Sociolinguistics

Tutor: Andrei Avram

Diglossia

1 Diglossia
Diglossia is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary
dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is
a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed
variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an
earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely by formal
education and is used for most written and formal purposes but is not used by any
section of the community for ordinary conversation (Ferguson 1959).

Defining features of diglossia (Ferguson 1959, Schiffman 1998)

(i) Function: H and L are used in different domains.
(ii) Prestige: H is more highly valued than L.
(iii) Literary heritage: literature is in H.
(iv) Acquisition: L is acquired, H is learned.
(v) Standardization: H is standardized.
(vi) Stability: diglossia is generally stable.
(vii) Grammar: the grammar of H is more complex than that of L.
(viii) Lexicon: the lexicon is shared to some extent, but H has vocabulary which L
lacks and L has vocabulary which H does not.
(ix) Phonology:
H and L share the inventory of phonemes, but H has more complex morpho-
phonemics;
H has contrasts which L lacks, and L substuitutes a phoneme for the missing
contrast.

(1) Typical diglossic distribution of the domains of H and L

Domain H L
Sermon in church
Instruction to servants, waiters, workmen, clerks
Personal letter
Speech in parliament, political speech
University lecture
Conversation with family, friends, colleagues
News broadcast
Radio soap opera
Newspaper editorial, news story, caption on
picture
Caption on political cartoon
Poetry
Folk literature
(2) a. Classical Arabic (H) vs. Egyptian Arabic (L)
b. Katharevousa (H) vs. Dhimotiki (L)
c. Hochdeutsch [= Standard German] (H) vs. Schwyzer Ttsch [= Swiss
German] (L)

1
 d. French (H) vs. Haitian French Creole (L)
(3) Classical Arabic (H) vs. Egyptian Arabic (L)
a. Lexicon:
H raa: vs. L a:f to see
b. Grammar:
H la: astatiu vs. L ma dar-
NEG can NEG can NEG
I cannot.
c. Phonology:
H //, /t/ vs. L /t/
H //, /d/ vs. L /d/
H /q/, // vs. L //

(4) Katharevousa (H) vs. Dhimotiki (L)

H ikas vs. L spiti house

(5) Hochdeutsch (H) vs. Schwyzer Ttsch (L)

a. H Dachboden vs. L Estrich attic
b. H Kartoffel vs. L Hrdopfel potato
(6) a. Hochdeutsch = Standard German (H):
Ein Schweizer ist er zwar nie geworden, weder auf dem Papier noch
im Herzen; und man hat es seine Sprache angemerkt, dass er nicht
dort aufgewachsen ist. Nicht nur die Sprache hat den Auslnder
verraten, sondern auch seine Gewohnheiten. (Trudgill 1995)
b. Schwyzer Ttsch = Swiss German (L):
En Schwyzer isch er zwaar nie woorde, weder en papiirige na ine im
Hrz ine; und eebigs hd mer syner Spraach aagmrkt, das er nd
daa uufgwachsen isch. Nd nu s Muul hd de Usslnder verrate, au
syni Mdteli. (Trudgill 1995)
Translation:
He never actually became Swiss, neither on paper nor in his heart; and you
could tell from his language that he had not grown up there. Not only his
language showed that he was a foreigner, but also his way of life.

Problems with the diglossia model

Trudgill (1995), Schiffman (1998), Meyerhoff (2006)
(i) Mixture of features: six sociolinguistic features, (i) through (vi) and three
linguistic ones, (vii) through (ix).
(ii) The two varieties in a diglossic situation are considered by speakers to be
discrete (to form discrete variation). This is not always the case: the two
varieties sometimes merge.
(iii) Some L varieties may have a literary tradition. Schwyzer Ttsch has a notable
body of literature, although much of it is self-conscious dialect-literature
(iv) While the H variety is always standardized, the L variety may also be
standardized, although to a varying extent.
(v) Stability: Greek is no longer diglossic; Katharevousa has lost out to Dhimotiki
(which is influenced by Katharevousa).
(vi) Some of the pairs of H and L varieties said to be in a diglossic situation are
controversial: are French and Haitian Creole varieties of the same language?

