207. Sociolinguistic structures chronologically IV: Icelandic and Faroese 1923

207. Sociolinguistic structures chronologically IV: Icelandic and Faroese

1. State of the art split." Nevertheless, the concept of allophonic 2. Actual contact split raises some problems. Icelandic was a 3. Language internal or social factors? product of input from all over Scandinavia: 4. Icelandic change and variation 42 per cent of the immigrants came from 5. Faroese change and variation 6. Conclusion southwestern Norway, 42 per cent from the 7. Literature (a selection) rest of Norway and 16 per cent from Denmark and Sweden according to The Book of Settlers (Landnamabbk). Of course, we would expect 1. State of the art southwest Norwegian to have had a consider­ The period of settlement in Iceland was 870- able impact on Icelandic, but not so that the 930 A.D., whereas the Faroe Islands were result was identical to these Norwegian dia­ settled somewhat earlier. We may presume lects. Modern sociolinguistics (e.g. Trudgill that the new communities had the character 1992) claims that there is a tendency both to oflinguistic melting pots during the early peri­ level and to simplify in a melting pot, which od, since the settlers certainly spoke different would make us expect allophonic splits to dis­ dialects. Modern sociolinguistics argues that appear in the process. it takes three generations for a melting pot to establish a homogeneous language; therefore, 2. Actual contact we would expect the two new language com­ munities to have stabilized during the 10th Whereas historical linguists have tended to century. stress the isolation of the two island commun­ Central problems in the discussion of Ice­ ities, historians have stressed that Icelanders landic and Farnese language history are often were not isolated; they travelled, for instance, what language features the emigrants brought a great deal on the Continent and had a thor­ with them, what the melting pot effects were, ough knowledge of European culture (Linda! what the effect of later influences has been, 1974, 211). and whether the linguistic conservatism in the Until the middle of the 15thcentury, trading two languages is a result of being isolated com­ activity was considerable between Iceland and munities. Norway (J6hannesson 1958, 148; Magerny Several phonological changes in the two 1993). During the first centuries after the languages were parallel to changes in West settlement, Icelanders owned ships and travel­ Norwegian, and scholars have been almost led between the countries; however, after the unanimous in describing the changes in each year 1000, the Norwegians were dominant as language as independent phenomena and at­ shipowners and merchants. In the 12th cen­ tributing them to latent tendencies (predis­ tury, Iceland's merchant fleet decreased to one positions) in the parent language: The possi­ or two ships, and the period from 1260 to 1400 bilities of influence through language contact is called the Norwegian period (Norska oldin). have generally been ignored. Only few schol­ Ten ships a year on an average crossed the ars, primarily Kenneth Chapman, have main­ North Atlantic between the two countries; in tained that the similar developments in Icelan­ 1118 the total was 3 5. A merchant vessel dic and Southwest Norwegian were made (knQrr) carried about 30 men on each trip, and possible "by social intercourse between the after 1200 even larger vessels (buzur) became two areas" (Chapman 1962, 24). Modern common (l>orlaksson 1979, 10). Consequent­ sociolinguistic insights may help us further in ly, many Norwegians stayed in Iceland, arriv­ understanding both changes and conserva­ ing perhaps several hundred at a time. After tism. 1200, most of the ships set out from Bergen Not all scholars advocating the theory of on the southwestern coast. For a long period three independent lines of development have Bergen had both a commercial monopoly and defined what they mean by predisposition in a monopoly on tax collecting in Iceland. historical linguistics. Haugen (1970, 54) has Traders at that time were not in a hurry and given the most precise formulation by claim­ got to know many people. There are descrip­ ing that "there was a predisposition towards tions from the 13th century of intensive and the innovation in Old or Common Scandina­ long-term contacts. For instance, Norwegians vian, usually in the form of an allophonic took part in the Icelandic battles during the 1924 XVIII. Special aspects of Nordic language history II: Social stratification

Icelandic civil war in the 13th century. The ous co-occurrence of changes either in the pre­ sagas tell of traders who came to Iceland year ceding or the following centuries. after year, and some stayed there during the (1) winter when sailing was not possible (e.g. 11 ships during the winter of 1340-41, l>orsteins­ son 1991, 136). The sagas report that Ari I>or­ Century Icelandic Farnese Southwest Norw. geirsson was accompanied by 30 Norwegians when he entered Parliament in 1164, and 12th vowel vowel vowel Snorri Sturluson came with 80 Norwegians changes changes changes some decades later. before l+C before l+ C before n+C Moreover, some Norwegians settled in Ice­ (folk) (folk) and t+C land; several bishops after 1238 were from (lang,fokk) Norway, and we know that merchants some­ 13th (i+a > Q (i+a > Q (i+a > Q times married and settled in the new