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.