English in Cyprus or Cyprus English: An empirical investigation of variety status (Varieties of English Around the World) 9027249067, 9789027249067

Citation preview

English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Varieties of English Around the World (VEAW) A companion monograph series devoted to sociolinguistic research, surveys and annotated text collections. The VEAW series is divided into two parts: a text series contains carefully selected specimens of Englishes documenting the coexistence of regional, social, stylistic and diachronic varieties in a particular region; and a general series which contains outstanding studies in the field, collections of papers devoted to one region or written by one scholar, bibliographies and other reference works. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/veaw Editor Stephanie Hackert Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich

Editorial Board Manfred Görlach Cologne

Rajend Mesthrie

University of Cape Town

Peter L. Patrick

University of Essex

Edgar W. Schneider

University of Regensburg

Peter Trudgill

University of Fribourg

Walt Wolfram

North Carolina State University

Volume G46 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English. An empirical investigation of variety status by Sarah Buschfeld

English in Cyprus or Cyprus English An empirical investigation of variety status

Sarah Buschfeld University of Regensburg

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Buschfeld, Sarah. English in Cyprus or Cyprus English : an empirical investigation of variety status / Sarah Buschfeld. p. cm. (Varieties of English Around the World, issn 0172-7362 ; v. G46) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. English language--Dialects--Cyprus. 2. English language--Foreign countries. 3.  Cyprus--Languages. 4. Greek language--Influence on English. 5. Turkish language--Influence on English. 6. Sociolinguistics--Cyprus. I. Title. PE3502.C93B875 2013 420.9’051--dc23 2012049585 isbn 978 90 272 4906 7 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 7217 1 (Eb)

© 2013 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents List of tables List of figures and charts List of maps and pictures Acknowledgments chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation for the research project  1 1.2 Scientific aims of the study  3 1.3 Theoretical framework  4 1.4 Methodological framework  5 1.5 Outline  6

ix xi xiii xv

1

chapter 2 English in Cyprus – Historical and sociopolitical development, identity constructions, and sociolinguistic conditions 13 2.1 Introduction  13 2.2 Historical background  13 2.2.1 From the first settlements to the British occupation  15 2.2.2 British rule in Cyprus  15 2.2.2.1 Historical overview  16 2.2.2.2 Colonization type: Motives for colonization and British language policy  18 2.2.2.2.1 Motives for colonization: Power-political interests vs. Greek-Cypriot expectations  18 2.2.2.2.2 British language policy in Cyprus  19 2.2.2.2.3 Colonization type  21 2.2.3 Post-independence, Turkish invasion, and after  23 2.3 Identity constructions  24 2.3.1 Resistance against foreign domination and British rule  26 2.3.2 The Turkish invasion as “Event X”?  28



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

2.4 Sociolinguistic conditions  30 2.4.1 Language use  30 2.4.2 Language attitudes  39 2.5 Summary and preliminary conclusions  41 chapter 3 World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 43 3.1 Introduction  43 3.2 30 years of World Englishes research  43 3.2.1 The ENL-ESL-EFL distinction  45 3.2.2 Kachru’s (1985b) Three Concentric Circles of World Englishes  46 3.2.3 Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model  48 3.2.4 Terminology  49 3.3 Research into English in Cyprus/Cyprus English  50 3.4 Learner Englishes vs. second-language varieties?  56 3.4.1 Learner English and interlanguage  56 3.4.2 Second-language varieties  60 3.4.2.1 Spread of bilingualism and expansion in function  61 3.4.2.2 Nativization of linguistic structures  63 3.4.2.3 Institutionalization  66 3.4.2.4 Ways of language acquisition  67 3.4.2.5 Checklist for variety status  68 3.4.2.6 Implications for diachronic approaches to World Englishes  69 3.4.3 “Bridging the paradigm gap”  70 3.4.4 Drawing some theoretical conclusions  74 3.5 Transfer and feature nativization: A crosslinguistic comparison of English and the Greek-Cypriot dialect  77 3.5.1 The nominal domain  78 3.5.2 The verbal domain  84 3.5.3 Prepositions  89 3.5.4 Hypotheses  90 3.6 Summary  92 chapter 4 Empirical study: Methodology 4.1 Introduction  95 4.2 CEDAR (Cyprus English Data Analysis and Research)  95 4.2.1 The interviews: Data collection  95 4.2.2 Participants  98

95



Table of contents 

4.3 Data transcription  100 4.4 Summary  100 chapter 5 Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE – A qualitative approach 5.1 Introduction  105 5.2 Methodology  106 5.3 Results  107 5.3.1 Phonological features  107 5.3.2 Morphosyntactic features  113 5.3.3 Lexical features  120 5.3.4 Lexicogrammatical features  124 5.3.5 Lexicosemantic feature  125 5.3.6 Pragmatic features  126 5.4 Summary  127

105

chapter 6 Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE – A quantitative approach 131 6.1 Introduction  131 6.2 Methodology  131 6.2.1 Feature selection  131 6.2.2 Data coding  133 6.2.2.1 The morphosyntactic domain  133 6.2.2.1.1 Overt vs. zero subjects  134 6.2.2.1.2 Absence vs. presence of definite and indefinite articles  137 6.2.2.1.3 The realization of conditional simple  139 6.2.2.1.4 The realization of perfect meaning  140 6.2.2.2 The lexicogrammatical domain  142 6.2.2.2.1 Before X days/weeks/months/years vs. X days/weeks/ months/years ago  142 6.2.2.2.2 Transitive vs. intransitive use of like  143 6.2.2.3 The lexicosemantic domain  146 6.2.2.4 Some further remarks on the coding process  147 6.2.3 Frequency counts and data analysis  149 6.3 Results  150 6.3.1 The morphosyntactic domain  151 6.3.1.1 Overt and zero subjects in EiCy/CyE  151

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

6.3.2

6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5

6.3.1.2 Article use  155 6.3.1.3 Expressing hypothetical context  160 6.3.1.4 Expressing perfect meaning  163 The lexicogrammatical domain  165 6.3.2.1 Before X days/weeks/months/years vs. X days/weeks/months/ years ago  165 6.3.2.2 Transitive vs. intransitive use of like  165 The lexicosemantic domain  167 Summary and discussion  168 Statistical test for intergenerational differences  173

6.4 Summary  179

chapter 7 Assessing the variety status of EiCy/CyE 7.1 Introduction  181 7.2 EiCy/CyE: Second-language variety or learner English?  181 7.2.1 Spread of bilingualism and expansion in function  182 7.2.2 Nativization of linguistic structures  183 7.2.3 Institutionalization  186 7.2.4 Ways of language acquisition  186 7.2.5 EiCy/CyE – a hybrid case  187 7.3 Placing EiCy/CyE on the map of World Englishes research  190 7.3.1 EiCy/CyE, the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction, and Kachru’s (1985b) Three Concentric Circles  190 7.3.2 EiCy/CyE in Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model  191 7.4 Summary  197 chapter 8 Conclusions References Appendices I. Questionnaire language attitudes and use  219 II. Interview guidelines  223 II.1 Question set “adults”  223 II.2 Question set “high school students”  225 III. Supplementary questionnaire  227 IV. Participants  229 V. Excerpt sample transcript  237 Index

181

199 207 219

243

List of tables Table 4.1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10 Table 6.11 Table 6.12 Table 6.13 Table 6.14 Table 6.15 Table 6.16 Table 6.17 Table 6.18 Table 6.19 Table 6.20

CHAT codes Qualitative rating of phonological features Qualitative rating of morphosyntactic features Qualitative rating of lexical features Qualitative rating of lexicogrammatical features Qualitative rating of lexicosemantic feature Qualitative rating of pragmatic features Summary of EiCy/CyE features that have entered feature nativization TAMS codes – overt vs. zero subjects TAMS codes – zero vs. explicit definite articles TAMS codes – zero vs. explicit indefinite articles TAMS codes – the realization of conditional simple TAMS codes – the realization of perfect meaning TAMS codes – before X days/weeks/months/years vs. X days/ weeks/months/years ago TAMS codes – transitive vs. intransitive use of like TAMS codes – (Br)E very much vs. EiCy/CyE too much TAMS codes – additional codes Results – zero referential Results – zero referential it Results – zero contextual referential it Results – zero expletive it Results – zero demonstrative Results – definite article + place noun Results – zero indefinite article with direct objects Results – one as indefinite article with direct objects Results – zero indefinite article with predicative DPs Results – one as indefinite article with predicative DPs Results – zero indefinite article with comparative like structures

101 112 121 124 125 125 126 127 135 137 138 141 143 144 145 146 148 151 152 153 154 154 155 156 157 158 158 159



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 6.21 Table 6.22 Table 6.23 Table 6.24 Table 6.25 Table 6.26 Table 6.27 Table 6.28 Table 6.29 Table 6.30 Table 6.31

Results – expressing hypothetical context Results – expressing perfect meaning Results – before + X days/weeks/months/years Results – transitive vs. intransitive use of like Results – too much vs. very much Summary of nativized structures Alternative vs. null hypotheses HCFA for all significant configurations – overt and zero subjects HCFA for all significant configurations – article realization in unspecific predicative DPs HCFA for all significant configurations – expressing hypothetical context HCFA for all significant configurations – expressing perfect meaning

161 163 166 166 167 170 175 176 177 178 178

List of figures and charts Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Bar chart 6.1 Bar chart 6.2 Bar chart 6.3 Bar chart 6.4 Bar chart 6.5 Bar chart 6.6 Bar chart 6.7 Pie chart 6.1 Bar chart 6.8 Pie chart 6.2 Bar chart 6.9 Bar chart 6.10 Pie chart 6.3 Bar chart 6.11 Pie chart 6.4 Bar chart 6.12 Bar chart 6.13 Bar chart 6.14 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2

Kachru’s Three Concentric Circles Platt et al.’s EFL-ESL-ENL continuum An adaptation of Platt et al.’s EFL-ESL-ENL continuum Intergenerational differences – zero referential Intergenerational differences – zero referential it Intergenerational differences – zero contextual referential it Intergenerational differences – zero expletive it Intergenerational differences – zero demonstrative Intergenerational differences – definite article + place noun Intergenerational differences – zero indefinite article with direct objects Results – one as indefinite article with direct objects Intergenerational differences – zero indefinite article with predicative DPs Results – one as indefinite article with predicative DPs Intergenerational differences – zero indefinite article with comparative like structures Intergenerational differences – non-conditional simple Results – conditional and non-conditional structures Intergenerational differences – non-present perfect Results – present perfect and non-present perfect structures Intergenerational differences – before + X days/weeks/ months/years Intergenerational differences – like + zero object Intergenerational differences – too much Cyprus in the modified version of Platt et al.’s EFL-ESL-ENL continuum Cyprus in the modified version of Kachru’s Three (Concentric) Circles model

46 75 76 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 166 167 168 189 192

List of maps and pictures Map 2.1 The location of Cyprus Picture 2.1 Lefkosia (Nicosia) – the last divided capital Map 2.2 The status quo of Cyprus today

14 24 25

Acknowledgments I am grateful to many people who have supported my work during the last four years. My special acknowledgment goes to my supervisor, Christiane M. Bongartz. Amongst other things, she gave the initial idea for the project, provided me with invaluable inspiration and comments, and always encouraged me in my endeavours. In addition, she provided much of the funding and accompanied me on several field trips. I also want to express my gratefulness to Edgar W. Schneider for sharing his expertise on the topic, for the discussions and suggestions on the conceptual framework of this monograph, as well as for the freedom and consideration he granted me in the final phase of the writing process. In addition to that, I thank Kleanthes K. Grohmann, who initially helped set up the research project, supported the organization of field trips, and provided me with first access to participants. Of course, little could have been achieved without the interest and willingness of the Greek-Cypriot informants who took part in this study. This is why my deepest gratitude goes to the 137 participants, who additionally granted me invaluable insights into aspects of the Cypriot culture and history which cannot be learned from books. I would also like to thank Stavroula Tsiplakou, Sviatlana Karpava, Vasilia and Richard Proksa, as well as Mamas Andreau, all of whom significantly contributed to the acquisition of informants. Further, I would like to express my gratitude to Natalia Pavlou and Evelina Leivada for their linguistic clarifications on the structure of the Greek-Cypriot dialect as well as Standard Modern Greek and for providing me with both translations of English examples and their glosses. I am also grateful to my former colleagues, students, and friends at the University of Cologne, in particular Christiane Schöneberger, Lucia Contreras Garcia, Pascale Schemensky, Aminta Corr, and Bathseba Buczylowski, who in some way or other contributed to the data collection and transcription process. Sandra Bähr substantially contributed to the coding of the data. My gratitude also goes to Dany Adone and Nikolaus Himmelmann for granting me research assistant positions in different fields of linguistics and with different administrative responsibilities, all of which broadened my linguistic perspective and range of experience. I would also like to thank my current colleagues at the University of Regensburg for their various comments on my project and for time and again taking the load

   English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

off me during the last couple of months. A special thank you here goes to Jamie Kohen, who proof-read the final manuscript before submission to the VEAW series in no time. In addition to that, I would like to express my gratefulness to Thomas Hoffmann, who introduced me to statistical methods and substantially supported me in the statistical analysis of the data. Also, I am grateful to Stephanie Hackert for her detailed feedback on the manuscript and for accepting it into the Varieties of English Around the World series as well as to Kees Vaes and Patricia Leplae of John Benjamins Publishing Company for all their advice and patience in the process of manuscript preparation. Furthermore, I would like to thank the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) for generously supporting my research trip to Greece (Thessaloniki) to collect comparative data for the overall research project. Finally, my deep gratitude belongs to my family and friends. I would especially like to thank my parents, Henning and Friederike Buschfeld, for their loving support and encouragement in academic matters. Last but not least, I am indebted to my husband, Alexander Kautzsch, not only for the many linguistic discussions and his support in technical matters, but, most importantly, for keeping me in a cheerful mood.

chapter 1

Introduction This study is concerned with the investigation of a potentially “new” variety of English spoken in the Greek part of the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. However, the influence of English in Cyprus is not new in the sense that it has only recently gained importance. Its roots, in fact, go back to the period of British imperialism, during which the English language was transported to and became rooted in many “‘un-English’ cultural and linguistic contexts in various parts of the world, wherever the arm of the western colonizers reached” (Kachru 1981: 15). This brought about a multitude of native and second-language varieties of English around the world, e.g. the different Australasian, Asian, and African Englishes. These and other varieties of English have experienced an ever increasing scholarly interest ever since the onset of World Englishes research about 30 years ago. Even though Cyprus shares the historical experience of British colonization, the English spoken there has not yet been discussed systematically and comprehensively within the framework of World Englishes. The overall aim of the present study is to remedy the lack of systematic and comprehensive investigation and to place Cyprus and the English language spoken there on the map of World Englishes research. For reasons of practicability, this monograph focuses on the Greek part of the island, as Cyprus is divided into a Greek and a Turkish part, which have developed important differences in their sociolinguistic settings.

1.1

Motivation for the research project

The motivation for this research project originates in some observations made by the present author during her first visit to Cyprus. When arriving in the Greek part of Cyprus, one immediately notices its bilingual status and the British legacy, which finds expression in a multitude of cultural and linguistic elements: shop and street signs display both languages, Greek and English, the island has several British chain stores, Cypriots drive on the left, and they use the British three-pin electric plug. The English language is spoken widely on the island and almost everybody approached in the street, no matter what age group, is willing and able to communicate in English. This sets the linguistic situation in Cyprus clearly apart



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

from the situation found in what has traditionally been referred to as English as a foreign language (henceforth EFL) countries like Germany, France, or Italy, in which English is spoken by subsets of the population only (e.g. people of higher education as well as the younger generation) and where it is mainly restricted to the international domain of business, trade, and diplomacy (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 4–5; Schneider 2007: 12; Strevens 19921: 36). The question which consequently arises here is whether then Cyprus would not automatically have to be considered an English as a second-language (henceforth ESL) country, where English is spoken as a second-language variety, as this is the traditionally employed distinction (see, for example, Görlach 19902, 19953, 19984; Graddol 1997). However, this question cannot be answered conclusively without carrying out in-depth and comprehensive research on the linguistic situation in Cyprus. When reviewing the literature on World Englishes, it soon becomes obvious that this has not been undertaken so far. Cyprus is either absent from most of the otherwise quite comprehensive contributions to the field or it is only superficially mentioned and categorized as either ESL or EFL, without any recourse to empirical research. The reasons for this neglect are elusive and, in my view, unjustified (but see ch. 3.3 for a more detailed approach to that question). When comparing the linguistic situation in Cyprus to that of most other postcolonial societies, two immediately obvious differences become apparent. These differences manifest themselves in the fact that (1) English is not an official language on the island and (2) that it does not fulfil the function of a neutral link language between different ethnic groups permanently living there (as, for example, found in India, cf. Schneider 2007: 167). Neither aspect, however, fundamentally challenges the assumption that the English language in Cyprus might be a second-language variety of English: first, official status might certainly have an adjuvant effect on the entrenchment of a language. However, this cannot account for the question whether a type of English has second-language variety status or not since realities and linguistic practice might not necessarily be bound to that. This is basically expressed in the distinction between de facto and de jure official 1.

This article first appeared in English Teaching Forum 25(4), 1987.

2. As Görlach indicates, the article first appeared in 1988. In what follows, I always refer to his 1990 collection of papers Studies in the History of the English Language, in which the article was reprinted. 3. As Görlach indicates, this paper first appeared in 1989. I here refer to the 1995 collection of conference papers and guest lectures More Englishes: New Studies in Varieties of English 1988–1994, in which the article was later published. 4. This article first appeared in 1996. I here refer to the 1998 collection of papers Even More Englishes: Studies 1996–1997, in which the article was reprinted.



Chapter 1.  Introduction

status of the English language. Second, until the 1974 Turkish invasion, English to some extent fulfilled link language function between Turkish and Greek Cypriots on the island and only lost this status with the de facto division of the island in 1974 (cf. Davy & Pavlou 2010: 6–7). Taking all this into consideration, I maintain that the investigation of the variety status of the English language in Cyprus is not only justifiable but long overdue. This does, of course, not automatically imply variety status for English as spoken in Cyprus, at this point. Rather, it motivates the following research questions for the examination of variety status: 1. Should the English language spoken in the Greek part of Cyprus be considered a second-language variety or should it simply be regarded as learner English? 2. Can it, in terminological terms, be labelled “Cyprus English” (henceforth CyE) or is it more accurate to refer to it as “English in Cyprus” (henceforth EiCy)?5 (Cf. the terminological distinction “English in X” or “X English” attributed to Schneider 2003, 2007). 3. Where can EiCy/CyE best be placed with respect to existing models of and approaches to World Englishes? 1.2 Scientific aims of the study The overall aim of the present study is twofold. The main aim is to empirically and comprehensively investigate the (socio)linguistic situation in Cyprus to answer the research questions introduced above. I most importantly seek to determine whether or not EiCy/CyE should be considered a second-language variety of English or whether it should simply be regarded as learner English. With respect to terminology, I discuss which of the labels introduced above (i.e. “English in Cyprus” or “Cyprus English”) is more appropriate to refer to the type of English spoken in Cyprus. This question is not necessarily answered by discussing the overall question of variety status, particularly when following diachronic models of World Englishes (e.g. Moag 19926; Schneider 2003, 2007), which imply that the emergence of varieties underlies a developmental process. In this process, the terminological change from “English in X” to “X English” takes place comparatively late, viz. when the distinctive linguistic features of a variety officially start being accepted as the local norm (Schneider 2007: 50). Local linguistic characteristics, 5. As long as this question has not been conclusively answered, I use the combined abbreviation EiCy/CyE to account for its unclear status. 6. The article appeared as early as 1982 in the first edition of Kachru’s The Other Tongue. Note that reference here and in the following is made to the second and revised edition of this edited volume from 1992.





English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

however, tend to emerge long before this process (cf. the developmental process suggested in Schneider’s 2007 Dynamic Model7). Closely connected to the second research question, my second aim is to place EiCy/CyE within the framework of the most prominent models of and approaches to World Englishes. Hence, what this study seeks to accomplish is a comprehensive and empirical investigation of and testing for variety status and a subsequent integration of the linguistic situation into existing approaches. 1.3 Theoretical framework An investigation of variety status from scratch has been pursued comparatively seldom in the literature of World Englishes. Most previous studies seem to presuppose variety status for the type of English under investigation on the basis of impressionistic observations (such as the ones which initially motivated the present study) and hence do not ask the variety status question at all. To my knowledge, there is only Mollin’s (2006, 2007) study on the status of Euro-English, which follows a similar procedure. I therefore adapt her strategy of establishing a criteria catalogue for assessing variety status (cf. 3.4.2), against which later on the (socio) linguistic realities observed for Cyprus are tested (cf. 7.2). For the actual analysis of the (socio)linguistic situation in Cyprus, I follow Schneider (2007: 30–1), who, in his Dynamic Model, postulates an integrated approach combining macro- as well as micro-sociolinguistic aspects for investigating the development and characteristics of speech communities. Even though this approach is not explicitly geared towards investigating variety status, it aims at providing a framework for placing and comparing postcolonial varieties of English (henceforth PCEs) with respect to their developmental status (cf. Schneider 2007). Since placing a new potential variety cannot go without any reference and comparison to the development of other speech communities, I consider it a convenient approach for the purpose of the present study. The Dynamic Model combines the analysis of four different interconnected parameters acting on the developmental process of a linguistic situation, each of them entailing the next and each of them likewise relevant to the conclusive determination of a postcolonial linguistic situation. The first parameter, an investigation of the historical and sociopolitical development of a territory, provides an 7. The Dynamic Model was already sketched out in Schneider’s (2003) article “The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth”. The full and elaborate version of the model appeared in his 2007 monograph Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. In what follows, I always refer to the 2007 extended version of the Dynamic Model except where I want to make explicit reference to the 2003 article.



Chapter 1.  Introduction

overview of developmental processes, i.e. the motives for colonization, colonization type, and course of colonization in the territory concerned, and constitutes the backbone of the analysis of the three remaining parameters. The second parameter is an analysis of the identity constructions of both the settler strand (henceforth STL) and the indigenous population (henceforth IDG). It reveals relevant information about the development of the relationship between the two groups in the setting under investigation. On the one hand, this relationship is usually influenced by the historical and sociopolitical experiences of both sides. On the other hand, it highly impacts the sociolinguistic as well as linguistic development in a territory. An assimilation of identity constructions between the two groups normally influences, if not determines, sociolinguistic parameters like language contact conditions and language attitudes and use and often ultimately brings about an assimilation in linguistic behaviour, i.e. in the use of English (cf. Schneider 2007: 30–1). The third parameter which should be considered in an integrated analysis is the “sociolinguistic determinants of the contact setting” (Schneider 2007: 31). This includes an analysis of the language contact conditions, i.e. intensity and type of linguistic contact between the STL and IDG strands, and language attitudes and use. These, in turn, strongly influence the linguistic outcome of the contact scenario, i.e. whether, to what degree, and in what form the variety develops indigenized lexical, phonological, and grammatical characteristics. This constitutes the fourth parameter for investigation (cf. Schneider 2007: 33–55 for further details on the parameters and their prototypical development). 1.4 Methodological framework To investigate the variety status of EiCy/CyE, I draw on a multitude of different sources. The historical-political development of Cyprus has already been comprehensively dealt with in contributions from historiography and the political sciences (e.g. Kaikitis 1998; Poew 2007). For the purpose of this study, these findings are interpreted with respect to their relevance for the analysis of identity constructions and the sociolinguistic background in that they contribute to a better understanding of the complex linguistic development and current situation in Cyprus. In addition to that, I bring together relevant information from existing contributions on the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus (e.g. Davy & Pavlou 2010; Tsiplakou 2009; Yazgin 2007) to establish the overall sociolinguistic background of EiCy/CyE. These findings are complemented and corroborated by empirical findings from a comprehensive study on language attitudes and use by McEntee-Atalianis and Pouloukas (2001) and selected findings from my own survey.





English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

The findings from my own study come from 105 Greek-Cypriot participants who were asked to fill in a two-part questionnaire. The questionnaire is based on the language attitudes and use questionnaire used in Künstler et al. (2009) to inquire into use and functions as well as language attitudes towards Sri Lankan English. It has, however, been adapted to the Greek-Cypriot context. The first part of my questionnaire investigates the use of English, the Greek-Cypriot dialect, and Standard Modern Greek. Participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale which of the languages they use in the family domain, when conversing with friends, with people they have never met before/foreigners, in email communication, education, everyday life (shops, airports, the marketplace etc.), and employment/business (the latter part was, of course, not filled in by high school or university students). In the second part of the questionnaire, participants were asked to read through 20 statements on questions of language and identity, the role English plays in Cyprus, and the status of both (Cypriot) Greek and English and to decide on a 5-point scale how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the different assertions (for the full questionnaire see Appendix I). However, the main focus of this study is on an analysis of linguistic features, in particular since this area of research has never been touched on for Cyprus. Consequently, no data was available for a linguistic analysis of EiCy/CyE. To that end, I conducted oral interviews in the Greek part of Cyprus between July 2007 and September 2009. These were compiled in a data corpus of spoken English, CEDAR (Cyprus English Data Analysis and Research), and subsequently transcribed and analysed. I here follow an integrative procedure of psycholinguistic as well as sociolinguistic methodology. In setting up the CEDAR corpus, I follow the corpus linguistic approach often employed in studies of World Englishes (cf. the International Corpus of English [ICE] website; see also Greenbaum 1996). On this basis, I provide a screening of qualitative characteristics of EiCy/CyE which might have entered the process of structural nativization. For the quantitative analysis of the data, I pursue the traditionally psycholinguistic approach of hypotheses development and testing. To that end, I derive linguistic hypotheses on the basis of a crosslinguistic comparison of (Cypriot) Greek and English, which are tested for validity against the quantified linguistic results. Finally, all findings are interpreted in light of the sociolinguistic framework of Cyprus.

1.5 Outline Following Schneider’s (2007) integrative approach, I look into the following aspects to determine the variety status of EiCy/CyE:



Chapter 1.  Introduction

1. The historical and sociopolitical development of Cyprus, including motives for British colonization, British language policy, and colonization type. 2. The resulting identity constructions, in particular whether or not an assimilation of identity constructions took place between the British settlers and the Greek-Cypriot population. 3. The resulting sociolinguistic conditions, i.e. use and functions of the English language and attitudes towards English on the side of the Greek-Cypriot population. 4. The linguistic effects which emerged from the overall sociolinguistic situation, in particular the question whether or not EiCy/CyE employs nativized local characteristics. I begin the assessment of the variety status of EiCy/CyE by looking into the first three parameters, i.e. (1) the historical and sociopolitical development of Cyprus (cf. 2.2), (2) identity constructions (cf. 2.3), and (3) the sociolinguistic realities found in the Greek part of Cyprus (cf. 2.4). Even though the focus is on the time of British colonization (cf. 2.2.2), viz. its historical course (cf. 2.2.2.1) and related aspects, i.e. motives for colonization, language policy, and colonization type (cf. 2.2.2.2), I begin the historical, sociopolitical observations by going further back in history (cf. 2.2.1). I here review historical events which might have been of formative and emotional nature for Greek-Cypriot identity constructions and I look at the later sociolinguistic development of the island. I follow the assumption here that not only the actual circumstances during the time of the British occupation influenced these identity constructions but also past experiences, especially those of strong emotional nature (cf. studies on social movements by, for example, Klandermans 1999: 261 and Robnett 2002: 268). In addition to that, I consider the post-independence development of Cyprus (cf. 2.2.3) because it also had a major impact on the development of identity constructions, the sociolinguistic conditions, and consequently the shape of the English language. In this respect, the Turkish invasion of 1974 and the subsequent division of the island brought about a change in sociolinguistic realities in that these events initiated a decline in use and functions of the English language. Section 2.3 then focuses on the effects of the overall historical and sociopolitical background on the development of identity constructions in the Greek part of the island. These turn out to be unique when compared to other postcolonial societies since an assimilation between the Greek Cypriots and the British did not take place. Section 2.4 in turn outlines the sociolinguistic consequences of this unique development for the use and functions of the English language (cf. 2.4.1), as well as for language attitudes towards English, Standard Modern Greek, and the GreekCypriot dialect on the side of the Greek-Cypriot population (cf. 2.4.2). What this





English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

section generally reveals is a gradual decline in use and functions following the 1974 division of the island, which resulted from the Turkish invasion in the same year. With respect to language attitudes and use, the general finding is that English is highly valued, widely accepted, and well-liked as a linguistic tool but does not fulfil the function of an identity carrier (see also McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001: 33–5). Ultimately, the observations of the different aspects reveal that Cyprus, on the one hand, resembles other postcolonial societies in its development. On the other hand, differences are detected, in particular with respect to the development of identity constructions and the status English has on the island. As suggested above, these findings justify the analysis of EiCy/CyE, not least because Cyprus seems to be a unique case. Chapter 3 sets the theoretical framework for both the extensive analyses of linguistic features (cf. Chapters 5 and 6) and for discussing the research questions in Chapter 7. Chapter 3 is divided into four major sections. In its first section (3.2), I briefly review the last 30 years of World Englishes research in terms of the most prominent approaches developed for characterizing, comparing, and placing different varieties of English and the relevant terminology used in the field. Section two (3.3) takes up the earlier observation that a comprehensive study of EiCy/CyE has so far been neglected by World Englishes research and provides a detailed review of the relevant literature. Existing approaches to the linguistic situation, however, mainly deal with the relationship of the two community languages of the Greek part of Cyprus, viz. Standard Modern Greek and Cypriot Greek, which is a dialect of the standard variety, hence referred to as the Greek-Cypriot dialect. The role the English language plays is only considered with respect to the influence it has on the Greek-Cypriot dialect and is often discussed as a potential threat to the dialect and the Greek-Cypriot culture. I review these approaches to the general linguistic situation in Cyprus as well as the three existing studies which attempt an assessment of the variety status of EiCy/CyE (cf. Davy & Pavlou 2010; Tsiplakou 2009; Yazgin 2007). The contributions which in one way or another address the variety status question either suggest English as a second language (henceforth ESL), i.e. variety status, or English as a foreign language (henceforth EFL), i.e. learner English status, for EiCy/CyE. This disagreement not only indicates the relevance of the main research question of this study but also points to the possibility that placing EiCy/CyE might turn out to be difficult or at least controversial, even on the basis of a much more comprehensive approach. I therefore elaborate on the theoretical framework



Chapter 1.  Introduction

of the (ENL8-)ESL-EFL distinction in Section 3.4 to prepare the ground for a detailed discussion of the question whether EiCy/CyE should be assigned ESL or EFL status. To that end, I illustrate and discuss the traditionally employed differences between the two concepts by outlining their major characteristics and compile a criteria catalogue for assessing variety status similar to that developed by Mollin (2006, 2007). In doing so, I go beyond Mollin’s criteria by suggesting a percental threshold at which structural nativization, i.e. “the emergence of structures which are distinctive to [a] newly evolving variety” (Schneider 2007: 39–40), might set in. Moreover, I address major similarities between the two concepts, which most prominently show in the fact that interlanguage development is at the heart of both types of Englishes and that it is solely the sociolinguistic context which accounts for the differences detected. Subsequently, I show how this rationale relates to the necessity of a reinterpretation of the traditional ESL-EFL dichotomy. Drawing on arguments from recent research (e.g. Biewer 2011: 28; Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011: 48; Gilquin & Granger 2011: 76) and the early conception of an (ENL-)ESLEFL continuum by Platt et al. (1984), which seems to have fallen into oblivion, I argue that the strong conception of an ESL-EFL dichotomy is misleading since the two concepts cannot strictly be separated and should instead be considered two poles on a continuum (see also Biewer 2011: 28; Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011: 48; Gilquin & Granger 2011: 76). These considerations as well as the criteria catalogue form the later basis for discussing the variety status of EiCy/CyE in Section 7.2. In Section 3.5, I develop general expectations and hypotheses for the analysis of linguistic characteristics in Chapters 5 and 6. Here, the observation that the 1974 division of the island brought about major changes in the sociolinguistic framework of Cyprus motivates the following general expectation of this study: the decline in use and functions of the English language has led to a change in the acquisition context from more “natural” acquisition in direct contact with the British colonizers to mainly classroom-based, formal instruction (cf. 2.4.1). I expect that this is reflected in differences in language use between older Greek Cypriots, who acquired English both through formal language instruction but, more importantly, in direct interaction with the British, and young Greek Cypriots, who mainly learned or are learning English at school. While the general expectation is motivated by language external factors, the linguistic hypotheses draw on language internal considerations: one of the major overlaps of learner Englishes and second-language varieties lies in the similarities 8. English as a native language (in analogy to the alphabetisms ESL and EFL). It is bracketed here since ENL is only included for reasons of completeness but is not further discussed in Section 3.4 because assigning ENL status to EiCy/CyE is out of question.





English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

of initial mechanisms operating on their development. This is by no means surprising when considering that the underlying psycholinguistic processes involved in the development of both types of English must be the same, as there is no particular reason to maintain the contrary. In this respect, the transfer of structural patterns from the native (henceforth L1) to a second language (henceforth L2) has been identified as one of the major mechanisms in both the development of learner language (Selinker 1972: 215, 216–7) and second-language varieties (cf. the notion of “interference variety” [cf. Quirk et al. 1972: 26]; see also Mollin 2007: 171). On the basis of this assumption, I present a crosslinguistic comparison of English and the Greek-Cypriot dialect/Standard Modern Greek in Section 3.5 and develop a set of hypotheses derived from the typological differences between the languages (cf. 3.5.4). These hypotheses predict EiCy/CyE linguistic characteristics which might have undergone structural nativization under the given sociolinguistic circumstances in Cyprus. After having set the theoretical framework for both the data analysis and the later discussion of the variety status of EiCy/CyE, I turn to the empirical part of the study, the analysis of potential nativized linguistic features of EiCy/CyE. Chapter 4 provides detailed information on the overall methodological procedure pursued in this project, particularly on the following aspects: 1. A description of the data collection process as well as the set up and implementation of the interviews conducted (cf. 4.2.1). 2. An identification of the 90 participants of the study selected from the larger CEDAR corpus as well as a brief account of the selection criteria and procedure (cf. 4.2.2). 3. A detailed description of the transcription procedure and the set of codes used for transcribing the oral data (cf. 4.3). Chapters 5 and 6 constitute the main part of this study. They are concerned with a qualitative and quantitative analysis of EiCy/CyE characteristics, respectively. In Chapter 5, I indentify 61 linguistic features on several linguistic levels, i.e. in the phonological, morphosyntactic, lexical, and pragmatic domains, as well as characteristics which are best described as interface phenomena in the lexicogrammatical and lexicosemantic domains. An impressionistic rating of each feature for frequency of occurrence, conducted by two independent raters to guarantee a certain degree of objectivity, subsequently reveals that in accordance with the criteria for feature nativization established in Section 3.4.2.2, 41 of the 61 features have entered the nativization process but are at different developmental stages. Chapter 6 then employs a quantitative analysis of a selection of features identified in Chapter 5 to account for feature frequency in exact quantitative terms to examine, by way of example, the accuracy of the qualitative approach and to



Chapter 1.  Introduction

account for the validity of the general expectation of this study. The results mainly confirm the earlier impressionistic feature rating and the finding that EiCy/CyE is characterized by features which have entered the nativization process. In addition, the results also suggest that the use of nativized features declines with decreasing age, i.e. young generation Cypriots use EiCy/CyE features to a much lesser extent than members of the older generation. A hierarchical configural frequency analysis (cf. 6.3.5) at least in parts supports this finding in statistical terms. In Chapter 7, I bring together the findings and insights from Chapters 2, 5, and 6 and discuss them against the theoretical background established in Chapter 3. The discussion of variety status in light of the criteria catalogue developed in Section 3.4.2 reveals that EiCy/CyE today can neither clearly be categorized as a second-language variety (ESL), nor as a typical learner English (EFL). The findings that (1) English has experienced a gradual decline in use and functions since the 1974 division of the island and (2) that the use of characteristic EiCy/CyE features is less prominent for the young generation suggest that EiCy/CyE is currently undergoing reversal from ESL to EFL status. I interpret these findings as evidence that EiCy/CyE is a hybrid case, to be located somewhere between ESL and EFL status. This hybridity, however, poses a problem for placing EiCy/CyE within the existing theoretical framework of World Englishes research. In line with Schreier’s assumption that “it is legitimate to ask whether these [potential new varieties of English] can be integrated into existing models or whether they pose a challenge to them, making new taxonomies necessary” (Schreier 2009: 20), I critically evaluate the most prominent approaches briefly introduced in Chapter 3 in light of the findings on EiCy/CyE and suggest modifications wherever necessary and possible (cf. 7.3). What this discussion reveals is that Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model is best suited for classifying EiCy/CyE in that it requires the least fundamental modifications. With respect to the Dynamic Model, my results show that EiCy/CyE reached the phase of structural nativization but never fully passed through it and is currently undergoing reverse development from an early ESL towards EFL status. Thus, EiCy/CyE never reached Schneider’s phase 4. With respect to research question 3, this finding rules out the label “X English” for Cyprus. Finally, Chapter 8 sums up the results and achievements of this study, which, in a nutshell, are the following: first of all, I compiled and marked-up a comprehensive corpus of oral speech data, CEDAR, which can be used for further studies on EiCy and for comparison with other types of English. On this basis, I investigate and discuss a potential new variety of English, which turns out to be of hybrid ESL-EFL status. To carry out this investigation and discussion, the study further employs the following three theoretical contributions: on the one hand, I discuss and compile criteria for assessing variety status and contribute to the currently





English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

evolving discussion of the accuracy of the ESL-EFL dichotomy, i.e. the strict separation of learner Englishes and second-language varieties. The findings on EiCy corroborate the assumption that the ESL-EFL distinction should be considered two poles of a continuum (see also Biewer 2011: 28; Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011: 48; Gilquin & Granger 2011: 76). On the other hand, a critical evaluation of the accuracy and applicability of the most prominent models of and approaches to World Englishes in light of the findings for EiCy as well as some practical suggestions for how to enhance their scope of application whenever necessary and viable show how these taxonomies can account for hybrid cases.

chapter 2

English in Cyprus Historical and sociopolitical development, identity constructions, and sociolinguistic conditions

2.1 Introduction Like numerous other countries, the Mediterranean island of Cyprus was under British rule for a considerable amount of time (1878–1960). The independence of these countries in the course of the 20th century has given rise to extended scholarly interest and investigations into their postcolonial situations and the linguistic consequences since the 1980s. The postcolonial linguistic situation in Cyprus has, however, so far been neglected by World Englishes research, i.e. EiCy/CyE has not yet been discussed comprehensively and systematically. The overall aim of this study is thus to remedy the lack of systematic and comprehensive investigation into EiCy/CyE and to place it within the broader framework of World Englishes. In doing so, I follow Schneider’s (2007) integrative approach (cf. 1.3) and analyse the four different parameters for the case of Cyprus. The present chapter covers the first three of these parameters, i.e. the historical and sociopolitical development of Cyprus, identity constructions, and sociolinguistic conditions. 2.2 Historical background Cyprus is the third largest of the Mediterranean islands situated in the Middle East (Gallas 1996: 21; Kaikitis 1998: 8; Poew 2007: 9; Tsiplakou 2006: 337), 75 kilometres south of Turkey, 105 kilometres west of Syria, 800 kilometres southeast of mainland Greece, and 380 kilometres north of Egypt (Presse und Informationsamt der Republik Zypern 1999: 11, cited in Poew 2007: 9–10). It covers 9,251 square kilometres, of which 3,355 belong to the Turkish part and 5,896 to the Greek part of the island (CIA World Factbook 2011; Gallas 1996: 21; Poew 2007: 9). According to the latest demographic report of the Statistical Service of Cyprus, population numbers amounted to a total of 892,400 at the end of the year 2009, out of which 672,800 (75.4% of the overall population) people belonged to the GreekCypriot community and 89,200 (10%) people were of Turkish-Cypriot descent.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

130,400 (14.6%) people in Cyprus were foreign residents (Statistical Service of Cyprus 2009: 12). The demographic report, however, does not specify the exact ethnic distribution of foreigners.1 Next to Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the major ethnic groups of the island include the British, people from the former Soviet Union like Russians, Georgians, Armenians, and Latvians, Asian immigrants from, for example, Sri Lanka or the Philippines, Armenians, and Maronites (Tsiplakou 2006: 337).2 The number of British expatriates reportedly amounts to about 59,000 (Leonidou 2007), thus constituting the majority of foreign residents permanently living in Cyprus. Due to its close vicinity to the coasts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon as well as its proximity to the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt (cf. Map 2.1), Cyprus

Map 2.1  The location of Cyprus (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EU-Cyprus.svg)

1. The Statistical Service of Cyprus informed me that they, unfortunately, do not have this information available at all (personal email correspondence, June 2011). 2. The information in Tsiplakou (2006) has been complemented by a personal email conversation with Evelina Leivada in July 2011.



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus

occupied a strategically, politically, and economically interesting geographical position from early on and developed into a crucial location in the Middle East (Kaikitis 1998: 16; Karádi & Lutz 1998: 126; Poew 2007: 9–10). It was thus assigned the epithet “unsinkbarer Flugzeugträger” (‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’; Poew 2007: 9; Tatli 1986: preface; see also Karádi & Lutz 1998: 126). Many different foreign powers and nations therefore conquered and ruled the island in the course of its history; some of them even populated it (Karádi & Lutz 1998: 126; Poew 2007: 10). 2.2.1 From the first settlements to the British occupation Since its initial settlement in the Neolithic Age, the history of Cyprus has been characterized by changing foreign domination and settlements, e.g. by Mycenaean Greek, Egyptian, Phoenician, Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, Roman, Frankish, Venetian, Ottoman, and British rule (for a detailed overview see Kaikitis 1998: 9–28; Tzermias 1991: 1–51; see also Terkourafi 2007: 64–5; Tsiplakou 2006: 337), with a period of sovereignty of only one century (Terkourafi 2007: 64). Three of these settlements/annexations had a crucial impact not only with respect to the current Cyprus problem (for details see 2.2.3) but also concerning the linguistic situation in Cyprus today. The settlement of the Archaeans in 13 and 12 B.C. resulted in the “Hellenization” of the island. This brought about the spread of both the Greek culture and the Greek language (Gürbey 1988: 12; Kaikitis 1998: 9). This process continued through the centuries and even under foreign domination did the Cypriots manage to retain major elements of the Greek culture (Kaikitis 1998: 9). Also of major importance were the 300 years of Ottoman rule. The Ottomans invaded Cyprus in 1571 and stayed until the British took over the island from a politically, economically, and militarily weakened and financially bankrupt Ottoman Empire in 1878 (for details see Kaikitis 1998: 11–4; Poew 2007: 13). The Turkish people who had settled on the island during this time, however, became permanent residents, and with them their distinct culture, religion, administration (cf. Kaikitis 1998: 14), and language. Together with the Greek Cypriots, they constitute a major ethnic group of the island today, with Greek and Turkish being the de jure official languages of Cyprus. 2.2.2 British rule in Cyprus In what follows, I give a historical overview of the British occupation of Cyprus. Subsequently, I focus on such aspects as motives for colonization, British language policy in Cyprus, and colonization type.





English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

2.2.2.1 Historical overview In the course of rising British expansionism, the island fell under British protectorate in 1878. On June 4, 1878, after 300 years of Turkish rule in Cyprus, the United Kingdom agreed on a contract with Turkey to protect the Turkish possessions in Asia against Russian intervention (Georghiades 1963: 15–6; Kaikitis 1998: 15; Poew 2007: 13–4; Richmond 2006: 543; Schwenger 1964: 7). An additional treaty, which granted Great Britain the absolute legislative authority during the entire period of colonial rule, was signed on August 14 in the same year (Schwenger 1964: 7). However, this authority and the right of occupation did not bring about territorial sovereignty initially and led to de facto but not de jure sovereignty of Great Britain. Only in 1914 did the British start to annex the island because Turkey took a stand against the Allies by joining the Central Powers in World War I (Kaikitis 1998: 15; Poew 2007: 14; Schwenger 1964: 7–8). On this account, Britain declared the 1878 treaties invalid and announced the island’s annexation on November 5, which was officially acknowledged by the Turks in the treaty of Lausanne in 1923. As a result, the sultan’s territorial jurisdiction expired and the British crown finally gained full territorial and de jure sovereignty of Cyprus. The island became a crown colony of Great Britain in 1925 (Kaikitis 1998: 16; Poew 2007: 14; Schwenger 1964: 8; Terkourafi 2007: 65), although the population had already been British subjects since the British order in council in November 1917 (Schwenger 1964: 8). All in all, the British pursued a rather moderate language policy and generally did not try to impose their culture and language on the local population, except for some sanction measures in reaction to anti-colonial sentiments (Tsiplakou 2009: 76–8; cf. 2.2.2.2.2). Nevertheless, a strong resistance against British rule developed. This led to bloody upheavals in 1931, which in turn provoked an increase in British authority and power politics (Richter 2006: 133; Schwenger 1964: 9–10). In 1954, Great Britain declared that Cyprus, being one of a group of territories in a special situation, could never reach full independence. As a reaction to that, the underground organization EOKA (Ethniki Organosi Kyprion Agoniston – National Organization of Cypriot Fighters) started taking violent measures against the British. Its supporters aimed at the independence of the island from the British and Enosis (Greek: union), i.e. unification with Greece. Their plans and actions, however, were by no means compatible with the concerns of the Turkish Cypriots. Shortly afterwards and in reaction to these activities, the Turkish organization Kiteb was founded, which aimed at Taksim (Arabic: divide), i.e. the division of the island. On November 29, 1957, the Volkan organization (later called TMT; Türk Müdafa Teskilati – Turkish Defense Organization) came into being and followed an anti-Hellenic, anti-communist, and Taksim-oriented policy, which was by no means reconcilable with the Enosis-oriented efforts of the EOKA. Subsequently, serious conflicts arose between the two parties (Kaikitis 1998: 32–41).



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

The British government reacted to these upheavals both with force and on a political level. The political negotiations, however, soon revealed that the different intentions and demands were entirely incompatible. Turkey argued in favour of the status quo, but Greece and those supporting the aim of Enosis did not deviate from their demand for self-determination. This demand was also openly rejected by Great Britain. Negotiations failed because both Great Britain and Turkey/the Turkish Cypriots refused to accept an Enosis solution and Greece/the Greek Cypriots were unwilling to depart entirely from their demand for self-determination (Kaikitis 1998: 41). British diplomat and jurist Lord Radcliffe later on developed a constitutional plan, which was offered to “rebellious Cyprus” (TIME Magazine U.S., December 1956) as a compromise to the quest for self-determination. It conceded a quasi democratic form of self-government for Cyprus but was again rejected by Greece and the Greek Cypriots since it also pre-announced the division of the island, which counteracted Greek-Cypriot interests. A following compromise by the British government was again rejected by the Greek Cypriots and still no conciliation with the Turkish side could be reached (Kaikitis 1998: 41). These developments certainly reinforced the discrepancies between the British and the Greek Cypriots, who were very dissatisfied with Great Britain’s – at least moral and indirect – support of the Turkish plans. The following interview excerpts illustrate this discontent and even state that support was not only of indirect, moral but also of direct, material nature:3 I2: [...] And we start a kind of civil war. IE: Mhm. I2: The Turkish Cypriots were [support?], officially IE: Mhm. I2: by the British. # [...] they [were give?] them uh guns, informations, everything and from there they started, uh they needed partition of Cyprus # and we continue [...] our life here and we came to the year nineteen seventy-four. (#079) I: [...] But uh I think British always support uh # the uh Turkish people. [...] (#073)

Nevertheless, in September 1958, archbishop Makarios, the ethnarch of the GreekCypriot people at the time, finally approved of the possibility to turn Cyprus into an autonomous state and gave up the idea of unification with Greece. His only condition was that the island was not going to be divided (Kaikitis 1998: 41–2). This brought about a change of political direction and paved the way for the Zurich and London Agreements, which stipulated the island’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity (Kaikitis 1998: 42, 69) and ultimately led to the 3. I shortened some of the interview excerpts and deleted false starts and self-corrections (both indicated by [...]) to enhance reader-friendliness.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

independence of the island in 1960 (for further details on the agreements and the issue of independence see Joseph 2006: 453–7). After nearly 2,000 years of foreign domination, Cyprus was finally ruled by Cypriots (Kaikitis 1998: 46) even though Great Britain, Greece, and Turkey retained political influence in function of guarantor powers (Kaikitis 1998: 69). In addition to their guarantor power function, Great Britain enforced the retention of two UK Sovereign Base Areas, i.e. Akrotiri – Episkopi – Paramali and Dhekelia – Pergamos – Ayios Nikolaos – Xylophagou, with the Zurich and London Agreements (The Zurich and London Agreements 1959, D – Declaration by the Government of the United Kingdom, B). 2.2.2.2 Colonization type: Motives for colonization and British language policy Research on contact linguistics has shown that different types of English are the product of language contact of different intensity and that such intensity is of primary importance with respect to the formation of new language varieties (e.g. Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 65–109; Thomason 2001: 66; Winford 2003: 236; see also Schneider 2007: 22).4 Such differences in intensity and consequently in the linguistic outcome of any contact situation can generally be accounted for in terms of the colonization type a country experienced. Closely connected to that are the interests the British had in a territory (Kaikitis 1998: 16; Schneider 2007: 65), the general colonial policy, and in particular the language policy pursued by the colonizers, the latter bearing a direct effect on the sociolinguistic conditions (Schneider 2007: 65). Therefore, colonization type is another major issue when investigating postcolonial linguistic contexts. The present section, therefore, gives a concise survey of Britain’s motives for the colonization of Cyprus (cf. 2.2.2.2.1), of British language policy (cf. 2.2.2.2.2), and the colonization type found in Cyprus (cf. 2.2.2.2.3). 2.2.2.2.1 Motives for colonization: Power-political interests vs. Greek-Cypriot expectations In addition to the per se strategic geographical position of Cyprus (cf. 2.2), the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 transformed the Mediterranean Sea from a “dead end” into a strategically highly important region (Kaikitis 1998: 16) equipped with major trade routes. This made the area particularly interesting for the naval and trade power Great Britain. Moreover, the British interest in Cyprus was evoked by Russia’s urge for territorial expansion in the eastern Mediterranean (Kaikitis 4. Note that a similar observation was made much earlier with respect to second/foreign language learning contexts. Ervin-Tripp (1974), for example, observes that transfer from the mother tongue is much stronger in foreign language learning contexts than in countries where the learners are more or less constantly exposed to the native target (Ervin-Tripp 1974: 121; see also Sridhar & Sridhar 1986: 10).



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

1998: 16; Markides 1970: 96), which was to be stopped to secure power political supremacy. Following a classification brought forward by Woodhouse (1960: 70), Cyprus, therefore, did not belong to those British overseas territories which had been seized for direct economic accrual, i.e. to establish trading outposts and to exploit resources. The reasons for the colonization of Cyprus were more of strategic, i.e. of defense- and power-political, nature and Cyprus had been taken over as an outpost to protect the trade routes in the Eastern Mediterranean (cf. Georghiades 1963: 15–6; Kaikitis 1998: 16; Poew 2007: 13–4; Storrs 1945: 463). Greek-Cypriot expectations, however, were in sharp contrast to the British interests in Cyprus. When the British took over, they were widely welcomed as liberators from Ottoman rule, as is expressed, for example, in the following excerpt from one of my interviews: I: [...] I believe that uh British, when came to Cyprus, [...] we see them as that they [...] released us from the Turkish occupation. Because it was three hundred years and went to the sea shores and uh we uhm hold uh British uhm flags. (#065)

Additionally, the British were welcomed as the believed-in supporter of the wishedfor unification with Greece. This hope had been fed by the British themselves, who had earlier granted unification with Greece to the Ionian Islands (Kaikitis 1998: 25; Stavrinides 1977: 20). However, the idea that the British came to selflessly free the Cypriots from the Turkish occupation was just wishful thinking (cf. Storrs 1945: 463). The same is true for the expectations of Enosis (unification) with Greece through British support since, mainly due to its strategic location, Cyprus was of much higher importance in the overall framework of British imperialism than the Ionian islands. This was also the reason why even later attempts by the Greek Cypriots to obtain Enosis remained unsuccessful. Great Britain was not willing to give up its rule over Cyprus since the island was its only strategic strongpoint to act out its military interests in this area after leaving the Suez region. Thus, Great Britain was initially neither willing, let alone planning, to release Cyprus into full independence one day. The Greek-Cypriots were, however, likewise determined to enforce their plans of independence from British rule and Enosis with Greece (Kaikitis 1998: 32; for further details see O’Malley 2006: 475–6). Interests and expectations could not have been more conflicting and British rule in Cyprus was ill-fated from the beginning. 2.2.2.2.2 British language policy in Cyprus As already mentioned above, the spread of the English language in Cyprus was never a major political aim of the colonial government (cf. Tsiplakou 2009: 78). Nevertheless, British educational policy, one of the main vehicles of language policy, suggests two major developmental phases. At the outset there was “a period of



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

relative laissez-faire (1878–1931)” (Tsiplakou 2009: 76), in which education was only “loosely ‘supervised’” and intervention minimal (Tsiplakou 2009: 77). This was followed by “a period of centralization and attempts at control over school curricula, administration, finances and teaching practices on the part of the colonial government (1931–1960)” (Tsiplakou 2009: 76). It is certainly no coincidence that the change of direction concurred with the anti-colonial upheavals of 1931 and can therefore be considered part of the reactive response from the British side, i.e. the change “to almost dictatorial rule” (Richter 2006: 133). As one of its immediate results, Sir H. Richmond Palmer was appointed governor to control and supervise elementary education in 1933 and was entrusted with such related aspects as teaching materials, the curriculum, and aspects of teacher training and promotion (Richter 2006: 139; Tsiplakou 2009: 77). Through laws on education, English was established as “a compulsory subject in the last two grades of primary school” (Tsiplakou 2009: 77) and the British government offered financial and social gratuity for those secondary schools which increased the amount of English language teaching and which disassociated themselves from the influence of the Greek and Turkish governments (cf. Tsiplakou 2009: 77; see also Rappas 2008: 372–3). Yet, this offer was accepted by one Greek-Cypriot secondary school only (Tsiplakou 2009: 77), as the Cypriots were generally unwilling to pander to British interests. In addition, financial support of the English School, a training facility for civil servants, was enhanced (Tsiplakou 2009: 77). At the same time, the colonial government also started to repress public identification with mainland Greece. For example, it didn’t allow the people to fly the Greek flag, to worship Greek heroes and rulers, sing the Greek national anthem at Cypriot schools, or celebrate Greek national holidays (Kaikitis 1998: 22; Tsiplakou 2009: 77; see also Richter 2006: 139). In turn and in protest against British colonial policy, Greek-Cypriot students boycotted English lessons in the final years of British rule, to which the colonial authorities reacted with extensive closures of primary and secondary schools (Tsiplakou 2009: 78). Despite this obvious intervention and the strong sanctions against anti-colonial sentiments, British policy neither aimed at nor brought about radical “‘Anglicization’” (Tsiplakou 2009: 78). The following interview excerpt illustrates this observation: IE: So you don’t feel like the British colonizers forced the English language onto the Cypriots? I: Uh, they tried uh because [...] they have influenced educational system so and they put the English language there so they forced everybody to learn more and more English. But I don’t think they were extreme on that. They didn’t try to [///] they didn’t forbid for example people to XX speak Greek or to uh learn also about their own language. (#032)



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

As a result of this language policy and the resistance of the Cypriot population, the use of English was generally restricted among groups who shared a common language. Nevertheless, English gained an important status and was widely used during the colonial period, especially among some elite groups. In addition to that, Davy and Pavlou (2010) point out that it was a means of communication between communities of different ethnicities and language backgrounds, particularly between Turkish and Greek Cypriots. As in many other multilingual colonial societies, it thus fulfilled an important link function (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 6–7). Furthermore, English was widely used in both its written and spoken form in a variety of public domains. It was the operating language of hospitals, post offices, veterinary clinics, the customhouse, and the telephone services. Consequently, Cypriots were confronted with English on a daily basis in, for example, notices (e.g. of hospital working hours and packet deliveries), medical certificates, emergency telephone instructions, and customs declaration forms (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 7). It was also used in the banking sector, in private and public tertiary education, in the courts, in government departments, and therefore in official documents drafted by these and other public authorities (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 6–7; Pastellas 1993, quoted in Papapavlou 2001a: 435; Tsiplakou 2009: 79). Thus, during the time of colonial rule, English played an important role in Cyprus, especially in those domains controlled by the colonial government, and was used as a means of communication among the “linguistically heterogeneous population” (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 6). 2.2.2.2.3 Colonization type The above observations nicely tie in with the following considerations on the type of colonization to which Cyprus was subjected. I here follow the categorization of colonization types suggested in Schneider (2007), who draws on Mufwene’s (2001: 8–9, 204–6, 2004) three-part classification into trade colonies, exploitation colonies, and settlement colonies. In contrast to Mufwene, who includes plantation colonies within the type of settlement colonization, Schneider (2007: 24–5) separates the two types and comes up with a more detailed distinction: (1) settlement colonies, (2) plantation colonies, (3) trade colonies, and (4) exploitation colonies. The status of Cyprus as a settlement colony or as a plantation colony can be ruled out right away. The two major characteristics for a settlement colony, “[a] continuous influx of immigrants” or “a strong STL majority before too long” (Schneider 2007: 65), are not met. Neither was Cyprus a plantation colony since the native population was not eradicated nor did it become insignificant in numbers and power and no slaves or contract labourers were brought to the island (cf. Schneider 2007: 66).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

The remaining two colonization types, i.e. trade colonization and exploitation colonization, share certain important characteristics, such as the proportion of the STL and IDG strands and restriction of the colonizers’ interest to “strictly utilitarian purposes” (Schneider 2007: 66). In contrast to settlement and plantation colonies, trade colonization was characterized by a utilitarian orientation towards the occupation and it was the aim to secure sea routes and trade. In addition, contact between the STL and IDG strands was limited to trade and therefore sporadic and mostly resulted in the development of pidgin languages (Schneider 2007: 24, 66). The further linguistic development in such scenarios was mainly influenced by two precedent-setting factors (cf. Schneider 2007: 66). English either developed into a lingua franca for interethnic communication with other regional languages competing for that function. This normally resulted in an expansion of the contact language not only in use and functions, but also in structural characteristics. As a second option, Pidgin English developed covert prestige and was extensively used by different parts of the population, even if negatively stigmatized by the authorities (Schneider 2007: 67). Trade colonies “generally evolved into settlement or exploitation colonies” (Mufwene 2004: 212, quoted in Schneider 2007: 24) in the course of time. Most exploitation colonies were founded in the nineteenth century (Schneider 2007: 24). They were generally characterized by a numerically small but economically and politically powerful settler community, which mainly pursued financial, power-political, and military aims, e.g. to expand or secure military and political influence, and not to spread the English language and culture in the first place (Schneider 2007: 65). Quite often access to the English language was kept away from the majority of the indigenous population to restrict power, participation, and through this the potential threat of upheavals against the colonizers (Schneider 2007: 65–6). Only a small percentage of the indigenous population was selected to serve British interests and gained early access to the English language. Only in the course of time did the group of indigenous people with access to the STL language expand. After independence, almost the complete STL strand very often went back to their country of origin. In these cases, the English language has remained an important language via the education system and serves in international and intranational communication. Some of these territories went through a process of “grassroots growth of English” (Schneider 2007: 66), i.e. an expansion in use, functions, and form of the English language by the indigenous people, which led to nativization of linguistic characteristics (Schneider 2007: 24–5, 66). Whether and to what extent expansion in function and use and subsequent nativization of the English language set in, can, however, vary from case to case and mainly depends on the kind of language policy pursued by the local government after independence (see, for example, the case studies on the Philippines, Tanzania, and Nigeria in Schneider [2007: 140–4, 197–9, 199–212, respectively]).



