ǿ ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȒ īȜȫııĮ ıIJȘȞ ȀȪʌȡȠ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ ȦȢ ıȒȝİȡĮ / The Greek language in Cyprus from antiquity to today, 192–210. Athens: University of Athens. Pavlou, Pavlos & Andreas Papapavlou. 2004. Issues of dialect use in education from the Greek Cypriot perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(2). 243–258. Pietruczuk, Jan. 1977. Sáownictwo wsi Kuraszewo koáo Hajnówki. PhD Thesis. Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skáodowskiej w Lublinie. Pike, Kenneth L. 1947. Phonemics: A Technique for Reducing Languages to Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Prah, Kwesi Kwaa. 1998. Between Distinction and Extinction: The Harmonisation and Standardisation of African Languages. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. —. 2002a. Speaking in Unison: The Harmonisation and Standardisation of Southern African Languages. Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). —. 2002b. Writing African: The Harmonisation of Orthographic Conventions in African Languages. Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). —. 2009. Introduction. The Role of Missionaries in the Development of African Languages, 1–34. Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). Prah, Kwesi Kwaa & Yvonne King (eds.). 1998. In Tongues: African Languages and the Challenges of Development. Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). Priestly, Tom. 1992. Problems in the Creation of an Orthography: Functional Load, Interference, and Political Preferences. The Slavic and East European Journal 36(3). 302–316. Pupils of the Tulalip, Wash. Ty. Indian Industrial Boarding Schools, under the Control of the Sisters of Charity. 1881. The Youth’s Companion: A Juvenile Monthly Magazine Published for the Benefit of the Puget Sound Catholic Indian Missions. (Ed.) Rt. Rev. Bishop [Ægidius, of Nesqualy]. Tulalip Indian Reservation, Snohomish Co. W.T.

174

References

Quintana, Agustín de & Francisco Belmar. 1891. Arte de la lengua mixe. Oaxaca: Imprenta del Comercio, Wenceslao Güendulain y Compañía. Rajah-Carrim, Aaliya. 2008. Choosing a spelling system for Mauritian Creole. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 23(2). 193–226. Ramirez-Dawkins, Juan. 1996. Naked Skin / Piel Desnuda. Ms. Reyes Gómez, Juan Carlos. 2005. Aportes al proceso de enseñanza aprendizaje de la lectura y la escritura de la lengua ayuuk. Ms. Centro de Estudios Ayuuk, Universidad Indígena Intercultural Ayuuk, Oaxaca, Mexico. Rickard, Peter. 1974. A History of the French Language. London: Hutchinson. Rogers, Everett M. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. Glencoe: Free Press of Glencoe. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1964. Lexicon Graecanicum Italiae Inferioris. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der unteritalienischen Gräzität. 2nd Edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Romero-Mendez, Rodrigo. 2009. A reference grammar of Ayutla Mixe (Tukyo’m ayuujk). PhD Thesis. Buffalo, New York: State University of New York at Buffalo. Ross, Malcolm. 1980. Some elements of Vanimo, a New Guinea tone language. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics (Pacific Linguistics A-56 20), 77–109. Canberra: Australian National University. Roussou, Nayia. 2006. Research note: Cypriot television, dialect productions and demotic culture. Urbanization, westernization or new resistance identities. European Journal of Communication 21. 89–99. Rowe, Charley & Kleanthes Grohmann. 2012. Testing the state of diglossia in Cyprus: Cypriots, binationals, and diglossic shift. Ms. University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus. Ruiz de Bravo Ahuja, Gloria. 1980. Mixe: Tlahuitoltepec. Ms. Oaxaca: Archivo de Lenguas Indígenas de México. Saþko, Zosia. 1991. Nad dniom pochilana. Bieáastok: Bieáaruskaje litaraturnaje abjadnannie Bieáavieža. —. 1995. Šþe odna vesna. Bieáastok: Bieáaruskaje litaraturnaje abjadnannie Bieáavieža. Sadembouo, Etienne. 1989. Constitution and function of a language committee and the choice of a reference dialect. In Ted G. Bergman (ed.), Proceedings of the Round Table on Assuring the Feasibility of Standardization within Dialect Chains, 10–30. Nairobi: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Schoenhals, Alvin & Louise C. Schoenhals. 1965. Vocabulario Mixe de Totontepec. Hidalgo, Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

