Diglossia
The diglossia (Greek διγλωσσία, Diglossia, " bilingualism " ) is a special form of bilingualism: It describes the bilingualism of an entire society, in which there is a clear functional differentiation between two closely related language varieties. In particular, as the coexistence of dialect and standard language or spoken vernacular is referred to written standard language.
Each speaker of such a community has the same two (rarely more) varieties ( or languages ), but uses the one or the other only in a particular situation, such as a variety ( usually as L for low English, "low" referred to ) in everyday family life discussions and talk shows, the other ( H for high english, "high" ) on the job, compared to offices and in newspapers. The result is a functional specialization of the language faculty.
In German-speaking Switzerland, for example, the many local dialects and standard German are not used as standard dialect continuum, but separating the two language varieties and changes according to the situation of the one into the other. So in the local television and radio stations, the dialect is spoken, while the print media and (school) books use standard German.
A similar situation also exists in Luxembourg with the national language Luxembourgish in relation to, an official language of High German. The other official language is French. The Luxembourg national language is attributed mostly to the status of a dialect expanding internationally. Luxembourgish is spoken by the majority of Luxembourgers as their mother tongue, also, for example, on national television and radio, it will be used. When writing language, however, German is mostly used in smaller but significant extent French. To use the most and the largest print media, but also the (school) books, and partly the electronic media in the Grand Duchy of standard German.
Entdiglossierung referred to the disappearance of diglossia, as happened for example in Northern Germany.
Conceptual history
The term (French diglossia ) was coined by Ioannis Psycharis ( Frenchified Jean Psichari ) in 1885 for the then language situation in Greece, where until the 1970s, two varieties of Greek, the ( more scholarly and mostly written ) katharevousa and the (native spoken ) Dimotiki were used side by side.
William Marçais involved the terminus of the Arabic-speaking countries, where the national varieties of Arabic are in addition to the high- Arab.
Charles A. Ferguson finally realized in his famous essay Diglossia 1959 alongside the Greek and Arabic -speaking countries and the Swiss German (Standard German and Swiss German ) and Haitian (Standard French and Creole ).
Joshua Fishman expanded the concept in 1967 (extended Diglossia ): his view, should also diglossic situations where the languages are not related to each applies (eg Hindi and Tamil in Tamil Nadu, India), as a real diglossia. In this issue, there under (socio - ) linguists disagreement.
1981 recommended to use Gottfried Kolde for the German speaking part of Switzerland the term medial diglossia, because here in the course of time the function division of dialect and standard language had changed and determined in most cases the choice of the medium variety.
In a more general version of the term sometimes even all communicative situations are referred to as diglossisch in which two or more language varieties into account the different functional language context; in this sense diglossia also encompasses the use of different language registers and sociolects in a speech community.
Diglossia versus standard dialect continuum
Diglossia is similar at first glance, the situation for dialect speakers: The dialect is often used exclusively orally, both locally and functionally limited ( especially in informal contexts ). For formal communication situations outside the family and the (local) Friends of a standard language is used or a variety of the standard language, which is very close to this, but is dyed regional ( regional language or Regiolekt ). But for example, in the German language area of the Federal Republic of Germany - among other things because of population shifts since 1945 - the dialect speakers are becoming less and now speak many people no longer dialect, the standard language can be used in all those situations in which otherwise dominates the dialect ( e) - is in contrast to a real diglossia as in German-speaking Switzerland or Luxembourg, where the locals speak in everyday situations ( almost) exclusively their dialects and the use of standard language uncommon.
In addition, in many places voice mixtures of local dialect ( = L), regional language or Regiolekt and Language ( = H) have been created. In a real situation diglossischen the boundaries are never smooth. In contrast, there are the standard dialect continuum always "Grayscale " which, even where they are underused, are perceived by the speakers as a "right."
Language communities with diglossia
Besides the four mentioned by Ferguson diglossia cases ( at that time the Greece, German Switzerland, Arab countries, Haiti) has been postulated for a number of other language communities that prevails in them diglossia.
As in Switzerland, there is a diglossia case in South Tyrol. The dialect is used in dealing with all South Tyrolean dialect speakers, be it at work or in private life. Only in school and on TV High German is spoken. All South Tyrol change in the normal case to the High German when they speak with a person for whom the South Tyrolean dialect is difficult or impossible to understand.
Including the language situation of Kievan Rus, the Boris Uspenski the diglossia concept 1983 anwandte: So there Church Slavonic was used as H next to the Altostslawischen as L.
Also in East Asian societies was formed in layers long time to observe the phenomenon of diglossia, but this probably is not at the level of spoken language. The classical Chinese was China but in Korea, Japan and Vietnam as a universal written language, as these companies have no own writing systems were initially present. In addition, the Chinese served as carriers of the common Buddhist and Confucian tradition.
On the border of this phenomenon is the language situation in the Czech Republic. The spoken Czech language differs significantly from the written language used primarily in media. The Czech literary language based on the Kralice Bible from the 14th century ( Alttschechisch ), while developed the vernacular from the Central Bohemian dialect. This discontinuity was caused by the Germanization after the Battle of White Mountain (1620 ), which resulted in the Czech lands permanently until 1918 belonged to the Habsburg dominions and the Czechs and German here had their common homeland. During this time Czech was spoken almost exclusively by peasants in the proverbial " Bohemian villages," while the language of the educated and the townspeople was German. At the end of the 18th to the early 19th century under the leadership of Josef Dobrovský and Josef Jungmann was the Czech Revival movement, which wanted to create a Czech literary language and it just continued the tradition before the 17th century.
Also living in a diglossischen situation many immigrants, especially the second generation, in Western Europe. In France they are, unless they are of North African (and thus mostly of Arabic-speaking ) origin, called Beurs. In Switzerland they are - regardless of their origin - called second-generation immigrants - named after the first, which were of Italian origin. Because the parental generation the language poorly or not at all ruled that separate youth and children on their communication behavior between the external and the internal family vernacular region, said it himself often comes in the communication among the youth to language intermixing.
The Romance languages developed only into independent languages after the diglossia of Latin could not be maintained because of the collapse of the Roman Empire.
German Switzerland - diglossia or bilingualism?
For many decades, the science of language discussed the question of whether standard German for Swiss German is a foreign language or not. Put simply, the experts are divided into two camps: Those who hold the Swiss German dialects for a variety of a common German language, not a separate language, and those who attest to the Swiss German dialects as much linguistic peculiarity and or Matured awareness that in return Standard German is to be regarded rather as a foreign language. While the former is usually opt for describing the Swiss linguistic situation on the basis of diglossia model, holding the latter the description of the Swiss German language status on the basis of bilingualism model usually more appropriate.
Arguments in the tendency for diglossia
For Siebenhaar and Wyler seems to be quite clear that as digloss the German -speaking Switzerland is: The language situation of German Switzerland thus corresponds to the pattern of diglossia: in a speech community two forms of the same language are used, a high linguistic and a vernacular, and every form of language has different scopes. The forms of language have always differed significantly from one another, mixing and transitional forms are rare. ( Siebenhaar / Wyler 1997)
Attributable to the standard German language character they reject clear from: The differences between the Swiss German dialects and the standard language are so great, especially in the articulation, but also in the grammatical forms that it's often said, is the high-level language for Swiss a foreign language that they would have to laboriously learn in school, while the Germans they dominated from the very beginning. However, this opinion is wrong. Also in Germany, the children need to practice in the school in the use of writing -related high-level language, even where the common language has only a small distance to the high-level language. Moreover, the close relationship between the two forms of language can hardly to call the Swiss German as an independent language, despite phonetic differences which provide the understanding thoroughly the question. The similarities in vocabulary and syntax are also much larger than that between the Germans and the closely related languages such as Dutch or English. ( Siebenhaar / Wyler 1997)
Siebenhaar adds to that, although there is a tendency for medial diglossia, this only applies for the nearby area (see Siebenhaar 03).
Even Peter Sieber and Horst Sitta (1986: 33f ) are opposed to categorization as a foreign language. Although they are of the opinion that the question of whether Standard German is to be designated as a foreign language is ultimately a political, not a linguistic question, they pledge not to call the default language as a foreign language, especially because the default language in the written area has a clear permanent place. In addition, it was from the perspective of applied linguistics highly advisable that thought formations, after which standard German is a foreign language, categorically oppose to study the willingness of the German Swiss Standard German and apply not be reduced further (see Hägi / Scharloth 2005). Ulrich Ammon (1995 ) represents, in contrast to Arthur Baur and Iwar Werlen the opinion that the Matured enough awareness criterion is not per se the Swiss German dialects to denote the Swiss German dialects as separate languages. The lack of standardized awareness, the insufficient spoke systematic distance to other German varieties and the expansion of the Alemannic dialects on federal German terrain does not allow you to view standard German from the point of view of Swiss German as a foreign language (see Hägi / Scharloth 2005). Even Walter Haas ( 2004) is convinced of the diglossischen situation and notes that it an extreme case of the register variation is in the dialect and the standard language: Both versions meet two different basic stylistic features, proximity and distance. In addition, the situation with the bilingualism situation with two dissimilar languages are not comparable (see Hägi / Scharloth 2005).
Arguments in the tendency for bilingualism
Arthur Baur (1983: . 37-41, 64f ) is of the opinion that the standard language in Switzerland should be classified as a foreign language on the grounds that the Swiss German dialects are fully equipped. That is, the dialects are so well developed that they can be easily used in any communication situation, such as in professional or official contexts. The fact that the dialects were able to expand in such a way is also related that the Swiss German language has a prestige and can functionally differentiate stylistically, as is the case with other national languages . In addition, Baur notes that a significant spoke systematic distance between dialect and standard language regarding articulation consists grammar and lexis. All these features of the dialects let him come to the conclusion that the Swiss German dialects are considered to be an independent, fully -developed language ( cf. Hägi / Scharloth 2005). Also Roland Ris (1990 ) considers that the conditions for a diglossic situation according to the classical model of Ferguson with high- and low- variant no longer exist: With the removal of the layer-specific marker in the use of dialect at all, and the broad neutralizing their earlier high perception of varieties on the one hand and the Durchlässigmachung originally situational division between high German and dialect on the other hand, it is no longer sensible to use the traditional Diglossiemodell. Rather, it is assumed that the German Swiss speak on any subject in almost any situation dialect. (...) If we consider this fact as possible sine ira et studio, we have to realize that the spoken dialect perceives almost all the features that come elsewhere of a spoken standard language, and this in turn implies that the spoken High German in Switzerland for internal use no longer works as a complementary form of speech within the meaning of Diglossiemodells, but as a second language within the meaning of Bilingualismusmodells that you may use even more in certain communication situations must use. ( Ris 1990: 42)
Nevertheless, he notes that there is no for all German Swiss binding feeling for language and that is to be assumed that the diglossia model is especially true for educated elderly or for those who have close contact with Germans, as before (see Ris 1990: 43-44 ). How Baur, also comes Iwar Werlen (1998) concluded that both varieties are fully equipped to make even if notice differences in literacy and orality, reception and production, mass media and personal use situation and its Use for in- and out-group communication. He believes the concept of diglossia is not (more) reasonable and prefers the Swiss German-speaking state to be called asymmetrical bilingualism ( cf. Hägi / Scharloth 2005). Same as Werlen also believes Raphael Berthele (2004) that the diglossia model according to Ferguson, the German Switzerland inadequately describes. He also points out that the majority of German finds himself Swiss Standard German as a foreign language. Therefore, it seems to him more reasonable to describe the German speaking part of Switzerland on the basis of bilingualism model ( cf. Hägi / Scharloth 2005).
The results of a questionnaire survey of Scharloth from the year 2003, according to German Swiss were generally asked about their personal relationship and that of the German Swiss standard language, allow, despite the random nature of this study to glean some trends in the self-assessment and that of the collective. These trends could also be interpreted as an argument for foreign language character of the standard German. 79 percent of respondents answered in the affirmative the question of which standard German was the first foreign language for the German Swiss. Only 6 percent of respondents said that in Switzerland good High German is spoken. 76 percent attribuierten the speakers only moderate oral high-level language skills. Gar 18 percent chose poorly for the predicate. It could be inferred that the numbers tend to support the bilingualism model. But on the question of whether or not high German for them personally constituted a foreign language, it affirmed only 30 percent. When asked, enter the one hand, information about the self-assessment of individual oral competence in the default language, and secondly to evaluate the competence of the collective, the results were similar contradictory. Consequently, one can say that the average German Swiss German his own competence higher rank than that of his fellow citizens. So it proves conclusively than questionable whether the self-assessment of Swiss German can be made valid as an argument for foreign language character. (see Scharloth 2003)
Situation in the Arab States
In Arabic, there is also a clear distinction between high-level language and colloquial language. Written texts, both religious and secular in nature, mostly written in the high- Arab. In contrast, Arabic native speakers use in oral language use mostly their dialect; also play movies and songs are mostly in the vernacular. This separation ( Modern Standard Arabic as written, dialect as a spoken language ) will be canceled in certain situations, such as when a written text recited or a linguistically sophisticated speech is to be held. Conversely, the dialect is verschriftlicht in the People's seal or the reproduction of dialogue in novels to express a greater closeness to the people or authenticity.
High-level language and local dialects differ despite the common roots both in grammar and in the lexicon. There are also differences between the various Arabic dialects, so that the high is Arab as the language of the Koran and the common language of all Arabs still taught.
Diglossien in literature and film
The writer and Nobel literature laureate Thomas Mann shows in his novel "Buddenbrooks" as a side issue, the diglossia of men in this Lübeck merchant family in the 19th century, with each other, talk in the family and in business High German, but speak to their workers on Platt ( must ). The film shows this quite impressive.
Rheinische Diglossien sound again and again in works of Nobel laureate Heinrich Böll, for example, in " the end of a business trip ." This amendment is externally written in very dry style protocol, almost German lawyers. By Boll's constant, often hardly translatable sprinklings lively local language, the work of another, often seeming cabaret level gets. It is said about a witness, according to complicated idea in the next sentence: " ... only called by relatives in the village and the Kroserin. '" Through the contrast between the precise to the point words of the dialect and its recognizable arduous approximations by declaration and paraphrases in the still very authoritarian Prussian language of the late 1950s and early 1960s, the diglossic situation of the Cologne surrounding land this time opening up without a narrative would have been impossible in style.