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

Considering these criteria and revisiting the historical and sociopolitical observations presented earlier, I conclude that Cyprus can best be placed among the group of exploitation colonies. The British interest in Cyprus was mainly of military and thus power-political and strategic nature and even though Cyprus has been an attractive location for British expatriates since British times, its settler strand has been comparatively small, especially when compared to former settlement colonies like Australia or New Zealand. 2.2.3 Post-independence, Turkish invasion, and after Even though Cyprus gained independence in 1960, British rule left an ongoing impact on the further course of history, especially with respect to the relationship between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (Poew 2007: 13; Zervakis 1998: 69–70). The consolidation process of the new state turned out to be not only arduous but problematic (Kaikitis 1998: 46). The newly founded Republic of Cyprus was solely the result of substantial concessions of all three parties involved. Most of the Greek Cypriots and Greece had to abandon the aimed-at unification with Greece, whereas the Turks had to give up the idea of a divided island. For Great Britain, Cypriot independence meant giving up its last stronghold in the Eastern Mediterranean (Kaikitis 1998: 46). Despite the fact that these concessions were the only way to independence and autonomy, neither the Greek Cypriots nor the Turkish Cypriots really backed the new Cypriot constitution. The Greek Cypriots soon publicly reverted to their demand for Enosis and the Turkish Cypriots likewise adhered to their Taksim plans, both parties considering the Republic of Cyprus an interim solution on the way to the implementation of their respective aims (Joseph 2006: 462; Kaikitis 1998: 47). This led to a revival of old problems and a new series of bloody conflicts arose in the following years. These culminated in the 1974 putsch against Makarios, carried out by the Cypriot National Guard, supported by the EOKA-B, a radical rightwing organization of Cyprus, at the behest of putschists in Athens. Since Turkey, on the other side, suspected an attempt to implement the Enosis idea behind these actions, they invaded Cyprus on July 20, 1974. This resulted in the annexation of a considerable part of the north-eastern territory of Cyprus and led to the de facto division of the island, even though officially this has been acknowledged by no country other than Turkey (cf. Kaikitis 1998: 47–84). In the following years, several international meetings and negotiations took place on the Cyprus problem and resolutions were enacted which, amongst other things, declared the island indivisible and urged the immediate withdrawal of the Turkish troops. The proclamation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983 was not only strongly condemned but politically nullified. However,



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

negotiations and meetings in the following years did not lead to reconciliation between the parties involved (cf. Kaikitis 1998: 84–94). Even a potential EU-­ membership held out in prospect by the UN Security Council could not facilitate a solution to the Cyprus problem. The following series of negotiations again failed, and even the fifth version of the Annan plan, a proposal for the settlement of the Cyprus problem presented by former secretary general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, remained without success. The island was nevertheless admitted to EUmembership on May 1, 2004, despite the fact that the Cyprus problem remained unsolved (cf. Kyle 2006: 592–604; Poew 2007: 46–56; Potier 2006: 611–8). Cyprus has since then been a member of the EU, with Nicosia constituting the last divided capital worldwide (cf. Picture 2.1). Map 2.2 illustrates the de facto status quo of Cyprus today, depicting both the two sovereign British bases on the southern shore as well as the United Nations Buffer Zone, separating the northern and southern part of the island. 2.3 Identity constructions As already assessed by Karádi and Lutz (1998: 126) and Poew (2007: 10), the history of Cyprus as a region constantly dominated by foreigners eventually led to the fact that, unlike other countries in this area, Cyprus did not develop into the

Picture 2.1  Lefkosia (Nicosia) – the last divided capital (Picture taken by the present author in Nicosia, September 2008)



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

Cyprus National captial Region captial City Primary road Administrative border International border 0 0

10 10

20km 20 mi

Map 2.2  The status quo of Cyprus today (source: http://www.map-cyprus.com/ map-cyprus.gif)

common type of nation state. It has gone through a unique development of identity constructions, particularly on the national level. In the following, I revisit and specify this assumption, especially focussing on the time of the British occupation and the consequences it had for the relations between Greek Cypriots and the British and the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus (cf. 2.4). The notion of identity is a complex one and has been approached from different perspectives, with different foci on what it describes and on how it can be interpreted. In general, identity can be defined as “the systematic establishment and signification, between individuals, between collectives, and between individuals and collectives, of relationships of similarity and difference” (Jenkins 1996: 4, quoted in Schneider 2007: 26). It can consequently refer to both the identity of an individual or to the concept of social identity with “[i]ndividual identification” and “social classification” both interacting in defining one’s identity (Schneider 2007: 26; see also Riley 2007: 87–8; Jenkins 1996: 154–71). “[T]he notion of social identity and its construction and reconstruction by symbolic linguistic means”



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

(Schneider 2007: 26) is central when investigating language use in society. It is omnipresent in that all human beings are social and strive towards group membership in search of protection and safety as well as pleasure and comfort. Group identity defines itself and finds expression in delimitation from “others” by means of factors such as values and beliefs, outward appearance, clothing, some kind of shared history, and especially language use (Schneider 2007: 26). Studies on social movements (e.g. Klandermans 1999: 261; Robnett 2002: 268) have widely reasoned that past and present experiences of strong emotional nature and collective memories of them often lead to the manifestation of particularly strong collective identity constructions and in turn to some type of collective behaviour. Tying in with this observation, the heteronomous historical and sociopolitical development of Cyprus and the collective social memory resulting from it have been said to be the basis for a unique development of Greek-Cypriot identity constructions (e.g. Karádi & Lutz 1998: 126; Poew 2007: 10; Terkourafi 2007: 64; Stamatakis 1991: 63). How this relates to collective behaviour in the form of linguistic practices has been brought forward by McEntee-Atalianis and Pouloukas (2001), who note that at least parts of the Greek-Cypriot society, especially the older population, “share a collective memory of subjection to ‘out-group’ governance and desire for continued self-determination, as perhaps expressed in the greater concern for the preservation of their language and culture” (McEnteeAtalianis & Pouloukas 2001: 35). How these collective memories and identity concepts can be interpreted in light of historical events is shown in the following. 2.3.1 Resistance against foreign domination and British rule In most former colonies, the idea of national independence developed in the later years of colonial rule. In Cyprus, however, the quest for national independence and sovereignty has deep historical roots (Schwenger 1964: 40). Already during the Ottoman rule, when both Greek and Turkish Cypriots suffered from oppression and social hardship, several upheavals aiming at the liberation of the Greek Cypriots and the end of the Ottoman rule took place. Even though these endeavours remained without success, they show that ideals of freedom and self-determination already played an important role in the mind of Greek Cypriots long before the British took over (cf. Kaikitis 1998: 12–3). The readiness to show resistance then evolved under British rule, despite the fact that British governance also brought about certain progress such as, for example, the modernization of the administrative machinery and road building, the foundation of a public health care system, an organized judicial system, and a well-functioning educational system. Particularly the first 50 years of British rule, however, witnessed slow progress only. Social hardship, especially in the agricultural sector, dominated the lives of



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

the majority of the people and poor living conditions led to overall discontent with colonial rule (Kaikitis 1998: 19–20, 25; Richter 2006: 133–4) as the Cypriot people blamed their misery on British policies. This dissatisfaction was additionally fuelled when Philip Snowden, British Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared “that the surplus of the Cypriot ‘tribute’ had been used to pay off the 1855 Ottoman loan”, making the Cypriots feel cheated by the British (Richter 2006: 134). It may thus well be that the common people were oblivious of the advantages brought by the colonizers and that the general objection against foreign domination was stronger than the perceived progress which came with British colonization, as is expressed in the following interview excerpt:5 I2: [...] if uh this were not the [/] the struggle against the Britishs to get our freedom, IE: Mhm. I2: the [/] the things were going be much better, not like it is now. (#063)

But disappointment with the British had started even earlier, when the colonizers rejected the Greek-Cypriots’ request of Enosis (Kaikitis 1998: 25). As a consequence, the British–Greek-Cypriot relationship was somehow dysfunctional from the beginning and did not really improve since even later attempts to obtain Enosis remained unsuccessful (Kaikitis 1998: 25). In addition to that, within the second half of British rule, the power struggles between the colonial power and the Greek-Cypriot elites increased and so did the ideology of Greek nationalism. The wish to be united with Greece also proliferated among the great mass of poor peasants as a result of their disapproval of the living conditions and the colonial rule (Kaikitis 1998: 25). The overall discontent was certainly intensified by the struggles against Taksim, in particular because Great Britain did not seem too averse to the Turkish Taksim plans. Hence, there are three decisive factors that have strongly shaped Greek-­ Cypriot–British relations and thereby the construction and potential reconstruction of identity concepts: (1) fundamental resistance against any kind of foreign domination, (2) discontent with the British rule, and (3) increasing Greek nationalism. As a consequence, gradual assimilations of identity constructions between the STL and IDG strands, observed in the development of many other former colonies of Great Britain (see, for example, the case studies on Australia, New Zealand, and Hong Kong in Schneider (2007: 118–27, 127–33, and 133–9, respectively), did 5. Some mention needs to be made, however, of the fact that memories and opinions of the British rule vary widely in the interviews. They range from appraisal of the progress the British brought to the island to complete abhorrence, depending on the respective individual experiences with the colonizers, on whether the participants have any kind of family relations with British citizens, and on whether they voluntarily spent some time in the UK.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

not take place in Cyprus, apart from occasional mixed marriages and a few ethnically mixed first generation descendants. So for most Greek Cypriots, a strong “us” group identity, which excluded the British and any other foreign presence as “other”, was retained throughout the entire time of British occupation. The validity of interpretation of events in Cyprus is reinforced by parts of the results from part two of my questionnaire on language attitudes and use and identity constructions (for details on the questionnaire see 1.4). Participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale to what extent they agree with the following statements (from 1 = “I strongly disagree” to 5 = “I strongly agree”): Statement 1: I identify myself with the British culture. Statement 10: I strongly identify myself with (Cypriot) Greek and the group that speaks it.

With respect to the first statement, the mean value of all groups is below 2.1 and the oldest group reported the smallest degree of identification with the former colonizers (mean of 1.4). Statement 10, on the other hand, shows that all groups strongly identify with the group of Greek Cypriots, with means above 4.2 and the oldest group this time showing the strongest agreement (mean value of 4.4). 2.3.2 The Turkish invasion as “Event X”?6 As already illustrated above (cf. 2.2.3), independence was based on a number of concessions and compromises and in the long run did not bring about stability and peace for the newly founded state. Shortly after the British had retreated to their bases, struggles between the Greek and Turkish sides started again and with even greater intensity than before. This led to the Turkish invasion in 1974, by which Turkey seized great parts of the northern territory of Cyprus in two major waves of attack. As one of the guarantor powers of the Zurich and London Agreements, Great Britain was not only one of the major players in the crisis talks about the Cyprus problem. Especially by the time negotiations had failed (cf. Kaikitis 1998: 69–76), it would also have had the right to take direct action against Turkish aggression, as the Treaty of Guarantee stipulates that [i]n the event of any breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Turkey undertake to consult together, with a view to making representations, or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty. (The Zurich and London Agreements 1959, B – Treaty of Guarantee, art. 3) 6. Term attributed to Schneider (2007: 49).



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

But even when Turkey started its second wave of attacks on August 14, 1974 (Kaikitis 1998: 73), a direct British military intervention against the Turkish invasion did not come off (for further details and discussion see Kyle 2006: 583–7). This has often been considered a neglect of British treaty obligations, especially since Great Britain retained the two sovereign bases after independence and thus has continuously enjoyed benefits from Cyprus ever since (cf. Theophanous no date: 1).7 That British passivity has indeed been perceived as a refusal to assist is illustrated in the following interview excerpt: I: [...], # but the British didn’t done anything about the invasion, [...] they should stop them. IE: Mhm. I: They could do it, IE: Mhm. I: [...] they had to do it, IE: Okay. I: to stop them from the invasion. (#077)

The question to be asked here is whether and how this particular experience had a further impact on Greek-Cypriot–British relations and the current sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus. Interpreting the observation in light of Schneider’s (2007) notion of “Event X” might be a potential take on the event, in particular because it implicitly ties in with the initial observation that existential past experiences often lead to strong collective identity constructs and behaviour. In Schneider’s terms, “Event X” relates to some exceptional, quasi-catastrophic political event [...] which makes it perfectly clear to the settlers that there is an inverse mis-relationship between the (high) importance which they used to place on the mother country and the (considerably lower) importance which the (former) colony is given by the homeland. (Schneider 2007: 48–9)

It thus highly impacts identity constructions and modifications thereof and, through this, the linguistic behaviour of a speech community. As an example, Schneider cites the renunciation of Great Britain by the settler strand in the former Australian colony, where a change of identity constructions and with it of linguistic behaviour can be observed after Britain’s refusal to intervene and support Australia against Japanese attacks in World War II (Schneider 2007: 48, 122–5). 7. Note, however, that the preceding putsch against Makarios can be likewise construed as breach of agreement and therefore as the right for British intervention on the Turkish side, especially since the Turkish prime minister Ecevit explicitly asked for British support to quell the putsch. In this respect, it has often been discussed whether or not Great Britain could have prevented the Turkish occupation in the first place (Kaikitis 1998: 69).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

However, when applying this notion to the case of Cyprus, some reconceptualization is required since Schneider’s “Event X” exclusively refers to the development of identity constructions in the settler strand. I nevertheless suggest that Great Britain’s neglecting to actively support their former colony against the Turkish invasion can also be interpreted as some kind of “Event X” for the IDG strand of Cyprus. However, the argument as well as the consequences diverge from Schneider’s initial line of reasoning. As observed above, gradual assimilation between the STL and IDG strands had never set in for the case of Cyprus and consequently “Event X” in Cyprus did not result in the ultimate assimilation of identity constructions between the two groups. It instead seems to have led to the Greek Cypriots’ ultimate dissociation from the British, which, according to my reinterpretation of “Event X”, might also have had an impact on Greek-Cypriot linguistic behaviour, i.e. the use and acceptance of the English language. In the following section, I look into whether and how the sociolinguistic development of the island reinforces this interpretation. 2.4 Sociolinguistic conditions As already mentioned above, the aspect of identity constructions and rewritings is a crucial one in the development of postcolonial varieties and has direct influence on the sociolinguistic conditions and thereby on potential linguistic changes or accommodation (cf. Schneider 2007: 29, 31). That language use is a strong means to express and act out social identity (Schneider 2007: 27; see also Kroskrity 2001: 106–8) has already been argued for the case of Cyprus in that “language seems to have acquired a central and almost exclusive role in defining the identity of Greek Cypriots” (Papapavlou & Pavlou 2005b: 16). This section investigates what impact the historical development had on the post-1960 sociolinguistic situation, if and in what way the sociolinguistic conditions reflect the strong nationalism in Geek-Cypriot identity constructs, and whether the above interpretation of the 1974 events as “Event X” finds expression in the sociolinguistic development of the island. 2.4.1 Language use When Cyprus gained independence on August 16, 1960, it was, after nearly 2,000 years of foreign domination, finally ruled by Cypriots, with Makarios as first president of the newly founded Republic of Cyprus (Kaikitis 1998: 46–7). Despite Britain’s rather soft language policy and repeated resistance by the Cypriots against the colonizers and their language, English had gained considerable prominence



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus

during the time of British occupation (cf. Davy & Pavlou 2010: 6). With independence, it was the governmental responsibility and the right of the newly founded state to take care of such issues as language policy. Greek and Turkish were declared as the official languages of the Republic of Cyprus and the Zurich and London Agreements further stipulated that “[l]egislative and administrative instruments and documents shall be drawn up and promulgated in the two official languages” (The Zurich and London Agreements 1959, A – Basic Structure of the Republic of Cyprus, art. 2). English, however, is only referred to in the appendix. Consequently, its status was drastically reduced by the agreements and a gradual decline in official use and functions seems to have been the expected result. This, however, did not take place within the first years after independence (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 6). The only domain where English was directly abolished was the domain of primary education (Tsiplakou 2009: 78). According to the following interview excerpt, this was also in accordance with the sentiments of large parts of the Greek-Cypriot population: I: Uh, you see, tod& uh [//] after the struggle against the British, most people did not uh [/] did not want to learn the English. (#090)

However, in other domains of daily life, the reorientation towards Greek and Turkish was not accomplished and as early as 1964 English was reintroduced in primary education and taught from the final grade onwards (Tsiplakou 2009: 78). Legal and official documents continued to be drafted and published in English until the mid-1990s, e.g. reports of the Police Department, the Department of Statistics and Research, and the Department of Antiquities (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 6; Tsiplakou 2009: 79). In addition, laws were not fully translated back to Greek before 1995 (cf. Karyolemou 20058: 35–8; Tsiplakou 2009: 79) and hearings at court employed both languages until the late 1980s. Here, English was used as the medium of communication between judges and counsels, Greek was used to communicate with defendants and witnesses who could in turn choose which language they wanted to use, and minutes of trials and negotiations were also taken in English. This only changed in 1988, when English was legally removed from both courts and the civil service (cf. Tsiplakou 2009: 79; see also Karoulla-Vrikki 2001 for a detailed observation of the role the English language played in the legal system of Cyprus). Moreover, English also retained its function in the other public domains identified above (e.g. hospitals, the customhouse, post offices) and even though “[t]he continued entrenchment of English was widely seen as problematic, [...] its reduction was hampered by the need to first put in place, at least in official use, an impractical degree of Greek/Turkish parallelism” (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 7). 8. This article first appeared in Language Problems and Language Planning 25, 2001.





English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

The situation, however, drastically changed with the de facto division of the island in 1974 due to the following reasons: first, Turkish mainly disappeared from the everyday linguistic agenda of the Greek part of Cyprus. Second, and interrelatedly, English lost its role as link language between the Greek and Turkish communities because major parts of the Turkish-Cypriot population moved to the occupied part of Cyprus. Due to the new sociopolitical situation and probably also as a strong reaction towards the British neglect to counteract the Turkish invasion, strong public sentiments against the still widespread entrenchment of the English language came up (cf. Davy & Pavlou 2010: 7). As a result, heated public discussions about language policy and use dominated the press in the late 1980s and the early 1990s.9 These discussions mainly mirrored the fear that English might take over in Cyprus and that through this an “‘Anglo-Cypriot’ idioma” might slowly replace the native Greek-Cypriot dialect, which in turn might lead to “a weakening in its [the Cypriot society’s] Helleno-patriotic feelings and an ‘erosion’ and ‘eradication’ of its national identity” (Papapavlou 1997: 227; see also Papapavlou 2001a: 434). Even stronger terms such as “mixo-barbaric Anglo-Cypriot idioma”, “linguistic mongrel”, or “hermaphroditical idioma” found public expression and illustrate this fear (Papapavlou 1997: 228; see also Papapavlou 2001a: 435). One such example is the highly emotional and laborious debate of the late 1980s in the House of Representatives about which language(s) should be declared the official language(s) of the newly opened University of Cyprus (McEntee-Atalianis 2004: 82). The government proposal to implement English as the official medium of instruction was met by intense public protests and political pressure. It was finally rejected in favour of the two native languages of the island, Greek and Turkish (Papapavlou 2001a: 434–5; for further details see also Karyolemou 2005: 34–5). The main concerns and motives for such discussions also found expression in the local media, with, for example, the local press propagating the fear that “[t]he excessive use of English threatens the Greek language” (newspaper title quoted in Papapavlou 2001a: 434, 1997: 228) and that this might damage the national character of the island. This, in turn, culminated in the symposium on “The Greek Language Today in Cyprus” in 1992, which was called for by the “Citizens’ Movement for National Issues”. The speakers expressed negative views towards the influence of the English language and the fear that it might take over in Cyprus, resulting in an identity crisis. Various lecturers argued for restrictions on the use of English calques and loans and spoke in favour of generally restricting the use of English in both private and public domains (McEntee-Atalianis 2004: 82; Papapavlou 1997: 434–6). This 9. For details see, for example, an overview of attitudes and public discourse from 1985–1992 in Karyolemou (1994).



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

kind of civic commitment in issues of language policy and the opposition against the English language on such emotional grounds not only correspond to the earlier observations of strong national identity constructions in Cyprus but also nicely illustrate how identity constructions and language use are causally related. Moreover, this shows that the general historical, sociopolitical development of the island, the Greek-Cypriot–British mis-relationship (including “Event X”), and the pronounced Greek-Cypriot/Hellenic national identity all together are responsible for the onset of the decline of English in Cyprus. As a result, the laws were translated back (but only finished in 1996) and English was removed from court and other official domains. In addition to that, “the ‘English’ element in road signs” (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 8) was replaced by Romanized transcriptions of the Greek version (e.g. “Lefkosia” instead of “Nicosia” and “Lemesos” instead of “Limassol”), many public signs have been changed to Greek, as have many official forms, receipts, and correspondence. The latter, however, is often still bilingual (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 8–9). Even though English lost many of its former official functions, the overall decline has proceeded rather gradually and English is still used in a variety of especially public domains. Despite the decision that Greek and Turkish should function as the official languages of tertiary education, some public and private educational institutions (especially in higher education) have continued using English as the medium of instruction (Papapavlou 2001a: 435). Particularly the number of English-language and bilingual private schools has increased in the postcolonial period (Karyolemou 2005: 32–3; see also Tsiplakou 2009: 79) and several English-language institutions in the sector of tertiary education are available to Cypriot students (e.g. graduate programmes at the University of Cyprus, the Mediterranean Institute of Management, the Higher Technological Institute; Tsiplakou 2009: 79). According to the annual report “Statistics of Education” published by the Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus for the school year 2008/09, 30.5% of all students were enrolled in private schools (Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus 2010), many of them English medium schools. In public education, English is a compulsory subject from grade four of primary school onwards and is taught throughout the whole of secondary education, i.e. in Gymnásio (junior high school) and Lýkeio (senior high school) for two lessons each week, with optional courses of four or six lessons being offered in Lýkeio. During the time of primary and secondary schooling, usually between the age of eight and 18, many Greek-Cypriot students attend additional afternoon lessons in English in so-called frontistíiria, mainly to get prepared for examinations.10 English 10. Note that this institution is not only very popular in Cyprus but also in Greece (Tsiplakou 2009: 83) and that it offers additional training in other subjects as well.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

also constitutes an important part of the university entrance exams (Tsiplakou 2009: 79, 81) and therefore plays a relevant role in the overall course of the education of young Greek Cypriots. Due to the different educational options available to Cypriot students, contact intensity and amount of use of the English language varies among students and generally depends on whether they attend one of the many private institutes or a governmental educational institute. Contact intensity and amount of use of English after schooling, in turn, depends on the individual’s professional career pursued (McEntee 2001: 411; McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001: 34). Most young Cypriots learn English through guided instruction. To some extent natural interaction plays a role, for example when Greek Cypriots converse with tourists, residents of different ethnic and language background, or former colonizers who have remained on the island. The situation is, however, not the same as that in many other postcolonial societies where children acquire at least some active knowledge of English before entering school (cf. Moag 1992: 248). For most Cypriot children, English language acquisition starts with entering school and later on continues with the use of English most often increasing during adult life. A final aspect that has to be considered with respect to the role English plays in the education sector is the question of who teaches the English language in which institutions of Cyprus since this has been shown to be an important factor in the process of institutionalization of varieties (cf. Moag 1992: 242). In governmental primary education, “the ‘regular’ all-purpose teacher also teaches English” without having received any specialized English language teacher training (Tsiplakou 2009: 82–3). In general, teachers in the public education sector are of Greek-Cypriot or sometimes also mainland Greek origin, i.e. mainly non-native speakers of English trained at the University of Cyprus. Students of English are strongly encouraged to go abroad to do at least parts of their studies in an L1 English country and many of them do, but this is not mandatory in teacher training in Cyprus. Therefore, experience with native speaker varieties also varies among Greek-­Cypriot teachers, mainly depending on the amount of time they have spent in an L1 English country (p.c. Stavroula Tsiplakou, June 2011). Private English educational institutions employ both native and non-native speakers of English.11 Thus native speaker input is much more likely to be available to those students and prospective teachers who attend or attended one of the many private institutions on the island. Despite this variability in English input at Greek-Cypriot schools, teaching is generally exonormatively oriented towards British English standards and does not follow local speech norms, as, for example, the national curriculum for primary education at least implicitly suggests by pointing to the links with Great Britain: 11. See, for example, The English School, Nicosia, and American Academy, Larnaca.



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

In the case of Cyprus, there is no doubt that English is the first foreign language that should be taught, not only because it is the most widely used language internationally but also because of historical, economic, educational and family links with Great Britain. (MoEC Curriculum Development Unit 1999: 185, quoted in Tsiplakou 2009: 81)

This, however, does not mean that potential EiCy/CyE features are not passed on by especially those teachers of Greek-Cypriot origin who did not receive extended native speaker input. It is in fact very likely that these teachers pass on characteristic structures, even if they aim at the British English target. Next to the education sector, English has also at least partly retained its use in such domains as tourism, the media, diplomacy, industry, science and technology, and parts of the sphere of business and commerce (McEntee-Atalianis 2004: 81; Tsiplakou 2009: 80). With respect to speaker numbers, a 2005 survey conducted on request of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Education and Culture (Special Eurobarometer 2006) revealed that 76% of the 502 Cypriots polled reported to speak English well enough to hold a conversation. Thus proficiency in English can be said to be widespread, even though Cyprus ranks behind Malta (88%) and even the three non-postcolonial European societies Sweden (89%), the Netherlands (87%), and Denmark (86%) (Special Eurobarometer 2006).12 On the other hand, bilingualism in Cyprus appears to be more widespread than, for example, in Hong Kong, a widely researched post-colonial society, where for 2001 only 43% of the population were reported to know English (Bolton 2003: 87). That English is indeed widely used and omnipresent on the island is also confirmed in the interviews I conducted: I: [...] Uh, many cases we use it [English] till now, you know. Even these people who are coming from other countries in Cyprus, the most of them, they speak English. They don’t speak uh, uh Greek, so many of them, we speak in English, yes. (#089) I: [...] not only with the tourists. Uh, many Cypriots uhm go [...] to England for studying [...] I: Yes, yes. |But in Cyprus uh, uh in many works uh IE: |English. Mhm. I: uhm # the language uh is English language. IE: Mhm, mhm. I: [...] in many works, [...] in factories. Uh, uh so the people uh have to speak English [...] to gain a job. (#071) 12. For most other European countries, proficiency of English ranges below 50%, e.g. Spain (27%), France (36%), and Greece (48%) (Special Eurobarometer 2006).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

I2: [...] In Cyprus, if you don’t speak English, # IE: Mhm. I2: you don’t really have a potential for, you know, a good career in business or basically [...] in everything. If you don’t speak English, [...] there’s no chance of survival [on?] Cyprus. (#028)

In addition, English is the language for some parts of the media (McEntee-Atalianis 2004: 81). Two of Cyprus’ leading newspapers, Cyprus Mail and Cyprus Weekly, are published in English. Cyprus Mail, for example, is a daily newspaper, locally produced on the island. Its authors and the proofreaders involved in the editing process are Greek-Cypriots, Turkish-Cypriots, as well as native speakers of British and Irish English. The editors and chief editor, however, are currently all native speakers of British or Irish English. Thus, even though the newspaper is locally produced, it is exclusively oriented towards British English (p.c. Patrick Dewhurst, journalist of Cyprus Mail, June 2011). In addition, Cypriots have access to a diverse range of British print media imported to the island (e.g. Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Health & Fitness, Easy Living, Bazaar, VMan; p.c. Evelina Leivada, June 2011). Occasionally, locally produced magazines employ both Greek and English at the same time, i.e. all articles and contributions appear in both languages, like, for example, in Aeras (The Cyprus Airports’ Official Magazine). With respect to television, the local programme is dominantly set up in Greek, either Standard Modern Greek or the Greek-Cypriot dialect. What comes in English is daily news on CyBC2, the second of the two domestic channels of the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation, which also broadcasts undubbed English language movies with Greek subtitles. Moreover, different subscriber TV channels which provide access to English language programmes are available in Cyprus. Cablenet, for example, offers access to a multitude of international TV channels, but its access is subject to a charge and limited to subscribers and consequently not generally available to Cypriots (cf. Cablenet Communication Systems website). Besides TV and print media, Cypriots have access to English via radio programmes. Radio Two of the CyBC offers a multi-language radio programme addressing the needs of visitors and different ethnic groups living permanently on the island. It broadcasts in English from 6 pm to midnight and then offers a rerun of the daily English programme from midnight to 6 am.13 In addition to local Cypriot TV and radio stations, BFBS (British Forces Broadcasting Service) has been available in Cyprus since 1948. Even though the worldwide BFBS services essentially aim at British military personnel and their families, BFBS TV in Cyprus also used to be very popular with Cypriot viewers, 13. Information about television and radio is partly derived from a personal conversation with Evelina Leivada in June 2011 and partly from the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation website.



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

especially the news, TV soaps like Eastenders and Coronation Street, and football. However, when in 1996 a local pay TV channel bought the rights to broadcast premiership football, the BFBS was forced to encrypt its TV signal. As a result, reception is now restricted to the two sovereign base areas and the UN British base in Nicosia. BFBS radio, on the other hand, is still freely accessible throughout most parts of Cyprus and has both expatriate and local Cypriot listeners who also actively participate in the programme, e.g. in daily telephone competitions. As Chris Pearson, Station Manager of the BFBS Radio Cyprus, reports: “There is a huge recognition of BFBS across Cyprus from locals even those who don’t claim to listen or who only speak very limited English.” The programme on BFBS Radio 1 in Cyprus is a mixture of both local radio service transmission and live broadcasts from the UK, Afghanistan, and other areas. BFBS Radio 2 is also accessible but offers only one locally produced show per week (p.c. Chris Pearson, Station Manager of the BFBS Radio Cyprus, July 2011). In general, BFBS radio is an important and sought-after source of English in Cyprus. The main intranational function of English, however, lies in the domain of public interethnic communication with visitors and strata of the population who are not proficient in Greek. It is, for example, used as the “de facto lingua franca” (Terkourafi 2007: 74) in the tourist industry, with about 50 per cent of all tourists being native speakers of English (Yazgin 2007: 3). In addition, English is used with the different immigrant groups permanently living in Cyprus. Furthermore, it has been stated that English is also the language of communication between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (cf. Terkourafi 2007: 74; Yazgin 2007: 3). In line with the above observations, it seems, however, reasonable to claim that this interaction has been limited ever since the 1974 separation of Greek and Turkish Cypriots (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 7). Greek-Cypriots usually do not speak English with each other, as judgments on statement (18) of part two of my questionnaire on language attitudes and use (“When I use English, it is most often with native speakers or foreigners, not with Cypriots.”) have revealed. A mean value of 3.78 clearly indicates that English is mainly, but not completely, restricted to interethnic communication. In the private domain, English is used in the handful of families of mixed Greek-Cypriot/British heritage and with nannies and other domestic workers, e.g. mainly from the Philippines and Sri Lanka (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 9), which is a common scenario among double- or higher-income earners’ households. In addition, it is used with foreign friends but is otherwise restricted in the private domain, as has been shown by McEntee-Atalianis and Pouloukas (2001: 33) and my own survey. Especially in the family domain, the evaluation of the questionnaire data on language use has yielded that the use of English when talking to



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

family members at dinner, at home in general, and when discussing personal matters lies below a mean value of 1.6 (between never and sometimes) for all situations and all three groups. Another aspect of the use of English results from the fact that many Greek Cypriots have relatives in the expatriate communities of the United Kingdom, especially London, (Yazgin 2007: 3) and Canada, who moved there for political and economic reasons in the 1950s and mid 1970s.14 Also due to strong ties with Great Britain, many young Greek Cypriots are sent to British universities (Karyolemou 2005: 33; Tsiplakou 2009: 79) and are thereby exposed to native English dialects at some point in their educational career. This can be seen as the reason why young Greek Cypriots have a strong desire to acquire a native target variety of English, mostly British English, and also mirrors Greek Cypriots’ exonormative orientation. What the above observations show is that stable language contact on the island and with relatives in English-speaking countries is ensured and that even if English is not a de jure official language of Cyprus, it has at least a semi-de facto official status. Nonetheless, this general observation requires some further attention since the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus is by no means as homogeneous as seems to be suggested above. The first statistically representative and relevant empirical study on language attitudes and use in Cyprus (McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001) found that individual frequency of exposure to and use of English in Cyprus depends on a number of sociolinguistic factors, e.g. social class, level and type of education, time spent abroad, type of high school, age, gender, and area of residence (McEntee 2001; McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001). According to this study, the use of English, especially in the professional but also in the private domain, positively correlates with social and economic status. The younger generation and privately educated informants expressed the most positive attitudes towards the overall use of English but at the same time also had the strongest concerns as to a potential threat of the English language to their ethnicity, their national identity, and their native language. The highest use of English was reported by Cypriots aged 30 and younger (McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001: 33–4). This was also confirmed by part one of my own study on language attitudes and use. The mean values for the use of English in questions (1) to (10) were always higher for the young (and sometimes also middle-aged) group than for the older generation of Cypriots. In the same way, these sociolinguistic parameters influence and determine individual proficiency in English so that societal bilingualism

14. This information is derived from the interviews conducted in Cyprus and in the GreekCypriot community in London in February 2009.



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

in Cyprus is characterized by a cline (cf. Kachru’s notion of “cline of bilingualism” [1965: 393–6, 1983]; cf. 3.4.2.1). In addition to that, the linguistic situation in Cyprus displays some degree of heterogeneity also with respect to native speaker input varieties typically encountered on the island or in conversations with relatives abroad. On the one hand, British English is the main and most stable input variety in Cyprus. It is ubiquitous not only because of the historical ties to Great Britain and direct language contact on the island and with relatives in Great Britain but also because of the programme of BFBS radio and the general orientation towards British English in teaching, with most teaching resources coming from England (cf. Yazgin 2007: 5, 10–1). On the other hand, American English also plays an important role in the everyday life of most Greek Cypriots. It is especially pervasive due to its dominance in the media, e.g. radio, TV, and the Internet, respectively (see also Yazgin 2007: 3).15 Finally, due to family ties to the Cypriot expatriate communities in Canada, some Cypriots have regular access to Canadian English, even if to a much more limited extent. So, even if about 35 years ago a decline in use and functions of English set in, the language has retained important functions on the island, but frequency and intensity of use is heterogeneous among the Greek-Cypriot population and depends on a variety of sociolinguistic factors. The following section outlines what role current language attitudes play in this sociolinguistic fabric. 2.4.2 Language attitudes In contrast to the somewhat heterogeneous situation in terms of language use, the two studies on language attitudes and use show a much clearer and more uniform picture with respect to people’s attitudes towards English. In this respect, it can be noted that the fears and harsh rejections of the English language expressed in the public debates of the late 1980s and early 1990s today appear to be somewhat unrealistic and overstated. According to McEntee-Atalianis and Pouloukas’ survey, Greek Cypriots nowadays show rather positive attitudes towards the English language (McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001; see also McEntee 2001). In the same vein, Papapavlou’s (1989, 1997) studies reveal that the influence of English on the Greek-Cypriot dialect seems to be of much less importance than expressed in the public discussions of the late 1980s and early 1990s 15. Note, however, that the ever growing influence of American English on both native and non-native Englishes is a rather worldwide phenomenon and has already been observed for other postcolonial contexts which have traditionally been dominated by British English (see, for example, Taylor 2001 for Australia, Trüb 2008 for South Africa, and Schneider 1999 for Singapore; cf. Schneider 2006: 67–8).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

(cf. Papapavlou 2001a: 436) and that the fear that English might take over in Cyprus is in fact unjustified. Nevertheless, both McEntee-Atalianis and Pouloukas’ (2001) study on language attitudes as well as my own survey have revealed a high value and prestige of Standard Modern Greek and the Greek-Cypriot dialect. “Greek-Cypriots want to maintain and preserve their national codes” (McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001: 33), not only in the home but also nationally. Similarly, the participants in my study show general agreement with the two following statements in part two of my questionnaire: Statement 8: I prefer using (Cypriot) Greek in most situations whenever possible. Statement 9: We owe it to our forefathers to preserve (Cypriot) Greek.

The mean values range from 3.94 for the young group to 4.4 for the older generation in statement (8) and from 4.06 for the young group to 4.4 for the older generation in statement (9). The strong commitment to Cypriot-Greek traditions in the form of preserving the Greek-Cypriot dialect expressed here can also be interpreted in terms of the above observations of a strong conception of Greek-Cypriot national identity since sense of and commitment to traditions are essential for the development of such strong national identity conceptions. English, on the other hand, has been assigned the status of an important linguistic tool, fulfilling different functions, as has already been outlined above and again finds expression in the following interview excerpts: I: [...] Look, the English language, it’s nationality languages. If you don’t speak English, you cannot go everywhere. (#061) IE: [...] So, uhm, do you think that it is important for Cypriots to speak English? I: Yes, because we have so many tourist, uhm, and we travel very often in England or+//. # So [...] is good. (#076)

It is valued in its function as the strong second language of the island as “social/ economic/cultural and symbolic capital” (McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001: 33), especially in the professional domain and not so much in the private domain when, for example, conversing with family members and local friends. In addition, all participants stated that proficiency in English is associated with economic, professional, and social advancement (for details see McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001: 33–4; McEntee 2001: 410–3). McEntee-Atalianis and Pouloukas’ (2001) study has also revealed that Standard Modern Greek and the Greek-Cypriot dialect are closely linked to and are important markers of Greek-Cypriot identity, “acting as markers of distinction from all ‘others’” (McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001: 35). This also finds expression in the general agreement with statement (10) (I strongly identify myself



Chapter 2.  English in Cyprus 

with [Cypriot] Greek and the group that speaks it) by the participants in my study. The mean value here is above 4.2 for all three groups and thus suggests a strong sense of identification with the Greek-Cypriot community and the linguistic expression of this allegiance. All in all, the results from both studies on language attitudes and use consistently suggest “that all codes under investigation (i.e. SMG, GCD and English) retain a high share value within the linguistic marketplace”, but that “[t]here is substantial evidence [...] to support the greater overall use and preference for the Greek language above that of English” (McEntee 2001: 414; for a detailed presentation and discussion of the results of this study see McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001 and McEntee-Atalianis 2004: 85–7). 2.5 Summary and preliminary conclusions The analysis of the historical, sociopolitical, and sociolinguistic background of English in Cyprus has yielded some important findings and corroborates the validity of the general research question in that an investigation of the variety status of EiCy/CyE is clearly justifiable. To begin with, the historical and sociolinguistic development of Cyprus as a former British colony clearly places it amongst those countries which potentially have developed nativized and/or institutionalized varieties of English or are in the process of doing so. The examination of identity constructions in Cyprus, however, has revealed some important differences from other postcolonial contexts. The first difference is that an assimilation of identity constructions did not take place between the settler strand and the indigenous Greek-Cypriot population, with the result that Greek Cypriots have retained a solely Greek-Cypriot oriented national identity. This has manifested itself in the sociolinguistic conditions in Cyprus. The analysis of these conditions has revealed that EiCy/CyE has developed an important role since its initial transportation, but also that a general decline in the use of the English language set in after the de facto division of the island in 1974 when English lost its function as link language between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. In addition to that, I have argued that the British neglect of supporting their former colony was a decisive experience for the IDG strand and can be interpreted in light of Schneider’s (2007) “Event X” as having led to the ultimate alienation from the British. The subsequent public agitation against the English language and its banishment from major official domains clearly reinforces my argument. What has, however, clearly been shown is that, even though the general decline set in about 35 years ago, English is still used in a variety of predominantly public domains, but that language use strongly depends on sociolinguistic parameters



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

and is restricted in the private domain. The overall picture that has emerged with respect to English language use in Cyprus is thus heterogeneous and elusive (cf. Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011 for an earlier observation of this phenomenon). Concerning language attitudes, the preceding observations have yielded a much more homogeneous picture. The Greek-Cypriot dialect and/or Standard Modern Greek are preferred in all domains of daily life and especially the dialect is the marker and carrier of national identity. Even though English is highly valued as a linguistic tool, it does not carry or mark Greek-Cypriot identity. How the observations and findings from this chapter bear on the variety status question for EiCy/CyE is discussed in Chapter 7 by bringing together the sociolinguistic observations and the findings from the qualitative and quantitative feature analyses (cf. 5.3 and 6.3).

chapter 3

World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 3.1 Introduction Since the early 1980s, research into World Englishes has been a thriving linguistic sub-discipline and has since then investigated a multitude of English varieties spoken around the globe as native or second languages. Most of those varieties arose as the result of British imperialism and the following post-independence developments in the countries concerned (Schneider 2007: 1–2). British imperialism set in in the Elizabethan age. From the 17th to the 20th century, British influence increasingly spread around the entire globe and with it the English language. Despite the fact that Cyprus shares the historical experience of British colonization with those countries for which intensive research has been carried out, Cyprus and a comprehensive analysis of the English spoken there have so far been widely neglected by World Englishes research. As the study at hand seeks to remedy this research gap, the present chapter sets the theoretical framework for investigating the variety status of EiCy/CyE and for placing it on the map of World Englishes research. 3.2 30 years of World Englishes research After several decades in which chronological1 as well as biological models and models of family belonging2 were developed and used to describe and capture the evolution and forms of the English language (cf. McArthur 1998: 80–93), the 1. See, for example, the different versions of phase models illustrated in McArthur (1998: 81– 9): the three-phase chronological model of English, its four-phase variant (see also Millward [1989: 13] for some modification of it), the six-phase variant, and the seven-phase variant called “The seven ages of English” (cf. Graddol 1996: 41, 1997: 7) as well as the triangle model of English and Scots. 2. See, for example, the sideways branching model of the Indo-European language family proposed by Schleicher (1861: 7), the inverted branching model of the Indo-European language family created by McArthur in the 1980s (both are reprinted in McArthur [1998: 90–1]), or the family tree of Germanic languages presented in Bauer (2002: 20).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

demise of the British Empire and the following postcolonial era brought along some far-reaching changes both in the guise of the English language as well as in its scholarly perception. As a result, a process of rethinking and reconceptualizing the monolithic view of the English language set in (cf. McArthur 1987: 9, 1998: 56–77). Researchers began looking into the formation and development of an increasing number of varieties of English and the 1980s brought forth several models (e.g. Kachru 1985b; McArthur 1987; Görlach 1990) which approach the linguistic diversity of the English language(s) from a pluralist angle (cf. McArthur 1998: 93–5). Since then, many different methodological approaches and models have been developed, applied, and discussed to account for the spread, forms, and functions of English worldwide; these approaches can broadly be subdivided into three categories, according to their degree of synchronic or diachronic orientation. In this respect, the four well-known early models of the 1980s, i.e. the ENLESL-EFL distinction, Kachru’s (1985b) Three Concentric Circles Model, McArthur’s (1987) Circle of World English, and Görlach’s (1990) Circle of International English3, are rather synchronic in orientation. Even though the categories established in these four approaches implicitly rely on the historical aspect of colonization, all four account for the status quo of the country under investigation, i.e. the current sociopolitical situation and geographical aspects, only (cf. McArthur 1998: 98). Besides these models, different Englishes have been categorized into different groups in terms of “output types, produced by their historical origins” (Schneider 2011: 54), without attempting a graphic representation (cf. the taxonomies suggested by Gupta [1997] and Mesthrie & Bhatt [2008]). These categorizations explicitly take into consideration early developmental aspects of different types of English, for example the language contact and acquisitional scenario, as well as the linguistic effects. Still, the approaches do not trace the development of these Englishes in a fully diachronic fashion, as they do not consider the individual developmental steps involved in their evolution. A truly diachronic perspective on the development of World Englishes is finally offered in two developmental models, i.e. Moag’s (1992)4 Life Cycle of NonNative Englishes and Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model, which take into account the different evolutionary steps involved in their emergence. The most widely cited and applied of this large variety of approaches are the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction, Kachru’s (1985b) Three Concentric Circles Model, and, 3. This is the way McArthur (1998: 98) refers to Görlach’s model. Since Görlach does not provide a name for his model in his 1988/1990 paper, I use the label provided by McArthur. 4. The model appeared as early as 1982 in the first edition of Kachru’s The Other Tongue. Note that reference here is made to the second and revised 1992 edition of this edited volume.



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

more recently, Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model. In the following, I therefore sketch out the main aspects and ideas of these models, especially as I use them as the conceptual framework for the later discussion of how and where to place EiCy/CyE within the framework of World Englishes research (cf. 7.3). 3.2.1 The ENL-ESL-EFL distinction The distinction between “English as a native language”, “English as a second language”, and “English as a foreign language” goes back to the very first formal attempts to classify and characterize different varieties of English, namely to Barbara M. H. Strang’s (1970) classification of the worldwide English speaking community into A, B, and C speakers (for details on the three groups see Strang 1970: 17–8; see also McArthur 1998: 42; Schneider 2007: 12, 2011: 30). Two years after Strang’s (1970) contribution, Quirk et al. (1972: 3–4; see also 1985: 3–4) introduced “[a]n influential variant of her classification” (McArthur 1998: 43). They assigned three potential categories of use to the English language, namely that of “native language”, “second language”, and “foreign language” use, which largely corresponds to the earlier tripartite distinction introduced by Strang. This terminology was then adopted, used, and systematized in later approaches to and publications on the topic under the labels “English as a Native Language/ENL”, “English as a Second Language/ESL”, and “English as a Foreign Language/EFL” (see, for example, Görlach 1990, 1995, 1998; Graddol 1997; Moag 1982; Strevens 1992; cf. McArthur 1998: 43; Schneider 2007: 12, 2011: 30). Following a common definition of the three categories, which again illustrates its relatedness to Strang’s (1970) A-B-C speaker classification, the group of ENL countries consists of those territories where English is spoken as a native language by the vast majority of the population (e.g. the USA, Great Britain, and Australia). This does, however, not necessarily exclude multilingualism in that other languages might exist alongside English (Schneider 2007: 12). In ESL countries (e.g. India, Singapore, and Nigeria), English fulfils prominent intranational functions in a variety of possible contexts, for example in the education sector, the media, the political domain, and jurisdiction, and is used as the language of interethnic communication between groups of different language backgrounds. It typically coexists with other languages, most often one or more indigenous languages of the local population. In EFL countries, on the other hand, English does not fulfil special intranational functions but is normally restricted to international communication and is mainly, if not solely, learned through formal education (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 4–5; Schneider 2007: 12; Strevens 1992: 36).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

3.2.2 Kachru’s (1985b) Three Concentric Circles of World Englishes Next to the direct and explicit adoption and use of the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction in early as well as recent approaches, it also finds implicit application as the conceptual basis of Kachru’s (1985b) Three Concentric Circles of World Englishes5 (cf. Schneider 2011: 31). The ‘Expanding Circle’ China 1,088,200,000 50,273,000 Egypt Indonesia 175,904,000 4,512,000 Israel Japan 122,620,000 42,593,000 Korea 18,004,000 Nepal 12,972,000 Saudi arabia 19,813,000 Taiwan 285,796,000 USSR 8,878,000 Zimbabwe The ‘Outer Circle’ 107,756,000 Bangladesh 13,754,000 Ghana 810,806,000 India 22,919,000 Kenya 16,965,000 Malaysia 112,258,000 Nigeria 109,434,000 Pakistan 58,723,000 Philippines 2,641,000 Singapore 16,606,000 Sri Lanka 23,996,000 Tanzania 7,384,000 Zambia The ‘Inner Circle’ USA 245,800,000 UK 57,006,000 Canada 25,880,000 Australia 16,470,000 New zealand 3,366,000

Expanding circle

Outer circle

Inner circle e.g. USA, UK 320-380 million

e.g. India, Singapore 300-500 million e.g. China, Russia 500-1,000 million

Figure 3.1  Kachru’s Three Concentric Circles in Kachru (1992c: 356; left) and adapted from Crystal (2003b: 61; right)

5. This is the label introduced by Kachru when the model first appeared in 1985. The model has subsequently been replicated, sometimes in slightly different shapes and with updated speaker numbers for the countries concerned; the central assertion has, however, remained constant (see, for example, the adaptations and reprints in Bauer 2002: 23; Crystal 2003b: 61; Kachru 1988: 5, 1992b: 3, 1992c: 356; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 30; Schneider 2007: 13, 2011: 32; see also McArthur 1998: 100). See Figure 3.1 for two of these variants.



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

Like the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction, this model has been widely recognized, adopted, and discussed, with scholars both pointing out its merits but also discussing potential disadvantages and shortcomings (see, for example, Bauer 2002: 21–5; Bruthiaux 2003; Crystal 2003a: 107, 2003b: 60–1; Graddol 1997: 10–1; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 28–31; Schneider 2007: 13–4, 2011: 31–3). The model, as shown in Figure 3.1, suggests a classification into Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle countries along the lines of the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction (cf. McArthur 1998: 59, 97–8). In Inner Circle countries, English is (one of) the de facto if not de jure official (Bruthiaux 2003: 160) and primary language(s) (Kachru 1985b: 12) and the native language for the majority of the inhabitants. This holds for what Kachru (1985b: 12) calls “the traditional bases of English”, i.e. the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The Outer (or: Extended) Circle (Kachru 1985b: 12; see also Crystal 2003a: 107) traditionally comprises non-native English countries like India, Kenya, or Singapore. English was transplanted to these speech communities for historical reasons, most prominently as a result of extended (British) colonization. After transplantation, the English language has typically gone through the process of institutionalization due to political, sociocultural, and linguistic changes (Kachru 1985b: 12). In such regions, English is spoken as one of two or more languages of a bi- or multilingual society (Kachru 1985b: 12) and often is the de jure second language for most of the inhabitants (Bauer 2002: 21; Schreier 2009: 19). Such varieties therefore developed “an extended functional range in a variety of social, educational, administrative, and literary domains”, they are used across subgroups of the population (Kachru 1985b: 13, italics in original), and have hence “acquired an important status in the language policies of most of such multilingual nations” (Kachru 1985b: 12–3). As opposed to the Outer Circle, the Expanding Circle consists of countries to which English has not been transported as the result of British (or American6) imperialism. Examples are China, Indonesia, Greece, Japan, or Saudi Arabia (Kachru 1985b: 13; see also Crystal 2003a: 107). Accordingly, English does not have special status in such Expanding Circle countries (Crystal 2003a: 107–8) but serves as a lingua franca, especially in international business, and is mainly used as a foreign language. It is taught through formal education (Bauer 2002: 22; Bruthiaux 2003: 160; Schreier 2009: 19) and “not passed on to infants naturalistically across generations” (Bruthiaux 2003: 160). Since English is nowadays taught in most nations of the world, it can be argued that almost every country belonging neither to 6. This most prominently applies to the case of the Philippines (cf. Schneider’s [2007: 140–4] case study).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

the Inner nor to the Outer Circle is part of the Expanding Circle (cf. Bruthiaux 2003: 160).7 3.2.3 Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model A more recent but also widely applied approach towards varieties of English is Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model. Compared to the older approaches in the field, the model is much more diachronic in orientation and proposes that “there is an underlying uniform process which has driven the individual historical instantiations of PCEs growing in different localities” (Schneider 2007: 21).8 According to Schneider, this development typically proceeds along five major stages: (1) foundation, (2) exonormative stabilization, (3) structural nativization, (4) endonormative stabilization, and (5) differentiation. It thus starts out with the translocation of the English language to a new territory, followed by major changes in social as well as linguistic realities, resulting in linguistic nativization and stabilization, and finally the potential for internal differentiation (Schneider 2007: 29–30). At the heart of this overall process are the conceptualization and realignments of identity constructions as well as “their symbolic linguistic expressions” (Schneider 2007: 28). Also part of the Dynamic Model and operating within each of the five phases are the four parameters, which have already been outlined in the introduction (cf. 1.3). The following summary offers a brief recapitulation of what the introduction has established as the theoretical framework for the present study: (1) “[e]xtralinguistic factors”, i.e. the historical and political development of a country, lead to (2) “characteristic identity constructions” which influence (3) “sociolinguistic determinants of the contact setting”, i.e. language contact conditions and language attitudes and use, in turn resulting in (4) “structural effects”, i.e. lexical, phonological, and grammatical characteristics (Schneider 2007: 30–5). In addition to these four parameters, Schneider points out a further analytical layer which deserves explicit attention: the perspectives and experiences of both the STL and IDG strands, which, at least at the initial stage, are complementary (Schneider 2007: 31). The main idea here is that the two strands become more and more intertwined while gradual assimilation of identity constructions takes place. This, in turn, leads to linguistic accommodation of the two groups. In other words, 7. For a short presentation and discussion of the model see, amongst others, also McArthur (1998: 97–8, 100). 8. A similar observation has already been put forward by Kachru who argued that “there is an underlying pattern and a shared direction in the linguistic nativization of English” (Kachru 1985b: 21).



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

they gradually merge into a single speech community, ultimately sharing a large set of linguistic features and norms (Schneider 2007: 32). 3.2.4 Terminology Concomitantly with these models, a vast amount of terminology and many basic concepts have been developed as tools of description and discussion. However, “[a]s in many young fields, terminology is still somewhat unsettled, and there are alternative labels for the phenomenon under consideration emphasizing slightly different aspects” (Schneider 2007: 2). Some of the well-established terms and concepts have been relatively stable, while other important phenomena are sometimes referred to by an array of competing terms used more or less interchangeably.9 For the following theoretical considerations and the investigation of the variety status of EiCy/CyE, I restrict myself to the, in my view, most neutral terms from the overall pool of existing labels to avoid terminological overload and confusion. To refer to the general phenomenon, i.e. the different types of English around the world, I use the cover term “World Englishes” since it is widely used and understood. Since the study of World Englishes has so far mainly been concerned with those types of English which arose from postcolonial contexts, the term “World Englishes” traditionally relates to exactly those types of English which have been assigned the variety label (cf. Schneider 2011: 29). However, at a later point in this chapter, I argue that such a restriction is somewhat too narrow in that English is currently gaining more and more ground in other not necessarily postcolonial areas in which it can no longer be classified as typical EFL (cf. 3.4; see also Bonnici 2010: 32; Bruthiaux 2003: 165–7). In what follows, I consider this developmental tendency and use the terms “World Englishes” and “World Englishes research” in an even more neutral way, which also allows for the inclusion of societies without a (post)colonial background. When I explicitly seek to address the group of Englishes which have developed in postcolonial contexts, native and non-native alike, I employ Schneider’s (2007) label “Postcolonial Englishes (PCEs)”, since it does not overtly stress one of the evolutionary stages of varieties (e.g. indigenization, institutionalization). In turn, to explicitly focus on non-native PCEs, I use the term “second-language variety”, 9. Consider, for example, the widely used terms “English World-Wide” vs. “World Englishes” (both originate as the titles of two early and still well-established journals founded in 1980 and 1982 by Manfred Görlach and Braj Kachru, respectively) vs. “New Englishes” (Pride 1982; Platt et al. 1984) or “institutionalized second-language varieties” (Kachru 1985a) vs. “non-native institutionalized varieties of English” (NIVEs; Williams 1987) vs. “indigenized varieties of English” (IVEs; Sridhar & Sridhar 1986) vs. “second-language” or “ESL variety” (e.g. the recently edited volume by Mukherjee & Hundt 2011).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

again since the term as such neither implies a specific evolutionary status nor a (post)colonial background as a prerequisite for membership assignment. 3.3 Research into English in Cyprus/Cyprus English After this very brief introduction to the terminology and taxonomies produced by the last 30 years of World Englishes research, I now focus on the role Cyprus has played – or rather not played – within this framework. As Section 3.2 has shown, the (socio)linguistic situations of many former colonial territories have attracted a great deal of attention in World Englishes research. Many studies deal with the historical and sociopolitical emergence of such situations, language policies, language attitudes and use, characteristic features, and educational implications arising from the particular situation. Some postcolonial contexts, however, have so far been neglected or only touched on superficially (cf. Schreier et al. 2010: 2–3; Trudgill 2002: 29–30). Both Crystal (2003a10: 109; see also 2003b11: 62–5) and Graddol (1997: 11)12 list 51 territories in which English is mainly spoken as a second language and “where the language has had special relevance” (Crystal 2003b: 62), amongst others Botswana, Brunei, India, Pakistan, and the Seychelles (cf. Crystal 2003a: 109; see also Crystal 2003b: 62–5; Graddol 1997: 11). Other potential candidates like the Maldives (see also Bruthiaux 2003: 165) and Cyprus are absent from the list.13 Moreover, Cyprus does not occur in Crystal’s (2003a) adaptation of Strevens’ (1980: 85–6) Family Tree of English, even though Crystal adds even smaller speech communities like Malta and Gibraltar to the illustration (cf. Crystal 2003a: 107). While it is not clear which of the broader geographical categorizations in Strevens’ (1980: 85–6) Family Tree would accommodate Cyprus, he assigns ESL status to it in his list of contrasting pairs of EFL and ESL countries in a later article (Strevens 1992: 36). This sets it directly on a par with ESL in Nigeria, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Gibraltar, and Fiji and in direct contrast to EFL in Korea, Brazil, China, France, Sweden, and Indonesia (cf. Strevens 1992: 36). His observations, 10. First edition and printing in 1995. 11. First edition and printing in 1997. 12. Graddol here borrows from Crystal (cf. Bruthiaux 2003: 165). 13. Note, however, that Crystal admits that listings of this kind do not account for the complex sociolinguistic reality of the use of English today. In this respect, he notes that English in traditional EFL countries, like, for example, Denmark and Sweden, can be much more widespread today than English in ESL countries like Namibia or Nepal. In addition, he points out that declaring a language as official language does not mean that English then automatically gains special status in daily life (e.g. English in Rwanda in 1996; Crystal 2003a: 109).



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus

however, are not based on profound (socio)linguistic analyses of these speech communities but mainly seem to rely on considerations related to aspects of language teaching and learning. In doing so, he draws on the assumption that in ESL countries the overall level of attainment is higher than in EFL countries and that teachers and learners in ESL countries focus on non-native norms, whereas EFL teachers and learners strive for traditional native-speaker models (Strevens 1992: 36–7; see also Strevens 1978: 90–1, 1981: 9–10). If and in what way the assignment of labels to the above mentioned countries has been made on the basis of empirical observations or whether they basically rely on Strevens’ intuitions remains unclear. McArthur (1998), in contrast, assigns Cyprus a place among the list of EFL territories on the basis of the underlying assumption that English is used as lingua franca. He puts it on a level with countries such as France, Germany, Poland, and Portugal, amongst others (McArthur 1998: 53–4), and thus clearly differentiates it from the linguistic situations in countries such as Tanzania, Malaysia, and Malta, to which he assigns ESL status. However, only three years later, he includes Cyprus in a listing of what he calls “[t]he more prominent ESL territories” in which “English comes after at least one other language, and has been present for at least a century” (McArthur 2001: 8). In both cases, membership assignment remains again without clear empirical support and highly contradicts itself. Cyprus is also absent from more recent, otherwise quite comprehensive, scholarly contributions to the field, e.g. Hickey’s edited volume Legacies of Colonial English (2004), Kortmann et al.’s / Schneider et al.’s two-volume Handbook of Varieties of English (2004), Kachru et al.’s Handbook of World Englishes (2006), or Kirkpatrick’s Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (2010). The reasons for this superficial treatment or the even more frequent complete non-consideration of EiCy/CyE in scholarly discourse remain unclear. One can only speculate on possible explanations. The first might be territorial size and population/speaker numbers. But this criterion is not plausible because even small countries and population groups have attracted scholarly attention. Crystal (2003a: 109, 2003b: 65) and Graddol (1997: 11) list Tuvalu, which has about 11,000 inhabitants with about 800 L2 users of English (cf. Crystal 2003a: 109, 2003b: 65), or Palau, with a total population number of approximately 19,000 and an estimated L2 English speaker population of 18,000 (estimates for 2001; Crystal 2003a: 109, 2003b: 61, 64). Schreier comprehensively investigated the linguistic situation of both St Helena and Tristan da Cunha, with approximately 4,000 speakers on St Helena (Schreier 2010a: 224–5; see also Schreier 2008) and as few as 278 speakers on Tristan da Cunha (Schreier 2010b: 245; see also Schreier 2003; Schreier & Lavarello-Schreier 2003, 2011). Another reason for the non-consideration of Cyprus may lie in the fact that Cyprus as an EU member state is perceived as being included in discussions of a





English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

potential Euro-English variety (e.g. Mollin 2006, 2007) and has thus vanished from scholarly attention as a potential individual variety candidate. An investigation of its variety status in the Euro-English framework is, however, insufficient since the historical and sociopolitical conditions in Cyprus obviously differ greatly from those found in most of the other European countries.14 Furthermore, Bruthiaux (2003) speculates that the former colonial status may play a role, since the Maldives, for example, only fulfilled a protectorate function and never were a crown colony like the Seychelles (Bruthiaux 2003: 165). However, this argument also does not hold for Cyprus, since, as has been outlined in Chapter 2, the island was declared a crown colony in the course of its colonial history (cf. 2.2.2.1) but has nevertheless been neglected by World Englishes research. Finally, even though it could be argued that Cyprus is easily overlooked because of its economically minor role in the global power structure, this can hardly be argued with respect to its political prominence. Since 1974, it has regularly been in the news and thereby certainly within reach of worldwide attention and the persistent Cyprus problem does not only affect the countries directly involved (Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, and Great Britain) but also all EU and NATO member states (Poew 2007: 241). Thus, there is no obvious reason for the existing research gap into EiCy/CyE. The only plausible explanation seems to be that the historical and sociopolitical development of Cyprus and the current status of EiCy/CyE cannot be established as easily and straightforwardly as that of most of the so far attested varieties because the linguistic situation is heterogeneous and elusive (cf. 2.4). Such an explanation also goes hand in hand with Görlach’s general observation that “linguists often shy away from cases which do not permit neat classifications” (Görlach 1998: 1–2) to which Cyprus apparently belongs (see also Görlach 2002a15: 113). As a result of this general neglect, comprehensive studies that integrate the complete range of relevant aspects (i.e. the historical and sociopolitical background and development, identity constructions, sociolinguistic conditions, and linguistic features; see Schneider’s 2007 taxonomy outlined in the introduction) to fully account for the variety status of EiCy/CyE do not exist. This does not, however, mean that the general (socio)linguistic situation in Cyprus has been completely left uncommented on so far. Especially the last two decades have experienced an increase of scholarly interest into this topic (cf. Arvaniti 2006: 1). Most of the studies, however, are restricted to sub-aspects of the overall (socio)linguistic setting. While 14. The same can be argued for the case of Malta, but unlike Cyprus, Malta has received at least some attention in World Englishes research (see, for example, Bonnici 2010; Caruana 2007; Hilbert & Krug 2010; Mazzon 1993). 15. This paper first appeared in Neumann & Schütting (1999: 371–84).



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

some deal with the linguistic situation during the time of British colonization (see, amongst others, Persianis 2003; Karoulla-Vrikki 2004, 2006), others look into several aspects related to the state of bidialectalism/diglossia (or even tridialectalism/triglossia)16 between the Greek-Cypriot dialect and Standard Modern Greek on the island (see, amongst others, Arvaniti 2006 on form and alteration of Standard Greek in Cyprus; Papapavlou 2005a17, 2005b18; Pavlou 1999 on language attitudes and use; Papapavlou & Pavlou 2007 on language education policy; Pavlou 2004 on dialect use in the mass media; Terkourafi 2003; Tsiplakou et al. 2006 on koinéization; Yiakoumetti et al. 2007 on bidialectal transference). Another strand of research is the influence of English on the Greek-Cypriot dialect, especially with respect to lexical borrowing, i.e. the use of English loans (see, amongst others, Davy et al. 1996; Papapavlou 1989, 1994, 1997), and code-switching processes (see, amongst others, Goutsos 200519; Karoulla-Vrikki 1991). This is often associated with a potential threat for the Greek-Cypriot dialect, its culture, and GreekCypriot national identity (see, amongst others, Ioannou 1991; cf. Papapavlou 2001a: 434). In close connection to that, other studies are primarily concerned with the investigation and description of the relationship between language and identity in Cyprus, mostly involving all three codes, i.e. the Greek-Cypriot dialect, Standard Modern Greek, and English (see, amongst others, Ioannou 1991; Karoulla-Vrikki 1991, 2007; McEntee 1998; Stamatakis 1991). Finally, the investigation of language attitudes and use, both in Cyprus (see, amongst others, Karyolemou 1994; McEntee 2001; McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001) and in expatriate communities, especially in Great Britain, (see, amongst others, Finnis et al. 2005; Gardner-­Chloros et al. 2005; ChristodoulouPipis 1991; Papapavlou & Pavlou 2005a20; Papapavlou et al. [2001] on further issues of language use and identity in such expatriate communities) has received scholarly attention. 16. The situation in the Greek-Cypriot community has often been described as di- or tri-glossic (or bi- or tri-dialectal, respectively). Some report on the existence of the Greek-Cypriot dialect, which has vernacular status in the Greek part, Standard Modern Greek (also demotic Greek), and katharevousa (puristic Greek), others just differentiate between Standard Modern Greek and the Greek-Cypriot dialect (e.g. McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001: 20; Papapavlou 1994: 5; Papapavlou & Pavlou 2005b: 16–7; the latter article first appeared in the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 19, 1998). 17. This article first appeared in the International Journal of the Sociology of Language 134, 1998. 18. This article first appeared in the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22, 2001 (Papapavlou 2001b). 19. This article first appeared in the International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 2001. 20. This article first appeared in the International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 2001.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

However, many of the existing accounts remain without a substantiated empirical and scientific basis or lack empirical background altogether. This becomes especially apparent in studies concerned with aspects of language, identity, and potential threats posed by English to the national language and identity (e.g. Ioannou 1991; Karoulla-Vrikki 1991; cf. McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001: 22; see also McEntee 2001: 409; McEntee-Atalianis 2004: 83; Papapavlou & Pavlou 2005b: 17–8). In addition, none of these articles explicitly analyses the use of English in terms of the potential variety status English might have acquired as a result of British colonization. Three articles, however, seek to place EiCy/CyE within the traditionally employed EFL-ESL distinction (cf. Davy & Pavlou 2010; Tsiplakou 2009; Yazgin 2007). Yazgin (2007) claims that English in Cyprus has moved from the Outer to the Expanding Circle of Kachru’s (1985b) model and as such has to be considered a foreign language today, playing the role of a lingua franca (Yazgin 2007: 3). However, this strong and important claim remains largely unsupported due to the lack of comprehensive and conclusive research evidence. Moreover, Yazgin does not consistently and conclusively link it to her overall observations which, in fact, are largely superficial, with a strong focus on teaching issues. Davy and Pavlou (2010) put forward a similar claim but do not suggest EFL status for contemporary EiCy/CyE.21 Instead, they employ the notion of complex vs. simplex ESL society to sketch out the postcolonial development of the sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus. According to their argument, Cyprus started out as a complex ESL territory, i.e. a multilingual region like India or Singapore, where English has a crucial function as link language for interethnic communication, in the case of Cyprus particularly between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 4, 6–7). Davy and Pavlou further argue that this status changed with the 1974 de facto division of the island, which brought about a fundamental change of sociolinguistic realities (cf. 2.2.3 and 2.3.2). Both parts of Cyprus transformed into linguistically less complex situations, characterized by “repertorial smallness” (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 5, italics in original), i.e. the use of only one native language and English. Hence, English lost its former function as link language between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (cf. 2.2.3 and 2.4.1) and Cyprus developed into a

21. I would like to thank Jim Davy for providing me with the final draft of their paper. Even though the paper has already appeared in Research on English as a Foreign Language in Cyprus (published by the University of Nicosia Press, 2010, and edited by Pavlos Pavlou, who has sadly passed away), it was not possible to get hold of the edited volume, neither via the Internet nor via emails to the University of Nicosia Press. Therefore, page numbers in the in-text references above might differ from the ones in the print version and other articles in that volume could unfortunately not be considered.



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

simplex ESL country (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 5, 6–7).22 Even though the argument seems convincing and is basically in line with the observations in Chapter 2, Davy and Pavlou (2010) likewise do not take into account the whole range of aspects relevant for comprehensively analysing postcolonial language communities. Furthermore, their claims, too, lack an empirical basis. Tsiplakou (2009) objects to the idea that Cyprus could have been an ESL country at all. She assumes that “historical evidence strongly suggests that it cannot be plausibly argued that Cyprus once belonged to the Outer Circle or that English was ever a second language on the island” (Tsiplakou 2009: 76). This view seems to imply that English has always had clear foreign language status in Cyprus, which should consequently be considered an Expanding Circle country. In making this claim, Tsiplakou also raises the question of the adequacy of the ESL-EFL distinction made in the Kachruvian model (Kachru 1985b). But she does not look for an alternative way to place EiCy/CyE. In addition to that, her argument is mainly based on diachronic and synchronic observations from the education sector and from teacher interviews. It does not offer a comprehensive approach either and in particular also lacks investigation of linguistic data.23 Summing up, none of the three contributions provides a systematic and comprehensive approach to EiCy/CyE. The articles are consequently not able to answer the variety status question conclusively. This is first and foremost due to the overall lack of a structural analysis of linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE, which, according to Schneider’s (2007) integrated approach, is of vital importance to complement the existing applied approaches and to characterize in full the linguistic postcolonial status of EiCy/CyE. Furthermore, the few attempts made so far to characterize the status of EiCy/CyE have generally revealed disagreement with respect to the variety status of EiCy/CyE. While some suggest clear ESL status (cf. McArthur 2001; Strevens 1992), others opt for EFL status (cf. McArthur 1998; Tsiplakou 2009). Yazgin (2007), however, suggests that EiCy/CyE has moved from ESL to EFL and Davy and Pavlou (2010) argue for a shift from complex to simplex ESL. Whether this dividedness is due to the complex and unique situation in Cyprus, to the absence of in-depth analyses, or to the not unproblematic conceptual nature of the ESLEFL distinction as outlined above cannot be conclusively accounted for at this 22. As examples for other such simplex ESL societies, they cite Hong Kong, Malta, Lesotho, and Swaziland (Davy & Pavlou 2010: 5). 23. Note, however, that Tsiplakou (2009) herself does not lay claim to comprehensiveness and completeness. She notes that her study “may then be seen as providing the descriptive/empirical sociolinguistic backdrop to research attempting to determine whether contemporary ‘Cyprus English’ is a stable variety of non-native English in a postcolonial setting or a mere (set of) interlanguage(s)” (Tsiplakou 2009: 84).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

point. It is probably a combination of these factors which is responsible for this disagreement. The situation, however, clearly calls for a look into well-defined differences between ESL and EFL in more detail and for coming up with criteria for distinguishing “proper” second-language varieties from learner Englishes to facilitate the later discussion of the variety status of EiCy/CyE. 3.4 Learner Englishes vs. second-language varieties? As mentioned in Section 3.2, the (ENL-)ESL-EFL distinction has been one of the most widely applied classifications in the field of World Englishes research (cf., amongst others, Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 5; Quirk et al. 1985: 4–5; Schreier et al. 2010: 2). It differentiates between second-language varieties on the one hand and learner Englishes, characterized by different interlanguage grammars, on the other. Apart from the few early attempts to create an awareness of a potential interface between learner Englishes and second-language varieties of English (esp. Sridhar & Sridhar 1986; Williams 1987), the two concepts have traditionally been strictly kept apart by both Second Language Acquisition (henceforth SLA) and World Englishes researchers (cf. Hundt & Mukherjee 2011: 1). Only recently has this potential interface experienced renewed research interest, especially by World Englishes researchers (see, for example, Groves 2010; the edited volume by Mukherjee & Hundt 2011; Nesselhauf 2009). The following sections review the traditionally employed differences between learner Englishes/interlanguage (cf. 3.4.1) and second-language varieties and develop a catalogue of sociolinguistic criteria for determining variety status (cf. 3.4.2). The main assumption here is that the underlying psycholinguistic processes at work in the development of second-language varieties and learner Englishes are the same and that it is only extralinguistic factors and the sociolinguistic development that can account for the traditionally employed differences between the two concepts. Therefore, I also address the question of similarities between the two objects of inquiry and ways to bridge what Sridhar and Sridhar had early called “the paradigm gap” (Sridhar & Sridhar 1986: 3; see also Bongartz & Mukherjee 2009: 7; Hundt & Mukherjee 2011: 1; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 156; cf. 3.4.3). Subsequently, I draw some theoretical conclusions from these observations (cf. 3.4.4). 3.4.1 Learner English and interlanguage The term “learner English” is closely connected to the notion of interlanguage, which was first introduced by Selinker in 1972. It subsequently became one of the



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

central notions in SLA research and has been taken up and discussed by various SLA researchers (see, amongst others, Corder 1981; more recently Gass & Selinker 2008). The term interlanguage (henceforth IL) describes the linguistic mental systems of individual learners, i.e. the individual stages and versions of the target language a learner passes through when acquiring/learning a second or foreign language (Corder 1981: 66).24 This process is generally oriented towards a native speaker norm. This means that the aim of the acquisition process is to achieve native speaker competence on all linguistic levels, something achieved by only a small minority of language learners (Selinker 1972: 212–3).25 Implicit in Selinker’s (1972) elaboration on the notion of IL and explicitly stated by Corder (1981), the learning stages in the process of the learner’s development “merge gradually into each other rather than switch from one discrete state to the next” (Corder 1981: 68), i.e. the learning/acquisition process proceeds along a continuum (Corder 1981: 87). In picking up on that suggestion, Corder uses the term “interlanguage continuum”, defined as “a dynamic, goal-oriented language system of increasing complexity” (Corder 1981: 90). This development underlies a process of ongoing validation or falsification of the individual learner’s “personal grammar” on the basis of linguistic interaction in his/her environment, for example with teachers in formal language learning settings or with native speakers in informal settings (Corder 1981: 73). Furthermore, Selinker (1972) claims that the set of utterances for most learners of a second language is not identical to the hypothesized corresponding set of utterances which would have been produced by a native speaker of the TL [target language] had he attempted to express the same meaning as the learner. (Selinker 1972: 214, italics in original)

24. A brief comment on the notions of learning and acquisition seems to be in order here since this terminological distinction often remains uncommented on or vague in research into World Englishes. Drawing on Krashen’s (1981) Monitor Theory, I use the term “acquisition” to refer to unguided language acquisition in immersive natural settings and the term “learning” to refer to language learning in guided, classroom-based, formal instruction. Note further that early SLA research mainly focussed on learners living in the target language country (cf. Groves 2010: 114; Sridhar & Sridhar 1986: 9), predominantly the US, thus acquiring the L2 as a second language and in an at least partly immersive way (cf. Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 157). However, the notion of interlanguage has also been applied to contexts where English is learned through formal classroom instruction, mainly in countries where English has foreign language status (e.g. in Germany, Spain, and most of the European countries; for well-defined details on the differences between these two acquisitional scenarios see Krashen 1981; see also Gass & Selinker 2008: 7). 25. As a rough orientation, Selinker here speculates that only around 5% of all language learners achieve native-like competence in the target language (Selinker 1972: 212).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

On the basis of this observation, he further hypothesizes that one has to assume a separate linguistic system in language learners which neither strictly resembles the native language (henceforth NL) nor the target language (henceforth TL) system of the learner (Selinker 1972: 214).26 With respect to the learning/acquisition process itself, Selinker (1972: 215, 216–7) suggests that it is guided and influenced by five central mechanisms: 1. “Language transfer”, i.e. fossilizable features occur as the result of transfer from the NL. 2. “Transfer-of-training”, i.e. items from training processes result in fossilizable structures. In this respect, an overuse of and drills with pronominal he to exemplify both the target-like use of he and she in training scenarios can, for example, lead to false assumptions on the side of the learners.27 3. “Strategies of second-language learning”, i.e. fossilizable structures occur as the result of the learner approaching the respective material he/she has to learn. 4. “Strategies of second-language communication”, i.e. fossilizable structures occur as the result of the learner’s initiative to communicate with TL speakers and through the subsequent tendency of learners to stop learning as soon as they think that they have mastered the TL sufficiently, i.e. to ensure communication as required in the specific context (see also Corder 1981: 73). 5. “Overgeneralization of TL linguistic material”, i.e. fossilizable structures occur due to overgeneralization of TL structures. The notion of fossilization, which finds expression here, is also relevant for the later discussion of differences and similarities between learner Englishes and second-language varieties. It has traditionally been defined as the state “where a learner’s interlanguage ceases to develop however long he remains exposed to authentic data in the target language” (Corder 1981: 74). Likewise, “[f]ossilizable linguistic phenomena” have been defined as linguistic items, rules, and subsystems which speakers of a particular NL will tend to keep in their IL relative to a particular TL, no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation and instruction he receives in the TL. (Selinker 1972: 215)

26. Note that the idea of such a separate system in language learners had prior to Selinker and later on found various expressions in other labels and slightly different orientations (see, amongst others, the notion of “approximative systems” [Nemser 1971] or “transitional competence” [Corder 1981]). 27. See, for example, Selinker’s observations on Serbo-Croatian learners of English (1972: 218).



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

According to Selinker, fossilization can occur for individual features as the result of the above mentioned mechanisms (Selinker 1972: 216–7) but also for whole IL systems. Selinker labels the latter phenomenon “entirely fossilized IL competences” (Selinker 1972: 217).28 What is important and interesting to note here is that, drawing on evidence from two earlier but unfortunately unpublished studies (Coulter 1968; Jain 1969; cited in Selinker 1972: 217), Selinker argues that fossilization of IL systems can also occur for whole speaker communities and that this leads to the emergence of new language varieties (Selinker 1972: 217). Following this line of argument, Selinker refers to Indian English “as an IL with regard to English” and claims that fossilization has been at work in the development of this speech system (Selinker 1972: 216). On the basis of such an account, fossilization is put on a level with feature nativization. As a consequence, errors, typically considered the manifestations of these fossilized IL stages, are classed with features, the linguistic characteristics of second-language varieties which result from structural nativization. Such a joint description of learner Englishes and second-language varieties has, however, been widely rejected and neglected by researchers who look into second-language varieties of English, mainly for political and ideological reasons (cf. Hundt & Mukherjee 2011: 1–2). The notion of error implies deficiency measured against some native speaker norm. This seems adequate when describing learner phenomena but inadequate for second-language varieties, which are considered language systems in their own right, often with their own (developing) norms and standards (cf. Hundt & Mukherjee 2011: 1–2; Mollin 2007: 171; Sridhar & Sridhar 1986: 8; Winford 2003: 245).29 A comparison of these two concepts, let alone an integrated analysis, has thus “often [been] considered counterproductive to the 28. The term fossilization has been widely and controversially discussed in later approaches to the topic, with some arguing that since the eventuation of fossilized states cannot be precisely determined, one should rather speak of stabilized forms than of permanent stagnancy of the learning process and should also look into “the boundlessness of potentiality” in learners (Larsen-Freeman 2006: 189; see, for example, also Birdsong 2006; Long 2003). 29. Note, however, that the notion of error has been criticized in more recent SLA research since it measures the L2 learner’s proficiency against native speaker competence (cf. the notions of “comparative fallacy” [Bley-Vroman 1983] and “multi-competence” [e.g. Cook 1999, 2007, 2010]). Deviations from the TL system are indicative of development and characteristic of plateaus the learner passes in the acquisition/learning process. As pointed out above, interlanguage grammars are considered independent developmental systems, which are not necessarily defective in nature (cf. Cook 1999, 2007, 2010). Nevertheless, the distinction between errors and nativized features has been widely adopted in World Englishes research, mainly as one of the major criteria which set apart learner Englishes and second-language varieties. For this reason, I also stick to the notion of “error” when drawing this distinction but as a neutral rather than a judgmental means of denomination.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

acceptance of emergent norms in second-language varieties of English” (Götz & Schilk 2011: 80). 3.4.2 Second-language varieties In contrast to the notion of learner language and the development of IL grammar, which apply to the idiolect of individual speakers, second-language variety status is generally tied to language use in a speech community (cf. Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011: 37; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 157; Strevens 1981: 9). Such speech communities traditionally exist in what Kachru (1985b) refers to as the Outer Circle. In such Outer Circle (or ESL) countries like India, Kenya, or Singapore, English was transplanted to the respective country for historical reasons, mainly colonization, and has become the second language for most of the inhabitants, spoken in addition to the native language(s) (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 4–5; Schneider 2007: 12; Schreier 2009: 19). Membership assignment on historical grounds, more precisely with respect to the shared experience of colonization, is, however, insufficient. On the one hand, it would render extensive research into postcolonial settings irrelevant, leaving aside crucial sociopolitical and (socio)linguistic aspects for determining variety status (for a similar argument see Bonnici 2010: 32; Bruthiaux 2003: 165–7). On the other hand, it would also call into question the recent scholarly interest in and controversial discussion of the potential variety status of Euro-English (see, amongst others, Berns 1995; Görlach 2002b; Jenkins 2003; Jenkins et al. 2001; Modiano 2003; Mollin 2006, 2007; for a similar argument see Mollin 2006: 45). The question that consequently arises is: What then distinguishes learner Englishes from second-language varieties of English? It has sometimes been proposed that in ESL countries English has some kind of “special status”, without sufficient elaboration on what that really means (see, for example, Crystal 2003a: 108; Graddol 1997: 11). A review of the literature, however, yields a whole range of possible classification criteria for determining variety status. The following overview presents the major criteria mentioned, which in large parts correspond to the developmental phases of second-language varieties as outlined in diachronic models of World Englishes (cf. Moag 1992; Schneider 2007). These criteria are (1) expansion in function, (2) nativization of linguistic structures, (3) institutionalization of these structures, and (4) ways of language acquisition (cf. Kachru 1992a: 5530; Moag’s 1992 Life Cycle; Mollin 2006: 45–52, 2007: 170–3). Finally, I come up with a checklist for variety status (cf. 3.4.2.5), 30. The article first appeared in the 1982 first edition of Kachru’s The Other Tongue. Note that reference here and in the following is made to the second and revised edition of this edited volume from 1992.



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

which is later applied to the (socio)linguistic findings on EiCy/CyE (cf. 7.2). The checklist basically builds on the criteria catalogue established in Mollin (2006: 52, 2007: 173), with minor modifications slightly broadening its scope. 3.4.2.1 Spread of bilingualism and expansion in function When looking into whether English in a certain territory has gone through the phase of expansion, the first important aspect to look into is the spread of societal bilingualism (cf. Mollin 2006: 46, 2007: 170). Going back to the above definition of interlanguage, one of the crucial differences between learner Englishes and second-language varieties lies in the assumption that interlanguages are the mental systems found in individuals and are thus associated with individual language use, “while variety status is tied to language use in a speech community” (Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011: 37; see also Strevens 1981: 9). Thus, an ESL community is typically bilingual or multilingual, depending on the language repertoire of the respective country (cf. Mollin 2006: 41; see also Brutt-Griffler 2002: 138–9), to at least some degree. This means the use of English has typically undergone expansion, with English having spread throughout society and being used by most parts of the population, not only by small elite groups as is the case in EFL countries (Moag 1992: 247; Williams 1987: 163). The question, however, is: To what extent does a society have to be bilingual to deserve the label “bilingual society”? Since “[i]t is difficult to set a minimum percentage” (Moag 1992: 247) and since it is also hard to tell who should be considered bilingual on an individual level, the answer is elusive. Consider in that respect the varying definitions of individual bilingualism in Bloomfield (1933) and Grosjean (1989). Bloomfield’s (1933: 56) definition is very tight, stating that being called bilingual presupposes full fluency in the form of “native-like control of two languages”. By contrast, Grosjean’s (1989: 6) more pragmatic approach only presumes functionality in both languages, i.e. the speaker has to be able to operate in both languages as required by the context, more precisely by his or her communicative needs (see also Bialystok 2001: 4). I here suggest following Grosjean’s (1989) approach, by which the ability to have a conversation in English as required by domain and context is sufficient for being categorized as bilingual. This is mainly motivated by the assumption that equal proficiency in both languages cannot be expected of ESL speakers, “not least because practically, the languages are habitually used for different functions and hence have different sociolinguistic profiles” (Mollin 2006: 47; see also Grosjean 1989: 6). In turning now to the question how to define societal bilingualism for ESL territories, I follow Kloss’ (1966: 15) view that “[in] calling a speech community bilingual we imply application not only to a few high-ranking bureaucrats and some scholars but also to a sizeable segment of the population”. According to Kloss,



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

this “sizeable segment” should at least comprise one of the following four groups: (1) “all adults”, (2) “all breadwinners”, (3) “all literate adults”, or (4) “all secondary school graduates” (Kloss 1966: 15). Even if this assumption is still somewhat fuzzy as, for example, it does not further define the notion of “breadwinner”, I basically adopt it here since it offers at least some point of reference to the categorization of a society as bilingual. As an addition to Kloss’ characteristics, Moag (1992) points to the possibility of the existence of monolingual EFL groups in, for example, remote areas or “in lower social classes” of ESL territories (Moag 1992: 247–8). This observation is also in line with Kachru’s early concept of “cline of bilingualism” (Kachru 1965: 393–6, 1983). According to this notion, individual proficiency in bilingual societies may vary “from almost monolingualism at one end, through varying degrees of bilingualism, to absolute ambilingualism at the other end” (Kachru 1983: 129–30, with reference to Indian English). So, on the one hand, bilingualism has to be widespread for a society to be called bilingual. On the other hand, this does not necessarily imply homogeneity with respect to individual proficiency in the second language and in reality a cline can be expected. The development of stable bilingualism is the first important process in the development of a new variety and takes place first prior to and then simultaneously with the phase of expansion. It is hence the prerequisite for the next criterion, namely that of expansion in function and use of the English language in several domains of daily life (cf. Moag 1992: 247; Mollin 2006: 46, 2007: 170). However, it certainly does not stagnate in this phase since with increase in function and use, the further expansion of bilingualism is just a logical consequence. Proliferation of bilingualism can, in fact, reach into the phase of institutionalization, with the ultimate potential for changing towards English monolingualism and the repression or even extinction of the indigenous language(s) (cf. Moag 1992: 244–5). Thus, as a natural consequence of and concomitant with the spread of bilingualism, the functions and use of English undergo expansion. The general assumption with respect to variety status is that second-language varieties are fully embedded in the society concerned, i.e. they fulfil a wide range of internal instrumental, regulative, and interpersonal functions in the speech community (Kachru 1992a: 5831; see also Bruthiaux 2003: 168; Moag 1982: 12; Kachru 1986: 19; Platt et al. 1984: 2–3; Williams 1987: 162). This often includes its function as a medium of instruction in the domain of education (cf. Kachru 1992a: 58; Moag 1992: 237; Mollin 2006: 47, 2007: 170; Platt et al. 1984: 2; Williams 1987: 162), as the language of administration and the government (cf. Kachru 1992a: 58; Moag 1992: 237; 31. Kachru (1992a: 58) here mentions a fourth type of function, the imaginative/innovative function English experiences as emerging language of local writing. This is considered as an important characteristic of a later developmental criterion, institutionalization (cf. 3.4.2.3).



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

Mollin 2006: 48, 2007: 170; Platt et al. 1984: 2–3), and the media (cf. Moag 1992: 237; Mollin 2006: 48, 2007: 170; Platt et al. 1984: 3). In addition to that, English is typically used for intranational communication between people of different native language background (cf. Graddol 1997: 11; Kachru 1992a: 58; Moag 1992: 236; Mollin 2006: 48, 2007: 170; Platt et al. 1984: 3; Williams 1987: 162). It is accordingly not restricted to international lingua franca communication like business transactions, as is the case for most EFL countries (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 4–5; Schneider 2007: 12; Strevens 1992: 36; Schreier 2009: 19; cf. 3.2.1). Hence, what distinguishes a typical ESL country from EFL societies with respect to use and functions is that in the latter English is mainly restricted to international communication, whereas in ESL countries, bilingualism is widespread across major parts of the society and English fulfils a wide range of functions in different domains of intranational communication. 3.4.2.2 Nativization of linguistic structures Another crucial step towards variety status is that of structural nativization/ indigenization, i.e. the emergence of new distinct linguistic features which diverge from the traditional input varieties, i.e. especially British English, sometimes American English (cf. Mollin 2006: 49, 2007: 170–1; Platt et al. 1984: 3; Williams 1987: 162). The major mechanisms which lead to the emergence of new structures have been reported to be cultural adaptation (particularly in the field of lexis), native language transfer, linguistic accommodation, simplification, overgeneralization, regularization, and language drift (see, for example, Mollin 2007: 171; Schneider 2007: 88–90; Williams 1987), with language transfer often being attributed an outstanding role in this process (cf. Mollin 2007: 171).32 Some of these mechanisms, in particular transfer and overgeneralization, have also been reported to be central processes in interlanguage development (cf. Selinker 1972: 215). On the basis of the assumption that the underlying psycholinguistic processes at work must be the same for both types of Englishes, this overlap in mechanisms does not come as a surprise. In fact, it raises a crucial question for the nativization criterion concerning the distinction between learner errors and nativized features. Why are deviances from a native standard labelled “features” in the case of second-language varieties but “errors” in interlanguage development, when the underlying process leading to these structures can be supposed to be the same or at least highly similar (see also 32. But see Schneider (2007: 99–109) for a more comprehensive and in-depth discussion of the complex realities and interrelationships between a multitude of different processes and mechanisms. I neglect those details and complexities here because the major aim of this study is not to exactly determine the processes at work in the development of EiCy/CyE but first of all to identify potential characteristics and place EiCy/CyE on the map of World Englishes research.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Mollin 2007: 171)? The relationship and difference between these two concepts have also repeatedly been discussed in the literature. The answer, however, is not clear-cut because a definition of this distinction “is a partially subjective judgment, depending partly on the depth of usage and social acceptance of a particular form, as well as on the source of the form” (Groves 2010: 118). Nonetheless, several criteria have been brought forward which account for this at first sight unfounded ‘discrimination’ and which differentiate between nativized varieties and their characteristic features and learner errors. First of all, in fully-fledged varieties, the manifestations of nativized features and thus the differences with respect to the specific input variety have to be considerable in nature and typically involve different levels of language use, i.e. the phonological, morphosyntactic, lexical, as well as pragmatic level (cf. Bolton 2003: 46; Davies 1999: 179; Kachru 1986: 19; Mollin 2006: 49, 2007: 171; Strevens 1992: 34). Concerning the problem that no clear threshold has yet been defined as to from which proportion of features one can assume nativization for a particular variety candidate, Mollin suggests the overall rule of thumb “that the mere development of a few new lexical items does not suffice to satisfy the nativization requirement” (Mollin 2007: 172). Even though this is still not a clear-cut definition, it at least counteracts the possible tendency to claim variety status via the sole existence of a small number of characteristics, which may well even develop in learner Englishes with the same L1 background due to the potential similarities in the individual routes of interlanguage development (cf. Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011: 37; see also Corder 1981: 65–6). Another important prerequisite for the nativization criterion to be fulfilled is that the characteristic features are used by the majority of speakers in the community under investigation (cf. Mollin 2006: 49, 2007: 172; see also Groves 2010: 119). As a general rule-of-thumb, it has been suggested that if deviations are used by the majority of speakers, it seems more adequate to call them “features” than “errors” (Groves 2010: 119). Nativized features are used in a systematic and stable way, which renders the respective variety “a closed system in itself ” (cf. Mollin 2006: 49, 2007: 172; see also Davies 1989: 450, 1999: 179; Groves 2010: 115; Williams 1987: 163–4).33 In other words, a certain degree of homogeneity is required for ascribing variety status. Learner Englishes with foreign language status “are more diffuse” (Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 208) by comparison and therefore have not undergone the process of structural nativization. While the above characteristics do provide some yardstick for determining whether structural nativization has taken place, with respect to the following 33. Note, however, that stability is a relative construct in as much as it is valid for any other kind of natural language, which changes in the course of time (cf. Williams 1987: 164).



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

quantitative data analysis, the inevitable question arises whether there is an exact numerical threshold at which an error changes into a feature and which can thus be taken as a benchmark when assessing variety status. To my knowledge, such a concrete benchmark has not yet been defined. This is probably due to the fact that a similar methodology to the one applied in the quantitative part of the present study, i.e. measuring percental frequencies of occurrence of potential variety features against their British English equivalents to account for variety status, has not been a common procedure in World Englishes research. As already outlined in the introduction, most studies of particular varieties seem to presuppose variety status and therefore do not address the variety status question. The only similar approach I have come accross so far is applied in Mollin (2006, 2007).34 Still, Mollin (2006, 2007), who assesses the variety status of Euro English, does not establish a threshold either but at least gives some rough orientation, for example by claiming that if a feature occurs at a rate of 33% only, it cannot be considered nativized (Mollin 2006: 139). In what follows, I establish some rough numerical criteria for determining whether a characteristic under observation has undergone structural nativization or not. However, these are not meant to be absolute, unalterable numbers but rather criteria I use as a rough yardstick for the later feature analysis. The criteria of systematicity, stability, and societal use mentioned above suggest a threshold of 50% feature use in a representative sample of the community in order to call a deviation a nativized feature. Determining such a single benchmark would, however, contradict the idea that second-language varieties gradually develop rather than abruptly change from learner English to fully-fledged variety status, as expressed in Schneider’s observation that [i]ndigenous usage starts as preferences, variant forms used by some while at the same time a majority of others will stick to the old patterns; then it will develop into a habit, used most of the time and by a rapidly increasing number of speakers, until in the end it has turned into a rule, constitutive of the new variety and adopted by the vast majority of language users, with a few exceptions still tolerated and likely to end up as archaisms or irregularities. (Schneider 2007: 44; see Kachru [1992a: 59] for a similar but more implicit observation)

Taking into consideration this developmental route of feature nativization, I put forward the following numerical benchmarks for assessing whether a characteristic is undergoing or has undergone feature nativization. Even though Mollin (2006: 139) claims that a one third occurrence of an individual feature lies below the nativization threshold, I suggest exactly these 30% as a rough starting point of 34. This might be due to the fact that for most second-language varieties, variety status has long been established but often on the basis of qualitative assessments and without strong focus on quantitative findings.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

indigenous usage. This roughly seems to correspond to part one of Schneider’s assumption, i.e. that “[i]ndigenous usage starts as preferences, variant forms used by some while at the same time a majority of others will stick to the old patterns” (Schneider 2007: 44). As numerical benchmark for step two, i.e. development “into a habit, used most of the time and by a rapidly increasing number of speakers” (Schneider 2007: 44), I suggest 50% of usage in the speech community, assuming that this can be considered the turning point when a local characteristic starts to outnumber an old pattern and gradually turns into a rule. Next to the criterion of widespread use, a third criterion which again addresses the feature/error distinction is that of norm orientation (cf. Mollin 2006: 50–1, 2007: 171). Speakers of second-language varieties are typically oriented towards an increasing or existing local norm (cf. Davies 1989: 450; Groves 2010: 115; Mufwene 2001: 106) and not towards a native speaker target as foreign language learners are (cf. Groves 2010: 113; Mollin 2006: 50–1, 2007: 172; Selinker 1972: 212–3; Williams 1987: 163–4). This is, of course, closely intertwined with social acceptance, prestige, and eventually codification of the new variety (cf. Davies 1989: 459; Gupta 1994: 57). Since speakers of such varieties do not aim at an external linguistic norm but towards their own, of which the respective deviation is one of the characteristic features (cf. Mollin 2007: 171), “error” again does not seem an adequate concept to describe the “deviating” linguistic structures of nativized varieties. To sum up, the criterion of norm orientation builds upon the observation that, while foreign languages are norm-dependent on native speaker standards, second-language varieties are norm-developing (cf. Kachru 1985b: 17). Mollin (2007: 169) considers this “the crucial starting point for criteria distinguishing between non-native true varieties and learner language”. However, taking into account Kachru’s observation of “linguistic schizophrenia” (e.g. Kachru 1983: 179, 1992a: 60), I do not suggest treating it as an exclusion criterion when assessing variety status but instead viewing it as indicative of a well-advanced developmental stage of a variety (cf. phase 4 of Schneider’s [2007] Dynamic Model). 3.4.2.3 Institutionalization As suggested above, the criterion of internal norm orientation does in actual fact not directly relate to the nativization criterion but is indicative of a further, often cited criterion for assessing variety status, that of institutionalization (cf. Kachru 1992a: 55; Moag 1992: 241–5; Mollin 2006: 50–1, 2007: 172–3). Institutionalization sets in when the speakers of a new variety start accepting and recognizing it as the aimed at and actually implemented performance model (cf. Kachru 1992a: 55–6; Moag 1992: 242; Mollin 2006: 50–1, 2007: 172; Schneider 2003: 249). As a result, localization sets in in many of the domains of use established in the expansion phase. This typically includes the development of local creative writing



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

(cf. Kachru 1986: 19, 1992a: 55; Llamzon 1983: 103; Moag 1992: 241; Mollin 2007: 170), the localization of teaching, as well as the localization of the media (cf. Moag 1992: 241–4).35 In addition and closely connected to that, the speakers truly need to identify with the variety since “a variety can only be ESL if its speakers want it to be” (Mollin 2006: 51; see also Groves 2010: 119; Kachru 1992a: 67; Mollin 2007: 172). In the ideal and ultimate case, the norm is at some point also accepted by official authorities (cf. Moag 1982: 12; Mollin 2006: 51, 2007: 172–3) and codified in the form of dictionaries, grammars, and usage guides (cf. Mollin 2006: 51, 2007: 173; Schneider 2003: 252). However, going along with Mollin (2007), I consider this step “the least necessary of all, since a variety that is already endorsed by its speakers but has not yet found official recognition could still be classified as an institutionalized New English” (Mollin 2007: 173). 3.4.2.4 Ways of language acquisition In addition to the criteria established by Mollin (2006, 2007), the last aspect I consider relevant for distinguishing between EFL and ESL varieties is the way in which English is acquired/learned (see also Moag 1992: 248). When looking into categorizations of native and indigenized non-native Englishes such as the one proposed by Gupta (1997), it becomes clear that in all her five categories, natural acquisition of English in everyday interaction is not an exception but accounts for a considerable part of the acquisition process. The role formal classroom instruction plays in the acquisition process varies from type to type (cf. Gupta 1997: 53–6). Nevertheless, children growing up in typical non-native ESL countries most often have access to the English language before entering school and by this acquire at least some active knowledge of the language in a more natural fashion before formal education starts. Acquisition/learning in these non-native contexts then typically continues both at school and in a broad range of daily activities outside school (Moag 1992: 248). Both aspects set the acquisition scenario in ESL countries clearly apart from what is found in traditional EFL countries, in which English is

35. What has to be considered with respect to this aspect is that with the ever-growing importance and spread of the Internet and global communication, this criterion seems less important today than it might have been 15 years ago. This has already led to an unprecedentedly increased and heterogeneous influence of native speaker varieties, especially American English (cf. Chapter 2, Footnote 15 and the observations for Cyprus in 2.4.1), or other non-native varieties on local forms of English.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

largely learned through formal classroom instruction, with learning often starting in adolescence or even adulthood.36 This criterion is treated as a separate aspect here because it cannot clearly be assigned to one of the stages outlined above. It typically sets in as a result of the expansion of use and functions of English (Moag 1992: 248) and stabilizes along with the further expansion and stabilization of the English language. (For further approaches discussing and summarizing such criteria see, for example, Bamgbose 1998; Corder 1981: 67–8; Llamzon 1983; Lowenberg 1986: 2–3, 199237: 108–9; Nayar 1997: 15; Sridhar & Sridhar 1986: 5–7; the respective studies in Mukherjee & Hundt 2011). 3.4.2.5 Checklist for variety status The preceding chapter presented and discussed several sociolinguistic aspects with which second-language varieties can be distinguished from learner Englishes. The following checklist sums up the most important criteria for assessing variety (ESL) status (for a similar catalogue see Mollin 2006: 52, 2007: 173). 1. Expansion in function – widespread societal bilingualism – intranational use of English in several domains (i.e. education, administration, media, and for intranational, interethnic communication) 2. Nativization of linguistic structures – considerable number of characteristics on all levels of language use (i.e. phonological, morphosyntactic, lexical, and pragmatic level) – societal spread of these characteristics ≥ 30%: feature nativization sets in – systematicity of these characteristics ≥ 50%: use of local features turns into preference and from there may gradually develop into a rule – orientation towards a local norm may start to develop 3. Institutionalization – acceptance of characteristics as local norm [not obligatory for variety status but indicator of well-advanced developmental stage] 36. Note that meanwhile some of Europe’s typical EFL countries have started to introduce English at primary school level. This change in education policy, however, does not void the criterion since in typical EFL countries like Germany, children usually do not have everyday access to English prior to schooling. 37. This article first appeared in Alatis (1989) and was reprinted in the second edition of Kachru’s The Other Tongue, to which I make reference here.



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

– localization of usage domains (i.e. localization of creative writing, the teaching machinery, and the media) – codification [not obligatory for variety status but indicator of well-­ advanced developmental stage] 4. Ways of language acquisition – more natural way of language acquisition than in typical EFL countries 3.4.2.6 Implications for diachronic approaches to World Englishes As the above discussion of criteria for second-language variety status has revealed, the characteristics observed correspond to certain developmental phases within the emergence of second-language varieties. Consequently, each of the criteria finds implicit or explicit expression in the historical models of World Englishes, viz. in Moag’s (1992) Life Cycle of Non-Native Englishes and Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model. In what follows, I go deeper into these two approaches, especially “Schneider’s” (2007) Dynamic Model, to discuss, on the basis of the checklist, if and where they contain an implicit threshold for variety status. The parallels with Moag’s (1992) model are readily apparent. The first three criteria find explicit mention in his approach, as Moag suggests consecutive and partly parallel progression of expansion, nativization, and institutionalization for the development of second-language varieties. At first sight, this might evoke the impression that he presupposes full completion of these phases for a type of English to reach full variety status. In the description of his model, Moag, however, explicitly states that completion of the expansion phase brings with it the shift from EFL to ESL status (Moag 1992: 238). This reinforces my earlier claim that the institutionalization criterion should not be overestimated but instead considered to be indicative for a variety having reached a well-advanced developmental stage. Applying the characteristics to Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model requires a slightly greater degree of abstraction, even though all aspects also find consideration in his approach. The characteristics subsumed under “expansion in function” start out in phase 1, are major characteristics of phase 2, but certainly also continue at least into phase 3. Nativization of linguistic structures and its related aspects can clearly be assigned to phase 3 (structural nativization). It has to be noted again that linguistic nativization is not to be considered a sudden change but a developmental process (cf. 3.4.2.2; cf. Kachru 1992a: 59; Schneider 2007: 44). Institutionalization appears to be a characteristic feature of phase 4 (cf. Schneider 2007: 49–50). When taking the institutionalization criterion at face value, this would imply that only when a variety has entered phase 4 of the Dynamic Model should it be considered a “proper” second-language variety of English. And even if Schneider ascribes special prominence to phase 3 in terms of its importance for “both cultural and linguistic transformation” (Schneider 2007: 40), phase



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

4 indeed turns out to be decisive for reaching full variety status. Phase 3 “marks the dialect as just a variant without a discrete character of its own, while [phase 4] credits it with the status of a distinct type, set apart from and essentially on equal terms with all others” (Schneider 2007: 50). With respect to linguistic terminology, a variety typically changes from “English in X” to “X English” in phase 4 (Schneider 2007: 50). This would, however, suggest that some of the Englishes which have occasionally or even traditionally been labelled “X English” do actually not fit this category since, according to their investigation along the lines of the Dynamic Model, they are still in phase 3 (cf. Schneider’s [2007] case studies on Fiji, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Malaysia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Cameroon). Nonetheless, it is not to be expected that such varieties will be retroactively deprived of their longattested status. This again suggests that classification criteria can serve as rough guidelines for assessing variety status but should not be taken at face value. In addition to that, such static characterizations are certainly not intended as the model aims at the depiction of a developmental process. This is, for example, illustrated by Schneider’s (2007: 161–73) case study of India, which shows that countries can be in transition between two of the phases, already fulfilling some characteristics of the follow-up phase while at the same time retaining properties of the earlier phase. What I conclude from these observations is that institutionalization has to be considered the end point, or rather peak, of the developmental process of a variety. The shift from EFL to ESL, however, sets in earlier, presumably with the process of structural nativization, i.e. the beginning of phase 3. What the above observations again suggest is that classification criteria and models in general have to be considered relative constructs which, when applied in practice, require a certain degree of flexibility in handling. When assessing the variety status and placing EiCy/CyE in Chapter 7, I revisit and use the checklist as well as the models introduced earlier since they are indispensable points of reference. However, it is also important to keep in mind that a flexible treatment of rather static categories might often lead to much more accurate results (see again Schneider’s case study on India) than just tenaciously following fixed categorizations. 3.4.3 “Bridging the paradigm gap”38 In line with the demand for a more liberal application of static categories, the strict separation of learner Englishes and second-language varieties has been called into

38. Quote attributed to Sridhar and Sridhar (1986) and recently adopted by Hundt and Mukherjee (2011; see also Bongartz & Mukherjee 2009: 7; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 156).



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

question, especially in recent years (see, for example, Nesselhauf 2009 and many of the papers in Mukherjee & Hundt 2011). As early as 1986, Sridhar and Sridhar discerned “a lack of articulation between theories of SLA and research on the acquisition and use of IVEs [indigenized varieties of English]” (Sridhar & Sridhar 1986: 12) and promoted an integrated approach, which has been mostly ignored (cf. Hundt & Mukherjee 2011: 1; Nesselhauf 2009: 4). In the following years, only few further studies pointed to potential similarities and the connectedness of learner Englishes and World Englishes and the possibility, if not necessity, of an integrated approach to the two objects of inquiry (e.g. Ritchie 1986; Williams 1987, 1989). The majority of approaches from both fields, World Englishes and SLA research, have disapproved of the idea of an integrated approach, with some of the contributions openly stressing the alleged ESLEFL dichotomy and consequently “the need for drawing a distinction between English as a Foreign Language (efl) and English as a Second Language (esl) varieties” (Szmrecsanyi & Kortmann 2011: 182, italics in original; see, for example, also Lowenberg 1986; Strevens 1992: 37). This general neglect is striking for at least three connected reasons, viz. (1) the existence of socially motivated studies in SLA research, (2) internal systemic overlaps in the development of second-language varieties and learner Englishes showing in a common starting point and similar mechanisms, and as a result (3) similarities in linguistic features of both. The first reason shows in the fact that SLA research is not exclusively restricted to psycholinguistic studies. Even though such studies may prevail in the field (cf. Tarone 2000: 182–5), social interactional approaches in this area have long approved of the assumption that “[l]anguage is not an isolated phenomenon that can be understood out of its social context” and that learning/acquisition “is linked to social and local ecology” (Gass & Selinker 2008: 280; see also Tarone 2000: 182–5). Such sociolinguistic orientation mainly finds expression in the “social interactive perspective on language” (Gass & Selinker 2008: 281), as, for example, pursued in the field of conversation analysis, sociocultural theory, communication strategies, and interlanguage pragmatics (Gass & Selinker 2008: 281–93). This sub-branch of SLA research, for example, looks into such social factors as accommodation in speech behaviour and thus the use of speech forms for reasons of (re)defining identities, for example group membership (Gass & Selinker 2008: 266–8).39 Additionally, the influence of extra-linguistic variables like aptitude, motivation, age, and social distance, which have intensely been investigated in SLA research (for an overview and further such factors see Gass & Selinker 2008: 395–445), can be 39. See, for example, an early empirical study by Beebe and Zuengler (1983) on how accommodation influences second language speech production.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

expected to be important with respect to at least the early developmental stages of second-language varieties. In this respect, the impact of social distance on the acquisition process as formulated in Schumann’s (1978) acculturation model has already been taken into consideration for the analysis of World Englishes (see, for example, Schneider 2007: 42). Social distance is here defined as resulting from a learning situation in which learners do not associate themselves with the community of the target language, which in turn leads to limitation in input (Gass & Selinker 2008: 403). With respect to the development of PCEs, social distance also directly influences the rewritings of identity constructions on the side of the IDG strand. Even though the degree of acculturation varies from individual to individual, it can certainly be assumed that, depending on the historical and sociopolitical background of a territory (Schneider 2007: 42), social distance and lack of acculturation might also occur for whole speech communities. Concerning the second reason and closely connected to the early observation that second-language varieties constitute “a very substantial segment of the second-language learner population” (Sridhar & Sridhar 1986: 12), especially more recent research has pointed to conceptual and developmental similarities and overlaps between the two concepts. As the criteria catalogue above illustrates, the major criteria which distinguish second-language varieties and learner Englishes are of sociolinguistic nature. This clearly reinforces my earlier claim that it is not the internal systems in the learners which differ but the sociopolitical developmental forces operating on these internal systems. This assumption seems to find implicit recognition in the observation that both learner Englishes and secondlanguage varieties are non-native types of English (cf. Biewer 2011: 13; Bongartz & Mukherjee 2009: 7). They initially exhibit parallels in the acquisition context in that the acquisition and development of second-language varieties also starts out with learners learning/acquiring English. This either happens in informal direct interactional settings and/or via formal classroom instruction (cf. Biewer 2011: 13; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 156; Schneider 2007: 32; see also Kachru 1992a: 55), which is oriented towards an exonormative norm (cf. Biewer 2011: 13). Along these lines, a common starting point and similar linguistic strategies have been suggested for the early stages of language acquisition of both the early forms of later ESL varieties and learner Englishes, e.g. overgeneralization, transfer, simplification, and regularization (cf. Biewer 2011: 13, 28; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 156–67; Williams 1987; Winford 2003: 236, 243–5). The same line of thinking also underlies Selinker’s early claim that fossilization can also occur for whole speech communities, citing Indian English as a case in point (1972: 217). In making that claim, he implicitly suggests that the five major mechanisms he identified for the development of interlanguages, i.e. (1) “[l]anguage transfer”, (2) “[t]ransfer-of-training”, (3) “[s]trategies of second-language



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

learning”, (4) “[s]trategies of second-language communication”, and (5) “[o]vergeneralization of TL linguistic material” (Selinker 1972: 215, 216–7; cf. 3.4.1), also underlie the acquisition process in what is today one of the most famous secondlanguage varieties. The degree of influence of each of these mechanisms certainly depends on the type of language policy pursued by the British and thus the overall acquisitional scenario of a territory. In this way, transfer-of-training, for example, is certainly stronger in territories where English is mainly introduced in education (e.g. in what Gupta 1997 has labelled “multilingual scholastic English countries”) than in speaker communities where English is mainly acquired through natural, direct interaction (e.g. in what Gupta 1997 has labelled “monolingual ancestral English countries”). What all this suggests is that second-language varieties, too, start out as a bundle of interlanguage grammars on the side of the IDG strand (cf. Schneider 2007: 38). The “only” difference seems to be that, due to the impact of sociopolitical and sociolinguistic factors, these speech forms gradually grow into nativized, systematic speech systems of at least parts of a society (cf. the prototypical developmental route suggested by Schneider’s [2007] Dynamic Model). However, as already observed above (cf. 3.4.1), applying the notion of fossilization to second-language varieties is, at least from a present-day perspective, problematic (cf. Mollin 2007: 171; Sridhar & Sridhar 1986: 8; Winford 2003: 245), basically due to the same ideological reasons which ban a conflation of the notions “error” and “feature” (cf. 3.4.2.2). So with respect to India, it can be argued that language acquisition of the IDG strand first was subject to the typical mechanisms of language acquisition/learning and started out as EFL, characterized by different interlanguage grammars. This, however, no longer holds today. Even though many of the structural characteristics of Indian English have remained the same and originate from the initial interlanguage grammars (cf. Mollin 2007: 171; see also Williams [1987: 163] and Gupta [1994: 7] for a similar observation for what she calls “Singapore Colloquial English”), the linguistic repertoire became stabilized, systematized, and was culturally adapted. This led to nativization, rather than fossilization, due to the differences in the sociopolitical and sociolinguistic development of the territory. The observed continuity in feature quality of Indian English can be explained in terms of the acquisitional overlaps detected for the early development of second-language varieties and learner Englishes. This continuity in feature quality also ties in with the third observation, which renders the strict separation of SLA and World Englishes research (and the ESLEFL dichotomy) questionable, viz. the strong similarities in linguistic characteristics of second-language varieties and learner Englishes. As early as 1987, Williams pointed to several morphosyntactic characteristics shared by or at least similar in learner productions and second-language varieties (Williams 1987). More recent



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

research, mostly drawing on large-scale corpora, has reinforced this observation (see, amongst others, Nesselhauf ’s [2009] study on co-selection phenomena of second-language varieties and learner Englishes or Biewer’s [2011] study on the use of modal auxiliaries). What such studies basically suggest is that the static (ENL-)ESL-EFL distinction, and with it models and approaches building on it, should be reconsidered (cf. Hundt & Vogel 2011: 145). This claim is further reinforced by the finding of major differences between candidates typically assigned to one of the two categories (ESL or EFL). On the basis of an exemplary study into the use of the preposition into in the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE), Gilquin and Granger (2011), for example, show that different types of learner English display different degrees of proximity to British English, depending on extralinguistic factors such as type and degree of exposure to the target language (Gilquin & Granger 2011: 56, 74–5). On the basis of this finding, they convincingly argue that the concept “learner English” in itself is a complex one and opt for the term “learner Englishes” since this term more accurately reflects the diversity found amongst different types of learner English (Gilquin & Granger 2011: 74). In a similar vein, Biewer’s (2011) study reveals such heterogeneity for ESL varieties, which she explains in terms of different degrees of nativization and cultural adaptation of the variety under scrutiny (Biewer 2011: 28). What all this points to is that the supposed neat divide between ESL and EFL is a rather hazy one and that the (ENL-)ESL-EFL distinction should be considered a continuum (see also Biewer 2011: 28; Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011: 48; Gilquin & Granger 2011: 76). In such a continuum, for example, some ESL varieties are closer to ENL and others to what has typically been defined as EFL, with some kind of “prototypical ESL” as the point of reference (Biewer 2011: 28).40 Biewer, however, does not explicitly state which of the typical ESL varieties would constitute such a point of reference. Nonetheless, it seems plausible to assume that those varieties which can unambiguously be classified as phase 4 varieties in terms of Schneider’s Dynamic Model would fulfil a prototype function since they have passed through all stages and their particular criteria identified above and have consequently reached their developmental peak (cf. 3.4.2.6). 3.4.4 Drawing some theoretical conclusions What the above discussion has shown is that even though well-defined differences between second-language varieties and learner Englishes do exist, the dichotomic 40. Note the interesting similarity of this conceptualization to prototype theory as introduced by Rosch in the 1970s (e.g. Rosch 1973) in that elements are categorized into core and peripheral members at relative distance to a prototype.



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

distinction between the two types should not be considered as clear-cut as traditionally assumed. In reality, boundaries between the two concepts and thus between ESL and EFL are much more fuzzy. In order to grasp this fuzziness, the idea of an EFL-ESL-ENL continuum was already suggested by Platt et al. (1984: 22–3) as early as 1984 but apparently fell into oblivion or was not opportune at that time due to different priorities, for example reshaping the old English language monolith and hence establishing a new field of scientific investigation (cf. 3.2). The general idea has just been reverted to recently in all its bearings (see, for example, Biewer 2011: 28; Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011: 48; Gilquin & Granger 2011: 76). Figure 3.2 illustrates Platt et al.’s (1984: 22–3) early EFL-ESL-ENL continuum, in which a gradual change between the three categories is mainly attributed to an increase or decrease in functions. The implications from the Dynamic Model, however, suggest that it is not only the decrease in functions but the entirety of the sociopolitical, sociolinguistic forces which operate on the development of different Englishes. Building on this observation, I suggest that these parameters have to be considered equally determining forces within such an EFL-ESL-ENL continuum. On this account, I introduce a modification of Platt et al.’s (1984: 23) EFL-ESL-ENL continuum by explicitly tying in the development of identity constructions and the linguistic effects, namely the degree of nativization and subsequently institutionalization. As Figure 3.3 illustrates, this reconceptualization of the early EFL-ESL-ENL continuum also draws on the earlier observation that the emergence of secondlanguage varieties might not necessarily be linked to the aspect of (post)colonialism (cf. 3.2.4; see also Bonnici 2010: 32; Bruthiaux 2003: 165–7). Recent research confirms this assumption in that it illustrates that a colonial background does not necessarily and equally lead to the development of a fully-fledged, prototypical second-language variety (see, for example, Schneider’s case study of Tanzania [2007: 197–9] and the cases of Tswana English [cf. Gilquin & Granger 2011] and “Cyprus English” [cf. Bongartz & Buschfeld 201141]). Likewise, such countries as EFL

ESL

ENL

Decrease in functions Increase in functions EFL = English as a foreign language ESL = English as a second language ENL = English as a native language

Figure 3.2  Platt et al.’s EFL-ESL-ENL continuum (in Platt et al. 1984: 23) 41. Note again that this study presents some tentative results only which are revisited by means of a much larger database by the present analysis (cf. Chapters 5 and 6).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

[(post)colonial background]

EFL

decrease in functions/societal bilingualism error decrease in nativization decrease in institutionalization decrease of function as marker of local identity

ESL

ENL

increase in functions/societal bilingualism increase in nativization feature increase in institutionalization increase of function as marker of local identity

Figure 3.3  An adaptation of Platt et al.’s (1984: 23) EFL-ESL-ENL continuum

Thailand, the Netherlands, or the Scandinavian countries are cases in which the use of English goes far beyond its traditional EFL role. Even though these countries have no British colonial background at all, English is much more significant there than in other EFL countries (cf. Kirkpatrick 2008; McArthur 2003; Qiong 2004; the Special Eurobarometer 2006) and in some countries with colonial background like Pakistan or Bangladesh (cf. Görlach 2002a: 114; Mollin 2006: 46). With respect to my adaptation of Platt et al.’s (1984: 23) continuum, this implies that these countries are gradually proceeding along the continuum towards ESL status, even though they have no colonial past. By bracketing “[(post)colonial background]” in Figure 3.3, I indicate that the influence of the historical background, i.e. a postcolonial history, is indeed an important and often decisive element for the development of variety status but not necessarily a mandatory one. This, of course, brings with it some interesting perspectives for the scope of the Dynamic Model. Since it is possible to apply its fundamental parameters of investigation to a continuum which no longer presupposes a colonial past as a prerequisite for development towards ESL status, Schneider’s model indeed seems to be flexible enough to integrate forms of English which have not arisen from (post)colonial contexts. The only problematic aspect in that respect is that territories which have not been shaped by British colonization do not have the prototypical settler strand presupposed by the Dynamic Model. Whether and how this obstacle might be overcome can certainly not be answered on theoretical grounds only but has to be investigated in reference to empirical data. This would include the application of the Dynamic Model to case studies which do not have a (post) colonial background but nevertheless seem to be developing towards ESL status.



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

In today’s global and multimedial society, it is imaginable that other factors such as the Internet or the ever-increasing influence of US culture (e.g. films, TV series) might play a similar role to that of the settler strand. Of course, this would imply some modifications of the model, especially since the impact and nature of linguistic interaction and identity constructions would have to be fundamentally reconsidered. As far as the conception of the EFL-ESL-ENL continuum implies, a clear-cut distinction between learner Englishes and second-language varieties cannot always be made in practice. Acknowledging this idea consequently also requires the integration of SLA and World Englishes research since conceptual borderlines are no longer easily drawn. As Biewer (2011: 29) has already poignantly pointed out: “SLA alone is not the answer, but without SLA we will never have an answer”. What can be concluded here is that even if language acquisition in the first place is a psycholinguistic process (e.g. Gass & Selinker 2008: 279; Tarone 2000: 182), both fields should be open to the object of study of the other. In this respect, psycholinguists should increasingly ask “to what extent [...] psycholinguistic processes [are] affected by social context” (Tarone 2000: 182; see also Gass & Selinker 2008: 279) and how research into second-language varieties could contribute to such a question (Williams 1987). World Englishes research, on the other hand, should turn to the following two questions: (1) How do World Englishes research and SLA tie in with each other? and (2) How could World Englishes research benefit from what SLA theory has to offer, for example with respect to the psycholinguistic processes in the early phases of second-language varieties? (cf. Biewer 2011) The question of exactly what psycholinguistic processes operate within these early stages of second-language variety development and how they contribute to processes such as feature nativization can, however, hardly be approached on theoretical grounds only. It is neither my intention nor is it possible at this point to elaborate on this relationship since empirical and, if possible, longitudinal data (cf. Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 161) in the form of case studies is needed to investigate this issue conclusively (see, for example, Biewer’s 2011 study employing an SLA perspective on modal auxiliaries in second-language varieties). The explications above are intended to contribute to the discussion and broader perception of the observed paradigm gap and to encourage empirical research in the future. 3.5 Transfer and feature nativization: A crosslinguistic comparison of English and the Greek-Cypriot dialect As the preceding sections have shown, transfer from the first language is one of the few inherently psycholinguistic processes which seems widely accepted and which



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

is often considered in studies on World Englishes. Identifying the differences between English and the language(s) involved in the contact situation should therefore allow for forming hypotheses about contact effects and potential features of a newly researched type of English. The following section looks into some major crosslinguistic differences between British English (henceforth BrE) and the Greek-Cypriot dialect (henceforth GCD), which is a dialectal variant of Standard Modern Greek (henceforth SMG), the vernacular spoken in the Greek part of Cyprus, and thus the main source of linguistic transfer.42 I therefore illustrate most linguistic characteristics by using examples from GCD and do not explicitly differentiate between SMG and GCD since in nearly all of the structural properties focussed on below, the two dialects are typologically identical but different from BrE. I distinguish between SMG and GCD explicitly only in those cases in which the two dialects show major structural differences and only for reasons of completeness.43 Today EiCy/CyE is influenced by different varieties of English, especially BrE, American English, and Canadian English. As described in Section 2.4.1, this is the reason for a certain heterogeneity in norm orientation within the Greek-Cypriot speaker community. BrE, however, has always had the strongest influence in Cyprus as it has been the historically determined major input variety. It was the variety transported to the setting, was mainly involved in the contact scenario during colonial times, and still has the most vigorous influence in today’s Cyprus, amongst other things as the aspired to target norm in the education system (cf. 2.4.1). For that reason, BrE is used as the frame of reference for the following crosslinguistic comparison. 3.5.1 The nominal domain In the nominal domain, focus is put on two major typological differences between GCD/SMG and (Br)E.44 In contrast to (Br)E, GCD/SMG is a synthetic language with a rich inflectional system and thus allows finite verbs to have null subjects, especially if the referent has been previously introduced in the discourse. It is a 42. The contrastive analysis does not aim to point out every single detail that may be observed but focuses on major typological differences only. I consequently do not lay claim to completeness. 43. The label “GCD/SMG” used below indicates that the observed structural property is found in both varieties. For an overview of phonological, lexical, as well as morphosyntactic differences between the two dialects see, for example, Tsiplakou (2006). 44. In the following, the bracketed variant of the abbreviation (Br)E indicates that even though GCD/SMG is mostly compared to BrE, the observed structural property is also valid for other standard varieties of English, particularly American English.



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

so-called “null subject language”, in opposition to (Br)E, which does not allow for zero subjects. The following example from GCD illustrates this difference:45 (1) A: What did Sophia do? Ti ekamen i Sofia?(GCD) What did.3sg the Sophia B: She played tennis. Epeksen tenis. (GCD) Played.3sg tennis As illustrated in the example, GCD verbs inflect for person and number of the subject (also: tense, aspect, mood, and voice, but that is of minor importance here). In GCD, epeksen thus contains the morphologically encoded information ‘3rd person singular’ and since the subject has been identified in the antecedent question Ti ekamen i Sofia? (‘What did Sophia do?’), it can be left out in the subsequent discourse. In (Br)E, however, verbs generally do not inflect for person and number of the subject (except for 3rd person singular endings, of course) and played in example (1) does not contain sufficient information to allow for inferences on the subject. *Played tennis is consequently an ungrammatical sentence in (Br)E. This means that in (Br)E the subject has to be overt in all contexts and that zero subjects would lead to ungrammatical structures from a “standard” English perspective.46 Consider the following examples for further illustration of this difference: (2) I had a nice day today. I went to the cinema. Ixa mian orean mera simera. Epia sto sinema. (GCD) Had.1sg one nice day today. Went.1sg to-the cinema (3) You have already told me what you did yesterday. You went to the cinema. Ipes mu idi ti ekames extes. Epies sto sinema. (GCD) Told.2sg me already what did.2sg yesterday. Went.2sg to-the cinema 45. All English examples are my own if not stated otherwise. I would like to thank Natalia Pavlou, Evelina Leivada, and Christina Neuland for their linguistic clarifications on the structure of GCD and SMG and for providing me with translations and glosses of the examples. The examples are all presented in Latin script, so that those readers not familiar with the Greek writing system can at least compare them to the glosses to figure out the general structure of the examples. 46. Of course, I am aware of the fact that in colloquial (Br)E first person subjects can be dropped as well, as in, for example, A: “What are you going to do tomorrow?” B: “Don’t know”. The following analysis, however, follows a rather prescriptive grammar of (Br)E and does not consider colloquial alternatives, in order not to complicate the matter. This is also true for some of the later observations, especially with respect to the use of present perfect in BrE, which, due to an increasing influence of American English, is also not as fixed as the description might suggest.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

(4) I don’t want to leave the house today. It is raining. En thelo na fio pu to spiti simera. Vreshi. (GCD) neg want.1sg to leave.1sg from the house today. Raining.3sg (5) We had a nice day yesterday. We went to the cinema. Ixamen mian orea mera xtes. Epiamen sto sinema. (GCD) Had.1pl one nice day yesterday. Went.1pl to-the cinema In cases in which the speaker wants to put stress on the subject, pronouns are realized in GCD/SMG in the form of emphatic pronouns (cf. Holton et al. 2004: 117–8).47 Consider the following example:

(6) A: Peter told me that you met Harry.

B: No, I told you that. Oi, ego su to ipa tuto. (GCD) No, I you it told.1sg that Another crosslinguistic difference within the nominal domain occurs with respect to the article system. Like (Br)E, GCD/SMG makes use of two articles, the definite article o-i-to (masculine-feminine-neuter) and the indefinite article enas-mya-ena (masculine-feminine-neuter). The definite article in GCD/SMG mainly fulfils the same function as the definite article in (Br)E, i.e. to indicate definiteness and specificity. However, it inflects for gender, case, and number and is used in a much wider range of applications: 1. With proper names, i.e. persons and place names (7) I come from England. Ime pu tin Agglia. (GCD) Am.1sg from the.fem.acc.sg England (8) I saw Mary. Ida tin Maria. (GCD) Saw.1sg the.fem.acc.sg Mary 2. Before each noun in a sequence of definite nouns in coordination structures

47. Note that Holton et al. (2004) focus on a description of SMG and that in the crosslinguistic comparison scholarly reference to GCD is only partly possible as there is no comprehensive reference grammar for GCD. The grammatical information provided on GCD come from occasional scholarly contributions on GCD and native speakers who shared their linguistically informed ideas with me.



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

(9) I visited the church, (the) museum, and (the) bar you told me about.48 Episkeftika tin ekklisian, to musion, tzie to mbar pu mu ipes. (GCD) Visited.1sg the.fem.acc.sg church, the.neu.acc.sg museum and the.neu. acc.sg bar that me told.2sg 3. Preceding time designations, i.e. hours, weekdays, months, years, and before seasons and festivals (10) I met him on Saturday. Ida ton to Savato. (GCD) Saw.1sg him the.neu.acc.sg Saturday (11) I am going to visit you in August. Enna se episkefto ton Avguston. (GCD) fut cl.acc.2sg visit.1sg the.masc.acc.sg August (12) Susan was born in 1989. I Suzan egenithike to 1989. (GCD) The.fem.nom.sg Suzan born.3sg the.neu.acc.sg 1989 (13) Tom loves Christmas. O Tom agapa ta Xristugenna. (GCD) The.masc.nom.sg Tom loves.3sg the.neu.acc.pl Christmas 4. Preceding abstract nouns, nouns denoting substances, and plural nouns and adjectives with generic interpretations (14) Freedom is important for all creatures. I eleftheria en simantiki gia ula ta plasmata. (GCD) The.fem.nom.sg freedom is.3sg important for all the.neu.acc.pl creatures (15) Iron is an important nutrient. To sidiro en simantiki threptiki usia. (GCD) The.neu.nom.sg iron is.3sg important nutritive substance (16) Italians love pasta. I Itali latrevun ta makaronia. (GCD) The.masc.nom.pl Italians love.3pl the.neu.acc.pl pasta (17) Young girls love horses. I mitsies korues agapun ta aloga. (GCD) The.fem.nom.pl young girls love.3pl the.neu.acc.pl horses

48. It has to be noted here that this structure is of course not ungrammatical in (Br)E. The difference lies in the fact that GCD/SMG requires the use of the definite article and does not leave its realization to the speaker. The brackets indicate this choice in (Br)E.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

5. With nouns which are additionally modified by a subsequent possessive pronoun, but only when the noun denotes a specific item (18) This is my horse. Tuto en to alogo mu. (GCD) This is.3sg the.neu.nom.sg horse poss.1sg 6. With nouns which are additionally modified by a demonstrative (19) I love this colour. Agapo afto to xroma. (GCD) Love.1sg this the.neu.acc.sg colour (20) Can you see that guy over there? Mboris na dis tzinon ton tipo tziame? (GCD) Can.2sg to see.2sg that the.masc.acc.sg guy there 7. With nouns which are additionally modified by the quantifiers ulli-ulles-ulla GCD / oli-oles-ola SMG (‘all’/‘whole’), olokliros-olokliri-olokliro (‘all’/‘whole’) (GCD/SMG) (21) The whole of Polemithkia went to the feast. Ula ta Polemithkia epiasin sto panairin. (GCD) All the.neu.nom.pl Polemithkia went.3pl to-the feast (22) I explored all of England. Egirisa ullin tin Agglia. (GCD) Explored.1sg all the.fem.acc.sg England 8. Before expressions of rate (where [Br]E uses an indefinite determiner) (23) I try to jog an hour a day. Prospatho na kamno tzoking mian oran tin imera. (GCD) Try.1sg to do.1sg jogging one hour the.fem.acc.sg day (cf. Holton et al. 2004: 77–81; examples are my own). As is the case for (Br)E, the indefinite article in GCD/SMG is limited to singular nouns. To indicate indefiniteness with plural constructions, bare nouns are used. In other words, the indefinite article is used in a similar way in both languages. A typological difference, however, is that GCD/SMG indefinite articles inflect for gender and case and that the indefinite article enas-mia-ena (masculine, feminine, neuter) conflates in form with the numeral one, which also shows as enas-mia-ena. Beyond that, it can be used as a pronoun similar to someone. The following examples illustrate its use:



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

(24) You are allowed to ask one question each. Dikeuste na rotisete mian erotisi o kathenas. (GCD) Allowed.2pl to ask.2pl one.fem.acc.sg question the each (25) Someone came by and asked for you. Eperasen enas tzie ezitisen se. (GCD) Came-by.3sg someone.nom and asked for.2sg cl.acc.sg The main difference in use of the indefinite article between (Br)E and GCD/SMG again lies in the range of contexts in which it is used. This time, the use of articles in GCD/SMG is more restricted than in (Br)E. GCD/SMG does not necessarily use an article in many of the syntactic positions where (Br)E obligatorily requires an article. The matter is, however, somewhat complex since the realization of the GCD/SMG article depends on the complexity of the determiner phrase (henceforth DP), e.g. whether it is a simple DP or a premodified structure. The following examples indicate this difference with respect to the use of indefinite enas-mia-ena in predicative DPs. In example (26), the article has to be omitted, in example (27), it is optional for the speaker to include or omit the indefinite article since the structure is premodified by poli kalos (‘very good’). (26) My father is a pilot. O papas mu en pilotos. (GCD) The father poss.1sg is.3sg pilot.masc.nom.sg (27) My father is a very good pilot. O papas mu en (enas) pola kalos pilotos. (GCD) The father poss.1sg is.3sg (a) very good pilot.masc.nom.sg This is also true for article use in other syntactic structures. Nevertheless, the following examples only illustrate the use of zero indefinite articles in simple DPs of different syntactic functions: 1. In predicative DPs after forms of ime (‘to be’) and ginume (GCD) / ginome (SMG) (‘to become’) (28) Susan became a nurse. I Suzan egine nosokoma. (GCD) The Suzan became.3sg nurse.fem.nom.sg 2. In structures involving sa(n)49 (comparative ‘like’)

49. The parentheses indicate that (n) is optionally used, depending on whether the next word starts with a vowel or a consonant.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

(29) She sings like a nightingale. Traguda sa nixtopuli. (GCD) Sings.3sg like nightingale.neu.acc.sg 3. With indefinite and unspecific object nouns (especially in interrogative, negative, and conditional sentences) (30) Did John buy a pullover? Egorasen o Yannis pullover? (GCD) Bought.3sg the John pullover.neu.acc.sg (31) Peter doesn’t have a clue. O Petris en eshi idea. (GCD) The Peter neg has.3sg idea.fem.acc.sg (32) If Mary found a purse in the street, she would give it back. An i Maria evriske tsenda sto dromo, enna tin ediusen piso. (GCD) If the Mary found.3sg bag.fem.acc.sg to-the street, fut it.cl.fem.acc.sg give.3sg back 4. With indefinite nouns in constructions such as (33) Is there a child that does not eat candy? Eshi moro pu en troi glika? (GCD) Has.3sg baby.neu.acc.sg that neg eat.3sg candies 5. In contexts where (Br)E uses some (34) I gave some money to charity. Edoka xrimata se filanthropia. (GCD) Gave.1sg money.neu.acc.pl to charity (cf. Holton et al. 2004: 81–3; examples are my own). 3.5.2 The verbal domain The observation made above that GCD/SMG is a synthetic language, whereas (Br)E is more of an analytic language, also accounts for some major differences in the verb phrase. In GCD/SMG, tense, aspect, voice, and mood are mainly expressed by morphological particles that are attached to the verb and not by the use of auxiliary verbs as is the case in (Br)E (for the exception of exo (‘have’) in SMG, see below). The particle enna (GCD; SMG: tha), for example, combines with the respective tense/aspect form to build the different future tenses and conditionals. Consider the following examples for illustration:



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

(35) Tom would go to school every day if he wasn’t lazy. O Tom enna epiene sholio kathe mera, an den itan tembelis. (GCD) The Tom fut go.3sg school every day, if not is.3sg lazy (36) Tom will go to school. (Some time in the future) O Tom enna pai sholio. (GCD) The Tom fut go.3sg school An exception to that rule is the auxiliary exo (‘have’), which in SMG is used to form the present perfect as in: (37)

She has eaten four pieces of cake since 11 o’clock. Exi fai tessera komatia keik apo tis 11. (SMG) Has.3sg eaten four pieces cake from the 11 Efaen tesera komathkia keik pu tis 11. (GCD) Ate.3sg four pieces cake from the 11

(for further details see Holton et al. 2004: 118–24; examples are my own). However, as the example in (37) also shows, this is only true for SMG. GCD differs in that it uses exo (‘have’) in very rare cases only. Following Huddleston (2002), I here differentiate between four readings of the present perfect to illustrate the difference between BrE, GCD, and SMG: the continuative perfect (also universal perfect [cf. Portner 2003: 460]), the experiential perfect (also existential perfect), the resultative perfect, and the perfect of recent past (Huddleston 2002: 141–6; see also Iatridou et al. 2001: 191–2).50 The continuative perfect can broadly be defined as follows: “[time referred to] begins before but extends forward to [time of orientation]” (Huddleston 2002: 141). In contrast to BrE, neither SMG nor GCD expresses this meaning by using present perfect morphology but uses simple present instead (cf. Karpava & Agouraki fc. on the continuative perfect in SMG).51 Consider the following example from GCD for illustration: 50. Note that the present perfect in Greek can be split up into Present Perfect A and Present Perfect B. Type A shows as exo ‘have’ + perfective participle. Type B is expressed by exo ‘have’ + adjectival participle with transitive verbs or ime ‘be’ + adjectival participle with intransitive verbs. The experiential or resultative readings of the present perfect can be realized in GCD and SMG by one or both of these types or by past tense, respectively (cf. Karpava 2008: 4; Karpava & Agouraki fc.). In the following, I do not differentiate between these two types since I am merely interested in whether GCD/SMG employs present perfect at all and not in the different forms the realization may take (but see the studies by Karpava 2008 and Karpava & Agouraki fc. for such a differentiation). 51. As Karpava and Agouraki (fc.) point out “[t]his does not mean, however, that SMG lacks the universal reading” it is just “not associated with the perfect in SMG” and is expressed by other means, i.e. present tense. According to them, this is also true for the other types of reading and other languages “which lack the perfect” (Karpava & Agouraki fc.).



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

(38) John has been studying since last night. En pou ta pses pou thkiavazi o Yannis. (GCD) Is.3sg since the last night that reads.3sg the John (example taken from Fuhrmann 2008). When looking into the GCD/SMG realization of the perfect of recent past (sometimes also referred to as the “hot news perfect” [e.g. Portner 2003: 460; cf. Huddleston 2002: 145]), which indicates that “a past situation [is] connected with now” (Huddleston 2002: 145), a more complex picture emerges. Karpava and Agouraki (fc.) argue that SMG lacks this type of reading, the SMG native speaker example in (39), however, illustrates that the perfect of recent past can be realized in terms of present perfect morphology. This seems to suggest that in fact both realizations are possible. On the contrary, GCD only employs past tense morphology: (39)

Susan has just finished her homework. I Susan molis eteliosen to tkyavasma tis. (GCD) The Susan just finished.3sg the reading her I Susan exi molis teliosi to diavasma tis. (SMG) The Susan has.3sg just finished the reading her

As for the experiential perfect, which “is concerned with the occurrence of situations within the time-span up to now” (Huddleston 2002: 143), and the resultative perfect, which indicates that “[a] situation is one that inherently involves a specific change of state” (Huddleston 2002: 145), SMG can realize both in terms of present perfect morphology, even though past tense is a possible alternative. GCD, however, consistently uses past tense to express the experiential reading (cf. Karpava 2008: 4; Karpava & Agouraki fc.): (40)

Have you ever drunk wine? Exis pçi pote krasi? (SMG)52 Have.2sg drink ever wine Ipces potte krasin? (GCD) Drank.2sg ever wine

(example taken from Fuhrmann 2008). The resultative reading in GCD can be expressed by both present perfect or past tense morphology (cf. Karpava 2008: 4; Karpava & Agouraki fc.), even though nowadays the past tense appears to be the preferred option (cf. Karpava & Agouraki fc.):53 52. Note, however, that speakers of SMG may also use simple past in everyday conversation to express the same meaning, as in: Ipçes pote krasi? (SMG) / Drank.2SG ever wine. 53. This is also true for SMG (cf. Karpava & Agouraki fc.).



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

(41)

As early as yesterday, I finished washing the clothes. (They are ready now.) Exo ta plimmena ta ruxa pou ta htes. (GCD) Have.1sg cl.neu.acc.pl washed the clothes since the yesterday Ta exo plimena ta ruxa apo xtes. (SMG) cl.neu.acc.pl have.1sg washed the clothes since yesterday

(42)

They have changed the car since last December. Alaksan aftokinito pu ton Dhekevrin. (GCD) Changed.3pl car since the December Exun alaksi aftokinito apo ton Dekemvri. (SMG)54 Have.3pl changed car since the December

(examples taken from Fuhrmann 2008). A further difference between the realization of the present perfect in BrE and GCD is due to a different usage of tense in combination with certain adverbs. Some of the adverbs indicating the experiential reading and hence requiring the use of past tense in GCD semantically overlap with (Br)E adverbs which normally trigger the use of the present perfect in BrE (e.g. potte [‘ever’], os tora [‘up to now’]; cf. Karpava 2008: 4; Karpava & Agouraki fc.; see also Fuhrmann 2008). Moreover, both GCD and SMG can use the present perfect to refer to contexts where BrE typically requires the use of simple past because the action is strictly speaking completed (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 190), as illustrated in example (41) (cf. Holton et al. 2004: 121).55 Summing up, in contrast to BrE, the potential use of present perfect morphology in GCD is limited to expressing the result reading, but even here this is only one of two possible options. In addition to that, in contexts in which GCD employs present perfect morphology, BrE requires the use of simple past. All in all, GCD shows a strong bias towards using past tense morphology or employs simple present verb forms to express that an event began in the past but continues into the present. In addition to this difference, which mainly applies for GCD, both GCD and SMG show further major differences from (Br)E in the use of the tense/aspect system. In terms of morphological marking, GCD/SMG does not differentiate between present progressive and present simple. A single simple present form expresses both continuous and habitual action. Consider the following examples for illustration: 54. Here, too, speakers of SMG may also use simple past in everyday conversation: Alaksan aftokinito apo ton Dekemvri. (SMG) / Changed.3PL car since the December. 55. Note that there are also competing views that maintain that the use of present perfect is not as rare in GCD as often claimed. Taking up this discussion would, however, go beyond the scope of this study.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

(43) Susan sleeps six hours every night. I Suzan tzimate eksi ores kathe nixta. (GCD) The Suzan sleeps.3sg six hours every night (44) Susan is sleeping right now. I Suzan tzimate tora. (GCD) The Suzan is sleeping.3sg now The same is true for the use of the imperfective past (imperfect), which likewise refers to both habitual and continuous actions and processes in the past. This is illustrated in the following examples: (45) Last month Susan slept eight hours every night. Ton perasmeno mina, i Suzan etzimatun oxto ores kathe nixta. (GCD) The last month, the Suzan slept.3sg eight hours every night (46) When I called Susan two weeks ago, she was sleeping. Otan etilefonisa tis Suzan prin thkyo vdomades, etzimatun. (GCD) When called.1sg the Suzan before two weeks, was sleeping.3SG (cf. Holton et al. 2004: 120–2; examples are my own). Another important difference between (Br)E and GCD/SMG pertaining to the verbal domain is the realization of direct objects after certain verb types. Both (Br)E and GCD/SMG employ intransitive as well as transitive verb forms, but there are differences in the realization of the objects. Whereas in (Br)E transitive verbs take either full DPs or overt pronouns as direct objects, direct objects in GCD/SMG either occur as full DPs, emphatic pronouns, or weak pronouns (here: clitics). The latter usually occur immediately in front of the verb (cf. Holton et al. 2004: 113–4; cf. example 47). The distribution of these realizations mainly depends on whether the object is contextually familiar to the interlocutors. If this applies, the pre-verbal clitic is normally used.56 Full DPs or emphatic pronouns generally express new information or put emphasis on the utterance. They follow the verb and occupy the same position as objects in (Br)E transitive verb constructions. Consider example (48) for illustration: (47) I can’t see her, but I can see him. En mboro na tin do, ala mboro na ton do. (GCD) Not can.1sg to cl.fem.acc.sg see.1sg, but can.1sg to cl.masc.acc.sg see.1sg (48) I saw a woman. Ida mian gineka. (GCD) Saw.1sg one.fem.acc.sg woman 56. In some syntactic environments, they can also follow the verb (e.g. in imperatives).



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

The verb areso (‘like’) employs an even different pattern when it comes to expressing information which is already known to both interlocutors. Instead of realizing the object in form of a pre-verbal clitic, it allows for a zero constituent. In this case, the morphological ending of the verb areso provides information on person and number. The following example visualizes this structure: (49)

Do you like the English language? Areski su i agliki glosa? (GCD) Like.3sg you the English language? Yes, I like it. Ne, areski mu. (GCD) Yes, like.3sg me

3.5.3 Prepositions Alongside these major crosslinguistic differences in the nominal and in the verbal domain, I would like to point to two further differences in the use of prepositions. In (Br)E, GCD, and SMG, prepositions normally immediately precede DPs “in order to indicate the relation of this phrase to some other phrase” (Holton et al. 2004: 181). Note, however, that English employs an exception to this rule with respect to the postnominal use of ago in the time reference pattern X days/weeks/ months/years ago.57 GCD/SMG does not allow for such an exceptional structure and uses the preposition prin (‘before’) instead: (50) I went to England three years ago. Epia Agglia prin tria xronia. (GCD) Went.1sg England.fem.acc.sg before.P 3 years.fem.acc.pl Another difference between (Br)E and GCD/SMG occurs with respect to the semantic distribution of prepositions in that, for example, the (Br)E prepositions to, at, or in generally coincide with the GCD/SMG preposition se. This is also true for some other prepositions. The following list illustrates this and gives the main prepositions of GCD/SMG and their (Br)E equivalents:

57. I here follow Mittwoch et al.’s categorization of ago as head preposition (Mittwoch et al. 2002: 696–7). Ago, however, is also frequently listed as an adverb/adjective (see, for example, the online versions of the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, TheFreeDictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary). Quirk et al. (1985: 688) also classify it as postposed adverb but under the general heading “[p]repositions and prepositional phrases”, which clearly reflects its debatable status as either a preposition or a postposed adverb.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English



apo (SMG)/pu (GCD) ya (SMG/GCD) mexri, os (SMG/GCD) me (SMG/GCD) sa(n) (SMG/GCD) se (SMG/GCD) xoris (SMG/GCD), dixos (SMG)/dixa (GCD)

– – – – – –

from, since, by, than for, about until, up to with like to, at, in

–

without

(adapted from Holton et al. 2004: 181; for further details on the use of prepositions see Holton et al. 2004: 181–9). As the crosslinguistic analysis has pointed out, there are some major structural differences between (Br)E and GCD/SMG on the one hand and an important difference between GCD and SMG with respect to the realization of perfect meaning on the other. On the basis of these observations, I develop some linguistic hypotheses on potentially nativized characteristics of EiCy/CyE in the next section, again drawing on the assumption that language contact and, more precisely, L1 transfer might lead to the emergence of new structures. In what follows, I restrict myself to some exemplary aspects, all of which have been attested as characteristics of interlanguage grammars and second-language varieties. 3.5.4 Hypotheses The following hypotheses are motivated by the typological differences between English and GCD/SMG as observed above. The general prediction of the hypotheses is that the observed differences lead to structural transfer from L1 GCD to L2 English and that in the (post)colonial contact situation, they have developed into nativized features of EiCy/CyE. The hypotheses, abbreviated to H1–6, read as follows: H1: E  iCy/CyE speakers use zero subjects with respect to both referential and expletive subject pronouns. (This occurs as a transfer phenomenon from GCD, which allows for zero subjects.) H2: EiCy/CyE speakers display differences from native speakers of (Br)E in the use of definite and indefinite articles in the following contexts: H2–a: They use definite articles to modify proper nouns. H2–b: They omit indefinite articles in direct objects. If indefinite articles are not omitted, EiCy/CyE speakers use the numeral one instead. H2–c: They omit indefinite articles in predicative DPs, i.e. after forms of copula be. If indefinite articles are not omitted, EiCy/CyE speakers use the numeral one instead.



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

H2–d: They omit indefinite articles with comparative like + DP structures. If indefinite articles are not omitted, EiCy/CyE speakers use the numeral one instead. (This occurs as a transfer phenomenon from GCD, i.e. as a result of the observed differences in article use between [Br]E and GCD.) H3: EiCy/CyE speakers use the will-future to express hypothetical contexts. (This occurs as a transfer phenomenon from GCD, which uses the future particle to build conditional structures.) H4: EiCy/CyE speakers use simple past or simple present to express perfect meaning. (This occurs as a transfer phenomenon from GCD, which mostly employs simple past and simple present to express that an action started in the past but still continues.) H5: EiCy/CyE speakers prefer the time reference pattern before + X days/weeks/ months/years over (Br)E X days/weeks/months/years + ago. (This occurs due to a difference in preposition use and in particular the fact that GCD does not allow for the kind of post position used in (Br)E.) H6: EiCy/CyE speakers leave out object pronouns in (Br)E transitive verb constructions whenever the object is contextually familiar to the interlocutors. This is especially true for like. (This occurs as a transfer phenomenon from GCD, which in those cases realizes the object as clitic, most often preceding the verb; the Greek verb areso (‘like’) even allows for zero constituents in these contexts.) The quantitative analysis in Chapter 6 not only tests the validity of these hypotheses, i.e. whether nativization has taken place for these potential EiCy/CyE structures. It also takes into account the general expectation that the 1974 division of the island has led to a change in the sociolinguistic context and the use of English in Cyprus by stratifying the results in accordance with the variable age. The underlying idea here is that the gradual decline in use and functions of English observed in Section 2.4 must have been accompanied by major changes in the acquisition context in Cyprus. Cypriots born before 1950 acquired English through formal classroom instruction on the one hand but, more importantly, also in a natural immersive way through direct contact with British military personnel, civil servants, merchants etc. on the other. With the decline in use and functions after 1974, the accessibility of English in everyday life has also been decreasing, which has gradually reduced the acquisition of English to schooling. Therefore, younger Cypriots predominantly learn English through formal instruction. In my sample, I therefore identify three generational groups according to shared acquisition contexts:



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

1. Group 1: born before 1950 (roughly corresponding to an age of 60+; includes those Greek Cypriots who mostly acquired English in a natural fashion, i.e. by direct interaction with the British, and used it on a more regular basis before the post-1974 decline in use and functions) 2. Group 2: 30–60 (middle-aged Greek Cypriots who constitute the transitory group; depending on their age, they might have experienced more natural language acquisition similar to group 1; for the younger part of this group, it is more likely that they learned English through formal schooling mainly) 3. Group 3: < 30 (young Greek Cypriots who grew up when the general decline of use and functions of the English language had already set in and who therefore mainly learned English through formal language instruction; for further details on the participants of this study see 4.2.2 and Appendix IV). These observations, together with the question whether structural nativization took place in Cyprus, led to the following expectation: the participants’ age strongly influences language use, i.e. the use of EiCy/CyE features. In this respect, group 1 (oldest group) participants show a strong tendency to use nativized EiCy/CyE features. Due to the change of the sociolinguistic background and the influence of BrE oriented language instruction, group 3 (young group) participants use features to a lesser extent, if at all. Group 2 (middle-aged group) participants show a decrease in feature use with decreasing age, also due to the decline in use and functions of the English language. 3.6 Summary Summing up, this chapter has developed the theoretical framework for the remainder of this monograph. Despite the ever growing interest in the field of English varieties since the 1980s, Section 3.3 has revealed that the linguistic situation in Cyprus has so far been widely neglected by World Englishes research. The few mentions or studies which try to place EiCy/CyE are divided over its variety status and suggest either ESL or EFL status for EiCy/CyE today. This observation has motivated a closer look into the traditional ESL-EFL dichotomy, which turned out to be obsolete. It consequently requires a reconceptualization, which I have approached in form of a modified version of Platt et al.’s. early EFL-ESL-ENL continuum. By this means, the discussion has also reinforced the emerging claim that an integration of SLA theory and World Englishes research is inevitable. In addition to that, the review of the literature on EiCy/CyE has revealed that particularly an investigation of linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE is long overdue. To account for this neglect, the linguistic hypotheses developed on the basis



Chapter 3.  World Englishes research and the case of Cyprus 

of a crosslinguistic comparison of (Br)E and GCD/SMG in 3.5.4 predict some potentially nativized linguistic features of EiCy/CyE. They are later on revisited in light of the results of the quantitative feature analysis (cf. 6.3) to evaluate whether or not EiCy/CyE has undergone structural nativization. In addition to that, the general expectation to find intergenerational differences in language use calls for a stratification of the results in accordance with the variable age. Whether manifestations of feature use indeed depend on the speakers’ age is also accounted for by the quantitative feature analysis.

chapter 4

Empirical study Methodology

4.1 Introduction As pointed out earlier, this study follows an integrative approach which combines methodological aspects from psycholinguistic research (i.e. hypotheses testing1) and studies on World Englishes. With respect to the latter, I followed the corpus linguistic approach, which is widely pursued in recent World Englishes research (see, for example, the increasing number of ICE corpora [cf. the International Corpus of English website]). Since no such corpus was available for Cyprus, I compiled a corpus of speech data from the Greek part of Cyprus. The present chapter presents the methodology pursued for data collection and compilation of the CEDAR (Cyprus English Data Analysis and Research) corpus as well as for preparing the interviews for the later analysis of linguistic features (cf. Chapters 5 and 6), i.e. the transcription procedure. 4.2 CEDAR (Cyprus English Data Analysis and Research) 4.2.1 The interviews: Data collection For this first approach to the variety status of EiCy/CyE, I focus on spoken data only, assuming “that oral performance is less constrained and less conservative than written styles, so this is where innovations [i.e. characteristic features] are most likely to surface” (Schneider 2004: 247). Since there was no corpus of EiCy/CyE available, I assembled the CEDAR corpus of oral sociolinguistic

1. Note, however, that I only test for linguistic performance here. Psycholinguistic experiments to test competence, e.g. by means of grammaticality judgment tasks, were excluded in this study since World Englishes research refrains from investigations of non-convergence patterns due to the differences in research objectives.



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

interviews2 from direct informal conversations at the University of Cologne between July 2007 and September 2009.3 The corpus constitutes the empirical basis for the qualitative and quantitative data analyses of potential EiCy/CyE features (cf. Chapters 5 and 6) and contains transcribed data sets of 137 speakers, adding up to approximately 380,000 words.4 The interviews were all collected in the Greek part of Cyprus, mainly in the urban areas of Larnaca and Nicosia and the surrounding rural regions.5 Bearing in mind that it is difficult to elicit informal, natural, and spontaneous speech data in a “formal linguistic interview, which normally evokes careful speech only” (Labov 20066: 423; see also Labov 1968: 241), data collection basically followed the Labovian considerations and principles for designing and conducting sociolinguistic interviews to counteract these difficulties (e.g. Labov 1968, 1972a, 1984, 2006; see also Tagliamonte 2006: 37–49 for an overview). Especially relevant here is how to meet what Labov refers to as the “Observer’s Paradox” (e.g. Labov 1972a: 113, 1972b: 209, 2006: 86), i.e. the challenge “to observe how people speak when they are not being observed” even though they are well aware of being observed (Labov 2006: 86). Therefore, the underlying aim of the data collection process was to trigger speech data as spontaneous, authentic, and most natural in production as possible, which goes hand in hand with reducing monitoring, i.e. directing away the participants’ attention from speech form and towards the content of the conversation as much as possible (cf. Labov 1972a: 112). To that end, the data come from informal direct conversations of approximately 20 to 60 minutes length between a researcher and one (in some cases two)7 Greek 2. I use the term ‘sociolinguistic interview’ here for reasons of consistency with the terminology employed in, for example, Labov (1984: 32) and other studies into sociolinguistic variation. However, I agree with Tagliamonte, who points out the fact that “a sociolinguistic interview should be anything but an ‘interview’” (Tagliamonte 2006: 37). 3. I collected most of the interview data myself, but I would like to thank Christiane M. Bongartz, Christiane Schöneberger, Pascale Schemensky, and Elena Xeni for their help and support in the data collection process, i.e. for recruiting participants and conducting some of the interviews. 4. These are rough estimates, which, of course, only entail the interviewees’ shares in the conversations. 5. For an explanation of the restriction to the Greek part of the island, see the introduction to this monograph. 6. This is an extended and updated second edition of Labov’s (1966) groundbreaking sociolinguistic study The Social Stratification of English in New York City. 7. Whenever the participants uttered the wish to be interviewed in pairs, most often because they felt insecure or excited in the beginning, we acceded to the request to ease the situation for the informants.



Chapter 4.  Empirical study 

Cypriots who are currently living in Cyprus or have at least spent the decisive years of their acquisition process of English on the island. Following Labov (1984: 33–7), the interview questions were arranged in different thematic modules which inquired into various topics. Most of Labov’s questions were designed to elicit personal experiences, stories, and opinions, having the interviewees recall their memories, provoking their emotions, and through this engaging them in content-focussed emotional storytelling. By this procedure, the “Observer’s Paradox” can be overcome and the vernacular (here: the informant’s natural, everyday speech) can be approached (cf. Labov 1984: 32–3; see also Tagliamonte 2006: 38). Labov’s original set of questions (Labov 1973, cited in Tagliamonte 2006: 39–40) has widely been proven effective for triggering speech from a variety of different speakers across speech communities and has been used and modified by other researchers (e.g. Poplack & Tagliamonte 1991 in their study on African Nova Scotian English; cf. Tagliamonte 2006: 39–40). Hence, the topics regularly found in sociolinguistic interviews include family matters, marriage proposals, dating, hobbies, aspirations/future plans, fights, topics of local interest, and also any topic at hand which triggers “moral indignation” (Labov 1984: 33–5). For the present study, Labov’s question set has been adapted to fit the GreekCypriot context, so as to cover, for example, Cyprus-specific historical events (e.g. war-time experiences and memories thereof in the aftermath of the Turkish invasion). I designed two slightly different interview guidelines, one for interviews conducted with adults and the other for interviewing school children, assuming that these two groups have different horizons of experience (cf. Appendices II.1 and II.2 for these guidelines). These were, however, only rough guidelines for the interviewer and by no means used as a rigid precept for the course of the conversation since “ideally the interviewer plays a part in the conversation which approaches that of any other participant: volunteering experience, responding to new issues, and following the subject’s main interests and ideas wherever they go” (Labov 1984: 36–7). Nevertheless, the interviewers in this study always tried at least to touch on past experiences, future plans, and current hobbies and interests to retrieve a range of grammatical structures, in particular those predicted by the hypotheses (cf. 3.5.4) and investigated as potential EiCy/CyE features in Chapter 6. Other modules aimed at triggering conditionals through creating hypothetical contexts such as “What would you do if you won the lottery?” or “Imagine you were working for a Cypriot travel agency. What would you tell people about Cyprus to attract them as tourists?” Thereby, I broadly followed the elicitation technique often used in the field to “getting the informant [...] to produce data incorporating particular features in which the linguist is interested at that moment” (Corder 1981: 69). However, the interviews were not restricted to questions eliciting the linguistic structures investigated in the quantitative analysis (cf. Chapter 6) but



English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

also aimed at evoking any kind of potential structure in the linguistic repertoire of EiCy/CyE for the qualitative screening of characteristics (cf. Chapter 5). Some of the questions were obligatorily asked and the original wording of the interview guidelines was maintained (marked by an asterisk, see Appendices II.1 and II.2) to achieve comparability between the interviews. Along with the interviews, which also touched on demographic issues of the participants, I gathered a predefined set of background data in the form of a supplementary questionnaire (cf. Appendix III), which provided the basis for participant selection from the overall corpus. 4.2.2 Participants To counteract what Labov formulated as “a residual and almost insoluble problem – the rarity of many grammatical forms” (Labov 1972a: 117), I decided in favour of including a comparably large number of speakers in my study, aiming at a sample as representative of the overall population as possible. I chose 90 out of the total of 137 participants in the CEDAR corpus according to the five sociolinguistic variables (1) age, (2) sex, (3) education (monolingual Greek vs. bilingual GreekEnglish), (4) occupation (collegiate vs. non-collegiate), and (5) time spent in an L1 English country. Participants were chosen by applying the method of stratified random sampling. According to this method, I predefined certain subgroups of the population, taking into consideration the five secondary variables introduced above (e.g. male, below 30, monolingual Greek education, collegiate profession, time spent in L1 English country) to ensure that the data sample represents the major subgroups of the population. Following Biber (1993), I additionally assume that “stratified samples are almost always more representative than non-stratified samples (and they are never less representative)” (Biber 1993: 244). In addition, this technique helps to organize the sampling procedure and to counteract the danger of randomly leaving out members of a smaller population group which might be of interest for the study in question (Biber 1993: 244; see also McEnery et al. 2006: 20). Most interviewees were recruited by making use of the widely adopted friendof-a-friend approach because if a stranger is identified as a friend of a friend, he may easily be drawn into the network’s mesh of exchange and obligation relationships. His chances of observing and participating in prolonged interaction will then be considerably increased. (Milroy 1980: 53; see also Milroy 1987: 66)

Unlike Lesley Milroy in her 1980 Belfast study, I was normally personally introduced to potentially new interview partners by the respective “‘link’ contact”



Chapter 4.  Empirical study 

(Milroy 1980: 53) or interviews had been prearranged by him/her.8 I was happy to encounter mediators from different age groups and with different social backgrounds, which further ensured that the data acquired come from different subgroups of the population. Other participants were spontaneously and randomly approached in the street and were afterwards allocated to one of the predefined groups. The only exclusion criteria for participation and what I asked everybody beforehand was whether people were of genuine Greek-Cypriot origin and able to speak English on a level that ensured successful communication with the interviewer. This last criterion, however, was met in most of the cases since Greek-English bilingualism is wide-spread on the island, as has been shown in Chapter 2. What seems of special importance for stratifying the sample is the participants’ age since, due to the general decline in use and functions of EiCy/CyE, the acquisitional context has been shifting from more natural acquisition during the time of the occupation and up to 1974 to mainly classroom based instruction in recent years. As outlined in Section 3.5.4, I identify three generational groups according to shared language acquisition contexts in my data sample. Group 1 (participants 61–90) includes those participants who were born prior to 1950 and to a large extent acquired English in regular and direct interaction with the British colonizers. Group 3 (participants 1–30) consists of high school and university students as well as young professionals between 14 and 30 years of age and group 2 (participants 31–60) includes those informants between 31 and 59 years of age. The older participants in this group possibly acquired English in a similar way to group 1, whereas the younger participants learned English in a more instructioncentred way. Groups 2 and 3 of the informants include an equal share of 15 male and 15 female participants, respectively. Group 1, however, is made up of 22 male but only eight female informants. This is due to the fact that many Greek-Cypriot women in the older generation are a lot shyer and more bound to their homes than the men, who spend their afternoons in public places like cafes, clubs, or church facilities. The women I was able to approach in public often claimed that they spoke no or only a little English and therefore did not want to participate in the study. This can possibly be ascribed to the fact that even back in colonial times, when many of the male Cypriots worked in government or other official positions and were in regular contact with British administrative personnel, women were housewives and hence were not engaged in daily business with the colonizers. 8. I would especially like to thank Kleanthes Grohmann, Stavroula Tsiplakou, Richard and Vaso Proksa, Mamas Andreau, and Sviatlana Karpava for their support as link contacts and for majorly contributing to setting up a network of contacts for this study.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Most of the elderly women who do speak English and participated in the study have either spent a considerable amount of time in an L1 English-speaking country or have had regular contact with foreigners (e.g. as shop owners; for a detailed overview of the participants of this study see Appendix IV). 4.3 Data transcription The interview recordings have all been manually transcribed and checked at least twice to guarantee accuracy and reliability of the transcribed material. Transcriptions follow a simplified and modified version of the CHAT format (Codes for the Human Analysis of Transcripts; cf. MacWhinney 2000), which consists of symbols widely used in marking up conversations and analysing talk. Table 4.1 gives an overview and further details of the symbols used for data transcription, illustrating that the code set comprises two general types of codes: those which generally structure the interviews (e.g. # and ##, [=!text] and [=text], conversational fillers) and those which were of direct importance to the later coding process of linguistic structures (e.g. [/], [//], [///], XX and XXX, [?]) as is illustrated and explained in Section 6.2 (for a sample transcript excerpt see Appendix V). 4.4 Summary This chapter has presented the methodology pursued in the data collection and data preparation process for the following qualitative and quantitative analyses of potential EiCy/CyE features. In Section 4.2, I introduced different methodological aspects of Labov’s approach to sociolinguistic interviews (cf. Labov 1968, 1972a, 1972b, 1984, 2006) and showed how they applied to the design and implementation of the interviews conducted for the CEDAR project. In addition to that, I presented the procedure of participant acquisition as well as the sampling strategy and selection criteria applied to choose the 90 participants for this study from the CEDAR corpus. In Section 4.3, I then provided information on the transcription procedure and the format and codes used for the transcription of the oral interview data. The subsequent data preparation and analysis consist of two major working steps:



Chapter 4.  Empirical study 

Table 4.1 CHAT codes (modified/simplified version, cf. MacWhinney 2000: 20–76) Code

Description

Example

#

pause between words: marks a pause that is longer than regularly occurring speech pauses within and between utterances long pause between words: marks a pause that is substantially longer than regularly occurring speech pauses within and between utterances

I: Uh. # No, I can’t think of anything. (#049)

##

&

XX

XXX

[/] [//]

phonological fragment: indicates that an expression is incomplete or marks phonological material that cannot be related to an existing expression unintelligible speech, treated as a single word: indicates that the transcribers were unable to understand a string of speech which consists of one word only unintelligible speech, treated as two or more words: indicates that the transcribers were unable to understand a string of speech which consists of more than one word retracing without correction: indicates that the interviewee literally repeats an utterance retracing with correction: indicates that the interviewee corrects (parts of) an utterance

Further remarks

The symbols have intuitively been applied, i.e. without measuring the duration of the pauses, to sketch I: I went to the work. And ## in the morning of uh out roughly the character of the transcribed conversation. Since Sunday the same month [//] the same week, the morning of Sunday, the radio say: [“]All the people they are not of crucial importance for the feature analysis, there was come to the armies[“]. (#070) no urgent need to specify the length of these pauses. I: But is [//] it’s hard when you got too mer& [//] too many things on your mind. [...] (#055)

I: Yeah. Every day of the year. No Christmas, no New Year, no Easter, every day of the year # XX. (#075) I: [...] My father was a farmer and my mother is a housewife XXX. [...] (#076)

I: [...] I mean when [/] when I travel in Europe, it feels like one big country more or less. [...] (#049) I: No, he’s in the [//] in a high school. (#084)

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English Code

Description

Example

[///]

retracing with reformulation: indicates that the interviewee rephrases an utterance, i.e. he/she sticks to the particular topic quotation marks: used when the interviewee literally repeats something uttered by the interviewer or some external speaker interruption of a declarative sentence by another speaker interruption of a question by another speaker

I: And now he’s working. You know, there is uhm # [///] it’s difficult for such a boy to find a work # [...]. (#060) I: [...] when we came back uh he said: [“]Oh, there’s so many sun in my car[“]. [...] (#057)

[“]

+/. +/? +//.

self-interruption of a declarative sentence, i.e. without external influence

+//?

self-interruption of a question, i.e. without external influence

[=!text] paralinguistic material: indicates, for example, crying, yelling, laughing [=text] additional information/explanation: provides additional information on the interview; it indicates, for example, background noise to explain why certain passages were incomprehensible to both (all) transcribers

I: Yeah, oh, he’s very good in +/. IE: How old is he? (#055) IE: [...] Do you prefer +/? I: You mean when? (#076) I: [...] I’ve never [//] couldn’t remember anything because some people +//. My brother was born in 1971 [...]. (#037) IE: And what was the most frightening experience? I: Uhm, uh uh uhm during the childhood or uh # +//? IE: Generally. (#071) IE: And what other languages do you speak? I: Uh, [=!laughs] Greek [=!laughs] and Cypriot. (#075) I: Yes. XXX [=someone touches the microphone] very well. (#009)

Further remarks

In contrast to the “retracing with reformulation” code, these two symbols are used to indicate that a speaker terminates a sentence and through this the intended utterance without external influence; reformulation does not occur.



Chapter 4.  Empirical study 

Code

Description

Example

[?]

best guess: indicates that none of the transcribers was sure about what the interviewee said; the transcribed material is what the transcribers agreed on to be what the interviewee most likely said simultaneous utterances: used to indicate an overlap in the speakers’ utterances

I: [When I see?] dreams, I laugh. (#058)

|

mhm

utterance of agreement

uh

conversational filler/pause

uhm

conversational filler/pause

. ? !

full stop question mark exclamation mark

,

comma

I: I think, you know, not beat as in hard beating and kick, but, you know, my sister would |shout [/] shout IE: |XXX I: and [“]I hate you[“] and stuff like that, [...]. (#016) I: [...] he was very busy, you know, those days # IE: Mhm. I: washing by hand and ironing the old way with uh coal in the iron, [...]. (#055) I: Well, I was born in 1938 uh # in a big village. (#084) I: They uhm [/] they have a house and everything. (#055) I: I’m teacher of physics. (#058) IE: Mhm. Is this your first summer here? (#009) I: Emails, no! # Nothing, I never touch the computer [=!laughs]. (#055) I: [...] High season is June, July, August, September, # and October. (#049)

Further remarks

Only overlaps of considerable length (more than one or two sounds) and/or overlaps which inhibit intelligibility are indicated.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

1. Preparation and implementation of a qualitative screening of potential candidates of structural nativization in EiCy/CyE. 2. Preparation and implementation of a quantitative analysis of exemplary morphosyntactic, lexicogrammatical, and lexicosemantic features of EiCy/CyE, in particular to test for the linguistic hypotheses and the general expectation of this study. These two steps of analysis, the methodology pursued, and the results are separately presented in Chapters 5 and 6.

chapter 5

Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE A qualitative approach

5.1 Introduction In the present chapter, I present the results from the qualitative data screening of the interviews selected for this study. On the basis of a qualitative feature rating, I discuss which of the EiCy/CyE characteristics might have entered the process of structural nativization. BrE is here used as the reference point against which the EiCy/CyE features are described.1 However, this does not imply that I consider EiCy/CyE a defective system. Some of the features that are presented also occur in native speaker varieties of English (e.g. right and left dislocation; cf. 5.3.2). For all features, I provide three examples, in most cases one from each generational group. In those cases where no example was to be found for the use of a specific feature in a particular group, I provide an extra example from one of the other groups for reasons of consistency. Even though the qualitative analysis is by no means exhaustive, the search for examples was thoroughly pursued. Thus, it can safely be assumed that when no example for a feature was found in one of the three groups, the frequency of that feature is at least very low and a difference exists in feature use between the three generations. Apart from that, I do not further account for potential intergenerational differences in feature use at this point since the qualitative analysis of the data does not lend itself to such a detailed investigation. Following the general listing of the features found in the specific domains as presented in Sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.6, each time I provide a table which summarizes the results of an impressionistic feature rating conducted by two independent raters as described in 5.2. Finally, I sum up those EiCy/CyE characteristics which can be assumed to have entered the process of structural nativization (cf. 5.4).

1. Note again that, even though linguistic input in Cyprus is heterogeneous, BrE has been chosen as the point of reference here since it has always been the major input variety for Greek Cypriots.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

5.2 Methodology For the qualitative screening of EiCy/CyE features, two independent raters, i.e. the present author and a research assistant in English linguistics, repeatedly listened to all the recordings for salient phonological features and thoroughly looked through the transcripts for recurring morphosyntactic, lexical, as well as discourse features. The aim here was to give a general overview of characteristics found in the 90 interviews chosen for the study at hand. First, I compiled the list of characteristics presented below. In the second step, the two raters impressionistically rated the individual characteristics for frequency of occurrence in the data set on a fivepoint Likert scale.2 The five rating criteria roughly translate to the following percentages of use: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Very rare occurrence: feature used by individual participants only (≈ 30% but 70% → clearly developing towards a rule for language use) Subsequently, I calculated the average of the two individual ratings. All three values, i.e. the two individual ratings as well as the mean values, are presented in Tables 5.1 to 5.6. As mentioned above, the raters did not differentiate between the three generations and therefore did not apply separate ratings for the three age groups. Finally, I sum up those characteristics which have been assigned a mean value of 3.0 or higher. This suggests that the respective characteristics are used on a regular basis and have very likely passed the nativization threshold determined in Section 3.4.2.2. Subsequently, I also give some first comments on how these findings relate to the hypotheses. Despite the fact that the qualitative procedure is a rather impressionistic approach, the two ratings ensure some degree of objectivity

2. A similar procedure is pursued in a recent large-scale project, The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English, compiled by Kortmann and Lunkenheimer (2011). They have set up a three-step rating scale for attested features (i.e. feature is pervasive or obligatory / feature is neither pervasive nor extremely rare / feature exists but is extremely rare) according to which the contributors to the volume rate the frequency of a predefined set of features for the variety they are investigating. For this study, I decided to employ a five-step rating to reach more finegrained results, in particular with respect to the mean values calculated from the two independent ratings.



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

and therefore constitute an appropriate first step in the investigation of EiCy/CyE characteristics.3 5.3 Results In the following, I present the results from the qualitative feature analysis. The features detected come from six different linguistic domains, i.e. from the phonological, morphosyntactic, lexical, lexicogrammatical, lexicosemantic, and pragmatic domains. 5.3.1 Phonological features The presentation and discussion of phonological features is dealt with first, assuming that phonological differences between language varieties are usually the most distinctive ones and the first to be detected (cf. Schneider 2007: 72). The aim of this chapter is to give a general overview and a description of those phonological characteristics which appear to be salient within the language of the participants identified earlier. Generally, I observed that EiCy/CyE is dominantly BrE in pronunciation. The lexical sets BATH and LOT, for example, are consistently realized close to the BrE variants /"˜/ and /#/, respectively, and not close to the American English counterparts /æ/ and /"/. An exception seems to be the realization of non-prevocalic r (rhoticity), where Greek Cypriots tend towards an overt realization as trill. Influences of other varieties of English (i.e. American and Canadian, cf. 2.4.1) have also found their way into EiCy/CyE. Those individuals that have spent a considerable amount of time in the US or elsewhere or have stable contact with relatives living in countries other than Britain do, of course, deviate from the generally BrE pronunciation pattern. In addition to these very general observations, EiCy/CyE exhibits the following phonological characteristics: – merger of long close tense front vowel [i˜] and short close lax front vowel [i], both realized as short close tense front vowel [i] (1) IE: No? So you wouldn’t buy a car. Would you buy a car? I: A jeep [dȝip]. (#012)

3. Also note in this respect that many, especially earlier, studies of characteristic features in World Englishes also pursue a rather qualitative approach.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English



(2) I: They didn’t speak [spik] to me directly, but I understood that something bad happens. (#041) (3) I: So I said to him: [“]No, I leave [liv], I’m not going to stay anymore because # I don’t like to work here, [...[“]...]. (#077)

This is especially prominent with the demonstratives this and these, with both being realized as [ðis].4 Thus, the singular/plural distinction is lost, which, in grammatical terms, leads to a loss of agreement between the demonstrative and the plural noun. Consider the following examples for illustration:

(4) I: These [ðis] countries are quite similar now. (#012) (5) I: [...] And uh usually these [/] these [ðis] parents, when they try to do it, they are [///] at same time they become overprotective. [...] (#032) (6) I: [...] now the [/] the kids, they don’t play these [ðis] kinds of games now. (#086)

– raised open front vowel [æ] is lowered to open front vowel [a]

(7) I: I don’t like m[a]gic and uh I find it stupid. (#007) (8) I: You know, [a]nimals uh, long walks in the forest, uh +/. (#045) (9) I: [...] And then [/] then he went uh to my direction, tr[a]veling [/] tr[a]veling [/] tr[a]veling the desert, nothing except s[a]nd and then uh suddenly we saw a drill. American drills you [have?] for petrol. [...] (#089)

– no schwa [6] in unstressed syllables (10) I: [...] I study English that it’s a bit diffic[u]lt for me. (#001) (11) I: Not actu[a]lly [...]. (#033) (12) I: [...] I stay in the sea, every day I like to swim in the sea, I meet too many pers[o]n, especial English pers[o]ns [...]. (#081) – replacement of long mid central vowel [8˜] by [er] (13) I: Yes, I have a wife and a small uh uh child, a g[er]l. (#047) (14) I: [...] I met people from T[er]key [...]. (#053) (15) I: # And before there were the T[er]ks. (#085) As an alternative, the interviews revealed the following pronunciation for the long mid central vowel: – replacement of long mid central vowel [8˜] by [or] or [ur]

4. Note that in the pronunciation of these, final consonant devoicing is the second feature responsible for homophony.



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

(16) I: [...] because you [/] you live in a w[or]ld which does not exist [...]. (#005) (17) I: [Uh they?] [/] they used to go to, you know, [/] to London, to UK # IE: Mhm. I: for [//] to w[or]k. (#047) (18) I: [...] We stay for one or two hours in the sea, and now after, we’ll do ret[ur]n back to cook and to study, [...]. (#081) – consonant cluster reduction along the lines of two major mechanisms: – epenthesis/anaptyxis: insertion of vowels to reduce consonant clusters (19) (20) (21)

I: [...] XXX I was very irresponsi[bol] [...]. (#036) I: It was very terri[bol]. (#047) I: Ah, you mean what kind of peo[pøl] they are? IE: Yeah. I: Ah, oh, they are very good peo[pøl], uh familian peo[pøl] [...]. (#061)

– word final consonant cluster reduction (22) I: [...] I just remember once when the whole class was punished [Öp¤ni∫] because someone did something and nobody was telling who did it. [...] (#032) (23) I: So [=!laughs] we pushed [pʊ∫] the car. [=!laughs] It started and when we [/] we [/] when we came back, he said [...]. (#057) (24) I: [...] usually in the summer times, we visited the sea uh # and going to a [finish?] we’ll collect [koÖlek] [...]. (#081) What needs to be mentioned here is that examples (22) and (23) can of course also be interpreted in terms of grammatical simplification, i.e. the use of simple present to report past events (cf. 5.3.2). However, example (24) reinforces the assumption that consonant cluster reduction might be at work because here the reduction is clearly phonetic and cannot be interpreted in grammatical terms. – word internal obstruent voicing (25) I: [...] there was this uh La[d]in place called [Q-bar?], [...]. (#016) (26) I: Ah. Yes. I hope so [/] I hope so. Some uh that one day the [//] Cyprus will be # reuni[d]ed again. (#041) (27) I: [...] we are under uh Turkish uh occu[b]ation. (#088) – final obstruent devoicing (28) I: [...] so, we visited our houses, but it was very sa[t]. (#026) (29) I: [...] they want to know where they goin[k] [...]. (#035)

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

(30) I: [...] all people workin[k] outside in the fields [...] [...] I: [...] the same thin[k] [...]. (#089) – -ing endings realized by [i] + [n] (alveolar nasal) instead of formal standard (Br)E [i] + []] (velar nasal) (31) I: Someth[in] like uh hotel maître, someth[in] like that. (#042) (32) I: And when come uh [///] and they are com[in] uh [...]. (#061) (33) I: Uh, although my parents were liv[in] in the city [...]. (#068) – post-alveolar approximant [p] realized by alveolar trill [r] (34) (35) (36)

The two of, the big one, they are getting ma[r]ied [...]. (#021) IE: So what kind of books do you prefer? I: I p[r]efer psychological. [...] I: I don’t have special d[r]eams in my life. (#041) I: Yes. My g[r]andfather, my g[r]andmother also, they a[r]e f[r]om Cyp[r]us, but they marriage there. (#061)

– non pre-vocalic graphemic is realized by a trill [r] (37) I: [...] with a lot of othe[r] boys afte[r] [been?] grow up, uh I wo[r]k a lot of it in the beach, in ba[r]s +//. (#021) (38) I: The affairs of the schooling was uh up to my mothe[r]. (#052) (39) I: [...] we are unde[r] uh Tu[r]kish uh occupation [...]. (#088) – unvoiced glottal fricative [h] replaced by: – unvoiced velar fricative [x] (40) I: No, I [/] uhm I don’t [x]ave any lessons [...]. (#023) (41) I: The years were very uh [x]a& [/] uh [x]appy. (#045) (42) I: I [x]ope, although I feel that it’s too difficult to be united Cyprus. [...] (#082) – unvoiced palatal fricative [ç] (43) I: I like [ç]im. (#013) (44) I: Uh, we [/] w& [//] I think we don’t [ç]ate each other, or? (#047) (45) I: He was teacher, he understand everybody, he [ç]elped everybody. (#061) – use of only one weak form for the definite article, namely [ð6]; no [ði] used preceding vowels



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

(46) (47) (48)

I: Actually, I was in favour of th[ә] Annan Plan myself [...]. (#026) I: [...] th[ә] army. (#036) I: My office is outside, but uh # it was about th[ә] only # in the port [...] I: [...] with th[ә] English government. (#070)

– use of only one weak form for the indefinite article, namely [6]; no use of [6n] preceding vowels (49) IE: What are you studying? What are you doing? I: Uh, to be [ә] uh elementary school teacher. (#019) (50) I: I think it [ә] easy language, uhm for me I try to learn even some German, but I didn’t succeeded. (#058) (51) I: [=!laughs] Uh, all this period now uh had [ә] uh abnormal uh situation of a political problem. (#088) On the prosodic level, I detected the following two main characteristics of EiCy/CyE: – dynamic (irregular) stress patterns (52) I: Because we have to uhm # a ‘diploma [//] we have to take a ‘diploma. (#006) (53) I: Uh, th& [/] this little de’tails. [...] (#050) (54) I: [...] but I left the village because there is no se’condary school. [...] I: [...] Uh, was # a good job [/] was a good job uh, reall’y, and [...] I: we go to the Greece, to XX [=probably a Greek name], which had uh many mo’nasteries [/] many mo’nasteries. You visited these? Eh? (#081) – HRT (High Rising Terminal): rising intonation pattern/question intonation in the final syllable(s) of an utterance (55) I: Yeah, her mom’s from Germany. [...] (#011) (56) I: [...]# Uh, # we stayed at Lefkara # two, three months. (#047) (57) I: Uh, I was uh civil engineer. [...] (#089) Table 5.1 summarizes the impressionistic feature ratings of both raters and gives the respective mean value for each feature. “xxx” indicates that the rater was unsure about the occurrence of a particular feature. The features are listed in descending order according to their overall frequency of occurrence. The phonological analysis yielded some clear differences between the oldest group of participants and the young generation, which should not be neglected here, in particular since the quantitative analysis in Chapter 6 does not consider

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 5.1  Qualitative rating of phonological features Frequency of occurrence Feature Merger of [i˜] and [i] [æ] replaced by [a] No [6] in unstressed syllables [8˜] replaced by [er] Epenthesis/anaptyxis Post-alveolar approximant [p] replaced by alveolar trill [r] Non pre-vocalic graphemic is realized by a trill [r] [h] replaced by [x] Word internal obstruent voicing Final obstruent devoicing Use of only one weak form for the definite article, namely [ð6]; no [ði] used preceding vowels Use of only one weak form for the indefinite article, namely [6]; no use of [6n] preceding vowels Word final consonant cluster reduction [8˜] replaced by [or] or [ur] [i] + []] (velar nasal) replaced by [i] + [n] (alveolar nasal) Dynamic (irregular) stress patterns [h] replaced by [ç] HRT

rater 1

rater 2

mean

5 4 4 4 3 3

5 5 4 4 4 4

5 4.5 4 4 3.5 3.5

3 3 3 2 2

4 4 3 4 4

3.5 3.5 3 3 3

2

4

3

2 3 2

3 2 2

2.5 2.5 2

2 2 xxx

3 2 2

2.5 2 2

phonological features. The following features appear to be absent from or very weak in the young group: – – – – –

replacement of long mid central vowel [8˜] by [er] replacement of long mid central vowel [8˜] by [or] or [ur] consonant cluster reduction through epenthesis/anaptyxis word-final consonant cluster reduction -ing endings realized by [i] + [n] (alveolar nasal) instead of formal standard (Br)E [i] + []] (velar nasal); in those cases where the -ing ending is not pronounced the standard (Br)E way, the young generation usually realizes it as –[ink], which consequently falls within the category of final obstruent devoicing. – unvoiced glottal fricative [h] replaced by unvoiced velar fricative [x]



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

This shows that six out of the 18 features detected are considerably less frequent or even absent in the group of young speakers. This can be interpreted as first evidence in favour of the overall expectation that feature use correlates with age, i.e. that the younger generation uses fewer EiCy/CyE characteristics due to an influence of formal instruction and a strong exonormative orientation towards BrE. 5.3.2 Morphosyntactic features In the morphosyntactic domain, I detected the following 28 features as potential candidates of structural nativization: – omission of subject pronouns – referential pronouns (I, you, he, she, we, you, they; it is treated as a separate subcategory below) (1) IE: [...] I mean just # do you want to have a family, do you wanna marry? I: Some time yes. [Ø referential pronoun I] don’t have a problem, but not right now. (#021) (2) I: She is uh normal woman and not uh something very special for the uh other people, but [Ø referential pronoun she] is very clever, [Ø referential pronoun she] is dynamic [...]. (#035) (3) I: [...] I think I told you if I continue, [Ø referential pronoun I] may say something is not good for you. (#083) – referential it (i.e. it referring back to an antecedent DP)

(4) IE: So, do you think this is why English is still an important language, because the British were here? I: Uhm, not only for this, because [Ø referential it] is an international language. (#003) (5) I: Uh, I feel nice in my house. IE: Mhm. I: And I think that [Ø referential it] is big enough. (#056) (6) IE: Well, uh someone was saying earlier that the electricity is XX free. I: Yes, is free [/] [Ø referential it] is free for most of them but [...]. (#062) – expletive it (it as empty dummy subject)

(7) I: [...] And on the morning, [Ø expletive it] is too # difficult to wear a jean. (#009) (8) And [Ø expletive it] is really shame that this kind of work is going to XX slowly, slowly and die. (#055) (9) I: I think is [//] now [Ø expletive it] is very difficult to have children. (#072)

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

– demonstratives (this, that, these, those; expressing anaphoric reference [cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 375]) (10) I: Cyprus doesn’t belong to Greece. [Ø demonstrative this] is not what I am saying. (#030) (11) I: If you have a normal uh family with no problems, with no divorce, IE: Mhm. I: uh parents with no problematic child, I think, [Ø demonstrative this] is uh the most important way to find your road. (#035) (12) I: We got married on the Saturday and we came to Cyprus on the Sunday and we stayed here ever since. [Ø demonstrative this/that] was 38 years ago. (#068) – use of resumptive pronouns (13) I: And after that, a solution was very hard because you ha& [/] you had an economy that it was very good. (#019) (14) I: [...] you don’t uh find a person that he don’t have to eat uh, [...] +//. (#034) (15) I: [...] And we were [//] have left with the ones that they didn’t have any XXX. (#074) – use of left dislocation (16) I: Uhm, me, I go and study. Hopefully get where I wanna get. (#011) (17) I: My father uh, he’s a person who’s know many things [...]. (#035) (18) I: When you know this. Because now the boys and the girls, they go out to these cafes, they saw somebody. [...] (#089) – use of right dislocation5 (19) I: [...] Because it never will be # happen, this thing, because uh XXX +/. (#021) (20) I: [...] He’s gone [///] he need attention, he need love, he need uh uh communication, the baby. [...] (#050)

5. Note that both types of reinforcement, right and left dislocation, are also common in other informal spoken varieties of English, e.g. right dislocation in Northern English and left dislocation in some forms of Irish English (cf. Durham [2011] and Harris [1996: 257], respectively). In the literature, they are referred to by a range of different labels, e.g. “postponed” and “anticipated identification” (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1310; see also the extended overview and discussion of right dislocation in Durham 2011).



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

(21) I: We saw them as uh they release us from the Turkey’s occupation uh because they were more civilized, the British, and they gave us some uhm freedom. (#065) – preference of masculine pronoun he/him/his over feminine she/her/her (22) I: [...] when I was going to school with my sister and playing with his friends in the neighbourhood. (#029) (23) I: Only my mother mentions that uh he was happy with the British, especially during the Second World War because they kept feeding them. [...] (#049) (24) IE: So we were talking about your daughters. |So the one+/. I: |Uh, he’s thirty-one years old and the other one is twenty-five years old. [...] (#065) – use of double definite article with most of the... quantification (25) I: [...] The most of the times, I was working alone in the bars. (#021) (26) I: [...] |[I was?] the most of the parents here, I believe, is [/] is strict. (#050) (27) I: [...], I think the most of the countries +//. (#089) – use of definite article with place nouns (28) I: [...] And they sold the Cyprus. (#021) (29) I: [...] they found marks, American and British marks, that they were showing the Cyprus divided. (#038) (30) I: [...] She like the England. (#064) – omission of definite articles with place nouns where (Br)E requires a definite article (31) I: Uh no, I’ve never been to England. I’ve been to New York [//] to [Ø def. article] USA, but never been in England. (#024) (32) I: [...] Uhm, uh sometimes, I just wanted to go somewhere and one of the times, I decided to go to [Ø def. article] UK, to England. (#032) (33) I: [...] we are going to see our children even in Athens and in uh # [Ø def. article] USA. (#057)6 – variant use/omission of indefinite articles in: – direct object position (most prominently with have)

6. This was the oldest speaker who could be detected in the corpus using such a structure. The feature does not seem salient in the older generation.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

(34) I: I have [Ø indef. article] friend IE: Mhm. I: who was in love with uhm [/] with a man from uh Tur& [/] Tu& [/] Turkey. (#023) (35) I: She has [Ø indef. article] different culture. She has [Ø indef. article] different way to speak [...]. (#056) (36) I: And they find somebody, a partner, to get married and have [Ø indef. article] family like I do. (#086) – predicative DP position (37) I: Mhm, frightening. # Uh, ah. I remember one day when I was [Ø indef. article] kid. (#005) (38) I: It’s different completely, South Africa is [Ø indef. article] different country, it’s [Ø indef. article] very beautiful country, South Africa. (#055) (39) I: I’m [Ø indef. article] electrical engineer. (#066) – “comparative like” structures (40) I: There’re [/] there’re differences. It’s like [Ø indef. article] language. It’s uh [/] it’s a dialect. (#015) (41) I: [...] a very big company that makes films comes to Kyrenia and they make a film, like [Ø indef. article] pirate film. (#055) (42) I: When born, the people there took the doctor, was Belgium doctor, # IE: Mhm. I: they put stones to # [//] they make him like [Ø indef. article] ball. [...] (#061) – when realized, (Br)E numeral one conflates in function with indefinite articles in: – direct object position (43) I: He tell me when I take black belt and I uh [/] I know how to teach other people to open one school of judo. (#009) (44) I: [...] and then we write down one report about the house. (#039) (45) I: I have a house, I don’t need a house. Ah, maybe one new car. (#063) – predicative DP position (46) (47) (48)

I: Favourite film is Transporter. [...] I: It’s one guy who’s driving a car [...]. (#024) I: Uh, for them, it’s one chance to solve this problem. (#050) I: Uh, my [/] my daughter is a uh [//] one art teacher [...]. (#081)



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

– deletion of plural markers with indefinite plural nouns and generics (49) I: Uhm, we watch DVD[Ø-s] or some films. [...] (#003) (50) I: It’s less than eight minute[Ø-s]. (#054) (51) I: Yes. And we run with my friend and I tell XX I saw her standing on her tail. And, you know, she was uh [//] I was so scared uh and I am still scared of snake[Ø-s]. (#074) – omission of 3rd person singular -s (52) I: My trainer give[Ø-s] me a DVD with the techniques and I have a lot of time. (#009) (53) I: Just she is from here, but uh she talk[Ø-s] English very, very good. (#034) (54) I: My wife cook[Ø-s] for them every day [...]. (#081) – double past tense marking (55) I: I didn’t saw it. (#001) (56) I: [...], okay, later I didn’t had the opportunity to uh [/] to practice French [...]. (#045) (57) I: [...] And I [/] I didn’t went to the army [...]. (#077) – mixing of past and present tense forms when reporting past events7 (58) I: [...] but it happened that before last month a snake bite my auntie and I didn’t know what to do. (#001) (59) I: [...] Don’t remember, either three or four times and uh I remember this because I was pretty scared, so all the time I wake up I was like [=!laughs] nervous. And it’s the only thing I can recall that was repeating. [...] (#032) (60) IE: Uhm, uhm, what did you do with the animals? Was it like for food, or milk, or? I: Yes. We feed them and after, we take their meat and make a Halloumi, you know, Halloumi. (#076) – underrepresentation of present perfect: EiCy/CyE uses simple past, simple present, and sometimes the past participle instead8 7. As a general tendency, the data have revealed that as soon as the past tense has been introduced (e.g. in preceding questions or statements), Greek Cypriots switch to the present tense. 8. Note that the choice of examples here aims to represent the three EiCy/CyE alternatives to express perfect meaning but is not meant to indicate which group of speakers favours which structure.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

I: I don’t go [/] I didn’t go to see the # places. [...] I: Uhm, but I o& [/] I only see photos. (#023) I: I been in Barcelona, in uhm Spain, England, Wales, Ireland, Lebanon. (#031) (63) I: [...] I never visited uh Russia, too. That’s the two countries I not visit. (#084) (61) (62)

– underrepresentation of past perfect: use of simple past instead (64) I: [...] we visited our houses, but it was very sad. [=!laughs] [...] I: Actually, it was like uhm +//. I had an [/] an image, an idea in my mind from all the stories I was told when I was uhm young [...]. (#026) (65) I: [...] I just remember once when the whole class was punished because someone did something and nobody was telling who did it. But uh +//. (#032) (66) I: ‘74 didn’t just happen on its own. Communal troubles started much earlier. [...] (#068) – underrepresentation of conditional simple to express hypothetical context: EiCy/CyE uses will-future or simple present instead9 (67) IE: What would you do if you won the lottery? [...] I: Uh uhm uh, the first thing I will make with the first million, I will take it to the h& uh [//] to our house [...]. (#002) (68) IE: What would you do if you won the lottery? Six million pounds. I: Okay, I think I [/] I make something who have in my mind for uh XXX. (#035) (69) IE: And uhm # what would you do if you won the lottery? # You know? The lottery? [...] I: Uh me, uh I take for myself one thousand-hundred. IE: Mhm. I: Okay! And all the else I spend my family. (#063) – overuse of progressive forms

9. Again the choice of examples is not meant to indicate any preference for one or the other structure by one of the three generational groups.



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

(70) I: Hm. My neighbours were all males. Mh. |Okay, IE: |Okay. I: yeah, I was playing football with my neighbours. I wouldn& [//] shouldn’t say this stuff. [=!laughs] (#016) (71) I: [talking about his daily activities during childhood] XX I was uh playing in the yards and # leaving in the after& [//] studying in the afternoon. (#036) (72) I: [...] because my father was going to England and [...] Yes, and he was then there about a year come back and going again so. [...] (#072) – omission of auxiliary be (in particular in progressive structures) (73) I: So I [Ø BE] thinking [“]No![“]. [=!laughs] (#011) (74) I: So, since you [Ø BE] studying uh uh history, you know a lot about Greek people. (#054) (75) I: Because I [Ø BE] born in nineteen forty-eight. (#063) – omission of infinitive marker to (76) I: [...] Because uh I like [Ø to] communicate with people. (#005) (77) IE: Do you want to work as an au pair girl? Or what will you do when you are in Italy or Spain? I: No, for send+//. I ju& [//] only want [Ø to] go and maybe+//. I don’t know. (#008) (78) I: Is not good [Ø to] go there. (#077) – diverging question formation patterns: – absence of subject‑auxiliary inversion (79) IE: If you win the lottery, if you win a lot of money? Like one million pounds. You win it, it’s yours. I: Ah, what I will do? What I will do, ha, I will take my house, I will go for see all [...]. (#008) (80) I: Why they should leave? (#038) (81) IE: I’m [...], nice to meet you! I: I’m [...]. You’re doing the same job? IE: Yes. [=!laughs] (#077) – absence of do-support (82) I: Other uh XX. No, I don’t think so. Ah, oh, yes, ping-pong, [Ø do] you know this? (#008) (83) I: It becomes from inside. [Ø do] You understand? (#056)

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

(84) I: [=!laughs] Because uh ah ## they are against us and they are against all the # [/] all the Europeans, IE: Mhm. I: uh against all the America, uh what [Ø do] they want? (#081) Table 5.2 illustrates the frequency ratings given by the two individual raters as well as the respective mean values, again in descending order. 5.3.3 Lexical features In the domain of lexis, the corpus yielded ten characteristics.10 – borrowings – toponymic borrowings

(1) (2) (3) –

(4) (5)

(6)



I: It’s the grammar school in Lefkosia. (#001) I: I grow up in Paphos. (#044) I: Uh, uh I born to Lefka. (#072) borrowings of lexical items for local food I2: Souvlaki [Cypriot meat specialty/fast food], I1: Souvlaki. I2: XX. IE: Souvlaki is what? I2: Souvlaki, # I1: Souvlaki. I2: uh it’s uh meat # [...]. (#014) IE: Something uh # uh # [//] any Cyprus food like Greek food? I: Of course. Sheftalia [Cypriot meat specialty, grilled] and uh e& [/] everything grilled. (#031) IE: Uhm, uhm what did you do with the animals? Was it like for food, or milk, or +//? I: Yes. We feed them and after we take their meat and make a Halloumi, you know, Halloumi. [Cypriot cheese speciality] [...] I: [...] Trahanas is like soup. [dried food used for making soup] (#076)

In addition to borrowings, the following eight lexical features are characteristic of EiCy/CyE: 10. Note that the top level bullet points do not add up to the number of ten features since subfeatures are counted as individual features (cf. Table 5.3).



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

Table 5.2  Qualitative rating of morphosyntactic features Frequency of occurrence Feature Left dislocation Underrepresentation of conditional simple to express hypothetical context Mixing of past and present tense forms when reporting past events Underrepresentation of present perfect Underrepresentation of past perfect Omission of auxiliary be Absence of subject-auxiliary inversion in questions Absence of do-support in questions Right dislocation Preference of masculine pronoun he/him/his over feminine she/her/her Omission of indefinite articles in predicative DP position Overuse of progressive forms Use of double definite articles with most of the... quantification Omission of indefinite articles in direct object position Use of resumptive pronouns Ø referential it Ø expletive it Use of definite articles with place nouns Omission of 3rd person singular -s Deletion of plural markers in indefinite plural constructions and generics Ø referential pronouns (I, you, he, she, we, you, they) Ø demonstratives (expressing anaphoric reference) Omission of definite articles with place nouns where (Br)E requires a definite article Double past tense marking One replacing indefinite articles in direct object position One replacing indefinite articles in predicative DP position Omission of indefinite articles with comparative like structures Omission of infinitive to

rater 1

rater 2

mean

5 4

5 5

5 4.5

4

4

4

4 4 4 4 3 3 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 3

4 4 4 4 3.5 3.5 3.5

4 3 3

3 3 3

3.5 3 3

3 3 3 2 3 3 2

3 3 3 4 2 2 3

3 3 3 3 2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2

2 2 2

2 2 2

2 2 1

2 2 2

2 2 1.5

1

2

1.5

1

2

1.5

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

– diverging use of prepositions11

(7) I: Free time, I like to sit on the PC. I play some uh MPG games. (#024) (8) I: [...] If you go by car and have to wait on a long queue, it just makes you feel like you’re going to a different country. (#032) (9) I: And we came at uh 1966 [/] ‘66. [...] (#067)

Within this category, the following regularities occur: – preference of on + month over in + month (10) I: [...] Think they gonna ban [=pronounced as “barn”] it on uh [/] on June [/] June # this year. (#016) (11) I: And they finish now, they, on July. (#034) (12) I: [...] I started working here on July because I had this uhm uh many # courses uh on wine and uh [...]. (#037) – preference of in over on/to12 (13) I: [...] And she put them in her plate to eat them. (#024) (14) I: [=!chuckles ironically] And uh so everyone, I mean, who had [///] who could afford it uh were sending their daughters in England. (#016) (15) I: No. Well, I’m XXX if [//] when I’m standing in a balcony, I’m afraid to stand at the very edge. Okay. [...] (#032) (16) I: And actually we are waiting for them to come in May, IE: |Okay. I: |in Cyprus. (#032) (17) I: We are friends! Every [the [/] the while?] we sit here to have kebap or to eat uh all friends together, IE: Mhm. I: to have a beer or so. Is +//. Or in the weekend, you get your family, [...]. (#063) (18) I: [...] they will come in my house to eat # like brothers and then even with the girls, we have girlfriend with there, we go in their quarters. [...] (#080) – ninety replacing nineteen in dates (19) I: We’ve been here since ninety seventy-five. (#020) (20) I: Uh, until uh fifty-nine, ninety fifty-nine. (#050) (21) I: And I pass it in ninety sixty-seven. (#082) 11. Note that preposition use could of course also be treated as a morphosyntactic phenomenon. 12. I here provide six examples. Examples (13), (15), and (17) illustrate the preference of in over on; (14), (16), and (18) demonstrate the preference of in over to.



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

– ne (Greek = yes) replacing yes/yeah/yah (22) (23) (24)

IE: Do you like such films or maybe +/? I: Ne, ne, they’re good [/] they’re good. Pulp Fiction, uh? (#020) I: Friends, I have Turkish people in England, not here on the Cyprus. IE: Mhm. I: Ne. (#051) IE: Like a cleaning lady or something like that? I: I have a clea& +//. Ne, ne, ne, ne, ne. I have, yeah. (#075)

– no replacing not (25) IE: No. Then, how did you feel? I: No good because if one to try make you XX question and you don’t know uhm because you don’t think XXX. (#008) (26) IE: Aha, okay. So uhm is there a # football team on Cyprus that uh [///] something like a national team? I: No actual a national team. All the teams. (#033) (27) I: I’m no working anymore. (#064) – specially replacing especially13 (28) I: Because # you [/] you have to sp& [/] to speak their language at some point, IE: Mhm. I: uh specially formally, and ta& uh [//] as the time is passing, they [//] you adopt it. (#019) (29) I: I should say uh in the beginning I liked school well. Specially [in?] elementary stage [=!laughs] and uh we had plenty free times in the afternoon. (#032) (30) I: [...] Specially Vaticano. (#081) – after replacing afterwards/after that/then etc. (31) I: With a lot of friends, we drank and we crashed it and after they caught us. (#025) (32) I: [...] Because he was in a [//] with a team and he was very sick. IE: Mhm. I: And he went to the hospital and after, all this team was dead. Because of the place. (#038) 13. This feature can, of course, also be characterized as the result of elision, which would render it a phonological feature.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 5.3  Qualitative rating of lexical features Frequency of occurrence Feature Toponymic borrowings Borrowings of lexical items for local food Diverging use of prepositions (general) Preference of in over to/on Ninety instead of nineteen in dates Specially replacing especially After replacing afterwards/after that/then etc. Ne (Greek = yes) replacing yes/yeah/yah Preference of on + month over in + month No replacing not

rater 1 ***14 *** 4 3 4 3 3 2 2 1

rater 2

mean

*** *** 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2

*** *** 4 3.5 3.5 3 3 2.5 2.5 1.5

(33) I: Yes. We feed them and after, we take their meat and make a Halloumi, you know, Halloumi. (#076) Finally, Table 5.3 again summarizes the results as well as feature frequency as attributed by the two raters and the corresponding mean values in descending order. 5.3.4 Lexicogrammatical features At the interface of lexis and grammar, the data set yielded the following two characteristics as potentially nativized features of EiCy/CyE: – intransitive use of verbs that in (Br)E require an overt direct object (1) IE: Okay. And uh what is your favourite subject? I: Subject? Uhm, I don’t have [Ø obj.] because I don’t like [Ø obj.]. (#008) (2) IE: Do you like to travel? I: Yes, I like [Ø obj.]. (#039) (3) I: Yes, uh between the upper XX [=Greek name] and the down XX [=Greek name] uh there is a death zone, a buffer zone with the United Nations soldiers, Greek soldiers and the Turkish soldiers, very crazy condition, you must see [Ø obj.] to believe that this is the reality. (#062) 14. The three asterisks here indicate that borrowings were excluded from the rating since their production depends on the topic of the conversation and lacks a British English counterpart against which it could be evaluated.



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

– time reference pattern before + X days/weeks/months/years preferred over X days/weeks/months/years + ago (4) I danced another time in when the first time I went abroad before two years. (#003) (5) I: Yes. The mo& [/] the most important uhm uh experience in my life in [/] in uh [///] was uhm my first child’s birth. IE: Okay. I: Yes. Before eighteen years. (#041) (6) I: Was a Europe [/] Europe city before thirty-five years. (#070)



Table 5.4 again summarizes the results and states frequency of occurrence as determined by the two raters as well as the mean value for each feature in descending order. Table 5.4  Qualitative rating of lexicogrammatical features Frequency of occurrence Feature

rater 1

rater 2

mean

3

4

3.5

3

3

3

Time reference pattern before + X days/weeks/months/ years preferred over X days/weeks/months/years + ago Intransitive use of verbs that in (Br)E require an overt direct object

5.3.5 Lexicosemantic feature On the interface of lexis and semantics, I detected the following preference of EiCy/CyE. – preference of quantifying too + adjective over (Br)E very + adjective

(1) I: I uh had too many friends. [...] (#024) (2) I: [...] she love me too much, more than I. (#035) (3) I: Yeah. I worked too hard because my [/] my daughter is go to university, he spent too much money, worked too much. [...] (#064)

Table 5.5 gives the feature rating. Table 5.5  Qualitative rating of lexicosemantic feature Frequency of occurrence Feature Preference of quantifying too + adjective over (Br)E very + adjective

rater 1

rater 2

mean

3

3

3

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

5.3.6 Pragmatic features Finally, the following two pragmatic features appear to be salient in EiCy/CyE. – increased use of (things like) this/that to post hoc summing up on and/or lending weight to an utterance (1) I: It’s meat. It’s a piece of meat. This. (#006) (2) I: It’s uh [//] I think it’s like English [/] English and uh the people that they live uh in England uh +//. IE: In Scotland? I: Yes, maybe. IE: Ah, okay. I: Like this. [...] (#034) (3) I: And after, she went uh uh [/] she went in nineteen June uh, after one month and three, four days, she went back for [//] to her house and of course she was XXX her uh, how do you say? [/] her uh husband’s uh sister, the godmother. This. (#078)

– use of okay as reinforcing conversational filler (4) IE: What kind of games did you play? I: Not much. Okay, was in the park uhm playing football uhm and then uhm at the cinema. (#017) (5) I: So, yes, so you can communicate with them and uhm, okay, when you go to another country, uh you can uh speak uh to the shops, you can buy things, you can go uh +//. (#045) (6) I: Yeah, yeah, yeah, people they are Cypriot people li& [/] like us. No [/] no [/] no different. IE: Mhm. I: Okay, the religion was different, but # the& [/] they were peaceful, [the?] people # uh before [...]. (#088) Table 5.6 summarizes the pragmatic characteristics of EiCy/CyE and their feature frequencies. Table 5.6  Qualitative rating of pragmatic features Frequency of occurrence Feature Use of okay Use of (things like) this/that

rater 1

rater 2

mean

4 3

3 3

3.5 3



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

5.4 Summary As the qualitative analysis has shown, EiCy/CyE exhibits a variety of local linguistic characteristics. Based on the above assumption that a mean value of 3 in the impressionistic feature rating roughly corresponds to a feature use of 30% to 50% and on the criteria for feature nativization established in Section 3.4.2.2, Table 5.7 pulls together the 41 characteristics which fulfil these criteria and can therefore be assumed to have at least entered the process of feature nativization. Table 5.7  Summary of EiCy/CyE features that have entered feature nativization Frequency of occurrence Feature Phonological features Merger of [i˜] and [i] [æ] replaced by [a] No [6] in unstressed syllables [8˜] replaced by [er] Epenthesis/anaptyxis Post-alveolar approximant [p] replaced by alveolar trill [r] Non pre-vocalic graphemic is realized by a trill [r] [h] replaced by [x] Word internal obstruent voicing Final obstruent devoicing Use of only one weak form for the definite article, namely [ð6]; no [ði] used preceding vowels Use of only one weak form for the indefinite article, namely [6]; no use of [6n] preceding vowels Morphosyntactic features Left dislocation Underrepresentation of conditional simple to express hypothetical context Mixing of past and present tense forms when reporting past events Underrepresentation of present perfect Underrepresentation of past perfect Omission of auxiliary be Absence of subject-auxiliary inversion in questions Absence of do-support in questions

rater 1

rater 2

mean

5 4 4 4 3 3

5 5 4 4 4 4

5 4.5 4 4 3.5 3.5

3 3 3 2 2

4 4 3 4 4

3.5 3.5 3 3 3

2

4

3

5 4

5 5

5 4.5

4

4

4

4 4 4 4 3

4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 3.5

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 5.7  Continued Frequency of occurrence Feature Right dislocation Preference of masculine pronoun he/him/his over feminine she/her/her Omission of indefinite articles in predicative DPs Overuse of progressive forms Use of double definite articles with most of the... quantification Omission of indefinite articles with direct objects Use of resumptive pronouns Ø referential it Ø expletive it Lexical features Toponymic borrowings Borrowings of lexical items for local food Diverging use of prepositions (general) Preference of in over to/on Ninety instead of nineteen in dates Specially replacing especially After replacing afterwards/after that/then etc. Lexicogrammatical features Time reference pattern before + X days/weeks/months/ years preferred over X days/weeks/months/years + ago Intransitive use of verbs that in (Br)E require an overt direct object Lexicosemantic feature Preference of quantifying too + adjective over (Br)E very + adjective Pragmatic features Use of okay Use of (things like) this/that

rater 1

rater 2

mean

3 4

4 3

3.5 3.5

4 3 3

3 3 3

3.5 3 3

3 3 3 2

3 3 3 4

3 3 3 3

*** *** 4 3 4 3 3

*** *** 4 4 3 3 3

*** *** 4 3.5 3.5 3 3

3

4

3.5

3

3

3

3

3

3

4 3

3 3

3.5 3

According to the criteria developed in 5.2, however, a mean value of 3 does not indicate that the EiCy/CyE feature is preferred over the (Br)E variant. Therefore, I suggest that these features only show traces of structural nativization, i.e. they can be considered to have entered the nativization process at some point in time. However, those 12 features which were assigned a mean value of 4 or higher can



Chapter 5.  Identifying characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

be considered fully nativized in that they clearly fulfil the criteria of stability and systematicity identified in Section 3.4.2.2 (cf. Davies 1989: 450, 1999: 179; Groves 2010: 115; Mollin 2006: 49, 2007: 172; Williams 1987: 163–4). In addition to that, the assumption that nativization status requires more than just the sole existence of a small number of characteristics (cf. Mollin 2007: 172) is also met, especially when taking into consideration all features listed in Table 5.7, even those which only show traces of nativization.15 Recalling the assumption that feature nativization is not a static construct which suddenly occurs but a developmental process (cf. Kachru 1992a: 59; Schneider 2007: 44), I consider this a valid approach. Still, what has to be taken into consideration is that such a qualitative feature analysis is to some extent error prone in that it reflects impressionistic ratings only. Comparing the two ratings assigned to each feature, however, yields a considerable degree of agreement between the raters, i.e. for 28 out of 58 features. Most of the 30 deviations differ in one rating step only (26) and only 4 ratings differ in two steps. In addition to that, calculating the mean value for each rating reduces subjectivity, even if it cannot fully compensate for potential inaccuracies. Nevertheless, I consider this procedure a helpful method, in particular since quantitatively measuring all features listed above would clearly go beyond what can be accomplished in a first approach to an under-researched type of English.

15. I here deliberately leave aside the criterion of norm orientation also addressed in Section 3.4.2.3. I revisit this criterion in the later overall discussion of the variety status of EiCy/CyE (cf. 7.2).

chapter 6

Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE A quantitative approach

6.1 Introduction The following quantitative analysis revisits a selection of some of the findings listed above to check on the accuracy of the qualitative ratings and to provide some more reliable results for the later discussion of the variety status of EiCy/CyE (cf. 7.2). In addition to that, the quantitative analysis is employed to account for the general expectation that age has an important impact on feature use. This found some first recognition with respect to the use of phonological features but requires further investigation by means of exact feature frequencies. Furthermore, a hierarchical configural frequency analysis (HCFA) is carried out to inquire into the question whether or not the intergenerational differences observed in Sections 6.3.1 to 6.3.3 are statistically significant. 6.2 Methodology In what follows, I outline the criteria for the selection of seven linguistic features from the overall list of characteristics generated by the qualitative feature analysis in Section 5.3. In addition to that, I provide detailed information on the coding process. 6.2.1 Feature selection For the quantitative analysis, I have chosen four morphosyntactic, two lexicogrammatical, and one lexicosemantic feature from the list of qualitative results compiled in Section 5.3. They serve as exemplary candidates to reassess the qualitative findings and to account quantitatively for the general expectation of this study, i.e. differences in feature use between the three generational groups as the result of the sociolinguistic change Cyprus experienced after 1974. Features were chosen according to the following three selection criteria: first, the aim was to cover different grammatical domains. Second, most of the features

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

chosen were derived from the crosslinguistic observations (cf. 3.5) to test for the validity of the hypotheses formulated in Section 3.5.4. Criteria 1 and 2 are in fact related since I already considered the first criterion when selecting typological distinctions between BrE and GCD/SMG to formulate the linguistic hypotheses. The third selection criterion is the occurrence of a feature at a mean value of at least 3.0 in the impressionistic rating because it can consequently be assumed to have entered the nativization process. This criterion most notably applies to the lexicosemantic feature introduced below, i.e. the use of too much replacing very much, which does not occur as a transfer feature. Moreover, it covers a different linguistic domain and thereby also fulfils criterion 1.1 For most of the features which have been chosen on the basis of criteria 1 and 2, the qualitative screening has already revealed a mean value of at least 3.0. Some of the selected items, however, do not fulfil this criterion (e.g. zero referential pronouns I, you, he, she, we, you, they, zero demonstratives) but are nevertheless included in the quantitative analysis for two reasons: (1) to reassess the reliability of the impressionistic rating, i.e. to check whether frequency of occurrence really lies below the 30% threshold, and (2) due to reasons of completeness, i.e. to investigate and compare the whole spectrum of potential zero subjects in EiCy/CyE. Whereas the first criterion was mandatory for selection, it was sufficient for features to meet either criterion 2 or 3 to be chosen for the analysis. The following list summarizes the selected features:

The four morphosyntactic features:

1. Use of zero subjects: demonstratives, referentials, referential it, expletive it (and contextual referential it, to be introduced in 6.2.2.1.1) 2. Article use, i.e. definite articles with place nouns, zero indefinite articles with direct objects, predicative DPs, and comparative like + DP structures 3. Underrepresentation of conditional simple to express hypothetical context 4. Underrepresentation of present perfect to express perfect meaning

The two lexicogrammatical features:

5. Time reference pattern before X days/weeks/months/years 6. Like + zero object (The verb like has been chosen here as an example of those verbs which show differences in complementation patterns when compared to the (Br)E transitive use of such structures.)

1. Phonological features as well as lexical and pragmatic features are not taken into consideration here since they would require different methodological approaches than the one employed in the analysis below. This would, however, have gone beyond the scope of this study.



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 



The lexicosemantic feature:

7. too much replacing (Br)E very much 6.2.2 Data coding To code the transcripts and for the later data analysis, I used TAMS Analyzer, a freeware research tool designed to implement qualitative and quantitative analyses (http://tamsys.sourceforge.net/). It allows for the creation of individual codes that meet the specific demands and aims of the project. The following sections and tables give a detailed overview of the codes used in this study and present the theoretical considerations underlying the choice and set up of the codes. Following the assumption that a terminological difference should be drawn between “errors” of learner Englishes and “features” of second-language varieties (cf. 3.4.2.2), I avoid such terms as “‘mistakes’, ‘errors’, ‘peculiarities’, ‘linguistic flights’” (Kachru 1985b: 18) and a grammatical/ungrammatical distinction in the set of codes and their description, as well as in the later presentation and discussion of results. The code names mainly draw on the linguistic characteristics of the features under investigation, i.e. they neutrally describe the linguistic phenomena they refer to without judging their status with respect to standard BrE linguistic norms. BrE is just established as inevitable point of reference against which EiCy/CyE features are described. When I use the notions of “target BrE” and “potential candidate EiCy/CyE” to be found in the explanations of the different codes, they are employed as neutral terms to differentiate conceptually between the two variants of English in the most neutral way possible. In the coding process, I always coded both the potential EiCy/CyE structure and the corresponding (Br)E structure, which were later on measured against each other in order to calculate the frequency of occurrence of the potential EiCy/CyE structures. The interview transcripts were coded by the present author and the research assistant identified as raters in Section 5.2, who were both equally familiar with the following codes. When a structure was unclear to both coders or the two coders could not agree on which code to apply, a third coder, also a linguist, was consulted for a third opinion. Interrater reliability was measured by Krippendorff ’s Alpha, a statistical measure automatically run by TAMS Analyzer (for further details on this method see Krippendorff 1970, 2004), on the basis of six transcripts (= 2,254 codes per coder). Reliability amounts to 0.895. 6.2.2.1 The morphosyntactic domain Based on hypotheses H1–H4 and considering selection criterion 1, I look into four morphosyntactic features, two from the nominal domain and two from the verbal

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

domain. Within the nominal domain, I coded the data for (H1) the use of overt and zero subjects and (H2) the use of definite and indefinite articles in different syntactic positions. In the verbal domain, I coded the data for the realization of (H3) (Br)E conditional simple and the EiCy/CyE alternatives to express hypothetical context and (H4) for the use of BrE present perfect structures and the EiCy/CyE alternatives. 6.2.2.1.1 Overt vs. zero subjects As H1 suggests, I assume that EiCy/CyE allows for zero subjects and that nativization might have taken place in this domain. Along the lines of the observations in the qualitative study, I distinguish different types of (zero) subjects, viz. the referential subjects I, you, he, she, we, you, they, referential it, expletive it, as well as the demonstratives this, that, these, those, expressing anaphoric reference. When coding the data for the use of these structures, I started out following a categorization of expletive it provided by Stirling and Huddleston (2002: 1481–3), which suggests that expletive it includes all uses of it which do not refer to a contextually given entity (in most cases a DP2), are quasi non-anaphoric, and function as a semantically empty dummy construction. According to Stirling and Huddleston, this includes the following functions of it: 1. Extrapositional (a) and (b) and impersonal (c) it a. It’s ridiculous that they’ve given the job to Pat. b. I think it disgraceful for him to have given the job to his son. c. It seemed that/as if things would never get any better. 2. It–cleft constructions a. A: It was your father who was driving.   B: No it wasn’t, it was me. b. It was precisely for that reason that the rules were changed. 3. Weather, time, place, condition a. It is raining. It became very humid. b. What time/date/day is it? It is five o’clock/1 July/Monday. c. It is very noisy in this room. d. It is more than five miles to the nearest post office. 4. It as subject with other predicative DPs a. It was a perfect day. b. It’s a wonderful view. 5. It in idioms a. How’s it going? (all examples taken from Stirling & Huddleston 2002: 1481–3). 2. Note that Stirling and Huddleston (2002: 1483) use NP here, but that I stick to the abbreviation DP for reasons of consistency.



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

However, I applied two changes to this categorization. First, I excluded class (5) uses of it. Idiomatic expressions were generally neglected in the analysis since they can be considered lexicalized chunks. Second, I redefined class (4) uses of it. Stirling and Huddleston (2002: 1483) themselves note that the examples in (4) show “a greater degree of referentiality” than the examples in (1) to (3) and that one can generally replace it in these contexts by demonstrative this, which automatically expresses at least semi-referentiality. Still, it does not refer to a preceding DP in such cases and thus seems to occupy an intermediate status between true expletives and true referential it. This difference in referentiality should, however, be accounted for, especially since when used in context, these instances of it normally refer to some larger contextually given entity. One could, for example, ima­ gine someone talking about a past experience which is not expressed by a single DP but by a larger chunk of discourse. When then concluding It was just perfect, it clearly refers back to the whole part of the text which reports on the event. I therefore decided to create a separate category to account for this difference in referentiality, viz. contextual referential it ({contrefer>it}; cf. Table 6.1). Table 6.1 gives an overview of the codes created to mark up the data for the absence or presence of the above identified subcategories of subject pronouns and illustrates how the codes were applied, drawing on examples from the data set. Table 6.1  TAMS codes – overt vs. zero subjects Code

Description

Example

{refer}

indicates use of overt referential subjects I, you, he, she, we, you, they ([Br]E target)

I: Uh, my childhood {refer [SMB]} I{/refer [SMB]} would say it was ## fairly easy-going. {refer [SMB]} I{/refer [SMB]} come from a middle-class family. (#052) IE: Yes. Do you like him? I: Yes, {pro>refer [SMB]}{/ pro>refer [SMB]} is very good. [...] (#003) I: [...] and {refer>demons [SMB]} this {/refer>demons [SMB]} is the most difficult thing [...]. (#062) I: [...] We got married on the Saturday and we came to Cyprus on the Sunday and we stayed here ever since. [=!laughs] {pro>refer>demons [SF]}{/ pro>refer >demons [SF]} was 38 years ago. (#068)

{pro>refer}

indicates use of zero referential subjects I, you, he, she, we, you, they (potential candidate EiCy/CyE) {refer>demons} indicates use of overt demonstratives this, that, these, those expressing anaphoric reference ([Br]E target) {pro>refer>demons} indicates use of zero demonstratives this, that, these, those expressing anaphoric reference (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 6.1  Continued Code

Description

Example

{refer>it}

indicates use of overt referential it, i.e. it referring to a preceding DP ([Br]E target)

{pro>refer>it}

indicates use of zero referential it, i.e. zero it referring to a preceding DP (potential candidate EiCy/CyE) indicates use of overt quasi-referential it, i.e. it referring to a larger contextually given entity ([Br]E target)

I: I uh grew up in this community. Uh, {refer>it [SF]}it{/refer>it [SF]}’s not that small, but {refer>it [SF]}it{/refer>it [SF]}’s not bi& enough. (#016) I: [...] I know that French is uh a sweet language, but {pro>refer>it [SF]}{/pro> refer>it [SF]} is difficult language. [...] (#058) IE: [...] And later, do you want to uhm teach little kids or rather university |students? I: |Well, I am not sure. Uh, {contrefer>it [SMB]}it{/contrefer>it [SMB]}’s something I am not # sure. (#023) I: I prefer Cyprus. IE: Oh, really! Why? I: I don’t know. Is different. Is small #, don’t know, is [//] maybe {pro>contrefer>it [SF]}{/pro> contrefer>it [SF]} is ‘cause I grew up over here. (#011) I: {expl>it [SMB]}It{/expl>it [SMB]} ‘s not that I took advantage over that. (#038) IE: What would you do if you won the lottery? I: [=talks to someone else in Greek] Uhm, # I don’t know. {pro>expl>it [SF]}{/pro> expl>it [SF]} Is not easy if you win. [...] (#040)

{contrefer>it}

{pro>contrefer>it}

indicates use of zero quasi-referential it, i.e. it referring to a larger contextually given entity (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

{expl>it}

indicates use of overt expletive it ([Br]E target)

{pro>expl>it}

indicates use of zero expletive it (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

Questions were not coded for pronoun realization because the qualitative analysis has shown that subjects are not omitted in these structures. In addition, I did not code the data for subject pronoun realization with structures of left dislocation such as My aunt, she is a nice lady since personal pronouns occurring in such structures fulfil a different syntactic/semantic function. They stand proxy for a preceding DP and fulfil “a reinforcing or recapitulatory” function (Quirk et al. 1985: 1416) and can therefore not be left out without majorly affecting the force of expression of the structure.



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

6.2.2.1.2 Absence vs. presence of definite and indefinite articles With respect to the investigation of article use in EiCy/CyE, I coded the data for the realization or absence of both definite and indefinite articles in different syntactic positions. As H2–a suggests, I assume that EiCy/CyE speakers make use of definite articles preceding proper nouns. As an example, I restricted the quantitative analysis to the absence or presence of the definite article modifying place nouns like England, Cyprus, or Germany. Table 6.2 illustrates and explains the codes created and used to quantify the occurrence of definite article + place noun. Also in the domain of article use, I coded the data for the absence or presence of indefinite articles with unspecific objects, with predicative DPs, and with comparative like + DP structures. H2–b, H2–c, and H2–d hypothesize that EiCy/CyE speakers omit indefinite articles in these structures or use the numeral one instead. Table 6.3 gives further details about the codes and how they were applied. With respect to all three syntactic structures, I coded full DPs only. Elliptical structures such as I was the youngest were left out. When coding (zero) indefinite articles with direct objects, I followed a narrow definition of the category “direct object” as suggested in Quirk et al. (1985: 726–8). Phrases like

(1) She walked into a gas station. (2) He looked at the painting. (3) I’m talking about a serious problem.

were excluded from the analysis due to the fact that for examples of type (2) it is debatable whether they should be classified as lexical verb + adverbial (1) or prepositional verb + direct object (3) (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1155–6). The categorization “predicative DP” refers to all predicative DP structures following copula verbs, but, again, elliptical structures such as Among the students, he Table 6.2  TAMS codes – zero vs. explicit definite articles Code

Description

{placeN>det>zero}

indicates use of zero definite article I: But ou& [/] our subject is not with place nouns ([Br]E target) {placeN>det>zero [SMB]} Germany{/placeN> det>zero [SMB]}, it’s {placeN>det>zero [SMB]}Cyprus{/placeN>det>zero [SMB]}. (#090) indicates use of explicit definite I: [=!laughs] I went to article with place nouns (potential {placeN>det>expl [SF]}the candidate EiCy/CyE) England{/placeN>det>expl [SF]} when I was 15 years old. (#075)

{placeN>det>expl}

Example

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 6.3  TAMS codes – zero vs. explicit indefinite articles Code

Description

Example

{unspecDO>det>expl}

indicates use of explicit indefinite I: [...] I had article with direct objects ([Br]E {unspecDO>det>expl [SF]}a target) good relationship{/unspecDO >det>expl [SF]} with him as well as my mother. (#029)

{unspecDO>det>one}

indicates use of numeral one replacing indefinite article a in direct objects (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

I: [...] They saw # {unspecDO>det>one [SF]}one English woman{/unspecDO> det>one [SF]} with a child [on her arm?] [...]. (#077)

{unspecDO>det>zero}

indicates use of zero indefinite article with direct objects (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

I: [...] I have {unspecDO>det>zero [SMB]} nice family{/unspecDO>det> zero [SMB]} #, [...]. (#039)

{unspecPredDP>det>expl}

indicates use of explicit indefinite I: Yes, it’s uh [/] it’s article in predicative DPs ([Br]E {unspecPredDP>det>expl target) [SMB]}a very nice place {/unspecPredDP> det>expl [SMB]}. [...] (#029)

{unspecPredDP>det>one}

indicates use of numeral one replacing indefinite article a in predicative DPs (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

I: Uh, my [/] my daughter is a uh [//] {unspecPredDP>det>one [SF]}one art teacher {/unspecPredDP>det>one [SF]}, [...]. (#081)

{unspecPredDP>det>zero}

indicates use of zero indefinite article in predicative DPs (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

I: [...] During the Turkish uh invasion, I was {unspecPredDP>det>zero [SMB]}soldier{/unspec PredDP>det>zero [SMB]} again. [...] (#058)

{unspecComplike>det>expl}

indicates use of explicit indefinite I: Although this is a family article with comparative like + business, he is ## DP structures ([Br]E target) {unspecComplike>det>expl [SMB]}like a partner{/unspec Complike>det>expl [SMB]} here, [...]. (#052)

{unspecComplike>det>one}

indicates use of numeral one replacing indefinite article a with comparative like + DP structures (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

no example (no single occurrence)

{unspecComplike>det>zero}

indicates use of zero indefinite article with comparative like + DP structures (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

I: [...] they make him {unspecComplike>det>zero [SMB]}like ball{/unspecComplike >det>zero [SMB]}. [...] (#061)



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

was the smartest were neglected. Elliptical copula, i.e. complex transitive structures such as I consider him a friend, and predicative DPs following as a (e.g. He worked as a teacher) were included in the analysis. 6.2.2.1.3 The realization of conditional simple As a third morphosyntactic feature, this time in the verbal domain, I look into the realization of conditional simple to express hypothetical context, i.e. the use of the past tense modals “to express the hypothetical version of meanings such as ability, possibility, permission, prediction, and volition” (Quirk et al. 1985: 232). Of special interest here is the use of the “mood markers” would and should (Quirk et al. 1985: 234) to express hypothetical meaning in responses to questions such as:

IE: And, what would you do if you won the lottery? I: Uh, uh, I would change my clothes. (#001)

For most such sentences an implicit if-clause can be assumed (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 234–5).

I: I would change my clothes if I won the lottery.

Excluded from the analysis were the following uses of modal auxiliaries: 1. Should marking ‘putative’ meaning as in: i. She insisted that we should stay. ii. It’s unfair that so many people should lose their jobs. iii. Let me know if you should hear some more news. iv. Why should anyone object to her enjoying herself? v. I can’t think why he should have been so angry. 2. The past tense modals could, might, would, and should in indirect speech, e.g. i. She said we could/might do as we wished. ii. It was seriously argued that the king could do no wrong. iii. We were afraid that it might rain later. iv. Nobody knew what could be done. v. I felt sure that the plan would succeed. vi. I wondered if he would help me. vii. She asked me if she should open a window. 3. To express a. permission: There were no rules: we could do just what we wanted. b. possibility: In those days, a transatlantic voyage could be dangerous. c. ability: Few of the tourists could speak English. d. prediction: Later, he would learn his error.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

e. habitual prediction: The old lady would sit in front of the television continuously. f. willingness: We tried to borrow a boat, but no one would lend us one. g. insistence: He Áwould leave the house in a muddle. 4. Past tense modals indicating tentativeness or politeness as in: a. Tentative permission (in polite requests): i. Could I see your driving licence? ii. I wonder if I might borrow some coffee? b. Tentative volition (in polite requests): i. Would you lend me a dollar? ii. I’d be grateful if someone would hold the door open. c. Tentative possibility (in expressing a tentative opinion): i. There could be something wrong with the light switch. ii. Of course, I might be wrong. d. Tentative possibility (in polite directives and requests): i. Could you (please) open the door? ii. You could answer these letters for me. (examples taken from Quirk et al. 1985: 231–4). I therefore coded the data only for those contexts in which (Br)E conditional simple structures or the potential EiCy/CyE structures are used to create hypothetical contexts. Drawing on hypothesis H3, which is motivated by the crosslinguistic observation that in GCD/SMG conditional aspect is built by using the future particle enna/tha, I expect an underrepresentation of conditional simple structures for the benefit of will-future when expressing hypothetical context. Moreover, a preliminary study (cf. Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011) as well as the qualitative data screening revealed that simple present, going-to-future, as well as some other, more idiosyncratically used verb forms also replace conditional simple in EiCy/CyE. This again reinforces the observation that mechanisms leading to feature selection and nativization are in fact manifold and interwoven and that it is not transfer alone which leads to the emergence of local characteristics (cf. Schneider 2007: 99–109). Table 6.4 sums up and again gives some short descriptions of the codes as well as examples of how they were applied to the transcripts. 6.2.2.1.4 The realization of perfect meaning With regard to H4, I coded the data for a potential underrepresentation of present perfect structures where BrE traditionally requires the use of present perfect to indicate that the event “has continued up to the present time (and may even continue into the future)” (Quirk et al. 1985: 190). As the qualitative data analysis as



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

Table 6.4  TAMS codes – the realization of conditional simple Code

Description

Example

{condsim>condsim}

indicates use of conditional simple to express hypothetical context ([Br]E target)

{condsim>future>will}

indicates use of will-future to express hypothetical context (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

{condsim>pressim}

indicates use of simple present to express hypothetical context (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

{condsim>future> goingto}

indicates use of going-to-future to express hypothetical context (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

{condsim>misc}

indicates use of any other verb form to express hypothetical context (e.g. future in the past or structures that do neither correspond to the grammatical rules of BrE nor to the patterns found in EiCy/CyE); these structures occur on a rather idiosyncratic level only

IE: Uhm, what would you do if you won the lottery? [...] I: I would [/] {condsim>condsim [SF]} would quit{/condsim>condsim [SF]} my job. (#029) IE: Okay, okay. # What would you do if you won the lottery? [...] I: Uhm. ## Okay, okay, I {condsim> future>will [SMB]} will still keep{/condsim>future >will [SMB]} my job. [...] (#052) IE: Well, what would you do if you won the lottery, 3 million euros, like # a lot of money? [...] I: [...] Uh, I {condsim>pressim [SF]}start{/condsim>pressim [SF]} travelling. (#077) IE: [...] what would you do if you won the lottery? A lot of money, two or three million # euros? Just # I: Mhm. IE: all of a sudden? [=!laughs] I: Uhm. I {condsim>future>goingto [SMB]}’m going to help {/condsim> future>goingto [SMB]} the children. (#072) I: My father did [//] died before # 50 years. [...] I: Oh, now he {condsim>misc [SF]}was going to be {/condsim>misc [SF]} # 96 years old. (#077)

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

well as two previous preliminary studies (Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011; Fuhrmann 2008) suggest, EiCy/CyE speakers prefer either simple past or simple present tense structures instead, which can basically be explained in light of the typological differences between GCD and BrE (cf. 3.5.2). In addition to that, the qualitative analysis has revealed that past participle structures also repeatedly replace BrE present perfect structures.3 I therefore created a code to account for this alternative, too. Those present perfect alternatives that were only used occasionally and on a rather idiosyncratic basis are subsumed under the code {presperf>misc}. Table 6.5 again gives an overview of the codes used and how they were applied in practice. What also needs to be mentioned is that in some contexts BrE, according to the definition above, allows for either a present perfect or simple past structure. This is also in line with Quirk et al.’s observation that even though a clear difference between simple past, which indicates that the event “has come to a close”, and present perfect exists, it is “by no means invariable” (Quirk et al. 1985: 190). I nevertheless coded such occurrences by applying the {presperf>pastsim} code since they also indicate a clear preference of the simple past structure by speakers of EiCy/CyE. Consider the following example for illustration: I: I’m working two jobs. I’m a night manager in the XX hotel and during my day, I’m here. IE: Okay, and you # save a lot of people? I: During my 10 years of work as a life guard, I {ambiguous [SF]}{presperf>pastsim [SF]}did{/presperf>pastsim [SF]}{/ambiguous [SF]}, yes. (#025)

The code {ambiguous} was applied here just for reasons of precision in the coding process (cf. Table 6.9), i.e. to indicate that the simple past structure would likewise be grammatical in BrE. It has, however, no further relevance for the later data analysis. 6.2.2.2 The lexicogrammatical domain In the lexicogrammatical domain, I chose two features for the quantitative data analysis. First of all, I look into the potential preference of the time reference pattern before X days/weeks/months/years over (Br)E X days/weeks/months/years ago. Secondly, I coded the data for either transitive or intransitive use of the verb like, i.e. like + object vs. like + zero object. 6.2.2.2.1 Before X days/weeks/months/years vs. X days/weeks/months/years ago To test for H5, I coded the data for both the (Br)E time reference pattern X days/ weeks/months/years ago and the potential EiCy/CyE structure before X days/weeks/

3.

This again reinforces the multicausality of feature emergence (cf. Schneider 2007: 99–109).



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

Table 6.5  TAMS codes – the realization of perfect meaning Code

Description

{presperf>presperf} indicates use of present perfect to express perfect meaning (BrE target) {presperf>pastsim}

indicates use of simple past to express perfect meaning (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

{presperf>pressim}

indicates use of simple present (and progressive) to express perfect meaning (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

{presperf>pple}

indicates use of past participle to express perfect meaning (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

{presperf>misc}

indicates use of any other verb form to express perfect meaning (e.g. past perfect or verb forms that do neither correspond to the grammatical rules of BrE nor to the patterns found in EiCy/CyE); these structures occur on a rather idiosyncratic level only

Example I: I {presperf>presperf [SMB]} haven’t decided{/presperf> presperf [SMB]} yet. It’s too early, but uh I will find out. (#012) I: [...] we came to Cyprus on the Sunday and we {presperf>pastsim [SMB]}stayed{/presperf>pastsim [SMB]} here ever since. [...] (#068) I: Uhm, they used to live in a village called Morfou, uh which uh {presperf>pressim [SF]}is{/ presperf>pressim [SF]} one of the occupied uh villages uhm after 1974, [...]. (#026) I: [...] Like I said, I {presperf>pple [SF]}been{/presperf>pple [SF]} here 12 years and everyone of the customers is like my brother. (#075) IE: Ha& [/] have you been to all the cou& [/] all the [/] all the countries you |were just talking about? I: |Yes, yes, yes. I {presperf>misc [SMB]}’m been {/presperf>misc [SMB]} everywhere except a few countries in Europe. [...] (#050)

months/years. Table 6.6 again illustrates the codes used and gives examples of how they were applied to the data. 6.2.2.2.2 Transitive vs. intransitive use of like In order to test for hypothesis H6, I coded the data for transitive vs. intransitive use of the verb like. Drawing on the crosslinguistic analysis (cf. 3.5.2), I coded the data for the realization of like + overt or zero object constituent in contexts where both the interviewer and the interviewee could theoretically infer a zero object from the context (and where GCD areso [‘like’] takes a zero constituent). What has to be

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 6.6  TAMS codes – before X days/weeks/months/years vs. X days/weeks/months/years ago Code

Description

Example

{tempph>ago}

indicates use of X days/weeks/ months/years ago ([Br]E target)

{tempph>before}

indicates use of before X days/ weeks/months/years (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

I: Yeah, it was like three years ago, yeah [/] {tempph>ago [SF]}three years ago{/tempph>ago [SF]}. [...] (#018) I: Yes, {tempph>before [SMB]} before eighteen years{/tempph> before [SMB]}. (#041)

taken into consideration, however, is that in (Br)E, like can take several kinds of object constructions and not only regular DPs. Next to complementation by a simple DP, Quirk et al. (1985: 1176–95) cite the following forms as potential objects for like: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Subjectless to-infinitive clause I like to make new friends. Subjectless -ing participle clause Susan likes dancing. to-infinitive clause with subject We don’t like Martin to do that. –ing participle clause with subject She likes him cooking dinner.

(cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1176–95; examples are my own). However, I did not differentiate between all these different complement structures in the data analysis but employed the following simplified subdivision of the use of like + object: 1. like + N: includes like + DP, like + subjectless -ing participle clause, and -ing participle clause with subject 2. like + to: includes like + subjectless to-infinitive clause and to-infinitive clause with subject Additionally, I created a code for the use of like + pronouns, assuming that this is the direct counterpart to objectless structures and the one in which objects can most frequently be dropped since pronominalization commonly brings with it the amount of contextuality required for an object to be left out without impairing comprehensibility. The code applied to zero structures could not be further subdivided since it is inherently difficult to determine the precise nature of a zero (object) constituent.



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

Table 6.7 gives an overview, short explanations of the codes created, as well as examples of how the codes were applied to the transcripts.4 Table 6.7  TAMS codes – transitive vs. intransitive use of like Code

Description

Example

{like>obj>prn>cont}

indicates transitive use of like, here like + overt object pronoun in contexts where the content of the object is familiar to both the interviewee and the interviewer ([Br]E target) indicates transitive use of like, here like + overt DP (including gerunds) in contexts where the content of the object is familiar to both the interviewee and the interviewer ([Br]E target)

I: Reading? Yes, I {like>obj>prn>cont [SF]}like it{/ like>obj>prn>cont [SF]}! Yes. (#076)

{like>obj>N>cont}

indicates transitive use of like, here like + overt infinitive verb form in contexts where the content of the object is familiar to both the interviewee and the interviewer ([Br]E target) {like>obj>zero>cont} indicates intransitive use of like, i.e. like + zero object in contexts where the content of the object is familiar to both the interviewee and the interviewer (potential candidate EiCy/CyE) {like>obj>to>cont}

IE: Okay and do you also like music? I: Yes, I {like>obj>N>cont [SMB]} like music{/like>obj>N>cont [SMB]} very much. [...] (#003) IE: Okay, okay. # Do you also uh read books? I: Uh, no. I {like>obj>N>cont [SF]}don’t like reading{/like> obj>N>cont [SF]}, no. (#024) IE: [...] Do you enjoy cooking? I: I {like>obj>to>cont [SF]}like to cook{/like>obj>to>cont [SF]}, yes. [...] (#076)

I: [...] Ah, oh, yes, ping-pong, you know this? IE: Mhm, mhm. I: I {like>obj>zero>cont [SF]} like{/like> obj>zero>cont [SF]}, but I stoppened this. (#008)

4. Besides the codes listed in the following table, I also created codes and coded the data for like + object pronoun, noun, and infinitive construction in contexts where the object was not familiar to the interview partners. These uses of like, however, are not relevant for the data analysis since they constitute cases in which the object cannot be left out anyway. They were just coded for reasons of completeness. Zero objects that were unfamiliar to the conversational partners could, as expected, not be found in the data, most likely because this would have led to a communication breakdown.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Uses of like in nominal relative clauses (1), adnominal relative clauses (2), and sentential relative clauses (3) were treated as transitive uses since an object constituent is present even if it does not follow the verb.

(1) I do what I like. (2) The city which I like most is London. (3) In Cyprus the sun shines nearly every day, which everybody likes.

6.2.2.3 The lexicosemantic domain As the qualitative analysis has revealed, EiCy/CyE makes use of too as an intensifier for adjectives as the semantic equivalent of (Br)E very + adjective. The fact that GCD/SMG employs a semantic distinction similar to too and very suggests that this is not a transfer feature. As already mentioned above, the feature was chosen according to selection criteria 1 and 3. In order to achieve representative results, I restricted the coding to the analysis of premodifier too + adjective much since much is a high frequency adjective, which, even when premodified, yields a high enough token frequency. The data was hence coded for the (Br)E pattern very much and for the EiCy/CyE alternative too much. In order to avoid obscurity and for reasons of completeness, all instances of (Br)E too much, indicating a degree that seems no longer acceptable or appropriate, were coded as well. Table 6.8 presents the relevant codes as well as short descriptions and examples for each of them. Applying the codes {Q>much>too>too} and {Q>much>very>too} was in many cases a question of semantic interpretation. Still, in most cases, the interpretation was clear since employing the (Br)E negative intensifier too in cases like the Table 6.8  TAMS codes – (Br)E very much vs. EiCy/CyE too much Code

Description

{Q>much>very>very} indicates use of very much ([Br]E target)

{Q>much>too>too}

indicates use of too much ([Br]E target)

{Q>much>very>too} indicates use of too much instead of very much (potential candidate EiCy/CyE)

Example I: Yes, I like music {Q>much> very>very [SMB]}very much {/Q>much>very>very [SMB]}. [...] (#003) I: [...] or uhm uhm even sometimes if he feels that he’s asking {Q>much>too>too [SF]}too much{/Q>much>too>too [SF]}, [...]. (#032) I: [...] she likes {Q>much>very> too [SMB]}too much{/Q>much> very>too [SMB]} to cook, [...]. (#061)



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

above She likes too much to cook (#061) appears to be semantically odd in (Br)E terms. In such rather rare cases in which both types of intensifier seem semantically possible, but where it is contextually more likely that the speaker aims at the (Br)E very much interpretation, I applied the code {Q>much>very>too} + {ambiguous}, again to account for the fact that both structures might be possible, but that the particular EiCy/CyE speaker prefers the local alternative. The same procedure was followed for those cases of too much where both patterns would have been conceivable, but where the pragmatic context suggests that a (Br)E too much interpretation is more likely. I here complemented the code {Q>much> too>too} again by {ambiguous}. In the final data analysis, only the first two instances, i.e. all occurrences of {Q>much>very>very} and {Q>much>very>too}, where measured against each other to account for the frequency of occurrence of the EiCy/CyE characteristic. 6.2.2.4 Some further remarks on the coding process Next to the additional code {ambiguous}, whose main function has already been illustrated above, I created four more codes which do not have a significant impact on the data analysis but which provide relevant information on why certain structures were neglected in the coding process. Table 6.9 summarizes these codes and illustrates their use. Also, some mention needs to be made of how the coding process relates to the CHAT codes used to transcribe the data. As already mentioned in Section 4.3, some CHAT codes were of major importance for the coding process since they determined which elements were coded and which ones were neglected in the coding process. In this respect, structures which were merely repeated (indicated by [/]) were only coded once to avoid unrealistic numbers in terms of token frequencies and thereby a distortion of results. I: Yes, only, I don’t know [/] {refer [SMB]}I{/refer [SMB]} don’t know [...]. (#039)

In corrected structures (indicated by [//]), independent of whether the correction changed the utterance into a (Br)E target or non-target structure, the coders always coded the second, “corrected” element on the basis of the assumption that the second structure is the one the speaker finally intended to produce. I: [...] in the other side of the [//] of {placeN>det>zero [SMB]}Cyprus{/ placeN>det>zero [SMB]}. (#057)

With respect to rephrased structures (indicated by [///]), coding depended on length and similarity of the syntactic elements involved. Hence, with reformulation

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 6.9  TAMS codes – additional codes Code

Description

{ambiguous} indicates that a coded structure allows for two grammatical forms/interpretations

{generic}

{lexchunk}

{unclear> structure}

Example I: Uhm, uh uh there is {ambiguous [SMB]}{unspecPredDP>det>one [SMB]}one student{/unspecPredDP> det>one [SMB]}{/ambiguous [SMB]} was writing bad things for uh, uh [/] for another girl [...] +//. (#002)

indicates that a direct object lacks an article and that it a. very likely has to be interpreted as a. I: Uh, one can actually combine generic in meaning, even though them somehow because now even the construction lacks plural -s, and {generic [SF]}economist{/generic is therefore not coded as [SF]}, even governments are {unspecDO>det>zero} beginning to worry about the environment. (#046) b. can be interpreted as b. I: So, they still use it now when do {unspecDO>det> zero} structure, {generic [SMB]}{unspecDO>det> but that a generic interpretation zero [SMB]}traditional wedding would theoretically also be possible {/unspecDO>det>zero [SMB]} {/generic [SMB]}. (#055) indicates that a structure which I: Uh, but I [/] I know {lexchunk [SF]} normally falls within one of the coded a lot of{/lexchunk [SF]} people, [...]. categories was not coded because it is (#029) considered a lexical chunk, which has I: Okay, {lexchunk [SF]}thank you been acquired/learned and stored as a very much{/lexchunk [SF]}. (#058) fixed, lexicalized structure that would I: Yeah, I took some photographs, not easily undergo structural change {lexchunk [SMB]}you know{/ lexchunk [SMB]}, of the bride [...]. (#086) Other examples: I mean, like X said, a little bit, a few X, etc. indicates that a structure is grammatically unclear, e.g. a. structures in incomplete and/or a. IE: Okay. So that’s probably things interrupted sentences which are too that # shouldn’t be discussed? # short for clear syntactic interpretaOkay. tion I: Yeah, {unclear>structure [SF]} it{/unclear>structure [SF]}’s uhm +//. (#032)



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

Code

{nontarg}

Description

Example

b. structures in sentences where part of the sentence is incomplete because parts of the recording are incomprehensible c. structures in which reference is unclear

b. I: [...] we had {unclear>structure [SMB]} a XXX{/unclear>structure [SMB]} and as I was figh& [//] we were fighting, [...]. (#002) c. IE: He’s very good-looking. Puh. I: You like? IE: Mhm, oh yes, I do. I: {unclear>structure [SF]}It{/ unclear>structure [SF]}’s unbelievable. [=!laughs] (#008) I: Uh, because we uhm # uhm do a lot of uh crazy things in the classroom {nontarg [SMB]}that they{/nontarg [SMB]} are so funny. (#006) I: Uh, in nineteen seventy-four. IE: Mhm. I: Uhm, my husband {nontarg [SMB]} has been{/nontarg [SMB]} uh to the National Guard. He was called to [/] to go to the National Guard. (#073)

indicates that a structure nominally falls into the range of coded (Br)E material, but is actually a non-target structure because (Br)E would not use it in the given context

of rather long and/or syntactically dissimilar structures, both constituents of interest were coded, whereas in short and/or rather similar structures, only the second, reformulated element was coded. I: [...] and uh I did my # [///] {refer [SMB]}I{/refer [SMB]} applied at universities in England [...]. (#012) I: [civilized people?], {expl>there [SF]}there{/expl>there [SF]} is some [///] for example {refer [SF]}I{/refer [SF]} might use to shower at times. (#049)

Incomprehensible passages (indicated by XX or XXX) and sometimes also neighbouring material as well as best guess structures (indicated by [?]) were generally neglected in the coding process due to their insecure status. 6.2.3 Frequency counts and data analysis In a next step, I used TAMS Analyzer to count the frequencies of occurrence of all main codes introduced above. To account for frequency of occurrence, the system automatically runs a code count of all codes applied to the data set, from which I selected the relevant codes for analysis. In addition to that, TAMS Analyzer provides the possibility to count frequencies in selected interviews only. I used this

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

function to measure token frequencies for the three generational groups and to compare the results to each other, thereby accounting for the general expectation that age has an important influence on the use of EiCy/CyE features. In the following section, I always present both the overall results for the feature under scrutiny as well as the respective results for the three generations. For all features, I provide the token frequencies of both the (Br)E and the EiCy/CyE variants and measure them against each other employing a traditional calculation of percentages. In doing so, I account for the question to what extent EiCy/CyE forms might be preferred over the (Br)E alternatives or whether Greek Cypriots mainly stick to the BrE input variety. For those features of binary choice (e.g. zero or overt subject, [Br]E time reference pattern or EiCy/CyE time reference pattern), the calculation procedure was simple in that I just measured the occurrence of the EiCy/CyE variant against the (Br)E pattern. With respect to the EiCy/CyE characteristics which employ several alternatives (e.g. will-future, simple present, going-to-future, and some idiosyncratic forms to express hypothetical context), I calculated percentages by measuring the sum total of the EiCy/CyE alternatives against the (Br)E variant. In addition to that, I also present the exact token frequencies of the respective EiCy/CyE alternatives to account for the question which of the identified alternatives is preferred and therefore most strongly nativized. 6.3 Results In what follows, I report on the results of the data analysis as described above. The following tables give the token frequencies of the individual structures coded across the generations and for each of the three groups. In addition, the right column always provides the percentage of occurrence of the respective EiCy/CyE feature after having been measured against frequency of occurrence of the (Br)E structure. Bar charts for each feature illustrate the difference between the three generational groups, with group 1 constituting the older generation participants, group 2 the middle-aged group, and group 3 the young group of Greek Cypriots. The y-axis indicates percentage of use of the EiCy/CyE feature and for optical reasons has a maximum of either 100% (with those features ranging above 50% of frequency) or 50% (with those features which remain below 50% of frequency). For each feature coded, I also evaluate how the results bear on the hypotheses developed in Section 3.5.4. In a summarizing section, I additionally comment on how accurate the results of the qualitative feature rating render in light of the quantitative analysis and what implications this might have for studying features of World Englishes.



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

6.3.1 The morphosyntactic domain The following sections present the results in the morphosyntactic domain. With respect to the use of zero subjects and the use of definite and indefinite articles with different syntactic structures, tables and graphs illustrate the individual subfeatures as presented in the description of the coding process. 6.3.1.1 Overt and zero subjects in EiCy/CyE As H1 states, I expect that the use of zero subjects is a nativized feature of EiCy/CyE. The qualitative analysis has partly confirmed this hypothesis in that it suggests regular occurrence, i.e. shows a mean value of 3.0 or higher, for the use of zero referential it and zero expletive it. The use of zero referentials (I, you, he, she, we, you, they) and zero demonstratives, however, has been rated to lie below the 30% threshold. Tables 6.10–6.14 and bar charts 6.1–6.5 illustrate whether or not the quantitative analysis validates the impressionistic ratings. As Table 6.10 shows, zero referential subjects are used to a very low extent in all three generational groups, with feature frequency being highest for the Table 6.10  Results – zero referential Group

refer.

Ø refer.

% Ø refer.

All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

15322   5698   5471   4153

250   94 101   55

1.61 1.62 1.81 1.31

50 45 40 % Ø referential

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All

Group 1

Group 2

Bar chart 6.1  Intergenerational differences – zero referential

Group 3

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

middle-aged group (group 2). There is, however, no remarkable difference between the three groups as percentages range between 1.31% for the oldest group (group 1) and 1.81% for group 2. Bar chart 6.1 illustrates both the low frequencies as well as the very small differences between the groups. This implies that the results run counter to both H1 and the general expectation. With respect to zero referential it (cf. Table 6.11, Bar chart 6.2), percentage of usage amounts to an overall rate of 21.69%. What the results also show is a clear and gradual decrease in feature use from 32.77% in the older generation (group 1) to 23.88% in the middle-aged group (group 2) to only 10.03% in the young group (group 3). This partly confirms H1 and suggests that feature nativization set in in the oldest group, but that the characteristic has not developed into a very strong and stable feature which has been passed on to subsequent generations. The expectation that younger Greek Cypriots use EiCy/CyE features to a much lesser extent is confirmed. Table 6.11  Results – zero referential it Group All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

refer. it

Ø refer. it

% Ø refer. it

675 160 255 260

187   78   80   29

21.69 32.77 23.88 10.03

50 45

% Ø referential it

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All

Group 1

Group 2

Bar chart 6.2  Intergenerational differences – zero referential it

Group 3



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

As illustrated by Table 6.12 and Bar chart 6.3, the results for the use of zero contextual referential it reveal a similar picture with respect to the intergenerational decline in feature use. Here, however, percentages clearly range below the 30% benchmark for all groups with an overall percentage of 9.87% only. This subfeature has consequently not entered the nativization process and does not corroborate H1. The overall results for zero expletive it (cf. Table 6.13, Bar chart 6.4) again remain below the 30% benchmark. Looking into the individual group results, however, reveals that with group 1 and group 2 percentages lie slightly above 30%, with 34.34% and 31.22%, respectively. Thus, I assume that for these two groups the characteristic could be in a very early phase of the feature nativization process, which corroborates H1. In contrast, the young generation clearly prefers the (Br)E variant, since frequency of the EiCy/CyE feature here lies below 10%. This reinforces the general expectation of my study again. Table 6.12  Results – zero contextual referential it Group All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

cont. refer. it

Ø cont. refer. it

% Ø cont. refer. it

667 197 232 238

73 32 31 10

  9.87 13.97 11.79   4.03

50

% Ø contextual referential it

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.3  Intergenerational differences – zero contextual referential it

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 6.13  Results – zero expletive it Group All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

expl. it

Ø expl. it

% Ø expl. it

391 109 141 141

135   57   64   14

25.67 34.34 31.22   9.03

50 45 40 % Ø expletive it

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.4  Intergenerational differences – zero expletive it

The results for the use of zero demonstratives (cf. Table 6.14, Bar chart 6.5) show a very low overall occurrence of 3.78% and in this respect are comparable to the results for zero referentials. Even though feature use decreases again with a decline in age, the differences are negligible since they only range from 4.20% in the oldest generation to 3.05% in the young group of participants. Consequently, zero demonstratives in neither group have entered the process of feature nativization; H1 is not confirmed here. Table 6.14  Results – zero demonstrative Group All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

demons.

Ø demons.

% Ø demons.

637 228 250 159

25 10 10  5

3.78 4.20 3.85 3.05



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

50 45

% Ø demonstrative

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.5  Intergenerational differences – zero demonstrative

6.3.1.2 Article use With respect to H2, the results for the use of definite and indefinite articles in different syntactic structures reveal the following picture: H2–a is not confirmed by the results since the use of explicit definite articles modifying place nouns (cf. Table 6.15, Bar chart 6.6) lies below 4% for all groups. Even though feature use declines with age, the differences can once again be neglected since they are numerically marginal and lie between 3.49% for the older generation, 2.74% for the middle-aged group, and 1.33% for the young group. Feature nativization can therefore safely be ruled out for this characteristic. Despite the fact that the results for the use of zero indefinite articles with direct objects (cf. Table 6.16, Bar chart 6.7) are higher than the results for definite articles with place nouns, the findings are again not very promising with respect to feature nativization. For all three groups, the results clearly remain below the 30% threshold, varying from 13.86% for the group of older participants to 16.67% Table 6.15  Results – definite article + place noun Group All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Ø def. art. + place noun

def. art. + place noun

% def. art. + place noun

1769 830 569 370

51 30 16  5

2.80 3.49 2.74 1.33

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

50

% def. article + place noun

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.6  Intergenerational differences – definite article + place noun

for the middle-aged group to 13.39% for the below-30 participants. As a consequence, H2–b can also not be validated. In addition, the results also run counter to the general expectation in that feature use here is highest for the middle-aged group and groups 1 and 3 display roughly the same feature frequency. The use of one in article function hypothesized as alternative variant in H2–b is of even lower frequency than the use of zero articles with direct objects and has consequently also not entered the nativization process. As Table 6.17 and pie charts 6.1(a-c) suggest, of those articles realized, only 6.32% show as numeral one, with results ranging from 4.60% for the older generation to 9.66% for group 2 and to 4.61% for the young group of participants. The results for the use of the numeral one in article function therefore confirm neither H2–b nor the general expectation of the study. With respect to the use of zero articles with predicative DPs, Table 6.18 shows that H2–c is not confirmed, either. With an overall percentage of 19.62% and 23.02%, 21.87%, and 11.11% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, feature occurrence Table 6.16  Results – zero indefinite article with direct objects Group All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

indef. art. DO

Ø indef. art. DO

% Ø indef. art. DO

801 249 262 290

147   42   58   47

14.67 13.86 16.67 13.39



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

50 45

% Ø indef. article

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.7  Intergenerational differences – zero indefinite article with direct objects

Table 6.17  Results – one as indefinite article with direct objects Group All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

indef. art. DO

one DO

% one DO

801 249 262 290

54 12 28 14

6.32 4.60 9.66 4.61

a) Group 1 % explicit indef. one 4.60%

% explicit indef. article 95.40%

b) Group 2

c) Group 3

% explicit indef. one 9.66%

% explicit indef. article 90.34%

Pie chart 6.1  Results – one as indefinite article with direct objects

% explicit indef. one 4.61%

% explicit indef. article 95.39%

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 6.18  Results – zero indefinite article with predicative DPs Group

indef. art. pred. DP

Ø indef. art. pred. DP

% Ø indef. art. pred. DP

824 310 286 228

204   93   82   29

19.62 23.02 21.87 11.11

All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

50 45

% Ø indef. article

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.8  Intergenerational differences – zero indefinite article with predicative DPs

is always clearly below the suggested benchmark of 30%. The characteristic can therefore not be assumed to have entered the process of structural nativization, even though a clear decline in feature use reinforces the general expectation. The results for the alternative use of numeral one replacing the indefinite article in predicative DPs are again even lower than the zero variant and the feature has accordingly not entered the process of feature nativization, either. Table 6.19  Results – one as indefinite article with predicative DPs Group All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

indef. art. pred. DP

one pred. DP

% one pred. DP

824 310 286 228

12  1  7  4

1.44 0.32 2.39 1.72



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

a) Group 1

b) Group 2

% explicit indef. one 0.32%

% explicit indef. article 99.68%

c) Group 3

% explicit indef. one 2.39%

% explicit indef. article 97.61%

% explicit indef. one 1.72%

% explicit indef. article 98.28%

Pie chart 6.2  Results – one as indefinite article with predicative DPs

As Table 6.19 and pie charts 6.2 (a-c) illustrate, percentages of occurrence are as low as a mean of 1.44% for all three groups and 0.32% for the oldest generation, 2.39% for the middle-aged group, and 1.72% percent for the young group. Group 2 here again employs the highest percentage of occurrence. Consequently, neither H2–c nor the general expectation are validated. The results for the last syntactic structure investigated with respect to the use of zero and explicit indefinite articles are more promising when it comes to feature nativization (cf. Table 6.20, Bar chart 6.9). Even though the overall feature frequency for the use of zero indefinite articles with comparative like structures (22.86%) as well as the results for the oldest group (11.11%) and the middle-aged group (25%) lie below the threshold for feature nativization, this time the young group just reaches the benchmark with 30% local feature use. This seems to suggest that with respect to this feature, feature nativization might have set in for group 3, which at least partly corroborates H2–d. This, however, runs counter to the general expectation that young Greek Cypriots use local characteristics to a lesser extent than older Greek Cypriots. However, these results have to be treated with caution since the overall token frequencies are rather small. Table 6.20  Results – zero indefinite article with comparative like structures Group All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

indef. art. comp. like

Ø indef. art. comp. like

% Ø indef. art. comp. like

27  8 12  7

8 1 4 3

22.86 11.11 25.00 30.00

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

50 45

% Ø indef. article

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All groups

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.9  Intergenerational differences – zero indefinite article with comparative like structures

A table and pie charts for the use of one as an alternative for the indefinite article are not provided here because the feature does not show in any of the groups at all. In such structures, EiCy/CyE does not make use of the hypothesized alternative at all; H2–d is not confirmed in this respect. 6.3.1.3 Expressing hypothetical context As shown in Table 6.21, the results for expressing hypothetical context by nonconditional simple structures are very high for all three groups. Overall, EiCy/CyE prefers a grammatical form other than conditional simple in 62.34% of all cases. The results for the older generation of Greek Cypriots are especially high at a rate of 76%, but also the middle-aged group and the young group prefer the use of non-conditional structures in more than 50% of all cases, with 56.41% and 55.13%, respectively. Bar chart 6.10 again illustrates an intergenerational decline in feature use. As already noted in the methodological description of the coding process (cf. 6.2.2.1.3), the overall finding that Greek Cypriots prefer other structures than conditional simple to express hypothetical context can be broken down into more detailed figures. Table 6.21 and pie charts 6.3 (a-d) show that the going-to-future and miscellaneous structures are the least favoured variants for all three generational groups and should consequently be considered idiosyncracies rather than



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

Table 6.21  Results – expressing hypothetical context Group

cond. sim. will-future

All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

174   36   68   70

116   46   20   50

pres.sim.

going-to-future

misc.

% non-cond.sim.

126   54   45   27

11  4  5  2

35 10 18  7

62.34 76.00 56.41 55.13

100

% non-conditional simple

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

All groups

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.10  Intergenerational differences – non-conditional simple

systematic, widespread forms. Simple present is the most frequent EiCy/CyE choice to express hypothetical context in terms of overall frequency and is clearly preferred by the older as well as the middle-aged group. The below-30 participants, however, favour will-future constructions. The results confirm the general implication of H3, i.e. the use of non-conditional simple structures to express hypothetical context, and the general expectation. Frequency of occurrence ranges above the 50% benchmark for all three groups, with particularly simple present but also will-future as strong alternatives to express hypothetical context. Somewhat surprisingly, simple present is the most favoured alternative and not, as hypothesized, the will-future. The latter is only preferred by the young group of Greek Cypriots. This finding can be interpreted in two ways: on the one hand, the typological difference that GCD employs auxiliaries only very rarely (only exo ‘have’, if at all) might have a stronger influence on L2 English than the structural ambiguity that the future particle enna is also used to

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

build the conditional. On the other hand, the finding might illustrate that even though L1 transfer is one of the major mechanisms at work in the development of second-language varieties (cf. Mollin 2007: 171), it is by no means the only one. In this respect, the preference of simple present could also be explained as, for example, the result of structural simplification or as a mixture of both transfer and simplification. a) All groups

b) Group 1

% going-tofuture 2.38%

% misc 7.58%

% simple present 27.27%

% going-tofuture 2.67%

% conditional simple 37.66%

% misc 6.67%

% conditional simple 24.00%

% simple present 36.00%

% will-future 30.67%

% will-future 25.11%

c) Group 2 % going-tofuture 3.21%

% simple present 28.85%

d) Group 3 % misc 11.54%

% going-tofuture 1.28%

% conditional simple 43.59%

% will-future 12.82%

% misc 4.49%

% simple present 17.31%

% will-future 32.05%

Pie chart 6.3  Results – conditional and non-conditional structures

% conditional simple 44.87%



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

6.3.1.4 Expressing perfect meaning The results for the use of non-present perfect structures in cases where BrE traditionally requires the present perfect are again strong. As Table 6.22 shows, for all three groups the overall percentages of the EiCy/CyE structures lie above the 50% threshold, with the older generation of Greek Cypriots again displaying the highest amount of local usage (73.05%). The middle-aged group uses non-present perfect structures at a rate of 63.89% and the young group at a rate of 52.21%. Bar chart 6.11 illustrates this decline in feature frequency with decreasing age. The overall results validate both H4 and the general expectation. The use of non-present perfect structures can therefore be considered a nativized feature of EiCy/CyE. Among the potential alternatives replacing present perfect in EiCy/CyE, the findings also correspond to the predictions of H4. Simple past is the strongest alternative for all groups, but pie charts 6.4 (a-d) show that simple present is also frequently used. Additionally, past participle forms occur as a third regular Table 6.22  Results – expressing perfect meaning Group

pres.perf.

past.sim.

pres.sim.

pple

misc.

% non-pres.perf.

164   45   65   54

146   58   57   31

76 23 34 19

43 28  9  6

31 13 15  3

64.35 73.05 63.89 52.21

All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

100 90

% non-present perfect

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

All groups

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.11  Intergenerational differences – non-present perfect

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

a) All groups % past participle 9.35%

b) Group 1 % misc 7.78%

% misc 6.74%

% past participle 16.77% % present perfect 35.65%

% simple present 16.52%

% present perfect 26.95%

% simple present 13.77% % simple past 31.74%

% simple past 34.73%

c) Group 2 % past participle 5.00% % simple present 18.89%

% simple past 31.67%

d) Group 3 % misc 8.33%

% past participle 5.31% % present perfect 36.11%

% misc 2.65%

% simple present 16.81%

% present perfect 47.79%

% simple past 27.43%

Pie chart 6.4  Results – present perfect and non-present perfect structures

alternative to express perfect meaning, even though that could not be straightforwardly hypothesized on the basis of the crosslinguistic analysis of GCD/SMG and English. Still, transfer might be a possible explanation here as GCD uses auxiliary verbs only very rarely. So, what has been acquired by Greek Cypriots is only the past participle form of the main verb. However, the regular use of the past participle alternative here can probably also be explained as either some kind of continuity from non-standard forms of English which also make use of this structure or as an innovation process, in this case simplification (cf. Schneider’s [2007: 99–109]



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

overview of possible processes involved in the emergence of PCEs). This again reinforces the assumption that causes for and processes involved in feature selection are manifold and not always easy to determine (cf. Schneider 2007: 99–112). Again the category “misc” cannot be considered a nativized alternative since it subsumes all instances of rather idiosyncratic non-present perfect structures to express perfect meaning. 6.3.2 The lexicogrammatical domain In the following section, I provide the results for the two features quantified as examples in the lexicogrammatical domain. The format follows the one already employed to present the results in the morphosyntactic domain. Token frequencies as well as percentages of occurrence of the potential EiCy/CyE feature are again given in table format and bar charts illustrate potential intergenerational differences. I also again comment on how the results bear on the hypotheses developed in Section 3.5.4. 6.3.2.1 Before X days/weeks/months/years vs. X days/weeks/months/years ago The results for the hypothesized preference of EiCy/CyE before X days/weeks/ months/years over (Br)E X days/weeks/months/years ago (cf. Table 6.23, Bar chart 6.12) are weaker than for the two morphosyntactic features in the verbal domain illustrated above (cf. 6.3.1.3 and 6.3.1.4). Nevertheless, H5 is confirmed in most parts in that for both the young group of participants as well as the oldest generation of Greek Cypriots, percentages range clearly above 30% and come very close to the 50% benchmark, with 47.83% and 47.62%, respectively. The feature can thus be assumed either to be in or have stagnated in the middle of the nativization process, almost showing a preference for the EiCy/CyE structure. Even though the results for the middle-aged group remain below the 30% threshold, they are still stronger than some of the results in the morphosyntactic nominal domain. However, what cannot be observed here is a decline in feature use from the older to the young generation since both the below-30 as well as the oldest group of participants use the feature to a very similar extent, while the middle-aged group employs the EiCy/CyE feature to a much lesser degree. This clearly runs counter to the general expectation. 6.3.2.2 Transitive vs. intransitive use of like With respect to the use of either (Br)E transitive like or the EiCy/CyE intransitive variant (cf. Table 6.24 and Bar chart 6.13), results for the latter range above the 30% threshold for both the oldest generation and the middle-aged group. Only for the

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 6.23  Results – before + X days/weeks/months/years Group

X days/weeks... + ago

before + X days/weeks...

% before

54 22 20 12

38 20  7 11

41.30 47.62 25.93 47.83

All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

50 45

% before X days etc.

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All groups

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.12  Intergenerational differences – before + X days/weeks/months/years

below-30 generation does feature occurrence remain below that benchmark (27.54%). Thus, H6 is mainly confirmed since for the oldest and middle-aged groups, features occur at such a rate (40.74% and 37.74%, respectively) that feature nativization can be assumed to have set in. In addition to that, the results corroborate the general expectation again as the feature is used to a lesser extent by those participants who have learned English mainly through the education system. Table 6.24  Results – transitive vs. intransitive use of like Group All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

like + noun

like + prn.

like + to

like + Ø

% like + Ø

41 15 14 12

80 29 17 34

10  4  2  4

72 33 20 19

35.47 40.74 37.74 27.54



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

50 45 40

% like + Ø obj.

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All groups

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.13  Intergenerational differences – like + zero object

6.3.3 The lexicosemantic domain Finally, for the feature coded in the lexicosemantic domain, too + much replacing very + much, the analysis has yielded the following results (cf. Table 6.25 and Bar chart 6.14): in the older group, feature occurrence has just reached the 50% threshold, which suggests a considerable degree of stability and widespread use in the Greek-Cypriot community. The results for the middle-aged group and for the group of below-30 participants, however, show the general decline in feature use as documented for many of the preceding features discussed. Whereas for group 2 the results still lie clearly above the 30% benchmark (44.12%), feature use in the young generation displays a decline to 25.93%. Consequently, the general expectation is also confirmed here. Table 6.25  Results – too much vs. very much Group All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

very + much

too + much

% too + much

62 23 19 20

45 23 15  7

42.06 50.00 44.12 25.93

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

50 45

% too much

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

All groups

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Bar chart 6.14  Intergenerational differences – too much

6.3.4 Summary and discussion The quantitative analysis has revealed a quite consistent picture with respect to the question whether EiCy/CyE is characterized by stable and systematic local features. For the oldest group, most hypotheses are confirmed. The results for group 2 partly validate the hypotheses since frequency of occurrence exceeds the defined nativization threshold for only some of the characteristics. The results for the young group only lie above the 30% or 50% threshold for the overall high frequency features (i.e. non-conditional simple to express hypothetical context, nonpresent perfect to express perfect meaning, and use of before X days/weeks...) and for the use of zero indefinite article with comparative like structures. Again, the latter result has to be treated with caution due to the low token frequencies. With respect to the general expectation, most of the distributions nicely mirror a feature decline from the older to the younger generation. Even if it does not apply to all features under scrutiny, it can be safely interpreted as a general tendency. This assumption is additionally reinforced by the fact that the three outliers, i.e. (1) the use of zero indefinite articles with direct objects (cf. Table 6.16 and Bar chart 6.7), (2) the use of zero indefinite articles with comparative like structures (cf. Table 6.20 and Bar chart 6.9), and (3) the use of the time reference pattern before X days/weeks/months/years (cf. Table 6.23 and Bar chart 6.12), do not exhibit a consistently reverse trend against the observed tendency. All display their own pattern, i.e. for outlier (1) the highest use of the EiCy/CyE feature can be observed for group 2, for outlier (2) it is group 3 which uses the EiCy/CyE feature to the greatest



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

extent, and for outlier (3) a very similar use for groups 1 and 3 can be observed but only low local feature use for group 2. In addition to that, outlier (1) has turned out not to have entered the nativization process anyway and the results for outlier (3) should not be overestimated due to the low token frequencies for this feature. Table 6.26 summarizes those features for which feature use exceeds the 30% benchmark for at least one of the generations and briefly comments on the implications the results have with respect to feature nativization. Not part of this list are zero referentials, zero contextual referential it, zero demonstratives, definite articles with place nouns, zero indefinite articles with direct objects and numeral one as alternative, as well as zero indefinite articles with predicative DPs and the respective numeral one alternative. For all these (sub-)features, frequency of occurrence ranges below the 30% threshold, with most of these features even staying well below the 20% mark. Drawing on the considerations in Section 3.4.2.2, I conclude that these non-convergent tendencies cannot be considered features of EiCy/CyE that have entered the nativization process at some point in time. Accordingly, the results have revealed a huge difference in feature frequency for the different characteristics, ranging between below 2% and over 70%. This raises the question as to what motivates these differences and why some features have obviously entered the nativization process while others have not (cf. Schneider 2007: 88), even though the underlying mechanism, viz. L1 transfer through language contact, seems to be the same for most of the features quantified in this study. This finding nicely ties in with Mufwene’s (2001) feature pool idea, which explains why not every structure which is potentially available for nativization becomes part of the nativized L2 repertoire. According to the feature pool theory, all potential features first enter a pool from which features are chosen and subsequently undergo nativization due to extralinguistic and intralinguistic reasons, i.e. “the complete ‘ecology’ of the contact situation” (Schneider 2007: 22–3; see also Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 164; Mufwene 2001: 4–5, 18). Mesthrie and Bhatt (2008: 164), for example, bring in the “transfer to somewhere principle” (cf. Andersen 1983) as an intralinguistic reason for feature selection. According to this principle, apparent structural similarities between first and second language which in actual fact are not true similarities but are based on structural ambiguities (e.g. the use of pre-nominal adjectives in both English and French: English only allows for pre-nominal adjectives [apart from very few exceptions], French allows for both positions but predominantly employs postnominal adjectives [Nicoladis 2006: 17]) allow for the retention of certain L1 features in the L2. As examples for extralinguistic reasons, Mesthrie and Bhatt point to social factors such as the deliberate decision not to acquire native-like proficiency for reasons of demarcation from native speaker identities (Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 164–5). In

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English Table 6.26 Summary of nativized structures Feature

Use in group 1

Use in group 2

Use in group 3

General observations

zero referential it

32.77% → first traces of feature nativization

23.88% → no feature nativization

10.03% → no feature nativization

zero expletive it

34.34% → first traces of feature nativization

31.22% → first traces of feature nativization

9.03% → no feature nativization

zero indefinite article with comparative like structures

11.11% → no feature nativization

25% → no feature nativization

30% → very first traces of feature nativization

use of non-conditional simple structures to express hypothetical context

76.00% → clear preference, feature has undergone feature nativization

56.41% → preference, feature has undergone feature nativization

55.13% → preference, feature has undergone feature nativization

clear decrease in feature use for the middle-aged and in particular the young group → first traces of feature nativization only in the older group slight decrease in feature use from group 1 to 2, clear decrease in feature use for the young group → first traces of feature nativization only in the middle-aged and older group counter to general expectation: increase in feature use from older to middle-aged to young group → very first traces of feature nativization only in the young group? (very low token frequencies) decline in feature use with decline in age; the feature has, however, not lost its status as indigenized and widely used characteristic → feature nativization in all three groups

Feature

Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE  Use in group 2

Use in group 3

General observations

use of non-present 73.05% perfect structures to → clear preference, express perfect meaning feature has undergone feature nativization

63.89% → clear preference, feature has undergone feature nativization

52.21% → preference, feature has undergone feature nativization

use of before X days/ weeks/months/years

25.93% → no feature nativization

47.83% → near preference, feature is in or stuck in nativization process 27.54% → no feature nativization

decline in feature use with decline in age; the feature has, however, not lost its status as indigenized and widely used characteristic → feature nativization in all three groups no noteworthy difference between the oldest and the young group; middle-aged group stays below 30% → feature nativization in groups 1 and 3 clear decline in feature use for young group, which is, however, still close to the nativization threshold → feature nativization in groups 1 and 2 slight decrease for middle-aged group, stronger decrease for young group → feature nativization for groups 1 and 2

like + zero object

too much replacing (Br)E very much

Use in group 1

47.62% → near preference, feature is in or stuck in nativization process 40.74% → feature has clearly entered the nativization process 50.00% → feature has exactly reached the preference threshold

37.74% → feature has clearly entered the nativization process 44.12% → feature has clearly entered the nativization process

25.93% → no feature nativization

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

addition to that, markedness has also been discussed as potential criterion for feature selection in that it has been claimed that marked L1 structures do not usually undergo transfer (cf. Mufwene 2001: 5; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 164–5; see also the brief discussion in Schneider 2007: 104, 111). In the same way as I neglect a detailed account of the possible linguistic processes involved in filling the feature pool (cf.3.4.2.2), I also do not elaborate on the complex composition and interaction of potential factors responsible for selection from this feature pool.5 This is again due to two interrelated reasons: (1) The question why some potential features get adopted, i.e. survive, while others do not is a complex one and often factors interact and cannot conclusively be distinguished (Schneider 2007: 88, 110). (2) Discussing all potential options for the features which entered the process of structural nativization would again go beyond the scope of this first approach to and overview of EiCy/CyE. What is more important at this point is that the observed differences in feature frequency and hence the applicability of the feature pool theory generally reinforce the variety-like traits of EiCy/CyE. It is easily conceivable that learner Englishes, too, exhibit differences in frequency of occurrence between different learner errors, which are possibly influenced by similar mechanisms. These differences, however, would not be expected to be as large as the approximate 70% difference detected for the EiCy/CyE characteristics because learner Englishes typically do not employ stabilized and systematized characteristics used throughout major parts of the population. With regard to the question how the quantitative results compare to the qualitative feature ratings, the first thing to mention is of course that the qualitative ratings do not account for the clear intergenerational differences observed in the quantitative study. In this respect, mean values of the impressionistic ratings largely diverge from the quantitative results for the young group of participants but are often very close to the results for group 1 or come at least close to the mean values for the three groups. Especially the latter observation shows that the impressionistic ratings were in sum quite accurate. This is at least true for the results of higher frequency (i.e. expressing hypothetical context, realization of perfect meaning, before X days..., too much). With respect to those features for which feature frequency has been rated to lie below the 30% threshold (e.g. definite article with place nouns, zero referentials, zero demonstratives), the qualitative ratings are often one step above the quantitative figures (e.g. the qualitative rating for zero demonstratives: mean = 2 [≈ 10% to 30%], quantitative analysis: < > < >
p < 0.05 (*) are sometimes also referred to as “highly significant”, “very significant”, and “significant”, respectively (Gries 2009: 32). Since this differentiation is not of analytical importance for my analysis and because the categorization is somewhat error-prone and would require further statistical corrections, I refer to the three significance levels as statistically significant only, i.e. without taking into consideration the potential differences.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Table 6.30  HCFA for all significant configurations – expressing hypothetical context Factor_1 Factor_2 (1) group 2 (2) group 1

will-future condsim

Frequ

Exp

20 36

39.1688 56.4935

Cont.chisq Obs-exp 9.3810 7.4342

<


P.adj.bin

Dec

Q

0.03737665

*

0.028

As Table 6.29 illustrates, zero articles in predicative DPs where (Br)E would normally require an overt article occur at a significantly low rate in the young group. This again at least partly reinforces the overall prediction that the below-30 generation uses EiCy/CyE features to a much lesser extent than the two other groups and reinforces the alternative hypothesis SH1-2. Table 6.30 shows the HCFA significances for expressing hypothetical context. The configuration group 2 x will-future turned out to be significantly below expectation (configuration 1). In the overall analysis, this outlying finding can be neglected since it neither contributes to my line of argumentation nor does it run counter to it. However, the significance found for the second configuration (group 1 x condsim) supports the alternative hypothesis SH1-3 and once again reinforces the general expectation since the (Br)E variant is again significantly non-preferred by the oldest group. The last statistically relevant result detected by the HCFA occurs with respect to the realization of perfect meaning (cf. Table 6.31). Group 1 here displays a statistically significant high frequency in the use of the past participle to express perfect meaning, which shows that the oldest generation clearly prefers one of the EiCy/CyE alternatives over the BrE structure. This again at least partly validates the alternative hypothesis SH1-4 over the null hypothesis. With respect to the overall statistical analysis, I would finally like to point to a general, rather implicit observation for group 2. As the results have shown, only one single significant configuration occurs for the middle-aged group. This is in line with the expectation that group 2 is heterogeneous with respect to acquisition contexts and language use (cf. 3.5.4), which has rendered the occurrence of strong effects unlikely in the first place.



Chapter 6.  Linguistic characteristics of EiCy/CyE 

6.4 Summary Summing up, the quantitative study and the statistical analysis have yielded the following three major findings: 1. For many of the quantified features, feature nativization could be attested for the older generation (group 1) and sometimes also for the middle-aged group (group 2). For the high frequency features, which reveal a clear level of nativization (≥ 50%) for group 1, (clear) traces of nativization are also found in the young group (group 3). Consequently, many of the linguistically motivated hypotheses are in large parts confirmed but not always for all generations. 2. a. According to the quantitative analysis, nearly all EiCy/CyE characteristics have experienced a decline in feature use from the older generation of Greek Cypriots to the middle-aged group and again to the young group. Therefore, the general expectation of this study is also widely confirmed. b. The HCFA has partly confirmed the general expectation in that it rendered parts of the null hypotheses (i.e. of SH0-1, SH0-2, SH0-3, SH0-4) invalid. Even though for the other intergenerational differences revealed by the quantitative analysis no significance has been detected, it can nevertheless be assumed that a general tendency of feature decline is at work in EiCy/CyE. 3. Those characteristics not included in Table 6.26 are not considered features which have entered the process of structural nativization since they clearly stay below the 30% threshold, most often even below 20%. Even though these characteristics also employ intergenerational differences in use, they are most often not as strong as for the nativized/nativizing features and/or do not follow the general decline pattern. How these findings can be interpreted in the theoretical framework of World Englishes research and what they imply for the variety status of EiCy/CyE is addressed in the following chapter.

chapter 7

Assessing the variety status of EiCy/CyE 7.1 Introduction This chapter brings together the whole range of theoretical considerations and empirical findings from the previous chapters and discusses how they bear on the initial research question about the potential variety status of EiCy/CyE. I conclude this discussion by suggesting that EiCy/CyE is a hybrid case and can neither be assigned clear second-language variety nor learner English status and subsequently investigate how this hybrid status impinges on placing EiCy/CyE in models of and approaches to World Englishes. To do so, I discuss the potential place of EiCy/CyE in each of the models and approaches briefly introduced in Chapter 3 and concomitantly comment on the applicability of the corresponding model/ approach to the linguistic development and current situation in Cyprus. Where possible and reasonable, I suggest modifications to the existing models to allow them to accommodate the case of Cyprus. Drawing on Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model, which postulates the full transformation of a developing variety from “English in X” to “X English” for phase 4 (cf. Schneider 2007: 50), I also show that the latter label has to be ruled out for Cyprus. 7.2 EiCy/CyE: Second-language variety or learner English? As already pointed out in Chapter 3, a colonial history as such is not a necessary criterion for a country to develop towards ESL status. In the same vein, it is not a sufficient criterion for determining variety status (cf. Bonnici 2010: 32; Bruthiaux 2003: 165–7; cf. 3.4.4). To account for the variety status of a specific type of English, one has to take into consideration further and more precise criteria, as compiled in Section 3.4.2.1 In what follows, I pick up on these criteria and discuss whether or not they are met by the sociolinguistic realities in Cyprus and what this implies for the variety status of EiCy/CyE.

1. Note again that this catalogue is an adaptation and expansion of Mollin’s (2006: 52, 2007: 173).

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

7.2.1 Spread of bilingualism and expansion in function To assess whether EiCy/CyE has gone through the process of expansion in function, I first look into the question whether societal bilingualism can be considered widespread in Cyprus. To that end, recall Kloss’ (1966: 15) basic assumption that “[in] calling a speech community bilingual we imply application not only to a few high-ranking bureaucrats and some scholars but also to a sizeable segment of the population”. This “sizeable segment” should at least comprise one of the following four groups: (1) “all adults”, (2) “all breadwinners”, (3) “all literate adults”, or (4) “all secondary school graduates” (1966: 15; cf. 3.4.2.1). The observations of the current sociolinguistic situation in Cyprus (cf. 2.4) clearly suggest that this criterion is largely met. English still fulfils an important function, is widely learned and appreciated as a linguistic tool, and is consequently spoken by all secondary school graduates and most parts of the adult population in general. Moreover, all Greek Cypriots who speak English, no matter whether they acquired English during the time of British occupation or later on learned it at school, meet the individual requirement to be called bilingual: they have a command of the English language as required by the context (cf. Grosjean 1989: 6) as they are, for example, able to communicate in English with foreigners and permanent residents of different ethnic origin who do not speak the Greek language. The fact that societal bilingualism in Cyprus is characterized by a cline in proficiency does not rebut this general observation, in particular since such a cline has also been detected for (other) ESL societies (see, for example, Kachru’s [1965, 1983] observation for India or Gupta [1994: 7] on a cline in proficiency in Singapore). As pointed out in Section 3.4.2.1, as a natural consequence of widespread societal bilingualism, one can also expect that Cyprus has gone through an expansion in use and functions of the English language. With respect to this criterion, Section 2.4 has generally revealed that, even though Cyprus has experienced a gradual decline in use and functions of the English language following the 1974 division of the island, it is still used in a variety of intranational domains. Its status in the public education sector, in the media, as well as in administration, however, is relatively weak when compared to other former colonies like India or Singapore. In addition to that, its status as a neutral means of intranational interethnic communication was also weakened through the de facto division of Cyprus in 1974. Even though English is still used in this link function between Greek Cypriots and tourists and immigrant groups who are not proficient in Greek, its status is by no means comparable to the one it fulfils in multilingual countries like India or the English-speaking African postcolonial societies. Since an assessment of variety status can certainly not be accomplished without such reference to other speech communities, I here conclude that the second aspect of the expansion criterion is only partly met.



Chapter 7.  Assessing the variety status of EiCy/CyE 

7.2.2 Nativization of linguistic structures As has been observed in Section 3.4.2.2, another crucial step towards variety status is that of structural nativization/indigenization, i.e. the emergence of new distinct linguistic features (cf. Mollin 2006: 49, 2007: 170–1; Platt et al. 1984: 3; Williams 1987: 162). In what follows, I match the findings from the qualitative and quantitative feature analysis (cf. 5.3 and 6.3, respectively) with the criteria established for determining whether a type of English has gone or is going through the process of structural nativization. The first criterion to be revisited here is that of range and diversity of feature occurrence. Pooling the results of the qualitative screening and the quantitative analysis has yielded 39 features on different levels of language use (i.e. the phonological, morphosyntactic, lexical, lexicogrammatical, lexicosemantic, and pragmatic level), which can be assumed to have entered the process of feature nativization at some point in time.2 Even though it is not precisely clear how many features have to emerge before their occurrence can be called “considerable in nature” (cf. 3.4.2.2; see also Mollin 2007: 171), the 39 features identified in this study can be considered substantial and meet the first criterion. With respect to the subcriteria “societal spread of these characteristics” and “systematicity”, I earlier suggested that they might be fulfilled when feature use is higher than 50% (= mean value of 4.0 in the qualitative rating). In other words, this threshold marks the transition towards preference of the feature under investigation. The qualitative and quantitative analyses have revealed that of the 39 features which have passed the 30% threshold, only 12 lie above the 50% mark and hence are truly preferred over the (Br)E alternatives. Another aspect which has to be taken into account here is that the quantitative analysis has revealed that feature use is much stronger for the older generation than for the young generation of Cypriots. For those features which have only been impressionistically rated, it is not possible to provide any reliable assertions with respect to potential intergenerational differences. It can, however, be assumed that for some of the 12 features which have been indentified as particularly strong, this might only hold true for the older generation since this is the general trend suggested by the quantitative analysis (cf. 6.3.4). In addition to that, another 13 features have been identified to come close to the 50% threshold by either exhibiting a mean value of 3.5 or by 2. The zero indefinite articles with direct objects and predicative DPs are no longer included in this overall count since the quantitative analysis has revealed that the use of both characteristics remains below the 30% threshold. The use of zero indefinite articles with comparative like structures is also not included here, even if the quantitative analysis suggests feature status at least for the young group of participants. Token numbers are, however, too small to rely on the accurateness of this result.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

crossing the 40% mark for at least one of the generations.3 This can again be assumed to be mainly true for the oldest group of participants. What I consequently conclude here is that the criteria “societal spread” and “systematicity” of feature use are, if at all, only fulfilled by the oldest generation of participants. Thus, these two aspects of criterion 2 are only partly met. With respect to the last aspect of the nativization criterion, beginning orientation towards a local norm, recall the following observations from Section 2.4:  (1) EiCy/CyE is not a carrier of local identity and (2) speakers of EiCy/CyE are generally oriented towards BrE and so are the local press and education curricula. As a consequence, localization of the media, the educational sector, as well as creative writing has not set in. Hence, a reorientation away from the BrE standard towards EiCy/CyE as the local norm has not taken place and is certainly not underway. To conclude, the nativization criterion is only partly fulfilled. The results from the qualitative and quantitative analyses have revealed that with respect to feature occurrence, EiCy/CyE employs features which apparently are at different stages of the nativization process. Furthermore, the quantitative study has detected important intergenerational differences, more precisely a general decline in the use of local characteristics. This suggests the following interpretation with respect to feature nativization: EiCy/CyE is one of the rare cases in which development is undergoing reversal from structural nativization towards learner status (cf. Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011: 52). In other words, EiCy/CyE is simultaneously characterized by nativized features, in particular used in the older generation, and learner language characteristics, i.e. a more variable use of EiCy/CyE structures, especially to be found in the below-30 generation. It consequently exhibits both criteria that suggest variety status and criteria that more resemble those found for learner Englishes. With respect to the criterion of structural nativization, I therefore suggest that EiCy/CyE is a hybrid case, to be placed somewhere between typical second-language varieties and learner Englishes. In Section 6.3.4, I refrained from a general investigation of possible causes which have led to the emergence of nativized structures. Nonetheless, the whole spectrum of results suggests an interesting developmental tendency of structural nativization in EiCy/CyE I consider worth mentioning. Besides the influence of culture on language development and “universal laws of ontogenetic second-­ language acquisition and phylogenetic language shift”, e.g. simplification and overgeneralization (Schneider 2007: 89; see also Williams 1987: 169–70), Schneider 3. Note again that I neglect cases for which the quantitative analysis has yielded a frequency below 30% even though the qualitative analysis has revealed a mean of 3.5. This applies to the use of zero indefinite articles with predicative DPs.



Chapter 7.  Assessing the variety status of EiCy/CyE 

also elaborates on a third mechanism that may be at work in the emergence of PCEs. He here draws on Sapir’s assumption that languages experience a “drift”, “a direction of change toward a coherent language type” (Schneider 2007: 89), which is, for example, apparent in the long-term development of English from a synthetic to a rather analytic language (cf. Schneider 2007: 89–90; for further details on this notion see Sapir 1921: 160–3). Also in line with this idea is Keller’s “invisible-hand theory” (Keller 1994: 67), which “attempts to explain structures and reveal processes, namely those structures which are produced by human beings who do not intend or even notice them, as if they were ‘led by an invisible hand’” (Keller 1994: 68; see also Schneider 2007: 90; for further details on this theory see Keller 1994: 67–78). As lies in the nature of an invisible mechanism, the mode and way of action of it is, of course, difficult to track. To reinforce the relevancy of his assumption, Schneider (2007: 90) refers to Mesthrie’s (2006) study on Black South African English, which implicitly supports the assumption that languages might have a drift in that they show some underlying direction of development. For Black South African English, Mesthrie points towards what he calls “antideletion”, which manifests itself in the retention of features often discarded in “modern standard English” and other “(non-standard) varieties of English” as well as in the insertion of additional grammatical elements (Mesthrie 2006: 111; see also Schneider 2007: 90). Apart from the implicit reinforcement of this theory by Mesthrie’s study, there has been no further study which verifies the existence of such an evolutionary drift in PCEs (cf. Schneider 2007: 90).4 EiCy/CyE, however, also seems to corroborate this idea in that a similar drift towards a certain developmental direction can be detected. In contrast to Black South African English, EiCy/CyE seems to consistently operate in the direction of deletion, reduction, or simplification. In the phonological domain, the qualitative analysis, for example, has revealed the tendency of reduction/simplification of the BrE vowel system (e.g. through reducing long and short vowel contrasts and the replacement of [6] and [8˜]) as well as the reduction to only one weak form of the definite and indefinite articles. In the morphosyntactic domain, this interpretation is reinforced by the general tendency to reduce the tense-aspect system through, for example, an underrepresentation of present perfect and past perfect, expressed by simple past or sometimes also simple present in the former case. In addition to that, the underrepresentation of conditional simple to express hypothetical context, auxiliary omission, as well as the omission of indefinite articles, subjects, and objects with traditionally transitive verbs also contribute to this interpretation. 4. At least in 2007, Schneider did not know of any further study and I likewise had not come across further attestations by October 2012.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

7.2.3 Institutionalization The third major criterion I revisit here to determine the variety status of EiCy/CyE is the institutionalization criterion, which combines the two aspects “acceptance of characteristics as local norm” and “localization of usage domains” (cf. 3.4.2.3). Since there are no traces for beginning orientation towards a local norm to be detected for EiCy/CyE and localization of creative writing, the teaching machinery, and the media have not set in, the institutionalization criterion is clearly not fulfilled.5 Since at least the oldest group of Greek Cypriots makes considerable use of local characteristics, linguistic behaviour in this generation appears to be characterized by “linguistic schizophrenia” (cf. Kachru 1983: 179, 1985b: 17, 1992a: 55–6, 60). According to Kachru, this phenomenon characterizes the actual speech situation in many so-called “[n]orm-developing varieties” spoken in outer circle/ESL countries (Kachru 1985b: 17, 1992b: 5, italics in original; see also Kachru 1992a: 55–6). The question which consequently arises at this point is how much weight should be put on the criterion of local norm orientation for assessing variety status. Mollin (2007), for example, argues that the distinction between norm-developing and norm-dependent Englishes is “the crucial starting point for criteria distinguishing between non-native true varieties and learner language” (Mollin 2007: 169). This would render EiCy/CyE definitely closer to learner English than to second-language variety status. However, on the basis of Kachru’s notion of “linguistic schizophrenia” and since realities in speech communities are fundamentally of complex nature, I take up my earlier argument that this aspect should not be assigned too much weight when determining variety status (cf. 3.4.2.2). 7.2.4 Ways of language acquisition When checking the criterion of acquision context against EiCy/CyE realities, a rather heterogeneous picture emerges again. As Section 2.4 has shown and as underlies the general expectation of this study, the acquisition process has changed considerably since the division of Cyprus in 1974. During the time of the British occupation, most Cypriots learned English at school but more importantly acquired the English language in everyday interaction with the colonizers. In addition to that, English was more ubiquitous under British rule and in the years following independence than it is today, due to the general decline in use and 5. As a natural consequence, codification has also not set in in the case of Cyprus. This criterion is not included in the main discussion because it was not identified as direct prerequisite for variety status and is hence treated as an additional and optional criterion here (see also Mollin 2007: 173).



Chapter 7.  Assessing the variety status of EiCy/CyE 

functions, which set in after 1974 (cf. 2.4.1). It can consequently be assumed that young Cypriots during this time had a good chance of natural access to the English language before entering school and thereby acquired at least some active knowledge before formal education started. The young generation of Greek Cypriots today, however, learns English mainly through formal classroom instruction. They normally have no access to the language prior to schooling since English is typically not the family language and has undergone a general decrease in intranational use and functions. As a result, the acquisition process of the young generation more strongly resembles foreign language learning as is typical of EFL countries. Still, the situation in Cyprus is not on a par with that in EFL countries since EiCy/CyE still fulfils a broader range of intranational functions than English in traditional EFL communities and the chance of acquiring some early proficiency in English is not completely ruled out for Greek Cypriots. Nevertheless, what I conclude here is that the fourth criterion was only met prior to 1974 but is no longer fully valid today. 7.2.5 EiCy/CyE – a hybrid case In what follows, I apply the checklist developed in Section 3.4.2.5 to the above observations and discuss the implications this has for the variety status of EiCy/CyE. The tick indicates that the criterion is met by the sociolinguistic or linguistic situation in Cyprus, the bracketed tick suggests that the respective criterion is only partly fulfilled, whereas the cross marks the criterion as absent for the (socio)linguistic situation in Cyprus. 1. Expansion in function – widespread societal bilingualism  – intranational use of English in several domains (i.e. education, administration, media, and for intranational, interethnic communication) () 2. Nativization of linguistic structures – considerable number of characteristics on all levels of language use (i.e. phonological, morphosyntactic, lexical, and pragmatic level)  – societal spread of these characteristics ≥ 30%: feature nativization sets in () – systematicity of these features ≥ 50%: use of local features turns into preference and from there may gradually develop into a rule – orientation towards a local norm may start to develop 

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

3. Institutionalization – acceptance of characteristics as local norm [not obligatory for variety status but indicator of well-advanced developmental stage]  – localization of usage domains (i.e. localization of creative writing, the teaching machinery, and the media)  – codification [not obligatory for variety status but indicator of well-advanced developmental stage]   4. Ways of language acquisition – more natural way of language acquisition than in typical EFL countries () As illustrated in the checklist, some of the prototypical criteria indicating variety status are fulfilled, whereas others are only partly met or not at all. What this shows is that EiCy/CyE can neither be assigned clear second-language variety status nor can it be characterized as a typical learner English. Consequently, EiCy/CyE appears to be of hybrid ESL-EFL nature, which also confirms the assumption that the notions of ESL and EFL should not be considered dichotomic constructs but poles on a continuum (see also Biewer 2011: 28; Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011: 48; Gilquin & Granger 2011: 76), as was already suggested by Platt et al. (1984: 22–3). But where can EiCy/CyE be assumed to be located on such a continuum? Its exact position is, of course, impossible to determine without any clear scale and without integrating in the discussion other types of English, i.e. typical second-language varieties and learner Englishes, as points of reference. Even though this cannot be accomplished by this first approach to EiCy/CyE, it is clear that EiCy/CyE can be considered somewhere between the ESL and EFL poles. In what follows, I attempt a slightly more precise positioning of EiCy/CyE by again drawing on the findings from the discussion of variety status above. The only (sub)criteria which are not met at all are the ones relating to the institutionalization of EiCy/CyE, i.e. its acceptance as local norm as well as the localization of usage domains. As already pointed out above, I consider the criteria of norm orientation and acceptance to be rather subsidiary, especially since they are also not met in some of the traditional ESL speech communities (cf. Kachru 1985b: 17, 1992b: 5; see also Kachru 1992a: 55–6). The fact that a localization of usage domains has not taken place in Cyprus, however, certainly sets Cyprus apart from many second-language varieties as localization of usage domains might also take place without people acknowledging the local variety as the norm (cf. the notion of “linguistic schizophrenia” again; cf. Kachru 1983: 179, 1992a: 60). With respect to the other criteria employed above, the discussion has revealed that some of the aspects are met whereas others are only partly fulfilled. Partial fulfilment of ESL criteria, however, still suggests a closer similarity to second-language varieties than to learner Englishes. Taking into consideration the intergenerational



Chapter 7.  Assessing the variety status of EiCy/CyE 

differences detected for the (sub)criteria “intranational use of English in several domains”, “societal spread and systematicity of feature use”, and “ways of language acquisition” again illustrates the reversal from ESL to EFL status EiCy/CyE has been undergoing. In line with the assumptions of Davy and Pavlou (2010) and Yazgin (2007), I assume that in the pre- and early post-independence period Cyprus was an ESL country and EiCy/CyE a second-language variety, even if not the most prototypical one since English was never a carrier of local identity or accepted as the local norm. With the 1974 de facto division of the island and the abandonment of English from many of the public domains it was formerly used in, its gradual decline in use and functions set in. Even though this also sets Cyprus clearly apart from most other postcolonial contexts, this developmental tendency has also been reported for other postcolonial societies (see, for example, Schneider’s 2007 case study on Malaysia [144–53] and Tanzania [197–9]). In Cyprus, the decline resulted in the change in acquisition context towards the prevalence of formal instruction, which in turn led to a stronger exonormative orientation towards BrE and to the gradual decrease in feature use observed above. Nevertheless, this development has not fully turned the island into an EFL country (yet?). This gives rise to the assumption that EiCy/CyE is still undergoing reversal and is going to develop further away from ESL towards EFL status in the future, at least under the circumstances given. For the current status of EiCy/CyE, I suggest hybrid ESL-EFL status, with still a slightly stronger affinity to second-language varieties than to learner Englishes. Figure 7.1 illustrates the rough placement of EiCy/CyE in the EFL-ESL-ENL continuum introduced in Section 3.4.4. [(post)colonial background]

EFL

Cyprus

decrease in functions/societal bilingualism error decrease in nativization decrease in institutionalization decrease of function as marker of local identity

ESL

ENL

increase in functions/societal bilingualism feature increase in nativization increase in institutionalization increase of function as marker of local identity

Figure 7.1  Cyprus in the modified version of Platt et al.’s (1984: 23) EFL-ESL-ENL continuum

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

The situation in Cyprus seems therefore comparable to the situation found in Hong Kong, as the status of Hong Kong English as a “proper” second-language variety has also been long discussed and is still disputed (see, for example, Görlach 2002a: 109–10; Nesselhauf 2009: 5), especially if one takes institutionalization as one of the major criteria for defining variety status (cf. the case study in Schneider 2007: 133–9). 7.3 Placing EiCy/CyE on the map of World Englishes research After having identified EiCy/CyE as a hybrid case, I now turn to the question which of the models and approaches to World Englishes can accommodate such a hybrid (socio)linguistic situation. In approaching this question, I conflate the discussion of the applicability of the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction and Kachru’s (1985b) Concentric Circles Model since its classification into Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle countries mainly builds on the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction. 7.3.1 EiCy/CyE, the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction, and Kachru’s (1985b) Three Concentric Circles As illustrated above, EiCy/CyE cannot be characterized in terms of a dichotomic ESL-EFL distinction since it shows characteristics of both learner English (EFL) and second-language variety (ESL). The ENL-ESL-EFL distinction therefore is not helpful for placing EiCy/CyE within the framework of World Englishes. Consequently, the same is true for Kachru’s (1985b) Concentric Circles Model. The attempt to place Cyprus in terms of his Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle classification again reveals the hybrid character of EiCy/CyE. Cyprus can neither clearly be placed as an Outer Circle country nor does it fit into the category of Expanding Circle countries. Next to the prominent and widely mentioned example of South Africa (cf. Bauer 2002: 24; Bruthiaux 2003: 162; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 31; Nayar 1997: 27; Schneider 2007: 13) and other instances (see, for example, Biewer 2011: 11 on the Cook Islands), Cyprus hence constitutes a further case in point which calls into question the applicability of the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction and Kachru’s (1985b) Concentric Circles Model, which both “ignore [...] certain facets of complex realities” (cf. Schneider [2007: 12] on the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction). In addition to that, neither classification in its traditional interpretation explicitly allows for transition from one category to the other as has been observed for the case of Cyprus. Here, too, Cyprus just lines up with other varieties for which such transitory development has been argued (see again Görlach 2002a on



Chapter 7.  Assessing the variety status of EiCy/CyE 

the ESL to ENL transition of Singapore English [107–8] and ESL to EFL transition of Hong Kong English [109–10]) and it clearly reinforces the earlier findings that both classifications are too inflexible and imprecise (see, amongst others), Mesthrie & Bhatt [2008: 30–1] and Schreier [2009: 19] on Kachru’s model; Nayar [1997: 9–10] and Schneider [2007: 12–3] on the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction). Both the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction and Kachru’s (1985b) model are therefore not flexible enough to account for the heterogeneous linguistic situation in Cyprus. However, I agree with Biewer here, who suggests that the ENL-ESL-EFL classification should not be rejected altogether (Biewer 2011: 11) and that a solution would be to “picture Kachru’s model as a continuum and position the different ESL[s] in different relations to a prototypical ESL” (Biewer 2011: 28). A solution for redefining the rigid ENL-ESL-EFL distinction has already been introduced in Section 3.4.4 and utilized for the case of Cyprus in Figure 7.1. In what follows, I also briefly introduce a slight but efficient modification of Kachru’s model in order to account for hybrid cases and/or transitions from one circle to another (cf. Figure 7.2). This is illustrated by integrating Cyprus and some of the other countries discussed above.6 First of all, this modified version accounts for hybrid cases, which can be located in the overlap regions of the respective circles. In addition to that, it also explicitly allows for the transition from one type to the next, as indicated by the broken lines separating the individual categories. This clearly enhances the flexibility of the model and also takes into account the fact that languages have to be considered developmental processes rather than static constructs. However, even after this modification, the model neither captures variety-internal variation nor the overall developmental process involved. 7.3.2 EiCy/CyE in Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model Even though Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model has also been criticized for several aspects (cf. especially Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 35–6), this model seems to be best suited to include diachronic aspects. Especially Mesthrie and Bhatt’s criticism of it being inflexible appears to be unwarranted for mainly three related reasons: (1) It is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Dynamic Model that the phases are strictly consecutive and the fact that stagnation of development is allowed for at any point in the developmental process underlines the flexible orientation of the model. (2) The model aims to depict the prototypical development of PCEs only “and in reality room must be provided for variation” (Schneider 2007: 31).

6. The integration of the other hybrid cases and/or countries currently undergoing transition relies on general intuitions and on what has recently been observed by other researchers.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

The "Expanding Circle" France Germany Italy Spain Hungary Portugal Russia etc.

Cyprus EFL ESL

Hong Kong, China, Thailand, Egypt, The Netherlands, Scandinavia, etc.

The "Outer Circle"

India, Nigeria, Kenya, Malaysia, etc.

ESL ENL

Singapore

The "Inner Circle"

UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand

Figure 7.2  Cyprus in the modified version of Kachru’s Three (Concentric) Circles model

(3) Schneider (2003: 273) himself also states that “[f]urther testing against global realities is invited, and further refinement is to be expected”, which explicitly allows for, if not invites, a flexible handling by other researchers. In what follows, I attempt to place EiCy/CyE within the Dynamic Model. In particular, I show if and how the Dynamic Model can account for the development of EiCy/CyE. To this end, I structure the development of Cyprus since the British takeover in 1878 according to the phases posited by the model, the ultimate aim being to find out in which phase EiCy/CyE can be placed. However, what briefly needs to be mentioned here is that the diachronic placement of EiCy/CyE at some points requires results from a diachronic analysis of linguistic data, which cannot be provided here. This is why I sometimes have to make educated guesses on the linguistic development of EiCy/CyE, drawing tentative conclusions from the speech data at hand.



Chapter 7.  Assessing the variety status of EiCy/CyE 

Phase 1 (1878–1914): The onset of phase 1 for Cyprus can unambiguously be dated to 1878, when the British Empire took over the island from the Turks. This was the point when English was also transported to Cyprus, as it had been to other colonies before. With respect to identity constructions, it can safely be assumed that at this very early stage, Cyprus followed the route predicted by the Dynamic Model (Schneider 2007: 33), namely that a clear “us” and “other” distinction prevailed for both the settlers and the indigenous population. The predicted subsequent approximation of identity constructions which typically starts out from the first encounter (cf. Schneider 2007: 33) is questionable, however, since British rule set in with a big disappointment for the Cypriot population (cf. 2.2.2.2.1 and 2.3.1). As a consequence of this disappointment and a general sullenness towards foreign domination, the historical development was characterized by tension between the two groups from very early on and Cypriots in tendency harboured rather adverse feelings towards the colonizers (cf. 2.2.2). Whether or not dialect contact within the STL strand and consequently koinéization evolved cannot be answered conclusively here since this would require an analysis of speech data from the early STL strand. Due to the fact that in trade and exploitation colonies this process was generally more restricted (Schneider 2007: 35), it can be assumed that in Cyprus, which was identified as an exploitation colony earlier (cf. 2.2.2.2.3), koinéization was limited, too. However, first, even if limited, contact between the British colonizers and the Cypriot population certainly arose due to utilitarian needs. Even though “incipient pidginization” (Schneider 2007: 36) seems to be a likely outcome of these first encounters since no shared language was available for the two strands, the exact linguistic effects can again not be conclusively reconstructed due to the synchronic orientation of the feature analyses at hand. Yet, what can be safely assumed in this phase is the gradual development of what Schneider calls “marginal bilingualism”, i.e. the spread of bilingualism among a small subset of the native population (Schneider 2007: 34–5), even if the exact manifestations of this effect can again not be determined. The same holds for the emergence of “toponymic borrowing”, which is also a typical linguistic effect of this early phase (Schneider 2007: 35). Still, the data analysis has revealed that toponymic borrowing must have taken place since borrowed lexical items were found in the qualitative data screening and there is no particular reason to assume that the settler strand refrained from borrowing lexical items which did not exist in English while the IDG strand took over those expressions. Phase 2 (1914– ca. 1925): Considering that phase 2 is basically characterized by political stabilization on the basis of foreign dominance (Schneider 2007: 36), I suggest the 1914 annexation of

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

the island as the point of onset. With the acknowledgment of this annexation by the Turks in the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, the British crown finally gained full territorial and de jure sovereignty of Cyprus and Cyprus was declared a crown colony of Great Britain in 1925 (cf. Kaikitis 1998: 16; Poew 2007: 14; Schwenger 1964: 8; Terkourafi 2007: 65). In this respect, Cyprus exactly followed the kind of development as envisaged by phase 2 of the Dynamic Model, i.e. political exonormative stabilization. It can consequently also be assumed that contact between the British settlers and the Cypriots increased and that English and with it bilingualism continued to spread throughout the Cypriot society, even if British educational policy as the main vehicle of language policy was still in its laissez-faire phase (cf. Tsiplakou 2009: 77; cf. 2.2.2.2.2). At least those Cypriots who were in daily contact with the British had to learn the language for utilitarian purposes. In addition to that, it seems reasonable to assume that English developed into a link language between the Greek Cypriots and those Turkish Cypriots who remained on the island even after Turkey had handed Cyprus over to Great Britain (cf. Davy & Pavlou 2010: 6–7). In historical and sociopolitical terms, the development of Cyprus so far follows the general developmental pattern predicted in the Dynamic Model. There is consequently no reason to assume any divergence with respect to the linguistic effects predicted for the IDG strand, i.e. the onset of structural nativization (cf. Schneider 2007: 39). What can, however, not be conclusively commented on within the scope of this study is the linguistic development in the STL strand. It again seems reasonable to assume that the settlers borrowed place names and other aspects of the local culture, especially items denoting food, into their English since there is no particular reason to call this development into question. The question whether increased contact with the Cypriot population led to the adoption of locally developing morphosyntactic structures by the STL strand can, however, not be answered here due to the absence of diachronic speech data. From today’s perspective, this is not very likely since British expatriates still living on the island seem to have stuck to their BrE variety. A major difference to what is predicted by the Dynamic Model occurs with respect to the development of identity constructions. A gradual accommodation of identity constructions between the STL and IDG strands also did not set in in phase 2. During my various stays in Cyprus, I never met a single mixed marriage descendant born before the 1960s, which suggests that private contact between the British and Cypriots and consequently the emergence of hybrid identities was generally more limited than is prototypically predicted for phase 2. Phase 3 (post 1925–1974): When Cyprus gained the status of a crown colony of Great Britain in 1925 (Kaikitis 1998: 16; Poew 2007: 14; Schwenger 1964: 8; Terkourafi 2007: 65), the process of



Chapter 7.  Assessing the variety status of EiCy/CyE 

external stabilization reached its peak. Therefore, I assume that the post-1925 years can be considered the transformation period from phase 2 to 3, “the central phase of both cultural and linguistic transformation” (Schneider 2007: 40). With respect to this interpretation, the anti-colonial upheavals ensuing soon afterwards in 1931 constitute a double-edged and interesting event: on the one hand, these revolts led to a strong increase in British power politics (cf. Richter 2006: 133; Schwenger 1964: 10) and introduced a period of purposeful exertion of influence in educational issues in general and English language teaching in particular (Tsiplakou 2009: 76–7). This further entrenchment of the English language certainly gave the process of structural nativization a substantial boost. On the other hand, the 1931 events initiated the period of intensified resistance against British colonization, reaching its peak in the second half of the 1950s (for details see O’Malley 2006: 476), involving direct actions against English language teaching on the island (cf. Karyolemou 2005: 46; Tsiplakou 2009: 78). In addition to that, conflicts between Greek Cypriots and the British arose over an envisaged independence of the island, which were further complicated by the involvement of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots (cf. 2.2.2.1). These dissonances between the STL and IDG strands are also in line with the earlier observation that an assimilation of identity concepts between the two strands had not taken place for Cyprus yet. Such a development also did not set in during phase 3, even though the prototypical development sketched out in the Dynamic Model predicts a significant increase in assimilation of identity constructions for this phase. This is, in fact, the major deviation from the developmental path suggested by Schneider (2007). The STL strand never gave up its ties with Great Britain and did not develop an incipient wish for independence and disengagement from the mother country. On the side of the Greek Cypriots, hostile sentiments against the colonizers even grew within the second half of British rule and with it the wish for independence (cf. 2.3.1). When independence was finally reached after several years of struggles and conflicts, Cyprus became a member of the Commonwealth of Nations in 1960 (cf. Commonwealth Network 2011). With respect to the sociolinguistic conditions and linguistic effects, it can certainly be assumed that the two groups were in daily contact with each other and that this led to an even further spread of bilingualism. However, due to the absent assimilation of identity constructions, relationships were not as strong as suggested by the Dynamic Model and hence more of utilitarian nature. Nevertheless, the data analyses have revealed that local characteristics on the side of the Greek Cypriots emerged and nativization of linguistic structures set in during that time despite the arising conflicts and the often adverse attitudes towards and boycotts of the English language.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Again, nothing conclusive can be said about the linguistic effects on the side of the settlers due to a lack of speech data from the STL strand. Two observations, however, allow for the interpretation that the STL strand never adopted local IDG strand features. First of all, linguistic accommodation is closely connected to the assimilation of identity constructions (cf. Schneider 2007: 29–30), which did not take place. Secondly, whenever I talked to British expatriates in Cyprus and impressionistically observed their speech during the conversation, I realized clear differences from the English spoken by major parts of the Greek-Cypriot population. Consequently, I conclude that a decrease of differences between L1 and L2 forms of English or, more precisely, a reduction of differences between the STL and IDG strands’ use of English has not taken place in Cyprus. Whereto after 1974? The findings from the quantitative analysis have shown that particularly older Greek Cypriots make use of what can be considered nativized features of EiCy/CyE. Only some of these features, however, appear to have fully gone through the nativization process and are clearly preferred over the (Br)E alternatives. Others range between the 30% and 50% thresholds, which indicates that feature nativization had set in at some point but could not fully develop. I therefore assume that phase 3 must have been interrupted by an incisive event which changed the sociolinguistic realities on the island and therefore stopped the process of linguistic nativization before it was completed. In Chapter 2, the 1974 Turkish invasion was identified as such a turning point. It brought about a gradual decline in use and functions of the English language, caused by English losing its role as a link language between Greek and Turkish Cypriots and by public propaganda against the use of English (cf. my interpretation of the 1974 Turkish invasion as “Event X” in Section 2.3.2; see also Davy & Pavlou 2010: 7). Since sociolinguistic conditions usually influence language use, I conclude that the 1974 events can also be interpreted as decisive for the premature interruption of the nativization process. From this point onwards, not only a decline in use and functions of the English language and a change in the acquisition context set in but with it an interruption of the process of structural nativization and a decrease in use of EiCy/CyE features as observed in the quantitative analysis in Chapter 6. Cyprus, therefore, did never fully go through the phase of structural nativization. A theoretical alternative, namely that it skipped parts of the nativization phase and just went on to phase 4, cannot be assumed, either, since achieving political independence does not suffice for the country to enter the phase of endonormative stabilization (cf. Schneider 2007: 48). The typical characteristics of this phase, i.e. self-reliance, complete assimilation of identity constructions between



Chapter 7.  Assessing the variety status of EiCy/CyE 

the two strands, institutionalization, and codification of the newly emerged variety (cf. Schneider 2007: 48–52), cannot be identified for Cyprus. This observation finally also approaches the third research question of this study: since the characteristic developments of phase 4 terminologically transform an “English in X” type into an “X English” (Schneider 2007: 50), the latter term has to be ruled out for English as spoken in Cyprus.7 What I conclude here is that following the 1974 events, EiCy started undergoing reversal from an interrupted phase of nativization towards EFL status, which again reinforces the observation that EiCy constitutes a hybrid case. 7.4 Summary What the above discussion of the variety status of EiCy has shown is that it can neither clearly be classified as a second-language variety nor is it a prototypical learner English. It has hybrid ESL-EFL status with still slightly stronger similarity to ESL varieties. As a result, existing models of World Englishes cannot necessarily accommodate EiCy without any modifications. Nevertheless, differences were observed with respect to the applicability of the approaches. With respect to the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction, EiCy is yet another case which illustrates that the classification does not hold in its strict version and instead has to be considered a continuum. In the same vein, Kachru’s (1985b) Concentric Circles model does not have room for EiCy without adapting it to the complex realities of Cyprus. The solution suggested above is to insert intersections between the three circles which allow for the placement of hybrid cases and to account for gradual transition from one of the circles to another. What has turned out to be generally better suited is a fully diachronic approach to the linguistic situation in Cyprus because this makes capturing the reverse development EiCy is undergoing possible. In this respect, Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model seems to be best suited for placing EiCy, even if also not in its prototypical form. Applying the case of Cyprus to the Dynamic Model has shown that EiCy had once entered the nativization phase but never fully passed through it and started reversal towards EFL status about 35 years ago. This type of reverse development is not explicitly envisaged in the Dynamic Model and an assimilation of identity constructions as well as linguistic accommodation between the STL and IDG strands did not take place in Cyprus. Still, this does not fundamentally 7. But see my earlier note (cf. 3.4.2.6) that the strict implementation of the phase 4 criteria would also rule out the “X English” label for other colonies which have long been recorded under this label.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

call into question the importance Schneider ascribes to the interaction between the two strands. The observations for Cyprus even reinforce this general assumption as the unique situation of Cyprus is clearly the result of the absence of identity assimilations and linguistic accommodations. The only modification this suggests is that the forces resulting from the relationship between the STL and IDG strands can operate in directions opposite to the predictions of the Dynamic Model, without necessarily hindering the emergence of linguistic nativization in the IDG strand. Nonetheless, the model is applicable, particularly since Schneider explicitly invites testing the model against concrete realities and applying modifications if required (cf. Schneider 2003: 273). He also acknowledges the fact that despite the underlying similarities in processes and results described above, cross-varietal differences can occur as the result of differences in colonization type and due to “historical accidents and idiosyncracies” (Schneider 2007: 29). As the discussion of the variety status of EiCy has shown, Cyprus is characterized by quite a number of such idiosyncracies, which for one thing led to, but also explain, its rather untypical linguistic development.

chapter 8

Conclusions The present study has shed light on what in the introduction was referred to as “a potentially ‘new’ variety of English spoken in the Greek part of the Mediterranean island of Cyprus”. To this end, I have looked into the following research questions, of which the first has constituted the central object of inquiry: 1. Should the English language spoken in the Greek part of Cyprus be considered a second-language variety or should it simply be regarded as learner English? 2. Can it, in terminological terms, be labelled “Cyprus English” (CyE) or is it more accurate to refer to it as “English in Cyprus” (EiCy)? 3. Where can EiCy/CyE best be placed with respect to existing models of and approaches to World Englishes? To tackle the main research question, I have employed an integrative method combining macro- as well as micro-sociolinguistic aspects of analysis as suggested in Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model. Following this approach, I have investigated four major parameters to come to conclusive results with respect to the variety status question: 1. The historical and sociopolitical development of Cyprus, including observations of motives for British colonization, British language policy, and colonization type (cf. 2.2) 2. The development of identity constructions, more precisely the question whether an assimilation of identity constructions between the STL and IDG strands in Cyprus has taken place (cf. 2.3) 3. The sociolinguistic background of Cyprus, i.e. functions and use of the English language as well as language attitudes on the side of the Greek-Cypriot population (cf. 2.4) 4. Linguistic effects of the sociolinguistic setting, i.e. features characteristic of EiCy (cf. Chapters 5 and 6) This four-step analysis has yielded the following main insights and results: With respect to the historical and sociopolitical development, Cyprus, most importantly, shares the experience of colonization with other postcolonial societies. As Cyprus was an exploitation colony, the number of British settlers was

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

limited, their interest was mainly of instrumental, power-political nature, and the main aim was generally not to impose the British language and culture on the native population, even though agitation against colonial rule evoked an increase in British power-politics and in involvement in educational matters. This led to a gradual spread and later entrenchment of the English language, even though language contact between the British and the Greek-Cypriot population was mainly limited to utilitarian purposes. Nevertheless, when in 1960 the island was released into independence, the English language was deeply rooted in the major domains of public life and as a language of interethnic communication, particularly between Turkish and Greek Cypriots. However, it can be expected that it was seldom used by Cypriots when conversing with other Cypriots or at home since interethnic marriages and descendants were comparatively rare due to the lack of assimilation of identity constructions. In addition to that, I have shown that in the post-independence era, the Turkish invasion and the subsequent division of the island can be considered precedent-setting events. As predicted by Schneider’s (2007: 30–1) approach, the whole spectrum of historical and political events had an influence on the development of identity constructions. Consequently, a gradual assimilation of identity constructions between the settler strand and the indigenous population never took place in the case of Cyprus. I have interpreted this as resulting from a fundamental aversion to foreign domination, which in turn had developed from the long term experience of foreign rule and the collective memory thereof. In addition to that, I have suggested an interpretation of the 1974 Turkish invasion as an event comparable to what Schneider (2007: 48–9, 122–3) has labelled “Event X”. According to this interpretation, the fact that the British left the Greek Cypriots unsupported against the Turkish attacks led to the complete and ultimate alienation from the British. Furthermore, the division of the island brought about a change in sociolinguistic realities. English lost its function as link language between Greek and Turkish Cypriots and public voices were raised against the use and spread of the English language, which were still considerable at that time. This certainly made for the ultimate abandonment of the English language from many of the functions it had retained, which in practice proceeded as a gradual decline rather than an abrupt change. Despite its general decline and although it was not declared an official language in the 1960 constitution, the English language still has an important function as a second language in Cyprus today. This is, however, mostly true in the official domain. The two studies on language attitudes and use (i.e. McEntee-Atalianis & Pouloukas 2001 and my own survey) have revealed that its use in the private domain is restricted. Even though English is highly valued as a linguistic tool and proficiency is widely aspired to for reasons of social advancement, it is not a carrier



Chapter 8.  Conclusions 

of local Greek-Cypriot identity. This function is clearly fulfilled by the Greek-­ Cypriot dialect (and to some parts also Standard Modern Greek), which reinforces the observation that an assimilation of identity constructions has not taken place and the Greek-Cypriot population has always retained a true and “pure” Greek-­ Cypriot national identity. All this finds expression in the linguistic effects detected by the qualitative and quantitative feature analyses, which have been carried out following an integrative psycholinguistic and corpus linguistic approach. The analysis of speech data from 90 participants chosen from the newly assembled CEDAR corpus suggests that Cyprus entered the phase of structural nativization (phase 3 of Schneider’s Dynamic Model) at some point but never fully went through it. In this respect, quite a number of EiCy characteristics identified exceed the 30% threshold, which I have stipulated as the benchmark for incipient nativization. For some of these features, use even lies above the 50% threshold, which, according to my suggestion, marks the benchmark for preference of a local feature over the (Br)E variant. Furthermore, the results of the quantitative analysis have revealed a decrease in feature use from the older generation of Cypriots to the young group. I have interpreted this as indicative of an interruption of the nativization process, an assumption which is even reinforced by the interpretation of the 1974 events as the turning point towards a gradual decline in use and functions and a change in the acquisition scenario for EiCy. All these observations and findings have validated the earlier impressionistic assumption that Cyprus shares some major characteristics with other postcolonial societies, most importantly the experience of British domination and influence as well as the transportation, gradual spread, and entrenchment of the English language. However, the study has also uncovered some major differences for Cyprus, with the most important one not having been foreseeable by the impressionistic observations I reported on in the introduction. As the study has revealed, an assimilation of identity constructions, sketched out as being prototypical in the development of PCEs by the Dynamic Model (Schneider 2007), did not take place in Cyprus. This sets Cyprus clearly apart from those territories which have passed through this aspect of the prototypical development (e.g. Singapore or Barbados; cf. the case studies in Schneider [2007: 153–61 and 219–27, respectively]. In contrast, a similar scenario has, for example, also been reported for Kenya, where “the identities of the country’s two major population groups [...] crystallize[d] and their relationship [...] polarize[d]” (Schneider 2007: 192). When looking into the other aspects in which Cyprus deviates from what is considered prototypical by the Dynamic Model, similar patterns emerge. On the one hand, there are many cases which follow the prototypical development. On the other hand, Cyprus is not alone with any of its diverging patterns, i.e. none of

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

them is completely unprecedented. In what follows, I present further deviations from the prototype identified for Cyprus, accompanied by one territory each for which a similar divergence is reported in Schneider’s (2007: 113–250) case studies: – English is not the de jure official language of Cyprus. This has also been reported for Fiji (cf. Schneider 2007: 116). – Cyprus has experienced a post-independence development (1974 Turkish invasion and its consequences) which overruled what Schneider (2007: 143) refers to as “the in-built developmental trends of the Dynamic Model”. The developmental stagnation has led to a general decline in use and functions of the English language as well as to a decline in the use of EiCy features. A similarly incisive political event is depicted in Schneider’s case study of the Philippines, through which the development there came to a halt (2007: 143) and reversal from ESL to EFL status set in (cf. Llamzon 1986: 118–21).1 – English is not a carrier of local identity in Cyprus. The same has been noted for India (cf. Schneider 2007: 167). What this shows is that deviations from a prototypical developmental pattern do not automatically imply a loss of variety status or of academic interest as most of the above examples have received pronounced scholarly attention. What appears unique to the case of Cyprus is the combination of various deviating developmental aspects. Still, this does not justify the long-standing neglect of it in World Englishes research, as has repeatedly been argued in and ultimately remedied by this study. To define the variety status of EiCy, I have tested the above observations and findings against a criteria catalogue developed in Section 3.4.2. The discussion in Section 7.2 has revealed that EiCy fulfils some, though not all, of the criteria defined as being prototypical for second-language varieties. This suggests hybrid ESL-EFL status for EiCy, with Cyprus having a greater resemblance to ESL countries than to typical EFL scenarios, in which English fulfils mainly international functions and typically does not undergo structural nativization. The finding of hybrid status for EiCy also contributes to the recent theoretical discussion on whether or not a rigid ESL-EFL distinction is (still) valid (see, for example, Biewer 2011; Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011; Gilquin & Granger 2011; Schneider 2007: 13). The finding that EiCy has to be considered a hybrid case to be located somewhere between ESL and EFL clearly reinforces the idea that the (ENL-) ESL-EFL distinction should not be considered clear-cut but has to be viewed as a continuum on which different Englishes can develop freely in either 1. See also Görlach (1991: 13) for a general observation that such reversal trends may indeed occur.



Chapter 8.  Conclusions 

direction (see also Biewer 2011: 28; Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011: 48; Gilquin & Granger 2011: 76). This, in turn, reinforces the recent ambition to bridge the socalled “paradigm gap” (cf. Sridhar & Sridhar1986: 3; see also Bongartz & Mukherjee 2009: 7; Hundt & Mukherjee 2011: 1; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 156), i.e. the strict separation of SLA and World Englishes research. As repeatedly expressed in the theoretical part of this study, I also take this view, in particular since the psycholinguistic processes operating on the development of learner Englishes and secondlanguage varieties seem to be fundamentally alike. This assumption is implicitly reinforced by the criteria catalogue established in Section 3.4, which offers only sociolinguistic criteria to distinguish between the two types of English. In an integrative approach, SLA research could thus provide important insights into psycholinguistic processes of second language acquisition, whereas World Englishes research could contribute the sociolinguistic expertise needed to fully account for the acquisition process and linguistic behaviour of individuals as well as of whole speech communities and their relationship towards each other. To account for research questions 2 and 3, I have tested the most prominent approaches to World Englishes for their applicability to the findings for Cyprus. This discussion has revealed that none of the models is fully suitable for placing EiCy in its original and prototypical conception. Where possible and reasonable, I have suggested modifications to the models which not only render them applicable to the case of Cyprus but also meet some of the criticism applied with respect to other case studies or on theoretical grounds. By means of this, the study at hand has also contributed to the theoretical framework of World Englishes research. The model which has proven best suited for placing EiCy is the Dynamic Model proposed by Schneider (2007). Even though Cyprus clearly deviates from some of the prototypical developments envisaged by this approach, it is flexible enough to account for these deviations by explicitly allowing for flexible treatment (cf. Schneider 2003: 273). Therefore, it is possible to apply the model to the case of Cyprus and through this place EiCy with respect to other varieties of English. Placing EiCy in terms of the Dynamic Model has yielded the following insights: to my knowledge, EiCy is so far one of the few cases for which reversal in development from ESL to EFL status has been observed (see also Llamzon [1986: 118–21] on the Philippines and Görlach [2002a: 109–10] on Hong Kong). The historical and sociopolitical analysis in combination with the (socio)linguistic findings suggest that Cyprus entered phase 3 some time after 1925. The 1974 division of the island, however, interrupted the nativization process and introduced a gradual decline in use and functions of the English language and with it a change in acquisitional context. This, in turn, has manifested itself in a decrease in use of local EiCy features and initiated the reversal in development from ESL to EFL status EiCy is currently undergoing.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Whether Cyprus will ultimately and fully revert back to EFL status can only be speculated about as this will depend on a variety of factors. At the moment, a reversal to EFL status is what the development of the last 35 years suggests. Moreover, with the gradual numerical decline in the population numbers of the older generation, the characteristic features of EiCy are very likely to become extinct. Together with an ongoing decline in use and functions of the English language, this can be expected to ultimately result in full reversal towards EFL status. However, a major change in the political fabric of Cyprus might radically change the picture.2 One such conceivable event would be a reunification of the Turkish and the Greek part of the island. This would, in sociolinguistic terms, restore the pre-1974 situation. Under these circumstances, English might be reactivated in its function as link language between Turkish and Greek Cypriots and the gradual decline in use and functions might not only come to a halt, but English might experience a revival. This, in turn, might revive structural nativization and again initiate a change, this time back towards ESL status. An evaluation of the likelihood of such a development, however, goes beyond the scope and scientific orientation of this study and the further development of EiCy remains incalculable, as is basically true for any postcolonial speech community. Yet, this certainly offers enough reason to follow up on the future development of Cyprus. Furthermore, it is impossible to uncover each and every aspect of the sociolinguistic situation in a study like the present one, whose ambitious aim was to comprehensively account for and determine the variety status of a so far neglected type of English. Future research needs to go into additional detail with regard to the following aspects: First of all, a further in-depth quantitative analysis of some of the other features detected in the qualitative part of this study might validate (or potentially even falsify) their status as candidates which have entered the nativization process. This would in particular be interesting for the phonological features outlined above. These were not considered by the quantitative analysis since they require a completely different methodological procedure (e.g. analyses using acoustical software like PRAAT). Secondly, a quantitative and statistical account of the influence of further secondary variables (e.g. sex, education, occupation, and time spent in an L1 English country) might reveal further details with respect to what influences the use of local characteristics of EiCy apart from the participants’ age. In search of a way to integrate feature occurrence and illustrate the impact of sociolinguistic variables 2. That changes in sociopolitical realities may indeed lead to more or less unforeseen changes in sociolinguistic realities has, for example, already been reported for the Philippines and Malaysia (cf. the case studies in Schneider [2007: 140–44 and 144–53, respectively]).



Chapter 8.  Conclusions 

and the relationship between second-language varieties and learner Englishes, a pilot study on EiCy (cf. Bongartz & Buschfeld 2011) suggests the concept of the Variety Spectrum. The Variety Spectrum offers the chance to illustrate further potential variety-internal heterogeneity by looking into and depicting idiolects in the form of a scatter plot and explaining potential outliers in a specific group in terms of sociolinguistic variables. In general, the Variety Spectrum picks up on the extended version of Platt et al.’s (1984: 23) early EFL-ESL-ENL continuum (cf. 3.4.4) in that it assumes continual development from EFL to ESL (and in theory also to ENL) or the other way around and the existence of hybrid cases. The main idea of this model is that the higher the percentage of characteristic features used and the more homogeneous the picture is within one speech community, the more likely it is that the English under investigation is a variety which has already developed nativized linguistic features.3 Follow-up research on EiCy could make use of the Variety Spectrum to investigate the impact of further sociolinguistic variables and to carry out further in-depth research on potentially nativized features. In addition to that, the complementation of the analysis of spoken data by an investigation of written data (e.g. student essays and other kind of course work composed in English, scientific writing, email conversations, letters from both the business as well as the private domain, and official documents) might lead to valuable insights. It would be interesting to see if feature nativization is also traceable in written data or if writing is so much more conservative than oral performance (cf. Schneider 2004: 247) that feature nativization only took place in the spoken domain. Additionally, investigating the occurrence of potential EiCy features in written data from more official contexts (e.g. articles from the two local English newspapers) would shed light on the question whether the alleged exonormative orientation towards the BrE standard in these domains holds or is just a figment of Greek-Cypriot imagination and hence a clear case of “linguistic schizophrenia” (cf. Kachru 1983: 179, 1985b: 17, 1992a: 55–6, 60). Furthermore, a comparison of the data collected in Cyprus and data from mainland Greece (for which a set of 45 interviews has already been collected in Thessaloniki) might also further contribute to the question discussed in this study. Greek is also the native language of most of the inhabitants there, but the situation is considered a typical EFL scenario. An impressionistic observation of the sociolinguistic background of Greece suggests major sociolinguistic differences for the two countries, in particular since the older generation in Greece is generally not 3. In what follows, I do not illustrate how the model works since this can be considered a whole new study with respect to the methodological efforts involved (but see Bongartz & Buschfeld [2011: 45–8] for a first account). The Variety Spectrum will be applied to and refined in future studies on the influence of secondary variables on feature use in EiCy and should ultimately be tested on other speech communities.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

nearly as proficient as the older generation in Cyprus. With respect to feature use, a first impressionistic account of the spoken data collected in Thessaloniki also corroborates the assumption that major differences are traceable in the two speech communities. Even though many of the characteristics are similar due to the shared L1 background, the data set collected in Thessaloniki suggests that these characteristics seem to be less stable and systematic than in Cyprus. Only a quantitative analysis and a direct comparison of the linguistic data, however, would give conclusive information on the validity of this assumption (cf. Buschfeld in preparation). Finally, the results of the data analyses can be compared to an investigation of linguistic features in the major Greek-Cypriot expatriate communities of which the most prominent one is the London borough of Haringey. This might reveal insights into how “local” the features detected in Cyprus are or whether they are also part of the speech repertoire of Greek-Cypriots living in London. A first impressionistic investigation of a set of 25 interviews suggests that some of the EiCy features presented in this study are indeed also used in the expatriate community of Haringey. This is not surprising because of the shared L1 background of the speakers and the common origin of these features, which were brought to London mainly in the 1950s and 1970s. However, differences are to be expected due to the distinct sociolinguistic contexts. In line with Schneider’s (2007: 31) observation that feature use is closely tied to the sociolinguistic situation, I assume that living in an ethnic minority community within an L1 English country can be expected to yield differences in feature use, particularly for two reasons: on the one hand, regular native speaker input through the need to communicate with native speakers can be expected to increase orientation towards this input model and overall proficiency. On the other hand, the need and wish to retain and express one’s GreekCypriot identity when communicating on foreign soil might have led to the deliberate or unconscious demarcation from native English in linguistic terms by using a distinct variety of English. Coming to conclusive results with respect to that question, however, also requires a closer examination of the historical background, identity constructions, sociolinguistic context, and feature use in this expatriate community. In conclusion, this range of further inquiries suggests that the overall research issue holds an enormous potential for future research and offers enough reason to follow up on the further development of EiCy.

References Agouraki, Y., Arvaniti A., Davy J., Goutsos D., Karyolaimou M., Panayotou A., Papapavlou A.N., Pavlou P. & Roussou A. (eds). 2001. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Nicosia. September 1999. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press. Alatis, J.E. (ed.). 1989. Language Teaching, Testing, and Technology. Lessons from the Past with a View toward the Future. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. American Academy Larnaca. (30 October 2012). Andersen, R. 1983. Transfer to somewhere. In Language Transfer in Language Learning, S.M. Gass & L. Selinker (eds), 177–201. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Arvaniti, A. 2006. Linguistic practices in Cyprus and the emergence of Cypriot Standard Greek. San Diego Linguistic Papers 2: 1–24. Bamgbose, A. 1998. Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes 17: 1–14. Bauer, L. 2002. An Introduction to International Varieties of English. Edinburgh: EUP. Beebe, L.M. & Zuengler J. 1983. Accommodation theory: An explanation for style shifting in second language dialects. In Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds), 195–213. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Berns, M. 1995. English in the European Union. English Today 43 11(3): 3–11. Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in Development. Language, Literacy, and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. Biber, D. 1993. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8: 243–257. Biewer, C. 2011. Modal auxiliaries in second language varieties of English: A learner’s perspective. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 7–33. Birdsong, D. 2006. Why not fossilization. In Han & Odlin (eds), 173–188. Bley-Vroman, R. 1983. The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning 33: 1–17. Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York NY: Holt. Bolton, K. 2003. Chinese Englishes. A Sociolinguistic History. Cambridge: CUP. Bonnici, L.M. 2010. Variation in Maltese English: The interplay of the local and the global in an emerging postcolonial variety. PhD dissertation, University of California. (30 October 2012). Bongartz, C.M. & Buschfeld, S. 2011. English in Cyprus: Second language variety or learner English? In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 35–54. Bongartz, C.M. & Mukherjee, J. 2009. Introduction: Non-native Englishes on the agenda of English linguistics. Anglistik 20(2): 7–11. Bortz, J. & Schuster, C. 2010. Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Berlin: Springer. Brutt-Griffler, J. 2002. World English. A Study of its Development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bruthiaux, P. 2003. Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13: 159–178.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English Buschfeld, S. In preparation. How history, politics, and sociolinguistic context matter: An empirical comparison of English in Cyprus and Greece. Cablenet Communication Systems. (30 October 2012). Caruana, S. 2007. Language use and language attitudes in Malta. In Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts. Language Use and Attitudes, D. Lasagabaster & Á. Huguet (eds), 184–207. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Christodoulou-Pipis, I. 1991. Greek Outside Greece III. Research Findings. Language Use by Greek-Cypriots in Britain. Nicosia: Diaspora Books. CIA. The World Factbook. 2011. Europe: Cyprus. (30 October 2012). Commonwealth Network. 2011. Cyprus in the Commonwealth. (8 August 2011). Cook, V. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33: 185–209. Cook, V. 2007. Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for SLA research? In Understanding Second Language Process, Z-H. Han (ed.), 16–26. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. 2010. The relationship between first and second language acquisition revisited. In The Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition, E. Macaro (ed.), 137–157. London: Continuum. Corder, S.P. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: OUP. Coulter, K. 1968. Linguistic Error-analysis of the Spoken English of Two Native Russians. MA thesis, University of Washington. Crystal, D. 2003a. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Crystal, D. 2003b. English as a Global Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation. 2011. (30 October 2012). Davies, A. 1989. Is international English an interlanguage? TESOL Quarterly 23: 447–467. Davies, A. 1999. Standard English: Discordant voices. World Englishes 18: 171–186. Davy, J. & Pavlou, P. Ms. 2010. Is Cyprus an ESL country? Published in Research on English as a Foreign Language in Cyprus, P. Pavlou (ed.). Nicosia: University of Nicosia Press. Davy, J., Ioannou, Y. & Panayotou, A. 1996. French and English loans in Cypriot diglossia. In Chypre hier et aujourd’hui entre Orient et Occident. Échanges et relations en Méditerranée orientale. Actes du colloque tenu à Nicosie, 1994, Université de Chypre et Université Lumière-Lyon 2, F. Métral, M. Yon & Y. Ioannou (eds), 127–136. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen. Durham, M. 2011. Right dislocation in Northern England: Frequency and use – perception meets reality. English World-Wide 32: 257–279. Ervin-Tripp, S.M. 1974. Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly 8: 111–127. EU-Cyprus. svg. (30 October 2012). Faustmann, H. & Peristianis, N. (eds). 2006. Britain in Cyprus. Colonialism and Post-Colonialism 1878–2006. Mannheim: Bibliopolis. Finnis, K., Gardner-Chloros, P. & McEntee-Atalianis, L.J. 2005. Greek Cypriots in London: An empirical study of language use, attitudes and identity. In Themata taftotitas stin Elliniki diaspora. Glossa ke logotechnia (Issues of Identity in the Greek Diaspora. Language and Literature), R. Tsokalidou & M. Paparousi (eds), 69–93. Athens: Metehmio. Fuhrmann (now Buschfeld), S. 2008. The present perfect in L2 English on Cyprus. Poster presented at the annual conference for European Second Language Acquisition. Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, 11 September 2008.



References  Fuhrmann (now Buschfeld), S. & Bongartz, C.M. 2008. Subject realization in Cyprus English. Poster presented at the 5th International Contrastive Linguistics Conference. University of Leuven, 7 July 2008. Gallas, K. 1996. Zypern. Nürnberg: BW Verlag. Gardner-Chloros, P., McEntee-Atalianis, L.J. & Finnis, K. 2005. Language attitudes and use in a transplanted setting: Greek Cypriots in London. International Journal of Multilingualism 2: 52–80. Gass, S.M. & Selinker, L. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course, 3rd edn. London: Routledge. Georghiades, A. 1963. Die Zypernfrage. Bonn: H. Bouvier. Gilquin, G. & Granger, S. 2011. From EFL to ESL: Evidence from the International Corpus of Learner English. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 55–78. Goutsos, D. 2001. A discourse-analytic approach to the use of English in Cypriot Greek conversations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11: 194–223. Goutsos, D. 2005. A discourse-analytic approach to the use of English in Cypriot Greek conversations. In Papapavlou (ed.), 181–212. Görlach, M. 1990. The development of Standard Englishes [1988]. In Studies in the History of the English Language, M. Görlach (ed.), 9–64. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Görlach, M. 1991. English as a world language – The state of the art [1988]. In Englishes. Studies in Varieties of English 1984–1988 [Varieties of English Around the World G9], M. Görlach (ed.), 10–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Görlach, M. 1995. Word-formation and the ENL: ESL: EFL distinction [1989]. In More Englishes. New Studies in Varieties of English. 1988–1994 [Varieties of English Around the World G13], M. Görlach (ed.), 61–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Görlach, M. 1998. The origins and development of emigrant Englishes [1996]. In Even More Englishes. Studies 1996–1997 [Varieties of English Around the World G22], M. Görlach (ed.), 19–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Görlach, M. 1999. English in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, the Philippines...a second or a foreign language? In Anglistentag 1998 Erfurt. Proceedings, F.-W. Neumann & S. Schütting (eds), 371–384. Trier: WVT. Görlach, M. 2002a. English in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, the Philippines...a second or a foreign language? In Görlach (ed.), 99–117. Görlach, M. 2002b. English in Europe – European English? In Görlach (ed.), 135–153. Görlach, M. (ed.). 2002. Still More Englishes [Varieties of English Around the World G28]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Götz, S. & Schilk, M. 2011. Formulaic sequences in spoken ENL, ESL and EFL: Focus on British English, Indian English and learner English of advanced German learners. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 79–100. Graddol, D. 1996. English manuscripts: The emergence of a visual identity. In Graddol et al. (eds), 41–94. Graddol, D. 1997. The Future of English. A Guide to Forecasting the Popularity of English in the 21st Century. London: British Council. Graddol, D., Leith, D. & Swann, J. (eds). 1996. English. History, Diversity and Change. London: Routledge. Greenbaum, S. (ed.). 1996. Comparing English Worldwide. The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English Gries, S.T. 2009. Statistics for Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gries, S.T. 2011. Homepage. (23 September 2011). Grosjean, F. 1989. Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language 36: 3–15. Grothusen, K.-D., Steffani, W. & Zervakis, P. (eds). 1998. Südosteuropa-Handbuch, Band VIII. Zypern. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Groves, J. 2010. Error or feature? The issue of interlanguage and deviations in non-native varie­ ties of English. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies 14: 108–129. Gürbey, G. 1988. Zypern. Genese eines Konfliktes. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft. Gupta, A.F. 1994. The Step-Tongue. Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gupta, A.F. 1997. Colonisation, migration, and functions of English. In Englishes Around the World, Vol. I. General Studies, British Isles, North America. Studies in Honour of Manfred Görlach [Varieties of English Around the World G18], E.W. Schneider (ed.), 47–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Han, Z-H. & Odlin, T. (eds). 2006. Studies of Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Harris, J. 1996. Reading C: Sentence structure in Irish English. In Graddol et al. (eds), 256–258. Hickey, R. 2004. Legacies of Colonial English. Studies in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: CUP. Hilbert, M. & Krug, M. 2010. The compilation of ICE Malta: State of the art and challenges along the way. ICAME Journal 34: 54–63. Hoffmann, T. 2011. Preposition Placement in English. A Usage Based Approach. Cambridge: CUP. Holton, D., Mackridge, P. & Philippaki-Warburton, I. 2004. Greek. An Essential Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge. Huddleston, R. 2002. The verb. In Huddleston & Pullum (eds), 71–212. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G.K. (eds). 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. Hundt, M. & Mukherjee, J. 2011. Introduction: Bridging a paradigm gap. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 1–6. Hundt, M. & Vogel, K. 2011. Overuse of the progressive in ESL and learner English – fact or fiction? In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 145–165. Iatridou, S., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Izvorski, R. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Ken Hale. A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 189–238. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. International Corpus of English (ICE). (30 October 2012). Ioannou, Y.E. 1991. Language, politics, and identity: An analysis of the Cypriot dilemma. The Cyprus Review 3(1): 15–41. Jain, M. Ms. 1969. Error analysis of an Indian English corpus. University of Edinburgh. Jenkins, J. 2003. World Englishes. A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge. Jenkins, J., Modiano, M. & Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Euro-English. English Today 68 17(4): 13–19. Jenkins, R. 1996. Social Identity. London: Routledge. Joseph, J.S. 2006. The political context and consequences of the London and Zurich Agreements. In Faustmann & Peristianis (eds), 453–472. Kachru, B.B. 1965. The Indianness in Indian English. Word 21: 391–410.



