| Setting | Diglossic | Dialectal- monodialectal | Bidialectal | (Discreet) bilectal | Dialect continuum |
| Speakers’ usage | High vs. Low | Speakers use CG exclusively | Speakers use CG and SMG with various competencies | Speakers use local vernacular and official language | From SMG-CG to (acrolectal to mesolectal to basilectal) |
| Status | Standard is High and Dialect is Low | Low, Stigmatized | Varies according to code used | Co-overt vs overt prestige | From Low to High with intermediate levels (3 to 4) |
| Official policy | Promotes the standard | Does not encourage use of CG dialect | Does not support bidialectal education | Not considered yet | Advocates the use of acrolectal levels |
| Attitudinal stances | Positive toward the standard code | Usually negative toward the dialect | Increased appreciation of CG | Both CG and SMG are not stigmatized | Acrolectal levels receive higher levels of praise |
| Researchers supporting these positions | | | | | |