CYPRIOT GREEK AS A HERITAGE AND COMMUNITY LANGUAGE IN LONDON: (SOCIO)LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF A NON-STANDARD VARIETY IN A DIASPORIC CONTEXT1

Petros Karatsareas University of Westminster

Abstract Cypriot Greek has been spoken in the United Kingdom as a heritage and community language for over a century by a sizeable Greek Cypriot diaspora. In this chapter, I describe Cypriot Greek as it is spoken in London, presenting some of its key linguistic characteristics and discussing aspects of its sociolinguistic status in the wider UK context. In terms of linguistic characteristics, I present older, regional features that are currently being levelled in but which survive in London’s Cypriot Greek; Standard Modern Greek features that are increasingly used in London even in informal instances of communication; and, phenomena that are attributed to language contact with English. In terms of sociolinguistic status, I focus on the intergenerational transmission of Cypriot Greek in London and identify three key factors that threaten its maintenance in the diaspora: its minority status with respect to English, its non- prestigious status with respect to Standard Modern Greek, and also its non-prestigious status with respect to Cypriot Greek as it is currently spoken in Cyprus.

1. London’s Greek Cypriot diaspora: a tile in the city’s multicultural and multilingual mosaic

The United Kingdom has historically been the principal destination of Cypriot emigrants (Constantinou, 1990). Christodoulou places the onset of migration from Cyprus to the UK in 1902 (1959; cited in Constantinou, 1990: 151– 152). Migration remained low until the mid-1950s and only began to increase in 1955–1959, when violence on the island intensified during the anti-colonial struggles. Migratory flows reached an unprecedented peak in 1960–1963, immediately after the independence of Cyprus in 1960. Constantinou (1990) has described this period as a mass exodus driven by a general feeling of uncertainty caused by the establishment of the Cyprus as an independent state, a high rate of unemployment and the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962, which would limit the Commonwealth citizens’ rights to work in the UK. Migration peaked again in 1975, one year after the 1974 crisis, and reached its lowest levels in 1983. There is not a single area of Cyprus that was not affected by emigration. The 1946 census (Percival, 1949: 7), however, identified six areas defined around specific villages in five of the island’s six districts as having contributed to the earliest migratory flows in larger numbers (Map 1):

1. Nicosia District: the area around Klirou and Palaichori. 2. Kyrenia District: the area around Kormakitis and Diorios. 3. District: the area between Yialousa and . 4. : the area around Marathovounos and Pyrga. 5. Larnaca District: the area around Lefkara. 6. Paphos District: the area around Drouseia, Stroumpi and Lysos.

1 This study was conducted with the financial support of the British Academy through a Postdoctoral Fellowship, the University of the West of England, Bristol, and the University of Westminster. I am grateful to Achilleas Hadjikyriacou, Maria Panteli-Papalouca, Stavroulla Prodromou, Maro Strouthou, and Christodoulos Stylianou for helping me to recruit participants and generally facilitating my access to London’s community; and to my research assistant, Alexandra Georgiou, for all her help and support. Last but not least, I am indebted to all the members of London’s Greek Cypriot diaspora who participated in the study.

Map 1: areas in Cyprus with large numbers of emigrants to the UK. Based on Constantinou (1990: 158) with data from Percival (1949: 7).

Prior to the independence of Cyprus, emigration consisted predominantly of men, who came to the UK in search of work and would return to the island to find spouses, whom they would later bring with them. After independence, emigration was more family-based whereby whole families emigrated altogether or one member migrated first to be joined by the remaining members at a later time. Throughout the period of migration, migrants tended to be of young age and have a basic level of education, if they indeed happened to have received any schooling in Cyprus at all. They were also low to medium skilled, for the most part farmers, manual workers, production workers, tailors, metal workers and carpenters. In the UK, their first employment included the catering business. Later, tailoring and dressmaking became popular occupations for many members of the diaspora (Constantinides, 1990; Constantinou, 1990). Today, the Greek Cypriot παροικία [pariˈcia] ‘expatriate community’ is one of the over 200 ethnolinguistic minorities that compose the UK’s diverse population (Baker & Eversley, 2000; Eversley et al., 2010). The exact size of the community is, perhaps unsurprisingly, difficult to determine. Official sources such as the 2011 census document only the number of UK residents who were born in Cyprus (82,295 individuals; Office for National Statistics) and thus fail to account for the number of UK residents with a Greek Cypriot background who were born in the country. Other sources place the figure somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 people (Anthias, 1990; Constantinides, 1990; Constantinou, 1990; Christodoulou-Pipis, 1992l Gardner-Chloros, 1992; Papapavlou & Pavlou, 2001; National Federation of Cypriots in the UK). As noted by Constantinides (1990: 133), the community might initially seem rather small, especially when compared with other ethnolinguistic communities present in the country. However, if one considers the entire population of the Republic of Cyprus (838,897 individuals; 2011 census), the large size of the UK diaspora becomes clear, equalling between one fifth and one third of the metropolitan Greek Cypriot population. The greatest number of the UK’s Greek Cypriots are found in London with smaller communities in other major cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Liverpool. Data from the 2008 Annual School Census on the distribution of different languages spoken by London’s schoolchidren show that the boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Haringey, and Islington in the north of the capital’s metropolitan area have the highest concentration of Greek speakers, confirming earlier accounts and language surveys (Linguistic Minorities Project, 1985; Constantinides, 1990; Baker & Eversley, 2000); see Map 2. Josephides (1990) describes London’s diaspora as an active network of strong social ties supported and reinforced not only by kinship and friendship relations but also by proximity of residence, employment relations as well as a number of social and communal structures of Greek Cypriot interest. These include community centres; associations, societies and clubs; political organisations; action groups; women’s groups; complementary schools; the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain, and its parishes; and, printed and non-printed media such as the Parikiaki and Eleftheria newspapers, London Greek Radio and Hellenic TV.

Map 2: areas of London with large numbers of people with a Greek Cypriot background.

Early Greek Cypriot migrants were largely monolingual and monodialectal in Cypriot Greek (henceforth CyGr), with only rudimentary knowledge of Standard Modern Greek (henceforth SModGr) and English (Gardner-Chloros, 1992: 115). Today, the linguistic repertoire of London’s Greek Cypriot diaspora includes three languages: English, the majority language of the UK, and CyGr and SModGr as the two heritage languages of the community. For first- generation speakers (born in Cyprus and migrated to the UK as late adolescents or adults), English is a second language, which they learned after the end of childhood. Second-generation speakers (born in the UK to Cyprus-born parents), and third-generation speakers (born in the UK to UK-born parents and Cyprus-born grandparents) are both dominant in English, having acquired it either from birth at home at the same time as CyGr (simultaneous bilinguals) or when they started attending mainstream British schools, having first acquired CyGr (sequential bilinguals). Knowledge of SModGr is gained through formal education, participation in the public life of the community, and exposure to media from Cyprus and Greece. Depending on the type and amount of schooling they received in Cyprus before migrating, first-generation speakers will have been exposed to SModGr either from the onset of their schooling or, if they did not attend school in Cyprus, from their late adolescent and adult years. For second- and third-generation speakers, exposure to the standard language normally starts when they begin attending one of the approximately 50 Greek complementary schools that operate in the UK, teaching Greek language, history, geography and folk tradition (mainly song and dance) to children with a Greek Cypriot background. No generation is dominant in SModGr. In this chapter, I describe the heritage variety of CyGr that is spoken in London’s diaspora, presenting some of its key linguistic characteristics and discussing aspects of its sociolinguistic status in the wider UK context, drawing on data collected through ethnographic observations and interviews with members of London’s Greek Cypriot diaspora from September 2014 onwards. I first provide a brief theoretical outline of the (socio)linguistics of heritage and community languages in section 2. I then turn to the linguistic characteristics in section 3 and move on to the sociolinguistic aspects in section 4. I conclude in section 5.

2. The (socio)linguistics of heritage and community languages The languages of diasporic communities, especially ones with a history of migration, are most commonly described either as heritage languages or as community languages. In the UK context, the latter is preferred as it is thought to highlight the presence of diasporic communities not only “in the here and now of the mainstream community” (Evans, 2017) but also in the future, whereas the term heritage languages is seen as anchored in the diasporas’ past (Baker, 2011: 235). In recent years, however, heritage languages and heritage speakers have come to refer to what is seen by a number of scholars as a particular type of speaker and linguistic variety (Polinsky & Kagan, 2007; Benmamoun et al., 2013; Montrul, 2008, 2016; Polinsky, in press). Heritage speakers are typically the children of immigrants. They grow up acquiring the language of their parents’ country of origin at home until they start attending school at which time they begin to acquire the language of their host country. Gradually, they become dominant and more fluent in the majority language, limiting the use of the heritage language to the interaction with family and friends from the same ethnolinguistic background. This acquisitional trajectory distinguishes heritage speakers from both monolingual native language acquirers and second language learners. On the one hand, heritage speakers are exposed to the heritage language for most of their childhood, thus acquiring a significant part of its grammar on a par with monolingual acquirers. On the other hand, the stark reduction of domains in which the heritage language is used and the consequent interruption of their acquisition results in a type of linguistic competence reminiscent of second language learners. The incomplete acquisition of the heritage language, possible subsequent attrition, and interference from the majority language gradually lead to the formation of new, heritage grammars characterised by innovations on all levels, from phonology and morphology to syntax and semantics. The result of this process across time is a shift in dominance from the heritage language to the majority language in the transition from the first to the second generation of speakers and a possible loss of the heritage language by the third generation, as summarised in Table 1 by Montrul (2016: 24).

Generation Possible language characteristics First generation Dominant in the Non-native proficiency in the majority language (parents) native language Second generation Dominant in the Low to high proficiency in the heritage language (children) majority language Third generation Dominant in the Ranges from intermediate-low proficiency in the heritage (grandchildren) majority language language to monolingual in the majority language Table 1: patterns of language dominance and proficiency of heritage speakers and the parental generation (Montrul, 2016: 24).

In addition to reduced input and exposure, social factors have also been argued to contribute significantly to the intergenerational loss of the heritage language and the shift to the majority language. Giles et al. theorised that the likelihood of an ethnolinguistic group’s behaving as “a distinctive and active collective entity in intergroup situations” (1977: 308), termed its ethnolinguistic vitality, rests upon three sets of structural variables: status, demography and institutional support. If a language or variety is considered to be prestigious, is spoken by a sizeable speech community and is used in administration, education and the media, then its ethnolinguistic vitality index is high and it is likely to be maintained by its speakers across generations. If it is seen as inferior to some other language or variety, if its speech community is small, and lacks institutional support, then its ethnolinguistic vitality index is low and it is more likely for its speakers to assimilate to the dominant majority language. Focusing on the status variable, Giles et al. further maintain that “a language’s history, prestige value, and the degree to which it has undergone standardization may be sources of Pride or shame for members of a linguistic community, and as such may again facilitate or inhibit the vitality of a given ethnolinguistic group” (1977: 312). Prestige, social identity-related motivations and positive attitudes were also identified by Bradley (2002), Wurm (2002) and Karan (2011) as key factors fostering the maintenance of a linguistic variety in bi-/multilingual majority/minority contexts. In Wurm’s words: “one of the most important factors for the maintenance and reinvigoration of a threatened language is the attitude of the speakers towards their own language and the importance which they attach to it as a major symbol of their identity” (2002: 11; cited in Pauwels, 2016: 58).

3. Linguistic aspects of London’s Cypriot Greek

3.1. Regional features

These are predominantly lexical items and phonological variants that originate in the traditional, local CyGr varieties and were brought over to the UK by the first generation of immigrants. These have been or are currently being levelled out in Cyprus in favour either or more common and frequent Cypriot variants or of standard variants. They are generally perceived negatively by Cyprus-born speakers as being obsolete and no longer in use. In London, they are more common among first- and second-generation speakers. At the lexical level, we find examples such as εγιώ(νι) ‘I’, εσού(νι) ‘you (singular)’ μαβλούκα ‘pillow’, μαχαλλάς ‘neighbourhood’, πούγκα ‘pocket’ and ποάτ-τ̔ε ‘from here’ still being used. These tend to be avoided in Cyprus in favour of εγώ, εσύ, μαξιλάριν, γειτονιά, τσ̑έπη and ποδά or που δαμαί. At the phonological level, two mergers affecting /θ/ are particularly notable. In the first case, /θ/ merges with /x/ with three realisations: [x] before back vowels and [ç] before front vowels as in (1a) or [h] before both back and front vowels as in (1b). Both the merger and the [h] realisation have been documented by Newton (1972: 26, 100–103) and, more recently, by Ιωαννίδου & Νεοκλέους (2016: 108–109) in the variety of CyGr that is spoken in Cyprus by Turkish Cypriots.

(1) a. λάχος [ˈlaxos] ‘mistake’ cf. λάθος [ˈlaθos] χέλω [ˈçelo] ‘I want’ cf. θέλω [ˈθelo]

b. κάχε [ˈkahe] ‘every’ cf. κάθε [ˈkaθe] σηκωχούμεν [sikoˈhumen] ‘we stand up’ cf. σηκωθούμεν [sikoˈθumen]

In the second case, /θ/ merges with /f/ both as a singleton (2a) and as a geminate (2b). Realisations such as these have only been reported by Ιωαννίδου & Νεοκλέους (2016: 110) for Greek-speaking Turkish Cypriots. Its attestation in London corroborates their suggestion that this may be an old, regional feature of CyGr, which was lost from the varieties spoken in the Greek part of the island and which is preserved only in the language of the generally more conservative transplanted speech communities.

(2) a. εφέλαν [eˈfelan] ‘they wanted’ cf. εθέλαν [eˈθelan] φείοι [ˈfii] ‘uncles’ cf. θείοι [ˈθii]

b. αφφυμούμαι [afːiˈmume] ‘I remember’ cf. αθθυμούμαι [aθːiˈmume] πεφφερικά [pefːeɾiˈka] ‘in-laws’ cf. πεθθερικά [peθːeɾiˈka]

3.2. High-register features

These are SModGr variants which British-born Greek Cypriots use in circumstances in which the use of the CyGr variants would be normally expected in the context of Cyprus such as in informal instances of communication with family members and friends. SModGr(-like) variants are found across all levels of linguistic analysis (lexicon, phonology, morphology, syntax) and appear to be more common among second- and third-generation speakers. Consider the following extracts from the speech of two second-generation speakers:

(3) Τσ̑αι στο σχολείον που επήαμεν ήταν Ελληνικά που εμάθαμεν, έντζ̑’ εμάθαμεν Κυπριακά. Αλλά η κυπριακή διάλεχτο θα την μάθεις που τον παπ-π̔ούν σου τσ̑αι την γιαγιάν σου, τσ̑αι μετά που την μητέραν σου, που τους γονείς σου. Έτσι την εμάθαμεν την κυπριακήν διάλεχτο. Είναι πλούσια.

‘When we went to school, we learned [Standard Modern] Greek, we did not learn Cypriot [Greek]. You will learn the Cypriot dialect from your grandfather and your grandmother and then from your mother, from your parents. That’s how we learned the Cypriot dialect. It is rich.’

In (3), the speaker produces four standard variants in a short stretch of CyGr speech: the future marker θα instead of the CyGr εν-νά in θα την μάθεις ‘you will learn it’; fronting to focalise έτσι ‘in this way’ in έτσι την εμάθαμεν ‘that’s how we learned it (the Cypriot dialect)’ instead of a cleft construction such as εν έτσι που την εμάθαμεν, which is the CyGr syntactic means for focalisation; and, finally, the form είναι ‘is’ for the third person of the present copula in είναι πλούσια instead of the CyGr έν(ι).

(4) Εν και μεγάλη διαφορά μεταξύ εμένα και τις αδερφές μου. Νομίζω έχει τσ̑αι τούτο σημασία στο πώς μεγάλωσα, ας πούμεν, γιατί οι αδερφές μου είναι δεκαέξι και δεκαοχτώ χρόνια πκιο μεγάλες μου. Εγώ ήρτα μετά, ήμουν σ̑οκ, εν ήμουν σχεδιασμένη εγώ τσ̑αι τον καιρόν που γεν-νήθηκα εγώ μετά που τρία χρόνια εγέν-νησεν κι η αρφή μου η μεγάλη.

‘There is a big age difference between me and my sisters. I think this, too, is important in how I grew up, because my sisters are sixteen and eighteen years older than me. I came later, I was a shock, I was not planned, and three years after I was born my older sister also had a baby.’

Similarly, the speaker in (4) uses a number of standard variants: και ‘and’ and καιρόν ‘time’ with a SModGr palatal stop [c] instead of the CyGr τσ̑αι and τσ̑αιρόν with the postalveolar affricate [tʃ], although she does use τσ̑αι twice; έχει ‘has’ with a standard palatal [ç] instead of έσ̑ει with a postalveolar [ʃ]; the form τις ‘the’ of the accusative plural of the feminine definite article instead of τες; the form είναι ‘is’ for the third person of the present copula in οι αδερφές μου είναι instead of the CyGr έν(ι); two past verb forms without the Cypriot ε- augment in μεγάλωσα ‘I grew up’ and γεν-νήθηκα ‘I was born’ instead of the expected εμεγάλωσα and εγεν-νήθηκα.

3.3. English influence features

In the first generation of speakers, the influence of the majority language can be seen especially in the large number of English loanwords, mainly nouns, which have been integrated into CyGr in terms of both their phonology and their morphology; some examples are listed in (5). These attracted the attention of scholars early on (Ιωαννίδης, 1990: 185; Christodoulou-Pipis, 1992: 106–110; Gardner-Chloros, 1992: 126) and have parallels in other heritage varieties of Greek spoken in majority English contexts such as the USA and Australia (Seaman, 1972: 182–185; Tamis, 1991: 258– 262; Alvanoudi, 2017: 7–17). In London, this type of lexical borrowing is labelled ‘Grenglish’ and is associated, especially among second- and third-generation speakers, with the low socioeconomic status and low level of education that characterised the first Greek Cypriot immigrants that arrived to the UK.

(5) English original CyGr loanword a. masculine landlord [ˈlandlɔːd] λάλος [ˈlalos] next-door neighbour [ˌnɛks(t)dɔː ˈneɪbə] νεξτόρης [nekˈstoɾis]

b. feminine slippers [ˈslɪpəz] σλιπ-π̔ούες [sliˈpʰːues] naughty [ˈnɔːti] νότ-τ̔ισ-σα [ˈnotʰːisːa]

c. neuter deposit [dɪˈpɒzɪt] τεπόζιτον [teˈpοzːiton] post office [ˈpəʊst ɒfɪs] ποστόφφιν [poˈstofːin]

In the second and third generations, the influence of English is much stronger and evident on a much larger scale, not least in the treatment of English lexical material. Unlike first generation speakers, second and third generation speakers do not adapt the phonology and morphology of English loanwords, which appear as single-word codeswitches (or, nonce borrowings) as in (6). Multi-word codeswitching, both of the intersentential and the intrasentential type (7), is, unsurprisingly, very common among these speakers and has received a considerable amount of attention in the literature (Gardner-Chloros & Finnis, 2003; Georgakopoulou & Finnis, 2009; Finnis, 2013, 2014; Paraskeva, 2012).

(6) μπορεί να φορήσουμεν special [ˈspɛʃl] ρούχα και ποτσ̑εί στην Κύπρο μπορεί να πάσιν σε έναν γάμον με τα jeans [dʒiːnz] ‘We might wear special clothes and over there in Cyprus they might go to a wedding wearing jeans.’

(7) Συγγενείς του άντρα μου όμως που βρέθουμεν παραπάνω, the older ones [ðiː ˈəʊldə wʌnz], oι θείοι και οι θείες μες στες εξήντα εβδομήντα χρονών, εννά τους μιλήσω Ελληνικά διότι εν τσ̑είνον που καταλάβουν so no [səʊ nəʊ], δεν το μιλούμεν, δεν το μιλούμεν a lot to be honest and I shift a lot [ə lɒt tuː biː ˈɒnᵻst and aɪ ʃɪft ə lɒt].

‘However, as to with my husband’s relatives, whom we see more often, the older ones, the uncles and aunties who are sixty or seventy years old, I speak Greek to them because that’s the one they understand so no, we don’t speak it, we don’t speak it a lot to be honest and I shift a lot.’

Dominance in English among these speakers significantly affects a number of structural domains, as well, and often leads to the production of constructions that are ungrammatical in the CyGr of speakers who are either monolingual in the language or dominant in it. Such constructions are reminiscent of non-target-like productions that we find in the speech of second language learners of Greek. Gender agreement is one such domain with speakers producing mismatches such as in (8), in which the adjective target σωστά ‘correct’ appears in the neuter form instead of the expected feminine form σωστές which would agree with the agreement controller λέξεις ‘words’. In (9), the target τους ‘them’ is in the masculine form even though its controller τα μωρά ‘the babies’ is neuter. The expected form in this case would be τα.

(8) Έσ̑ει μερικές λέξεις (F) που μου ’μίλαν η μάμμα μου που εν εν σωστά (Ν). ‘There are some words my mother would say to me that are not correct.’

(9) Είναι οι άντρες με τα μωρά (N) τους τσ̑αι κουντούν τους (M) μες στο trolley. ‘There are the men with their babies and they push them in the trolley.’

‘Deviant’ agreement constructions are also found in terms of number. Two phenomena are documented. The first involves agreement mismatches of the type shown in (10) in which the experiencer verb αρέσει ‘pleases’ appears in the third person singular form instead of the plural form that would be expected to agree with the plural subject οι παραξεν-νιές ‘the peculiarities’. This appears to be caused by the typological difference between Greek and English in terms of the morphosyntax of verbs expressing psychological states such as like. The second phenomenon is number inflection in intransitive impersonal verbs. In (13), έπρεπες ‘you had to’ inflects for the second person singular like a personal verb. This, however, is ungrammatical in Greek in which πρέπει participates in impersonal constructions always appearing in the third person singular form. Έπρεπες therefore seems to have been calqued on English you had to.

(10) Μ’ αρέσει (SG) οι παραξεν-νιές (PL) του κόσμου. ‘I like the people’s peculiarities.’

(11) Αν εν το είσ̑ες, έπρεπες να μείνεις. ‘If you didn’t have it, you had to stay.’

The case marking of subjects is another affected domain with speakers marking subject noun phrases with the accusative rather than the expected nominative. Accusative marking may be found only on the head noun as in (12), in which the definite article η is ‘correctly’ marked with the nominative, or on both the head noun and any agreeing modifiers as in (13).

(12) Εν ωραία η (NOM) Πάφον (ACC), έχει πρασινάδα. ‘Pafos is nice, it is green.’

(13) πριν να μπει την (ACC) Κύπρον (ACC) μες στην Ευρώπην ‘before Cyprus entered the European Union’

The expression of negation and the syntax of cleft constructions are also vulnerable to crosslinguistic influence. The speaker in (14) produces a clause containing the negative indefinite ποτ-τ̔έ ‘never’. She, however, omits the negation marker εν ‘not’ before the main verb ήταν ‘was’, which is normally found in Greek, a strict negative concord language, arguably due to influence from English in which negative concord is ungrammatical in the standard language and in some non-standard varieties. In (15), we see an ill-formed focus cleft. In CyGr, focus clefts consist of the invariable form εν, which coincides with the third person form of the present copula, followed by the focalised element and then the complementiser που so that the whole construction surfaces as εν + FOCUS + που ‘it is FOCUS that’. In the example below, in focalising Ελ-ληνικά, the speaker omits εν and only uses the complementiser.

(14) Πάντοτε ήταν μαξιλάρι, ποτ-τ̔έ ∅ ήταν μαβλούκα. ‘It was always μαξιλάρι, it was never μαβλούκα.’

(15) Και ∅ ούλ-λο Ελ-ληνικά που μιλούσαν. ‘It’s Greek that they would always speak.’

4. Sociolinguistic aspects of London’s Cypriot Greek

Discussing the sociolinguistic status of CyGr in the UK diaspora in the 1980s, Αναξαγόρου identified a “process of abandonment that is underway among the second generation”, which in her view “leaves no space for optimism about the maintenance of the Cypriot dialect in the third and fourth generations” (1990: 62), a concern raised in the same period also by Ιωαννίδης (1990), Gardner-Chloros (1992), and, more recently, Gardner-Chloros et al. (2005). The quantitative evidence that Papapavlou & Pavlou (2001) provided in confirmation of Αναξαγόρου’s observation is particularly telling. Papapavlou & Pavlou found that UK-born adolescents speak CyGr mainly with their grandparents, most probably as a matter of necessity as they are very likely to have little or even no knowledge of English. When communicating with younger members of their family who were either born in the UK and are therefore dominant, if not monolingual, in English or who were born in Cyprus and migrated to the UK for employment and can be therefore safely assumed to be competent users of the language, the same speakers reported using English predominantly and, in certain cases such as with siblings and friends, almost categorically; see Figure 1.

100 90 75.5 80 86.1 87.6 70 60 68.6 50 59.2 52.5 40 31.3 30 21.2 32.5 19.7 20 7.3 10 1.8 1.4 0 9.2

father mother cousins siblings friends

grandparents uncles, aunts Cypriot Greek English

Figure 1: percentages of use of CyGr and English by 12–18-year-old speakers of CyGr (second- and third-generations) in London with respect to different family members and friends. Data from Papapavlou and Pavlou (2001: 102).

Early scholars (Αναξαγόρου, 1990; Ιωαννίδης, 1990) attributed language shift to the pressure exerted on the speech community by English. The change in dominance from CyGr to English that takes place when second generation children start attending school is widely viewed as the main cause of the apparent break in the transmission of the heritage language. As younger members of the community reach native competence in English, their competence in CyGr lags behind, leading to feelings of insecurity when having to speak it, a preference for English and a subsequent increase in its use at home, the “protective fortress” of CyGr as Αναξαγόρου (1990: 61) calls it. This state of affairs is only exacerbated in the transition from the second to the third generation, that is, between two groups of speakers both of which are dominant in English. Gardner-Chloros et al. further emphasise the role Bourdieu’s (1991) symbolic power plays in this process, highlighting the privileged status of English, which is the language that affords those competent in both CyGr and English a “greatest market share, enabling them to exploit, and profit from, all facets of cultural, economic, social and symbolic capital” (2005: 77). The extracts below from the interviews of two second- generation parents illustrate these points.

(16) Για τα παιδιά που λες τα δικά μου; Εμ, όχι πως γίνηκε τίποτε αλ-λά, επειδής τα Αγγλικά μου ήταν πκιο καλύτ- τ̔ερα από τα Ελ-ληνικά, είναι πκιο ευκολία μου να τους μιλάω στα Αγγλικά so αυτοί απαντούν Αγγλικά. Οι γονείς μου πάλι τους μιλάνε Ελ-ληνικά και καταλαβαίν-νουν αλ-λά πάλι η γλώσ-σα τους χτυπά να απαντούσιν στα Αγγλικά.

‘In terms of my children? Erm, not that it’s really important, but because my English was better than my Greek, it was easier for me to speak English to them so they answer in English. Now, my parents speak Greek to them and they understand but again their tongue makes them to answer in English.’

(17) Στο σπίτιν μας εν τους μιλούμεν Ελ-ληνικά. Εν λάθος, ξέρω εν λάθος, αλ-λά, διότι εν πολ-λά μικροί, θέλω τους να ξέρουν τα Αγγλικά καλά, να ξέρουν πολ-λές λέξεις. You know, I want them to have a good vocabulary κι έτσι νομίζω πρέπει να τους μιλώ σπίτιν Αγγλικά αλ-λά λέω της μάμ-μας μου να τους μιλούν Ελ-ληνικά.

‘At our home, we do not speak Greek to them [the children]. This is wrong. I know it is wrong but, because they are very young, I want them to know many words. You know, I want them to have a good vocabulary. So I think I must speak English to them at home but I ask my mother to speak Greek to them.’

