Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hqlzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-30T04:43:49.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greek diglossia and some aspects of the phonology of common Modern Greek1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Irene Philippaki Warburton
Irene Philippaki Warburton
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistic Science, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two American linguists, Ferguson (1959) and Householder (1962) who have worked on the subject of Greek diglossia from a technical and theoretical point of view have predicted that in the conflict between Katharevousa (K), an artificially created archaic form of Greek and Dimotiki (D), the language based on the vernacular, the latter will finally win.

The debate between the supporters of these two language forms has recently entered a new phase due to the Karamanlis' government decision to recognize the D as the official language and as the medium of all levels of education. The linguistic activity which followed this event falls into three main types.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 1980 , pp. 45 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Babiniotis, G. (1977). He episeme scholike grammatike kai he Neoelleneke mas glossa. Anazeteseis 1. 169–203.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word 15. 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatzidakis, G. (1905). Mesaionika kai Nea Hellenika. Athens: Hatzidakis. Vols. 1 & 2.Google Scholar
Householder, F. W. (1962). Greek diglossia. In Georgetown University monograph series on language and linguistics 15. 109–129.Google Scholar
Kakrides, I. T. (1972). In EMEP (ed.) To glossiko mas problema. Athens: Kedros. 13–19.Google Scholar
Kazazis, K. (1976). A superficially unusual feature of Greek diglossia. Papers from the 12th regional meeting Chicago Linguistic Society. 309–375.Google Scholar
, Mesevrinos. (1974). He prodomene glossa. Athens: Kedros.Google Scholar
Newton, B. (1972). The generative interpretation of dialect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Papadatos, C. P. (1976). He anatomia tes Demotikes glossas. Athens: Papadatos.Google Scholar
Papanoutsos, E. & Stavrou, T. (1965). Syntomes hodegies gia ten kale chrese tes demolikes. Athens: Nea Oikonomia, Melissa.Google Scholar
Setatos, M. (1973). Phaenomenologia tes Katharevousas. Epistemonike Epereris tes Philosophikes Scholes IB. 73–95.Google Scholar
Setatos, M. (1974). Phonologia tes Koines Neoellenikes. Athens: Papazese.Google Scholar
Schinas, A. (1977). Gia ten hyperaspisi tes Hellenikes engephalokrypidas. Athens: Kedros.Google Scholar
Sommerstein, A. (1977). Modern phonology. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Triandafyllides, M. (1941). Neohellenike grammatike: tes Demotikes. Athens Organismos Ekdoseon Scholikon Biblion.Google Scholar
Tsoukalas, A. (1976). Ethnos, glossa, koumounismos. Athens: Tsoukalas.Google Scholar