Cover not available
Part of
Language Variation – European Perspectives VIII: Selected papers from the Tenth International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 10), Leeuwarden, June 2019
Edited by Hans Van de Velde, Nanna Haug Hilton and Remco Knooihuizen
[Studies in Language Variation 25] 2021
► pp. 247–268

Chapter 11
Dialect contact in the vowel system of Mišótika Cappadocian

ORCID logo | University of Patras | Ghent University
ORCID logo | University of Patras
ORCID logo | Ghent University
This study focuses on changes in the vowel system of contemporary Mišótika Cappadocian. It presents an acoustic analysis of the vowels of Mišótika, based on recordings of 16 native speakers from two different Cappadocian communities in Northern Greece. Our analysis shows that the current vowel system diverges from the one attested a century ago. Moreover, there are significant differences between the two Cappadocian speech communities, which are the result of dialect contact under different sociolinguistic conditions. Finally, gender also seems to be a significant sociolinguistic parameter, as male speakers seem to be one step ahead in the process of linguistic change.
Keywords: Mišótika, Cappadocian, vowel system, linguistic change, dialect contact, gender
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Historical and linguistic background
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Neo Agioneri
    • 4.2Xirochori
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The vowels [œ, y, ɯ, æ]
      • Hypothesis 1
      • Hypothesis 2
    • 5.2The vowels [i, e, a, o, u]
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 16 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.25.11vas
References (33)
References
Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2007. Harmony. In Paul de Lacey (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 353–378. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2019. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.1.03, retrieved 2 May 2019 from [URL]
Chambers, Jack K., Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.). 2002. The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 2013. Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor: A study of the dialects of Sílli, Cappadocia and Phárasa with grammar, texts, translations and glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2013. Language and gender. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fates, Thomas. 2012. Χιογός ας σι χαρίσ’: Εκμάθηση του Μιστώτικου ιδιώματος [God bless you: Learning the Mišótika dialect]. Konitsa.Google Scholar
Göksel, Asli & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harakopoulos, Maximos. 2003. Ρωμιοί της Καππαδοκίας: Από τα βάθη της Ανατολής στο θεσσαλικό κάμπο: Η τραυματική ενσωμάτωση στη μητέρα πατρίδα [Greeks of Cappadocia: From the depths of the East to the Thessalian plain: The traumatic integration into the motherland]. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert & Hans Van de Velde. 2018. Visible vowels: A tool for the visualization of vowel variation. In Proceedings CLARIN Annual Conference 2018, 8–10 October, Pisa, Italy. CLARIN ERIC.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2010. The handbook of language contact. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinskens, Frans. 1992. Dialect levelling in Limburg: Structural and sociolinguistic aspects. Ph.D. thesis. University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet & Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.). 2003. The handbook of language and gender. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janse, Mark. 2002. Aspects of bilingualism in the history of the Greek language. In James N. Adams, Mark Janse & Simon Swain (eds.), Bilingualism in Ancient Society, 332–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Grieks lichaam, Turkse ziel: Multiculturele symbiose in Cappadocië en de Cappa-docische diaspora [Greek body, Turkish soul. Multicultural symbiosis in Cappadocia and the Cappadocian diaspora]. In Danny Praet (ed.), Us & Them: Essays over filosofie, politiek, religie en cultuur van de Antieke Oudheid tot Islam in Europa ter ere van Herman De Ley, 107–137. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
. 2009. Greek-Turkish language contact in Asia Minor. Études Helléniques / Hellenic Studies 17. 37–54.Google Scholar
. 2018. Christendom en Islam in Ottomaans Cappadocië [Christianity and Islam in Ottoman Cappadocia]. In Danny Praet & Jan Nelis (eds.), Islam & Christendom, 289–304. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
. 2020a. Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις; (Acts 21:37): The survival of Cappadocian Greek. Cursor 16. 41–49.Google Scholar
. 2020b. Η Καππαδοκική διάλεκτος [The Cappadocian dialect]. In Christos Tzitzilis (ed.), Nεοελληνικές διάλεκτοι [The Modern Greek dialects], in press. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Institouto Neoellinikon Spoudon (Idryma Manoli Triantafyllidi).Google Scholar
Karatsareas, Petros. 2011. A study of Cappadocian Greek nominal morphology from a diachronic and dialectological perspective. Ph.D. thesis. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kostakis, Thanasis. 1977. Το Μιστί Καππαδοκίας [Misti, Cappadocia]. Athens: ILP Productions.Google Scholar
. 1991. Παρατηρήσεις στη φωνητική του Μιστιώτικου Καππαδοκικού ιδιώματος [Observations on the phonetics of the Cappadocian variety of Misti]. Λεξικογραφικόν Δελτίον 17. 175–188.Google Scholar
Kotsanidis, Lazaros. 2006. Το γλωσσικό ιδίωμα του Μιστί Καππαδοκίας [The linguistic variety of Misti, Cappadocia]. Kilkis.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.Google Scholar
Mourelos, Giannis (ed.). 1982. Η έξοδος. Τόμος Β΄: Μαρτυρίες από τις επαρχίες της Κεντρικής και Νότιας Μικρασίας [The Exodus. Vol. 2: Testimonies from the regions of central and southern Asia Minor]. Athens: Centre for Asia Minor Studies.Google Scholar
Newton, Brian. 1972. The generative interpretation of dialect: A study of Modern Greek phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Papazachariou, Dimitris. 2006. The quantitative study of the lateral variable (l) in the dialect of Patras. In Mark Janse, Brian Joseph & Aggeliki Ralli (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, 298–313. Mytiline: Patras University Press.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Αnthoula & Vasilis Spyropoulos. 2009. Οφίτικη Ποντιακή: Έρευνα γλωσσικής καταγραφής με έμφαση στη διαχρονία και συγχρονία της διαλέκτου [Ofitiki Pontiaki: Language recording research with emphasis on the diachrony and synchronicity of the dialect]. Athens: John’s Latsis Public Benefit Foundation.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in contact. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vassalou, Nikoleta. Forthcoming. Mišótika Cappadocian in contact: the consequences of linguistic change on the variety’s vowel system. Ph.D. thesis. University of Patras and Ghent University.
Vassalou, Nicole, Dimitris Papazachariou & Mark Janse. 2017. The vowel system of Mišótika Cappadocian. In Artemis Alexiadou, Jannis Androutsopoulos, Thanasis Georgakopoulos, Alexis Kalokairinos & Theodossia S. Pavlidou (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (2), 1139–1154. Edition Romiosini – CeMoG, Freie Universität, Berlin.Google Scholar
. 2019. Variation in the vowel system of Mišótika Cappadocian: Findings from two refugee villages in Greece. In Maria Chondrogianni, Simon Courtenage, Geoffrey Horrocks, Amalia Arvaniti & Ianthi Tsimpli (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, 276–285. London: University of Westminster.Google Scholar
Watt, Dominic J. & Anne H. Fabricius. 2002. Evaluation of a technique for improving the mapping of multiple speakers. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 9. 159–173.Google Scholar