While the role of English in the process of language shift cannot and should not be understated, by focusing on the impact of the majority language, previous studies largely disregarded the dynamics between CyGr and the third member of the diaspora’s linguistic repertoire, SModGr, as well as the dynamics between the diaspora and the metropolis. There are, however, indications that, in addition to the pressure exerted by English, the intergenerational transmission and community-wide maintenance of CyGr as a heritage language in London has historically been and is still presently hindered by negative attitudes towards the dialect that are internalised within the diasporic speech community itself and which are engendered by perceptions that it is an inferior form of language compared not only to the standard language but also to CyGr as it spoken in Cyprus. The non-prestigious status of CyGr with respect to SModGr in Cyprus has been captured in the literature with reference to Ferguson’s (1959) diglossia with the standard language being the High variety and the dialect being the Low variety (Μοσχονάς, 1996, 2002; Terkourafi, 2005; Arvaniti, 2006/2010; also Tsiplakou, 2003, 2009, 2014; Τσιπλάκου, 2009); although see Tsiplakou et al. (2006), Katsoyannou et al. (2006), Papapavlou & Sophocleous (2009), and Sophocleous (2006) for an analysis of the relation between the two varieties in terms of a stylistic register continuum. Its low status is evident in its being accepted only in informal, everyday instances of communication with SModGr being the only official language and the exclusive code used in formal communication, administration, and – crucially – education; in its historical exclusion from writing (with the exception of folk literature) and its lacking any form of standardisation in terms of both its spelling and its grammar; and in the mixture of positive and negative attitudes that native speakers of CyGr exhibit towards it, despite its being their first, naturally-acquired language (Papapavlou, 1998, 2001; Papapavlou & Sophocleous, 2009; Evripidou, 2012; Kyriakou, 2015; Satraki, 2015). For example, Papapavlou and Sophocleous (2009) found that registers that incorporate high numbers of features, both lexical and grammatical, originating in the traditional regional varieties of Cyprus are stigmatised and associated with a low level of education and an obsolete, rural way of life. SModGr, on the other hand, is thought to indicate a high level of education, politeness and modernity. Papapavlou and Sophocleous also found that dialect speakers reported feelings of inferiority towards speakers of the standard, which they attributed to the belief that CyGr “is not a correct language” (2009: 187; emphasis in the original). Despite Papapavlou and Pavlou’s assertion that, in London, “there are no signs of negative attitudes towards CyGr, which [UK Cypriots] seem to master at higher levels than Modern Standard Greek” (2001: 104), negative attitudes towards the dialect and perceptions that SModGr is a ‘proper’, ‘correct’, more ‘appropriate’ form of language are found in the diaspora (Karatsareas, 2018). Consider the following extracts:

(18) Εγώ έχω τα Κυπριακά σαν να είναι που το χωρκόν και οι Έλ-ληνες να είναι, ξέρεις, που την πόλην. ‘For me, Cypriot [Greek] is like it is from the village and the [mainland] Greeks are, you know from the city.’

(19) Έσε̑ι μερικές λέξεις που μου ’μίλα η μάμ-μα μου που εν εν σωστά. Σαν η μάμ-μα μου μπορεί να πει «καταλάει» και εμείς να πούμεν «καταλάβουμεν», «καταλάβει».

‘There are some words that my mother used to say that are not correct. For example, my mother might say “καταλάει” [‘understands’] whereas we will say “καταλάβουμεν” [‘we understand’], “καταλάβει” [‘understands’].’

(20) Αν είναι από την Ελλάδα, νώθω ότι πρέπει να κάμω τσ̑’ εγώ προσπάθειαν, ας πούμε, να είμαι ευγενής και να λέω «και» αντί για «τσ̑αι».

‘If someone is from Greece, I feel that I, too, must make an efforts, let’s say, to be polite and say και [‘and’] instead of τσ̑αι [‘and’].’

(21) Σαν επήαιν-να σκολείον να μάθω να μιλώ, ήταν να μιλώ what we call proper Greek. ‘When I went to school to learn how to speak, I would learn what we call proper Greek.’

The education system of Cyprus plays a key role in engendering and reinforcing the view that SModGr is a ‘proper’ and ‘correct’ form of language (Pavlou & Papapavlou, 2004; Papapavlou & Pavlou, 2005; Yiakoumetti, 2006, 2007; Ioannidou, 2009, 2012; Ioannidou & Sophocleous, 2010; Papapavlou, 2010; Sophocleous & Wilks, 2010; Sophocleous, 2011). Various official policy documents include statements such as “educators should use Standard Modern Greek during class time and they should expect the same from their students”, advising that CyGr should only be allowed in the classroom “within logical boundaries and not at the expense of the development of Stndard Modern Greek, which constitutes our national language” (original in Greek; Ministry of Education and Culture 2002, cited in Sophocleous & Wilks, 2010: 55). Following Ministry directives and enacting the negative perceptions of the dialect that exist within the Cyprus speech community, Greek Cypriot teachers have been found to discourage pupils from speaking CyGr in the classroom, to use explicit corrections and recasting when they do, and to use SModGr when they want to assert their authority. Members of the London diaspora report similar experiences in the Greek complementary schools where teaching and learning are exclusively done in SModGr, which is viewed as the national lanuage shared by Greeks all around the world, with CyGr having no official place in community education. See (22) and (23).

(22) Αφ-φυμούμαι που στην πρώτην τάξη άρκησα μιαν ημέραν να πάω και εν είχεν καρέκλα να κάτσω. Και της είπα της δασκάλας, λαλώ της «Eν έχω τσαέρα», και η δασκάλα εκοίταξέν με με έναν ύφος. Λαλεί μου «Τι είναι αυτό;». «Chair», λαλώ της, «chair», στα Αγγλικά. Και λαλεί μου «Δεν είναι τσαέρα, είναι καρέκλα». Και ύστερα εκατάλαβα εγώ τα κυπραίικα που έξερα, πού ’μαχα, ήταν βαρετά κυπριακά so ύστερα εκατάλαβα δεν ήταν σωστά, ήταν λάχος που ’μίλουν.

‘I remember when I was in the first grade one day I was late and there was no chair for me to sit. And I said to the teacher “I don’t have a τσαέρα”, and the teacher gave me that look. She said,“What is that?”. “Chair”, I said, “chair” in English. And she said,“That’s not a τσαέρα, that’s a καρέκλα”. And then I realised that the Cypriot [Greek] that I knew, the Cypriot [Greek] that I had learnt was heavy Cypriot [Greek] so then I realised I didn’t speak correctly, I spoke in a mistaken way.’

(23) Ο δάσκαλος είπεν «Ξέρετε τι είναι αυτό;» και someone sort of said «Μαβλούκα». «Τι είναι αυτό το πράμα; Τι είναι αυτό το πράμα; Εν μαξιλάρι. Ν-ναι, ν-ναι, κόρη μου, εν μαξιλάρι, τι είναι μαβλούκα;».

‘The teacher said “Do you know what this is?” and someone sort of said, “Μαβλούκα”. “What is that? What is that thing? It is a μαξιλάρι. Yes, yes, dear, it is a μαξιλάρι. What is a μαβλούκα anyway?”.’

