1204 έως σήμερα - eens.org · Δʹ Ευρωπαϊκό Συνέδριο...

, 9-12 2010

( 1204 )

: .

2011

( 1204 )Identities in the Greek world (from 1204 to the present day)

E-mail: [email protected]

ISBN (vol.) 978-960-99699-5-6ISBN (set) 978-960-99699-0-1

: ([email protected])

Copyright 2011: ()European Society of Modern Greek Studieswww.eens.org

, 9-12 2010

( 1204 )

: .

2011

4th European Congress of Modern Greek StudiesGranada, 9-12 September 2010

P r o c e e d i n g s

Identities in the Greek world(from 1204 to the present day)

Vol. 3

Edited by Konstantinos A. Dimadis

European Society of Modern Greek StudiesAthens 2011

()

, 9-12 2010

( 1204 )

,

,

Comit Cientfi co

/ Presidente y coordinador:Konstantinos A. Dimadis (Freie Universitt Berlin)

/ Miembros: ( )Asterios Argyriou (Universit de Strasbourg)Vangelis Calotychos (Columbia University)Philip Carabott (Kings College London)Lia Brad Chisacof (Academiei Romne)Isabel Garca Glvez (Universidad de La Laguna, Canarias). . ( )David Holton (University of Cambridge) -Ferrari ( ) . ( ) . ( )Olga Omatos Senz (Universidad del Pas Vasco) (Walter Puchner) ( )- ( )Henri Tonnet (Universit de Paris IV-Sorbonne)Dimitris Tziovas (University of Birmingham)

Comit Organizador

/ Presidente:Moschos Morfakidis Filactos (Universidad de Granada)

/ Coordinador:Konstantinos A. Dimadis (Freie Universitt Berlin)

/ Miembros: Javier Alonso Aldama (Universidad del Pas Vasco)Jos Antonio Costa Ideias (Universidad Nova de Lisboa)Isabel Garca Glvez (Universidad de La Laguna, Canarias)Ernest Marcos Hierro (Universidad de Barcelona)Antonio Melero Vellido (Universidad de Valencia)Alicia Morales Ortiz (Universidad de Murcia)Encarnacin Motos Guirao (Universidad de Granada)Penlope Stavrianopulu (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)

/ Secretaria Tcnica

, Centro de Estudios Bizantinos, Neogriegos y Chipriotas de Granada

Maria Salud Baldrich LpezIsabel Cabrera RamosParaskev GatsiofaPanagiota Papadopoulou

(2006-2010)

Konstantinos A. Dimadis, Lucia Marcheselli,

Maria A. Stassinopoulou, Ann Chikovani,

Isabel Garca Glvez,

Marjolijne C. Janssen ()Ekkehard Wolfgang Borntrger,

Lia Brad Chisacof,

(2010 )

Konstantinos A. Dimadis, ()Marjolijne C. Janssen, ()

Javier Alonso Aldama, ()Ann Chikovani, ()Tudor Dinu, ()

:Stphane Sawas,

Anna Maria Zimbone,

, ,

(), ,

,

, ().

www.eens.org

( ):

, ,

/

/ (12-19 .) / (19-20 .)

20 . / 21 .

(. . ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, ,

, . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eloeva, Fatima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, (Mihaylova, Zdravka). : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mouatsou, Eleni. Grammatical Gender in the poetry of Kiki Dimoula . . . . .

Charalambidou, Anna. Negotiating peer-group identities in the later life: the case of Painful Self Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . & , . : 17 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . .

, & , . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Henrich, Gnther S. ( 15 .) ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, (Puchner, Walter). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fedchenko, Valentina. -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jovanovi, Milena. Jean Psichari et Ferdinand de Saussure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . , : -

/- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

27

43

5365

83

99

119

139

159

171179

197

Bdenas, Pedro. La lengua judeogriega y el Pentateuco de Constantinopla (1547) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kisilier, Maxim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .

( ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . ,

: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, , , . : - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . ( ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Berikashvili, Svetlana.

, - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, (Klimova, Ksenia). - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Loudov, Kateina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Diatsentos, Petros. Lhistoire de la langue grecque au carrefour des

diff rentes disciplines: enjeux identitaires et cristallisation des mythologies linguistiques (1850-1900) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tsamadou-Jacoberger, Irini & Vassilaki, Sophie. La construction de lidentit du grec moderne vue par Manolis Triandaphyllidis . . . . . . . .

/ / (12-19 .)

Dinu, Tudor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Djordjevi Jovanovi, Jovanka. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frangakis, Penelope. Th e use of history by Greek intellectuals in the formation of Greek national identity during the Greek Enlightenment

Malatras, Christos. Th e making of an ethnic group: the Romaioi in the 12th-13th centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

213227

237

255

273

289

307

327

333

345

359

371

385

407

419

, . Grecian sculptrs, Greek Emperors, Greek sailors: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Morcillo, Matilde. Las relaciones anglo-griegas vistas desde la ptica espaola. Del establecimiento inicial a las guerras balcnicas (1833-1913) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Myrogiannis, Stratos. Naming the Void: the Invention of Byzantium in the Greek Enlightenment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ipu, Mihai. . (, 1806) . . . / (19-20 .)

Beaton, Roderick. Shelley Byron 1821 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . (1805-1834) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . : - (1904) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Skoulidas, Elias G. Identities, Locality and Otherness in Epirus during the Late Ottoman period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 ., . : -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Leech, Jason. Greek perceptions of the good Italian and bad German

from invasion (1940) to the London Agreement (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . / 21 .

Ivanova Kovtcheva, Diliana. La comunidad karakatchani en Bulgaria. Localizacin, identidad y costumbres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . . M. Balivet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . - 1821 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . & , . 19 : . . . . . . . .

431

445

457

471

479

489

497

523

539

555

567

581

593

609

629

Gerd, Lora.

(1878-1914) . . . . . . . . . . . ., . ,

: , . . . Papanikolaou, Antigoni N. (, ). Th e Latin Church

and the Greek Orthodox Church in Corfu during the fi rst decades of the Angevin rule and the creation of a Greek Orthodox consciousness

, . (17-18 .) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . : - 1874-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

647

665

675

687

697

711

9 12 2010 - (), ( 1204 ). , Miguel Gmez Oliver, , Mara Helena Martn Vivaldi, , -, , , , -.

, : T 2009 461 . , 16 348 . 332 -. 8 .

, . 8, - . , , 8 81 , - -, .1

,

1 - / .

2008 , - , ..., , , , , , , , . , .

- , , . , , , - -, , ( -, 12 2010). - .

, , : ( , 1-4 1998)

( 7 ): (1453-1981).

151 . 188 , ...,

, . 2 1.454

(: 1999). (- , 10-12 2002)

( 10 ): .

18 . .

135 . 145 , ...,

, . 2 1.522

(: 2004). (- , 2-4 2006)

( 19 ): .

194 . 237 , ...,

, , . 2006 -

.

3 2.048 (: 2007).

, - , - , .

, ( , 1998), 2010 - ( - ) ( 2010), , 16 . .

, 2011, - , ( 2006). ,

19

, - , , - . , , , .2

, ( , 9-12 2010) - (e-book). 3.660 . , . , -. , - . - . , .

, , , - , - , , , - .

, , , . -, - . -, , (

2 2011 10.000 . 50.000 .

20 . .

) : , (), -, - , .

, , . , , , , , Maria Salud Baldrich Lpez, Isabel Cabrera Ramos , () , - . , - Olga Omatos Senz ( ), , - .

, , - ( , , ), - , , . , - - , 16 . , .

, 103 , - . , , , ,

21

, . (), . ( ), Marjolijne Janssen ( ), 2002 , , .

, 12 2010 - , - , (), . . , , , - , .

, , , 15 1995 , . , , , - - - . , , , , , , , -. , - . , , - , , ( - . 550 , 2004,

22 . .

. , , , 2009, , 2011, : Re-imagining the Past: Antiquity and Modern Greek Culture).

, - (). 2011 - - , - , , . . , , .

, - : . , , , - , , , -, .

, 13 2011

, .

23

,

18 - , , .

1755-1765, 1710 1720. - (1694-1760), , - 1.

