DOCSLIB.ORG

10. Research in Norwegian Language History 1850-1950. an Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
10. Research in Norwegian Language History 1850-1950. an Overview 86 II. Perspectives in research history I: From the beginnings to the middle of the 20th century 10. Research in Norwegian language history 1850-1950. An overview 1. The dream of a Golden Age essential to prove that the Old Nordic lan­ 2. Explaining Modern Norwegian 3. Innovations in the dialects guage was divided into two branches: East 4. Methods Nordic and West Nordic. The West Nordic 5. Society and language branch he called Old Norwegian or Old Norse 6. Literature (a selection) ("norrønt"), and he emphasized the impor­ tance of respecting each nation's 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 Denmark, 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 Swedes are few. in producing medieval literature. The great interest in language history de­ In 1845 OWN became an optional subject 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 Norwegian language 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 C.R. 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 grammar, of which Norway was laid by Peter Andreas 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 orthography 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 M. B. 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 Norwegian dialects 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 vowel weakening Ordbog over Det gamle norske Sprog. Marius (a > e) 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 World War 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 dialect 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.g. 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. Ivar Aasen tried to book for OWN dia- Trøndelag dialect had the privative prefix ø-, lect variation, but concluded (1885/1953) that not å-, and still kept the a-suffix 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-umlaut (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, y, 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 o, gian long before the oldest written sources and not as ø like in Modern Icelandic. This came into being. refers to the sound that is transcribed Q 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 suffixes 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 occupied 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Anason Family in Rogaland County, Norway and Juneau County, Wisconsin Lawrence W
    Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Faculty Publications Library Faculty January 2013 The Anason Family in Rogaland County, Norway and Juneau County, Wisconsin Lawrence W. Onsager Andrews University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/library-pubs Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Onsager, Lawrence W., "The Anason Family in Rogaland County, Norway and Juneau County, Wisconsin" (2013). Faculty Publications. Paper 25. http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/library-pubs/25 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Library Faculty at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ANASON FAMILY IN ROGALAND COUNTY, NORWAY AND JUNEAU COUNTY, WISCONSIN BY LAWRENCE W. ONSAGER THE LEMONWEIR VALLEY PRESS Berrien Springs, Michigan and Mauston, Wisconsin 2013 ANASON FAMILY INTRODUCTION The Anason family has its roots in Rogaland County, in western Norway. Western Norway is the area which had the greatest emigration to the United States. The County of Rogaland, formerly named Stavanger, lies at Norway’s southwestern tip, with the North Sea washing its fjords, beaches and islands. The name Rogaland means “the land of the Ryger,” an old Germanic tribe. The Ryger tribe is believed to have settled there 2,000 years ago. The meaning of the tribal name is uncertain. Rogaland was called Rygiafylke in the Viking age. The earliest known members of the Anason family came from a region of Rogaland that has since become part of Vest-Agder County.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching Immigrants Norwegian Culture to Support Their Language Learning
