ON LINGUISTIC BEA(U)TIFICATION AND EMBARRASSMEN LINGUISTIC BOUNDARIES IN CYPRUS by Yiannis Papadakis University of Cyprus Introduction This article examines the ways in which linguistic boundaries have ‘emerged and how they are contested in the case of Cyprus, an island inhabited primarily by Greek and Turkish Cypriots: Some introductory comments on linguistic developments in Greece and Turkey might be useful since the lin. guistic policies ofthese states have crucially affect sic developments in Cyprus not only with regard to how people speak but also with regard to how thoy hav come to thi about lngunge, Language hus, for certain concrete historical reasons, become an object of such devotion that one social theorist hhas recently spoken of the “language fetish.”* Certainly, in the case of Greece, the {question bas passionately raged for two centuries. Similar expres. fense worship of language also emerged in Turkey where, accordi language reforms, “language is ike religion, a matter of belief and attachment,” while another describes Language as “he last bastion i of imrational totemic pride.”* The inextricable links between the almost reli tous reverence of language and nationalism in many contexts prompted the his- Corian Amold Toynbee to describe this phenomenon as “the demon of linguis- tic nationalism.” In 1001, the intense debate in Greece over the translation of the Holy Scriptures into the demotic spoken language precipitated violent riots in Ath ens known as ré Edayyehixd (Gospel riots)" Equally notorious was fj). 8ien aly TévoW (trial of the accents), which took place after a university professor in favor of the simplification ofthe system of accents stated practicing it. He ‘was taken to court for being “a supporter of the theory which serves interests against the national ones and which contributes to the breakup of national Likewise, the proposal forthe adoption of Latin to replace the Arabi wn alphabet for writing Ottoman Turkish during the Izmir Econom Ish182 Yiannis Papadalis Conference in 1923 was ruled out of order as damaging to the unity of Islam and as a “diabolical idea with which our enemies are working” since Euro. [peans might then “declare to the Islamic world that the Turks have adopted the foreign writing and turned Christian." Issues related to language often give rise toa sense of embarrassment to some of those most devoted to its study and worship, namely, philologists and folklorists. One scholar, for example, describes philologists 1s “people whose lives are spent fighting over words,” as exemplary of the attompt to fix the meanings of words without paying stenton tothe ways in whey are wed in pcton’, Such consideration, si bo mada cla, monty apy to philologists and folkdorists who are guided by nationalistic presumptions e., those whe have--olillyorotherse-takea up the perio’ taker ee ‘ng in linguistic bea(u)tficaton through campaigns whose aim is to purify lan. guage by removing blemishes, by gentrifying the intonation, and by improving 4s fa and trate, In all the stempt sto rst language a lovely possible to an ideal state ofits past, now lost, youth by reformers who are also involved in the sanctification tinge Yet these efor often lead to embanasonent For example, withthe emergence of the state of Turkey, is first language cleansers comprising the “Society for Research in the Turkish Language” caught themseles in error, wen al the second meeting of the society they were forced to cleanse the scr name of their society ofthe two Arabic words it contained.” As a result ofthe Interthnic conc of the bland Cyprs during the late 185, the Turkish ot leadership prohibited the use of the Greek language by Turkish Cypri- ovo wen fot Egseams gal, Con ye ee eae joke goes, a Turkish Cypriot man scolded a group of Turkish Cypriots for speaking in Greck, only to be laughed at as he had tnselfeonsciously made his ang comment Creek, Turkish Cypriot flor examining book on Greek Cypriot folklore writen by a Greek Cyprict colleague clearly seeks to crnbaran the ltrs quest for aint cure by shoving aw not oly he very sumame of the Greek Cypriot folklorist but also much of what he as “authentic Greek Cypriot culture” isin fit Turkish." A sense of discomfort is as evident in works of Greek Cypriot folklorist asin those of their Turkish Cypriot counterparts when, in trying to document the distinguishing charac- teristics of their dialects, they come to include a significant amount of borrow. ings from each other's languages (among others). This, in ther view, causes problems. Hence, the various attempts to resolve them, leading, for example, to defensive statements extolling the assimilative qualities of “our language which can deal with such foreign intrusions, or to claims that itis natural for foreign words to enter our dalect but that doubtlessly our culture is no differ- nt fom tat of th motherland" If be(anteatn i oe ie ft cot, ‘embarrassment isthe other. The construction of sanctified, “proper” languages ‘ereates potential for embarrassment among those who are subsequently te. garded as speaking improper