, 2. , , - - Antonio Bortoli, - Antonio Zatta. - --. , 1749 - 3, 1757 1

, 1647 1676 (. 1972: 237 239). ( 1893: 196) ( 1987: 104).

2 1960: 101.3

. . (

(, 9-12 . 2010): ( 1204 ) , (ISBN 978-960-99699-5-6) 2011 (www.eens.org)

, - . (1759) - 1 ( 2 1763), , -4. , , -, , , ( .: 1758, 1880).

1762 1764 (Revisore) 5. - Bortoli . 1765 di libri greci e illirici Zorzi Costantino - . , - 6.

1767-1769 , - -, - , 7. - , . , (1786 1801) , - , , , -

).4 1872: 214-215.5 1969: 64.6 1984: 255-257.7 1984: 262-264.

28

. - 18038. (1801, . ), - .

, , 16, 17 18 -, . : , , -, , , , ( ). - ( - ), -Corona Preciosa ( 1527, Legrand , - )9, ( ) (Lutetiae Parisiorum 1635), ( 1659), Th oma ( 1709), - Pedro Mercado ( 1732), - ( 1750), (1757), ( ) Bernardino Pianzola ( 1789) , , - ( 1790).

, . - :

, ,, , . , , , . , , , ,

8 1962: 401-402.9 Bibliographie Hellnique, . I, . 79, . 200.

29 , ...

10. . ,

, ,

, , , ,

. , 1757. .

:

1. , , , - 11, , 12, , , , (literale) -. .

2. : , (678) T, Y, , X, . . , - , 1795, . 4, . 226 , , .

3. O .

10 / , /, , 1730 1796 . , - , . , (1936: 388), - = , .

11 . 1980: 3.12 , , 20

, . . , .

30

(. 7-11) , , , , (, , (. 7), (. 8) (. 8-9) - : , , , (. 11), (. 8).

, , , . (. 9-10), - :

[...] - -, , , , , () - , . -, , , , , , . , , , , -

31 , ...

( -, ) - , , , , , . , -. , , . , . . , , - , - . , , . , , , , ; , () []. () , , , 170. , - , . Non vi sono oggid scuole, o universit di sorte alcuna - , . 172. . a se si esamini linterno di tutti questi Ecclesiastici, e lo stato deplora-bile delle anime ad essi affi date, si trova, che il capo e le membra immer-si sono e sepolti in una vergognosa ignoranza. , - , ( . ) . , 171. , , -, . . Si avverta che il Greco moderno diff erente assai dallantico, non solamente per le parole barbare, che vhanno tramesco-late; ma per la pronuncia eziandioDi pi la Lingua Greca nella sua vera

32

origine non solo sconosciuta aff atto alla plebe, ma tra le persone Ecclesi-astiche ancora pochissime ve ne sono, che si possano lusingare di saperla. , - . () , , , - . . . . . . - . . . . . . . , . . - . . . . - . . . - . . . . . . - . . . , , , , , , . , - , -, , , . - , , , , . , - , . . , .

:

33 , ...

1. , , : - , , , - , .

2. - , : .

, -, , .

. : , - , - , , 13, - , 14 , , ,

-, , : - , , , , , ;.

, . ,

13 1994: 76, .

14 , , 1572, . , Lexicon graecolatinum, 1602 (Cornelius Schrevelius), Lexicon manuale Graeco-latinum et Latino-Graecum, Cantabrigiae 1668, . 8 .

34

, .

- , ()15, . , 16, , -. - , , Patrick Gordon Geography anatomizd: or, the Geographical Grammar. Being a Short and Exact Analysis of the whole Body of Modern Geography, Aft er a New and Curious MethodCollected from the Best Authors, and illustrated with divers Maps, 1752 (. Andrea Poletti), 18 . , -, , 1759 - , - 17.

- , (). - . 36

15 - Grammatica geografi ca 1752, .

16 , - (1832: 554-555), 18 . . , ( , . 6, , . 7) . 16 . (1584: 205).

17 1760 (. Antonio Zatta). . 142-146 , , , . , , , , ( , , , /, , , , , ..).

35 , ...

:

1. 40 , , 18 ., . 18.

2. - , , , , , , , , , , (, , -, ). - 1757, , , , , , -, , . , , , - , .

( - 18 .), , ( ) . , , . , , . , , -, , -.

, . , , ,

18 1867: 200.

36

: - , (, ) , . - , -, . 19, , , 20. - 1 2 - ( . 1710), , - 21.

1 , , , , , , 22. - 2 , (=) 3 , , , -, , , , , .

(1714) . , . , - . 23, , -, , ( .

19 . 7 . - (1714: 42) , - .

20 1776 - : , ( 1984: 266 .).

21 1984: 105. Camariano-Cioran Ariadna, Les academies princires de Boucarest et de Jassy et leurs professeurs (. 176-8) , - (1648-1820) (. 71, 75, 82) ..

22 1984: 133-160.23 14-15 .,

( . -) .

37 , ...

) 24. . , , 25, 26 ..

, , , . - , 27. - , - 28. -, 172929.

. , 1749 . 30. , 31. 2 - ,

24 3-4 . ..25 2-3 . ..26 4-5 . .. 156 -

.27 1984: 147. (1570-1646), -

, .

28 (1641-1709), , , , secretarius moucharm-esrach, . , . - (3 .. .) . , 6 ., -. , 6 ., . , 4 ., .

29 1986: 195.30 1986: 201.31 (7 - 8 .), ,

- . (16 - 17 .), , -, .

38

, , , , .

, , , - , , -, , , 32, 33 ( , . 1681), 34, (, , 35, 36 ..).

: - , 37.

, - , .

18 . - ()38, . ,

32 , 18 . .

33 (2-3 . ..).34 (60-120 .)

.35 , .36 12 .. . .37 . 1936: . LXXXI,

, : , , , -, , , ..

38 (1980: 27) 1709 1774 ( - , - ).

39 , ...

, 39.

. , , , , , 40 - 18 . .. : 1786 , , : , 41.

, , 1984.

., (1566-1822), (1930), . 381-414.

, , - 1960.

, , 1893. Chassiotis G., Linstruction publique chez les Grecs depuis la prise de Constantinople

par les Turcs jusqua nos jours, Paris 1881.Crusius Martin, Turcograecia, 1584. .., , 1980. .., , 1987.

39 1527 1750 (. ) , (. ) (G. Germano, 1622) ( ).

40 . (1826: 25) .

41 1980: 385.

40

, Status praesens ecclesiae graecae, Altdorf 1714. , (

), 1936. , , 1872. ., , 1986. -Hering ,

, /2 (1984), . 253-264. ., ,

58 (1954), . 286-342. , , 1826. , , . 12, 1832. , ( -

), 11 (1962), . 397-404. ., ,

, , 1854.

, (1453 ..) () , 1867.

, , (1523-1974), 1994 ( ).

. ., - (1755-1824), 1969.

. ., (1603-1797), 9 (1972), . 236-247.

, . (1453-1821), 1868.

41 , ...

1

Fatima Eloeva

.2 - - -. , ( , , 3). . - .

( ) - ( ) -. - .4

1 Th is research was supported by the Russian Foundation of Humanities, Grant no. 10-04-00168.

2 19 2009. P. Mackridge . ( .)

3 . , , 1969. .

4 -

(, 9-12 . 2010): ( 1204 ) , (ISBN 978-960-99699-5-6) 2011 (www.eens.org)

- ( ) . - , , , . . . . ( ).5 , suspence. - . : , , !, , , .

. - . ( , ). .

Liberte Delacrois, , - . , - ( ) : ,

( ) . - thesaurus 15o .

5 .

44 Fatima Eloeva

, -, .

, .

, . , , , , !

: , .

. ,6

,7 prima, .

- 1817 1823 . - . . Peter Mackridge8 o - , - - - . , -6 , .

, . , . 95-96 (. ), .-. 2000, . 197-232.

7 . , - , / , , , -, 1999.

8 Peter Mackridge, : , , , , , 2008.

45

. , . 1865. - .9 .

- .10 .

, . , . - - . 11 ( ) . , . -. Mackridge ( ) - - . - . . , , . , . par excellence , , ,

9 1999, 215.10 Octave Merlier, Exposition du centenaire de Solomos ( 1957), . 54.11 ,

diglossia Ferguson, bilingualism.

