Do you think my essay is ok guys?

hiya guys my name is Urribarri I'm from Venezuela and english isn't my first language so please excuse me if I make any mistakes I'm studying modern languages and I have an assignment that I've done and I just wanted to get a second/third/fourth+ opinon on it please tell me if I've made any grammar errors or any of it doesn't make sense

Drawing on examples from the literature which were not discussed in the lectures, illustrate and explain the difference between diglossia and code-switching.

The contact between languages is one of the various fields investigated by socio-linguistics. Commonly it is thought that monolingualism is the most usual linguistic behaviour but language studies disprove this belief showing that all speech communities and individuals hold a rich linguistic repertoire which may include two or more distinct languages, different varieties of the same language and a wide range of registers, styles, social codes etc.
The concept of linguistic repertoire is not to be intended as a mere sum of linguistic codes since it also concerns the way such codes interact with one another, their hierarchy and the rules running their use. In order to clear up the logic underlying the relations emerging from the steady contact among languages sociolinguistics introduced concepts such as diglossia code-switching, bilingualism, dilalia etc.
In the following essay the focus will essentially be on the difference between the concepts of diglossia and code-switching alongside with the description of some examples supported by an attempt to identify the non-linguistic factors which affect speakers' linguistic choices.
The first scholar to introduce the term diglossia was Charles Ferguson in 1959 . He described diglossia as a situation in which two varieties of the same language co-exist within one language community each having its own function(Ferguson 1959: 232). Ferguson meticulously observed the linguistic behaviour inside the communities of four “defining languages”, Arabic, Greek, Haitian, Creole and Swiss German and by abstracting a set of general features characterizing all four communities he defined the crucial factors which distinguish a situation of diglossia:
• two distinct varieties of the same language are used in a speech community: one is regarded as a standard superposed variety(or H) and the other as a low (or L) non- codified variety ;
• both varieties are used for distinct functions: H is the language of official education used for most written and formal spoken purposes, such as literary works, religious texts, public speeches; L is mainly used in everyday conversation and in all unofficial homey relaxed situations.
• H and L are not perceived as equivalent so no one uses the H variety in everyday conversation or the L variety in formal contexts.
• H and L are valued differently in terms of prestige:
the speakers regard H as a superior to L.
(Ferguson 1959: 245)
It must be said that each member in a diglossic community acquires only the L variety as a mother tongue since the phase of primary socialization independently from the social class or the cultural status of the family concerned. Whereas the H variety is acquired through the explicit study of grammar at schools. Moreover the overt prestige associated to H is due to the fact that H is the language of formal education, although in linguistic terms L is not inferior to H.
These features are distinctive of classic diglossia. A significant example of classic diglossia is the allocation of varieties in the Arabic-speaking world. Classical Arabic is the H variety used for very formal interactions, in writing, university lectures and is revered as the language of the Koran. Whereas for most everyday conversations people use the various regional L varieties. (Holmes 2001: 29) To be acquainted with the principles determining the choice of the appropriate variety in the right context is relevant in so far as it signals the speaker's belonging to and understanding of a linguistic culture . In fact the ignorance of such principles is considered a real social gaffe and is responsible for the stigmatisation of the speakers who are not able to use the H and L properly.
In 1967 Joshua Fishman extended the concept of diglossia referring it to any situation where two linguistic codes, related or unrelated, are used for different purposes (Fishman 1967). As Ferguson, Fisherman distinguishes a H and a L variety functionally distributed within the society but he avoids a rigid categorisation admitting the occasional use of H in conversation. Hence, diglossia in its broader sense gives most weight to the criterion of functional differentiation between codes(Holmes: 30) and admits linguistic phenomenon such as Code-switching which was hardly compatible with classic diglossia.
The term code-switching refers to situation in which speakers making extensive use of two varieties or registers switch between them in the same conversational episode. For instance, even though in Arabic-speaking countries university lectures are delivered in Classical Arabic, lectures frequently code-switch to the local variety to clarify meaning of what they have said in H. (Myers-Scotton 2006: 82). The following example is drawn from a Mexican American family’s interaction(Gumperez 1977: 2 (missing image)
Ven acà! Ven acà! Come here, you! come here!
The shift from Spanish to English which is considered the H variety emphasises in this case the seriousness of the command given by a parent to his child. As Holmes explains (Holmes 2001) code-switching may fulfil specific socio-communicative functions. It can be used to enhance authority, for clarification or for attracting attention and usually to signal modifications in the contextual framing of the conversation, such as:
• change of participants: here the switch may reflect solidarity to the new participant but also social distance ;
• change of topic: it is easier to discuss certain topics in one language than the other;
• insertion of reported speech, quotations, side-comments.

At this point of the essay it is an easier task to highlight the difference between the concept of diglossia and code-switching. Diglossia refers to the socio-functional differentiation of languages and their evaluation into a speech community. It is a socially recognised functional compartmentalisation (Rindler Shjerve: 45) so each speaker is required to be acquainted with the conventions regulating the use of the two varieties in the appropriate situation.
Code-switching, on the other hand, concerns the insertion of word-fragments, phrases of one language into another within the same conversational event across sentence boundaries. Unlike diglossia it is a speaker-oriented phenomenon reflecting the individual attitudes of each participant into a communicative process. Hence it occurs on a more unconscious level .
Finally it is worth to note that both practises are strictly connected with forms of social power and identity affirmation. Diglossia usually implies the valorisation of the language of the socially dominant group (H)with the consequent devaluation of the subordinate group’s(L) and also involves the exclusion of the speaker not mastering the H variety from the socio- political system. Similarly code-switching may unconsciously be used to accomplish rhetorical purposes, to persuade the interlocutors to enact practises of identity affirmation such as expressing shared ethnicity. Hence both ways show the extent to which negotiations in social interactions depend on language.