Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Listserv 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 Pm

Listserv 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 Pm

LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:17:55 -0000 Reply-To: [log in to unmask] Sender: The LINGUIST Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> From: LINGUIST List <[log in to unmask]> Subject: 15.2387, Review: Socioling/Hist Ling: Deumert & Vandenbussche Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

LINGUIST List: Vol-15-2387. Wed Aug 25 2004. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 15.2387, Review: Socioling/Hist Ling: Deumert & Vandenbussche

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<[log in to unmask]> Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <[log in to unmask]>

Reviews ([log in to unmask]): Sheila Collberg, U. of Arizona Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Home Page: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <[log in to unmask]> ======What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in.

If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley Collberg at [log in to unmask]

======Directory======

1) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:15:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephan Elspass <[log in to unmask]> Subject: German Standardizations: Past to Present

------Message 1 ------

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:15:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephan Elspass <[log in to unmask]> Subject: German Standardizations: Past to Present

EDITORS: Deumert, Ana; Vandenbussche, Wim TITLE: German Standardizations SUBTITLE: Past to Present SERIES: Impact: Studies in language and society 18 PUBLISHER: John Benjamins YEAR: 2003 Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-3122.html

Stephan Elspaß, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster ()

OVERVIEW http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 1 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM

OVERVIEW

This book is intended to provide ''a comprehensive and comparative introduction to the standardization processes of the ''; it thus presents an exercise in ''comparative standardology'' (p. 1). The editors of the present volume, Ana Deumert (Monash University, Melbourne) and Wim Vandenbussche (Vrije Universiteit Brussel/FWO-Vlaanderen), have brought together sixteen contributions on Germanic languages and varieties: twelve articles on the various Germanic standard languages, plus articles on , Scots and Pacific and Caribbean Germanic Creole languages, each written by (an) authoritative scholar/authoritative scholars of the respective languages and varieties. The sixteen chapters, organized in alphabetical order of the languages, are framed by an introduction and a résumé by the two editors.

In their introduction, ''Standard languages: Taxonomies and histories'', Ana Deumert and Wim Vandenbussche outline the idea and concept behind the volume. The initiative for the present book was taken at the 2002 standardization conference in Sheffield (cf. Linn/McLelland 2002, see the review of Mark Pierce in Linguist List 14.1738), where not only the lack of cross-border and comparative studies on standardisation was deplored but also the lack of an authoritative and up-to-date work on the processes and problems of standardization in a wide range of languages. While most other works on standardisation focus on a few languages only and take a variety of perspectives, the editors of the present volume wanted to concentrate on a single , i. e. the Germanic, and took Einar Haugen's four-step model of standardization as a starting point for the portrayals of individual standardization histories: The contributors were asked to outline the standardization process of the respective languages according to Haugen's model, i. e. ''norm selection -- norm codification -- norm implementation -- norm elaboration'' (Haugen 1966) or ''selection -- codification -- elaboration -- acceptance'' (Haugen 1972) respectively. Haugen's concept of standardisation is intrinsically linked with ''a form of writing'', thus not explicitly including any form of 'spoken standard' (Haugen 1994: 4340). In the following account of the individual chapters of this heavy volume, I will concentrate on Haugen's four aspects of standardisation.

ACCOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL CHAPTERS

In the first chapter, PAUL T. ROBERGE depicts the standardization history of ''. Afrikaans is one of the fairly small and only recently standardized Germanic languages. Based on his own research and a recent study by Ana Deumert, Roberge challenges the ''standard view'' that between 1750 and 1775, a spoken vernacular of Dutch had developed in the Cape colony which was elevated to modern Standard Afrikaans. Roberge and Deumert have revealed, however, that ''well into the early twentieth century'', the language situation was not characterized by a structural polarity between a ''metropolitan Dutch'' and a ''standard Afrikaans'', but by a linguistic continuum with distinctive patterns of variation. Codification of Afrikaans can only be traced back to the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Roberge identifies the years of the Anglo-Boer War (1899 -- 1902) and after as the period of intensive norm elaboration, which culminated in the political recognition of Afrikaans in 1925. Afrikaans had been widely accepted as a national language in the 20th century. As it became more and more associated with the 'apartheid' regime, however, the recent development may be more aptly http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 2 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM labelled 'diminishing acceptance', and in recent years it has lost much ground to English in the public sector.

Although the language contact history leading to the development of the 'Caribbean Creoles', which are portrayed by HUBERT DEVONISH, goes back to Columbus' landing on the Bahamas in 1492, the creoles are unquestionably to be counted among the languages with the shortest standardization history. Devonish focuses on Caribbean English-lexicon Creoles, as Caribbean Dutch Creoles are almost extinct. The Caribbean Creoles are not to be confused with Caribbean varieties of standard European languages like or Caribbean Standard English. In a commonly held opinion about the diglossic situation in the Caribbean states, however, Caribbean English-lexicon Creoles are often viewed as broken forms of English. -- The standardization process of the Caribbean Creoles is not only young but also unfinished. As for norm selection, recent proposals aim at ''identifying a common variety which could be used to greatest communicative effect'' (p. 49) and selecting ''the most intelligible'' variety as the norm (p. 52). Sociolinguistically, the standardization of Caribbean Creole is intertwined with an attempt to create and maintain a distance between English and Creole, which in Jamaican Creole manifests itself primarily at the level of the lexicon. This faces practical problems, however, as lexicographical efforts are apparently not coordinated with the language use in the new media, the public domain where the acceptance of Caribbean Creoles has shown most progress.

'Danish' by contrast, is one of the ''old'' standardized Germanic languages. Although Denmark was never ruled by a foreign power for a longer period of time, as TORE KRISTIANSEN writes, its language history has seen the influence and dominance of ''exoglossic standards'' in various domains, in particular , Low German, High German and French. When the standardization process of Danish was ''accelerated'' from around 1500, the polycentric language situation with basically three regional varieties was gradually replaced by centripetal tendencies towards the new centre, Zealand and the capital city Copenhagen. As for the aspect of norm selection, Kristiansen elaborates on the ongoing debate about the ''Copenhagenness'' of Standard Danish. While he stresses that the ''reconstruction'' of the national norm ''continues to be negotiated'', he makes clear that in his view there is no denial of the fact of the Copenhagenness of the standard norm and that the debate ''should be seen as an ideological phenomenon'' (p. 74). A prerequisite for the processes of codification and elaboration was the introduction of printing and the victory of the Protestant Reformation in the early fifteenth century. Due to its early codification -- first efforts can be traced back to the sixteenth century -- Danish in its written form is fairly conservative and still close to Swedish and Norwegian. Spoken Danish, however, has moved away from other languages of Nordic origin, ''to the extent of disturbing the mutual intelligibility between Danes and their Nordic neighbours'' (p. 78). Particularly after the end of the dominance of German at court and in government offices in the early nineteenth century, Danish became widely and fully accepted, ending in the abandonment of Gothic script (after 1860) and majuscule writing of nouns (1948). In recent years English has appeared as a new exoglossic standard. Fears of looming ''destandardization tendencies'' in Danish are not shared by Kristiansen; in his view, public language debates on orthographic matters in recent years (''mayonnaise war'', ''comma war'') ''can only be understood in terms of an absolute and unconditioned acceptance of the traditional, existing norm'' (p. 88). He concedes, however, that the language use of young Danes http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 3 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM has led to two standards, ''one for the media and one for the school'', which may be explained by a general trend towards a liberation from traditional formalities.

In the following chapter on 'Dutch', Roland Willemyns emphasizes the pluricentric character of Dutch and focuses on the different standardization processes in the and in Flanders. Accordingly, Willemyns writes two standardization histories, a) one for 'the North', b) one for 'the South'. The disparities increased particularly after the revolt of the Low Countries against catholic Spain in the sixteenth century and after the end of the Eighty Years War (1568 -- 1648), when ''the centre of gravity of standardization'' gradually passed from the old economic and cultural centres in the South (Flanders and Brabant) to the North (p. 95). These tendencies increased after the Eighty Years War, when educated Flemings emigrated to the Low Countries. The Reformation and its aftermath thus played a crucial role in the selection and codification process. a) Norm codification, particularly on the level of grammar, became a major topic in the eighteenth century Netherlands. Like elsewhere (e.g. in Germany), 'rule inventors' competed with 'rule describers', who aimed at propagating linguistic rules which could be derived from actual language usage. A group of ''language despotists'' appear to have gained the upper hand with regard to written language, causing a deepening gap between written and spoken Dutch. Overall, however, Willemyns rates the influence of grammarians as rather limited; selection and codification processes were always rather linked to ''practical'' aims (language of the bible, of commerce etc.). According to Willemyns, a written language norm was only identifiable at about 1900. The elaboration and acceptance of a spoken norm was a matter of the twentieth century: By the mid-twentieth century, only 3% of the population mastered ''Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands'' ('General Civilized Dutch'), a spoken variety based on ''the language used by the better situated classes in the larger western cities (the Randstad)'' (p. 110). (This may illustrate why -- according to Haugen's model -- a 'spoken norm' cannot be a prerequisite for the definition of a 'standard': The view that there was no standard Dutch until after the mid-twentieth century is hardly tenable.) b) The -speaking South had practically no say in the standardization process of the nineteenth century: French became the dominant language in the public domain after the independence of in 1830. Written Flemish Dutch remained the language in chancelleries, city halls, guilds and private correspondence and formed the foundation of today's national variety of Dutch in Belgium.