2
Diglossia Standard language vs. dialects
(i) Non-diglossic societies: the standard language is a modern variety acquired in
childhood by at least some sectors of society.
Diglossic societies: the H variety is learned via formal education exclusively.
(ii) Non-diglossic societies: generally, the standard language and the dialects are
structurally similar.
Diglossic societies: the H and L varieties differ significantly in their structure.

2 Developments of the theory of diglossia

2.1 Bilingualism with/without diglossia, diglossia with/without bilingualism
Fishman (1967, 1971), Hudson (2002)
Fishmans extension
(i) Diglossia is a criterion for the characterization of societies in terms of their
linguistic repertoires.
(ii) In some societies functional specialization correlates with the use of two
different languages as the H and the L varieties.

Fishman (1967, 1971), Scotton (1986), Hudson (2001, 2002), Deumert (2011)
Narrow diglossia (i.e. as in Ferguson 1959): functional specialization of two
related forms of the same language.
Broad diglossia = diglossia extended = Fishmans extension (Fishman 1967,
1971): functional specialization of two different languages.

Fishmans taxonomy of kinds of linguistic relationships between Hs and Ls

(i) H as classical vs L as vernacular: genetically related.
Classical vs vernacular Arabic; Katharevousa vs. Dhimotiki
(ii) H as classical vs. L as vernacular: not genetically related.
Hebrew vs. Yiddish.
(iii) H as written / formal-spoken vs. L as vernacular: not genetically related.
Spanish vs. Guaran; English vs. vernaculars in post-colonial areas; French
vs. vernaculars in post-colonial areas.
(iv) H as written / formal-spoken vs. L as vernacular: genetically related.
Hochdeutsch [= Standard German] vs. Schwyzer Ttsch; Putonghua
[= Standard Chinese vs. Cantonese; Standard English vs. Caribbean Creole
English.
(7) Relations between bilingualism and diglossia
Bilingualism + Bilingualism + Bilingualism Bilingualism
Diglossia Diglossia + Diglossia + Diglossia

(8) a. Bilingualism without diglossia:

German-English bilingualism (Germany)
b. Bilingualism with diglossia:
Guaran-Spanish bilingualism (Paraguay)
c. Diglossia without bilingualism:
Classical and colloquial Arabic (Egypt)
d. Neither bilingualism nor diglossia:
English (monolingual parts of the USA)

3
Spanish (H) vs. Guaran (L)
Rubin (1968, 1972), Fishman (1971)
(i) 6% are native speakers of Spanish, 88% are native speakers of Guaran.
(ii) A high percentage knows and uses both languages.
(iii) 92% know Guaran and continue to use it after learning Spanish.
(iv) Bilingualism is a permanent feature of the Paraguayan society.
(v) There is a diglossic distribution of the domains of Spanish and Guaran.

(9) Spanish vs. Guaran: domains

Domain Spanish Guaran
Religion
Literature
Schooling
Broadcasting
Shopping
Gossipping

2.2 Narrow diglossia vs. Broad diglossia vs. Pseudo-diglossia

Britto (1986), Deumert (2011)

Use-oriented (narrow) diglossia

Britto (1986)
Societal and individual multilingualism with strict functional specialization.
The H variety (or language) is superposed for the entire speech community and
everyone learns it as a second language.
Use of H depends on domain specialization and is use-oriented.
No section of the speech community uses H for ordinary (spoken) conversation.

User-oriented (broad) diglossia

Britto (1986)
Societal and individual multilingualism with social stratification.
The H variety or language is not superposed for all members of the speech community
and certain groups within the speech community acquire H as their first language.
Use of H and L depends not only on domains, but also on social characteristics, e.g.
ethnicity, religion, social class.
H is commonly used as the normal conversational language by the elite.
Situation typical of former colonies in Africa and Asia, where the former colonial
language functions as H and the local languages function as L.

Pseudo-diglossia
Britto (1986)
Societal multilingualism without individual multilingualism.
The two varieties (or languages) are used by different speech communities within a
geographical or political entity.
There is no speech community-internal diglossia.
Situation in Belgium: the Dutch/Flemish, French and German speech communities
have defined monolingual territories; within these territories the local language is used
in all domains; prestige-related differences exist only at national level.

4
2.3 Diglossia, dilalia and bidialectalism
Berruto (1989, 1995, 2004)

(10) Characteristics of diglossia, dilalia and bidialectalism

Diglossia Dilalia Bidialectalism
Significant structural differences between H and L + +
Use of both H and L in ordinary conversation +
L is the variety of primary socialization +
Clear functional differentiation between H and L + + /?

Diglossia: Switzerland Hochdeutsch (Standard German) and Schwyzer Ttsch [=

Swiss German].
Dilalia: Italy Standard Italian and local dialect; Germany Hochdeutsch [= standard
German] and Mundarten [= dialects].
Bidialectalism: England Standard English and local dialect, France Standard
French and local patois [= dialects].

2.4 Polyglossia
Holmes (2001)
(10) a. French (H) vs. Hochdeutsch (H) vs. Letzebuergesch [= Luxemburg
German] (L)
b. Modern Standard Arabic (H) vs. French (H) vs. colloquial Arabic (L)
c. Putonghua (H) vs. Standard English (H) vs. Cantonese (L) vs. Singlish
[= Singapore Colloquial English] (L)

References
Berruto, G. 1989. On the typology of linguistic repertoires. In U. Ammon (ed.), Status and Function of
Language Varieties, 552-569. Berlin New York: de Gruyter.
Berruto, G. 1995. Fondamenti di sociolinguistica. Rome: Editori Laterza.
Berruto, G. 2004. Prima lezione di sociolinguistica. Rome: Editori Laterza.
Britto, E. 1986. Diglossia: A Study of the Theory with Applications to Tamil. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Deumert, A. 2011. Multilingualism. In R. Mesthrie (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Socio-
linguistics, 259-282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferguson, C. A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15: 325-340 [Also in L. Ionescu-Ruxndoiu and D. Chioran
(eds.). 1975. Sociolingvistica. Orientri actuale, 135-145. Bucharest: Editura Didactic i
Pedagogic; P. P. Giglioli (ed.). 1972. Language and Social Context, 232-251. London:
Penguin].
Fishman, J. A. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia: Diglossia with and without bilingualism.
Journal of Social Issues 23 (2): 29-38.
Fishman, J. A. 1971. Sociolinguistics. A Brief Introduction. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Holmes, J. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
Hudson, A. 2001. Diglossia. In R. Mesthrie (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics, 226-231.
Oxford: Elsevier.
Hudson, A. 2002. Outline of a theory of diglossia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
157: 1-48.
Kremnitz, G. 2004. Diglossie Polyglossie / Diglossia Polyglossia. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. J.
Mattheier, P. Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the

5
 Science of Language and Society. Ein internationals Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache
und Gesellschaft, vol. 2, 158-165. Berlin New York: de Gruyter.
Mesthrie, R. 2001. Clearing the ground: Basic issues, concepts and approaches. In R. Mesthrie, J.
Swann, A. Deumert and W. L. Leap, Introducing Sociolinguistics, 1-43. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Meyerhoff, M. 2006. Introducing Sociolinguistics. London and New York: Routledge.
Rubin, J. 1968. National Bilingualism in Paraguay. The Hague: Mouton.
Rubin, J. 1972. Bilingual usage in Paraguay. In J. A. Fishman (ed.), Advances in the Sociology of
Language, vol. 2, 512-530. The Hague: Mouton.
Schiffman, H. F. 1998. Diglossia as a sociolinguistic situation. In F. Coulmas (ed.), The Handbook of
Sociolinguistics, 205-216. Oxford: Blackwell.
Scotton, C. 1986. Diglossia and code-switching. In J. A. Fishman (ed.), The Fergusonian impact, vol.
2, Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of Language, 403-415. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trudgill, P. 1995. Sociolinguistics. An Introduction to Language and Society, revised edition. London:
Penguin.