175

Schroeder, Leila. 2010. Bantu Orthography Manual. Vol. 9. (SIL EBooks). Dallas: SIL International. Sciriha, Lydia. 1996. A question of identity: language use in Cyprus. Nicosia: Intercollege Press. Sebba, Mark. 1998. Phonology Meets Ideology. The Meaning of Orthographic Practices in British Creole. Language Problems and Language Planning 22(1). 19–47. —. 2007. Spelling and Society: the Culture and Politics of Orthography around the World. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. —. 2009. Sociolinguistic approaches to writing systems research. Writing Systems Research 1(1). 35–49. Seifart, Frank. 2006. Orthography development. In Jost Gippert, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel (eds.), Essentials of Language Documentation, 275–299. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Siapkara-Pitsillidou, Themis. 1976. ȅ ʌİIJȡĮȡȤȚıȝȩȢ ıIJȘȞ ȀȪʌȡȠ: ȡȓȝİȢ ĮȖȐʌȘȢ Įʌȩ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijȠ IJȠȣ 16Ƞȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ ȝİ ȝİIJĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȒ ȝĮȢ ȖȜȫııĮ / Petrarchism in Cyprus: Cypriot canzoniere from a 16th century manuscript with translation into our common tongue. Athens: n.p. Simons, Gary. 1994. Principles of multidialectal orthography design. Notes on Literacy 20(2). 13–34. Simons, Gary F., M. Paul Lewis & Charles D. Fennig. 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Seventeenth edition. Dallas,TX: SIL International. Online version. http://www.ethnologue.com/ (22 March, 2013). Sivas, Elisaveta. 2003. īȜ ȦııȚțȑȢ ȚįİȠȜȠȖȓİȢ țĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȖȜȦııȚțȒ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ ıIJȘ ıȘ ȝ İȡȚȞȒ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ȀȪʌȡȠȣ (Language ideologies and the sociolinguistic situation in today’s Cypriot community). Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greek Linguistics. University of Crete, Rethymno. —. 2004. ȀȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȖȜȦııȚțȒ ʌİȡȚȖȡĮijȒ IJȘȢ ĮıIJȚțȒȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȘȢ ȀȪʌȡȠȣ. ȈȣȞİʌĮȖȦȖȚțȒ ȚİȡȐȡȤȘıȘ IJȦȞ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȦȞ. / Sociolinguistic description of the urban community of Cyprus. Consequential hierarchy of the linguistic features. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Department of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 634–644. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Sophocleous, Andry. 2011. Switching code and changing social identities in face to face interaction. Sociolinguistic Studies 5(2). 201-233. Sophocleous, Andry & Christiana Themistocleous. Forthcoming. “En exun aipin!”: Linguistic and sociocultural elements in the use of the

176

References

Greek-Cypriot dialect on Facebook. In Mikroglottika Research Group (ed.), Minority languages and the social web. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag. Stachwiuk, Viktor. 2005. Bahrovy cieĔ. Bieáastok: Bieáaruskaje litaraturnaje abjadnannie Bieáavieža. —. 2006. Siva zozula. Biáostuok: Biaáoruskie Towarzystwo Historyczne i Związek Biaáoruski w RP. Stark, John. 2010. Kambari Orthography Design. SIL International. http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/11919946/kambariorthography-design-sil-international Stratis, Giorgos. 2007. ǹȞ IJȠ ıțİijIJİȓȢ ıIJĮ țȣʌȡȚĮțȐ, ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ IJȠ ȖȡȐȥİȚȢ; / If you conceive it in Cypriot Greek, can you write it? īȚȫȡȖȠȢ ȈIJȡĮIJȒȢ / Giorgos Stratis. http://blog.readcy.net/archives/230. Street, Brian V. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Suslak, Daniel. 2003. The Story of Ö: Orthography and Cultural Politics in the Mixe Highland. Pragmatics 13(4). 551–563. Symeonidis, Charalambos. 2006. ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ȀȣʌȡȚĮțȒȢ įȚĮȜȑțIJȠȣ / History of the Cypriot Dialect. Nicosia: Research Centre of Kykkos Monastery. Terkourafi, Marina. 2005. Understanding the present through the past: Processes of koinéisation in Cyprus. Diachronica 22. 309–372. —. 2007. Perceptions of difference in the Greek sphere. The case of Cyprus. Journal of Greek Linguistics 8. 60–96. Themistocleous, Christiana. 2005. Diglossia in Cyprus: Investigation in the domain of the internet. Proceedings of the 3rd Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research. —. 2009. Written Cypriot Greek in online chat: Usage and attitudes. In Mary Baltazani (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, 473–488. University of Ioannina, Greece: University of Ioannina. —. 2010. Writing in a non-standard Greek variety: Romanized Cypriot Greek in online chat. Writing Systems Research 2(2). 155–168. The World Factbook. 2011. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/index.html (30 November, 2011). Torres Cisneros, Gustavo. 1997. Mixes. México, D.F.: Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas. Trudgill, Peter. 1974. Linguistic Change and Diffusion: Description and Explanation in Sociolinguistic Dialect Geography. Language in Society 3(2): 215–246.

