The sociolinguistic situation in the Greek Cypriot speech community arguably still meets the criteria for Fergusonian diglossia, despite ongoing processes of leveling of local subvarieties and the emergence of a pancypriot koine with numerous standard-like structural features (Tsiplakou et al., 2016). The exploration of structural mixing within the Cypriot Greek koine (Tsiplakou, 2014a,b) points to “arrested” convergence to Standard Greek, the H variety in Cyprus’s diglossic context. Alternatively put, in terms of acquisition of a second, related variety, it seems that the dialect speaker is not fully bilectal (Grohmann and Leivada, 2012; Rowe and Grohmann, 2013).

The purpose of this article is to explore what this assumption means for bilectal grammar(s) by looking at syntactic focusing, which is structurally different in the two varieties of Greek in question: clefting is the Cypriot syntactic focusing strategy par excellence; in wh- questions (with the exception of those introduced by íⁿda “what”) the clefting strategy is optional and arguably conditioned by D-linking (Grohmann et al., 2006; Tsiplakou et al., 2007; Fotiou, 2009; Grohmann, 2009). Interestingly, clefting surfaces consistently in Cypriot speakers’ standard-like or acrolectal production, although genuine clefting is unavailable in Standard Greek, with the added wrinkle that in such production the copula inflects for tense and agreement, unlike in the bona fide Cypriot cleft, while the Standard Greek syntactic strategy for focusing, focus movement, is largely unattested in the acrolectal production of bilectal speakers (Tsiplakou, 2014a). Such “residual clefting” data arguably invite an approach whereby an aspect of the syntax of the target variety which relates to the syntax–discourse interface has strong effects on syntactic acquisition (Sorace, 2011; Tsiplakou, 2014a).

Unlike other geographical Greek varieties, which have been leveled out or are undergoing sweeping processes of leveling (Contosopoulos, 1969), and despite the fact that diglossia between Cypriot and Standard Greek is still going strong (Papapavlou, 1998; Arvaniti, 2010; Hadjioannou et al., 2011; Tsiplakou, 2011; Rowe and Grohmann, 2013), Cypriot Greek is a variety that still by-and-large resists full dedialectalization (Tsiplakou, 2011, 2014a,b; Rowe and Grohmann, 2013).¹ As has been argued in previous work, dense contact between Standard and Cypriot Greek as well as a host of historical, socio-political, economic, and demographic factors have spurred on currently ongoing processes of leveling of local varieties and the emergence of a pancypriot koine (Terkourafi, 2005; Tsiplakou, 2006, 2009a,b; Tsiplakou et al., 2006, 2016; Tsiplakou and Kontogiorgi, 2016), which now stands in a diglossic relationship to Standard Modern Greek. The koine acts as a robust buffer against dedialectalization in virtue of the fact that it is (perceived as) a hybrid system, displaying strong structural influences from Standard Modern Greek; such standard-like structural aspects allow for what Rowe and Grohmann (2013) have aptly termed (co-)overt prestige to accrue to the koine, due to is perceived, if not actual, convergence with the standard variety (Tsiplakou, 2011, 2014b).

Such structural quasi-convergence with Standard Greek results in hybrid structural patterns akin to code mixing, which are however pragmatically/discursively difficult to interpret as code mixing since they seem to serve no obvious discourse purpose, suggesting instead that some kind of grammatical convergence is at work.² In previous work I have suggested that such structural hybridity ultimately “does not allow the two systems to merge fully, as convergence qua structural mixing is mostly achieved through (surface) morphological, as well as lexical, choices, while Cypriot phonology and syntax remain largely intact” (Tsiplakou, 2014b: 164). The argument was based on the availability in acrolectal/standard-like registers of the koine of structures where surface lexical or morphological exponents from Standard Greek are inserted in structures which are otherwise bona fide Cypriot (or common to both varieties), giving the data its hybrid, quasi-standard flavor, as in (1), where the accusative plural of the feminine determiner appears in the same utterance in both its Standard Greek and its Cypriot form (tis and tes, respectively)³:

In (1) above, the underlying syntactic structure and the morphosyntactic features of the determiner are identical in both varieties; of much greater interest are cases of hybrid production where the syntactic properties of the two varieties differ. Syntactic focusing is a very interesting case in point, not least because, together with clitic placement, it is one of the two core syntactic areas distinguishing the two varieties in question.

