Diglossia

Transcribed by [Link]. Go Unlimited to remove this message.

Hello everyone, welcome. Today, we are going to talk about a very important social
linguistic situation where a speech community uses two varieties for two different social
functions. And one variety supersedes the other variety and owing to the social situations.

And this phenomenon is called diglossia. So, today we are going to talk about diglossia.
Now, di means two and glossia, the language, the tongue.

So, two languages within the same speech community and why and how this situation
emerges, we will talk about it. So, that is all about diglossia that we are going to talk about
today. So, diglossia is a linguistic situation in which a speech community uses two different
languages or varieties of the same language for different social functions.

This is a very relatively very stable situation where the choice of varieties in a particular
social context is deliberate and socially determined. It has different social functions. Out of
these two varieties that the community uses, speech community uses, one form is the
literary or prestige form or a prestige dialect and the other is a common colloquial dialect
spoken by most of the people for ordinary everyday life situations.

Such a situation exists in many speech communities. But diglossia is not a substitute term
for bilingualism, we need to understand. Diglossia definitely denotes bilingualism, but they
cannot replace each other.

They are two different ideas, two different concepts. Bilingualism refers to the innate ability
or capacity of an individual speaker to use two languages with equal ease. And diglossia
refers to a specific situation where this innate bilingual capacity is in practise, so where it is
actually practised.

So, diglossia refers to the social context and a linguistic situation that allows a bilingual to
choose particular variety for a particular purpose. So, they are not mutually replaceable
terms, they cannot be replaced by one another. They are two different notions.

Diglossia refers to the language used in a particular social context, whereas bilingualism
refers to the innate capability and the ability of the user or the speaker to choose from two
distinct linguistic repertoire. So, that is the difference between bilingualism and diglossia,
we need to keep in mind before we move further. So, such a situation, diglossic situation
exists in many speech communities around the world.

So, this is not a rare phenomena, it is a very widespread global phenomenon and we can
have instances and examples of such a situation across the world, across speech
communities. For example, in Greece, a heavily influenced classical Greek versus Demotic, a
popular spoken language. Or in Arab world for that matter, classical Arabic exists alongside
the colloquial Arabic of let us say Egypt, Morocco and other countries.

So, these are the varieties of the same language, but both the varieties have two different
purposes, context of use. India is a multilingual country, but we have diglossic situations
here as well. For example, in Tamil speech community and this established research, it is
considered multiglossic, I mean, within the same speech community you have multiglossia.

So, diglossia refers to only two varieties, multiglossia multiple varieties. Bangla speech
community for that matter, in Bengali, you have the same diglossic situation. If you look at
broadly, the standard Hindi that we use for writing and informal domain is entirely different
from the kind of Hindi that we use on the street, in bazaars, in markets, everyday
conversation, interaction and socialisation process.

So, we have two distinct varieties. That spoken Hindi is also referred to as Hindustani. There
may be academic debate about status of Hindustani and Hindi.

But broadly, if you look at, they are two distinct varieties, of course, as far as standard
written Hindi is concerned with spoken or colloquial Hindi on the street. Definitely, there is a
difference at all levels. And this difference is apparent specifically in terms of lexicons,
words, choice of words.

If you look at these two varieties, a diglossic situation where two varieties are being used for
two different purposes. Actually, this word was coined and first introduced by Ferguson in
1959. Let us go to that.

Yes, Ferguson in 1959. And before I move further, let me quote from Ferguson, Charles
Ferguson and a very important example that he gives in his Diglossia published in 1951. He
says, of the four, I quote, of the four defining languages, Arabic Diglossia seems to reach us
as far back as our knowledge of Arabic goes.

And the superposed classical language has remained relatively stable, while Greek Diglossia
has roots going back many centuries. But it became fully developed only at the beginning of
the 19th century with the renaissance of Greek literature and the creation of a literary
language based in large part on previous form of literary Greek. Swiss-German Diglossia
developed as a result of long religious and political isolation from the centres of German
linguistic standardisation, while Haitian Creole arose from a creolization of Pidgin French,
with Standard French later coming to play the role of the superposed variety.

For convenience of the reference, the superposed variety in Diglossia will be called the H,
capital H, high variety or simply H. And the regional dialect will be called L, capital L, low
varieties or collectively simply L. This is from Ferguson 1959, I unquote. Now, so we get the
two terms, superposed variety and the other is colloquial spoken variety. So, he refers to
superposed variety as capital H, in quotes, high.

And the colloquial variety or the spoken variety, the spoken variety as capital L, in quotes,
low, quote. Now, we need to understand here very clearly. It is not about asymmetry,
linguistic asymmetry.

It is not about putting one variety over the other variety. High the word may be misnomer,
high and low words may be misnomer and confusing because it is not about value
judgement. It is not about value judgement that you are assigning a lot of prestige value to
H and you are deriding or putting as a lower strata variety L. He termed H and L variety or
code to distinct H from L and L from H and also underlying the fact, the degree of formality.
So, the degree of formality attached to H is higher than degree of formality attached to L.
But by no means, H means high, pure, classical language and L means low, lower on the
strata and any inferior to H. So, no inferiority value attached to it, no superiority value
attached to it. These are the terms just to understand and distinguish between these two
varieties. So, we have to keep them in mind when we talk about high and low.

So, two very prominent examples we can quote from Indian linguistic diversity or Indian
ecology, linguistic ecology. One is in Bangla speech community, we have two varieties, Chalit
Bhasha and Sadhu Bhasha. Now, both are Bangla, but Chalit Bhasha, a colloquial Bangla
versus Sadhu Bhasha or just standard Bangla that you find in the poetic tradition and written
form.

Schiffman 1996 describes Tamil linguistic culture as multigrassic, like Sen Tamil, Literary
Tamil, Classical Tamil, and probably they all refer to the same variety. That is one code
which we call H-code. I would not call it high or low, but H-code.

Let us understand H-code, superposed codes, code or H-code. This is also known as other
variety like Pandit Tamil, Modern Tamil, Standard Colloquial Tamil, Standard Colloquial
Tamil, Kothun Tamil, Formal Tamil and so on. So, you find these varieties with certain
degree of formality attached to them.

This degree can vary from high to low. And you can find this study on Tamil, this comment
on Tamil in Schiffman 1996, Linguistic Culture and Language Policy, London and New York,
Prathales, Linguistic Culture and Multigrassic. So, what we can deduct out of this discussion?
The diglossia is definitely a bilingual phenomenon, where the user or the speaker has two
linguistic resources, two linguistic varieties at his or her disposal to choose from pertaining
to a particular social context or context of use, domain of use.

It was first identified and introduced by Charles A. Ferguson in 1959. Diglossia may develop
from various origins and eventuate in different language situations. We can deduct diglossia
is a type of linguistic situation in which one language variety is used for writing and another
for speech to be very broad.

So, we can understand broadly that a distinct deliberately chosen preferred variety of the
same language in written form, or in education, higher education, or in literature, or in all
formal domains. And the other one, the colloquial version of the same language used in
everyday life for all non-formal social contexts. And when people are bidialectal, that
means, they have at their disposal, two different dialects of the same variety.

They can use two dialects of the same language based on their surroundings or different
contexts where they use one or the language variety interchangeably. Then, I in the
beginning also introduced the fact that diglossia cannot be interchanged with bilingualism.
So, diglossia and bilingualism are not interchangeable.

They definitely denote each other. So, bilingualism is denoted by a diglossic situation, where
the speaker or the language user has two varieties at his or her disposal and chooses from
two distinct linguistic systems to use in a particular social context. So, diglossia, a linguistic
situation according to the use of varieties for different social contexts within the same
speech community.

Whereas, bilingualism refers to the innate capacity of the speaker to use two varieties or
more in the case of multilingualism for different social functions. So, diglossia refers to the
situation of use of the language. And bilingualism refers to the ability of the user to use
varieties for different purposes.

So, that distinction we have to understand and make while talking about diglossia. Now, we
also need to underline the fact what Ferguson called H high variety versus low L varieties.
But this is particularly for convenience, Ferguson himself mentions it.

I quote, for convenience of reference, the superposed variety in diglossia will be called the
H, capital H, high variety or simply H. And the regional dialect will be called capital L, low
varieties or collectively simply L. So, Ferguson himself makes it very clear that we are not
going to assign any value judgement on these varieties. It is not about a stratification of
languages in the community, speech community. It is not about placing value or high
prestige to H variety and looking down the low variety or L variety, L code.

It is all about convenience for understanding the fact that these two varieties differ in the, in
terms of degree of formality that we have to understand. So, no value judgement assigned,
linguistic attitude remains neutral. And the terms are used for contrast and opposition
between varieties and their functions.

So, we have to understand this very clearly that we are not going to assign any value
judgement on that. But of course, we do understand when we talk about diglossic situation,
we do understand that we have either two distinct varieties of the same language or it may
be two different languages, Swiss German versus standard German. It may be the case
where you choose one particular variety for your colloquial everyday transactions and the
other standardised, codified and restricted variety for all formal occasions and purposes,
maybe in literary works, maybe in highly formal domains like parliamentary transactions, in
judiciary, in education.

So, depends what domain are we talking about. And specifically, this H variety is more often
seen in the written form than in the spoken one. And perhaps that is the reason why I
brought in Hindi and Hindustani dilemma.

Because there may be a political debate on this example. But if we understand that
Hindustani or the colloquial Hindi spoken in the market, in the train when we travel from
one place to other, in all ordinary everyday life is entirely different in terms of choice of
words and accounts, when we talk about standard Hindi texts, literary works, or standard
Hindi writings in parliament transactions, or maybe in education, textbooks and other
places. We do not find that colloquial variety of Hindustani, which is named as Hindustani
there.

So, but no value judgement at all. That is what I am trying to emphasise. And we need to
keep in mind.
So, what are the characteristics and properties of this L code? Let us not talk about low
variety, but let us name it as L code. And L we all know. What are the basic characteristics of
this variety? So, number one, it is domain specific, it is social context specific, and highly
informal, casual and informal.

And this gives a lot of flexibility for you. You are not consciously using it. It is a very natural
form.

In its natural form, spontaneously we are using this colloquial variety with ease, without any
effort. So, it gives you lots of flexibility. And it changes over time and space.

Because it is owned by people and not restricted, codified and prescribed. So, it has an
option of growing, changing. And lots of changes take place in due course of time.

It varies in terms of pronunciation, choice of words we call lexicons, sometimes grammatical

rules, grammar rules also in certain cases. Tamil is one of the examples that the same word
for the same function, you have two different words and they are pronounced differently.
So, it varies in terms of pronunciation, lexicons and grammar rules from the H code or H
variety.

And it is used for everyday informal communication and socialisation. So, these are the
characters of L code. When we look at the characteristics of H code, it is highly formal.

It is of course, domain-specific, social context-specific, but degree of formality is very high.

So, highly formal, just and mostly in written form. So, it is like in written forms, it becomes
almost like frozen variety, because you have hardly any choice.

So, it is highly codified, restricted and prescriptive. It gets institutional support. When I say
institutional support, that means it is used in education, it is used in parliamentary
transactions, but not in oral form, but in written form.

Because you might see people speaking in parliament, they are speaking a natural colloquial
Hindi for that matter. But when the same thing is recorded in minutes, you find different
variety, highly Sanskritized, formal variety of Hindi in written form. It remains, the situation
remains stable, because the dynamism is in the L code, but you find less dynamic, non-
flexible variety, which is the H code.

Changes, of course, changes takes place, but very slowly, as far as compared to the L code,
changes in H code is very slow. It has a Puritan view. I mean, classical Puritan view.

For example, standard Hindi in written form derives heavily from Sanskrit. It also defines
linguistic attitude, power and status. And it is a literary and prestige dialect.

So, I hope now we are clear about L code and H code. You have to keep in mind that it can
be just two distinct varieties of the same language, or in certain cases, it can be two
different languages where we have degree of formality associated with these two distinct
varieties. And we choose one for one purpose, the other for other purpose.

And it is like a social contract where all the speakers in the speech community understand
and practise this linguistic use in the similar fashion, diagnostic situation, what we call. So,
what are the social linguistic implications for diagnostic? It marks, definitely it marks power,
status and prestige attached to H variety. It marks linguistic attitude.

Then it also marks linguistic preferences according to the social context where these are
used. Of course, it has a stratification of the varieties, where L is used for non-formal
purposes in social, non-formal social contexts, where the H variety is used for highly formal
social contexts, purely, mostly in written form. And it definitely, the L variety is very
instrumental in construction of identity.

And equally, H variety also determines, and one of the determinants of the construction of
linguistic identity, socialisation and bonding, and of course, they together mark a larger
social function. So, this is what all about diaglossia and a linguistic situation, what we call
diaglossic situation where two distinct varieties of the same language or in certain cases,
two distinct varieties are used for two different purposes within the same speech
community. And it denotes bilingual innate capacity of the speaker to choose from two
different linguistic sources.

Diaglossia and bilingualism are not interchangeable. Diaglossia refers to the context of use,
whereas bilingualism refers to innate capability of the individual speaker to choose from
two different linguistic sources. So, I hope this idea, sociolinguistic idea, concept called
bilingual, sorry, diaglossia is clear to you.

And we will come back to diaglossia once again, when we talk about bilingualism in some
other video. So, thank you very much.
Transcribed by [Link]. Go Unlimited to remove this message.