46 Fatima Eloeva

, Peter Mackridge . Wilhelm Humboldt, Karl Vossler, Benedetto Croce, Eugenio Koseriou. (Humboldt), - (Koseriou).12 -, . Lyons - - Croce. Croce - . ( ) . o , , - - .

( ) .

- . . - 12 Eugenio Koseriou, Sincronia, diacronia e historia. El problem del cambio linguistic,

Montevideo, 1958.

47

. - .

- , , ( ), .

( ) : - , , . - combina-tion , , diction.

, , , - , , - .

19 - . - . . .

, , - . ( - ), . , - . . . - , , - .

48 Fatima Eloeva

, ( ), . , ( Undina ), . , .13

. - .

, , , . , .

-. , - : , . . . . , -. . -, . , , .

-. - . . , 13 S. verintsev, / -

18-19 a, . V. Trotski, 1988, . 251-275.

49

. , , .14

. - -. O ( , ) -. , - .

, . . , - . , - , .

: , . :

... , , .15

14 , : / . - ( ): , .

15

50 Fatima Eloeva

- .

. , , .

, Klopstock Fruelingsfeier ( , : : , , , 1989).

Aber du Fruelingwuermchen das gruenlichgolden neber mir spielsst , .

, Klopstock, .

51

: :

. , .

. . . , Burgas , . 1959 , - . (, , -, : , , -, , - .

, - , - , , , . , . , . , ( , .). - , -. - (, 9-12 . 2010): ( 1204 ) , (ISBN 978-960-99699-5-6) 2011 (www.eens.org)

, . 20 , - . . , - . - , . , , - .

1883 ( ), - , - , - .1 , , . , . ,2 .

, - ,3 . . 19 20 .

1 . , , . , 16 2007, . .

2 . , , . . , 1981, . 41.3 . .

, , , ! , . ! (. , , . , , 1981, . 48).

54

, . . . : . . , , , , . -, . , . ( -), ( ).4

: , -. , . , .5

- , . - : 1906 - , . - , - - . .6 . 20

4 . , , . , , 1981, , . 41.

5 .. 6 .., , . 33.

55 :

, - . - , - , - , .

19 . - - . , , -, , , , , , , 1906 - : .7

, , . , . . ..... - . .8

- , - . . , . . , , , , 1906.9

7 .., , . 27. 8 .., , . 101.9 ..

56

, : , , .10 1904. , , . ..... .11

. , , .12

- , . , . ! - : -, , ; -, ... . , !.13 , 20 .

, - ,14 , ,

10 ..11 .., , . 29.12 ..13 . , , . 56.14

. (, , ) (, ) . . , , . , . ( , . 61.)

57 :

. . 1897, . , , . , , , -, , , . - : - . ,15 . , - . - , , , - . .16 .... .17

, , 1903 : - - . , - . , . , , , .18 15 . , , . , , 1981, -

, . 62.16 .., , . 62.17 .., , . 105.18 .., , . 102.

58

1911 , , ( -. , ... . ).19 - . , - (, - , ), , .20

, 1909, , . , .21

, (1919) . , -, -. . , - . , - . -. , , - .22 . - , , , -

19 .., , . 109.20 . , , .., , . 111.21 . , , , 16 2007,

. , . 20.22 . , , . , 13 2004.

59 :

.23 , ( ) . , , . , , . , , . , . , : , , . , . - , -.24 , . , . . (-), . , , , , , - , . - , , . - ( , , , , , , , , , , , , ) - 5 . ..

23 . , , , 16 2007.24 H

K. . .

60

. . - , , - . , , . , - - . , , - , -, , , .25 , -: , , (...) . !.26 : 1919 1920 .

-. - , . : , , .

, , 1902, , . -25 . , , 08.11.1999, : A16586N281.26 ..

61 :

, , , - , , -. , . , , , -, , . , . - , ..., , - , , ...27 - . , , , -, .28 , , (2003), . (2007), o (2010) , ( , - ) , - , - , , -, , .

27 . , , 08.11.1999, : A16586N281, . 28.28 ..

62

1. Andrew Mellon.

2. , . , -, , . , , 2008.

3. , . , , 2003, . . . 4. , , . , ,

2007, ( ), . (1884-1974), .

5. , , . , , 2010.

6. H ( 187). . 7. Roderick Beaton, An introduction to Modern Greek Literature, Oxford Univer-

sity Press, Oxford, 1999. 8. . . . 9. , . , , 18 -

2010, 1883-1974 .

10. Th e New Griff on, 11, . , . .

63 :

Grammatical Gender in the poetry of Kiki Dimoula

Eleni Mouatsou

It has been noted that grammar appears to be of great signifi cance in the poems of contemporary Greek poet Kiki Dimoula. Comments by critics such as Vrassidas Karalis about her usage of grammar are indicative:

, - . - 1.

Apart from its formal role in the function of language, unseen but felt, as Karalis suggests, grammar seems to have a central position in Dimou-las poems and a semantic role. Th is is refl ected in some of her poems titles that borrow their themes from grammatical terminology, such as T , , , , and . In the poets work, the signifi cance of grammatical terminology becomes visible oft en off er-ing clues about the message of the poem and constituting grammar as inte-gral to semantic interpretation. In this paper I engage with one aspect of grammar that seems to not only determine the semantic interpretation of Dimoulas poetry, but also to lean towards social commentary: Th e use of grammatical gender.

What we mean by grammatical genderAs Greville Corbett announces in his linguistic study entitled Gender, grammatical gender is the most puzzling category in grammar, as it can shed light on the way in which linguistic information is stored in the brain;

1 Karalis 2002: 99.

(, 9-12 . 2010): ( 1204 ) , (ISBN 978-960-99699-5-6) 2011 (www.eens.org)

and second, it has implications for natural language processing2. Within the Indo-European languages, it refers to noun classes of syntactical signif-icance, describing the function of concord between nouns and their associ-ated words distinguished in masculine, feminine and oft en neuter classes3. In Greek, the three genders are distinguished lexically, either through defi -nite articles, or through suffi xes4.

Th e semantic signifi cance of grammatical formSome linguists choose to investigate the function of gender beyond its morpho-syntactic function5. Beyond the formal behaviour of grammati-cal gender, attention is drawn to how language itself means as a formal system6. It is thus determined that any message is only available through its form and only as a fi nished formal composition, so content and form cannot be separated7. According to Roman Jakobson, it is in the poetic text that the semantic load of grammatical appliances is felt, since poetry is the most formalised manifestation of language8. Jakobson suggests that the language of poetry is itself an act of linguistic creation, a poetry of language, where grammatical categories such as gender are utilized for parallelisms and contrasts. Being obligatory, the poet is forced to use them and her or his choices oft en direct the attention to ideas that the poems content might not carry9. Grammatical or antigrammatical, the patterns that might diverge from the standard of a given language are part of the personal poetic style; the poets idiolect.

How does grammatical gender mean?Linguists have argued that all gender systems are semantic as there is always a semantic core to the way nouns are assigned grammatical gender10. An obvious correlation is through the direct connection of grammatical and biological gender in pronominal forms and other associated words of animate nature. Feminist linguistics however, have pointed out that any

2 Corbett 1991: 1.3 See: Hockett 1958: 231, Corbett 1991: 1, and Schwarze 2003: 145. 4 It is argued that grammatical gender has contributed to the morphological development

of the nominal system in Modern Greek. In: Babiniotis & Clairis 2004: 70. 5 For a study on the morpho-syntactic diff erences between Greek as opposed to Slavic

languages. See Cosmas 1981: 550.6 Widdowson 1989: 51. 7 Babinioti 1984: 44.8 Jakobson 1981: 89.9 Jakobson, ibid. 10 Corbett 1991: 8, quoting Aksenov 1984: 17-18.

