Language Contact and Borders among Pontic Greek and Cypriot Greek in Karpasia, Cyprus: Yours Don’t Match with Ours

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

p. 5 “… reaching at its peak in the 4th century.” What kind of “peak” are the authors referring to? This sentence needs to be rephrased, as the meaning of “peak” is unclear in this context, e.g. is it cultural or demographic? Also, the original name of the city (Trapezous in Ancient Greek/ Trapezoun(d/t)a in Modern Greek) and that it was founded by Ionian Greeks in the 8^th c. BC could be mentioned

p. 7 The term “Romeika” (ρωμαίικα) was actually used by almost all Modern Greek speakers to refer to Modern Greek until the beginning of the 20^th c., until “ellinika” (ελληνικά) replaced that term with some exceptions outside the borders of Greece (e.g. “Romeika” has survived longer among Constantinopolitans).

p. 7 “hellenica”: wouldn’t it be better to spell this phonetically, i.e. “Ellinika”? Pondiaka and Romeika are also spelled phonetically, so the transcription of these terms should be consistent. In p. 8 the term is spelled “hellenika”.

p. 7 kser/ eksermi: both of these verbs are translated as “he knows”, but the morphology of eksermi does not seem to reflect a third person singular form. It would be interesting to either provide glosses or to have translations that are as accurate as possible.

p. 10 “evoˈixisen” Is there no palatalization of velars before /e, i/ in this case? One would expect [evoˈiçisen]. If [ç] is the actual allophone used, apply this correction elsewhere in the text.

p. 10 “kaˈχolu” Is there a distinction between [x] and [χ] in this variety? Furthermore, it would be more accurate to use the IPA symbol ɣ instead of the Greek γ.

p. 12 “ˈtziri” Is this accurate phonetically? Please double check the transcriptions for possible errors.

p. 12 “Greek Cypriot neighbor” Was this a Greek Cypriot-speaking neighbor or a Greek Cypriot (Christian) neighbor that had not been relocated/ expelled yet? If it is the former case, then it should be changed to “Greek Cypriot-speaking neighbor”.

Bibliography: The authors could also incorporate the research of Jan Blommaert on superdiversity and repertoires (e.g. 2013, Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity, Multilingual Matters.).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 

I would like to warmly thank Reviewer 1 for her/his valuable comments and constructive feedback, I have tried to embody all the suggestions and changes in the text. I think the suggestions have strengthened the paper, thank you!

 

Please see below the comments made by the reviewer  and in capital letters my changes:

 

 

 

Comments made by Reviewer 1

1. 5 “… reaching at its peak in the 4th century.” What kind of “peak” are the authors referring to? This sentence needs to be rephrased, as the meaning of “peak” is unclear in this context, e.g. is it cultural or demographic? Also, the original name of the city (Trapezous in Ancient Greek/ Trapezoun(d/t)a in Modern Greek) and that it was founded by Ionian Greeks in the 8^thc. BC could be mentioned. DONE, THE PHRASE WAS DELETED, IT WAS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE AIMS OF THE CURRENT PAPER.
2. 7 The term “Romeika” (ρωμαίικα) was actually used by almost all Modern Greek speakers to refer to Modern Greek until the beginning of the 20^thc., until “ellinika” (ελληνικά) replaced that term with some exceptions outside the borders of Greece (e.g. “Romeika” has survived longer among Constantinopolitans). DONE, I ADDED THIS IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE TERM.
3. 7 “hellenica”: wouldn’t it be better to spell this phonetically, i.e. “Ellinika”? Pondiaka and Romeika are also spelled phonetically, so the transcription of these terms should be consistent. In p. 8 the term is spelled “hellenika”. DONE
4. 7 kser/ eksermi: both of these verbs are translated as “he knows”, but the morphology of eksermi does not seem to reflect a third person singular form. It would be interesting to either provide glosses or to have translations that are as accurate as possible. AFTER CROSSCHECKING WITH A PONTIC GREEK SPEAKER AND LISTENING TO THE INTERVIEWS AGAIN, WE REALISED THAT THIS WAS A QUESTION, EKSER MI, SOMETHING THAT IS FOUND IN SOME VARIETIES OF PONTI GREEK.
5. 10 “evoˈixisen” Is there no palatalization of velars before /e, i/ in this case? One would expect [evoˈiçisen]. If [ç] is the actual allophone used, apply this correction elsewhere in the text. DONE
6. 10 “kaˈχolu” Is there a distinction between [x] and [χ] in this variety? Furthermore, it would be more accurate to use the IPA symbol ɣ instead of the Greek γ.DONE
7. 12 “ˈtziri” Is this accurate phonetically? Please double check the transcriptions for possible errors.DONE, ALL THE EXTRACTS WERE DOUBLE CHECKED!
8. 12 “Greek Cypriot neighbor” Was this a Greek Cypriot-speaking neighbor or a Greek Cypriot (Christian) neighbor that had not been relocated/ expelled yet? If it is the former case, then it should be changed to “Greek Cypriot-speaking neighbor”. IT IS THE SECOND CASE.

