Studies by Einar Haugen: Presented on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, April 19, 1971 [Reprint 2012 ed.] 9783110879124, 9789027922427

250 86 41MB

English Pages 641 [648] Year 1972

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Studies by Einar Haugen: Presented on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, April 19, 1971 [Reprint 2012 ed.]
 9783110879124, 9789027922427

Table of contents :
Einar Haugen Bibliography
1. The linguistic development of Ivar Aasen’s New Norse (1933)
2. Ivar Aasen as a writer of Dano-Norwegian (1932)
3. Phonological shifting in American Norwegian (1938)
4. Notes on ‘voiced t’ in American English (1938)
5. Et norsk ordregister under utarbeidelse (1939)
6. On the consonant pattern of modern Icelandic (1941)
7. Facts and phonemics (with W.F. Twaddell) (1942)
8. On the stressed vowel systems of Norwegian (1942)
9. Analysis of a sound group: sl and tl in Norwegian (1942)
10. Mere om r-bortfall i sørøstlandsk (1948)
11. The unstressed vowels of Old Icelandic (1949)
12. A note on the Romany ‘language’ (1949)
13. Phoneme or prosodeme? (1949)
14. The analysis of linguistic borrowing (1950)
15. Directions in modern linguistics (1951)
16. From army camp to classroom: the story of an elementary language text (1951)
17. Tone and intonation in East Norwegian (with Martin Joos) (1952)
18. The impact of English on American-Norwegian letter writing (1952)
19. Review: U. Weinreich, Languages in Contact (1954)
20. Review: L. Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (1954)
21. Tvetoppet vokal i oppdalsmålet (1954)
22. Some pleasures and problems of bilingual research (1954)
23. Problems of bilingual description (1954)
24. Tonelagsanalyse (1955)
25. Linguists and the wartime program of language teaching (1955)
26. Elements of bilingual description (1955)
27. The syllable in linguistic description (1956)
28. Syllabification in Kutenai (1956)
29. Review: H. Gneuss, Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen (1956)
30. The phoneme in bilingual description (1956/57)
31. Simultaneous phonemes (1957, unpublished)
32. The semantics of Icelandic orientation (1957)
33. The phonemics of modern Icelandic (1958)
34. New paths in American language teaching (1959)
35. Japanese phonemics: some alternative solutions (1960)
36. From idiolect to language (1960)
37. Language planning in modern Norway (1961)
38. On diagramming vowel systems (1962)
39. Schizoglossia and the linguistic norm (1962)
40. Pitch accent and tonemic juncture in Scandinavian (1963)
41. Notes on a dictionary: John Brynildsen’s Norsk-engelsk ordbok (1963)
42. Construction and reconstruction in language planning: Ivar Aasen’s grammar (1965)
43. Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia (1966)
44. Dialect, language, nation (1966)
45. Linguistics and language planning (1966)
46. On the rules of Norwegian tonality (1967)
47. The mythical structure of the ancient Scandinavians: Some thoughts on reading Dumézil (1967)
48. The Scandinavian languages as cultural artifacts (1968)
49. Isoglosses within a dialect (1968)
50. On the parsimony of the younger futhark (1969)
51. On the pronunciation of Old Norse (1969)
Name Index
Subject Index

Citation preview


Series Maior, 49

Einar Haugen

Studies by D)


Presented on the occasion of his 65th birthday-April 19, 1971

Edited by







O Copyright 1972 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. Ν.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.


Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague.


This collection of articles by Einar Haugen is published to honor him on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday on April 19,1971. The articles included span the distinguished career of their author during an era in linguistics characterized by revolutionary changes. They deal with linguistic theory, bilingualism, Scandinavian linguistics, and language teaching—allfieldsto which Einar Haugen has contributed in significant ways. Among the several possible principles of organization, we have decided on the chronological presentation of the material. This makes it possible to follow the development of the author's thinking from his early studies of the Norwegian language planner Ivar Aasen, and his studies of Norwegian dialects, Icelandic, and American-Norwegian, to his later contributions to phonological and sociolinguistic theory. In the variety of topics, there is a unity of themes. Language planning was an early concern of Einar Haugen, and he has returned to this problem throughout his career. The linguistic diversity confronting him in the Norwegian dialects which he investigated in Norway and in the United States furnished important insights into language in its social context. The analytical problems he encountered in his analyses of Norwegian dialects and Icelandic inspired a number of contributions to general linguistic theory. The theoretical findings which emerged from his studies he in turn applied to such practical concerns as language teaching and language planning. Throughout, Einar Haugen's work is characterized by the fruitful interaction between painstaking field work, theory-building, and application. The articles included here have originally appeared in a number of different publications and therefore represent a variety of formats depending on individual editorial policies. According to the wishes of the author, we have reprinted them essentially in the form in which they were first published and have made only minor changes and corrections. We are indebted to a number of individuals and institutions for help given us in the course of preparing the volume: to the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota for providing funds for xeroxing and intermittent clerical assistance; to the various original publishers for their permission to reprint the articles



as listed in the "Acknowledgements" in this volume; to Professor Cornelius H.van Schooneveld for his willingness to include this collection in his Janua Linguarum, Series Maior; to Mr. Peter de Ridder, editor of Mouton and Company, for having made the publication possible without financial subsidy; to Mrs. Eva Haugen for helping us with the preparation of the bibliography; to Mr.Gylfi Már Gudbergsson and Mrs.Vigdís Sigurdardóttir for redrawing the maps in this volume; to Mr.Lars Wendelius and Miss Karleen Kosiak for helping with the proof reading; to Professor W. Freeman Twaddell for permitting us to reprint the article "Facts and phonemics" written in collaboration with Einar Haugen; to Professor Martin Joos, co-author, for his permission to reprint "Tone and intonation in East Norwegian". Last, but hardly least, we thank Einar Haugen himself for selecting the articles included in this volume. He was kind enough to add comments to most of his earlier studies, which we are sure will be useful to our readers. Furthermore, he has allowed us to include one article, "Simultaneous Phonemes", written in 1957, which has never before appeared in print. While he has helped us in every conceivable way in the preparation of this book, the editors, of course, acknowledge their responsibility for whatever errors may be contained therein. Finally, we wish to extend our congratulations to the author on this happy and memorable occasion. We hope he will be pleased to see his multitudinous spiritual progeny thus assembled in his honor, as pleased as we and a whole generation of students of linguistics have been in encountering them separately over the years. Ad multos annosi Minneapolis, Minnesota