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

177

Tsiplakou, Stavroula. 2009. Code-switching and Code-mixing between Related Varieties: Establishing the Blueprint. The International Journal of the Humanities 6(12). 49–66. —. 2010. ǼȞĮȜȜĮȖȒ țĮȚ ȝİȓȟȘ țȦįȓțȦȞ ıİ ıȣȞșȒțİȢ ȖȜȦııȚțȒȢ İʌĮijȒȢ: Ș ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȘȢ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘȢ țȣʌȡȚĮțȒȢ įȚĮȜȑțIJȠȣ / Code switching and code mixing in cases of language contact: the case of modern Cypriot Greek dialect. In Andreas Voskos, Dionysis Goutsos & Amalia Moser (eds.), Ǿ ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȒ īȜȫııĮ ıIJȘȞ ȀȪʌȡȠ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ ȦȢ ıȒȝİȡĮ / The Greek language in Cyprus from antiquity to today, 228–241. Athens: University of Athens. Tsiplakou, Stavroula, Photini Coutsougera & Pavlos Pavlou. Forthcoming. A Contemporary Grammar of Cypriot Greek. Munchen: Lincom Europa. Tsiplakou, Stavroula, Andreas Papapavlou, Pavlos Pavlou & Marianna Katsoyannou. 2006. Levelling, koinéization and their implications for bidialectism. In Frans Hinskens (ed.), Language Variation—European Perspectives. Selected papers from the Third International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 3), Amsterdam, June 2005, 265–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tsolakidis, Simos. 2012. ǻȚįȚĮȜİțIJȚıȝȩȢ țĮȚ İțʌĮȚįİȣIJȚțȒ ȝİIJĮȡȡȪșȝȚıȘ ıIJȘȞ ȀȪʌȡȠ: ȩȥİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȝȚțȡȠʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȠȪ țĮȚ ȝĮțȡȠʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȠȪ ıȣȖțİȓȝİȞȠȣ / Bi-dialectism and educational reform in Cyprus: aspects of the micro-cultural and macro-cultural context. In D. Koutsogiannis, A. Nakas, K. Dinas, G. Papanastasiou, & S. Chatzisavvidis (eds), Proceedings “1976–2011: 35 years since the language-educational reform” Conference. Dion, Greece, 4-6 November 2011. Vaus, David De. 2002. Surveys in Social Research. London: Routledge. Venezky, Richard L. 2004. In Search of the Perfect Orthography. Written Language and Literacy 7(2). 139–163. Vesaas, Tarjei. 2004. Spring Night. Translated from the Norwegian by Kenneth G. Chapman. London: Peter Owen. Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin Herzog. 1968. Empirical Foundations of a Theory of Language Change. In Yakov Malkiel (ed.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–189. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Wichmann, Søren. 1995. The Relationship among Mixe-Zoquean Languages of Mexico. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Wiesemann, Ursula. 1989. Four translations or one? The case of the Kaingang in Brazil. In Ted G. Bergman (ed.), Proceedings of the round table on assuring the feasibility of standardization within dialect chains, 2–9. Nairobi: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

