sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ivar Aasen, Middle Norwegian, Modern Norwegian, Norske Gaardnavne, Norwegian dialects, Norwegian language

86 II. Perspectives in research history I: From the beginnings to the middle of the 20th century 10. Research in Norwegian history 1850-1950. An overview

1. The dream of a Golden Age essential to prove that the Old Nordic lan­ 2. Explaining 3. Innovations in the guage was divided into two branches: East 4. Methods Nordic and West Nordic. The West Nordic 5. Society and language branch he called or 6. Literature (a selection) ("norrønt"), and he emphasized the impor­ tance of respecting each nation' right to its Norwegian linguistics has to a large extent historic relics. The national demarcation in been characterized by a historical approach. language and literature was obviously impor- Many scholars have contributed by presenting tant, especially in relation to , and results and ideas in a great many smaller but the Golden Age demonstrated that Norwe­ important publications, but extensive surveys gians had been superior to Danes and are few. in producing medieval literature. The great interest in language history de­ In 1845 OWN became an optional rives from the political struggle for indepen­ for the final university examination in Arts. dence and the general cultural conflicts of the In order to meet the demands of this new cur- country. riculum, Munch started giving lectures on history, and thus this "This discipline, like all research, conveys a convic­ subject was taught for the fist time at the uni- tion of being connected with the life we experience versity. The lectures were based on his thesis today and with the future we create." (Magnus Ol- about the form of the oldest Common Nordic sen, a speech 1908) language (1846). The following year attention was focussed on Old Norse as he and .. 1. The dream of a Golden Age Unger published Det oldnorske Sprogs eller Nommasprogets Grammatik and Oldnorsk 1.1. P.A. Munch and a national Lcesebog med tilhørende Glossarium. These reconstruction two books were standard textbooks for the The foundation of historical linguistics in next generation. The , of which was laid by Peter Munch Munch was the main author, to a great extent (1810-1863). The political programme he was followed the ideas and arrangement of committed to, National Romanticism, was the Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, and thus framework for his early scholarly work. Grimm's linguistic insights were applied to Munch's main goal was to demonstrate the OWN. national characteristics of Norwegian lan­ Munch accepted the Icelandic way of spell­ guage, culture and history, and thereby legi­ ing OWN, and he considered it to be an ade­ timate the Norwegian claim for independence. quate expression of what was typical Old Nor- His main field was the history of the Middle wegian, or "the OWN language spirit". Varia­ Ages. Whereas his older history colleague, R. tion in the was regarded as ac­ Keyser, was interested in the Old Norse (Old cidental. He assumed that OWN was pro­ West Nordic, OWN) language as an instru- nounced more or less like modern Norwegian, ment for historical research, knowledge of the because the language was one and the same language was part of a cultural and political in the past and in the present. According to program for Munch. the ideology of National Romanticism, lan­ The aim of Norwegian history and lingui­ guages had a static and national nature. This stics at that time was to link "our Norway view is also reflected in the so-called "restoring and Norway of the past" as "two halves of a orthography" which he developed for some ring". The Union period after 1319 had been mythical texts that he published and which a national disaster and was perceived as "the . . Landstad used when writing down bal­ false soldered joint" which should be removed. lads. Munch considered the data lvar Aasen The written language had disintegrated (1813-96) collected from during the late Middle Ages, and Munch was to be proof of "the almost unchanged exist­ convinced that it should be restored. ence of our old language". For some time he Studies of OWN were to prove that the rich argued that Unger and Aasen should edit a medieval literature was Old Norwegian and common dictionary of OWN and modern not Old Common Nordic. For Munch it was Norwegian dialects. 10. Research in Norwegian language history 1850-1950. An overview 87

