206. Sociolinguistic structures chronologically III: Norwegian

Transparency in Norwegian and Icelandic: Language contact vs. language isolation

“…During the Reformation in 1536 Danish replaced Latin as the language of the church, and soon Danish bishops and priests were recruited and a Danish Bible translation, published in 1550, came in use (Skard 1972:13-14;Vinje 1978:15, 27;Otnes & Aamotsbakken 2012:97). At the same time, the Norwegian council (Riksrådet), which soon after the Black Death already had many Danish members, was abolished (Skard 1972:12;Torp & Vikør 1994:117;Maehlum 2005Maehlum :1914Otnes & Aamotsbakken 2012:70, 96), and Norway officially became a province of Denmark, with Danish as the only language of administration (Skard 1972:15;Roksvold 1981:46, 48;Otnes & Aamotsbakken 2012:96). Through the Danish church services, catechesis in Danish, and schooling, which became obligatory in 1739, in Danish, the Danish language also reached the common people (Skard 1972:13, 61;Roksvold 1981:51;Maehlum 2005Maehlum :1914Maehlum -1915.…”

“…The contact with Danish does not seem to have led to widespread bilingualism, but rather to Norwegians adapting their language use (Vinje 1978:27;Maehlum 2005Maehlum :1913Maehlum -1914Otnes & Aamotsbakken 2012:106). This accommodation was probably easily possible because Norwegian and Danish were highly similar, such that Norwegians and Danish could typically understand each other (Vikør 2001:59-60;Maehlum 2005Maehlum :1913Maehlum -1914. Only after 1775 did Danish become a subject in school (Otnes & Aamotsbakken 2012:113).…”

“…Whereas Bokmål was formed on the basis of Danish and urban language use by gradually replacing Danish characteristics by Norwegian ones, Nynorsk was based on Norwegian rural dialects. Consequently, especially in Bokmål and the spoken variants closely resembling it, which are the most widely used and the most prestigious (Vikør 2001:57;Kusters 2003:195;Maehlum 2005Maehlum :1921, influence from Danish can be found. Moreover, present-day Norwegian is still characterized by a widespread use of dialects and relatively low linguistic normativity (Vikør 2001:211-212;Kusters 2003:195;Maehlum 2005Maehlum :1912Husby 2007:9), which may at least partly be due to the long-term Danish supremacy and the consequent late development of Norwegian standardized forms (Vikør 2001:211).…”

“…Large numbers of German adult men came to Norway, who typically did not settle permanently but rather stayed for a short period, without becoming fluent in Norwegian (Trudgill 2000:75, 2011:57; Kusters 2003:192; Jahr 2008:250). Learning Norwegian was not necessary, as the Germans and Norwegians only needed to communicate in order to facilitate trade and their languages were probably to a considerable extent mutually intelligible (Skard 1976:132; Braunmüller 1997:367; Kusters 2003:192; Mæhlum 2005:1910; Jahr 2008:250; Trudgill 2011:25). Moreover, Low German was considered a highly prestigious language, and as variation was normal due to the lack of a linguistic standard, Norwegians were relatively willing to adapt to Low German (Braunmüller 1997:371–372; Vikør 2001:42; Kusters 2003:192–193; Mæhlum 2005:1910).…”

“…This contact with Low German has been argued to have had a great impact on the Norwegian language. Not only were large numbers of words and derivational affixes borrowed from Low German into Norwegian (Vikør 2001:42–43; Mæhlum 2005:1910; Jahr 2008:246), but it has also been suggested that this contact has been a major factor in the simplification that much of the Norwegian inflection has undergone since the Old Norse period (Haugen 1976:65; Vikør 2001:44; Kusters 2003). The language contact with Low German also seems to be the primary reason that classifications of the North Germanic languages focusing on synchronic similarity and mutual intelligibility distinguish Insular and Mainland rather than West and East Scandinavian, as Low German has greatly affected Swedish, Danish and Norwegian whereas it has only marginally influenced Icelandic and Faroese (Vikør 2001:42–44, 2010:12; Kusters 2003:181).…”