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.