Get help now

A Description of Diglossia

  • Pages 7
  • Words 1620
  • Views 140
  • dovnload



  • Pages 7
  • Words 1620
  • Views 140
  • Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get your paper price

    124 experts online

    DIGLOSSIA CODE-SWITCHING AND BORROWING By Moazzam Ali To download more lectures Visit www. uogenglish. wordpress. com DIGLOSSIA DIGLOSSIA AS DEFINED BY FERGUSON ? “Diglossia is a relatively stable situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety,…which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any sector of the community for ordinary conversation. Ferguson (1959, p. 336) DIGLOSSIA Diglossic situation exists in a society when it has two distinct codes/languages which show clear functional separation; that is, one is employed in one set of circumstances and the other is entirely different set. ? “high” variety = prestige language (public language) in a diglossic situation. ? “low” variety = non-prestige (“home language”) language in a diglossic context ? HIGH VS. LOW LANGUAGE High Language Public Prestige School, government Literary tradition Signals high status Low Language Private Non-prestige Home, playground Often unwritten Signals intimacy

    EXAMPLES OF DIGLOSSIA Languages High Varieties (H) Low Varieties (L) Arabic Classical Arabic Colloquial Varieties of Arabic Swiss German Swiss German Standard German Haitian Standard French Haitian Creole Greek Katharevousa Dhimotiki CHARACTERISTICS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Function Prestige Literary heritage Acquisition Standardization Stability Lexicon OF DIGLOSSIA CHARACTERISTICS FUNCTION ? OF DIGLOSSIA A key defining characteristic of diglossia is that two varieties are kept quite apart functionally. One is used in one set of circumstances and the other in an entirely different set. For example, „H? arieties are used for sermons and formal lectures whereas „L? varieties are used for the conversation with friends and family members. CHARACTERISTICS FUNCTION Sermon OF DIGLOSSIA H X Functions of Language use Instruction to servants Speech in parliament University lecture L X X X Conversation with friends Newspaper editorial X X CHARACTERISTICS PRESTIGE ?

    OF DIGLOSSIA The „H? variety is the prestige variety; the „L? variety lacks prestige. In fact, there can be so little prestige attached to the „L? variety people may even deny that they know it although they may be observed to use it far more frequently than the „H? ariety. It is also believed by these speakers that „H? variety is more beautiful, logical and expressive than the „L? variety CHARACTERISTICS LITERATURE ? OF DIGLOSSIA In a diglossic community, considerable body of literature will be found to exist in „H? variety and almost none in „L? variety. Speakers will gain prestige from being able to allude to classic recourses whereas the folk literature associated with the „L? variety will have none of the same prestige. CHARACTERISTICS ACQUISITION ? OF DIGLOSSIA In a diglossic community, all children learn the „L? variety at home.

    Some children may concurrently learn „H? variety but many do not learn it at all. The „H? variety is learnt in a formal setting like classroom. CHARACTERISTICS STANDARDIZATION ? OF DIGLOSSIA „H? variety enjoys the availability of grammars, dictionaries, standardized texts. On the other hand, „L? variety usually has no comparable grammars, dictionaries and standardized texts. CHARACTERISTICS STABILITY ? OF DIGLOSSIA Diglossic situation in a community typically persists at least several centuries, and evidence in some cases seems to show that it can last well over a thousand years.

    CHARACTERISTICS OF DIGLOSSIA LEXICON ? „H? includes in its total lexicon technical terms and learned expressions which have no regular „L? equivalents, since the subjects involved are rarely if ever discussed in pure „L?. So, „L? variety tends to borrow learned words from the „H? variety. includes in its total lexicon popular expressions and the names of very homely objects or objects of very localized distribution which have no regular „H? equivalents, since the subjects involved are rarely if ever discussed in pure „H?. ? „L? OVERLAPPING DIGLOSSIA AND TRIGLOSSIA (MKIFILI, 1978) ?

    A research on the use of English, Swahili and local language. English Swahili Local language POLIGLOSSIA (PLATT, 1977) A Research in Malaysia ? Formal English ? Malay ? Mandarin ? Malay-English ? Other Chinese languages ? Colloquial Malay TAMIL •Spoken natively by 48 million people in India, plus a couple million others in Sri Lanka, US, Canada etc. •Tamil is a Dravidian language DIGLOSSIA IN TAMIL ? High variety is used in media, writing ? Low status variety used in everyday speech; also used for “high solidarity” situations such as political speeches DIGLOSSIA WITH AND WITHOUT BILINGUALISM ? Ferguson’s definition (1959): the side-by-side existence of historically & structurally related language varieties Fishman’s reformulation (1967): a diglossic situation can occur anywhere where two language varieties (even unrelated ones) are used in functionally distinct ways Fishman’s reformulation + diglossia + bilingualism Everyone in a community knows both H and L, which are functionally differentiated Speakers of H rule over speakers of L – diglossia An unstable, transitional situation in which everyone in a community knows both H and L, but are shifting to H A completely egalitarian peech community , where there is no language variation – bilingualism FISHMAN (1972) Diglossia + Bilingualism – +B –D –B –D + – +B +D –B +D Examples: +B +D : Paraguay (Spanish and Guarani) +B – D : Belgium (German and French) – B +D : Russian – D – D : Hypothetical RELATIONS BETWEEN BILINGUALISM AND DIGLOSSIA Bilingualism without diglossia: German-Eng bilingualism in Germany. ? Bilingualism with diglossia: Guarani-Spanish bilingualism in Paraguay ? Diglossia w. o Bilingualism: Classical and colloquial Arabic in Egypt ? Neither diglossia nor bilingualism: monolingual parts of the USA ?