country. (> au) (cf. (> oa) (cf. (a in mod- In addition, Icelanders often travelled to Nor­ bau1ur) boatur) em spelling) way as passengers on the merchant vessels and jl, fn > bl, (cf. ba1)fn travelled sometimes further to the Continent. bn (ebni, > bn (habn) Some of them stayed in Norway for years in hobn) order to work before they returned home. Ice­ landers had played an important role in the 14th ll, rl > dl ll, rl > dl ll, rl > di king's court from the 10th century onwards, (kadla, (kadla, (kadla, kadl) kadlur) kadl) and many from this western outpost were nn, rn > dn nn, rn > dn nn , rn > dn scribes for wealthy Norwegians throughout (seidn, (seidni, (steidn, the literary golden age. hodn) hodn) hodn) It may be supposed that the relations be­ vowel tween Norwegians and Faroese were much the changes same. We know, for instance, that Faroese before n+C people, too, worked as scribes in Norway. (langur) However, the Faroese, in contrast to the Ice­ landers, played a more active part in trade When examining a language internal explana­ themselves. They were shipowners and traders tion, three questions arise: (1) What triggered even in Iceland; some settled in Bergen for these innovations? (2) How is it possible for long periods to organize their trading activity, the changes to produce the same phonological and some even had families there. Finally, forms in all three languages? (3) How could Norwegians were landowners in the Faroe Is­ all these changes be triggered at almost the lands, as were Faroese in Norway. same time in three isolated countries? Thus, on closer inspection, it is clear that Several phonological changes can be ex­ the island communities were not isolated dur­ plained by internal factors with respect to these ing the relevant period. The commercial ties questions, e. g. diphthongization, vowel lower­ between Norway and Iceland lasted until ing, differentiation, lenition etc. (cf. Sand0y about 1450, and between Norway and the 1994). Therefore, these are changes with some Faroe Islands until 1620. The interesting ques­ probability of a language internal explanation. tion is whether this contact was sufficient and However, others, for instance the segmenta­ of such a nature that it could have influenced tion nn > dn to be discussed below, show low the language structure. probability for being caused by such factors. Long l and the cluster rl had the same de­ velopment in most Nordic dialects, i.e. either 3. Language internal or social to a segmented di or to an assimilated l (or factors? A). Long n and the cluster rn had a parallel development into assimilated n (which might Some hundred years after the settlement pe­ be palatalized top) in the corresponding areas. riod, the West Nordic languages or dialects In the coastal area of Hordaland - and in a all underwent quite a few changes, many of part of the Shetlands - the expected innova­ which were parallel. Some of the core linguis­ tion of nn and rn > dn was carried through, tic data have been put in chronological order e. g. in kanna > kadna, korn > kodn, which in figure (1) . The period of special interest is is a perfect parallel to the development of ll the 13th and 14th centuries; there is no obvi- and rl. However, in the rest of Southwest Nor- 207 . Sociolinguistic structures chronologically IV: Icelandic and Farnese 1925 wegian, Icelandic and Farnese (and in Shet­ have accommodated to a Norwegian dialect. land Norn), korn was changed to kodn, where­ By their accommodation these Icelanders as kanna remained unchanged (and did not would have become innovators in their own parallel kalla > kadla). language community, where they would have Even more striking and complicated is the been considered insiders. In this way innova­ fact that in the West Nordic dialects there was tions from Norwegian dialects could have dif­ a differentiation of nn into dn when the pre­ fused to Icelandic dialects. ceding vowel was stressed and long in Old However, there are several presuppositions Norse and when the geminate nn included a in this reasoning that we are not able to check. morpheme boundary, whereas the shift rn > For instance, we should not assume that lan­ dn was not restricted in the same dialects: guage had the symbolic value in the past that it has in today's society. Nevertheless, we can kanna remained unchanged assume that in all social settings at any par­ stein + n > steid+n (nom.sg.) ticular time there is a fundamental tendency korn > kodn for participants to accommodate to dominant While the relatively simple changes of ll and persons. It is likely that Norwegians were the rl > di and rn > dn can be explained on struc­ dominant partners in these relations. Norway tural grounds (Sand0y 1994), there is no struc­ was the commercial centre, and the Norwe­ tural motivation for such a complex constraint gians were often the Icelanders' employers. as the differentiation of long n after a long Moreover, the traders' position of superiority vowel. There is no structure-preserving el­ was enhanced by their ability to offer advan­ ement in this change, so there cannot be a pre­ tageous deals. All these aspects could have disposition to it. It is tempting to characterize led to the Norwegians gaining some kind of it as anomalous. And how could such an un­ power or domination. A documented fact expected change be triggered in three different amid all these speculations was