66 Eleni Mouatsou

grammatically gendered noun carries semantic connotations regarding concepts not simply of biological, but of social gender as well, as gram-matical gender carries socially constructed abstract notions of femininity and masculinity. Furthermore, what is proposed by, among others, theo-rists Luce Irigaray, Sara Mills, Deborah Cameron, Toshi Konishi, Brigitte Schwarze, Penelope Eckert and Sally Mc Connell-Ginet, is that gender in grammar has a semantic eff ect on consciousness and how people think about inanimate objects11. Th ey support that grammatical gender func-tions as a grouping mechanism of words according to connotative mean-ings of femininity and masculinity. It is suggested that the semantic signifi -cance of grammatical gender extends to the way words are linked together into groups that share a semantic basis. Because gender classes function through the concord of nouns and their associated words within syntactic structures, there is an eff ect of grammatical gender within the overall struc-ture of language usage12.

Th e eff ect grammatical gender has on abstract perceptions regarding femininity and masculinity can be observed in many examples of everyday language usage as well as in literature. An example from an answer given by Kiki Dimoula during an interview to David Connolly suggests that the poet depends on her listeners ability to recognise that there is an abstract contiguity between the grammatical category and the construction of social gender:

Of course theres such a thing as womens writing, just as theres such a thing as womens bodies, womens decay, womens defence, womens behaviour in general. See how a daisy, for example, leaves itself wide-open with such innocent extroversion, just waiting to be plucked, and how a beautiful hyacinth, perched on its straight and haughty stem, is closed and allows you only to take a little of its heady fragrance13.

Th e poet here supports her assertion that a writers gender has an eff ect on literary production, by creating an analogy about the diff erent natures of grammatically feminine daisy and grammatically masculine hyacinth. Th e

11 See Irigaray 1993; Cameron 1998; Mills 1995; Cameron 1994; Konishi, 1993: 519-534; Schwarze 2003: 144-159; Eckert and Mc Connell-Ginet 2003.

12 In this paper I treat concord and agreement as synonymous terms. For a discussion of diff erentiating between the two, see the related analysis of Keenan 1978: 167 and Lehmann 1982: 203 quoted in Corbett 1991: 105.

13 Th e interview is only available in translation. See Connolly 2000.

67Grammatical Gender in the poetry of Kiki Dimoula

grammatical gender of the nouns is paired with gender-specifi c, socially constructed assumptions of innocence in the case of the daisy and arrogant superiority referring to the hyacinth. An analysis of Dimoulas poetry reveals a reiteration of poetic devices that depend on the social, semantic implications of grammatical gender.

How does Dimoula use grammatical gender?A fi rst observation resulting from a general overview of the body of poems published by Dimoula up to date is that grammatically feminine nouns abound at the expense of masculine. In her early work we fi nd examples of poems that lack words of masculine grammatical gender altogether. What is more, gender oft en appears to have a role in the structure of the poems. In poem 14, for example, twelve feminine nouns in the poems body are evenly distributed in the four stanzas. Th e symmetry in the composition is achieved by the three + three, three + three distribution of feminine nouns and the juxtaposition of the repeated neuter noun - with its opposite feminine in the last lines of each stanza:

.

, , , , .

, , , , , .

.

14 Th e title has the only grammatically masculine noun in the poem. Dimoula 2002: 11.

68 Eleni Mouatsou

Being the fi rst of Dimoulas fi rst collection, this poem sets the pace for a complex structural use of grammatical gender that deserves closer scrutiny. In poem , an equal number of feminine nouns provide a balance within each stanza and allow for the smooth narration of the message. Using nouns of the same gender off ers even more possibili-ties, related more to the morphological rules assigned to gendered nouns. Th e suffi x rules distinguishing masculine and feminine nouns produce a phonological concord that is appropriated for their alliterative eff ect, among others, in Dimoulas poem :

, , . , , , , 15

Th e recurrent sound of the masculine suffi x establishes a slow, repet-itive and monotonous rhythm, directing attention to the content of the lines, which describes the sound of rain. Here syntactic form and thematic content are directly linked. However, in the line , there is a sudden switch from the repetition of masculine words sharing an alliterative suffi x - to those ending in feminine suffi x -. Syntactically, the line is divided in two by a comma, separating the gram-matically masculine from the grammatically feminine words, which are morphologically linked by their masculine and feminine suffi xes respec-tively. Th e repetition of the same adjective in both masculine and feminine forms in the middle of the line emphasises the contrast.

Th e same contrastive device is employed for a second time in the poem, in lines / 16. Here, the adjec-tive is repeated to link two nouns of opposing grammatical genders, thus comparing the two. Th e narrative of the poem is attempting descriptions of the grammatically masculine , using masculine modi-fi ers , , , , then and . With the grammatical switch from a masculine to a feminine modifi er, the narrative attempts to describe the noun , metaphorically linked to grammatically feminine , through a series of feminine words:

, ,

15 Dimoula, : 166.16 Dimoula, ibid.


, , [...] , , ,

Th e poem moves from a series of masculine to a series of feminine images that describe [...] through a juxtaposition of masculine and feminine words.

Th e device of contrast within the grammatical and syntactic make up of the poem is commonly met in Dimoulas poems. In poem the masculine noun is syntactically and semantically paralleled to the feminine :

, 17.

Th e adverbs of place / locate the position of the masculine noun in opposition to the feminine . Th e up/down binary is juxtaposed to the masculine/feminine class of the nouns. Grammatical gender seems to provide a basis of diff erentiation between concepts, as seen in poem :

... , 18.

In the second line, grammatically feminine Mount Penteli is juxta-posed to grammatically masculine Mount Hymettus, while in the third line the same pattern of grammatical order is kept in the noun phrase . Th e narrative seems to suggest that ordering the nouns according to patterns of grammatical concord or contrast seems to help clarify what their diff erence is, just as light illuminates and distinguishes the volume of mountains that appear merged in the darkness. Th e preoccupation of the poet with diff erences between a grammatically feminine and a grammati-cally masculine mountain, uncovers the importance placed on the seman-17 Dimoula, : 136-137. 18 Dimoula, : 132.

70 Eleni Mouatsou

tic implications of the grammatical concept, that the grammatical gender of inanimate nouns aff ects their interpretation.

Evidence from the poems suggests that the poet investigates the nature of this semantic weight of grammatical gender. In poem gram-matically masculine and grammatically feminine are paralleled as rival concepts:

. . .19

Th e poem works as a riddle, where and are defi ned as two vast concepts associated in terms of separation and opposition. Th e contrast is refl ected in the stanzas grammatical make-up, as the two nouns are the only nouns gendered feminine or masculine, the rest being neuter, and I suggest neutral, in the poem.

If grammatical gender is used within Dimoulas poems to mark oppo-sition between masculine and feminine notions, is it possible to recognise recurrent patterns in more complex word groupings? Christos Dalkos, in the excellent article , , , observes a frequent appearance of a triadic grouping of nouns in the format of masculine-feminine-neuter20. He gives an example from poem observing that the he-she-it order found in grammar is here preserved in the alignment of nouns:

. , , . . 21

Two masculine nouns are followed by two feminine and two neuter. All nouns are in plural. Dalkos suggests that this example might signal the acceptance of a traditional grammatical (and possibly social) order that

19 Dimoula, : 157. 20 In grammar books the description of grammatical gender is structured in the mascu-

line-feminine-neuter form. It has been argued by prescriptive grammarians that this is to refl ect the supremacy of the masculine grammatical gender. In Babiniotis & Clairis 2004; Cosmas 1981.

21 Dimoula, : 120.


privileges the masculine over the feminine: []

, , ( ) 22.

Th is is not always the case though. Th ere is ample evidence in the poems that traditional grammatical order as masculine-feminine-neuter is not consistently maintained. One example of ordering by masculine/neuter/feminine was discussed already when referring to poem 23. Especially interesting are lines consisting in three nouns of diff erent gram-matical gender, such as ; ; , , and; . Only in the fi rst example is the grammatical order or gender in grammar respected. Examples abound in Dimoulas poems where they do not. Th e poems analysed tend to suggest that Dimoula is not consistent in keeping nouns in order according to grammatical rules. On the contrary, the poet seems to experiment with the possibilities of utilisa-tion of grammatical gender.

