The function of the Standard variety: a contrastive study of Norwegian and Polish

Abstract

In this paper, the social function of the Polish and NorwegianStandard varieties is compared and contrasted. While the Polish Standard is proved to have an extremely high social Status and to be taken for granted by society at large, the Norwegian Situation is described äs quite different. In Norway, no Standard spoken variety is taught in school, and there are two competing written Standards, both of which include a large number of optional words and wordforms. The two written Standards are linguistically very dose but have come to symbolizefor most Norwegians important and long-lasting geographic, cultural, andpolitical contrasts. The sociohistorical development and conditions in Norway and Poland are described in order to accountfor the differences found. Le

Winning the Dialect Popularity Contest: Mass‐mediated Language Ideologies and Local Responses in Rural Valdres, Norway

“…Perhaps more important for the case at hand, however, is the fact that the national linguistic situation is further complicated by the lack of any official standard for spoken Norwegian and by legislation encouraging Norwegians to use their native dialects when speaking. Observing this as a peculiarity in the European context, Jahr and Janicki have noted that “Norwegians use local dialects more often and to a much larger degree than other European nations. Dialect use is seen as normal linguistic behavior ” (1995:30, emphasis added).…”

A parameterized view of the concept of ‘correctness’

“…A different situation is represented by Norwegian (Haugen 1961;Jahr 1989;Jahr and Janicki 1995;Omdal 1995); I will first give a basic description of the current situation and how it has developed historically (because, unlike Arabic, Hebrew, Icelandic, and Sinhala, language planners in Norwegian have changed their approach over time), and I will then relate this to the general thesis of this paper.…”

“…she takes out book-the herself 'She takes the book out herself.' (Jahr and Janicki 1995) Both standards allow some variation, although speakers are often not aware of the different possibilities within one standard; thus in (1), Bokmål allows either hun or ho, Nynorsk allows either tek or tar, etc. Bokmål is a typical European prestige-based prescriptive norm, based directly upon the native usage of the highest status speakers in the largest city, Oslo.…”

“…As recounted in Jahr (1989), Jahr and Janicki (1995), and Omdal (1995), there was considerable opposition from higher-class Brought to you by | University of Iowa Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 5/28/15 7:00 PM people to being prescriptively compelled to use less prestigious forms (which they referred to with such terms as 'vulgar' and 'ugly') instead of the more prestigious forms which had been prescriptively correct in Bokmål prior to 1938 (and which had retained their social prestige in spite of being proscribed).…”

“…' 'Correctness' in a society is not only something which the average speaker imagines; it is also something which is institutionally fixed according to the dictates of some authorities, who have considerable latitude in choosing a basis upon which to designate some forms as 'correct' and other forms as 'incorrect', and this choice has a profound effect upon the society independent of other factors. Unfortunately, with the exception of a small number of articles focusing upon particular languages, such as Haugen (1961), Ibrahim (1987), and Jahr and Janicki (1995), the implications of which have not been adequately recognized, there has not even been acknowledgement in the general sociolinguistic literature that there are significantly different ways of defining 'correctness'. This situation must be redressed.…”