However, several other university men moreover, could be a means of deciding the started their OWN studies in the middle of provenance of the manuscripts. For instance, this century. During the period 1886-96, in 1878 Johan Storm (1836-1920) brought to Johan Fritzner (1812-93) published his big light the fact that there was weakening Ordbog over Det gamle norske Sprog. Marius (a > ) in eastem dialects in the 13th and 14th Nygaard (1838-1912) completed his OWN centuries in unstressed positions (senda> sen- Syntax in 1906, and thereby finished a pio- dæ). Aasen proved in 1885 that this vowel neering work that demonstrated a very sys- weakening followed OWN long syllables. tematic approach and used extensive excerpts It was above all Marius Hægstad from OWN texts. From the publication of (1850-1927) who established the fact that Old Munch's 1847 grammar up to I, Norwegian was represented by several dia- i. e. in about two generations, Norwegian lin- lects. In 1899 his monograph Gamalt trønder- auistics had manaaed to obtain new and thor- maal appeared, and in the following years he ough insights into OWN. described all West Norwegian dialects (in- cluding Faroese and Icelandic) in his series of books: Vestnorske maalføre fyre 1350 1.2. Unity or dialects? (1907-1942). This monumental work of more During the last half of the 18th century scho- than 1000 pages was based on thorough and lars had become aware that there were ortho- extensive studies of medieval charters. It trans- graphic differences between Icelandic and formed our knowledge of the OWN language. Norwegian medieval manuscripts; a bit later Hægstad's method was to try and trace mo- it became known that there were variations dem features in the OWN texts in order even in the Norwegian ones. By about 1850 to attest geographic differences in the old lan- Munch was more willing to accept that there guage. As early as in his first publication was some dialectal variation in OWN; this was (1899), he criticized Adolf Noreen for having a logical consequence of the unity he assumed distinguished between Old Norwegian and between OWN and Modern Norwegian. He Old Icelandic. Hægstad found this distinction supposed that, for instance, OWN 11 was pro- inadequate since Old Norwegian was not itself nounced dl, dd and II in the same dialect areas a homogeneous language. He demonstrated that have these pronunciations today (e.. that the Trøndelag dialect had æ for a with adle, adde, alle < OWN allir); however, i-umlaut (e. g. hæfir = standard OWN hefir everybody "knew very well" that it should be 'has'), which represents a more archaic lan- written //! guage stage than existed in either Icelandic or However, the idea of unity was predomi- other Norwegian dialects. He proved that the nant. tried to book for OWN dia- Trøndelag dialect had the prefix ø-, lect variation, but concluded (1885/1953) that not å-, and still kept the a- in about 1270, "dialect forms have neither been many nor of whereas East Norwegian at that time had any significance". Moreover, the opinion that weakened this vowel to -e. Hægstad pointed Modern Icelandic was almost identical to out, too, that the late u- (i. e. where the OWN was strong. Rasmus Rask had, how- u triggering umlaut is non-syncopated) did not ever, pointed out in 1818 that Icelandic u, , exist in Trøndelag and the inner areas of east- au and ey were not "genuine", as they had ern Norway during the 13th century. All in been changed from OWN. Aasen stressed in all — in his opinion — this tells us that there 1854 that ö in (the Icelandic speiling of) OWN must have been dialect differences in Norwe- should be pronounced approximately as , gian long before the oldest written sources and not as ø like in Modern Icelandic. This came into being. refers to the that is transcribed in Hægstad described thoroughly in Vestnors- modern OWN standard orthography (i. e. the ke maalføre fyre 1350 a pattern of vowel har- u-umlaut of a), which has merged with ø to mony which existed in OWN, with the excep- become 5 in Icelandic (cf. OWN bqrn > Mod. tion of south-west Norwegian (including Fa- Icel. roese and Icelandic). In the southwest dialects Contemporary dialects were widely looked the vowel were either e-o or i-u, upon in the 19th century as a national treasure whereas OWN elsewhere varied between i and — and not as a language misfortune. As the e and between u and o depending on the pre- interest in dialects increased, scholars became ceding root vowel. more with looking for dialectal in- This theory of vowel harmony has created fluence on the OWN speiling variants — which, great scholarly interest. Both A. B. Larsen and 88 II. Perspectives in research history I: From the beginnings to the middle of the 20th century

D.A. Seip had doubts concerning his con- ing according to which, for instance, conson- clusions on southwest dialects; however, ants that bad disappeared in spoken language Hægstad's assertion remained dominant. should be pronounced. Magnus (1984) maintained that The dialectologist Hægstad concluced that Hægstad's argument was circular since he a national written standard developed during classified his texts as southwestern using lin- the period 1200-1350, during which the Royal guistic criteria. Egil Pettersen (1989) proved Chancellery moved from Nidaros to . that vowel harmony did dominate in OWN Thus the standard became a compromise be- letters from the inner dialects of southwestern tween the dialect of Trøndelag and the dialect Norway by studying all charters containing of . This claim was presented the svarabhakti vowel u or o, as these charters in 1902 in his thesis Maalet i dei gamle norske can only be from this area. Hægstad classified