Negative attitudes towards CyGr have therefore been transplanted from the context of Cyprus to that of London, where they are sustained and promoted through similar social institutions and attitude-driven practices, especially in education. There are, however, additional factors that operate in the diaspora and which reinforce negative perceptions of the dialect. One such factor is the tensions that exist between London’s diasporic speech community and the metropolitan speech community of Cyprus such as the ones documented by Aloneftis (1990). In Cyprus, UK- born Greek Cypriots, pejoratively referred to as τσ̑άρληδες [ˈtʃʰːaɾliðes] and τσ̑αρλούες [tʃʰːaɾˈlues], are stereotypically perceived as uneducated, unsophisticated and lacking in manners. In the diaspora, the stereotypical Cyprus-born Greek Cypriot has all the characteristics of the provincial nouveau riche: conceited, arrogant and ostentatious (25). Differences in the way CyGr is spoken in the two communities feed directly into these stereotypes and are in turn reinforced by them. Cyprus-born speakers perceive the heritage variety of CyGr to be uncouth and unrefined, due to the regional features that it preserves and also due to the influence that English has had especially in its phonology and pronunciation, and are known to ridicule UK-born Cypriots when they speak Greek often using the disparaging expression φακ-κ̔ά η γλώσ-σα σου [faˈkʰːa i ˈɣlosːa su], literally ‘your tongue clicks’ (26). In the diaspora, Cyprus-born speakers are seen as having abandoned the distinctive Cypriotness of their Greek, which is thought to be increasingly resembling the standard language of Greece (27), an impression caused by the processes of dialect levelling and koinéisation that have been underway in the island since at least 1974.

(24) Πκιο απλός, όπως ήταν οι Κυπραίοι πριν. Εν φαντασμένοι τωρά οι Κυπραίοι. ‘[The people in Rhodes] are simpler, like the Cypriots used to be. The Cypriots are conceited nowadays.’

(25) Αν πάμε Κύπρο, ξέρουν ότι είμαστιν Εγγλέζοι because, as they say to me, φακ-κ̔ά η γλώσ-σα μου. ‘If we go to Cyprus, they know we are English because, as they say to me, my tongue clicks.’

(26) Εν τόσο πολ-λά που άλ-λαξεν η γλώσ-σα που εν τους καταλάβω πκιον. Εν τους καταλάβω τσ̑είνους τσ̑ι εν μου καταλάβουν τσ̑αι τσ̑είνοι. Πρώτα πρώτα, οι λέξες που ξέρω εγιώ εν τις λαλούν πκιον. Δεύτερον, η προφορά τους επήεν προς τα Ελ-ληνικά, έτσι άλ-λαξεν η γλώσ-σα τους πολλά. Τσ̑αι βρίσκω τους σαν το ψέμαν. Γιατί, αφού είσαι Κυπραίος, ίντα να μιλήσεις Ελ-ληνικά; Αφού έχουμεν την γλώσ-σαν μας, γιατί εν την λαλείς;

‘Their language has changed so much that I do not understand them any more. I do not understand them, and they do not understand me. First, they do not use any more the words that I know. Second, their accent has moved to the direction of Greek, so their language changed a lot. To me they seem like liars. Why speak [Standard Modern] Greek, if you are Cypriot? We have our own language, why do you not speak it?’

There is evidence suggesting that negative perceptions of CyGr within London’s diaspora threaten its intergenerational transmission as a heritage language. Members of the community report that, as children, they were discouraged from speaking the dialect even in informal settings such as the home environment and were told to speak standard in order to sound more polite and educated (28). As parents, they go as far as to explicitly state their straightforward preference for SModGr to be passed on to the next generation while expressing views that echo the devalued status of their heritage language (29), (30).

(27) Που ήμαστεν μικροί, που ήταν να ’ρτουν σπίτιν μας, στους γονείς μου ήταν να μιλήσουμεν, you know, with χωριάτικη sort of accent. Ε, η μάμ-μα μου ήταν να μας πει «Εν είναι σωστή η λέξη τούτη», if we tried to use it. «Εν τούτη η λέξη που πρέπει να χρησιμοποιήσεις, εν εν τούτη διότι εν χωριάτικη».

‘When we were young, when someone would come to visit, we would speak to our parents, you know, with a villagey sort of accent. So my mother would say “That word is not correct”, if we tried to use it. “You have to use this word, not that one because it is villagey”.’

(28) Well, πολλές φορές εν θέλω να μάθουν τα Ελ-ληνικά που μιλώ εγώ because it’s not a perfect model και προτιμώ να ακούσουσιν Ελ-ληνικά which is Standard Greek.

‘Well, very often, I do not want my children to learn the type of Greek that I speak because it is not a perfect model. I prefer for them to hear Greek that is standard.’

(29) ―I would like Sophie που να μιλά να μιλά nicely. ―Τι σημαίνει ωραία; ―Properly. Νά ’χει the proper…, να ξέρει την the proper λέξην που πρέπει να το use. Not the way I speak cause I speak Κυπριακά.

‘―When Sophie speaks [Greek], I would like her to speak nicely.’ ‘―What does nicely mean?’ ‘―Properly. For her to have the proper…, to know the proper word that she must use. Not the way I speak cause I speak Cypriot [Greek].’

5. Concluding remarks

With its sizeable Greek Cypriot population, London could be argued to be the city with the second largest, if not the largest, number of CyGr speakers in the world. CyGr is an inherent part of the city’s multilingual mosaic, bearing the marks of the migratory history of its speakers. This can be seen especially in the older, regional features that London’s CyGr preserves and in the novel features that it acquired as a result of the contact with English. In this diasporic context, Greek Cypriot migrants were afforded opportunities to improve the quality of their lives and the prospects of their futures. The same cannot be said about their language. In London, CyGr was found under pressure from multiple fronts. First and foremost, it was found under the pressure of English, with younger generations of British-born Greek Cypriots shifting to the socially dominant majority language to the detriment of CyGr at alarming rates, possibly seeing little benefit in maintaining their heritage language despite evidence that they consider it an important part of their identity. CyGr was also found under the pressure of SModGr, the dialect with Weinreich’s army and navy. Greek Cypriot migrants brought with them from Cyprus ideas that CyGr is an inferior form of language, that it is rural and improper, perceiving SModGr as a superior, urban and proper variety. The position the standard language occupies in the community’s public life and, not least, in its schools reinforces these perceptions as it indeed it does in the metropolitan context of Cyprus, as well. In London, however, it seems that these negative perceptions are one of the forces driving the loss of CyGr in the community, something which, to this date at least, has not been reported for Cyprus. Lastly, a different type of pressure was exerted on London’s CyGr, this time by the Greek Cypriots who did not migrate. As the CyGr varieties of the metropolis and the diaspora developed in different ways, the Cyprus speakers came to view the London speakers as uncouth, unsophisticated, unrefined and even coined a phrase to deride the way they speak CyGr, adding to the variety’s devaluing. These conditions corroborate the negative predictions made by Αναξαγόρου (1990), Ιωαννίδης (1990), Gardner-Chloros (1992) and Gardner-Chloros et al. (2005) about the future of CyGr in London. Given that the majority context of the UK is unlikely to change, it is only through coordinated and thoughtful efforts to change the position and value CyGr has within the diasporic community itself that the apparent decline in its use could be halted and possibly also reversed.

