Diglossia

In linguistics, diglossia is a situation where, in a given society, there are two (often closely-related) languages, one of high prestige, which is generally used by the government and in formal texts, and one of low prestige, which is usually the spoken vernacular tongue. The high-prestige language tends to be the more formalised, and its forms and vocabulary often 'filter down' into the vernacular, though often in a changed form. As an aspect of study of the relationships between codes and social structure, diglossia is an important concept in the field of sociolinguistics.

Etymology

The French term diglossie was first coined (as a translation of Greek διγλωσσία, 'bilingualism') by the Greek linguist and demoticist Ioannis Psycharis. The Arabist William Marçais used the term in 1930 to describe the linguistic situation in Arabic-speaking countries.

Language registers and types of diglossia

In Charles A. Ferguson's article "Diglossia" in the journal Word (1959), diglossia was described as a kind of bilingualism in a given society in which one of the languages is (H), i.e. has high prestige, and another of the languages is (L), i.e. has low prestige. In Ferguson's definition, (H) and (L) are always closely related. Joshua Fishman also talks about diglossia with unrelated languages as "extended diglossia" (Fishman 1967), for example Sanskritized Kannada as (H) and Kannada as (L) or Alsatian (Elsässisch) in Alsace as (L) and French as (H). Kloss calls the (H) variant exoglossia and the (L) variant endoglossia.

In some cases (especially with creole languages), the nature of the connection between (H) and (L) is not one of diglossia but a continuum; for example, Jamaican Creole as (L) and Standard English as (H) in Jamaica.

(H) is usually the written language whereas (L) is the spoken language. In formal situations, (H) is used; in informal situations, (L) is used. One of the earliest known examples is Latin, having diglossia Classical Latin (H) and Vulgar Latin (L). The latter is the tongue from which the Romance languages descended, and is almost completely unattested in text.

The (L) variants are not just simplifications or "corruptions" of the (H) variants. Many (L) languages have certain features that are more complex than the corresponding (H) languages: some Swiss German dialects have /e/, /ɛ/ and /æ/ while Standard German only has /ɛ(ː)/ (Berlin 'Berlin', Bären 'bears') and /eː/ (Beeren 'berries'). Jamaican Creole has fewer vowel phonemes than standard Englishes, but it has additional palatal /kʲ/ and /ɡʲ/ phonemes.

Especially in endoglossia the (L) form may also be called "basilect", the (H) form "acrolect", and an intermediate form "mesolect". Note however that there is no "mesolect" in German-speaking Switzerland and in Luxembourg. Whether Paraguay has a form of diglossia is controversial. Guaraní and Spanish are both official languages of Paraguay. Some scholars argue that there are Paraguayans who actually don't speak Guaraní. The Chinese language also offers an interesting case.

Ferguson's classic examples include Standard German/Swiss German, Standard Arabic/vernacular Arabic, Standard French/Kréyòl in Haiti, Katharevousa/Dhimotiki in Greece, and Bokmål/Nynorsk in Norway. However, Kréyòl is now recognised as a standard language in Haiti. Swiss German dialects are hardly languages with low prestige in Switzerland; and colloquial Arabic has more prestige in some respects than standard Arabic nowadays (see Chambers, Sociolinguistic Theory). And after the end of the military regime in 1974, Dhimotiki was made into Greece's only standard language (1976). Nowadays, Katharevousa is (with few exceptions, e. g. by the Greek Orthodox Church) no longer used. Harold Schiffman writes about Swiss German: "it seems to be the case that Swiss German was once consensually agreed to be in a diglossic hierarchy with Standard German, but that this consensus is now breaking." There is also a lot of code-switching especially in the Arabic world; according to Andrew Freeman this is "different from Ferguson's description of diglossia which states that the two forms are in complementary distribution." To a certain extent, there is code switching and overlap in all diglossic societies, even German-speaking Switzerland. Furthermore, in Ferguson's definition, diglossia is not bilingualism; however this depends on the scholar's definition of language. For example, different kinds of Arabic are not mutually intelligible; even though many are, but this may also be due to exposure to different varieties rather than inherent linguistic properties.

Examples where the High/Low dichotomy is justified in terms of social prestige include Italian dialects as (L) and Standard Italian as (H) in Italy and German dialects and standard German in Germany. In Italy and Germany, those speakers who still speak dialects typically use dialect in informal situations, especially in the family. In German-speaking Switzerland, on the other hand, Swiss German dialects are to a certain extent even used in schools and to a larger extent in churches. Ramseier calls German-speaking Switzerland's diglossia a "medial diglossia", whereas Felicity Rash prefers "functional diglossia". Paradoxically, Swiss German offers both the best example for diglossia (all speakers are native speakers of Swiss German and thus diglossic) and the worst, because there is no clear-cut hierarchy.