kongebrev. Hægstad's opinion totally prevail- them as being from the northwest — even ed up to 1986, when Jan Ragnar Hagland in though they were issued in and in Har- his thesis rejected this view of a common na- danger. It has also been proved that even in tional standard. letters from , i. e. outer dialects from southwest Norway, there was vowel harmony. The present view is that there seems to have 1.4. Language shift been no dialectal difference in this respect in After Munch's time there was an increasing classical OWN. interest in studying the period following the The principles for vowel harmony seem to High Middle Ages, i. e. the period of union be complicated: Middle-high root trig- with Denmark. In the latter half of the 19th ger e and o, high vowels trigger i and u. The century it became more essential to book for theoretical problems are, however, caused by continuous development than to restore the the low vowels, as æ triggers i and o/u, whereas unity of the past and the present (cf. the con- a and Q trigger e and u. Jan Ragnar Hagland temporary philosophical ideas on evolution). (1978) has presented the most precise descrip- Many scholars have been preoccupied with tion so far in an analysis of documents from what caused the Norwegian written language Trøndelag before 1350 where he found that to become obsolete by the end of the Middle connecting harmony to vowel weakening and Ages. Aasen's opinion (1885) was that the describing the vowel variation in unstressed Danish public servants in Norway were re- positions using four different phonological sponsible, and that the Norwegian leaders rules is most adequate. He, too, demonstrated wanted "to be in favour with the rulers and that vowel weakening prevails in the final to demonstrate a certain superiority towards years of that period. common people". Seip (1931) maintained that Vowel harmony disappeared from Norwe- the Norwegian literary language did not have gian before the end of the Middle Ages. the strength to survive under this foreign Hægstad (1908), however, demonstrated that pressure because the Norwegian scribes' the principle of harmony continued to exist centres were too dispersed. In his extensive in the modem dialect of Stod in Trøndelag, language history (1951), Indrebø stressed the and he considered the suffixes in some modern effect of the Black Death and the fact that East Norwegian dialects (e. g. biti— viku— hoso foreig,ners married into the Norwegian nobil- 'bitten-week-trousers') as vestiges of vowel ity. In a way, he moralized about this issue harmony. and accused the medieval Council of the Realm of not having cared about the national language. 1.3. A written standard? It has been argued that the language itself For a long time historians often idealized the was disposed to this disintegration because OWN language situation by projecting mod- people in the late Middle Ages felt it to be em conceptions of standardized national lan- archaic. Indrebø refuted this by referring to guages on to medieval times. The historian Norwegian charters from about 1500 in which (1835-1917) assumed that the aris- tendencies of language "modernization" can tocracy spoke a and that be witnessed, i. e. the fact that scribes used new the written language was a homogeneous forms from the spoken language. standard; he believed both these factors re- There has been no fundamental discussion strained language changes. Seip (1934/1938) about bow many of these problems concem- maintained that there was a standard for read- ing the disintegration of the written language 10. Research in Norwegian language history 1850-1950. An overview 89 are anachronistic — whether, for instance, lan- (båt> baot), lowering of vowels (vit> [vit]), guage users in medieval times and in the 16th segmentation Wall> fjadl) and differentiation century had a different conception of the no- (karl> kadl). Some scholars have doubted tion of "language" under which the "Norwe- that the intercommunication between the gian language" was not a relevant category countries could have been sufficiently intense (Sandøy 2000). to cause linguistic features to spread from one The language situation in the 16th century language to another. Therefore, e. g. Indrebø has been studied in depth. Indrebø, for in- (1951, 267) claimed that similar changes may stance, exa mined how long Norwegian names anse because the phonological starting point were kept on land registers (1927) and con- was the same for all these . Haugen cluced that they dominated up to approxi- (1970, 54) argued the same point more preci- mately 1530. He also documented (1951) the sely by saying that there were "predispositions fact that Norwegian was used in charters towards the innovations in the form of an issued by peasants until 1584, and this tradi- allophonic split in Old Norse". This has been tion remained for the longest time in inner supported by other researchers committed to Østfold, and Vest-. the structuralist approach to language change. Trygve Knudsen (1962) demonstrated that This discussion (cf. art. 209) has focussed on Norwegian civil servants in the 16th century a challenging in the context of a more translated OWN legal texts into Danish mixed theoretical cliscussion on possible internal and with features from Norwegian in order to extemal factors in language change. make the texts comprehensible. In the latter half of the 16th century, the Humanists trans- 2. Explaining Modem Norwegian lated the kings' into Danish with the same purpose in mind. After 1905 there was no further need for using historical and cultural uniqueness as argu- ments for political independence. After Nor- 1.5. The languages of the western islands way's independence the cultural conftict was There have been tendencies to include the old to a greater extent a question about what was languages of the colonized western islands un- "genuine Norwegian". The linguistic aspect of der Old Norwegian. The dream of Norway as this conflict became apparent in the struggle a great power in the past may have stimulated between the language varieties Bokmål and research interest in these languages. Hægstad . For the purpose of this struggle it included Faroese and Icelandic in his work on was relevant to prove which forms existed in Old West Norwegian dialects, and he pub- OWN, and as a result quite a few theses on lished Hildinakvadet from and an language history in the 20th century have tried analysis of the linguistic features of the OWN to legitimate modem language elements as dialect Norn. coming from OWN. Moreover, the interest in these emigrant languages may be founded on the ambition of throwing light on the Norwegian language 2.1. The OWN heritage situation; these island languages might have Linguistic features from Southeast Norway, retained archaic features from OWN since which often correspond with the Danish ones, emigration to place during the 9th and the were especially in need of legitimization. 10th centuries, a period for which we have al- A central concem of Didrik Arup Seip most no written sources. Methodologically, (1884-1963) in his most important work, using these sources is a very complex task, as Norsk språkhistorie til omkring 1370 (1931), the new language communities were made up was to demonstrate that such dialect features of people with different dialects, which could had their origin in the OWN period — and that certainly have resulted in a kind of language they were not a result of Danish influence du- mixture with levelling tendencies. Phonologi- ring the Union period. This concems, e. g., the cally this is illustrated by the fact that Nor- changes kn > gn (reikna > reignæ) and tn > nn wegian had several archaic features which Ice- (vatn> vann) along the coast of the . landic had lost, cf. section 1.2. on e and q. He also found evidence dating from the time A puzzle that has preoccupied some scho- before 1300 for monophthongization and for fars is the fact that many innovations are slike the present form of irregular without or very similar in two or more of the West i-umlaut (komr for kømrlkemr). As Hægstad's Nordic languages, e. g. diphthongization work on OWN did not include eastem Nor- 90 II. Perspectives in research history I: From the beginnings to the middle of the 20th century way, Seip's language history of 1931 com- 2.2. Early linguistic changes pleted the description of OWN dialects. Nordic linguists joined the circle of neogram- Among Seip's most controversial assertions marians at an early date. The Norwegian scho- was his 1947 claim that the else-suffix was lars Sophus Bugge (1833-1907), Alf Torp mainly of Norwegian origin because many (1853-1916) and Hjalmar Falk (1859-1928) words could be traced to corresponding OWN involved themselves in these new ideas. The words with the suffix -sl, and these words latter two studied in Leipzig for a while, the might have undergone metathesis. He sup- neogrammarian "headquarters". Even before ported this with instances from as far back as the Neogrammarians themselves, Bugge start- the 12th century. ed using their approach when he published a A part of the process of national restoration thesis on consonant changes in Norwegian in was to give place-names a Norwegian form. 1852. This task led to both conflicts and research From the 1860s Bugge was mainly involved conceming which forms were correct from a in runic studies; he reinterpreted several historical viewpoint. This applies, e. g., to the inscriptions and improved linguistic insights name of the country, Noreg or Norge, a topic into Ancient Nordic. Munch considered the on which Seip published a thesis in 1923 in runic language to be Gothic with a centre in order to support the claim that Norge was a southem . His opinion was in full form developed in Norwegian, i. e. as a con- accordance with the prevailing view that the tracted form in the dative (and the genitive) North Germanic tribes had migrated into of Noregi(s). Indrebø (1925) tried to reveal Norway from the north. This view was not weaknesses in Seip's linguistic arguments, and refuted until 1867 when Bugge and the Danish he stressed the probability of Danish influen- runologist Ludvig Wimmer proved that the ce. Naadland (1954) supported the same view runic language was an earlier stage of OWN. by a thorough study of medieval charters. In 1891 Bugge started publishing Norges The strongest opponent of Seip was Gustav Indskrifter med de ældre Runer, which made Indrebø (1889-1942), who presumably was runic data easily available for researchers. motivated to publish a Norwegian language (1878-1963) was a leading ru- history in order to counterbalance Seip's nologist, and he demonstrated in his studies works. A short version was published as early of the Eggja-stone in that the period of as 1926, but his great Norsk Målsoga was pub- syncope must have ended at about 700. This lished after his death in 1951. Indrebø char- insight has made several historians of the lan- acterized Norwegian language history as be- guage, e. g. Indrebø (1951), move the OWN ing "strongest at both ends", i.e. in the period back one century. study of OWN and of Modem Norwegian. Onomastics has often represented a chal- He himself improved this situation by present- lenge to historical linguistics. ing studies from the intervening periods. In (1833-99) started publishing Norske Gaard- his language history he provided data from navne in 1897 and established through this an the stage, and in articles academic discipline which has supplied the na- published in 1954 and 1956 he described the tional revision of place-names with essential situation in the dialects in the early 16th cen- knowledge. Rygh also elaborated a chrono- tury (at the time of the Norwegian Reforma- logical typology of such names. After Rygh's tion). It is generally accepted that the Bugge, among others, helped complete at that time had reached the New Norwegian Norske Gaardnavne. stage; however, Indrebø demonstrated that The Middle Norwegian period is essential there still are many widespread archaic fea- for understanding the linguistic innovations tures in the dialects, in both morphological leading from classical OWN to the modem and lexical forms. He found that several dia- dialects. The publication of Diplomatarium lect areas were different from today's, e. g. the Norvegicum (1847—), a collection of medieval areas with the in -a, and with eg and charters and letters, has provided favourable me as personal (1. pers. sg. and pl.). conditions for the study of written sources Unfortunately, his analysis is characterized by from this period. Per Nyquist Grøtvedt, as one mechanical listing, a rather uncritical use of of many, has recorded a large number of vary- sources and a lack of perspective on language ing written forms and discussed how they may as a system, which may have resulted in an reflect dialect innovations in Southeast Nor- exaggeration of what had been living forms way in the period 1350-1450 (1969-74). He in the speech of that time. 10. Research in Norwegian language history 1850-1950. An overview 91 concluded, for instance, that in the 15th cen- Ragnvald Iversen (1882-1960) studied the tury assimilations (r1, rn, rs > 11, nn, ) were Danish used by after the Refor- rather consistently used in the charters, and mation and concluded that the Norwegians that vowel harmony disappeared in this area. during this period did not follow the norms Vowel lowering appears in tids area after 1420: for the written language in Denmark. The fyrst, fylgja, triclja, mik > først, følgja, trædia, Norwegians stuck to the Danish models from mek. the Pre- period, and dialectal elements appeared more often in their texts than in the texts written by Danes (Iversen 2.3. Influence from abroad 1921-23). Gradually research interests have been ex- tended to extemal conditions of language change. Seip, among others, published two 3. Innovations in the dialects special studies on , and he included this topic in his 1931 language history, where Dialects have played an important cultural he demonstrated the infiuence from Middle role in political life in Norway, and this has on Norwegian in the High and stimulated the production of extensive re- Late Middle Ages. He concluded that words search on dialects. A bibliography of dialec- are often borrowed directly into Norwegian tology (Nes 1986) comprising approximately and not via Danish. 3000 printed publications displays a solid geo- In their dialect monograph Larsen/Stoltz graphic correspondence between the number (1912) discussed the heavy infiuence from of dialect descriptions and the support of English and especiafiy Low German on the Nynorsk. The great interest in dialects seems Bergen dialect, and they include a long list of likewise to have been an incentive for trying loanwords which are the result of language to understand the innovations leading to contact. Of special interest is the impact of dialectal characteristics. In the dialect studies the Hanseatic merchants in Bergen on both there are, therefore, many attempts at histor- grammar and vocabulary. As for the vocabu- ical reconstruction. Phonology has been the lary, there is a pattem that words accepted in area for the most intensive scrutiny in histor- Bergen spread into the western and northem ical linguistics. There are fewer studies of mor- dialects. The same pattem of diffusjon is ob- phology, and syntactic changes have received served for a syntactic structure, i. e. the geni- the least attention. tive expressed by the sin. A central topic in historical phonology has Characteristic phonological and morpholo- been the changes in the vowel system. In 1843 gical features of the Bergen dialect are discuss- C. R. Unger revealed the quantity system of ed both in Larsen/Stoltz (1912) and &die OWN, which consisted of 8 short and 8 long (1969), who preferred to interpret them as the monophthongs. In most dialects today the result either of infiuence from other Norwe- quantity distinctions have changed into qual- gian dialects or of intemal changes. As far as ity distinction. Aasen, in his earliest publica- these grammatical features are concemd, there tions of Landsmål, used a speiling system with has been little interest in discussing the effect accents that enabled him to differentiate be- of a language melting pot. tween vowels that reflected quantity distinc- tions in OWN (cf. — vik). In this respect he had the advantage of speaking a dialect that 2.4. Written language retained 15 of the 16 old vowel distinctions — An important change in perspective was in- the maximum set of distinctions in Modem troduced by Torp/Falk in Dansk-norskens Norwegian as q and o merged in all dialects lydhistorie med scerligt hensyn paa orddannelse during the Middle Ages. In other dialects the og hoi/ting (1898) and Falk/Torp, Dansk-nors- vowel system has undergone more radical kens syntax i historisk fremstilling (1900) in changes because of mergers. which they focussed on the language of the In both Swedish and Norwegian a shift in Union period. The latter work in particular vowel quality has taken place; it is most char- has been frequently referred to in historical acteristic for å and å, which have been displa- linguistics. The beginning point for the dis- ced one step upwards in o > [IA and one step cussion is OWN, and the book goes on to to the front in û> [1:1]. Amund B. Larsen document the historical lines of Danish liter- (1885) was the first to propose an explanation ary language used by Norwegians. for this change; he described the innovation 92 II. Perspectives in research history I: From the beginnings to the middle of the 20th century as a push-chain movement that began with å This feature does not characterize the writ- changing into a rounded back vowel, which ten language of Norwegian authors in the is near å in quality and thus exerted pressure Danish period. Especially in the last decades on 6, causing language users to raise the latter before 1814, Norwegian authors had a good vowel in order to ensure an articulatory dis- command of the Danish standard norm. How- tance. This movement triggered a further ever, the author started us- change where å was fronted, and Larsen as- ing the double definite, and so did the collector sumed that this movement had exerted press- and publisher of folk-tales, P. Chr. Asbjørn- ure on so that it was delabialized to i in some sen, in the 1840s in order to mark an informal dialects (Larsen 1885). Larsen's method of style. Lundeby demonstrated how this usage reasoning was structural — before structural- has increased in Bokmål. In Nynorsk it has ism had been introduced as a linguistic theory become almost "mechanical", as in the dia- — as it implied that constitute a sys- lects. tem of distinctive members. This theory has been the prevailing one in 4. Metho Norwegian language history, though it has some weaknesses: As the rounding of å led to Structuralism was accepted late into Norwe- its merger with Q, there was no new gian linguistics, though some rudiments of this to create a stronger push than be- method of reasoning appear early on (cf. fore. Moreover, it is dubious that y> i should sect. 3.). Hallfrid Christiansen (1886-1964) be involved in this chain of changes as it used the structuralist approach in her Norske represents a derounding and does not relate dialekter (1946-48), e. g. in her theory that pa- to place of articulation. The alternative theory latalization and segmentation of alveolars is that the innovations form a drag-chain (kalla> [kalfe],kadla) are a result of the great movement, as Arne Torp (1977, 25) proposed, quantity shift, in which old long and short where of å was the first change, and consonants were kept apart by this change and this created space for the raising of 6 and å. thus made the quantity feature redundant. The neogrammarian tradition was strong in The most consistent analysis using a struc- Norway, and most scholars in historical lin- turalist approach is Trygve Skomedal's work guistics have worked within this framework. on the dialect (1972); he argued for The dialectologist Olai Skulerud (1881-1963) a relative chronology of 5 stages for the in his early publications was a loyal neogram- changes in the vowel system from classical marian who tested "sound laws" systematical- OWN to the modem dialect. Several