Dialects and sociolects of spoken Norwegian
SAS1. March 11th 2016
“The dialect paradise Norway – a truism with modifications”
Mæhlum, B. and Røyneland, U. (2009)
How do I say ‘I’ in Norwegian?
e eg æ æg æi æig i je jæ jei
How do I say ‘not’ in Norwegian?
4 dimensions of dialect.
Approaching the Norwegian definition of ’dialect’
1. The user dimension: Who speaks dialect?
2. The delimitation dimension: How do we delimit one dialect from another linguistically and geographically?
3. The changeability dimension: What is the dialect’s potential for change?
4. The identity/attitude dimension: How do we view dialectal identity and dialectal attitude?
The Norwegian concept of ”dialect”
1) Everyone speaks dialect (urban and rural, geolects and sociolects)
2) The ”exact” borders between dialects are not so important
3) The dialects are continuously changing, and this dialect change does not necessarily lead to dialect death
4) Positive views of dialects: attached to local identity and personal identity
The (traditional) dialectological approach
4 main groups: Northern Norwegian (nordnorsk), Central Norwegian (trøndersk), Western Norwegian (vestlandsk), and Eastern Norwegian (østnorsk). Or 8 groups: Northern Norwegian > Nordlandsk No. and Troms and Finnmarks No. Midland Norwegian (midtlandsk) is a separate group, and Western Norwegian > 1) North-Western Nor. (nordvestlandsk) and 2) South-western Nor.
(sørvestlandsk) and South Norwegian (sørlandsk)
Reasons for geographical variation
• Social, cultural and administrative unities
= linguistic unities
• Geography: Mountains divide, fiords, rivers and sea unites!
• Migration (eks. Bardu and Målselv)
Reasons for spotted maps, with several dialect geographical ”islands”
a) If it is an archaic feature:
these are ’relict areas’.
The novation has not reached these areas yet.
b) If the feature is a novation: The
phenomenon could have risen from internal factors in a number of places independently from each other
Norwegian dialects as part of a greater picture
Two alternative models of the Nordic language family:
1) Model of the relationship between the Nordic languages, based on historical language changes
2) Model of the relationship between the Nordic languages, based on mutual understanding
East Nordic features
- Less umlaut in East - Novations:
- Assimilation of ON. nd, ld, ng and mb - Monophthongation
- hv > v, hv > gv
Examples of a-umlaut
(lowering)
Nynorsk holt, roten, brote, kolle;
Swedish hult, rutten, brutit, kulle
Examples of i-umlaut
(forwarding)
Icel./Far./Nn kemur/ kjem og grefur/ grevur/ grev;
Da./Sw.: kommer og graver Nynorsk: søv
Bokmål: sover Examples
of u-umlaut
(rounding)
Icel./ Nn: ösp/ osp, stöng / stong og þröngur/ trong Danish asp, stang og trang
Less umlaut in East than West
Monophthongation in East Da./Sw: sten, høg/hök, ø/ö;
No./Ice./Far.: stein/steinn/steinur, hauk/haukur/heykur og øy/ey/oyggj
hv > v, hv > gv
South Scandinavian features
• Novations:
– reduction – lenisation – uvular r
Reduction
ON had final vowels a, i og u.
In large parts of Scandinavia these vowels have now got a more central
pronunciation. This change is called reduction.
Full reduction: a purely southern feature
Lenisation («soft» consonants)
Uvular r
Invasion of uvular r: NRK programme
Central Scandinavian features
• The Central Scandinavian area has been the most productive area for the spreading of novations.
• Novations:
– Jamvekt - reduction and jamning – Tjukk l
– Retroflexes and postalveolares – Toneme realization
– Toneme groups
– Det (‘it’) as formal subject – Ha/ være in perfektum
– The order of particle and direct object
jamvekt
• Germanic stress pattern: stress on first syllable: /’vera/ and /’bi:ta/
• ON: dialects in East, in Trøndelag and Northern-Sweden gets a new stress pattern where bisyllabic words with two short syllables is given even stress on both syllables /’ve’ra’/, but still /’bi:ta/.
• Jamvekt stress is not found today, but some remains may be heard in the dialect of Gudbrandsdalen.
• Jamvekt had consequences for several developments:
– Reduction – Jamning
Reduction again
ON had final vowels a, i og u.
In large parts of Scandinavia these vowels have now got a more central
pronunciation. This change is called reduction.
Full reduction: a purely southern feature
• Reduction only affected unstressed syllables: overvektsord
• In jamvektsord (with even stress on both syllables) the words kept their original vowel
Result: split infinite
jamning
• Jamning affected words that had even pressure (so only in central Scandinavia) and has made the stem vowel and the final vowel more similar.
Tjukk l
Toneme realization, toneme 1
C and D = low tone
To be found in the jamvekt area
Toneme realization
in Bergen and Oslo
Det as formal subject
Der/ her er komne tre båtar inn på hamna Det er komme tre båtar inn på hamna
Det (‘it’) as a formal subject
North Scandinavian features
• http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/nos/?nosid=nos 09001
• Palatalisation of alveolars
• Apokope
• Lowering of vowels
• Development of final r
• Final t- drop
• Drop of final nasals
• The position of subjects in questions
Palatalized alveolars
alt (‘everything’) and mann (‘man’) >
"ailt" and "mainn"
Palatalized dentals
Apokope
Salten: the North Norwegian core area for apokope
Apokope: den most extreme form
of reduction
Vowel lowering
Following the quantity shift:
short vowels got a lower pronunciation in North Scandinavian
NB! Omlydsklassen teller ikke med her. Ender og hender, røtter og føtter i deler av det skraverte området.
Final t-drop
• The whole of Norway, exept from Sør- Østfold.
• Sometimes revived t in pronunciation influenced by written language
Carl. I Hagen: /poli’ti:et/
West Nordic and West Norwegian
• http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/nos/?nosid=nos1 7001
• http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/nos/?nosid=nos1 5001
• Differensiation and Segmentation
• Diftongation
• The pronouns de (plural ‘you’) og me (‘we’)
Segmentation
Diftongation of old long vowels
1. Person pronoun plural: me
Coastal features
• Morfological reduction
Dative
The Bergen dialect vs.
surrounding dialects
• Vowel reduction in unstressed syllables:
– finne (not finna), kaste (not kasta)
• Monophthongs
– høre (not høyra), ben (not bein), høst (not haust)
• Lacks u-umlauted forms (rounding of vowels)
– aske (not oske), vante (not vott)
• strong verbs do not have i-umlauted
(forwarding of back vowels) present tense stem and have to syllables
The Bergen dialect vs.
Norwegian in general
• Only two grammatical genders – common gender and neuter
• Past tense ending -et for weak verbs – kastet (not kasta)
• «Garp» genitive
– far sin hatt (not fars hatt, hatten til far or hatten hans far)
The Bergen
dialect is the work of
the
Devil
Some Norwegian dialect samples:
http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/nos/nos_kart.html
Nordic Dialect Corpus:
http://tekstlab.uio.no/glossa/html/?corpus=sc andiasyn
Where do these maps come from?
• Who collected this knowledge?
• What methods did they use?
• What and who were their sources?
• Do these maps give a true image of the linguistic sutiation in Norway today?
• Have these maps ever given a true image of the linguistic situation in Norway?
• If no, why have I just spent so much time showing them to you?
Diachronic and synchronic variation
Linguistic variation and linguistic change
• dialect – spoken variant of a national language
• geolect – the geographical dimension
• sociolect – the social dimension
• idiolect – the individual dimension
Geolectal variation = linguistic variation between geographical areas Sociolectal variation = linguistic variation between social groups Idiolectal variation = linguistic variation on individual level
Speech variation on different linguistic levels
Phonological variation Morphological variation
Syntactic variation Lexical variation Semantic variation
Prosodic variation
Register variation
- Formal vs informal speech - Speech acommodation - Loyalty vs prestige
• Formal vs. informal situations
– lab. test: the tendency to use -e infinitives rather than -a infinitives
– i.e. gjøra > gjøre, væra> være
• a registry of different modes, styles available to the user
• frequency: the speaker uses some forms more or less frequent than others: /kasta/
vs. /kastet/
Norwegian sociolinguistic surveys
1. Speech variation within a limited geographic or social area
- A popular theme for Norwegian sociolinguistic surveys over the last 30 years: particularely surveys on the phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical level
2. Speech variation connected to language users on the move
ex. Rekdal (1971), Mæhlum (1986, 1992), Omdal (1994), Røyneland (1994), Kleivenes (2002)
3. Speech variation connected to varieties on the move
ex. Steinsholt (1964, 1972), Skolseg (1994), Akselberg (2002), Skramstad (1999), Hernes (1999), Marøy (1998), Røyneland (2006), Solheim (2006)
Some ”traditional” social variables
- Age
- Geographic origin
- Gender Innovative women, traditional men?
Labov (2001) Trudgill (1974) Eckert (1989)
Neutral women, marked men?
Røyneland (2005)
- Class Blom and Gumperz (1972) Fintoft and Mjaavatn (1980)
Gabrielsen (1983), Kristoffersen (1978), Elseth (1982), Goksøyr (1980)
- Parental background Papazian (1999) Haugen (2004) Hernes (2006)
• Gender
– visible in cities as women have been using more high status forms
• Trondheim male: /æ:/ (90%)
• Trondheim female: /æ:/ (41%)
(Fintoft and Mjåvatn 1980)
Synchronic age variation – an indictation of diachronic variation / change?
Age variation = variation between age groups a) reflecting change in the speech of the
community as it moves through time (historical change)
b) reflecting change in the speech of individuals as they move through life
Age variations
• Arendal project:
– less variations as pupils grow older – however more variations as one leaves
school
Class
Different approaches to the difficult concept of
’social class’ in Norway:
Blom and Gumperz (1972) Fintoft and Mjaavatn (1980)
Gabrielsen (1983), Kristoffersen (1978), Elseth (1982), Goksøyr (1980)
