Diglossia: Functional distribution of Codes

The concept of diglossia gained fame with Charles Ferguson and his influential article
of 1959, in which diglossia is used to refer to a situation “where two varieties of a language
exist side by side throughout the community, with each having a definite role to play”
(Ferguson, 1972:232). Ferguson’s definition makes a division between a High (H) variety and
a Low (L) variety. Such varieties are “linguistically related to but significantly different from”
one another (Trudgill, 1992:27)
Ferguson (1959) approached diglossia on the basis of four speech communities. In all
such cases, Fergsuon identifies a high (H) variety and a low one:
H L
Arab World Standard Arabic vs. Colloquial Arabic
Greece Katharevousa vs. Dimotiki
Haiti French vs. Haitian Creole
German-speaking Switzerland German vs. Swiss German

Ferguson set out to illustrate this sociolinguistic phenomenon under nine rubrics which
are prioritized according to function, prestige, literary heritage, acquisition, standardization,
stability, grammar, lexicon, and phonology. The functional distribution, or the specialization
of function, is the chief feature of diglossia. This implies that H and L are used in different
settings and for different purposes. About this, Wardhaugh (2006:89) argues that “a diglossic
situation exists in a society when it has two distinct codes which show clear functional
separation; that is, one code is employed in one set of circumstances, and the other in an entirely
different set”. Hudson (1996:49) reports that “one [variety] is used only on formal and public
occasions while the other is used by everybody under normal, everyday circumstances” (italics
in the original). The identification of the H and L varieties does not pose a problem, suffice it
to say that “H and L have disjoint functions: where H is appropriate, L is inappropriate and vice
versa” (Sebba, 2011: 450)

H, generally the classical or the standard variety, is allocated to official and formal
contexts, whereas L, the non-standard variety (varieties), constitutes the usual medium of
interaction in spontaneous and informal contexts.
Prestige: H is highly valued (had greater prestige) than L is. L is generally downgraded.
Literary Heritage: the literature is mostly in the H-variety. L is rarely written; it can be used
in folk literature and advertisement.
Acquisition: L-variety is the mother tongue; H-variety is generally learned through schooling.
Standardization: H is strictly standardized (grammar books, dictionaries, written form); L is
most of the time nonstandard.
Stability: Diglossia is generally stable, persisting for centuries or even millennia. Occasionally
L-varieties gain domains and, after being standardized, displace the H-variety (e.g. Dimotiki in
Greece since 1976)
Grammar: H has a more complex grammar (complex tense systems, gender systems, etc)
compared to L grammar.
Lexicon: Lexicon is often somewhat shared, but H has vocabulary that L lacks, and vice-versa.
Phonology: Two kinds of phonemic systems are discerned.

Fishman’s Further Elaboration of Diglossia

By 1967 Ferguson’s original concept had undergone some changes when Fishman
refined the definition arguing that diglossia can also be extended to cover situations where two
(or more) unrelated, or at least historically distant, language varieties are used for different
functions. This is referred to as ‘extended diglossia’. As an illustration, Fishman (1967) cites
Paraguay as a case in point where Spanish (H variety) and Guarani (an Indian language
genetically unrelated to Spanish) fulfill different functions throughout the community. In his
reformulation of the concept of diglossia, Fishman draws a boundary between diglossia and
bilingualism. As such, Fishman stresses the point that the former characterizes the societal level
(a matter of sociologists and sociolinguists), whereas the latter is analyzed at the individual
level (a matter of psychologists and psycholinguists).
The point that should be emphasized is that both Ferguson’s formulation and Fishman’s
extension of the notion of diglossia firmly stress the complementary distribution of the two
existing codes. The rubric of ‘function’ remains the cornerstone of diglossia and, as Fasold
(1984:53) puts it, “only function remains unchallenged; it is the very heart and soul of the
diglossia concept”.

