Key scholars

• Charles A. Ferguson (1921-1998)

Diglossia, 1959, Word vol. 15: 325-340
-introduces the concept

• Joshua A. Fishman (1926-)

-develops Ferguson’s ideas
-introduces ‘extended bilingualism’
Ferguson’s definition of diglossia

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 spoken purposes but is not used by any
section of the community for ordinary conversation
(1959)
Ferguson’s definition of diglossia

• “a specific relationship between 2 or more varieties

of the same language in use in a speech community
in different functions” (1972: 232)

• One variety is superposed, labelled H, whilst the

other variety(ies) are L and can be distinguished
through their functional specialisation

Polyglossia = when more than two varieties are

involved
 Typical situations for
H and L varieties
• High usages:
sermon in church/mosque
personal letter
speech in parliament/political speech
university lecture
news broadcast
newspaper editorial, news story
poetry

• Low usages:
instructions to waiters
conversations with family, friends, colleagues
radio soap opera
caption on political cartoon
folk literature

• Overlap between the two - in all defining speech communities it is typical to read
aloud from a newspaper in H and discuss its contents in L.
 Areas in which H and L differ
• Function – H and L different purposes, native speakers would find it odd if anyone used H in an
L domain or L in an H domain
• Prestige – H more highly valued
• Literary heritage – literature normally in H variety, no written uses of L
• Acquisition – L variety learned first, H acquired through schooling
• Standardisation – H strictly standardised, L rarely standardised
• Stability – diglossias generally stable
• Grammar – H more complex than L
• Lexicon – often shared, but differentiations in vocabulary
• Phonology – two kinds of systems – H and L share same phonological elements but H has
more complicated morphophenomics, or where H has contrasts that L lacks but may borrow
 Diglossic communities
• Haiti
H – French
L - Haitian creole
• Switzerland
H – standard German
L – Swiss German
• Egypt
H – Classical Arabic
L – colloquial Arabic
 Institutional support systems
• L typically acquired at home as a mother tongue – continued use
throughout life – familiar interactions
• H learned through socialisation and never at home
• Diglossic societies are marked by access restriction – i.e. entry to
formal institutions such as school and government requires
knowledge of H

• Importance attached by community members to using the right

variety in the appropriate context – speakers regard H as superior
to L in a number of respects
– in some cases speakers claim they do not speak L
– alleged superiority for religious and/or literary reasons
– strong tradition of formal grammatical study and standardisation
associated with H
 How does diglossia come about?
Examples:
• -sizeable body of literature in a language
closely related to natural language of the
community - this literature embodies some of
the fundamental values of the group
• -literacy in the community limited to a small
elite
 Power and prestige
• H - greater international prestige, language of the
local power elite, or dominant religious community
• H-variety language = language of more powerful
section of the society
• French Canada – English (H)
– greatest prestige in North America and internationally
– population numerically greater than community of French
speakers,
– speech community is economically dominant, in both the
English and French areas of Canada
 Fishman’s diglossia
• Extended diglossia:
includes speech communities in which the high and low
varieties are not necessarily close related varieties
Two or more varieties are mother tongues, each of
different segments of the population

Paraguay – Spanish (H), Guarani (L)

-both are mother tongues for different groups
 Fishman’s extended diglossia
• 4 variations of linguistic relationship between H’s
and L’s
– H as classical, L as vernacular, the two being genetically
related
– H as classical, L as vernacular, the two not being
genetically related
– H as written/formal-spoken and L as vernacular, the two
being genetically unrelated to each other
– H as written/formal-spoken and L as vernacular, the two
being genetically related to each other
 Diglossia vs. Bilingualism
• ‘Bilingualism’ - two languages of an individual
‘Diglossia’ - two languages in society
• Fishman - the relationship between societal
diglossia and individual bilingualism is not
necessary or causal
• bilingualism with and without diglossia
• diglossia with and without bilingualism
 Diglossia without Bilingualism
• political or governmental diglossia - two or more
differently monolingual entities brought together
under one political roof
• Canada, Belgium, Switzerland
• institutional protection for more than one language
at the federal level, though widespread
monolingualism in individual territories
• Both diglossia with and without bilingualism tend to
be relatively stable, long-term arrangements.
 Examples of diglossia in Spain
• The first and most notable is the case of
Galician. There still exists one fundamental
problem in the region according to Loureiro-
Rodríguez:

The fact that the Galician language has been

historically considered inferior, even among the
majority of its speakers, has made the functional
and realization process more challenging
(2007:123)
• Galician has traditionally been an oral language, with
Castilian being used for written communication; as
such it gains a level of prestige as it is the language
used for official purposes.

• For the majority of older speakers of Galician (the

category which has the highest number of speakers)
they were never educated in Galician, solely in
Castilian, and so there has always been a diglossic
situation, using Galician as there means of oral
communication but switching to Castilian for written
communication.
• Since becoming co-official in the region
Galician went through a process of
normalisation to create a standard version of
the language.

• However the ‘standard’ that was produced did

not reflect the many local varieties of the
language.
• What developed then were high and low versions
of Galician, the ‘standard’ variety which was
considered as high, and the local variants
considered to be the low varieties.

• As a result when in a more official environment,

the speakers of the ‘low’ variety often opt for
speaking Castilian instead of Galician because
they do not feel confident with the ‘high’ variety.
• A contrary example but one which still focuses on
diglossia is Catalonia.

• Unlike Galicia, Catalonia receives high numbers of

immigrants, particularly from other areas of Spain.

• In Catalonia the majority of public life is carried out in

the medium of Catalan and as a result it has prestige
within the region, and thus when considered alongside
Castilian it is seen as the high variety with Castilian as
the low variety.
• Those people that move to the region that are
not Catalan speaking find themselves in a
diglossic situation:

No doubt many of them feel socially disadvantaged as

they often come from a low socioeconomic
background and live in poor housing areas, often in
large, homogenous groups. For everyday purposes
they probably don’t need to use Catalan, although of
course, they may resent to feel in a linguistically
inferior position (Hoffman, 1996:75)