Language Conflict and Language Planning : the Case of Modern Norwegian. 9780674498709, 0674498704

Citation preview

LANGUAGE CONFLICT AND LANGUAGE PLANNING THE CASE OF MODERN NORWEGIAN

Language Conflict and Language Planning THE CASE OF MODERN NORWEGIAN

EINAR HAUGEN

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE,

MASSACHUSETTS

1966

© Copyright 1966 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Distributed in Great Britain by Oxford University Press, London Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the Ford Foundation Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 66-14443 Printed in the United States of America

TO THE MEMORY OF

Alf Axelss0n Sommerfelt 1892-1965

PREFACE

The inception of this book goes back to the year 1951-1952, when the author was a Fulbright Research Scholar in Norway and observed at first hand the exciting events surrounding the establishment of the Norwegian Language Commission. He decided then that the time was ripe for a full-scale study of the unique development which has characterized the Norwegian language in the twentieth century. Norwegians themselves are too deeply involved to view the situation without emotional bias, while most outsiders are either uninterested or uninformed. Yet it is clear that there are many lessons to be learned from the special kind of bilingualism that plagues the Norwegians. The dramatic and sweeping language reforms which have been instituted in Norway deserve to be known and noticed on an international scene. A decade of watching and waiting passed before the author had a chance to work on the problem again, during residences in Norway in 1960 and 1961, with support from the Research Committee of the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin. Most of the writing was done at this time. The author completed the manuscript while enjoying vii

PREFACE the perquisites of a fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, California, in 1963-1964. Some finishing touches were added at Indiana University in the summer of 1964, and a few grace notes even after the author's removal to Harvard University in 1964. Since the topic is one that is continually evolving, the book cannot properly be completed: life is momentarily writing its sequel. The task was one that needed to be approached with some fear and trembling, not only because of the emotional impact of the topic, but also because of its enormous complexity. The core of the problem was taken to be the official language reforms, more drastic in their nature than those instituted in any other country in a comparable period. The main approach to these was to be the planning that preceded them and the results that followed; but it proved impossible to avoid some consideration of the social conflict which incited them and was incited by them. Hence the dual title of the book, in which conflict and planning are juxtaposed. The writer can only hope that he has been able to maintain a proper proportion between the two, and more important: that he has not misrepresented the views of the combatants or the intentions of the planners. As an American by birth, the author has no personal axe to grind or any responsibility for the Norwegian development which might affect his judgment. As a speaker and teacher of Norwegian through many years of his life, however, he inevitably has had personal experiences which color his views of the situation. Thanks to a two-year childhood residence in Norway he had a first-hand introduction to both of Norway's languages from his earliest years. His family background was sympathetic to Landsmâl, but his professional involvement led him into the primary use of Riksmâl as his own Norwegian medium. This dual attachviii

PREFACE

ment was undoubtedly one of the primary sources of his interest in the problem, which led him to write his Ph.D. thesis on the early history of the Landsmâl movement. In returning to a related topic after so many years he hopes that questions may here have been raised and lines of research suggested that will be of value to students of similar problems in other countries. In the following list of acknowledgments it is impossible to do more than suggest some of the most valuable helpers in the writer's enterprise. Many others have knowingly or unknowingly contributed to the book, but whether named or unnamed, they should not be held responsible for the opinions expressed or the mistakes committed. The book could not have been written without the childhood stimulus of the writer's mother, who roused his interest in Norwegian, or the forbearance of his wife, who sustained that interest. Beside the support of the organizations mentioned above, the author has benefited from a grant in 1951 from the Social Science Research Council and one in 1963 from the Vilas Fund of the University of Wisconsin. Ready assistance was given him by the librarians of Universitetsbiblioteket in Oslo, the University of Wisconsin library in Madison, and Widener Library at Harvard. Among the official Norwegian institutions that furnished him information were the secretariat of the Norwegian Storting, the Norwegian Ministry of Church and Education, the Oslo schoolboard, and the Norwegian Language Commission. Uriel Weinreich at Columbia University provided an extensive bibliography on language planning. The late professors Didrik Arup Seip and Alf Sommerfelt of the University of Oslo were indefatigable in their personal encouragement and assistance. All translations in the text are by the author. Grateful acknowledgment is hereby made to the following persons and publishers for permission to use copyrighted ix

PREFACE quotations, illustrations, and figures: H. Aschehoug 8c Co. (W. Nygaard), Oslo; Chappell 8c Co., Inc., 609 Fifth Avenue, New York; Dreyers Forlag, Oslo; Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, Oslo; Kaare Haukaas, Oslo; Det norske Samlaget, Oslo; the Norwegian Postal Service; Politiken (Bo Bojesen), Copenhagen; Riksmâlsforbundet, Norsk Lytterforening, Oslo; Verdens Gang, Oslo; Willard M. Overgaard; Marie O. Skramstad. The editors of the Harvard University Press deserve special thanks for their charming and zealous efforts to turn the author's manuscript into a presentable book. Einar Haugen Cambridge, Massachusetts November 1965

χ

CONTENTS

1 THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE

Planning and the Grammarians, 3. ning, 16.

Principles of Plan-

2 THE LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN

Danish and Norwegian, 28. The Progress of Landsmâl, 35. T h e Emergence of Riksmâl, 45. The Reform of 1907 and its Aftermath, 54.

3 PLANNING FOR

UNITY

1907-1919 Arguments for Unity, 63. The Committee of 1909 and its Report, 65. Reverberations of the Report, 71. The Orthography of 1917, 84. Discussion and Decision, 96. xi

CONTENTS

4 LANGUAGE AND POLITICS

1920-1945 The Politics of Language, 104. Marxism and the Norwegian Language, 113. The Committee of 1934, 117. Proposal for a New Orthography, 120. Critique and Controversy, 128. The Supplementary Proposal, 136. The Orthography of 1938, 142. The Simplification of Style, 148. The Quislings Try their Hand, 158.

5 RECONSTRUCTION AND REGULATION: THE LANGUAGE

COMMISSION

1946-1951 Reinstatement of the New Orthography, 164. Nynorsk in the New Era, 167. The Riksmâl reaction, 170. An Academy for Norway?, 176. The Language Commission, 181. The Numbers Game, 185. Qualms and Queries (1949-1950), 189. Parents to the Rescue, 193. The Beginning of The Word, 196. The Battle of the Language Commission, 199.

6 DECADE OF DISCUSSION: THE TEXTBOOK

NORM

1952-1962 Controversies over Membership, 206. The Commission Goes to Work, 210. Consolidation of the Riksmâl Movement, 214. Nynorsk Rallies its Forces: "Action against Reaction," 227. The Language Commission Prepares a Norm, 237. The Nature of the New Norm, 244. Reception and Introduction, 247. The Abominable Snowman and the Children's Hour, 256. Attack and Counterattack, 262. The Commission Works On, 267.

xii

CONTENTS

7 CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE

276

T h e Role of Nationalism, 277. T h e Three Cultures, 282. T h e Resistance of Structure, 288. Linguistics and Language Planning, 295. T h e Fruits of Planning, 303.

APPENDIX 1

309

STATISTICS ON LANGUAGE USE AND PREFERENCE Table 1: Language use in the public schools. Table 2: Language use in public schools by counties (rural only). Table 3: Language use in church services. Table 4: Language preference in township boards. Table 5: Language use in published books (1946-1955), by year. T a b l e 6: Language use in published books (1946-1955), by topic. Table 7: Language use in published books (1946-1955), by original language. Table 8: Language preference of army recruits, 19-22 years old. Table 9: Language preference in academic work, artium examination. Table 10: Language preference in academic work, students entering the University of Oslo. Table 1 1 : Language preference in academic work, qualifying examinations. Table 12: Language preference in academic work, language form of diploma. APPENDIX

316

2

ILLUSTRATIONS OF ORTHOGRAPHIC CHANGES BETWEEN

19OO AND

1962

BIBLIOGRAPHY

325

NOTES

355

INDEX

383

1. General 2. Norwegian

xiii

Illustrations

The Language Trolls Invade Christiania (Olaf Gulbransson) Revolution? (Ragnvald Blix) Away from Denmark (Ragnvald Blix) India and Norway (Salo Grenning, "Pedro") Map of Norway: Language Use in Rural Public Schools Vowel Patriotism (Bo Bojesen) Reconciliation of the Two Authors' Societies (Salo Grenning, "Pedro") The Norwegian Language Problem Reflected on Stamps

xiv

42 87 109 174 229 261 275 281

LANGUAGE CONFLICT AND LANGUAGE PLANNING T H E CASE OF MODERN

NORWEGIAN

ABBREVIATIONS Aftp AL APSR Arb.bl BJS Bm Chra. Dagbl EN HR UAL KK Kra. LC Lm Mgbl MLA MLJ Nn NRK NSklb NSpr NT ON PMLA Rm Rm.bladet SS Stort. Forh. VG VL WN

Aftenposten (Oslo) Anthropological Linguistics American Political Science Review Arbeiderbladet (Oslo) British Journal of Sociology Bokmâl Christiania (now Oslo) Dagbladet (Oslo) East Norwegian Human Relations International Journal of American Linguistics Kirke og Kultur Kristiania (now Oslo) Language Commission (= Norsk Sprâknemnd) Landsmâl Morgenbladet (Oslo) Modern Language Association Modern Language Journal Nynorsk Norsk Rikskringkasting Norsk Skuleblad Norsk Sprâknemnd (— Language Commission) Norsk Tidend (Oslo) Old Norse Publications of the Modern Language Association Riksmâl Riksmâlsbladet Syn og Segn Stortings Forhandlinger Verdens Gang (Oslo) Vârt Land (Oslo) West Norwegian

xvi

For a man to speak one language rather than another is a ritual act, it is a statement about one's personal status; to speak the same language as one's neighbours expresses solidarity with those neighbours, to speak a different language from one's neighbours expresses social distance or even hostility. E. R . Leach (1954)1

I T H E P R O B L E M OF

LANGUAGE

During the past century Norway has been the scene of a conscious effort to plan the development of a new national language. Ideas about language have reached out from the quiet studies of scholars to the public press and the halls of Parliament. They have aroused vigorous discussion and compelled decisions affecting every citizen and his children. Little by little a linguistic avalanche has been set in motion, an avalanche which is still sliding and which no one quite knows how to stop, even though many would be happy to do so. When the movement began, Norway had a stable language of writing that was virtually identical with Danish. Today it has two competing languages, neither of which is stable. One of these claims to be the more cultured, the other the more patriotic. The average Norwegian is in the confusing position of not being quite sure whether he can manage to be both. The paradox was clearly stated at the turn of the century by the author Arne Garborg, when he wrote: "An independent Norwegian language of culture has not been attained. But we do have two languages. One of ι

CONFLICT AND PLANNING these is Norwegian, but not yet a developed language of culture; the other is a language of culture, but not yet independently Norwegian." 2 When Garborg wrote these wry words, there had been relatively little official language planning. 3 Such planning has become characteristic of the twentieth century, and it will be the purpose of this book to describe the planning and its results in some detail. The only previous survey of the Norwegian language movement, by Achille Burgun, appeared in French in 1918-1921 and concentrated on the nineteenth century. It ended approximately where this book begins. It is not the intent here to present a broad survey of all aspects of the movement, but primarily to give an account of the so-called "spelling reforms" of the twentieth century and the discussions that led up to them. The reader will understand that the problem is a delicate one, which generates heated argument wherever Norwegians forgather. No issue of internal policy has been more perennial or more upsetting than this one. Even an interested outside observer like the present writer can hardly hope to escape the charge of bias in a controversy where objectivity is notoriously absent. He has nevertheless tried to present the situation in as unbiased a way as possible and to give the facts with a minimum of comment. The ideas and motivations underlying a program of language planning are so remote from the experience of educated Americans or Englishmen that they may find it difficult even to understand them. In our ever-shrinking world the notion that a national language is something worth working at and struggling for may seem merely a piece of inscrutable mysticism. It is hoped that through the following account the reader may gain some understanding of the feelings of self-respect and personal integrity that motivate 2

T H E PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE such a movement, as well as the excesses to which it can sometimes lead. While the Norwegian problem has its own unique profile, it involves issues faced by literate societies ever since the invention of printing and the consequent spread of standard languages. At stake are such questions as the establishment of the norms of good writing and speaking, the adequacy of a language as an expression of the people which uses it, and the sharpening of language as a tool for creative and scientific thinking. Another central issue has been the question of whether a state can properly engage in language planning: to what extent can a language be shaped by conscious deliberation, and who is ultimately qualified to make the necessary decisions? It is only too apparent that while this is a problem of language it is not purely linguistic. It is also, and perhaps pre-eminently, a sociopolitical problem, with roots that reach down into the heart of Norwegian life. This is true of standard languages and their growth everywhere, and it is hoped that the following study may throw some light on this subject. In a day when many new nations are emerging and are facing an array of new language problems, it should be helpful to analyze the course of modern Norwegian language planning. PLANNING AND THE GRAMMARIANS

Prior to the planning of language must come the study of language. This is the province of a breed of men who today prefer to be known as "linguists," but in ancient times were generally called "grammarians." While there is only sporadic evidence of official language planning before modern times, its roots go back to the work of the ancient grammarians. The grammarian played a dual role, being 3

CONFLICT AND PLANNING concerned on the one hand with discovering the nature of language, and on the other with teaching its norms to the young. As an observer and discoverer he was the founder of the science of linguistics, but as a teacher and lawgiver he was part of the same establishment as the priests, the lawyers, and the princes. Just as they founded or administered the codes of religion, law, and etiquette, so he established and interpreted codes of "right" or "good" or "correct" language. T h e very use of such terms is repugnant to the modern linguist, since they imply value judgments that are extraneous to the scientific, descriptive function of his science. But in earlier times the line was not clearly drawn between a descriptive and a prescriptive study of language, between what is and what ought to be. Grammar was more a normative than an analytic discipline. This dual and often ill-defined role was characteristic even of such great names in the history of linguistics as the ancient Indian grammarian Panini, whose exhaustive description of Sanskrit probably had as its chief purpose to fix the form of Sanskrit as a sacred language and make it possible to transmit it unchanged from generation to generation. 4 In so far as this is a kind of language planning, we may call it negative planning. While the early Greek philosophers were drawn to the study of language by scientific curiosity, the codification of grammar as a teaching instrument came relatively late in the development of Greek thought, being characteristic of the Hellenistic and Alexandrine periods. Latin grammar was largely taken over from the Greeks, but even here the typical school grammars did not come into being before the Imperial era. Languages were codified when they were on the point of becoming dead or dormant, ritual languages no longer learned by children from their mothers. Hebrew and Arabic were first codified by grammarians long after their sacred scriptures 4

THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE were written.5 As the American Sanskritist William Dwight Whitney once remarked, "It is not customary that a language has its proper usages fixed by rule until the danger is distinctly felt of its undergoing corruption." 6 Beyond setting up rules to guard writers against elementary mistakes, these grammarians could only recommend certain models for the further, unpredictable behavior of their users. Cicero in his De Oratore advised against "country roughness" and recommended to the orator that he should adopt a "Roman and urban tone, in which there is nothing to offend, to displease, or even to attract notice." 7 When Horace recommended "usus" as the "arbitrium et jus et norma loquendi," he can hardly have meant the usage of the majority, but rather that of the ruling aristocrats of Rome, especially when fulfilling their functions as public figures.8 This was the kind of Latin handed down to the Middle Ages by Donatus, Quintilian, and the rest of the grammarians as the language of Church and Science. In Western Europe Latin remained the only true "book language" for many centuries after the fall of Rome. But in bringing the Latin alphabet to the heathen Celts and Germans of Northern Europe, the Church also brought them the instrument for freeing themselves from the yoke of Latin. In Eastern Europe a similar role was played by the Greek alphabet and its offspring the Cyrillic, which made possible the writing of Old Church Slavonic. Throughout Europe novel traditions of writing sprang up, usually with the sanction of the Church and at first subservient to her purposes. These were standardized only within very narrow limits: a language like Old High German exists in a multitude of local forms. Elaboration went on by borrowing and creation on Latin or Greek models. But full acceptance was long delayed, thanks to the authority of the Church and the obvious utility in an essentially feudal world of a 5

CONFLICT AND PLANNING supranational standard language. The local standards were at first little more than intermediaries between the local speech forms and Latin writing, conveying the essentials of Latin scripture and science to illiterate populations. Latin and Greek were the "teacher languages" of Europe, a role which their pupils in turn usurped after the Renaissance. T h e Renaissance brought with it three important innovations which radically altered the life conditions of standard languages. These were revolutions of a technological, intellectual, and political order, viz., the invention of printing, the revival of secular learning, and the rise of the nation-state. T h e first broke the monopoly of the clerics on reading and writing, the second their hold on the minds, and the third their control of the masses. It is not without significance that Luther's Reformation should also have prepared the death of Low German as a standard language and the triumph of High German. 9 Luther's Bible of 1522— 1534 standardized a norm developed in the linguistically intermediate areas of Eastern Germany and Austria, one which proved to be acceptable to all Germans. T h e Bible provided also a beginning toward the elaboration of German; and the same year saw the first mathematical proof in that language. 10 In 1539 King Francis I abolished the use of Latin in the courts, thereby making French the language of the state in all functions. 11 These are only typical dates, which could be duplicated in other countries. They signal the elevation of certain writing traditions to the status of official standards replacing Latin and the elimination of others which were politically less fortunate. We need not be surprised that the first full-fledged grammars of the new standards began appearing at this time. 12 Only with their acceptance by the powers of the state did the languages become objects of pedagogical interest, though of course it 6

THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE was still a long time before they were to become regular subjects in school. The languages which fell heir to Latin and Greek in Europe numbered a round dozen. In the Romance area they were Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese; in the Germanic area English, German, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish; and in the Slavic area Czech, Polish, and Russian. There were marginal traditions that were struggling against odds, such as Modern Greek, Irish, Welsh, and Icelandic. Among those which succumbed was Norwegian, along with Low German, Provençal, Scottish Gaelic, Cornish, and Wendish, to name only a few. But the submerged languages were to get still another chance. The French Revolution, with its ideals of freedom and fraternity, destroyed old privileges and brought new nations into being. A new round of linguistic revolutions burst forth as nations were either liberated or newly created. Each of the following nations had its language problem, which became part of its pressing business after the establishment of political independence: Norway (1814), Greece (1829), Belgium (1831), Rumania (1861), Hungary (1867), Bulgaria (1878), and Albania (1913). World War I ended with the emergence of Finland (1917), Estonia (1918), Latvia (1918), Lithuania (1918), Iceland (1918), and the Irish Republic (1921). Each of these added its own language to the concert of Europe, or rather to its bedlam. Czecho-Slovakia (1918) found it necessary to add Slovak on top of Czech, while Yugoslavia (1918) eventually adopted two extra languages, Slovenian and Macedonian, over and beyond its somewhat shaky dual language, Serbo-Croatian. The Russian Revolution led to a further proliferation of languages in the Soviet Union, where old traditions were altered and new ones established.13 In 1926 Turkey transformed the 7

CONFLICT AND PLANNING appearance of its language overnight by substituting Roman script for Arabic. This was more than a purely external change, for it meant also a shift of model from Islam to the West. 14 There is no need to pursue the rapidly changing picture of standard languages in our time beyond the borders of Europe, except to point out that the problem today is world-wide. India agonizes over problems of language, having decided to adopt as its future national language one which lacks literary tradition and is decidedly unpopular in many parts of the country. 15 Indonesia has adopted a newly created form of Malay known as "Indonesian," thereby eliminating several local traditions and its colonial language Dutch. 16 Israel has established as its lingua franca the old language of Judaism, with apparent and immediate success. T h e emergent nations of Africa are faced with more difficult choices, having had no previous traditions of native writing and no unified spoken standards. 17 So far most of them have had to make do with the language of their former masters, supplemented for local and partial use by some of the stronger vernaculars. T h e problem is crucial to the independent existence of many of them, but it will not meet its real test until programs of universal literacy are seriously embarked upon. As long ago as 1928 linguists like Antoine Meillet warned against what he called the "Balkanization" of Europe. As he saw it, Europe ivas destroying its own unity by having large parts of it "handed over to the peasants," who were busy creating new languages, which were often no more than caiques on the old. 18 In contrast to what we may call the "modern languages" which came into full bloom at the Renaissance, these "recent languages" were often limited to rural populations, with weak writing traditions, and would in the natural course of events have disappeared. 8

THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE But the new doctrines of national self-determination and what has been called the "mobilization" of the population into participation in national life reversed a trend toward drastic reduction in the number of languages. 19 Their leaders found in language a weapon against the old feudal societies and were not to be talked out of having languages of their own. They took the position that "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," and disregarding any regrets which possessors of such major languages as French or English might express, they were determined to find their own outlets to expression. They could not wait, either for the full standardization of their own languages or for the learning by their native populations of a different language. It is in this context that we have to see the mushrooming of language planning in our times. Advice concerning the use of "good" language, such as was dispensed by the early grammarians from classical to early modern times, yielded to official establishment of norms. T h e transitional link was formed by the semiofficial institutions known as "academies." T h e "language academy" was one of the many contributions of the Italian Renaissance to European culture. In 1582 the writers of Florence persuaded Duke Cosimo I to establish the Accademia della Crusca for the purpose of sifting and winnowing the Italian language [crusca means 'bran, chaff']. This they appear to have done xvith great vigor in their Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca, which appeared in 1612 and was strongly puristic in tone. Tuscan had already established itself as the leading dialect in a politically and linguistically divided country, and the Vocabolario legitimized its position. While the ideas of the Accademia continued to dominate Italian thinking for a long time, there were also voices that called for "more liberal guidance and direction for the literary language." 20

9

CONFLICT AND PLANNING T h e first and most famous scion of the Accademia was the Académie française, cannily established by Cardinal Richelieu in 1635 as part of his policy of political centralization. The statutes declared its function to be "to labor with all the care and diligence possible to give exact rules to our language and to render it capable of treating the arts and sciences." 21 It was thus entrusted with both the normalization and the elaboration of French, although its actual effect was probably more symbolic than operational. T h e first edition of its dictionary did not appear until 1694 and its spelling did not become official until 1835.22 In the words of a French writer, " I l s'agissait, en réalité, de tirer la langue française comme du milieu des autres langues, et de lui donner cette universalité, cette prééminence, et pour cela cette perfection que la grecque et la latine avaient eues dans le monde ancien." 23 The Italian and French examples were widely copied. Spain established its academy in 1713, Sweden in 1739, Hungary in 1830, and others have sprung up from time to time. Their history has not been written and we are not prepared to say precisely what effect their lucubrations have actually had on the languages. It would be idle to expect a scientific approach from institutions representing the social, literary, and academic élites of these countries. As arbiters of taste and fashion, their interest in language was entirely secondary. T o be a member of an Academy was an honor conferred for reasons only tangentially related to linguistic insight and knowledge. Perhaps the greatest value of the academies was to confer social prestige on the work of the grammarians. They supplied models to be followed and had access to some of the means by which acceptance of these models might be gained. They were not qualified to deal realistically with the linguistic dimension and as time went on were therefore impelled to call in linguistic experts, 10

THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE primarily lexicographers. Like the Italian and French academies, they have usually emphasized the compilation of dictionaries, which served as repositories of the "permitted" words, a kind of social register of "nice" expressions. Much good lexicographical work was done in this way, and the sponsorship of the academies no doubt helped to provide funds for linguistic work that might otherwise not have gotten done. But the models which guided their decisions were narrowly classical, or puristic, and tended to inhibit rather than encourage the growth of language. And as indices of what was actually happening they are grossly deficient, as we would expect from the fact that they were primarily normative. Even in countries where no academy was instituted there were strong forces working toward the application of regulatory and rationalistic standards. Prominent English writers like Milton, Dryden, Defoe, and Swift called for an English academy but failed in the face of what Samuel Johnson termed "the spirit of English liberty." 24 A German student of the subject, Hermann Flasdieck,25 attributes the failure to English anti-intellectualism; but it might be more accurate to call it devotion to private enterprise. For the same Johnson who ridiculed the vain efforts of academies "to enchain syllables" produced in 1755 the first really authoritative English dictionary and thereby made an academy superfluous. Since his time it has become a tradition that the privately authored dictionary is the repository of the best English and the arbiter of all linguistic problems. Noah Webster transplanted the idea to American soil, and the book bearing his name has ever since occupied a place in American life somewhere between the Bible and Emily Post's handbook of etiquette. 26 The rationalism of the eighteenth century was not solely directed at the codification of existing standards. It also 11

CONFLICT AND PLANNING comported vigorous strains o£ revolutionary and skeptical thought. On the one hand voices were raised in favor of new languages and new social groups, and the concept of reform was in the air. Attention was fixed on actual practice, and note was taken of the discrepancy between usage and norm. Noah Webster wrote (1798) that "grammar is built solely on the structure of language. That which is not found in the practice of speaking a language can have no place in a grammar of that language . . . Grammars are made to show the student what a language is—not, how it ought to be." 27 There were even skeptics who denied the possibility of regulating language at all. T h e English grammarian Joseph Priestley wrote in 1761: "This will never be effected by the arbitrary rules of any man, or body of men whatever . . . A language can never be properly fixed, till all the varieties with which it is used, have been held forth to public view and the general preference of certain forms have been declared, by the general practice afterwards." 28 T h e need for positive language planning and the means for implementing it were first widely available in the nineteenth century. New orthographies were needed for new languages, and many of the old were felt to be unsatisfactory. When school systems were established for whole populations, the governments that conducted them had to take a hand in regulating the language in which they were taught. Many groups awoke to discover that they were second-class citizens in their own country, excluded from public life by their unfamiliarity with the dominant standard. In some cases this led to the establishment or re-establishment of competing standards. It appears to be almost the rule that such movements can be traced back to a single devoted person, who gave focus to the prevailing dissatisfactions of his people. Having issued from the group whose language was neglected, such reformers often had more than a purely in12

THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE

tellectual motivation for establishing the existence of their language. Theirs became one contribution to the general liberation of the group, a medium of revolt and a symbol of unity. Great innovators had arisen earlier, in the histories of the older standards: we may think of Dante for Italian, Chaucer for English, or Luther for German. But these men were writers, who furnished models for imitation, not rules of usage. Only later were they followed by the grammarians. But in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries it has happened more than once that the grammarians have come first, while the writers have followed on their heels. One of the earliest of the modern reformers was the Greek Adamantios Koráis (1748-1833), who established the norms of the Katharevousa, or "pure language," beginning in 1788.28 He chose as his model the religious and academic version of modern Greek (which retained as much as possible of New Testament Greek), rather than the folk language, which came to be known as Demotike. His elaboration of the vocabulary was puristic, aimed at eliminating loanwords and restoring the harmonious lexical structure of classical Greek. The result of his choice was a deep-seated linguistic cleavage in Greek life, a prime example of what Charles A. Ferguson has called "diglossia." The exact opposite occurred in Yugoslavia, where Vuk Stefanovi¿ Karadzié (1787— 1864) rejected the Old Slavonic church language in favor of the folk language and succeeded in rallying around his grammar of 1814 and his dictionary of 1818 not only the Serbs but in 1850 (with the aid of the Croat Ljudevit Gaj) also the Croats.30 In spite of the deep cultural and religious cleft between Serbs and Croats there is therefore no diglossia in Serbo-Croatian. These examples suggest that there was ample precedent in contemporary Europe for the work on behalf of a Norwegian language which Ivar Aasen initiated in 1836 and 13

CONFLICT AND PLANNING carried through in his grammar of 1864 and his dictionary of 1873. Other names come to mind: Stur in Slovakia, Aavik in Estonia, Jablonskis in Lithuania, Ben Yehuda in Palestine. 31 T h e great advantage which Aasen's and later generations possessed over the earlier periods was the availability of a newly founded linguistic science. Names like the Danish Rasmus Rask and the German Jakob Grimm were links between Aasen in the north and Karadzic in the south of Europe. 32 T h e discovery of the Indo-European family of languages, which extended from Ireland to India, and the newly established principles of comparative linguistics, afforded a solid foundation for the creation of new standard languages as well. T h e principle that made it possible to reconstruct a hypothetical, unattested mother tongue from widely scattered languages could also be applied to closely related dialects, to make a common standard which would represent them all. T h e result was often etymological or "old-fashioned" standards. Even though they were synthetic, this gave them an air of dignity and remoteness which made them resemble the older, traditionally developed norms of Europe. T h e i r symbolic significance was of greater weight than their practical feasibility as media of communication. It remained for the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to initiate official language planning and undertake serious programs of linguistic research to back them up. T h e typical source of language planning in our day is neither the stately academies of the Enlightenment nor the eager entrepreneurs of the Romantic Era, but the expert commission of the Technological Age. Such commissions exist in virtually all the countries where language problems are acute, and even in some where they are not. 33 They are normally appointed by a branch of the government either ad hoc or on a permanent basis, and they are asked to furnish materials and analyses while serving in a purely ad-

THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE visory capacity. They are encouraged to make researches into the linguistic situation of their country and studies of its linguistic and literary traditions. 34 A typical instance was the Linguistic Society appointed by Kemal Atatürk in 1932 "to bring out the genuine beauty and richness of the Turkish language and to elevate it to the high rank it deserves among world languages." 35 In 1950 a new political climate led to its unseating as a semiofficial institution. In Czecho-Slovakia there are both Czech and Slovak linguistic commissions at work on the problems of standardizing and elaborating terminology. 36 Between 1954 and 1959 a joint Serbo-Croatian commission took a great step toward harmonizing the minor differences between the Serbian and Croatian variants of that language. 37 T h e form of Macedonian was thrashed out in a series of conferences held immediately after liberation, in May 1945. A manual of orthography appeared in 1950, followed by a comprehensive normative grammar in 1952-1954. 38 In Scandinavia there are committees in each country that supervise the creation of new technical terms and promote linguistic interaction. 39 In Israel there has been a Hebrew Language Committee since 1890, which in 1953 assumed the higher dignity of an Academy. 40 How successful has the work of such bodies been? One may guess that success is a function of the social needs of the people involved. A population in rapid intellectual development will more readily accept a new standard language than one which has little interest in literacy. T h e German linguist Eduard Hermann was surprised in 1925 to discover that standard Lithuanian, first written in 1883, was already in full use. 41 In Finland and Estonia new coinages replacing earlier loans came into rapid use after the liberation of these countries in World War I. 42 On the other hand, the natives of the Caroline Islands were slow to take any interest 15

CONFLICT AND PLANNING in a standard created for them by linguists, and a Bantu language board in South Africa has been met with almost total indifference by the natives.43 They would rather learn English, as do the young people of Ireland. The mass of Guaraní speakers in Paraguay prefer their own language in daily life but are disinterested in standardizing it, since Spanish is the normal language for public affairs.44 PRINCIPLES OF

PLANNING

Language planning always takes place in a specific social context, and the choices are therefore severely limited. By virtue of its complexity, each problem is to some extent unique and general principles are hard to apply. Their application tends to be guided by the emotions of the participants, which inevitably run strong in any question affecting one's own language. If it is true, as Leach suggests in the quotation at the head of this chapter, that speaking a language is a ritual act, then it is clear that any haggling or manipulation involving its form or function can be extremely upsetting. T h e planner's hands are least tied when he can plan a language from the ground up, say in a wholly illiterate society. But even here there are firm social attitudes; and in the case of well-established norms such attitudes are still more firmly held, so that they can be altered only for the most compelling of reasons. An Indian student of the subject, P. S. Ray, has suggested that there are three basic goals which any program of language planning should keep in mind.45 He calls these efficiency, rationality, and commonalty. Efficiency refers to the problem of learning, which faces every user of a language when he is asked to change his habits or to establish new ones. Is the new form easier to learn and to maintain than the old one, in terms of expenditure of human resources? In so far as this can be objectively determined, it is a strong 16

THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE argument for change. But efficiency is not necessarily identical with phonetic spelling or short words or lack of inflections, as many might suppose. Rationality designates the extent to which a given language meets the demands of its age for intellectual precision. The possible distinctions in the ever-expanding universe of knowledge are of course infinite. Any new form should differ from all older forms either in structural or functional meaning, in terms of the objective knowledge of the day. There is no advantage, however, in having more words than ideas, and the average user of most languages is only likely to be overwhelmed by the subtleties of learned jargon. Commonalty is a function of the individual speaker's relationship to his fellows. A new form must be affirmative of his self-respect, and permit him to participate more fully in the expressive life of his group. This says nothing about the size of his group: is it the family, the neighborhood, the region, the nation, or the world? Many problems of language planning arise from conflicts between these groups, which result in divided linguistic allegiance on the part of the individual. A language which reflects the commonalty of a smaller group may offend that of a larger one. The best should be one that most successfully meets the needs of both, or in Ray's terms, which is inwardly unified and outwardly open. Whatever usefulness such abstract goals may have in clarifying our thinking, we must recognize that actual practice lags rather far behind and that most programs of planning are faced with problems which cannot be handled on so high a level. Most of the problems faced may be distinguished into problems of form or function: by the former we mean the linguistic structure in all its ramifications, by the latter the variety of uses to which that structure is put. In any movement for change one may distinguish initiation from implementation: proposals are made, initiatives are 17

C O N F L I C T AND PLANNING taken, but decisions, whether conscious or unconscious, have to be implemented by some kind of social institutions. T h e initiation in the case of linguistic form will be called the selection of a norm, while the implementation will be referred to as the codification of form. In the case of linguistic function the initiation will here be known as the elaboration of function, while the implementation will be called acceptance by the community. W e shall explain a little more fully what each of these involves. 1) Selection of norm. Planning may be involved either in selecting a new norm or in modifying an old one. Where a new norm is to be established, the problem will be as complex as the sociolinguistic structure of the people involved. There will be little difficulty if everyone speaks virtually alike, a situation rarely found. Elsewhere it may be necessary to make some embarrassing decisions. T o choose any one variety as a norm means to favor the group of people speaking that variety. It gives them prestige as norm-bearers and a headstart in the race for power and position. If a recognized elite already exists with a characteristic variety of language, their norm will almost inevitably prevail. But where there are socially coordinate groups of people within the community, usually distributed regionally or tribally, the choice of any one will meet with resistance from the rest. This resistance is likely to be stronger the greater the language distance within the group. It may often be a question of solidarity versus alienation: a group that feels intense solidarity is willing to overcome great linguistic differences, while one that does not is alienated by relatively small differences. Where transitions are gradual, it may be possible to find a central dialect which mediates between extremes, one which will be the easiest to learn and most conducive to group coherence. Where this is impossible, it may be necessary to resort to 18

THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE the construction of a new standard. T o some extent this has happened naturally in the rise of the traditional norms; it has been the aim of many language reformers to duplicate the effect in new ones. For related dialects one can apply principles of linguistic reconstruction to make a hypothetical mother tongue for them all. Or one can be guided by some actual or supposed mother tongue, which exists in older, traditional writings. Or one can combine those forms which have the widest usage, in the hope that they will most easily win general acceptance. These three procedures, the comparative, the archaizing, and the statistical, may clash, making decisions difficult. In countries where there are actually different languages, amounting in some African nations to more than a hundred, it will either be necessary to recognize multiple norms or introduce an alien norm, which will usually be an international language like English or French. If we think of the whole world as a language community, these and a few others are rivals for leadership in the same way as dialects within a nation. The weakness of Esperanto and other constructed solutions is that the methods of comparative linguistics are not available because of the lack of common elements to compare. The efforts to date have all been mechanical combinations of limited language data. Since most of the traditional languages of Europe were originally "written by and for elites," in the words of Meillet, their norms may be called self-selected.46 Positive planning has been called for only when it was desired to change them in order to achieve some particular effect. An older stress on the written form as normative has given way throughout the western world to a desire to make the oral form central. Writing has been rapidly changing in the direction of more informal styles of speaking. In keeping with the spread of education and growing democracy, mod19

CONFLICT AND PLANNING ern times have seen the introduction of previously excluded forms of speech into the written standards. One aspect of this has been the repeated calls for borrowing from native dialects. Romanticism and nationalism combined to urge the enrichment of the standard by drawing on rural and other dialects beyond the pale of polite society. Even the many attempts to purge languages of "foreign" elements and replace them by native may be seen as part of this broadening of the linguistic base, a change in norms corresponding to changing social attitudes. 2) Codification of form. Informal codification is the rule in any language community, even that of the written language. One can have a high degree of agreement in usage without any formal statement of rules. W h e n the lawgivers do arrive on the scene, they may be hampered by tradition and ignorance from giving realistic rules. T h e scientific approach of modern linguistics will often find itself at odds with traditional, prescriptive grammar, just as the modern philosopher may find himself in disagreement with revealed religion. Any attempt to apply rational insights to problems of language is likely to meet a solid wall of prejudice. T h e problems are too complex, however, to admit of any easy solution. One school of linguistics has for many years advocated a "phonetic" (more precisely: phonemic) spelling, largely to reduce the learning burden of children. Today, however, it has come to be realized that there is much to be said for a so-called "etymological" (more precisely: morphophonemic) spelling, which corresponds better to the grammatical structure of the language. For example, a phonemic spelling of dogs would require the final -s to become -ζ; but this would destroy its grammatical identity with the plural -s of cats. T h e sound values of the o's in geology and geological are very different; but their identity in spelling keeps these two related words together. One can 20

T H E PROBLEM OF L A N G U A G E even argue that a basically morphemic spelling, like the ideographic one of Chinese, difficult as it is to learn, has some advantages precisely because it is almost wholly divorced from pronunciation and therefore permits speakers of different languages to communicate in writing. Any planning which aims at a change in codification must begin by having a clear picture of the nature of previous codifications, if any, and of their relation to the facts of usage. Extensive and intelligently planned linguistic research is essential in any program of codification. This may be the most important factor in its success. T h e topics that might properly arise for discussion by competent linguists include a choice of script and orthography, of pronunciations, grammatical forms, and lexical items. T h e degree of prescriptive unity desired might vary a great deal among these topics. One would not like to duplicate the unhappy situations prevailing in Hindi-Urdu or in Serbo-Croatian, where one language is written in two scripts because of religious cleavage within the nation. T h e advantages of the Roman alphabet for world communication are so obvious today that one would like to see it introduced everywhere; yet there are firm resistances in many parts of the world. A unified orthography is certainly easier to establish than a unified pronunciation, but there ought to be a high degree of correspondence between the two for the sake of simpler learning. T o equalize the learning burden it may be necessary to adopt ambiguous spellings, like the a of English bath, which can stand for a number of different sounds. Conflicting grammatical forms, like English dove and dived or swam and swum, are extremely difficult to normalize: witness the persistence of proscribed forms like I ain't and he don't. These are tightly organized parts of a person's language, learned early and dying hard. Vocabulary is a much more loosely organized structure, 21

C O N F L I C T AND PLANNING which is constantly being renewed by learning and forgetting. T h e more technical a word is, the more important it is to have a standardized usage, and it is here that commissions of nomenclature can do their best work. Concepts need unit terms in proportion to their frequency and their precision. 3) Elaboration of function. Webster's Third International Dictionary claims a vocabulary of 450,000 words, of which it is not likely that most English speakers know more than 20-80,000, or about the number of words available to most human beings in any language. T h e overwhelming majority of the words contained in such a compilation are technical terms, used in specialized fields remote from the interests of the average speaker or writer. In one sense many of these are not English at all, but belong to an international language of science and technology, mathematically defined, and readily translatable into any language that needs them. W h i l e many of them were invented by speakers of English, a great many were not, since original scientific research, even in the natural sciences, is not limited to any one nation or language group. From the Hebrews, Greeks, and Arabs down to modern times, our elaborated codes of thought have been transmitted from one language to another, with accretions from original thinkers in whatever country. T h e evidences of this transmission are most patent in languages like English which do not attempt to cover their tracks when borrowing words. Languages like German or Icelandic, however, which reproduce the originally Greek "hydrogen" as Wasserstoff or vetni and "oxygen" as sauerstoff or eldi, are no less indebted to international science for their terminology. T h e need for such terms is directly proportional to the kind and extent of specialization within the society. Every living social group has its specialists, 22

T H E PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE whether they be bards or shamans, artisans or artists. Differences in age and sex, family and tribe, intelligence and interest all lead to differences in lexical stocks. Words are created on occasion, though observers are seldom present to record the occasion. More often they are learned from within the group or outside it. Planners have been concerned about duplicating the vocabulary of other languages in elaborating their own. As suggested, there are two basic approaches to this problem: innovation or adaptation. Adaptation is clearly the simpler, since it requires only that an already existent model in another language be adjusted to the structures of one's own. English and French have drawn heavily on the classical languages for their learned and scientific terms. The adaptation has often been very partial, and one can argue that English has a dual structure today because of its mass of loanwords. It is precisely to avoid this distortion of structure that other languages have sought to create native replicas instead of adaptations. This position, often called "puristic," is the one adopted by Icelandic as well as Greek, Hebrew, and others. While the argument is often advanced that such purism preserves the characteristic structure of the borrowing language, a more powerful motive is probably the sense of pride which derives from "doing it yourself." It is a stronger assertion of identity than the mere wholesale adaptation of foreign terms. As we shall see, Danish and Dano-Norwegian (Riksmâl) are more like English in this respect, while New Norwegian (Landsmâl) at first sought to emulate Icelandic, but has since tended more and more toward the acceptance of loanwords. Elaboration is not only a matter of scientific vocabulary. It involves also the extension of linguistic function into the realms of imaginative and emotional experience. Here the enrichment comes more clearly from the artistic community, 23

CONFLICT AND PLANNING which is at once international in scope and local in attachment. A standard language today is not felt to be complete unless it also has a wide range of expression for intimate, emotional life. This is provided from the oral language, often substandard or rural dialects, whose speakers are more uninhibited or are sensed as more picturesque in their language use. Modern lexicographers are often sympathetically inclined and are more ready to include such terms in their dictionaries than were the old academies. By excerpting the works of modern authors, they have a wide range of usage from which to choose. 4) Acceptance by the community. T h e planner proposes, but the community disposes. Authorities have tried to impose certain norms for centuries with only partial success. Schools have diligently taught "correct" language, with only a few of their scholars sufficiently docile, or ambitious, to learn it. The historical linguists of the nineteenth century were inclined to discount the possibility of influencing linguistic change at all. T h e laws they discovered operated blindly, like natural laws, and it became fashionable to speak of language as an organism, subject to the same evolutionary development as other organisms. T h e biological metaphor has now yielded to a structural one: language is a structure, every part of which depends on the rest. If this is true, then of course one cannot tamper with any part of it without affecting the whole. Nevertheless this branch of what may be called "applied linguistics" has shown that it can have pragmatic results. Just as social planning has become a reality in many nations, so language planning is more than a negligible factor in the world. Deliberate changes in script and orthography have proved both feasible and beneficial. New norms have been selected and codified, and great strides have been taken toward elaborating them and getting them accepted. 24

THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE There is a wide difference in achievement between the nearsuccess of modern Hebrew and the near-failure of modern Irish, but even the latter has contributed to give Eire a more picturesque identity, without seriously impeding its practical affairs. In many countries loyalty to groups larger than the local community has been promoted, which is at least one step in the direction of integration into a world community. T h e willingness of any community to accept innovations in language is determined by the degree of difficulty encountered in teaching the innovation and the degree of self-discipline which the community is willing to impose. Innovations in the fundamentals of grammar and pronunciation can only be introduced in infancy and depend on the willingness of parents to discipline their children. Script and orthography are taught in schools, or at least after infancy, and depend on the willingness of parents to alter the school curriculum and train teachers to teach it. Innovations in vocabulary occur throughout life, at all levels of education, and depend on both the above factors, plus others still unknown. Changes in core vocabulary are as likely to be resisted as changes in grammar. Changes in learned vocabulary can be made at a higher and more conscious level. Experiences in Norway, as in most other countries where planning has been attempted, suggest that orthography and technical vocabulary are the most fruitful areas for the planner's endeavor. 47 Perhaps it is as well that language planning should remain only a modest part of linguistic life. Otherwise the field might be invaded by the hucksters, whose skill in manipulating public opinion has so far been devoted largely to popularizing the names of certain profitable products and enterprises. Public opinion research may actually have much to say about the possibility of launching linguistic 25

CONFLICT AND PLANNING changes. Language habits, like floating icebergs, are mostly submerged. Their essential nature is still largely hidden from us, and planners who act on the assumption that they understand their nature risk running afoul of the invisible nine tenths. Language planning is therefore still more of an art than a science. Like politics, of which it is a part, it is the art of the possible. The language planner must have some of the equipment of the prophet or the soothsayer: to foresee the wave of the future and ride it to its goal. As pointed out by P. S. Ray, he can do so only if his goal is substantially the same as that which the people have unconsciously accepted as their own.48 We shall now consider the vicissitudes of language planning in a western, democratic, and socially well-ordered country, Norway, which would have been more peaceful but also less interesting if its language had not become a national and social issue.

