A note on the relationship between Scandinavian and Low German

Abstract

Note: This is a postprint version of an article in Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 2:2, pp. 189-210. DOI: 10.1515189-210. DOI: 10. /jhsl-2016. For citation, please consult the published version. AbstractRecent work on language contact between Scandinavian and Low German during the Middle Ages widely assumes that the varieties were linguistically close enough to permit some kind of receptive multilingualism, and hence an example of dialect contact. Two arguments that have been invoked in support of this scenario are the lack of (1) meta-linguistic comments on flawed understanding, and (2) attested bilingualism. However, towards the end of the most intense contact period, in the early sixteenth century, there is indeed meta-linguistic information in the preserved sources suggesting that intelligibility was restricted. Furthermore, there are also examples of code-switching and active bilingualism indicating that the varieties were clearly perceived as distinct languages. This paper presents such examples from Norwegian primary sources that have not been observed in recent scholarship. Based on this evidence, it is argued that the relationship between the languages by the early sixteenth century was asymmetric, Scandinavians being able to understand Low German more often than vice versa.

Diachronic dialectology: new methods and case studies

“…She argues that contact between Middle Norwegian and Middle Low German in Bergen was never intense: each group used their own language and had little motivation to learn the other (Nesse 2002: 148;2012b: 82). The receptive bilingualism hypothesis is also reviewed by Berg (2016) who is more tentative in his support, suggesting (agreeing with Braunmüller 2007: 34-8) that receptive bilingualism became less widespread later in the period and was always an acquired skill requiring substantial exposure to the other language. Berg also presents evidence that the situation was asymmetric: more Norwegians understood Low German than vice versa, and indeed some were active bilinguals (Berg 2016: 207-8).…”

“…Latin competence was common: all members of the clergy as well as many secular officials and scribes had their education in Latin. As Berg (2016; shows, code-switching between productively composed Latin and Danish-Norwegian can be found in lower status texts, suggesting an active productive competence in the language was common. It is difficult to assess the relevance of this contact.…”

Chapter 9. Scalarity as a meaning atom in wohl-type particles

“…Haugen's argumentation is weakened by the fact that Burkhardt (1994:140) argues that even Old High German only had two modal particles (denn and doch), with the majority of German modal particles (including wohl) emerging in the 16 th century or later. It remains to be seen whether Low German differs in these respects, but there is a priori no reason to assume that it was different, and the most intense contact between Low German and the Mainland Scandinavian languages appears to have already been subsiding in the 16 th century (see Berg 2016). Nevertheless, a reader should bear in mind that Norwegian vel may not have developed in complete independence from German wohl.…”

5. Business writing in early sixteenth-century Norway

“…On the basis of this, it has been argued that Scandinavian and Low German were dialects rather than languages, i.e. mutually intelligible; nonetheless, I have previously (Berg 2016) argued that semi-communication was no automatic process, as there are several written statements from the early sixteenth century pointing to lack of understanding. It is also very hard to keep this phenomenon apart from bilingualism in the written records.…”

“…His Danish is peculiar, even considering the possible orthographic variation of the era, which most likely means that it was a second language. However, such cases of attested multilingualism are rare (see Berg 2016).…”