conso- ly against dialectal evidence. In 1934, for ex- nant changes can be related to this scheme by ample, he published a study on diphthongiza- structural logic, and as they are easier to give tion in the Sunnmøre dialect in which he in- an absolute dating from the evidence of the vestigated regular vowel changes caused or old charters, the whole chronology of phono- modified by the surrounding consonants. On logical changes can be tested. the other hand, he did not discuss whether the Hagland (1978), cf. above, provides one of structure of the vowel system had any impact, several examples of the framework of Gener- a factor which at that time had become known ative Phonology being used in Norwegian his- in general linguistics. torical linguistics. Recently, there has been an One of the few syntactic features that scho- increasing interest in studying historical lars have taken an interest in is the double de- changes within the perspective of modem syn- finite, a feature which arose in Central Scan- tactic theory. Jan Terje Faarlund (1990) dis- dinavian after the Ancient Nordic period. cussed the theoretical aspects of some changes Einar Lundeby (1965) studied this, and he by comparing classical OWN and Modem concluded that the construction appeared as Norwegian, primarily the case system, passive early as about 1200, and before 1400 the usage voice and impersonal sentences. He under- in speech must have been like that of modem lined the fact that "modem Norwegian is con- Norwegian dialects, i. e. that the definite form figurational", which for the case system means of the is obligatory after the definite that "there is always total correspondence be- (den mannen). Lundeby interpreted the tween structural position and morphological innovation as both a syntactic and stylistic case: nominative for the subject and accusa- change, where "stylistic" refers to a popular tive in all other positions, regardless of seman- tendency of enhancing the demonstrative tic role". As with other modem historical stu- content. dies, this is a of two language 10. Research in Norwegian language history 1850-1950. An overview 93 stages with an interval of seven centuries. pendent on the cultural elite promoting Na- There is no attempt to trace and analyse data tional Romanticism. from the periods in between, whereas, for As in other European countries, the study instance, Falk/Torp (1900) provided an ample of has been central during the last database but displayed only modest ambition two decades, and the ideological establish- with regard to a theoretical approach. ment of a cultural and political entity during Lexical studies have not played the same the 19th century has been a central concem. central role in Norwegian historical linguistics as in the neighbouring countries. The German research programme Wårter und Sachen was 6. Literature (a selection) well-known, but it has resulted in few publi- cations. The most extensive lexical study tak- Aasen, Ivar (1854), En liden Lcesebog i Gammel ing a historical approach has been carried out Norsk. Kristiania. by the Swiss scholar Oskar Bandle (cf. art. 14). Aasen (1885/1953), Bidrag til vort Folkesprogs Historie. In: Norsk folkemål. Festskrift til på åttiårsdagen 7.juli 1953 (eds. Bjarte Birke- land/). Oslo, 17-50. 5. Society and language Berntsen, M./Larsen, Amund B. (1925), Stavanger Sociolinguistics in Norway, as elsewhere, has Bymål. Oslo. primarily been a synchronic discipline. How- Bugge, Sophus (1852), Om Consonant-Overgange ever, several studies on language change have i det norske Folkesprog. In: Norsk Tidsskrift for used a diachronic approach in their discussion Videnskab og Litteratur 5, 201-216. of how society infiuences language change. Christiansen, Hallfrid (1946-48), Norske dialekter. There has been major interest in the linguistic (Hft. 1-3) Oslo. consequences of industrialization and urbani- Faarlund, Jan Terje (1990), Syntactic change. To- zation. Steinsholt (1964 and 1972) has carried ward a theory of historical syntax. Berlin/New out two studies using this approach, and his York. work is unique in having investigated the same Falk, Hjalmar/Torp Alf (1900), Dansk-norskens syn- area using the same method after an interval tax i historisk fremstilling. Kristiania. of about 30 years. Grøtvedt, Per Nyquist (1969-74), Skrift og tale i Historical sociolinguistics has a special mellomnorske diplomer fra Folden-området problem in obtaining relevant evidence. How- 1350 — 1450, 1-11I. Oslo. ever, many historical interpretations have ap- Hægstad, Marius (1899), Gamalt trøndermaal. Upp- plied a sociolinguistic perspective, as in the lysningar um maalet i Trøndelag fyre 1350 og ei ut- case of the shift in written language, cf. greiding um vokalverket. Kristiania. sect. 1.4., and not least in A. B. Larsen's Hægstad, Marius (1900), Hildinakvadet (Viden- accounts of urban dialects; i. e. the dialects of skabsselskabets Skrifter. II. Historisk-filosofisk Oslo (Larsen 1907), Bergen (Larsen/Stoltz Klasse. No. 2). Kristiania. 