Protestant tur who formulated the modern standard. Slavs, incidentally, seem to be more sensitive to diglossia than peoples of other language families. The difference between Czech and Slovak is often less than that between dialects of neighboring regions of Germany or Italy, but it was enough for the two peoples to regard themselves as distinct nations and to justify the breakup of Czechoslovakia. In Serbocroat, there are separate standards in Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia, and their users often like to think of them as different languages. Macedonian Slavs who before 1910 considered themselves to be Bulgarians developed, in the Yugoslavian (now independent) Republic of Macedonia, a standard as different from Bulgarian as they could possibly make it. Strong and weak diglossia Accepting, then, the universality of diglossia as proposed by Dagut, I would like to posit a distinction between two kinds, which I will call strong and weak. Strong diglossia is what has up to know been called diglossia tout court: a situation where dialect and standard are different enough for their users to be fully aware of their being two distinct codes, with different names for them. To designate the dialect in this situation I will use the traditional term patois. This word has traditionally been used in this sense in the northern half of France, as well as neighboring areas of Belgium, Switzerland and Italy (Aosta Valley), in contrast to standard (or parastandard) French; a regional designation (picard, champenois and the like) might be used to contrast one patois with another. In the non-Romance parts of northern France (western Brittany, Alsace), however, the regional designation (breton, alsacien) is what is generally used (when not subsumed under the generic term dialecte), and this is also the norm in Italy and in southern and central Germany (napoletano, Schwabisch, etc.), while in northern Germany and the Low Countries the generic platt comparable to the English broad is usual. In northern Spain, bable and fabla, both meaning, essentially, speech, have been used to designate the patois of Asturias-Leon and Aragon, respectively. Weak diglossia, by contrast, occurs when the dialect is what I have called a parastandard, and in this case speakers usually think only in terms of the language (English, French or whatever) which may be used more or less correctly (the model of correctness being of course the standard), and discrepancies are perceived as faults, or at the very least as colloquialisms, but not as indications of distinct language varieties. To cite a sociolinguistic research example, the French spoken by the indigenous inhabitants [of Brussels] developed into a separate variety, different from Belgian French ... Belgian French displays a number of typical features that distinguish it from standard French... For many speakers, it was not entirely clear what was meant with [sic] Brussels French. To them, there was only one variety of French.(8) The difference in thinking is especially marked during periods of transition from strong to weak diglossia (which occurs, as I have remarked, as secondary schooling becomes universal). To use French again as an example: in Corsica, the generation (those