idioms. Moreover, beautification, as T shall shortly explain i all about the construction of linguistic boundaries between such proper languages le urpore ofthis aces tnefok. Fs presents an oversiow of linguistic developments in Cyprus as a whole, taking into account both major Linguistic Boundaries in Cyprus 183 ethnic groups, tracing the linguste interactions between them and outlinin the ing and soc sip of sch cro ear a ith ay ca he ngs ston in Cpr, ven conceing the Linguistic ‘idiom(s) employed by each ethnic group, be filly asessed. Second, it intro- duces tho dimension of language use at Sova practice, eno lacking fom the Standard pilolgcl and fon ess on lung in Copan cimensen hich is crucial in the understanding of any linguistic phenomenon, ‘Third, i explores the ambiguous results of linguistic cleansing, suggesting that actual social practices may create unanticipated consequences contrary to the ine tended im, Linguistic Cosmetics The island of Cyprus, ruled successively by the Byzantines, Franks, Ve- netians, Ottomans (1571-1878), and British (1878-1959), had a population of 18 percent Turkish Cypriots and 80 pereent Greek Cypriots when it became an independent republic mn 1960, Independence was ot a otal welcome ‘outcome, since Greek Cypriots had been alming for the union of Cyprus with Greece while Turkish Cypriots forthe division ofthe island. During 19605 serious inter-ethnle strife broke out, leading to the partial segregation of the too communities. In 1974 a coup launched by a small group of extremist Greek Cypriots with the aid of the Greek junta and aiming at the unification of Caps wth Groce led toa Turkish mit invasion whic ddd thei lana. ‘exchanges tumed the two sides into ethnically homogeneous areas, andl negations sil take place in search ofa mutally oprood lation ‘within a federal framework. While this article focuses on Cyprus as a case study for an exploration ofthe iterelationships among language, dialect, and boundaries, the linguists dependence of Cyprus on Creece and Turkey necessitates a brief incursion into the processes and accompanying ideologies through which the national Janguages of these states were constructed. Linguistic developments in Cyprus ‘were integrally linked with research on language and folklore in ‘Turkey and Greece, and the Turkish- and Greek-Cypriot educational systems were and til are branches of the two other state systems, {In all Balkan nationalisms, language was accorded extreme significance cartier of each nation’s authentic soul and spiit, following the tradition by Herd acoing to whom th wos aturaly ded int istic groups corresponding to nations. The truth, in fact, les in the opposite ection ts thers of national snd of mations ht as created at now call languages. As one scholar explains, “the term ‘language’ was associ. tted with he roe of nation to conscious nly an ony ies by ang ‘what one really means is national language, which is itself an ostecoe ofthe leveling and homogenizing forces of nationalism.” One cannot realy speak of (utonallanguges before the sof nations nd nationalism * Pardon, for nationalists, who often posit the natural existence of languages, lan vs self consciously used sa instrument of natonal unifeaton* Peal184 ‘Yiannis Popadakis considerations apply to the term “dialect.” Once a certain variety—often the ‘one of the center, though even that comes to be significantly transformed-—is clevated to the status of language, other varieties are demoted to that of mere dialects." Such considerations render the use of terms like language and ia- lect rather problematic as analytical concepts. For this reason, the term “lan guage" will be employed here in the sense of standard official variety and “dia. for nonstandard, The choice, or better the construction, of a language has never been a simple issue. Language was perceived as no less than a nation's soul and was treated as its most esteemed representation. Debates and constestations over ‘national identity and national origins were always accompanied by anal debates orer language. Since nationalism is so concemed with origins and his- torical continuities which can allow one nation to claim a territory as histor cally or even eternally) its ov, language was often regarded as ht to Soon origins and assume a form closer tothe orginal. ‘This led to ton. dencies toward archaisms, which were particularly important in the case of Greece, bat which were also significant in the ease of Turkey. If language was the mirror ofthe nation, it had to comply with its own idealized image. A mir- rot was indeed wed, adver mach s,m oder o remove all blemishes rom language, to purify and beautify it in accordance withthe ideal national image. ‘The proceso linge cleansing vas prt of wir eflos to sosenie hee national caltures, efforts predicated upon the same ideological foundations as those of “gure blood.” In practice, this has entailed a dialectical process of construction and destruction. In language, it meant the creation of a national language and the gradual destruction of dialects or other languages within: in ‘material caltue, it meant the “nationalization of the landscape” through selec- tive historeal preservation of one's own monuments and outright demolition or plan neghot of others “polluting remains" and, most gill, meant the {incorporation of nationals in the “motherland’s warm embrace” (which for those actually concemed was sometimes experienced as cruel exile), and the cleansing of the body politic of unwanted “scum,” that is, groups regarded as “foreign remains of past conquerors.” In short, this process entailed the crea- Gonpt age wed fobs of many sorts, at times as heavily po- liced and dangerous to cross without official permission as those between the (so-called) nation-states" Before I proceed to examine the cases of Greece, ‘Turkey, and Cyprus, it should be made clear that the very idea that culture somehow belongs to a nation, or similarly that words belong to a language, is problematic. The idea is based on a logic that treats nations as metaphorical individual: clearly bounded, distint, and (most importantly for contemporary capitalist society) owners of property. This notion derives from the comstruc- tion of Westem individuals, which took the form of “possessive tnd. ism” whereby individuals are defined by choice, property, and authenticity. How did such considerations affect linguistic developments in Greece and Turkey? ‘The following brief comments are only meant to highlight issues which are relevant in the case of Cyprus, rather than Provide detaled histones of the two languages. In nineteenth-century Greece, the call for linguistie pu "ty and the identcaton with scent Gres led tothe olla adopon ofan archaic idiom, that of katharevousa, meaning “clean’ (language). This was re- Linguistic Boundaries in Cyprus 185 garded as making Greek society and language both more Greek and more European, given ancient Greece's position in Western historiography as the cradle of Western civilization. Later, the opponents of katharevousa espoused the demotic idiom, which was closer to the spokon varieties. Proponents of katharevousa used the term pialsapot (hairy) to describe the idiom employed by the demoticists. The creation of katharevousa entailed the use of words and grammatical forms taken from ancient Greek or other old Greek idioms, At the sume tne, extalled nate to dtr Gree fom the East, which led to a campaign for the cleansing away of (primarily) Otto. mav/Turish bemisien”'s movement as prnctncad in Se tras, sin the domain of material culture and monuments, and one exempli- lin the practice of llor stun which seo preserve only what was truly Gresk ‘The cousstence ofthe two vac unk 1079, wie the ete ‘was finally officially endorsed, led to a classic example of “diglssia,"* In Turkey, language was an immediate concem during Atatrk’s rise to power as leader ofthe acetate, Wh ed ot ound the Trish Language Society until 1992, as early as 1929 language reform had been part of his revolutionary secularizing policy, n parallel with the changes he insaatod in the domain of Turkish historiography." The linguistic movement was called & Turkge, meming pure Turkish: new five nation needed a language which would mir i and atin argued thatthe tine had come forthe Turkish nation to “iberate its language from the yoke of foreign languages,” meaning primarily Arabic and Persian.” It should be noted that at the time, according to Atattitk the list of oppressors ofthe Turkish nation included the Ottomans themselves." Thus, he is reported as arguing as follows: “We shall conquer ‘Ottoman. ‘The Turkish language wll be free and independent, like the Turkish nation, and with it we shall enter the civilised world, at once and totally." Atatirk was trying to create a new state and a new society based, on the one hand, on the need to breakaway fom the previous Oto arlc and ea ake ‘other, on his firm commitment to westemization and modemization. As hi Ottoman was a miature of Turkish, Arabic, and Persian (among others), d effort to create a new regime necessitated the creation of a different idiom, which presumably could be more easily used and understood by ordinary peo. le. And since it was in the Turkic tribes of Central Asia that Atatirk and the rans surrounding him traced the national origins of Turks, the initial at. tempt was to try and replace Persian and Arabie with Turkish words, in exis tence either currently or previously. This also entailed an attempt to move closer to the popular variety and draw away from the elevated idiom employed by the Ottoman eles” Moreret, bth Fria and Arabi wee Aeemed as Eastern languages from the ive of the new Turkish state. This drive towards westertzation and seclralon tas also related in the adoption of the Latin script which replaced the Arabic, in which the Koran was written Yet, later with the rise that all previous civilizations of Anatolia were in fact Turkish), the Giines. Dil Teorist (sun-language theory) emerged, positing that Turkish was also the ‘mother of all languages. Since all languages were said to descend from Turk ‘sh, there was no reason to purge Turkish of words from other languages