References Aloneftis, V. (1990): “Ethnic identity amongst London Cypriot youth and the experience of summer holidays in Cyprus”. In Γ. Σ. Γεωργαλλίδης, Α. Αριστείδου, Κ. Ιωαννίδης, Κ. Μαλλιώτης, Χ. Ψιλογένης, Σ. Α. Επαμεινώνδας & Σ. Αντωνιάδης (eds.), Πρακτικά του πρώτου διεθνούς συμποσίου κυπριακής μετανάστευσης: ιστορική και κοινωνιολογική θεώρηση. Nicosia: Κέντρο Επιστημονικών Μελετών Κύπρου, 37-55. Alvanoudi, A. (2017): “Language contact, borrowing and code switching: a case study of Australian Greek”. Journal of Greek Linguistics. Αναξαγόρου, N. (1990): «Η κυπριακή διάλεκτος στη Βρεττανία (διατήρηση ή υποχώρηση;)». Στο Γ. Σ. Γεωργαλλίδης, Α. Αριστείδου, Κ. Ιωαννίδης, Κ. Μαλλιώτης, Χ. Ψιλογένης, Σ. Α. Επαμεινώνδας & Σ. Αντωνιάδης (εκδ.), Πρακτικά του πρώτου διεθνούς συμποσίου κυπριακής μετανάστευσης: ιστορική και κοινωνιολογική θεώρηση. Λευκωσία: Κέντρο Επιστημονικών Μελετών Κύπρου, 57-62. Anthias, F. (1990): “Aspects of ethnicity, class and generation amongst Greek-Cypriots in Britain”. In Γ. Σ. Γεωργαλλίδης, Α. Αριστείδου, Κ. Ιωαννίδης, Κ. Μαλλιώτης, Χ. Ψιλογένης, Σ. Α. Επαμεινώνδας & Σ. Αντωνιάδης (eds.), Πρακτικά του πρώτου διεθνούς συμποσίου κυπριακής μετανάστευσης: ιστορική και κοινωνιολογική θεώρηση. Nicosia: Κέντρο Επιστημονικών Μελετών Κύπρου, 63-71. Arvaniti, A. (2006/2010): “Linguistic practices in Cyprus and the emergence of Cypriot Standard Greek”. Mediterranean Language Review 17: 15–45. Baker, C. (2011): Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Baker, P. & Eversley, J. (2000): Multilingual Capital: The Languages of London’s Schoolchildren and their Relevance to Economic, Social and Educational Policies. London: Battlebridge. Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: opportunities and challenges for linguistics [Special issue]. Theoretical Linguistics 3/4. Bourdieu, P. (1991): Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity. Bradley, D. (2002): “Language attitudes: the key factor in language maintenance”. In D. Bradley & M. Bradley (eds.), Language Endangerment and Language Maintenance: An Active Approach. London: Routledge, 1-10. Christodoulou, D. (1959): The Evolution of the Rural Land Use Pattern in Cyprus. Bude: Geographical Publications. Christodoulou-Pipis, I. (1991): Greek Outside Greece. 7, Language Use by Greek-Cypriots in Britain. Nicosia: Diaspora Books. Constantinides, S. (1990): “History and sociology of Cypriot emigration: Cypriots in Haringey”. In Γ. Σ. Γεωργαλλίδης, Α. Αριστείδου, Κ. Ιωαννίδης, Κ. Μαλλιώτης, Χ. Ψιλογένης, Σ. Α. Επαμεινώνδας & Σ. Αντωνιάδης (eds.), Πρακτικά του πρώτου διεθνούς συμποσίου κυπριακής μετανάστευσης: ιστορική και κοινωνιολογική θεώρηση. Nicosia: Κέντρο Επιστημονικών Μελετών Κύπρου, 87-138. Constantinou, S. T. (1990): “Economic factors and political upheavals as determinants of international migration: the case of Cyprus”. In Γ. Σ. Γεωργαλλίδης, Α. Αριστείδου, Κ. Ιωαννίδης, Κ. Μαλλιώτης, Χ. Ψιλογένης, Σ. Α. Επαμεινώνδας & Σ. Αντωνιάδης (eds.), Πρακτικά του πρώτου διεθνούς συμποσίου κυπριακής μετανάστευσης: ιστορική και κοινωνιολογική θεώρηση. Nicosia: Κέντρο Επιστημονικών Μελετών Κύπρου, 139-172. Evans, M. (2017): Language Terms. MEITS Blog. http://www.meits.org/blog/post/language-terms1. Accessed 24 February 2018. Eversley, J., Mehmedbegovic, D., Sanderson, A., Tinsley, T., Von Ahn, M. & Wiggins, R. D. (2010): Language Capital: Mapping the Languages of London’s Schoolchildren. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Learning. Evripidou, D. (2012): “Factors influencing Greek Cypriot senior-adults’ attitudes towards Cypriot Greek and Standard Modern Greek”. Mediterranean Language Review 19: 59-83. Ferguson, C. A. (1959): “Diglossia”. Word, 15: 325-340. Finnis, K. (2013): “Creating a ‘new space’: code-switching among British-born Greek-Cypriots in London”. Pragmatics and Society 4: 137-157. Finnis, K. (2014): “Variation within a Greek-Cypriot community of practice in London: code-switching, gender, and identity”. Language in Society 43: 287-310. Gardner-Chloros, P. (1992): “The sociolinguistics of the Greek-Cypriot community of London”. In M. Karyolemou (ed.), Plurilinguismes 4: Sociolinguistique du grec et de la Grèce. Paris: Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches en Planification Linguistique, 112-136. Gardner-Chloros, P., & Finnis, K. (2003): “How code-switching mediates politeness: gender related speech among London Greek-Cypriots”. Estudios de sociolingüística: Linguas, sociedades e culturas 4: 505-532. Gardner-Chloros, P., McEntee-Atalianis, L., & Finnis, K. (2005): “Language attitudes and use in a transplanted setting: Greek Cypriots in London”. International Journal of Multilingualism 2: 52-80. Georgakopoulou, A., & Finnis, K. (2009): “Code-switching ‘in site’ for fantasizing identities: a case study of conventional uses of London Greek Cypriot”. Pragmatics 19: 467-488. Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977): “Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations”. In H. Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press [for the] European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, 307–348. Ιωαννίδης, Π. Φ. (1990): «Το ελληνικό παροικιακό σχολείο στη Μ. Βρεττανία και τα προβλήματά του». In Γ. Σ. Γεωργαλλίδης, Α. Αριστείδου, Κ. Ιωαννίδης, Κ. Μαλλιώτης, Χ. Ψιλογένης, Σ. Α. Επαμεινώνδας & Σ. Αντωνιάδης (eds.), Πρακτικά του πρώτου διεθνούς συμποσίου κυπριακής μετανάστευσης: ιστορική και κοινωνιολογική θεώρηση. Nicosia: Κέντρο Επιστημονικών Μελετών Κύπρου, 179-190. Ioannidou, E. (2009): “Using the ‘improper’ language in the classroom: the conflict between language use and legitimate varieties in education. Evidence from a Greek Cypriot classroom”. Language and Education 23: 263-278. Ioannidou, E. (2012): “Language policy in Greek Cypriot education: tensions between national and pedagogical values”. Language, Culture and Curriculum 25: 215-230. Ιωαννίδου, Ε. & Νεοκλέους, Θ. (2016): «Τα ρωμαίικα των Τουρκοκυπρίων: ανάλυση μιας ποικιλίας και περιγραφή μιας κοινότητας χαμένων στον χρόνο». Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα 36: 105-118. Ioannidou, E., & Sophocleous, A. (2010). “Now, is this how we are going to say it?”: comparing teachers’ language practices in primary and secondary state education in Cyprus. Linguistics and Education, 21, 298–313. Josephides, S. (1990): “The relevance of associations to the community life of London’s Greek Cypriots”. In Γ. Σ. Γεωργαλλίδης, Α. Αριστείδου, Κ. Ιωαννίδης, Κ. Μαλλιώτης, Χ. Ψιλογένης, Σ. Α. Επαμεινώνδας & Σ. Αντωνιάδης (eds.), Πρακτικά του πρώτου διεθνούς συμποσίου κυπριακής μετανάστευσης: ιστορική και κοινωνιολογική θεώρηση. Nicosia: Κέντρο Επιστημονικών Μελετών Κύπρου, 190-203. Karan, M. E. (2011): “Understanding and forecasting ethnolinguistic vitality”. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 32: 137-149. Karatsareas, P. (2018): “Attitudes towards Cypriot Greek and Standard Modern Greek in London’s Greek Cypriot community”. International Journal of Bilingualism. Κατσογιάννου, Μ., Παπαπαύλου, Α., Παύλου, Π. & Τσιπλάκου, Σ. (2006): «Διδιαλεκτικές κοινότητες και γλωσσικό συνεχές: η περίπτωση της Κυπριακής». Στο M. Janse, B. D. Joseph & Α. Ράλλη (εκδ.), Πρακτικά του 2ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Νεοελληνικών Διαλέκτων και Γλωσσικής Θεωρίας, Μυτιλήνη, 30 Σεπτεμβρίου - 3 Οκτωβρίου 2004. Πάτρα: Πανεπιστήμιο Πατρών, 156-171. Kyriakou, Μ. (2015): Language attitudes and ethnic identity in a diglossic setting: the case of Greek-Cypriot students. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sussex. Linguistic Minorities Project (1985): The Other Languages of England. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Montrul, S. (2008): Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. (2016): The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Μοσχονάς, Σ. (1996): «Η γλωσσική διμορφία στην Κύπρο». Πολίτης 27: 42-44. Μοσχονάς, Σ. (2002): «Κοινή γλώσσα και διάλεκτος: το ζήτημα της γλωσσικής διμορφίας στην Κύπρο». Νέα Εστία 151 (1745): 898-928. Newton, B. (1972): Cypriot Greek: Its Phonology and Inflections. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Papapavlou, A. (1998): “Attitudes toward the Greek Cypriot dialect: sociocultural implications”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 134: 15-28. Papapavlou, A. (2001): “Mind your speech: language attitudes in Cyprus”. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22: 491-501. Papapavlou, A. (2010): “Language planning in action: searching for a viable bidialectal program”. Language Problems and Language Planning 34: 120-140. Papapavlou, A. & 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. & Pavlou, P. (2005): “Literacy and language-in-education policy in bidialectal settings”. Current Issues in Language Planning 6: 164-181. Papapavlou, Α. & Sophocleous, Α. (2009): “Language attitudes and folk perceptions towards linguistic variation”. In S. Tsiplakou, M. Karyolemou & P. Pavlou (eds.), Language Variation – European Perspectives: Selected Papers from the 4th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 4), Nicosia, June 2007. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 179-189. Paraskeva, M. (2012): Code-switching among London Greek-Cypriots: A Study of Question–Response Pairs. Unpublished PhD thesis, Birkbeck University of London. Pauwels, A. (2016): Language Maintenance and Shift. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pavlou, P. & Papapavlou, A. (2004): “Issues of dialect use in education from the Greek Cypriot perspective”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14: 243-258. Percival, D. A. (1949): Cyprus: Census of Population and Agriculture, 1946. Report and Tables. London: Crown Agents for the Colonies. Nicosia: Government Printing Office. Polinsky, M. (in press): Heritage Languages and their Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Polinsky, M. & Kagan, O. (2007): “Heritage languages: in the ‘wild’ and in the classroom”. Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 368-395. Satraki, M. P. (2015): The development of children’s attitudes towards linguistic variation: a study on a dialect/register continuum. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cyprus. Seaman, P. D. (1972): Modern Greek and American English in Contact. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Sophocleous, A. (2006): “Identity formation and dialect use among young speakers of the Greek-Cypriot community in Cyprus”. In R. Kiely, G. Clibbon, P. Rea-Dickins & H. Woodfield (eds.), Language culture and identity in applied linguistics. London: British Association for Applied Linguistics in association with Equinox Pub, 61-77. Sophocleous, A. (2011): “Two languages in the classroom: the inconsistency between national and local objectives of formal education in Cyprus”. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 10: 266-281. Sophocleous, A. & Wilks, C. (2010): “Standard Modern Greek and Greek-Cypriot dialect in kindergarten classroom interaction: teachers’ and learners’ language attitudes and language use”. Language, Culture and Curriculum 23: 51-69. Tamis, A. (1991): “Modern Greek in Australia”. In S. Romaine (ed.), Language in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 249-262. Terkourafi, M. (2005): “Understanding the present through the past: processes of koineisation in Cyprus”. Diachronica 22: 309-372. Tsiplakou, S. (2003): “Linguistic attitudes and emerging hyperdialectism in a diglossic setting: young CyGrs on their language”. In C. Yoquelet (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 14–17, 2003. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 120-132. Tsiplakou, S. (2009a): “Code-switching and code-mixing between related varieties: establishing the blueprint”. The International Journal of Humanities 6: 49-66. Tsiplakou, S. (2014): “How mixed is a ‘mixed’system?: The case of the Cypriot Greek koiné”. Linguistic Variation 14: 161- 178. Τσιπλάκου, Σ. (2009): «Γλωσσική εναλλαγή, ανταγωνιστικές γραμματικές και διαγλώσσα: ακόμα μία διάσταση του «κυπριακού»». Στο Γ. Κ. Γιαννάκης, Μ. Μπαλταζάνη, Γ. Ι. Ξυδόπολος & Α. Τσαγγαλίδης (εκδ.), Πρακτικά του 8ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Ελληνικής Γλωσσολογίας, 30 Αυγούστου - 2 Σεπτεμβρίου 2007, Ιωάννινα. Ιωάννινα: Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων, 1195-1209. Tsiplakou, S., Papapavlou, A., Pavlou, P. & Katsoyannou, M. (2006): “Levelling, koineization and their implication for bidialectism”. In Frans Hinskens (ed.), Language Variation – European Perspectives: Selected Papers from the Third International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 3), Amsterdam, June 2005. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 265-276. Wurm, S. (2002): “Strategies for language maintenance and revival”. In D. Bradley & M. Bradley (eds.), Language Endangerment and Language Maintenance: An Active Approach. London: Routledge, 11-23. Yiakoumetti, A. (2006): “A bidialectal programme for the learning of Standard Modern Greek in Cyprus”. Applied Linguistics 27: 295-317. Yiakoumetti, A. (2007): “Choice of classroom language in bidialectal communities: To include or to exclude the dialect?”. Cambridge Journal of Education 37: 51-66.