Assignment: Building on the theoretical notions about diglossia (classical and extended),
identify this sociolinguistic condition in the Algerian Context
 Bilingualism

Monolingual communities worldwide are rare. Instead, most communities are

characterized by the existence of more than one variety. Multilingualism is then
obviously a more prevalent global condition than monolingualism. Crystal (1997)
estimates that about two-thirds of the world’s children grow up in a bilingual
environment. Globalization, mass media, new technical innovations, immigration,
which are interesting contact motivations, rule our modern world, and all such socio-
economic changes are factors which favour multilingualism.
The definition of bilingualism has always been a matter of hot debate. The
dimension of such contention is clearly captured in the definitions of two linguists which
could best be described as paradoxical:

 Bloomfield (1933:56) sees bilingualism as “a native-like control of two

languages”, a narrow definition as it only suits persons who use two languages
equally fluently. As such, it would automatically exclude, for instance, a
beginning foreign/second language learner. It would also keep out the person
who comprehends but does not produce utterances in a second language.
 Macnamara (1967a) uses a broad definition and observes that having a minimal
competence in one of the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading and
writing) in addition to the mother tongue qualifies the person as bilingual.

A number of other definitions lie between these two extreme edges. Mackey’s
(1957) views bilingualism as “the alternate use of two or more languages by the same
individual”. Grosjean (1982) reveals a more adequate definition arguing that “the most
relevant factor is the regular use of two languages”. Grosjean (1985a) goes further and
states that the bilingual is more than the sum of two monolinguals, i.e., the bilingual has
also developed some unique language behaviour.
Types of Bilingualism
Theory-builders often draw a distinction between:

Individual bilingualism Societal bilingualism

Micro level macro level

(Bilingualism as personal possession) (Bilingualism as group possession)

1. Societal Bilingualism
Bilingualism is perceived as a societal attribute: it describes a particular society
or nation in which more than one language are used and that a number of individuals
can use these languages. Sociolinguists identify two types of societal bilingualism:
de jure (by law) bilingualism vs. de facto (in reality) bilingualism.

1.1 De jure bilingualism

Two or more languages are officially recognized within the speech community,
generally by the constitution or linguistic laws. These languages are often supported by
services of the government (Media, public administration, schools, parliament, etc).

Examples of de jure multilingual communities

 Switzerland: is a de jure multilingual speech community with four languages
considered as official: German, French, Italian and Romansh.
 Algeria and Morocco are de jure bilingual speech communities (Arabic and
Berber are official languages).
 South Africa: 11 official languages; all of them are formally equal.
 Kenya: Swahili and English are official languages

1.2. De facto Bilingualism

The actual linguistic situation in a nation acknowledges the existence of more than one
language, part from official recognition. In other words, official monolingual speech
communities may use other languages (often minor) with no official status giving rise
to de facto bilingualism.
Examples of de facto multilingual communities
 Before the officialization of Berber, Algeria was for a long time only a de facto
bilingual country with French used in many institutions and in various contexts.
 France: is officially (de jure) a monolingual community since its constitution
recognizes French as the sole official language. However, it is a de facto (in
reality) multilingual country as some other minor languages (e.g., Alsatian,
Breton, Occitan, etc) in addition to immigrant languages (Portuguese, Arabic,
etc) are used throughout the country.
 Canada: de jure bilingual (English and French), but de facto multilingual because
other languages are also spoken in the country, like Mandarin, Italian, German,
Penjabi, to count but a few.

2. Individual bilingualism
Individual bilingualism is perceived as an individual attribute denoting the ability
to behave linguistically in more than one language. Individual bilingualism is dependent
on a number of internal and external factors, like upbringing, education, place of
residence, age, attitude, motivation, etc. Scholars have identified various types of
bilingual speakers on the basis of numerous factors, including, proficiency, context
and/or age of acquisition, cognitive capacities, etc.
While Compound bilinguals are people who have learned both languages from
the same environment, Coordinate bilinguals have learned the two languages in
different environments and Subordinate bilinguals have learned a second language and
cannot understand it without the help of their first language.

Classification according to language proficiency:

 balanced bilinguals: vs. unbalanced bilinguals, the former being equally
competent in the two languages vs. the latter with less ease in the second language.
 Active bilinguals vs. Passive bilinguals, those with can speak two languages,
with developed productive skills vs. those who can understand a second language but
only receptive skills are relatively developed.
 Simultaneous bilinguals vs. Consecutive/successive/sequential bilingualism