26

T h e name of a Norwegian language and literature is no longer of any concern to Norwegians . . . Now it is the reality of an independent written language that challenges the spirits of Norway. Time must of itself give birth to this before the century has run its course, and so much the sooner as our forces are united to that purpose. Henrik Wergeland (1835)1

2 THE LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN

The clarion call on behalf of linguistic independence which is quoted above was issued to Norwegians by their first great poet and nationalistic agitator in the first generation of their political independence. Wergeland's words are significant in themselves as an expression of views held by patriots in that age. They are significant also as stimulators of action, having been quoted again and again in the controversies that arose throughout the century. Henrik Wergeland (1807-1845) clearly believed that political independence, such as Norway had achieved in 1814, would of itself bring about linguistic independence. But he also believed that it should be worked for, and that controversy would be necessary to bring it about. In the essay "On Norwegian Language Reformation" from which the words quoted above are taken, he predicted that "the profit and honor of an independently developed language" would cost the Norwegians "a literary civil war." He welcomed this, since "the control of the opponents will prevent the language from being deluged with streams of useless words," while their

27

CONFLICT AND PLANNING "most fine-meshed sieve will not be able to prevent the useful ones from passing." Wergeland believed that "lexical enrichment" would be the main advantage to be derived from the recognition of Norwegian speech, but he did not exclude the possibility that some of the "grammatical wealth" of the dialects might also be regained. T o him the problem was primarily one of expressiveness; he felt the poet's need of a language rich in concrete, vivid terms, with symbolic and emotional force. But he concluded his essay with an appeal to national pride: Norway must no longer remain a "cultural province" of Denmark; if Norwegians should be persuaded to lose confidence in themselves and their future in the cultural sphere, "then Norway will not long enjoy the benefits of political independence." DANISH AND NORWEGIAN

T h e reality that faced Norwegians in the generation after 1814 was that four centuries of dynastic union with Denmark had left the country without a voice of its own. T h e tradition of Norway as a sovereign nation had never died, but there was little in the present to support it. In the face of a decision by the victors over Napoleon to separate Norway from Denmark and hand it to Sweden, a constitutional convention had been hastily called, a free constitution written in the spirit of the American and French revolutions, and a Danish prince chosen as monarch. Military pressure forced the Norwegians to give up their monarch and accept a new dynastic union with Sweden but left the constitution and the internal government intact. Norwegians thus found themselves with an apparatus for democratic self-government, plus a set of bureaucratic institutions derived from Denmark, but with little else that could contribute to the growth of a truly national consciousness. It was a matter of life and death for the nation to imbue the political appara28

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN tus, so suddenly evacuated by the Danish government, with native content and to solidify popular support behind it, if it were not one day to be occupied by the Swedes. The main thread of Norwegian history in the nineteenth century is the story of how Norwegians succeeded in this endeavor, which in 1905 led to the severance of political bonds with Sweden and the re-emergence of Norway as a sovereign nation. 2 The Constitution specified that the business of the state should be conducted "in Norwegian." The purpose of this provision may have been to exclude the use of Swedish, for its authors can hardly have had in mind any radical linguistic change from the prevalent Danish. In fact, as long as Norway and Denmark had remained united, with Copenhagen as the common capital, the written language of government and literature was felt by most people to be common to both nations, equally distant from the spoken dialects of both. It was often called Faellessproget, the Common Language. It was only when Norway was politically separated that the problem of nomenclature became acute and the essential Danishness of the written language stood revealed. Before 1800 neither governments nor populations were especially sensitive about the national qualities of written languages, which were limited to official usage or to a literature that could be enjoyed only by the literate minority of the population. Danish had itself been in official disfavor in its own country until quite recently, with German dominant, just as German had only recently struggled its way out of bondage to Latin and French. The liberation of German constituted a model, first to the Danes, and later to the Norwegians. Wergeland made specific reference in his essay of 1835 to the upsurge of German in the preceding century, when "Klopstock and Voss and Wieland unloosed the hobbles and the pinions, while Schiller and 29

CONFLICT AND PLANNING Goethe flew up with their liberated genius." 3 Norwegians took heart from this example and proceeded to work toward the fulfillment of a similar release for their own expression. Linguistically their problem was to define what was meant by "Norwegian" and to implement its use in their national life. Psychologically this was a part of their search for individual and national identity. While Wergeland emphasized the spoken dialects as a major source of Norwegian materials, he also pointed to the language of ancient Norway. Old Norwegian manuscript materials are preserved from 1150 on, but writing must have begun some years earlier. Together with the more abundant Old Icelandic manuscripts they embody a Norwegian tradition of oral composition going back into the days of the formation of the Norwegian kingdom in the ninth century. The rediscovery of this literature and its Old Norxvegian language was one of the triumphs of scholarship in Wergeland's generation, and a great stimulus to national pride. The extinction of written Norwegian followed a century or so after the union with Denmark in 1397, since there remained in Norway neither a court nor a chancery to maintain the tradition. The step from written Norwegian to written Danish was not great, and there is no evidence of any protest on the part of Norwegian scribes over the use of Danish. In the late Middle Ages it was a matter of course that the government used whatever language it pleased; Latin was still the only language of the Church and of international scholarship. T h e process was completed with the Reformation, which brought to Norway the Danish Bible and thereby sanctified the language. In the same way and during the same period the governments of Northern Germany gradually imposed the High German of Luther's Bible on their Low-German-speaking subjects. As in other West European countries, the establishment 30

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN and spread of a standard written language for official purposes led to the growth of an upper-class spoken language. T h e civil, clerical, and military officials who were entrusted with the government of the country naturally adopted the vocabulary of the written language in much of their speech. With the vocabulary came the phonological shape of the words, including at least some of their grammar. But in Norway the sound of the letters as Danes pronounced them eluded all but the most thoroughly Danish-trained officials. There was from early times a sharp cleavage between Danish pronunciation and Norwegian, the latter resembling Swedish to the extent that Danes even now find it difficult to tell the two apart. Even when Norwegians spoke a Danish that was lexically and grammatically perfect, they were still unmistakably Norwegian in sound. In informal speech the officials themselves did not maintain Danish vocabulary and grammar but allowed numerous Norwegian elements to enter in. By Wergeland's time there must have been a well-established country-wide Norwegian pronunciation within the official and merchant classes. While this differed regionally from city to city, it had in common a native phonetic basis, and it shaded off into the local urban and rural dialects of the common people. In Wergeland's Norway we can thus distinguish roughly the following types of oral expression: (1) Pure Danish, used by a small number of immigrated Danish officials and merchants, and on the stage, which was dominated by Danish actors; (2) Literary Standard, a Norwegian reading pronunciation of Danish used on solemn occasions by Norwegian-born pastors and officials, in its most exaggerated form by country schoolmasters when instructing the young; (3) Colloquial Standard, the daily speech of the educated classes, a compromise between the preceding and the following types, varying in style according to the occasion 3i

CONFLICT AND PLANNING and the speaker's origin; (4) Urban Substandard, spoken by artisans and working-class people, varying from city to city, but showing many characteristics in common with the surrounding rural dialects; (5) Rural Dialect, spoken by the farming and fishing population, varying from parish to parish, with an intricate network of isoglosses crisscrossing the country, but falling into broad dialectal areas determined by the lines of communication. Between the extremes of stage Danish and the remoter rural dialects there was a gulf which effectively prevented communication. But from one type to the next of those listed above there was extensive communication and mutual adaptation. While Wergeland pointed the way for language reform and promoted it by the use of Norwegian words and phrases in his writings, it remained for linguists to work out the theory of it and a program for putting it into practice. These tasks were accomplished largely by two men, whose names have become symbolic of two contrasting responses to the challenge of the Norwegian situation. They were both men of the people, born of humble folk, but naturally gifted and fired with a vision of reform. One of them was Knud Knudsen (1812-1895), a schoolman who was the first to identify and isolate the Colloquial Standard, which he called byfolkets talesprog (the spoken language of city people) in his grammar of 1856, entitled Haandbog i Dansk-norsk Sproglcere (Handbook of DanoNorwegian Grammar). 4 Later he described it by the term den landsgyldige norske uttale (the nationwide Norwegian pronunciation), which was also the title of one of his books (1876). Knudsen worked untiringly for the modification of Danish spelling by the introduction of forms from the Colloquial Standard. His goal was a step-by-step revision of the orthography in a Norwegian direction. Knudsen's gradualis32

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN tic solution was adopted by some writers even during his lifetime, but its vindication came after his death with the reform of 1907, which we shall describe later in this chapter. T h e other reformer was Ivar Aasen (1813-1896), whose more radical solution led to the establishment of an entirely new tradition of writing based on the rural dialects. 5 Aasen was only twenty-three years old when he wrote out for his own use a program of research and reform. Instead of regarding the dialects either as degenerated forms of the standard language, as many did in his time, or as perversely deviant modes of expression, he held that they were the true heirs of the Old Norwegian language. They alone had preserved the grammatical and lexical forms of that language, though duly modified by the passage of time, and he saw them as constituting together a single Norwegian language. In his essay he variously referred to this as vort Almuesprog (the language of our common people), det rette norske Folkesprog (the true language of the Norwegian people), and vort Nationalsprog (our national language).® This conception was revolutionary, flying as it did in the face of common opinion and prejudice, and would require extraordinary effort for its practical realization. Aasen set himself to learning Old Norwegian and then undertook the first country-wide survey of contemporary Norwegian dialects. His work as dialectologist was fundamental in the development of that branch of linguistics in Scandinavia, but the ultimate goal in this case was not purely scientific. It was rather to establish the features that he proposed to embody in his national written language. His first surveys were presented in a grammar of 1848 and a dictionary of 1850, in which the language was referred to in the titles as det norske Folkesprog. In 1853 he published a small book of specimens, some in dialect and some in his proposed norm, 33

CONFLICT AND PLANNING under the title Priver af det norske Landsmaal (Specimens of the Norwegian National Language). He continued to make some small alterations in the norm until the publication of his definitive grammar (1864) and dictionary (1873); in these he simply called the language norsk, that is, Norwegian. Aasen's use of the term "Norwegian" sans phrase was a challenge in itself to the common attitude of Norwegians, who accepted the Danish written language, at least when used by Norwegians, as Norwegian. His use of it was therefore not followed except by his supporters; others adopted the term landsmaal (later written landsmâl), often reinterpreting it to mean rural language. This sense was inherent in the word itself because of the ambiguity of the word land, which like English "country" can refer either to the countryside or to the whole nation. In his dictionary of 1850 Aasen himself had defined the word as "that type of language which is used in the interior of the country" and in 1873 he included as one of its meanings "spoken usage in the rural districts." An essay he wrote in 1859 shows that he appreciated the ambiguity: "The country people themselves sometimes call this language 'landsmaal' to distinguish it from the language of the cities or the book language . . . " But, he went on, "it might also deserve the name 'landsmaal' in a higher sense, since it is actually the proper language of the land from ancient times." 7 Knudsen had already used the term landssprog in 1850 about the country-wide pronunciation of the educated classes (type 3 above), but after toying for a short time with this idea, Aasen had rejected it.8 Landsmaal (as a more Norwegian term) took its place in the new sense of a generalized norm based on the rural dialects as the spoken descendants of Old Norwegian. 9 We shall hereafter abbreviate it as Lm. 34

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN THE PROGRESS OF LANDSMÂL

By 1853 Aasen had provided the first, tentative tools for writing his new language, and it was not long before he was joined by others who wished to try it out. Aasen's own poetry and that of the Telemark-born poet Aasmund Olafsson Vinje are the chief enduring fruits of that first generation of Lm writing. In the 1870's they were joined by the brilliant Arne Garborg (1851-1924), who became one of the classic writers of Norwegian literature, as well as a sharp polemicist on behalf of Lm. These and most other writers of Lm had a rural dialect from one of the fjord or mountain valleys as their mother tongue, and in writing Lm they shaped its norm according to the patterns of their local dialects. Aasen's norm of 1864 provided a framework which proved to be sufficiently elastic to accommodate many of the more characteristically Norwegian dialects. But there was considerable debate even among its supporters as to the suitability of Aasen's norm, and at times the situation within the movement approached anarchy. T h e reason for this was connected with Aasen's conception not only of the relative value of different dialects but also of the nature of a norm for national use. On the one hand he valued most highly those dialects that were closest to Old Norwegian; this meant that the so-called "conservative" dialects of Western and Midland Norway were strongly favored over those of Eastern, Southern, and Northern Norway, which in some respects approached either Swedish or Danish. He regarded these as "corrupt," especially in the forms they took in substandard urban speech. On the other hand, he did not wish his norm to be so one-sidedly regional that it would have no chance of winning national recognition. He resisted those who wished 35

CONFLICT AND PLANNING to adopt features of Old Norwegian that had been lost in all the modern dialects. His conception of a written norm was influenced by the necessity of giving the language dignity, so that it might stand worthily beside Danish and Swedish and avoid the tint of the comic which adhered to all forms of dialect writing. T o this end he built into his norm many of the etymological features of these other languages, such as silent consonants. H e opposed those who would drop these in favor of a purely "phonetic" spelling. It has become a commonplace to describe Aasen's Lm as a West Norwegian language, but this is only partly true. T h e r e is no doubt that West Norwegians feel most at home in it and that it comes most naturally to speakers with a West Norwegian or Midland phonetic system. But many writers and speakers from other parts of the country have succeeded in adapting themselves to it. Aasen had a genius for systematization, and he did succeed in establishing what could be called an "over-all system" for the rural dialects. I n this system some essential features were the adoption of the feminine gender, the use of endings in -a where Danish normally had -e, the use of diphthongs (ei, au, φ y) for Danish monophthongs {e, φ), and a new set of pronouns (eg for jeg T , and so on). None of these features was universal in the country, but each one by itself represented a widely diffused pattern, and together they made a structure which undeniably constituted a different language from Danish. Aasen's care in fashioning the structure extended to every aspect of the language: phonology, grammar, syntax, and lexicon. His grammar of 1864 and his dictionary of 1873 are still the sacred texts of his movement, however many details have had to be modified in practice. As late as the 1880's his language was little more than a plaything of idealistic linguists and poets, one of the many cultural novelties in an era when national life had attained

36

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN high fruition and vigor. It could be pointed to as an evidence of creative talent alongside the music of Edvard Grieg, the paintings of Tidemand and Gude, the violin playing of Ole Bull, the poems and novels of Bj0rnstjerne Bj0rnson, and the dramas of Henrik Ibsen. Each in its way bore witness to an era of fruitful experimentation with forms and ideas in a population which in the years since 1814 had progressed from poverty and semi-literacy to modest prosperity and general enlightenment. Norway had ceased to be a "cultural province" of Denmark and was in fact exporting culture to its former partner. Linguistically, however, the famous writers whose works were spread abroad were all writers of Dano-Norwegian; the Lm writers remained a small and comparatively unread group, however remarkable their products. It took a great deal of courage to hold aloft the banner of an unpopular language, in which one's best efforts could easily remain unrecognized. The supporters of Lm were clearly aware that in spite of the strong appeal their language might have in poetry and belles lettres, its future depended on the recognition it could get as a medium of government and education. This required political action, which was only conceivable through alliance with the growing, oppositional Venstre (Left) party. This party accommodated within its folds many dissident elements, from farmers and fishermen to liberal intellectuals. The Swedish king ruled Norway through a conservative cabinet, which was not directly responsible to the Storting, or parliament. Only property owners (male) could vote for members of the Storting. The issues on which the Venstre fought its victorious campaigns were at once nationalistic and democratic: opposition to the foreign king and his encroachments on Norwegian sovereignty and extension of the suffrage to the whole population. These changes, which would clearly alter the balance of power, 37

CONFLICT AND PLANNING were opposed by the bureaucracy, which included most of the educated people of the country. In this life-and-death struggle for power the language issue may not have counted very heavily, but it was symbolically important. By supporting the cause of Lm, the Venstre party attacked one of the privileges of the official class, its linguistic superiority, and at the same time struck a blow for national sovereignty by giving free rein to Norwegian elements in language. In 1884 the Venstre party overthrew the King's cabinet in a bloodless parliamentary revolution and instituted legislative procedures of the English type, making the cabinet responsible to the strongest party in parliament. One of the first acts of the new government after its dramatic accession to power was to propose a parliamentary resolution which fulfilled its pledge to the language reformers. The resolution, passed by the Storting in 1885, contained the following passage, which is now generally regarded as the legal basis for all claims to equality made since that time by Lm: "The Government is requested to take the necessary steps toward placing the Norwegian folk language [det norske Folkesprog] on an equal footing, as a school and official language, with the usual language of books and writing." 10 It remained for later years to spell out just what was meant by these terms, which conceal certain political ambiguities. T h e resolution at least opened the way for the use of Lm in official places, especially in the schools. Later years were to implement the resolution with specific legislation. T h e language issue had definitely been speeded on its way as a political problem. T h e 1890's were a period of intense interest in folk traditions, spurred by the neoromantic trends of the times. T h e costumes, the music, the dances, and the dialects of the rural folk were studied and promoted wherever possible. Rural youth societies were formed which supported the

33

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN L m movement, and even at the University of Oslo (then Christiania) a student Lm society was formed. In 1890 Lm was introduced as a subject in the teachers' colleges. In 1891 the Lm hymns of Elias Blix were authorized for use in the churches. In 1892 local school boards were given the right to determine the language to be used in the pupils' written work. At the same time all pupils were required to learn to read Lm in addition to the usual book language. T h e response to this permissiveness for Lm was slow but sure: by 1905 over 400 school districts had voted to make Lm their primary language, and by 1909 another 760, in all about 20 percent of all school districts. Hand in hand with this development went the introduction of Lm into the higher schools, where teachers and scholars were trained. In 1899 a professorship in Lm was established at the University of Oslo, with Marius Hasgstad (1850-1927) as its first holder. In 1902 all graduates of teachers' colleges were required to write one examination paper in Lm, and in 1907 the same requirement was established for graduates of the gymnasia, or liberal arts colleges, whose degree entitled them to admission to the University. In 1908 students were granted the right to use Lm in their final university examinations. 11 It was obvious by this time that Lm was there to stay. Young rural Norwegians, who were flocking to higher schools in growing numbers, felt a special appeal in Lm. In this fresh language they could find outlet for their creativity, pride in their background, and a political weapon with which to beat the dominant official class. T h e growing adoption of Lm in the schools required that the anarchic tendencies among some of its literary users had to be curbed. Lm as an official language had to have a firm norm, but there was a widespread feeling that Aasen's norm was too conservative and sectional. In part this was due to his insistence on conferring upon it the dignity of an old, 39

CONFLICT AND PLANNING established language, as noted above. His language, wrote Moltke Moe in a masterly review in 1886 of Garborg and Mortenson's Lm reader, was "born wrinkled." 12 Moe (18591913) was professor of Norwegian folk language at the University of Oslo. Aasen wrote silent consonants in words like god 'good' and stod 'stood' and in inflections like -et 'the' (huset 'the house') and -ade 'past' (kastade 'threw'). In this way he achieved written images that were virtually identical in structure with those of Danish and Swedish: Danish god, stod, huset, kastede; Swedish god, stod, huset, kastade. For those who were trained in Danish orthography this made the language easier to read than any exact rendering of folk speech. Pupils preferred to read writings in Lm rather than dialect samples, even of their own dialects, noted Moe in 1886. T h e very "unphonetic" orthography of the older languages, which spelling reformers regarded as a weakness, became a strength when duplicated in the new language. But it was Moe's opinion that the dignity of Lm was rapidly becoming a liability. " T h e new generation no longer turns to the past; for us it is the present that matters." Writing, he asserted, must be easy for the writer as well as for the reader. " I t is my conviction that Lm would do well to throw away all that is dead and formularistic in writing as well as in language, and in every respect to base itself more on usage [det almindelige] than on origin [det oprindelige]." Moe's implied criticism of Lm as not sufficiently based on general usage was the theme of many other critics as well, both friend and foe. While Aasen claimed to have produced a norm for all Norwegian speech, many felt that the result was in fact a norm for only one section of Norway. Aasen himself was a Westerner, and he found his native Sprachgefühl reinforced by the fact that in most respects the 40

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN dialects of the Western fjords and the Midland mountain valleys were closer to the classical Old Norwegian than the rest. H e found it inappropriate or impossible to fit into his system the often sharply deviant forms of Eastern, Southern, and Northern Norway, which had been more influenced by Swedish or Danish than his own admired dialects. In such cases he was inclined to reject these dialects as illegitimate offspring of the old language and label them "corrupt" or "poor." Unfortunately for the ultimate success of Aasen's norm, the Western and Midland counties were the least populous and influential ones and were destined to become relatively even less so as the country was gradually industrialized. T h e cities, especially in the East, with Oslo in the lead, grew rapidly at the expense of the rural population. T h e very regions whose speech Aasen detested grew in influence a n d were still further "corrupted" by the speech of expanding urban communities. T h e communities that adopted L m were all rural and overwhelmingly located in Western and Midland Norway. T h e conservative and sectional character of Lm became a matter of national concern only after its debut in the schoolroom in 1892. T h e virulent criticism of the distinguished linguist Johan Storm (1836-1920) in 1886 had n o t escaped the supporters of Lm. 13 H e had lashed out at the language as a mere experiment without fixity of form. T h e schools could not countenance such variation, and in 1898 the Ministry of Church and Education (hereafter referred to as the Ministry) appointed a committee of three prominent Lm supporters to make a proposal for a firm orthography of their language. T h e members were Arne Garborg, most distinguished of the Lm authors then living, Marius Haegstad, and Rasmus Flo (1851-1905), a teacher in the secondary schools and an author of children's books. 4i

CONFLICT AND PLANNING The committee report was presented to the Ministry in January 1899, and printed in the same year.14 It is a curious report, which reflected the divided opinions of the time. T h e first seventy-one pages contain what the committee

«Màlfrollene rykker inn ¡ Christiania». T e g n i n g av Olaf G u l b r a n s s o n fra 1890-ârene, opptrykt i G y l d e n d a l s lene har, s o m

minneverk

«Dette er N o r g e » .

man ser, en viss likhet m e d A r n e G a r b o r g ,

Per

TrolSivle

o g Ivar A a s e n . ·

"The Language Trolls Invade Christiania." Cartoon figures of the Landsmâl writers Arne Garborg, Per Sivle, Ivar Aasen. Drawing from the 1890's by Olaf Gulbransson. Reprinted in Dette er Norge, Oslo: Gyldendal, 1963-1964.

could agree on, the next forty-six pages the opinions of a majority consisting of Garborg and Flo, and the last ten pages a dissent by Hasgstad. T h e majority proposed a marked deviation from Aasen's norm, particularly in the noun inflections, basing themselves on the Midland dialects 42

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN (especially Telemark). They hoped that these dialects might become "the bridge that binds together the more or less scattered parts of the new Norway, and also binds it together with the old." 15 " T h e r e is no other way of getting a book language [bokmaal] which is not a 'construct' [:maallaging] than to take a living dialect and build upon it." 16 T h e essentially antinormative view of the two literary men, Garborg and Flo, is revealed in their plea that school children be permitted to write their own dialects as nearly as possible. 17 One of the most significant issues discussed in the report was a majority proposal to adopt the "divided infinitive" endings of Midland and East Norwegian. In Aasen's norm all infinitives ended in -a, following Old Norwegian and a few West Norwegian dialects, while in Dano-Norwegian they ended in -e. Garborg and Flo wanted to admit -e for those verbs (the long stems) which had developed this suffix in the dialects mentioned. Hasgstad rejected the proposal (and a similar one for the weak feminines) because he contended it would be difficult to learn the proper usage of the infinitive if, for example, fara 'go' was to be written with -a but shrive 'write' with -e. Garborg and Flo also pleaded for plural suffixes and strong perfect participles containing the vowels -i and -u, for which Aasen had chosen -e and -o (gjester > gjestir 'guests', klokkor > klokkur 'clocks', funnet > funni 'found'). Haegstad frowned on these as being sectional in speech and unprecedented in literature. They further wished to drop the final -t of the definite singular article, but Hasgstad pointed out that this would make homographs of such grammatically and phonologically different words as dyret 'the animal' and dyre 'precious'. T w o Lm teachers and textbook writers, Matías Skard (1846-1927) and Lars Eskeland (1867-1942), were asked to comment; they both supported Hasgstad. T h e majority then 43

CONFLICT AND PLANNING yielded, accepting the traditional forms, but printing their alternative norm in a supplement to the report. They later issued it as a separate volume, but won little or no support. In 1901 the Ministry proceeded to authorize the modified Aasen norm on which the committee had finally agreed. It was characterized as "reactionary" by a later committee which was concerned with cooperation between the languages.18 But the new norm did provide for a few important changes, including the dropping of silent -d, -t, and -de in weak verbs, so that such verbs as kasta were left with only one suffix (-a) for the infinitive, preterite, and participial forms (replacing Aasen's three: kasta, kastade, kastat). T h e silent t was dropped in auga 'the eye', anna 'other', kva 'what', noko 'something', fare 'gone', but not in the definite article after e, as in huset 'the house'. In the stems of words silent consonants were kept for reasons of etymologicalstructural cohesion, according to the principle that they should be omitted "only in word roots where they would not be missed, that is, where they never reappear in some way or other . . . or where there is a simple rule to follow." 19 In this way Lm received its first official norm; in the words of the committee, it was intended to be "a firm and consistent orthography, which as far as possible might spare the schools the confusion and delay, at least for the beginner, that results from his seeing one and the same thing written now in one way and now in another." 20 The committee was aware of the need for cooperation between the languages, so that "the basic principles in the main might be the same for both." But in its opinion, it was the other language that "would have to yield, making itself as Norwegian as possible," and there could be "no question of a harmonization [aatsemjing] which would make Norwegian less Norwegian." 21 44

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN After 1901 Lm became identical with the "Haegstad orthography," as it was often called for the stubborn professor who turned his minority position into a majority. Authors were not bound to follow it, and many of them continued their experimentation. But the schools and government offices were expected to abide by it. In the struggle for acceptance that filled the early years of the twentieth century, this norm gave Lm a strong position. Although under constant attack by its opponents, Lm continued to spread. Its supporters were vehement in their denunciation of the established language as a foreign, unpatriotic idiom, a blot on the national escutcheon. The wave of national feeling that swept the country out of the political union with Sweden in 1905 was bound to have its effect on the linguistic union with Denmark. The only question was: would Lm be the victor, or could Dano-Norwegian free itself of the foreign stigma sufficiently to maintain its position as the chief Norwegian language of culture? THE EMERGENCE OF RIKSMÄL

For every action there is a reaction, and the threat to the dominant Dano-Norwegian language did not remain unobserved. Prior to 1899 its supporters suffered from two disadvantages: they had no satisfactory name for their language and they had no organization to counter the Lm propaganda. Officially the language was usually referred to as det almindelige Bogsprog (the usual book language), but its opponents called it dansk (Danish) or at best norsk-dansk and dansk-norsk. In thinking of it as Norwegian, its supporters had in mind primarily its distinctively Norwegian pronunciation and its Norwegian-infused vocabulary, both of which characterized its oral, and, to some extent, its written usage. But the Danish orthography was a clear and ever present reminder of its origin and a barrier to its free 45

CONFLICT AND PLANNING development in a Norwegian direction. More and more people were realizing that if the cultivated language of Norway were to be preserved, it would have to shed the straitjacket of Danish spelling. It was at this juncture that the writer Bj0rnstjerne Bj0rnson (1832-1910), who had entertained some sympathy for Lm in his youth, stepped forward to crystallize the opposition to that language in a famous speech, which also launched the name under which his own literary language was to be known for a generation to come. Bj0rnson, as the literary heir of Henrik Wergeland, had celebrated the country folk in his early writings and had agitated throughout his life on behalf of national independence on all fronts. But now he roundly declared that Lm was unsuited as a language of culture: it was artificial, regional, and culturally undeveloped, fit only for peasants. In his speech, which was delivered in October 1899, he gave a ringing defense of his own literary language, Kultursproget (the language of culture), which he described as Norway's true Rigsmaal, or national language: "We are now living in an age when, by means of our present Rigsmaal and the literature in this language, we have produced the greatest works of the spirit and have won recognition beside the greatest nations of Europe." According to newspaper accounts, he rhetorically asked his audiences if they would deny that the language he was speaking was Norwegian. 22 This makes it clear that Bj0rnson was thinking not only of the literary language but also of his own colloquial standard. Bj0rnson's use of the term rigsmaal appears to have been drawn from an editorial written three months earlier by his friend and coworker in the Venstre party, journalist Haakon L0ken (1859-1923) in Trondheim. L0ken attacked the Lm extremists who wished to overthrow the established language, but was equally critical of the standpatters who 46

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN would not yield an inch on the Danish orthography. "There is something," he wrote, "that is neither a bastard German style [tysk taterstil] nor a moss-grown West Norwegian, but can be called Rigsmaal: this is the natural language which is used in the speech of city as well as country." He added: "We are quite certain that the language we use here in Dagsposten is closer to this Rigsmaal, which will be the language of the future, than any of the others, who write in the chancery style or in Aasen's language." 23 The term rigsmaal (later written riksmaal and now riksmàl) had been familiar in Danish and Norwegian academic usage as a variant of the term rigssprog. The latter was clearly a loan translation of the German term reichssprache, as Arne Garborg was quick to point out after the term rigsmaal had been launched.24 In Germany this meant the standard High German in its written and spoken form, which was imposed by the government throughout the Reich. The concept of "official language" had not been common in Norway; if used at all, rigsmaal had referred to a spoken form of the common language which showed no markedly dialectal features. It had not been applied specifically to the Dano-Norwegian language prior to 1899. Within a month after Bj0rnson's speech, however, it became the rallying point of supporters of Dano-Norwegian usage. At a public meeting in Oslo on 27 November 1899, a society was formed to defend the language against the attacks of the Lm supporters. The keynote speaker was the leading Norwegian linguist, Sophus Bugge (1833-1907), who repeatedly used the term rigsmaal: "The law that forms the basis of Norway's rights as an independent nation \rige\ is written in the universally acceptable [almengyldige] Norwegian written language. Therefore we are fully entitled to call it the Norwegian Rigsmaal." He called it also "our language, the universally acceptable written language and 47

CONFLICT AND PLANNING the spoken language on which it is naturally based . . . " 25 The society that was formed to combat Lm adopted the word rigsmaal and called itself Kristiania Rigsmaalsforening. By 1909 it had grown to a nationwide organization which was called Riksmaalsforbundet (later Riksmálsforbundet). So now the word landsmaal had found its counterpart in rigsmaal, terms which in their origin meant very much the same, but which in the succeeding generation became the proper names of the two Norwegian languages. T h e opposition to Lm crystallized around the new word, which therefore was never accepted by the supporters of Lm. They contended that their language, as one of Norway's two official languages, was as much a Riksmaal as the other. T o them the conflict continued to be a struggle between their own "Norwegian" and the others' "Danish." In order to justify the opposite concept, that this was in fact a struggle between two Norwegian languages, it was necessary once and for all to liberate the Riksmaal (which we shall hereafter abbreviate as Rm) from its Danish orthography. This was a task which required not only the intervention of political authority but also the skillful planning of competent linguists. The grounds for reform were elegantly summed u p by the linguist Hjalmar Falk (1859-1928) in an article in Verdens Gang in 1899. Reform was called for, he maintained, on grounds that could be described as: (1) national — the Danish spelling is a "stigma of provincialism [et Provinsmerke]"; (2) linguistic — it does not correspond to Norwegian pronunciation; (3) pedagogical -— it causes difficulties in the teaching of spelling and leads to a bookish reading pronunciation; (4) democratic — it is "a class stigma, a shibboleth, since children from cultivated homes have a certain familiarity with it from their reading, while it will always be a stumbling block for the children of the people." 26 48

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN T h e steps that led to the liberation of R m from the Danish orthography have been well outlined in Rolf R. Nygaard's book Fra dansk-norsk til norsk riksmàl. H e points out that as far back as 1833 Wergeland had urged the doubling of consonants in words like dugg 'dew' (for Danish dug) to represent Norwegian pronunciation. 2 7 Knud Knudsen took u p the cudgels in 1845 and made it his lifework to transform Danish into Norwegian by gradual steps. Knudsen's tireless and occasionally tiresome efforts resulted in innumerable articles and books which advocated a gradual Norwegianization of Danish. Knudsen's reformist movement had to fight on two fronts: against the conservatives who opposed all change, and against the Lm "revolutionaries" who wanted an entirely new language. Both types of reform won supporters within the Venstre party, while the conservatives were mostly to be f o u n d in the H0ire (Right) party. Knudsen's most distinguished disciple was Bj0rnstjerne Bj0rnson, whose somewhat erratic spelling generally reflected Knudsen's ideas and whose writings carried them out to the people. Knudsen's basic concepts may be summed u p as (1) orthophony and (2) purification. Orthophony here means the reform of spelling to agree with pronunciation. Purification means the rejection of foreign words and the substitution of native terms drawn from the dialects or created from native elements. These demands have remained the twin pillars of the reformists, though no one has maintained them exclusively or consistently. Knudsen's efforts to win support for a reform of Danish orthography continued unabated, b u t with little avail until the political climate changed in the 1880's. Bj0rnson was a leading figure in the Venstre party, so that the victory of Venstre in 1884 could hardly help b u t improve the chances for a reform of the orthography. A key person working be-

49

CONFLICT AND PLANNING hind the scenes in this development was D. F. Knudsen (not related to Knud), who was a section head in the Ministry from 1882 to 1894. He believed strongly in orthographic reform and succeeded in putting into effect some of the early moves in this direction. In later years he wrote, "Our written language, essentially Danish, bore a provincial stigma, which we thought both could and should be removed." 28 Under Knudsen's leadership and with the approval of his government, the Ministry became a stimulator of linguistic reform. The power of the Ministry to establish the orthography taught in the schools had long been acknowledged in practice, though the occasions for exerting it had been few in view of the relative stability of Danish orthography. A reform in 1862 had eliminated some of the silent letters written to show vowel length and some of the "foreign" letters; in 1877 capitalization of common nouns was officially abandoned. 29 But these reforms had no nationalistic significance; they had been suggested by the Danish linguist Rasmus Rask, and eventually the Danes also accepted them. In 1885 the Ministry officially adopted a set of spelling rules for the first time and authorized them for the schools. This was the seventh edition of Retskrivnings-regler til skolebrug (Spelling Rules for School Use), by Jakob Aars (1837-1908). A crucial step was taken two years later when the Ministry directed the teachers of the elementary schools to stop teaching their pupils to read according to the spelling. Instead, they were asked to teach them the pronunciation of "cultivated daily speech." Because of the discrepancy between the spelling and the pronunciation, and the relative unfamiliarity of many teachers and pupils with cultivated speech, this directive was bound to strengthen the demand for orthographic reform. In 1892 the Ministry authorized a new reader for the 5o

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN public schools, edited by Nordahl Rolfsen (1848-1928). Rolfsen's reader quickly became a classic, beloved by generations of Norwegian children. But the first edition is notable also as a milestone in the development of Norwegian orthography. T h e spelling had been entrusted to Moltke Moe, who was known to be a strong partisan of reformed spelling for both languages. Moe, who made his reputation in the field of folklore, also devoted years of study to the problem of reconciling Danish orthography with Norwegian pronunciation. T h e changes he was permitted to introduce into the first edition of Rolfsen's reader were few and tentative, but they represented a considerable step in the direction of a new orthography. T h e Ministry incorporated a number of them in the eleventh edition of Aars's spelling rules, which appeared in 1894.30 In the Introduction to the reader Moe defended the policy of gradual, if inconsistent introduction of new spellings: "We foresee the objection that in a Schoolbook a unified and consistent language form would have been preferable. We reply to this that unity and consistency cannot be achieved under our linguistic conditions, except by maintenance of the traditional Danish spelling — in conflict with our whole linguistic development — , or by adopting in full the spoken language of our cities — in conflict with our traditional orthography and often also with our rural speech. Consistency does not mean that one has to correct either everything or nothing. Any change is consistent if it does not break with tradition, but points in the right direction and follows the line of development of the language — leaving the consequences to the future." 31 In advocating this policy of step-by-step reform Moe was following a line of thought that had been initiated by his own father, the folklorist and bishop J0rgen Moe (18131882), in the classic folktale collection by himself and P. C. 5»

CONFLICT AND PLANNING Asbj0rnsen (1812-1885) which began appearing in 1841. Not only did Moe work closely with the Ministry in promoting this policy, but in 1900 and 1906 he published lectures which contained a vigorous argument on its behalf. T h e titles of the two lectures are suggestive of their contents: Retskrivning og Folkedannelse (Orthography and Popular Education); Norsk og dansk sprogdragt (Norwegian and Danish Garb). These were influential and probably decisive in the events that followed. Moe was one of the authors of the major document underlying the reform of 1907, which was to be the first great breakthrough of Knudsen's ideas. Together with the schoolmen Aars and S. W. Hofgaard (1843-1908) he was informally requested by the Ministry to prepare a report which might become the basis of official action. T h e report was published in 1898 as a 152-page book bearing the title Om en del retskrivnings- og sprogsp0rsmàl (On Some Problems of Orthography and Language). Its main theses were (1) that spelling should be based on speech, not vice versa; and (2) wherever spoken usage was divided, the Norwegianderived form should be preferred over the Danish. T h e spoken usage referred to was of course that of the urban colloquial standard. In this way justice was done both to the ideal of orthophony and to that of national purity, though neither was adopted with full consistency or to the exclusion of the other. These ideas were developed most eloquently in Moe's lecture of 1900, where he maintained that there was a "yawning chasm," a "difference of essence," between the "Norwegianness of our speech" and the "Danishness of our writing." He also pointed out the injustice of a foreign spelling to the common man, "whose path to education is thereby made still narrower and more arduous." 32 52

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN T h e report was immediately made the object of vigorous attacks by the opponents of orthographic reform. They were particularly bitter about the idea of introducing such reforms into the schools before they had been adopted in public life. T h e authors of the report had called for introducing the reform in the lower grades: " T h e school is working for the generation that will use the language of the future." 33 Against this a conservative newspaper like Morgenbladet maintained: " T h e language belongs to everyone, not merely to the Ministry and the educators." " T h e mother tongue must not become a field for experimentation by reactionary or reformist pedagogues." 34 In 1904-1906 Johan Storm threw himself into the fray by publishing two volumes under the title of Norsk Retskrivning. In these he attacked the report and its proposals, contending that "the reform must issue from life, be accepted by the public and the authors, before it is forced on the schools." 35 Contrary to the most thoroughgoing conservatives, however, he did not reject all change, but made some proposals for a moderate reform. These proved to be unpedagogical and in any case came too late to stop the reform, even though his great authority may have succeeded in delaying it. T h e Ministry proceeded to ask for expressions of opinion on the report from leading linguists and schoolmen. Questionnaires were sent to a large number of responsible persons in the educational system. T h e press was filled with agitation pro and con. Even Bj0rnson wrote against the report, declaring that linguistic unity with Denmark should be maintained. Schoolmen in general favored the reform, while linguists were strongly divided. T h e whole matter was delayed, until the dramatic events of 1905 gave the problem a new face. On 7 J u n e 1905, the Norwegian parliament declared the 53

CONFLICT AND PLANNING union with Sweden dissolved, after a long series of exciting and provocative incidents involving the two countries. Negotiations through the summer at length confirmed the peaceful dissolution of the ninety-one-year-old partnership. In the new atmosphere of complete independence, fulfilling the promise of the Constitution of 1814, it was not difficult to win support for a well-prepared move to dissolve also the linguistic union with Denmark. Aars was asked to prepare a new proposal for orthographic reform in 1906, together with M. Nygaard, another prominent linguistschoolman. This was considerably less radical than the report of 1898, but represented what its authors believed could be reasonably enforced. T h e Ministry accepted it, and it was confirmed on 19 February 1907 as a Royal Resolution, 36 enacted by a fusion cabinet with the liberal Christian Michelsen, who personally opposed the reform, as prime minister. Protests were few, and most commentators greeted the reform with acclaim. The resolution decreed the new orthography only for use in government offices. But the Ministry followed this up with a series of decrees for its introduction into the schools. T h e first great step had been taken in the liberation of Norwegian speech from its Danish garb; the government had accepted it and, in Moe's words, "left the consequences to the future." 37 THE REFORM OF I 9 0 7 AND ITS AFTERMATH

The change that more than any other characterized the reform of 1907 was the adoption of "hard" consonants. This was the popular name for the fortis stops p t k, which most Norwegian speech had retained in the position after vowel, where Danish had substituted lenis stops b d g, known as "soft" consonants. Thus Norwegian had ape 'ape', ut 'out', 54

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN hake 'cake' for Danish abe, ud, kage (modern Danish pronunciation has gone a step further and made spirants of the last two). T h e soft consonants had been the particular target of the reformers from Knud Knudsen on. Their presence in writing encouraged spelling pronunciations, particularly in words which were chiefly literary. Thus vite 'know' and sak 'case' were usually pronounced hard even while they were written vide and sag; but the same stems in the literary words viden 'knowledge' and sagf0rer 'lawyer' were commonly pronounced soft. T h e 1907 reform recognized this state of affairs by retaining the lenis spellings wherever a soft pronunciation was current. A number of doublets ('dobbeltformer) were permitted, alternatives with hard and soft spellings, respectively. It was hoped that in due course the hard pronunciations would prevail, as in fact many of them did. T h e authors of the report of 1898 had also recommended another reform of the consonant system, one which was logically required by the adoption of hard consonants. This was the doubling of final consonants after short vowels. In Danish these were single, as in hop 'hop', hat 'hat', tak 'thanks' (but double before vowels in the same words: hoppet, hatten, takken). Here the report advised a change from one consonant to two: hopp, hatt, takk. This would make it possible for such words to be graphically distinguished from the new hard-consonant spellings of hob 'flock', had 'hate', tag 'roof, now to be written hop, hat, tak. But this was felt by many to be too radical a change, and so it had to wait another ten years, when it became the chief feature of the second major spelling reform, that of 1917. Together these two reforms gave a new appearance to the language and established a framework for writing which accorded well with the syllabic structure of Norwegian on those 55

CONFLICT AND PLANNING points where it differed most markedly from Danish. They also gave R m an orthographic framework coinciding with that of Lm. In their original proposal Aars, Hofgaard, and Moe had envisaged introducing these two reforms only in "Norwegian proper names and in all peculiarly Norwegian words and expressions." 3 8 But a year later they issued a supplement, in which they concluded that "halfway measures" would be confusing and recommended that both reforms be carried out to the full. The presence of a distinct set of rules for "peculiarly Norwegian words" would require a knowledge of historical linguistics that school children could not be expected to have. How could they know that kraake 'crow' should be written with a k, but maake 'seagull' with a g, as maage? Or that foss 'waterfall' should be written with two consonants, but oss 'us' with one, as os? One may add that the double rule also involved a kind of discrimination of "Norwegian" words, which was unfortunate from every point of view. In Aasen's Lm they were all written alike, and now that the pupils had to learn Lm also, it would obviously be a great advantage if the two languages could follow the same rules.39 Other purely orthographic points on which the reform of 1907 brought spelling into agreement with cultivated speech were: (1) af > av 'of; (2) the slashing away of a number of silent letters. Whole syllables were eliminated in words like fa(de)r 'father', mo(de)r 'mother', bro(de)r 'brother', dra(ge) 'pull', ha(ve) 'have', bli(ve) 'become', si(ge) 'say'. Hoved 'head' became hode, but remained in compounds like hovedsaken 'the chief problem'. Silent d and g disappeared in words like snedker (> snekker) 'carpenter', kugle (> hule) 'bullet', sparge (> sperre) 'ask'. Some foreign words were adapted to Norwegian spelling rules: façade (> fasade), bureau (> byraa), logis (> losji), dusch (> dusf), punsch (> punsf), for example. Grammatical forms which distinguished Rm from Danish were admitted in writing. The Danish noun plural suffix -e was greatly restricted in its sphere; it was given up in favor of the more colloquial -er in common gender nouns (stole > stoler 'chairs') and in favor of zero in neuter nouns (huse > hus

56

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN 'houses'). After the suffix -ig, adverbs and neuter adjectives lost their -t, for example, heldig for heldigt 'lucky, luckily'. Danish pronominal forms like nogle 'some', I 'you' nominative plural, eder 'you' accusative plural, gave way to Norwegian nogen 'some' and dere 'you' plural. The weak verbs which had preterites in -ede in Danish were now to be distributed among three classes according to Norwegian pronunciation, determined mostly by the final phoneme of the stem: (1) -(d)de, as in bodde 'lived', eide 'owned', levde 'lived'; (2) -te, as in svarte 'answered'; and (3) -et, as in kastet 'threw'. T h e reform of 1907 was a compromise product of conflicting opinions and did not meet the full expectations of its most ardent supporters. It overlooked, as we have seen, the main point of the report of 1898: that the introduction of hard consonants and the doubling of long consonants were part of one needed reform, and that the one without the other could only be confusing. It left numerous alternative forms for later orthographies to resolve. It might well have been possible to go much farther and be more radical, in view of the national enthusiasm of the period. L m people in particular were eager to point out how far it still fell short of being a truly Norwegian language. Yet two crucial points had been officially established: (1) that the model for Norwegian writing was no longer Danish spelling but Norwegian speech; and (2) that government had the authority to engage in linguistic guidance through the orthography taught in the public schools. T h e first of these points meant the liberation of Norwegian children from the learning of many difficult and irrational spellings. But it meant also the first step into an experiment whose consequences no one could wholly foresee. T h e changes in themselves were as moderate as could have been expected at the time; according to one calculation they affected the appearance of only one out of every twenty 57

C O N F L I C T AND PLANNING running words in a text.40 Compared with spelling reforms in other European countries, however, this one was wildly radical. For it was the first and one of the few serious attempts to bring an existing, traditional orthography into harmony with speech. Minor reforms like the dropping of silent h in German thun 'do' or Swedish hvad 'what' were of an entirely different order of magnitude. Nor was it like the establishment of an orthography for a previously unwritten language, where one is free to choose the underlying form of speech and the general pattern of orthography. Here it was necessary to continue an orthographic tradition while modifying it piecemeal and taking into account the spoken standard of one particular class. Traffic had to be maintained while the new roadway was being built. But no one had precisely staked out the goal. T h e retention of a number of older forms as alternatives to the new was a bow in the direction of the conservatives. But it was soon quite sharply reduced and nearly eliminated. In the original resolution alternatives were admitted for traditional pronunciations like bog [bá:g] beside bok [bo:k] 'book', fader beside far 'father', and traditional grammatical forms for some words: dage 'days' for dager, blade 'leaves' for blad, b0kerne 'the books' for b0kene. T h e Ministry advised the schools that "as far as the hard consonants are concerned, the step should as far as possible be taken all the way, where there are no special grounds for caution." 41 T h e problem posed for the schools by the permissiveness of the resolution was solved by a conference between a committee of grammar and secondary school teachers and another of textbook authors. Their proposal went a step farther than the resolution with respect to hard consonants, but still retained a good many soft ones, especially in literary words like umaadelig 'exceedingly' versus maate 'manner', kj0d 'flesh' (biblical) versus kj0t 'meat', videnskab 'science'

58

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN versus vite 'know'. T h e conclusions of this report were incorporated into the officially authorized Norske retskrivnings-regler med alfabetiske ordlister of 1907 by Aars and Hofgaard. Another list, especially intended for government offices, appeared in 1909.42 T h e decision to make the change in the schools and the government before it was fully prepared or used by private writers was another fateful one. Storm had been particularly eloquent in his warnings against this policy. "Not even in revolutionary France is it seriously entertained to force upon the schools a brand new orthography which is not used in life; nor is it in any other civilized country — with one exception: this is reserved for Norway, the land of utopias, the land of dreams, the land of maalstrœv." 43 Storm predicted that the consequences of a new orthography in the schools would be "complete confusion" because the children would meet a different orthography as soon as they got out of school, "since no one must imagine that parents, grownups, the press, and literature, in short the reading and writing public, will follow the new rules." 4 4 T h e r e were similar angry protests in the conservative press; Aftenposten flatly declared that the new orthography would never be used in that newspaper. 45 Storm greatly underestimated the readiness of writers and public to accept the new spelling. Most of the newspapers, even those that had refused to accept the piecemeal reforms of earlier years (nouns without capitals, shortened verb forms), were not slow in throwing off the "Danish yoke." Politics naturally played its part: the Venstre and Labor papers led the way, while H0ire only reluctantly followed suit. By the end of 1908 two Oslo papers, Norske Intelligentz-Sedler (18 July) and Dagbladet (23 September) had changed, and in 1909 Social-Demokraten (18 January) and Verdens Gang (27 May). T h e adoption by conservative 59

CONFLICT AND PLANNING Morgenbladet in 1910 (3 January) and Norges Handels- og Sj0farts Tidende in 1911 (4 February) showed that the new spelling enjoyed support in all circles of the nation. 46 Between Storm's ominous words and the new spelling came the events of 1905, with its wave of national enthusiasm. Only the die-hard Aftenposten in Oslo and Bergens Aftenblad in Bergen held out to the bitter end. By the time these two accepted the new spelling (16 April 1923), it was already outdated, and advanced newspapers like Dagbladet and Verdens Gang were using a new one.47 Storm was right, however, in predicting an era of orthographic confusion. It became a commonplace to hear Norwegians say, "I don't know how to spell my language." In Norway the concept of correctness in spelling, which has become a part of the modern world of printed books and compulsory schooling, had to yield to a high degree of variation. Conflict arose between the established habits of older people and the new spellings visible in some books and periodicals, or between the newly inculcated habits of younger people and the old spellings still visible in other publications. In schools the conflict took the form of a need for revising the spelling of classic authors taught in readers and anthologies. Famous writers of the late nineteenth century like Ibsen and Bj0rnson were orthographically obsolete even though their works were almost hot off the press. With older writers like Ludvig Holberg (1684-1754) and Henrik Wergeland the problem was still more acute. Teachers and textbook writers did not wish to have their pupils' learning process disturbed by their seeing several different spellings in one book. Selections from older writers were therefore normalized to the current spelling, at least in books for the lower grades. But the new spelling did more than just change the word image; on many points it brought with it also changes in word choice and syntax. A 6o

LIBERATION OF NORWEGIAN lively controversy was raised in 1913 by the young journalist Carl J. Hambro (1885-1965), who vigorously attacked school readers edited by Ivar Alnaes (1868-1956) and others. 48 Hambro showed that the editors had not only respelled their authors but had also rewritten them at many points, eliminating forms felt to be obsolete. He maintained that this was a falsification of the authors' style and a crime against the literary tradition of Norway. In poetry, rhyme and rhythm were destroyed, he asserted, while in prose the characteristic qualities of the authors were flattened out. He prophesied dire consequences in the form of "a culturally rootless youth without respect for tradition." 49 Although Hambro's criticism was in many respects exaggerated and unreasonable, he did put his finger on a problem which the planners of linguistic progress had to face. But in the years between 1907 and 1913 few were concerned about it. T h e main feeling was one of liberation, and gratification that Rm had at last emerged from its Danish chrysalis as a Norwegian language. But at the same time Lm surged forward in a number of Western communities. These used the opportunity to choose Lm when they had to buy new textbooks anyway. T h e spelling reform of 1907 had only revealed in all its nakedness the wide gap between the two languages. More and more people began to think about the problems raised by having two written languages in one small country: how could this be defended, economically and socially? Was there not some way out that would bridge the gap and restore linguistic unity in Norway without destroying either of the two languages?

6i

Neither language can choke off the other or cast it out of the country. We cannot slash away either our old history or our later history; we cannot exclude either city or country. Both must participate, each from its own side, in reaching the great goal: a common Norwegian language, grown out of the living dialects in the cities as well as in the country. Moltke Moe (1909)*

3 PLANNING FOR UNITY 1907-1919

While the battle of the languages raged on, there were some who lifted their eyes to the future. One of these was the folklorist Moltke Moe, who, as we have seen, was also one of the chief architects of the 1907 reform. In his eyes the reform was only a first step along the path that would once more restore linguistic unity to Norway, but on a native base and without denying either of the two traditions. He argued passionately for a future synthesis of the two languages, in which the best of both might be preserved for the benefit of the nation. He called it "a language form which some day can unite our country, with room in it for all that is Norwegian, for city as well as countryside . . . a language that can rightfully be called 'riksmál' and rightfully 'landsmál,' because it is the language of the nation and the land of Norway." 2 In the quotation cited at the head of this chapter he launched the term samnorsk (translated here as "common Norwegian"), which was to become the controversial catchword of the 1950's. "Here there is no 62

PLANNING FOR UNITY question of an either-or; it is a both-and. What we need is a mingling of blood, a flowing together." 3 T h e idea so poetically phrased in Moe's lectures was not new. At the very beginning of his reformatory activities Knud Knudsen had declared, in a comparison of his own and Aasen's work: "These two paths to a truly Norwegian language are different only with respect to the starting point and the first lap; later they will undoubtedly converge." * These words from the mid-century point were virtually echoed near the end of the century by Arne Garborg, from the other camp: "It is clearly a kind of union of the two languages that must be sought. T h e Norwegianness of the one must be united with the culture of the other. Then we will stand at our goal." 5 ARGUMENTS FOR UNITY

There was no disputing the desirability of having one language rather than two. Each of the warring languages hoped to establish itself as victor over the other. But those who were not fanatical partisans of one or the other were convinced that no clear-cut victory of either would be possible. Lm had strengthened its position and had shown great vitality both culturally and politically after the turn of the century. Even those pupils who were not required to use it in their schools had to learn to read it. In 1908 Lm achieved its long-sought goal of being introduced into the secondary schools and made an obligatory subject for all would-be university students.® Ironically, it was the very strength of Lm that made it imperative to establish some kind of cooperation between the languages. T h e call for unity came at a time when the cleavage was at its greatest and most ominous. T h e problem was of course that while both Lm and Rm now had a reasonably clear and firm model for their respec63

CONFLICT AND PLANNING tive normalizations, any departure from these would lead into uncharted territory. Lm had its Hasgstad norm of 1901 and Rm its new spelling of 1907; in case of doubt Lm could appeal to the "genuine" dialects and Rm to the usage of "good society." Any attempt to introduce forms from one into the other would risk rejection by Lm on the charge of being foreign and by Rm on the charge of being vulgar. There were many very widespread speech forms which were unacceptable to both norms. It was easier to dream of a "mingling of blood" than to spell out the steps by which a truly organic language could be created from two such different structures as Lm and Rm. T h e dragons which barred the union of hero and heroine in J0rgen Moe's folktales were less menacing than those which awaited the attempt to marry Lm and Rm in the ensuing generation. One who had the courage to make a beginning was Hans Eitrem (1871-1937), a teacher in the secondary schools. In 1908 appeared his collection of essays entitled "Cooperation between Landsmaal and Riksmaal?" Eitrem was one of a group of teachers who attended a summer course in Lm at Elverum, directed by Hasgstad himself. T h e teachers adopted a resolution deploring "the acrimonious language controversy" and calling for cooperation between Rm and Lm. They asked the Ministry to appoint a committee of representatives of both languages "to adjust differences in orthography, so that words which are common may be written in the same way in both languages." 7 This modest goal was spelled out in a six-point program by Eitrem; interestingly enough, all of his points have since been adopted, except for the sixth, which provided that all the changes should be adopted before the fall of 1909!8 Eitrem contended that one condition of such cooperation would be that Lm give u p its sectional and puristic traits. He gave examples of widely used Norwegian words, some 64

PLANNING FOR UNITY native and others foreign in origin, which were rejected by Lm merely because they were also used in Rm. In some cases, he wrote, Lm seemed to go out o£ its way to spell words differently from Rm. All such separatism would have to be given up if Norway were to attain what he facetiously called a rikslandsmaal. This would be a language "with simplified inflections, greater freedom of choice with regard to East and West Norwegian words, word forms, and syntax, and an orthography which takes account of Rm to a greater extent than does the present authorized Lm, a pronunciation which within specified limits gives the various parts of the country freedom and equality." 9 Eitrem's formulation of the basic principle for a common language is one that came to be accepted for much of the planning that has since taken place: "Inflections, words, syntax, and pronunciations which have good (repeat good) support in Norwegian dialects and are developed on Norwegian soil without foreign influence, and which are also found in Rm, shall be taken into the common national language as main forms [hovedformer] or at least be permitted as side forms [biformer]." 10 T H E C O M M I T T E E O F I 9 0 9 AND ITS R E P O R T

T h e Ministry responded by appointing a committee to study the differences between the two languages and try to find out what could be done to eliminate them. One of the members was Eitrem, the prime mover in the resolution. T h e second was Stener (Steinar) Schj0tt, author of Dansknorsk Ordbog, a Lm supporter who was favorable to cooperation. 11 T h e third was Amund B. Larsen (1849-1928), a dialect geographer and Rm supporter. Together these men made the first detailed comparison of the two languages and discussed the possibilities for reducing the differences between them by mutual compromise and adjustment. 12 Their 65

CONFLICT AND PLANNING published report ran to 185 pages and is fundamental in the further work done on planning for linguistic unity. We shall hereafter refer to it as the Utredning.13 The Utredning was described by its authors as "a collection of materials, methodically and as far as possible perspicuously arranged" (p. 3). It compared the two orthographies point by point and suggested changes that would bring the two languages closer together. The main headings were: foreign words; word spacing; shortened forms; the auxiliary vowel, shwa (usually written e); jo and ju; kt, gt, and the hard or soft consonants; the use of j after g and k; silent d; consonant gemination; diphthongs versus monophthongs; e versus ce; high vowels versus lowered vowels; inflectional endings. At the end were printed four different versions of the same (originally Lm) story in, respectively, traditional Lm, reformed Lm, reformed Rm, and traditional Rm or Danish. The two reformed versions, placed like intermediate points on a spectrum, were intended to show how close the two languages could be brought to one another by the changes here suggested. The committee urged that in future spelling reforms the prime consideration should be the conciliation of differences: "It should always be kept in mind that a change should bring the languages closer together, not farther apart" (p. 4). Of the two languages, Rm would have to change the most, they held, but Lm would also have to make concessions in order to remove its sectional and archaic character. The committee cautiously limited itself almost entirely to changes in orthography, but within these there were two categories which would prove to offer quite different problems of enforcement. One was the purely graphic type, which did not affect the pronunciation. Rm kemi and Lm kjemi 'chemistry' were both pronounced [çemi:]. But Rm sten and Lm stein 'stone' were pronounced differently, and 66

PLANNING FOR U N I T Y any harmonization of the two could only be accomplished at the expense of someone's pronunciation. W e may call such changes phonic,

since they dictated a different pronuncia-

tion f r o m the one previously current in the language in question. Some changes were of course both, or they might differ for different speakers. Among the purely graphic changes recommended by the Utredning was the adoption of native spellings for foreign words in common use. Such differences as bureau/byraa, kemif kjemi, cigar/sigar could easily be resolved in favor of the L m forms.14 Similarly it was recommended that prepositions be separated from their nouns in adverbial phrases (of the type of the English word today) in order to eliminate such differences as idag/i dag 'today', tilsjfis/til sj0s 'at sea', fordi/for di 'because'. It was advised that R m give up the spelling gt for the pronunciation [kt] in order to erase such differences as magt/ makt 'power', digt/dikt 'poem', kl0gt/kl0kt 'wisdom'. But gt should be kept where the basic stem contained a g, even though it was pronounced [kt], for example, in lagt 'laid' (from legge 'lay'). On the other hand, L m was advised to give up such spellings as aksl 'shoulder', livr 'liver', rangl 'dissipation' in favor of R m aksel, lever, rangel, since the consonant was usually syllabic in both languages. A problem which was partly phonic and partly graphic was the deviation in the use of œ, originally a symbol for the i-umlaut of long a, like German ä. Danish spelling made extensive use of this symbol, both for long and short vowels: kreeve 'demand', hcer 'army' (long); last 'last', kjœrre 'cart' (short). Aasen had regulated its use strictly in agreement with Old Norse practice, using it only as a long vowel in words having a related base with à (the reflex of Old Norse long a), for instance, sad 'seed' (sâ 'sow'), tcer 'toes' (tâ 'toe'). Hence he wrote e in all the words listed above: krevja, her, lest, kjerra. T h e committee recommended that œ be entirely eliminated as a short vowel in Rm, writing, for example, lest and kjerre, even though the latter was pronounced [çaerre] (position before r). This was a purely graphic change, and, interestingly enough, the opposite of that recommended by Knudsen (and in part

67

CONFLICT AND PLANNING followed by Bj0rnson), to expand the use of a, as in een for end 'than.' 15 For long vowels the œ was to be regulated in the same way as in Lm, thereby partly contradicting Rm pronunciation: seed [se:d], tar [tae:r]. The elimination of all other long œ's in favor of e happened to agree with the Rm pronunciation of Oslo, since words like krœve were already pronounced as if written kreve. Only before r was there a difficulty, since long e and ce are here distinguished: lere 'clay' versus leere 'learn.' No change was proposed for such words, even where Lm had eliminated ce, as in hcer 'army.' On the other hand, such traditionally unphonetic spellings as er 'is', der 'there', and her 'here' were also kept unchanged, since they agreed with Lm. In Rm they are usually pronounced with [ae]. The chief graphic changes in the consonants involved the use of double consonants after vowels. We have seen that Aars, Hofgaard, and Moe called for double consonants after short vowels, and the Utredning repeated this demand, criticizing the rule of the 1907 orthography that limited it to peculiarly Norwegian words like foss 'waterfall.' The committee excluded it, however, from some positions: in normally unstressed words (at 'that', til 'to'; cf. Swedish att, till), in suffixes (Lm -ut, -al), before another consonant ( f j e l s , troldom), and in words with final m (dum, kom). In those cases where dialects differed on length, the change became a phonic one as well. Here the committee chose East Norwegian pronunciation as its model, preferring, for example, vett 'sense' and venn 'friend' to the West Norwegian vit and vin of Lm. Before r and I, however, the committee accepted a pronunciation with a long vowel because of its wide use in the local dialects, contrary to the usage of Rm: sm0r 'butter', 1 'beer'. In the case of I and n, Danish orthography often marked a preceding short vowel by writing Id and nd: finde 'find', mand 'man', vild 'wild'. Here Aasen substituted II and nn, but only when Old Norwegian and the more conservative dialects did not have Id and nd, so that mann and vili replaced mand and vild, while rhyming words like land 'land' and sild 'herring' remained unchanged. Here Utredning advised that Rm follow Lm, thereby simplifying the spelling of some words, but also introducting a new spelling difficulty for the great majority of speakers in both languages who made no such distinction. Both 68

PLANNING FOR UNITY languages agreed in writing silent, "historical" d after long vowels and in the cluster rd, for instance, in god 'good', jord 'earth'. T h e only problem here consisted of those words which R m had adopted from the dialects in their oral form. Where R m writers were accustomed to seeing It 'slope', ski 'ski', hei 'heath', snau 'bald', skar 'pass', Aasen had resolutely restored a d which was silent everywhere except (in part) in his own native region: lid, skid, heid, snaud, skard. Here the committee rejected Aasen's forms and advised both languages to adopt the simpler ones. Before the -st of some superlatives, however, Danish had stem forms with a silent d which even Aasen rejected: bedst 'best', mindst 'least', sidst 'last'. Here the committee recommended the Lm forms best, minst, sist. T h e judicious principle for these recommendations was that "it is an advantage to drop a silent letter where tradition permits it, but only there." Consideration for the cultivated speech norm had in some cases prevented the consistent application of certain Lm rules to R m in 1907. T h e committee now urged that these be made more consistent. It advised dropping the plural form -e entirely in such words as dage 'days' and h use 'houses', making the former dager and the latter h us. Words which had retained a Danish "soft" consonant, contrary to L m usage, were to be "Norwegianized": daap for daab 'baptism', kopper for kobber 'copper'. On the other hand, Lm was advised to rid itself of some traditional or sectional forms which were not found in R m and were in agreement with general usage, especially in EN. Among these were such shortened word forms as be 'ask', by 'offer', far 'father', forklœ 'apron', where Lm still wrote beda, bjoda, fader, and forklade. Where Lm usually had a so-called "open" vowel, often written with a grave accent (t y ù ò è), and R m a lowered one (e φ o à a), Lm was advised to adopt the R m form, as Aasen already had done for a few words, as in fred 'peace' and ven 'friend.' L m was also advised to drop the / after g and k in words like leggjer 'legs', bekkjer 'brooks', menneskje 'person', since there could be no likelihood of general acceptance for the palatalized pronunciation, and those who used it could equally well apply it to such R m spellings as legger, bekker, and menneske by a general rule. T h e same applied to such highly sectional forms as brjota 'break', Ijos 'light', and sjo

69

C O N F L I C T AND P L A N N I N G 'sea'. T h e committee found that the change from jo to y or φ in such words was so widespread in the dialects that Lm ought to give them u p in favor of bryta, lys, sjfi. L m was also asked to give u p the -r- of the definite plural article, as R m had done in 1907, to produce such forms as gutane 'the boys' for older gufarne (cf. R m guttene for gutterne). Finally, Lm was advised to accept the ending -e for -a in two important grammatical categories: the feminine singular of weak nouns (vise for visa 'song') and the infinitive (kaste for kasta 'throw'). In return for these many concessions, R m was expected to yield on the crucial point of diphthongs. One of the major shibboleths of upper-class R m speech was its avoidance of the diphthongs au, ei, vaar (Lm vaar, ON vor), at 'to' (mark of infinitive) > aa (Lm aa, ON at). They discussed the possibility of introducing gemination in stages, to avoid the shock which full change would cause; but they concluded that consistency and ease of learning required its introduction in all forms, including some that Utredning would have exempted (for instance, s0ns 'son's' > sfinns). They also discussed the possibility of introducing II and nn in all words and not just for unhistorical Id and nd, but rejected it as separating Rm from other Germanic languages as well as from Lm. In the samples at the end of the report the moderate one has only partial gemination, along with historical Id and nd, while the radical one has complete gemination, including II and nn in all words. T h e phonic recommendations also followed the Utredning in urging the restriction of -e as an indefinite plural and the encouragement of hard consonants in words where both pronunciations were heard. They reported that since the 1907 reform a strong tendency had made itself felt to go farther than this report in the use of Norwegian plurals (dager, hus), and in the use of hard consonants. This reflected a deliberate preference for the new forms which some writers carried even beyond actual speech: paalitelig for the 1907 paalidelig 'dependable'

77

CONFLICT AND PLANNING (but lite 'depend'). Some even produced unhistorical (hyper) forms like syte for syde 'boil' (Lm sjoda), grupe for grübe 'mine' (from German Grube, Lm gruva), strape for strabe 'strive' (from German streben, Lm strava), blyk for blyg 'modest' (Lm bljug). It was evident that writers identified the hard consonants as "Norwegian" and occasionally used them either in defiance or ignorance of cultivated speech. A few of these hard consonants had even entered speech: forsake 'reject', rake frem 'tower forth', mot 'courage'. T h e most controversial parts of the report were those that dealt with diphthongs and the feminine gender. T h e diphthongs had been promoted by the 1909 committee, as we have seen, for peculiarly Norwegian words which had been accepted in this form by educated people. But the committee o£ Riksmaalsforbundet went farther, in keeping with its declaration in the Foreword on behalf of a more democratic language: " I n the orthography proper . . . it is not so important to make the written language more national, more Norwegian, as it is to make it more popular [folkelig]. Side by side with the national self-assertion in language there is a democratic movement, an assertion of 'folkliness' [folkelighet] . . ." (p. 16). I n a strongly worded statement the committee declared: At no point in the phonology is the oppression which the written language lays upon the common people more strongly felt, more repressive and irritating than where Rm has monophthongs against the diphthongs of the dialects. The necessity of writing monophthongs in words like bein and stein, hauk and graut, φι and r0is is for the overwhelming majority of the Norwegian population so heavy a tribute to pay to the common language that it can only be regarded as justified wherever and as long as it is imperative. We are here in an area where the sprouts of Norwegianness must be consciously and systematically fostered. It is necessary to adopt or at least to recognize word by word every Norwegian form which has become 78

PLANNING FOR UNITY sufficiently common in the conversational language so that it does not stand out like a foreign patch on the dress of the written language (p. 54). The committee then made an important distinction between various styles in speech and writing. Three styles were recognized as a part of Rm: "literary prose," "normal prose," "low prose." We shall call these the "literary," "formal," and "informal" styles. "The choice will be," they declared, "between the informal style with its everyday language tending toward the vulgar (as we know it, for example, from the dialogue in novels) and the so-called formal style, that is, the conventional language which is used in newspapers and business communication, in official announcements, scientific discourse, and the like" (p. 55). While the latter was what most people thought of as "cultivated speech," the committee described it as "the stiff pronunciation developed and acquired through school discipline" (p. 55). The committee then declared that this kind of speech had not been given that "dominating role" in its deliberations which was customary in such discussions. Formal style had to share its eminence with "the informal daily speech which we hear in our homes and in ordinary intercourse round about the country" (p. 55). The consequences of this point of view, here enunciated for the first time by Norway's leading expertise in linguistics, were that diphthongs should not "be artificially held down, but be recognized to whatever extent speech indicates" (p. 55). Wherever in ordinary Rm speech a Danish and a Norwegian form "struggle for the upper hand" (p. 55), there should be freedom of choice (valgfrihet). Not only should peculiarly Norwegian words be admitted with their diphthongs, but also shared (Danish and Norwegian) words referring to rural life: aure (for 0rret) 'trout', gjeit (for gjet) 'goat', 0i (for φ) 'island'. This, it was expected, would 79

CONFLICT AND PLANNING gradually change the language intuition (sprogf0lelse) in a Norwegian direction until the new form could become the only one. T h e committee recognized that this freedom of choice raised considerable pedagogic problems, but lightly dismissed these as necessary incidents of this important reform. T h e advantages in easing the learning burden of rural and working-class children were emphasized, along with the hope that it would reduce the violence of the linguistic conflict. A further point, which the committee raised without having a mandate from the board or a precedent in the work of the Committee of 1909, was that of the feminine gender, manifested by the definite singular suffix -a, the article ei (or e), and the possessives mi, di, si (for masculine min, din, sin). It was evident that once the colloquial form of the R m came to be the basis of f u t u r e spelling reforms, the nearly universal feminine gender could not be ignored. As the committee pointed out, once such forms as gjeit 'goat', ku 'cow', 0i 'island' began taking the place of the older gjet, ko, φ, the feminine ending could not be excluded: "Gjeten is defensible, but gjeiten sounds bad" (p. 62). T h e committee advised that words relating to rural and homely topics, such as domestic animals, should be introduced with their feminine ending in order to accustom children to seeing these so-called "vulgar" forms in print. But they did not advise the use of the feminine pronoun of reference for these nouns: den 'it' should be used, not hun (hu, ho) 'she', when reference was made to nonpersonal nouns. Starting from a theoretical point of view which emphasized the dangers of linguistic cleavage and the presumed possibility of planning for unity, the committee had arrived at a proposal which went well beyond the daily speech of cultivated people. Even before the report appeared, it became the subject of controversy in the daily press. Nansen's ag8o

PLANNING FOR UNITY gressive speech before Riksmaalsforbundet in January of 1913 released a flood of discussion pro and con. T h e liveliest of the attackers was the previously mentioned Carl J . Hambro, whose essays appeared in Morgenbladet and were then issued in book form under the provocative title, "Spirit of the Language and Servants of the Letter." Hambro questioned the competence of Falk (Sanskrit and Comparative Philology) and T o r p (Germanic Philology) as authorities on the Norwegian language: "The study of Norwegian has not been a life task for either of these men, least of all the study of the living, spoken, and written language." A philologist, he claimed, has no more right to influence the development of language than a historian to influence the course of history: "And when the philologist authoritatively proclaims that the language shall develop in this or that way, he should be regarded in exactly the same way as the historian who announces that such and such events will take place." He attacked the language planners in sarcastic terms as "these reforming Cabinet members, these ministerial language consultants, these Educational Councils, these philologists devoid of musical or literary feeling for language, and all the rest of these many gentlemen, who, with more zeal than sense and more well-intentioned than well-considered, have let one badly prepared reform follow upon another!" T h e conclusion of Hambro's acid comments was that the language should be left alone. In a civilized country, he wrote, one does not carry on experiments with the orthography on one's language of culture: "Rm is not like Esperanto an international knickknack [snurrepiperi] for the benefit of initiates. It is a living organism whose fate cannot be settled by any congress whatever." 2 7 T h e result of this attack and others like it was that the board of Riksmaalsforbundet had to retreat from its earlier stand. On 26 November 1913, while voting that the report 8i

CONFLICT AND PLANNING should be printed, they also voted unanimously against any immediate change in the spelling of Rm. T h e board had already (4 October 1913) asked the editor of Riksmaalsbladet to stop agitating for a new spelling. T h e organization was having trouble with its economy, and the conservatives blamed this on its radical leadership. 0rebladet, a Trondheim newspaper, roundly declared: "Under a foolish leadership Riksmaalsforbundet has alienated itself from a large part of the friends of Rm. We uttered a warning in time, but were rewarded by being excommunicated and blacklisted because we would not submit to the suicidal spelling muddle of Riksmaalsforbundet." 28 T h e same (Trondheim) newspaper accused Nansen of roving into fields beyond his competence: "An aggressive clique has sought, under cover of the world fame of a polar explorer entirely incompetent in this field, to transform our language so that it became neither R m nor Lm, but mostly the latter. If this clique had been allowed to proceed as it began, we would soon have landed in linguistic anarchy." 29 It is important to keep in mind that the report was not approved by Riksmaalsforbundet, though later it was sometimes quoted as if it had been. Even though the report was thus rejected by its own organization, it came to have a great influence. T h e very fact that it carried the name of the partisan Rm organization made it welcome ammunition for the opponents of Rm. When the new spelling of 1917 was to be worked out, Falk became the chairman of that committee, as he had been of Riksmaalsforbundet's committee. Important sections of the later report are lifted bodily from the first, and its conclusions are practically identical. Popular interest in the issue was further stirred by the creation of an organization called 0stlandsk reisning (East 82

PLANNING FOR UNITY Norwegian Movement) in October 1916. T h e initiator was Eivind Berggrav-Jensen (1884-1959), the later Bishop Berggrav, then principal of a school at Fetsund. In lectures he appealed to the young people of Eastern Norway to work for the introduction of their own linguistic forms into the national languages. He felt that the conflict of the languages had reached a dead end, unless the living forms of speech of the eastern dialects could enter them both and form a bridge between them. Berggrav's lieutenants were the two professors who represented this point of view most strongly in these years, the historian Halvdan Koht (1873-1965) from the Lm side and the linguist Didrik Arup Seip (18841963) from the R m side. An appeal from this organization was issued in 1916 on behalf of the East Norwegian forms, because this was "the way forward to a language which is common to all Norwegians." 30 After about ten years of activity on behalf of the optional East Norwegian forms, the organization was dissolved. Its chief importance was that it provided Seip with his first national forum for ideas which he promoted over many years, though with less zeal in his later publications. Being a Lm sympathizer who spoke Rm and had recently become professor of the latter language, he had a natural bias in favor of its Norwegianization. In a 1917 pamphlet optimistically entitled "One Language in Norway — the Language Struggle Settled in This Generation?" he formulated the slogan of "one Norwegian language in Norway suitable [h0velig] for all Norwegians." 31 In a lecture he formulated the points which were to be the bones of contention over a generation to come: Rm must adopt a Norwegian spelling, diphthongs, folk forms like hard, kald, mye, sn0, làg, h0g, gammal, fram, feminine nouns in -a, and weak pasts in -α.32 83

CONFLICT AND PLANNING THE ORTHOGRAPHY OF

I917

By the time the report of Riksmaalsforbundet had been shelved, it had become evident that the government was preparing to take official action looking toward a new reform. T h e formal initiative came from the four philological members of the Educational Council, Undervisningsrâdet, which advised the Ministry in matters of education. These schoolmen included Haegstad, whose L m n o r m of 1901 we have discussed above, and three junior college principals, all coincidentally born in 1855 (K. O. Brekke, A. H. Raeder, Peter N. 0stbye). T h e Ministry could not ignore a request coming from men of such prominence. In view of the H0ire complexion of the Ministry, one wonders with how much enthusiasm it acted. T h e request came on 19 October 1912 and asked for a mandate that would not be limited to purely orthographic reforms, "thereby excluding proposals for other improvements and changes which might appear desirable." 33 On 13 September 1913, the Ministry appointed a committee of six to consider the problems of a simultaneous reform of the spellings of both languages. A novelty of this committee was that the two languages were both represented and that the members included not just schoolmen-linguists but also authors. On the R m side there was Alf T o r p (chairman) and Ivar Alnass, both mentioned above in connection with Riksmaalsforbundet and its report; the author was journalist Haakon L0ken who had launched the term rigsmaal in 1899. On the Lm side there was Knut Liest0l (1881-1952), docent in Lm at the University, and Lars Eskeland (1867-1942), folk high school principal and writer of Lm spelling books; the author was Jens Tvedt, novelist. For reasons which do not appear in the available sources this committee failed to accomplish anything. 34 In September 1916 the chairman died; a new 84

PLANNING FOR UNITY committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Hjalmar Falk. This time there were only four other members, all schoolmen: for Rm, Ivar Alnaes and Didrik Arup Seip, who had just become professor of R m at the University; for Lm, Hasgstad and Liest0l. This committee of language experts produced a report which was submitted to the cabinet on 12 December 1917 and became the basis of the new spelling that was forthwith (21 December) promulgated by the cabinet. 35 In its report the committee set forth in detail the mandate or instructions under which it had operated, formulated by the Ministry and its consultants. These instructions were entirely in the spirit of the reports of 1909 and 1913, thereby going well beyond the idea of the 1907 spelling, which was founded on cultivated pronunciation alone. It is evident that the success of the 1907 spelling had given aid and comfort to those who were dissatisfied with its halfway measures. It is also evident that national liberation and the extension of suffrage had created a political climate in which reform could thrive. T h e instructions declared that "the committee must always keep in mind that it is supposed to clear the path for a development in the direction of national unity on the basis of the true spoken language to the people." 36 T h e keynotes here were "national unity [national samling]" and "the true spoken language of the people [folkets virkelige talesprog]." T h e goal was stated as follows: "the greatest possible rapprochement [tilnœrmelse] of the two written languages of our country through a sound, natural, and regular [lovmœssig] development of both." 37 Just what was meant by these adjectives was not spelled out; but it was declared that "it is of course not intended to compel an artificial linguistic unity." 38 T h e conception of the two language forms which emerged from the committee report was that they were both in 85

CONFLICT AND PLANNING transition, with Rm constantly becoming less Danish and Lm less sectional. This development, it was thought, should be encouraged by legalizing for use in writing all those "Norwegian" forms that had found a foothold in Rm and all those majority forms that were beginning to appear in Lm. The goal of linguistic unity was so important, the committee felt, that some sacrifice of traditional forms was justified. "Where a fusion is to take place, a dissolution [opl0sning] must precede." 39 Rm had to be "nativized and democratized" by admitting into it forms from the urban folk dialects; Lm had to be "modernized" by taking into account those dialects that Aasen had neglected. "The identities which appear in this way will form the common norm for both languages." 4 0 Where the resistance of tradition was too strong in either language, or where two forms were competing, "optional forms [tillatte side former]" would have to be set up for the time being, which could "mediate between the old and the new." These "doublets [ d o b b e l t former]" would make the reform less "rigorous [haardhœndt]" and would secure victory for those forms that had the greatest viability, "thus leaving the choice to the future." 41 A number of the changes proposed were purely graphic, and therefor less controversial, in spite of the radically new appearance they gave the language. The committee specifically refused to consider any change on the grounds that it made either language easier to write, unless it also brought them closer together: "For our task the chief emphasis is not on giving one or the other language a simpler orthography, but of reducing the dissimilarity of Rm and Lm." 42 Nevertheless a number of the changes did in fact contribute to the orthophonie quality of the spelling. Some of these had been bruited about for a number of years: the change from aa to ά, which had been recommended by an inter-Scandinavian committee in 1869 and had been adopted (from Swedish) by a number of Norwegian 86

REVOLUSJON? F.xlrx Igig)

— N i , h vor langt rr dere komintl incd revolusjoncn her i Norge? — Forclobig siisi vi om hvurdan den skal j l a v n .

Revolution? "Well, how's the Revolution going here in Norway?" "For the moment we're still fighting about how to spell it." Drawing by Ragnvald Blix in Exlex 1919. Reprinted in Ragnvald Blix, En kavalkade gjennom 50 âr, ed. Sigurd Hoel, Oslo: Dreyers Forlag, 1952, p. 100.

CONFLICT AND PLANNING and Danish writers, including Henrik Ibsen. Foreign words like nation, chocolade, and cigar were simplified by being respelled according to Norwegian rules: nasjon, sjokolade, sigar. Other features now adopted in Rm from the spelling of Lm coincided with their Rm pronunciation and were therefore welcomed: the virtual abandonment of ce in favor of e (heder, demme, sekk); the gemination of final consonants (takk, topp, egg)·, the elimination of unhistorical d after η and l (mann, fjell) and of historical d before s and st (los, plass, best, minst); the change of gt to kt (makt, dikt). As we have seen, these were all included in the recommendations of the Committee of 1909 and Riksmaalsforbundet's committee of 1913. In addition, the committee substituted â for o in atte 'eight', átti 'eighty', vâr 'our'; o for u in slokne 'extinguish', sloppet 'escaped'; inserted j before e in words like skje 'spoon' and dropped j before diphthongs in words like geit 'goat'; dropped g, finally, in aldri 'never' and slo 'struck'; dropped final -t in lite 'little' and changed turde 'dare, dared' to tore 'dare', torde 'dared'. All of these could be defended in terms of Rm pronunciation, though the real reason was the possibility of producing identities with Lm. With their adoption, Rm had virtually taken on the dress of Lm. Where one or both languages had an unphonetic shape, this was left alone as being outside the committee mandate. Most of the report, however, was concerned with the far more difficult problem of harmonizing the two languages at those points where the differences were not purely graphic. Some of these were phonic, others grammatical. As we have seen, the Committee of 1909 had been quite cautious on these matters, while the Committee of 1913 had gone much farther. T h e Committee of 1916 based itself squarely on the report of 1913; but it went even a step or two beyond. One new technique, for example, was the appeal to population statistics. We may almost certainly attribute this to the membership on the committee of Seip, who always emphasized this approach in his later writings. This was a 88

PLANNING FOR UNITY consequence of the touchstone established in the committee mandate: "the true spoken language of the people." The committee pointed out that in important respects neither orthography reflected this language; for example, two million Norwegians used the feminine definite suffix -a (sola, gata) which was accepted in neither language (Rm -en, Lm -i). This "democratic" criterion raised great problems in the further development of linguistic planning, since it obviously could be at odds with other criteria, such as inner consistency of the system, which had been one of Aasen's main concerns, or the stability of tradition, which had been the chief virtue of Rm. In each concrete case unity could be achieved in one of several ways. The simplest solution would be found when the Rm form could be accepted by Lm or the Lm form by Rm. T h e arguments would be somewhat different for those alternatives: a R m form to be adopted by Lm would have to be proved to be so widespread in rural speech that it could not be dismissed as "foreign." This was often the case with forms characteristic of EN dialects, which Aasen had neglected as "corrupt." A Lm form to be adopted by R m would have to be shown to be familiar to urban speakers and writers, at least as dialectal or informal variants of their own speech. Again, this meant as a rule "vulgar" EN forms, which often coincided with those that Aasen had rejected. T h e example of the feminine -a is here symptomatic: Aasen favored -i because it had greater dignity (and a more "authentic" ancestry), while speakers of Rm used -en for the same reason. Here the committee sometimes used the weight of numbers to force upon each language a third form, one which had specifically been rejected by both languages, but which was undeniably familiar to all. Although the committee did not itself list the proposed changes in this way, distinction was made between obliga89

CONFLICT AND PLANNING tory and optional forms. T h e obligatory ones were those which it was believed would win general acceptance at once; the optional forms were those which it was expected might meet resistance because of their radicalism. T a k i n g all of the optional forms together in each language, one could speak of a "radical" form of that language, contrasting with the "moderate" form which included only the obligatory changes. Since the radical forms were drawn either f r o m the other language or from widespread popular usage, these represented a staking out of the path which both languages must take if they were to be fused. Radical R m and radical L m were closer together than the traditional forms of each, and it was hoped that these would catch hold so that f u r t h e r steps could soon be taken toward complete unity. In working out this policy in detail it soon became apparent that words could no longer be treated in large groups. T h e y had to be broken down into smaller groups, or even taken word by word. T h u s Danish long o contrasted with Norwegian long M in a small group of words: bo 'live', bro 'bridge', ko 'cow', tro 'believe'. Of these ko was selected for obligatory transformation to ku, while the rest remained optional. T h e reasoning behind it was that the feminine u form would meet with least resistance if it were used in words of predominantly folk usage, referring to rural conditions, to animals, birds, trees, and other natural phenomena. Hence the selection of ku as obligatory, leaving the rest to wait for a more favorable climate. Most of the phonic changes proposed involved the substitution of one vowel or consonant for its phonemic neighbor; of course some words required more than one substitution. We shall class them under vowels and consonant substitutions. 1) Vowel substitutions, (a) Open/close. Most of the changes here were in Lm, where the open symbol was advised wherever 90

PLANNING FOR UNITY it also existed in Rm: e for i (leva 'live'), φ for y (f0l 'foal'), o for u (okse 'ox'), â for o {flate 'fleet'). Compromise forms (EN) were proposed for the contrast nu/no 'now' and mellem/ millom 'between', viz., ná and mellom. Where Rm had so-called "Danish" vowels, Lm or EN forms were recommended: u for o in bru, bu, tru (see above); o for u, as in brott 'break', botn 'bottom' (Rm bunn), golv 'floor', dokke 'doll', hogge 'chop', mold 'soil', skott 'shot' (Rm skudd, Lm skot), vogge 'cradle', kol 'coal' (Rm kull), hoi 'hole' (Rm hull). Lm was advised to change krune 'crown' to the more general krone, but skule 'school' was left. (b) Monophthongs/diphthongs. All peculiarly Norwegian words were to be written with diphthongs, if these occurred in the dialects. Ηφΐ 'hay' was made obligatory, but a number of others were made optional: hauk 'hawk', gauk 'cuckoo', lauv 'leaf, naust 'boat house', skei 'spoon', einer 'juniper', rfiis 'stone pile', and so on. Lm was advised to adopt forms without diphthongs where these were common in EN, as in flom 'flood', drm 'dream', h0st 'fall'; and y for ju, jo as in lys 'light', bryta 'break', by 'offer'. (c) Miscellaneous. Lm forms which were proposed for Rm included â for a in áker 'field', frâ 'from', lâg 'low' (Rm lav); a for â in band 'band', gard 'farm', hand 'hand', kald 'cold'; φ for e in εηφ 'snow'; a for e in the last syllables of gammal 'old' and hammar 'hammer'; φ for e in bj0rk 'birch' (Rm bjerk, older birk). Rm forms proposed for Lm included a for e in bare 'only' (Lm bene), arve 'inherit' (Lm erva); a for o in words like aske 'ashes', asp 'asp'. 2) Consonant substitutions, (a) Hard/soft stops. Most of the "conservative" pronunciations retained as exceptions in Rm in 1907 were now eliminated: bog 'book', eble 'apple', now bok, eple; many derivatives were made to agree with their stems, for instance, blekne 'grow pale', bakvaske 'malign', cf. blek 'pale', bak 'behind'. Only about fifty words were left with soft stops in Rm. (b) Gemination. The remaining difference between Rm and Lm which consisted in the former having long consonants where the latter had short consonants was partially eliminated by keeping short consonants where Rm vacillated (bek 'pitch', kar 'vessel', nes 'headland') and asking Lm to adopt long con91

CONFLICT AND PLANNING sonants where EN dialects had them (monn 'difference', ntt 'nut', fötter 'feet', gammal 'old', hammar 'hammer'). (c) Silent d's. Rm was asked to adopt them after r in words like skurd 'woodcarving', urd 'stony slope', skard 'pass', in order to distinguish them from homonyms of different meaning. Lm was asked to drop them after vowels in words where they were not familiar in Rm, as in skei 'spoon', sva 'cliff', svie 'pain'. (d) v/g, and the like. Rm was asked to adopt from Lm the forms farge 'color', krage 'collar', lyge 'lie' (Lm ljuga), mage 'stomach', torg 'market place', korg 'basket', lâg 'low' (Rm lav), tjuge 'twenty' (Rm tyve), sakne 'miss' (Rm savne). Rm was also asked to accept g in hfig 'high' (Rm hi), hφgd 'height' (Rm hfiide), duge 'avail' (Rm due). (e) hv/kv. Rm was asked to accept the widespread dialect forms with kv- for hv- (pron. [v]), as in kvit 'white', kvile 'rest'. (f) k for kj unstressed. Lm was asked to change kj to k in weak syllables, as in menneske 'people', but to keep kj elsewhere, as in ikkje 'not', mykje 'much'. The grammatical changes included the obligatory use with all nouns of the plurals which had been established in 1907 for some nouns: (1) elimination of Rm -e (except after -er) in the indefinite plural in favor of -er and zero; (2) elimination of -rin the definite plural in both languages: -ene in Rm, -ane, -ene in Lm. T h e optional forms recommended involved chiefly two parts of the grammar: (1) feminine nouns; (2) verbs. 1) Feminine nouns. I n R m this category did not officially exist, while in Lm it was present to approximately the same extent as in O N and most Norwegian dialects; only the dialect of Bergen, in earlier centuries Norway's largest city, had lost it. Here, as in Danish and Swedish, the masculine and feminine had fallen together in the masculine affix -en for the definite article and the masculine en for the indefinite article. After a historical survey of the use of the feminine in speech and writing, the committee concluded: "If the feminine gender is accepted in R m — in agreement with usage in daily speech and to some extent in literature 92

PLANNING FOR UNITY — one of the greatest barriers to union of the languages in Norway will be cleared away." 43 Since even educated speakers were familiar with the feminine in substandard urban speech and in their own informal speech, it was thought that it could be gradually introduced in words relating to homely and familiar life: "The most important thing is that the feminine form should be accepted; then it will make its way by its own living force." 44 Lists of words were prepared, for which feminine gender was recommended, and grouped into terms referring to animals, trees, plants, nature, and rural conditions in general. It was recommended that "the pupils should be permitted to use the feminine form in writing to the same extent as they use it in their speech." 45 School readers in Rm should include selections using the feminine, especially with words of the type mentioned. There still remained the question of which forms should be adopted for the feminine definite article, since these varied in different parts of the country. T h e 1901 Lm norm distinguished strong and weak nouns, the latter being those that ended in an unstressed vowel.

Examples Strong Weak

sol 'sun' visa 'song'

Singular indefinite

Singular Plural definite indefinite

—-a

-i -a

Plural definite

-er (-ar) -ene (-ane) -or -one

This elaborate system was known to exist in only a minority of dialects and could of course not be introduced into Rm, where it would represent an enormous learning burden. For Rm the only form that could possibly be introduced was the -a for both strong and weak nouns in the singular definite, the usual form in the overwhelming majority of Norwegian dialects. For Lm a great simplification was pro93

CONFLICT AND PLANNING posed, which would make its system practically identical wth that of a radical Rm.

