The Making of the Scandinavian Languages Ivar Berg ([email protected]) Norwegian University of Science and Technology Note: This is a ostprint version of an article in Metalinguistic Perspectives on Germanic Languages. European Case Studies from Past to Present! ed. by Gi#sbert $u%en and &ristine 'orner! . ()*)). +,ford- .eter /ang, 0123. 4or citation! lease consult the published version. 1 Introduction The Scandinavian languages of 5anish! Swedish and Norwegian are 6utually intelligible! and have been so throughout their e,istence.2 In the ter6inology of 'einz &loss they are not recognized as se arate languages because of linguistic distance (Abstand)! but because they are Ausbau languages that function as o8cial and ad6inistrative languages of the res ective national states (&loss 29:;- 01:). This shows the truth in the <ui o ularized by =ax >einrich that a language is a dialect with an ar6y and a navy.0 'owever! the Scandinavian lan? guages have diverged fro6 a single arent language! and in the oldest 6edieval sources no distinction is 6ade between the6. This is an a%e6 t to trace their develo 6ent towards recognition as se arate languages. This rocess rests on 6etalinguistic ideas rather than linguistic structure! ideas that are intertwined with conce tions of national identities and o osi? tions. >inge (0113- @:) clai6s that language in the re?national world was A ri6arily a 6eans of co66unication. BCD +nly with the develo 6ent of national identity did language beco6e art of national heritage! ins iring the need to assert its uni<uenessE. This clai6 will be investigated through a discus? sion of available 6etalinguistic infor6ation in 6edieval and early 6odern sources! and it see6s clear that 6etalinguistic ideas were indeed closely linked to the e6ergence of 6odern states. It should be 6entioned at the outset that 6y oint of view is that of a Norwegian, and whereas I Fnow the ri6ary sources for Norwegian, I de end on secondary sources for Swedish and 5anish. None? theless! this <uestion can only be considered in a an-Scandinavian conte,t, by bringing together results fro6 diGerent national research traditions. H general view on the inter lay between languages and co66unities in early 6odern Euro e is taken by .eter BurFe (011@). >ith brief 6edieval recursors! Afro6 the 6iddle of the JKeenth century onwards! 6ore eo le were beco6ing conscious of varieties of languageE (BurFe 011@- 23). The increasingly close links between language and nation fro6 the 6iddle of the eighteenth century onwards lead BurFe (011@- 23(*9) to talF about a Anationalization of languageE. The Scandinavian situation generally confor6s to this icture. The 2 Nevertheless, a recent study of inter?Scandinavian intelligibility shows that the ability to understand neighbour languages is deteriorating, especially among young Swedes and 5anes (5elsing and ÅFesson 211)). 0 The phrase has also been a%ributed to others (Bright 299:)! and cf. BurFe (011@- 00) for similar ideas in early modern Europe. 2 / 2@ 6etalinguistic ideas of se arate languages show no clear correlation with linguistic changes! but rather a de endence on olitical develo 6ents and e6erging national identities. Traditional accounts have ointed to certain linguistic innovations as deter? 6ining the e6ergence of new languages! as e.g. SFautru (29@@- 2)@*)) describes how by 2(11 a series of sound changes had 6ade 5anish an inde endent language! se%ing it apart fro6 Swedish. In rehistorical ti6es the only ossible ap roach is to ap ly the 6ethods of historical?co6 arative linguistics and looF for shared innovations. 'owever! the divergence of the North "er6anic lan? guages has 6ainly hap ened in recorded history! and literary sources tell us at least so6ething about how the s eakers the6selves conceived the linguistic differences! for instance in their choice of ter6s for the vernacular.( The last oint is essential for the deJnition of language by sociological criteria ro osed by Tore Nanson (299:! 