Problems in defining "Diglossia"
The definition of “Diglossia” had from its first stages of conceptualization as a sociolinguistic phenomenon controversies and difficulties of delineating a precise definition. C.A. Ferguson himself, in his renown study “Diglossia”, published in the academic magazine Word in 1959 (perhaps the most influential reference to describe the phenomenon in question), had to refer to this specific social construct illustrating with the general remark “other languages of Europe generally use the word for ‘bilinguism’ in this special sense as well”, but only admitting that, for this conception, “the terms ‘language’, ‘dialect’, and ‘variety’ are used here without precise definition”. But how precise it is to understand “Diglossia” and “Bilinguism” as similar phenomena? And how is it possible to understand such sociolinguistic terminology which defines a “line of specific standardization where two varieties of a language exist side by side throughout the community, with each having a definite role to play”, as Ferguson summarizes it, without constraining the varieties which function as diglossia, maintaining the characteristics called by J.A. Fishman as “expandability” and “changeability”, being, therefore, not compartmentalized?
The definition of “Diglossia” had from its first stages of conceptualization as a sociolinguistic phenomenon controversies and difficulties of delineating a precise definition. C.A. Ferguson himself, in his renown study “Diglossia”, published in the academic magazine Word in 1959 (perhaps the most influential reference to describe the phenomenon in question), had to refer to this specific social construct illustrating with the general remark “other languages of Europe generally use the word for ‘bilinguism’ in this special sense as well”, but only admitting that, for this conception, “the terms ‘language’, ‘dialect’, and ‘variety’ are used here without precise definition”. But how precise it is to understand “Diglossia” and “Bilinguism” as similar phenomena? And how is it possible to understand such sociolinguistic terminology which defines a “line of specific standardization where two varieties of a language exist side by side throughout the community, with each having a definite role to play”, as Ferguson summarizes it, without constraining the varieties which function as diglossia, maintaining the characteristics called by J.A. Fishman as “expandability” and “changeability”, being, therefore, not compartmentalized?
To answer both questions, it is interesting to remember L.J. Calvet’s chapter “A multilingual world”, in the book Language wars and linguistic politics (Oxford Press, 1998), where a critical analysis of Ferguson’s famous conceptualization is exposed. Calvet considers Ferguson’s typology as formed by conceiving “diglossia” as a situation of “stability”, reaching the conclusion that this type of approach “errs through its lack of dynamic vision”. This notion of “lack of dynamic vision” becomes visible in Ferguson’s terminology, where the interaction between two linguistic varieties in diglossia is conceived as a stable relationship between two linguistic varieties, one called “High” (the one in a higher status) and the other “Low” (called “regional dialects” in Ferguson's text). The usage of these varieties (exemplified in the following post) defines its sociolinguistic condition for their functional distribution. Calvet appropriates J.A. Fishman’s analysis of Ferguson’s text (“Bilingualism with and without Diglossia, Diglossia with and without Bilingualism”, Journal of Social Issues, n. 32, 1967) and from this starting point, two contributions are made:
“First, he [Fishman] places much less emphasis on the presence of two codes (there can be more, although he thinks that usually the situation comes down to an opposition between High and Low varieties). Secondly, he suggests that diglossia emerges as soon as there is a functional difference between two languages, whatever the degree of difference, from the very subtle to the very radical: it is not necessary for the two languages to be related.” (L.J. Calvet, “A multilingual world”, opus cit.)
According to Calvet, Fishman’s critical appropriation of Ferguson’s essay makes possible to identify both richness and limitations in his conceptualization of diglossia. From the tension between the two poles (“High” and “Low”), and from the social interrelationship established between speakers, it is possible to identify in generic terms “individual linguistic attitudes”, called by Calvet as “psycholinguistic” traces, and “the social significance of diglossia, the groups differentiated by it”, called “sociolinguistic”. In this sense, diglossia is different from bilinguism as, in the general sense of the latter, it defines an individual’s capacity to use several languages, which would be identifiable under psycholinguistic terms, and the former is perceived for the different societal functions of the different languages spoken in a specific social space, which is by definition a sociolinguistic trace. Diglossia, therefore, is defined by the social function given to each veriety in a whole community of speakers. Despite the apparent limitations for the usage of certain varieties in a specific social construct, such social dynamic does not disable a variety's chance of mutating its structure and its functions in a social system. But it is this segregation on social function what defines diglossia.
As far as our opinion on diglossia goes, we believe that it is important to have a clear definition of this phenomenon, because in the cases we have selected for study, the concept of “bilinguism” is not sufficient. It is important to realize how language is connected to power, and in the cases of diglossic language situations, this becomes even more evident. In Haiti, for instance, there is still a very strong sense of class distinction between the speakers of the Creole language (the majority) and the speakers of both Creole and French (a minority), who will vary the language depending on the context. We believe it is important to realize how diglossia is connected not only to sociolinguistics, but to politics, because the fact that the H variety is seen as “pure” and the L variety as “degraded”, is an expression of how the mechanisms of control and power are configured in these societies. Thus, we believe it to be crucial that the studies on diglossia keep developing and becoming more accurate, in order for us to accomplish a better understanding of the societies in which they happen.
As far as our opinion on diglossia goes, we believe that it is important to have a clear definition of this phenomenon, because in the cases we have selected for study, the concept of “bilinguism” is not sufficient. It is important to realize how language is connected to power, and in the cases of diglossic language situations, this becomes even more evident. In Haiti, for instance, there is still a very strong sense of class distinction between the speakers of the Creole language (the majority) and the speakers of both Creole and French (a minority), who will vary the language depending on the context. We believe it is important to realize how diglossia is connected not only to sociolinguistics, but to politics, because the fact that the H variety is seen as “pure” and the L variety as “degraded”, is an expression of how the mechanisms of control and power are configured in these societies. Thus, we believe it to be crucial that the studies on diglossia keep developing and becoming more accurate, in order for us to accomplish a better understanding of the societies in which they happen.