    THE EFFECT OF BILINGUALISM ON LANGUAGES? STRUCTURES The effect of bilingualism on the languages structures? in a community is manifested in the form of the following processes: 1) Code switching 2) Code mixing 3) Borrowing CODE SWITCHING The process in which the bilingual speakers shift back and forth between one language or a dialect and another language or dialect within the same conversation. (Trudgill, 2003) ? Milroy and Muysken (1995), for example, define CS as “the alternative use by bilinguals of two or more languages in the same conversation” (p. 7).

    They use code-switching as a cover term under which different forms of bilingual behavior are subsumed. ? Myers-Scotton (1993b) also uses code-switching as a cover term and defines it as “alternations of linguistic varieties within the same conversation” CODE SWITCHING AND CODE MIXING Others (Kachru, 1983; Singh, 1985; Sridhar & Sridhar, 1980), however, reserve the term codeswitching for inter-sentential switches only, and instead prefer to use code-mixing for intrasentential switches. The reason is that only codemixing (i. e. , intra-sentential CS) requires the integration of the rules of the two languages involved in the discourse. Muysken (2000) avoid using the term codeswitching as a cover term because they believe that switching suggests alternation only, as in the case of switching between turns or utterances, but not necessarily insertion. Instead, they prefer to use code-mixing as a hyponym to cover both codeswitching (intra-sentential only) and borrowing. ? Language change is a diachronic process, we cannot really determine at what point in time a particular lexical item gained the status of a loanword in the recipient language. Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog (1968) called this problem as the transition problem. There are two contradictory approaches as to whether and how to draw a line between codeswitching and borrowing and how to distinguish between the two terms. ? Approach of Poplack and her associates ? Approach of Mayer-Sacotton and her associates ? ? Poplack has proposed morpho-syntactic and phonological integration of foreign words into the recipient language as criteria for establishing the status of such single words. She has proposed three types of criteria to determine the status of non-native material in bilingual utterances.

    These include whether or not single lexical items from a donor language in code-switched utterances were (1) phonologically, (2) morphologically, and (3) syntactically integrated into what she called the base language. If a foreShe identified four possible combinations of integration as shown in Table There are two contradictory approaches as to ? whether and how to distinguish between the two terms. ? CODESWITCHING ? The study of the alternate use of two or more languages in conversation has developed in two distinct but related directions: Structural and Sociolinguistic.

    The structural approach to CS is primarily concerned with its grammatical aspects. Its focus is to identify syntactic and morphosyntactic constraints on CS. The sociolinguistic approach, on the other hand, sees CS primarily as a discourse phenomenon focusing its attention on questions such as how social meaning is created in CS and what specific discourse functions it serves. It should be noted at the outset, however, that these approaches are not in contradiction, but complementary to each other. DEFINITIONAL ISSUES ? issue of terminological confusion.

    Not all researchers use the same terms in the same way, nor do they agree on the territory covered by terms such as code-switching, code-mixing, borrowing, or code-alternation. In particular, at issue here is the perceived distinction between the terms codeswitching and borrowing (Gysels, 1992; MyersScotton, 1992; Poplack, 1980, 1981) on the one hand, and code-switching and code-mixing (Kachru, 1978; 1983; Sridhar & Sridhar, 1980) on the other. Several criteria have been proposed to distinguish between these two pairs of concepts.

    CODE MIXING The process in which the speakers shift back and forth between two languages with such rapidity and density, even within the sentences and phrases that it is not possible to say at any time which language they are speaking. BORROWING The process by which bilingual/multilingual speakers introduce words from one language into another language, and these words eventually become accepted as an integral part of the second language. e. g. „restaurant? is a French word and now it has become an integral part of English language.

    CODE SWITCHING AND BORROWING ? When bilingual speakers converse, they frequently integrate linguistic material from both of their languages within the same discourse segment. Code-switching involves speaking one language, then another, usually across sentences or clauses. Intrasentential codeswitching refers to changing languages in the middle of a sentence. ? Borrowing – borrowing involves adapting words to fit the language you are speaking, including sounds and grammar, making the borrowed word part of your language Thank You !

    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    A Description of Diglossia. (2016, Oct 07). Retrieved from

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper