Codifying vernacular Greek: Between foreigners and native speakers

The research I carried out at the CHS forms part of a larger project on language attitudes and ideologies in the history of the Greek language. At its centre is the question of how the “myth” of Classical Greek was formed and reproduced over time. Despite the remarkable linguistic variation that characterises the history of Greek, Classical Greek has remained an enduring cultural reference point and a model of linguistic prestige. It has contributed both to a sense of continuity across time and to the development of purist tendencies: the belief that one variety represents a more authentic or legitimate form of the language. Greek speakers therefore had to confront this inheritance, defining their linguistic and cultural identity either in accordance with it or in opposition to it.

By analysing speakers’ attitudes towards their own language, my project addresses three related questions: How did Greek speakers perceive linguistic variation? How did they respond to the continuing prestige of Ancient Greek? And to what extent did these attitudes influence both the development of the language and the construction of Greek identity? To answer these questions, I trace a series of historical case studies, examining the emergence, development, and effects of language attitudes and ideologies across different periods.

Studying language perceptions in historical sources is challenging because we do not have direct access to speakers’ attitudes through interviews or surveys. Historians of language must therefore rely on indirect evidence. Metalinguistic sources – including grammars, lexica, and explicit comments on language, such as those found in comedy – are particularly important. These sources do more than provide information about linguistic structure: they also reveal how speakers evaluated different forms and varieties, defined norms of correctness, and associated linguistic choices with social identities. They thus allow us to investigate the formation of linguistic prestige and the emergence of language ideologies. At the same time, they can show how such ideologies influenced the description, teaching, and possibly the use of particular forms.

While previous studies have examined metalinguistic sources – especially grammars and lexica – primarily in relation to individual periods or texts, my project adopts a broader diachronic perspective. By combining linguistic and metalinguistic evidence, I focus on critical transitional periods, including the rise and decline of Classical Athens, the development of the Hellenistic kingdoms, Roman domination, the late Byzantine Empire, the emergence of the vernacular languages, and the early stages of the Greek Enlightenment. This approach allows me to analyse elements of continuity and discontinuity in speakers’ attitudes. While situating each source within its specific sociocultural and linguistic context, I also examine the legacy of long-standing language ideologies, such as purist tendencies, and their effects not only on the preservation of an archaizing variety but also on the emergence of a vernacular language. This combination of micro- and macro-level perspectives enables me to recontextualise these ideologies as part of a broader continuity – or imagined continuity – with deeply rooted attitudes towards language.

At the CHS, I focused on the Early Modern period and the emergence of grammars of vernacular Greek – a process that was partly delayed and shaped by the enduring prestige of Ancient Greek, even as it began to challenge that prestige. Greek speakers had to negotiate between their past and their modern identities. From the sixteenth century onwards, across Europe, the rise of nation-states, religious conflict, and the development of printing encouraged the codification of vernacular languages. The Greek-speaking world followed a different trajectory. Greek-speaking communities were divided between Ottoman and Venetian territories, and Ancient Greek remained central to education, religious life, and cultural identity. Indeed, until the seventeenth century, the only grammars of Greek that circulated were grammars of Ancient Greek. The earliest known grammar of vernacular Greek was written in 1550 by Nikolaos Sofianos, a Greek scholar educated in Italy. Sofianos defended the value of the vernacular, but his grammar remained unpublished for several centuries, as did the works of several other Greek authors, probably because of resistance from the Orthodox Church. It was not until 1799 that the first grammar of vernacular Greek written by a Greek was printed.

Until then, the only published grammars of vernacular Greek were written by non-native speakers, especially Catholic missionaries. The earliest example is Girolamo Germano’s grammar, published in 1622. Germano was an Italian Jesuit active on the island of Chios, and his grammar presented vernacular Greek alongside Italian. It provided a model for later bilingual and multilingual grammars produced by other missionaries. These grammars were written for practical purposes: missionaries needed to learn the contemporary language to speak with and convert the Greek Orthodox population. Their production was supported by the Catholic Church, and the codification of vernacular Greek was therefore closely connected with religious aims.

By comparing these grammars – both those written by Greeks and those written by non-Greeks – and examining the forms they selected or omitted as well as the evaluative comments they made about different varieties of Greek, I was able to analyse several interconnected developments. These include the influence of Ancient Greek on the codification of the vernacular, the influence of Western European models on the emergence of vernacular Greek grammatical writing, and the role of religion and ideological policy in the codification of the language. These grammars are not simply records of linguistic usage. They are also interventions in debates about correctness, identity, authority, and the relationship between Ancient and Modern Greek.

By studying these texts within the broader history of Greek language ideologies, my project shows how the codification of vernacular Greek emerged from the tension between linguistic change and the enduring prestige of the Classical past. It also demonstrates how grammars and lexica can provide access not only to the history of a language but also to the ways in which its speakers understood, evaluated, and contested that history.