Talk:Diglossia

Some interesting articles on diglossia -- 18:52, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

In 2002, the International Journal of the Sociology of Language published a whole issue dedicated to diglossia: Focus on diglossia. The main contribution to this issue was Hudson’s Outline of a theory of diglossia (Hudson, 2002)<ref name="Hudson (2002)">Hudson, Alan. 2002. Outline of a theory of diglossia. Focus on Diglossia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157:1–48.</ref>. In the same issue, Hudson’s outline was commented upon by a number of well known sociolinguists such as Fishman<ref name="Fishman (2002)"> Fishman, Joshua A. 2002. Comment: Diglossia and societal multilingualism: Dimensions of similarity and difference. Focus on Diglossia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157:93–100.</ref>, Fasold<ref name="Fasold (2002)">Fasold, Ralph W. 2002. Comment: The importance of community. Focus on Diglossia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157:85–92. Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15:325-340. Republished in: Giglioli, Pier Paolo. 1973. Language and social context. London: Penguin Books, 232-251 [See also: Ferguson, Charles A. 1991. Diglossia revisited. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 10(2):14-34.]</ref>, Romaine<ref name="Romaine (2002)">Romaine, Suzanne. 2002. Comment: Can stable diglossia help to preserve endangered languages? Focus on Diglossia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157:135–140.</ref>, Paulston<ref name="Paulston (2002)">Paulston, Christina Bratt. 2002. Comment. Focus on Diglossia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157:127-134.</ref> and Dorian<ref name="Dorian (2002)">Dorian, Nancy C. 2002. Comment: Diglossia and the simplification of linguistic space. Focus on Diglossia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157:63–69. </ref>. These comments are followed by Hudson’s Rebuttal essay in which he responded to these comments.

When I read these articles I thought they were very interesting, especially in terms of the conclusions that Hudson draws with regard to language shift. In his analysis, Hudson <ref name="(2002:4)">Ibid.</ref> points out the importance of differentiating diglossia, as first described by Ferguson (1959), “from other types of sociolinguistic situations such as the better-known cases of societal bilingualism,” as described by Fishman (1967)<ref name="(1967)">Fishman, Joshua A. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23 (2):29-38.</ref>, and argues (2002:2)

for restricting the scope of the term ‘diglossia’ essentially to that first envisioned by Charles Ferguson in 1959, on the grounds that diglossia and societal bilingualism, two major types of sociolinguistic arrangement often regarded as surface variants of the same underlying phenomenon, are, in fact, fundamentally different in their social origins, evolutionary courses of development, and resolutions over the long term, and, furthermore, that inclusion of these two phenomena under a single rubric obscures rather than clarifies sociolinguistic theory.

Contrasting diglossia and societal bilingualism, Hudson (2002:4) comes to the following conclusion with regard to the direction of language shift:

The general principle for sociolinguistic theory that emerges from contrasting the two types of situation seems to be that the social motivation that drives shift from a lower-status language or variety to a higher one derives from the prestige accorded those speakers who use the higher variety as a vernacular, and not from the prestige of the social contexts in which H is employed, provided the same norms of functional allocation obtain throughout the entire speech community.

This difference in the direction of language shift could be of interest for language assessment. I have the impression that we do not differentiate between diglossia and societal bilingualism but consider both as surface manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon (just as Hudson notes). Rather, we hold that that situations that are characterized by a functional distributions of a community’s speech varieties are stable in terms of language vitality. Hudson’s distinction between diglossia and societal bilingualism, however, yields a different conclusion, as Romaine (2002:135)<ref name="Romaine (2002:135)">Ibid., p. 135.</ref> points out in her comments on Hudson’s outline:

My purpose here is to explore, in the hope of illuminating, one crucial point in particular, namely his observation that it is tempting but nevertheless wrong to conclude that the attainment and maintenance of sharp functional compartmentalization of codes may be the key to minority-language maintenance and even reversal of language shift within multilingual speech communities.

Overall, I have the impression that those commenting on Hudson's outline are in agreement with Hudson, that we should differentiate between diglossia and situations characterized by societal bilingualism. Fishman (2002)<ref name="Fishman (2002)">Ibid.</ref>, however, points out though that societal bilingualism situations could be diglossic situations after all.

If indeed, as Romaine <ref name="(2002:135)">Ibid., p. 135.</ref> points out, it is wrong to conclude that the functional distribution of a community’s speech varieties protects the role of the L1 as a natively learned variety, what would this mean for our investigations of language use patters and the conclusions we draw from those patterns? I'd be interested in what you think about Hudson's outline and the comments on his outline.

<references />