Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:32:26.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sinhala diglossia: Discrete or continuous variation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2009

John C. Paolillo
John C. Paolillo
Affiliation:
Linguistics Program, Box 19559, University of Texas, Arlington, TX 76019-0559, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sociolinguists disagree on how to characterize diglossia with respect to the structural relatedness of the H(igh) and L(ow) varieties: Ferguson 1959, 1991 holds that H and L should be distinct but related varieties of language, while others maintain that a continuum model is more appropriate. Both discrete models (Gair 1968, 1992) and continuum models (De Silva 1974, 1979) have been proposed for Sinhala, as spoken in Sri Lanka. In this article, I employ a computer-generated multidimensional graph of relations between varieties of Sinhala to show that the distribution of H and L grammatical features in a sample of naturally occurring texts supports the discrete H and L model more than the continuum model. A rigorous characterization of diglossia as a distinct type of language situation is proposed, based on the notion “functional diasystem.” (Diglossia, Sinhala, Sri Lanka, diasystem, hybridization, continuum, South Asia, standardization)

Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 269 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bickerton, Derek (1973). The structure of polylectal grammars, In Shuy, Roger (ed), Sociolinguistics Current trends and prospects (Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1972), 17–42Washington, DCGeorgetown University PressGoogle Scholar
Britto, Francis (1986). Diglossia: A study of the theory, with application to Tamil. Washington, DCGeorgetown University PressGoogle Scholar
Britto, Francis (1988). A diglossic typology. Sophia Linguistica Working Papers in Linguistics. 23/24:253–62. TokyoSophia University.Google Scholar
Britto, Francis (1991). Tamil diglossia. An interpretation. In Hudson, 1991 60–84.Google Scholar
DeCamp, David (1971). Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum In Hymes, Dell (ed), Pidginization and creolization of languages, 349–70 Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Silva, M. W. S. (1967). Effects of purism on the evolution of written language. Linguistics 36:5–17.Google Scholar
De Silva, M. W. S. (1974). Convergence in diglossia The Sinhalese situation. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 3. 60–91.Google Scholar
De Silva, M. W. S. (1976). Diglossia and literacy Mysore, IndiaCentral Institute of Indian LanguagesGoogle Scholar
De Silva, M. W. S. (1979) Sinhalese and other island languages in South Asia. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
De Silva, M. W. S. (1986) Typology of diglossia and its implications for literacy. In Krishnamurti, et al. 1986. 304–11.Google Scholar
Fairbanks, Gordon; Gair, James W., & De Silva, M. W S (1968). Colloquial Sinhalese (Sin-hala), vols 1–2. Ithaca, NYSouth Asia Program, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph (1984). The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles (1959) Diglossia Word 15:325–40. [Reprinted in Pier Paolo Giglioli (ed ), Language in social context, 232–51. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1972.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Charles(1991). Epilogue: Diglossia revisited. In Hudson, 1991:214–34.Google Scholar
Fishman, Joshua (1967) Bilingualism with and without diglossia, diglossia with and without bilingualism Journal of Social Issues 23 29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, Joshua(1968), ed Readings in the sociology of language The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, Joshua (1972). Language in sociocultural change. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gair, James W. (1968) Sinhalese diglossia. Anthropological Linguistics 10:1–15Google Scholar
Gair, James W. (1986) Sinhala diglossia revisited, or diglossia dies hard In Krishnamurti, et al. , 1986:322–36.Google Scholar
Gair, James W. (1992). AGR, INFL, case and Sinhala diglossia, or: Can linguistic theory find a home in variety? In Kachru, Braj et al. (eds.), Dimensions of South Asia as a sociolinguistic area: Papers in memory of Gerald B. Kelley, 179–98. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH.Google Scholar
Gair, James W., & Karunatilaka, W. S. (1974). Literary Sinhala. Ithaca, NY: South Asia Program, Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
Gair, James W., & Paolillo, John C (1988). Sinhala non-verbal sentences and argument structure. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 8:39–78.Google Scholar
Gal, Susan (1979) Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual Austria New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michael (1967). Aspects of varieties of differentiation. Journal of Linguistics 3:177–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan, & Paolillo, John C. (1995). Focus position in SOV languages. In Downing, Pamela & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Word order in discourse, 163–98 Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Alan (1991), ed Studies in diglossia. (Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 10 1) Denton, TX: Linguistic Association of the Southwest.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bh.; Masica, Colin P.; & Sinha, Anjani K. (1986), eds. South Asian languages. Structure, convergence, and diglossia. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1994). Principles of linguistic change, I: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John C. (1991). Sinhala diglossia and the theory of Government and Binding. In Hudson, 1991:41–59.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John C. (1992). Functional articulation in diglossia: A case study of grammatical and social correspondences in Sinhala. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John C. (1994). Finding the “two” in diglossia. University of Texas at Arlington Working Papers in Linguistics 1:15–31.Google Scholar
Rickford, John (1981). A variable rule for a Creole continuum. In Sankoff, David & Cedergren, Henrietta (eds.), Variation omnibus, 201–08. Edmonton, Canada: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Rickford, John(1987). Dimensions of a Creole continuum: History, tests and linguistic analysis of Guyanese Creole. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, Joan (1968). Bilingual usage in Paraguay. In Fishman, 1968:512–30.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David (1988). Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.), Linguistics, the Cambridge Survey, IV: Language, the socio-cultural context, 140–61. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdman, Albert (1988). Diglossia and language conflict in Haiti. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 71:67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel (1968). Is structural dialectology possible? Word 14:388–400. Reprinted in Fishman 1968:305–20.Google Scholar