Semiotics 1980 pp 205-215 | Cite as


  • Michael Herzfeld


The central argument of this paper is that the linguistic formulation of “diglossia,”whereby a single language may have both literary (“H”) and vernacular (“L”) “registers,”is part of a larger semiotic phenomenon in which individuals are able to negotiate social, national, ethnic, or political boundaries through a potentially inexhaustable range of co-domains. Language, though important, is not necessarily primary in this wider phenomenon, which I propose to call disemia. Disemia is thus a higher-order concept, not only than diglossia, but also than all such models as political polarization, class-based differentiation of behavior (including kinesics and proxemics), “folk”versus “urban”culture, and the like. In Ardener ‘s (1971) sense, it is a paradigmatic structure, a category of formal social principle rather than of behavioral type.1


Behavioral Type External Consumption Political Polarization Paradigmatic Structure Wide Phenomenon 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrahams, R.D., & Bauman, R., 1971, Sense and nonsense in St. Vincent, Am. Anthrop., 73: 762–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardener, E.W., 1970, Witchcraft, economics, and the continuity of belief, in: “Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations,” M. Douglas, ed., ASA 9, Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
  3. Ardener, E.W., 1971, The new anthropology and its critics, Man, n.s., 6: 449–467.Google Scholar
  4. Bouissac, P., 1977, Semiotics and spectacles, in “A Perfusion of Signs,” T.A. Sebeok, ed., Indiana, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J., 1975, “Spoken and Unspoken Meanings,” PdR, Lisse.Google Scholar
  6. Crick, M., 1976, “Explorations in Language and Meaning,” New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. du Boulay, J., 1974, “Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village,” Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Eco, U., 1976, “A Theory of Semiotics,” Indiana, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  9. El Guindi, F., & Selby, H.A., 1976, Dialectics in Zapotec thinking, in: “Meaning in Anthropology,” K. Basso & H. Selby, eds., New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  10. Faris, J.C., 1968, Validation in ethnographical description, Man, n.s., 3: 112–124.Google Scholar
  11. Ferguson, C.A., 1959, Diglossia, Word, 15: 325–340.Google Scholar
  12. Fillmore, C.J., 1971, Verbs of judging, in: “Studies in Linguistic Semantics,” C.J. Fillmore & D.T. Langendoen, eds., Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Friedl, E., 1962, “Vasilika,” Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Goldstein, L. J., 1976, “Historical Knowing,” Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  15. Goody, E.N., ed., 1978, “Questions and Politeness,” Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Herzfeld, M., 1971, Cost and culture, Kritika Khronika, 23: 189–198.Google Scholar
  17. Herzfeld, M., 1980, The dowry in Greece, Ethnohistory, 27, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  18. Herzfeld, M., 1981, “Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology, and the Making of Modern Greece” (prov. title), Texas, Austin, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  19. Hirschfeld, L.A., 1977, Art in Cunaland, Man, n.s., 12:104–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iakovidhis, Kh., 1975, Introductory note, in: “Neoclassical Houses of Athens and Piraeus,” in Greek, Dhodhoni, Athens.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, B.C., 1975, More on diglossia, Lang. Sci., 37:37–38.Google Scholar
  22. Kendall, M.B., In press, Towards a semantic approach to terms of address, Language and Communication.Google Scholar
  23. Labov, W., 1965, “The Study of Nonstandard English,” rev. ed., NCTE, Chicago/Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington.Google Scholar
  24. Pocius, G.L., 1979, Hooked rugs in Newfoundland, Jour. Am. Folklore, 92:273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reisman, K., 1970, Cultural and linguistic ambiguity in a West Indian village, in: “Afro-American Anthropology,” N.E. Whitten & J. Szwed, eds., Free, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Schwimmer, E., 1979, Reciprocity and structure, Man, n.s., 14: 271–285.Google Scholar
  27. Sherzer, D., & Sherzer, J., 1976, Mormaknamaloe, in: “Ritual and Symbol in Native Central America,” P. Young & J. Howe, eds., U. of Oregon Anthrop. Papers, no. 9.Google Scholar
  28. Shouby, E., 1951, The influence of the Arabic language on the psychology of the Arabs, M. East Jour., 5:284–302.Google Scholar
  29. Silverstein, M., 1976, Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description, in: “Meaning in Anthropology,” K. Basso & H. Selby, eds., New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  30. Sotiropoulos, D., 1977, Diglossia and the national language question in modern Greece, Linguistics, 197:5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stirling, P., 1965, “Turkish Village,” Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.Google Scholar
  32. Veinoglou, Tz., 1976, The roots of the rebetika are very Hellenic, Ta Nea, in Greek, May 10, 11, 12.Google Scholar
  33. Webber, J., 1973, Review article, Jour. Anthrop. Soc. Oxford, 4: 32–41.Google Scholar
  34. Winner, I.P., & Winner, T.G., 1976, The semiotics of cultural texts, Semiotica, 18: 101–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Herzfeld
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Center for Language and Semiotic Studies Department of AnthropologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations