DIGLOSSIA
Sociolinguistics encompasses a broad range of concerns including
the use of two or more language varieties in distinct social domains
within the same speech community, i.e., the use of two distinct varieties
of the same language for different functions. There are many societies
where the official language that is used at schools or media is
significantly different from that used at home or in ordinary
conversations and often called a “dialect” or “vernacular”. Such a
situation is referred to by linguists as diglossia, a term that was
introduced in 1959 by the linguist Charles Ferguson, and it has attracted
wide attention since the publication of his article in which he used the
term.
Diglossia has many definitions that were introduced by many
linguists such as Ferguson, Trudgill, Fellman…etc. Basically, the term
Diglossia was first introduced in 1959 by the linguist Charles Ferguson,
as he wrote in his article, “on the French diglossie, which has been
applied to this situation, since there seems to be no word in regular use
for this in English; other languages of Europe generally use the word for
‘bilingualism’ in this sense as well.” Furthermore, Charles Ferguson
defines diglossia as a situation where:
In addition to the primary dialect or language . . . there is
a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically
more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large
and respected body of written literature . . . which is
learned largely by formal education and is used for most
written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by
any sector of the community for ordinary conversation.
(Ferguson, 1959:336)
Thus, Ferguson’s definition handles both the high variety as well as
the low one. It also shows diglossia regarding the linguistic structures
and how both varieties play different roles in communication process
rather than being different in linguistics structure.
On the whole, classic definitions of diglossia refer to relatively
stable situations where everyone within a community uses the two
varieties in these different domains. Actually, Fasold (1993: 35) also
pointed out that “there are two moderately distinct varieties of the same
language, of which one is called the High dialect (H) and the other the
Low dialect (L)”. Trudgill (1995: 97-98) defines diglossia as "a particular
kind of language standardization where two distinct varieties of a
language exist side by side throughout the speech community {…} and
where each of the two varieties is assigned a definite social function.”
The term diglossia may be limited to cases in which H and L are
considered to be versions of the same language but they are different
because each of them possesses its own (higher or lower) sociolinguistic
status and therefore they are applied to two discrete functions.
However, both H and L are appropriate in different types of situation; H
variety is used in formal situations or contexts and the L variety is used
as the language of everyday speech. In other words, according to
Wardhaugh, (1990), H varieties are typically used for delivering formal
lectures, political speeches and in newspapers. L varieties are used when
giving instructions to workers in low-prestige occupations, in
conversation with familiars and often on the radio.
According to Ferguson, there are several features that characterize
diglossia. They are as follows:
1. Function: H is the formal language that is used in specific types of
situations and writings, such as in formal lectures, newspapers, political
speeches..etc. while L is used for daily conversations including calls,
messages ..etc. When Ferguson defined diglossia, the functions of the
High and Low varieties of the four languages which were in diglossic
situation (namely, Standard German/Swiss German, Standard Arabic /
Vernacular Arabic, Standard French/Creole in Haiti, and Katharevousa/
Dhimotiki in Greece) were complementary. Speakers use either H or L
according to situation and formality.
2. Prestige: The speakers of the language concerned regard H as
superior to L in a number of respects, e.g. H is considered more
educated, more sophisticated, more logical, better able to express
important thoughts. For example, in Arab countries, the superiority of H
is connected with religion; that is, the language of the Holy Qur'an and
Hadeeth is Standard Arabic which is the high variety of Arabic language.
However, some speakers of the L variety, for example educated Arabs,
often deny that they even use it, even though L is widely used in
everyday conversations (Fasold 1993). Another example is Katharevousa
which enjoyed a very high prestige because of historical considerations
since it was the language of the Greek civilization.
3. Literary heritage: All the literature is written in H variety. Despite the
fact that some poems, stories, novels, etc. are written in L variety in
most communities concerned with diglossia, they are considered not to
be a pure literature compared to those written in H and taught at
schools or universities. For example, the amount of literary works in
Standard French is so huge. These literary works are considered of world
literature, but Creole does not any literary heritage, except for some
poems and prose which can never reach the high prestige of Standard
French literature. The same is true for Arabic where there is a big literary
heritage in Standard Arabic, and a very little heritage in Vernacular
Arabic.
4. Acquisition: L is the language of home; therefore, it is acquired first .
Later, at a certain age, the child learns the H variety at school. For
example, since Swiss German is the Low variety and the native language
of its speakers, it is acquired at home. Standard German is learnt
afterwards in school. The same is true for the other diglossic societies
mentioned by Ferguson.
5. Standardization: H is standardized because its grammars , dictionaries,
etc. are written by native grammarians, e.g. in Standard Arabic , the rule
that a sentence must have a subject that follows the verb " Nama
Ahmad bilfondoq". Conversely, L is not strictly standardized despite the
fact that one cannot speak a dialect randomly, there are rules that can
be recognized by sense and traditionally, e.g. in Arabic dialects the
sentence may include a subject preceding the verb " Ahmad nam
blfondoq" and it is not accepted to say the sentence without a subject
"* nam blfondoq ". The same is true for the other diglossic situations.
For example, Standard French is well known to be a standardized
language with its norms and rules, but Creole was a spoken language
with no written rules.
6. Grammar: The grammar of H variety is more complex than that of L
variety . In H variety , the sentence must be grammatically and
semantically correct, while in the L variety much attention is to the
semantic issue , e.g. in a Saudi dialect one can use a plural pronoun to
refer to duality " Amal wa Ilham akalo alasha'a " instead of " " Amal wa
Ilham akalata alasha'a". Moreover, grammatical categories of H may not
be available in L and the inflectional system of nouns and verbs of H is
often reduced or completely absent from L (Ferguson 1996).
7. Stability: The diglossic situation in a given language is relatively
stable. It can persist for several centuries, and in some cases seems to
last well over a thousand years (Ferguson 1996). However, in the case of
Arabic language is not fully stable because both H and L variety of it
change by time.
8. Lexicon: The lexicon of both H and L varieties is somehow different
though it is generally shared, e.g. in Saudi dialects the word "do" is
referred to as "sawait" while in MSA it is " fa'alt".
9. Phonology: Both H and L varieties share the same phonological
elements , but H has more complicated morphophonemics, e.g. MSA
has the diacritics that are not used in dialects " baabon " in MSA and "
baab" in dialects.
Charles Ferguson noted that Arabic is often considered a “diglossic”
language, for the existence of a higher and lower variations used in
contexts. The higher variation is sometimes referred to as Fusha,
Classical Arabic, Standard Arabic, or Modern Standard Arabic. This study
adopts the term Modern Standard Arabic to represent a more modern
version of the Arabic found in the Qur’an, which is used in formal
contexts and writing. "Besides being the language of the Qur’an,
Classical Arabic was also used as formal prose, such as for the sayings of
the prophet (Hadith). This secured MSA Arabic an exalted position in the
minds of Arabs, who saw in it the language of God and spirituality.
Nevertheless, this exalted position also meant that the language was,
like God, unattainable” (Fellman, 1973:29). The lower variation is referred
to simply as colloquial, spoken varieties of Arabic, vernacular. For
example, when one says ''What do you want'' in MSA it is "matha turid?"
while in colloquial Arabic, particularly in Saudi dialect, it is said as "aish
tebga?"; the two forms are different though they are the same language
but here the use of these forms depends on formality.
In most cases, some non-linguists have claimed that the low
language variety is almost always related to education and is considered
less important than the high language variety. Fasold stated that:
"Most reasonably well-educated people in diglossic
communities can recite the rules of H grammar, but not the
rules for L. On the other hand, they unconsciously apply the
grammatical rules of L in their normal speech with near
perfection, whereas the corresponding ability in H is limited. In
many diglossic communities, if speakers are asked, they will
tell you L has no grammar, and that L speech is the result of
the failure to follow the rules of H grammar." (Fasold,
1984:40).
Accordingly, those who are proficient in the low language may
be considered illiterate if they do not understand or know how to
speak the high language variety. In Saudi Arabia, for instance,
people who are not able to speak MSA are considered to be
illiterate or have not received enough education even if they are
from a high class.
Ferguson's classic examples include Standard German/Swiss
German, Standard Arabic/vernacular Arabic, Standard French/Creole
in Haiti, and Katharevousa/Dhimotiki in Greece. Creole is now
recognized as a standard language in Haiti. Swiss German dialects
are hardly languages with low prestige in Switzerland (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 a few exceptions)
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 codeswitching 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.
Therefore, diglossic language situations are defined by the
existence of a "low" variety, used in the everyday language of the
majority of the population, and a "high" variety, used in specific formal
situations and usually spoken only by a minority of the population. In
certain cases, there is a preference for the "high" variety, whereas the
"low" variety is considered by its own speakers as a "degraded" version
of the language. However, there is a movement of change towards
these conceptions, and more countries with diglossic languages are
beginning to use the "low" variety in situations where they were not
suitable before.
References:
Fasold, R. 1984. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fasold, R. 1993. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fellman, J. 1973. Sociolinguistic problems in the Middle Eastern Arab world. The
Hague: Mouton.
Ferguson, A. Charles. 1996. Sociolinguistic Perspectives: Papers on Language in
Society 1959-1994. Ed. Thom Huebner. New York: Oxford University Press.
Trudgill, P. 1995. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society.
London: Penguin Books.
Wardhaugh, R. 1990. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
KSA