NAME: SEMANTI MANNA

REG NO: 21HAMA03

In the article titled ‘Diglossia’, linguist Charles A. Ferguson explores the phenomenon of
diglossia which is described as the coexistence of two distinct varieties of a language within a
speech community. This paper, which was published in 1959, has since become a pioneering
work in the field of sociolinguistics. The article aims to examine a linguistic situation where two
or more varieties of a language are used alongside each other in a speech community and with
each language having a definite role to play. The two languages, as Ferguson states, are two
genetically related varieties where one occupies the higher position (this higher variety has been
termed as H) and the other occupies a lower position in society (this lower variety has been
termed as L). H is a literarily rich language that is mostly used for formal purposes and L is a
much more grammatically simpler language that is used for informal purposes.

To examine and elaborate on the concept of diglossia, Ferguson chooses four speech
communities and their languages – Arabic, Greek, Swiss German and Haitian Creole. Ferguson
further states that for a community to be diglossic, it must consist of nine features namely:
function, acquisition, stability, prestige, standardization, literary heritage, grammar, lexicon, and
phonology. The very first feature is that of functional difference between the H and L varieties.
H is appropriate for formal situations like media, education and politics whereas L is more
suitable for informal situations like talking with one’s friends and family. However, Ferguson
mentions that the two sets of situations might sometimes overlap with each other; but when that
happens, for instance using H in an informal setting and using L in a formal setting, the speaker
becomes an “object of ridicule”.

The second feature of a diglossic society is prestige. Ferguson writes that diglossic speakers
often view the H variety as superior to the L variety because of many reasons. They often deem
the H variety to be more beautiful, logical or expressive than L. Regarding standardization; H
varieties have conventionally been described in terms of grammars and dictionaries and have a
well-established orthography and pronunciation. On the other hand, L varieties vary extensively
in pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. Besides, descriptive studies on L varieties either do
not exist or have been started very recently. In terms of literary heritage too, there is a significant
amount of written literature in H which has been produced either in the history of the community
“or continues to be produced in another speech community in which H is the standard variety of
the language.”

As for acquisition, L is acquired natively by the speakers of the speech community but H is
learned by formal education and so Ferguson writes that ‘the speaker is at home in L to a degree
he almost never achieves in H’. Thus he puts forward his argument that any change towards the
full use of H is unlikely to occur without bringing about a change in the pattern of acquisition.
The stability of the diglossic community has been in place for several centuries, so it is not an
intermediate stage for a more stable language situation but a linguistic phenomenon in itself.
Nevertheless, at times diglossia may result in adopting either the H or the L as the single
standard language of the community. For instance if trends appear in the people in a community
desire for a fully-grown standard national language then diglossia may result in the adoption of
either the H or the L and to a lesser extent, a mixed variety. As Ferguson writes, “communicative
tensions are created between the H and L varieties which are reduced with the development and
use of intermediate forms of language and the borrowing of vocabulary from the H into the L
variety.”  

There are also extensive differences in the grammatical structures of H and L varieties, even
though they are genetically related. The grammar of L is normally simpler than the grammar of
H, and certain grammatical categories of H are not present in L. Regarding the lexicon, most of
the vocabulary of H an L is shared with variations in form, use and meaning. For instance,
technical terms only exist in H, while the more popular expressions in L do not exist in H.
Ferguson does not provide a general description for the phonology of H and L varieties in
diglossia as the phonology systems of the two varieties may be quite similar, quite different or
very different.

Besides its nine defining features, Ferguson maintains that diglossia may arise when three
conditions exist in a speech community – the existence of a large body of literature written in the
H variety which represents significant values of the community; literacy in the speech
community is restricted to a small elite; and lastly an appropriate period of time goes from the
establishment of the first two conditions as diglossia takes time to develop. And he further goes
on to state that although diglossia is a more or less stable situation, changes may occur if certain
trends continue to appear over a long period of time. This can result in three types of outcomes –
first, the H variety can end up becoming the standard language in the community; second, the H
variety fades away and becomes a “liturgical language studied only by scholars or specialists”
and L or a mixed variety becomes the standard; or thirdly, if there are several dialects of L in an
area then the L variety becomes the new standard for the center.

Finally, Ferguson discusses the challenges that a diglossic situation might provide in the case of
language policy and planning. He reasons that to promote equality in society as well as maintain
linguistic diversity, it is pertinent to recognize and value both the higher and lower varieties of a
language. He further goes on to state that language planners should try to focus on developing a
standard variety that is based on low variety rather than the high variety, since it is the former
that is most accessible to the majority of speakers.

Ferguson’s paper limits the concept of diglossia to the use of two or more varieties of the same
language in a community, Fishman later modifies this concept and publishes a paper (1967) that
examines a situation where even distinct languages are used alongside in a community with each
having specific roles. He proposed four possible types of relationships between diglossia and
bilingualism – diglossia with bilingualism, diglossia without bilingualism, bilingualism without
diglossia and neither bilingualism nor diglossia. Among these, diglossia without bilingualism is a
situation where two or more speech communities are united religiously, politically or
economically into a single functioning unit notwithstanding the socio-cultural variances that
separate them. In such a setting, there can be two or more varieties of a language with one group
of speakers controlling the H variety while another group controls the L variety. This was the
case of 17th century Bengal where the high landowning class used the Sadhu Bhasha (the H
variety) and the lower working classes used the Cholito Bhasha (the L variety). However owing
to a surge of nationalistic movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, the H variety became nearly
obsolete and the L variety is the standard language of the masses today.

Overall, Ferguson’s article provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the phenomenon
of diglossia. By examining a range of case studies, he is able to demonstrate the commonalities
and patterns that underlie this complex linguistic and social occurrence. And both Ferguson’s
classical diglossia and Fishman’s extended diglossia have had a lasting impact on the field of
sociolinguistics and remains a valuable resource for scholars and researchers in this area.