Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T02:15:27.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On case loss and svarabhakti vowels: the sociolinguistic typology and geolinguistics of simplification in North Germanic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2019

Tam T. Blaxter  and
Peter Trudgill
Tam T. Blaxter*
Affiliation:
Gonville & Caius College, Trinity Street, Cambridge CB2 1TA, University of Cambridge, England, UK
Peter Trudgill
Affiliation:
Department of English, Université de Fribourg, Av. de l’Europe 20, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland
*
Author for correspondence: Tam T. Blaxter, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Work in sociolinguistic typology and creole studies has established the theory that intensive language contact involving second language acquisition by adults tends to lead to grammatical simplification. This theory is built on many anecdotal case studies, including developments in the history of Continental North Germanic associated with contact with Middle Low German. In this paper, we assess the theory by examining two changes in the history of Norwegian: the loss of coda /Cr/ clusters and the loss of prepositional genitives. If the theory is correct, these changes should have been innovated in centers of contact with Middle Low German. We find that both changes in fact spread into southeastern Norwegian from Swedish. Since contact with Low German also took place in Sweden and Denmark, this is consistent with the theory. It opens questions for future research about the role of dialect contact in simplificatory change in North Germanic.

Keywords

Linguistic complexitysociolinguistic typologyhistorical sociolinguisticslanguage contactNorth Germanic
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistic Geography , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , April 2019 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, Guy, Wikle, Tom, Tillery, Jan & Sand, Lori. 1993. Some patterns of linguistic diffusion. Language Variation and Change 5. 359–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentz, Christian & Christiansen, Morten H.. 2013. Linguistic adaptation: The trade-off between case marking and fixed word orders in Germanic and Romance languages. In Peng, Gang & Shi, Feng (eds.), Eastward Flows the Great River: Festschrift in Honor of Prof. Wiliam S-Y. Wang on his 80th Birthday, 45–61. Hong Kong: City of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar
Berg, Ivar. 2015a. Stages in deflexion and the Norwegian dative. In Haug, Dag T. T. (ed.), Historical Linguistics 2013. Selected papers from the 21st International Conference on historical Linguistics, Oslo, 5–9 August 2013, 179–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Ivar. 2015b. Nokre sider ved det norske kasusbortfallet i seinmellomalderen. Maal og mine (1). 1–35.Google Scholar
Berge, Alvdis. 1974. Genitiv av substantiv i mellomnorske diplom frå 1425–1426: Ei jamføring med norrønt. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen thesis.Google Scholar
Blaxter, Tam & Kinn, Kari. 2018. On ek and jak in Middle Norwegian: Mixed methods in historical sociolinguistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 2018. 1–27. doi: 10.1111/1467-968X.12126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, Tam T. 2017. Speech in space and time: Contact, change and diffusion in medieval Norway. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.15576.Google Scholar
Blomkvist, Nils. 1979. Kalmars uppkomst och äldsta tid. In Hammarström, Ingrid (ed.), Kalmar stads historia I: Kalmarområdets forntid och stadens äldsta utveckling. Kalmar: Kulturnämnden i Kalmar.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti. 2003. Morphological status and (de)grammaticalisation: the Swedish possessive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26(2). 133–163. doi: 10.1017/S0332586503001069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, Mike. 2015. Kontors and outposts. In Harreld, Donald J. (ed.), A companion to the Hanseatic League (Brill’s Companions to European History vol. 8), 128–161. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1992. Before complexity. In Hawkins, John A. & Gell-Mann, Murray (eds.), The Evolution of Human Languages. Proceedings of The Workshop on the Evolution of Human Languages, held August, 1989, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, vol. XI, 193–211. Santa Fe Institute: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlbäck, Göran. 1998. Invandring—säsrkilt tysk—till Sverige under medeltiden. In Nilsson, Lars & Lilja, Sven (eds.), Invandrarna och lokalsamhället: historiska aspekter på integrationen av invandrare i nordiska lokalsamhällen (Studier i stads- och kommunhistoria 16), 11–30. Stockholm: Stads- och Kommunhistoriska Institutet.Google Scholar