178

References

Williamson, Kay. 1984. Practical Orthography in Nigeria. Heineman: Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books (Nigeria). Wilson, Shawn. 2007. Guest Editorial: What is an Indigenist Research Paradigm? Canadian Journal of Native Education (30). 193–195. —. 2008. Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing Company, Limited. Winer, Lise. 1990. Orthographic Standardization for Trinidad and Tobago: Linguistic and Sociopolitical Considerations in an English Creole Community. Language Problems and Language Planning 14(3). 237– 68. Wroblewski, Michael. 2012. Amazonian Kichwa Proper: Ethnolinguistic Domain in Pan-Indian Ecuador. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 22(1). 64–86. Wróblewski, Mikoáaj. 2008. Sáownik gwary bielsko-podlaszskiej. Bielsk Podlaski: Stowarzyszenie Maáej Ojczyzny w Studziwodach. Yiakoumetti, Androula. 2006. A Bidialectal Programme for the Learning of Standard Modern Greek in Cyprus. Applied Linguistics 27(2). 295– 317. —. 2007. Choice of classroom language in bidialectal communities: to include or to exclude the dialect? Cambridge Journal of Education 37(1). 51–66. Yiangoullis, Constantinos. 2009. ĬȘıĮȣȡȩȢ ȀȣʌȡȚĮțȒȢ ǻȚĮȜȑțIJȠȣ / Thesaurus of the Cypriot Greek dialect. 3rd ed. Nicosia: Theopress. Yoona. 1981. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics. .Yukon Native Language Centre. 2001. Northern Tutchone in-service, Yukon Native Language Centre, Whitehorse, Yukon, Feb. 21-22, 2000, May 9-11, 2001. Whitehorse: Yukon Native Language Centre.

CONTRIBUTORS

Spyros Armostis graduated from the University of Cyprus in 2005 with a BA in Classics. He then pursued his postgraduate studies in Linguistics (Phonetics) at the University of Cambridge, where he obtained his MPhil (2006) and PhD (2011). He has worked as a researcher and visiting lecturer at the University of Cyprus and also as a researcher and adjunct lecturer at the Open University of Cyprus. His research interests lie in the fields of Phonetics and Phonology, and also include Writing Systems and the history of the Greek language; a special focus of his work has been the study of Cypriot Greek. Finally, a secondary area of his research interests is the study of ancient Greek music. He currently holds the position of the Treasurer of the Cyprus Linguistics Society. Ioli Ayiomamitou is a fully funded PhD student in an interdisciplinary doctoral programme between the School of Education and the Department of Psychology at Oxford Brookes University. Her research project explores the educational and psycholinguistic perspectives of non-standard speaking on students and young people by focusing on the dialectspeaking, Greek-Cypriot community of Cyprus. She holds a BA degree in Greek Philology, with specialization in Linguistics, from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and a Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Edinburgh. Ioli successfully completed the first year of the EdD programme at the University of Sheffield before starting her PhD at Oxford Brookes University. Her main research interests involve: second-language/dialect acquisition, multilingualism, linguistic variation in education and the written representation of the Greek-Cypriot dialect. André Bourcier is a linguist at the Yukon Native Language Centre in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada, where he teaches in the Native Language Instruction programs and helps Elder speakers create descriptive publications for the 8 Native Languages spoken in the Territory. He also worked for many years as a consultant in Linguistics and Language Planning for the Gwich'in and the Inuvialuit of the Northwest Territories. He received a Ph.D. in Linguistics from Université Laval in Quebec City.

180

Contributors

André has been a language activist for many years. He gained a frontline understanding of Language Rights in Canada as Chair of the Commission scolaire francophone du Yukon no. 23 in its court battle against the Government of Yukon surrounding education rights recognized to linguistic minorities under Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties. Kyriaki Christodoulou graduated from the Department of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies of the University of Cyprus in 2006 and she was awarded a Master Degree II of Research in Linguistics from the Stendhal—Grenoble 3 University of France in 2008. Since 2010 she has been engaged in several research programs within the study of linguistic varieties in Cyprus. Her research focuses on the fields of PhoneticsPhonology and Writing Systems. She is also teaching Greek as a foreign or second language. Finally, she is the co-founder of the Institute of Greek Language “simio afetirias” in Cyprus, which specializes in teaching Greek as a foreign or second language. John M. Clifton is a Senior Consultant in Linguistics for SIL International and an Adjunct Professor of Linguistics at the University of North Dakota. Along with his wife, Debbie, he conducted linguistic research in Papua New Guinea from 1981 to 1994 under the auspices of SIL International. After that, they relocated to Russia and then to Azerbaijan, conducting linguistic research in Central Asia and the Caucasus. His primary interests are in the fields of orthography, sociolinguistics, and phonology. Kerry M. Corbett received an M.A. in Applied Linguistics through the University of North Dakota in 2012. She conducted sociolinguistic research in Sudan for her thesis, Forecasting the Vitality of the Fur Language: A Study in Language Use Patterns and Attitudes in Darfur. Her interest in sociolinguistics stemmed from her academic foci in the fields of literacy and language development. Ken Decker is currently the International Coordinator for Language Assessment with SIL International. He has worked for over 25 years in the field of Applied Linguistics. He has done research on more than 25 languages and conducted orthography workshops for five different Creole languages in the Caribbean. For 10 years he and his wife Sandy served as consultants to a language development program in Belize. Ken has published on languages of Pakistan, Creole languages, Belize Kriol,

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

181

language vitality, orthography development, and language assessment. He has a Master’s Degree in Sociolinguistics from The University of Texas at Arlington and is completing a PhD from the University of Groningen. Carrie Dyck is an Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at Memorial University of Newfoundland. She has worked with Cayuga speakers since 1992 on projects ranging from digitization of Cayuga sound files to a dictionary and grammar of Cayuga, and research on Cayuga phonology (sound patterns). Mary Joy Elijah is a PhD candidate at the University of Western Ontario. She is in the unique position of doing her research at the Oneida Language and Cultural Centre, where she is also the Director. For the past 16 years she has led the Oneida Revitalization Project, and is approaching the final stages of developing a model for second language teaching and learning adapted from the Common European Framework Reference for Languages called the Oneida Language Portfolio. Her dissertation will trace the path taken by master speakers, apprentices, community members and outside experts as they travelled together on this journey to regenesis of the Oneida language. Tania Granadillo is Associate Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics at the University of Western Ontario, Canada. She has worked on Indigenous languages of Venezuela since 1996. Her research spans Linguistics and Anthropology particularly endangered languages, language ideologies, language documentation and description, and language maintenance and revitalization among other topics. She is the coeditor of Ethnographic Contributions to the Study of Endangered Languages and Negation in Arawak Languages. Carmen Jany is an Associate Professor of Spanish and Linguistics at California State University in San Bernardino. She received her Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of California in Santa Barbara in 2007. She also holds a doctorate from the University of Zurich, Switzerland in Hispanic Linguistics. Her expertise includes language documentation and orthography development, typology, phonetics and phonology, and second language acquisition. She focuses her research on Mixe-Zoquean languages (specifically on Chuxnabán Mixe) and on California Indian languages, in particular Chimariko. Currently, she is working with several

182

Contributors

California Indian tribes to build college-level language programs for Serrano, Luiseño, and Cahuilla. Mark E. Karan is the International Sociolinguistics Coordinator and a Senior Sociolinguistics Consultant with SIL International. He has been a member of SIL since 1976, having earlier worked with them in Togo, Benin, Cameroon, and in the Central African Republic, and more recently in the Eurasia Area and their International Administration. His main academic interests are the motivators of language shift and related language vitality issues. He received a Ph.D. in Linguistics (Sociolinguistics specialization) in 1996 from the University of Pennsylvania. He is currently a member of both SIL International and the Linguistics Graduate Faculty of the University of North Dakota. Marianna Katsoyannou studied Greek and French Language and Literature at the University of Athens. Post-graduate studies in France: Linguistics, Language Engineering and Technical Translation. She worked for the Greek Embassy in France, for the Laboratoire de Langues et Civilisations à Tradition Orale (CNRS) in Paris and for the Institute for Language and Speech Processing in Athens. She is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Cyprus, Dept. of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, since 2002. Areas of interest: General Linguistics, Lexicography, LSP Translation & Terminology. Amos Key, Jr. was born into the Onkwehonweh Civilization of Ontario and hails from the Six Nations of the Grand River community, in southern Ontario. He is of Mohawk descent born into the Turtle Clan. Spiritually, he serves his Creator as one of the His Faith Keepers. He was initiated into this sacred circle of Faith Keepers within the sanctity of the Longhouse Faith, a responsibility that keeps him grounded, provides strength and tempers his many thoughts and decisions. Amos’ career has been in championing First Nations linguistic and human rights and research in stabilizing their Languages, as the Director of First Nations Languages Program, at the Woodland Cultural Centre; he is currently the Acting Executive Director of the Woodland Cultural Centre. He attributes his longevity in this position to the strengths of Grand Parents, Parents, Siblings, Uncles, Aunts, extended family, colleagues and the numerous Bilingual Elders he had the pleasure to get to know, work alongside and cherish for their unconditional generosity.

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

183

Stelios Kyriacou is a Special Scientist at the Language Centre of the Cyprus University of Technology, specialising in teaching Greek as a second language (L2). He holds a Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics and a BA degree in Greek Philology, with specialization in Linguistics, from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. He has taught Greek as an L2 at various levels. His research interests include: first and second language acquisition, literacy and language policy, discourse analysis and the written representation of the Cypriot dialect. Jan Maksymiuk is a journalist working with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague, Czech Republic. An ethnic Belarusian born in Poland’s Podlachian Province, he graduated in physics from Warsaw University in 1985. For the past 10 years he has been involved with the development and promotion of the Podlachian language—a standardized written form of the East Slavic dialects spoken in his native region. In 2008 he created a website (http://svoja.org) to encourage use of written Podlachian. His most recent publication is Words in a Barren Field, Belarusian Literature of the 1990s in Dreams, Memories and Photos (Minsk, 2011), a collection of essays in Belarusian on literature, language, cultural identity and memory. Aspasia Papadima is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Multimedia and Graphic Arts at Cyprus University of Technology. She has been teaching for fifteen years in tertiary education in Cyprus. In the past, she worked as a graphic designer in creative and advertising agencies in Greece and as an art director in the field of advertising in Cyprus. She has been practicing graphic design as a consultant in major design assignments. Her research has been presented and published in international conferences and her graphic and fine art work has been exhibited locally and abroad. Her research interests include typographic design, typographic rendering of the Cypriot dialect, visual language and technology, ephemeral design and vernacular typography, and urban graphic language. Georgios Parmaxis holds a BA degree in Education, with specialization in Primary Education from the University of Cyprus and a Master’s degree in Educational Leadership and School Improvement from the University of Manchester. He worked as a Research Fellow at the Department of Multimedia and Graphic Arts of the Cyprus University of Technology on the research project: “Linguistics / Dialects / The Cypriot Dialect” and for the past four years he has been working as a teacher in several private and

184

Contributors

public primary schools in Cyprus. His research interests include: curriculum development, educational decentralization, professional development in the Greek-Cypriot educational system. Keren Rice is a professor of linguistics and Canada Research Chair in Linguistics and Aboriginal Studies at the University of Toronto. Keren has spent the last four decades studying the Dene (Slavey) language of Canada’s Northwest Territory, and has been engaged in work to maintain and revitalize this language. She served as a member of a committee that worked to standardize the writing system of the language, and she has cotaught on orthography development at InField/CoLang. She has helped to develop training programs and language conservation strategies for native teachers in Northern communities. Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada is a PhD candidate in French Studies (Linguistics) at the University of Western Ontario and in Sciences du Langage at the Université Lumière Lyon 2. His areas of interest are language documentation and description of indigenous and minority languages, especially those of the Amazon region, and historical linguistics. He is currently working on the documentation and description project of Mako, a Sáliban language of Venezuela, and on the reconstruction of Proto-Sáliban. He is also co-editor of the volume Latin American Contexts for Language Documentation and Revitalization (MdG). Charalambos Themistocleous is a temporary lecturer at the Department of English Studies, University of Cyprus. He holds an MA in Applied Linguistics and an MA in Computational Linguistics. His doctoral thesis entitled “Prosody and Information Structure in Greek” provides an allencompassing analysis of Modern Greek intonation. He received scholarships for excellence by the Cyprus State Scholarship Foundation and the Public Welfare Foundation “Alexander S. Onassis”. He participated in various research programs funded by the Academy of Athens, the Leventis Foundation, and the Open University of Cyprus. He taught courses on Sociolinguistics, Phonetics, Phonology, Research Design & Statistics and Conversation Analysis. He is currently the Press Officer of the Cyprus Linguistic Society. He presented his work in international conferences and published in several book volumes and in peer-reviewed journals. He specialises in Phonetics, Phonology, Prosody, and Computational Linguistics. His current research focuses on