Recent history has seen a North-South levelling and convergence in pronunciation and lexicon. In the Netherlands, growing opposition towards the urban (Randstadt) dialects can be observed, and -- as in the Danish case -- ''potential destandardization tendencies'' (p. 117).

'English', as depicted by TERTTU NEVALAINEN, is the prototype of an ''old'' language whose standardisation process started off in a political and economic centre, i. e. the London area. ''Norm selection'' and ''norm acceptance'' in written language can be found as early as the 15th century when the ''Chancery Standard'' of the central bureaucracy (''East- Midland-based, southern rather than northern in outline'', p. 133) was adopted by the first printers. Acording to Nevalainen, ''norm codification'' and ''norm http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 4 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM elaboration'' took place after the Restoration and have seen various forms on the different linguistic levels: Whereas the codification of spelling was ''virtually completed in print by about 1650'' (p. 138), lexis was far from being 'standardised' and underwent heavy borrowing instead, in particular from Latin, in the 16th and 17th centuries. The 18th century saw first efforts to codify the grammar. In the 19th century, the standardisation process was dominated by a ideology in which ''linguistic purity began to be associated with moral and religious rectitude'' (p. 144; for an overview of puristic tendencies in the Germanic languages cf. Langer & Davies, forthcoming). The modern is characterised by its emergence as a pluricentric language with various national varieties.

The history of 'Faroese', as described by ZAKARIS SVABO HANSEN, JÓGVAN Í LON JACOBSEN and EIVIND WEYHE, is a peculiar case of a more than a millennium old speech community which has undergone (written) standardization only in recent time. The Faroe Islands, once ''part of the cultural sphere'' (p. 159), have been under Danish rule for more than six hundred years. (The Faroes became autonomous though not independent in 1948). But although the has been the language of law, court and church after the Reformation, the population has continued to use Faroese dialects in their everyday communication. The language situation on the Faroese Islands is therefore characterized by a ''bilingual society'' (ibid.), with Faroese representing the principal, though not national language. The standardization history of Faroese is insofar unusual, as it did not undergo a 'typical' norm selection process; it ''did not originate from a social, political or geographical centre of power'' (p. 166). Codification efforts commenced around 1800 in connection with the recording of old ballad texts and have been dominated by a spelling system on etymological principles, causing a ''large discrepancy between and pronunciation'' (p. 161). Thus, the nineteenth century codification has basically affected the orthography and grammar, not pronunciation -- still today there can only be talk of ''a tendency to a spoken language standard'' (p. 165). The most important measure in the norm elaboration was the enlargement of the lexicon, by word formation and -- to a lesser extent -- borrowing, to make Faroese fit ''as a 'valid' language in all areas of society and in all situations'' (p. 158). Norm implementation, particularly in the schools and the media, started with the beginning of the national movement in 1888. Recent developments include proposals to bring orthography and grammar closer to the subsistent norms of the spoken language, but these do not appear to have changed the overall conservative nature of written Faroese.

ERIC HOEKSTRA restricts his article on 'Frisian' on the West-Frisian branch of this old Germanic language. Hoekstra first gives a short overview of standardization processes of written (ca 1200 to 1550): Most texts from this period dealt with legal matters, others included chronicles or religious texts. Norm selection was closely connected with the role of Latin and its influence on these text genres, norm elaboration consisted mainly in the acquisition of new genres for Old Frisian, and the question of norm acceptance was closely linked to the power and prestige of the writers, who mostly served secular and religious authorities (p. 194). With the lack of a (central) political and economic power, however, the socio-cultural basis of Old Frisian was ''very small'', so that it lost most domains of written language to Dutch and Low German, particularly after the introduction of printing (pp. 194f.). The period (ca 1550 to 1800) may be characterised by ''a slumbering written language'' which largely departed from the norms of Old Frisian and a http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 5 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM spoken language which, in the West-Frisian area, was a result of a mixing with Dutch (''Stêdsk'' 'Town Frisian', p. 195f.); Middle Frisian thus hardly qualifies as a standard language. With a lack of a continuous literary tradition in Frisian, norm codification of Modern Frisian (after 1800) had to start virtually from scratch. Out of the three main dialect areas of West Frisian, 'Clay Frisian' in the Northwest seems to have been most influential in the selection process, as it was the wealthiest region and home of some of the figureheads of the Frisian movement (p. 199). This movement seems to have been the most important promoter of the elaboration of Frisian, a task which in the twentieth was adopted by the 'Frisian Academy' (founded 1938) and the 'General Frisian Education Committee' (founded 1927). Hoekstra criticizes that the Academy's attention to the codification of Frisian ''has been heavily focused on lexicography at the expense of grammar'', so that ''no substantial grammar has appeared'', and that the Education Committee endorses the pronunciation of 'Clay Frisian' as the 'spoken standard'; in view of the factual variety, 'Clay Frisian' may as well be regarded as a variety within the standard (pp. 203f.). A problem for norm acceptance which arises from this practice is that the Frisian standard, as it is propagated by the Education Committee, has a 'bookish' note (''boekjefrisk'') to the speakers. In spite of Frisian's status an official language, which may be used in formal domains, and although it is used ostentatiously by pro-Frisian politicians, the acceptance of Frisian as a written and public language seems to be low among the Frisian speaking population, which clearly prefers Dutch as the written language (p. 206). This sociolinguistic situation and the progressing erosion of Frisian ''through on-going influence from Dutch'' (ibid.) leaves the reviewer to wonder whether Frisian may be regarded as a standard language at all. According to Hoekstra it is ''really in between being a dialect and a standard language'' (p. 207).

In contrast to other 'big' European languages such as English and French, 'German' departed from a ''decentralized communicative space'', as KLAUS J. MATTHEIER writes (p. 214). The norm selection started at the beginning of the 16th century: In a 'verticalization process' (Oskar Reichmann), hitherto 'horizontally' layered regional print languages of High German -- plus the Low German print language -- were gradually replaced by a mixture of 'general German' and East Middle German. 'General German' (''Gemeines Deutsch'') was based on the East written dialect, which -- according to Mattheier - - describes ''a supra-regional and even proto-standard variety'' (p. 215). After 1520/30, East Middle German gained crucial importance through the work of Luther (pp. 216f.). The 16th and 17th centuries were thus characterized by a ''norm dualism'': the catholic southern German states favoured 'general German', whereas the protestant northern and central states showed a clear preference for East Upper German variants (p. 217). The selection phase reached completion as late as the 18th century, when the southern states adopted the norms set up in the grammatical works of Johann Christoph Gottsched, a clear advocate of East Middle German. Early grammars in 16th century developed out of descriptive works for 'German as a foreign language' (p. 225) and the first codificatory writings aimed at an elaboration of chancery norms (p. 223). As in many other Germanic languages, the growing awareness of the need for a ''national language'' as a symbol of national identification -- ''especially in competition with Latin and French'' -- was an important motive for the codification of the written norm; however, at the same time the concept of a uniform and educated German national language ''became a marker of social differentiation'' (p. 219). Contrary to general opinion, the famous http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 6 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM

'language societies' of the 17th century did not have any direct effect on codification. Undoubtedly, the works of Gottsched and Johann Christoph Adelung were more efficient, not least because these authors tried to record the norms of real usage, which they found in the texts of the 'best writers'. 'Norm elaboration' refers to ''the extension of the functional range of the standard variety'' (p. 230) to the areas of private communication, technical and scientific language, legal language, literary language, the language of the political public etc.

Norm selection, norm codification and norm elaboration of German may thus be seen as chronologically overlapping processes. Norm acceptance marks, in Mattheier's view, the state of ''a situation where the standard language is used by all members of the speech community in a wide range of functions'' (p. 234). All regional differences considered, it may ''be maintained for around 1900 that the German written standard language was accepted in the entire German speech community as a model norm, and also that the standard variety was actively known by large segments of the population'' (p. 236). Norm acceptance, hence the full accomplishment of a standard at the beginning of the 20th century, is thus different from ''the existence of a standard language norm with relatively stable features'' in the late 18th century (p. 227), which is so often confused with in German linguistics. 20th century developments include the development of national varieties in Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland (''pluricentricity''), the rise of ''regional standards'' (by some scholars captured in the term ''pluriareality'') and ''destandardization'' processes (p. 239). It may be added that the information on pp. 237ff. that (only) twenty percent of Germans have not acquired a dialect in their youth is certainly outdated -- or is based on a very broad interpretation of 'dialect'.

KRISTJÁN ÁRNASON devotes most of his article on 'Icelandic' to the development of Old Icelandic. This appears to be justified by the fact that ''the language used by Snorri Sturluson in the thirteenth century is the same code as the one used by writers such as Halldór Laxness in the twentieth century'' (p. 274). As for the norm selection process, Árnason rejects a widely held opinion according to which the spoken language of the early settlers, that served as a model for early written Icelandic, ''was a 'mixture' of Norwegian dialects'' (p. 247). Alternatively, he pleads for the hypothesis that ''one variety, spoken by a special group or elite, was adopted as the basis for the Icelandic standard'' (p. 249). According to the focus on Old Icelandic, norm codification is discussed with respect to the explanations and proposals in Snorri Sturluson's ''Edda'', particularly on the spelling of Icelandic. Árnason stresses, however, that the ''Edda'' does not qualify as a reference work. The process of norm elaboration did not follow the codification of Icelandic in the chronological sense, as a standard had already ''been 'elaborated' orally for some time before being written down in the Latin alphabet'' (p. 263). The question of norm acceptance is closely connected with this distinctive standardization history: Early religious texts from Latin were soon translated into (Old) Icelandic so that no diglossia developed, which became so characteristic for the language situation in many other Germanic countries, and Icelandic had not to 'fight' for acceptance (p. 267). In view of the continuity of the Icelandic standard, however, it appears to be odd that the name ''íslenska'' ('Icelandic') appeared not earlier than 1500 (p. 269).

In the , 'Low German', presented by NILS LANGER, has not reached the status of a standard language. It is still under http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 7 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM dispute whether modern Low German constitutes a language of its own or is just a dialect of German. Langer thus concentrates on the history of , which served as a lingua franca during the Middle Ages and Early Modern time (p. 281). Written Middle Low German certainly achieved a fairly standardized level, although at least two written varieties have to be distinguished: Westphalian and Lübeck Middle Low German. Their rise and fall were intertwined with the rise and fall of the Hanseatic League (pp. 285f.). The Lübeck variety gained importance with the north- and eastward expansion of the ''Hanse'' (p. 286). It was not only employed in the north of Germany, but in many parts of Scandinavia and the Baltic countries, and, because of their linguistic similarities, heavily influenced the development of the Scandinavian languages. It is, for example, estimated that circa 30 -- 50% of the Swedish vocabulary consists of Low German loanwords. As for its standardization history, Middle Low German is ''only partially compatible with the Haugen model of standardization. There was no standardized Middle Low German in the technical sense at any given point of time because it was never codified or monitored.'' (p. 297)

'' ''is today still at a relatively early stage of the standardization process'', as PETER GILLES and CLAUDINE MOULIN emphasize (p. 303). Issues of standardization in Luxembourg are closely linked to its triglossic language situation. The traditional sociolinguistic state is that of a ''medial diglossia'', with German or French as the written language and Luxembourgish as ''the only means of oral communication between native Luxembourgophone speakers'' (pp. 304f.). This situation has been changing significantly in the last twenty years: The use of Luxembourgish as written language is on the increase, not just due to the simple necessity to teach a ''Standard Luxembourgish'' to foreign language learners, but also because of its ''high national-symbolic value'' (pp. 305f.). In the 1984 language law, it was recognized as the third administrative language. In the present time, it has ''limited relevance within the domain of writing'', but shows increasing importance in the ''language of closeness'', e. g. private letters, personal notes etc. (pp. 313f.) -- The process of norm selection is sociolinguistically dominated by the wish to secede from Germany and German (for most of the 19th and 20th century, Luxembourgish was merely seen as a German dialect on the German side), and this received strengthened support during War I and World War II, particularly during the German occupation in World War II. Linguistically, Luxembourgish has not experienced a koinéization, as it is hypothesized by some linguists, but a process of levelling of the four main dialect areas of Luxembourg, with features of the dominant dialect of the densely populated central area around Luxemburg city spreading to the other areas (p. 312). Like in many other European languages, spelling was first codified (early 19th century spelling systems by literary writers had only limited effect here); however, there is a ''great need for further codification today (lexicon, grammar, syntax, pronunciation)'' (p. 317); one major lexicographic project in this strand is the ''Luxemburger Wörterbuch'' (1950 -- 77). As it is still early days in the standardization history of Luxembourgish, norm elaboration and acceptance have not been central issues yet. The authors conclude that ''in the present multilingual and multidialectal situation comprehensive standardisation is probably neither possible nor intended'' (p. 322).

Although Norway had a highly developed written language in the Middle Ages, i. e. Old Norse, the starting point for the standardization history of modern 'Norwegian' is the independence from Denmark, as http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 8 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM

ERNST HÅKON JAHR writes. During the Dano-Norwegian Union (1380 -- 1814), Danish was the only written language in Norway. In 1814, two possible routes for the development of a standard were possible: a) a written language based on a Dano-Norwegian creoloid or koiné variety developed in 18th century and used by the elite only (5%), and b) a written language based on Norwegian dialects, which developed from Old Norse and were spoken by the vast majority of the population. The two varieties found two eminent linguists of the 19th century as their advocates: Knud Knudsen and Ivar Aasen. The former codified the variety of written Norwegian which became known as ''Riksmål'' and by decision of parliament was called ''Bokmål'' in 1929; the latter created ''Landsmaal'', which was called '''' after 1929. The idea of ''Samnorsk'', a 'unified, amalgamated, pan-Norwegian', was an attempt to overcome the ''bitter and irreconcilable tone of the language conflict during the first decade of the twentieth century'' (p. 337): In a 1917 language reform, Samnorsk elements were both introduced to Riksmål/Bokmål and Landsmaal/Nynorsk; in this and later reforms, however, the language planners acted -- according to Jahr -- ''totally insensitive to the Norwegian sociolinguistic reality'' (p. 339). The question of norm acceptance was thus -- for most of the twentieth century, and the 1950s in particular -- dominated by the language conflict between language reformers and their opponents. Especially the Dano-Norwegian movement, recruited from upper-middle class speakers and financially supported by conservative leaders of business and commerce, resisted the reforms to the radical variety of Bokmål, which symbolically was referred to as Riksmål. Eventually, the 1981 conservative reform of the Bokmål meant a final victory of the Dano-Norwegian movement, resulting in a widening distance between standard Bokmål and standard Nynorsk (p. 349). Interestingly enough, as Jahr concludes, middle-class speech never regained its former status after the 1981 reform; the ''neutral'' spoken standard variety of rather represents moderate Bokmål (p. 350).

In contrast to Caribbean Creoles, standardization and ''planning'' of 'Pacific Pidgins and Creoles' is not a political matter, as PETER MÜHLHÄUSLER points out: ''The vast majority of speakers of Pacific Pidgins and Creoles are Melanesians for whom the idea of central planning is a 'foreign concept' and the traditional Melanesian attitude to language, which is laissez faire, has remained dominant in spite of numerous (mainly expatriate) attempts to set up language planning bodies'' (p. 357). Language planning and standardization seems to be more difficult than elsewhere, because in the Pacific context language boundaries do often not coincide with political boundaries (p. 366). Such processes frequently go back to efforts by individuals (as in the case of Australian Kriol) (pp. 367f.), but standardization sometimes appears to happen coincidentally or ''by default, such as when the variety prevalent at a certain mission station was promoted as the standard for a whole area.'' (p. 366) Mühlhäusler rightly stresses the language planning aspect in his paper -- different efforts have been made, codified languages have been ''achieved'' (with ''official standards''), but they are often not accepted (thus cannot be classified as standard languages!) (pp. 376f.). However, Pacific Pidgins and Creoles appear to serve more and more as identity markers for their speaker communities.

The chapter on 'Scots' by MARINA DOSSENA leaves the reader somewhat puzzled. Although Scots and English have been identified as separate as early as c. 1500 (and indeed go back to different varieties of ), Scots does not seem to have developed a fully-fledged (written) standard until today; even the debate on a spelling http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 9 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM standardization is ongoing (p. 393). One gets the impression that the article is rather a plea to regard Scots as a language of its own -- and not just an English dialect (group). Accordingly, Dossena clearly struggles to identify different aspects of standardization of Scots according to the Haugen model: 'Norm selection' is merely discussed with respect to the integration of Scotticisms (''croon'', ''eerie'', ''uncanny'', ''weird'') into the English standard language (p. 388). The history of codification of Scots appears to be inseparably linked to the history of ''the anglicization of Scots'' (pp. 389f.). Notes on the elaboration of a Scots norm are missing, and the question of 'norm acceptance' boils down to the question of ''Good or bad Scots?'' -- apparently constituting a matter of linguistic purity. It does not become transparent, however, to what extent Scots is rooted in and accepted in the speaker community, particularly as a written language. On the institutional level, Scottish Gaelic can (unsurprisingly) ''count on greater attention''(p. 393).

