2. Cf. Mackridge, P.A., ‘Greek as She is Spoke’, Aegean Review 1 (1986) 6–7.Google Scholar

3. See their collection 1 (Athens 1984) which also contains articles of discussion.

4. See 2 (1986).

5. This was published twice, first in February, and again in November 1985 with a further twenty names added to the original twenty eight signatories; see (14.11.1985).

6. Cf. a (hardly scientific) survey conducted by the weekly magazine (27.6.1985) on the vocabulary of 214 examination candidates.

7. After the 1976 reforms, the Gimnasio consisted of three forms for pupils from twelve to fifteen years.

8. Examples include the President of the Panhellenic Union of Philologists (an association of teachers of arts subjects) Costas Balaskas in the newspaper (24.11.1986). The linguistics department of the University of Salonica sent a statement of its views to the Minister of Education in March 1987 which it subsequently published in 47 (1987) 11–13. A number of distinguished academics, including loannis Kakridis signed an open letter to the Prime Minister; see (31.5.1987).

9. Although the speech was widely reported, there is some controversy as to exactly what the Minister said. For the text of subsequent official statements from the Ministry and the Panhellenic Union of Philologists, see the latter’s official journal 19 (1987).

10. For example, in his speech to the 150th Anniversary meeting of the Archaeological Society; see (27.2.1987).

11. This decision was widely reported in the press, with much favourable comment, although contrast 9.7.1987. See especially (9, 10, 11.7.1987) which had invited contributions to a ‘dialogue’ on the subject and published a related article almost every day.

12. See the pro-Government newspaper (11.7.1987), which reported that Tristis’s proposals had surprised senior members of PA.SO.K. and that a special meeting of the party’s Executive Bureau was to discuss the matter. This was officially denied.

13. Petrounias, E. (Salonica 1984)Google Scholar distinguishes between and . The latter have rejected K but resist the natural progress of D, because their own D is heavily influenced by K. This assumes that ‘D’ exists in a far more standardised form than is the reality (cf. below).

14. Kalioris (cf. Kalioris, Y., [Athens 1986])Google Scholar claims to be a socialist and Papa (cf. Papa, E., (Athens 1984))Google Scholar is a communist.

15. The classic study by Ferguson ( Ferguson, C.A., ‘Diglossia’, Word 15 (1959) 325–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar) follows the judgements of speakers too sympathetically and is consequently liable to the first misunderstanding. Fishman, J.A., ‘Bilingualism With and Without Diglossia: Diglossia With and Without Bilingualism’, Journal of Social Issues 23, 2 (1967) 29–38 Google Scholar, and Fasold, R.W., The Sociolinguistics of Society (Oxford 1984) 34–60 Google Scholar are concerned to enunciate theories of maximum generality, and arguably err in the opposite direction.

16. A ‘speech community’ can be defined as ‘any human aggregate characterised by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body of verbal signs and set off from similar aggregates by significant differences in language use’ ( Gumperz, J.J., ‘The Speech Community’, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (London 1968) 381)Google Scholar. There is no difficulty in identifying the relevant Greek speech community.

17. According to a widely-accepted definition ( Haugen, E., Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case of Modem Norwegian [Cambridge, Mass. 1966] 24–26)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, a ‘standard language’ must have been selected deliberately, codified formally, accepted by the community and elaborated sufficiently to cover all necessary functions. In 1976, no variety of Greek could be said to have fulfilled all these conditions.

18. Giles, H. and Trudgill, P., ‘Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Value Judgements: Correctness, Adequacy and Aesthetics’, inTrudgill, P. (ed.), On Dialect (Oxford 1983) 201–255.Google Scholar

19. Cf. Newmeyer, F.J., The Politics of Linguistics (Chicago 1986) 101–102.Google Scholar

20. See Babiniotis, G., (25.1.1987).Google Scholar

21. See Sotiropoulos, D., ‘Diglossia and the National Language Question in Modem Greece’, Linguistics 197 (1977) 5–31 Google Scholar. Cf. also Tombaidis, D., 4 (1986) 71–73 Google Scholar, although this view that the norm should be that of common, rather than educated, usage is based on theoretical principles. Elsewhere, in D. Tombaidis, (20.6.1987), he rejects the view that Greek is especially unique.

22. See E. Kriaras, (8.8.1978).

23. At the symposium in January 1985 organised by the Communist Party of the Interior. He was strongly criticised by the academic Maronitis ( 20.1.1985); see also Savvopoulos, D., 44 (1985) 423 Google Scholar, and a reply by Foris ( Foris, V.D., 47 (1985) 728–736)Google Scholar. Savvopoulos is certainly a popular personality and academics consider it necessary to refute his arguments.

24. The minutes were published by the Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs as (Athens 1976). See also Chatzistephanidis, Th. D., (Athens 1986) 117–127 Google Scholar and Pantelis, S.N. The Language Controversy in Greek Education (Urf-published Ph.D. thesis, Dundee 1978) 88–90.Google Scholar

25. See the et sqq. (Athens 1976).

26. There were other committees with greater or lesser degrees of authority, apparently established for political reasons; cf. Kazamias, A.M., ‘The Politics of Educational Reform in Greece; Law 309/1976’, Comparative Educational Review 22 (1978) 21–45.Google Scholar

27. The ministerial system is similar to the French cabinet. The Secretary-General is both a full-time public servant and a political appointee.

28. This (erroneous) name (cf. Foris, V.D., KEME [Athens 1976] 301–310)Google Scholar reveals the extent to which Greeks rely on the State to determine the correct form of the language.

29. It was taken over in the spring of 1987.

30. The editorials consistently use a ‘higher’ language, and special (named) contributors and writers of feuilletons are permitted their own style. In many of these remain linguistically conservative.

31. Contrast this use of ‘unitary language’ with the conservatives’ use of the term to refer to the diachronic continuity from Homer to modern times (cf. op.cit. [1984]).

32. By Tritsis and by the author Tachtsis 19.6.1987) among others. Similar arguments are common in Britain and the United States.

33. Cf. an observation made by the theologian-philosopher Christos Yannaras on the Cypriot television programme in 1985:

If by ‘demoticist’ is meant a campaigner for D, since purists claim that K is justified through its relationship to Ancient Greek, the demoticist must understand enough of Ancient Greek to be able to present his argument convincingly. It is not however necessary to conclude from this that all Greeks need to know Ancient Greek.

34. There are still a few sources writing in K, notably the newspaper It is relevant that the language of the Times is apparently beyond the abilities of many functionally literate speakers of British English; see Cutts, M. and Maher, C., Writing Plain English (Stockport 1984) 8–9.Google Scholar

35. See Baugh, A.C. and Cable, T., A History ofthe English Language, third edition (London 1978) 195–196.Google Scholar

36. Triandaphyllidis, M., revised edition (Salonica 1978) Kβ’.Google Scholar

37. For example, by Dormbarakis, P. Ch., (Athens 1979) 9.Google Scholar

38. ФE.K. 100 a’(30.4.1976).

39. For example in Tzartzanos’s (Athens 1930).

40. Published by the Ministry of the Presidency of the Government (1977).

41. See Browning, R., ‘Greek Diglossia Yesterday and Today’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 35 (1982) 66–67 Google Scholar and Mackridge, P.A., The Modern Greek Language (Oxford 1985) 150.Google Scholar

42. Cf. Babiniotis, G.N., (Athens 1979) 115–130 Google Scholar, also Babiniotis, G.N., 1 (1982) 119–127 Google Scholar. and Kriaras, E., (Athens 1979) 205–208.Google Scholar

43. See Landsman, D.M., Attitudes to Greek Diglossia Since 1976 (Unpublished M.Phil dissertation, [Cambridge 1986]) 41–46.Google Scholar

44. Pace Browning, R., Medieval and Modem Greek (Cambridge 1983) 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45. Although speakers seem to treat as the least acceptable ‘extreme’ month forms; see Kriaras, E., (Salonica 1987) 99–100.Google Scholar

46. He uses both forms for the names of the months, together with a mixture of third declensions forms such as .

47. For example, by Pantelis, op.cit. 118 et passim.

48. Triandaphyllidis, op.cit. §449.

49. The position of the communists is much more complex than it was before 1974, especially on the teaching of Ancient Greek, where Marx’s classical background causes ideological problems; see F.K. Voros, (1.2.87).

50. This is called by sociolinguists ‘metaphorical’ code-switching; see Blom, J-P. and Gumperz, J.J., ‘Social Meaning in Linguistic Structure: Code-Switching in Norway’, Language in Social Groups ed. Gumperz, J. (Stanford 1971) 274–310 Google Scholar. In the popular conservative newspaper (22.6.1987), an article about a young child refers to him as .

51. See Ross, A.S.C., ‘U and Non-U’, Noblesse Oblige, edd. Mitford, N. et al. (London 1956) 11–36.Google Scholar

52. Cf Landsman, D.M., ‘The Role of Prescriptivism in the Development of a Greek Official Language Since 1976’, Proceedings of the First Symposium on English and Greek, University of Salonica (1987) 144–310.Google Scholar

53. Cf. Kargakos, S.I., (Athens 1985).Google Scholar

54. Some might compare the French evacuation of Algeria or the more recent Anglo-Irish agreement.

55. These were first published in August and September 1986 and reprinted as Rallis, G. N., 1976 (Athens 1986).Google Scholar

56. See Kordatos, I., (Athens 1943) 242–243.Google Scholar

57. Cf. Mackridge, op.cit. (1985) 40–41.

58. See Presidential Decree 297/1982 (Ф.E.K. 52α’: 29.4.1982).

59. The historical argument is not always articulated, as for example in (10.4.1976), where it is claimed that accentual diacritics were primarily introduced to help foreigners to learn contemporary Greek.

60. In this system, a single mark is used in place of each diacritic; a mark appears for each of the two breathings so that the distinction between them is neutralised.

61. See Engberg, S., ‘Why Accents in Modern Greek’, Scandinavian Studies in Modem Greek 1 (1977) 32–35.Google Scholar

62. Linguists are also uncertain: see Stubbs, M., Language and Literacy: The Socio-linguistics of Reading and Writing (London 1980).Google Scholar

63. This fear seems real to many participants in the current debate. It is noteworthy that when Lampidis collects arguments in favour of radical orthographic reform, the ‘intellectual arguments all date from previous generations. The initiative now comes from outside, especially the European Community and united opposition within Greece is easier to achieve; see Lampidis, Ch., (Athens 1986) 461–476.Google Scholar

64. See the complaints of Kargakos, op.cit. and Kalioris op.cit.