References  Kachru, B.B. 1981. The pragmatics of non-native varieties of English. In Smith (ed.), 15–39. Kachru, B.B. 1983. The Indianization of English. The English Language in India. Delhi: OUP. Kachru, B.B. 1985a. Institutionalized second-language varieties. In The English Language Today, S. Greenbaum (ed.), 211–226. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kachru, B.B. 1985b. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In English in the World. Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, R. Quirk & H.G. Widdowson (eds), 11–30. Cambridge: CUP for The British Council. Kachru, B.B. 1986. The Alchemy of English. The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kachru, B.B. 1988. The sacred cows of English. English Today 16 4(4): 3–8. Kachru, B.B. 1992a. Models for non-native Englishes. In Kachru (ed.), 48–74. Kachru, B.B. 1992b. World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching 25: 1–14. Kachru, B.B. 1992c. Teaching World Englishes. In Kachru (ed.), 355–365. Kachru, B.B. (ed.). 1992. The Other Tongue. English Across Cultures, 2nd edn. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B.B., Kachru, Y. & Nelson, C.L. (eds). 2006. The Handbook of World Englishes. Malden MA: Blackwell. Kaikitis, L. 1998. Zypern und die Europäische Union. Erwartungen und Probleme einer eventuellen Vollmitgliedschaft Zyperns. Aachen: Alano Herodot. Karádi, M.Z. & Lutz, D.S. 1998. Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik. In Grothusen et al. (eds), 126–154. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. 1991. The language of the Greek Cypriots today: A revelation of an identity crisis? The Cyprus Review 3(1): 42–58. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. 2001. English or Greek language? State or ethnic identity? The case of the courts in Cyprus. Language Problems and Language Planning 25: 259–288. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. 2004. Language and ethnicity in Cyprus under the British: A linkage of heightened salience. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 168: 19–36. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. 2006. Language and ethnicity in Cyprus under the British: A linkage of heightened salience. In Faustmann & Peristianis (eds), 343–358. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. 2007. Education, language policy and identity in Cyprus: a diachronic perspective (1960–1997). In Sociolinguistic and Pedagogical Dimensions of Dialects in Education, A.N. Papapavlou & P. Pavlou (eds), 80–100. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Karpava, S. 2008. L2 Acquisition of the English Present Perfect: A Study on the Existential-­ Resultative Interpretation. MA thesis, University of Cyprus. Karpava, S. & Agouraki, Y. Fc. L2 acquisition of English present perfect interpretations. Revista de Estudos Linguísticos/Linguistic Studies. Karyolemou, M. 1994. Linguistic attitudes and metalinguistic discourse: An investigation in the Cypriot press. In Themes in Greek Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 117], I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nicolaidis & M. Sifianou (eds), 253–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Karyolemou, M. 2001. From linguistic liberalism to legal regulation: The Greek language in Cyprus. Language Problems and Language Planning 25: 25–50. Karyolemou, M. 2005. From linguistic liberalism to legal regulation: The Greek language in Cyprus. In Papapavlou (ed.), 27–50. Keller, R. 1994. On Language Change. The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English Kirkpatrick, A. 2008. English as the official working language of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Features and strategies. English Today 94 24(2): 27–34. Kirkpatrick, A. (ed.). 2010. The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. London: Routledge. Klandermans, B. 1999. Identität und Protest: Ein sozialpsychologischer Ansatz. In Masse, Macht, Emotionen. Zu einer politischen Soziologie der Emotionen, A. Klein & F. Nullmeier (eds), 260–270. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Kloss, H. 1966. Types of multilingual communities: A discussion of ten variables. In Explorations in Sociolinguistics, S. Lieberson (ed.), 7–17. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press. Kortmann, B., Burridge, K., Mesthrie, R., Schneider, E.W. & Upton, C. (eds). 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. II: Morphology and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kortmann, B. & Lunkenheimer, K. (eds). 2011. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English [eWAVE]. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology. (30 October 2012). Krashen, S.D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krippendorff, K. 1970. Bivariate agreement coefficients for reliability of data. In Sociological Methodology 1970, E.F. Borgatta & G.W. Bohrnstedt (eds), 139–150. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Kroskrity, P.V. 2001. Identity. In Key Terms in Language and Culture, A. Duranti (ed.), 106–109. Malden MA: Blackwell. Künstler, V., Mendis, D. & Mukherjee, J. 2009. English in Sri Lanka: Language functions and speaker attitudes. Anglistik 20(2): 57–74. Kyle, K. 2006. British policy on Cyprus 1974–2004. In Faustmann & Peristianis (eds), 583–605. Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, W. 1968. The reflection of social processes in linguistic structures. In Readings in the Sociology of Language, J.A. Fishman (ed.), 240–251. The Hague: Mouton. Labov, W. 1972a. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1: 97–120. Labov, W. 1972b. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. 1973. Sample questionnaire used by the project on linguistic change and variation. University of Pennsylvania, 1 March 1973. Labov, W. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Language in Use. Readings in Sociolinguistics, J. Baugh & J. Sherzer (eds), 28–53. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall. Labov, W. 2006. The Social Stratification of English in New York City, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2006. Second language acquisition and the issue of fossilization: There is no end, and there is no state. In Han & Odlin (eds), 189–200. Leonidou, L. 2007. For 59,000+ British expats in Cyprus – don’t lose your UK vote. Cyprus Mail, (30 October 2012).



References  Llamzon, T.A. 1983. Essential features of new varieties of English. In Varieties of English in Southeast Asia. Selected papers from the RELC Seminar on Varieties of English and their Implications for English Language Teaching in Southeast Asia, R.B. Noss (ed.), 92–109. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Llamzon, T.A. 1986. Life cycle of New Englishes: Restriction phase of Filipino English. English World-Wide 7: 101–125. Long, M.H. 2003. Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage development. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (eds), 487–535. Malden MA: Blackwell. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. “Ago”. (8 September 2011). Lowenberg, P.H. 1986. Non-native varieties of English: Nativization, norms, and implications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8: 1–18. Lowenberg, P.H. 1992. Testing English as a world language: Issues in assessing non-native proficiency. In Kachru (ed.), 108–121. MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES Project. Tools for Analyzing Talk, 3rd edn. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Map-Cyprus.gif. (15 February 2011). Markides, K.C. 1970. The Greek Unification movement in Cyprus: Its Development, its Dynamics, and its Decline. PhD dissertation, Wayne State University. Ann Arbor MI: University Microfilms. Mazzon, G. 1993. English in Malta. English World-Wide 14: 171–208. McArthur, T. 1987. The English languages? English Today 11 3(3): 9–11. McArthur, T. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge: CUP. McArthur, T. 2001. World English and world Englishes: Trends, tensions, varieties, and standards. Language Teaching 34: 1–20. McArthur, T. 2003. World English, Euro English, Nordic English? English Today 73 19(1): 54–58. McEnery, T., Xiao, R. & Tono, Y. (eds). 2006. Corpus-Based Language Studies. An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge. McEntee, L.J. 1998. ‘Identity crisis’ or ‘act of identity’: Language attitudes and use in the GreekCypriot community in Cyprus. In Second International Conference in Sociolinguistics, 5–7. November, 1998 – Proceedings, I. Crainiceanu (ed.), 17–30. Craiova: Omniscop. McEntee, L.J. 2001. Language use and attitudes towards the Greek-Cypriot dialect, Standard Modern Greek, and English in the Greek-Cypriot community of Nicosia, Cyprus. In Agouraki et al. (eds), 408–415. McEntee-Atalianis, L.J. 2004. The impact of English in postcolonial, postmodern Cyprus. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 168: 77–90. McEntee-Atalianis, L.J. & Pouloukas, S. 2001. Issues of identity and power in a Greek-­Cypriot community. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22: 19–38. Mesthrie, R. 2006. Anti-deletions in an L2 grammar: A study of Black South African English mesolect. English World-Wide 27: 111–145. Mesthrie, R. & Bhatt, R.M. 2008. World Englishes. The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge: CUP. Millward, C.M. 1989. A Biography of the English Language. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Milroy, L. 1980. Language and Social Networks. Baltimore MD: University Perk Press.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English Milroy, L. 1987. Observing and Analysing Natural Language. A Critical Account of Sociolinguistic Method. Oxford: Blackwell. Mittwoch, A., Huddleston, R. & Collins, P. 2002. The clause: Adjuncts. In Huddleston & Pullum (eds), 663–784. Moag, R.F. 1982. English as a foreign, second, native, and basal language: A new taxonomy of English-using societies. In New Englishes, J. Pride (ed.), 11–50. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Moag, R.F. 1992. The life cycle of non-native Englishes: A case study. In Kachru (ed.), 233–252. Modiano, M. 2003. Euro-English: A Swedish perspective. English Today 74 19(2): 35–41. MoEC Curriculum Development Unit. 1999. Αναλυτικά Προγράμματα Δημοτικής Εκπαίδευσης [Curricula for Primary Education], revised edn, 185–192. Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture. Mollin, S. 2006. Euro-English. Assessing Variety Status. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Mollin, S. 2007. New variety or learner English? Criteria for variety status and the case of EuroEnglish. English World-Wide 28: 167–185. Mufwene, S.S. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: CUP. Mufwene, S.S. 2004. Language birth and death. Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 201–222. Mukherjee, J. & Hundt, M. (eds). 2011. Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes. Bridging a Paradigm Gap [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 44]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nayar, P.B. 1997. ESL/EFL dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOL Quarterly 31: 9–37. Nemser, W. 1971. Approximative systems of foreign language learners. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 9: 115–123. Nesselhauf, N. 2009. Co-selection phenomena across New Englishes: Parallels (and differences) to foreign learner varieties. English World-Wide 30: 1–26. Neumann, F.-W. & Schütting, S. (eds). 1999. Anglistentag 1998 Erfurt. Proceedings. Trier: WVT. Nicoladis, E. 2006. Cross-linguistic transfer in adjective-noun strings by preschool bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9: 15–32. O’Malley, B. 2006. The impact of British strategic interests on the Cyprus problem. In Faustmann & Peristianis (eds), 473–490. Oxford English Dictionary. “Ago”. (30 October 2012). Papapavlou, A.N. 1989. English loanwords in the Greek Cypriot dialect: Linguistic and sociocultural interpretations. The Cyprus Review 1(1): 93–109. Papapavlou, A.N. 1994. Language Contact and Lexical Borrowing in the Greek Cypriot Dialect. Sociolinguistic and Cultural Implications. Athens: N.C. GRIVAS Publications. Papapavlou, A.N. 1997. The influence of English and its dominance in Cyprus: Reality or unfounded fears? Journal of Mediterranean Studies 7: 218–249. Papapavlou, A.N. 1998. Attitudes toward the Greek Cypriot dialect: Sociocultural implications. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 134: 15–28. Papapavlou, A.N. 2001a. The spread of English worldwide and the situation in Cyprus: Growing concerns. In Agouraki et al. (eds), 431–438. Papapavlou, A.N. 2001b. Mind your speech: Language attitudes in Cyprus. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22: 491–501. Papapavlou, A.N. 2005a. Attitudes toward the Greek Cypriot dialect: Sociocultural implications. In Papapavlou (ed.), 53–64.



References  Papapavlou, A.N. 2005b. Mind your speech: Language attitudes in Cyprus. In Papapavlou (ed.), 65–77. Papapavlou, A.N. (ed.). 2005. Contemporary Sociolinguistic Issues in Cyprus. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press. Papapavlou, A.N. & Pavlou, P. 1998. A review of the sociolinguistic aspects of the Greek Cypriot Dialect. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 19: 212–220. Papapavlou, A.N. & Pavlou, P. 2001. The interplay of language use and language maintenance and the cultural identity of Greek Cypriots in the UK. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11: 92–113. Papapavlou, A.N. & Pavlou, P. 2005a. The interplay of language use and language maintenance and the cultural identity of Greek Cypriots in the UK. In Papapavlou (ed.), 79–102. Papapavlou, A.N. & Pavlou, P. 2005b. A review of the sociolinguistic aspects of the Greek Cypriot Dialect. In Papapavlou (ed.), 15–25. Papapavlou, A.N. & Pavlou, P. 2007. Literacy and language-in-education policy in bidialectal settings. In Issues in Language Planning and Literacy, A.J. Liddicoat (ed.), 254–271. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Papapavlou, A.N., Pavlou, P. & Savides, A. 2001. The Greek Cypriot community in the UK: Linguistic and sociolinguistic issues. In Agouraki et al. (eds), 439–447. Pastellas, A. 1993. Isagogiki omilia ek merous tis kinisis politon gia ethnika themata. In The Destruction of the Greek Language in Cyprus, ix-xxii. Nicosia: Theopress. Pavlou, P. 1999. Children’s language attitudes in a bidialectal setting. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Greek Linguistics, A. Moser (ed.), 882–891. Athens: Ellinika Grammata. Pavlou, P. 2004. Greek Dialect use in the mass media in Cyprus. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 168: 101–118. Persianis, P. 2003. British colonial higher education policy-making in the 1930s: The case of a plan to establish a university in Cyprus. Compare. A Journal of Comparative and International Education 33: 351–368. Platt, J., Weber, H. & Ho, M.L. 1984. The New Englishes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Poew, R. 2007. Der Beitritt Zyperns zur EU – Probleme des Völkerrechts, des Europarechts und des zypriotischen Rechts. Leitideen für die Entwicklung eines zukünftigen reorganisierten ge­ samtzypriotischen Staates. Hamburg: Lit Verlag. Poplack, S. & Tagliamonte, S.A. 1991. African American English in the diaspora: Evidence from old-line Nova Scotians. Language Variation and Change 3: 301–339. Portner, P. 2003. The (temporal) semantics and (modal) pragmatics of the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 459–510. Potier, T. 2006. Britain and Cyprus: From referendum to reunification? In Faustmann & Peristianis (eds), 607–629. Presse- und Informationsamt der Republik Zypern. 1999. Zypern. Nicosia. Pride, J. (ed.). 1982. New Englishes. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Qiong, H.X. 2004. Why China English should stand alongside British, American, and the other ‘world Englishes’. English Today 78 20(2): 26–33. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English Rappas, A. 2008. The elusive polity: Imagining and contesting colonial authority in Cyprus during the 1930s. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 26: 363–397. Richmond, O.P. 2006. Decolonisation and post-independence causes of conflict: Mapping the case of Cyprus. In Faustmann & Peristianis (eds), 535–559. Richter, H.A. 2006. Benevolent autocracy 1931–1945. In Faustmann & Peristianis (eds), 133–149. Riley, P. 2007. Language, Culture and Identity. An Ethnolinguistic Perspective. London: Continuum. Ritchie, W.C. 1986. Second language acquisition research and the study of non-native varieties of English: Some issues in common. World Englishes 5: 15–30. Robnett, B. 2002. External political change, collective identities, and participation in social movement organizations. In Identity, Culture, and the State, D.S. Meyer, N. Whittier & B. Robnett (eds), 266–285. Oxford: OUP. Rosch, E.H. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350. Sapir, E. 1921. Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York NY: Harcourt. Schleicher, A. 1861. Compendium der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Indo­germanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau. Schneider, E.W. 1999. Notes on Singaporean English. In Form, Function and Variation in English. Studies in Honour of Klaus Hansen, U. Carls & P. Lucko (eds), 193–205. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Schneider, E.W. 2003. The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language 79: 233–281. Schneider, E.W. 2004. How to trace structural nativization: Particle verbs in world Englishes. World Englishes 23: 227–249. Schneider, E.W. 2006. English in North America. In Kachru et al. (eds), 58–73. Schneider, E.W. 2007. Postcolonial English. Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: CUP. Schneider, E.W. 2011. English Around the World. An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. Schneider, E.W., Burridge, K., Kortmann, B., Mesthrie, R. & Upton, C. (eds). 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. I: Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schreier, D. 2003. Isolation and Language Change. Contemporary and Sociohistorical Evidence from Tristan da Cunha English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Schreier, D. 2008. St Helenian English. Origins, Evolution and Variation [Varieties of English Around the World G37]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schreier, D. 2009. Assessing the status of lesser-known varieties of English. English Today 97 25(1): 19–24. Schreier, D. 2010a. St Helenian English. In Schreier et al. (eds), 224–244. Schreier, D. 2010b. Tristan da Cunha English. In Schreier et al. (eds), 245–260. Schreier, D. & Lavarello-Schreier, K. 2003. Tristan da Cunha. History, People, Language. London: Battlebridge. Schreier, D. & Lavarello-Schreier, K. 2011. Tristan da Cunha and the Tristanians. London: Battlebridge. Schreier, D., Trudgill, P., Schneider, E.W. & Williams, J.P. 2010. Introduction. In Schreier et al. (eds), 1–14. Schreier, D., Trudgill, P., Schneider, E.W. & Williams, J.P. (eds). 2010. The Lesser-Known Varieties of English. An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. Schumann, J.H. 1978. The acculturation model for second-language acquisition. In Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching, R.C. Gingras (ed.), 27–50. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.



References  Schwenger, C.P. 1964. Selbstbestimmung für Zypern: Die Prinzipien von Selbstbestimmung und Schutz der Nation in ihrem Einfluß auf die Entstehung der Republik Zypern. PhD dissertation, Julius-Maximilians-Universität zu Würzburg. Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10: 209–231. Smith, L.E. (ed.). 1981. English for Cross-Cultural Communication. London: Macmillan. Special Eurobarometer. 2006. Europeans and their languages, (31 October 2012). Sridhar, K.K. & Sridhar, S.N. 1986. Bridging the paradigm gap: Second-language acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English. World Englishes 5: 3–14. Stamatakis, N. 1991. History and nationalism: The cultural reconstruction of the modern Greek Cypriot identity. The Cyprus Review 3(1): 59–86. Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus. 2009. Demographic report. (24 September 2011). Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus. 2010. Statistics of education, 2008/2009. (06 July 2011). Stavrinides, Z. 1977. The Cyprus Conflict. National Identity and Statehood. Nicosia. Stirling, L. & Huddleston, R. 2002. Deixis and anaphora. In Huddleston & Pullum (eds), 449–564. Storrs, R. 1945. Orientations. London: Nicholson & Watson. Strang, B.M.H. 1970. A History of English. London: Methuen. Strevens, P. 1978. British and American English. London: Cassell. Strevens, P. 1980. Teaching English as an International Language. From Practice to Principle. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Strevens, P. 1981. Forms of English: An analysis of the variables. In Smith (ed.), 1–14. Strevens, P. 1987. English as an international language. English Teaching Forum 25(4): 56–63. Strevens, P. 1992. English as an international language: Directions in the 1990s. In Kachru (ed.), 27–47. Szmrecsanyi, B. & Kortmann, B. 2011. Typological profiling: Learner Englishes versus indigenized L2 varieties of English. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 167–187. Tagliamonte, S.A. 2006. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: CUP. TAMS Analyzer. (30 October 2012). Tarone, E. 2000. Still wrestling with ‘context’ in interlanguage theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20: 182–198. Tatli, S. 1986. Der Zypern-Konflikt. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus. Taylor, B. 2001. Australian English in interaction with other Englishes. In English in Australia [Varieties of English Around the World G26], D. Blair & P. Collins (eds), 317–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Terkourafi, M. 2003. The Cypriot Koine: A recent development? In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, G. Catsimali, A. Kalokairinos, E. Anagnostopoulou & I. Kappa (eds). Rethymno: Linguistics Lab. (31 October 2012). Terkourafi, M. 2007. Perceptions of difference in the Greek sphere: The case of Cyprus. Journal of Greek Linguistics 8: 60–96. The English School, Nicosia. (31 October 2012). TheFreeDictionary. “Ago”. (31 October 2012).

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English Theophanous, A. No date. Reassessing the relations between Cyprus and the UK. Website of the Cyprus Center for European and International Affairs. (31 October 2012). The Zurich and London Agreements. 1959. (31 October 2012). Thomason, S.G. 2001. Language Contact. An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP. Thomason, S.G. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. TIME Magazine U.S. 1956. Cyprus: Proposed Constitution. TIME Magazine, 31 Dec. 1956. (31 October 2012). Trudgill, P. 2002. The history of the lesser-known varieties of English. In Alternative Histories of English, R.J. Watts & P. Trudgill (eds), 29–44. London: Routledge. Trüb, R. 2008. American English Impact on South African English: An Empirical Analysis of its Manifestations and Attitudes towards it. PhD dissertation, University of Regensburg. Tsiplakou, S. 2006. Cyprus: Language situation. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, Vol. 3, K. Brown (ed.), 337–339. Oxford: Elsevier. Tsiplakou, S. 2009. English in Cyprus: Outer or expanding circle? Anglistik 20(2): 75–87. Tsiplakou, S., Papapavlou, A.N., Pavlou, P. & Katsoyannou, M. 2006. Levelling, koineization and their implications for bidialectism. In Language Variation – European Perspectives [Studies in Language Variation 1], F. Hinskens (ed.), 265–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tzermias, P. 1991. Geschichte der Republik Zypern. Mit Berücksichtigung der historischen Entwicklung der Insel während der Jahrtausende. Tübingen: Francke. Williams, J. 1987. Non-native varieties of English: A special case of language acquisition. English World-Wide 8: 161–199. Williams, J. 1989. Language acquisition, language contact and nativized varieties of English. RELC Journal 20(1): 39–67. Winford, D. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Malden MA: Blackwell. Woodhouse, M. 1960. Das Cypernproblem und die Abkommen von 1959. Europa Archiv 3: 63–84. Yazgin, N. 2007. The role of the English language in Cyprus and its effects on the ELT classroom. (29 September 2011). Yiakoumetti, A., Papapavlou, A.N. & Pavlou, P. 2007. The degree of bidialectal transference by Cypriots in a strict Standard Modern Greek context. In Selected Papers in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Vol. 1, E. Agathopoulou, M. Dimitrakopoulou & D. Papadopoulou (eds), 266–273. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Zervakis, P. 1998. Historische Grundlagen. In Grothusen et al. (eds), 38–90.

Appendices I.

Questionnaire language attitudes and use

Please indicate how frequently you use English, Cypriot Greek and Standard Greek in the following contexts. Please consider all three languages. 0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, 3 = usually, 4 = always Family 1.  Talking to your family members at dinner English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ 2.  At home English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ 3.  Discussing a personal matter/problem English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ Friendship 4.  Conversing and discussing general topics with friends English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek

0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4

0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ 5.  Discussing personal matters with friends/acquaintances English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ 6. Conversing with people I have not met before in my home town at clubs/social gatherings English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ 7.  Writing a personal letter/email English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ Education 8.  My medium of education was/is English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ 9. At high school/university I talked/talk to my friends who speak a dif­ferent language than I do in English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________

0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4

0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4

0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4

0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4



Appendices 

Everyday life 10.  In shops, at the railway station, airport etc. English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ 11.  At the market place English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ Employment 12.  At a job interview English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ 13.  Talking to colleagues English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________ 14.  Writing business letters English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________

0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4

0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

15.  Writing emails (business) English Cypriot Greek Standard Greek Other (please specify) _________________ _________________

0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4 0–1–2–3–4

Please read through the following sentences. Do you agree with the following statements? I strongly agree I identify myself with the British culture I think knowledge of English is important Speaking English is an advantage English offers advantages in seeking good job opportunities Without the knowledge of English I could not get a job On the whole, I can say that English has been and continues to be an advantage to Cypriots All children should be required to learn English at school I prefer using (Cypriot) Greek in most situations whenever possible We owe it to our forefathers to preserve (Cypriot) Greek I strongly identify myself with (Cypriot) Greek and the group that speaks it

I agree

Indifferent I disagree I strongly disagree



Appendices 

Without the knowledge of (Cypriot) Greek I could not get a job The status of (Cypriot) Greek is higher than that of English on Cyprus Speaking both (Cypriot) Greek and English is an advantage There should be more TV and radio programmes available in English (on Cyprus) Most children resent having to learn English I would feel embarrassed if I did not speak any English I like speaking English When I use English, it is most often with native speakers or foreigners, not with Cypriots English is important to Cyprus as a whole To be admitted to a public post, one should be able to speak English

(This questionnaire is based on Künstler et al. 2009.) II. Interview guidelines II.1

Question set “adults”

#1: Childhood How would you describe your childhood?* What were your parents like when you were young? Did you ever get blamed for things you didn’t do? What were your friends like? What did you do together? What was the funniest experience you had in your life?*

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

What was the most frightening one?* Have you ever had a dream that really scared you? #2: Job, hobbies and family life What do you do for a living? What do you do in your free time? Have you got any hobbies? Talk about the hobbies, e.g.: When did you start to ....? What is so special about ...? Are you married? How did you meet your husband/wife/partner? #3: Greek-Cypriot customs What is your favourite dish? Is there any kind of typical Cypriot food? Could you tell me anything about Cypriot customs and habits? #4: Future plans and hypothetical contexts What are your plans for your future? What would you do if you won the lottery?* How would your life change? What would you do with all the money? Imagine you were working for a Cypriot travel agency. What would you tell people about Cyprus to attract them as tourists? #5: Past and politics I Do you remember the Turkish invasion in 1974? How did you feel when this happened? Do you think Cyprus should be reunited?* What would your life be like if Cyprus wasn’t divided? #6: Past and politics II What do you know about the British colonization of Cyprus (1878–1960)? Do you think that the Cypriot people liked the British? Do you know what role the English language played during that time? #7: The English language Do a lot of Cypriots speak English? Do you think English plays an important role in Cyprus today? Do you like to speak English? Have you ever been to Great Britain? #8: Languages Do you speak other languages apart from English and (Cypriot) Greek? Do you like to speak foreign languages?



Appendices 

II.2

Question set “high school students”

#1: School I Do you go to one of the schools in this neighbourhood?* How far is this from your house? Do you enjoy going to school? Why/Why not? What is your favourite subject? Do you like English? Do you like to speak English? #2: School II Do you have any teachers that are really tough? What was the worst thing you ever saw a teacher do to a student? What was the worst thing you ever saw a student do to a teacher? Did you ever get blamed for things you didn’t do? (What was it like?) #3: School III What kind of groups do you have in your school? Do you have jocks? Nerds? Goths? Thugs? What is your group like? What sorts of clothes do they wear? Could you describe them? #4: Free time, hobbies Do you meet your friends from school in your free time, as well? What else do you do in your free time? Do you have any hobbies? Talk about the hobbies, e.g.: When did you start to ....? What is so special about ...? Do you like music? What kind of music? Who is your favourite pop star? #5: Greek-Cypriot customs What is your favourite dish? Is there any kind of typical Cypriot food? Could you tell me anything about Cypriot customs and habits? #6: Past What was the funniest experience you had in your life?* What was the most frightening one?* Have you ever had a dream that really scared you?

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

#7: Future plans and hypothetical contexts What are your plans for your future? What would you like to be when you grow up? What would you do if you won the lottery?* How would your life change? What would you do with all the money? What would you do if you became a famous [person] one day? #8: Past & politics I What do you know about the British colonization of Cyprus (1878–1960)? Did your parents tell you anything about that time? Do you think that the Cypriot people liked the British? Do you know what role the English language played during that time? #9: Past & politics II Do you know anything about the Turkish invasion in 1974? Do you think Cyprus should be reunited? What would your life be like if Cyprus wasn’t divided? #10: The English language Do your parents speak English? Do you think English plays an important role in Cyprus today? Have you ever been to Great Britain? #11: Languages Do you speak other languages apart from English and (Cypriot) Greek? Do you like to speak foreign languages?



Appendices 

III. Supplementary questionnaire Supplementary questionnaire – please fill out the form Age Sex

male

female

Nationality Occupation What languages do you speak? Years of instruction in English Hours of instruction per week Time spent abroad Residence when abroad Use of English today Occasions

education work friends family phone email miscellaneous

Please rate your language proficiency beginner level

intermediate advanced

Oral proficiency Written proficiency Listening comprehension Where do/did you go to school?

town

village

government

private

near native

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

Do you like the English language?

very much much indifferent not that much not at all

Do your parents speak English?

very good good average not so good not at all

Do you think it is important for Cypriots to know some English?

very important important indifferent not so important not at all important

Thank you very much for your participation!



Appendices 

IV.

Participants1

No.

Age

Sex

001

14

002

15

003

16

004

16

005

16

006

17

007 008

17 17

009

17

010

17

1.

Education

Occupation

Time spent in L1 Additional information English-speaking country

female town, private, bilingual

high school student

4.0, England

male

town, government, monolingual female village, government, monolingual female village, government, monolingual

high school student

0

grew up in England (until age 4), bilingual at home 0

high school student

0

0

high school student

0

female town, government, monolingual female town, government, monolingual female town, 000, 000 female 000, government, monolingual male town, government, monolingual male town, government, monolingual

high school student

0

high school student

0

bilingual at home, both parents English with Cypriot roots sometimes speaks English with relatives in the UK 0

high school student high school student

0 0

0 0

high school student

0

0

high school student

0

0

In the following, “000” indicates missing information on a particular aspect.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English No.

Age

Sex

011

19

012

Education

Occupation

Time spent in L1 Additional information English-speaking country

female town, government, monolingual

secretary, non-collegiate

5.0, England

19

male

university student (000)

0.2, England

013

20

female

0

014

20

female

0

0

015

20

female

0

0

016

20

female

0

0

017 018 019

22 22 22

male male male

0 0 0

0 0 0

020

23

male

0

0

021

24

male

0

0

022

25

male

university student (primary education) university student (primary education) university student (classical philology) university student (English language and literature) university student (000) university student (000) university student (primary education) restaurant owner, non-collegiate university student (energy and environmental engineering) auditor, MBA student, collegiate

grew up in England (until age 5), bilingual at home, both parents half Greek-Cypriot, half English bilingual at home, father English 0

0

0

town, government, monolingual town, government, monolingual town/village, government, monolingual village, government, monolingual village, government, monolingual town, 000, monolingual 000, 000, monolingual town, government, monolingual town/village, government, monolingual 000, 000, monolingual

000, government, monolingual



Appendices 

No.

Age

Sex

Education

023

26

024 025

26 26

female town, government, monolingual male town, private, bilingual male town, private, bilingual

026

27

027

27

female town, government, monolingual female town, private, bilingual

028

28

male

029

29

male

030

29

031 032

30 30

033

32

034

32

035

33

town, private, bilingual

town, government, monolingual male town, government, monolingual male 000, 000, 000 male town, government, monolingual female town, government, monolingual male town, government, monolingual male 000, 000, monolingual

Occupation

Time spent in L1 Additional information English-speaking country

teacher, collegiate

0

0

football player, non-collegiate 1.0, USA hotel employee, lifeguard, 0 non-collegiate English teacher, collegiate 4.0, England

attended American Academy 0

managing director, collegiate

7.0, England

business manager, collegiate

8.0, South Africa

employee of the Cyprus Sport Organisation, collegiate employee of the Cyprus Sport Organisation, collegiate banker, 000 salesman, pilot, collegiate

0

grew up in England (until age 7), both parents Greek-Cypriot grew up in South Africa (until age 8), both parents GreekCypriot English as language of instruction in MBA studies English as language of instruction in masters course 0 0

1.0, England 0 2.0, USA

employee of the Cyprus Sport 0 Organisation, 000 employee of the Cyprus Sport 0 Organisation, 000 judo coach, non-collegiate 0

0

0 0 0

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English No.

Age

Sex

Education

Occupation

Time spent in L1 Additional information English-speaking country

036

33

male

property evaluator, collegiate

1.5, USA and England

0

037

34

female

0

34

male

0

0

039

39

female

private sector, studied marketing, collegiate restaurant owner, non-collegiate secretary, non-collegiate

0

038

0

0

040 041

39 40

male female

0 0

40

male

bartender, non-collegiate primary school teacher, collegiate waiter, non-collegiate

0 0

042

0

0

043

41

female

architect, collegiate

0

0

044

41

female

town, government, monolingual town, government, monolingual town, government, monolingual 000, government, monolingual town, private, 000 town/village, 000, monolingual town, government, monolingual town, government, monolingual town, 000, monolingual

2.0, England

0

045

42

female 000, 000, monolingual

trainer at the Cyprus Sport Organisation, non-collegiate bank clerk, collegiate

0

046

44

economist, collegiate

8.0, USA

047

44

real estate agent, 000

2.0, USA and UK

0

048

45

female town, government, monolingual male town, government, monolingual female town, government, monolingual

currently also a university student 0

chemical engineer, collegiate

0

0



Appendices 

No.

Age

Sex

Education

049

45

female town, government, monolingual

050

45

male

051

45

female

052 053 054

46 48 49

male male female

055

50

female

056

56

female

057

57

female

058

57

male

059

57

male

060

59

female

061

59 (born 1947/48)2

female

town, government, monolingual village, government, monolingual town, private, bilingual 000, 000, 000 town, government, monolingual village, government, monolingual town, government, monolingual town/village, government, monolingual town/village, government, monolingual town, government, monolingual town, government, monolingual 000, 000, 000

Occupation

Time spent in L1 Additional information English-speaking country

librarian, Cyprus Airways 23.0, UK and Dubai facilities staff, administration medical supplies, collegiate employee of the Cyprus Sport 0 Organisation, collegiate shop assistant, non-collegiate 15.0, England

Canadian husband

wine merchant, 000 taxi driver, non-collegiate nurse, non-collegiate

4.0, USA 2.0, England 2.0, England

0 0 0

shop owner, non-collegiate

17.0, South Africa

0

housewife, non-collegiate

4.0, England

0

nurse, non-collegiate

0

0

physics teacher, collegiate

0

0

head teacher (retired), collegiate assistant matron (hospital), non-collegiate shop owner, non-collegiate

11.0, England and Zambia 0

0 currently living in England

0

0

0

grew up in Zaire (until age 14)

2. For all participants in group 1, I indicate both their age at the time of the interview and their year of birth since the latter specification was decisive for membership assignment to this group. Note that for informants born in the same year, age may differ due to the date of the interview.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English No.

Age

Sex

Education

Occupation

Time spent in L1 Additional information English-speaking country

062

59 (born 1947/48) 61 (born 1947/48) 60 (born 1946/47) 61 (born 1946/47) 62 (born 1946/47) 62 (born 1946/47)

male

000, 000, monolingual

inspector of primary schools, collegiate insurance agent, 000

0

0

0

0

housewife, non-collegiate

32.0, England

currently living in England

government employee, 000

0

attended American Academy

electrical engineer, collegiate

10.0, England

0

0

attended American Academy

62 (born 1945/46) 62 (born 1945/46) 64 (born 1944/45) 64 (born 1943/44) 65 (born 1943)

female town, government/private, 000 male village, government, monolingual male town, government, monolingual male town, government, monolingual female town, private, bilingual

inspector of the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (retired), non-collegiate senior nurse (retired), non-collegiate telecommunication engineer (retired), non-collegiate manager of a port (retired), 000 head teacher (retired), collegiate housewife, 000

7.0, England

British husband

3.0, England and Russia

0

0

0

0

0

0

attended St. George’s School (English school)

063 064 065 066 067

068 069 070 071 072

male

town, government, monolingual female village, government, monolingual male town/village, government/ private, bilingual male town, private, bilingual male

town, government/private, bilingual



Appendices 

No.

Age

Sex

073

66 (born 1941/42)

074 075 076 077 078 079 080

081 082

083

Occupation

Time spent in L1 Additional information English-speaking country

female town, private, bilingual

secretary (retired), non-collegiate

0

67 (born 1940/41) 67 (born 1940/41) 68 (born 1939/40) 68 (born 1939/40) 68 (born 1939/40) 69 (born 1939/40) 70 (born 1939)

female town/village, government/ private, monolingual male village, government, monolingual female town, government, monolingual male town, government, monolingual male village, private, bilingual

nurse, non-collegiate

6.0, England

attended American Academy; employed by the British, British nationality 0

restaurant owner, 000

38.0, England

0

70 (born 1936/37) 71 (born 1936/37)

male

71 (born 1936/37)

male

male male

male

Education

village, government, monolingual town, private, bilingual

town, government, monolingual village, government, monolingual town, government, monolingual

employee (retired), housewife, 0 non-collegiate electrician, collegiate 2.0, England

0

government employee (retired), non-collegiate police officer (retired), non-collegiate employee of the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (retired), 000 post office employee (retired), non-collegiate primary school teacher, headmaster of secondary school (retired), collegiate public sector employee (retired), non-collegiate

0

employed by the British

0

0

0

attended American Academy

0

0

1.0, England

0

0

0

0

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English No.

Age

Sex

Education

Occupation

Time spent in L1 Additional information English-speaking country

084

72 (born 1936/37) 73 (born 1936) 72 (born 1935/36) 72 (born 1935/36) 72 (born 1935/36) 72 (born 1934/35) 78 (born 1929)

male

town, private, bilingual

0

attended American Academy

female 000, 000, monolingual

government employee (retired), non-collegiate secretary (retired), 000

2.6, England

0

male

000 (retired), 000

40.0, England

British nationality

primary school teacher (retired), collegiate real estate agent (retired), 000 civil engineer (retired), collegiate real estate agent (retired), collegiate

30.0, England

0

0

0

0

0

0

holds teaching diploma for Greek as a foreign language

085 086 087 088 089 090

male

town, government, monolingual town, government, monolingual 000, 000, 000

male

000, 000, 000

male

town, government, monolingual

male



Appendices 

V.

Excerpt sample transcript

{!name = “2009_03_000_E_[...]_012.rtf ”} {!universal date = “March-2009”} {!universal interviewee = “[...]”} {!universal interviewer = “Sarah Buschfeld”} {!universal language = “E”} {!universal age = “19”} {!universal group = “1”} {!universal gender = “male”} {!universal occupation = “university student”} {!universal type of occupation = “0”} {!universal time spent abroad = “0.2”} {!universal place spent abroad = “England”} {!universal education = “town, government”} {!universal type of education = “monolingual”} {!universal transcriber = “Sarah Buschfeld, Sandra Baehr”} {!universal additional information = “bilingual at home, father English”} IE: And, as I said before, you can also ask questions. Okay? I mean, about my life, so just whatever comes to your mind. I: It’s windy. IE: That’s alright. You need help? [=!laughs] # Okay, so, first of all, mh+//. It is windy. ## First of all, maybe, ca& [/] can you tell me anything about your childhood? About growing up on Cyprus? I: Uh, it was quite in& [/] interesting because my mother comes from a village of Cyprus, IE: Mhm. I: but we lived in Limassol. IE: Mhm. I: So, it was kind of everyday Sunday. We [/] we used to go to the village |to see IE: |Mhm. I: my grandparents and uh we go XX a lot of uh [portraits?], so we were going collecting foods and stuff, IE: Mhm. I: so it was quite interesting for me to have a variety of life, combining city life, [silent?] village. IE: And do you prefer city life or life in a village? I: Uh, # in a mysterious way, I prefer village we& uh [//] life style because of the weekend that we have off from university, I go to my grandparents

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

IE: Mhm. I: and because my mother died. She’s buried in the |uh [/] IE: |Oh, I’m sorry. I: - that’s okay – uh she’s buried in the village, so I go to take some flowers and stuff. IE: And your father, is he English? I: Yes. IE: Okay, so # he ca& [///] di& [/] did he come here uhm as a soldier? Okay. Right. I: Ne, it was quite uh a story that did XX easily in [a?] movie or something. IE: Can you tell me that story? I: Yes, of course. Uh, he came as a soldier and my grandfather was a fireman [//] IE: Mhm. I: firefighter at the English bases. IE: Mhm. I: So, because he’s a very social person, my grandfather, he used to uhm give residence to English soldiers, he was uh making, you know, parties and stuff, uh he uh [//] my father met my mother and he was quite impressed |of uh IE: |Okay. I: she was very uh # organized about house uh, you know, leadership and stuff. [...] IE: Of course. Uhm, and what [/] what do you do today? Do you have any hobbies? I: Uhm. IE: Uhm, interests? I: It’s my study. |History, IE: |Okay. I: I’m very interested in. And I’m trying to kind of write a book. IE: A book about what? I: The biography of my mother. IE: Oh, really? I: In general, though, not specifically, the [//] about saying uh some [parts?] of my mother. Of course a little bit [source?] and stuff. So it will get more interesting. IE: So you [//] it’s like a semi-fictional I: Yeah. IE: novel I: Yeah, yeah, yeah. IE: biography



Appendices 

I: Yeah. IE: thing? I: Yeah. IE: Okay. So, uhm # and how many pages have you written so far? I: Uh, about 60. IE: 60. And [/] and what will be in there? I mean, what’s the story? I: It will be the love story of my father and mother that is quite interesting. [...] IE: Okay. Do you also like music? I: Yes. IE: What kind of music are you interested in? I: Before [/] IE: Mhm. I: before two, three years, I was listening just to Greek traditional music. IE: Okay. I: But now I like a lot of kind. IE: You also like American music like |pop or hip-hop [and all that?]? I: |Pop. Yes, I don’t mind. I hate R’n’B and Trance music. IE: Oh, yah. I: I hate it. IE: Trance is not very |nice. # It’s pretty aggressive, isn’t it? I: |[No, is?] I don’t like clubbing and stuff. Yeah. IE: And uh what about reading or going to the movies? I: I love them. IE: The movies? I: Yeah. IE: Okay. What kind of movies # |do you prefor [//] &fer? I: |Uh, horror and social. IE: Stephen King? Hor&+/. I: I [=!stutters] have a terrible problem with remember titles of films |and IE: |Okay. I: actors. IE: I’m also very interested in films. I: Do you? |About what kind? IE: |So, yah. David Lynch. Like strange stories, very absurd plots. Uhm, Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction? I: I [/] I like the social mostly films. IE: Mhm.

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

I: Uh, like Beyond Waters, IE: Mhm. I: uh Waterloo Wonder, IE: Mhm. I: that they show to the world what uh happen in such countries, IE: Mhm. I: that we are not inform. [...] I: No, tomorrow, it’s about uh the revolution of the Cypriot people against the English colony. IE: Could you also tell me anything about this |revolution? I: |Uh, yes. Uh, I [wit?] support completely the [folk?] the Cypriots gave in order to get there in, you know+/. IE: But, I mean, this is pretty interesting because, as you said earlier, your father is English and+/. I: Yes, but uh I don’t like to be in dogmas. IE: Mhm. I: I like to be more open-minded. IE: Mhm. I: And uh I believe that in [=!stutters] English universities, they say that uh the, you know, [/] the head of [a?] revolution was a terrorist IE: Mhm. I: because it was against the English prophets, |but of course IE: |Yeah, sure. I: it’s uh [/] it’s, you know, [/] it’s uh about how they translate an effort each people give. IE: Okay. Do you think that the British left traces |on the island? I: |Yes, the bases. IE: The bases, only? And then you have [///] you also have British shops and all that and you drive on the left side, |I mean+/. I: |Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I ca&+//. And the+//. Even though that the Turkish is the second language of Cyprus, it’s [/] it’s not anymore, it’s the English language. [...] IE: Okay. And uhm [=!clears throat] maybe we can go back to an earlier question. Uh, what about other future plans? I: Of mine? IE: Mhm. I: I want to build a cottage in my village.



Appendices 

IE: Mhm. I: And uh # ah, I don’t know, we will see. |I don’t like IE: |Do you+/? I: to make plans. I like to take life as it comes. IE: Okay. Yah, I see. But do you, maybe [///] Are you thinking about having a family? I: Yes, definitely. IE: Later? I: Yeah. IE: Kids and all that? I: Three. [=!laughs] IE: Three, okay [=!laughs]. And do you think that you’ll marry a Cypriot woman or would you also+/? I: Probably. IE: Because you think it’s better? I: Uhm. IE: Do you think it’s easier culture-wise or+/? I: No, I [/] I don’t think that I have any problem with coping with a different culture. IE: Okay. I: Not like Kazakhstan cu& [/] culture, it’s quite |uh [=!laughs]+/. IE: |Quite different. I: Yeah [=!laughs]. IE: Yah, but maybe British or French I: Yeah, yeah, IE: or+/. I: yeah it’s [//] [it?] quite similar actually with us because now it’s, you know, the [/] the globalization. IE: Mhm. I: These countries are quite similar now. IE: Okay. I: Uh, but I prefer to be a Cypriot [one?]. [...] IE: And uh what would you do+//? Do you play the lottery? Do young people on Cyprus |play the lottery? I: |Lottery? IE: Like+//. I: Uh. IE: You know what I mean? Yeah? |Lotto. I: |Yes, Lotto

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English

and |XX IE: |Mhm. I: and stuff. Uh, ah I’m not very interested. When is a big amount, IE: Okay. I: many millions, I play, but uh I’m not interested. IE: But what would you do if you won like three or four million euros or pounds? |Whatever, just a lot of money. I: |I will put them+//. I buy house, IE: Mhm. I: uh, # put them in the bank, IE: Mhm. I: so from the interest I will live an easier life without touching my money IE: Okay. I: and I [/] I will finish firstly my studies. [...]

Index Symbols 1974  3, 7–9, 11, 23, 28–30, 32, 37, 41, 52, 54, 91, 92, 99, 131, 182, 186, 187, 189, 194, 196, 197, 200–204 see also Turkish invasion A acquisition  9, 34, 56–60, 67, 69, 71–73, 77, 91, 92, 97, 99, 179, 184, 186–189, 196, 201, 203 see also second-language acquisition context  9, 72, 91, 189, 196 administration, see English in administration age (sociolinguistic variable)  11, 38, 71, 91–93, 98, 113, 131, 150, 154, 155, 163, 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 204 American English  39, 63, 67, 78, 79, 107 B Bhatt, Rakesh M.  44, 46, 47, 56, 57, 60, 64, 70, 72, 77, 169, 172, 190, 191, 203 bilingualism  35, 38, 39, 61–63, 68, 99, 182, 187, 193–195 see also cline of bilingualism see also individual bilingualism see also societal bilingualism see also spread of bilingualism Bongartz, Christiane M.  9, 12, 42, 56, 60, 61, 64, 70, 72, 74, 75, 140, 142, 184, 188, 202, 203, 205 BrE, see British English (Br)E, see British English

British English  34–36, 38, 39, 63, 65, 74, 78–85, 87–93, 105–107, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 121, 124, 125, 128, 132–134, 140–144, 146, 147, 149, 150, 153, 163, 165, 171, 174–176, 178, 179, 183–185, 189, 194, 196, 201, 205 expatriates  14, 23, 194, 196 occupation  7, 15, 16, 25, 28, 31, 99, 182, 186 Buschfeld, Sarah  9, 12, 42, 60, 61, 64, 74, 75, 140, 142, 184, 188, 202, 203, 205, 206 C Canadian English  39, 78 CEDAR, see CEDAR corpus CEDAR corpus  6, 10, 11, 95, 98, 100, 201 characteristic features  50, 64, 66, 95, 107, 204, 205 cline of bilingualism  39, 62 codification  66, 69, 186, 188, 197 creative writing, see English in creative writing criteria  4, 9–11, 56, 59–70, 72, 74, 127–129, 181–184, 186–190, 202, 203 catalogue  4, 9, 11, 61, 72, 202, 203 for assessing variety status  4, 9, 11, 66, 70, 186 for determining variety status  56, 60, 181 CyE, see Cyprus English Cypriot Greek  6, 8, 28, 40, 41 (Cypriot) Greek, see Cypriot Greek

Cyprus English  3–11, 13, 35, 41–43, 45, 49, 50–52, 54–56, 61, 63, 70, 75, 78, 90–93, 95–100, 104–107, 111, 113, 117, 118, 120, 124–129, 131–138, 140–147, 150–153, 160, 161, 163, 165, 168, 169, 172–179, 181, 182, 184–192, 196, 199 Data Analysis and Research, see CEDAR corpus D Davy, Jim  3, 5, 8, 21, 31–33, 37, 53–55, 189, 194, 196 diachronic  3, 44, 48, 55, 60, 69, 191, 192, 194, 197 approach  69, 197 model  3, 60 orientation  44 Dynamic Model  4, 11, 44, 45, 48, 66, 69, 70, 73–76, 181, 191–195, 197–199, 201–203 E education (sociolinguistic variable)  2, 38, 98, 204 see also English in education sector  34, 35, 45, 55, 182 EFL, see English as a foreign language EFL-ESL distinction  54 EFL-ESL-ENL continuum  75–77, 92, 189, 205 see also modified version of the EFL-ESL-ENL continuum

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English English and the Internet  39, 67, 77 and the radio  36, 37, 39 and the teaching machinery  69, 186, 188 and TV  36, 37, 39, 77 as a foreign language  2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 44–47, 49–51, 54–56, 61–63, 67–71, 73–77, 92, 187–191, 197, 202–205 as a medium of instruction  32, 33, 62 as a native language  9, 44–47, 56, 74–77, 92, 189–191, 197, 202, 205 as a second language  2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 44–47, 49–51, 54–56, 60–63, 67–77, 92, 181, 182, 186, 188–191, 197, 202–205 for interethnic communication  22, 37, 45, 54, 68, 182, 187, 200 for international communication  45, 63 for intranational communication  22, 63 in administration  62, 68, 182, 187 in creative writing  66, 69, 184, 186, 188 in Cyprus  1, 3–13, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41–43, 45, 49, 50–52, 54–56, 61, 63, 70, 78, 90–93, 95–100, 104–107, 111, 113, 117, 118, 120, 124–127, 129, 131–138, 140–147, 150–153, 160, 161, 163, 165, 168, 169, 172–179, 181, 182, 184–192, 196–199, 201–206 in education  20–22, 31, 33–35, 38, 45, 47, 55, 62, 67, 68, 73, 78, 166, 182, 184, 187 in the media  35, 36, 39, 45, 63, 67–69, 182, 184, 186–188 in tourism  35 in X  3, 70, 181, 197 see also X English EiCy, see English in Cyprus features  202, 203, 205, 206 EiCy/CyE features  11, 35, 92, 96, 97, 100, 105, 106, 127, 133, 150, 152, 175, 177, 178, 196 ENL, see English as a native language

ENL-ESL-EFL continuum  9 distinction  44–47, 56, 74, 190, 191, 197, 202 error  59, 63–66, 73, 133, 172 ESL, see English as a second language Event X  28–30, 33, 41, 196, 200 see also Turkish invasion expansion  22, 60–62, 66, 68, 69, 182, 187 in function  22, 60–62, 68, 69, 182, 187 expatriate community  38, 39, 53, 206 F feature  see also fossilizable features see also linguistic features see also local features see also nativized features analysis  42, 65, 93, 101, 107, 129, 131, 183, 193, 201 nativization  10, 59, 65, 68, 77, 127, 129, 152–155, 158, 159, 166, 169–171, 179, 183, 184, 187, 196, 205, see also nativization pool  169, 172 fossilizable features  58 fossilization  58, 59, 72, 73 G GCD, see Greek-Cypriot dialect see also L1 GCD Görlach, Manfred  2, 44, 45, 49, 52, 60, 76, 190, 202, 203 Greek-Cypriot dialect  6–8, 10, 32, 36, 39, 40–42, 53, 77–91, 93, 132, 140, 142, 143, 146, 161, 164, 201 identity  7, 26, 40, 42, 201, 206 Greek Cypriots  3, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 34, 38, 39, 41, 92, 96, 105, 107, 117, 150, 152, 159–161, 163–165, 177, 179, 182, 186, 187, 194–196, 200, 204 language  15, 32, 41, 182 Gupta, Anthea Fraser  44, 66, 67, 73, 182

H HCFA, see hierarchical configural frequency analysis hierarchical configural frequency analysis  11, 131, 173, 174, 176–179 historical and sociopolitical development  4, 7, 13, 26, 52, 199 historical background  13, 76, 206 development  30, 193 Ho, Mian Lian, see Platt, John hybrid case  11, 181, 184, 187, 190, 197, 202 ESL-EFL status  11, 181, 189, 197, 202 status, see hybrid ESL-EFL status hybridity  11 I identity  5–8, 13, 24–30, 32, 33, 38, 40–42, 48, 52–54, 72, 75, 77, 184, 189, 193–202, 206 see also Greek-Cypriot identity constructions  5, 7, 8, 13, 24–30, 33, 41, 48, 52, 72, 75, 77, 193–197, 199–201, 206 concepts  26, 27, 195 IDG, see indigenous population indigenization  49, 63, 183 indigenous population  5, 22, 27, 30, 41, 48, 72, 73, 172, 193–200 individual bilingualism  61 input variety  39, 64, 78, 105, 150 institutionalization  34, 47, 49, 60, 62, 66, 68–70, 75, 186, 188, 190, 197 integrated approach  4, 55, 71 interethnic communication, see English for interethnic communication interlanguage  9, 55–59, 61, 63, 64, 71, 73, 90 international communication, see English for international communication functions (of English)  202 Internet, see English and the Internet



Index  intranational communication, see English for intranational communication functions (of English)  37, 45, 187 use (of English)  68, 187, 189 K Kachru, Braj B.  1, 3, 39, 44, 46–49, 51, 54, 55, 60, 62–69, 72, 129, 133, 182, 186, 188, 190–192, 197, 205 L L1  10, 34, 64, 90, 98, 100, 162, 169, 172, 196, 204, 206 background  64, 206 English country  34, 98, 204, 206 GCD  90 transfer, see transfer L2  10, 51, 57, 59, 90, 161, 169, 196 English  51, 90, 161 language acquisition  34, 56, 57, 60, 67, 69, 72, 73, 77, 92, 99, 184, 186, 188, 189, 203 contact  5, 18, 38, 39, 44, 48, 90, 169, 200 contact conditions  5, 48 learning  18, 57, 58, 187 see also learning policy  7, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 30–33, 73, 194, 199 transfer, see transfer learner English  3, 8, 11, 56, 65, 74, 181, 186, 188, 190, 197, 199 Englishes  9, 12, 56, 58–61, 64, 68, 70–74, 77, 133, 172, 184, 188, 189, 203, 205 errors  63, 64, 172 learning  18, 51, 57–59, 67, 68, 71–73, 187 Life Cycle, see Life Cycle of Non-Native Englishes Life Cycle of Non-Native Englishes  44, 60, 69 lingua franca  22, 37, 47, 51, 54, 63 linguistic effects  7, 44, 75, 193–196, 199, 201

features  3, 6, 8, 10, 49, 52, 63, 71, 93, 95, 131, 183, 205, 206 schizophrenia  66, 186, 188, 205 local features  68, 168, 187, 201 feature use  159, 169 localization  66, 67, 69, 184, 186, 188 of usage domains  69, 186, 188 M McArthur, Tom  43–48, 51, 55, 76 McEntee, Lisa J., see McEnteeAtalianis, Lisa J. McEntee-Atalianis, Lisa J.  5, 8, 26, 32, 34–41, 53, 54, 200 media, see English in the media medium of instruction, see English as a medium of instruction Mesthrie, Rajend  44, 46, 47, 56, 57, 60, 64, 70, 72, 77, 169, 172, 185, 190, 191, 203 Moag, Rodney F.  3, 34, 44, 45, 60–63, 66–69 models of World Englishes  3, 60, 69, 197 modified version of the Three Concentric Circles model  191, 192 of the EFL-ESL-ENL continuum  92, 189 Mollin, Sandra  4, 9, 10, 52, 59–68, 73, 76, 129, 162, 181, 183, 186 Mufwene, Salikoko S.  21, 22, 66, 169, 172 N nativization  6, 9–11, 22, 48, 59, 60, 63–66, 68–70, 73–75, 77, 91–93, 104–106, 113, 127–129, 132, 134, 140, 152–156, 158, 159, 165, 166, 168–173, 179, 183, 184, 187, 194–198, 201–205 of linguistic structures  60, 63, 68, 69, 183, 187, 195 phase  196, 197 process  10, 11, 128, 132, 153, 156, 165, 169, 171, 184, 196, 201, 203, 204

nativized feature  11, 59, 63–65, 90, 124, 151, 163, 184, 196, 205 O Observer’s Paradox  96, 97 occupation (sociolinguistic variable)  98, 204 P paradigm gap  56, 70, 77, 203 Papapavlou, Andreas N.  21, 30, 32, 33, 39, 40, 53, 54 Pavlou, Pavlos  3, 5, 8, 21, 30–33, 37, 53–55, 189, 194, 196 PCEs, see postcolonial Englishes place EiCy/CyE  4, 8, 11, 45, 54, 55, 63, 70, 92, 181, 190, 192 Platt, John  9, 49, 62, 63, 75, 76, 92, 183, 188, 189, 205 postcolonial Englishes  4, 48, 49, 72, 165, 185, 191, 201 Pouloukas, Stavros  5, 8, 26, 34, 37–41, 53, 54, 200 prototypical development  5, 191, 195, 201 ESL  74, 191 learner English  197 second-language variety  75 psycholinguistic approach  6 processes  10, 56, 63, 77, 203 research  95 R radio, see English and the radio S Schneider, Edgar W.  2–6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 21, 22, 25–30, 39, 41, 43–49, 51, 52, 55, 60, 63, 65–67, 69, 70, 72–76, 95, 107, 129, 140, 142, 164, 165, 169, 172, 181, 184, 185, 189–206 second language acquisition  56, 57, 59, 71, 73, 77, 92, 203 second-language variety  2, 3, 11, 49, 60, 69, 75, 77, 181, 186, 188–190, 197, 199 Selinker, Larry  10, 56–59, 63, 66, 71–73, 77 settler strand  5, 21–23, 27, 29, 30, 41, 48, 76, 77, 172, 193–200 sex (sociolinguistic variable)  98, 204

 English in Cyprus or Cyprus English SLA, see second language acquisition research  57, 59, 71, 203 SMG, see Standard Modern Greek societal bilingualism  38, 61, 68, 182, 187 sociolinguistic background  5, 41, 92, 199, 205 change  131 conditions  7, 13, 18, 30, 41, 52, 195, 196 development  7, 30, 41, 56, 73 factors  38, 39, 73 interview  95–97, 100 observations  42 parameters  5, 38, 41 situation  5, 7, 25, 29, 30, 38, 54, 182, 204, 206 variables  98, 204, 205 see also age, sex, education, occupation, time spent in an L1 English country/ time spent abroad spread of bilingualism  61, 62, 182, 193, 195 Sridhar, Kamal K.  18, 49, 56, 57, 59, 68, 70–73, 103 Sridhar, Shikaripur N., see Sridhar, Kamal K. Standard Modern Greek  6–8, 10, 36, 40–42, 53, 78, 80–90, 93, 132, 140, 146, 164, 201 STL, see settler strand

structural nativization, see nativization synchronic  44, 55, 193 orientation  193 T teaching machinery, see English and the teaching machinery Three Concentric Circles  44, 46, 190 see also modified version of the Three Concentric Circles model Three Concentric Circles model, see Three Concentric Circles Three Concentric Circles of World Englishes, see Three Concentric Circles time spent abroad (sociolinguistic variable)  38 time spent in an L1 English country (sociolinguistic variable)  98, 204 tourism, see English in tourism transfer  10, 18, 58, 63, 72, 77, 78, 90, 91, 132, 140, 146, 162, 164, 169, 172 feature  132, 146 Tsiplakou, Stavroula  5, 8, 13–16, 19–21, 31, 33–35, 38, 53–55, 78, 194, 195 Turkish (language)  15, 31–33

Cypriots  14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 37, 41, 54, 194–196, 200 invasion  3, 7, 8, 23, 28–30, 32, 97, 196, 200, 202 TV, see English and TV V Variety Spectrum  205 variety status  2–11, 41–43, 49, 52, 54–56, 60–66, 68–70, 76, 92, 95, 129, 131, 132, 173, 181–184, 186–188, 190, 197–199, 202, 204 see also second-language variety W ways of language acquisition  60, 67, 69, 186, 188, 189 Weber, Heidi, see Platt, John World Englishes research  1, 8, 11, 13, 43, 45, 49, 50, 52, 56, 59, 63, 65, 73, 77, 92, 95, 132, 190, 202, 203 X X English  3, 11, 70, 181, 197 Y Yazgin, Nagme  5, 8, 37–39, 54, 55, 189