Evelyn S. Firchow

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Kaaren Grimstad Nils Hasselmo Wayne A. O'Neil


The editors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the publishers listed below in granting permission to reprint articles which appeared in their publications. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, Copenhagen, Denmark: "On the consonant pattern of Modern Icelandic", Acta Linguistica, 2, 98-107 (1941). American Anthropologist: "Dialect, language, nation", American Anthropologist, 68, 922-935 (1966). American Dialect Society and University of Alabama Press: "Notes on 'voiced t' in American English", Dialect Notes, 6, 627-634 (1938). Bymâlslaget, Oslo, Norway: "Et norsk ordregister under utarbeidelse", Maal og minne, 1939,1-6; "Mere om r-bortfall i sorestlandsk", Maal og minne, 1948,117-122; "Tvetoppet vokal i Oppdalsmâlet", Maal og minne, 1954, 66-78; "Tonelagsanalyse", Maal og minne, 1955, 70-80. The English Language Education Council, Inc., Tokyo, Japan: "New paths in American language teaching", ELEC Publications, 3, 11-23 (1959); "Japanese phonemics: some alternative solutions", ELEC Publications, 4, 30-44 (1960). Francke Verlag, Bern, Switzerland : "On the parsimony of the younger futhark", Festschrift für Konstantin Reichardt, Bern, 1969, 51-58. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C. : "Problems of bilingual description", Monograph 7, Report of the Fifth Annual Round Table Meeting, Washington, D.C., 9-19 (1954); "From idiolect to language", Monograph 12, Report of the Eleventh Annual Round Table Meeting, Washington, D.C., 57-64 (1960); "Schizoglossia and the linguistic norm", Monograph 15, Report of the Thirteenth Annual Round Table Meeting, Washington, D.C., 63-69 (1962). Greenwood Press, Inc., New York, New York : "The impact of English on AmericanNorwegian letter writing", Studies in Honor of Albert Morey Sturtevant, Lawrence, Kansas, 1952, 76-102. International Journal of American Linguistics: "Some pleasures and problems of bilingual research", International Journal of American Linguistics, 20, 116-122 (1954); "Review : L. Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language", International Journal



of American Linguistics, 20,247-251 (1954) ; "Syllabification in Kutenai", International Journal of American Linguistics, 22, 196-201 (1956). The International Linguistic Association (formerly The Linguistic Circle of New York): "The semantics of Icelandic orientation", Word, 13, 442-459 (1957); "Construction and reconstruction in language planning: Ivar Aasen's grammar", Word, 21, 188-207 (1965). Language Learning: "The phoneme in bilingual description", Language Learning, 7, 17-23 (1956-1957). Linguistic Society of America: "Phonological shifting in American Norwegian", Language, 14,112-120 (1938) ; "Facts and phonemics", Language, 18,228-237 (1942) ; "Phoneme or prosodeme", Language, 25, 278-282 (1949); "The analysis of linguistic borrowing", Language, 26, 210-231 (1950); "Directions in modem linguistics", Language, 27,211-222 (1951); "Review: U. Weinreich, "Languages in contact", Language, 30, 380-388 (1954); "Review: H. Gneuss, Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen", Language, 32,761-766 (1956); "The phonemics of Modern Icelandic", Language, 34, 55-88 (1958); "On the rules of Norwegian tonality", Language, 43, 185-202 (1967). Modern Language Association of America: "The linguistic development of Ivar Aasen's New Norse", PMLA, 48, 558-597 (1933); "Analysis of a sound group: si and tl in Norwegian", PMLA, 57, 879-907 (1942). Mouton and Company, The Hague, The Netherlands: "The syllable in linguistic description", in For Roman Jakobson, The Hague, 1956, 213-221 ; "On diagramming vowel systems", in Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Helsinki 1961, The Hague, 1962, 648-654; "Linguistics and language planning", in Sociolinguistics. Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964, The Hague, 1966, 50-71; "The mythical structure of the ancient Scandinavians: some thoughts on reading Dumézil", To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his 70th birthday, (=Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 31-33), The Hague, 1967, 855-868 ; "On the pronunciation of Old Norse", in Nordica et Anglica, Studies in Honor of Stefán Einarsson, The Hague, 1968, 72-82. Munksgaard, International Booksellers & Publishers Ltd., Copenhagen, Denmark: "Tone and intonation in East Norwegian", Acta Philologica Scandinavica, 22, 41-64 (1952). National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Inc.: "Linguistics and the wartime program of teaching", Modern Language Journal, 39, 243245 (1955). The Pennsylvania State University Press: "Elements of bilingual description" (originally "Problems of bilingual description"), General Linguistics, 1, 1-9 (1955). Sociological Inquiry, Haverford, Pennsylvania: "Semicommunication. The language gap in Scandinavia", Sociological Inquiry, 36, 280-297 (1966). Scandinavian Studies : "Ivar Aasen as a writer of Dano-Norwegian", Scandinavian Studies and Notes, 12, 53-59 (1932); "From army camp to classroom", Scandinavian



Studies, 23, 138-151 (1951); "Language planning in modern Norway", Scandinavian Studies, 33, 68-81 (1961); "Notes on a dictionary", Scandinavian Studies, 35, 296306 (1963). Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany: "Isoglosses within a dialect", Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung, Beihefte N.F. 3 und 4, 332-341 (1968). Universitetsforlaget and Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap, Oslo, Norway: "A note on the Romany 'language'", Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap, 15, 388-391 (1949) ; "The unstressed vowels of Old Icelandic", Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap, 15, 384-388 (1949). University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois: "On the stressed vowel systems of Norwegian", in Scandinavian Studies Presented to George T. Flom by Colleagues and Friends, Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, 29, 68-78 (1952). University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin: "Pitch accent and tonemic juncture in Scandinavian", Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht, 55, 157-161 (1963). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York: "The Scandinavian languages as cultural artifacts", Language Problems of Developing Nations, New York, 1968, 267-284.






Einar Haugen Bibliography


1. The linguistic development of Ivar Aasen's New Norse (1933)


2. Ivar Aasen as a writer of Dano-Norwegian (1932)


3. Phonological shifting in American Norwegian (1938)


4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Notes on 'voiced t' in American English (1938) Et norsk ordregister under utarbeidelse (1939) On the consonant pattern of modern Icelandic (1941) Facts and phonemics (with W.F. Twaddell) (1942) On the stressed vowel systems of Norwegian (1942) Analysis of a sound group: si and tl in Norwegian (1942) Mere om r-bortfall i serestlandsk (1948) The unstressed vowels of Old Icelandic (1949) A note on the Romany 'language' (1949) Phoneme or prosodeme? (1949) The analysis of linguistic borrowing (1950) Directions in modern linguistics (1951)

16. From army camp to classroom: the story of an elementary language text (1951) 17. Tone and intonation in East Norwegian (with Martin Joos) (1952) . . . 18. The impact of English on American-Norwegian letter writing (1952) . . . 19. Review: U. Weinreich, Languages in Contact (1954) 20. Review: L. Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (1954) . . .

72 78 83 91 102 115 142 147 152 156 161 186 199 209 224 241 251

10 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.


Tvetoppet vokal i oppdalsmâlet (1954) 257 Some pleasures and problems of bilingual research (1954) 268 Problems of bilingual description (1954) 277 Tonelagsanalyse (1955) 285 Linguists and the wartime program of language teaching (1955) 293 Elements of bilingual description (1955) 297 The syllable in linguistic description (1956) 304 Syllabification in Kutenai (1956) 316 Review: H. Gneuss, Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen (1956) 324 The phoneme in bilingual description (1956/57) 331 Simultaneous phonemes (1957, unpublished) 337 The semantics of Icelandic orientation (1957) 344 The phonemics of modern Icelandic (1958) 355 New paths in American language teaching (1959) 390 Japanese phonemics: some alternative solutions (1960) 402 From idiolect to language (1960) 415 Language planning in modern Norway (1961) 422 On diagramming vowel systems (1962) 433 Schizoglossia and the linguistic norm (1962) 441 Pitch accent and tonemic juncture in Scandinavian (1963) 446 Notes on a dictionary: John Brynildsen's Norsk-engelsk ordbok (1963) . . 452 Construction and reconstruction in language planning: Ivar Aasen's grammar (1965) 461 Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia (1966) 479 Dialect, language, nation (1966) 496 Linguistics and language planning (1966) 510

46. On the rules of Norwegian tonality (1967)


47. The mythical structure of the ancient Scandinavians: Some thoughts on reading Dumézil (1967) 550 48. The Scandinavian languages as cultural artifacts (1968)


49. Isoglosses within a dialect (1968)


50. On the parsimony of the younger futhark (1969)


51. On the pronunciation of Old Norse (1969)


Name Index


Subject Index


EINAR H A U G E N BIBLIOGRAPHY (•Reprinted in this Volume)

1930 "Strindberg the regenerated", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 29, 257-270. 1931 "Norwegians at the Indian forts on the Missouri river during the seventies", Norwegian-American Studies and Records, 6, 89-121. 1931 "The Origin and Early History of the New Norse Movement in Norway", Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, unpublished. * 1932 "Ivar Aasen as a writer of Dano-Norwegian", Scand. Studies and Notes, 12,53-59. •1933 "The linguistic development of Ivar Aasen's New Norse", ΡML A, 48, 558-597. 1933 "O.E. Rolvaag: Norwegian-American", Norwegian-American Studies and Records, 7, 53-73. 1933 "Review: T. Jorgenson, History of Norwegian Literature", Modern Philology, 31, 205-209. 1934 Beginning Norwegian: A Grammar and Reader (first ed., mimeographed) (Minneapolis: Burgess). 1934 "Bjornson and America — a critical review" (With H. Larson), Scandinavian Studies and Notes, 13, 1-12. 1934 "Ibsen in America: A forgotten performance and an unpublished letter", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 33, 396-420. (1935) 1934 "Ibsen i Amerika. En ukjent fersteopferelse og et Ibsenbrev", Edda, 35, 553-559. 1935 "Review: O.J. Falnes, National Romanticism in Norway", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 34, 147-150. 1936 "Tale holdt ved Vosselaget June 20, 1936", Vossingen, Hefte 32, 12-18. 1936 "Review: Four Icelandic Sagas, translated by G.Jones", Modern Philology, 33, 317-318. 1936 "Review: W. Krause, Was man in Runen ritzte", Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht, 28, 278-279. 1937 Beginning Norwegian: A Grammar and Reader (second ed., printed) (New York: F.S. Crofts).



1937 "A critique and a bibliography of the writings of Rasmus B. Anderson", Wisconsin Magazine of History, 20, 255-269. 1937 "Modernizing the Norwegian Bible", Mere Lys, 24, 88-96. 1937 "On translating Peer Gynt", Scandinavian Studies and Notes, 14, 187-198. 1937 "Review: M. Sandvei, Norwegische Konversations-Grammatik, and W.G. Johnson, Beginning Swedish", Scandinavian Studies and Notes, 14, 110-112. 1937 "Reviews : L. M. Hollander, Old Norse Poems", Monatsheftefür deutschen Unterricht, 29, 178-179. 1937 "Review: Norwegian Emigrant Songs and Ballads, translated and edited by T. Biegen", Minnesota History, 18, 198-201. 1938 "Studies in Norwegian Literature during 1936", Scandinavian Studies and Notes, 15, 12-25. 1938 "Norwegian emigrant songs and ballads", Journal of American Folk-Lore, 51, 69-75. *1938 "Phonological shifting in American Norwegian", Language, 14, 112-120. 1938 "Georg Brandes and his American translators", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 37, 462-487. 1938 "Language and immigration", Norwegian-American Studies and Records, 10, 1-43. *1938 "Notes on 'voiced /' in American English", Dialect Notes, 6, 627-634. 1938 "Review: K. Knudsen, Livsminner", Scandinavian Studiesand Notes, 15, 91-93. 1939 Om en samlet fremstilling av norsk-amerikansk sprogutvikling (= Avhandlinger utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo II. Historisk-filosofisk Klasse, 1938, No. 3) (Oslo). 1939 Norsk i Amerika (Oslo: J.W. Cappelens Forlag). •1939 "Et norsk ordregister under utarbeidelse", Maal og minne, 1-6. 1939 "Review: T. Jorgenson and N. Solum, 0. E. Rolvaag: A Bibliography", American-Scandinavian Review, 27, 280. 1940 Reading Norwegian (New York: F.S. Crofts). 1940 "Norway and the war" (Address), Capital Times, Madison, Wisconsin, Ma y 17. Reprinted by the American-Scandinavian Foundation (New York, 1940). 1941 "Knut Hamsun and the Nazis", Books Abroad, 15, 17-22. *1941 "On the consonant pattern of Modern Icelandic", Acta Linguistica, 2, 98-107. 1941 Voyages to Vinland: The First American Saga (Bibliophilie ed.) (Chicago: Holiday Press). 1941 "Intonation patterns in American Norwegian", Language, 17, 40-48. 1941 "Review: A. Gustafson, Six Scandinavian Novelists", The Saturday Review, January 18. 1941 "Review: A. Olrik, A Book of Danish Ballads, translated by E.M. SmithDampier", Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht, 33, 237. 1942 Voyages to Vinland: The First American Saga (New York: Knopf). 1942 Norwegian Word Studies. Volume 1: The Vocabularies of Sigrid Undset and



Ivar Aasen. Volume 2, The Vocabularies of the Old Norse Sagas and of Henrik Wergeland (Madison, Wisconsin : University of Wisconsin Press). 1942 "Problems of linguistic research among Scandinavian immigrants in America", Bulletin (American Council of Learned Societies), 34,35-57. »1942 "Facts and phonemics" (with W. F. Twaddell), Language, 18, 228-237. •1942 "On the stressed vowel systems of Norwegian", Scandinavian Studies Presented to George T. Flom by Colleagues and Friends (=Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, 29), 66-78. •1942 "Analysis of a sound group: si and tl in Norwegian", PMLA, 57, 879-907. 1942 "Review: H. Koht, Norway: Neutral and Invaded", Annals of the Americna Academy of Political and Social Science, 220, March, 227-228. 1942 "Review: Sunnßordlaget i Amerika gjennem tredive Aar 1912-1942", Wisconsin Magazine of History, 25, 482-483. 1943 "Ibsen in the mill race", Scandinavian Studies, 8, 313-316. 1943 "Myten om Vinland", Nordmannsforbundet, 36, 67-69. 1943 "Da Alexander Kielland tenkte seg til Amerika", Nordmannsforbundets Julehefte, 38-42. (Reprinted in Edda, 66, 403-409, 1966). 1943 "Translation: A. 0verland, 'You must not sleep'", American-Scandinavian Review, 31, 5-7. 1943 "Review: Scandinavian Studies Presented to George T. Flom by Colleagues and Friends", Germanic Review, 18, 304-305. 1943 "Review: C.W. Stork, Anthology of Norwegian Lyrics", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 42, 288-291. 1944 Spoken Norwegian: Basic Course ( = War Department Education Manual 532) (Madison, Wisconsin: U.S. Armed Forces Institute). 1944 "Norske timer for amerikanske soldater", Nordmannsforbundet, 37, 37-40. 1945 "Scandinavian for war and peace", Modern Language Notes, 60, 26-29. 1945 "G. I. talk in Iceland", American Speech, 20, 228-229. 1945 "Review: H. Koht and S. Skard, The Voice of Norway", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 44, 107-108. 1945 "Review: B. Hovde, The Scandinavian Countries", American Historical Review, 50, 795-797. 1946 "Et norsk hedersskrift i Amerika", Maal og minne, 91-96. 1946 "Thomas Wolfes siste bok", Samtiden, 55, 641-645. 1946 "Amerikansk universitetsliv i dag", Nordisk tidskrift, 22, 230-243. 1946 "Pastor Dietrichson of Old Koshkonong", Wisconsin Magazine of History, 29, 301-318. 1947 Spoken Norwegian (New York: Henry Holt and Co.). 1947 "Nordmenn og svensker i Amerika", Nordisk tidskrift, 23, 330-337. 1947 "Swedes and Norwegians in the United States", Norsk geografisk tidsskrift, 11, 189-198. 1947 Articles on Aasen, Bojer, Bull, Elster, Heiberg, Hoel, Janson, Kielland, Kinck,



Obstfelder, Vogt, Wildenvey, 0verland (H. Smith, ed.), Columbia Dictionary of Modern European Literature (New York: Columbia University Press). 1947 "A Norwegian calendar stick in Wisconsin", Wisconsin Magazine of History, 31, 145-167. 1947 "Review: F. G. Cassidy, The Place-Names of Dane County, Wisconsin", Wisconsin Magazine of History, 31, 209-211. 1947 "Review: G.T. Flom, The Morphology of the Dialect of Aurland", Language, 23, 166-170. 1947 "Review: P. Tylden, Me-Vi", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 46, 431-434. 1947 "Review: I. Modeer, Studier över slutartikeln i starka femininer", Language, 23, 445-448. 1947 "Review: P. Skautrup, Det danskesprogs historie, vol. 1", Language 23,448—453. 1947 "Review: O. Beito, R-boygning", Word, 3, 144-147. 1948 "Norwegian dialect studies since 1930", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 47, 68-79. 1948 "Litt om àndslivet i det norske Amerika", Vinduet, 2, 333-343. 1948 "En œtling av Romerike forteller om livet i Wisconsin. Norsk-amerikanske spràkpraver" (Reidar Th. Christiansen and Niels Romerike, Studier og Samlinger [1948], 39-49). •1948 "Mere om r-bortfall i sorastlandsk", Maal og minne, 117-122. 1948 "Translation: A. Vaa, ' Winged Letter' ", American-Scandinavian Review, 36,122. 1949 "Sigmund Skard og Amerika", Verdens gang, Oslo, February 25. 1949 "A note on diachronic sound charts", Studies in Linguistics, 7, 63-66. •1949 "Phoneme or prosodeme?", Language, 25, 278-282. 1949 "A Norwegian-American pioneer ballad", Norwegian-American Studies and Records, 15, 1-19. 1949 "Norges litterasre profil i den engelsktalende verden", Vinduet, 3, 473-479. *1949 "The unstressed vowels of Old Icelandic", Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap, 15, 384-388. *1949 "A note on the Romany 'language'", Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap, 15, 388-391. 1949 "Phonemics : A technique for making alphabets" (Review : K. Pike, Phonemics), American Speech, 24, 54-57. 1949 "Review: E. Wessén, Svensk sprákhistoria, and De nordiska sprâken", Language, 25, 62-63. 1949 "Review: A. Stene, English Loan-Words in Modern Norwegian", Language, 25, 63-68. 1949 "Review: G. Bergman, A Short History of the Swedish Language", Language, 25, 307-308. 1950 First Grammatical Treatise: The Earliest Germanic Phonology, an Edition, Translation, and Commentary (= Language Monograph, 25). Language, 26/4, Supplement. Baltimore, Md.



1950 "Terminological notes: An objection", Studies in Linguistics, 8, 1. •1950 "The analysis of linguistic borrowing", Language, 26, 210-231. (Reprinted in Approaches to English Historical Linguistics, [ed. by C.T. Scott] [New York : Holt and Co.], 1969, 58-81 ; in Readings for the History of the English Language, [ed. by C.T. Scott and J.L. Erickson] [Boston: Allyn and Bacon], 1968, 319344; in Approaches to English Linguistics, ed. by R. Lass. [New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston], 1969, 58-81 ; and in English Linguistics: An Introductory Reader, ed. by H. Hungerford, J. Robinson, and J. Sledd. [New York: Scott, Foresman and Co.], 1970, 429-256). 1950 "Problems of bilingualism", Lingua, 2, 271-290. 1950 "Wisconsin pioneers in Scandinavian studies", Wisconsin Magazine of History, 34, 28-39. 1950 "Review: L. Pap, Portuguese-American Speech", Language, 26, 436-439. 1951 "The Swedish attorney in Waupaca County", The Swedish Pioneer Historical Quarterly, 1, 39-43. 1951 A Study of the Norwegian University Entrance Examination or "Artium" Degree With Notes on the University of Wisconsin Policy for Foreign Students (Third rev. ed.) (Reprinted by Kirke- og Undervisnings-departementet, Oslo). •1951 "Directions in modern linguistics", Language, 27, 211-222 (Reprinted in Readings in Linguistics, ed. by M. Joos, Washington D.C. : American Council of Learned Societies, 1957, 357-363). •1951 "From army camp to classroom", Scandinavian Studies, 23, 138-151. 1951 "The background of'Iron Curtain' and 'Moola'", American Speech, 26, 203204, 305. 1951 "Review: L. Holberg, Seven One-Act Plays, translated by H. Alexander", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 50, 426-427. 1952 "The struggle over Norwegian", Νorw- American Studiesand Records, 17,1-35. 1952 "Perspektiver i norsk mâlfereforskning", Dagbladet, Oslo, May 26. •1952 "The impact of English on American-Norwegian letter writing", Studies in Honor of Albert Morey Sturtevant (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press) 76-102. •1952 "Tone and intonation in East Norwegian" (with M. Joos), Acta Philologica Scandinavica, 22, 41-64. 1952 "Lyspunkt i sprâkstriden" (Review: Ph. Boardman, Nuggets of Norse), Arbeiderbladet, Oslo, November 26. 1952 "Review: B.W. Downs, A Study of Six Plays by Ibsen", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 51, 290-292. 1952 "Review: E. öhmann, Die mittelhochdeutsche Lehnprägung nach altfranzösischem Vorbild", Language, 28, 397-401. 1953 The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Vol. I: The Bilingual Community. Vol. II: The American Dialects of Norwegian (Philadelphia,. Pa. : University of Pennsylvania Press).



1953 "Henrik Ibsen, Peer Gynt: A Glossary and Commentary for American Students" (Stencilled: Dept. of Scandinavian, University of Wisconsin, Madison). 1953 "Snorri Sturluson and Norway", American-Scandinavian Review, 41, 119— 127. 1953 "Til Halvdan Kohts 80-ârsdag", Nordisk tidende, Brooklyn, N.Y., July 9. 1953 "On resolving the close apposition", American Speech, 28, 165-170. 1953 "Nordiske sprâkproblemer — en opinionsundersekelse", Nordisk tidskrift, 29, 225-249. 1953 "Review: W.F. Leopold, Speech Development of a Bilingual Child, and Bibliography of Child Language", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 52, 392-397. 1953 "Review: T. Knudsen, Gammelnorsk homiliebok etter AM 619 QV", Scandinavian Studies, 25, 151-154. 1953 "Review: R. Myhre, Vokalismen i Iddemálet", Language, 29, 544-547. *1954 "Some pleasures and problems of bilingual research", International Journal of American Linguistics, 20, 116-122. 1954 "Norwegian migration to America", Norwegian-American Studies and Records, 18, 1-22. 1954 "Ibsen's mill race once again", Scandinavian Studies, 26, 115-117. *1954 "Tvetoppet vokal i Oppdalsmâlet", Maal og minne, 66-78. *1954 "Problems of bilingual description", Report of the Fifth Annual Round Table Meeting (= Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 7), 9-19. 1954 "Review: G. Indrebe, Norsk málsoga", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 53, 94-96. *1954 "Review: L. Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, translated by F.J. Whitfield", International Journal of American Linguistics, 20, 247-251. *1954 "Review: U. Weinreich, Languages in Contact", Language, 30, 380-388. *1955 "Problems [Elements] of bilingual description", General Linguistics, 1, 1-9. 1955 "The living Ibsen", Quarterly Journal of Speech, 41, 19-26. 1955 "Norway and America: The ties that bind", Wisconsin Magazine of History, 38, 139-144. *1955 "Linguists and the wartime program of language teaching", Modern Language Journal, 39, 243-245. »1955 "Tonelagsanalyse", Maal og minne, 70-80. 1955 "Review: T. Aamland and I. Semmingsen, Agder og Amerika", Wisconsin Magazine of History, 38, 120-121. 1955 "Review: Ν jáis Saga, translated by C.F. Bayerschmidt and L.M. Hollander", Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht, 47, 245-246. 1955 "Review: Β. Birkeland and R. Djupedal (eds.), Norsk folkemâl", Language, 31, 139-141. 1955 "Review: A. Bjerrum, Fjoldemâlets lydsystem; E.Jensen, Houlbjergmâlef,



Κ. Olsen, Synchronisk beskrivelse af Aabenraa bymaal; and I. Ejskjaer Brendummälet", Language, 31, 141-147. 1956 Bilingualism in the Americas: A Bibliography and Research Guide. ( = Publication of the American Dialect Society, 26) (University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press). 1956 Translation : H. Beyer, A History of Norwegian Literature (New York : New York University Press). 1956 "Norske beker i norsk-amerikanske hyller" (I. Lyche, Η. M. Fiskaa, and D. A. Seip, eds.), Kulturoptimisme og folkeopplysning: Festskrift til Arne Kildal pâ 70-árs dagen, 10 desember 1955 (Oslo : Aschehoug). 1956 "Inntrykk fra Ibsenuken", Arbeiderbladet, Oslo, June 11. *1956 "Syllabification in Kutenai", International Journal of American Linguistics, 22, 196-201. *1956 "The syllable in linguistic description" (M. Halle, H. Lunt, and H. MacLean, eds.), For Roman Jakobson (The Hague: Mouton), 213-221. 1956 "Letters from Iceland", Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin), March 2-April 19. 1956 "Thalia in Reykjavik", American-Scandinavian Review, 44, 335-340. 1956 "Ibsen in America", Edda, 56, 270-288. 1956 "Review: Njál's Saga, translated by C.F. Bayerschmidt and L.M. Hollander", Speculum 30, 459^60. 1956 "Review: Henrik Ibsen, Peer Gynt, translated by H.M.Finney", AmericanScandinavian Review, 44, 284. *1956 "Review: H. Gneuss, Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen ', Language 32, 761-766. 1957 Beginning Norwegian: A Grammar and Reader (third rev. ed.) (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts). 1957 "The first international conference on Scandinavian studies", Scandinavian Studies 29, 19-23. *1957 "The phoneme in bilingual description", Language Learning, 7, 17-23. (Reprinted: The English Language Teachers' Magazine, 7, 123-128, 1958 and Η. B. Allen, ed., Teaching English as a Second Language. [New York: McGrawHill], 1965, 120-125.) 1957 "Landiö mitt og landiö ykkar", Eimreiôin, 63, 210-220. •1957 "The semantics of Icelandic orientation", Word, 13, 447-459. (Reprinted in Cognitive Anthropology [ed. by S. Tyler] [New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston] 1969). 1957 "Talt og skrevet i Amerika" (J. Hambro, ed.), De Tok et Ν orge med seg (Oslo: Dreyers Forlag), 224-241. 1957 "Review: E. Ó. Sveinsson, The Age of the Sturlungs, translated by J. S. Hannesson", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 56, 462-464. 1957 "Review : C. F. Ander, The Cultural Heritage of the Swedish Immigrant: Selected References", Wisconsin Magazine of History, 40, 301-302.



1957 "Review: The Saga of the Jomsvikings, translated by L.M. Hollander", Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht, 49, 284. 1957 "Review: L. DeBroy, L'emprunt linguistique", Language 33, 587-589. 1958 "Tungumálakennslu i Bandaríkjunum beint inn á nyjar brautir", Skírnir, 131,21-39. •1958 "The phonemics of Modern Icelandic", Language, 34, 55-88. 1958 "Nordiske studier i Amerika", Proceedings of the First International Conference on Scandinavian Studies, Cambridge, England, July 2-7, 1956. (Cambridge, England), 9-20. 1958 "Language contact", (Eva Siversten, ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists. (Oslo: Oslo University Press), 772-785. 1958 "Review: E.V. Gordon, An Introduction to Old Norse, Second ed. revised by A.R. Taylor", Scandinavian Studies, 30, 98-102. 1958 "Review: J.R. Firth, Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951", Language, 34, 498502. 1958 "Review: H. Markström, Om utvecklingen av gammalt a framför u i nordiska spräk: tilljämning och omljud", Studies in Linguistics, 13, 83-87. * 1959 "New paths in American language teaching", English Language Education Council Publications, 3, 11-23. (Reprinted in T. Yambe, ed., Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of English [Tokyo: The English Language Education Council], 1970). 1959 "Planning for a standard language in modern Norway", Anthropological Linguistics, 1, 3, 8-21. (Reprinted in J. A. Fishman, ed., Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton, 1968). 1959 "Review: R.P. de Gorog, The Scandinavian Element in French and Norman", Language, 35, 695-699. *1960 "From idiolect to language", Report of the Tenth Annual Roundtable Meeting. (=Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 12), 57-64. 1960 "Vilhelm Mobergs amerikasvenska 'sammelsurium av orimligheter'", Svenska Dagbladet, Stockholm, May 11. 1960 "Mobergs amerikasvenska—en replik",Sraij&a Dagbladet, Stockholm, June 3. 1960 "Andrew Petersons spràk", Svenska Dagbladet, Stockholm, December 2. 1960 "Goals and methods in foreign language teaching", English Language Education Council Publications, 4,5-17. Reprinted in English Language Teachers' Magazine, 2, 74-82 ; also in T. Yambe, ed., Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of English [Tokyo: The English Language Education Council], 1970.) * 1960 "Japanese phonemics : Some alternative solutions", English Language Education Council Publications, 4, 30-44. (Reprinted in Nadbitka ζ prac filologieznych t. 18 cz„ 1, 1963, 29-42). 1960 "The problems of bilingualism", The Bulletin of the Institute for Research in Language Teaching, 244, 6-21.



1960 "Bjernson opdager Amerika", Edda, 60, 169-184. 1960 "Rettskrivningsstrid i det moderne Japan", Arbeiderbladet, Oslo, April 6-8. 1960 "Review: R. Filipovic, The Phonemic Analysis of English Loan-words in Croatian", Language, 36, 548-551. 1960 "Review: B. Malmberg, Nya vagar inom sprâkforskningen: en orientering i modern lingvistik", Language, 36, 524-527. 1960 "Review: G. Indrebo, Norsk Mâlsoga", Maal og minne, 71-78. *1961 "Language planning in modern Norway", Scandinavian Studies, 33, 68-81. 1961 "The bilingual individual" (S. Saporta, ed.), Psycholinguistics: A Book of Readings (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), 395-407. 1961 "The Scandinavian languages, and supplement on teaching aids" ( = W o r k Paper for the Conference on Neglected Languages), Report of the Conference on Neglected Languages, Appendix 12, 174-186. 1962 "Laxness and the Americans", (Ragnar Jónsson, ed.), Afmœliskveôjur heiman og handan. Til Halldórs Kiljans Laxness sextugs (Reykjavik: Helgafell), 44-47. 1962 "J.R. Reiersen's 'indiscretions'", Norwegian-American Studies, 21, 269-277. *1962 "On diagramming vowel systems" (A. Sovijärvi and P. Aalto, eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Helsinki, 1961 (The Hague: Mouton), 648-654. 1962 "Norway's language problem", The Norseman, 3, 17-19. *1962 "Schizoglossia and the linguistic norm", Report of the Thirteenth Annual Roundtable Meeting (— Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 15), 63-73. *1963 "Pitch accent and tonemic juncture in Scandinavian", Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht, 55, 157-161. 1963 Introduction to O.E. Rolvaag, Giants in the Earth (New York: Harper and Row), ix-xxvi. *1963 "Notes on a dictionary: John Brynildsen's Νorsk-engelsk Ordbok", Scandinavian Studies, 35, 295-306. 1963 "Review: P. Hallberg, The Icelandic Saga, translated by P. Schach", Western Humanities Review, 17, 283-284. 1963 "Review: F. Householder and S. Saporta, Problems in Lexicography", American Anthropologist, 65, 752-755. 1964 Spoken Norwegian (with K. Chapman) (revised ed.) (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston). 1964 Bilingualism in the Americas: A Bibliography and Research Guide (second printing) ( = Publication of the American Dialect Society, 26) (University, Alagbma: University of Alabama Press). 1964 "Introductory and concluding remarks", (H. Lunt, ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1962 (The Hague: Mouton), 4-7.



1964 Translation: H. Koht, Driving Forces in History (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). 1964 "Review : J.N. Carman, Foreign Language Units of Kansas I", American Speech, 39, 54-56. 1964 "Review : J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language", Language, 40,260-269. 1964 "Review: N. Tavuchis, Pastors and Immigrants", American Anthropologist, 66, 1233-1234. 1965 Norwegian-English Dictionary: A Pronouncing and Translating Dictionary of Modern Norwegian, with a Historical and Grammatical Introduction (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press). 1965 "Amerika, island og Leifur Eiríksson". Lésbók Morgunblaôsins, Reykjavik, October 24. 1965 "Bilingualism as a goal of foreign language teaching", (V.F.Allen, ed.), Conference on Teaching English To Speakers of Other Languages (Champaign, Illinois : National Council of Teachers of English), 83-87. 1966 Language Conflict and Planning: The Case of Modern Norwegian (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). 1966 "Om ikke â ta Standpunkt i sprogstriden", Aftenposten, Oslo, May 10. *1966 "Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia", Sociological Inquiry, 36, 280-297. *1966 "Construction and reconstruction in language planning: Ivar Aasen's grammar", Word, 21, 188-207. *1966 "Dialect, language, nation", American Anthropologist, 68, 922-935. *1966 "Linguistics and language planning" (W. Bright, ed.), Sociolinguistics (The Hague: Mouton), 50-71. 1966 "The sources of the Vinland map", Arctic, 19, 287-295. 1966 "National and international languages" ( = Voice of America Forum Series, 10. (Reprinted in Linguistics Today [A. A. Hill, ed.], [New York : Basic Books], 1969, 103-113). 1966 "Alf Axelss0n Sommerfelt", Language, 42, 612-614. 1966 "What is the oral approach?" (G.E. Wishon and T. J. O'Hare, eds.), Teaching, English: A Collection of Readings (Cairo : American University in Cairo Press), 1-12. 1966 "Bilingualism and bidialectism" (R.W. Shuy, ed.), Social Dialects and Language Learning (Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English), 124-126. 1966 Translation and adaptation: G.H. Gvále, Introduction to O.E. Rolvaag, Peder Victorious (New York: Harper and Row), vii-xix. 1966 "Review: R. A. Skelton, T.E. Marston, and G.D. Painter, The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation", Speculum, 41, 770-774. 1966 "Review: B. Sigurd, Phonotactic Structures in Swedish", Scandinavica, 5, 145-146.



