diglossia revisited

Language&Communication, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 219-232.1983 Primed in Great Britain.

0271-5309/83 $3.00+.00 Pergamon Press Ltd.

DIGLOSSIA REVISITED

PETER HAWKINS

The aim of this paper, which is based on research carried out by the writer in Salonika, Greece, is twofold: first, to examine differences between educated and uneducated speakers in knowledge of the High variety in a diglossic situation, and secondly, to investigate.the relationship between the High (H) and Low (L) varieties from the native- speaker’s point of view. 1 As an outcome of this investigation, we must reconsider the nature and definition of diglossia. We shall also be testing, within a Greek context, two apparently irreconcilable hypotheses about the diglossic relationship which have hitherto been argued in the context of Arabic, but which could equally apply to Greek (and other cases of diglossia).

In a well-known paper, Ferguson (1959) outlined nine criteria for recognising a diglossic situation. He illustrated the criteria by taking four cases which he regarded as canonic examples of diglossia: Arabic, Modern Greek, Swiss German and Haitian Creole, in each of which a ‘High’ form of the language co-exists with a ‘Low’ form. Diglossia is defined as

‘a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language . . . there is a very divergent, highly codified superposed variety [which is] the vehicle of a respected body of literature . . . is learned largely by formal education, and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but not. . . for ordinary conversation.’

The difference between a diglossic situation and merely ‘stylistic’ variation within a language is a difference both of degree and of kind. The difference of degree is reflected in Ferguson’s phrase very divergent: in all the canonic cases of diglossia there are sharp differences between H and L, differences which cannot be due to the subject-matter, participants, setting, etc. but which seem to reside in the linguistic codes themselves, and which are all-pervasive, affecting the syntax, the vocabulary, the inflectional morphology and the phonology and orthography. The differences in Greek between Kathar&ousa, the ‘High’ variety, and Dhimotiki(Low) can be illustrated by the parallel text below:

K o patir tu @ike tin p&in ke i&hen- is tas D o pat&as tu &se tin pdli ke ilthe stin K Athinas, dpu &&en OS mbtikospola’ &i, per@ D Athina, &pu &se san metikos poli chrdja, peripu K tririkonda, mt+hri tu than&u tu D tricinda, mPchri to thrintd tu

‘His father left the town and went to Athens, where he lived as a foreigner for many years, about thirty, until his death.’

The difference of kind between diglossia and stylistic variation lies in the fact that, in diglossia, both varieties exhibit a range of styles, and furthermore the range of each may overlap. H and L do specialise their functions to some extent but L is not confined to spoken, informal or casual styles; it can be used for literary purposes, for education and

219

220 PETER HAWKINS

for official language.2 Conversely, H has its own range of styles; it is used not only in strictly formal contexts (legal language, church services, etc.) but is found, in relatively ‘mild’ versions, in journalism, higher education, etc. However, it is true to say that the range of styles encompassed by His more limited than the range of L and that the H range is concentrated at the ‘formal’ end of the spectrum and is almost entirely confined to the written medium.

The use of the term diglossia was extended by, for example, Gumperz (1971) and Fishman (1971), who have pointed out that diglossic situations may involve two or more languages if, within the same speech community, one language takes the functions of H and the other the functions of L. Rubin (1968) describes such a situation in Paraguay, where Spanish functions as H in complementary distribution with Guarani as L; Den&n (197 1) reports a trilingual situation of a similar kind from Northern Italy, and Abdulaziz- Mkilifi (1972) examines diglossic relationships between English, Swahili and the local vernacular in Tanzania. Diglossia is, therefore, not a uniquely monolingual phenomenon but has affinities with bilingual and multilingual situations.

Hypotheses In Greek diglossia Dhimotiki (henceforth 0) must be seen as the dominant variety. It

is the one used for everyday purposes and covers virtually the entire spectrum of styles as far as spoken language is concerned. It is the variety which the child acquires first and which he masters natively. Kathartvousa (henceforth K) is taught at school and is learnt via education, becoming the medium of instruction at some of the higher levels. It is also acquired via what one might call ‘secondary’ exposure, viz. from newspapers, news bulletins, official forms and documents, etc., this type of acquisition being essentially passive. We can suggest, in view of the teaching of Kin schools, that educated members of the society are likely to acquire more knowledge of K, and greater ability to use it, than the less educated. Since K is still widely used for official and legal purposes, knowledge of K will, in itself, offer opportunities which are denied to those who do not possess it.

The present study seeks to confirm this hypothesis, and to measure the extent of the difference between the two groups, which will in turn reflect the difference between being actively taught (and taught in) K, vs passive acquisition via secondary sources.

The fact that L is acquired natively and H only at second-hand, appears to contradict one of the most important of Ferguson’s criteria. Discussing the question of standardisation, Ferguson argues that a major difference between the two varieties lies in the fact that H exists in a stable standardised form established by many years of tradition, while L is unstable and exhibits wide variation in grammar, vocabulary and phonology. H has the backing of ‘grammars, dictionaries, treatises on pronunciation, style and so on . . . by contrast, descriptive and normative studies of L are either non-existent or relatively recent’. This implies that N is the well established standard, the norm for the language as a whole, from which a variety of L’s deviate in greater or lesser degree.

Such a view is challenged by Kaye (1972), who argues that, in fact, the exact opposite is the case. In Arabic, it is the various L’s which are stable, while the N, far from being stable, is indefinitely variable and can be characterised as ‘ill-defined’. The phonology, morphology and syntax of H can, according to this view, be correlated with (i.e. partly predicted by) the linguistic and sociolinguistic background of the speaker. The speaker’s L, his level of education, the given speech situation, the attitudes of the speaker, and so

DIGLOSSIA REVISITED 221

on, all contribute to the particular linguistic forms which will emerge in his use of H (Kaye, 1972, p. 40). We should, therefore, regard L as the norm, and the phonology, morphology and syntax of Has derivable from it.

We thus have two opposed views of the relationship between H and L in a diglossic situation. It will clearly be of some interest to test these views with respect to Greek, whose diglossia is parallel in many ways with that of Arabic. The opposing hypotheses can be summarised as follows:

1. There is an established norm for the pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary of K which allows variation only within certain limits. D varies widely in these respects. Kis the norm from which D deviates.

2. D is a well-defined system with norms of pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary which are subject only to the same kinds of regional, social and stylistic variation normally found in most languages. K is ill-defined and variable. K forms can be predicted from D rather than vice-versa.

Sample The ‘educated’ group of subjects consisted of fifteen third-year students (six male, nine

female) from the Department of Psychology at Salonika University. The ‘uneducated’ sample consisted of fifteen subjects who had completed not more than three years at high school, and who in most cases had had no formal education. They were chosen so as to be roughly representative of different age groups, occupations and sex (they included a policeman, two hotel porters, a salesman, a carpenter and several housewives and pensioners).

The educated group had passed through high school during the years of the junta (1967-74), which was the period when, for political reasons, the use of K was actively promoted, particularly as the medium of education and in public life generally. This factor should increase, if anything, the difference in knowledge of K between the two groups.

Method Knowledge of K was tested by presenting the subjects with texts into which blanks had

been inserted; the subjects were asked to fill the blanks with an item they considered ‘appropriate. They were told that the investigator was interested in ‘the language question’ in general and in differences between K and D in particular. The texts were labelled simply as Texts I,2 and 3.

Of the three texts, which were taken from popular novels, one was written in K, one in D and the third in an intermediate variety which for the time being we can call ‘simple K’. Knowledge of K was to be investigated via responses to the ‘K' text and the ‘simple K text; the D text was included partly to make a balanced variety of texts for presentation, and partly as a control in case subjects experienced difficulties due to the nature of the task itself. The texts were chosen so as to be roughly comparable in subject-matter and, more importantly, in ease of comprehension, in order to minimise differences which might be caused by the topic rather than the language. For these reasons, passages of conversational dialogue were chosen.

The K text, taken from a mid-nineteenth century novels, is written in a fairly ‘pure’ or ‘strict’ variety. In addition to the usual markers of K such as addition of final -n in a

222 PETER HAWKINS

number of inflectional endings, and the use of is and dhia (prepositions of location and purpose) for s and ja (e.g. is tin pdlin (K) vs stin pciii (0) ‘to (at, in) the city’), we find in this text such K features as the preposition en plus dative case (corresponding to D me plus accusative), and K vocabulary items like tibfti (D te’tia); thus en ticifti apldtiti vs me tbtia apldtita ‘with such simplicity’. Features of K syntax include extensive use of participial clauses and genitive constructions. 4

The second text is written in straightforward Dhimotiki, marked particularly by the absence of final -n, the use of s for is andja for dhia, ki as well as ke (‘and’), D forms of noun, verb and adjective suffixes, the omission of prothetic vowels (D lighi vs K oh’ghi ‘few’), and so on.

Text 3, from a story by the very popular author Papadiamantis, is the most interesting linguistically, since its language is neither ‘pure’ D nor ‘pure’ K, but a mixture. The syntax and most of the vocabulary are essentially D, while the morphology and orthography are distinctively K. The choice of language is closely related to the text’s function; a short story written for a popular audience. The author has aimed for a style which, in terms of syntax and vocabulary, is close to the everybody spoken language of his intended readers, but which at the same time exhibits a degree of ‘purification’ essential to a work of literary merit. The language must be impressive without becoming incomprehensible. Markers of K are present in abundance: final -n, is and dhia, iota subscripts in the orthography (in certain verb suffixes), prothetic vowels (e.g. opho for D p&o ‘behind’), the past-tense augment. Verb and noun suffixes appear in their K form, e.g. eparusi-cisthi for D parusicistike (‘he was present’) and imbras for D m&es (‘days’, accusative plural). There are even K vocabulary items such as ikia (for D spiti, ‘house’), and dfthalmos (D m&i, ‘eye’).

These markers give the language the outward appearance of K but the style remains D at a more fundamental level. K syntactic constructions are avoided, and the vocabulary, apart from a number of K words whose meaning would be widely known, is basically D. One interesting feature of the vocabulary is the inclusion of several colloquial items which would not be allowed in a strictly K environment, words such as ghrusliza (‘witch’), ghurunopddharin (‘harpy’), and kismPti (‘fate’). The author often puts these words in inverted commas, as if to apologise for their disrespectable origins.

This text is then a good example of an intermediate variety. The language is basically D but, through the judicious use of many superficial markers of ‘purification’, succeeds in giving the appearance of K.

Blanks were inserted into these three texts at points where the subjects would, as far as possible, be forced to choose between a K response and a D one. In the main these choices involved morphological elements, such as noun and verb suffixes, and a smaller number of lexical items. We can illustrate this with reference to the parallel text cited in the introduction above; o pat- tu would aim to force a choice of suffix between patir (K) and pat&as (D); dfi- would require completion with -ke (K) or -se (D); m&hri t- thanat- would (hopefully) force a choice between mbchri plus the genitive (K) and mPchri plus the accusative (D); bzise poli - would aim to elicit a lexical choice between 4ti (K) and chrdnja (0).

Our predictions can now be summarised as follows: (1) in the responses to the D text, we expect few or no differences between the educated and uneducated subjects; (2) in the responses to the K text, the educated group will use more K items, and fewer D, than the uneducated group, by virtue of their greater knowledge of K; (3) in the responses to the


‘mixed’ text, both groups will use more D than they used in the K text, i.e. both groups will shift towards D, since this text is less clearly ‘K’ in nature than the other.

Coding of responses The responses were classified with the help of two native-speaker informants. Four

categories of response were recognised: K, D, mixed and neutral. Mixed responses, comprising about 4% of the total, contained a feature which was a marker of D, as well as one which marks K. Thus minumen ‘we stay’ has final -n, as a marker of K, but -u- marks a D form; the proper D form would be minume and the proper K form minomen. Likewise ~F~~d~e~ ‘he answered’ mixes final -n (K) with lack of augment (D). There were other types of mixture, such as the addition of iota subscript (K) to a thoroughly D word likeprii (‘go’), or the addition of the K suffix -as to the stem turkt- ‘tourist’, a word which would only occur in D.

Neutral responses, accounting for a rather larger proportion (16% overall) were items whose occurrence is common to both K and D, and which could, therefore, not be counted as K or D responses. The test was designed to minimise the likelihood of neutral responses, by inserting blanks at points which would force a choice between K and 13 wherever possible. In some cases, however, particularly where a complete lexical item was deleted, subjects responded with an item which, although appropriate to the context, did not match the target (or its equivalent in the other (K or 0) variety). If these non- target responses had K or D markers, they were classified accordingly; if not, they were classified ‘neutral’.

Results None of the subjects experienced difficulty in completing any of the texts, as indicated

by the small percentage (2.8%) of the blanks which were left unfilled. Table 1 gives the results for both groups of subjects combined, the responses being classified according to the four categories outlined above; each text is presented separately.

Table 1. Number of responses: all subjects combined

(1) Ktext %

(2) D text %

(3) Simple K text

%

K D Mixed Neutral Blank Total

374 294 33 203 26 930 40.2 31.6 3.6 21.8 2.8 100.0

23 1326 07 24 1380 1.7 96.1 0.5 - 1.7 100.0

412 644 61 151 22 1350 35.0 47.1 4.5 11.2 1.6 100.0

Table 1 shows that, as predicted, the responses to the D text are uniform and consistent: 96.1% are D responses, showing that the subjects are in agreement in assessing the language of the text as a whole and in their ability to respond appropriately. The incidence of K (1 .Wo) and ‘mixed’ responses (0.5@70) is negligible.

By contrast, responses to the K text show substantial inconsistency. Only 40.2% of the responses consist of K items, while 31.6% are D and 3.6% mixed. Adding the D and

224 PETER HAWKINS

mixed responses, at 40.2%.

The ‘simple K’

we see that the non-K responses at 35.2% almost equal the K responses

text produced a divided set of responses fairly similar in percentages to the K text. Here, however, the proportion of D items is higher, as we anticipated. D reponses at 47.7% now outweigh K responses at 35.0%, and the number of mixed responses is, at 4.570, slightly higher than for the K text (3.6%). This indicates that the subjects have switched towards D in response to a text whose language is less strongly K.

Differences between the educated and uneducated subjects can now be examined. Table 2 presents the numbers and percentages of responses to the K text for each group.

It appears from Table 2 that the educated subjects achieved a higher proportion of K responses in the K text, at 44.6%, than the uneducated at 35.9%. Conversely, the former used fewer D responses (30.2%, against 32.9%) and fewer ‘mixed’ responses (2.2070, against 5.0%).

Table 2. Number of responses for each group separately: K text only

K

(a) Student 207 Qll 44.6

(b) Non-student 167 Qo 35.9

D Mixed Neutral Blank Total

141 10 94 13 465 30.2 2.2 20.2 2.8 100.0

153 23 109 13 465 32.9 5.0 23.4 2.8 100.0

The differences between the groups were subjected to a number of statistical tests. The overall variation between the students and non-students was significant by a ~2 test (x2 = 10.99, p < 0.05), which takes into account the difference in use of D as well as in use of K, but the more reliable parametric text, the t-test, which measures use of K vs use of D, separately, and takes each individual subject’s response into account, showed no significant differences between the groups. We may conclude that on the whole the educated subjects responded more sensitively to the K text than the uneducated, but that their knowledge of K is not significantly greater-a surprising result,in view of our prediction that the university students would be more competent in K, by virtue of the formal instruction they had received. There was not a single student who gave consistently K responses to the K text throughout; the best performance had 23 K responses and only 2 D (out of 3 1 response items), and there were 4 students (out of the 15) who had fewer than six D responses, but the worst student had only one K response and 24 D responses. Among the non-students, the best performance achieved 19 K and only 3 D items, while the worst had 3 K and 13 D items. The ‘mixed’ responses are a good measure of incompetence, since these were responses which included a feature of K and a feature of D within the same lexical item, e.g. agriefsume (‘we shall corrupt’), the proper K form being agri-c;fsomen and the ordinary D form agri-Ppsume. The students were better at avoiding ‘mixed’ items like this: they had only 2.2070, compared with non-students 5.070, and eight students avoided mixed items altogether, compared with only two nonstudents $=3.75,p=0.06).

Code switching Table 2 shows that for both groups of subjects, D responses formed a considerable

proportion of the responses to the K text. This implies the possibility of a great deal of


code-switching from D to K and K to D. In theory, the mixture of K and D responses could or could not involve code-switching; there are three possible strategies:

1. Subjects might begin to respond with items which come most easily to them (D items), but later, realising that the text is in K, they switch to K and then maintain K responses.

2. Subjects might begin to respond in K, in accord with the language of the text, but ‘lapse’ into D at some subsequent point.

3. Subjects might switch between K and D throughout.

An ‘index of switching’ was therefore devised to ascertain the type of strategy followed. The index is based on the number of times each subject switches from K to D or from D to K. The results are as follows: during the course of the 31 responses made by each subject in the K text, the average number of switches was 9.98. The educated subjects proved rather less inconsistent, with an average of 8.6 switches, than the uneducated with 11.3. The most consistent educated subject switched only twice (this was exceptional); the most consistent of the uneducated group switched seven times. Thus in both groups the level of switching is high, and is maintained throughout the text.

Code-switching is found not only in the subjects’ responses, but in the language of Text 3 itself, where we find a number of obviously D forms side by side with corresponding K forms. For example, the K form embrds (‘in front of’) is followed a few lines later by the D form brostci; K tis mitrds appears alongside D tis mitbras ‘of his mother’; the locational preposition usually appears in its K form is but the D form s- occurs in andikri sta ‘opposite the’. In one remarkable example the negative particle appears as mi in one clause and as min (i.e. with final -n) in the following, virtually identical, clause:

dhiatina mi to &hi spdsi, dhiatina min to &hi kripsi ‘why hadn’t she broken it, why hadn’t she burnt it’.

These examples were all found within less than two pages of the text. Clearly, even authors, who have time to consider their choice of words, are subject to variability and cannot be fully consistent in their application of the ‘purification’ devices.

Discussion The expected differences in knowledge of the use of H between the educated and

uneducated groups of subjects were not strongly confirmed. While the student group as a whole was found to be more sensitive than the non-students in responses to the K text (x2 = 10.99, p < 0.05), usage of K items on an individual basis did not differ significantly. This is a surprising finding in view of the instruction both in K and through the medium of K, which the students had received as part of their education. One possible explanation, suggested by the fact that one student achieved only one K response out of 31 possible, is that D holds strong covert prestige (cf. Labov, 1972, p. 249) and some students, therefore, felt antipathy towards K and deliberately responded with D forms. Such an explanation would be consistent with Hudson’s concept of the individual using language to create ‘acts of identity in a multi-dimensional space’ (1980, pp. 13, 27). However, the explanation has to be rejected because the results show that all students used K to some extent; not one of them consistently gave D responses throughout. The most likely conclusion to be drawn from our results is that the formal teaching of K in high schools has little effect’, and that knowledge of K derives, for both groups, from ‘secondary’ exposure via

226 PETER HAWKINS

reading (of literature and journals), dealings with official forms and documents, and listening (e.g. to news bulletins and formal speeches).6 Greek investigators of diglossia in education, such as Frangos (1972), have reached substantially the same conclusions.

The results also indicate that Ferguson’s assumption of K as a stable, independent variety is untenable if based on native-speaker knowledge. The present study provides many examples of the wide range of possible K variants for any particular lexical (or grammatical) item. It seems that the native-speaker has available a range of devices or strategies for ‘purifying’ a linguistic item which, in combination, produce a multiplicity of possible variants. To illustrate this we can give three examples (two verbs, one noun) from one of the texts. The D form is given first, followed by a set of increasingly ‘pure’ variants, with a description of the purificatory devices:

1. ‘he was present’ parusicistike (D form) eparusicistike (addition of augment) eparusicisthike (augment; t-4) eparusicisthi (augment; t-4; K suffix)

2. ‘he was able’ mbonise (D form) imbonise (addition of augment) imbdri (augment; K suffix) idhinato (augment; K suffix; K lexical item)

3. ‘days’ (accusative, plural) m&es (D form) im&es (addition of prothetic vowel) im&as (prothetic vowel; K suffix)

The examples show that, alongside a relatively stable D form, there exists a range of intermediate variants, representing differing degrees or stages of purification. Similar evidence is given in detail by Householder (1962) and Browning (1969). As with Kaye’s account of Arabic diglossia, the H turns out to be not a unified, stable norm, but a range of variants. So the stability which Ferguson claims for it is derived only from the body of literature written in H, and the rules for writing H which are enshrined in grammars and manuals of style; H achieves only ‘formal standardisation’ (Stewart, 1968). In the Greek case, even this stability is weakly-based, since grammars of K, being prescriptive (they cannot be an account of what native-speakers actually do, or used to do), tend to vary according to the predilections of the grammarian.’

Means of purification The verb and noun examples given above illustrate some typical means of achieving

purification. Some devices are, from the native-speaker’s point of view, relatively simple and easily applied, such as the addition of -n, augments and prothetic vowels. Others are more complex, involving either a change of lexical item (e.g. dhiname for mbord in 2 above) or the use of K suffixes-more complex, because the speaker needs to know the correct noun and verb paradigms-or a K syntactic construction. In general we shall expect the simpler changes, those involving orthography, phonology, final -n, augments, etc. to be the most widely employed in a K-demanding situation, and the more complex


changes to be less well-known and more rarely used. This was confirmed in our study; the average incidence of K items in Text 1 is 40.2% but the incidence of K vocabulary items (where choices were possible) was only 6%. In Text 3 the proportions are 35.0% and 13% respectively. The same trend is observable in the language of Text 3 itself, where the writer, Papadiamantis, has used a K orthography and morphology but retains D forms at the more complex levels of lexis and syntax. 8

Two models of diglossia We can now outline two possible models for the relationship between H and L in a

diglossic situation. The static model assumes the existence of two varieties of the language; K and 0, in the Greek case. This is the model which most observers, e.g. Mirambel (1937), Ferguson (1959), Householder (1962), etc. have generally adopted hitherto. The process model takes L as a basis and assumes that an indefinite number of varieties of H can becreated from it, by the application of rules for ‘purification’.9

Each model has its advantages and disadvantages. The static model gives the benefit of positing two clearly distinct ‘poles’ of reference (in this case, K and D). It would fit with Lyons’ (1981) distinction between language behaviour and language system, where behaviour refers to ‘what speakers actually do’ and system is a regularised or idealised account of behaviour. In the Greek case, we would regard K and D as (idealised) systems, to which actual behaviour (utterances) could be referred for description. This model would account for the fact that there is more than one definition of D, for, as Warburton (1980, p. 46) points out, D has been defined on the one hand ‘on the basis of the people who speak it . . . the language of the “common people” ‘, on the other hand on the basis of ‘certain internal grammatical characteristics . . . the language which exhibits a certain phonological structure and certain morphological and syntactical features’, and which has ‘remained static since Triandafyllides’ (1941) Grammar [of D]‘. We could say that the first definition relates to actual behaviour, the second to (idealised) system. For the process model the lack of an agreed definition of D poses a problem, since the model requires a firm base as an anchor for the purification processes.

The disadvantages of this static model arise mainly from the description of intermediate varieties (see below).

The process model has the advantage of explaining why a lexical or grammatical item can appear in a range of variant forms, all or most of which could be labelled K, rather than there being a single ‘K’ form (see the verb and noun examples above). But the main advantage of this model is in its handling of intermediate varieties, to which we now turn.

Intermediate varieties Intermediate varieties in Greek, i.e. styles which cannot be clearly labelled as ‘D’ or

‘K’, occur widely in current literature, in journalism, in scientific and technical language, and in pedagogical texts-in fact in almost all registers of the current written language. Wherever the language is not purely D, intermediate varieties have become the norm (cf. Browning, 1969, pp. 11 l-l 12).

In the past, descriptions of these intermediate forms have been marred by a proliferation of labels which attempt to classify the texts under various ‘modifications’ of K and D, but which only lead to confusion. Thus Mirambel (1937) describes five ‘&tats de langue’ but his description of the differences between them proves very difficult to apply

220 PETER HAWKINS

to actual texts (or sentences) which are neither ‘pure’ K nor ‘pure’ D. The best example, however, of the proliferation of ‘mixture’ terminology is Householder (1962), who uses at least eleven different labels:

Extreme (archaic) K Ordinary K Mild K Moderate or Simple K Popularised (form of) K

Extreme (conversational) D Official D Journalistic D Moderate D Mildly purified D Modified D

Given this variety of labels, how does one distinguish, say, ‘mildly purified D’ from ‘modified D’ or, worse still, ‘modified D’ from ‘Simple K’? How can one determine whether a text is ‘basically’ D, with modifications, or ‘basically’ K, with modifications? Usually, such a decision is either impossible or totally arbitrary. 10 Our Text 3 above is a good example. Assuming the static model, it could be described as basically K, or basically D, with modifications. Such labels are less than helpful.

If the process model is adopted, all texts are regarded as ‘basically D’. What matters are the methods the writer uses to purify his text, i.e. the particular linguistic devices employed and the linguistic levels involved. The advantages of approaching the data descriptively in this way are firstly, that the use of labels which are fundamentally meaningless becomes unnecessary, and secondly, attention can be focused on the linguistic means by which the ‘purification’ has been achieved. This enables us at the same time to examine questions such as the consistency (or lack of it) of the writer’s choices.

Diglossia vs bilingual and bidialectal situations We can now consider the relationship between diglossia of the Arabic or Greek type,

and other bilingual or bidialectal situations. Firstly we must recognise that the nine criteria originally offered by Ferguson as characteristic of ‘diglossia’ apply equally well to many other types of situation involving two or more languages or dialects, including Creoles. Standard English, for example, holds much the same relationship to a non- standard dialect like Black English as does H to L in diglossia, in terms of Ferguson’s criteria. It is a ‘superposed’ variety; functional specialisation (criterion 1) is involved, i.e. H is used for certain purposes, L for others; Standard English has greater prestige (criterion 2) and a strong literary heritage (3); it is acquired secondarily through formal education (by black speakers) (4), and is fully standardised (5); the relationship is persistent through time (6) and the,lexicon contains paired items (8); the phonological systems may interpenetrate (9). The only criterion which does not apply in this situation is part of (7): that the grammar of His more complicated.

These criteria can be applied in a similar way to other situations involving two or more languages: to Creoles, as Ferguson himself reports for Haitian Creole viz-a-viz standard French; to bilingual situations such as in Paraguay (Rubin, 1968), and to multilingual situations (e.g. Denison, 1971); for further examples, cf. also Kahane and Kahane (1979). A number of writers such as Gumperz (1971) and Fishman (1971) have therefore taken the opportunity to extend the scope of the term diglossia to include situations of this type. We shall argue, however, that such an extension is undesirable for a number of reasons, and that in fact a narrowing of its scope, to include only diglossia of the Greek/ Arabic type, is preferable.


There are undoubtedly many similiarities between Greek or Arabic diglossia and other multilingual and dialect situations. Yet there are also important differences, and one further advantage of the process model proposed above is that it enables us to distinguish ‘true’ diglossia from the other situations. The critical differences are to be found in the relationship between Hand L. In the diglossic case, H varieties are derived from L by the process of purification. The process has no definite terminal point; there is no ‘pure’ H, only an indefinite process of approximations in the direction of a more highly classicised representation. Consequently, while descriptive grammars can be written for L, grammars of K must be based on prescriptive rules for purification-there is no natively spoken code. To describe the varieties of K linguistically we must work from the bottom up: we start from 0, and then describe the purificatory devices.

In dialect (and possibly Creole-see note 11 below) situations, we find rather the reverse. Here, it is the High variety which has an independent existence, and the multiple varieties of L are described by reference to it. The most frequent conclusion in descriptions of non-standard dialects is that there is no ‘pure’ L, but only an indefinite range of variants departing from, but describable in relation to, the standard dialect or language. There is, for example, no pure form of Black English; speakers may use rules for ‘improving’ their performance in the direction of the standard, but observation of the results indicates that speakers cannot apply the rules consistently: they produce utterances which are neither pure ‘dialect’ nor pure ‘standard’, but interlace features of both (Labov, 1972, pp. 213 ff; Trudgill, 1974; De Camp, 1971, pp. 26 ff). l1 This is the mirror-image of diglossia, where speakers who are competent in L, fail to apply the rules for n consistently, producing ‘mixed’ forms on the one hand, and a great deal of code-switching on the other, as we observed in our subjects’ switching behaviour. ‘2

In short, the difference between diglossia and the dialect-situation can be seen, under the process model, in terms of the language codes themselves. In diglossia, L is a natively- spoken, fully specifiable code, while j5! is indefinitely variable. In dialects (and in Creole, if one takes Bickerton’s view), H is the natively-spoken, fully specifiable code, and L is variable. Thus the difference lies ultimately in the nature and relationship of the codes; the similarities are to be found in the uses of the codes. Ferguson’s outline of diglossia is based on uses of the codes rather than on the codes themselves, and, therefore fails to distinguish true diglossia of the Greek or Arabic type from the dialect-Creole situations which are so similar in many ways, yet so different in others. Furthermore, we note that when diglossia is defined on the basis of the codes, Ferguson’s four ‘canonic’ cases are split down the middle, for while Greek and Arabic are truly ‘diglossic’, Swiss German and Haitian Creole are variable L types which can be described in relation to a fully- specifiable H, viz. Standard German and Standard French respectively.

One further difference between diglossia and dialect-Creole types involves the range of styles and functions available to Hand L respectively. It is widely assumed that the non- standard dialects of a language have a more limited functional range than the standard. Thus, ‘the standard has the resources of coping with the widest range of language functions . . . the stylistic variability of non-standard dialects is generally restricted particularly at the more formal end of the spectrum’ (Pit Corder, 1973), is a typical comment.

In diglossia, however, it is not the L whose functional range is limited, but the H. The L can be used in a full range of styles and functions in both written and spoken

230 PETER HAWKINS

media, whereas H, far from possessing the resources of a standard language, is limited to certain formal, and above all written, purposes.

We can, for convenience, summarise the differences between diglossia and dialect- Creole situations.

1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

Diglossia Dialect-Creoles

L is natively-spoken; His not His natively-spoken L is relatively fully specifiable, His relatively fully specifiable, and independent and independent His indefinitely variable; L is indefinitely variable; no ‘pure’ form no ‘pure’ form H described on basis of L L described on basis of H (‘bottom up’) (‘top down’) L has widest range of styles H has widest range of styles and functions and functions

One final point arises from the adoption of the ‘process’ model of diglossia. If ‘purification’ is an indefinite process, it should not be possible to say, as we did originally (e.g. our Text I), that a particular text is ‘in’ K, or to provide parallel sentences, one of which is ‘in’ K and the other ‘in’ D (as in the parallel text in the Introduction). To speak of K texts or texts in K implies the existence of K as a system, and hence the static model of the relationship. If we accept the process model, then strictly speaking we cannot use the ‘text in K’ terminology, since there are only ‘more purified’ and ‘less purified’ texts, or texts purified in one linguistic dimension but not in others, etc. In practice, however, it may be useful to say of a text in which purification has penetrated to every level, including syntax, that the text is. ‘in’ K. The difficulty of this terminology does not arise when the purification is thorough (‘pure’ K) or when there is none at all (pure D); it only emerges when we are faced with intermediate varieties, where we are forced to decide whether the text is ‘in’ K or ‘in’ D, and hence to resort to unsatisfactory labels like ‘simple K’ or ‘modified D’, both of which might in some cases be applied to the same text. Unfortu- nately for the static model, intermediate varieties are in abundance; pure K is a rare phenomenon. l3

Finally, what of the term diglossia itself? It is clear that I would like to see it restricted to situations of the Greek or Arabic type, since these can be characterised by the critical language-code differences outlined above. Fishman’s (1971) extension of the term to include a variety of bi- and multi-lingual types is unsatisfactory in two respects: it fails to account for the differences, and it weakens the term itself through over-generalisation. As Gilbert (1975) remarks, the concept is ‘spread so thin that new specialised terms will be required to describe the H-L diglossia . . . with which Ferguson was originally concerned’.

A tentative re-definition of diglossia, taking account of the critical language-code differences outlined above, might be as follows:

Diglossia is the name given to a situation in which ‘purified’ varieties of a language dependent upon, and describable in relation to, the everyday language, may arise particularly in the written medium through a process of classicisation or other artificial means; any or all linguistic levels may be affected, resulting in indefinitely variable purified varieties, which are best described by means of a set of ‘purification’ rules, working ‘upwards’ from the natively-spoken L.

Diglossia in this newly-defined sense is not confined to Greek and Arabic; it will be


found wherever a language undergoes a process of classicisation or standardisation for the purposes of creating a more respectable, more prestigious variety for literary or other reasons. Examples have been reported for Norwegian (Blom and Gumperz, 1972), Hindi in North India (Das Gupta and Gumperz, 1968), and Tamil (Ferguson, 1959). While most of the Kahanes’ (1979) instances of diglossia involve bilingualism (and hence a fully specifiable and independent code as H), the use of classical Latin in Western countries from the Renaissance onwards can be cited as a further example.

NOTES

’ A shorter version of this paper was given at the Sociolinguistics Symposium, Sheffield, March 1982. I would like to thank Professor Houssiadas and his colleagues in the Department of Psychology at Salonika University for making the research possible and for help with the analysis. 1 am also indebted to D. Gounelas for help with the choice of texts.

* The overlap in stylistic ranges of H and L may lead to disagreement within the society as to which variety should be used for which purposes. In Greece, use of H vs L in government, higher education, etc. is a political issue, forces of the Right favouring H, while more liberal opinion favours L. Katharhousa was actively promoted under the regime of the Colonels (1967-74); the policy of the present democracy is to encourage the use of Dhimotiki.

3 Text 1 (K) is from P. Kalhgha’s Thonos Wekos, published in Pandoru, 1855. Text 2 (0) is from Plusii ke Frochi by G. Xenopoulos (1907) and Text 3 (‘simple r) is from a short story by A. Papadiamantis, S~rirzglu Manna (1905).

4 Householder (1962) provides a comprehensive description of the linguistic differences between K and D in Greek.

’ One further factor which is relevant to the students’ performance is that the medium of instruction and examination at Salonika University is basically D, in contrast with Athens where K is required. Students at Salonika might, therefore, be less familiar with K than they would otherwise be.

6 The national radio broadcasts news in (slightly modified) D but the Right-inclined military radio station broadcasts news in K.

’ It must be emphasised that K has never been a spoken variety of Greek, i.e. it is not at attempt to restore one particular earlier stage of the language. The origins of K are a mainly nineteenth-century ‘purification’ of the modern spoken language by classicizing it. This accompanied the nationalistic movement: the language was to be purged of foreign elements, with the restoration of ancient lexical and syntactic formations. Similar parallels elsewhere (e.g. Arabic, Hindi and Norwegian) are noted in the literature. A good account of the origins and present position of K can be found in Browning (1969).

8 Elsewhere (Hawkins, 1979), I have proposed that native-speakers, including literary writers, operate with sets of ‘rules’ for purification which behave like the variable rules found in other contexts (Bailey and Shuy, 1973). Speakers’ inconsistencies, and the resulting intermediate varieties of the language, can be explained (a) in terms of a hierarchy of difficulty ranging from orthography at one end to syntax at the other, and (b) in terms of a ‘local determinacy’ hypothesis in which the subject’s choice of K or D form is strongly influenced by the immediately surrounding context rather than by the style of the text as a whole.

9 ‘Purification’ as a term for this process is unsatisfactory if it implies that D is in any sense ‘impure’. The Greek name Kathartvousa means literally ‘purifying’, where the present participle implies the dynamic nature of the process. Another possible term for the process is clussici.Wion-see note 7.

lo Hence Ferguson’s bemused query to Householder’s paper (1962, p. 130): ‘I would like to ask for a clarifi- cation of . . . the terms simple K, moderate D, journalistic D, and spoken Greek’. Householder’s reply is a classic: ‘This will not take very long because we cannot define them precisely’.

” Bickerton (1975) applied this model to Creole% arguing that there is no pure ‘basilect’; Le Page however (p.c.) points out that the classic descriptions of Creole grammars such as Bailey (1966) idealise the broad Creole and then write rules for moving towards more standard forms. Bickerton’s approach thus resembles what we are calling the ‘process’ model, while Bailey’s is more akin to the static model which posits an idealised L as well as an idealised H.

I2 Bilingual situations with an H and L relationship are different in some respects from both diglossic and dialect-Creole types. In a bilingual speech community both the codes, H and L, may be fully specifiable,

232 PETER HAWKINS

independent languages, natively-spoken, with descriptively-based grammars. This is true of, for example, Spanish and Guarani in Paraguay. The variability then arises not from the codes themselves (as in the other cases) but from the individual speaker’s knowledge of the codes, which may be imperfect, and will result in ‘mixed’ forms and inconsistencies, as well as code-switching (Gumperz and Hernandez, 1971).

I3 Warburton (1980, p. 47) suggests that pure D, at least among educated speakers, is also a rare phenomenon. Discussing the emergence of a ‘Common Modern Greek’, she points out that ‘areas where D was dominant in the past, such as casual speech, . . . show an increase in K elements; . . . the language as it is spoken today . . contains a large number of words of K origin’ (Warburton, 1980,p. 49). This is because speakers borrow lexical items from K. particularly items of a scientific, technical or learned nature, and in these items the K morphology and phonological patterns are often maintained, even in an otherwise D context.

REFERENCES

ABDULAZIZ-MKILIFI, M. H. 1972 Triglossia and Swahali-English bilingualism in Tanzania. Language and Society 1, 197.

BAILEY, B. L. 1966 Jumoican CreoleSyntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

BAILEY, C. J. and SHUY, R. (Eds) 1973 New Ways ofAnaIysing Vuriution in English. Georgetown University Press, Washington.

BICKERTON, D. 1975 Dynamics ofa Creole System Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

BLOM, J. P. and GUMPERZ, J. 1972 Some social determinants of verbal behaviour. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (Eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics Holt Rinehart.

BROWNING, R. 1%9 Medievul und Modern Greek. Hutchinson, London.

DAS GUPTA, J. and GUMPERZ, J. 1968 Language, communication and control in North India. In Fishman, J., Ferguson, C. and das Gupta, J. (Eds), Lunguuge Problems of Developing Nations. John Wiley, New York.

DE CAMP, D. 1971 The study of pidgin and creole languages. In Hymes, D. (Ed.), Pidginization and Creoliz- ution of Lunguuges. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

DENISON, N. 1971 Some observations on language variety and plurilingualism. In Ardener, E. (Ed.) Social Anthropology and Language. Tavistock, London.

FERGUSON, C. 1959 Diglossia Word 15, 325-340. Reprinted in Hymes, D. (Ed.) Language in Culture and Sociefy pp. 429-439 (1964).

FISHMAN, J. 1971 Advunces in fhe Sociology of Languuge. Vol. 1. Mouton, The Hague.

FRANGOS, C. 1972 I Epidrasi tis Glossikis Morfis stin Anagnosi ke stin Katanoisi (The influence of language variety on students’ reading and comprehension), Monograph, University of Ioannina.

GILBERT, G. 1975 Review of Fishman, J. The Sociology of Language Language 51,234.

GUMPERZ, J. 1971 Language in social groups. In Dil, A. (Ed.), Essays. Stanford.

GUMPERZ, J and HERNANDEZ, 2. 1971 Cognitive aspects of bilingual communication’. In Whiteley, W. H. (Ed.), Languuge Use und Social Change. Oxford University Press, London.

HAWKINS, P. 1979 Greek diglossia and variation theory. General Linguistics 19,4.

HOUSEHOLDER, F. 1962 Greek diglossia. Georgetown Monographs 15, 109-132.

HUDSON, R. A. 1980 Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KAHANE, H. and KAHANE, R. 1979 Decline and survival of Western prestige languages. Language 55, 183.

KAYE, A. 1972 Remarks on diglossia in Arabic. Linguistics 81,32.

LABOY, W. 1972 Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.

LYONS, J. 1981 Languuge and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

MIRAMBEL, A. 1937 Les etats de langue’ dans la Grece actuelle. Conferences de I’lnstituf de Linguistique de I’llniversite de Puris 5, 19.

PIT CORDER, S. 1973 Introducing Applied Linguistics. Penguin, Harmondsworth.

RUBIN, J. 1968 Bilingual usage in Parguay. In Fishman, J. (Ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language pp. 512-530. Mouton, The Hague. STEWART, W. A. 1968 A Sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism, in Fishman, J. (Ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Lunguage, pp. 53 l-545. Mouton, The Hague.

TRUDGILL, P. 1974 The Sociul Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

WARBURTON. I. 1980 Greek diglossia and some aspects of the phonology of Common Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics 16.45-54.

diglossia revisited

Documents