ULF TELEMANN is the author of the chapter on the standardization of 'Swedish'. As with many other 'old' Germanic standard languages, the translation of the Bible (1541) and the introduction of printing are regarded as milestones in the beginning of standardization. The efforts to create a uniform language were invigorated in the 17th century, when Sweden expanded and implemented an effective central political administration in Stockholm. Telemann describes the standardization process both as ''a more or less inevitable consequence of the political, economical, demographic and cultural integration of the nation'' and a result of ''conscious, target-orientated language cultivation (language planning, language politics)'' (p. 406). Telemann clearly differentiates between the standardization of the written language and the standardization of spoken Swedish: Early norm selection in spelling developed in the tradition of the Bible translations (a consistent morphology was not reached until the 18th century), whereas a spoken norm was apparently not seen as a necessity for a long time. Spelling and morphology of written Swedish were codified in the 18th century. On the whole, Swedish orthography represents phonemic spelling, as it was advocated for by 19th century linguists like Adolf Noreen and codified in the 1906 . Pronunciation norms were only set up at the end of the 19th century, modelled not so much on a particular regional pronunciation (e. g. such as the one of Stockholm), but on the written language and particularly on the pedagogical method of ''sounding''. The spoken norm was soon regarded as idealized, however, and regional, social and stylistic variation was permitted so that ''the official language cultivators declared in the mid-twentieth century that the standard spoken language existed in a number of different regionally coloured forms, implying that the central Swedish norm was only one among these''. The surveillance of the standard norm was not an issue -- on the contrary, it was ''allowed to slacken as the rural dialects became too weak to threaten the standard.'' (p. 412) Oddly, Telemann restricts his discussion of norm elaboration on the elaboration of lexis in Swedish and basically notices that language cultivators were ''descriptive rather than prescriptive in lexical matters'' (p. 422). Likewise, the question of norm acceptance is rather avoided; as an ''effective instrument for implementing a standard norm'', Telemann identifies the general school system of the 19th century (p. 423). As the most noticeable recent development, Telemann perceives the ''general trend of de-formalization'' after World War II (among other things a result of the increasing pressure of ''spontaneous, natural, unedited spoken language of the television'' on the written language norms) and the growing influence of English in science, universities, business and even politics http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 10 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM

(p. 427).

'' is a distinct case of a Germanic language, because of its ''historical, geographic, cultural, and religious individuality'', as RAKHMIEL PELTZ writes (p. 432), particularly as its speakers, the Ashkenazic Jews, ''were always minorities in the countries in which they resided'' (p. 433). As a predominantly Germanic language, Yiddish has integrated elements from other language groups -- by origin components of Semitic and by language contact components of Slavic. Traditionally, it was used at least in diglossic language situations, with Hebrew as the language in religious contexts, and Yiddish as the language in the family and the community. Like other contributors to this volume, Peltz distinguishes between standardization brought about by day-to-day changes (convergence, dialect levelling etc.) and conscious language planning (pp. 433ff.). The planning of a Yiddish standard was enhanced by the establishment of research institutions, societies and various publications devoted to the study of Yiddish language. Most of them were based in Eastern European countries, their efforts ''were eliminated by the Nazi extermination of the Jews and their institutions in Eastern Europe, the major heartland of Jewish life in the world at that time in history'' (p. 434). On the level of written language, the standard 'klal-shprakh' was developed, which could be understood in all dialect areas; this is the product of concerted efforts to establish a standard which ''does not favour one dialect'' (p. 438). As with many other standard languages, standardization of Yiddish does not necessarily include standard pronunciation. Although some dialects seem to be more prestigious than others, the overall question of a standard spoken norm appears to be rather peripheral (pp. 439f.). Efforts to codify written Yiddish, mainly in orthography and lexicon, developed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century ''to serve the needs of the Jewish community's expanding functions in Yiddish'' (p. 440). Norm elaboration and implementation appears to have taken place above all through modern Yiddish literature and the daily press, which ''emerged in full force at the beginning of the twentieth century'' -- although the conservative daily press was ''most resistant to planning recommendations'' (p. 445). Norm acceptance is apparently the least debatable aspect in the standardization history of Yiddish. According to Peltz, it can serve as an example of the Jewish community's capability ''to regulate itself independently of governments and border'' (p. 446), thus echoing the title and subtitle of Peltz's chapter: ''Yiddish. A language without an army regulates itself.'' The stand of Yiddish has, however, become more difficult after World War II, as younger Jewish people have linguistically shifted more and more to the dominant language of the country that they live in (p. 447).

CRITICAL EVALUATION

Ideally, the present volume can be used as a handbook on the modern history of the Germanic languages as well as a source for a comparative study of the standardization processes in these languages. Although it will be difficult to establish 'general' patterns, certain similarities in the standardization histories -- some of which are outlined in Deumert's & Vandenbussche's resumée (pp. 455ff.) -- are striking (the role of bible translations, of the introduction of printing, of schooling etc. -- or even the relatively small influence of 'professional' language planners!).