the tendency areas at almost the same time? oflcelandic scribes to use Norwegian spellings The complexity of the constraints can be il­ during the 13th and 14th centuries, which lustrated by the fact that steinn 'stone' was Karlsson (1989, 40f.) interprets as accommo­ changed to steidn, while the dative form anni dation to the book market in Norway. Ottos­ 'the river' was not changed in Icelandic be­ son (1992, 173-176) concludes from his inves­ cause the morpheme boundary preceded the tigations into the suffix -st instead of -umst in geminate and was not inside it. The result was the medio-passive 1sg.pres. in Icelandic manu­ quite a complex morphology with variation scripts that it reflects Norwegian domination in the stem, cf. the case declension in the sin­ during this period. Moreover, Norwegian word gular: nom.: steid+n, gen.: stein+s, dat.: forms often appear in Icelandic manuscripts stein+ i, acc.: stein+. This complex develop­ during the 14th century, e.g., hand, skamm, ment forces us to look for external (social) ex­ deyoi, baoi for hQnd, skQmm, do and b~oi. planations. As Trudgill (1986) has discussed, there are In order to provide a sociopsychological certain changes that are too intricate to be per­ understanding of the various situations caus­ fectly learned by adults in normal accommo­ ing linguistic innovations, Trudgill (1986) has dation situations. For these changes to spread differentiated between imitation and accom­ requires situations where children learn the modation. The former is a characteristic of new phonological rule in a natural way, i.e. superficial and short-term contact implying from a model in their social network providing that it would be enough, e. g., for the Iceland­ sufficient long-term input to facilitate the lan­ ers to hear that Norwegians tended to pro­ guage acquisition. This will normally be their nounce some words in a different way. How­ parents. When a child has been able to learn ever, this knowledge and this contact situation the new feature, the change can be induced in would have little influence on the Icelandic the wider social group. Trudgill cites the language. example of Canadian Raising; a parallel case All contact situations described above in the present context would be the differen­ would have provided ideal conditions for lan­ tiation of long n into dn with its complex con­ guage accommodation. Because of the Nor­ straints. The marriages between the West Nor­ wegians' intensive and long-term contact with dic communities provided the appropriate so­ the local people, they could have served as cial conditions for such changes. models for individual Icelanders, and Iceland­ So far, reference has been made only to the ers staying in Norway for some years could Icelandic constraints on the change of long nn 1926 XVIII. Special aspects of Nordic language history II: Social stratification into dn. However, there are some small intri­ any eastern structural features that have cate variations in the changes. The variants emerged from the language melting pot; how­ of the rule are shown in (2), and the effects in ever, the vocabulary indicates a more complex (3): mixture of immigrants (Bandle 1967, 510- 531). According to available information, the (2) Rules (differentiation of nn after long settlers dispersed throughout the country and vowel): mixed early. At about 1100 the population had 0' = vowel, + = morpheme boundary) grown to 40,000-50,000, a size which re­ a. (SWNorw. and Sutiuroy in Farnes) mained constant for hundreds of years V: n+n & V: +nn > Vdn (Stefansson 1993, 312). b. (elsewhere in Farnes) DIPHn+n & DIPH+nn A general assumption about melting-pot ef­ > DIPHdn fects is that simpler structures are more likely c. (Icelandic) V: n+n > Vdn to survive than complex ones (i. e. simplifica­ (3) Variations (differentiation of nn): tion). However, the morphologically com­ plicating i- and u-umlaut (e.g. koma - kemr Structure: V11n V: n+n DIPHn+n V: +nn DIPH +nn Old Norse kann+a stein+n sein+ni a+nni ey+nni and tQnn - tannar) have been retained more SWNorw.: kanna sraidn .. odne oydne consistently in Icelandic than in any other Su~uroy in Farces: Nordic language, a fact that underlines West kanna saidne odne oidne Norwegian dominance in the new community. Farces elsewhere: On the other hand, one possible simplifica­ kanna saidne onne oidne tion effect may be seen: the merger of short e Icelandic: kanna steidn seidnr aumu einnl and short re, which formed a systematic con­ ·can. pot' 'stone 'later 'the river' (dat.) trast in the early Old Nordic languages and 'the island' (dat.) were retained in Trnndelag in Norway until • In Far., the nom. suffix -ur has, by analogy, replaced the con­ the 13th century (cf. art. 10). There is no evi­ ditioning factor in the masc. nouns in question. •• In Norw .. the comparative form has been replaced by the more dence of this contrast in Icelandic manu­ regular sein+are, which is lacki ng th e conditioning factor. scripts. A structural condition for the merger could be the low functional load (i. e. few mini­ As Trudgill (1986) comments, complicated mal pairs). constraints can lead to imperfect learning. The Celtic remnants in Icelandic are surprisingly West Nordic variants can be instances of im­ few when we keep in mind that many settlers perfect learning, as when the change in north­ had stayed some time in Scotland and Ireland ern Faroese was