Examples Strong sol Weak vise

Singular indefinite

Singular Plural definite indefinite

Plural definite

•a

In this way both languages would eventually come to write this paradigm in the same way. Other forms that were closely associated with the feminine in nouns included on the one hand the feminine of articles and pronouns, and on the other hand the neuter plurals. It was recommended that ei (e) 'a', and the possessives mi, di, si be adopted to the same extent as the feminine in general. But for the neuter plural, which in the dialects was identical with the feminine singular, it was only recommended that two words be used with this form: barna 'the children', bena (beina) 'the legs'. 2) Verbs. The committee discussed three major discrepancies between Rm and Lm, the infinitive, the preterite of weak verbs, and the present of strong verbs. (a) Infinitive -e/-a. Here Rm had the majority on its side; Lm was advised to adopt -e as an optional form. (b) Preterite of weak verbs -et/-a. Here Lm had the majority on its side; Rm was advised to adopt -a as an optional form. Other forms discussed were of minor importance: preterite -te/-de after certain consonants; perfect participle nâdd/nàtt. Lm was advised to yield on both. (c) Present of strong verbs. Rm had no umlaut in the stem, Lm always did: kommer/kjem 'comes', faar/far 'gets', staar/stend 'stands'. Lm was advised to adopt unumlauted stems in some words and to use the suffix -er. The most controversial of the verb forms was the preterite 94

PLANNING FOR U N I T Y -a which R m was asked to accept. T h e form -et was described (with dubious justification) as originating from Danish -ed(e); but the crucial argument was that it did not occur in a single folk dialect (folkemaal). Although the form -a had never been used in serious R m literature, it was well known in popular speech and "must be assumed to have the future before it in the language which is to unite the whole country." 46 T h e committee recommended that it be admitted in the same way and to the same extent as other "Norwegianisms," specifically the diphthongs and the feminine. As we have seen, changes were proposed in both R m and L m which would mean a radical break with previous literary tradition. T h e effect of such a break was naturally much greater in R m than in Lm, since the former had a stronger and broader literary tradition; in fact R m represented for most Norwegians the only literary tradition they knew. Not only were extensive orthographic changes being made which would at one blow give the language a new appearance and require everyone's spelling habits to be revised, but serious changes were being made in the word forms themselves for the sake of linguistic unity with a language which very few had yet taken seriously. Even within the committee there were misgivings about this program: Ivar Alnaes entered a dissent to the committee report, in which he attacked the introduction into Rm of such "optional" forms as the feminine gender and the diphthongs. He warned against the pedagogical consequences and also made a statement which has proved to be an accurate prediction: " O n the whole I think that the current R m will prove to be a linguistic whole with greater vitality and greater strength than the committee majority thinks." 47 In both languages the freedom of choice was somewhat 95

CONFLICT AND PLANNING limited in practice by the setting up of so-called "textbook norms" for the schools. For Rm this was done by a committee of five textbook writers appointed by the Textbook Writers' Society, Fagforfatternes forening. 48 T h e optional forms were made obligatory for only a small number of words having a distinctly rural character or in selections dealing with folk life. While these were recommended for textbooks, forms which were closer to those of the original authors were advised for readers, especially on a higher level. In the spelling lists that were issued soon after, three categories were distinguished with respect to diphthongs and feminines (the preterite -a was not admitted at all): words in which they were obligatory (eika 'the oak', kua 'the cow', heia 'the heath'), preferred (bygda 'the country community', grenda 'the neighborhood'), or optional (d0ra 'the door', gata 'the street'). One member of the committee, J. M. Platou, dissented on pedagogical grounds and called it "a limping reform." For Lm the practical adaptation was made by a three-man committee, composed of Olav Brekke, Lars Eskeland, and Halvdan Koht, appointed by the Ministry at the request of the Lm publishing organization Det norske samlaget. Here, too, great caution was shown about admitting novel forms; the feminine -a was made optional beside -i, along with such simplified forms as li 'mountainside' instead of lid. Even so, the more militant Lm conservatives protested against this departure from Aasen's hallowed norm. 49 DISCUSSION AND DECISION

T h e Venstre cabinet in 1917 was headed by Gunnar Knudsen, and the Minister of Church and Education was J0rgen L0vland, a user and supporter of Lm. T h e Venstre party was committed through its platform to a "Samnorsk" language; it held a tremendous majority in the Storting (74 96

PLANNING FOR UNITY o£ 123 seats). It is therefore not surprising that the cabinet immediately promulgated the new orthography. When this action came up for review in the appropriate Storting committee, Protokollkomitéen, in 1918, it was approved; and when its action reached the floor of the Storting (8 August), it was unanimously accepted.50 The cabinet could therefore safely ignore the many protests from Rm supporters (printed in Stortingsforhandlinger 1918, pp. 1119-29) which pleaded for delay and the same kind of consultative deliberation that had preceded the reform of 1907. But in the fall of 1918 the elections reduced the Venstre majority to a minority (52 of 126 seats). Gunnar Knudsen's government resigned, but remained for a time as a minority government. Among the new H0ire representatives who were swept into the Storting in 1918 was Carl Hambro, who initiated his long career as a parliamentarian by a systematic and well-planned attack on the new Rm orthography. On 1 April 1919, he directed a question to the Minister of Church and Education which loosed three full days of parliamentary debate on the subject (5, 6, 7 April). In his speech on the floor Hambro could refer to the protests submitted, including one from thirty-seven leading Rm authors. Interestingly enough, this list included the names of a few who later became devoted supporters of linguistic reform, such as Johan Bojer, Johan Falkberget, and Helge Krog. The most vivid, if not necessarily the weightiest, of the protests was the brilliantly written pamphlet of 1917, " T h e Language in Danger," by Knut Hamsun (1859-1952), world-famous author of Growth of the Soil.51 Hamsun phrased the authors' point of view on language in terms that have re-echoed in the discussion ever since. In passionate words he accused the committee of having set out to "destroy the language" and of "having created a woodenshoe lingo [trceskomaal]" to take its place. This the com97

CONFLICT AND PLANNING mittee could do because it consisted of teachers and philologists: "There is not one of them who needs the language for anything except to make himself understood." In reducing the language to a mere instrument of communication, the committee showed that it lacked "a sensitivity to language and style." "Language is one thing, something else is dialects, folk speech, a third is vulgar speech, argot, slang . . . How it will appeal to the mob to get its mode of expression authorized as a language! Then they can correct the pastor, the doctor, and the 'jedge,' for it will then be these fine folk who are wrong . . . T h e horse will be coachman." "Language is a living thing which normally develops forward, not backward. It is growing more Norwegian every year, but it does not become more Norwegian by being packed full of linguistic spinning wheels." " T h e whole committee thinks of language as words. But language is spirit. T h e written language infuses the life of the soul into the inanimate. The committee has no feelings for a cultivated language; it sits with a self-given mandate to accommodate Landsmaal . . . " "Where is there a language of culture that is written as if it were chatter?" 62 It is not our purpose here to follow the debate in the Storting or the popular discussion of the 1917 spelling which raged in the press, in pamphlets, and in books.53 It is apparent, as was pointed out by August Western two years later, that most of the furious opposition was stirred u p by the optional forms in both languages. Many who debated the issue did not clearly distinguish these changes from the obligatory ones and tried to overthrow the whole reform because of them. 54 Western felt that the obligatory changes represented rather accurately the current state of cultivated speech; but he regretted the attempt to force the two languages together by fiat. Ivar Alnaes, who as a member of the committee had opposed the optional forms, nevertheless 98

PLANNING FOR UNITY defended the reform as a whole, reminding its opponents that the irritating forms had nearly all been excluded when the Committee of Textbook Authors made u p its textbook norm. 5 5 During the debate in the Storting the government made it clear that it would resign if the vote for postponement were favorable. Under these circumstances the government could depend on the support of its own fifty-one Venstre members. It could also expect the opposition of the forty H0ire members and the ten Frisindede Venstre (Independent Liberals). This gave the balance of power to the small but growing Social Democratic party, which then had eighteen members. As a party this group had declared its neutrality in the language controversy, so that its members were free to vote their convictions. It was, in fact, a Socialist who made the motion to postpone; but in the end only seven of his party voted with him, so that the motion lost, fifty-eight to sixty-eight. A more moderate postponement proposed by another, independent member won a few more over, enough to tie the vote at sixty-three to sixtythree. T h e tie was broken by the presiding officer, another Socialist, in favor of the reform, on 7 April 1919. T h e way was open for the government to introduce the spelling in the schools as quickly as spelling lists could be prepared and new textbooks issued. A three-man committee appointed by the Ministry went over the proposal and gave it its final form. By 1923 the new R m spelling had been introduced in its obligatory minimum form in 2,128 school districts, in its radical form in 1,907 districts (Lm in 1,936 districts). Many schools later gave u p the optional, or radical, forms in favor of the obligatory ones (for example, in 1924 as many as 649 districts). 56 Newspapers were slow to adopt the orthography, the chief organ of Venstre in Oslo, Dagb ladet, naturally 99

CONFLICT AND PLANNING being the first: 1 July 1919. Verdens Gang, also a Venstre paper, followed suit on 12 July 1921, the Socialist paper, Social-Demokraten 7 January 1924, and the Venstre paper in Stavanger, Stavanger Aftenblad on 2 January 1926. T h e conservative press in Oslo held out until the beginning of 1928, when three of them all changed on 2 January: Aftenposten (H0ire), Nationen (Agrarians), Tidens Tegn (Independent). Hambro's newspaper, Morgenbladet, gave up on 2 January 1931, along with the commercial Ν orges Handels og S]'0farts Tidende. Ber gens Aftenblad appears to have been the last major paper to change: 2 January 1932. Even so, these papers adopted only the obligatory, purely graphic reforms; the optional ones were limited largely to schoolbooks and to certain literary works. Riksmâlsforbundet, as it was henceforth spelled, enjoyed considerable prosperity during the vigorous controversy which accompanied the new spelling. In 1919 it even spawned a new organization dedicated to the cultivation of Rm, as distinct from its own task of militant attack on Lm. This was Riksmâlsvernet (Defenders of Rm), a select group of authors, professors, schoolmen, and journalists who were to act as a kind of academy of Rm. 57 T h e group tried to shore u p the breach by proposing its own "moderate" spelling in 1921. This was limited to the obligatory forms and even rejected some of these. Western, who himself objected to the optional forms, criticized the Riksmâlsvernet orthography as being no improvement whatever on the official one. 58 T h e organization won no support for its private orthography, but it did yeoman work in publishing new R m translations of the Icelandic sagas and in starting work on a first-class dictionary. Norsk Rihsmâlsordbok began appearing in 1930, and when its two huge volumes were completed in 1957, they contained some 7,500 columns of print. Ironically enough, its editors decided shortly before publicalOO

P L A N N I N G FOR U N I T Y tion that it should appear in the spelling of 1917, a move interpreted by some R m supporters as a stab in the back.59 After this, Riksmàlsforbundet could do nothing but give up its resistance to the new spelling. While some were optimistic enough to believe that the situation had been stabilized, it was evident that the optional forms were intended as an opening wedge for further reform looking toward linguistic unification. There was much uncertainty and confusion about the new optional norms, which an ex-Lm supporter, the Reverend Brigt Hope, characterized in 1920 as follows: " T h e committee carried out its task in such a way that instead of two languages, it gave us six, viz., the obligatory R m and L m and, besides these, a couple of optional ones on either side." 60 As Koht had predicted and the supporters of L m generally had hoped, the reform was followed by a new surge of school districts voting in Lm. There had been only a very slow advance since 1910, including possibly 200 new districts; but in 1919 and 1920 there were 440 new ones.61 T h e number of L m districts advanced about 40 percent between 1915 and 1920, giving it almost exactly one third of the total number of school districts (33.75 percent), though probably only about one sixth of the whole population. 62 This advance did not, however, extend greatly the area within which L m was popular; it was largely a consolidation within the Western and the Midland regions where it was strong already. Three years after the founding of Riksmâlsvernet, the question was raised at a meeting of the Student Mâllag in Oslo of whether a similar institution should not be established for Lm. 63 A program for an academy was presented by the author Olav Sletto in 1924: it was to have twelve members, and its tasks were to be the supervision of L m spelling, the giving of prizes for literary style, and the en101

CONFLICT AND PLANNING couragement of speech cultivation.64 The question was raised once more by Knut Liest0l in 1926 at a meeting of Noregs Mâllag, and in 1928 this organization called a meeting to make plans. The eleven delegates proposed that a Norsk Akademi be established, with themselves and another half-dozen members as the founders. But at the founding meeting on 26 October 1928, the name was changed to Norskt Maaldyrkingslag (Norwegian Society for Language Cultivation, later written Norsk Màldyrkingslag), and the number of members was fixed at twenty-four.65 As usually happens with academies, the tenor of its work was conservative. There was little sympathy among its members for the idea of linguistic fusion, or even for cooperation with Rm. The fruits of its work have been modest. But each language group could now at least claim to have its own academy.

102

The struggle of the languages becomes the struggle for jobs. The bourgeois who often have the common language as their only language will not gladly lower themselves to learn a vulgar idiom without culture, or one, which, to the extent that it is cultivated, is only a caique, more or less awkward, of the superior language which is their own. T o impose on the functionaries the knowledge of new common languages based on popular speech is to exclude from their jobs the old bourgeoisie, and substitute for them new men risen from the people. Antoine Meillet (1928)1

L A N G U A G E A N D POLITICS 1920-1945

Two bold spelling reforms in one decade had given Norwegian Rm an entirely new face, which could not easily be mistaken for Danish. But the momentum of the movement was far from spent. Built into the reform of 1917 were elements that awaited only a favorable political climate to germinate into further reforms. Some Rm supporters had entertained the hope that the reform of 1917 would appease the Lm people and even gain back some of its adherents. But this proved to be vain, for the postwar years saw Lm advancing all along the line. 2 Even though its supporters constituted a minority, and its actual users an even smaller minority, they formed a vigorous political pressure group, which succeeded in making itself heard. This was true even when the political mainstay of Lm, the Venstre 103

CONFLICT AND PLANNING party, went into a decline. New support was garnered in its successor parties, the agrarian Bondepartiet and the marxist Arbeiderpartiet. In the 1930's politics was dominated by the latter, and we perceive a new alignment which emphasizes the social aspects of language planning. T h e ideal was no longer either the cultivated Rm or the nationalistic Lm, but the folkemàl, or folk speech. The class struggle was reinterpreted to include not only the economic but also the linguistic liberation of the common people. A deliberate effort was going to be made to democratize the Norwegian language: the voice of the people was to become the voice of the land. THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE

It was and is common in Norway to deplore that the language issue has "entered politics." It is often said that a "cultural" problem like this should be above the tempests of the agora. Politicians, it is averred, are hardly the best arbiters of linguistic issues. T h e politicians themselves have never been particularly happy over the eruption of the language problem into their domain. It is an uncomfortable question for them, more accustomed as they are to dealing with economic and legal problems. In considering the politics of language, we must keep in mind that the issue has not primarily been one that affected such private uses of language as the styles of speaking or letter writing. These have generally been left for social usage to settle, involving, as they do, the mutual understanding of speakers and writers. But, as we saw in Chapter 1, the standard language is of concern to the state because it is an instrument of communication between the state and its citizens. In English-speaking countries the state generally confines itself to teaching a form which has been fixed by long social tradition. But in countries where the 104

be

W

C CU

O £ υ XI

e

^

Pi

ν

Fris. V. 23

V* w O

Venstre 46 •1910

α. Komm. 6

ι σ\ o Komm. 3 Uavh. 2

Arb.dem. 6

Fris. V. 4

Fris. V. 1

Venstre 70 Venstre 74 »1913-1915 »1916-1918

Arb.dem. 6 Sos.dem. 8 Arb.dem. 2

Sos.dem. 8 Arb.dem. 2

Bondepart. 22 Fris. V. 11

H0ire 43 »1926-1927

Bondepart. 17 Fris. V. 17

Hcfire 40 »1923-1924

Landm. 3 Fris. V. 10

Venstre 52 Venstre 37 Venstre 34 »1919-1920 »1922-1923 »1925-1926

Arb.dem. 3

«M

•-S-2 ΕΓ

Y υO

U

H0ire 30 »1928

Fris. Folk. 1

Venstre 34 Venstre 31 (incl. Rad. (incl. Rad. Folk. 1 ) Folk. 1) »1931,1933 »1928-1930 Bondepart. 25 Bondepart. »1931-1933 26 Fris. Folk. 3

Hjzfire 31 (incl. Fris. Folk. 1 )

Bondepart. 23

Venstre 25 (incl. Rad. Folk. 1 ) »1934-1935

Sos.dem. 23 Sos.dem. 19 Sos.dem. 18 Arb.part. 29 Arb.part. 24 Arb.part. 59 Arb.part. 47 Arb.part. 69 »1928 »1935—

ja

Arb.dem. 2

Uavh. 3

O O,

Sos.dem. 11

I« O. ν Ό

tí

o 2

CM

"tí" Ào U (NI '-S.2

X *

o CM 1)

X

o 2 CMY tí (S (-. »-I

(O

TT Ua « .e a. t-t 'C W o ~ 3

V u

X

α •ο .Η

"α

jj. O Μ

Ü

ν

X *

u

¿3

V a Î>

ι>

« o s ß - „

Tt-

l i t S g l —' U m 23 "ü U C -5 •a ο η. t. O o

*u .is "3

Pá

« S-fi O-rS »3 s - 1 SI'S e~¿ ι u o .. c .a a.·

°LO Κ Β §.0=3 ε &M Μ s M V S -o S . J •s s ? g "

~ α e G «-Í i« ai -¡•o e > Λ U 6 hUr^c 8 .3 IH υ > Η •g feg O υ bo a Im u O ε* Q 6 ι··« « Í3 C

g e l s

a

u - rt -e S £·

φγ) were retained, except that conservative wishes were accommodated by the restoration of silent d in the preterite modals (kunde, skulde, vilde). Otherwise it left little of the innovations that were supposed to bring the languages together. The bracketed, or side forms, were swept away at one blow, including such Lm forms in Rm as jekk, gje, horv, glas, huve and such Rm forms in Lm as gikk, skole, hjerte, tynn, s(f>ndag. All the EN dialect forms admitted to both, such as the pronouns hokken, kem, ka, noa, or the adverbs kor, koss, âssen, went out the window. The optional forms were also reduced in number by making many of them obligatory. In deciding which form to choose, the guiding principle seems in most cases to have been to pick the conservative one, for instance, Rm hull, stue, aske, glemme, hammer, lyve, mens, siden, ham (for accusative han), or Lm vinstre, sylv, dà, jam, auga, rydja. But in some cases the radical forms were chosen, often apparently at random, so that, for example, alongside hull and kull with u stood dogg, hogg, and vogge with o, or gammal alongside hammer, or likne alongside 160

LANGUAGE AND POLITICS regne, korg with g alongside lyve with v. A number of obligatory Norwegian forms were reduced to optional status: sju — syv 'seven', rein — ren 'clean' (but only rein 'reindeer'), tjuge (instead of tjue) — tyve 'twenty'. The most conspicuous novelty of the Quisling orthography was the introduction of Lm no 'now' into Rm as obligatory form, replacing the 1938 nâ and the earlier Rm nu. In this way, and by retaining a few radical 1938 forms, such as Rm fram, etter, farge, hage, torg, bru, bu, âker, kald, εηφ, bjtßrk and Lm f0r (beside fyrst), krone, om(me) (with urn as side form), opp(e) (with upp as side form), they could claim to have acted in the spirit of fusion — without overdoing it. In the grammar the wishes of conservatives on both sides were met. In Rm such side forms as -a of gutta 'the boys' and the divided infinitive were abolished; the feminine articles were restricted to words expressing "homely and everyday things and concepts," leaving 268 obligatory and 141 optional words; the definite plural in -a was restricted to the same two nouns as before 1938 (beina, barna) and, like the preterite in -a, was to be used otherwise only "as the subject and style demand." In Lm the past participle in -e was restored, along with the weak feminine plural in -or, while the strong feminine singular definite in -i was restored as optional alongside -a. Forms like tri, trettan, augo, opi (feminine singular) were restored from their earlier demotion, and me was made optional with vi. T h e nazified newspapers were lavish in their praise of the new spelling. Lunde's words about the vulgarity of the 1938 spelling were diligently quoted. Aftenposten pointed out that spelling, like national defense, had become a political football in which "the battle of the parties was the real motivation, very rarely the ideal motives which were displayed in order to capture gullible people." 87 Morgenbladet expressed its satisfaction that "in this way we may hope that an end has been put to the trend toward chaos." 88 According to a Swedish newspaper correspondent, "the Quisling propaganda announces that the purpose of the 161

CONFLICT AND PLANNING Koht-ish language was 'to introduce the dictatorship of the proletariat in the linguistic area' . . . In two years there will not be left in the Norwegian language a single form of those which were introduced by the linguist Halvdan Koht." 89 T o clinch their goal the Nazis prepared plans for a Norwegian Language Academy, which should have as its purpose the working out of a "common language of writing" in order to "harmonize the two isolated cultures of country and city." 90 This academy was to have twenty members, appointed for life by Quisling personally, on nomination from various institutions, with a secretariat headed by a linguist. This plan proved to be as shortlived as Quisling himself. T h e time of the Nazis was up on 7 June 1945, when legitimate government was restored in Norway. T h e Norwegians faced a long and difficult period of reconstruction, and one of the problems ahead was that of their divided language. How would they tackle it now, after the bitter experiences of their common tragedy?

162

W i t h this hope academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain: sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride . . . Samuel Johnson (1755) 1

RECONSTRUCTION AND REGULATION: T H E LANGUAGE COMMISSION 1

946-1951

The war made brothers of all loyal Norwegians — while it lasted, and even for a short time afterwards. In the autumn of 1945 the political parties went so far as to unite on a common platform of reconstruction. In the election that followed they were returned in about the same proportions as before the war, with the Labor party again taking over the government. For a four-year period political stability was assured while Norwegians turned their attention to rebuilding their country. But in Norwegian as in international affairs the honeymoon did not last very long. Within these four years the unsolved problems of language posed by the spelling of 1938 once more became acute. Since the new names of the languages were now firmly established in official usage and were beginning to creep into the press, it will be necessary to use them in our account of the postwar development. In speaking of the DanoNorwegian language we shall henceforth call it Bokmâl (ab163

CONFLICT AND PLANNING breviated Bm) and reserve Riksmâl (Rm) for that special, conservative variety of it which came to be promoted in the 1950's. We shall no longer refer to the language created by Aasen as Landsmàl (Lm), but as Nynorsk (Nn). There is no difference in meaning between these terms, only one in attitude: the former is favored by users of Bm, the latter by users of Nn itself. Some were optimistic enough to think, in the words of Edvard Os, that "it is merely a matter of picking up where we had to leave off in 1940." Os, a well-known partisan of Nn, wrote in the conciliatory tone of the immediate postwar period, reminding his fellow believers that this conflict was not one of "two nationalities," but of "differing views among brothers and sisters" concerning the future of their "ancestral home." 2 As everyone knows, however, a fraternal war can be as bitter as any other, and it proved impossible to overlook some experiences of the war, now that the pressure of tyranny was lifted. There were the new textbooks with "radical" forms stemming from the orthography of 1938, and there was the object lesson given by the fact that patriots and quislings alike used Bm rather than Nn in their wartime writings. A new situation had arisen which called for new measures. REINSTATEMENT OF THE NEW

ORTHOGRAPHY

T h e orthography of 1938, like other prewar laws and regulations, was reinstated in full when the government of King Haakon VII returned in 1945. It does not appear that the government, in which Kaare Fostervoll, a Nn supporter, became Minister of Church and Education, had any doubts about the feasibility of the fusionist course staked out by that orthography. T h e general directives under which textbooks were prepared during these years were in keeping with the "Oslo resolution" of 1939, which provided that 164

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION forms which were c o m m o n to b o t h languages should be preferred in the textbooks. I n effect, this m e a n t that the N n forms admitted to Bm in 1917 a n d 1938 should be favored in B m over the traditional R m ones. Books appeared almost immediately, probably written d u r i n g the Occupation, which were aimed to guide this development a n d promote it. A Norwegian g r a m m a r by E n o k O p s u n d (1893-1958) continued his prewar work. H e urged writers to avail themselves of the o p p o r t u n i t y to substitute good Norwegian words for "foreign" ones. A friendly reviewer called the book "a word in good time" for all those who "look forward with impatience to the day when we can unite the two languages into one." 3 A more cautious book was Norsk skriftmàl by M i k j e l S0rlie (born 1892), linguist and later professor. S0rlie sympathized with the tendency of the new spelling (a reviewer described h i m as "a N n supporter at heart who suffers f r o m u n r e q u i t e d love for Bm"). 4 B u t he was worried lest the n e w spelling try to move so fast that the schools would lose touch with the real spelling of contemporary literature. T o test this he collected specimens of the writing of linguistically radical B m authors. H e f o u n d that while they went far in their use of purely Norwegian syntax a n d vocabulary, the only n o n - R m grammatical f o r m they used very commonly was the f e m i n i n e singular -a. H e advocated changes to make the new orthography m o r e palatable to the schools a n d concluded that the a t t e m p t to fuse the grammatical structures of the two languages had been a failure. T h e views of the general public on the subject were solicited in a Gallup poll in 1946. T h i s showed that four o u t of five Norwegians of all ages, classes, regions, a n d parties were in favor of fusing the two languages into one. However, only slightly fewer, three out of four, wanted R m to be the m a i n ingredient in the new language. 5 165

CONFLICT AND PLANNING In the newspapers there were lively discussions of the problem, and there were a n u m b e r of contributors in the nonconservative press who urged further progress along the lines already initiated. 6 Of these the one who was going to play the most active and persistent role in the language controversy after the war was Trygve Bull (born 1905), lektor at the Oslo Teachers' College after 1949. In the years to come he made himself the most articulate spokesman of the Labor party in linguistic matters through his articles in the press and later as a member of the Oslo schoolboard, the Storting, and the Language Commission. Although Bull was a schoolman and a teacher of Norwegian, his interests in the problem were primarily political, and in his articles he emphasized that this was a problem of the greatest concern to the Labor party. I n his 1947 debut as a language politician he warned his party against haste in attempting to fuse the two languages, "which will produce an 'extraparliamentary' consolidating tendency that can only benefit the reactionaries." 7 H e criticized the policy of trying "to reform an existing traditional written language radically and mechanically in a democratic direction without consideration for the group of people who are the primary bearers of this inherited norm." T h e "folkly Samnorsk" of the current textbooks, he declared, "is not in use by any living person either in writing or speech." 8 At the same time he advocated that the style and word choice of official and pedagogic writing be vigorously Norwegianized, that school readers include more N n and dialect material, and that the "fence between the languages be torn down" by admitting the strong participle in -i (as in funni 'found') and the pronoun ho 'she' into Bm and a variety of Bm forms into Nn. By 1950, he suggested, it should be possible to declare that Norway had only one language, a "Nynorsk Riksmâl," with the two present languages as optional variants. This would make it 166

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION superfluous to teach both languages in the schools or to require that officials master them both. 9 While his positive suggestions were clearly Utopian, his criticisms of the "excesses" of the 1938 spelling and the Oslo resolution of 1939 were influential in moderating the stand of the Labor party in the postwar years.10 Teachers, on whose shoulders the problem rested most heavily, began urging the government to take steps toward a spelling that would be easier to teach. They particularly asked for implementation of the paragraph in the royal resolution of 1938 calling for a textbook norm. 11 On 6 February 1948, the Ministry appointed a committee of four teachers to prepare a "fixed textbook norm for both language forms." 12 T h e members were all known for their fusionist views, and one of them, Hans Bergersen, had been a member of a committee that started to prepare a textbook norm in 1939. 13 When the news leaked out that such a committee was at work, sharp criticism was immediately voiced. Francis Bull (born 1887), professor of literature, declared that a reform was about to be "born in secret . . . by a committee which the Ministry has appointed without letting the real experts take part in the appointment or have a seat on the committee." 14 Arnulf 0verland declared that " a Ministerial committee is busy messing with the language . . . [sitter og griser med sproget]." 15 T h e honeymoon was definitely over. NYNORSK. IN T H E N E W

ERA

T h e previously cited article by Edvard Os was a thoughtful summary of the problems faced by Nn after liberation. T h e regulations which gave it equality before the law were once more in force, but Os foresaw the need of a vigorous campaign to compel uninterested government officials to enforce them. Os was aware of an erosion in the use of dia167

CONFLICT AND PLANNING lect and N n among urbanized populations, and he urged the faithful to maintain their "native" usage even against odds. When Noregs Mállag held its first annual meeting in January 1946, it fired a shot at the government for failing to enforce the language laws.1® Articles in the press by N n supporters demanded increased use of the language by government organs, including the state-operated broadcasting system.17 T h e Ministry formally reminded its functionaries of the regulations concerning language use established in the royal resolution of 29 January 1932. A new resolution was issued on 18 April 1947 and was given teeth by the appointment of Edvard Os as special language consultant for the Ministry. 18 But in 1949 it was still possible for a speaker at the annual meeting of Noregs Mâllag, Lars Kaasa, to claim that "a high proportion of the government functionaries have behaved and still behave as if the language law of 1930 did not exist, and as if there were not two official languages in this country." 19 In the words of Os: " T h e officials . . . have fought all efforts to Norwegianize Bm and to employ N n in the state service. T h e struggle is a direct continuation of the conflict between rule by the officials and rule by the people . . . " 20 T h e political pressure in favor of N n was obviously not strong enough to keep the bureaucrats from thus sabotaging the decisions of the Storting. Self-criticism from within the N n movement suggested that the wave of enthusiasm which had borne it forward in prewar years might be spent. One teacher, Johan Due, who had spent some of the war years working on farms, reported that the farmers were not reading N n books and that the "high Norwegian" norm of Nn was foreign to many dialect areas. H e asked, "What kind of people are bearers of this 'high Norwegian'? Is it not mostly (country) school 168

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION teachers and some philologians?" 21 Another supporter wrote, "Today there is a crisis in the language movement [màlreisinga]. For today the young people are not with us any longer . . . T h e national idea must not be a goal in itself, but a condition of growth, which will liberate the energies of the people . . . It does not have a liberating effect to deny a child the right to write naboen er dyktig if this is what the child says and if this feels just as Norwegian as grannen er dugande and much more natural for the child . . . T h e vigorous enthusiasm which could unite us and urge us forward to fight for our cause is gone. T h e young people in the old Nn communities . . . care little about the language problem, and if they leave for town or get a job in the sheriff's office, they change language." 22 A third writer quoted an older worker for Nn as saying, "It distresses me to see how slowly the language cause is progressi n g — it is as if we are treading water without getting off the spot." 23 T h e approach to Samnorsk, which was implied by the 1938 spelling, was still vigorously resisted by the dominant circles of the Nn movement. They insisted that if only Nn were left alone the growth which had led to the teaching of Nn in more than one half of the rural schools would continue. T h e die-hards felt that concessions made to East Norwegian and Bm usage had weakened rather than strengthened Nn. 24 Others took the point of view that cooperation with Bm was not only inevitable, but desirable. Only by influencing Bm in a Norwegian direction would it be possible for Nn to fulfill its function. As Os put it, "we shall hold u p good Norwegian speech and writing before their ears and eyes so that they can learn what it really is, get used to hearing it and seeing it — preferably in such a way that they will learn to like it . . . " 25 T h e sharp dis169

CONFLICT AND PLANNING agreements within the movement concerning the spelling of 1938 were reflected in the debates and election contests in Noregs Mâllag during the following years. Street interviews with nine casually selected persons in Oslo were reported by Arbeiderbladet on 23 July 1946. Not one of them used Nn, although some of them came from rural areas where it was the language taught in the schools. Six of them said that they found Nn difficult to understand, chiefly because of its "queer" words. Professor Emil Smith (1887-1957), an outspoken but not unfriendly critic of Nn, wrote an essay in 1950 under the heading, "Why is N n so detested?" H e suggested as one reason that those who attempted to use it often sounded affected, inconsistent, and even vulgar because they could not build on a unified, generally accepted speech norm. 2 6 One way out of this impasse was to make N n more like the speech of Eastern Norway and to bring it into closer contact with urban and suburban life. One newspaper contributor printed a N n and R m version of the same text side by side and declared that "the difference in language is so small that one should imagine it possible to agree on a united Norwegian by 1955-1960." 27 Meanwhile, work on a complete Nn and dialect dictionary began to bear fruit with the appearance in 1950 of the first issue of Norsk Ordbok. In this monumental work one could find not only the older collections made by Aasen and Ross, but also newly garnered dialect words and the art words employed by Nn authors. 28 THE RIKSMÁL REACTION

At the end of the war the official R m movement was also in a weak position. According to its own account, it had only ten local societies intact 2 9 As an organization it was compromised by the collaborative activities of some of its mem170

T H E LANGUAGE COMMISSION bers, as we have seen above. However, the language itself was if anything strengthened by the war because of its universal use by puppet and exile governments a n d by the resistance movement. T h e normal consolidation of the 1938 spelling had been disturbed by the war, when internal dissensions had to be repressed. It was only to be expected that reactions to the radical step taken in 1938 would occur as soon as the lid was off. In the fall of 1945 two younger writers were heard from who were going to play an important role in the revived R m movement, Odd Eidem and Ernst S0rensen. Odd Eidem (born 1914), critic, essayist, novelist, and recent university graduate in literary history, wrote indignantly about the "stylistic confusion" which had resulted from the mechanical application of the new spelling forms to a traditional style. H e pointed out that in the writings of government officials and in translations of foreign literature one constantly encountered Norwegian forms like fram and heim in the midst of an otherwise Dano-Norwegian context. H e deplored this as a form of "misunderstood democracy" which was "a pestilence for our entire newer literature." " T h e linguistic dress of an earlier generation is patched with modern phrases which smell bad because the surroundings are not right." 30 "Very few philologists understand this, because most of them do not understand that language is an expression of soul and spirit . . . " 31 Ernst S0rensen (born 1903), journalist and teacher at the Rudolf Steiner school in Bergen, was a spokesman of an idealistic philosophy taught at this school, known as "anthroposophy." 32 His point of view was reflected in a brochure entitled " T h e Language Controversy and Its Spiritual Background." S0rensen attacked the "materialism" of the parties who regarded the language problem as part of the class struggle. "Not until the State leaves the language 171

CONFLICT AND PLANNING alone, can a healthy linguistic development begin," he declared. " T h e State has no linguistic imagination." H e warned against "itchy politician-philologists" who regarded language as a product of the masses rather than of the "creative individual." 33 T h e war on foreign words could only result in a loss of nuances. If new words were to be introduced from Nn, "this must be only in response to a need on the part of the individual, creative person to express something spiritual which in its nature is Norwegian and therefore requires Norwegian words . . . " 34 These publicistic writers were joined by a pair of academic warriors in the spring of 1946. Ole Peder Arvesen, Professor of Descriptive Geometry at the Engineering College in Trondheim, lectured and wrote against the orthography of 1938 with more vigor than restraint. He described the procedure by which this had come into being as one in which the two languages had been "thrust into a meat grinder" and had come out as a new "sausage language \p0lsemàl]." 35 A more closely reasoned attack on the problem was written by the internationally famous meteorologist Vilhelm Bjerknes (1862-1951) in an article called "Peace in the Language Struggle." 36 He believed that peace could be attained only by relaxing the government policy and allowing for each language "full freedom for its best authors and linguists to establish the spelling of their language." In a later article he deplored the "forcible interference [tvangsinngrep] with the natural development of the language" and warned his countrymen that it might result in a reduction of their "capacity for sharp and clear formulation of ideas" which could be fatal "in the intense competition which now exists among nations." 37 These scattered attacks found their focus when Arnulf 0verland in 1947 was elected president of Riksmâlsfor172

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION bundet. 0verland was being celebrated as a national hero because of his poetry of resistance and his long incarceration by the Nazis. Always an enfant terrible, whose attacks on conservative institutions had been sharp and unremittent, the poet now turned his weapons of sarcasm and aphoristic abuse against the official linguistic policy which had been engineered by his own party. As we have seen, he had already launched his attack before the war; he now picked u p where he had left off. H e fired his first barrage in April 1947, at a meeting of the Oslo R m Society. His speech was published under the challenging title: "How Often Must We Change Languages?" Overland selected as his text some suggestions by Enok Opsund for Norwegianizing the vocabulary. H e then maintained that these would impoverish and even destroy the language itself. O n this basis he preached a thunderous sermon against the politicians in the Storting who presumed themselves competent to judge cultural matters. " W e had two adequate languages, each with its adequate literature. But two languages were too many, so the Storting decided that one more should be made. Now we have three. T h e third language has no books written in it, so it is called the 'book language.' N o one can speak it and no one can write it, so the children are made to learn it. At the same time Rm, the language spoken, read, and written by the overwhelming majority, is abolished by law." 38 Overland's friend and fellow radical from the 1930's, the novelist and critic Sigurd Hoel (1890-1960), joined forces with him in 1948. As a leading craftsman in the art of Norwegian prose and as a consultant to the Gyldendal Publishing House, Hoel loomed large in the literary life of his country. His opening salvo was an article entitled "Culture and Carpentry," in which he deplored the "linguistic chaos" of Norway, as demonstrated in the literary manuscripts sub173

4 DfêEPT l SPRûffSTRIDE?

Arnulf 0 v e r l a n d and Sigurd Hoel, leaders of the R m opposition, caricatured. T h e former reads from the paper, "Four killed in the language struggle in India." T h e n he adds, "And still we call them underdeveloped—." Cartoon by Salo Grenning ("Pedro") in Verdens Gang, 16 July 1960.

174

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION

mitted to publishers. He attributed this to the spelling of 1938, which he bitingly characterized as Halvdan Koht's "forcible attempt to revolutionize Rm into a so-called 'Bokmál.' " He even insinuated, quite unjustly, that instead of attending to his country's defense before the war, the then foreign minister "was busy introducing a new language." The millions that should have been used for security went into the making of a new orthography.39 Hoel wove his anger at the language reformers together with his irritations at the general atmosphere of government regulation in the reconstruction years. "Our language is in the hands of its executors," he cried.40 This serious tone was somewhat relieved by the entry of two youthful writers, André Bjerke (born 1918) and Carl Keilhau (1919-1957), both of them with a gift for satire. In 1948 they collaborated (under the joint name of Carl André Keilke) on a mock review of a nonexistent book entitled "Reader for the Junior High School, Classical Norwegian Lyrics, Norwegianized for School Use to Accord with the General Language Sense." 41 The author was said to be one Lars Knutne, "for many years a singing teacher in Sol0r," whom the reviewer proclaimed as a linguistic pioneer who had realized that "our whole classical literature is unreadable" and needs to have "its ornate [snirklete] German-Danish language changed into straight, plain Norwegian." The reviewer than proceeded to cite a number of samples of well-known classic poems which were supposedly rewritten, giving them an absurd and often vulgar form. The rewritings, as well as the praise lavished on them by the reviewer, were of course intended to be parodies of the revisions actually made in the current readers. When Bjerke became editor of Ordet soon after, Lars Knutne, pictured in cartoon form as a dried-up country school teacher, became a favorite peg for the satire directed at opponents.42 175

CONFLICT AND PLANNING While much of this criticism was exaggerated and unreasonable, there could be no doubt that the mechanical application of fusionist ideas to older literature and to traditional officialese had resulted in many stylistic absurdities. This was pointed out by Bjarne Berulfsen, a leading schoolman and consultant to the Ministry, in a closely reasoned and devastating attack on the language used in the new Oslo telephone catalogue. After listing a number of inconsistencies and even distortions of meaning which had resulted from well-meant efforts to make the style more Norwegian, he suggested that "the language tinker must have sat with a Norwegianization word list at his elbow and pegged away without a moment's thought about the real contents." He deplored this kind of "linguistic dilettantism" which had as its only result "that attention is shifted from the contents to the language form." 43 It is evident from the vividness of their writing that the Rm advocates were thoroughly aroused and were determined to make an issue of the language problem. Even Francis Bull entered the lists, though describing himself as "a relatively peaceful man." He had hoped, he wrote, that the spirit of good will and understanding which had united right-thinking Norwegians during the war would find expression in some kind of mutual consideration by the two language movements. He had hoped that a committee might be appointed to modify the rules of 1938, but "now that we are threatened with something that promises to worsen rather than improve the situation, we must call forth our fellow believers to protest, from one end of the country to another." 44 AN ACADEMY FOR NORWAY?

Even before the war ended in June 1945, plans were being made for some kind of permanent, official institution 176

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION which would have the expertise and the authority to supervise, and hopefully, to solve Norway's linguistic problem. 43 Within the first six months of liberation proposals were made both by Bm and Nn supporters for what many liked to call a Norwegian Academy. In Oslo, Professor Eirik Vandvik (1904-1953), a Nn classicist at the University, advocated the setting up of "a language academy with a permanent staff of workers who would supervise the language and the style of textbooks and administrators and develop a uniform terminology in all fields." 46 In Bergen the local Rm Society adopted a resolution which was later accepted also by the national Riksmâlsforbundet urging the Storting "to delegate its authority in matters of orthography to a competent language commission (or language academy)." 47 Among the more optimistic responses to this idea was that of the literary historian, Professor A. H. Winsnes (born 1889), who wrote: "The psychological moment is here. Fanaticism is a thing of the past. Rm people and Lm people respect and understand one another . . . T h e language struggle was once political, but this is no longer true. An organ must be created which can take it out of the political conflict . . . Here, to my mind, is the main function of a Norwegian language academy. It should be a place where Lm people and Rm people can meet in cooperation with the goal in mind of bringing the two language forms closer together." 48 It soon became only too evident that Lm people and Rm people did not understand one another. When supporters of Rm advocated an academy, they were clearly thinking of a semiofficial, independent institution, on the model of the French Academy. As Riksmâlsforbundet and Winsnes both emphasized, it should be an organ to which the State would delegate its linguistic authority and thereby stop its attempts to direct the linguistic development. Its decisions would all be voluntary and win assent only by virtue of the authority 177

CONFLICT AND PLANNING of the academy itself. Its members, in the words of Francis Bull, "must not be appointed by a government office or on a political basis, but be chosen by those institutions which possess the greatest competence and culture . . ." 4 9 Riksmàlsforbundet specifically singled out the orthography of 1938 as the one in need of revision and emphasized that the academy should consist of two independent sections, one regulating Rm exclusively, the other, Lm. In other words, the Rm partisans looked on an academy as a bulwark against further infiltration by Lm through official action. Vandvik's proposal of 6 November 1945, however, emphasized the official nature of the planned academy. He called for "an official institution, operated by the State, and composed of the best experts and specialists from various fields of culture and from both 'language camps' (as we used to say in the days when there was a language war in our country)." He expected that such an institution "could effectively realize the principles at the base of the orthography of 1938, rapprochement between the two language forms." In a further reply to critics of his idea, Vandvik warned against the R m view: "One could well call such an organ an academy, but one should guard against making it into an Olympus for the 'immortals' in Norwegian cultural life or a supragovernmental fortress of reaction. It should be an instrument for honest cooperation on the basis mentioned, a working team where individuals combining expert knowledge with sincere willingness to cooperate would join in and put their shoulder to the wheel." 50 Among those who participated in the public discussion of the problem there were those in both camps who looked on the whole idea with some skepticism. When the worldfamous author Sigrid Undset (1882-1949) was asked about it, she bluntly declared, "I don't think this is anything for us [jeg tror ikke sànt ligger for 05j]." 51 Both of the leading 178

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION Nn authors Inge Krokann (1893-1963) and Tarjei Vesaas (born 1897) were opposed, chiefly because they feared an academy might attempt to impose fixed norms instead of permitting a free development in the direction of a single language. T o do this, wrote Krokann, would be "criminal interference in a creative life process." 62 Vesaas suggested that the time for an academy would come when the fusion was complete; an academy at the present time "would only make the torture more drawn out." 53 The discussion of a potential academy did not remain unnoticed by the government. The new Minister of Church and Education, Lars Moen (born 1885), was a supporter of Nn and a believer in the fusionist policy of the Labor party. On 16 February 1949, he announced to the Storting, and on 17 February by radio to the Norwegian people that the Ministry had decided to abandon its attempt to establish a textbook norm and had decided instead to create a permanent commission which could make such a norm. "I think there is much to be said for establishing a permanent language commission [et fast spràknemnd] or an academy if you will, where some of the persons who are best qualified can work with language problems in a different way from that of the partisan organizations [kamporganisasjonane] . . . An attempt will be made to find qualified people in both language forms [màlformer] who will work out a proposal for directives and bylaws for an organ to give advice to the government and others in these important matters, based on systematic work and organized scientific research on the linguistic situation of today. The understanding must be that such an organ will help to point out the best road forward to the goal which all reasonable people surely are agreed on now, namely linguistic unification when the time for it is ripe." 54 Moen's use of the term spràknemnd and the directives 179

CONFLICT AND PLANNING which he suggested for its activity indicate that the academy idea had been rejected, even though he used the latter term also. Instead, emphasis had been placed on a body with advisory function to the government. In this respect it continued a tradition of advisory committees going back to the 1890's. T h e main difference was that instead of ad hoc committees, there was now to be a permanent commission. But the academy idea had left its effect: it was also supposed to advise others; and the proposal which the committee appointed by the Ministry brought in left no doubt that the framework of the new commission was to be wider than that of the earlier committees. Instead of a committee of language scholars, this was to be one which in some measure was representative of the whole world of letters. It was to be an academy adapted to the Norwegian situation, without any of the snobbish prerogatives of the traditional academies of Europe. T h e planners of the language commission were also in part inspired by the private organizations for language cultivation which had been established in Denmark and Sweden during the war years. 55 A Danish society established by Sven Clausen in 1941 under the name of Forening til Nordisk Sprogr0kt (Society for Nordic Language Cultivation) worked for the purification of Danish from its German elements. A semiofficial Swedish committee established in 1943 in Stockholm under the name of N ä m n d e n för svensk sprâkvàrd (The Committee for Swedish Language Cultivation) worked for the improvement of Swedish and the promotion of inter-Scandinavian understanding. On 31 March the Ministry appointed a committee of seven to work out plans for a language commission. T h e chairman, G. Natvig Pedersen, had been a member of the spelling committee of 1934; then a teacher, he was now a member and president of the Storting and an influential leader 180

T H E LANGUAGE COMMISSION of the Labor party. T h e other representatives of R m were Alf Sommerfelt, internationally renowned professor of linguistics at the University of Oslo, and an editor of the R m dictionary; and Gunnar Larsen (born 1900), author of novels and short stories, editor of Dagbladet. N n was represented by the above-mentioned Eirik Vandvik, who also became the secretary of the committee and formulated its report; by T a r j e i Vesaas, novelist and poet; by Alf Hellevik, editor of the N n dictionary, Norsk Ordbok; and by Ingeborg Hoff (born 1911), a dialectologist attached to the Dialect Archives at the University of Oslo. T h e committee brought in its report on 1 July 1949.56 With this report we enter a new phase in the struggle, the battle for or against the Language Commission. T h e war of words was on, and ink flew fast and furiously in the years that followed. THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION

In our following discussion we shall translate Sprâknemnda as " T h e Language Commission" and the Arbeidsutvalg as its "Working Committee." While nemnd (nevnd), utvalg, and komité all mean roughly the same as English "committee," the permanence and authority of Spràknemnda make it more like a "commission" in its functions. As we shall see, its function was to advise the government as well as the general public on linguistic policy. T h e report of the Committee of 1949 opened with a historical survey making fleeting reference to the French Academy, to major dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary and to Scandinavian institutions like the Committee for Swedish Language Cultivation. It then pointed out that the situation in Norway was unlike that which had called forth these regulatory bodies, and that it would here be impossible to establish an institution "with generally 181

CONFLICT AND PLANNING conservative purposes." Such an institution would be likely to preserve "the language cleavage which is in process of being smoothed out [jevnes ut]." The need in Norway was for an institution which would "support the rapprochement [st0tte tilnœrmingen]" and continue the "deliberate [màibevisst] regulation" which so far had been carried on through "official spelling changes, textbook norms, and supervision by the Ministry of the language in textbooks and instruction." This often deviated from the regulation which the committee called "the free [that is, private] regulation exerted by the press, literature, and other institutions . . . with great linguistic prestige." The committee found that many of the practical difficulties in the schools were due to this "lack of harmony between official and private regulation" (p. 26). Different schools did not agree, with each other, or with the private institutions, which caused the individual learner an unreasonable amount of time and trouble, especially because of the need for constantly referring to word lists. As a result, important aspects of language such as "word choice, use of meanings, syntax, and style" were too often neglected. Rarely has the nub of the situation been more precisely expressed than in this preamble: that private and official usage were sharply at odds, and that the problem was one of how to harmonize them. The committee proceeded to draw up bylaws for a Norwegian Language Commission which should be "an advisory organ." Its function was stated in paragraph one as follows: "On the basis of scientific research it shall give the authorities and the public advice and guidance in language problems and in this activity promote the approach to each other [fremme tilneerming] of the two written languages on the basis of the Norwegian folk language \pà norsk folkemàls grunn] along the best path which at any given time is passable" (p. 27). This declaration of purpose was immedi182

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION ately attacked by its opponents as a "bound mandate," a directive which tied the hands of the commission and made it an organ of official language policy. It was re-enforced by a requirement in paragraph four that members not only must be qualified by having performed linguistic research or original writing, but also by "willingness to work for the approach to each other of the two written languages in agreement with the purpose established in paragraph one" (p. 28). One member of the committee, Ingeborg Hoff, refused to accept this mandate and wrote a minority report in which she expressed the views of the conservative faction dominant among the supporters of Nn. She criticized the directives as imprecise, since "Norwegian folk language" could be interpreted to mean anything spoken in Norway, even the colloquial urban forms of Rm (p. 33). She wanted the directives specifically formulated as a "Norwegianization" of Bm, with Nn as the model and presumably the ultimate goal. Nn should cooperate with Bm in this activity, but must not risk "destroying the peculiarly Norwegian character of its morphology and phonology" (p. 35). She emphasized strongly the need of considering the written traditions and inner structures of both languages and wanted a more thorough scientific investigation of the problems raised by the proposal. She objected to the requirement that members show a cooperative attitude and wanted them chosen solely on the basis of "knowledge and competence" (p. 36). She further criticized the proposal as hasty and called for more thorough preparation. The rest of the report outlined in greater detail some of the tasks envisaged for the activity of the commission and its form of organization. It was charged with the organization of research, advice to the authorities on possible spelling reforms in the future, preparation of a textbook norm 183

CONFLICT AND PLANNING for the schools, coordination of technical terminology, supervision of the language in schoolbooks, service to public and private institutions through publications and language courses, and (for the first time in Norway) cooperation with similar institutions in the other Scandinavian countries. T h e commission was to consist of twenty-six members appointed for three-year terms by the King (that is, the Cabinet) on advice of the Ministry. They were to include an equal number of representatives of each language, and they were to be nominated by interested institutions designated in the report. T h e Ministry could nominate four members and decide which of two nominees for each post should be members and which should be alternates. T h e institutions chosen were to represent linguistic science, teaching, literature, press, and broadcasting. T h e following were to have two representatives each: the University of Oslo; the University of Bergen; the major dictionaries (Norsk Riksmàlsordbok and Norsk Ordbok); the College of Education and the Teachers' Seminaries; the Society of Lektors (teachers in the gymnasia); the Youth Schools; the Public School Teachers; the Press Society; the State Broadcasting System. T h e Society of Authors was to have four representatives. T h e commission was envisaged as meeting only occasionally, but at least once a year, for discussing matters of principle and finances. T h e commission would elect its own chairman and vice-chairman from among its members and a six-man working committee of which the board chairman would also be a member and chairman. T h e working committee was to supervise the work of a secretariat, in which two secretaries hired by the commission would carry on the daily work and prepare agendas for the commission. T h e r e would be one secretary for each language, paid by the State at a rate comparable to that of teachers in the gymnasia. For all this work a salary budget of about 50,000 kroner 184

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION was recommended. Included in the report was also a supplement by Alf Hellevik dealing mostly with the work and the organization of the Swedish Committee for Language Cultivation. In this shape the proposal went to the Ministry and to the general public for comment, correction, and — abuse. T h e autumn of 1949 saw a lively debate on the merits of this proposal. THE NUMBERS GAME

In the midst of this debate, and while its issue was still in doubt, a linguistic change was decreed which had no direct connection with the language controversy, but which was inevitably confused with it in the minds of some.57 This was a change in the order of reading complex numbers above 20. In Norwegian, as in Danish and German, it had been traditional to read these with the digits before the decades: four-and-twenty instead of twenty-four. In Old Scandinavian both orders had existed, but in modern Scandinavian the languages had parted company, Swedish and Icelandic choosing the same order as English, but Danish and Norwegian the same as German. 58 T h e idea of bringing Norwegian usage into line with English and Swedish on this point had been raised before the war without success. Shortly after the war it was raised again in connection with a change-over from five to six digits in the Oslo telephone system. A prominent engineer, Rolf Waaler, then director of Oslo Fag- og Forskoler and a specialist in industrial psychology, pointed out that a large number of errors in dialing were made because people read the numbers in the wrong order. 59 Norwegians, being accustomed to read telephone numbers in groups of two, would inevitably read a number like 23 46 78 as three-andtwenty, six-and-forty, eight-and-seventy, with the consequent 185

CONFLICT AND PLANNING risk of dialing 32 64 87.60 T h e telephone people asked the Oslo Chamber of Commerce and other interested parties for comment and received an enthusiastic response. T h e problem was referred to the Ministry of Communications, which in turn brought it to the Ministry of Church and Education. T h e question was then referred to representatives of the teachers' organizations and to newspapermen. As chairman of the permanent spelling committee of the Ministry, Seip prepared the above-cited brochure (see n. 58) on the history of the problem, outlining some of the advantages and disadvantages of the change. Most of those who were consulted were in favor of the change. Professor Olav Midttun (born 1883) who was a consultant on N n for the Ministry wrote: "What keeps us from adopting the new order is above all habit. But the habit only lasts a short time until we have adopted a new one. I do not think it will take long in this case, for the new order is so much simpler and more natural and logical . . ." Among the few pessimists were the members of the Council of Normal Schools, who wrote: " T h e prospects of introducing this reform in practical life are not as good as some seem to think . . . It is here not just a question of introducing a new way of pronouncing the words, but also the introduction of new oral expressions which neither of our two languages has had before . . . How long such a change will take no one can predict." These quotations come from the formal report and recommendation which the Ministry presented to the Cabinet on 31 March 1950, asking for official approval. T h e Cabinet approved it the same day and sent it to the Storting for comment. 6 1 It was debated in the Storting on 20 November and passed by a thumping majority in spite of the pessimistic prediction by one representative that many would regard it as "an irritation" and "a needless reform [anstaltmakeri]" and by another that "it 186

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION will take a terribly long time before the Norwegian people begins to use the new way of counting." 62 T h e Ministry then decreed without further ado that it should be taught in the schools from the autumn of 1951 and be required in the state administration, including the State Broadcasting System as of 1 July 1951.83 A Gallup poll held in November 1951 found 48 percent in favor, 21 percent opposed, 31 percent undecided. As with any such blanket reform, it raised numerous problems of detail. T h e numerals were already a sore point because of the 1938 decision that sju 'seven' and tjue 'twenty* should take the place of syv and tyve, which were regarded as "Danish" spelling forms. Some had wanted a simultaneous change of twenty to toti, a form much used in writing checks, where the decades-digits order had long been in vogue. But the new decree did accept Seip's suggestion that tretti and firti be preferred as more logical in relation to their roots tre and fire than the traditional Rm forms tredve and f0rr or f0rti. It was recommended that sytten and sytti be left as they were, in spite of their usual pronunciation as s0tten and s0tti, and even that they be taught with a spelling pronunciation in order to avoid telephonic confusion with the similar sounding f0rti. At first it was actually recommended that the latter be pronounced as spelled (firti), but this proposal was withdrawn during the first summer as definitely confusing, after protests by broadcasters, weather bureau people, and the telephone system.64 Another problem was that of the ordinals, which received a startlingly novel form; for example, 23rd which had been pronounced tre-og-tyvende now became tjue-tredje, and 57th which had been syv-og-femtiende now became femti-sjuende. This, in turn, affected the fractions, which had been formed with the suffix -del (except for 1/2): 1/23, en tre-og-tyvende-del. For simplification it was now recommended to adopt the 187

CONFLICT AND PLANNING cardinals, making this fraction into en tjue-tre-del, but the old system was temporarily permitted for the first twelve fractions. 65 It will be seen that here was a reform of quite a different nature from those we have been discussing in connection with the language controversy proper. As one newspaper contributor commented, among the many "improvements" that were being attempted in Norwegian here was at least one of genuine practical value. Further, except for the changes of 7 and 20, there was no element of nationalism involved; on the contrary, all dialects agreed on the old system, and for most people it meant in most respects the adopting of the Swedish system, with which they were already somewhat familiar (and in which the forms of 7 and 20 were also close to the new Norwegian ones). No justification for this reform could be found in the "folk language." It also differed from the others in being a deliberate tampering with pronunciation. T h e written numerals were orally ambiguous since they were Arabic digits; but now the nation was to have its pronunciation habits altered on this point. This involved more than just a change in order; it required also a change in rhythm (from to —/) and in grammatical relations (from the use of "and" to its omission). This writer was in Norway when the reform was adopted and noted that at first a number of adults made a deliberate effort to use the new system. But ten years later, when again visiting Norway, he found that after energetic teaching in the public schools the new usage was still confined almost entirely to those who were officially obliged to use it: state broadcasters and school children. Practically no adults were using it, including the girls in the telephone exchange, and school children appeared to drop it when they became adults. Nevertheless, it will undoubtedly become rooted in 188

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION Norwegian speech some day, but no one can say how long it will take. It is an interesting illustration of the resistance which language makes to even the most obviously logical changes. Perhaps the general atmosphere of language reform in Norway had induced an overoptimistic attitude with respect to the possibility of inculcating new linguistic habits. 66 QUALMS AND QUERIES

(1949-I950)

T h e Ministry submitted the proposal for a Language Commission to all the institutions named as participants in the future board and asked for their comments. 67 T h e replies showed that teachers were generally pleased with the proposal, while scholars and writers were strongly divided. T h e scholars, as represented by the philosophical faculties of the universities of Oslo and Bergen and the College of Education in Trondheim, were vigorously critical of the formulation of purpose in paragraph one. T h e University of Oslo faculty adopted a majority report (twenty-two to eight), in which it insisted that the University had to nominate its representatives "on the basis of their scientific qualifications, not according to their glotto-political point of view" (p. 9). T h e expression "Norwegian folk language" was criticized as scientifically ambiguous. It was pointed out that a written language had other functions than a spoken language and could not be based directly on the latter. T h e power of the Ministry to appoint members on behalf of institutions which did not themselves nominate members and its right to select from the members nominated was criticized. "We are convinced that no University teacher will or can accept an appointment on such a basis." T h e majority concluded that "a language commission should be appointed on an entirely independent basis, and then the University could have representatives on it" (p. 9). In effect, this resolution was an ultimatum to the Ministry, declaring 189

CONFLICT AND PLANNING that academic freedom was at stake and that the University would refuse to participate unless the directives were changed. There is reason to believe that the resolution was formulated by Didrik Arup Seip. Similar criticism was voiced by the University of Bergen (against one vote) and the College of Education (formulated by Ragnvald Iversen, who had been a member of the Committee of 1934). Even the minority which supported the proposal at the University of Oslo noted the importance of "taking into account the special needs of a written language and the linguistic traditions of both language forms" (p. 10). T h e majority resolution at the University came as something of a bombshell in the discussion and gave abundant opportunity for glee among the opponents of the LC (as we shall hereafter abbreviate the Language Commission). By comparison, the objections raised by the Authors' Society were not nearly as vigorous, though they would prove to be more persistent. Against two votes the Authors' Society adopted a resolution on IB December expressing its willingness to participate, objecting only to the privilege reserved by the Ministry to make a selection among the nominees. T h e directors of the Press Society voted eight to seven to support the proposal, while the minority rejected the "bound mandate." Similarly, the directors of the State Broadcasting System voted three to two to support the proposal, with the minority rejecting the "bound mandate." 68 On the basis of these replies and others the Ministry rewrote and reformulated the bylaws, though without making any essential changes in its point of view. In a Recommendation (Tilráding) presented to the Cabinet on 17 March 1950, the Ministry outlined in detail the history of the problem back to the days of Ivar Aasen and Knud Knudsen and showed how the idea of language fusion on a Norwegian base had been a guiding principle in all the language re190

T H E LANGUAGE COMMISSION forms made since that time. After surveying the criticism made of the proposal, the Ministry recommended that the directives formulated remain unchanged, but with the understanding "that this principle must be applied with many reservations" (p. 15). "Reasonable consideration must be given to the written tradition in both languages, to coherence and system in written language and dialects, and to the demands made by literary and technical language. In addition, practical-pedagogical problems must be considered, and it must be taken into account that written language is gradually assuming a more and more independent role, and that words and forms which have (or get) a position \hevd\ in the written languages are in ever greater degree making their way into cultivated [vyrdsla] speech in the whole country" (p. 14). By specifying these many reservations, the Ministry was in effect admitting the justice of many critical remarks about the political formulation of purpose, while maintaining the formulation intact. On the assumption that anyone who accepted membership on the board was automatically bound by its bylaws, the Ministry dropped the "loyalty requirement" originally included, which had been found offensive by many. Special attention was given to the University argument on behalf of academic freedom. In connection with our inquiry into the problems of linguistic planning, it is of interest to quote a part of the discussion: "It should be emphasized that a distinction must be made between linguistic research and linguistic normalization and guidance. T h e latter has to build on scientific research and take its results into account, but is not in itself a purely scientific problem. It is in equal, or greater, degree a national, social, or practical-pedagogic problem. There is more reason to believe that cooperation on such a commission will strengthen the demands for objective and comprehensive research and the 191

CONFLICT AND PLANNING organization of linguistic material than there is to fear the opposite." 69 What the Ministry asked of the members was only that in addition to their competence they should also be sympathetic to the idea and purpose of the commission; it was not a question of either-or, but of both-and. The Ministry also made reference in its report to the language planks included in the party programs of the Labor and Agrarian parties in the elections of 1949. As noted above, there had been no discussion of this problem in 1945, when all parties united on a common national platform. Since the Storting would ultimately decide whether there was going to be any Language Commission, the stand of the parties was highly significant for the success of the proposal. Since the Labor party won a clear majority in the Storting in the fall of 1949 (85 of 150 seats), its plank practically assured the success of the proposal: "Continued efforts on behalf of a united Norwegian [samnorsk] written language based on the folk language." 70 The Agrarian party also included the word samnorsk and pledged its support on behalf of "a samnorsk language built on the Norwegian dialects" (p. 254). While the strong conservative Nn element in the Venstre party did not permit it to come out for Samnorsk, it did reiterate its old stand on behalf of equality among the languages (p. 286). T h e new Christian People's party was an offshoot of Venstre and could be counted on to vote in much the same way on this issue. Only the Conservative party, H0ire, expressed a contrary view, attacking what it called "administrative encroachments on the language" and asking for "a free and natural development" of both existing languages (p. 265). In the new Storting, H0ire got only twenty-three seats, with the remainder split among Venstre, twenty-three; Agrarians, twelve; Christian People's party, nine. With this backing the Ministry could confidently lay its 192

T H E LANGUAGE COMMISSION

report before the cabinet and look forward to the eventual debate in the Storting. PARENTS TO THE RESCUE

T h e institutional and political discussion went on amid a lively journalistic debate, which in turn stimulated private controversy. In 1949 Arnulf 0verland made his third contribution to the discussion in a lecture published under the title Bokmàlet — et avstumpet landsmàl, approximately " T h e Book Language — a Maimed Landsmàl." In this lecture he launched a new distinction, which was to play a great role in the agitation by Rm supporters. As we pointed out earlier (pp. 110-113), Bokmâl was the official name given to Rm by the government in 1929, in continuation of an earlier, obsolete term, det almindelige Bogsprog, of the nineteenth century. Rm supporters had not accepted the term bokmàl, although it had been taught in the schools since 1929. Now 0verland adopted the latter term to describe the official, state-supervised form of Rm and made of it a term of abuse, in order to distinguish the target of his invective from the "true" Rm. He quoted Trygve Bull to the effect that "Bm in its extreme form is nothing but a modified Lm." Concerning this "modified," or as he puts it in the title, "maimed" Lm, he wrote: " T h e samnorsk forms are no longer Rm, but a completely new language, unfinished, unusable, affected, and vulgar." After some amusing illustrations from official documents supposedly written in this "language," he made his appeal: "I want to say to young people: Choose a language, but a living language — Rm or Lml And remember that Bokmàl is no language, but an insult, an unspeakable underestimation of the people on whom it is desired to force this public piece of clowning [dette offentlige klovneri]! 193

CONFLICT AND PLANNING Choose a language — Lm if you will I Use it thoughtfully! Forge it strong, grind it sharp, polish it bright! Use it, until it becomes supple! Think it, until it becomes clear! Feel it, until it becomes warm, rich, and beautiful! Let it sing! — You will make us happy by doing this! But leave R m alone!" 0verland followed this appeal with another directed at parents whose children were being taught the new language in their textbooks. "I want to say to those who have children in the schools: take one look at their schoolbooks and rub your eyes! It is no dream. This intellectual nadir has been authorized. Put an end to it! Join together in parents' associations and go to the authorities and tell them that we won't submit to their committing intellectual rape on our children!" 71 T h e response to 0verland's words turned out to be a major factor in the further development of the controversy. In the autumn of 1949 a group of parents from Greater Oslo (which included the neighboring community of Baerum) organized for the purpose of asserting their legal right to have Rm in their children's schoolbooks. T h e movement spread rapidly and came to be called Foreldrebevegelsen i sprâksaken, "The Parents' Movement in the Language Problem." T h e legal basis for their action was a hitherto unused paragraph in the Urban School Law of 1936.72 According to this, any decision made by the schoolboard concerning the language in ABC's and readers had to be preceded by a meeting of the parents of the children then in school. A decision made by a majority at this meeting was binding on the schoolboard, if it was also a majority of those entitled to vote, or if two thirds of those entitled to vote were present at the meeting. T h e reason this paragraph had not previously been used in the cities was that the change-over from conservative to radical Bm had not been interpreted as a language change, and no urban school had ever adopted Nn. 194

T H E LANGUAGE COMMISSION

Taking their cue from 0verland, the parents now organized meeting after meeting at which protest resolutions were passed demanding so-called "moderate" textbooks for the Oslo children. Supporters claimed that a score of meetings were held at which six thousand parents had voted for "moderate" forms, and only eighty against.73 Since the meetings were not organized in strictly legal forms and did not in any sense precede a schoolboard decision (this had been made in 1939), they had no legal status. But they made a great splash in the columns of the conservative press, where many articles appeared on their behalf. Typical was one entitled "We Deposed Parents." T h e writer, a mother, found herself unable to assist her children with their Norwegian lessons. They were growing up "in a linguistic no-man's-land" between the home and the school. T h e children were being penalized; "this is the reason we have protested against the use of radical forms — words and expressions which the children meet only in their schoolbooks." 74 T h e parents could find some comfort in a brochure by Seip entitled " T h e Norwegian Language and Our Schools Today," in which he printed and discussed the regulations applicable to language use in the schools. He warned the authorities against moving ahead "faster than the camels can follow": "as the language situation is in our country, we need more liberal rules and greater freedom, not prohibitions and compulsion." 75 On 17 November 1950, the parents brought before the Oslo schoolboard a request for the preparation and use of "moderate" textbooks. T h e problem was debated far into the night, but against the solid opposition of H0ire it was voted twenty-six to fourteen to reject the request. T h e majority pointed out that there was now a prospect of an early textbook norm to be prepared by the projected Language Commission, and they wished to wait for this.79 In spite of !95

CONFLICT AND PLANNING this tactical defeat, the movement persisted and played an important role in the following developments. It was impossible to ignore so large a n u m b e r of citizens, even if some tried to reduce their importance by referring to them as "West-End snobs." T h e movement spread from Oslo, and in the course of 1950 and 1951 branches were established in most Norwegian cities. 77 THE BEGINNING OF

The

Word

In March 1950, Riksmâlsforbundet began publication of Ordet (The Word), a monthly magazine which was designed to be at once the mouthpiece of the society and a literary journal. T h e subtitle proclaimed the official linguistic policy of the society: Tidsskrift for fri sprogutvikling (Magazine for Free Language Development). T h e editor was the previously mentioned A n d r é Bjerke, well known for his light verse and graceful translations of foreign poetry. 78 Among the chief contributors were the R m writers whom we have already seen as militant opponents of the government policy of fusion, including Arnulf 0verland, Sigurd Hoel, Ernst S0rensen, Carl Keilhau, and Odd Eidem. T h e first issue of Ordet was opened by Arnulf Overland, who called for a crusade against "the language-makers, who today wish to r u n N n and R m through a meatgrinder because they want language hash for dinner" (p. 3). Rm, he maintained, had disappeared from the public administration and was forbidden in the schools. T h e Bokmâl which had been substituted was "an artificial language, clumsily pieced together [sammenknotet] by diligent schoolteachers" (p. 2). As for Nn, he called for an understanding by R m people that the " L m literature is of priceless significance for our common culture" and that "the policy of enmity to L m which has been pursued within our camp has been erroneous and harmful." "It is now definitively abandoned," he 196

T H E LANGUAGE COMMISSION

declared. "But we will not sit idly by while a government committee decides to take their mother tongue away from our children and strike them dumb [umœlende]. This is so serious an interference in the intellectual life [sjaleliv] of our children that a popular movement must be started against it" (p. 2). 0verland's appeal was supported by Odd Eidem, who wrote on "Our Relationship to N n " in the same issue. He extended his hand to those Nn people, especially in Western Norway, who wished to preserve their language intact, and pointed out that this was all the Rm people asked for themselves. He granted that some Rm supporters had not yet discovered what had happened in Norway over the past fifty years. But now, he said, the sword should be turned, not against the Nn movement, but against their common enemy, "the energetic busybodies who by political means are issuing forth into daylight as our appointed linguistic leaders" (p. 14). Besides programmatic articles of this type, the magazine included lighter material, which helped to make it the liveliest and most readable literary periodical then appearing in Norway. From a third to one half of the contents was literary, including short stories, essays, and poems without other connection with the language struggle than their value as illustrations of good Rm usage. There was a monthly section entitled "Clippings from the Language Discussion," where quotations relating to language problems were duly commented on. There were special features, such as "This Month's Knutne," in which the previously mentioned (p. 175 above) cartoon of a school teacher appeared over a selection of quotations from current schoolbooks.79 Profiles of leading opponents were presented under a drawing from the fairy-tale illustrator Theodor Kittelsen of the waternixie, here rebaptized as Vassaue, "the Water 197

CONFLICT AND PLANNING Eye" or, as we might freely translate it, "Fisheyes." The idea was expressed in a passage by Odd Eidem about the "fish eye" which he defined as "the staring constable of puritanism" which in Norway "watches every step we take" and asks, "Are you for or against the common, everyday, hardworking man?" These profiles, which began with Trygve Bull and continued with men like Bergsgârd, S0rlie, and others, were written by Carl Keilhau with malice aforethought.80 It was one of the contentions of the writers in Ordet that the government language policy was part of a general trend toward grey, bureaucratic uniformity, induced by a materialistic outlook. Purely as a stunt, Bjerke managed to insinuate an article into Arbeiderbladet, the organ of the government party, in which a fictitious scholar named Martin Storhaug proclaimed the doctrine (bolstered by numerous imposing-sounding quotations from American "experts") that language was a purely physiological phenomenon, and that dialects could be "cured" by the injection of hormones.81 The serious part of Ordet's campaign was an attempt to mobilize Rm supporters against all forms of state planning, which they sharply opposed to their own concept of "free language development." This was the essence also of the resolution directed by Riksmâlsforbundet to the Storting on 30 June 1950: "What we need is a language academy or commission [nevnd] divided into two sections, one for Lm and one for Rm, in order that free linguistic development may take place under the guidance of the most competent representatives of each language form, without any bound mandate and without political influence." The kind words about Lm may be interpreted as a handshake across the abyss, a case of the extremes touching in order to destroy the middle. In this they were not entirely disappointed, for on 12 December 1950, Noregs Mâllag voted forty-three to 198

THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION thirty-one to ask the Storting to postpone action on the LC; the still more conservative Norsk Màldyrkingslag made the same plea on 22 May 1951.82 But many Lm supporters were suspicious of their old enemies bringing gifts; they noted that at the same time as Riksmâlsforbundet proclaimed its sympathy for their language, it participated actively in plebiscites in which Nn was voted out of the schools.83 The Rm movement had adopted a strategy which at once recognized and isolated its opponent in a vigorous attempt to neutralize its influence on Rm. As one critic wrote: "Their campaign is directed against the radical or Norwegian forms . . . which have so far been considered inelegant and vulgar by the well-situated and elegant upper class . . ." 84 THE BATTLE OF THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION

The proposal of the Ministry rested with the Storting's Committee on Church and Education for nearly a year and a half while the discussion raged. Finally, on 24 November 1951, a bill was reported to the Storting, in a majority and minority version.85 The minority, Mr. Christie and Mrs. Thorén of the H0ire party, presented a complete set of bylaws which according to their own account was based on that of Norsk Màldyrkingslag, the conservative N n academy (p. 612). It called for a purely advisory commission that would give advice about spelling changes without being bound to any particular policy, that would consist of two separate sections for the two languages, and that would work together only on matters concerning both (pp. 615-16). The remaining ten members of the committee, representing the other four parties, supported the proposal of the Ministry and presented a set of bylaws which only differed in minor ways from those of the Ministry. The committee omitted as unnecessary the qualification that the languages should be brought closer "along the best path that at any time is pass199

CONFLICT AND PLANNING able." The committee took away the right of the Ministry to name the chairman in case of a tie vote and reduced the number to be appointed by the Ministry from six to four, giving the other two members to the public schools. T h e committee also added the rule that the chairman and vicechairman should alternate each year so that each language had the chairmanship for one year. T h e imminent likelihood that the majority recommendation would be enacted by the Storting stung the Rm leaders into action. A committee of three which had been appointed by Riksmâlsforbundet to act as coordinating contact with the Parents' Movement organized themselves on 7 December as the national committee for Foreldreaksjonen mot samnorsk (The Parents' Action against Samnorsk).86 The members were Ernst S0rensen, Rolf Medb0e, and Sofie Helene Wigert. Practically on the spur of the moment these three whipped up a whirlwind campaign against the LC. On the morning of 10 December the readers of all ten Oslo newspapers were faced with a three-column, eight-inch, front-page advertisement headed: "Have You Read Your Children's Schoolbooks?" It was signed by seven well-known names in the movement, who formed the national committee together with the three original sponsors. They warned their fellow parents that the Storting was about to establish a Language Commission which would mix Lm and Rm together into a language called samnorsk. "This new language will be introduced into the schools by means of a new textbook norm." The committee asked: "Do you want your children to lose their love of reading?" All eligible voters were urged to sign the blanks provided and to get others to sign as a protest on behalf of "the right to a free choice of language forms in the readers and textbooks of our children." A burst of articles and editorials in the conservative press 200

T H E LANGUAGE COMMISSION

supported the campaign. Morgenbladet captioned its story, "A Grand Campaign Started to Save Our Language," and printed an article by author Ejlert Bjerke on "Linguistic Terrorism," in which the methods of the language reformers were compared with those of Hitler, whose memory was still green in Norway. A writer named Yngvar Hauge announced in an article entitled "Farewell to Our Cultural Heritage" that the LC would be "armed with dictatorial powers," and sarcastically remarked that "some party member ought to inform Lars Moen [the Minister, formerly a tailor] that languages are not made with sewing machines." A lawyer named Leif S. Rode warned the people that this "Hitler-type" bill would constitute "the execution of Norway's language of culture by a death sentence pronounced in 1951 by the Norwegian Storting." 87 T h e bill was to come up for consideration on 13 December, and the days immediately before saw a regular jamboree. According to Morgenbladet, "cars with loudspeakers are rolling through the streets, while university and high school students trawl restaurants, offices, and factories with ballots." 88 Actors harangued the populace from cars, while men and women paraded through the streets adorned with arm and hatbands bearing the words Foreldreaksjonen mot samnorsk. Booths were set up for the collection of signatures, and the papers had pictures of people clamoring for a chance to sign. People were urged to help hand out petitions, call friends, and contribute money. Dagbladet, which was unfriendly to the campaign, referred to it as a "linguistic crusade raging through the land under the banners of enthusiastic actors and high school students." 89 On 13 December, when debate began in the Storting, a total of 92,500 signatures were presented in behalf of the Parents' Action. 90 In the Storting little notice was taken of the agitation, except for some crusty remarks by Jakob Friis (1883-1956), 201

CONFLICT AND PLANNING

a member of the Church and School committee and a leader of the Labor party group. He dismissed it as "a whipped-up extraparliamentary sentiment in a very small portion of the people—mostly a West-End movement in this city." 91 This stinging rebuke was to become the concern of many Rm writers, who indignantly denied that their cause was an upper-class movement. In the Labor party organ one writer, Ivar Tryti, warned his party fellows against underestimating the opposition: "To call it 'a little West-End clique' is at best thoughtless. A little clique cannot in so short a time get over 100,000 people to join them in such a vigorous protest." 92 Friis elaborated: "Here young people, boys and girls, run up and down stairways shrieking and screaming, 'Sign.' A whole flock of young people came to me, and I began to ask them, 'Do you really know anything about this? Aren't you really errand boys for somebody else in this matter?' After that they walked down the stairs a little shamed. I don't think they did very much after that." 93 The debate in the Storting was long and weighty, in spite of its foregone conclusion, with thirty-four different members finding it necessary to make fifty speeches, and others withdrawing only when the time became short. Opponents claimed that time was inadequate, since the debate came right before Christmas vacation and everyone was eager to leave. The proposal had been before the public in all its essentials since July 1949; even so, the representatives filled some seventy-five quarto pages of the Storting proceedings, uttering at least 75,000 words, or the length of a mediumsized novel. Of the thirty-four speakers, ten spoke in Nn, the rest in Rm. All the Nn speakers were in favor of the LC, while the Rm speakers were evenly divided for and against. The arguments advanced were those which we have already summarized. The chairman of the committee, him202

T H E L A N G U A G E COMMISSION self a teacher and a L m man, Kristian Langlo, declared that "the language problem is a historical inheritance imposed u p o n us, a task we must solve whether we like it or not." T h e function of the commission, he said, should be "not just to give us a single language, b u t a Norwegian language, and a good Norwegian language." 94 By contrast with this emphasis on the national aspect we may cite some words from the speech of the previously mentioned Jakob Friis on behalf of the L a b o r party: " T o me and to the L a b o r movement this has never been a question of philology. W e have always looked upon the language movement as an important step in the rise of the common people and the lower class in our country to a freer political status, better economic conditions, and a richer culture." 95 For this reason he approved the term " f o l k language"; his party was n o longer a narrow class party, but a "folk party," working for a native land which really embraced the whole people and was fondly embraced by the people (et virkelig folkeomfattende og med kjœrlighet fra hele folket omfattet fedreland).9β T h e opposition in the Storting was rather more moderate than its supporters outside had hoped. 9 7 T h e chief spokesman, H . Christie, was a pastor w h o spoke out strongly but not abusively against the unseemly haste with which some wished to fuse the two languages: " T h e distance [between them] is still so great that it cannot be eliminated in a onetwo-three without d o i n g violence to both languages." 98 A distinguished teacher and scholar, Edvard Stang w h o was specially imported for the occasion by the minority, attacked the ambiguity of the term " f o l k language" and spoke out on behalf of good style, b u t he candidly admitted that "this Language Commission proposal does not particularly frighten m e . " 99 A f t e r two full days of debate the vote was taken. A mi203

CONFLICT AND PLANNING nority motion to delay consideration won only forty-one votes (all o£ H0ire, plus nine Labor, two Agrarians, three Christian People's, three Venstre).100 On the showdown only twenty-four voted for the minority report; these were all of H0ire, plus two Labor men (L0berg, Dahl). T h e majority report was adopted by the remaining ninety-five who were present. The decision was hailed by its supporters as a victory for democracy, by its enemies as a legalization of vulgarity. A typical expression of the former point of view was advanced by school superintendent Nils Bleness at a Labor party rally in Porsgrunn: "For the Labor party this is a great cause. We have no use for a linguistic upper class. The ordinary workingman wants his language recognized as having the same worth [likeverdig] as that of the upper class. Our language shall not be stamped as inferior and ridiculed . . . T h e so-called Parents' Action . . . is a little clique in society, a clique from the upper class, who now distinguish themselves from the 'common herd' in practically no other way than in language. T h e social and cultural development in our society in recent years has led to an elimination of class distinctions. There is hardly anything left of these but the language." By way of prophecy he concluded: "We do not know how the future samnorsk will be, but we can assume that it will be somewhat more Norwegian, somewhat more in agreement with our spoken language, than Bm is today. And this is what the LC is supposed to help us with." 101 Against this we can set a few words from an opponent, Jens Bj0rneboe, author: "Rm is the language of the many thousands of good readers. It is not a language belonging to the car owner or the business man. But it is not the worker's language either! It is a classless language. It is written, spoken, and read by us who belong to no class." 102 204

T H E LANGUAGE COMMISSION

A huge and hitherto virtually unknown apparatus had been mobilized for the attack, apparently without effect on the outcome. Norway had her Language Commission, and only time would tell what role it was going to play in the linguistic life of the nation.

205

Why can't the English teach their children how to speak? Norwegians learn Norwegian; the Greeks are taught their Greek.

My Fair Lady

(1956)1

6 DECADE OF DISCUSSION: THE TEXTBOOK NORM 1952-1962

So far from quieting controversy, the creation of the Language Commission was a signal for intensified efforts on all sides. No one knew exactly what it would become or what kind of measures it would recommend. The linguistic conservatives expected the worst and viewed it with undisguised alarm. Sigurd Hoel wrote that the LC consisted entirely of Nn and Samnorsk people and that Rm was at most represented by one and a half member. Noregs Mâllag elected a conservative set of officers who looked on the LC with distrust and even appointed a watchdog committee to keep an eye on its Nn members.2 The supporters of the LC were content with their victory and hopefully slow to come to its aid when it was attacked. Its members were busy with organizational tasks and proved to be overoptimistic about the preparation of a new textbook norm. At first they were confidently predicting it within a year; it actually took six. CONTROVERSIES OVER MEMBERSHIP

The Ministry lost no time in asking the institutions designated to nominate candidates for the LC. Letters went 206

THE TEXTBOOK NORM out on December 27 asking that nominations be made by 15 February; on 7 March 1952, the Cabinet confirmed the recommendations of the Ministry. T h e process went smoothly except for some eddies of controversy among the Rm supporters. Riksmâlsvernet, which was engaged in publishing the R m dictionary, voted not to participate, against the advice of its officers. Contrariwise, the Actors' Society, which had been overlooked, asked that it might be represented; the Ministry therefore nominated a pair of actors from its own quota. T h e first one nominated refused to accept, but others were found. 3 T h e University had been a stumbling block in the way of the LC, having expressed strong reservations about membership, as we saw above. But at a faculty meeting in January 1952, Professor Seip found a statesmanlike solution in a reassuring memorandum which he presented for the consideration of the faculty. In this document he held forth the view that the changes in the bylaws made by the Storting and the reservations added by the Ministry had removed the features which the faculty had found objectionable. 4 After a heated debate the faculty agreed to participate in the LC on the basis of Seip's memorandum. For safety's sake the Executive Committee of the University (the deans and the president) in transmitting this decision to the Ministry added (against one vote) that "by letting itself be represented on the LC, the University does not give its support to any glotto-political point of view." 5 T h e publication of Seip's memorandum a few days later in Morgenbladet roused two Nn members of the LC to protest against the reservations implied in the faculty decision. Professor Vandvik, one of the fathers of the LC, contended that it was absurd to apply the term "scientific" to the normative aspects of the work contemplated by the LC. "Language history and language cultivation have never 207

CONFLICT AND PLANNING been and can never become the subject of research according to exact methods . . . The important factor here is one which is nowhere mentioned in Seip's memorandum, namely, judgment." 6 Alf Hellevik, editor of Norsk Ordbok, accused the University of in fact adopting a glotto-political policy in declaring its neutrality, that is, a policy of ignoring and opposing the mandate adopted by the Storting. "It should be clear both to the University and others that no one can take part in a commission which is supposed to help the authorities normalize and regulate the language without at the same time adopting a glotto-political point of view." 7 Even more spectacular and protracted was the controversy that raged in the Authors' Society. While the fate of the LC was still in balance, a motion supporting it was almost defeated at a meeting on 10 December 1951. T h e vote in favor of participating in the LC was only twenty-six to twenty-four, and at a special meeting called for 14 January it was decided to submit the problem to the entire membership by mail ballot. 8 T h e vote was strongly in favor of participation, with eighty-nine voting in favor without reservations, twenty-two in favor with reservations, and fortysix flatly opposed to participation. 9 This should have settled the problem, except that the minority refused to abide by the decision. They contended that this was not a problem on which the majority could bind the society, since membership in the LC was a violation of the society's constitution, which expressly forbade political activity on the part of its representatives. 10 Toward the end of February ten members made use of their right to call an extraordinary meeting to vote on the following resolution: "The Authors' Society cannot take a stand on glotto-political questions." 11 T h e meeting was held on 20 March and lasted far into the night. In the end the resolu208

THE TEXTBOOK NORM tion lost by 20 to 35 votes, and again a mail vote was called for. 12 On 22 April the result was announced: 49 voted with the minority, 115 with the majority. T h e minority had threatened to secede if the majority persisted, and on 28 April twenty-seven of the members formed a new society. This society called itself "The Authors' Society of 1952" and elected Arnulf 0verland president. There were definite disadvantages in the position of the new society, since its members lost their opportunities of influencing the course of events, membership on important professional committees, and the like. 13 Nevertheless, they persisted and by 1 July 1957, had reached a membership of fifty-six. At the time of their formation they had received an opinion by a prominent lawyer concerning the legality of participation by the Authors' Society in the LC. This was Annaeus Schj0dt, who advised them that by being represented "the Society has given up its impartial stand in the language controversy and has, as an organization, gone in for linguistic state regulation on the basis of the language form called 'Norwegian folk language.' " 14 On these grounds the members of the new society brought suit against the old one to enjoin the latter from being represented on the LC. T h e case did not reach the courts until 2 December 1957, when five authors appeared in the City Court of Oslo against their former Society.15 Only one of the three judges (Schumann-Andersen) upheld the plaintiffs' contention that membership on the LC committed the Society to a definite linguistic policy. T h e majority agreed that "the composition and working procedure of the LC guarantee that it will be impartial in the language controversy" (Wiers-Jenssen) and that "by not nominating representatives . . . the Society could hardly be interpreted as doing anything but protesting against the LC and its directives . . . " (Thune). 16 209

CONFLICT AND PLANNING T h e decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously confirmed the stand of the lower court on 13 May 1960. Five judges agreed that "the Society is not committed by the work done on the LC by its representatives, and it cannot be said that the Society backs any language policy which might be pursued." Consequently, participation in its work could not be called a breach of neutrality. Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court entered into the realia involved to the extent of deciding that the term folkemàl was not identical with either Nn or the dialects on which it builds. As for the so-called "bound mandate," they decided that it "does not say anything more than that the linguistic development which has been taking place in our country shall continue." 17 THE COMMISSION GOES TO WORK

In the meanwhile the LC had come into existence and begun performing some of its functions with much less friction and fanfare than might have been expected after its stormy birth. T h e original group of members was an impressive array of personalities from the scholastic and literary world, though it was heavily weighted in the direction of school teachers and Nn sympathizers. T h e members were listed by institutions and languages. Institutions

Bokmâl

University of Oslo

Prof. D. A. Seip

University of Bergen College of Education Det norske Samlaget

Prof. Mikjel S0rlie Lektor Haakon O. Christiansen

2 ΙΟ

Nynorsk Prof. Sigurd Kolsrud Dr. Hâkon Hamre Prof. Arne Bergsgárd Alf Hellevik

T H E TEXTBOOK NORM Institutions Teachers' Colleges Gymnasia Folk High Schools Grammar Schools

Authors' Society

Press Association

Broadcasting System By the Ministry

Bokmâl

Nynorsk

Lektor Trygve Bull Lektor Johs. Krogsrud Principal Halfdan Asphaug Principal Gunnar Jenshus Teacher Andreas Markusson Editor Gunnar Larsen Author Odd Bang-Hansen Editor Chr. S. Oftedal

Lektor Ludvig Seines Lektor Johs. A. Dale Principal Hans Eidnes Teacher Hâvard Skirbekk Teacher Gurid Fagnast0l Author Halldis Moren Vesaas Prof. Sigmund Skard Journalist Ragnvald Skrede Hartvig Kiran

Thorstein Diesen Storting President G. Natvig Pedersen Editor Hans Holten Theater Director Hans Jacob Nilsen

Storting Member Kristian Langlo Pastor (Dean) Knut Eik-Nes

At its constituent meeting on 4 April, the LC was welcomed by Lars Moen, the Minister who had created it. H e expressed the hope that through the work of the LC, the political authorities would hereafter be relieved of their concern with language problems. 18 In an editorial in Arbei211

CONFLICT AND PLANNING derbladet (written by Trygve Bull) it was stated that "the old fighting era is over; the time has come for constructive work—in both languages, and in cooperation between sensible, informed, and patient people on both sides." 19 Morgenbladet, on the other hand, wrote: " T h e appointments made by the government make it perfectly clear that the LC is intended as a weapon for the eradication of Rm." 20 Opponents made much of the fact that most of the Bm representatives were known to be favorable to fusion. Seip was elected first chairman, and Alf Hellevik first vice-chairman. The first working committee included these and Natvig Pedersen, Trygve Bull, Johannes A. Dale (born 1898), and Hàvard Skirbekk. On 12 May the Executive Committee appointed Lektor Ingvald Torvik (born 1906) as secretary for Nn and Lektor Einar Lundeby (born 1914) as secretary for Bm. A secretariat was established, and the LC was ready to go to work. During the month of April the Ministry laid on the shoulders of the young institution two major problems that had long been troubling the waters.21 These were the problems of "parallel editions" and a textbook norm. They were closely related, in so far as a firm textbook norm would make parallel editions within each of the two languages superfluous. As long as there were many alternative forms within each language, it was still possible to speak of a "radical" and a "moderate" norm in each. Inevitably, a demand had arisen for "moderate" forms in Bm as a reaction to the trend toward "radical" forms introduced in 1939 by the Oslo resolution. The Parents' Movement had pressed for these and had been rebuffed by the Ministry in 1949 and again in 1951. The Ministry felt that it would be a needless expense to print two editions of each textbook at a time when it was looking forward to a textbook norm which would make these editions obsolete.22 212

THE TEXTBOOK NORM T h e LC soon realized that it would take a good deal of work to prepare the textbook norm, and that it was necessary to meet the issue of parallel editions immediately. T h e Parents' Movement had succeeded in persuading Gyldendal to prepare "moderate" editions of two books, an ABC by Hans Bergersen, and a first reader by Nordahl Rolfsen. A special meeting of the LC was called for 6-7 June, 1952, to consider these books. T h e LC refused to take a stand on whether parallel editions should be issued, feeling that this was the responsibility of the Ministry. But on recommendation of Bull and Seip they voted to accept the two books in question, if the Ministry felt that it was desirable or necessary to publish parallel editions, provided certain specified changes were made to bring them into line with current regulations. 23 T h e regulations were by this time such a jungle that only the hardiest language politicians could keep track of them, and the members of the LC did not agree on their exact import. However, the essence of the argument was that Bull and Seip were in favor of authorizing the books if they adopted "folk language" forms, especially preterites in -a, in folktales. T h e N n members voted unanimously against this, following the opinion of Hellevik and Dale that there should not in principle be any parallel editions, since the purpose of the "radical forms" was to bring the languages together. T h e Bm members all voted in favor, and their opinion prevailed because Seip as chairman could break the tie. 24 T h e decision was at first hailed as a victory for the Parents' Movement. 25 But at a meeting in Oslo on 17 June, its leaders issued an angry blast at the LC and the Ministry for "having made such thoroughgoing changes in a radical direction that the approval is felt as a slap in the face of the parents and an attack on their and their children's most precious possession, the mother tongue." " T h e authorities 213

CONFLICT AND PLANNING have contemptuously rejected our demands and met us with force and dictatorial intolerance." "We therefore give our board of directors the power to take necessary steps to enforce our legal demands with the help of the courts." 26 Ernst S0rensen pointed out that the official rule requiring folk forms in folktales and the like made it almost impossible to produce a "moderate" ABC, since much of the text consisted of folktales. He accused Seip of working for the eradication of Rm, but Seip pointed out that relatively few radical forms had been introduced: "We feel that the book is still a moderate edition, even with the changes mentioned." 27 T h e problem was aired in the Storting (11 June), when Sverre L0berg (Labor) raised the question of why these textbooks were not accepted in their original form. 28 He warned the government that there was sharp opposition to the official policy and noted that the whole conservative press had adopted a "moderate" spelling. The Minister replied that the books would be approved, with changes, but that publishers and schoolboards would be reminded that new editions might be required when the new textbook norm was ready in a year or so. This optimistic prediction was based on estimates in the minutes of the Language Commission. 29 The problem was raised once more in the Storting on 16 March 1953, when Fredriksfryd (H0ire) asked the Ministry to accept an ABC by Munch with "moderate" forms and received the same answers.30 CONSOLIDATION OF THE RIKSMAL MOVEMENT

