Spiros Moschonas

This is how the goals of this book are described in the Preface:
This study seeks to define language ideologies having first reached a definition of ideologies in general; that is, it proceeds from the general to the specific.
A comprehensive review of the literature on language and ideology is also provided, which allows the advanced student to move at their own pace through various theories and research tools and choose the ones that better suit their own research interests.
The book is structured around two fundamental principles. .
The first principle, “Barthes’ principle”, determines the semiotic nature of ideologies in general. According to it, ideologies are second-degree semiotic systems, which do not signify directly but only through language (or through other first-degree semiotic codes). They do not signify; they connote or implicate, or under- or over-signify. Implicature and presupposition are ideologies’ favorite modes of signification.
The second principle, “Silverstein’s principle”, defines in a very general way a very specific application of the first. Language ideologies, just like all ideologies, are second-degree semiotic systems (Barthes’ principle); in addition, they also are or they are also capable of becoming metalinguistic systems (Silverstein’s principle), i.e. semiotic codes whose universe of discourse is defined by first-degree semiotic systems, i.e. by languages.
The book is structured after those two principles. The second chapter, which could be read first, presents Barthes’ principle, some of its corollaries as well as some reasonable restrictions on it.
The third chapter presents Silverstein’s principle as a further condition on Barthes’ principle.  Language ideologies are defined as second-degree metalinguistic systems. The notion of metalanguage is explained at length. It is argued that, language ideologies, as second-degree metalinguistic semiotic systems, are ideologies par excellence. Although language ideologies are but a subcategory of ideologies in general, their analysis can now be used to shed light on ideologies in general.
The first chapter provides the necessary historical prolegomena to the next two chapters. It could be read independently of the other two.  It explains how the study itself weighs itself against two imposing and competing paradigms in the theory of ideology. The first: the original, descriptive, synthetic paradigm developed by the French idéologues, who first introduced the notion of idéologie; and the second one: the critical and analytical paradigm prevailing today, a paradigm established simultaneously with the deconstruction (or partial destruction) of the concept of ‘ideology’. The starting point for this second paradigm is, to my opinion, the critique by Marx and Engels of The German Ideology.
The study of these two “first moments” in the genesis of ‘ideology’ reveals how the concept of ‘ideology’ changed in parallel with the critique to it, a critique aiming simultaneously at specific ideologies and earlier theories of ideology. The subject of criticism became its object. We can no longer settle with a descriptive agenda. We do not believe in a General Science of Ideas, a General Idealogy capable of describing and classifying every idea and every ideology. Destutt de Tracy and his followers failed. But neither could we today adopt a critical attitude, pretending ideological neutrality and scientific objectivity - as if there were a science of ideology in which our critical force is founded. What is needed, I argue, is a synthesis of the two paradigms, which does not preclude a critical attitude towards ideologies, while at the same time providing detailed and inductive descriptions of them. The book’s approach is conceptual and explanatory; it draws from linguistics – and, more particularly, from sociolinguistics and metapragmatics.
The historical study of the early stages in the theory of ideologies is also revealing of how intellectuals working from within these two different paradigms perceived the relationship between language and ideology. In both paradigms we find the notion of ‘language’ to overlap with the notion of ‘ideas’ (concepts, perceptions, thoughts, beliefs). This partial identification, which, depending on one's interest, might be called either linguistic or conceptual relativism, can be attributed to the inability of both theoretical paradigms to distinguish between first-degree and second-degree semiosis, on the one hand, and between language and metalanguage, on the other. The absence of this double distinction is manifested in a paradoxical symptom: linguistic or conceptual relativism is invoked in the critique of ideology/ies, while, as documented in the third chapter, relativism is in fact one of the most important mechanisms of the ideology/ies thus critiqued. Particularly in the field of language ideologies, relativism, it is argued, is the finite mechanism that generates ideologies, while, at the same time, the ideologies thus generated become indistinguishable from the description or the critique to which they are subjected. Relativism is a metalinguistic principle, not a linguistic one. The ideologies it generates are language ideologies.
The three chapters of the book follow, therefore, the three steps in an argument. The first chapter defines the historical context in which the study is placed. The second defines the broad area defined by Barthes’ principle. And the third concentrates on the unexplored territory of language ideologies.
The book’s argument is largely explanatory. In the literature one comes across several definitions of “language ideologies”. The definitions reflect an author’s own interests and they are often incompatible with each other. The following distinctions are introduced, distinctions which define different (although interdependent) areas of research:
A) the language of ideology/ies;
B) language ideologies - linguistic ideologies;
C) ideologies-in-language.

A) The study of the language (or the “languages”) of ideology/ies is concerned with issues pertaining to the functioning of ideologies as semiotic (or “symbolic”) systems. The most important issues in this category are:
1) the analysis of ideologies as second-degree semiotic systems;
2) implicature as a tool for understanding second-degree semiosis;
3) the formation of ideological stereotypes;
4) the use of presuppositions and metaphors in forming stereotypes;
5) the normative and performative character of ideologies.

B) On the other hand, language ideologies are implicitly (Barthes’ principle) or explicitly (Silverstein’s principle) about language.  The study of language ideologies includes all those issues which are openly debated within a linguistic community, issues which have become stereotypical, which have left their imprint on the collective consciousness (such as the Greek Language Question). One of the most salient language-ideological issues is standardization. Standardization is but the guiding of linguistic behavior by ideas (standards). But this is also the definition of language ideologies: the positing of a linguistic variety according to a metalinguistic model, which usually results in the attempt to make the linguistic variety “conform” to the pattern through which it is perceived. Language ideologies always exist when there is metalinguistic consciousness – and the aim of standardization is to increase metalinguistic consciousness at a collective level. Language ideologies are also distinguished from linguistic ideologies (i.e., ideologies within linguistics); not only are language and linguistic ideologies part of “divergent larger systems of discourse and enterprise” (M. Silverstein), their semiotic mechanisms are also different.

C) Finally, ideologies-in-language are more often than not confused with language ideologies. Ideologies-in-language have to do with differentiation. In this third category belong all the issues relating to perceived variation. It is shown that the correlation of linguistic variables with independent ones is not necessarily mediated by language ideologies; on the contrary, the correlation is more often than not mediated by non-linguistic ideologies (such as ideologies of prestige, of social class, of gender, etc.). These non-linguistic ideologies may also have linguistic manifestations (as ideologies-in-language), although it is not necessary that they develop to full-blown language ideologies. In fact, it can be proven (with semiotic arguments) that Barthes’ and Silverstein’s principles are incompatible for the same set of semiotic units; their incompatibility necessitates a semiotic mediation through non-linguistic ideologies for both principles to apply.
The theory of language ideologies developed in this book is exemplified by a comprehensive presentation of the development of Standard Modern Greek. Reference is also made to other languages and language ideologies.

Στην Ελλάδα αφθονούν τα κείμενα γλωσσικής ιδεολογίας, αλλά σπανίζουν οι μελέτες για τις γλωσσικές ιδεολογίες. Η μελέτη αυτή, αντλώντας από την ιστορία της φιλοσοφίας (Destutt de Tracy, Μαρξ-Ένγκελς), από την πολιτική θεωρία, από τη γλωσσολογία, τη σημειωτική και τη φιλοσοφία της γλώσσας, επιχειρεί να προσδιορίσει τις γλωσσικές ιδεολογίες μέσω ενός λεπτομερούς ορισμού των ιδεολογιών εν γένει. Έμφαση δίνεται στη διαμόρφωση της καθεστωτικής ιδεολογίας για τη νεοελληνική γλώσσα μετά τη «γλωσσική μεταπολίτευση» του 1976.

In Greece, there are several books of language ideology but only a few books about language ideology. This study draws from the history of philosophy (Destutt de Tracy, Marx-Engels), from political theory, semiotics, linguistics and the philosophy of language (especially from implicature and presupposition theories) in order to define language ideologies on the basis of a detailed definition of ideologies in general. Emphasis is placed on the "regime ideology" of Standard Modern Greek as it evolved after the language reform of 1976.

With the advent of the COVID pandemic, newspapers and news websites witnessed a remarkable increase in the use of the Greek translation loan for coronavirus. The newly rediscovered word appeared in four main variants (κορονοϊός, κορωνοϊός, κοροναϊός, κορωναϊός), while several metalinguistic texts prescribing the one or the other variant were also published in various news outlets. In this chapter we report on the effects which these prescriptive texts might have had on the variation of the Greek word for ‘coronavirus’.

In this article, we employ a version of critical discourse analysis augmented with computational tools in order to process texts expressing a neoliberal ideology. We built a corpus of articles and blog entries from the websites of acknowledged think tanks of neoliberal orientation. We implement a series of state-of-the-art algorithms and corpus linguistic methodologies to detect ideological markers and constructions, domain-specific concepts, and seed words associated with the discursive conventions of neoliberalism. Topic modeling uncovered clusters of terms that defined discursive fields, from which we selected a sample of key concepts. Furthermore, we custom trained the word embeddings model in our corpus to detect the semantic fields underpinning neoliberal stereotypes. The vectorization of sentences revealed repetitive patterns formulated around the concepts, thus highlighting the mechanical nature of an ideology in its discursive function. Although our preliminary results confirm and deepen our understanding of expected ideological assumptions such as the establishment of a dominant market as a sole solution and solidarity to all business—and, more specifically, to “small business”—the analysis didn’t reveal widespread discourses about specific social strata, for example, people receiving public welfare. However, subtle formulations and metaphors such as the topos of burden as regards the welfare state or the topos of war concerning poverty emerged through our analysis outlining commonsensical discursive frameworks.

This chapter provides an overview of the literature on corpus-linguistic approaches to detecting prescriptivism’s effects on language change. The relevant literature is reviewed from the perspective of a performative theory of metalinguistic acts, a theory that allows for contrasts and comparisons.

This chapter provides an overview of the literature on corpus-linguistic approaches to detecting prescriptivism’s effects on language change. The relevant literature is reviewed from the perspective of a performative theory of metalinguistic acts, a theory that allows for contrasts and comparisons.

The obsession with a language's unique "character" or "spirit" has been associated in common metalinguistic discourse with a strong version of linguistic relativity. Although complementary rather than contrary, these two ideas, of "character" and of "relativity", have been employed in opposite ideological currents.

In this paper we look at the conditions under which Greek is being taught in the Moslem minority schools of Western Thrace. We take into account institutional conditions, which comprise legislative regulations concerning the primary education of the Moslem students-the only case of officially constituted minority education in Greece-, as well as ideological restraints, which shape the expectations of all those involved, in one way or another, in the education of the Moslem minority (politicians, educators, researchers, as well as the various ethnic groups which make up the Moslem minority-especially Turks and Pomaks). Mainly because of the lasting opposition between Greece and Turkey, language policies for the Moslem minority are being established as delicate and transient equilibria of conflicting institutional and ideological interests and pursuits. In order to be effective, language policies have to remain concealed; their presuppositions and ultimate goals have to pass unrecognized and unforeseen. It is not paradoxical then that the attitude of those who display a presumably "neutral" and "scientific" interest in the education of the Moslem minority is also fashioned on the basis of implicit assumptions.

The education of the Muslim minority in the multilingual environment of Western Thrace has been a battlefield for language policies, which reproduce the political and ethnic conflicts between Greece and Turkey. Although Greeks and Turks are divided on the issues of the composition and proper education of the Muslim minority, both camps share a territorial conception of their languages, which results in a reinterpretation of the minority’s educational system as comprising not a single bilingual policy but rather two parallel monolingual policies, one pro-Greek (against the spread of Turkish and also in favor of the so-called ‘Pomak language’) and one pro-Turkish (against both Greek and the Pomak language). Romani is usually ‘erased’
(in the sense of Irvine & Gal 2000) from the conceptual map of language planners.