restricted to positions after before they moved to Iceland, and it is as­ a diphthong. sumed that they brought Celtic servants with After being this specific about phonological them to the new community. Guomundsson and social conditions in order to explore the (1997) has traced 32 words of Celtic origin in actual possibilities, it is reasonable to conclude Icelandic. This can, of course, be explained that a structural explanation is insufficient; so­ by the Celts' probably subordinate role. cial contact was necessary for nn > dn to be In addition to the melting-pot effect we triggered and to occur at the same time and should take into account continued contacts in the same way in the three languages; and with Norway after settlement. Some new in fact, there was sufficient contact to make words which spread through the West Nordic a sociolinguistic explanation of accommoda­ languages during the early Old Nordic period, tion probable. By extension, the assumption e. g. sauor 'sheep' for the older word far, in­ that social contact was a necessary factor in dicate that these communities constituted a the diffusion of the most complex innovations continuous cultural area (Bandle 1973, 48 f.). makes it easier to accept this as an additional factor in the diffusion of other innovations, as well. 4.2. Social hierarchy (the free state period, 930-1264 A.D.) It is presumed that the period of settlement 4. Icelandic - change and variation was characterized by people having equal so­ cial status, as is normal for new settlements 4.1. The melting pot (Stefansson 1993, 313). However, during the Despite a certain proportion of settlers in Ice­ centuries following the establishment of the land from East Norway and East Scandinavia Icelandic Parliament in 930, the formal organ­ (perhaps some 30 per cent), there are hardly ization of the community coincided with the 207. Sociolinguistic structures chronologically IV: Icelandic and Faroese 1927

seizing of control by a few leaders. In 930 the During the latter half of the 15th century country was divided into 36 principalities, the Icelanders re-established contacts with the each with a chieftain; however, soon we wit­ Danish-Norwegian king in Copenhagen, ness a concentration of power and property. which from now on progressively became a As big farmers built and owned churches, trading centre for Iceland. In this respect the Christianity (from the year 1000) and tithing island was hardly at any time economically (from 1097) became means of increasing the isolated; linguistically, however, it became wealth of the rich. By 1200, five families more independent. Although quite a few Dan­ dominated the whole country. During the first ish loanwords dispersed into Icelandic half of the 13th century, Iceland was ravaged throughout the next centuries, no systematic by civil war, i. e. a struggle between the linguistic changes can be traced to Danish in­ mightiest families, a situation the Norwegian fluence. Whereas West Norwegians and Ice­ king made the most of, succeeding through landers were certainly able to communicate di­ intrigues to be accepted as sovereign in 1264. rectly in their own languages because of only During this period, Iceland gradually be­ minor dialect differences, communication came a feudal community after the European with the English and subsequently with the and Norwegian models with an " aristocracy" Danish rulers required surmounting language and a hierarchy of subordinate people. By ap­ barriers, as Danish and Icelandic at that time pointing nobles, the Norwegian king under­ had developed too far in different directions. lined his position at the top of the hierarchy Under such conditions, linguistic influence and became able to exercise authority in the was impeded. Icelandic community. Thus, from the middle Icelandic linguistic conservatism is partly a of the 13th century, Iceland was formally ad­ result of the country's relative isolation, as the ministered from Bergen. The main ties with North Atlantic Ocean hampered daily contact the outside world had for a long time already with foreigners and language innovations on been to or through Norway. In legal matters a broad basis. Nevertheless, the most import­ Norway served as a model, the church was ant factor explaining the extraordinary con­ organized from Norway from 1153, and com­ servatism is the general pattern of settlement mercial contacts were in reality monopolized in Iceland, where people were scattered by Bergen from the early 13th century. around the island on isolated single small There is, however, no indication that social farms with 7-10 individuals on average differences at that time were reflected in the (Stefansson 1993, 312). Only a few clusters of language; we assume, however, that it was more than one farm can be found. This struc­ people from the dominant Icelandic families ture of settlement resulted in children's lan­ who travelled to Norway and thus became the guage acquisition being "controlled" by par­ intermediaries for language innovation. (For ents and grandparents. There were few oppor­ the Norwegian period 1264-1400, cf. sect. 2. tunities for younger generations to form a lan­ and 3.). guage community with its own deviating lan­ guage norms; thus, Iceland had few social for­ ces that could give rise to language differences. 