The overwhelming defeat of the Parents' Action in their campaign against the enactment of the LC in December 1951 did not appear to discourage its leaders. 31 T h e fire that had been kindled raged on, and the years 1952-1954 saw a marked consolidation of forces. Throughout 1952 and 214

T H E TEXTBOOK NORM much of 1953 thousands of ballots against Samnorsk were collected in many cities, and these became the basis of efforts to organize new R m societies. We have seen how the Authors' Society of 1952 came into being and formed a kind of propaganda central for the conservative R m wing. At this time Riksmàlsforbundet published a spelling list prepared for it by a committee as a guide to those who wished to write "true" Rm. This so-called "blue list" (from the color of its cover) bore the signature and the recommendation of Arnulf 0verland on the cover. 32 In this list the purely graphic changes of 1938 were accepted, such as a for aa, opp for op, meg/deg/seg for mig/dig/sig, and even gjennom/ mellom for gjennem/mellem. Some feminines were accepted (folk words, about 200 in number); but most of the 900 feminines in the 1938 spelling were rejected. Most noticeable was the rejection of such common and by now generally accepted forms as etter for efter, fram for frem, nà for nu. They persistently rejected sprák for sprog and of course such strongly native forms as golv, torg, kol, sju, tjue (for gulv, torv, kull, syv, tyve). It was expressly pointed out that this list could not be used by school children and government officials, but it was urged upon everyone else. On 10 May 1952 the conservative press switched spelling from the moderate 1938 which it had used since the war, and adopted 0verland's list as a norm for their Riksmál. 33 It was evident that the R m movement was growing more standpat and was no longer trying to win support by soft words. Not all R m partisans were happy about this development. 34 Trygve Bull declared in a brochure in defense of the fusionist policy that the R m activists "are trying to stop entirely the work now in progress which has as its aim to eliminate in a not too distant future the unhappy [ulykksalige] language cleavage which our history has bestowed 215

CONFLICT AND PLANNING upon us." He denied that the Parents' Action was basing its program on rational [saklige] grounds and described it as an attempt to "injure [ramme] the Labor movement at a point which they hope is more vulnerable than its economic policy." 35 A further sharpening of the language struggle was marked by the appearance on 23 May 1953 of the fortnightly newspaper Frisprog, under the editorship of 0istein Parmann (born 1921). The title means "free language," but suggests also "free speech." It was the organ of the Parents' Action and frankly called itself a "battle organ." The tone of its contents is perhaps sufficiently characterized by its first seven-column, front-page headline: 'The Language Tyranny a Violation of the Constitution." In its third number (27 June 1953) one headline parodied the slogan of the Samnorsk: "On the Basis of Norwegian Folk Deception." This introduced an article referring to Halvdan Koht as "one of those who has deceived the people." Opponents were quick to note the lavish advertising which filled Frisprog and Ordet, obviously donated by firms which could hardly hope to sell their products to the subscribers.36 Shipping interests and factory owners were investing in the language issue, presumably in the hope that the Rm publications would contribute a small but persistent needling of the Labor government. The language issue was made a part of the political struggle on behalf of "free enterprise" against government planning, a cause which figured in the platform of H0ire from the autumn of 1949.37 Riksmâlsvernet had existed since 1919 as a kind of academy for the Rm movement, when it was created to counteract the spelling of 1917 (see p. 100 above). Its chief task of preparing a Rm dictionary had proceeded slowly, as befitted an academy. The completion of this work was within sight when Riksmâlsforbundet decided to create a new academy, 216

THE TEXTBOOK NORM whose purpose would be language cultivation rather than the kind of scientific research that characterized the work o£ Riksmâlsvernet. 38 The calls for a traditional academy had remained unheeded by the authorities, as we have seen, and in 1953 it was decided to found one for Rm alone. A contributory reason may also have been the dissatisfaction of the more militant Rm supporters with the 1950 word list of Riksmâlsvernet, which remained within the framework of the 1938 spelling. 39 T h e new Norwegian Academy for Language and Literature held its constituent meeting on 13 May 1953 and elected Arnulf 0verland president, with Professor A. H. Winsnes vice-president. Its purposes were those of the conservative Rm group: "to protect the Norwegian R m and its literature . . . to work against any artificial or compulsory approach of the two language forms . . . to work for a free linguistic development . . . " Included in its statutes was the statement that "it is necessary to create a stabilizing factor in the language struggle and restore respect for our written language." It did not appear clearly just how the members were to be selected, but as the editor of Frisprog pointed out, "it is quite right . . . that the cultural élite should constitute itself . . . one cannot vote on literary, artistic, or scientific quality . . . " 40 In any case, the academy was to be self-perpetuating. Its enemies sarcastically described it as "a spiritual élite in white ties [kjolekledd] [which] wants to save the cultivated class from the threatening mob that encompasses it." 41 Besides the officers, the academy included six professors (Morgenstierne, Magnus Olsen, Leiv Amundsen, Francis Bull, L'Orange, WormMüller), two authors (Hoel, Cora Sandel), one politicianauthor (Hambro), one artist (Ragnvald Blix), one theater director (Gerda Ring), one psychiatrist (Trygve Braat0y), and one business man (Lange-Nielsen). The academy ini217

CONFLICT AND PLANNING tiated a series of publications, one of which was a normative Rm grammar by lektor Gorgus Coward, who had been one of the anonymous authors of 0verland's word list.42 In the middle of November 1953 a sensational plan was revealed in the pages of Frisprog: parents were urged to take direct action with regard to the "radical" textbooks in the hands of their children. "The Parents Demand Action!" cried a headline over an article in which it was proposed that parents write their own corrections in the text of their children's ABC's and first readers. "I will gladly go to prison," said an Oslo mother (according to Frisprog), "if in this way I can assist in putting an end to the linguistic terrorism which the authorities are inflicting on our children." 43 Another mother complained about the difficulties to which her daughter in third grade was subjected "because the school language is so far away from what she herself speaks, ordinary Rm . . . I know that my children will be ineligible to many positions if they do not master a cultured language . . . " 4 4 According to the leaders of the Parents' Action (Frisprog, 14 November), "the language politicians . . . have not only violated the parents' unquestionable moral and democratic right to determine for themselves the form of instruction they wish for their children, but they have also violated paragraph 100 of the Constitution, paragraph 66 of the Law for Rural Schools, paragraph 60 of the Law for Urban Schools, and article 26 in the international Declaration of Human Rights which the Norwegian Storting has adopted and solemnly pledged itself to observe." In succeeding issues Frisprog whipped up further enthusiasm and brought sample pages to show the parents how to correct the books, for example, by changing jorda to jorden, ei to en, glimta to glimtet, lita to liten. For guidance in their correction parents were advised to use 0verland's "blue list." In an "orientation" from T h e Par218

THE TEXTBOOK NORM ents' Action Committee the activities of the government were referred to as "a suppression of a linguistic majority group." 45 T h e chairman of the Oslo schoolboard, Olaf Solumsmoen, immediately branded the action as illegal, since only schoolbooks authorized by the Ministry could be used in the schools.46 He pointed out that the parents were free to use their legal right to choose books through parents' meetings, but that the Parents' Action had refused because they did not regard the "moderate" Bm books available as sufficiently moderate. Unfriendly newspapers variously characterized the action as "an attempt to draw the children into the language controversy" and as "a big bluff." 47 On 16 December the Oslo schoolboard voted twenty-four to sixteen to urge the Parents' Action to stop the "correction" campaign. Although the "corrections" were without legal basis, they dramatized the determination of a large number of parents to secure "moderate" textbooks. T h e issue was a thorn in the side of the school authorities, who not only wanted peaceful conditions in the schoolroom but also recognized the dangerous political implications of the conflict. Although the Oslo schoolboard voted against the "correction" campaign, it coupled this with a strong request to the LC to speed up its textbook norm, "so that the publication of books with a moderate language form can be still further hastened." 48 Two days before the threatened textbook suit by the Parents' Movement came to court (26 April 1954), an agreement was reached between the Ministry and the movement. According to the newspapers of that day, the Ministry gave the movement a "written promise that textbooks which are written completely in moderate forms will be approved. Textbooks from third grade and higher will be accepted in moderate forms, with sample selections in radical forms." While Seip explained that this only meant that the Min219

CONFLICT AND PLANNING istry would continue its current practice and the more extreme Rm supporters denounced the agreement, there can be no doubt that the Ministry had made a concession.49 The agreement formed the basis of a decision taken soon after by the Oslo schoolboard, which in effect (though not formally) repealed the famous resolution of 1939.60 The schools had been under growing pressure from the Parents' Movement to give up the "radical" prewar policy, and now the schoolboard quietly dropped it in the following words: "During the last few years more and more books have been appearing in a more 'moderate' language form than the markedly 'radical' one which since 1939 has been largely predominant in the readers and textbooks of the public schools. After the legal agreement of 26 April 1954 between the Ministry and the Parents' Movement a situation has been established in Oslo which will permit the adoption of books in whatever language form may be preferred." 51 Under these mealy-mouthed phrases was cloaked a definite retreat on the part of the Labor party from the "radical" policy of the years since 1938. This made it possible to accept H0st and Kjeldstadli's World History in a 1954 edition where forms like heim, solté, sjukdom, 0yk, sj0l, lagere were changed back to hjem, solgte, sykdom, 0k, selv, lavere, while Nn words like vanv0rte, oppfinninger, omsette, l0yve, r0rsla, and âtaket were eliminated in favor of foraktet, oppfinnelser, oversette, bevilge, bevegelsen, and angrepet.52 Oslo, which had set the pace for the country in radical Samnorsk pioneering, was from now on having only moderate books. While the Parents' Movement declared itself satisfied and decided to dissolve, the Parents' Action and with it Riksmâlsforbundet continued the struggle. Leaders like Overland, S0rensen, and Keilhau declared that the agreement with the Ministry was unacceptable. The "moderate" form 220

T H E TEXTBOOK NORM of Bm was still too radical, and they distinguished it sharply from the only language which they were willing to recognize as Riksmâl. 63 T h e Ministry continued to insist that one fifth of the material in the readers should be in "radical" forms, a type of language which outspoken R m men called "low language". 54 This more conservative group refused to recognize the spelling of 1938 and declared war on all governmental attempts to change R m in the direction of the "folk language." A sore point for many years had been the revision of literary classics in school readers. 55 This issue was hammered home again and again in the agitation of Riksmâlsforbundet these years. On this point Hans Heiberg, who otherwise was unfriendly to Ordet, agreed with the R m men: "When language-deaf teachers rewrite our classics, it is very bad." 5 6 In numerous articles bearing such headings as "Vandalism" and "Literary Falsification," the work of the Schoolbook editors was lashed. 57 Unfortunately, two distinct problems were often confused by the critics: linguistic adaptation to the intellectual level of the pupils, and linguistic modernization according to the dictates of the authorities. While both purposes were sometimes attained by the same changes, this was not always true. T h e confusion arose when changes made for the former reason were attacked as evidence of the absurdity of the latter. In 1954 the Authors' Society of 1952 announced that a lawsuit would be brought against the publishers Gyldendal and Cappelen for using passages from authors' writings without consulting them concerning the linguistic form in which the selections appeared. 58 This led to an agreement between the parties according to which the publishers agreed not to use any passage against an author's wishes, "unless the author's refusal is obviously unreasonable." 59 It was 221

CONFLICT AND PLANNING also agreed that a committee of the Author's Society of 1952 would be permitted to inspect the linguistic form of selections before publication. T h e mid-fifties were years of intense activity in Riksmâlsforbundet and its related organizations. Leading figures in the movement carried its cause to the country. In 1954 Arnulf 0 v e r l a n d barnstormed the south coast, in 1955 the north of Norway. Sigurd Hoel, who followed him as president in 1956, was also active, as was his successor of 1959, Ernst S0rensen. T h e y left behind them a trail of new R m societies in all parts of the country where supporters could be found. By 1960 it was claimed that sixty-eight new societies had been formed, to add to the ten existing at the end of the war. 60 T h e growing membership was reflected in various activities. In 1955 Ordet initiated a publication series under the heading "Language and Style," including in its first year four brochures by Keilhau, Bjerke, Hoel, and S0rensen. ei By 1960 five more had been added. Additional pamphlets of a more clearly propagandistic nature poured from the offices of Riksmálsforbundet. 6 2 A new organization was founded on 13 May 1955 in order to exert pressure on the state broadcasting system: Norsk Lytterforening (The Norwegian Listeners' Society). Its purpose was declared to be to "follow attentively the language usage of the radio and see to it that our two languages of culture, L m and Rm, are respected." 63 Carl Keilhau summed u p the arguments for R m in a 1955 article which was later spread as a propaganda brochure: R m was the most widely used form of Norwegian and was constantly spreading; it was a truly Norwegian folk language and the one which was most serviceable both within Norway and in contact with the other Scandinavian languages; the substitution of a Samnorsk language would 222

THE TEXTBOOK NORM result in linguistic impoverishment and cultural retrogression; it could only be introduced by force, against the will of the people, and was therefore superfluous. 64 T h e will of the people was said to be manifested in the signatures collected, while the consistently contrary votes by the elected representatives in the Storting were attributed to the fact that elections were decided on major economic issues, which overshadowed the language problem. T o overcome this handicap a popular referendum on the language was called for. 65 At the same time as R m was claimed to be the most widely used language, its users were said to be denied the rights of a linguistic minority, as set forth in the United Nations' declaration on human rights. All regulation by political organs was denounced as an infraction of personal freedom by incompetent politicians, at the same time as a call was made for a return to the more rigid norms of traditional Rm. While Nn was praised, the introduction of Samnorsk was claimed to be a subtle plot to destroy R m in order eventually to introduce Νη. ββ T h e force of the R m propaganda was such that the supporters of fusion found it necessary to rally popular opinion against it. On 13 May 1955, the daily newspapers of Oslo contained "An Appeal for Linguistic Cooperation" in which the propaganda of the Parents' Action was characterized as "a serious attack on the very unity of our nation \vàrt nasjonale fellesskap]." This was signed by 122 prominent persons, including artists, authors, professors, journalists, members of the Storting, justices, and union leaders. Most of them were either members of the Labor or Liberal parties or Nn men of the "radical" group. T h e appeal accused the R m men of using the errors of the textbook editors as a pretext for attacking "the whole folk-national language movement." T h e motivation for this attack was said to be an effort to "maintain a socio-linguistic barrier against 223

CONFLICT AND PLANNING great sections of the people who have won their economic and political rights in society." T h e opponents were described as having "distrust for all democratic reform work" and as being engaged in "undermining values which our people have won through a long time and a hard struggle." While the opponents were said to appeal to "a social arrogance which will make all rapprochement [tilnœrming] impossible," the signers appealed to all those who favored "the folkelig current in both languages which has gradually been leading to union." T h e words folk and folkelig were repeated several times, in usages for which it is impossible to find English equivalents. T h e appeal was made on behalf of "the folk Norwegian" elements in the language which would make it possible to attain "linguistic union on native ground." 67 T h e R m men promptly answered the appeal by "An Appeal for Linguistic Freedom," which appeared on 25 June. This one was signed by 213 prominent people, politically rather more conservative than the other group, but not exclusively so. T h e signers denied that they regarded any linguistic form as inferior or were motivated by social arrogance. Instead they accused the authorities of a policy of compulsion from which they wished to liberate the language by building on "the principle of free choice." 68 This exchange of appeals led to a lively discussion, at times degenerating into name-calling, throughout the summer of 1955. Professor Sigmund Skard (born 1903), who had written the "Appeal for Linguistic Cooperation," accused the R m men of employing "an utterly vulgar appeal to popular prejudices" against the dialects and of insincerely calling for a freedom for the few and not for the rest of the people. H e noted that the large publishers and the newspapers systematically eliminated native linguistic forms and thereby committed their own "forcible interference." 69 224

THE TEXTBOOK NORM

Another skirmish in the Rm movement's guerrilla war against state regulation was a suit initiated in 1955 to stop the government from Norwegianizing certain farm names. The leader in this fray was one Leif K. Oust, a farm owner in Baerum near Oslo, who protested against having his farm name spelled Ost instead of Oust in the telephone directory and on officiai maps. When he won his suit in the Oslo City Court in 1957, he was joined by a group of farm owners in 0stfold who also protested against respellings of their farm names. Their case was pleaded by H. Münter-Rolfsen, a prominent Rm supporter, who made the case into an issue between Rm and the language reformers in general. The governmental consultants on names, represented in court by the name specialist Per Hovda, contended that the problem had nothing to do with the language conflict.70 Hovda pointed out that for more than a century the government had been regulating the spelling of place names, and that the forms in question had been established at least as long ago as 1883-1885 as the proper Norwegian forms, based on their local pronunciation and historical origin. Since 1936 the government had had authorization from the Storting for this practice, specifically providing that the owner's protest would be heard only if he could show that the form he preferred was "nationally or historically defensible [;forsvarlig]." When the City Court supported the plaintiffs, the State appealed, but on 11 February 1961 the Supreme Court by a vote of four to one confirmed the decision of the lower court. The decision was largely based on a technicality, whereby these names were declared not to be place names (they were the names of bruk, not of the whole gârd).71 But the conservative press hailed the decision as a victory for Rm.72 It remained to be seen whether people living on farms named, for instance, Vik or Li were going to demand the right to 225

CONFLICT AND PLANNING spell them according to the erratic scribe's spellings from the Danish period commonly used as family names, in this case Vig, Viig, Wich, Wick, Wiig, Wiik, Wik, or Lid, Lie, Lied, LiidP On 3 January 1957, Aftenposten published a Gallup poll which purported to reflect popular opinion about the language problem. On the basis of this poll Sigurd Hoel concluded that four fifths of the Norwegian people supported the policies of Riksmâlsforbundet, or as he phrased it: "Approximately 4/5 of the Norwegian people are opponents of the linguistic policy which has been followed in this country for the last twenty years." 74 He was immediately contradicted by the editors of Arbeiderbladet, who contended that the questions were formulated in such a way as to encourage the answers which the R m organizations wanted. 75 T h e newspaper controversy that ensued showed better than anything else how differently the government supporters and their opponents viewed what was going on. T h e Rm men claimed that government regulation was a case of "interference [inngrep]" with the languages and therefore proposed to ask the people whether they were in favor of interference, which of course most people would not be. T h e government supporters viewed it as a case of spelling changes made to encourage the fusion of the two languages, something which most people also would naturally favor (as shown by the earlier Gallup cited above).7® T h e Norwegian Gallup Institute later claimed that in a second test-run, using questions as formulated by the opposition, the results were the same.77 One observer summed u p the divergent views by pointing out that "the issue in the language struggle is not whether there is to be interference in the written language or not; the issue is who shall make them, how often they shall occur, how extensive they shall be, and in what direction they shall move." 78 226

THE TEXTBOOK NORM NYNORSK R A L L I E S ITS FORCES:

"ACTION AGAINST

REACTION."

At the time of the creation of the LC the expansion of Nn had come to a standstill, and it soon proved impossible to keep this fact concealed. T h e newspapers began reporting plebiscites in a number of communities where Nn was voted out in favor of Bm. Statistics released in 1951 for the years 1947-1948 showed that the proportion of children with Nn as primary language in the elementary schools had shrunk from a high point of 34 percent in 1943-1944 to 31 percent in 1947-1948, while the absolute number of Nn pupils had gone down from 98,616 to 92,141. This was largely due to the growing proportion of urban children in the population, which had risen from 19.3 percent to 27.5. Within the rural communities the shrinkage of Nn was only from 41 to 40 percent. But the shrinkage was to continue, as is shown in Table 1 (Appendix 1). T h e figures for 1958-1959 showed that while the proportion of rural children had remained stable, Nn was now the primary language of only 32.3 percent of the rural children and 23.5 percent of all children. Briefly stated: in fifteen years Nn sank steadily from one third of all children to less than one fourth. Although the absolute number remained rather constant around 100,000, the proportion fell nearly one percent (0.7 percent) annually, which constituted a relative drop of three to five percent each year. Five years later the total was reduced to just over one fifth (21 percent). 79 T h e significance of this drop was not lost on the contenders in the language conflict. For one thing this was the first time, since local option was instituted, that the Nn percentage had fallen. For another thing, the loss largely canceled the growth in Eastern and Northern Norway which had been characteristic of the advance of Nn in the 1930's. In such counties as Troms, Nordland, and S0r-Tr0ndelag 227

CONFLICT AND PLANNING there was a strong trend to reconsider the votes taken (often with very small turnout) before the war. T h u s Troms rose from 5 percent N n in 1935 to 47 percent in 1943, but was down to 10 percent in 1958; for Nordland the same figures were 8 percent-31 percent-9 percent. 80 T h e law provided certain safeguards to keep schoolboards from changing at the whim of any temporary majority (decreeing, for example, that five years had to pass before a new change; that a majority of the eligible voters should favor it or a majority of those present if two thirds of the voters were present). Riksmâlsforbundet made the stimulation of new elections a primary order of business and was loud in protest if the schoolboards refused to follow the majority votes, as sometimes happened when the majority was not large enough to be binding. 8 1 Agitation grew among the R m men to change the rules of voting, although these had once been made purposely difficult in order to keep N n from being introduced. Now the shoe was on the other foot. T h e figures given above need to be tempered with other data. They do not show how many children were being taught a "radical" Bm which in some respects was close to Lm. In 1958 figures were made available by N n proponents from unpublished data in the Statistical Bureau. These figures showed that in the rural Bm communities where statistics were available about 57 percent of the children were learning "radical" Bm. In the cities the proportion of "radical" Bm was only 11.2 percent, and for the whole country 42.4 percent. 82 N n advocates also made much of the fact that more administrative units had asked for N n in their correspondence than for Bm. Oddly enough, this figure did not change very much between 1934 and 1960: while the number of communities demanding N n rose from 257 to 280, their share of the population rose only from 19.4 to 20 percent. T o be sure, the number demanding Bm fell 228

Language use in public schools: percentage of pupils learning Nynorsk, by counties, in 1931; 1945; 1957 (from Table 2). 229

CONFLICT AND PLANNING from 232 to 204, or in population percentage from 39.6 to 30.0. This was still more of the population than Nn had, but the significant fact is that the loss did not redound to the benefit of Nn, but to the neutral group, which rose from 40.7 to 50.0 percent and included such urban centers as Oslo. In view of the many complaints concerning "sabotage" of the regulations, we may safely assume that the "neutral" communities predominantly used Bm. This leaves a hard core of Nn communities with about 20 percent of the population, a figure which checks with other estimates; for instance, the previously mentioned Gallup Poll (1957), in which 20 percent of the sample said that they used Nn. Church services, which also were subject to local option, showed a lower percentage than the schools, reflecting the conservatism of ceremonial usage: in 1930 the Nn proportion was 11 percent (none in the cities); by 1953 (the latest figures) it had risen to 15 percent, including 333 parishes of the total 1,068. Another statistical indication of usage is found in the preferences of recruits, as investigated in 1950 by Chief Psychologist in the Army Vidkunn Coucheron Thrane. 8 3 He found that 23 percent of the nineteen to twenty-two-year-old recruits expressed a preference for Nn, while 64 percent favored Bm. Of the 13 percent "neutral" recruits, five eighths claimed that Bm was easiest for them to use. He also reported that only 22 percent of the recruits chose the Nn version of a psychological test given them. Taking the population as a whole, then, we may estimate that the maximum percentage of Nn users around 1960 was about one fifth of the Norwegian people. Most of these lived in the picturesque parts of Norway, where living was hard and the population scattered. They occupied a continuous rural area in Western and Midland Norway which had its intensity center in the Sogn region. T h e four western counties (M0re-Romsdal, Sogn-Fjordane, Hordaland, Roga230

THE TEXTBOOK NORM land) were the only ones where a majority of the children were learning Nn. The language was also strong (22-49 percent) in the adjacent counties of Nord and S0r Tr0ndelag, Oppland, Telemark, Aust and Vest Agder. Geographically these areas included a major part of Norway and were often so presented on maps prepared by the Nn propagandists, who disregarded the fact that most of this area consisted of unpopulated wastelands. In the cultural and official life of the nation Nn was far less strongly represented. Its legalized equality was most conspicuous in such officially regulated areas as the schoolbooks and official documents, but even here the Nn supporters felt themselves to be strongly discriminated against. Ivar Eskeland called it a "disgrace for Norwegian democracy" that pupils could not get Nn textbooks in all subjects and at the same price as Bm.84 As we have seen, all readers contained a specified minimum of Nn selections, so that all children had to learn to read it. A much less popular requirement was the compulsory examination (in the form of an essay) in the "other" language for the university entrance examination. Even Samnorsk man Trygve Bull favored repealing it, and in 1957 publisher Henrik Groth attacked it as a superfluous burden on the prospective university students. 85 Nn supporters like Sigmund Skard and journalist Anton Beinset spoke out vehemently against this idea; to them the teaching of Nn in the secondary schools was essential to the purposes of Norwegianization. Skard asked: "Where shall Bm get its Norwegian infusion [¿iiiig] if not even the pupils at our highest schools of general education get proper instruction in Nn?" 88 In that part of cultural life which depended on private enterprise, the position of Nn was extremely weak. All daily newspapers and all the popular weeklies were edited in Bm, though many of them accepted a modest number of Nn 231

CONFLICT AND PLANNING contributions. In Western and Midland Norway there was a considerable local weekly press in Nn. In Oslo there was a Nn weekly (Norsk Tidend) and in Bergen a tri-weekly (Gula Tidend), neither of which enjoyed a large circulation. T h e most distinguished Nn periodical was the cultural magazine Syn og Segn, with a consistently high level of contributions. Like Det norske Teatret in Oslo, it enjoyed a succès d'estime without precisely producing any mass conversions. The figures for published books were a good deal lower than those for the school population. Here there was some disagreement on exactly how great the percentage was. In an investigation of the book catalogue for 1952 Chief Librarian Henrik Hjart0y found that 3 percent of the 2,026 titles were Nn. 87 This figure was widely used by the Rm propagandists, especially Sigurd Hoel, who was attacked for doing so. His critics pointed out that these figures were due largely to the anti-Nn policy of the big publishers, who rejected N n manuscripts and corrected Bm ones to a more conservative form. "It could not be demonstrated more clearly that it is still 'the cultivated class' that has the power and the advantages in Norwegian cultural life." 88 Hjart0y pointed out, however, that the publishers were interested in sales and would use whatever language the people wanted. Kringkastingsringen made a survey of the books published from 1946 to 1955, conducted by librarian Kaare Haukaas. This survey showed a much higher percentage of Nn, viz., an average of 11.9 percent of all books printed during the decade. It must be noted, however, that this figure included books printed in dialect, and that no information was given as to the kind of Nn used. On the other hand, he made a sampling of the Bm books, which showed that (contrary to Riksmâlsforbundets propaganda) only a small percentage of the Bm books were written in a language as conservative 232

THE TEXTBOOK NORM as that of 0verland's blue list. One important and interesting fact brought out by Haukaas' list was that the percentage of Nn in original Norwegian works was a good deal higher than in translated ones, though still a small percentage: 14.6 versus 2.4.89 A separate study by Lm supporters of original novels, poems, and children's books showed 17 percent Nn in 1953 and 20 percent in 1958.90 T h e implications of these figures were much discussed, but it is obvious that the popular preference on a mass level was overwhelmingly in favor of Bm. One thoughtful Ν η supporter attributed this, no doubt correctly, to "the transformation of society which has been speeded u p since the war," in short its urbanization. 91 T h a t Nn still had solid and vocal support could be gauged by the violent reaction to an article entitled "Nynorsk is Dying," by a school principal named Asbj0rn Sasteren. He described himself as having once spoken a rural dialect and having written Nn in school; but at the age of twenty he had realized that the language was an inadequate instrument and so he had changed over to Bm. He could now observe how his students were struggling with the Nn language. His conclusion was that "the presuppositions for the Nn movement are no longer present . . . T h e younger generation has no passion for the language cause [mâlstrevet]." Nine different Nn writers, mostly school teachers, but including also one author and one literary critic, wrote angry denunciations of their colleague, calling him a "renegade" and implying that he had really changed language for reasons of social and professional advancement. T h e controversy was interesting chiefly for the way it brought out the socioethical question involved: the retention of dialect and the use of Nn had become a moral cause for many, a weapon in a struggle for the preservation of personal identity against the powerful influences of urban acculturation. T h e au233

CONFLICT AND PLANNING thor's rebuttal included a defence of the urban-official culture: "Even if it is of foreign origin, it has become the bearer of so important a tradition that we would be the poorer for throwing it away." 92 The situation of Nn during these years caused widespread concern among the leaders of the movement. 93 In 1954 Noregs Màllag issued a handbook in propaganda techniques written by its traveling secretary, Eirik Steinnes, entitled "Language Movement and Language Conflict." This contained a clear admission of the weak position of many local Nn societies and the indifference among many of their members. It appealed strongly to members to see to it "that we do not lose again what we won by means of few votes in places where most people were indifferent." 94 Great emphasis was placed on the results that one or a few really enthusiastic workers could accomplish by personal contacts, by infiltration in other groups, by their personal example in constant use of Nn, by cultivating the language in small groups, and by buying not only Nn books and periodicals but also other merchandise from merchants who were known to favor Nn. 95 The official membership in 1955 was 12,629, in 224 affiliated societies.96 A serious disagreement existed within the movement itself concerning the stand that should be taken toward the strong fusionist trend of the times. As we have seen earlier, the W N group tended to oppose it, wishing to retain the classical Aasen-Haegstad form as purely as possible. This group succeeded in winning domination of Noregs Mâllag at the first annual meeting after the establishment of the LC, the meeting of 1952. A resolution protesting in advance any changes that might be made in Nn was passed, and the previous president, Asbj0rn 0verás, was defeated for reelection by the conservative Professor of Law Knut Robberstad (fifty-eight to forty-eight).97 An attempt three years 234

T H E TEXTBOOK NORM later to unseat Robberstad was made under the leadership of Sigmund Skard. H e warned his fellow partisans that "the Parents' Action is a greater danger than anyone thinks . . . T h e plebiscites in the school districts show frightening figures." 9 8 Skard challenged the leadership of Noregs Màilag to adopt "modern methods of propaganda." " W e know," he said, "the arguments that once prevailed; but what shall we say to the young people who whiz through our valleys on motorcycles, who read The Reader's Digest and devour [kastar seg over] Duke Ellington's records?" T h e s e were the people who in a few years would be voting as parents on the language in the public schools. Skard, himself a distinguished scholar and N n poet, favored the fusionist approach, which meant relinquishing the hope of making N n the "sole national language." " O u r task," he said, "is to make sure that the language material represented by Ν η wins as large a place as possible in the future Samnorsk." 9 9 T h e warning issued by Skard did not remain unheeded. One countermove to the intense R m propaganda was the formation of Kringkastingsringen ( T h e Broadcasting Circle) in the autumn of 1955. T h i s group was a challenge to the Norsk Lytterforening organized earlier in the same year. In its first brochure Kringkastingsringen attacked the "discrimination" shown N n in the state radio programs, which included a mere 15 percent in that language. T h e major purpose of the new society would be to "help the N n language gain its rightful place in the programs of the Norwegian broadcasting system." 100 T h e leaders were typically of the younger guard, and on 1 December they chose one of their own as the first president, the linguist Magne Oftedal (born 1921), later professor at the University of Oslo. Even before it had been organized, it became a target of attack within the movement by some of the conservatives. 101 But its lively and informative brochures were spread widely and 235

CONFLICT AND PLANNING probably helped to buttress the position of Nn in the years to come. Among the activities encouraged was the recording of Nn songs. At its first annual meeting in December 1956 the circle could report 9,400 paying members; three years later it had reached 12,000 or 2,000 more than its Rm rival. It could also report that the Nn percentage in radio programs had risen to 17.2.102 At the 1956 annual meeting of Noregs Mâllag a renewed effort to unseat the conservative faction failed by 163 to 122.103 At this time the organization claimed 290 local societies, with 14,868 members. A year later the latter figure had grown to 15,690, but as late as 1961 the membership was still no more than 16,308, in 286 local societies.104 In 1957 the "radical" faction put u p as its candidate for president Hartvig Kiran (born 1911), a well-known radio commentator. Kiran contended that it was necessary to meet the Parents' Action with a strong counterpropaganda on its own terms. His slogan was "Action against Reaction," and in a brochure with this title he fired a lively barrage against the Rm supporters and their arguments. 105 On this platform he won the election over his opponent from the conservative faction, Ivar Eskeland (born 1927), by a vote of 180 to 139. Kiran remained president for only one year, however, before he withdrew, and Professor Magne Skodvin, also a "radical," held it for one year. In 1959 Ivar Eskeland was elected, which could be considered a conservative victory, except that Eskeland was widely regarded as a moderate, acceptable to both factions. T h e movement which for so long had been dominated by its elder statesmen was now in the hands of a younger generation for whom the problems were in many respects different from what they had been earlier. They had to face the fact that Nn could never hope to become "the only national language"; at most it 236

THE TEXTBOOK NORM could hope to influence crucially the form of its rival in the future shaping of a new national language. THE LANGUAGE COMMISSION PREPARES A NORM

In its letter to the LC of 30 April 1952, the Ministry had urged that a textbook norm (lœreboknormal) be prepared as quickly as possible, in order to avoid the needless expenses connected with parallel editions within each of the accepted language norms. 108 T h e LC was faced with the same conflicting goals as the Spelling Committee of 1934: to reduce the number of optional forms and at the same time to promote fusion by introducing new ones. Its mandate did not permit it to go beyond the spelling of 1938, though it was early decided that modifications could be suggested "when existing rules have led to difficulties or inconsistencies." Most of the work therefore became a re-evaluation of the optional forms from 1938, downgrading or upgrading them according to the experiences gained in the intervening years. T h e system and the framework were the same as those of 1938, but the evaluation of individual forms might be quite different. T h e motivations for change from 1938 were stated to be "the desire for pedagogical simplification [lettelser]," or "consideration for the harmony [sammenheng] between words and inflections," or "the wide distribution of certain speech forms throughout the country." 107 T h e method adopted in undertaking this revision was described as follows in the first annual reports: "Words with two or more permissible spellings in one or both languages have been selected from the spelling list of 1938 and other sources . . . T h e secretaries have then gathered as much material as possible about the forms of these words in the dialects, from the collections of the Norwegian Dialect Archives and Norsk Ordbok . . . Lists have been made 237

CONFLICT AND PLANNING of all the proposals made by earlier spelling committees. T h e material has then been turned over to the chairman and the vice-chairman who have supplemented it and made proposals to the working committee and later to the LC." 108 T h e dependence on the spelling lists of 1938 proved to be somewhat unfortunate, as words began turning up which had been overlooked in them. Alf Hellevik (vice-chairman 1952-1953, chairman 1953-1954) later expressed regret that a fresh start had not been made with a complete list of words.109 Characteristically, the mandate norsk folkemáls grunn led the LC to begin by making studies of the rural dialects, even preparing dialect maps of certain previously uncharted phenomena. Some members (for instance, Kolsrud) called from the beginning for more extensive sampling of the literature and a study of the pedagogical problems involved in teaching the 1938 spelling.110 T h e failure of the LC to do more with these aspects of the problem became one of the chief targets of its critics when the textbook norm (hereafter to be referred to as T N ) was completed. T h e optimism which had led members to make confident predictions that the T N would be ready in a year soon gave way to a realization that this was a slow, gruelling task.111 It was agreed at the start that while problems would be discussed by both sections, only the section in charge of each language would vote on problems relating specifically to that language. It is clear that any committee which is subject to personnel changes and works with a problem over a long period of time, will find it extremely difficult to maintain any kind of theoretical consistency. T h e variety of principles mentioned above made it possible to argue now on one basis, now on another, and the shifting winds of opinion inside and outside the committee were thereby reflected. Many of the decisions were made by split vote, sometimes by very narrow margins: the working committee de238

T H E T E X T B O O K NORM cided on 25 February 1955 to write words like neurosis and euphemism with eu (to agree with international usage); on 12 April 1956 they changed their minds and decided on ev (to agree with Norwegian pronunciation); in April 1957 the LC voted fifteen to fourteen that it should be ev; but at its meeting in December 1958 this was reconsidered and by the same vote eu was made optional. 112 A more significant decision was made by an eight to seven majority in April 1957 when Bm admitted the Nn -i as an optional form in strong perfect participles (as in funni 'found', beside traditional fiinnet).113 This was reversed in December 1958 when the LC voted eleven to four to eliminate it.114 One can understand why Professor Skard at one meeting warned the LC "not to apply one principle in one half hour and another in the next." 115 It gradually became evident that the Bm members were reluctant to make any radical moves in the direction of fusion. In 1955 the author Bang-Hansen even proposed that all obligation to use the feminine gender in Bm should be abolished; he believed that the conservative opposition would be pacified if the feminine gender were made optional. 116 Hellevik, as leader of the N n section, retorted that he had never in this commission expected to be faced with a proposal which broke so radically with the principles of the 1938 spelling and of the LC. "If the feminine is not accepted in Bm, the Nn people will feel that they have been made fools of, and the battle may flare up once more." 117 Bang-Hansen's proposal was not accepted; but one by Trygve Bull, which was accepted, still did not go as far as the Nn section wished. It permitted the traditional article -en to be used "for stylistic reasons" even with words which normally were obligatory feminines. 118 The disappointment of the Nn section festered until its majority found it necessary to append a special section to the committee report, in 239

CONFLICT AND PLANNING which they declared: "The approach between the languages must not be made in such a way that it seems as if only one language adapts itself. T h e position of Bm has made our work with Nn more difficult." 119 As we have seen, a vigorous discussion was going on in the press during all this time concerning the linguistic problems which the LC faced. T h e discussion within the LC was, generally speaking, kept out of the press, but now and then members of the LC also contributed to newspaper controversies. Trygve Bull became the most vocal spokesman of the mediating, Labor party point of view which had brought about the LC. He wrote, for example, in 1953 that he was "convinced that the Rm people — aside from some fanatics — can await the results with the greatest composure. It is not our task to 'create a new Samnorsk language,' but as quickly as possible to weed out artificial and tasteless forms from the textbooks in use." 120 Another sign of the times was a conciliatory article by Torolf Elster, political commentator in Arbeiderbladet, in which he granted that the opposition had "helped to open our eyes to the danger of mechanical language reforms and schematic [firkantet] teaching of Norwegian." He granted that "the mandate for the LC was badly formulated" and that its task "must not be to decide how the language is to develop, but merely to see to it that there is agreement between the natural linguistic development and the language that children learn in school." Turning to his own party, he said: " T o those who today are responsible for Norwegian language policy, I would say: Make it quite clear that you do not wish to force any particular linguistic development. Admit willingly that errors have been made, and that some things must be undone." 121 A Venstre point of view was expressed by Ragnar Void, political writer for Dagb ladet, who deplored the effect of the 240

THE TEXTBOOK NORM Rm agitation on Norwegian style. In the generation after 1905, he maintained, "there was a will to write a more genuine and a more expressive Norwegian"; "on the average a better and livelier Norwegian was written in the newspapers and elsewhere 20 years ago than now." Words like h0ve 'opportunity' and d0yve 'soften, dampen' were then used by Bm authors, but were now being branded by "the paper for upper-class parents" as inappropriate in Bm. "These expressions may not be customary at Teaterkafeen [in Oslo], but a language for the whole country ought to have in it the sea and the mountains and the eastern countryside [flatbygdene] as well." 122 Another Dagbladet writer, Anton Beinset, declared that "Samnorsk has met so much opposition that many Samnorsk supporters have become defeatists." 123 A well-known lawyer, Magne Schj0dt (born 1886), wrote a lively series of articles in his own private brand of Samnorsk under the title "When is Samnorsk coming?" He demanded a more radical policy than the LC appeared willing to follow: let us make the few changes needed in Nn to make a Samnorsk out of it, he declared, and then adopt it as the sole language of the country! He compared the moderate Rm people to the man who asked the veterinary to cut off only a little piece of his dog's tail at a time so it wouldn't hurt the dog so badly. 124 A 1956 interview with Alf Hellevik, Nn chairman of the LC, revealed that in his view the new T N was going to contain "too much freedom of choice." "I am afraid that many will think the mountain has brought forth a mouse," he is reported to have said. "It is absolutely wrong to depict the LC as a one-sidedly radical organ. There is more danger that the conservatives in the commission will decide the issue when one is trying to secure agreement on difficult, contested problems." He Avas also of the opinion that "conservative pressure groups have had greater influence on the 241

CONFLICT AND PLANNING work of the commission than is reasonable." 125 Dagbladet was shocked: "It is deplorable that the reactionary forces which oppose Norwegianization have succeeded in frightening an assembly of highly qualified language people out of balance." 126 In 1957 Hellevik repeated his regrets over the modest changes made, pointing out that "the normalization is thereby to a great extent left to the publishers and other private parties." 127 It was significant that in 1957 the lone politically conservative member of the LC, Edvard Stang, expressed himself as impressed by its work. H e had agreed to join the LC "in order to safeguard the interests of the minority." Although as a member of the Storting he had voted against it, as has been noted earlier, he now found that "the thorough, scientific language discussion in the LC has a very beneficent effect on the members themselves: they modify their bone-hard, dogmatic views." 128 On 22 January 1958, a proposal for a new T N was released to the press and the general public in the form of a 140page book in large, two-column format. 129 This followed the pattern of previous orthographic proposals, though it was bulkier and more detailed than any that had preceded it. After a historical introduction explaining the background of its work, the proposal proceeded to take u p the linguistic points at issue. They were gathered under the general headings of Lydverket (the phonology) and B0yningsverket (the morphology). Among the appendices were minority reports: (1) from the conservative N n members Professors Kolsrud and Per Thorson (born 1899) rejecting the N n proposal entirely (they later resigned from the LC); (2) from the N n section (referred to above) expressing regret at the restraint of the Bm section, which had left Bm practically at status quo, while N n had adapted itself more extensively; (3) from the Bm member Professor Mikjel S0rlie, supported by Laura Hordvik, protesting the excessive use of folk forms 242

T H E TEXTBOOK NORM (especially feminines) in Bm, based (in his opinion) on inadequate information concerning their use in literature and their pedagogical difficulty; and (4) from Trygve Bull expressing some personal ideas. T h e Cabinet approved the proposal on 28 February and sent it to the Storting whose Committee on Church and Education reported it back in June. But it was not debated on the floor of the Storting until 6 and 7 October. T h e L C could hardly complain about lack of public interest in its work, as represented by newspaper publicity and parliamentary debate, much of the latter being broadcast to the nation. In the meantime private persons and organizations interested in the language problem pored over the report and picked what flaws they could. T h e Bm organizations (six of them by this time: Riksmâlsvernet, the Academy, Riksmâlsforbundet, the Authors' Society of 1952, the Parents' Action, and the Norwegian Listeners' Society) pooled their critiques in a forty-four-page printed pamphlet of the same format as the proposal. 130 There were also numerous critiques from the Nn side, including a minority report from the directors of Noregs Mállag. T h e LC took notice of the criticism to the extent that its working committee prepared a printed answer. 131 All this was before the Storting when the proposal came up for a debate which lasted twelve hours and forty-five minutes, distributed over three sessions, filling 100 pages of the printed proceedings. 132 Thirty-nine of the 144 members present participated, 18 for the T N , 5 in favor of it with revisions, and 16 against. T h e result, however, was once more a foregone conclusion. H0ire voted solidly against it, but was joined by only two members of the other parties (Solberg and Wikborg of the Christian Peoples' party), making a total of 31 against 114. A proposal from conservative Nn representatives for revision won only 19 votes. After the Storting approval the LC 243

CONFLICT AND PLANNING took u p the various critical remarks that had been made concerning specific points in the proposal and made a number of changes at a final meeting on 1 and 2 December. T h e changes were nearly all in a "moderate" direction, eliminating some of the fusion forms. 133 In this form the proposal went to the Ministry, which ordered it adopted in the schools beginning with the fall of 1959. THE NATURE OF THE NEW NORM

A listing of the changes made by the LC would be pointless here, since for the most part they consisted of adjustments involving single words and their status within the norms of the two languages. There is no great principle running through the norm, and indeed there was not intended to be any, since the LC specifically disclaimed that this was a new orthography. The enthusiasm for simpler or more phonetic spellings had long since run its course and a new respect for orthographic tradition had made itself felt: "When a spelling rule has many exceptions, it is important that both languages have the same exceptions, so that a common written image may be established." 134 T h e only rather startling innovations that Rm users were treated to were the loss of traditional silent h before ν in the words valp 'puppy', veps 'wasp', virvel 'whirl', and verken 'neither', and the doubling of consonants in words like blokkere 'blockade', plassere 'place', and kapittel 'chapter'. Nn was at length persuaded to give up its silent g before the j's of jente 'girl' and s0lje 'brooch' and its cl after r in words like skar 'cleft' and ur 'talus', but not in words which preserved these luxuries in both languages. A few foreign words were nativized, but others such as 'bridge' (the game) were not; the word for 'charm' could be written either way: charme or sjarm. The real shibboleths of the language controversy, the 244