The concept to organize the book according to one standardization model (i. e. Haugen's model) certainly has its advantages and disadvantages: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 -- A major asset of this approach is the clear structure of the Pagina 11 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM

-- A major asset of this approach is the clear structure of the various articles, and the idea to build on Haugen's four aspects of standardization is useful as long as these aspects are not interpreted as constituting a strict order of consecutive phases. (Some languages seem to be accepted as standard by the speaker communities before their written language norms are elaborated.) Moreover, Haugen in his model rightfully stresses the existence of a written norm as the crucial factor of standardization. Most authors follow this interpretation and focus on the development of a written norm.

-- The clear formal structure which is achieved by the adaptation of Haugen's model may obscure a little, however, a) that some of the varieties assembled here may not count as standard languages at all and b) that some standardization histories are difficult to compare: ad a) One could argue about the choice of languages considered for this volume. Why is Scots included as a standard language, but not Pennsylvania German? König & van der Auwera (1994) have a chapter on Pennsylvania German, but none on Scots. (And apparently, they did not even consider incorporating Low German and Luxembourgish.) ad b) As the editors point out in their introductory essay, disparities between the standardization of 'old' vs. 'new' and 'big' vs. 'small' languages can probably not be bridged by a single model like Haugen's. Because of the effects of mass literacy or nationalism in the 19th century, standardization processes which only commenced after 1800 (cf. Kloss 1978) were on the whole very different from those which were initiated many centuries before (let alone the development of the merely 'temporarily' standardized ''chancery languages'' like Low Middle German and Frisian): For some of the 'old' languages which had a fairly uniform written variety by 1800, alphabetization, mass literacy and the emergence of new regional varieties of writing was a more or less disruptive factor in the standardization process, whereas 'new' languages rather started from and built on the existing variation in the 19th century.

Furthermore, some of the authors appear to disagree on basic terms, so that the reader may arrive at two or more different meanings of ''norm elaboration'', ''proto-standard'' or ''destandardization'' (which others refer to as ''deformalization''). Interestingly, various articles reveal somewhat deviating views on the question of how much variation a standard language can tolerate. Such discrepancies only demonstrate, however, that comparative work is badly needed!

The volume is very well edited and, thanks to the narrative character of most chapters, a pleasure to read. Typing errors (p. 269: ''German and Danes have 'v' before 'i' in this word [''wringen'' 'wring']''), wrong terminology (p. 283: ''Second High German Consonant Shift ('Zweite hochdeutsche Lautverschiebung')'' -- correct: ''Second Germanic Consonant Shift'' or ''High German Consonant Shift'') or other slips are rare. The one or other illustrating language map would have been useful to get a clearer picture of the dialects of Frisian, Faroese or the different Carribean and Pacific Creoles, which the reader might not be overly familiar with.

All in all, this is a superb and very useful book. Everybody working in the field of standardization and/or the modern history of the Germanic languages will profit from the synoptic character and the wealth of individual data assembled here. One begins to wonder indeed why such a book has not been published before. And if it wasn't for

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 12 van 13 LISTSERV 14.4 18-08-2006, 12:54 PM the price of EUR 126.90, the book could even be used as a coursebook for a lecture or seminar on these or related topics.

REFERENCES

Haugen, Einar (1966) ''Dialect, Language, Nation.'' American Anthropologist 68: 922 -- 935.

Haugen, Einar (1972) ''Dialect, Language, Nation.'' The Ecology of Language. Essays bei Einar Haugen, selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil, 237 -- 254. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Haugen, Einar (1994): ''Standardization.'' The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 12 vols., ed. by R[onald] E. Asher, vol. 8, 4340 -- 4342. Oxford, New York, Seoul & Tokyo: Pergamon Press.

Kloss, Heinz (1978): Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800. 2nd ed. Düsseldorf: Schwann.

König, Ekkehard & Johan van der Auwera (eds.)(1994): The Germanic Languages. London & New York: Routledge.

Langer, Nils & Winifred V. Davies (eds.)(forthcoming): Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.

Linn, Andrew R. & Nicola McLelland (eds.)(2002): Standardization. Studies from the Germanic Languages. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 235). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Stephan Elspaß teaches German Linguistics in the 'Institut für Deutsche Philologie' of the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. His major research interests are the history of New High German, Historical Sociolinguistics, Dialectology, Phraseology, Language and Politics and Language Historiography.

------

If you buy this book please tell the publisher or author that you saw it reviewed on the LINGUIST list.

------LINGUIST List: Vol-15-2387

Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main LINGUIST page

Back to the LISTSERV home page at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG.

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408D&L=linguist&P=R5188 Pagina 13 van 13

Top View