4.3. Linguistic i_solation Another interesting characteristic oflcelan­ The Norwegian period was followed by the dic is that almost all changes that actually have English period, as Englishmen started fishing arisen have diffused over the whole country. and trading along the Icelandic coast from This diffusion may have been caused by the about 1400. At the same time, Norwegian old tendency to move, either in order to marry economic life collapsed due to the Black or to settle on another farm. Moreover, people Death, and Bergen's trade monopoly was dis­ from a wider area met at seasonal fishing vil­ mantled during the first half of the 15th cen­ lages. The fishing village Vestmannaeyjar was tury. The kings of the Danish-Norwegian already established around 1100, and after union had problems exercising power in Ice­ stockfish became a valuable export commod­ land during the 15th century, and, therefore, ity about 1300 A.D., new villages sprang up the contacts with the Scandinavian mainland on the western coast. About 1200, the Icelan­ dwindled dramatically when the English be­ dic aristocrats concentrated their trade at 10 gan dominating commercial activities. How­ harbours (S tefansson 1993, 313) where, nat­ ever, influence from the English language was urally, a great many people gathered for some restricted to a few loanwords (Oskarsson periods of the year. Although it is generally 1993). believed that none of these villages or har- 1928 XVIII. Special aspects of Nordic language history II: Social stratification bours had a permanent settlement, the more fore, there were no problems in using Icelandic intense social life here for longer periods of for internal administration. the year might have been instrumental in pass­ However, during the 18th century the gov­ ing on linguistic innovations, either from ernment in Copenhagen increased its central abroad, i.e. Norway, or from other parts of control, which resulted in pressure on judicial Iceland. language, especially after the 1736 decree that all judges should be educated in Copenhagen. From then on Icelandic judges often mixed 4.4. The New Age their language with Danish words and used The Icelandic language was not perceived as Danish in private letters. During the latter half a language of its own until the latter half of of the century, Danish tradesmen increased in the 16th century. Icelanders regarded their number and stayed more often on Iceland dur­ language as norr@nn, which was a vague term ing the winter, which meant there was strong for West Nordic. The first translation of the Danish influence on the lan$Uage. In a de­ New Testament (by Oddur Gottska.lksson) scription of Iceland, Eggert Olafsson noticed was published in 1540 as a translation into that the language along the southwestern norr@nn. However, in 1555 the term Icelandic coast was more influenced by Danish and Ger­ was used for the first time as a reference to man words than elsewhere. Some educated the language (Sand0y 2000), and during the people - such as headmaster Bjarni Jonsson next century it became the normal word (Ot­ in Ska.lholt- were of the opinion that Iceland­ tosson 1990, 17). This new concept of an Ice­ ers in general should start using Danish to landic language conveys an awareness (or ensure economic progress (Ottosson 1990, ideology) that Icelanders had their peculiar­ 32 ff.). ities. This had a parallel in the Danish efforts The Enlightenment Period in the last dec­ during the same period to establish a Danish ades of the 18th century supported the oppo­ standard language as a means of creating a site reasoning: purism could facilitate general feeling of unity. access to language and knowledge. Lrerd6ms­ The humanists in Iceland of the latter half listafelagio, which was established in Copen­ of the 16th century were preoccupied with hagen in 1779, had an immense influence on their mother tongue, and their interest ran language policy in the following centuries. The parallel to the Renaissance interest in classic 19th and the 20th centuries have been char­ languages. These humanists took pride in the acterized by a struggle for economic progress fact that the Icelanders had saved the old Nor­ and national independence which have fa­ die cultural legacy. This is the very beginning voured a feeling of unity and an ideology of of the cultivation of the Icelandic language; historical and cultural pride, reflected in a the embryo of Icelandic linguistic purism is unique and general support and devotion to Guobrandur Porla.ksson's 1584 Bible transla­ language purism, which in fact has changed tion (cf. Ottosson 1990, 17). the language considerably during the last two During the next centuries, the country was centuries by replacing loanwords with neol­ affected by cold climate, natural catastrophes ogisms and restoring ancient grammatical fea­ and hunger. There were strict class differences, tures, in particular morphological ones (e.g. and by the end of the 18th century 95 per cent the restoration of the masc. ia-stem (hersir) of the population were tenants without prop­ and the subjunctive form -umst in the 1pl. in­ erty (Gustafsson 1985). About 1700, 15.5 per stead of -ustum). cent belonged to the poorest group who could The growth of Reykjavik and other towns not afford to hire land; these were either va­ during the last one and a half centuries has grants or dwellers in fishing villages, most of not represented a threat to the general lan­ them at Snrefellsnes (Porsteinsson 1991 , guage policy. The economic and social su­ 230 f.). These villages might have given rise to periority that these towns have attained has the jlamreli, two phonological mergers (of i not resulted as yet in any prestigious urban with e and u with i:i) probably in the 19th cen­ language variety or a standard based on the tury. language in the capital, but the urbanization The small group of landowners constituted has established an urban slang among young the ruling class, and the central authorities in people. The lack of a prestigious urban lan­ Copenhagen seem to have had no interest in guage may be an effect of the general devotion Iceland during the first two centuries after the to the language ideology that has favoured Reformation other than to collect taxes; there- archaic features, which normally are best 207. Sociolinguistic structures chronologically IV: Icelandic and Farnese 1929 preserved in the rural dialects. Nevertheless, Norwegian laws from 1024, but there were intense urbanization creates new conditions specific amendments for the Farnes. The king for language innovations, which in the long collected taxes from that time, and he installed run may represent a challenge to the very governors, often Norwegians (Debes 1990). negative attitude to language change. Political subordination to the Norwegian king was certainly a consequence of the Farnes' de­ pendence on trade. Bergen was the commer­ 5. Farnese change and variation cial centre, and the Faroemen themselves took part in merchant activities long after the Ice­ 5.1. The melting pot landers had stopped their activities. In the Nordic settlement of the Farnes took place 1380s, for instance, a Farnese governor, Greipr perhaps at about 800 A.D. Here as well, the ivarsson, was trading between Norway, the settlers arrived both directly from Norway Farnes and Iceland (Debes 1995, 118). and indirectly via the Nordic colonies in Eng­ The Farnes' ties to Norway, and especially land, Scotland and Ireland. It is supposed that Bergen, seem to have been stronger than the most of them were West Norwegians. Very Icelanders', e.g. most bishops in the Farnes little is known about Farnese society before were Norwegians. The first Farnese docu­ about 1300, and by then 45 villages had been ment, Seyoabrrevio, an amendment from 1298, established. These have been the same up to was written in Bergen about 1310 by a Farnese modern times, and the population is estimated scribe staying there. In about 1400, an estate to have been relatively stable at 5,000-7,000 in Husavik in the Farnes owned two merchant from the Middle Ages up to about 1800, i.e. houses in Bergen, which might indicate that about 125 inhabitants in each village on av­ there was a small Farnese colony there. More­ erage. The Farnese settlement was of a differ­ over, this estate had properties in Rogaland ent character than in Iceland, as the fewer but and Sogn in western Norway, as well as in much larger communities represented better Shetland and five Farnese villages (Debes conditions for linguistic innovations among 1995, 113). young people and, therefore, better sociolin­ The Farnese people were in direct contact guistic conditions for dialectal divergence. with foreigners, since Low Germans from As is the case for Icelandic, there are some 1361 enjoyed the same privileges as Norwe­ Celtic place-names and words in Farnese, too, gians to trade directly with the Farnes. In 1529 but surprisingly few . There are no independ­ a merchant from Hamburg was given half of ent indications of the number of immigrants the islands as a fiefdom (Debes 1995). from the various parts of Scandinavia, but the language, which can be observed in charters from about 1300, does not provide any evi­ 5.3 . The Modern Ages dence of East Nordic features. On the other The Farnes were automatically converted to hand, it exhibits changes common to the Scan­ the Reformed Church together with Norway dinavian languages and unlike Icelandic, such in 1537 (Debes 1995, 218). Whereas the close as the loss of the initial clusters hn-, hl-, hr-, connections between Norway and Iceland ter­ and the merger of hv and kv > kv, the latter minated after 1430, they were retained be­ common to Norwegian. tween Norway and the Farnes until the first decades of the 17th century. From 1555, the Farnes were placed under Bergen county and 5.2. The Middle Ages ecclesiastically under the Bishop of Bergen. It is highly probable that the Farnes in the Norwegians often became priests in the early period were dominated by chieftains Farnes. Contact with Bergen is apparent from who were landowners, and Christianity con­ mentions of several Farnese individuals living stituted an opportunity to extend their power in Bergen during these decades, e.g., two cap­ as they built and owned the churches. From tains doing trade in northern Germany. One the late Middle Ages we can see that class dif­ of them, the well-known naval hero Magnus ferences were immense, as a few landowners Heinason, married into a wealthy Norwegian controlled all the land and the poor were a family. He himself was of a mighty Farnese large proportion of the population. family, his brother being the superior judge At an early stage, the Farnes were consider­ (l@gmaour) of the islands. It is known that after ed a part of the Norwegian king's domain but Magnus was beheaded in Denmark, his son not a part of Norway. The people accepted moved back to the Farnes. 1930 XVIII. Special aspects of Nordic language history II: Social stratification