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization

185

Information Structure, Sociophonetics, Variational Sociolinguistics, and Socioprosody. Peter Unseth is a member of the faculty of the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics in Dallas, Texas. He went under SIL to Ethiopia, where he worked with the Majang translation and literacy project under EECMY, including developing an orthography. He has written about orthography and also the choice of scripts for language communities, including editing an issue of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language on the topic. He currently teaches courses that prepare people to work with smaller language communities in developing orthographies and literature.

INDEX

aesthetic, 30, 36, 128 allophone, 19, 45, 49, 50, 66, 80, 110, 150 Anyi, 2, 17 Arabic, 58, 59, 132 attitude, 6, 24, 26, 28, 30, 38, 58, 63, 65, 70, 76, 78, 79, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 114, 115, 123 Awad Bing, 2, 20 Bantu, 10, 11 Béarnais, 139 Belarusian, 2, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54 Bine, 2, 82, 88, 91, 95, 96, 97 Kunini, 89, 90, 91, 95, 97 Bislama, 107 Borana Oromo, 3, 11 Bouyei, 2, 19 Catalan, 132 Cayuga, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125 Chakma, 2, 82, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97 character, 16, 19, 36, 37, 49, 73, 78, 136, 151, 156, 157, 158 digraph, 36, 48 grapheme, 48, 49, 50, 68, 73, 88, 94, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 157 Chinese, 14 code, 10, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 64, 129 codification, 13, 23, 30, 34, 35, 37, 40, 80 consonant palatalized, 19, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 146, 147, 151, 152, 154, 157 post-alveolar, 28, 66, 67, 152

creole, 2, 95, 99, 101, 102, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 132 Czech, 47 diacritic, 28, 29, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 67, 68, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 84, 87, 88, 121, 156 dialect, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 125, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 140, 141, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152, 157, 158 acrolect, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 55, 108, 110 basilect, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 34, 55, 102, 108 continuum, 16, 25, 26, 28, 30, 56, 65, 72, 108 mesolect, 25 variation, 146–47 vernacular, 3, 12, 39, 40, 41, 48, 51, 53, 54, 60, 91, 101, 102, 103 written versus oral, 102, 130 dictionary, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 65, 107, 108, 113, 127, 134, 135, 147, 148 diglossia, 24, 26, 30, 56, 57, 65, 96, 128, 131, 132, 136 domain, 25, 26, 30, 38, 56, 61, 67 formal, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 41, 55,

188 63, 64, 65, 70, 78, 104, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139 informal, 24, 25, 28, 41, 63, 65, 70 private, 24 public, 24, 25, 27, 30, 39, 40, 41, 48, 54, 64, 125 education, 13, 21, 23, 25, 29, 31, 32, 36, 38, 47, 55, 56, 58, 59, 64, 86, 102, 106, 109, 119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 130, 132, 133, 138, 140, 146, 148, 158 electronic communication, 27, 28, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 63, 65, 69, 70, 104, 121, 143, 145 endangered languages, 99, 104, 143 English, 2, 12, 19, 20, 31, 39, 42, 51, 89, 95, 99, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 117, 119, 121, 122, 129, 131, 135 font, 36, 37, 88, 91 French, 11, 12, 14, 15, 39, 102, 103, 104, 105, 129, 131, 132 Fur, 58, 59 Gbe, 3, 18 German, 39, 104, 132 grammar, 16, 31, 34, 38, 65, 102, 109, 113, 127, 129, 131, 134, 137, 147, 148 Greek Cypriot, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 Standard Modern, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72, 79, 80 Haitian, 107, 132 hegemony, 130, 131, 132, 133 Ibo, 15 identity, 5, 12, 17, 28, 30, 39, 40, 39–41, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 68, 69, 72, 81, 82, 85, 86–87, 88, 85–88, 91, 92, 93–94, 97–98, 102, 103, 113, 115, 120, 123, 129, 135 Indigenist Research Paradigm, 118

Index indigenous, 14, 24, 36, 38, 58, 60, 61, 65, 127, 149 Indo-Iranian, 91 Indonesian, 14 Inuktitut Inuinnaqtun, 133, 134, 135 IPA, 35, 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158 Jamaican, 107, 111 Kabuverdianu, 107 Kaingang, 3, 19 Kalenjin, 14 Kau Brung, 3, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 97 keyboard layout, 37, 49, 52 Kichwa, 3, 60, 61 Kok Borok, 3, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 97 lemma, 34, 35 lexicography, 5, 23, 24, 32, 37, 38 lexicon, 16, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 127, 129, 131 literacy, 31, 53, 60, 81, 83, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 96, 97, 98, 102, 103, 119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 132, 141, 145, 149, 150, 151, 157, 159 Majang, 3, 17, 18 Mayan, 15, 96 minority, 30, 39, 40, 42, 44, 53, 58, 59, 61, 86, 133 Mixe, 61, 95, 106, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159 Mohawk, 117, 122, 123 morphophonemic, 10, 16, 18, 20, 48 mutual intelligibility, 10, 87, 92, 146 Nenets, 3, 58 neutralization, 88–91 neutralize, 84, 89 Occitan, 132 Oneida, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126 oral, 25, 26, 27, 30, 42, 63, 64, 65, 84, 92, 101, 119, 120, 124, 125, 126, 130, 133, 141 Oromo, 12 orthography, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

Dialogue on Dialect Standardization 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 128, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158 Bangla, 86, 92, 93, 94, 96 Cyrillic, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53 easy to use on word processor, 49, 52, 91 etymological or historical, 17, 18, 64, 66, 72–73 Greek, 35, 73, 79 historical, 26–27, 65, 79, 86, 102–4, 119, 120, 134–35, 147–48 one for non-intelligible varieties, 10–11 one for related dialects, 12–13, 14–15, 16–21, 82–85, 109 phonetic, 121 place names, 42–45, 135 preference for phonetic orthography, 109, 110 Roman, 5, 27, 39, 47, 48, 51, 53, 71, 73, 77, 86, 87, 88, 102, 103, 130, 145, 149 silent letters, 110 similar to national language or dialect, 11–12, 36, 79, 113, 145 standardize to dialect with most speakers, 97, 111 Papiamentu, 107 phoneme, 16, 19, 46, 48, 49, 66, 68, 89, 147, 148, 149, 150, 156 phonemic, 16, 19, 45, 46, 80, 117, 121, 141, 143, 145, 146, 147, 150,

189

151, 155, 157, 158 phonetic, 18, 29, 35, 106, 143, 151 phonology, 109 Picard, 18 Podlachian, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 Polish, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54 Portuguese, 12, 82 prestige, 24, 57, 64, 72, 101, 103, 105, 109 pronunciation, 13, 17, 19, 25, 33, 73, 75, 79, 80, 110, 121, 124, 128 Russian, 47 Sango, 107 Seselwa, 107 shift language- or dialect-, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 99, 159 Slavic, 3, 13, 39, 40, 41, 51 Slovak, 47, 48 sociolinguistic factors, 10, 14, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31, 55, 58–59, 95, 114, 122, 126 age, 78 functionality, 80 perceived benefit, 57 Spanish, 12, 20, 82, 104, 106, 130, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 standard, 10, 11, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 58, 99, 105, 109, 113, 132, 140, 141 standardization, 14, 15, 47, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 97, 100, 104, 107, 111, 114, 117, 118, 125, 127, 128, 133, 141, 159 against, 61, 83, 96, 106, 125, 128, 141 of orthographies across border, 11, 39–41, 85–88 viewed as a linguistic market, 140 Tanchangya, 4, 82, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

190 Tetun Dili, 107 Tibeto-Burman, 85 Tok Pisin, 4, 83 Tonga, 10, 11 traditional, 40, 44, 60, 92, 120, 123, 125, 126, 128 transliteration, 47 Ukrainian, 4, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54

Index unicode, 36, 37, 68, 91 Vanimo, 4, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 95, 96, 98 vowel, 109 diphthong, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, 109 vowel length, 109, 133 Waromo, 83, 84, 85, 96, 98