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, Kremnitz 2004)

(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 Tüütsch [= Swiss
German] (L)

1
 d. French (H) vs. Haitian French Creole (L)
(3) Classical Arabic (H) vs. Egyptian Arabic (L)
a. Lexicon:
H ra’a: vs. L ša:f ‘to see’
b. Grammar:
H la: ’astati‘u vs. L ma ’dar-š
NEG can NEG can NEG
‘I cannot.’
c. Phonology:
H /θ/, /t/ vs. L /t/
H /ð/, /d/ vs. L /d/
H /q/, /’/ vs. L /’/

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

H ikías vs. L spiti ‘house’

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

a. H Dachboden vs. L Estrich ‘attic’
b. H Kartoffel vs. L Härdopfel ‘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 Ausländer
verraten, sondern auch seine Gewohnheiten. (Trudgill 1995)
b. Schwyzer Tüütsch = Swiss German (L):
En Schwyzer isch er zwaar nie woorde, weder en papiirige na äine im
Hëërz ine; und eebigs häd mer syner Spraach aagmërkt, das er nüd
daa uufgwachsen isch. Nüd nu s Muul häd de Ussländer verrate, au
syni Möödteli. (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 Tüütsch 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)
“Fishman’s 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” = “Fishman’s extension” (Fishman 1967,
1971): functional specialization of two different languages.

Fishman’s taxonomy of “kinds of linguistic relationships between H’s and L’s”

(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. Guaraní; 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 Tüütsch; 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:
Guaraní-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. Guaraní (L)
Rubin (1968, 1972), Fishman (1971)
(i) 6% are native speakers of Spanish, 88% are native speakers of Guaraní.
(ii) A high percentage knows and uses both languages.
(iii) 92% know Guaraní 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 Guaraní.

(9) Spanish vs. Guaraní: domains

Domain Spanish Guaraní
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 Tüütsch [=

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), Kremnitz (2004)
(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-Ruxăndoiu and D. Chiţoran
(eds.). 1975. Sociolingvistica. Orientări actuale, 135-145. Bucharest: Editura Didactică şi
Pedagogică; 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.