1912) and Stavanger (Berntsen/Larsen 1925). Hægstad, Marius (1902), Maalet i dei norske kon- Here the discussion of both social stratificat- gebrev 1200-1520. Kristiania. ion and "neighbour opposition" has been of Hægstad, Marius (1907-1942), Vestnorske maalføre great importance. fyre 1350 (1907: I. Nordvestlandsk. 1915:11. Sudvest- The language struggle in Norway has been landsk. I. Rygjamaal. 1916: 2. Indre sudvestlandsk. a subject of many theses, and monographs Færøymaal, Islandsk. Fyrste bolken. 1917: 2. Indre have presented analyses of political strategy, sudvestlandsk. Færøymaal, Islandsk. Andre bolken. organizations and ideology. No less than five 1942: 2. Indre sudvestlandsk. Færøymaal, Islandsk. extensive biographies have been published on Tridje bolken. Kristiania/Oslo. Ivar Aasen, three of them appearing in 1996, Hægstad, Marius (1908), Vokalharmoni i Stod- a century after his death. The most thorough maalet. In: Norvegia II, 132-141. documentation is in Venås' biography Hagland, Jan Ragnar (1978), A note on Old Nor- (1996), whereas Walton's (1996) is, wegian vowel harmony. In: NJL 1, 141-147. with respect to genre, more creative in stress- Hagland, Jan Ragnar (1986), Riksstyring og språk- ing more that a description is an interpreta- norm. Spørsmålet om kongskanselliets rolle i norsk tion. Walton emphasizes a social and psycho- språkhistorie på 1200- og første halvdel av 1300-talet. logical understanding of Aasen as a person Oslo. who grew up in the local tradition of the En- Haugen, Einar (1970), The language history of lightenment and Rationalism and became de- Scandinavia: A profile of problems. In: The Nordic 94 II. Perspectives in research history I: From the beginnings to the middle of the 20th century

Languages and modern linguistics (ed. Hreinn Bene- Sandøy, Helge (2000), Nation und Sprache: das Nor- diktsson). Reykjavik, 41-86. wegische. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Indrebø, Gustav (1923), Didrik Arup Seip: Norge. Sprache. Berlin, 865-905. In: Heimen 1, 172-175. Seip, Didrik Arup (1923), Norge. Om navnet på vårt Indrebø, Gustav (1927), Norsk namneverk. Oslo. land fra de eldste tider av. Kristiania. Indrebø, Gustav (1951), Norsk målsoga. Bergen. Seip, Didrik Arup (1931), Norsk språkhistorie til Indrebø, Gustav (1954), Ymist kring jamvektlovi. omkring 1370. Oslo. (Per Hovda ed.). In: MM, 109-114. Seip, Didrik Arup (1934), Et høiere talemål i mid- Indrebø, Gustav (1956), Nokre målbridge i nynorsk delalderen. In: NTS, 211-242. tid (1525-ikr. 1800). (Per Hovda ed.). In: MM, 45- Seip, Didrik Arup (1938), Skriftnorm og talemål i 74. Norge i det 13. hundreår. In: NTS, 409-420. Iversen, Ragnvald (1921-23), Bokmål og talemål i Seip, Didrik Arup (1947), Om suffikset -else i nor- Norge 1560-1630. Kristiania. disk. In: Festskrift til Olaf Broch (eds. Chr. S. Stang Knudsen, Trygve (1962), Kapitler av norsk sproghis- et al.). Oslo, 209-242. torie. Oslo. Skomedal, Trygve (1972), Vokalsystemet i Sætes- Larsen, Amund B. (1885), Oversigt over de trond- dalsmålet. In: Mål og namn (eds. Hallvard Magerøy/ hjemske dialekters slægtskabsforhold. In: Det Kon- Kjell Venås). Oslo, 291-306. gelige Videnskabers Selskabs Skrifter 1885, 37-117. Skulerud, Olai (1934), Um tviljoding av vokalar i Larsen, Amund B. (1907), Kristiania bymål. bygdemåli på Såre Sunm6re. In: Studia Germanica. Vulgærsproget med henblik på den utvungne daglig- Tilliignade Ernst Albin Kock den 6 december 1934. tale. Kristiania. Lund, 328-348. Larsen, Amund B./Stoltz, Gerhard (1912), Bergens Sørlie, Mikjel (1969), Bergens eldste bymål og andre bymål. Kristiania. studier. Oslo-Bergen-Tromsø. Lundeby, Einar (1965), Overbestemt substantiv i Steinsholt, Anders (1964), Målbryting i Hedrum. norsk og de andre nordiske språk. Oslo/Bergen/ Oslo. Tromsø. Steinsholt, Anders (1972), Målbryting i Hedrum 30 Munch, Peter Andreas (1846), Sproghistoriske år etter. Oslo. Undersøgelser om det ældste fællesnordiske Sprogs Torp, Alf/Falk, Hjalmar (1898), Dansk-norskens Udseende. In: Annaler 1846, I. lydhistorie med særligt hensyn paa orddannelse og Naadland, Jakob (1954), Noreg er namnet. Oslo. boining. Kristiania. Nes, Oddvar (1986), Norsk dialektbibliografi. Oslo. Torp, Arne (1977), Norsk og nordisk før og nå. Oslo. Nygaard, Marius (1906), Norrøn syntax. Kristiana. Unger, C. R. (1843), Beviser for at Adskillelsen af Pettersen, Egil (1989), Vokalharmoni i gammelt de lange og korte Vokaler har fundet Sted i det gamle indre sørvestlandsk? In: Festskrift til Finn Hødnebø Norske. In: Norsk Tidsskrift for Videnskab og Li- 29. desember 1989 (eds. Bjørn Eithun et al.). Oslo. teratur 2, 533-569. 250-260. Venås, Kjell (1996), Då tida var fullkomen. Ivar Pettersen, Egil (1991), Språkbrytning i Vest-Norge Aasen. Oslo. 1450-1550. Bind IL Morfologi. Bergen. Walton, Stephen . (1996), Ivar Aasens kropp. Oslo. Rindal, Magnus (1984), Marius Hægstads arbeid med gammalnorske dialektar. In: MM, 167-181. Helge Sandøy, Bergen (Norway) The Nordic Languages An International Handbook of the History of the North

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

Volume 1

Offprint

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 2002