De Vries, Jan. 2007. European urbanisation: 1500– 1800 (The History of the City B4). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 1999. Creolization, language change, and language acquisition: An epilogue. In DeGraff, Michel (ed.), Language creation and language change: creolization, diachrony, and development (Learning, Development, and Conceptual Change), 473–534. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 2005. Morphology and word order in “creolization” and beyond. In Cinque, Guglielmo & Kayne, Richard (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, 293–372. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
deGraff, Michel & Aboh, Enoch. 2017. A null theory of Creole formation based on universal grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar (Oxford Handbooks Online), 401–458. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199573776.013.18.Google Scholar
Ehret, Katharina & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2016. An information-theoretic approach to assess linguistic complexity. In Baechler, Raffaela & Seiler, Guido (eds.), Complexity, isolation, and variation, 71–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eyþórsson, Þórhallur, Johannessen, Janne Bondi, Laake, Signe & Åfarli, Tor A.. 2012. Dative case in Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese: Preservation and non-preservation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35(03). 219–249. doi: 10.1017/S0332586513000036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farstad, Stein E. 1991. Særtrekk ved vokalismen i brev fra Hedmark 1356–1420. Oslo: Universitet i Oslo thesis.Google Scholar
Fossen, Anders Bjarne. 1979. Bergen bys historie, vol. II. Bergen-Oslo-Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Hagland, Jan Ragnar. 2011. Altisländisch und Altnorwegisch. In Odd Haugen, Einar (ed.), Astrid van Nahl (trans.), Altnordische Philologie, De Gruyter Lexikon, 483–526. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1976. The Scandinavian languages: An Introduction to their History (The Great Languages). London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Helle, Knut. 1982. Bergen bys historie, vol. I. Bergen-Oslo-Tromsø: Unversitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, R. 2007. What if the sea were different? Urbanization in medieval Norway. Past & Present 195(Supplement 2). 132–147. doi: 10.1093/pastj/gtm026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indrebø, Gustav. 1951. Norsk målsoga. Bergen: J. Griegs boktr.Google Scholar
Jahr, Ernst Håkon. 1999. Sociolinguistics in historical language contact: the Scandinavian languages and Low German during the Hanseatic period. In Ernst Jahr, Håkon (ed.), Language change: Advances in historical sociolinguistics, 119–140. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.Google Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2008. Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. In Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius & Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion, Series 94), 3–22. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Amund B. 1993. Antegnelser om substantivbøiningen i middelnorsk. In Ernst Jahr, Håkon & Lorentz, Ove (eds.), Historisk språkvitenskap/Historical linguistics (Studier i norsk språkvitenskap/Studies in Norwegian linguistics 5), 59–68. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Larsson, Gabriela Bjarne. 2012. Wives or widows and their representatives. Scandinavian Journal of History 37(1). 49–68. doi: 10.1080/03468755.2011.643568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mähl, Stefan. 2012. Low German texts from Late Medieval Sweden. In Elmevik, Lennart & Ernst Jahr, Håkon (eds.), Contact between Low German and Scandinavian in the Late Middle Ages: 25 years of research (Acta Academiae Regiae Gustavi Adolphi CXXI), 113–122. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2011. Linguistic Simplicity and Complexity: Why Do Languages Undress? Language Contact and Bilingualism I). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2006. On the feasibility of complexity metrics. FinEst linguistics, proceedings of the annual Finnish and Estonian conference of linguistics, Tallinn, 2004. Tallinn.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius & Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series 94), 23–42. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mørck, Endre. 1980. Passiv i mellomnorske diplom. Oslo: Universitet i Oslo thesis.Google Scholar
Mørck, Endre. 2013. Fra–sk til–s og–st– utviklinga av det mediopassive suffikset i mellomnorske diplom. Paper presented at the MONS 15, Universitet i Tromsø.Google Scholar
Nedkvitne, Arnved. 2012. A post-national perspective on the German Hansa in Scandinavia. In Elmevik, Lennart & Ernst Jahr, Håkon (eds.), Contact between Low German and Scandinavian in the Late Middle Ages: 25 years of research (Acta Academiae Regiae Gustavi Adolphi CXXI), 17–37. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur.Google Scholar
Nedkvitne, Arnved. 2014. The German Hansa and Bergen 1100-1600 (Quellen Und Darstellungen Zur Hansischen Geschichte neue Folge, Band 70). Köln: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar
Nedrebø, Yngve. 1990. Bergen– frå Skandinavias største by til strilane sin hovudstad. Frå Fjon til Fusa: årbok for Nord- og Midhordland sogelag, 35–67. Bergen: Sogelaget.Google Scholar
Nesse, Agnete. 2002. Språkkontakt mellom norsk og tysk i hansatidens Bergen (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse Skrifter og avhandlinger Nr. 2). Oslo: Novus forlag.Google Scholar
Nesse, Agnete. 2012. Norwegian and German in Bergen. In Elmevik, Lennart & Ernst Jahr, Håkon (eds.), Contact between Low German and Scandinavian in the Late Middle Ages: 25 years of research (Acta Academiae Regiae Gustavi Adolphi CXXI), 75–94. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur.Google Scholar
Njåstad, Magne. 2003. Grenser for makt: konflikter og konfliktløsing mellom lokalsamfunn og øvrighet ca 1300 – 1540 (Skriftserie fra Institutt for Historie og Klassiske Fag 42). Trondheim: Inst. for Historie og Klassiske Fag, NTNU.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 1997. The history of the genitive in Swedish. A case study in degrammaticalization. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Perridon, Harry. 2013. The emergence of the s-genitive in Danish. Language Sciences 36. 134–146. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersen, Egil. 1975. Språkbrytning i Vest-Norge 1450-1550. Bergen: Alma Mater.Google Scholar
Pettersen, Egil. 1991. Språkbrytning i Vest-Norge 1450-1550 II. Bergen: Alma Mater.Google Scholar
Rambø, Gro-Renée. 2012. Language contact, communication and change. In Elmevik, Lennart & Ernst Jahr, Håkon (eds.), Contact between Low German and Scandinavian in the Late Middle Ages: 25 years of research (Acta Academiae Regiae Gustavi Adolphi CXXI), 39–55. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur.Google Scholar
Rumpf, Jonas Pickl, Simon, Elspass, Stephan & König, Werner. 2009. Structural analysis of dialect maps using methods from spatial statistics. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 76(3). 280–308.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter (eds.). 2009. Language complexity as an evolving variable (Oxford Linguistics 13). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Johannes. 1872. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar
Schulte, Michael. 2005. Phonological developments from Old Nordic to Early Modern Nordic I: West Scandinavian. In Bandle, Oskar, Ernst Jahr, Håkon, Karker, Allan, Naumann, Hans-Peter, Teleman, Ulf & Braunmüller, Kurt (eds.), The NordiclLanguages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages, 1081–1096. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Seip, Didrik Arup. 1955. Norsk språkhistorie til omkring 1370. 2nd ed. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co.Google Scholar
Shosted, Ryan K. 2006. Correlating complexity: A typological approach. Linguistic Typology 10. 1–40. doi: 10.1515/LINGTY.2006.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2009. Complexity in core argument marking and population size. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language complexit y as an evolving variable, 126–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slungård, Staale. 2015. Staten og geistligheten: en undersøkelse av Jemtland 1571–1645. NTNU MA. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2388025.Google Scholar
Sundquist, John D. 2002. Morphosyntactic change in the history of the mainland Scandinavian languages. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University dissertation Google Scholar
Sundquist, John D. 2006. Syntactic variation in the history of Norwegian and the decline of XV word order. Diachronica 23(1). 105–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundquist, John D. 2012. Negative movement in the history of Norwegian: The evolution of a grammatical virus. In Jonas, Dianne, Whitman, John & Garrett, Andrew (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes, 293–311. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. Linguistic change and diffusion: Description and explanation in sociolinguistic dialect geography. Language in Society 3(2). 215–246. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500004358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wetås, Åse. 2003. Kan ein komparativ studie av namn og appellativisk materiale kasta lys over kasusbortfallet i mellomnorsk? In Jan Faarlund, Terje (ed.), Språk i endring: Indre norsk språkhistorie, 279–309. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Wetås, Åse. 2008. Kasusbortfallet i mellomnorsk. Oslo: Universitet i Oslo dissertation.Google Scholar
Yager, Lisa Hellmold, Nora, Joo, Hyoun-A, Putnam, Michael T., Rossi, Eleonora, Stafford, Catherine & Salmons, Joseph. 2015. New structural patterns in moribund grammar: Case marking in Heritage German. Frontiers in Psychology 6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01716. http://journal.frontiersin.org/Article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01716/abstract (4 June 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar