Language diversity as a form of bilingualism and a factor contributing to school failure

According to sociolinguistics, the structure of languages is determined by the functions that the languages perform in the societies that employ them. Sociolinguistics is opposed to dominant linguistics and more specifically, opposes the standardized linguistic ability against the communicative skills and the homogeneity of the language system and community against diversity. The distinction among the language diversities is conducted depending on the “user” and on “their use”. The first diversity is defined by and at the same time indicates the geographical and social characteristics of the speakers and concerns geographical dialects and sociolects. The second is defined by the different communication circumstances in the framework of the dialects or sociolects themselves and constitute the functional diversities. Although according to Ferguson, the condition where the same community uses two different language diversities (high H and low L) is also defined as bilingualism, we might say that this term is probably a bit exaggerating. We would prefer the term diglossia.
We should not forget that language diversity, which is closely related to social diversity, brings forth the issue of social inequality: those that cannot or are not willing to speak the standard language of middle or higher layers probably belong at the same time in the groups that run the risk of social and financial exclusion and they do not enjoy the same benefits as those who speak the standard language. Thus, usually the social origin is related to school failure of the children that use diversities that are not compatible with the language norm of school. This is the classic theory about the elaborated and restricted language codes of Bernstein. However, despite the fact that it is usual to positively evaluate certain language diversities or certain language elements vis-à-vis others (Archakis, Kondyli, 2002), many are those who would like to believe that all languages and their diversities under circumstances like growth, evolution and maturation are possible to operate in such a way so as to cover various aspects of the speakers’ lives when the needs rise and the appropriate conditions are met. Moving further, there is Labov’s view that the language codes that certain social groups use do not fall short of the “elaborated” codes of the higher socioeconomic layers. They are simply different. School failure is due to the fact that the school has adopted the “dominant” diversity.