Diglossia

As is considered in more depth later in the thesis, data suggest that there is disparity between official statements about language and actual current language policy in Alicante. In other words, whilst Castilian and Valencian have equal official status, a hierarchy between the two languages persists to a certain extent, with Castilian holding a more dominant position in the linguistic repertoire. The term diglossia was first introduced to sociolinguistics by Ferguson (1959) and as is discussed later in this section, the concept continues to be revisited and redefined by scholars. Ferguson proposed diglossia to describe a stable condition where two language varieties coexist, with a separation of function between each variety. As such, the relationship between the two language varieties is hierarchical. Ferguson proposed the term diglossia to describe such circumstances because he believed that bilingualism did not adequately describe communities where one language variety has a higher status than another. In cases of diglossia, one language variety is

considered the high variety used in formal domains and the other variety is the low variety, used in informal domains. Each variety is only appropriate for a particular set of circumstances and there is very little overlap (Ferguson, 1959: 328). As such, diglossia describes a hierarchical relationship between two language varieties, whose uses are highly compartmentalised. As is discussed later in this section, other scholars built upon Ferguson’s original work and extended his definition, making it less strict.

Ferguson formed his definition of diglossia after studying four speech communities and their defining languages (Arabic, Modern Greek, Swiss German and Haitian Creole). He then used his findings to identify nine characteristics of diglossia:

function, prestige, literary heritage, acquisition, standardisation, stability, grammar, lexicon, and phonology. In each category there is a hierarchical separation between the language varieties, with the high variety only suitable in one set of circumstances and the low variety only appropriate in another. However, when Ferguson outlined his definition of diglossia, illiteracy was a regular feature of speech communities.

Phenomena such as globalisation, urbanisation, and migration, which have sociolinguistic implications, were not present in the same way as today. Instead, conditions at the time would have reinforced the hierarchy that existed between the two language varieties. As such, individuals would understand which language variety would be appropriate according to the domain. Therefore, one set of behaviours would be expressed in one language variety and another in another language variety with little overlap (Fishman, 1967: 29).

Present circumstances, such as increased literacy, education, and mobility resulting from modernisation processes (Gellner, 1964) (see Hutchinson & Smith, 1994: 55-63) mean that today the boundaries between high and low variety are more blurred than when Ferguson was writing. For example, as a result of language revitalisation efforts in the European context, many minority languages, which Ferguson would have classed as low languages, are now employed in domains traditionally occupied by the majority language; for example the spheres of education or public administration. Furthermore, in diglossic communities the low variety is usually learnt by members of the speech community as their mother tongue, whilst the high variety is normally acquired through formal education

(Ferguson, 1959: 331). However, today due to language revitalisation work, minority languages may not only be acquired at home through intergenerational speakers but also at school, resulting in changes to existing sociolinguistic hierarchies (O'Rourke et al., 2015). Such developments alter the position of minority languages in the individual repertoire, and also the community repertoire, which in turn has implications for language policy. As such, whilst a social hierarchy may persist, perhaps due to consolidated ideologies from the past, such distinctions between the two varieties may be more blurred than previously, and an assessment of language policy in Alicante must take this into account.

In addition to the presence of minority languages in new domains, which were traditionally reserved for the majority language, today, majority languages are to be found in domains which were traditionally occupied by the minority language, such as the home (Berruto, 1989a). Berruto’s work, and its implications for this study, are discussed later in this chapter. Current circumstances contrast with Ferguson’s theory, which states that the high language is ‘used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any sector of the community for ordinary conversation’ (Ferguson, 1959: 336). This overlap between languages and the blurring of linguistic domains requires a rethinking of whether diglossia remains an appropriate description of multilingual contexts where one language has a higher social status than the other. In fact, such changes, and the resulting greater complexity of multilingual settings, have prompted scholars such as García (2013) to question the traditional concept of diglossia. Instead, in response to social change, García suggests the term ‘transglossia’ to refer to contexts where two or more language varieties co-exist but do not have strict separate functions. Like diglossia, transglossia is a societal phenomenon; language users have access to two or more language varieties and a hierarchy exists to an extent. The boundaries between language domains are more blurred in cases of transglossia than in examples of diglossia; yet, language users are aware of the sociolinguistic hierarchy that exists and how to use their two, or more, language varieties. García explains that whereas diglossia refers to stable conditions where two language varieties exist in a hierarchy,

transglossia describes more fluid language practices, where language boundaries have blurred (García, 2013: 161).

A further problem that has been identified with Ferguson’s original definition is that due to language revitalisation work and efforts to raise the status of minority languages, the terms high and low language, used by Ferguson, may no longer be appropriate. Today, when the equality of languages is encouraged, continuing to label languages as high or low may only serve to reinforce such beliefs of a hierarchy of languages. A further concern is that the many adaptations of diglossia by scholars, which are now discussed, has led to the term losing its original specific meaning (Berruto, 1989b: 553).

However, Ferguson intended for his theory of diglossia to initiate debate and he encouraged further discussion about the relationship between language varieties within speech communities. Therefore, Ferguson did not expect his description to be the final definition of diglossia; rather it was the first step in a debate which continues to this day. As has already been discussed, Ferguson’s initial study continues to prompt further research and development of his original theoretical framework. For example, Gumperz (1962) expanded Ferguson’s definition to include speech communities where two languages, rather than just two varieties, coexist, to be considered as diglossic and Fishman (1967) further developed the definition to consider the close relationship between diglossia and bilingualism.

Additionally, Abdulaziz Mkilifi (1972) builds upon the theory of diglossia and suggests that the sociolinguistic in Tanzania represents an example of triglossia.

Abdulaziz Mkilifi (1972: 198) explains that triglossia refers to a setting where three languages exist alongside each other. In some areas they have well-defined functions and in others there is a degree of overlap. Abdulaziz Mkilifi provides as an example the co-existence of a regional language, which is primarily a spoken intergroup language, a local standardised lingua franca, which is used extensively in the education system and public life, and a world language, such as English. Whilst triglossia does not necessarily describe the conditions in the research context of Alicante, the idea of a three-way hierarchy does represent the sociolinguistic setting

to a certain extent. As is discussed in more detail in chapter five, data suggest that as more people gain access to standard Valencian some respondents position the Valencian that they grew up speaking in a hierarchy with standard Valencian and Castilian.

A further development of Ferguson’s theory of diglossia which is of relevance to this study is Berruto’s theory of dilalia (Berruto: 1989a; 1989b). In order to overcome the limitations associated with diglossia, Berruto developed his framework of dilalia to reflect contemporary circumstances and conditions specific to the Italian context.