English during the Norman invasion

Historically, England had diglossia between a French-speaking ruling class and Germanic-speaking commoners. English was created through the merger of this divide. However, there is still evidence of a division, between "academic" words and "common" words. Many "power" words (such as bailiff) are "academic".

Arabic

Standard Arabic and the spoken varieties of Arabic form a distinct diglossia. The spoken varieties, in addition, are generally mutually unintelligible. For various reasons, Standard Arabic, an educated dachsprache, is mostly used for literary and official purposes, and is acquired only through education rather than at home.

Catalan

With the exception of Andorra, Catalan as spoken outside of Catalonia may be diglossic in various grades, from highly to barely diglossic. Diglossia in Catalan is typically stronger in metropolitan areas than in moderately to sparsely populated areas.

This phenomenon affects Alghero (whose local Catalan dialect remains in severe danger of extinction despite the recent revival in its usage), some areas in the Balearic Islands, so-called "North Catalonia" and, in its Valencian modality, some areas in the Valencian Community as well.

Chinese

Template:Ruby notice For over two thousand years, the Chinese used Classical Chinese (Literary Chinese) as a formal standard written language. The standard written language served as a bridge for communication throughout China (and other countries in the CJKV area) for millennia.

However, the colloquial spoken Chinese varieties continued to evolve. The gulf became so wide between the formal written and colloquial spoken languages that it was blamed for hindering education and literacy, and some even went so far as to blame it in part for the political turmoil that occurred in China during the 19th and early 20th centuries. This eventually culminated into the adoption of Vernacular Chinese, which was based on modern spoken Mandarin, for all formal communication.

Modern Chinese

After the adoption of Vernacular Chinese as the modern standard written language in the early 20th century, diglossia was no longer a big issue among the majority of Chinese speakers who natively spoke Mandarin Chinese. However, Vernacular Chinese and its pronunciation in local dialects still is an acrolect in regions where Mandarin is not spoken natively, such as most of South China.

For instance in Hong Kong, Standard Cantonese is the primary language of spoken communication, although all formal written communication is done in Vernacular Chinese. Unique among the other Chinese dialects, Cantonese has its own written form, but it is only used in informal contexts and is often inconsistent due to the absence of standardization.

Literate Chinese speakers can read and write in the Mandarin-based standard written language. However because the graphemes in Chinese's logographic writing system are not directly linked to pronunciation (though there are quasi-phonetic hints), Cantonese speakers who do not speak Mandarin will read aloud the characters in Cantonese pronunciation only. The resulting speech is Mandarin-based grammar and vocabulary pronounced word-by-word in Cantonese. If the same sentence were to be spoken using regular colloquial Cantonese, it might be quite different. Here is an example:

English Sentence	Please give me his book.
Standard Written Chinese Rendition	請(Please) 給(give) 我(me) 他(him) 的(GENITIVE) 書(book) 。(.)
Standard Mandarin Pronunciation of Writing	Qǐng gěi wǒ tā de shū.
Cantonese Pronunciation of Writing	Chíng kāp ngóh tā dīk syū.
Written Colloquial Cantonese Rendition	唔該(Please) 畀(give) 佢(him) 本(MEASURE) 書(book) 我(me) 。(.)
Colloquial Cantonese Pronunciation	M̀h-gōi béi kéuih bún syū ngóh.

Note: Mandarin romanized using Hanyu Pinyin. Cantonese romanized using Yale. Written Cantonese shown uses characters not in standard written Chinese.

In the above example, note the switching of the direct and indirect objects and the use of different vocabulary for certain words in the standard Chinese and colloquial Cantonese renditions. In addition, Cantonese allows the use of measure words to serve in the place of a genitive particle.

Cantonese pronunciation of standard written Chinese is generally understandable to Cantonese speakers educated in the standard written language. It is most often used in Cantonese newscasts, albeit with certain substitutions of colloquial Cantonese vocabulary so as to make it not sound as stilted. This form of spoken Cantonese is a higher register and can be considered the acrolect to the colloquial Cantonese basilect.

Classical Chinese

Before the modern adoption of Vernacular Chinese, the diglossic situation also applied to Mandarin speakers when Classical Chinese was the standard written language.