Cypriot Greek has focus clefts (Grohmann et al., 2006; Tsiplakou et al., 2007; Grohmann, 2009) whereas in Standard Greek syntactic focusing involves movement of the focused element to a position in the left periphery (a syntactic Focus Phrase above TP) and verb raising (Tsimpli, 1995, 1998):

Cypriot Greek presents an added wrinkle: there is a Cypriot-specific clefting strategy (of the est-ce que type) available in wh- questions; it is obligatory in wh- questions introduced by íⁿda “what” when íⁿda is an argument and it is optional when íⁿda is adverbial. In the case of all other wh- expressions, the clefting strategy is optional and arguably associated with a D-linked interpretation for the wh- expression that is “doubled” by en pu “is that” (the Cypriot equivalent of est-ce que, m bu below being its phonetically reduced form; see Grohmann et al., 2006; Tsiplakou et al., 2007; Grohmann, 2009; Kanikli, 2011):

By contrast, Standard Greek exhibits only wh- movement, the feature [wh] inducing verb raising to C:

In previous work (Tsiplakou, 2009a,b, 2014a,b), data from spontaneous speech production in Cypriot Greek were discussed in which Cypriot focus and wh- clefts display some rather unexpected surface properties: there are instances of focus clefts with the Standard Greek third person copula íne, rather than the Cypriot en [a form which looks like the third person singular or plural form of the copula but which in fact lacks tense or agreement features, as has been argued in Grohmann et al. (2006) and Tsiplakou et al. (2007); see Merchant and Pavlou (2017) for further extensive discussion]:

There are also some occurrences of focus clefts cum focus movement to the left of the “copula” (see also Gryllia and Lekakou, 2007; Fotiou, 2009; Papadopoulou et al., 2014):

The standard-like form of the “copula” may furthermore inflect for tense, although, at least in the data from spontaneous production, there are no instances of the copula inflecting for agreement; the Cypriot-specific est-ce que type strategy may also occur in wh- questions with the standard form of the copula (also inflecting for tense but arguably not for agreement):

Of particular interest for this discussion is the fact that clefts also show up in written production by Cypriot Greek speakers, in texts otherwise written in Standard Greek, e.g., in the newspaper articles in (11) and (12) below⁴:

In earlier work, it was suggested that “such cases may be treated as arising as a result of an extension of a grammatical structure of the base variety in an attempt to fit the ‘perceived’ structural properties of the target variety” as “the structural properties of the target variety may not be fully recoverable” (Tsiplakou, 2014b: 175; cf. Tsiplakou, 2014a), an issue which will be taken up in detail in this article.

Overall, participants accept clefting as a focusing strategy in Standard Greek at 53%. A binomial test indicated that the observed acceptance rate of clefts (53%) was significantly different from the 50% chance level, p = 0.017 (two-sided).¹²

A logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effects of gender, age group, education, area of origin and the urban-rural distinction on the likelihood that participants accept cleft structures in otherwise Standard Greek sentences (see Table 1). The logistic regression model was statistically significant, χ²(23) = 217.096, p < 0.0005. The model explained 16.4% (Nagelkerke R²) of the variance in cleft acceptability and correctly classified 62.8% of cases.

As can be seen from Figure 1, males accepted clefts were 2.491 times that of females, b = 0.913, Wald χ²(1) = 9.144, p = 0.002. Males (M = 57%) accepted clefts at higher rates compared with females (M = 51%).

The odds of older subjects (≥40) accepting clefts was 13.969 times that of younger subjects (<40), b = 0.913, W b = 2.637, Wald χ²(1) = 9.023, p = 0.003. As can be seen from Figure 2, older subjects (M = 56%) accepted clefts at higher rates compared with younger subjects (M = 51%).

Quite interestingly, there was no statistically significant difference between subjects of tertiary and secondary education (Figure 3).

Also quite interestingly, there was no statistically significant difference between subjects of urban and rural origin (Figure 4).¹³

The data were further analyzed on the basis of cleft type. Results were as follows (Figure 5):

On the basis of these findings, it appears that the acceptability of focus clefts in Standard Greek, our participants’ second variety, an effect which I termed “residual clefting” in the beginning of this article, is still quite prevalent, as is evidenced by the fact that participants performed significantly above chance.¹⁴

A closer look at the quantitative data reveals some interesting details as regards the distribution of variation in acquisition: women and the younger age group accept focus clefts in Standard Greek less than do men and the older age group, the differences between groups being statistically significant. In other words, women and younger speakers display higher rates of convergence toward the standard than do men and the older age group.

As regards variation in acquisition depending on the type of cleft, what is rather striking is the difference in acceptability between clefted first and second vs third person subjects (50 and 68%, respectively). A possible explanation may be that participants accept to a lesser extent structures in which there is person mismatch between the “copula,” which superficially looks like a morphological third person form, and the subject, which may in turn be taken to suggest some kind of reshuffling in the grammar, in the sense that the preference for third person clefted subjects may indicate that the “copula” is treated as having agreement features (cf. the Standard Greek data in text footnote 9).