Bergen's dominance lasted until 1620, when this language; members of mixed families were both trade and all administrative ties shifted often bilingual. Contact with the written lan­ to Copenhagen and the Farnes came under guage and with the authorities became an es­ Danish dominance, a fact that could have had sential part of modern life, and consequently some consequences as Danish was probably general knowledge of Danish has continuous­ not a mutually intelligible language, whereas ly improved up till the present. As the Danes Norwegians and Farnese possibly understood brought new ideas and new commodities with each other ea. 1600. This is, however, hard to them, the Farnese language received many decide since the Farnese language underwent loanwords from Danish. several vowel changes (diphthongizations pe­ The trade monopoly in the Faroes survived culiar to Farnese) during the 16th century. the more liberal decades around 1800 and was However, even in the middle of the 17th cen­ not dismantled until 1856. Most of the new tury the Farnese language was perceived as a trading companies established in the following Norwegian dialect by the author Lucas Debes years were owned by the Danes, an indication (1673, 253). The fact that language contact of their dominant role in the society. However, with Norway lasted for two hundred years after a few years some Faroemen managed to more in the Farnes than in Iceland may help establish commercial activities, too, and in explaining why Farnese has developed a lan­ 1872 they bought the islands' first decked boat guage structure with an obviously Scandina­ and thereby opened a new era of deep-sea fish­ vian character, first and foremost syntacti­ ing. During the latter half of the 19th century cally. Developments common to Norwegian the community totally transformed economi­ and unlike Icelandic are, e.g., the past naddi cally, socially and culturally. As the prop­ ( < naoi) 'reached', the mixed verb class ertyless now were able to be fishermen and (brukar - brukti 'uses - used') and the restric­ earn money, there was an economic equali­ tion of passive meaning of st-verbs to the po­ zation. (Crew conscription was abolished in sition following modal verbs (kann skj6tast 1865). 'may be shot', but verour skotinn 'is shot' in Economic progress and the growth of the the present tense). If whole families moved Farnese bourgeoisie gave rise to national back and forth, language influence could have pride. The new Farnese written code con­ been considerable. A great many of the Low structed by the priest VU. Hammershaimb in German loanwords in Farnese, as well, may the 1840s was used very little until the 1880s; have passed through Bergen. however, after the establishment of a language movement in 1888, some magazines and books were published in the language. The 5.4. Danish influence Faroemen then experienced a delayed Nation­ The 17th century was very difficult for the al Romanticism; active purism gained ground Faroes, with crop failure, bad weather and by the turn of the century, and the 20th cen­ hunger. Far into the following century people tury was a period of great economic and cul­ were trapped in poverty, and the propertyless tural progress with a parallel increase in au­ were dependent on the wealthier and were, tonomy from Denmark. e.g. , obliged to crew their boats. The Faroe­ The struggle to establish Farnese as a na­ men themselves were not traders any longer, tional written language has been lengthy. Not and they were totally dependent on the Danish everyone had a notion of a Farnese language governors and their commercial monopoly. during the 19th century, as the Farnes were The community was from the 16th century considered to be a part of Denmark and the more isolated than before, except for some il­ spoken language only deviant dialects. Mak­ legal trade with England. ing people accept that using the constructed During the period of commercial monop­ written Farnese language, was necessary for oly, contact with the rest of the world took convincing them that the Farnes was a nation on another character as the foreigners in the in its own right, i. e. the fight for cultural and Farnese trading harbours were Danish civil political independence were two sides of the servants. The number of Danes in the Farnes same coin. increased, and they constituted a "colony" in During the first half of the 20th century the the new village T6rshavn. Since Danish was Farnese language was introduced as a subject used as the official language and the colony in school, and its use was accepted in church. of Danes was a social elite in T6rshavn, several The Home Rule of 1948 accepted Farnese as Farnese people acquired a good command of the main language (but Danish could still be 207. Sociolinguistic structures chronologically IV: Icelandic and Faroese 1931 used in public matters), and since then Farnese In modern times, Iceland and the Faroes has gained more and more ground as the demonstrate economic, political and sociolin­ dominant official language. The use of Danish guistic parallels as the struggle for independ­ in administration today is mainly restricted to ence has favoured the cultivation of national laws and matters of co-operation with Copen­ language idiosyncracies. hagen. The publishing of books and texts in Farnese has increased continuously. When the biggest newspaper, Dimmal~tting, a mouth­ 7. Literature (a selection) piece for the conservative pro-Denmark party, Bandle, Oskar (1967), Studien zur westnordischen changed its editorial language from Danish to Sprachgeographie. Haustierterminologie im Norwe­ Farnese in the 1970s, it symbolized a shift in gischen, Islandischen und Faroischen (A: Textband: mentality: now that the Farnese language was Bibliotheca Arnamagmeana 28 B: Kartenband: generally accepted, it was no longer a symbol Supplementum 4). Kopenhagen. of the idea of complete political independence. Bandle, Oskar (1973), Die Gliederung des Nordger­ However, for practical reasons Danish is still manischen (Beitrage zur nordischen Philologie 1). present in the society, as a small population Basel/Stuttgart. of 45,000 is not able to produce or translate Chapman, Kenneth G. (1962), Icelandic-Norwegian all texts into its mother tongue. It is estimated linguistic relationships (NTS. Suppl. bind VIII). that more than half of the texts people read Oslo. are in Danish. As in Iceland, the struggle for political and Debes, Hans Jacob (1990), F@roya s@ga 1. NortJur­ economic independence has favoured linguis­ lond og F@royar. T6rshavn. tic purism; however, there has not been gen­ Debes, Hans Jacob (1995), F@roya s@ga 2. Skattland eral support for the most consistent purist pol­ og Zen . T6rshavn. icy. Therefore, the number of loanwords - Debes, Lucas (1673), Frerore et Freroa reserata. Det which to a high degree are traditionally accept­ er: Frer@ ernis oc Frer@eske Indbyggeris Beskrifvelse. ed in spoken Farnese - may vary from text K0benhavn. to text. On the other hand, many Farnese neol­ Guomundsson, Helgi (1997), Um haf innan . ogisms are accepted in the spoken language Vestrrenir menn og islensk menning a mitJoldum. today, and in the beginning of the 21st cen­ Reykjavik. tury, the tendency is for a more positive atti­ Gustafsson, Harald (1985), M ellan kung och allmoge tude to using Farnese and the acceptance of - ambetsman, beslutsprocess och inflytande pa 1700- distinctive Farnese language features. talets Island. Stockholm. When Danish disappeared as a prestigious sociolect, no specific variety of Farnese took Haugen, Einar (1970), The language history of Scandinavia: A profile of problems. In: The Nordic over this function. All dialects have been on Languages and Modern Linguistics (ed. Hreinn Be­ an equal footing as far as prestige is con­ nediktsson). Reykjavik, 41-86. cerned; therefore, no standard spoken variety has been established. However, the concentra­ J6hannesson, J6n (1958), fslendinga saga II. Fyrir­ lestrar og ritgertJir um timabiM 1262-1550. Reyk­ tion of the modern population in T6rshavn - javik. with a third of all the citizens - has created a tendency for the dialect of the T6rshavn area Karlsson, Stefan (1989), Tungan. In: fslensk to be regarded as "neutral". pj6t5menning VI (ed. Frosti F. J6hannesson). Reyk­ javik, 1-54. Linda!, Sigurour (1974), island og umheimurinn. In: Saga islands I (ed. Sigurour Linda!). Reykjavik, 6. Conclusion 199-223. The discussion above has addressed the ques­ Magerny, Hallvard (1993), Soga om austmenn: tion of whether the development of the two Nordmenn som siglde til Island og Gr@nland i mel­ West Nordic languages has been characterized lomalderen (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi. II. by contact or isolation. There is a high prob­ Hist.-Filos. Klasse. Skrifter Ny Serie No. 19). Oslo. ability that some parallel linguistic changes in Oskarsson, Veturlioi (1993), Orn Janeord og frem­ the Middle Ages were a result of contact. med pavirkning pa a:ldre islandsk sprog. In: Sc.ls!. However, in the long run, the trade and the 49/1998, 3-20. pattern of settlement caused different condi­ Ottosson, Kjartan G. (1990), fslensk malhreinsun: tions for language changes in the two commu­ Sogulegt yfirlit (Rit islenskrar malnefndar 6). Reyk­ nities. javik. 1932 XVIII. Special aspects of Nordic language history II: Social stratification

Ottosson, Kjartan G. (1992), The Icelandic Middle l>orlaksson, Helgi (1979), "Kaupmenn i pj6nustu Voice: The morphological and phonological develop­ konungs." In: Mimir. Blao studenta i islenzkum ment. Lund. fr.eoum 13, 5-12. Sand0y, Helge (1994), Utan kontakt og endring? l>orsteinsson, Bjorn/Jonsson, Bergsteinn (1991), is­ In: Dialektkontakt, sprakkontakt och sprakforand­ lands saga til okkar daga. Reykjavik. ring i Norden (eds. Ulla-Britt Kotsinas/John Hel­ Trudgill, Peter (1986), Dialects in contact (Language gander). Stockholm, 38-51. in society 10). Oxford. Sand0y, Helge (2000), Nation und Sprache: das Trudgill, Peter (1992), Dialect typology and social Norwegische. In: Nation und Sprache (ed. Andreas structure. In: Language Contact. Theoretical and Gardt). Berlin, 873-913. empirical studies (ed. Ernst Hakon Jahr). Berlin, Stefansson, Magnus (1993), Iceland. In: Medieval 195-212. Scandinavia (eds. Ph. Pulsiano et al.). New York, 311-319. Helge Sand@y, Bergen (Norway) The Nordic Languages

An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages

Edited by Oskar Bandle (main editor) · Kurt Braunmiiller Ernst Hakon Jahr · Allan Karker Hans-Peter Naumann· Ulf Teleman Consulting Editors: Lennart Elmevik · Gun Widmark

Volume 2

Offprint

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York