Bibliography: The authors could also incorporate the research of Jan Blommaert on superdiversity and repertoires (e.g. 2013, Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity, Multilingual Matters.). THANK YOU FOR THIS SUGGESTION, THIS WAS USED FOR THE DISCUSSION SECTION

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Content

The references should be supplemented with several relevant titles (see below Recommended additional references)

Sub-section 5.1 The variety with the many names: in the discussion of the name Romeika reference could also be made to Ioannidou et al. (2020).

Sub-section 5.2. From Pontic Greek to Cypriot Greek: developing multilingual repertoires should include a discussion of the role of Turkish among Pontic Greeks in Cyprus. In this respect, reference should be made to Zoumpalidis (2017).

Sub-section 5.4. Tensions in language contact and section 6 Discussion: reference should be made to previous work on the Pontic Greek speech community in Cyprus by Zoumpalidis (2009, 2016)

p. 6, l. 231: by Anatolian should read from Anatolia.

p. 6, l. 266: no name should read the many names, see the title of sub-section 5.1 The variety with the many names.

p. 7, l. 286: Turkish Cretan should, perhaps, be replaced with the Greek variety (formerly) spoken the Cretan Muslims [see also Özkan 2013: 4]

p. 9, l. 375: in Extract 6, Malek/Mustafa should presumably read Malek.

p. 9, Extract 8: The English translation does not correspond to the Greek original [in terms of adjacency pairs / conversational turns]

Recommended additional references

Ioannidou, Elena, Christodoulou, Charalambos & Neokleous, Theoni. (2020). Language variation and maintenance in Cypriot Romeika: A case of non-koineisation. In Massimo Cerruti & Stavroula Tsiplakou (eds.), Intermediate Language Varieties: Koinai and regional standards in Europe, pp. 231-252. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Zoumpalidis, Dionysios. (2009). Language and ethnic identity within the Pontic Greek community in Cyprus: A comparative perspective. In Language at the University of Essex (LangUE) 2008 Proceedings, 132-145. Colchester: University of Essex.

Zoumpalidis, Dionysios. (2016). Us and them: Inter- and intra-communal ethno-linguistic borders within the Pontic Greek community in Cyprus. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 69 (2): 235-253.

Zoumpalidis, Dionysios. (2017). Changing attitudes: Reconsidering the role of Turkish in the community of Pontic Greeks in Cyprus. JASO-online Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford, New Series, IX (1), Special Issue on Language, indexicality and belonging, 25-42.

 

Language, style, editorial

Abstract

p. 1, l. 14: add full stop after et al

 

Text

p. 1, l. 35: add full stop after et al

p. 4, l. 171-172: estimated between 100000-110000 should read estimated at between 100000 and 110000 or estimated at 100000-110000

p. 4, l. 183-184: the sentence “The current […] reside.” is incomplete

p. 5, l. 200: reaching at should read reaching [delete at]

p. 5, l. 214: Pontic should not have been should read Pontic would not have been

p. 6, l. 253: seven (7) should read 7

p. 6, l. 254: sixteen (16) should read 16

p. 6, l. 255: “The participants were located mostly in the coffee shops” should be rephrased

p. 6, l. 257: two (2) should read 2

p. 6, l. 257-258: three (2) should read 2

p. 7, l. 287: Ozkan should read Özkan

p. 7, l. 293: add full stop after et al

p. 10, l. 433: as it was observed should read as was observed

p. 11, l. 476: add full stop after et al

p. 11, l. 480: point of references should read point of reference

p. 12, l. 543: replace dad with father

p. 13, l. 572: replace they with the speakers

p. 13, l. 582: delete to after points out

p. 13, l. 590-591: “I speak and my language, Rumca and Lasdza too” should read “I speak both my language, Rumca, and Ladza”

References

p. 14, l. 616: add (2016) after Psaltis, C. & Cakal, H.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2:

 

I would like to warmly thank Reviewer 2 for her/his valuable comments and constructive feedback, I have tried to embody all the suggestions and changes in the text. I think the suggestions have strengthened the paper, thank you!

 

Please see below the comments made by the reviewer and in capital letters my changes:

 

 

 

Content

The references should be supplemented with several relevant titles (see below Recommended additional references). DONE, I HAVE ADDED THREE RELEVANT TITLES FROM THE RECOMMENDED REFERENCES (IOANNIDOU ET AL. 2020, ZOUMBALIDIS 2016, 2017).

 

Sub-section 5.1 The variety with the many names: in the discussion of the name Romeikareference could also be made to Ioannidou et al. (2020). DONE

 

Sub-section 5.2. From Pontic Greek to Cypriot Greek: developing multilingual repertoires should include a discussion of the role of Turkish among Pontic Greeks in Cyprus. In this respect, reference should be made to Zoumpalidis (2017). DONE, I HAVE TRIED TO CONTRAST THE FINDINGS OF THE CURRENT PAPER REGARDING TURKISH WITH THE RESULTS OF ZOUMPALIDIS, 2017.

 

Sub-section 5.4. Tensions in language contact and section 6 Discussion: reference should be made to previous work on the Pontic Greek speech community in Cyprus by Zoumpalidis (2009, 2016) DONE, ZOUMPALIDIS 2016.

 

1. 6, l. 231: by Anatolian should read from Anatolia.DONE.

 

5. 6, l. 266: no name should read the many names, see the title of sub-section 5.1 The variety with the many names. DONE.

 

1. 7, l. 286: Turkish Cretan should, perhaps, be replaced with the Greek variety (formerly) spoken the Cretan Muslims [see also Özkan 2013: 4] DONE

 

1. 9, l. 375: in Extract 6, Malek/Mustafa should presumably read Malek. YES, THANK YOU, DONE!

 

1. 9, Extract 8: The English translation does not correspond to the Greek original [in terms of adjacency pairs / conversational turns]. CORRECTED.

 

Recommended additional references

Ioannidou, Elena, Christodoulou, Charalambos & Neokleous, Theoni. (2020). Language variation and maintenance in Cypriot Romeika: A case of non-koineisation. In Massimo Cerruti & Stavroula Tsiplakou (eds.), Intermediate Language Varieties: Koinai and regional standards in Europe, pp. 231-252. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Zoumpalidis, Dionysios. (2009). Language and ethnic identity within the Pontic Greek community in Cyprus: A comparative perspective. In Language at the University of Essex (LangUE) 2008 Proceedings, 132-145. Colchester: University of Essex.

Zoumpalidis, Dionysios. (2016). Us and them: Inter- and intra-communal ethno-linguistic borders within the Pontic Greek community in Cyprus. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 69 (2): 235-253.

Zoumpalidis, Dionysios. (2017). Changing attitudes: Reconsidering the role of Turkish in the community of Pontic Greeks in Cyprus. JASO-online Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford, New Series, IX (1), Special Issue on Language, indexicality and belonging, 25-42.

 

Language, style, editorial

I would like to warmly thank Reviewer 1 for her/his valuable comments and constructive feedback, I have tried to embody all the suggestions and changes in the text. I think the suggestions have strengthened the paper, thank you!

 

Please see below the comments made by the reviewer  and in capital letters my changes:

ALL THE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS WERE INCORPORATED IN THE TEXT, THANK YOU.

 

Abstract

1. 1, l. 14: add full stop after et al

 

Text

1. 1, l. 35: add full stop after et al
2. 4, l. 171-172: estimated between 100000-110000 should read estimated at between 100000 and 110000 or estimated at 100000-110000
3. 4, l. 183-184: the sentence “The current […] reside.” is incomplete
4. 5, l. 200: reaching at should read reaching [delete at]
5. 5, l. 214: Pontic should not have been should read Pontic would not have been
6. 6, l. 253: seven (7) should read 7
7. 6, l. 254: sixteen (16) should read 16
8. 6, l. 255: “The participants were located mostly in the coffee shops” should be rephrased 
9. 6, l. 257: two (2) should read 2
10. 6, l. 257-258: three (2) should read 2
11. 7, l. 287: Ozkan should read Özkan
12. 7, l. 293: add full stop after et al
13. 10, l. 433: as it was observed should read as was observed
14. 11, l. 476: add full stop after et al
15. 11, l. 480: point of references should read point of reference
16. 12, l. 543: replace dad with father
17. 13, l. 572: replace they with the speakers
18. 13, l. 582: delete to after points out
19. 13, l. 590-591: “I speak and my language, Rumca and Lasdza too” should read “I speak both my language, Rumca, and Ladza”

References

1. 14, l. 616: add (2016) after Psaltis, C. & Cakal, H.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Lines 183-184: something is wrong with the syntax here

Lines 199-201: There is a problem with historical and maybe terminological clarity concerning that «Pontic Greek has had a strong presence in the area of Trabzon [...], since antiquity, reaching at its peak in the 4th century»: Pontic Greek probably developed in Pontus, when the ties with Byzantium were weakened by the Seljuk invasions of the 11th century (Horrocks G., Greek, p. 382), and it generally goes back to Hellenistic Koine which replaced the Ionic varieties spoken in the area of the Black Sea as a result of its colonisation by Greeks coming from the Ionian colonies of the western coast of Asia Minor (see, for example, de Boer J. G., The Greek colonies in the Pontic area, Talanta 36-37, https://www.academia.edu/1043711/THE_GREEK_COLONIES_IN_THE_PONTIC_AREA_DURING_THE_5TH_CENTURY_BC_ATHENS_THE_RISE_OF_THE_BARBARIAN_KINGDOMS_AND_THE_IONIAN_REVOLT_AN_ECONOMIC_APPROACH_TALANTA_XXXVI_XXXVII_2004_2005_pp_269_288). I think that what actually reached at its peak in the 4th c. (I suppose BC is ommited here) was the Ionic Greek spoken in the area of the Black Sea and definitely not Pontic Greek.

Line 237: A dash or a comma should be used here instead of the dot before the word Turkish.

Lines 260, 580: particpants should be corrected to paricipants.

Line 270: «the the members» → «the members»

Lines 374-375 / 390 et seq.: The statement «All our participants were competent in Pontic Greek and Turkish» (ll. 374-375) seems to be in contradiction with what is stated in the part «We located some older people who remained monolingual in Pontic Greek and had very limited knowledge of Turkish, as the case of Nahide».

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3:

 

I would like to warmly thank Reviewer 3 for her/his valuable comments and constructive feedback, I have tried to embody all the suggestions and changes in the text. I think the suggestions have strengthened the paper, thank you!

 

Please see below the comments made by the reviewer and in capital letters my changes:

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 183-184: something is wrong with the syntax here. YES, IT WAS CORRECTED, THANK YOU!

Lines 199-201: There is a problem with historical and maybe terminological clarity concerning that «Pontic Greek has had a strong presence in the area of Trabzon [...], since antiquity, reaching at its peak in the 4th century»: Pontic Greek probably developed in Pontus, when the ties with Byzantium were weakened by the Seljuk invasions of the 11th century (Horrocks G., Greek, p. 382), and it generally goes back to Hellenistic Koine which replaced the Ionic varieties spoken in the area of the Black Sea as a result of its colonisation by Greeks coming from the Ionian colonies of the western coast of Asia Minor (see, for example, de Boer J. G., The Greek colonies in the Pontic area, Talanta 36-37, https://www.academia.edu/1043711/THE_GREEK_COLONIES_IN_THE_PONTIC_AREA_DURING_THE_5TH_CENTURY_BC_ATHENS_THE_RISE_OF_THE_BARBARIAN_KINGDOMS_AND_THE_IONIAN_REVOLT_AN_ECONOMIC_APPROACH_TALANTA_XXXVI_XXXVII_2004_2005_pp_269_288). I think that what actually reached at its peak in the 4th c. (I suppose BC is ommited here) was the Ionic Greek spoken in the area of the Black Sea and definitely not Pontic Greek. THANK YOU FOR THIS VALUABLE FEEDBACK, SINCE IT WAS NOT IN THE MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE PAPER TO EXPLORE HISTORICITY OF PONTIC GREEK IN PONTUS, I HAVE DELETED THIS COMMENT ABOUT THE 4^TH CENTURY, IN ORDER TO AVOID GOING INTO MORE COMPLICATED DISCUSSIONS, I HAVE TRIED TO SIMPLIFY IT IN THE NEW VERSION.

Line 237: A dash or a comma should be used here instead of the dot before the word Turkish. DONE.

Lines 260, 580: particpants should be corrected to paricipants. DONE.

Line 270: «the the members» → «the members» DONE

Lines 374-375 / 390 et seq.: The statement «All our participants were competent in Pontic Greek and Turkish» (ll. 374-375) seems to be in contradiction with what is stated in the part «We located some older people who remained monolingual in Pontic Greek and had very limited knowledge of Turkish, as the case of Nahide». YES, IT WAS CORRECTED, THANK YOU!