On the whole, the imperfect acquisition of the Standard Greek focusing strategy evidenced by the data and the concomitant transfer of Cypriot Greek clefting into the target variety may at first blush appear to be puzzling. In a sense, focus raising is a “simpler” strategy than clefting, which involves a more complex biclausal structure (Grohmann et al., 2006; Tsiplakou et al., 2007). Moreover, it may be reasonably assumed that the acquisition of focus movement is not underdetermined by input, as structures with syntactic focusing are quite run-of-the-mill in the standard variety. The perseverance of clefting in standard-like production is probably less hard to account for: excluding clefting would involve focusing on negative evidence (White, 1987), i.e., somehow deducing the absence of this structure in the target variety.¹⁵ What needs to be accounted for independently is the acquisition deficit as regards the Standard Greek syntactic focusing strategy.

As stated in the introductory section, the problematic acquisition of syntactic focusing, as evidenced by the “residual clefting” data in the target variety, invites an approach in terms of the Interface Hypothesis, according to which adult second language acquisition of phenomena which only pertain to a particular module of grammar, e.g., syntax only, is ultimately fully achieved at end state, whereas acquisition of phenomena which pertain to an interface (e.g., syntax–semantics, syntax–pragmatics/syntax–discourse) is extremely hard to achieve and is almost never perfect. It is tempting to suggest that this is what underpins the imperfect acquisition of syntactic focusing in Standard Greek by Cypriot Greek speakers, as evidenced by the questionnaire data, as it would seem that an aspect of the syntax of the target variety which relates to the syntax–discourse interface has strong effects on syntactic acquisition (Montrul, 2011; Sorace, 2011; White, 2011; Tsiplakou, 2014a).

Relevant research in SLA has shown that, as regards formal grammatical properties and operations in the narrow syntax, near-native competence can be reached despite the fact that these are often underdetermined by input (Tsimpli et al., 2004; Lozano, 2006, 2008, 2016; Sorace and Filiaci, 2006; Tsimpli and Sorace, 2006; Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou, 2007; Tsimpli and Mastropavlou, 2007; Sorace and Serratrice, 2009).¹⁶ By contrast, syntactic focus movement involves operations not only in the narrow syntax but, crucially, at the syntax–discourse interface: in Greek syntactic focus movement involves an (interpretable) [+f] feature associated with an F⁰ in an FP which is lower than C but higher than I; the syntactic reflexes of [+f] include changes in the word order, raising of the focused constituent to FP and concomitant I-to-F raising, which accounts for the fact that syntactically focused constituents occur in the immediately preverbal position (Tsimpli, 1995, 1998). Crucially, these operations need to be mapped on to the relevant information/discourse structures, which in turn involve notions such as old vs new, presentational vs contrastive focus (Kiss, 1998). A further complication is that in Standard Greek focused constituents in situ may be interpreted either as presentational or contrastive foci, while moved focused constituents are interpreted as contrastive foci. The acquisition of the relevant structural configurations thus involves aspects of the syntax–discourse interface and is therefore predicted to be complex, underdetermined by input, and perfect attainment is predicted to be hard to reach (Tsimpli and Sorace, 2006; Sorace, 2011). Standard Greek syntactic focus structures indeed appear to be a problematic case for acquisition, as evidenced by the persistence of transfer of focus clefts in otherwise standard(-like) production by speakers of Cypriot Greek and the level of non-native competence suggested by the data presented in this article.

In previous work it was argued that the grammatical systems of Standard and Cypriot Greek are far from converging, and this despite leveling of local subvarieties and the emergence of a pancypriot koine which displays grammatical hybridity; in this article the suggestion was taken up that grammatical hybridity is achieved through standard-like morphological choices while the syntax of the base variety remains intact and this suggestion was explored further by examining syntactic focusing in acrolectal, standard-like production. It was shown that speakers do not achieve native-like attainment as regards Standard Greek focus movement at end state, as evidenced by the prevalence of Cypriot clefts in acrolectal, standard-like production and related acceptability judgments. An attempt was made to show that imperfect acquisition of this core area of Greek syntax may be captured by the Interface Hypothesis and the difficulties for acquisition posed by phenomena at the syntax–discourse interface. Exploring and accounting for different levels of attainment in a second, related variety along such theoretical lines in turn yields a richer understanding of gradient bilectalism.

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the “Cyprus National Bioethics Committee” with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.