Looking closely at the signifi cance of order between formally gendered nouns in the poems, it becomes apparent that there is another factor coming to play: that of the generic masculine. Indeed, in the collection , the quantity and the richness of examples of generic terms counts for a large percentage of the sum of the words gendered masculine. We can list pronominal generics such as ( 24, , ); as well as generics of ethnicity (, , ); of occupation (, , , 25, 26, 27, , 28, 29, , 30); and of attribute (, , ,

22 Dalkos: 154.23 , / -

. Dimoula, : 136-137. 24 Dimoula, : 192.25 All in Dimoula, : 146-148. 26 Dimoula, : 149.27 Dimoula, : 151. 28 Both in Dimoula, 1948: 155.29 Dimoula, : 161.30 Dimoula, : 195.

72 Eleni Mouatsou

, , 31; 32; , 33; , 34; 35; 36). Gener-ics are words claiming gender neutrality, while using the masculine form. Feminist scholarship has contested the neutrality of the masculine pronoun and other generic forms, due to its assumptions of the markedness and objectivity they imply for the feminine pronoun. Deborah Cameron conse-quently asks: to whom does he seem more neutral, and why?37

Having established Dimoulas preoccupation with the semantic dimen-sions of grammatical gender, it comes as a surprise that she would use so many examples of the generic masculine. Does the poet accept the asser-tion that the masculine form is unmarked and it can represent both mascu-line and feminine subjects? Looking closely at the patterns of usage of the generic references thus becomes imperative for this study.

Some of Dimoulas poems seem to interrogate masculine and neuter terms in relation to their capacity to address subjects inclusively and gener-ically. In poem , that has been read as an exercise towards the representation of the grammatically and thematically mascu-line 38, there is an avalanche of generics:

. , , , , , , , 39

31 All in Dimoula : 146-148.32 Dimoula : 161.33 Both in Dimoula : 149.34 Dimoula : 151. 35 Dimoula 1948: 155.36 Dimoula : 195.37 Cameron 1994: 95.38 Dimoula : 151.39 Dimoula, : 130.


In the level of grammar, generic masculine is equated to generic neuter , to masculine , to neuter : a confusion of generic masculinity and neutrality is then described as a frightful form; . In a pragmatic level, this frightful form refers to the circle that surrounds and confi nes the subject you; . Th e metalinguistic comment regarding the neutrality of generics meets the pragmatic message commu-nicated, with possible covert judgement regarding the use of generics. Th is confusion of generic use in implies unease in complying with this linguistic restriction.

Dimoula is not alone in expressing this unease. Reportedly, women writers fi nd that their language does not allow for a woman to write from a position of objectivity, through linguistic devices that classify the feminine as marked in comparison to a neutral and unmarked masculine40.

Th e ability of generic nouns to describe subjectivity is explored in poem , where possibly generic masculine words referring to occu-pations such as , and the pronominal are all identifi ed in context as male as they come to contrast the very gender specifi c and the marked 41, that cannot be used as generic in any context.

, [] . - , []

In the level of the message, the prepositional phrase modi-fying the noun adds irony to what is insinuated in the level of gram-mar: the lady - even when wearing trousers - cannot represent women and men generically. However, the phrase disregards the genericness of masculine as equally insuffi cient in describing both women and men. 40 Gilbert & Gubar 1985: 160.41 All examples from Dimoula, : 149.

74 Eleni Mouatsou

Th us, the examples drawn from Dimoulas poems suggest reluctance in using the masculine gender in sex-indefi nite contexts. More explicit is the use of generics that avoid disclosing gender, such as the third person singu-lar and the fi rst-person plural. Both appear in poem :

: [...] 42.

Another example is from poem :

, .43

Also in : 44

In Dimoulas poems there is a constant interrogation of the semantics related to generics. Two types were identifi ed. First, of poems where the masculine gender is used when gender is not relevant, such as in () and, second, of poems that use gender-inclusive options. Finally, it should be mentioned that there are examples where masculine specifi c nouns are feminised to produce a generic concept. Such is the case of in poem 45. A similar technique is observed in poem , from collection , where there is reference to the sculpture of the (male) charioteer of Delphi through a feminine signifi er, as 46. Here, a grammatical will to feminise the generic charioteer seems to overcome possible semantic problems caused by the fact the the proper name refers to the sculpture of a mascu-line body.

Although the cases of generic masculine abound in the collection , masculine subjectivity is absent, invisible or ambiguous instead of visible, unmarked and universal. Th e sparsity of adjectives modi-fying masculine nouns and the use of a neutral you contrasts the plentiful 42 Dimoula, : 132-133. Th e emphasis is mine.43 Dimoula, : 143. Th e emphasis is mine.44 : 147. Th e emphasis is mine.45 Dimoula, : 198.46 Dimoula, : 353.


markers of the grammatically feminine words. Th is contrast can be demon-strated in a comparison between poems and respectively47.

In there is reference to the speakers forefathers, mentioned earlier:

,

Th e plural form of the noun makes its use ambiguous and it is not textu-ally possible to assert whether it is used generically or specifi cally. What is more, the reference occupies two lines and there is only one associated noun: . Th e poem , though, which refers to the fore-mothers, is ten lines long, and the mothers, or fore-mothers, are modifi ed by a series of adjectives , , , , , :

. . , , , .

Along with the heavily loaded intertextual nature of this stanza and the sourcing of experience shared by the speakers fore-bearers, one can observe newly coined expressions for describing a female genealogy as well as the careful weaving of feminine nouns and associated words. Th e result is a stanza that palpitates with feminine grammatical presence48. It seems that the prevalence of grammatically feminine modifi ers plays a role in making the feminine present in these Greek poems. In poem , the grammatical device promoting the feminine grammatical aspect enforces the theme of the lines, which aspires to make visible the presence of women ancestors, who seem to be forgotten in the creases of history.

47 Dimoula, : 195 and : 206.48 In the sixth line there is a dramatic contrast achieved by the only masculine noun

.

76 Eleni Mouatsou

Another case where grammatical gender seems to play a role in the poems semantic interpretation is Dimoulas idiosyncratic use of abstract notions. In poem grammatical gender is used to mark semantic opposition. Th e poem works within a logic of personifi cation, as a series of abstract and concrete inanimate nouns are coined with verbs that can only be joined grammatically with animate nouns.

, .

, .

, . .[...]49

is a metonymy for a church, but, as it is asso-ciated with the verb , it is personifi ed. Th e classifi er , in italics, directs the attention towards the proper name . Th ere are also personifi cations of the inanimate nouns describing a mountain; , fog; , a tree; , and a month; . We also observe the use of more inanimate objects with active verbs: [...] / .

Such metaphorical use is not unheard of in poetry. It actually echoes formal compositions common in traditional oral songs. Georgios Babinio-tis mentions examples of such formal deviations in his book 50 and gives examples:

; , ;

Nikos Dimou also suggests an affi nity of Dimoulas metaphorical use to 49 Dimoula, : 163.50 Babiniotis 1984: 111.


that of the metaphysical poets because of her tendency to personify abstract nouns51. Along with the animate character given to abstract notions, inani-mate objects or plants, we see a semantic play of gender concord and oppo-sition in some of them: as for example in the poem the proper noun acts as modifi er of common noun and the noun clause is opposed to inanimate masculine noun .

In these cases grammatical gender is necessary for the creation of a metaphorical image. Th is example from poem is excel-lent in demonstrating how grammatical gender functions in the poems of Dimoula: the personifi cation of inanimate nouns through their associated words suggests the lack of distinction between grammatical gender, social gender or biological gender. Dimoula seems to maintain that grammatical gender and biological gender equally carry symbolic weight. As a result, they are all treated as complimentary and socially signifi cant. Th is allows for a semantic space within the poems, where latent social commentary can be exercised. Stereotypes, social expectations and biological characteristics are used freely and interchangeably in accordance to their shared grammat-ical gender. In the phrase , for example, the signifying noun attributes characteristics of femininity and social gender to the noun . A similar, but more complex metaphor is that of the fog, , modifi ed by proper name . Gender social relations are brought into the fore as is personifi ed by association and is put in a position of authority and judgement over . Th e stanza allows a new interpretation; that , due to its feminine gender, albeit grammatical, is put in a disadvantaged position in relation to the grammat-ically masculine and symbolically masculinised .