THE TEXTBOOK NORM complete word forms infused from the other language, were also handled with circumspection. Greater elasticity was shown in admitting side forms in what was called "stylistically appropriate contexts." Many problems were solved (or evaded?) by admitting one (Norwegian) form of a word for concrete, literal meanings, another (Danish) for transferred, metaphorical meanings, as in daud 'dead' (of animals), d0d (of people). T h e number of words in which diphthongs, feminine articles, and preterites in -a were required was severely reduced; but they were in effect permitted wherever Nn had them. The result was, for example, that in Bm sein 'late' was required (excluding sen); beisk 'bitter' was alternative with besk; eid 'oath' was optional in pupils' work only (while ed was required elsewhere); and ein 'one' was not permitted at all (for en). Yet historically all of these had diphthongs in Norwegian dialects and in Nn, as against monophthongs in Rm speech and Dano-Norwegian writing. T h e feminine articles were regulated by rather generous but complicated rules, for example, that concrete terms (such as sol 'sun') should be feminine, while abstracts (such as sjel 'soul') were optionally feminine or masculine, with many exceptions in both directions. The corresponding neuter plural article in -a was sharply cut back (from forty nouns to sixteen obligatory nouns) and entirely eliminated for words like epie 'apple'. T h e hardest of all forms, the weak preterite in -a, for Rm -et, was also handled somewhat more diplomatically. Its importance may be gauged by the statement of the LC in its proposal: "It is no exaggeration to say that the idea that our two written languages shall enter into a higher unity stands and falls with the possibility of Bm's accepting this form." 135 An attempt by the Committee of 1938 to evade the issue by adopting a W N form in -te for many of these was rejected (as in forms like danste 'danced', hopte 245

CONFLICT AND PLANNING 'jumped'). Instead, the two competing suffixes were made optional in all verbs belonging to this class, and it was merely recommended that "pupils should become familiar with the α-inflection . . . by encountering it in their readers, in which a reasonable proportion of texts with 'radical' forms should be maintained." While the goal still remained the eventual introduction of -a into Bm, there was an actual Tetreat in enforcing its use. In the perfect participle the ""Danish" form in -ede for plural (and definite singular) was even made the main form: lappede klœr 'patched clothes' (for either lappet e or lappa). Options still abounded: in one case the preterite could have as many as four forms, namely, lova, lovet, lovde, and lovte 'promised'. In Nn the changes consisted in large part of upgrading Bm forms which were also widespread EN dialect forms, making them either optional (henries 'hers', annen 'other' beside hennar, annan), alternative (-e in the infinitive for -a), or obligatory (-te for -de in the preterite of verbs like kvile 'rest', lœre 'learn'). A considerable effort was made to encourage EN forms with double consonants, where W N single consonants had been the rule, as in gammal 'old', n0tt 'nut', kj0kken 'kitchen', venn 'friend'. A n attempt to eliminate the difference between Nn o and Bm à by introducing the latter into Nn in words like drope 'drop' and tola 'endure' failed; but by a narrow vote the participial suffixes -i and -e (in strong verbs) were made alternative. T h e chief innovation in the T N was its concern about the problem of style and its recognition of the fact that many of the differences between the two written forms of Norwegian were entangled with differences of social and linguistic «context.130 Unfortunately, no serious study of the problem was made, in spite of the many references to it in the report. A requirement was established that in any reader one fourth of the material had to be in the "other" language, and that 246

THE TEXTBOOK NORM an additional one fifth had to be in the "radical" form of the main language. It was agreed, however, that at least the ABC's should be composed in a uniform linguistic form of only one language, if only for pedagogic reasons. T h e older pupils were to be exposed to a variety of forms in order to accustom them to seeing the more unusual ones in print. T h e many minor adjustments in the norm tended in the direction of traditional forms, so that the main tenor of the norm was not so much to promote fusion as to establish the status quo. Nn members felt they had yielded more than their counterparts. Teachers and pupils alike were still left with many conundrums. As the L C put it, the T N represented "what could be obtained at this time." 137 Even if all its optional or obligatory fusion forms should prevail, there were still problems ahead, such as the B m / N n differences in plurals (-er/-ar), the present forms of strong verbs (kommer/kjem), the pronouns (jeg/eg T , de/dei 'they', dere/dykk 'you' plural, hun/ho 'she'), the negative ([ikke/ ikkje), and the use of the possessive in -s. No one could predict what would happen, but it looked as if fusion was marking time. No one was ready to put into effect Trygve Bull's pipe dream of a unified textbook norm as a master plan for the future, in which Bm and Nn would be regarded as "optional main forms." 138 RECEPTION

AND

INTRODUCTION

T h e newspaper reception of the T N was politically determined, as might be expected. Morgenbladet's headline ran: " T h e T N Adds to the Confusion"; Arbeiderbladet's was: " T h e New T N an Important Step toward Bringing the T w o Languages Together." 139 Seip expressed the hope that "we might be spared an angry [hissig], intemperate [usaklig] discussion." 140 Einar Christensen wrote in Dagbladet that the T N was "no linguistic revolution," and would 247

CONFLICT AND PLANNING hardly "lead to linguistic peace," but he hoped that "it might become the basis of a temperate [saklig] discussion among people who have a real influence on the linguistic development in Norway." 141 In spite of these admonitions there were a good many angry words from its critics: Niels Chr. Br0gger in Morgenbladet on 27 January 1958, who called it "a new contribution to our linguistic chaos." Leif Wasrenskjold wrote under the heading "This has Cost a Million Kroner": "Now we know what Samnorsk is. It is a calf with two heads, which tries to go in both directions." 142 In Aftenposten Anders Gurholt declaimed against "a socialized language": "No and again no! We neither must nor will submit to having the written language socialized and run by the state." 143 Unge H0ire blithely described it as "a monument among the cultural treacheries spawned by officialdom since the war." 144 The weightier criticisms advanced by the R m organizations in their Kritikk were not so much directed at the T N itself, as at "the whole official language policy in recent years" (Borgstr0m). Linguists like C. Hj. Borgstr0m (born 1909) and Ingerid Dal (born 1895) scored the scientific inadequacy and lack of pertinence of the linguistic materials used by the LC. They emphasized the position of Rm as "a relatively firm norm on which there was extensive agreement and which therefore was well suited as the basis of a written language" (Borgstr0m). They deplored the attempts of planners to create a "synthetic language," and "to amalgamate two essentially different language forms" (Dal). Other specialists in language and literature regretted the lack of respect shown for "Rm as a language with deep roots in living speech and a strong literary tradition"; the dissolution of its written norm, a dissolution which "in large part has produced the linguistic insecurity and prevailing incompetence which is characteristic of both the oral and 248

THE TEXTBOOK NORM written use of our mother tongue"; and the danger which constant alteration of the norm represented "to the creative cultural work and spiritual culture of the whole people." 145 The attacks from Nn quarters took much the same shape.146 Most of them supported and amplified the criticisms leveled by the two dissenting members of the LC, Professors Kolsrud and Thorson: the proposal, they said, was "a loosely built written norm with so many exceptions and side forms that it could not but create great difficulties for Nn in the schools. In addition it shows too little respect for Nn literary tradition." 147 Severin Eskeland wrote that "the proposal obviously has as its purpose to tear apart and dissolve the Norwegian written language." 148 T h e only group on the Nn side that prepared a favorable critique was the Student Màllag, which objected only to the gentleness with which Bm had been treated. By this time the majority in Noregs Mâllag also took this position, but a minority group found it necessary to issue a warning. 149 In a reply to their critics entitled Svar pà kritikk the working committee of the LC defined and clarified their position in terms that were in part new in the linguistic discussion: 1) They emphasized the distinction between linguistic science and linguistic normalization, calling the latter a practical activity which was neither scientific nor unscientific, but "ascientific." While normalization had to be based on scientific observation, it was not scientific, but evaluative: "Normalization in itself can not be a science, and pure science can not normalize." 2) The much criticized term norsk folkemàl was given a new definition as "the usual spoken language in city and country in distinction from written language and a normalized spoken language [normaltalemàl] which is closely bound [knytt] to it." 150 T h e nature of this relationship 249

CONFLICT AND PLANNING was defined as one of its being "normalized according to the written language," which of course was the exact opposite of the Rm view, that the written Rra was based on the spoken form. In the view here launched by the LC, spoken Nn and Bm became parallel "normalized" languages, the only difference being the greater age, distribution, and prestige of the latter. 3) A further subtlety was introduced by an interpretation of the mandate of the LC (tilnœrming pà norsk folkemâls grunn) as not requiring a forced fusion of the languages, but only that when fusion does take place, it must be on the basis of those forms "that have the best foundation in the folk language, the dialects in town and country." 151 4) The LC defended their choice of evidence drawn from literature and the press. The purpose of these had not been to give a picture of present-day usage, but to show which forms were acceptable to at least some Bm writers. The LC rejected the charges that linguistic change cut Norway's growing youth off from their classical literature: since the future Norwegian language would have to lie between Rm and Lm, it could not be as far from either of these as these are from each other, and in any case no farther than, for instance, Danish and English classics are from their present-day readers. T h e argument that a linguistic structure cannot be altered was invalidated, they felt, by the evidence of the Norwegianization of Bm over the past century. In an appendix the LC discussed the problem of word choice in Nn, which had not been a part of the T N or any previous spelling reform, though it had been discussed by many critics. The LC indicated that it was inclined to favor "an expanded vocabulary in Nn and a more liberal view of word selection," which in effect meant that many of the Dano-German words which had long been proscribed in 250

T H E TEXTBOOK NORM Nn were going to be admitted, thereby breaking another of the barriers between Bm and Nn. Seip, who had been member and chairman of the LC, but who had not participated in the final decisions concerning the T N , made his critical comments in a book entitled "Current Problems in Norwegian Language Development." 1 5 2 Seip, who in his youth had been an advocate of fusion, was now skeptical concerning the introduction of Nn forms into Bm. He pointed out the many problems involved in bringing the feminines and the -a of the weak verbs into Bm. His main point of view was that freedom of choice should be maintained and normalization left to the future. In the Storting debate Birger Bergersen, currently the Minister of Church and Education, urged approval of the T N , basing himself on arguments furnished him by the L C itself. Like them he defined "folk language" as "those forms of Norwegian speech which do not have any written language as a model for correct expression." 1 5 3 He described the term as "a translation loan of the German Volkssprache corresponding rather exactly to the English 'sub-standard language.' " "This includes therefore not only the 'rootNorwegian' elements, but also, for instance, the many loanwords from Danish and German to the extent that they have made their way into the speech of the people." But a standard language needs additions not just from folk speech, but also from foreign languages. "These additions the standard languages secure on their own; the loans have little or nothing to do with the approach of the languages to one another, which above all pertains to orthography and morphology." He also defined the work of the L C as not being that of creating an artificial Samnorsk, "or to force a rapprochement in an unnatural tempo, but to ease the path for those who in their practical language cultivation wish 251

CONFLICT AND PLANNING to try to work their way toward a single Norwegian written language." 154 A reply by Borgstr0m to the LC raised questions which in general had been bypassed by those who wished an early amalgamation of the two written languages. Borgstr0m pointed out that the LC had not expressly stated whether in their opinion the "normalized speech form" of Rm was to be regarded as Norwegian speech, and he denied that the spelling reforms of 1907 and 1917 were based on "Norwegian folk speech" if this term (as suggested by the LC) excluded Rm. 155 He also criticized the "lack of understanding of what an unbroken tradition means for a language of culture," "an idea which is so far from the LC that it does not even seem to have been mentioned." 156 In the Storting debate one of the supporters of the LC picked up the implication that "cultivated speech in Rm is not part of the concept of 'folk language.' " Representative Garbo of the Labor party pointed out that city speakers like himself were often "bilingual in the sense that we have learned one language form in our homes, and we have learned another, more dialectal form in the company of our playmates in the streets." He expressed resentment at the idea "that while the language which we used among our playmates is being regarded as a worthy 'folk language,' the speech we learned from our mothers in our homes is not being accepted in Rm as a part of the living Norwegian folk language." 157 In spite of this he voted for the T N . One reason for this may have been a resolution from Oslo Rm Society printed in Aftenposten 4 October, two days before the debate. In this curious document certain Oslo parents threatened to start parallel classes in "pure" Rm, because they knew "that if their children were going to secure good positions in business and industry [nœringslivet] they 252

THE TEXTBOOK NORM would have to learn to master a natural and adaptable [ledig] language of culture, that is, Riksmâl." 158 This was quoted by the first speaker in the Storting, who held it up as an example of the cultural snobbery that regarded "the cultural life of our people as being confined to directors and managers [disponenter] and good jobs in business." Even Rm supporters in the Storting disavowed the resolution as a faux pas [tabbe], while Labor representatives like Hegna insinuated that these words "inadvertently expressed their innermost conviction." 159 In general the debate offered no more than a thorough airing of familiar arguments. One representative (Versto, of Venstre) made much of the "cold, stupid sneer [flir]" with which speakers of dialect were met by so-called "cultivated people," while L0nning (H0ire) deplored the opposite tendency to "an antisnobbish snobbery" which made it fashionable to deride culture and cultivation. 160 Storeide, a Nn speaker, pointed out that no one could call Norway linguistically divided in the same sense as were Finland, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, and many other countries. "We are in the happy situation that we can achieve linguistic unity on the day we ourselves wish to do so." He granted that personally he could switch over to Bm at any moment he wished, and if he did not do so, it was because he felt himself "bound by social and national obligations." "Our problem is . . . the fact that we have two official language forms which both lie a little distance away from the root they should stand upon: Norwegian speech. Both have dug their claws down into their literary monuments, and each represents in its own way a form of national and social snobbery." 161 Hegna, a R m user, expressed the problem in his own very personal way: "Anyone who is Norwegian all the way through bears the language conflict within him253

CONFLICT AND PLANNING self and has a problem with the language whenever he has anything to say or write." 102 Trygve Bull as one of the two most frequent contributors to the debate (seven speeches, the same n u m b e r as his schoolmaster colleague of the opposition, L0nning), illustrated this duality only too well. H e granted that his own R m was of a distinctly old-fashioned variety, b u t in spite of this his socialistic doctrines required him to work for a language that would be widely different from the Norwegian he himself found natural. H e objected strongly to those who regarded their (and his) R m as "the only cultivated and the only correct language," but he objected equally to the national romanticism which had characterized the supporters of Nn down to the present. 163 H e believed that the spelling of 1938 had gone too far toward fusion, and he had therefore advocated only a "moderate" step forward, with the idea that the inability of pupils to keep the languages apart would inevitably result in further interpénétration. In the long run, he believed, the Norwegian of the f u t u r e would be closer to R m than to Nn. H e hoped for one language with many variations, like the ancient Greek in which lyrics were written in Aeolic, drama in Doric, and epics in Ionic. 164 As stated earlier, the proposal as accepted by the Storting was revised by the LC and in this form promulgated by the Cabinet on 3 April as official policy. O n 24 April 1959 the Ministry issued a brochure listing the changes made from the 1938 spelling, entitled Ny lœreboknormal 1959.1βΒ O n this basis publishers immediately began work on word lists for the general public; a plan once entertained of having the LC issue its own dictionary was abandoned. Instead, a flood of lists appeared, more or less extensive according to the audience intended. 1 6 6 T h e most ambitious of these lists was a series of six issued by publisher Aschehoug. T h e r e 254

THE TEXTBOOK NORM were three for each language: list 1 containing all forms permitted, list 2 containing only the traditional forms (for people who wished to write "moderately"), and list 3 containing only the rapprochement forms (for people who wished to write "radically"). This venture aptly confirmed the ironic comment by Rm speaker L0nning in the Storting: "As is well known, the present result of our attempts at language fusion is that we now have four written languages in this country instead of two." 167 A fifth "language" was set forth in 0verland's blue list which was a few shades more conservative than Aschehoug's "moderate" one. While 0verland's was excluded from the schools, it was followed by all conservative newspapers and most of the weekly magazines. In the course of 1960 and 1961 liberal and labor newspapers began adopting the main features of the "moderate" form of Bm, so that in papers like Arbeiderbladet and Dagblade t one could note a sprinkling of feminine articles, diphthongs, and spellings like verken for older hverken. As new textbooks began appearing in the new norm, pupils were being faced with an interesting choice. For example, in their written work they were allowed to write 'the skin' as hudi in Nn and huden in Bm, even though the norm in both languages and the only form they would find in their textbooks was huda. Some of the lists specifically stated: "It is not the school boards, the schools, or the teachers who decide which forms the pupils shall use. The pupils shall themselves be permitted to choose." 168 As new schoolbooks began pouring from the presses, it was evident that controversy would not be stilled. Even the "moderate" versions were not moderate enough for the Rm people, and the "radical" versions were anathema. In a review of the first crop of books Erling Salomonsen categorically declared: "Riksmâl has been forbidden." 169 255

CONFLICT AND PLANNING THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN AND THE CHILDREN'S HOUR

T h e only radio broadcasting in Norway is done by a stateowned and state-operated institution known as Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK). W e have seen above how R m and Lm supporters alike organized societies for the protection of their languages in N R K . As the only source of oral news, instruction, and entertainment reaching out to the entire people, this institution was naturally in an extremely sensitive situation with respect to language. It was subject to the private pressure groups who wrote letters to their representatives in the Storting and to the newspapers, and on the other hand its employees as state functionaries had to follow the directives ultimately issued by the Storting itself. Although the percentage of N n programs was not more than 15 to 17 percent of the total speaking programs during these years, it was enough to stir resentment in R m circles. On top of this came the normalization to which news reports in R m were subject, following the general policy of government regulation. As early as 1933, the Storting had voted (with six dissenting votes) that " N R K should be so operated that the language controversy is not unnecessarily sharpened. Therefore it should use as far as possible those words and forms that either are alike or are close to one another in the two language forms [mâlf0rer]." 1 7 0 W h e n the new system of counting was introduced, this was immediately required in the N R K and in this way became a constant source of irritation to conservative listeners. I n addition, a favorite news broadcast, the one at 7 P.M., was done in Nn. Criticism was frequently voiced by R m listeners because certain vital announcements to the fishing or merchant fleet were made in N n or in Norwegianized Bm. It was maintained that these were not understood, to the jeopardy of h u m a n lives. T h e N n people, on their side, contended that 256

THE TEXTBOOK NORM they were discriminated against, being far behind the Bm in percentage of programs, even if only their percentage of the school districts was taken into account. In 1957-1958 the activated R m front started a fiery campaign of invective against the N R K for its language policy. I n Trondheim 20,000 signatures were collected, and in Oslo 50,000, on a resolution which demanded among other things that there should be a plebiscite among all listeners on which to determine their language preference. T h e choice given in the proposed ballot was between "natural Riksmâl, Nynorsk, and official Bokmâl." T h e term "natural" was of course loaded, as was pointed out by opponents. In the same resolution it was demanded that "persons who in daily life use natural Riksmâl must have free and unlimited opportunity to speak their mother tongue when they appear in N R K . They must not be pressured by the officials of N R K to use any other language form." 1T1 T h e reference here was to reports that Sigurd J. Smebye, a weatherman in the Meteorological Institute, had been forced to stop saying sne 'snow' and fjellene 'the mountains', which he used instead of the required sn0 and fjella when reading the daily weather reports on the radio. T h e discussion about the "abominable snowman," as he was jocularly called, filled the papers in 1955-1956. 172 On 12 February 1958, the problem reached the Storting; Seip (Venstre) asked the Minister of Education to let the public know that "persons who appear in N R K have the freedom to use their own speech form [talemál]." T h e Minister reassured the public that "those who appear have full freedom to use the language form and the choice of words that comes natural to them." As for a referendum, he pointed out that the Storting had decided in 1934 that there should be none. H e could also refer to a declaration by the eight department heads in N R K who categorically declared that "we are not 257

CONFLICT AND PLANNING prevented in any way from speaking our mother tongue and we do not prevent anyone else from using his or her mother tongue." 173 Five days later Aftenposten could print a letter from a young lady who had worked for NRK as author and narrator in the children's hour (for children age 3-6). She declared that her manuscript had been "corrected" by substituting forms from the spelling of 1938 for her own more conservative Rm forms: senga si for sengen sin, golvet for gulvet, dyra for dyrene, svevde for svevet. "If anyone asks me whether I can speak my own language in NRK, I will have to answer, 'No.' " 174 In the next few days three more young women participating in the same program spoke out and declared that their "pure Riksmâl" had led to vigorous objections by their superiors, although it had not caused them to change their language; but as one of them said, "It was only after a struggle that I was permitted to use my natural language." 175 This testimony on behalf of the Rm contention raised a storm which blew all the way into the Storting. There Bergesen (H0ire) on 19 March made an interpellation to the Minister as to whether he still maintained that radio speakers had complete freedom. 176 T h e Minister answered that he did, and that the "pressure" claimed by the "aunts" (as they were called in the children's programs) was merely good advice given them by responsible superiors. In the debate that followed, a number of representatives took the floor to express their agreement or disagreement with the Minister, largely along political lines.177 In the fall of 1958 the directors of NRK asked a committee of the department heads and the persons in charge of school broadcasting and children's and youth programs to work out a new code concerning language usage. T h e proposal made by this committee was revised by the directors in the light of a phrase in the resolution which had 258

T H E TEXTBOOK NORM been passed in the meanwhile concerning the new TN. 1 7 8 In this resolution it was stated that the T N should be made "the basis of weather reports and official language usage in broadcasting." T h i s raised a n u m b e r of questions, one of which was brought out when the issue was debated in the Storting: Trygve Bull declared that when the T N was worked out, no one had thought of it as having any relation to speech; it was purely a written norm, in reference to the school textbooks. 179 T h e resolution also raised the question of what was meant by "official language usage." T h e proposal of the directors was sent to the Ministry, which in turn submitted it to the Storting for discussion and approval. T h e Storting committee on Church and Education split into the usual minority and majority, the former consisting of the H0ire members. In the Storting another long debate ensued, this time lasting nine and one-half hours, filling seventy-nine pages. 180 Instead of sticking to the children's hour, the debaters used their opportunity to comment on the language problem in general and recent events which had affected it. T h e upshot of it all was that the code proposed by the N R K directors was adopted against the twenty-nine votes of H0ire (plus Wikborg of Christian Peoples' party). T h e substance of this code was that all programs which could be regarded as official institutional expressions of N R K should remain within the limits of the T N , b u t including the side forms. T h i s gave speakers and announcers a relatively wide latitude, except for forms like syv and tyve. But any private citizen not connected with N R K was free to speak as he pleased, except for the suggestion that he "strive to achieve an oral and natural style." T h e employes of N R K were "empowered to give other participants advice and suggestions." 181 A difference of opinion arose over the language of employes when they were not reading weather reports, 259

CONFLICT AND PLANNING newscasts, and the like, b u t participating in original programs. T h i s was referred to as "other ordinary program service" and it was established that "individual freedom must here be greater." Bull wanted to add that "when the employes appear with distinctly personal contributions, they are linguistically completely free." But this was voted down as superfluous, and won only forty votes. T h e total effect of the discussion was to establish that the T N with all its variety of forms should constitute a n o r m for broadcasting officiai notices of all kinds, b u t that all other programs could be produced in any form of normalization or dialect that the participants chose, subject to the requirements of intelligibility. T h e "aunts" had won their point; b u t a new policy had been established, whereby limited normalization could also be made applicable to speech. 182 On 20 February 1962, the Ministry applied the new policy to the case of the "abominable snowman" who had been the cause of all this fuss. Smebye persisted in saying sne 'snow', 0st 'east', and fjellene 'the mountains' for the obligatory sn0, aust, and fjella. So, on that date the Ministry informed the Meteorological Institute that he should henceforth be "relieved" from the task of reading the weather reports in N R K . Smebye's stubbornness made him a hero among R m supporters, who displayed great indignation on his behalf. Norsk Lytterforening, wishing to test the authority of the Ministry to extend the T N to oral expression in the radio, encouraged Smebye to seek redress in the courts. Although he lost neither position nor salary, he decided to bring suit on the plea that he had been discriminated against for using his own natural speech. On 29 October 1963, the Oslo District Court (Oslo Byrett) agreed that there was n o legal basis in the Resolution of 1959 for the action of the Ministry and declared the dismissal null and void. Although this did not in any way affect the position of the T N in the 260

Vokal-patriotisme

Den norske sprogstrid er forelabiff kulmlnerct i et bittert opgor om, hvorvidi man tjener Sit faedreland bedst ved at sige „sne" eller „sne".

Vowel Patriotism. "The Norwegian language struggle has culminated for the time being in a bitter quarrel over whether one serves one's country best by saying 'sne' or 'sn0.' " Drawing by Bo Bojesen in (Danish) Politiken, 23 March 1963.

schools or in government offices and was based on a technicality, it was widely interpreted as a victory for the Rm movement in its persistent campaign against state control of the language. 183 261

CONFLICT AND PLANNING ATTACK AND COUNTERATTACK

Both official languages had their fighting organizations, Riksmâlsforbundet for Rm and Noregs Mâllag for Nn, to which frequent reference has been made. But there was no organization working for fusion of the two languages, so in 1959 one was started, under the winning name of Spràklig Sämling (Language Unification). This was spearheaded by a group of young people who called themselves Ungdomsaksjon for samnorsk (Youth Action for United Norwegian).184 A national organization was formed on 5 April 1959, under the name of Landslaget for Spràklig Sämling. Its purpose was to "work actively for mutual rapprochement between our two languages" and its first president was a student named Arne Kielland, who had taken the initiative. It was supported by the "radicals" in both language camps, such as Trygve Bull and Einar Hovdhaugen from the Storting, both of whom had been active in promoting the LC. 185 In the course of 1960 the organization began publishing a membership paper entitled Spràklig Sämling; in its issue for March-April (no. 2) it claimed 16 local societies and 1100 members. Two propaganda brochures were published, Vegen Frarn (The Road Ahead) and Framsyn (Looking Forward), containing articles advocating and to some extent practicing a "radical" linguistic policy of fusion.186 T h e president, Arne Kielland, wrote in favor of the immediate creation of a common norm for those who might wish it.187 These modest efforts were intended to counter the activities of the Riksmâlsforbundet and Foreldreaksjonen, which continued undiminished. In 1958 Riksmâlsforbundet published a third, revised edition of the so-called 0verland word list, in 1959 a collection of André Bjerke's essays (mostly from Ordet,) entitled "The Tower of Babel," and 262

THE TEXTBOOK NORM his ABC, to which we will return shortly. 188 Beside the previously mentioned brochure by Dahl on broadcasting, Norsk Lytterforening (together with Foreldreaksjonen) published J. B. Hjort's lecture on " T h e Language Cause as a Problem of Freedom" and a brochure containing statistical information about the language situation. H j o r t contended that the state "had no right to force people to speak a n d write differently . . . and substitute a state language for one's mother tongue." 189 T h e statistics collected in the brochure, entitled Sprog og tall (Language and Figures), showed, for instance, that of 3,871 students matriculating at the University, only 255 or about 7 percent asked for their diploma in Nn. Of those who graduated from the University in 1957 about 13.5 percent asked for their diploma in Nn (in Norwegian and History, 20.8 percent); this percentage had remained unchanged since 1947. But at the actual examinations in preparatory subjects (Philosophy) only 42 hardy souls, or 1.2 percent of 3,453, wrote their answers in Nn. T h e year 1959 saw a new school law in which the rules for language plebiscites were slightly modified. U p to this time the laws for rural and urban schools had been differe n t : in the former all voters could participate, while in the latter only parents could do so. In the rural districts, as we have seen, a majority of all voters or a majority of those voting if two thirds voted (that is, over SSy 3 percent) was needed to bind the schoolboard. T h e new law made the rules identical for rural and urban schools, following in general the principles of the rural law. All voters in the district plus parents with children in the district schools were entitled to vote; and 40 percent of these were required to make a change in the written language used by the school children. But in any class where as many as fifteen children wanted a different language from that required by the 263

CONFLICT AND PLANNING schoolboard, parents could demand a parallel class in the language desired. I n the Storting representatives of H0ire proposed that only parents be entitled to vote and that a majority of those voting should decide the issue, b u t they got no support outside their own party. 190 T h e new law was intended to keep the nonvoters from deciding the issue by their indifference. Even so it meant a stiff requirement for any change: that 40 percent of the eligible voters take a sufficient interest in the issue to vote favorably. It remained to be seen how this would affect the situation. In 1959 and 1960 an ABC written by André Bjerke became an issue of controversy. I n his statement of reasons for writing this book, Bjerke did not so much emphasize its language as its original contents. While the usual ABC, wrote Bjerke, builds on the principle "that the child is an idiot," his ABC assumed "that every child is a little artist, creative in its word fantasy." His materials were therefore drawn from "the child's timeless world" of "fable, legend, fairytale, riddle, stories in rhyme, nonsense verse." T h e alphabet was taught through verses of a strongly onomatopoeic form, with an appeal to the child's aural imagination. 191 T h e fact, however, that Bjerke's book was launched by Riksmàlsforbundet and that its linguistic forms were those of the "forbidden" R m n o r m of 0verland's word list caused the discussion about the book to emphasize its glottopolitical overtones. 192 T h e R m people announced in advance that it could not be accepted for school use; in effect they were challenging the authorities. 193 T h e fact that the book was entertaining in content and attractively printed made it possible to claim that its eventual rejection would be for purely linguistic reasons and therefore a harmful decision. Reports that some schools in Oslo had adopted it led to a question from the floor of the Storting and a denial from the Minister. 194 O n 18 May it was specifically rejected 264

T H E TEXTBOOK NORM by the Oslo schoolboard on recommendation of the Superintendent. 195 On 15 July it was also rejected by the Ministry, as expected. Its only use in the schools had to be as an auxiliary book on the part of teachers who might find it helpful. 196 André Bjerke was given another opportunity to demonstrate his talent for witty versification when he was entrusted with the Norwegian version of Alan Jay Lerner's musical comedy My Fair Lady, which appeared in 1959.197 Bjerke re-created the contrast between cultivated English and "vulgar" cockney of the English play by equating the former with R m and the latter with the folk speech of Oslo. His Eliza Doolittle spoke an extreme form of this dialect, hallowed by long tradition as a comic device on the Norwegian stage. Professor Higgins, in training her to speak Rm, had to clean u p her "cacuminal 1," her "sh" for "s" before consonants, her stress pattern, and her elisions. So far all was well. But in the program sold at the performance Bjerke pointed out the parallel between the English and the Norwegian situation, as he saw it: "In Norway we have the paradoxical situation that Professor Higgins is being instructed by Eliza Doolittle on how he is supposed to write and speak his mother tongue correctly. In this country Eliza Doolittle is not in the gutter, selling wild blossoms; she is in the Language Commission, circulating language blemishes [omsetter sprogblomster]." H e informed his readers that "the most important written source I have used to establish the language form of Eliza's speeches is 'Proposal for a Textbook Norm 1957.' " In the text itself he further emphasized this by freely interpolating an allusion to the T N . Where Lerner had written, in reference to Eliza's inarticulate scream "Aoooo!": This is what the British population Calls an element'ry education, 198 265

CONFLICT AND PLANNING Bjerke translated as follows: Her i landet kalles denne talen For den nye laereboknormalen.199 ("In our country this speech is called the new textbook norm.") A n d where Lerner wrote: Why can't the English teach their children how to speak? Norwegians learn Norwegian; the Greeks are taught their Greek, Bjerke substituted Danes for Norwegians, since " H i g g i n s obviously has not been informed that Norway is precisely the country where one does not learn one's mother tongue." Bjerke might have added that Lerner's choice of Greek was almost as unhappy as that of Norwegian, as we have seen in Chapter 1. Bjerke's bit of bad taste in transplanting the English linguistic class distinctions to Norwegian soil did not escape notice among his opponents, and he was vigorously attacked for it, editorially by, among others, Arbeiderbladet.200 They called it a misinterpretation of socialist Shaw's satire on the upper classes and accused Bjerke of revealing his desire to "maintain the social distinction between 'cultured' and 'vulgar' speech." In his reply Bjerke contended that Shaw's (and his own) solution to the linguistic class distinction was the one adopted by Higgins, viz., to teach the lower classes the "correct" English of the upper classes: "Shaw's comedy expresses admiration for the capacity of the people to transform itself. T h e Samnorsk policy expresses contempt for its incapacity [evnelfishet]." 201 A lively discussion ensued in which the problem of "vulgarity" was a central theme. Bjerke was accused of regarding the dialects and their users as vulgar, while he maintained 266

THE TEXTBOOK NORM that in their proper place they were not vulgar: "Forms which in their natural verbal environment have the quality of cultured speech can become vulgar when they are mechanically thrust into another language." 202 This was his comment when it was pointed out by the chairman of the LC, E. F. Halvorsen, that most of the forms used by Bjerke's Eliza were not and never would be accepted in the T N . Halvorsen showed that Bjerke's concept of the vulgar was a grab-bag of "vulgarity, carelessness, slang, dialect, and ordinary colloquial language." "Bjerke apparently thinks that only the words which have gained full citizenship in his Rm speech can be accepted in writing; everything else is affected, or mean, or vulgar." 203 In its language usage the conservative Rm movement appeared to have settled down to a form which rejected the linguistic changes of 1917 and 1938, but not the graphic ones.204 While professing pleasure in dialects and respect for Nn, the movement rejected all infiltration from these into its own language, except for forms which were either stylistically or topically associated with folk life. New editions of 0verland's word list appeared, with slight revisions, under the aegis of the Norwegian Academy. T h e academy also issued its own grammar, as we have seen, written by Gorgus Coward, in which canons of "right" and "wrong" were set forth. 205 Characteristics of this form which sharply distinguished it not only from the current T N , but also from other Rm usage, were its rejection of etter, fram, nâ (except as an alternant of nu), spràk, sju, tjue, and the inflectional affix -a (except in a few rural feminines and the plurals of barn 'child' and ben 'bone'). THE COMMISSION WORKS ON

Even though the T N was completed, the LC did not become unemployed. T o be sure, its first secretaries resigned 267

CONFLICT AND PLANNING and returned to teaching, and others took their places.206 But from the beginning the secretariat had functioned as a service bureau for government offices and private institutions who needed guidance in matters of language. T h e secretaries were called on to settle problems of spelling and usage, as well as to give lectures and conduct short courses for government employes. T h e annual reports give abundant evidence of the many uses to which the secretariat was turned; for example, in 1953 Lundeby was asked to explicate for the Post Office the difficult problem of how to use the impersonal pronoun en/ein, man 'one.' 207 An archive of clippings about the linguistic controversy was accumulated, and collections were made of new words appearing in the daily press. Special committees were appointed to consider such problems as the spelling of foreign geographical names, or of historical names in school textbooks. As provided for in the bylaws of the LC, active cooperation was established with corresponding commissions in the other Scandinavian countries, in the hope of mutual enlightenment and the coordination of terminology, as in such novel fields as aviation (1958-1959) and T V (1959-1960). Beginning in 1954, annual interScandinavian conferences were held, which resulted in a series of volumes under the title "Scandinavian Language Problems." 208 In the breathing spell after the completion of the T N , the LC turned its attention to some of these more specialized problems. A lecture by Alf Hellevik at the annual meeting of 1959 on vocabulary problems awakened attention by its fresh approach to the subject. Hellevik, as a user of N n and editor of its dictionary, devoted most of his attention to the "purism" which had prevailed in the writing of that language. H e advocated a "bringing u p to date" of attitudes toward the use of so-called "foreign words" in Nn and in 268

T H E TEXTBOOK NORM Norwegian in general. While he did not wish to bring in any and all such words, many of which had been rejected in Nn, he did feel that usage should not be determined by the etymological dictionary. Words which in their form did not set themselves off from genuinely native words, and which had achieved wide acceptance, such as tvile 'doubt', smerte 'pain', hjerne 'brain', should be admitted. In Nn, he pointed out, their stylistic value might in some cases be lower than that of the more traditional words, as for kjœrlegheit 'love' when compared with kjterleik. He was more concerned now with the new problem of English loanwords than with the old one of the German ones, because the former were more urgent and offered serious problems of divergence between spelling and pronunciation. 209 He regretted that Bm, especially in recent years, showed an opposing purism of its own which tended to exclude obviously Nn words. His position in general was that "we should not use a Norwegian word merely because we are not allowed to use a loanword or a foreign word, but because the Norwegian word is the best and most expressive — in our language." 2 1 0 One of the most demanding tasks assigned to the L C was the checking of textbooks submitted to it by publishers and authors who were hopeful of having their books used in the public schools. Each year more than one hundred books came in for linguistic inspection; these had to be carefully read, either by the secretaries or by consultants hired through the LC. Most of the books submitted were approved, but sometimes only on condition of considerable changes. Not only was this work time-consuming, but also highly sensitive, since the textbooks were in the very firing line of linguistic controversy. The reformers were using the textbooks to incorporate new forms in the language, while the conservatives fought at every step to keep them out. The most sensitive area was that of the readers containing 269

CONFLICT AND PLANNING literary selections, including songs. As far back as Hambro's critique of the readers after the 1907 reform, this had been a favorite point of attack by linguistic conservatives. Any alteration of the classics, especially one involving changes in their literary form or choice of vocabulary, was likely to provoke vigorous protests. One of the many protests was made in the Storting by Ole Bergesen (H0ire) on 30 March 1960, after he had discovered a favorite children's verse in which the rhymes were altered to fit the new T N . He called the alteration "vandalism" and declared that "there must be an end to allowing half-baked sophomores [halvstuderte r0vere] to fiddle [tukle] with our literature." 211 In the meanwhile the LC had been working on the problem and had agreed on a statement of general principles for the normalization of texts. This appeared in 1961 as the first publication in a series of brochures planned by the LC, under the title "Linguistic Form and Normalization in Readers and Songbooks." According to its authors, the Ministry had emphasized as early as 10 January 1940, the importance of encouraging fusion "by using forms which were common to both languages," making exception only in order that "our better-known authors should be so represented that their particular qualities [sœrpreg] may find expression [kommer til sin rett]." 212 The reaction against this practice was based on literary considerations, a fear that the poet's quality would disappear if his language were changed. We need not enter into the specific rules established, but note that poetry was generally speaking only to be changed in purely graphic ways; any change that led to a new pronunciation, especially in the rhymes, should be avoided. Only on the lower school levels was a certain amount of rewriting permitted and only for the purpose of making the classics understandable to children. Prose, especially from the past century, could be treated more freely, unless it showed a 270

THE T E X T B O O K NORM very striking individual style, in which case it might remain unretouched even if its forms were outside the current orthography. In general, it was evident that criticism had led to caution, though the problem was far from solved and would long continue to plague editors of readers and anthologies for the schools. In a lecture at the annual meeting of the LC on 2 March 1962, the chairman, Alf Hellevik, surveyed its accomplishments in the first decade of its existence. He granted that the T N "had not become the step toward linguistic unity which many expected, or feared." He regretted that so much of the energy of the LC had had to be devoted to the difficult and highly controversial problems of the T N . He also deplored the often uncomprehending criticism of the LC and the bitter opposition with which it had been met in certain circles. He looked forward to more fruitful work in the coming decade, when the LC should tackle problems of terminology, the classic activity of academies. He regarded it as extremely important that a unified terminology be established, not only in the two Norwegian language forms, but also throughout Scandinavia. He warned against an excessive and uncritical adoption of English terms. But his optimism for the future was a guarded one. He could see no reason to think that opposition to the LC would moderate, because the goal of the opposition was not merely to rid the country of the LC, but to substitute private for public normalization: to them, he asserted, "linguistic freedom really means the freedom to force one's own norms on others." 2 1 3 T h e LC celebrated the first decade of its existence by issuing a survey of its work under the title Skriftsprák i Utvikling (1964). Edited by its current chairman, Hellevik, and its first secretary (on the Bm side), Lundeby, it did a great deal more than merely report on the history of the 271

CONFLICT AND PLANNING LC. Great emphasis was laid on the cooperative work with other Scandinavian organs, and the volume includes brief accounts of similar committees and commissions in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden. As the title, "Written Languages in Development," suggests, the LC cast its eyes even farther afield and sought to measure its own work in terms of international standards. Included in the volume were detailed studies of language problems and their solution in such places as the Faroe Islands, Yugoslavia, Belgium, and Friesland, written by specialists. In addition there were essays on the problems of English spelling reform (by Eva Sivertsen), Standard Language and Dialect (by Olav Beito), and Linguistic Normalization and Linguistic Science (by Magne Oftedal). T h e generally sober and judicious tone of this publication made it clear that the LC had come of age and that it had no illusions about the possibility of radically changing the linguistic situation. As Hellevik regretfully remarked in his previously cited lecture, it had become, if anything, "a conservative factor in the development." 214 It had neither fulfilled the hopes of its sponsors nor justified the fears of its enemies. Around the turn of the year 1963-1964 one of its chief sponsors, the Ministry, made a surprise move which was widely interpreted as a partial disavowal of the LC. Helge Sivertsen, Minister of Church and Education in a Labor party cabinet and a well-known Nn supporter, announced his intention of appointing a new language committee. " T h e time has come," declared the Minister, "to call off what is left of language controversy in Norway and try to unite all good forces on protecting the wealth of our written languages and our dialects in town and country . . . T h e richer Norwegian is, the stronger our position will be as we try to protect it from the flood of foreign words that is 272

THE TEXTBOOK NORM overwhelming it." 2 1 5 This laudable, if somewhat vague statement was the prelude to the appointment of a nineman committee on 1 February 1964, with instructions "to consider the whole language situation in our country and propose measures which the committee thinks may serve to protect and develop our Norwegian linguistic heritage." 216 Many suspected that these words cloaked a turnabout in the language policy of the Labor party, as foreshadowed in developments we have discussed earlier in these pages. This suspicion was encouraged by the selection of committee members. For the first time since World War II an official language committee included representatives of the conservative Rm wing, who for twenty years had been demanding an end to government regulation of language and had advocated the free development of both languages without attempts at fusion. For this reason they had refused to participate in the LC and had tried to sabotage it at every turn. Even though they had only two members on the new committee, it was clear that their voices would be heard and might be crucial on a committee where the only possible recommendations would have to be unanimous. As chairman of the committee was appointed the eminent and internationally known linguist Hans Vogt, rector of the University of Oslo. Since his early excursions into linguistic radicalism he had not taken part in the language controversy; although a user of conservative Bm, he was sure to give a fair hearing to all points of view. T h e remaining eight were evenly divided between Nn and Bm. T h e Nn members were Storting representatives Magnhild Hagelia (Labor) and Einar Hovdhaugen (Center), the writer and critic Ivar Eskeland, and Johannes Aanderaa, director of Det norske Samlaget. T h e Bm members were Bishop Tord Godai, Storting representative Guttorm Hansen, Professor of Chemical Engineering Aksel Lydersen, and schoolman273

CONFLICT AND PLANNING grammarian Gorgus Coward, the last two being the R m activists. T h e committee reported its findings on 12 April, 1966, in a 104-page document. Coming as it did after the present book was written and just as it was going to press, the report could not be fully evaluated here. Its proposals were of such a nature, however, that they form a perfect conclusion to the stormy period portrayed in the preceding chapters. There was no doubt that with this most judicious report covering many phases of the language problem a new basis for discussion was established. T h e committee regretted the tendency of earlier authorities to exclude from the schools "traditional R m forms which are alive in speech and literature." It accepted the arguments of the R m organizations that parents, and not the local electorates or schoolboards, should have first choice in deciding the language of the schools. Most significantly, it proposed that the LC be replaced by a Council for Language Defense and Cultivation (et rád for spràkvern og sprâkdyrking), "to protect the cultural heritage we have in the Norwegian written languages and in the spoken language in town and country." Instead of being bound to work for the fusion of the languages, the new council was directed to "promote on a voluntary basis a natural cooperation in the cultivation and normalization of our two written languages." On the Council, organized into two separate but coordinated sections, were to be represented not only the universities, the schools, and the authors, but also the private language societies whose contributions to the controversy have been mentioned so often in these pages. T h a t a thaw was under way seemed clear by February 1966, when the feuding Authors' Societies were reunited. T h e Vogt report was further evidence of a psychological reorientation among many Norwegians, reflecting an aware274

Reconciliation of the two Authors' Societies: "At last we'll be talking the same language [spr&k] again." "Sprog!" Caricatures of the presidents of the societies, André Bjerke (at left) and Odd BangHansen. Cartoon by Salo Grenning ("Pedro") in Verdens Gang, 30 October 1965.

ness of the rapid change going on in their society and its consequences for the language problem. The report also called for massive research into the resources and present state of the language. It expressed the hope that more knowledge would help "to promote tolerance and mutual respect" between the language groups, and that the proposals here made would make it possible to replace "bitter polemics" by a "running dialogue."

275

Behind the pettiness of the gamecocks on both sides of the national cause there is a hidden reality. The hidden reality behind the skirmishing is that minds will not mingle . . . The life blood of unmatured but dedicated souls is at stake in this battle. Hans E. Kinck (1921)1

C O N C L U S I O N A N D PERSPECTIVE

After more than a century of controversy and two generations of official planning the Norwegian language problem has not been settled. This provides evidence at once of the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, of solving the problem in any clear-cut way and of the intensity with which a good many Norwegians have involved themselves in the problem. There is at least one cheerful aspect to the whole situation: it provides abundant evidence of the ways in which democracy works. Endless discussion in private, in the press, in government offices, and on the floor of the Storting has given time for the voicing of many views and the gradual education of the public. While the interference of government in what many conceive to be a purely cultural problem has roused opposition, the very strength of the opposition is a healthy sign. During all this time people have gone on speaking and writing, even the latter being but little inhibited by the motley variety of orthographies adopted. The central fact has been the survival of Bm as a means of communication, in spite of all attacks. It has had to adopt a new dress and has bent in the direction of its rival to keep from being gobbled up. Speech forms have been 276

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE admitted to writing, but only slowly. T h e national movement and the social revolution have stirred u p great dust, but their effects on the language have been more modest than their supporters had hoped. THE ROLE OF NATIONALISM

In modern times European and American attitudes toward nationalistic aspirations in language on the part of smaller nations have generally been negative. T h e famous English historian Toynbee devoted a rather long section of his Study of History to a discussion of what he called "archaism in language," defined as "the process of putting back into circulation as a living vernacular some language which has long since ceased to be current in any but an academic sphere." This appeared in a volume published on the eve of World War II. Toynbee selected five nations for a study of this phenomenon, including Norway, and compared it to "the temper of a nouveau riche who furnishes himself with portraits of appropriate ancestors." 2 H e combined his distaste for archaism with an attack on nationalism in general, "a spirit which makes people feel and act and think about a part of any given society as though it were the whole of that society." 3 T h r e e years later, during the war, the American political scientist Karl W. Deutsch wrote in a similar vein: "In recent years, public opinion in the democratic countries has become increasingly aware of the dangers inherent in the unlimited competition of a host of rival nationalistic movements and sovereign nation-states." 4 Such negative judgments are understandable in the light of world events, but they need to be tempered by an insight into the positive sides of nationalism. As was noted earlier, in Chapter 1, nationalism wears two faces: an external image which must be sufficiently distinctive to be identified by outsiders, and an internal image which over277

CONFLICT AND PLANNING rides local loyalties and permits all citizens to identify themselves with it. Nationalism is not only or even primarily directed against outsiders; it is also a sentiment of cohesion among the members of the nation, a loyalty which transcends the parochial or regional attachments of the primitive community. In a purely tribal or local society, like those of many Asian and African countries today (and, we may add, like rural Norway in the early nineteenth century), there is little sense of identification with any larger society. Henrik Ibsen expressed this side of nationalism by letting his King Haakon in the historical play The Pretenders (1863) declare his ambition to change Norway from a "kingdom" into a "people": "Men of Tröndelag opposed men from Viken, men of Agder those from Hordaland, men of Hálogaland those from Sogn; after this all shall be one, and all shall know within themselves and understand that they are one." 5 This is a poet's statement of the same idea as the recent definition of the nation by Rupert Emerson: "The nation is a community of people who feel that they belong together in the double sense that they share deeply significant elements of a common heritage and that they have a common destiny for the future." He calls it a "terminal community," "with the implication that it is for present purposes the effective end of the road for man as a social animal, the end point of working solidarity between men." G T h a t it need not forever be the end of the road is the hope on which the United Nations is built, but it is significant that to this date the UN is still a league of nations, in which each member has its own representation regardless of size. Emerson is one of a group of American scholars who have been reassessing the significance of nationalism in the light of the problems faced by developing nations in Asia and Africa. They have brought to bear the concept of identity 278

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE on the problem, drawing some of their insights from modern psychology. The sense of belonging to a nation is part of modern man's search for identity. In the words of Clifford Geertz, nationalism is based on the need of the peoples of new states to be recognized as responsible agents whose wishes, acts, hopes, and opinions matter. They wish that their identity "be publicly acknowledged as having import, a social assertion of the self as 'being somebody in the world.' " 7 In Norway this has been a leading motif in the cultural nationalism underlying the language movement. As far back as 1909 Moltke Moe wrote: "Nationality is folk personality. Personality and culture go together like the organism and its nourishment, like body and soul. Without personality — individual personality and national personality •— there is no culture." 8 More recently, Sigmund Skard, pleading for recognition of the Nn language as a bulwark against national extinction, declared: "What is needed is an awakening of our pride, no less . . . it is a question of maintaining our personal identity . . . " 9 Another Nn supporter, Nils Mager0y, expressed similar views shortly after World War II in a thoughtful discussion of nationalism and language. In an article which might almost be construed as a reply to Toynbee, he wrote that the Nn language movement "was not so much directed back toward a glorious and distant past as forward to an elevation and liberation of the folk life of the present [det folkelege og ncere]." 10 He also rejected the idea that nationalism necessarily conflicted with internationalism, as Toynbee implied in characterizing nationalism as "a transference of interest from the whole to the part." 11 "The national is a link in the Nordic," contended Mager0y; "efforts on behalf of the national need not lead us to seclude ourselves from the international." 12 A keen Danish critic of Norwegian life, Erling Nielsen, shocked a number of people by main279

CONFLICT AND PLANNING taining that the N n writers were more internationally minded than those in the R m camp, as demonstrated by their knowledge of world literature, their experimental literary forms, and their unsentimental approach to Norwegian rural life. 13 T h e nationalistic language movement in Norway has clearly succeeded in its primary aim of giving Norwegian a distinctive linguistic identity. Norwegian can no longer be identified with Danish, even if we think only of Bm. In the nineteenth century most of the classic authors of Norway were published in Denmark and the two countries had a common reading public. This is no longer true; it even happens that novels are translated from one language to the other, although the effort required to read the other language is very slight. Bm is still closer to Danish than Nn, which gives it a kind of inter-Scandinavian position, since many of the differences between it and Danish are shared with Swedish. 14 However, as the controversies sketched in this book have shown, the Norwegian identity is not internally unified, since N n represents a form that is even more distinctive than Bm. T h e result of the language movement so far has been to create an image of schizoglossia, a personality split which leaves many persons linguistically divided and uncertain. It is not to be identified with the situation described (by Ferguson) as diglossia, the existence of a "high" and a "low" form of the same language within a political unit, as in Greece or German-speaking Switzerland. T h e fact that N n has not succeeded in becoming generally accepted as a symbol of Norwegian nationality, on a par for example with the flag or the Constitution or the national anthem, has made it — at least for the present — a divisive rather than a unifying force. It has set up a cultural paper curtain between two segments of the Norwegian people. 280

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE T h i s is felt most acutely in such fields as literature (where books in one language are often not reviewed in the opposition press), in the theater (where inadequate national funds support two distinct theaters), in education (where two nearly identical standards and a host of permitted forms are taught), and in government (where official correspondence and forms have to be composed in both languages). Such terms as unorsk 'un-Norwegian' and norsknorsk 'over-

T h e Norwegian language problem reflected on the postage stamps: a commemorative stamp marking the 100th anniversary of the Folk Highschool in Norway spells the name of the country Noreg, while many others spell it Norge. Reproduced by permission of the Norwegian Postal Service.

Norwegian' have introduced an element of loyalty testing which is reminiscent in kind if not in degree of the use in America of 'un-American' and ΊΟΟ-percenter.' Postwar N n leaders have found it necessary to warn their followers against such practices: "Patriotic attitudes [during the war] were in no way limited to N n people." 15 It is only too easy to transfer such terms from the linguistic forms to their users. It can of course be maintained that this schizoglossia makes for a more interesting and diversified culture. But the fact that nearly all writers envisage as an ideal a f u t u r e state with only a single Norwegian language suggests that 281

CONFLICT AND PLANNING many suffer under this condition and feel that both languages are hampered in their attempts to reach the heights of expression. One of the chief forces behind the movement for fusion has been the feeling that both languages were so solidly entrenched that neither could be wholly displaced. Hence the only solution had to be one of finding a facesaving compromise. T h e stalemate which has occurred in the nationalistic aspect of the language movement is due in large part to its entanglement with problems of social class and status. W e shall now consider these, as they have affected the language problem. THE THREE

CULTURES

Although patriotism was the primary motivation of the language movement, class cleavage was a strong secondary one. Today it is a major factor in keeping the feud going and in making its solution inordinately difficult. W e have seen how language reform was felt from the very beginning to be not just a national but also a social issue. Both Aasen and Knudsen were men of the people and had the people's welfare very much at heart. Aasen explicitly rejected an opportunity to climb the academic ladder lest he should become socially separated from those whose cause he advocated. It is perhaps ironic to note that he lived most of his life in Oslo, when he was not on field trips, and that he spoke Bm, not Nn. Both men worked to raise the educational level of the people and believed that the Danish written language was a major obstacle to this goal. T h e patrician class of Norway in their time was an upper bourgeoisie, with a kernel of university-educated men who occupied the important posts in church, education, and government. These officials, or embedsmenn, together with a sprinkling of wealthy merchants, were closely knit by com282

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE mon interests, training, and intermarriage. They could and did feel themselves as an elite. Their ideals and their way of life were not greatly different from those of their counterparts in Denmark or Germany, where they had most of their cultural contacts. These were the men who created the Constitution of 1814 and who did most of the governing of the country for the next two to three generations. Even though they wrote like Danes, they spoke like Norwegians. As good patriots most of them welcomed the evidence brought them by folklorists and linguists concerning the peculiarly Norwegian speech and culture of the remote valleys. This group, whom we may refer to as the "official elite," did not at one blow lose their status, for example by the coming to power of the Venstre party in 1884. But the growth of democracy and the progress of the folk language movement did bring into existence a counterelite of new men. Since these were enthusiasts for the cultural features of folk life we may refer to them as the "folk elite." They promoted not only the use of native costumes, food, music, poetry, and dancing, but also the folk dialects and their normalized form, the Nn. Many members of the folk elite got their inspiration and training in the folk high schools, or peoples' colleges, whose ideology stemmed back to the national-cultural teachings of the Danish writer and bishop N. F. S. Grundtvig. T h e folk elite was recruited above all from rural school teachers and the so-called bondestudenter (peasant students), whose experiences in Oslo during their student days often nourished their antagonism to the official elite. In temper they ranged from rationalistic to romantic, from practical to mystical. But they had in common an identification with the folk culture movement as a world in which they could make a greater, more personal contribution than by trying to identify with the official elite. Their 283

CONFLICT AND PLANNING creative work brought to light a wealth of cultural possibilities which the Danish critic J0rgen Bukdahl once summed up as "the hidden Norway." Both sides in this controversy were the bearers of important cultural values. T h e official elite had at its disposal a language which had developed an extensive vocabulary for all the major cultural fields of the western world. T h e y could enjoy in that language the masters of a literature which had been the joint creation of Danes and Norwegians during more than three centuries. T h e folk elite lacked all of these advantages. Their strength lay in the living tradition of homely, vivid, and often poetic speech which they brought with them from their local communities. T h i s speech could be shown to be the heir of a tradition older than that of the official elite, one which had enjoyed its heyday in the Middle Ages. It led back to the culture of the viking and early Christian period. While this half-pagan, half-Christian culture was limited in its scope, it formed a background for the challenging creative task of developing the rural language into the medium of a modern culture. In spite of extensive and important interaction between the two cultures, they did not proceed to blend. A n example of the overlapping and distinction of the two is furnished by the differing fate of the folktales and the ballads. T h e folktales were translated, or perhaps we should say retold, in Dano-Norwegian by Asbj0rnsen and Moe. As a result they became a part of the official culture and were disseminated by its organs throughout the nation. Their Norwegianized Danish even became a model and starting point for the emergence of Bm. But the ballads, being in verse, were less amenable to translation and remained in dialect or Nn normalization. For this reason they are even now less generally known and cultivated than the folktales, as pointed 284

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE out by Sigmund Skard: ". . . Our own ballads are still, for linguistic reasons, unusable as a stylistic element in our most widely used language of writing." 16 This linguistic barrier has been sufficient to create many feelings of social distance as well. T h e official elite was reluctant to accept the folk elite, socially or culturally. T h e latter in turn accused the former of being snobbish or foreign. Nikolaus Gjelsvik, a law professor and leading N n advocate, called the Bm people "Danish colonials." He asserted that they looked upon the common people of Norway as "natives" whom they had the mission of "civilizing." 17 Such invective from the folk elite can easily be matched by quotations from overzealous advocates of Rm, whose charges of "barbarism" and "gutter language" directed against N n almost convince one that Gjelsvik was right. 18 It is a measure of the extent to which Norwegian democracy, like all others, is still imperfect, that differences in social attitudes stemming back to class and regional differences can even now stir passionate controversy. A development that neither side had fully anticipated was the rise of a third culture that threatens both of the older ones. This is the "mass culture" of the twentieth century. Industrialization with its mass production has transformed the "folk" into the "masses." T h e folk craftsman was made superfluous by the factory. His art could survive only by becoming professional and exclusive, or by being standardized for a mass market. T h e people were now provided with the results of industrial production without any creative effort of their own. T h e standard of living rose, without any inevitable accompaniment of refinement in thinking. Existence was made more comfortable, without necessarily becoming more interesting or challenging or deeply significant. Films, radio, jazz, motorcycles, automobiles — these 285

CONFLICT AND PLANNING were the media and the goals of the new generation. A n international culture, often geared to the tastes of the lowest common denominator in the people, rolled into Norway as into other countries. T h e leaders in this movement, whom we may call the "mass elite," were to be found in the business community. Their interests in national cultural endeavor were only too likely to be subordinated to the profit-making motive. A new middle class took over some of the leadership which the official elite had held. In this situation leaders of the folk elite have called for strengthening of their movement as a bulwark against the undiscriminating acceptance of mass culture. One of the most trenchant and eloquent pleas of this kind is to be found in the previously cited book by Sigmund Skard, entitled "Language Strife and Mass Culture." A poet and critic himself, as well as a scholar and teacher, he pleads on behalf of his N n language as a medium of Norwegian individuality. He points out that mass culture is strengthening the tendency to conformity and the wiping out of personal identity. T h e cultivation of Nn grows from "a need for preserving among us anything that has linguistic individuality and native distinctiveness [heimleg sœrmerke]," and "a will to strengthen our spiritual resistance . . . so that we can make our contribution to the new world without losing our own physiognomy." 19 He accuses the moneyed class in Norway of having used its financial resources to support the agitation of the R m movement. He describes the attacks of the "Parents' Action" and Riksmâlsforbundet on the language reform movement as the work of a small pressure group, well-heeled and ruthless in its witch hunt on all Norwegian elements in the language. Skard's plea comes with the more force because he is a man of international experience and world-wide contacts.20 If we turn to his opponents in the R m movement, we 286

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE find that they are no more enthusiastic about mass culture than he. They maintain that the culture embodied in their language is being threatened also, above all by the government-sponsored program of reform. They decry the political "tyranny" of the majority which is eroding the possibilities of their language for the expression of subtle and precise nuances of meaning. An important part of modern mass culture is the pressure exerted by the great international languages, especially English. Both sides of the language controversy in Norway are aware of the danger that Norwegian culture may be entirely denationalized by this pressure. English is the most widely taught second language in the country, being introduced to all pupils in their sixth year of schooling. Each year almost as many books are published in foreign languages, mostly English, as in Nn. 21 It is significant that one of the few ventures of the LC that won some degree of approval among conservative Rm people was Hellevik's 1963 attack on English loanwords. 22 T h e actual situation today appears to be that both the official culture and the folk culture are being infiltrated and transformed by the new mass culture. In this process Rm stands to benefit the most, because of its urban character, though it, too, is exposed to heavy dilution from abroad. The strength of Rm has been reflected in its steady advance since the war from a position of weakness immediately before. T h e support of the business community has made possible the use of mass media to counteract and nullify many of the political advances made by Nn before the war. In a country where prosperity is turning both country folk and proletariat into petty bourgeois, appeals on behalf of folk culture are likely to have only a limited eifect. Arguments based either on folk or class consciousness will have little force in an affluent society. 287

C O N F L I C T AND PLANNING THE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURE

A personal identification with such social causes as nationalism or democracy can determine an individual's choice of a standard language, where such a choice is available. But it cannot alter the basic facts of communication. T h e nature of language as a system of communication sets limits to all forms of linguistic change. These limits can be disregarded only at the cost of weakened communication. Language is a code which must be known and understood in substantially the same manner by all its users if it is to serve as a satisfying and efficient medium for the interchange of information. This is what writers have meant in referring to the need for "stability" in a language, to use the term launched by Havránek. 23 A t the same time no code is ever so stable as not to admit of some variation: in Havránek's terms, there must be a degree of elasticity. N o precise measure can be set up at the present time for the amount of elasticity that can be permitted without grave breakdowns in communication. In standard languages there are always variations due to regional dialect, class dialect, social situation, and personal style. Normally these occur only as occasional deviations which give "flavor" to the individual's use of the language. T h e general rule appears to be that language abhors duplication. If two such forms as English "he don't" and "he doesn't" occur side by side, one of them is bound to be either specialized or discarded. A century ago "he don't" was used by respectable writers; today it is limited to substandard speech. From this point of view it is clear that the numerous alternative forms admitted to the language by Norwegian planning commissions are inefficient carriers of communication. T h e y place the writer in a position of having to choose 288

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE the very tools with which he works, thereby taking his mind off what he is saying. Alternatives of this kind force decisions which call attention to the forms themselves rather than their content. Any freedom that is won by such choice is nullified by the fact that it is not complete: no writer can follow his dialect in all details. Mastery of a language involves thorough training in the mechanics of the form, so that the basic words and structures are handled automatically and the writer's attention is freed for the exacting task of giving expression to his own individuality within the accepted framework. His originality should not be spent on creating the framework. Even within the much narrower framework of traditional R m there is room for differences of opinion on this problem of stability versus elasticity. A rigorous, so-called structural approach to the problem was adopted by Professor Ingerid Dal in an attack on André Bjerke's editorial work while revising the latest edition of the Riksmàls-ordliste,24 Although Bjerke had pruned away a great many of the alternatives admitted in earlier editions of the list, he had insisted on keeping those that seemed to him to provide stylistic variation within the R m norm. One example on which virtually everyone agreed was that of kj0d 'flesh' (in a religious sense), with the Danish soft consonant, and kj0tt 'meat', with the Norwegian hard consonant. Beyond this Ingerid Dal, a distinguished scholar in the field of Germanic languages, refused to go. She asserted that it was impossible to accommodate within one structure such doublets as sten/ stein 'stone', sort/svart 'black', 0en/0ya 'the island', jorden/ jorda 'the earth', veiet/veide 'weighed'. "Such a series of phonetic doublets for identical meanings is an abnormality that cannot exist in a linguistic system." In the extensive discussion that followed it was apparent that the real difference was one of definition: does a normative standard 289

CONFLICT AND PLANNING permit the inclusion of informal varieties of speech and writing? T h e two members of the pairs listed certainly have different connotations, and perhaps even denotations; any attempt to exclude them from the norm is bound to have repercussions among those who find such exclusion snobbish. Although few users of Bm would accept a norm so rigidly circumscribed, the discussion points up one of the strengths of the language. In spite of a half century of step-by-step official regulation, there is a relatively firm agreement on its major characteristics. Critical opponents make much of its class character, which is historically linked to foreign antecedents and sociologically to wealth and power. But there are also structural factors which help to account for its resistance to change. One of these is inherent in the circumstances of its origin. Its form has the strength of any lingua franca which has come into being under circumstances of language contact in a newly created speech community. It deviates from traditional Danish writing and pronunciation in ways that can only be the result of speech mixture. Although it now bears the stigma of the period of Norwegian dependence on Denmark, it came into being in precisely the same way as other standard spoken languages in modern Europe. A standard spoken language is a complex blending of speech and writing, the result of symbiosis of the two in a group of privileged speakers over a considerable period of time. However "mixed" R m may be in its origins, it is no more so than English. Its basic speech community is small, but proportionately no smaller than that of most other European standard languages. After all, until recently most Englishmen spoke either rural dialect or cockney. There is no one dialect in Norway that is spoken by more people than Rm. By contrast, Nn has virtually no speech community at all. 290

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE As a synthetic language it is learned after childhood by all who speak it. T h e closest it comes to having a speech comm u n i t y is in areas like T e l e m a r k or Sogn, where the dialects approach it most nearly. T h o s e w h o tend to speak it best are teachers or professors, m a n y of whom live in cities like Oslo where they are completely s u r r o u n d e d by speakers of other dialects or of R m . As was r e m a r k e d by Professor Emil Smith in 1950, "there is hardly an adult N n m a n who uses N n daily with a family a n d a circle of friends who do the same." 25 I n spite of this it can be a n d is used, b u t the learning of it is a conscious effort for each individual who does so. For the m a n y whose native dialect is neither R m nor N n , it might be regarded as a tossup which language they should acquire. But it is clearly easier to learn R m , simply because it is heard a n d seen more often. O n e of the m a j o r problems in p l a n n i n g the fusion of the two structures has been precisely the resistance to change of the well-drilled structures of R m . T h e basic principle of revising the written f o r m to agree with speech suffices as long as there is a single speech n o r m to which one can appeal in case of d o u b t . T h i s point was reached in the obligatory forms of the orthography of 1917. But the optional forms of that orthography a n d the one of 1938 broke with the norms of the R m speech community. I n so doing the planners appealed to the existence of the forms proposed in the informal speech of that community, and to their wide usage in lower-class u r b a n speech and the r u r a l dialects. T h e s e were u n i t e d into one concept by the term folkemàl, b u t this term did not actually describe any single speech n o r m whatever. I t was n o t a case of shifting f r o m one language to another, as a change f r o m R m to N n might have been. Folkemàl is merely a n a m e for selected features of the dialects in question, chiefly those that were b o t h N n and East Norwegian. T h u s it includes such shibboleths as the 291

CONFLICT AND PLANNING feminine gender, the diphthongs, and the weak preterite in -a. While these are very common, not one of them is universal. Most of those who use them regularly also use a great many other features which are not acceptable in the new norms. Thus an East Norwegian speaker who uses them will have to remember not to use forms like dorn 'they' (for de), itte 'not' (for ikke), vara 'be' (for vare). It is not denied that he can learn to do so. But the point is that the admission of such forms leaves the language in the position of having no speech community to establish usage. A "radical" Bm is therefore supported by no usage and does not sound like any particular speaker. This is the basis of the charges leveled against it from conservatives on both sides, and it is impossible not to grant that there is considerable justice in the argument. One need not accept mystical statements such as are often launched in the discussion to the effect that language is an "organism" which cannot be interfered with. In our day there is too much plastic surgery and skin grafting to convince anyone by such arguments. There is also in a welfare state like Norway considerable sympathy and tolerance for the idea of promoting the general good by government programs. But beneath the verbiage of attacks on government interference with the private rights of the citizen there is some real justice in the feeling that planning is resulting in a language which no one speaks. Informal, alternative forms (hytta, kasta, stein) are being promoted to obligatory status, along principles of linguistic consistency which lead to the creation of others never before heard in urban usage (Ιφνinna, oppmoda, meiningslaus). The result is a hybrid which no one recognizes as his own. One of the strongest arguments for the maintenance of Nn and the promotion of a program of fusion is the plea for enrichment of the future language. We may take as an 292

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE authoritative expression of this policy the 1959 Cultural Program of the Labor party, where we read: "We must strive to save for our future language [redde over i framtidsspràket] all the wealth now contained within the two written languages and the dialects." 26 If the wealth envisaged here includes items of grammatical structure, one is faced with the problem of how to reconcile competing structural forms. It is commonly insisted upon that the widespread feminine gender must become a part of the future language. But so far no one has tried to introduce the pronouns 'he' and 'she' to take the place of Rm 'it' (den), although these are an indispensable part of any true gender system. It is used in N n and in all the rural dialects, but not in Rm or most urban dialects. So far the successful use of the feminine has been limited to the definite article (kua, jenta), where it is little more than an extra declension limited to a small number of nouns. As in the examples given above, those who use the feminine gender in its full sense would still be unable to build squarely on their speech. The usual meaning of "wealth" in this context is in reference to lexicon. It is hoped that N n and through it the dialects may become a source of renewal and vigor for the language. There is no doubt that spoken Norwegian has been a major source of the vocabulary that has entered Rm over the past century. But again it has been primarily the vocabulary that refers to concepts known to the urban users of the language. This includes of course a great many terms for rural phenomena, which have become everyday terms because of the intimate contacts of most urban dwellers with rural life, whether through vacationing, summer work, childhood experiences, or reading. These words have often entered in forms that were not those of Nn, showing that East Norwegian has been a more potent source of borrow293

CONFLICT AND PLANNING ing than Nn (furu, esle, vett). Beyond this there is a vast stock of words which has been introduced in poetry and novels written in Nn, some of which have made their way into the awareness of Bm speakers and writers, but have a definitely poetic or remote connotation (dàm, ange, von). In practical life the greatest number of words drawn from Nn usage has been those which designated some specific object or institution and were therefore indispensable. Some of these have actually been created words, or at least not previously known in this meaning, such as kringkasting 'broadcasting', bunad 'folk costume', trygd 'social security'. An instructive example is l0yve 'permit', used by government offices instead of the Rm word tillatelse. The word has become a technical term for a government permit and has not otherwise displaced its rival. At the same time the great body of recent innovations in Norwegian have not come from native sources, but are loans from outside the country.27 Vocabulary is of course the least obviously structured part of language and more amenable to change than the grammar. The argument for wealth is therefore strongest in this area, particularly in poetic writing. Dialect terms have shown their appeal in poetry, which is far and away the most successful use to which Nn has been put. The freshness and richness of association gives these words a special value. But they are less apt in the area of intellectual prose, where precision of meaning is promoted by the use of internationally known words, which carry no disturbing overtones of popular usage. Lexical choice is an intricate problem, which we cannot treat further here. While the adoption of Nn and dialect terms into Rm was a rather common feature of writing in the early part of this century, the conflict over fusion has encouraged a reaction against it on the part of some writers, 294

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE André Bjerke, Terje Stigen, Jens Bj0rneboe, Ebba Haslund, to name a few. Others continue the tradition: Káre Holt, Ragnhild Mager0y, Andreas Markusson. Basically it is a problem of style, where judgment needs to be exercised, often involving perceptions of subtle connotations. As was pointed out by Johannes Aanderaa in 1950, the language problem is to a great extent a problem of style.28 Connotations change, but very slowly, and it is possible that the planners have moved a little too fast in attempting within one generation to alter the stylistic sense of their people. Massive re-education in language is not lightly to be undertaken. LINGUISTICS A N D L A N G U A G E

PLANNING

Whenever a topic like the national language becomes a public issue, as it has in Norway, its problems are perforce simplified down to a level where every man becomes his own linguist. The preceding pages have given enough examples of this to make instructive and even entertaining reading for the expert. Yet we have in general excluded the most vapid examples of theorizing which sometimes reach print in the popular press or even in relatively respectable magazines.29 While the ponderings or pontifications of amateurs may have considerable sociological interest, and through the democratic process even some political importance, they are mostly vulgarized fragments of obsolete language philosophies. They are not likely to contain any ideas of interest to a serious student of language. Language planning, as conducted in Norway or any other country, must ultimately be based on the work of professional linguists. Only the technical knowledge of language patterns acquired by such men as Knud Knudsen and Ivar Aasen made it possible for them to make their discoveries (or inventions) of Rm and Lm respectively.30 After them a 295

CONFLICT AND PLANNING long series of distinguished linguistic scholars have made both theoretical and practical contributions to the issues of language planning: Johan Storm, Sophus Bugge, Amund B. Larsen, Moltke Moe, Marius Haegstad, Hans Ross, Hjalmar Falk, Alf Torp, Gustav Indreb0, August Western, Trygve Knudsen, Alf Sommerfelt, Sigurd Kolsrud, Didrik Arup Seip, Hans Vogt, Magne Oftedal, Ivar Alnass, Alf Hellevik, to single out a few. It would be harder to name a Norwegian linguist who has not in some way contributed to the discussion. In their wake a large number of schoolmen have participated both in the planning and in its application to teaching. T h e heavy share of linguists in Norwegian language planning has not gone unnoticed and has been the object of many caustic remarks by opponents either of specific language reform or of language reform in general. Among those who have made their voices heard most vehemently on this topic are such great literary figures as Knut Hamsun and Arnulf 0verland or a publicist and politician like Carl Hambro, all of whom have been quoted above. A common charge has been that linguists are mechanics, tone-deaf technicians, who cannot appreciate the aesthetic values of literature, much less write themselves. T h e most stinging rebuke of this kind, and one of the wittiest, came from the novelist Alexander Kielland, before the period we have been discussing here: "Is it not comforting to observe time and again that professors of language cannot write? They watch over the language like eunuchs over a harem, who cannot make use of the treasure and spend their lives in impotent fury at those who can." 31 It must be granted that linguists are not necessarily equipped to pursue language planning. Their sensitivity to linguistic nuances may be dulled by excessive preoccupation with the mechanics of language. But even a Linnaeus 296

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE

could love flowers, and there is nothing to prevent a linguist from loving his language. Literary men rarely possess the technical knowledge of linguistic patterns to be able to say exactly what they are doing with language. One might as well ask a great dancer or violinist to explain his art. Ability to perform is not necessarily coupled with ability to analyze. Language planning has been described by Ray as the evaluation of linguistic innovation. 32 If this is true, it is necessary to know just what an innovation is and how it relates to the past and present structure of the language. T h e great task of nineteenth-century linguistics was to make clear the fact of linguistic change: all languages change and in regular ways. T h e regularity proved to be so great that many linguists became determinists and denied the possibility of influencing change. Since language planning involves the deliberate direction of linguistic change, it will be rejected by anyone who takes a consistently deterministic position. On the other hand, the fact that other social institutions can be and have been changed by formal planning has given hope to those who find inadequacies in their language. T h e real problem comes in the first step of evaluation: for the literary man's hunch the linguistic scholar attempts to substitute explicit rules. Here twentieth-century linguistics has supplied precious information on the nature of language as a functioning medium of human communication. Only a full understanding of this aspect can provide the knowledge necessary for a useful evaluation. Literary men tend to exaggerate their own importance in establishing standards of writing, overlooking the function of humbler kinds of literary usage, from private letters to journalism. T h e y themselves tend rather to alter the standard by exploring the possibilities of innovation to its limit and beyond. But the standard is important to them as a background against which their figures can be evaluated.

297

CONFLICT AND PLANNING A sprinkling of dialect forms in the folktales of Asbj0rnsen and Moe in 1841 was enough to raise a storm and to alter the concept of Norwegian style. The same dialect forms seemed tame and old-fashioned a century later because of the change in standard; most of them would now pass unnoticed. The deliberate alteration of a standard may therefore seem to many an author to be a threat to the permanence of his work. But it may also provide him with a novel medium for his creativity. Hence writers have been found on both sides of the controversy in Norway: some demanding a rigorous standard, others an elastic one. T h e same is true of linguists. They have by no means been unanimous in their views on either the desirability or the methods of language planning. We have seen that Storm on the Rm side and Indreb0 on the Nn side have bitterly opposed the work of the planners. But most of the others mentioned have at one time or another in their lives been favorable to some aspect of the reforms and have lent their expertise to the cause. When the Language Commission of 1952 was established by the Storting, its mandate specifically stated that its work should be done "on the basis of scientific research." T h e faculty of the University of Oslo at first refused to nominate members to the commission. It was felt that scientific freedom was impossible under the directive "to promote the mutual approach of the two written languages on the basis of Norwegian folk speech." In commenting on this decision the Ministry granted that the problem was not of a purely technical linguistic nature. "A distinction must be made between linguistic research and linguistic normalization or guidance. T h e latter must build on scientific research and take its results into account, but is not in itself a purely scientific problem. It is in equal, or greater degree a national, social, or practical-pedagogic problem." 33 298

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE T h e wide margin of judgment which enters into the question of linguistic normalization of any kind is apparent in the many disagreements among linguists concerning the Norwegian program. In part this is determined by the prevailing climate of linguistic research at any given period. In the nineteenth century and far into the twentieth most Norwegian linguists were primarily historical in their outlook. They thought along lines established by the German Romantics under Jacob Grimm, later formalized by the Neogrammarians and embodied in Hermann Paul's great Principien der Sprachgeschichte,34 Their concern with the establishment of historical sound laws led them to emphasize the continuity of evolution from Old Norwegian to the modern Norwegian dialects. From this point of view the influence of the imported Danish language of writing and the speech of urban people could appear only as a disturbing factor. T h e sound laws provided a criterion for distinguishing oral from literary forms, which in national terms meant Norwegian versus Danish. T h e study of dialectal variation, not only in present-day communities but also in older written sources, provided a certain corrective to this view. Many of the "corrupt" forms proved to be too old and too widespread in the dialects to be attributable to literary Danish influence. An important part of Seip's contribution to language planning was to provide evidence that many "un-Norwegian" forms were in fact developed within the boundaries of the Norwegian speech area. In this way the historical argument could to some extent be met on its own ground. If a suffix like -else (as in 0velse, vœrelse, innvielse) could be shown to have developed out of native materials, there would be no basis for excluding it from the norm. 35 This led to great emphasis on the detection of so-called "reverse spellings" in the documents, which were taken as evidence that many modern 299

C O N F L I C T AND PLANNING forms were in use earlier than had been supposed. It also led to the counting of noses in the rural communities and the drawing of maps of the dialects to show how widespread some of the forms now found in Bm really were. T h e replacement of a purely historical view of language with a structural and synchronic one in present-day linguistics has put a rather different face on these phenomena. While history is important for the evidence it provides of continuity and for the explanations it offers of origins, it cannot replace a thorough insight into the functioning of a language. From the point of view of language planning some of the information mentioned above might be more confusing than helpful. T h e fact that a form had or had not developed within the Norwegian-speaking area had no necessary connection either with its efficiency for communication or its suitability as an element in a Norwegian standard language. For one thing the historical evidence clearly showed that development even within the country had been divergent, while there were contacts across political boundaries with neighboring Sweden and Denmark from the earliest times. No single criterion could be found that would at once be universal for Norway and distinctive from her neighbors. T h e features that were actually widespread in the dialects did not necessarily fit well together into a single linguistic structure. T h e concept of a language as having structure was one that had to await the twentieth century for explicit formulation, as, for instance, in the work of Ferdinand de Saussure.36 But it was clearly present in the work of Ivar Aasen, who on a number of points resisted both historicism and dialectology in order to set up a language which would show "consistent uniformity and inner coherence," as he put it.37 Much of the strength and appeal of his L m was due to this structural conception, as has repeatedly been emphasized 300

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE by such followers of his as Indreb0 and Kolsrud. T h e "elegance" of his language (to borrow a term from recent linguistics) was such as to provide both aesthetic and intellectual appeal to many who would not otherwise have become its devotees. In the long run this strength has proved to be a pragmatic weakness, since it was achieved at the cost of neglecting the most populous parts of the country. For those who did not have a West Norwegian or Midland dialect the price of learning was high. T h e realization that Rm also had a structure was slower to develop, in spite of the pioneering work of Knud Knudsen. Its motley origin and its primarily oral character kept it from getting a grammar of its own until the publication of August Western's book in 1921.38 Western's patient work on Rm and the descriptions of the dialects produced by Storm and Larsen were needed to develop, slowly and uncertainly, a realization that language is not only a historical product, but also a system of communication within a speech community. It remained for the generation of Alf Sommerfelt and Trygve Knudsen to gather in Norsk Riksmálsordbok one of the main arsenals for the understanding and study of Rm as a living language. Sommerfelt launched in Norway the conception of the French school that language was "un fait social" in his book Sproget som, samfundsorgan (Language as a Social Instrument). This view removed some of the onus from Rm as an "imported language," since it now became clear that the important thing was not necessarily its origin, but rather its successful functioning as an instrument of the social order. A view that underlies nearly all language planning in Norway is that writing should be based on speech. This normative judgment is derived from the factual observation that speech is prior to writing both in the development of the human race and the individual human being. In the 301

CONFLICT AND PLANNING words of Leonard Bloomfield, "writing is not language, but merely a way of recording language by means of visible marks." 39 This doctrine reversed the traditional teaching that speech was only an imperfect kind of language. T h e primacy of speech is an important fact and is rightly insisted on by all linguists. But it does not follow that a standard language is limited to its spoken form, or that the spelling should be an exact transcription of speech. It is well if it can be, but in a dialectally divided country like Norway this is impossible. If Bloomfield's dictum were taken literally, the ideal form of writing would be the linguist's phonetic transcription. But from the point of view of communication, especially in a whole nation, the results would be chaotic. In a sound program of planning it is necessary to balance against each other such disparate factors as the advantages of one kind of speech over another, the benefits to be derived by change as compared with the virtues of stability and the merit of various conflicting principles of orthographic reform (as a phonemic versus a morphophonemic spelling). T h e dictum that one should write as one speaks was a useful one in Norway so long as reasonable agreement could be reached on the standard of pronunciation. It permitted the development of a more native and a more teachable orthography. But once it had achieved a reasonable fit with the cultivated R m standard, any further change in the direction of folk speech or N n meant a change in the standard itself. This accounts both for the stiffening of resistance which we have observed and for the moderation of more recent orthographic commissions. Other factors than speech are now brought into the discussion, including "respect for orthographic tradition," which was not a popular theme among earlier reformers. Even so, such linguists as Mikjel S0rlie, Georg Morgenstierne, Carl Hj. Borgstr0m, Ingeborg 302

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE Hoff, and Ingerid Dal were among those who found the work of the L C too radical in its departures from older written norms.40 It is hard to escape the conclusion that the technical work of linguists is necessary but not sufficient in language planning. T h e application of linguistic theory to the kind of problems we have been discussing involves a whole dimension of social psychology. As a problem in applied linguistics it calls for a breed of men who might be denominated "linguistic engineers." W e do not ask theoretical physicists to build bridges, and we should probably not expect linguists to produce a perfect language. 41 THE FRUITS OF PLANNING

Language planning in the nineteenth century brought into being two Norwegian languages of writing in response to the search of the Norwegian people for an identity of its own. Twentieth-century planning has largely been directed toward healing the cleavage, with the ultimate goal of giving Norway a single standard language. In the nineteenth century the planning was mostly private, but its involvement in the national and social issues of the day insured the entry of official planning, which became dominant in the twentieth century. One goal of twentieth-century planning has been substantially achieved: that of giving both languages a common orthographic framework which is unmistakably and adequately Norwegian. In all main features one can say that any word which can be pronounced alike in both languages will be spelled alike. Any given spelling will normally have the same pronunciation in both languages. T h i s success has greatly reduced the burden of learning to spell, without making the process foolproof in either language. It has also made possible the introduction into either language of any SOS

CONFLICT AND PLANNING word or form used in Norwegian dialects without the serious distortion of its sound that was quite normal in the period of Danish spelling. It has stopped and even reversed the trend toward spelling pronunciations based on Danish spelling (for instance, the pronunciation of bok 'book' as bâg because of the spelling bog). T h e greater goal of fusing the two languages into one has, however, not been achieved. Each language has large areas of usage which are peculiar to it and which exclude the other, whether in morphology, syntax, or vocabulary. Conservative adherents of each language are strongly committed to maintaining these features, which to them form a coherent linguistic and stylistic structure. T h e hope of fusionists that East Norwegian usage would form a bridge between the two languages has not been realized because of its lack of social prestige and linguistic coherence. Since World W a r II this has been the main issue, with supporters of N n pinning their hopes more on their ability to infuse Bm with native forms than on any prospect of gaining the total victory for their own language. T h e problem is hardly one to which we can expect any immediate solution. T h e elements of a solution are certainly present, waiting for a political reassessment on the part of the leaders of the Norwegian people. But this would require a creative act which might doom any political party to defeat. As things stand, one can look forward to a slow, agonizing tug of war similar to the one that has been going on over the past generation. Predictions are of course only hazardous projections of the past into the future. In 1951 it was reasonable for a well-informed observer like the German Heinz Kloss to predict that N n would shortly spread throughout all of northern Norway. 42 Since then the trend has been reversed to such an extent that if one were to project it into the future, one could expect that 3°4

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE another generation would see Nn eliminated from the schools. This is rather unlikely, unless there should be a sudden debacle. Purely as a practical matter, the pressure toward national uniformity is strong. The nature of the outcome will be determined in the long run, not by the government or the schools, but by the users of the language, in their private capacity as adult speakers and writers. The solidarity which elsewhere exists between standard languages and socio-regional dialects is here interrupted by the rival claims of two standard languages to represent the nation. The identity is dual and hence to some degree schizoid. The fact of linguistic symbiosis has had to be accepted by a number of modern nations, beginning with Switzerland and multiplying rapidly today. The whole idea that one nation must have one language is under vigorous attack and seems nowhere near as much a matter of course as earlier. But the problem in Norway is that the two languages are not clearly correlated with any significant social division within the people. In Switzerland and Belgium the linguistic populations are regionally distinct; in Greece the division of Katharevousa and Demotike is socially distinct; in India the cleavage of Hindi and Urdu is religio-culturally distinct. In Norway there are only partial correlations with these factors: Nynorsk tends to be West Norwegian in region, rural in social class, and nationalistic in culture. But it does not enjoy the full support of any of these groupings; and some of its most effective leaders are East Norwegian, urban, and international in culture. Part of the anomaly is contained in the fact that the speech situation does not seem at all extraordinary for a West European country. Children grow up speaking mutually comprehensible dialects which vary by region and social class. In the countryside each community has its own dialect which is the only natural medium of its speakers, but it is 3°5

C O N F L I C T AND PLANNING gradually laid aside when they move out of their community. In the cities workmen speak differently from officeholders, but their children adapt to whatever language is spoken among those with whom they associate in their life work. Regional accents are a matter of mutual teasing and prideful self-assertion. T h e speech of the educated urban bourgeoisie is prestigeful and tends to be imitated by the socially ambitious. But the existence of two modes of standardization, both based on some form of Norwegian speech, creates a problem for the prospective school child. He can scale the educational ladder along two different sets of rungs, determined in part for him by his parents and milieu, in part by his own more mature decision. T h e fact that there is great inequality of opportunity in the two paths has only spurred the supporters of N n to greater effort. But it is also cold evidence of the fact that after a century of favorable nationalistic climate N n has not succeeded in capturing the imagination of the people to the extent that they have eliminated its rival. Instead the rival has accommodated itself to the changing times and shown its strength in numerous ways not anticipated in the nineteenth century. T h e features of this "bimodal standardization," to use Ferguson's term, are therefore more indistinct than ever. 43 For the clearly distinct dual languages of a generation ago a spectrum of intermediate varieties has sprung into being, by means of which it is hoped gradually to erase the distinction. T h e y are clearly experimental, in the sense that it is assumed that only those proposals will be made permanent which somehow are accepted in general usage. T h e supporters of N n are virtually admitting that their norm cannot be triumphant. A t the same time they assert that it would be a denial of an important strand in the national culture to eliminate it completely. T h e very fact that their 306

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE language has made a place for itself is taken as an argument for its viability. T h e dilemma remains unresolved as to whether the values which are attributed to the two languages can in fact be preserved in some kind of intermediate language which will be the scion of both. So far all such mediating forms have won little support, since they seem to both sides a dilution and vulgarization of the traditional languages.

307

APPENDIX 1 STATISTICS ON LANGUAGE USE AND PREFERENCE

TABLE 1.

Language use in the public schools Number of pupils

Districts Nationwide

Urban

Percent of pupils

Rural

Nationwide

Rural

Year

Bm

Nn

Bm

Bm

Nn

Bm

Nn

Bm

Nn

1930 1935 1938 1939 1942 1943 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1963

3,748 3,616 3,374 2,666 2,461 2,469 2,444 2,521 2,492 2,524 2,506 2,488 2,514 2,694 2,676 2,681 2,663 2,623 2,577 2,519 2,383 2,302

2,080 2,159 2,250 2,881 2,983 2,978 2,980 2,962 2,912 2,949 2,930 2,748 2,771 2,702 2,655 2,542 2,317 2,210 2,102 1,938 1,675 1,569

96,867 81,913 72,095 99,715 57,353 56,524 57,363 59,972 71,414 73,890 77,318 87,790 93,655 102,753 109,420 116,232 119,620* 119,783* 117,865* 113,109* 106,703* 105,587*

228,602 214,369 196,500 169,036 141,615 138,508 134,645 140,538 132,648 133,802 137,546 151,698 161,778 172,919 184,679 198,172 214,110 215,666 217,439 218,828 222,941 224,121

78,893 73,579 75,913 99,738 98,802 98,616 95,382 94,030 92,141 92,397 94,081 97,932 100,221 103,662 106,446 106,374 104,539 103,074 101,743 97,521 90,284 87,849

80 80 78 71 67 66 67 68 69 69 70 71 72 73 73 75 76 76.5 76.7 77.3 78.5 78.9

20 20 22 29 33 34 33 32 31 31 30 29 28 27 27 25 24 23.5 23.3 22.7 21.5 21.1

74 74 72 63 59 58 59 60 59 59 59 61 62 62.5 63 65 67 67.7 68.1 69.2 71.2 72.2

26 26 28 37 41 42 41 40 41 41 41 39 38 37.5 37 35 33 32.3 31.9 30.8 28.8 27.8

* From 1957 on there was a small number of Nn pupils in urban schools. (67, in 1957; 254, in 1958, etc.) Source: Statistisk Arbole, vols. 53-83 (1934-1964).

3°9

APPENDICES TABLE 2.

Language use in public schools by counties (rural only) Percent of pupils learning Nynorsk

Regions (with counties)

· 1931

1935

1938

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

"Western Sogn og Fjord ane M 0 r e og Romsdal H o r d aland Rogaland

92 67 69 60

93 68 73 61

94 74 77 60

97 93 81 79

97 93 81 79

97 92 80 77

98 92 79 73

98 92 78 68

98 86 75 66

Midland Telemark Oppland Aust-Agder Vest-Agder

47 15 40 33

43 17 41 34

44 22 41 34

47 44 38 45

47 44 38 45

47 46 39 44

44 48 38 42

43 44 33 41

38 40 32 23

"Northern Nord-Tr0ndelag S0r-Tr0ndelag Nordland Troms Finnmark

41 11 7 5 0

36 10 8 5 0

42 16 9 6 0

66 36 31 44 0

67 35 30 48 0

68 37 28 38 0

64 38 24 29 0

61 36 22 27 0

50 25 11 12 0

2 3 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0

13 3 0 0 0

12 3 0 0 0

11 4 0 0 0

12 5 0 0 0

13 4 0 0 0

11 3 0 0 0

Eastern Buskerud Hedmark Akershus Vestfold 0stfold

Soma: Skohslatislikk,

TABLE 3.

1934-1960.

Language use in church services Population

Parishes, nationwide Year

Bm

Nn

a 933 5937 1945 1949 1953

800 787 752 716 735

219 234 286 320 333

Urban Bm 800,514 800,514 808,462 1,004,195* 1,054,820

Percent of population Rural

Nationwide

Rural

Bm

Nn

Bm

Nn

Bm

Nn

1,712,546 1,700,440 1,622,725 1,646,891 1,724,911

301,134 313,240 383,007 470,688 498,815

89 89 86 85 85

11 11 14 15 15

85 84 81 78 78

15 16 19 22 22

* U r b a n parish with Nn, population 1,564. Sourer: Statislisk Arbok, vols. 53-74 (1934-1956). 3IO

i N w n e o w c o N N c v w

!ft l S (O Γ« M co

CN σ> IO CM co en

Λ Ο Ν Ο Φ Ρ ^ ' ΰ Μ — Ν œ Ν Ό Λ Λ CV Ι fsT S çfÇ y-)- ι/·}" co" Γ—~ co ~ I m œ co u-j «n •o ΙΟ Ν h· (Α φ CM

^ 00 r>. S I

ieÇ r» h». r»

CO tû CD Ì7) O Ο f-. oo CM CM «3· m •rt