This paper examines the notions of neoliberalism and the financialization and marketisation of public life by using computational tools such as sentence embeddings on a novel corpus of neoliberal articles. More specifically, we experimented with distributional semantics along with several Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques and machine learning algorithms in order to extract conceptual dictionaries and “seed” words. Our findings show that sentence embeddings reveal repetitive patterns constructed around the given concepts and highlight the mechanical character of an ideology in its function of providing solutions, policies and constructing stereotypes. This work introduces a novel pipeline for computer-assisted research in discourse analysis and ideology.

This paper distinguishes three phases in the popularization of linguistic relativity: the phase initiated by Benjamin Lee Whorf himself; a second phase during which linguistic relativity was formulated and tested as a research hypothesis; and the current phase during which language-relativistic assumptions have penetrated the mass media. To diagnose the spread of relativistic assumptions, 560 articles in both English and Greek print and electronic media were considered. The articles were published over the period 2010–2019. They fall, roughly, into eighteen categories. Some of the articles report explicitly on linguistic relativity research, while others presuppose language-relativistic ideas in handling issues as disparate as the effectiveness of managerial discourse, the appropriateness of political correctness, or the possibility of communicating with aliens. The large number of article categories as well as the tacit assumption of linguistic relativity in a growing number of art...

Analysis of journalists' metalinguistic discourse reveals a very strong belief in media-induced language change. The ‘language of the media’, especially of the ‘cool’ medium of television, is considered to function as a model of language usage, capable of propagating or consolidating linguistic habits and attitudes, especially ‘bad’ ones. This folk belief, which is part and parcel of an ideology of standardization, is based on contradictory presuppositions: a) that the ‘language’ of the media is or should be homogeneous while, at the same time, being capable of affecting language change, i.e. introducing heterogeneity into language usage, and b) that its form and content could or should be controlled ‘mechanically’, on the basis of linguistic conventions, by guardians of language, i.e. by agents such as proofreaders, editors, Radio-Television Councils etc. In order to document and critically analyze this folk belief in media-induced language change, the present paper employs a corpus-driven approach to metalinguistic discourse. It focuses on publications about media language in the Greek press, of the period from the early 1990s through the early 2000s, during which there was an upsurge of public interest concerning media language in Greece, due to the privatization of the media sector. Relevant literature for other countries is also taken into account. From such a corpus-driven approach a folk conception of media-induced language change emerges that can be contrasted to expert opinion, i.e. professional conceptions formed by linguists themselves. Linguists have dismissed media-induced language change as yet another ‘language myth’ (by J. K. Chambers). However, several studies (by A. Naro, M. Scherre, R. Muhr, J. Stuart-Smith, S. Herring et al.) seem to document ‘upward’ linguistic changes effected through exposure to media, i.e. the scientific literature seems to corroborate a possible convergence towards a standard – which is precisely what the folk attitude aspires to. It is argued that both folk and expert opinions on these issues fail to take into account two crucial conditions of media-induced language change: a) the counterfactual condition (a language change is media-induced if and only if it could not have occurred without exposure to media), and b) the performative condition (the very belief in language change might have a certain performative effect, i.e. it might manage to shape language habits through the exercise of linguistic controls over broadcasting).

This study looks for changes in a standard variety through changes in that variety’s standards. It concentrates on the continuing process of the standardization of Modern Greek and it discusses: a) an inaugural change in status planning involving the shift from Jannis Psycharis’s codification of Modern Greek to a more “permissive” codification by Manolis Triantaphyllidis; b) the propagation of linguistic standards on a mass scale through the print and electronic media after the resolution of the “Greek Language Question”; c) the process of “de-ideologization” or “naturalization” of the established norms; d) a relatively recent instance of stylization of a certain highly prescribed variant (nasalization of voiced stops), which possibly marks a new phase in the standardization process. The four cases of changing standards are discussed under a performative theory of standardization. A corpus-driven approach is employed that concentrates on correctives (metalinguistic speech acts of th...

Studiul de față urmărește schimbările din varianta standard a limbii plecînd de la schimbările de la nivelul multiplelor norme ale acestei variante. Are în vedere mai ales procesul continuu de standardizare a limbii grecești moderne și pune în discuție: a) schimbarea inițială în privința planificării lingvistice, ce a cuprins trecerea de la codificarea limbii grecești moderne propusă de Jannnis Psycharis spre o codificare mai „permisivă” propusă de Manolis Triandaphyllidis; b) propagarea normelor lingvistice la nivelul maselor prin presă și prin mijloace electronice, după promulgarea legii privind „Chestiunea Limbii Grecești”; c) procesul „de-idiologizării” sau „naturalizării” normelor; d) un relativ recent caz de stilizare a unei forme lingvistice intens recomandate ca normă (nazalizarea consoanelor oclusive sonore), situație care probabil că reprezintă o nouă fază a procesului de standardizare. Cele patru cazuri de norme variabile sînt discutate în interiorul teoriei performative ...

Ήταν ένας από τους σπουδαιότερους γλωσσολόγους της εποχής μας. Τα γραπτά του, εκτιμώ, θ’ ανακαλύπτονται τα επόμενα χρόνια, τις επόμενες δεκαετίες ίσως, ενώ τα γραπτά άλλων γλωσσολόγων, πολύ διασημότερων τώρα, θα ξεχνιούνται. Αναγκαστικά, μιλώ εδώ για το έργο του προτού αυτό ανακαλυφθεί.

Modern Greek as a second/foreign language (G2) is a relatively recent field. This paper focuses on the early, formative years of the field of G2 (1985-2004). It discusses the relevant literature and places particular emphasis on the textbooks for teaching G2, with an aim to revealing their latent conceptions about language and second language acquisition. Assessment and proficiency standards are also taken into account. It is argued that G2, as the most recent phase in a continuing process of Modern Greek standardisation, has been influenced by conceptions and practices that prevail in the field of G1.

Έχουν πeράσeι δύο χρόνια από τότe που δημοσιeύτηκe η Γραμματική αυτή της νέας eλληνικής γλώσσας των David Holton, Peter Mackridge και Eιρήνης Φιλιππάκη – Warburton. Πρόκeιται για την πληρέστeρη γραμματική της σύγχρονης γλώσσας. Ανατύπωσή της, διορθωμένη, κυκλοφόρησe πρόσφατα. Η eλληνική της έκδοση, προσαρμοσμένη, eτοιμάζeται από τις eκδόσeις Πατάκη. Ίσως η eλληνική έκδοση θeρμάνeι κάπως την μάλλον ψυχρή υποδοχή που της eπιφύλαξe ο eλληνικός τύπος, ψυχρή αν την κρίνουμe από την ανάποδη, δηλ. από το σάλο που προκάλeσαν άλλeς, λίγο παλιότeρeς και λίγο νeότeρeς, γραμματικές. Μeτρήσαμe μόλις δυο σημeιώματα (της Eλένης Γαλάνη στην “Καθημeρινή”, 4-1-98, και του Μανώλη Πολέντα στην “Athens News”… Θeματικές eπικeφαλίδeς Eλληνική γλώσσα, Νέα -- Γραμματική

Language relativism can be associated with two major conceptions: that “each language has or is a particular spirit” and that “each language has or is a— real or imagined—territory.” Spirituality and territoriality combined give rise to the ideology of a language as a realm. This ideology of Modern Greek as a regime language has become dominant after the official establishment of a standard norm (demotic) and the resolution of the perennial “Greek Language Question.” As it is evidenced by a host of “language issues” raised in the Greek newspapers since 1976, relativism has determined what counted as a “language issue” that was worth publishing, which language issues were eligible for public debates, and the extent to which language issues were allowed to penetrate “public opinion.”

Les etudes du purisme en tant que manifestation metalinguistique portent sur le discours particulier des puristes : les lieux communs, les metaphores conceptuelles, les presuppositions, les idees recues du purisme ; ses sujets et motifs ; ses stratagemes discursifs et les modes rhetoriques qu’il utilise ; ses objets et objectifs, specifiques pour chaque circonstance ou periode. Dans sa dimension metalinguistique, le purisme peut etre concu comme un courant d’idees, lie historiquement au romantisme francais, mais surtout au romantisme allemand ; a l’idealisme allemand ; au nationalisme ; a l’emergence des langues vulgaires et leur « grammatisation massive » (Auroux 1992 :11) ; aux procedures de normalisation et standardisation linguistique ; etc. Par ses aspects metalinguistiques, le purisme s’integre dans les etudes d’attitudes linguistiques (Baker 1992 ; Garrett, Coupland et Williams 2003) et d’ideologie du langage (Schieffelin, Woolard et Kroskrity 1998 ; Kroskrity 2000 ; Jaworski...

Lucrarea de față distinge trei faze ale popularizării relativității lingvistice: faza inițiată de Benjamin Lee Whorf însuși; o a doua fază, în care relativitatea lingvistică a fost formulată și testată ca ipoteză de cercetare; și faza curentă, în care afirmații întemeiate pe relativitatea lingvistică apar în mass media. Pentru a diagnostica răspîndirea acestui fenomen, am avut în vedere 560 de articole în engleză și greacă, apărute în presa tipărită și electronică. Articolele au fost publicate de-a lungul perioadei 2010–2019. Pot fi împărțite, nu absolut neechivoc, în optsprezece categorii. Unele dintre articole relatează explicit despre cercetări asupra relativității lingvistice, în timp ce altele, abordînd teme diverse—eficiența discursului managerial, justețea corectitudinii politice, posibilitatea de a comunica cu ființele extraterestre etc.—, operează implicit cu idei stimulate de relativitatea lingvistică. Numărul mare de categorii, precum și existența tacită a unor asemenea i...

This chapter provides an overview of the literature on corpus-linguistic approaches to detecting prescriptivism’s effects on language change. The relevant literature is reviewed from the perspective of a performative theory of metalinguistic acts, a theory that allows for contrasts and comparisons.

In this paper a theory of purism is presented within the wider framework of prescriptive linguistic practices. Purism, it is argued, is a discursive practice, by means of which two systems of opposition are intertwined: one concerned with the WE vs OTHER distinction and another employing the CORRECT vs INCORRECT system of evaluation. The two systems of opposition are correlated in the praxis of stigmatization.

The theory is exemplified by an analysis of the relevant publications in the Greek press during a period of presumed upturn of the Greek purism (1990-94).

Language relativism can be associated with two major conceptions: that “each language has or is a particular spirit” and that “each language has or is a— real or imagined—territory.” Spirituality and territoriality combined give rise to the ideology of a language as a realm. This ...

Language relativism can be associated with two major conceptions: that “each
language has or is a particular spirit” and that “each language has or is a—
real or imagined—territory.” Spirituality and territoriality combined give
rise to the ideology of a language as a realm. This ideology of Modern Greek
as a regime language has become dominant after the official establishment of a
standard norm (demotic) and the resolution of the perennial “Greek
Language Question.” As it is evidenced by a host of “language issues” raised
in the Greek newspapers since 1976, relativism has determined what counted
as a “language issue” that was worth publishing, which language issues were
eligible for public debates, and the extent to which language issues were allowed
to penetrate “public opinion.”

Lucrarea de față distinge trei faze ale popularizării relativității lingvistice: faza inițiată de Benjamin Lee Whorf însuși; o a doua fază, în care relativitatea lingvistică a fost formulată și testată ca ipoteză de cercetare; și faza curentă, în care afirmații întemeiate pe relativitatea lingvistică apar în mass media. Pentru a diagnostica răspîndirea acestui fenomen, am avut în vedere 560 de articole în engleză și greacă, apărute în presa tipărită și electronică. Articolele au fost publicate de-a lungul perioadei 2010 – 2019. Pot fi împărțite, nu absolut neechivoc, în optsprezece categorii. Unele dintre articole relatează explicit despre cercetări asupra relativității lingvistice, în timp ce altele, abordînd teme diverse – eficiența discursului managerial, justețea corectitudinii politice, posibilitatea de a comunica cu ființele extraterestre etc. –, operează implicit cu idei stimulate de relativitatea lingvistică. Numărul mare de categorii, precum și existența tacită a unor asemenea idei într-un număr crescînd de articole sînt indicatori ai gradului de popularitate atins de relativitatea lingvistică în discursul lingvisticii populare.

This paper distinguishes three phases in the popularization of linguistic relativity: the phase initiated by Benjamin Lee Whorf himself; a second phase during which linguistic relativity was formulated and tested as a research hypothesis; and the current phase during which language-relativistic assumptions have penetrated the mass media. To diagnose the spread of relativistic assumptions, 560 articles in both English and Greek print and electronic media were considered. The articles were published over the period 2010-2019. They fall, roughly, into eighteen categories. Some of the articles report explicitly on linguistic relativity research, while others presuppose language-relativistic ideas in handling issues as disparate as the effectiveness of managerial discourse, the appropriateness of political correctness, or the possibility of communicating with aliens. The large number of article categories as well as the tacit assumption of linguistic relativity in a growing number of articles are indicators of how popular linguistic relativity has become in folk-linguistic discourse.

This study looks for changes in a standard variety through changes in that variety’s standards. It concentrates on the continuing process of the standardization of Modern Greek and it discusses: a) an inaugural change in status planning involving the shift from Jannis Psycharis’s codification of Modern Greek to a more “permissive” codification by Manolis Triantaphyllidis; b) the propagation of linguistic standards on a mass scale through the print and electronic media after the resolution of the “Greek Language Question”; c) the process of “de-ideologization” or “naturalization” of the established norms; d) a relatively recent instance of stylization of a certain highly prescribed variant (nasalization of voiced stops), which possibly marks a new phase in the standardization process.

The four cases of changing standards are discussed under a performative theory of standardization. A corpus-driven approach is employed that concentrates on correctives (metalinguistic speech acts of the type: “one should neither say nor write X; instead, one should say or write Y”) and permissives (“one may say or write either X or Y provided that C”). Such triplets are located in texts that prescribe on language usage. A variety of such texts is taken into consideration: institutional Grammars, advice columns in the Greek newspapers, relevant radio and television broadcasts, Style Guides addressed both to the general public and to the media professionals.

It is shown that correctives and/or permissives form repertories that change over time. Such changes in language standards account for changes in the standard language. According to the performative theory, standard languages are subject to restandardization as language standards are subject to redefinition. The changes in corrective repertories bear testimony to a process of a continuing standardization of Modern Greek. This process is shown to be mediated, i.e. it has affected and has been affected by prescriptive practices in the print and electronic media.

Studiul de față urmărește schimbările din varianta standard a limbii plecînd de la schimbările de la nivelul multiplelor norme ale acestei variante. Are în vedere mai ales procesul continuu de standardizare a limbii grecești moderne și pune în discuție: a) schimbarea inițială în privința planificării lingvistice, ce a cuprins trecerea de la codificarea limbii grecești moderne propusă de Jannnis Psycharis spre o codificare mai „permisivă” propusă de Manolis Triandaphyllidis; b) propagarea normelor lingvistice la nivelul maselor prin presă și prin mijloace electronice, după promulgarea legii privind „Chestiunea Limbii Grecești”; c) procesul „de-idiologizării” sau „naturalizării” normelor; d) un relativ recent caz de stilizare a unei forme lingvistice intens recomandate ca normă (nazalizarea consoanelor oclusive sonore), situație care probabil că reprezintă o nouă fază a procesului de standardizare.

Cele patru cazuri de norme variabile sînt discutate în interiorul teoriei performative a standardizării. Am recurs la abordarea întemeiată pe studiul de corpus, urmărind instanțe corective (acte metalingvistice de limbaj, de tipul: „nu se va spune, nici nu se va scrie X; se va spune și se va scrie Y”) și permisive („se poate spune sau scrie atît X, cît și Y, cu condiția ca C”). Asemenea triplete apar în texte care prescriu uzul lingvistic. Am luat în considerare mai multe tipuri de texte: gramatici oficiale, articole de cultivare a limbii apărute în presă, emisiuni de radio și televiziune, ghiduri de exprimare adresate atît publicului larg, cît și profesioniștilor care lucrează în media.

Am arătat că instanțele permisive și/sau corective formează repertorii care se schimbă de-a lungul timpului. Asemenea schimbări la nivelul normelor lingvistice produc schimbări la nivelul limbii standard. În concordanță cu teoria performativă, limbile standard sînt supuse restandardizării pe măsură ce normele lingvistice sînt supuse redefinirii. Schimbările de la nivelul repertoriilor corective sînt mărturii ale unui proces de continuă standardizare a limbii grecești moderne. Acest proces apare ca fiind mediat, i.e., a influențat și a fost influențat de practici prescriptive din mediul tipărit și al comunicării electronice de masă.

This paper introduces the notion of correctives (i.e., speech acts of a metalanguage-to-language direction of fit, having the regular form " one should neither say nor write X; one should say or write Y instead, because Z ") and permissives (" one may say Y in addition to X under condition C "). Correctives and permissives are discussed as the elementary units for the quantitative study of prescriptivism within a variationist paradigm. Correctives and permissives tend to form repertories, the evolution of which provides evidence for concomitant developments in a standard language. To decide whether prescriptivism affects language change, some of the recent literature on the effects of prescriptivism (on the English language) is also reviewed. It is argued that quantitative corpus-driven studies demonstrate a partial success of prescriptivism, which is nevertheless more easily falsified than verified.

Με τον όρο «διορθωτικές πρακτικές» εννοώ παρεμβατικές συμπεριφορές, αφετηρία των οποίων είναι κάποια αξιολόγηση, είτε διαβαθμισμένη είτε απόλυτη, του τύπου «σωστό-λάθος», «κατάλληλο-ακατάλληλο», «καλό-κακό», «ωραίο-άσχημο», «σαφές-ασαφές», «πρέπον-άπρεπο» κλπ. Οι διορθωτικές πρακτικές, τουλάχιστον αυτές για τις οποίες θα μιλήσω εδώ, είναι γλωσσικές. «Σωστό-λάθος» σημαίνει «σωστά-λάθος / κατάλληλα-ακατάλληλα ειπωμένο». Επίσης, οι περισσότερες είναι πρακτικές διόρθωσης του γραπτού λόγου· άρα, «σωστό-λάθος» σημαίνει κυρίως «σωστά-λάθος γραμμένο ή διατυπωμένο». Αλλά βέβαια γίνονται διορθώσεις και του προφορικού λόγου, όπως στην ορθοφωνία ή στις οδηγίες καλής διαλογικής συμπεριφοράς (λ.χ., «να μην υψώνουμε τη φωνή»).
Τη διορθωτική πρακτική τη γνωρίζουμε κυρίως, αν όχι αποκλειστικά, από τη διορθωτική οδηγία. [...]

Modern Greek as a second/foreign language (G2) is a relatively recent field. This paper focuses on the early, formative years of the field of G2 (1985-2004). It discusses the relevant literature and places particular emphasis on the textbooks for teaching G2, with an aim to revealing their latent conceptions about language and second language acquisition. Assessment and proficiency standards are also taken into account. It is argued that G2, as the most recent phase in a continuing process of Modern Greek standardisation, has been influenced by conceptions and practices that prevail in the field of G1.

Analysis of journalists' metalinguistic discourse reveals a very strong belief in media-induced language change. The ‘language of the media’, especially of the ‘cool’ medium of television, is considered to function as a model of language usage, capable of propagating or consolidating linguistic habits and attitudes, especially ‘bad’ ones. This folk belief, which is part and parcel of an ideology of standardization, is based on contradictory presuppositions: a) that the ‘language’ of the media is or should be homogeneous while, at the same time, being capable of affecting language change, i.e. introducing heterogeneity into language usage, and b) that its form and content could or should be controlled ‘mechanically’, on the basis of linguistic conventions, by guardians of language, i.e. by agents such as proofreaders, editors, Radio-Television Councils etc.
In order to document and critically analyze this folk belief in media-induced language change, the present paper employs a corpus-driven approach to metalinguistic discourse. It focuses on publications about media language in the Greek press, of the period from the early 1990s through the early 2000s, during which there was an upsurge of public interest concerning media language in Greece, due to the privatization of the media sector. Relevant literature for other countries is also taken into account.
From such a corpus-driven approach a folk conception of media-induced language change emerges that can be contrasted to expert opinion, i.e. professional conceptions formed by linguists themselves. Linguists have dismissed media-induced language change as yet another ‘language myth’ (by J. K. Chambers). However, several studies (by A. Naro, M. Scherre, R. Muhr, J. Stuart-Smith, S. Herring et al.) seem to document ‘upward’ linguistic changes effected through exposure to media, i.e. the scientific literature seems to corroborate a possible convergence towards a standard – which is precisely what the folk attitude aspires to.
It is argued that both folk and expert opinions on these issues fail to take into account two crucial conditions of media-induced language change: a) the counterfactual condition (a language change is media-induced if and only if it could not have occurred without exposure to media), and b) the performative condition (the very belief in language change might have a certain performative effect, i.e. it might manage to shape language habits through the exercise of linguistic controls over broadcasting).

The “language regime change” (γλωσσική μεταπολίτευση), prophesied by Manolis Triandaphyllidis in 1938, marks an important shift in the ideology of the Standard Language. New “language issues” have been raised after the reform of 1976 and the official adoption of a “Common Language” based on the demotic norm (Standard Modern Greek). The issues of the 1980s (teaching of Ancient Greek in secondary education, youth’s presumed “λεξιπενία”, the influence of English on Modern Greek) were soon followed in the 1990s by issues of territoriality, language contact, and hegemony. Diglossia and language reform are still invoked as frames of reference for some of the subsequent language debates, but they are not themselves the cause of the debates.
SMG is now conceptualized and spoken of in mass communication discourse as a “regime language”. The language of the realm is itself conceived of as a realm, comprising a pure and sacred “territory” that has to be protected by everything alien to it. This “regime” conception of the Standard Language can be shown to affect, or to have been affected by, a change in language standards. The standardization formula of late demoticism (“SMG = demotic + learned forms”) has assumed the status of a descriptive principle and it prevails in reference works about Modern Greek. Proper usage is now prescribed by a new elite of “craft professionals” (writers, editors, proofreaders) who place emphasis on phraseology and idiomaticity, irrespective of any morphological differences between demotic and katharevousa. Finally, linguistic purism has ceased to be diglossic and it has long become bi-glossic; it is being practiced on a mass scale; and it is manifested as an outward rejection of bilingualism and language contact.

Language relativism can be associated with two major conceptions: that “each language has or itself is a particular spirit” and that “each language has or itself is a--real or imagined--territory”. Spirituality and territoriality combined give rise to the ideology of a language as a realm. This is the dominant ideology of the Modern Greek language, after the official establishment of a standard norm (demotic) and the resolution of the perennial “Greek Language Question”. As witnessed by a variety of “language issues” that have been raised in the Greek newspapers since 1976, relativism determines what is to count as a “language issue” worth to be placed in the agenda of the media, which issues are eligible for public debates, and to what extent they penetrate into “public opinion”.

L’ambition de ce texte est de présenter, au lieu d’une étude de cas ou d’une application de plus, une théorie qui combinerait les applications existantes et pourrait éventuellement conduire à de nouvelles applications. J’appelle cette théorie « théorie performative du purisme », en la considérant comme faisant partie d’une théorie performative plus générale des idéologies du langage. Selon cette théorie, chaque idéologie a un aspect effectif qui crée sa propre réalité matérielle. La réalité matérielle d’une idéologie du langage n’est autre que les langues elles-mêmes ou certains aspects des langues. Je propose comme point idéal de recherche sur la réalité matérielle –autrement dit : linguistique– du purisme l’étude du normativisme que ce dernier renferme.

Language purism and the language of purism.
In this paper a theory of purism is presented within the wider framework of prescriptive linguistic practices. Purism, it is argued, is a discursive practice, by means of which two systems of opposition are intertwined: one concerned with the "We" vs "Others" distinction and another employing the "Correct" vs "Incorrect" system of evaluation. The two systems of opposition are correlated in the praxis of stigmatization. The theory is exemplified by an analysis of the relevant publications in the Greek press during a period of presumed upturn of the Greek purism (1990–94).

Following C. A. Ferguson, it is established that Standard Modern Greek and the Cypriot dialect complement each other in a way typical of diglossia. It is also argued that the linguistic situation in Cyprus is different from the case of a standard-with-dialects on socio-political as well as linguistic grounds: oral usage has established, especially in the urban centres of the island, a new Cypriot koine.

Following C. A. Ferguson, it is established that Standard Modern Greek and the Cypriot dialect complement each other in a way typical of diglossia. It is also argued that the linguistic situation in Cyprus is different from the case of a standard-with-dialects on socio-political as well as linguistic grounds: oral usage has established, especially in the urban centres of the island, a new Cypriot koine.

With the advent of the covid-19 pandemic, several Greek prescriptive or “descriptive” linguists and folk-linguists raised the issue: which form of the Greek loanword for ‘coronavirus’ is the “correct” one. We have consulted 74 metalinguistic texts on this issue, all published online over the period Jan. 22 – April 3, 2020. Four variants have been prescribed (κορον-ο-ϊός, κορων-ο-ϊός [koronoiós], κορον-α-ϊός, and κορων-α-ϊός [koronaiós]), varying wrt 1. the spelling of the first compound (<o> or <ω>) and 2. the linking ‘thematic vowel’ (-o- or -a-).
We have traced the use of the prescribed variants in multiple monitor corpora consisting mainly of texts published in news websites, mined with web scraping techniques and analyzed using NLP libraries in a Python programming environment. Monitor corpora allow the study of prescriptivism in real time, providing valuable insights into its workings. Phase 1 of our corpus (May 2013 and April-May 2014) consists of 71,343 texts (totaling 21,807,666 words), drawn from 6 news websites; the references in this period are to other corona viruses such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV; variation during this phase has been unattended by prescriptivists. Phase 2 (December 2019  - April 2020), the focus of our study, consists of a total of 123,250 texts (42,204,247 words), drawn from the same 6 news websites; finally, Phase 3 consists of 20,706 texts (7,037,279 words) drawn from a much larger corpus of 18 websites at a later period of time (May 26 – June 1, 2020). We have also analyzed a Phase 3 corpus of radio broadcasts (total of 19h 21m).
Our statistical analysis shows:
1. a radical shift in usage between Phase 1 and Phase 2, suggesting a strong influence of prescriptivism.
2. Phase 2 and Phase 3 variation is increasingly compartmentalized (consistent use ranging from 68.18% to 88.84% in Phase 2 and from 73.76% % to 98.44% in Phase 3).
3. The variants with ‘thematic’ -o- are preferred over variants with -a- (87.91% vs. 12.07% respectively in Phase 3). The thematic -o- prevails in radio broadcasts (97,8%).
Our analysis supports the following claims:
a. Metalinguistic discourse is itself variable. Although prescriptivism aims at eliminating variation, it could also introduce or foster some variation, albeit in a highly compartmentalized manner.
b. The more “effective” prescriptions seem to be the ones that are compatible with an already established usage trend; but for this same reason these prescriptions could be considered to be “null”.

"Greek as a second/foreign language" (G2) is a recent discovery, following the resolution of the perennial Greek Language Question. The birthdate of this newly constituted field should be placed somewhere in the early 1980s, just when Greece started experiencing the first of successive waves of immigration. G2 followed the adoption in 1976 of an official language, Standard Modern Greek. Accordingly, G2 should be considered as a subsequent stage in a continuing process of standardization.

The presentation is divided roughly into two parts. In the first part, a comprehensive definition of language ideologies is provided and the semiotic properties of metalinguistic discourse are specified. Several preliminary distinctions are discussed, such as ideologies of language vs. ideologies in language and folk ideologies vs. ideologies of the professionals (Niedzielski & Preston 2000). Particular emphasis is placed on the representational properties of the theories about language ideologies (such as Dennis Preston’s Perceptual Dialect Maps and my Conceptual Maps).
Language ideologies are presented not only as mental entities but also as linguistic practices capable of affecting language change, especially through the process of re-standardization. In the second part of the presentation, a performative theory of ideology-driven change is proposed, based on the notion of corrective practices. It is argued that the study of corrective instructions (in usage guides, traditional grammars, etc.) is important for diagnosing a) the corrective repertories that compete or prevail within a particular community; b) the evolution of such repertories and concomitant developments in a standard; and c) the communication trajectories through which norms are propagated and diffused within a linguistic community.

H παρουσίαση της δεύτερης έκδοσης της Μορφολογίας της Αγγελικής Ράλλη εστιάζει: α) στις βελτιώσεις που επιφέρει η νέα αυτή αναθεωρημένη έκδοση, β) στη διπλή χρήση της Μορφολογίας ως
πανεπιστημιακού εγχειριδίου και ως πρωτότυπου συγγράμματος και γ) στη συμβολή της νέας αυτής έκδοσης στη γραμματική μελέτη της ελληνικής γλώσσας.

Οι eπαινeτικές παρουσιάσeις της Eπιτομής {Eπιτομή= Ι.Ν. Καζάζης & Τ.Α. Καραναστάσης, Eπιτομή του Λeξικού της Μeσαιωνικής Eλληνικής Δημώδους Γραμματeίας 1100-1669 του Eμμανουήλ Κριαρά, τόμος Α’ : α-κ. Κέντρο Eλληνικής Γλώσσας, Θeσσαλονίκη, 2001}, δημοσιeυμένeς ως τα τώρα στον ημeρήσιο κυρίως Τύπο, δημιουργούν σe πολλά σημeία την υποψία ότι συγχέουν, από ορισμένη άποψη, την eπιτομή μe το Λeξικό {Λeξικό= Eμμ. Κριαράς, Λeξικό της Μeσαιωνικής Eλληνικής Δημώδους Γραμματeίας 1100-1669, τόμοι Α’-ΙΔ’; α-παραθήκη. Θeσσαλονίκη, 1969-1997}. Οπωσδήποτe, οι έπαινοι για το Λeξικό δeν ισχύουν eξ ορισμού και μeταβατικά για την eπιτομή.  Θeματικές eπικeφαλίδeς Λeξικά

Βιβλιοπαρουσίαση του: Γεράσιμος Βώκος: Η γραφομηχανή: Εισαγωγή στις Σκέψεις του Πασκάλ. ΑΘήνα, εκδ. Νήσος, 1997 [δημοσιεύτηκε με τίτλο «Εισαγωγή στις «Σκέψεις» του Πασκάλ-Ένα δοκίμιο του Γεράσιμου Βώκου, καθηγητή της Ιστορίας της Φιλοσοφίας, για τον Γάλλο φιλόσοφο»], Η Καθημερινή 28/4/1998, σ. 10

Review of:
a) Ted Chiang, «Story of your life», in: Stories of Your Life and Others. Small Beer Press,  Easthampton, MA 2010, 1st ed.: Tor Books, NY 2002.
b) Arrival (2016), director: Denis Villeneuve, script: Eric Heisserer, star: Amy Adams (Louise Banks), Jeremy Renner (Gary Donnelly)

Fashions of speaking. The semantics of perceptual expressions in Modern Greek
(PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1994, available at https://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/3345)

Σκοπός της διδακτορικής διατριβής είναι να διερευνήσει τις περιγραφικές δυνατότητες μιας μεταγλωσσικής κατηγορίας που, ακολουθώντας τον B. L. Whorf, ονόμασα «τρόπο του λέγειν» ή, τεχνικότερα, «λεκτικό τρόπο». Ένας λεκτικός τρόπος αποτελείται από α) ένα φραστικό σχήμα, το οποίο χαρακτηρίζεται από μια β) σχετικά αυτόνομη εννοιολογία, γ) έχει ξεχωριστά λογικά χαρακτηριστικά, τουλάχιστον με την έννοια ότι συνάπτει ιδιαίτερες λογικές σχέσεις με άλλα φραστικά σχήματα και δ) εντάσσεται σε μια σχέση διαλεκτική. Η γραμμική οργάνωση της διατριβής αντιστοιχεί στα συστατικά που με τη σειρά απαρτίζουν έναν λεκτικό τρόπο. Η Εισαγωγή ξεκινά με τα φραστικά σχήματα και παρουσιάζει λεκτικές διακρίσεις που μπορούν άμεσα να καταδειχθούν μέσω παραδειγμάτων. Στο πρώτο κεφάλαιο παρουσιάζεται η εννοιολογική ανάλυση αυτών των σχημάτων και στο δεύτερο, οι λογικές τους σχέσεις. Ο Eπίλογος συστηματοποιεί τα ξεχωριστά στοιχεία που απαρτίζουν έναν «τρόπο του λέγειν» και παρουσιάζει τη διαλεκτική αρχή που συνδυάζει τα στοιχεία αυτά σε μια ενιαία μεταγλωσσική κατηγορία.

Η μεταγλωσσική αυτή κατηγορία προκύπτει από την ανάλυση των αισθητικών εκφράσεων, δηλ. των εκφράσεων που δηλώνουν «αίσθηση» ή «αντίληψη» κάποιου πράγματος ή γεγονότος (αναφέρονται επίσης ως «αισθήσεως σημαντικές» εκφράσεις), δηλ. κυρίως ρημάτων όπως τα βλέπω, ακούω, μυρίζω κλπ. Παρά τη φαινομενικά χαοτική ποικιλία των γλωσσικών χρήσεων, καταδεικνύεται ότι υπάρχουν διαφορετικοί, πλην όμως συγκρίσιμοι, λεκτικοί τρόποι με τους οποίους γίνεται λόγος για τα διάφορα φαινόμενα της αισθητηριακής πρόσληψης ή για τις αντιληπτικές «ιδιότητες» των πραγμάτων και των περιστάσεων. Για να κατανοήσουμε τους τρόπους αυτούς πρέπει να λάβουμε υπόψη μας ταυτόχρονα τα λεξιλογικά, συντακτικά, σημασιολογικά και πραγματολογικά στοιχεία της χρήσης τους. Όλα αυτά τα στοιχεία ενοποιούνται στο πλαίσιο μιας κοινής εννοιολογίας, που μας επιτρέπει να επεξεργαστούμε φιλοσοφικά τα πορίσματα της γλωσσολογικής ανάλυσης.