Beyond the social commentary stemming from Dimoulas usage of mixing inanimate and animate concepts, as well as abstract and concrete notions, it is possible to observe that the poems manage to create a new set of images that use grammatically feminine notions to refer to human experience from the point of view of the woman. Th e feminisation of the poems through the load of feminine words allows the poet to emphasise the feminine perspective without necessarily referring to it by means of the poems themes. A close look at the use of grammatical conventions in the poems written by Dimoula seems to uncover the need for a further analy-sis of her representation of gendered subjectivity. It appears that the same

51 Nicos Dimou 1991: 12.

78 Eleni Mouatsou

inquisitive attitude observed in grammatical conventions and the tendency to compare and contrast the feminine and the masculine in grammar seems to extend to the treatment of social gender roles. However, the study of the unconventional gendered images in the poetry of Kiki Dimoula that accrues from this unorthodox utilisation of grammatical classes described above moves beyond the scope of this essay.

Th e linguistic and poetic devices discussed are by no means restricted to the poetry of Kiki Dimoula. As Jakobson suggests, all parts of speech are used for parallelisms and contrasts and the writer, whether she intends to or not, has to take a position and choose how to use them52. Language is never neutral, as Penelope Eckert suggests in Language and Gender53. Also, grammatical gender, like all language, has complex connections to social gender54. Th e objective of this study was to observe how Greek poet Kiki Dimoula specifi cally responds to these connections, wittingly or unwit-tingly, through the means provided to her.

In this essay I have analysed how grammatical gender functions structur-ally in Kiki Dimoulas poems. I used examples predominantly from collec-tion to investigate the poems techniques that inter-rogate how grammatical gender aff ects meaning. I have demonstrated how the words used resist the confi nes of grammatical gender rules and have suggested possible interpretations. I have hinted upon the social commen-tary suggested by such use and misuse of grammatical gender rules. Such a study is important not only in an attempt to see how grammatical gender contributed on the formation of the poets distinct poetic style, but also as a suggestion about new interpretive directions of reception of womens poetry following feminist research on linguistics and literature. I believe that the focus on the function of grammatical gender in these poems can provide useful methodological tools for further studies of the themes of subjectivity and sexuality. I also expect that this study may shed light to the newly occurring poetic structures that emerge in Greek poetry and might prove useful in Modern Greek studies as well as in feminist translation practice. Aft er all, all who write in Greek write within gender.

52 Jakobson 1981: 122.53 Eckert 2003: 69.54 Eckert 2003: 65; Irigaray 1993: 67; Konishi 1993: 519.


Works Cited

Babiniotis, G. D. (1984). . Athens: Mavromati Pub.Babiniotis, G. D., & Clairis, C. (2004). . -

. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Cameron, D. (1994). Feminism and linguistic theory. Hampshire and London:

Mackmillan Press Ltd._____. (Ed.). (1998). Th e feminist critique of language: a reader. Oxon: Routledge. Connolly, D. Interview with Kiki Dimoula. Poetry Greece, 2 (Summer: 2002).

Retrieved from .

Corbett, Greville. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Cosmas, N. (1981). Grammatical gender in modern Greek. Revue Roumaine De

Linguistique, 26, 549-457.Dimou, N. (1991). : -

. Athens: Stigmi Pubs. Dimoula, K. (2002). (5th ed.). Athens: Icaros.Eckert, P., Sally McConnell-Ginet. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Gilbert, S. M., & Gubar, S. (1985). Sexual Linguistics: Gender, language, sexuality.

New Literary History, 16(3), 515-543.Hockett, Charles F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Irigaray, L. (1993). Linguistic sexes and genders. Je, tu, nous: Toward a Culture of

Diff erence. London: Routledge.Jakobson, R. (1981). Poetry of grammar and grammar of poetry. Selected writings

Volume 3. Th e Hague: Mouton Publishers.Karalis, Vrassidas. .

435 (2002): 99.Konishi, T. (1993). Th e semantics of grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study.

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(5), 519-534.Mills, S. (1995). Feminist stylistics (R.). London.Moi, Toril (1994). Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist literary theory. London:

Routledge.Schwarze, B. (2003). Grammatical Gender, Sex Specifi cation and Varying Degrees

of Genericness of the Masculine: A Constrastive Analysis. In J. Santaemilia (Ed.), Gnero, lenguaje y traduccin (pp. 144-159). Universitat de Valncia.

Widdowson, H. G. (1989). Th e signifi cance of poetry. Language and literature; theory and practice: a tribute to Walter Grauberg. University of Nottingham Monographs in the Humanities: VI.

80 Eleni Mouatsou

Negotiating peer-group identities in the later life: the case of Painful Self Disclosures

Anna Charalambidou

1. IntroductionIt is argued that older adults are oft en dislocated from the mainstream and confi ned to the periphery of social life but also, I would add, of sociolinguistic research (Poulios 2004). Th us, the language of older adults, especially in peer interaction is under-researched. Th is paper explores how older Greek Cypriot women construct and discuss painful experiences in casual conversations.

Th e genre of painful self disclosures PSDs, also infl uenced by previous research on troubles-tellings (e.g. Jeff erson 1984), has received signifi cant attention in the past two decades in the fi eld of ageing and communication research. In the Greek contexts PSDs have also been discussed (Poulios 2004; Poulios 2008). Coupland et al. defi ne painful self disclosures as the revealing of a cluster of categories of personal and oft en intimate information on ones own ill health, bereavement, immobility, loneliness, and so on and consider them an index of age identity (1991:61). Events disclosed in these sequences are taken to be plausibly but non-specifi cally painful, predictably in their occurrence and, perhaps, in their telling according to the researchers (Coupland, Coupland, and Giles 1991:79). I largely follow this defi nition of PSDs in my analysis, although I take PSDs to be oriented to as painful in their telling only when there is concrete evidence in the data (e.g. crying voice). Because of the relational histories of the participants, most of the references to painful events are not disclosive as such because they are more oft en than not updates on a known situation; in fact the term PSD has been used in the literature to refer to mentions of a known topic (Matsumoto 2009).

Th e data used for this paper were eighteen hours of self-recorded, every-day conversations of a group of older Cypriot women (most of them in their seventies, aged 62-79). Most were widows, had primary school education

(, 9-12 . 2010): ( 1204 ) , (ISBN 978-960-99699-5-6) 2011 (www.eens.org)

and resided in close vicinity for decades. Th ey would record themselves whenever they meet at each others houses for coff ee. Th ey would meet from several times a week to once in a fortnight. Subsequently, aft er examining the topics, and frequency of PSDs, the structural organisation of the disclosures is analysed, focusing on upcoming contexts and modes of disclosure. In addition, contribution of these telling to identity work is explored.

2. Topics of painful self disclosuresIn the data analysed PSDs fall within the topic categories of severe ill health, immobility, disengagement, reported bereavement and other family, and social troubles as follows:

1. Ill health: Chronic or enduring health problems are reported most frequently. Disclosures include most oft en leg and specifi cally knee problems, but also back and ear pain, fl u-like symptoms, headaches, indigestion; sometimes resulting in diffi culty to sleep at night. At times disclosures are about pain experienced at the time of the telling. Also references to high blood pressure, and sugar blood, problems with eyesight and incontinence are made and accidents, such as (severe) falls, operations, past hospitalisations, and being tired of doctors are disclosed.

2. Mobility problems: are usually associated with health issues and include problems with walking, getting up, inability to climb stairs, unstable hands and legs and getting easily tired from physical activity.

3. Loss of former activities: Inability to do things as well or as oft en as once could, such as housework, is reported. Also inability to travel abroad, due to mobility (and other health) problems, and inability to knit with smili due to non-nimble hands and forgetfulness are disclosed.

4. Bereavement: Loss of beloved family members is seldom discussed, and includes references to siblings that died abroad, a grandson that passed away and one disclosure about a late husbands burial.

5. Other: Family and social troubles make up the remainder and include lengthy disclosures about being treated unjustly be ones siblings in inheritance issues, and about being upset with a grandsons reckless behaviour. Finally, being scared of going out in busy roads is reported.