0120)- S eakers deJne what a language is and e, ress it by giving it a name. The <uestion of when a language beco6es another is then Adecided by the s eakers the6selves! not se%led in any ob#ective wayE (Nanson 0120- 200). This view on language is in line with the increased focus on language a%itudes in modern sociolinguistics! and the following discus? sion will a%e6 t to connect language names to 6etalinguistic ideas. It follows fro6 this ap roach that the e6ergence of new languages is Jrst and fore6ost seen as a 6etalinguistic change- Aa new language ap ears not necessarily as a result of linguistic evolution! not only as the develo 6ent of new linguistic for6s! but rather as the roduct of a new conce tualization of s eechE (=edina, del Valle! and Monteagudo 212(- 2(). The develo 6ent of writing and a wri%en culture is crucial for this rocess! as it see6s that the wri%en language e6erges Jrst, before it has a na6e distin? guishing it fro6 others- ‘It is the wri%en language that is perceived as e,isting in its own right. The 6etalinguistic change occurs when the na6e is egged onto the wri%en for6E (Nanson 0120- 01(). The e, lanation of this a%ern 6ay be that the J,ation of so6e linguistic variety in writing 6akes it a conce tual entity which is easier to gras and identify than geographically or socially deJned varieties. >hen a language is ut to writing it beco6es easier to talF about it; in other words! it e6erges Aas an ob#ect of discourseE (=edina, del Oalle! and =onteagudo 212(- 2(P cf. also Janson 2120- 1(2*0). The develo 6ent fro6 /atin to the various $o6ance languages is an e,am le of how this worFed in ractice. Hccording to the theory ro agated by $oger >right during the last decades! the $o6ance?s eaking eo les fro6 anti<uity to the =iddle Hges thought they both s oFe and wrote A/atin’. Peo le did not erceive the wri%en language as so6ething diGerent fro6 the s oFen one! yet used traditional s elling conventions si6 ly because that was the way their language was wri%en * #ust as we still do- few! if any! 6odern languages have fully hone6ic orthographies. >hen a new orthography 6ore in line with the s oFen language was develo ed for $o6ance! this could Acreate a conce tual distinction between /atin and $o6ance based on the two 6odes of writing’ (>right 012(- (;). This descri tion of the develo 6ent Jts neatly with Nanson’s worF! and the conclusion is that Athe conce t of $o6ance as a se arate language ( In this historical conte,t! vernacular is used as a neutral ter6 for Amother tongue(s)E as o osed to Latin (see e.g. BurFe 211@- passim). 0 / 2@ fro6 /atin followed the elaboration of the new wri%en 6ode! rather than ins iring it’ (>right 212(- 39P cf. Janson 2120- 1(0). 2 From dǫ nsk tunga to separate languages The develo 6ent of the North "er6anic branch of languages has 6uch in co66on with the divergence of the $o6ance branch. 'owever! the oint of de arture was not, liFe in Southern Iuro e! a language Fnown in a wri%en for6 such as /atin. Hncient Nordic is artly attested in runic inscri tions in the older fuþark that show no geographical differences. >hen a 6ore co6 lete descri ? tion based on te,ts in the /atin al habet beco6es ossible fro6 the twelKh century onwards! distinct dialects are already evident. 2.1 A common tongue 4ro6 about )11 QI linguistic changes gave rise to dialectal differences between East Nordic (5anish and Swedish) and >est Nordic (Norwegian). Norwegians o ulated the North Htlantic islands during the =iddle Hges and brought >est Nordic varieties to new laces! of which the 4aroe Islands and Iceland have re6ained "er6anic?s eaking. 'owever! the east*west division is a linguistic construction i6 osed u on a dialect continuu6 stretching fro6 se%le6ents in "reenland to others east of the Baltic Sea. The language of this wide area was co66only Fnown as dǫnsk tunga B5anish tongueD.@ Hn e,am le of this name can be found in Snorri SturlusonEs (22:9*20@2) rologue to his history of the Norwegian kings ( eimskringla)! wri%en around 10(1-) 2. ! b"k þessi lét ek ríta fornar frásagnir um &ǫf'ing (a þá) er ríki &afa &a* % Norðrlǫndum ok á danska tungu hafa mælt (Snorri Sturluson 1;9(*2911- I! (*@) BIn this booF I recorded old tales about the chieKains who have held sway in the northern lands and have s oFen the Danish tongueD The same Snorri described national o ositions and pre#udices! most fa6ously in the e isode where &ing Rláfr Tryggvason evaluates his ene6ies before the battle of Svolder in 2111 QE. The Fing e, resses conte6 t for the 5anes and Swedes! but holds the Norwegians in high estee6! stating that Awe 6ay e, ect a harder Jght fro6 the6- they are Norwegians (Norðmenn)! as we areE (Snorri Sturluson 2;9(*2911- I! @@2*0). It ap ears that language did not for6 art of these national identities. The Icelandic law code Grág%s si6ilarly calls the language in Iceland dǫnsk tunga! and as late as the 6id?fourteenth century this ter6 was used for the vernacular in the Icelandic oe6 Lilja! albeit with reference to the language of 6en in days of yore (&/NM 0- cols 330*(). 4ro6 the thirteenth century onwards @ The terms dǫnsk tunga and norr-nt m%l (see below) are discussed with 6any references to literary sources by SandTy (0111).