Diglossia revisited

Abstract

Ferguson's classic description and definition of diglossia was later extended by Gumperz and Fishman to other multi-lingual and multi-dialectal situations which are in some ways similar. However, all these accounts are based on uses of the two codes (the ‘High’ and ‘Low’ varieties) rather than on the linguistic relationships between the codes themselves. When the latter form the basis of the definition, ‘true’ diglossia of the Greek or Arabic kind can be distinguished from multi-lingual, standard-nonstandard dialect, and possibly Creole, situations by certain critical differences. In true diglossia, the L is a natively-spoken, relatively independent variety for which descriptive grammars have been (or can be) written, while H is not a single form but varies indefinitely and its description can best be derived from L by ‘purification’ rules (a ‘bottom-up’ description). This is the mirror-image of a dialect situation, where usually it is the H which is a natively-spoken, independent variety, and L exists in no ‘pure’ form but is indefinitely variable, its description proceeding from a basis of the standard (a ‘top-down’ description). This ‘process’ model of diglossia has advantages over the traditional ‘static’ model in accounting for the multiplicity of intermediate or ‘mixed’ varieties which arise, and which are ultimately more significant than ‘pure’ H or ‘pure’ L. In an investigation of Modern Greek diglossia, thirty subjects, 15 relatively ‘educated’ and 15 ‘uneducated’, were tested by a version of Cloze procedure to assess competence in the use of H. All speakers, even the educated ones, were found to use H inconsistently, with frequent switching to L forms.