    International Education Studies; Vol. 6, No. 3; 2013 ISSN 1913-9020 E-ISSN 1913-9039 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Teaching Immigrants Norwegian Culture to Support Their Language Learning Awal Mohammed Alhassan1 & Ahmed Bawa Kuyini2 1 Adult Education Unit, Pb 1306, 1401 Ski, Norway 2 School of Education, University of New England, Australia Correspondence: Kuyini Ahmed Bawa, School of Education, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia. Tel: 61-267-733-676. E-mail: [email protected] Received: December 17, 2012 Accepted: December 25, 2012 Online Published: January 15, 2013 doi:10.5539/ies.v6n3p15 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n3p15 Abstract This study was conducted with 48 adult immigrant students studying Norwegian under basic education program of the Ski Municipality Adult Education Unit between 2009-2011. Using the framework of Genc and Bada (2005), we tried to replicate their study in new setting –Norway. The study investigated migrant students’ perceptions learning Norwegian culture and its effects on their learning of the Norwegian language. The participants responded to a set of questionnaire and one open-ended question adapted from Bada (2000) and Genc and Bada (2005). Descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis procedures were used to analyse the data. The results showed that teaching culture to immigrant students raised their cultural awareness of their own and the Norwegian society. It also improved both their language skills and attitudes to the Norwegian culture. The study revealed some similarity between the students’ views and the theoretical benefits of a culture class as argued by some experts in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Språknytt 4/2017
    TEMA: 1917-rettskrivingen 100 år 45. ÅRGANG 4 I 2017 18 Språknytt Kari bisp side 6 Leder Innhold 4 I 2017 3 Nye navn i nye kommuner Språkprosjektet 5 Språkbrukeren som sette spor 6 Intervjuet I år er det 100 år sidan tilnærminga mellom dei to nor­ ske målformene for alvor starta, med rettskrivings­ reforma av 1917. I den nasjonale bølgja som prega landet den gongen, låg mykje til rette for at Noreg skulle få eit fellesnorsk skriftspråk. Både i riksmålsrørsla og blant målfolk var det mange som var positivt innstilte til å møtast «på midten». Men slik kom det ikkje til å gå. 10 Ord i grenseland 1917­reforma la opp til ei forsiktig og gradvis til­ nærming mellom målformene. Som de kan lesa om i 12 Ordbøkene rett i lomma dette bladet, står ho i ettertida fram som ei på mange 13 Revisjon av ordbøkene måtar svært vellukka reform. Folket tok imot mange av 14 En verden av klarspråk til Norge dei lite radikale endringane med opne armar. Når det 15 Djuptloddande prisvinnar gjeld dei meir radikale forandringane, var saka ei anna. 16 Løype! Då desse vart obligatoriske med 1938­reforma, vart 17 Med andre ord motstanden større enn ein trudde. Det er fleire grunnar til at samnorskprosjektet kol­ 18 Reformen som satte spor lapsa enn 1938­reforma i seg sjølv. Likevel kan me læra 22 Intervjuer med Torp, for ettertida at grunnleggande og småe rettskrivings­ Guttu, Hoel og Munkvold endringar blir tekne betre imot enn store og radikale. I så måte er 1917­reforma eit godt føredøme.
    [Show full text]
  • The Norse Element in the Orkney Dialect Donna Heddle
    The Norse element in the Orkney dialect Donna Heddle 1. Introduction The Orkney and Shetland Islands, along with Caithness on the Scottish mainland, are identified primarily in terms of their Norse cultural heritage. Linguistically, in particular, such a focus is an imperative for maintaining cultural identity in the Northern Isles. This paper will focus on placing the rise and fall of Orkney Norn in its geographical, social, and historical context and will attempt to examine the remnants of the Norn substrate in the modern dialect. Cultural affiliation and conflict is what ultimately drives most issues of identity politics in the modern world. Nowhere are these issues more overtly stated than in language politics. We cannot study language in isolation; we must look at context and acculturation. An interdisciplinary study of language in context is fundamental to the understanding of cultural identity. This politicising of language involves issues of cultural inheritance: acculturation is therefore central to our understanding of identity, its internal diversity, and the porousness or otherwise of a language or language variant‘s cultural borders with its linguistic neighbours. Although elements within Lowland Scotland postulated a Germanic origin myth for itself in the nineteenth century, Highlands and Islands Scottish cultural identity has traditionally allied itself to the Celtic origin myth. This is diametrically opposed to the cultural heritage of Scotland‘s most northerly island communities. 2. History For almost a thousand years the language of the Orkney Islands was a variant of Norse known as Norroena or Norn. The distinctive and culturally unique qualities of the Orkney dialect spoken in the islands today derive from this West Norse based sister language of Faroese, which Hansen, Jacobsen and Weyhe note also developed from Norse brought in by settlers in the ninth century and from early Icelandic (2003: 157).
    [Show full text]
  • How Uniform Was the Old Norse Religion?
    II. Old Norse Myth and Society HOW UNIFORM WAS THE OLD NORSE RELIGION? Stefan Brink ne often gets the impression from handbooks on Old Norse culture and religion that the pagan religion that was supposed to have been in Oexistence all over pre-Christian Scandinavia and Iceland was rather homogeneous. Due to the lack of written sources, it becomes difficult to say whether the ‘religion’ — or rather mythology, eschatology, and cult practice, which medieval sources refer to as forn siðr (‘ancient custom’) — changed over time. For obvious reasons, it is very difficult to identify a ‘pure’ Old Norse religion, uncorroded by Christianity since Scandinavia did not exist in a cultural vacuum.1 What we read in the handbooks is based almost entirely on Snorri Sturluson’s representation and interpretation in his Edda of the pre-Christian religion of Iceland, together with the ambiguous mythical and eschatological world we find represented in the Poetic Edda and in the filtered form Saxo Grammaticus presents in his Gesta Danorum. This stance is more or less presented without reflection in early scholarship, but the bias of the foundation is more readily acknowledged in more recent works.2 In the textual sources we find a considerable pantheon of gods and goddesses — Þórr, Óðinn, Freyr, Baldr, Loki, Njo3rðr, Týr, Heimdallr, Ullr, Bragi, Freyja, Frigg, Gefjon, Iðunn, et cetera — and euhemerized stories of how the gods acted and were characterized as individuals and as a collective. Since the sources are Old Icelandic (Saxo’s work appears to have been built on the same sources) one might assume that this religious world was purely Old 1 See the discussion in Gro Steinsland, Norrøn religion: Myter, riter, samfunn (Oslo: Pax, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present (Impact: Studies in Language and Society)
    <DOCINFO AUTHOR ""TITLE "Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present"SUBJECT "Impact 18"KEYWORDS ""SIZE HEIGHT "220"WIDTH "150"VOFFSET "4"> Germanic Standardizations Impact: Studies in language and society impact publishes monographs, collective volumes, and text books on topics in sociolinguistics. The scope of the series is broad, with special emphasis on areas such as language planning and language policies; language conflict and language death; language standards and language change; dialectology; diglossia; discourse studies; language and social identity (gender, ethnicity, class, ideology); and history and methods of sociolinguistics. General Editor Associate Editor Annick De Houwer Elizabeth Lanza University of Antwerp University of Oslo Advisory Board Ulrich Ammon William Labov Gerhard Mercator University University of Pennsylvania Jan Blommaert Joseph Lo Bianco Ghent University The Australian National University Paul Drew Peter Nelde University of York Catholic University Brussels Anna Escobar Dennis Preston University of Illinois at Urbana Michigan State University Guus Extra Jeanine Treffers-Daller Tilburg University University of the West of England Margarita Hidalgo Vic Webb San Diego State University University of Pretoria Richard A. Hudson University College London Volume 18 Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present Edited by Ana Deumert and Wim Vandenbussche Germanic Standardizations Past to Present Edited by Ana Deumert Monash University Wim Vandenbussche Vrije Universiteit Brussel/FWO-Vlaanderen John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements 8 of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Germanic standardizations : past to present / edited by Ana Deumert, Wim Vandenbussche.
    [Show full text]
  • Sprog I Norden
    Sprog i Norden Titel: Knud Knudsen (1812–1895): norsk skole- og språkreformator og skandinavist Forfatter: Arne Torp Kilde: Sprog i Norden, 2012, s. 1-19 [i hæftet: s. 119-138] URL: http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/sin/issue/archive © Dansk Sprognævn Betingelser for brug af denne artikel Denne artikel er omfattet af ophavsretsloven, og der må citeres fra den. Følgende betingelser skal dog være opfyldt: • Citatet skal være i overensstemmelse med „god skik“ • Der må kun citeres „i det omfang, som betinges af formålet“ • Ophavsmanden til teksten skal krediteres, og kilden skal angives, jf. ovenstående bibliografiske oplysninger. Søgbarhed Artiklerne i de ældre numre af Sprog i Norden (1970-2004) er skannet og OCR-behandlet. OCR står for ’optical character recognition’ og kan ved tegngenkendelse konvertere et billede til tekst. Dermed kan man søge i teksten. Imidlertid kan der opstå fejl i tegngenkendelsen, og når man søger på fx navne, skal man være forberedt på at søgningen ikke er 100 % pålidelig. Knud Knudsen (1812–1895): norsk skole- og språkreformator og skandinavist Arne Torp Ivar Aasen (1813–1896) og Knud Knudsen (1813–1896) er de to store navna i norsk språkhistorie på 1800-tallet, men Aasen er nok vesentlig bedre kjent både i Norge og ellers i verden enn Knudsen. Dette er heller ikke så merkelig: Aasen grunnla nemlig den ene av de to offisielle norske målformene, lands- målet eller nynorsken, men Knudsens andel i bokmålet eller riksmålet består i at han var den ivrigste pådriveren for å fornorske dansken, som det ble kalt. Utgangspunktet hans var da den uttalen av dansk skriftspråk som var vanlig i den norske overklassa, den såkalte dannede dagligtale.
    [Show full text]
  • Norwegian; a Comprehensive Grammar
    Norwegian A Comprehensive Grammar Norwegian: A Comprehensive Grammar is a complete reference guide to modern Norwegian (the Bokmål standard). The Grammar is an essential source for the serious student of Norwegian, and for students of compar- ative linguistics. It is ideal for use in colleges, universities and adult classes of all types. The volume is organised to promote a thorough understanding of Norwegian grammar. It presents the complexities of Norwegian in a concise and read- able form. Explanations are full, clear and free of jargon. Throughout, the emphasis is on Norwegian as used by present-day native speakers. An extensive index, numbered paragraphs, cross-references and summary charts provide readers with easy access to the information they require. Philip Holmes is Reader Emeritus in Scandinavian Studies at the University of Hull, UK, and co-author of four grammars of Swedish and Danish for Routledge, as well as Colloquial Swedish (2016). Hans-Olav Enger is Professor of Scandinavian Linguistics at Institutt for lingvistiske og nordiske studier at Oslo University, Norway. He has edited Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift, is currently editor of Maal og Minne and is the author of many articles and book chapters on the Norwegian language, as well as co-author of Innføring i norsk grammatikk – Morfologi og syntaks. Routledge Comprehensive Grammars Comprehensive Grammars are available for the following languages: Bengali Burmese Cantonese Chinese Catalan Cantonese Danish Dutch Finnish French Creoles Greek Indonesian Japanese Kazakh Korean
    [Show full text]
  • Germanic Languages 825 IV. NORWEGIAN STUDIES*
    Germanic Languages 825 IV. NORWEGIAN STUDIES* LANGUAGE By Arne Kruse, Lecturer in Norwegian, School of European Languages and Cultures, University of Edinburgh 1. General A general presentation in German of the Norwegian language and current language situation is H. Sandøy’s contribution, pp. 865–905 in Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verha¨ltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Andreas Gardt, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. Martin Skjekkeland, Tysk-danske la˚nord i nynorsk og i bygdema˚la. Om ein frisk debatt- og om ei gransking av ordtilfanget i to bygdema˚l (Forskningsserien no. 16), Agder College, 1999, 130 pp., contributes to the discussion about German/Danish loan-words in Nynorsk with an investigation into the actual usage of such words in two local dialects. Other contribu- tions to this debate are by G. Akselberg, pp. 25–35 of 7. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog, ed. Peter Widell and Mette Kunøe, Aarhus U.P., 1999, and among others, H. Sandøy, pp. 209–24 of the report Spra˚kbrukeren — fri til a˚ velge? Artikler om homogen og heterogen spra˚knorm, ed. Helge Omdal (Research series no. 17), Kristiansand, Agder College, 1999, 234 pp. The entire report focuses on theoretical and practical implications of restrictive vs. liberal norms for written Norwegian, and questions the validity of the claim that the many optional forms in Bokma˚l and Nynorsk are to the benefit of the user of written Norwegian. The three following books are published in the series ‘Publications of the Ivar Aasen Institute’: Ny-Noreg møter Svensk-Finland, ed. S. J. Walton, Volda, Volda College, 47 pp., is a compilation of five articles which compare the situations for Nynorsk and Swedish in Finland.
    [Show full text]
  • Norsk Ordbok - the Crown of Nynorsk Lexicography?
    Lars S. Vik0r, Sectionfor Norwegian Lexicography, University ofOslo Norsk Ordbok - the Crown of Nynorsk Lexicography? Abstract Norsk Ordbok 'Norwegian Dictionary' is a multi-volume dictionary of the Norwegian standard variety Nynorsk and the Norwegian dialects. It is one of the very few dictionaries which cover both a written standard language and the oral dialects on which this standard is based. It was initiated around 1930, based on dialect material collected by volunteers and stored in a vast card archive, and on a variety of written sources. At present, three oftwelve planned volumes have appeared, reaching into g. The paper gives a historical outline of the project, followed by a brief description of its structure and the types of information it gives. This is exemplified by the treatment of one particular word, bunad. Finally, some fundamental problems are briefly discussed: 1) the selection of lemmas, 2) the character of the sources, 3) the treatment of dialect forms, 4) the sequence of definitions. The full title of Norsk Ordbok is Norsk Ordbok. Ordbok over det norske folkemâlet og det nynorske skriftmâlet 'Norwegian Dictionary. A dic­ tionary of the Norwegian popular language [i.e. the Norwegian dialects], and the Nynorsk written language'. This title at once indicates the dual aspect of the dictionary: It gives integrated coverage of both oral dialects and a written standard language. This dual aspect is the most special distinguishing feature of Norsk Ordbok as a lexicographic work. Normally, dictionaries cover written standard languages or some aspect of them (or, in the case of pro­ nouncing dictionaries, oral standard language).
    [Show full text]
  • The Position of Frisian in the Germanic Language Area Charlotte
    The Position of Frisian in the Germanic Language Area Charlotte Gooskens and Wilbert Heeringa 1. Introduction Among the Germanic varieties the Frisian varieties in the Dutch province of Friesland have their own position. The Frisians are proud of their language and more than 350,000 inhabitants of the province of Friesland speak Frisian every day. Heeringa (2004) shows that among the dialects in the Dutch language area the Frisian varieties are most distant with respect to standard Dutch. This may justify the fact that Frisian is recognized as a second official language in the Netherlands. In addition to Frisian, in some towns and on some islands a mixed variety is used which is an intermediate form between Frisian and Dutch. The variety spoken in the Frisian towns is known as Town Frisian1. The Frisian language has existed for more than 2000 years. Genetically the Frisian dialects are most closely related to the English language. However, historical events have caused the English and the Frisian language to diverge, while Dutch and Frisian have converged. The linguistic distance to the other Germanic languages has also altered in the course of history due to different degrees of linguistic contact. As a result traditional genetic trees do not give an up-to-date representation of the distance between the modern Germanic languages. In the present investigation we measured linguistic distances between Frisian and the other Germanic languages in order to get an impression of the effect of genetic relationship and language contact for the position of the modern Frisian language on the Germanic language map.
    [Show full text]
  • Null Arguments in Old Norwegian: Interaction Between Pronouns and Functional Domains*
    cambridge occasional papers in linguistics COP i L Volume 9, Article 4: 108–129, 2016 ∣ ISSN 2050-5949 Null arguments in Old Norwegian: Interaction between pronouns and functional domains* K a r i K i n n University of Cambridge Abstract In this paper I propose a new analysis of null arguments in Old Norwe- gian. I argue that the option of null realization in Old Norwegian correlates with a distinction between ɸP and DP pronouns in the sense of Déchaine & Wiltschko (2002), and that this distribution can be captured by a version of pronoun deletion in the sense of Roberts (2010b). On a more general level I argue that both the structure of pronouns and that of the functional domains C, T and v influence the null argument properties of a language. Thus, null arguments, but also blocking of null arguments in languages like Modern Norwegian and English, may be derived in different ways. 1 Introduction Null arguments in early Germanic have received an increasing amount of attention in recent years (cf. e.g. Sigurðsson 1993 on Old Icelandic, Faarlund 2013 on Old Norse, Håkansson 2008, 2013 on Old Swedish, Axel 2007 on Old High German, van Gelderen 2000, 2013, Rusten 2010, 2013 and Walkden 2013 on Old English, as well as the comparative studies of Rosenkvist 2009 and Walkden 2014b). In this paper I propose a new analysis of null arguments in Old Norwegian, an understudied variety whose null argument properties are not immediately captured by previous accounts. The paper focuses on definite null arguments; generic null subjects will notbe discussed.1 I will argue that the distribution of Old Norwegian null arguments cor- relates with a distinction between ɸP and DP pronouns in the sense of Déchaine & Wiltschko (2002), and that this fact can be accounted for by a slightly revised version of pronoun deletion in the sense of Roberts (2010b).
    [Show full text]