84 Anna Charalambidou

n the eighteen hours of recordings, a total of 68 disclosures (thirty seven minutes) were traced and the table below shows the distribution of the diff erent topic categories both in simple summed number of occurrence of PSDs and in percentage. On some occasions disclosive sequences covered more than one topic (e.g. leg problem and inability to travel abroad). In these cases, for the purposes of the table below, they were categorised according to the topic that was most salient (was the lengthiest, was told with most emphasis and to which the next move oriented).

PSD topics Number of occurrence Percentage

Health and mobility problems 50 75.0% leg decrement and mobility problems 24 35.3%

other physical decrement 3 4.4%

other mobility problems 1 1.5%

sensory decrement 1 1.5%

other medical problems 21 30.9%

(including ongoing conditions,

past and current symptoms)

terminal illness of another 1 1.5%

Loss of former activities 7 10.3% cleaning rigorously 1 1.5%

traveling abroad 4 5.9%

knit with smili 2 2.9%

Bereavement 4 5.9% of siblings 2 2.9%

of husband 1 1.5%

85Negotiating peer-group identities in the later life

of grandson 1 1.5%

Other 4 5.9% grandsons troubled behavior 1 1.5%

inheritance injustice 2 2.9%

fear of crossing the road 1 1.5%

Table 1: Frequency of topics (summed occurrences and percentage distribution)

By far the most popular topic is health and mobility issues. It is interesting to note that sensory decrement (apart from a sole mention of eyesight problems) is meticulously avoided, although at least one of the participants had a hearing problem, which in other instances (fi eldwork, interactions with relatives) she acknowledged and the other informants were aware of (as is obvious from some implicit comments they make during the conversations). In the category of loss of former activities the inability to travel abroad is repeatedly disclosed, especially in the third phase of the recordings, when some of the participants booked to go on holiday abroad (and at times were worried if they could make it), and others discussed that they were unable to join them.

Th e topic areas coincide largely with those of Coupland et al., the main diff erentiation being that loneliness is not disclosed in my conversational data. Loneliness is an attribution routinely bound to decline age categories such as or , in the self-recordings. It is then not surprising that the participants would avoid association with activities bound to decline age categories. Moreover, loneliness could entail lack of constant interaction and closeness with family members and thus has implications to membership of categories such as caring mother. However, participants go to great lengths to claim membership to the categories of caring and devoted mother/grandmother/wife/sister, through references to activities of cooking, cleaning and knitting for their family members. Th erefore, the absence of PSDs about loneliness is justifi ed by and also reaffi rms other fi ndings about recurrent claims for the self and other members of the


group of positive age categories and also family categorisations associated with serving others. Also, unlike the Coupland et al. data, where reported bereavement, especially of the husband, is a prominent topic (disclosed in 16 out of the 41 peer-elderly PSDs), in my data the frequency is lower, most probably because the participants have a long interactional history and are fully aware of this type of information about their interlocutors.

PSDs can be anything from a couple-of-seconds long parenthetical disclosure to a fully-fl edged narrative lasting up to more than six minutes, with a mean duration of about 33 seconds each. Th e disclosive sequences cover a percentage of 3,43% of all the self-recordings, which is considerably lower than the 16.5% found in peer-elderly conversations in the Coupland et al. study (1991:114). Th is could be attributed, in the fi rst instance, to many diff erent contextual factors: the diff erent sociocultural context and the fact that the interactions in the Coupland et. al. were fi rst encounters, in a controlled setting: pairs of strangers were asked to converse for 10 minutes. I do not think that measuring diff erences contributed signifi cantly to this discrepancy since I have followed Coupland et al. unit of analysis, the sequence. Th e sequence is talk in the above topic categories defi ned as PSD, also including direct and indirect elicitations and recipients next moves up to the point where talk shift s/switches to non-painful topics.

In the following section the sequential organisation of PSDs will be explored. A toolkit adapted from both the Coupland et al. taxonomy of pre-contexts, modes of disclosure and closing strategies, and also Jeff ersons work on troubles-telling is used (Jeff erson 1988; Coupland et al. 1991). First a brief outline of the Coupland et al model and how it is employed in the analysis are given.

3. Th e sequential organisation of PSDsCoupland et al. (1991) aft er analysing forty ten-minute fi rst encounters between dyads of young (in their thirties) and elderly (aged 70-87) women, peer young and peer elderly found a frequent occurrence of PSDs when at least one of the participants was elderly and identifi ed the phenomenon as a characteristic of elderly discourse. Th ey came up with a four-phase taxonomy of strategies in PSDs. Th e four phases identifi ed are pre-contexts, modes of disclosure, recipient next-move and moves towards closing. Th eir model allows for a categorisation of most strategies in starting, telling, receiving and exiting a PSD and they will be elaborated on in the


following sections. Th us, it proved a useful tool for an initial classifi cation. However, the model was primarily conceived to be applied in two-party conversations, and therefore could not account for multiple pre-contexts or moves. As with all quantifi able taxonomies, the complexities of the sequential interaction, the co-occurrence of diff erent moves and a variety of contextual factors can be accounted for only at a certain degree, and sometimes binary distinctions in what is a continuum of possible moves or modes have to be made by the researcher. Yet this is necessary for a valid comparison to be possible. Th erefore, I have drawn on the four-phase taxonomy (with some adaptations and evaluative commentary), for an initial analysis of the pre-contexts, modes of disclosure and moves towards closing, and I complemented it with a close analysis of the disclosive sequences, informed by some of Jeff ersons fi ndings, especially with regards to exiting a PSD. In this paper I focus on two aspects of the organisation of PSDs: modes of disclosure and moves towards closing a disclosure.

3.1. Modes of disclosurePSDs are communicative acts in their own right and can be more or less textually foregrounded. Foregrounded PSDs are focused accounts of a painful experience (though they might be quite short), and non-foregrounded are disclosures made in a parenthetical manner, in the middle of talking about something else, and are oft en not acknowledged by the interlocutors. For example in the extract below, Myria is on the phone (her turns are deleted to avoid confusion), while Gregoria, Charoulla and Loulla discuss what time of the year baby-walnuts are ready for harvest.

Extract 11. 2. 3. -4. :

:, 5. (..)6. . 7. 8. =. .9.

Loulla insists that the harvest time is June, and to support her claim she refers to an incident a few years back (lines 3-5) when a woman contacted


her to ask if she want baby-walnuts the same day her grandson died. Th e death of her grandson here is only disclosed parenthetically in line 5 and then the discloser quickly shift s back to the main topic of the account, the time of harvest (lines 6,8). Gregorias neutral response in line 8 and Charoullas neutral reformulation, restating Loullas claim about the time of ripe, show that the interlocutors in fact do not orient to the self-disclosive element of the account. Th erefore, this is a non-foregrounded PSD.

Another way to taxonomise modes of disclosure, according to Coupland et al. (1991) is with reference to whether a disclosive sequence consists of a single self-disclosure or two or more chained disclosures, were the fi rst disclosure functions as pretext for the second. A third way to delineate PSD is with reference to the elaboration employed in the telling; shorter accounts that merely refer to the painful state or experiences are categorised as core, whereas lengthier accounts that include contextualised information are core plus.

To these categories I added one more, that has to do with whether the discloser is one or more persons. In many instances the recipients of the disclosure contribute parts of the telling (e.g. with sympathetic responses, reformulations or requests for further information), or follow up with their own PSD. However, I only classify a PSD as having multiple disclosers when more than one person jointly construct a single account about the same painful state or experience that aff ects them both. Th e following example illustrates a case of a self-disclosure with multiple disclosers. During this discussion only two participants are present, Gregoria and Charoulla. Th is joint disclosure comes right aft er Charoulla counted her blood pressure and disclosed her ongoing high blood pressure problem. Th erefore, the pre-context for this disclosure is another PSD about medical conditions. Here, Gregoria matches Charoullas previous PSD with a second, convergent disclosure that turns out to be far from monophonic.

Extract 2 1. : [( )

2. [ -

3. (.) ,

4. .


5. [ ,]

6. [( ) ] : ,

7. = .

8. : :

9. : - [ .

10. X [

11. ho - ((laughing))

12. . ::. .

13. . .

14. = . :

15. . .

In lines 1 Gregoria initiates the self-disclosive topic of not being able to travel abroad (by she means the cruise Loulla and Tasoulla will make to the Greek Islands) although she wanted to. Before she completes her utterance, Charoulla, at the transition relevance place, aft er the elongation of : in l.1, attempts to initiate a convergent next self-disclosure. However, she is unable to do this as Gregoria chooses to continue hold the fl oor and justifi es why she cannot travel abroad, i.e. because she is worried something may happen to her health while abroad ( ). It is notable that Gregoria here, aft er Charoullas overlap, shift s to the fi rst plural person (), which suggests that the self-disclosure is not only about her. In l.4 Charoulla takes the fl oor and with an emphatic . assumes the discourse role of the (co-)discloser, and designs her turn as an agreement to Gregorias assessment ( ), and goes on to off er a short story, reporting her daughters advice. In l. 7 Gregoria, using the same turn design (beginning latching/overlapping agreement token = .), as the previous turn assumes again the role of the discloser


commenting on the same topic of inability to sleep on couchettes. Again in the following line, Charoulla opens her turn with an agreement token ( :) and then again continues with her self-disclosure (indexing bone frailty). Th is recurrent turn design: agreement with previous disclosure and then reiteration of the topic in the fi rst person, is a structural characteristic of joint disclosures. In lines 12-13 Gregoria interject a narrative about her past trip with Loulla to the Holly Lands, hence the plural in , and (l.12-13) refers to herself and Loulla.

Th is joint disclosure is completed with a joint assessment that the disclosers cannot travel anywhere anymore.

13. . .

14. = . :

15. . .

It is notable that in line 13 Gregoria shift s again to a plural that includes her and Charoulla with and (it is diff erent from the previous two lines, as Loulla cannot be included in the category of people who cannot travel, as she is about to go abroad). With a latching utterance in l.14 Charoulla reiterates that she (they) should stay at home and in l.15 Gregoria completes Charoullas turn and closes with an emphatic agreement token, .

In g eneral, joint PSDs are more than two parallel disclosures about a similar referent. Th e proliferation of agreement token and the orientation to the specifi c topic raised in the just prior turn exhibit the internal cohesion of these disclosures. Inclusive plurals and turns that consist of agreement tokens plus self-disclosive information in the fi rst singular person are structural characteristic of PSDs with multiple tellers. To the extent that the exchange of discloser roles is recurrent and the painful experience disclosed by both participants is the same, then we can talk about a single disclosure with multiple tellers rather than a chain of individual disclosures. Th is is of course encouraged only in settings where there are (multiple) participants who know each other, and can predict the self-disclosure and co-disclose the shared experience. Th erefore, it is not commented upon in


the Coupland et al. study. Th e table below (table 2) shows the distribution of the diff erent modes of disclosure.

Modes Number of occurrence PercentageForegroundedNon-foregrounded

Single disclosuresChained disclosures

Single discloserMultiple disclosers

Core informationCore plus

5513

3632

60 8

5315

81%19%

54%46%

88%12%

78%22%

Table 2: Modes of disclosure

On the whole PSDs are more oft en than not foregrounded and disclosing only core information. Unlike Coupland et al. study were 59% of PSDs were core plus, here this percentage is much smaller, 15%, perhaps because many self-disclosures are re-tellings of the same experience and are addressed to interlocutors who have reported similar experiences hence a minimal telling suffi ces to convey the meaning. Another discrepancy with the Coupland et al. fi ndings is that the percentage of chained disclosures is much higher (46% as opposed to 27%). Th is fact combined with the strong tendency for minimal information and the occurrence (albeit limited) of collective self-disclosures, show the cohesion of the group (which is predictable due to their long interactional history) and could potentially contribute towards the construction of a peer-group identity.

3.2. Moves towards closingAccording to Sacks, there are certain embarrassing or controversial topics that the recipient needs to do signifi cant interactional work to move away from them. In Sacks terms the conversant need to do getting off of them (Sacks 1995)(Sacks 1995). Th us examining the moves interlocutors make towards closing a PSD will give away whether they orient to it as an embarrassing, controversial, or, in general, problematic topic or not. Th e following table (table 3) shows the numerical and percentage distribution


of the diff erent types of move towards closing of the disclosive sequence. Th irteen, out of the sixty-eight self-disclosure, are not accounted for because another painful disclosure occurs before any closing strategy of the painful topic is employed. Although diff erent moves can co-occur (e.g. a change of perspective followed by a topic shift ), for analytical purposes only fi rst moves towards closing were counted in the following table.

Moves Number of occurrence PercentageDiscloser moves

Change perspective

Shift topic

Switch topic

Recipient moves Change perspective

Shift topic

Switch topic

15465

40121018

27%7%11%9%

73%22%18%33%

Table 3: First closing moves

Th e strategies that bring about the closure of the self-disclosure can be initiated by the discloser or the recipients. Unlike, the Coupland et al. fi ndings, were closing strategies are almost equally shared by discloser and recipient in my data they tend to be recipient-determined. Th is could be attributed to the bigger number of recipients in my data (ranging from one to fi ve) and the consequent stringer competition for the fl oor.

Moves towards closure can be a change of perspective to the disclosed information, for example, an inversion (a reinterpretation of the disclosed information in a positive light, a minimization of the seriousness of the disclosed events, a rationalization interpreting why this experience occurred, or a fabrication of a solution to the problem. What these strategies achieve is to recast a disclosure as less or non-painful, and thus gradually get out of the self-disclosive sequence. Change of perspective is initiated both by the discloser and, in my data, more frequently, by the recipient. In both case the


change of perspective oft en takes the form of inversion, or rationalization and in exclusively in recipient moves fi ve out of twelve times it is in the form of off ering a solution, which the discloser rarely condones (cf. Poulios 2008:167, where elderly trouble-tellers also resist advice off ered)(cf. Poulios 2008:167, where elderly trouble-tellers also resist advice off ered).A less gradual transition can be brought about with a topic shift , where both the discloser and the recipient can initiate or elicit a related but non-painful topic. An abrupt topic change constitutes a topic switch. In the Coupland et al. taxonomy topic switch occurs only once out of forty-one peer-elderly PSDs and is initiated by the recipient. However, in my data topic switches can be both recipient and discloser determined, and occur 23 out of the 55 times. Th is is the most striking diff erence between my and the Coupland et al. fi ndings. Before discussing topic-switches further it is important to have a look at a couple of examples. In the following extract Charoulla, Gregoria, Myria and Loulla are present and at this point there is a joint disclosure of Myria, Gregoria and Charoulla about incontinence.

Extract 3 1. [

2. [

3. [

4. [

5.

6. . ?

Th is sequence is towards the end of the PSD. In line 6 Gregoria off ers an agreement marker with , a typical device of PSDs with multi-ple disclosers (see p. 7, above) and she then makes a move towards clos-ing. In particular she moves to an unrelated topic, the sudden departure of the domestic worker of Charoullas daughter ( ). Th is is then a discloser initiated topic switch which is in fact other-attentive, as it aims at eliciting a recipient topic. All three cases of discloser-initiated topic switches are in fact other-attentive and reserve the interactional reciproc-ity. Th is is not always the case in recipient-initiated topic switches. In the excerpt below, takes place almost two hours aft er the commencement of a


meeting at Charoullas house, which all main fi ve participants attend. At this point Tasoulla and Loulla are discussing about smili, and Myria has turned on the television a while ago. Th e pre-context of the PSD is the conversation about smili and the activity of knitting Loulla and Tasoulla are engaged in.

Extract 41. [

2. [

3. -

4. - .

In lines 2-3 Charoulla discloses that her hands are no longer fl exible (have dried- ), and thus she can no longer do smili although she used to like it. Neither Myria nor Gregoria acknowledge her PSD (Loulla and Tasoulla are engaged in a parallel conversation). On the contrary Gregoria initiates a disjointed topic, stating that she should turn off the audio recorder because the television is on (l.4). Charoulla will not return to her disclosure and hence Gregorias turn in line 4 succeeded in closing the PSD. What is remarkable is that Gregorias turn is self-attentive, as it reserves the fl oor for herself and is not designed to assign the fl oor to her interlocutors. In this dataset out of

1204 έως σήμερα - eens.org · Δʹ Ευρωπαϊκό Συνέδριο...

Documents