Continuing the previous example for comparison, using Classical Chinese it would be:

Classical Chinese Rendition	求(Request) 爾(you) 予(give) 我(me) 其(his) 書(book) 。(.)
Standard Mandarin Pronunciation of Classical Chinese	Qiú ěr yǔ wǒ qí shū.
Cantonese Pronunciation of Classical Chinese	Kàuh yíh yúh ngóh kèih syū.

Because Chinese's logographic writing system doesn't indicate exact pronuncation, the pronunciation of Classical Chinese in Old Chinese is generally not possible (though tentative reconstructions of the phonology of Old Chinese have been attempted). Instead, Classical Chinese is also generally pronounced according to the local dialect (such as the Mandarin and Cantonese pronunciations given above), much like how Cantonese speakers pronounce the modern Mandarin-based Vernacular Chinese using Cantonese.

Unlike the situation with modern Chinese though, Classical Chinese spoken according to the pronunciations of the modern spoken Chinese varieties is still largely unintelligible without training due to the syntax and vocabulary changes that Chinese has undergone since Old Chinese. In addition, sound mergers in the modern dialects cause many distinct words in Classical Chinese to sound homophonous. For one notable example, see Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den.

Greek

Until the seventies, the Greek language distinguished between Dimotiki, the colloquial language which was used in everyday discussions and the extremely formal and archaic Katharevousa, which was used in more "educated" contexts, as in school, in court, in law texts etc. Extreme Katharevousa was, in fact, nearly pure Ancient Greek, and as such, nearly completely unintellegible for children and adults without higher education. This was the reason for the Greek language question, which was a heated dispute on which language form was to be the official language of the state. This dispute was eventually settled, and today the single language used in all texts is an educated variant of Dimotiki, which was enriched by many expressions from Katharevousa. This variant is commonly called Modern Greek.

Maltese

Malta is officially a bi-lingual country: both Maltese and English are official languages. Maltese is, uniquely for Europe, a Semitic dialect left over from Arab domination of the islands which ended some 900 years ago and English as Malta was a colony until 1964.

Maltese society has been traditionally quite strongly divided, politically, between the working class and middle and upper classes and this is reflected in their language use. Although all Maltese can speak their native language, the extent to which one uses and is able to speak English often reflects one's background. This is most clearly illustrated by the different newspapers in Malta: the liberal/conservative ones are in English (with names like the Times of Malta and Malta Independent) and the more left-leaning ones are in Maltese. Maltese people of a middle- and upper-class background will often speak English or use code-switching extensively in public. There have been warnings from several quarters including a linguistics professor from the university of Malta that the Maltese language could become endangered if the government (currently the right of centre Nationalists) does not do more to promote it, in the same way that English displaced Welsh in Wales.

Before 1934, Italian was the official language of Malta. Those in higher class positions spoke Maltese, and were often associated with the Italian irredenta movement, which promoted the unification of Malta with Italy. It was only those of lower class at the time whose ancestors came from Sicily too long ago for them to still be fluent in Italian, that spoke Maltese. Today, the influence of the Italian language is still very present in Malta. Not only is it used in the professional workplace, but it is also key to Malta's media, such as Television, Radio, and publications ^[1].

Portuguese

According to some contemporary Brazilian linguists (Bortoni, Kato, Mattos e Silva, Perini and most recently, with great impact, Bagno), Brazilian Portuguese may be a highly diglossic language. This theory claims that there is an L-variant (termed "Brazilian Vernacular"), which would be the mother tongue of all Brazilians, and an H-variant (standard Brazilian Portuguese) acquired through schooling. L-variant represents a simplified form of the language (in terms of grammar, but not of phonetics) that could have evolved from 16th century Portuguese, influenced by Amerindian (mostly Tupian) and African languages, while H-variant would be based on 19th century European Portuguese (and very similar to Standard European Portuguese, with only minor differences in spelling and grammar usage). Mário A. Perini, a Brazilian linguist, even compares the depth of the differences between L- and H- variants of Brazilian Portuguese with those between Standard Spanish and Standard Portuguese. However, his proposal is still not widely accepted by either grammarians or academics.

Urdu

In Pakistan there is a diglossia between the extremely Persianised Urdu (used by the literary elite such as poets and writers, and the Government officials) to an Urdu that is very similar to Hindi (spoken by common people, and known as Hindustani among the linguists).

Sinhala

Sinhala (also known as Sinhalese), spoken in Sri Lanka, is a diglossic language. There are several differences between the literary language (also known as Literary Sinhala, LS) and the spoken language (Spoken Sinhala, SS), specially about verbs:

different personal pronouns:
- "he, she": LS ohu, æja; SS eja (lit. "that one", common);

lack of inflection of the verb in SS:
- "I do", "you (sing.) do": LS mamə kərəmi, obə kərəi (inflected); SS mamə kərənəʋa, obə kərənəʋa (not-inflected, the same form for all persons)

lack of future tense in SS, substituted by present tense plus optional temporal adverb:
- LS mamə jannəmi "I will go"; SS heʈə mamə janəʋa "tomorrow I will go" (lit. "tomorrow I go");

different verbal forms (e.g. present participle in LS versus reduplicated form in SS);

different adpositions:
- "with": LS saməⁿgə; SS ekːa
- "from" (temporal): LS siʈə; SS iⁿdəla
- "before" : LS perə; SS isːelːa, isːəra

different vocabulary, e.g.:
- "to help": LS upəkaːrə kərənəʋa; SS udau kərənəʋa
- "to touch": LS sparʃəjə kərənəʋa; SS allənəʋa
- "to marry": LS ʋiʋahə ʋenəʋa; SS kasaːdə baⁿdinəʋa
- "to study": LS adːjənəjə kərənəʋa; SS paːɖəm kərənəʋa
- "to fight": LS saʈən kərənəʋa; SS ranɖu kərənəʋa

Literary or written Sinhala is commonly understood, and used in literary texts and formal occasions (public speeches, TV and radio news broadcasts, etc.), whereas the spoken language is used as the language of communication in everyday life. The children are taught the written language at school almost like a foreign language.

Tagalog

Tagalog is the language spoken in the southern part of Luzon, the northermost group of islands in the Philippines. Southern Luzon covers the provinces around the capital Metro Manila, including the capital itself. The language spoken there, Tagalog, is the basis for the country's national language, Filipino, which is basically the standardized form of the Tagalog spoken in Metro Manila. Tagalogs from Tagalog-speaking areas, other than Metro Manila, speak their own dialect of Tagalog. Foremost example is that of Batangas, Batangueño Tagalog. When those who speak Batangueño Tagalog, for example, go to Manila, they will eventually learn to use the Manila dialect and speak only their native dialect when they go back to their provinces or when they gather together. At the moment, very little is written using any other dialect of Tagalog other than that of Manila. Also, having a regional accent is viewed to be not beneficial in the Philippines. And although there are some who would maintain their accents, their use is very minimal outside the provinces.

Tamil

Tamil is a diglossic language. The classic form of the language is different from the natural form called from the ancient times as IyaRRamizh. This pertains to poetic and dramatic (Ichaittamizh and Naatakaththamizh) languages only. Spoken language or IyaRRamizh was naturally accepted to be free from diaglossia until the modern times. This is reflected from the used of common speech in inscriptions, copper plates etc..,. However, after the onset of prose writing, a modern innovation, diglossia crept into prose and public speech as well. The western idea of Poetic license was forced unwittingly into the otherwise orthodox poetic and dramatic Tamils in the name of புதுக்கவிதை (New Poeticism). Thus the basic foundation of Tamil grammar was shaken and reshaped in the name of modern 'innovations', largely borrowed from modernist concepts. Thereby Poetic Tamil became "free for all" and rules the started being applied to natural இயற்றமிழ் leading to a toppling of traditional Tamil.

Now the new Senthamizh, an unscientific modern reconstruction of a purpotedly archaic Tamil form, if such a single form ever existed, is preferred for writing, and is also used for public speaking. While written Tamil is mostly standardised today, dialectics plays a major role in influence of the idiolect and thereby heavily influencing individual Standardised writing.

Novels, even popular ones, will use for all description and narration and use only for dialogue, if they use it at all. Even though all Tamils in ordinary conversation will use the natural form, they often depict educated people speaking in an artificially constructed Senthamizh form.

The Singapore Tamil population perhaps represent the true nature of Tamil, showing diglossia, where the Singaporean Tamils speak natural Tamil and write in it, all their official communications being in English (H). However, Tamil is one of the four official languages of Singapore.

The spoken form is highly modified and mixed up with the English (and referred to as "Tanglish") used in the official documents and media, creating a new combo of two artificially introduced languages, English and Senthamizh, thereby distancing and building a sense of inferiority in the native speaker).

Regional and caste differences predominate in natural Tamil (IyaRRamizh) variation. Tamil in the state capital Chennai (formerly Madras) is often quite distinct from that spoken elsewhere. Due to its proximity to Andhra Pradesh, there are often more Telugu words. Chennai IyaRRamizh also often has more words of Urdu (or Dakhni) than do varieties of Tamil from elsewhere in the state. Because of the larger role of English, Chennai Tamil also shows a great influence from this language. Of course, the IyyaRRamizh spoken in Sri Lanka, while fully intelligible, also has clear differences in vocabulary and pronunciation. Throughout the state, a tripartite caste-based division is also common. Brahmins who have settled in Tamil Nadu speak IyaRRmizh with modifications restricted to their caste. The middle tier largely agrarian castes speak the characteristic 'dialects' of IyaRRamizh. Similarly, Scheduled Castes (formerly called Untouchables) speak forms of IyaRRmizh with clear grammatical differences from that of the members of other castes.

However, besides caste difference, regional differences are more interesting to note. Also see [[1]] for dialectical variations in IyaRRamizh

Ukrainian

Using the Matched-Guise Test, Laada Bilaniuk (University of Michigan) administered surveys to 2,000 participants in Ukraine. In her article "Diglossia in Flux: Language and Ethnicity in Ukraine", Bilaniuk reports that until now, Russian has been the High language and Ukrainian the Low language. However, her data shows that diglossia in Ukraine is shifting.

Now, both standard Russian and standard Ukrainian are considered the High languages, and the Low category is filled with all non-standard dialects of the High languages.

Bibliography

Eeden, Petrus van. "Diglossie" http://www.afrikaans.nu/pag7.htm
Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. "Diglossia," Word 15: 325-340.
Fishman, Joshua. 1967. “Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism.” Journal of Social Issues 23: 29-38.
Freeman, Andrew. "Andrew Freeman's Perspectives on Arabic Diglossia" http://www-personal.umich.edu/~andyf/digl_96.htm
Lubliner, Jacob. "Reflections on Diglossia" http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~coby/essays/refdigl.htm
Ramsey, S. Robert (1987). The Languages of China. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01468-X.
Rash, Felicity. 1998. The German Language in Switzerland. Multilingualism, Diglossia and Variation. Bern: Peter Lang.
Schiffman, Harold. "Diglossia as a Sociolinguistic Situation" http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/messeas/diglossia/node1.html

Ukrainian/Russian

Diglossia in flux: language and ethnicity in Ukraine. Texas Linguistic Forum (1993) 33:79-88.

Yavorska Galyna M. Prescriptyvna lingvistyka yak dyskurs: Mova, kultura, vlada (Prescriptive linguistics as a discourse: Language. Culture. Power). Kyiv, VIPOL, 2000. - 288 p. Yavorska G. Do problemy naivnoyi linguistyky (On the problem of folk linguistics). - Lingvistychni studii. Cherkassy, 1999, # 3. - 13-20. Yavorska G. Dejaki osoblyvosti movnykh kontaktiv blyz'kosporidnenykh mov (do kharakterystyky ukrain's'koho puryzmu) (On contacts of closely related languages: some features of Ukrainian purism). In memoria of K. Trofymovych. L'viv, Litopys, 1998.

Other sources for reference (by Bilaniuk)

The Languages of Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. REECAS Newsletter, Russian, East European & Central Asian Studies, Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington (Spring).
A typology of surzhyk: mixed Ukrainian-Russian language. International Journal of Bilingualism 8(4):409-425.
Gender, language attitudes, and language status in Ukraine. Language in Society. 32:47-78.
Pidsvidome stavlennia do mov: zerkalo movnoï polityky. (Subconscious language attitudes: a mirror of language politics.) Urok Ukraïnskoï (Ukrainian journal for educators and language planners). Kyiv. 7:5-8. [Based on 1998 "Purity & power" data.]
Kartyna movnoho svitohliadu v Ukraïni. (Linguistic ideology in Ukraine). Movoznavstvo (major Ukrainian linguistics journal). 4/5:44-51. [Based on 1997 "Matching guises" data.]
Movna krytyka i samovpevnenist': ideolohichni vplyvy na status mov v Ukraïni. [Linguistic criticism and self-confidence: ideological influences on language status in Ukraine]. Derzhavnist' ukraïns'koï movy i movnyi dosvid svitu: materialy mizhnarodnoï konferentsiï. *Kyiv: National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Pp. 131-138.
Speaking of surzhyk: ideologies and mixed languages. Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 21(1/2):93-117.
Purity and power: the geography of language ideology in Ukraine. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology 13:165-189.
Matching guises and mapping language ideologies in Ukraine. Texas Linguistic Forum 37:298-310.