1966 "Review: M. O'C. Walshe, Introduction to the Scandinavian Languages", Scandinavica, 5, 147-148. 1966 "Review: Det danske sprogs udforskning i det 20. ârhundrede", Scandinavian Studies, 38, 347-349. 1967 Norwegian-English Dictionary: A Pronouncing and Translating Dictionary of Modern Norwegian, with a Historical and Grammatical Introduction (second printing) (Madison, Wisconsin : University of Wisconsin Press). 1967 The Norwegians in America: A Students'1 Guide to Localized History (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University). 1967 "The prosodie system of Norwegian", Scandinavian Studies, 39, 47-51. *1967 "The mythical structure of the ancient Scandinavians: Some thoughts on reading Dumézil", To Honor Roman Jakobson (The Hague: Mouton), 855-868. •1967 "On the rules of Norwegian tonality", Language, 43, 185-202. 1967 Translation with introductions: General introduction; Introduction to and translation of The Wish; Introduction to The Golden Gate·, Introduction to and translation of Atoms and Madams. Fire and Ice: Three Icelandic Plays (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press), 3-88, 171-264. 1967 "Review of H. Benediktsson, Early Icelandic Script", Speculum, 42, 513-515. *1968 "Isoglosses within a dialect", (L.E. Schmitt, ed.), Verhandlungen des zweiten internationalen Dialektologenkongresses, Marburg/Lahn, 5.-10. September 1965. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung, Beihefte N.F. 3 und 4, 332-341. 1968 "The Scandinavian languages as cultural artifacts", (J. A. Fishman, C.A. Ferguson, and J. Das Gupta, eds.), Language Problems of Developing Nations (New York: Wiley), 267-284. *1968 "On the pronunciation of Old Norse" (A.H. Orrick ed.), Nordica et Anglica, Studies in Honor of Stefàn Einarsson (The Hague: Mouton), 72-82. 1968 "Two views of Old Norse pronunciation: IP or RP? A discussion", Medieval Scandinavia, 1, 138-173. 1968 "Review: C. Matras (ed.), J. C. Svabos Dictionarium Fxroense, I: Otdbogen", Scandinavian Studies, 40, 159-163. 1968 (1967) "Review: I.E. Gullberg, Svensk-engelsk fackordbok för näringsliv, förvaltning, undervisning, och forskning", Language, 43, 561-564. 1968 (1967) "Review: B. Sigurd, Phonotactic Structures in Swedish", Language, 43, 803-809. 1969 The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Vol. I: The Bilingual Community; Vol. II: The American Dialects of Norwegian (second printing, in one volume) (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press). 1969 Rikssprâk ogfolkemál: Norsk sprâkpolitikk i det 20. árhundre (Translation by D. Gundersen of Language Conflict and Language Planning.) (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget). •1969 "On the parsimony of the younger futhark" (C. Gellinek, ed.), Festschrift für Konstantin Reichardt (Bern and Munich: Francke), 51-58.



1969 "On translating from the Scandinavian" (E. Polomé, ed.), Old Norse Literature and Mythology: A Symposium (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press), 3-18. 1969 "Language planning, theory and practice" (A.Graur, ed.), Actes du Xe Congrès International des Linguistes, Bucarest, 1967,1 (Bucarest: Editions de l'Academie de la République Socialiste de Roumanie), 701-711. 1969 "Review : T. C. Biegen, The Kensington Rune Stone: New Light on an Old Riddle", Minnesota History, 41, 237-239. 1969 "Review: V. Tauli, Introduction to a Theory of Language Planning", Language, 45, 939-949. 1970 "Thor Helgeson, schoolmaster and raconteur", Norwegian-American Studies, 24, 3-28. 1970 "On the meaning of bilingual competence", (R. Jakobson, ed.), Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics (Tokyo : TEC Corporation for Language and Educational Research), 221-229. 1970 "Phonemic indeterminacy and Scandinavian umlaut", Folia Linguistica, 3, 107— 119 1970 "The language history of Scandinavia: A profile of problems" (H. Benediktsson, ed.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics, (Reykjavik: Vísindafélag íslendinga), 41-86. 1970 Translation: G. Kamban, We Murderers, a Play in Three Acts (Madison, Wisconsin : University of Wisconsin Press). 1970 "On the ecology of languages", Toward the Description of the Languages of the World, Conference August 1-8, 1970 (New York: The Wenner-Gren Foundation). (Reprinted in 1971 as "The Ecology of Language", The Linguistic Reporter, Supplement 25, 19-26). 1970 "Linguistics and dialinguistics", Report of the Twenty-First Annual Round Table Meeting (= Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 23), 1-12. 1970 "Moderne norsk avissprâk", Dagbladet, Oslo, September 18. 1970 Translation: "Two Swedish Poems", American-Scandinavian Review, 58, 399400. 1971 "Bishop Eric and the Vinland map", (W. E. Washburn, ed.), Proceedings of the Vinland Map Conference (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 137-144. 1971 "Norsk i Amerika: Studier og status", (A. Hamburger, A. Sudmann, B. Molde, eds.), Sprâk i Norden 1971 (Oslo: Norsk sprâknemnd), 111-123. 1971 "Review: Sprâk i Norden 1970", Scandinavian Studies, 43, 290-292. 1971 "Instrumentalism in language planning", (J. Rubin and B. Jernudd, eds.), Can Language be Planned (Honolulu: Univ. Press of Hawaii), 281-289. 1971 Translation (with A. E. Santaniello) : H. Koht, Life of Ibsen (revised edition) (New York: Benjamin Blom). 1972 "The Scandinavian languages: Fifty years of linguistic research" (with T. L.





1972 1972 1972 1972 1972


Markey), (T. Sebeok, ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 9 (The Hague: Mouton), in press. (Also as a separate volume). First Grammatical Treatise: The Earliest Germanic Phonology, an Edition, Translation, and Commentary (— Classics in Linguistics Series), (Revised Edition), (London: Longmans, Green, and Company), in press. "Bilingualism, language contact, and immigrant languages in the United States: a research report 1956-1970", (T. Sebeok, ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 10 (The Hague: Mouton), in press. The Ecology of Language. Essays by Einar Haugen. Selected and Introduced by Anwar S. Dil. (Language Science and National Development Series) (Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press). Editor and Translator: Georges Dumézil, Gods of the Ancient Northmen (University of California Press : Los Angeles, Calif.), in press. "Review: J. R. Rayfield, The languages of a bilingual community", Lingua, in press. "Some issues in sociolinguistics", (O. Uribe-Villegas, ed.), Reader in Sociolinguistics (Institute of Social Research : Mexico City), in press. "The perfect tense in English and Scandinavian: a problem in contrastive linguistics," Canadian Journal of Linguistics, in press. "The Scandinavian languages", Encyclopaedia Britannica, in press.


It does not often happen that a language form created by conscious deliberation and planning wins the warm support and widespread acceptance which has fallen to the lot of New Norse, the creation of Ivar Aasen (1813-1896).1 A large body of serious literature has grown up in this artificial common denominator of Norwegian dialects; possibly a fourth of the school-children of Norway receive their chief instruction in it. Although New Norse is far from its goal of supremacy, it is a factor of the utmost significance in Norwegian history, and a phenomenon of great interest to students of language and literature. The earliest detailed study of Aasen's linguistic practice is found in Johan Storm's polemic pamphlet Det nynorske Landsmaal.2 That brilliant scholar here applied his wit and ingenuity to proving that New Norse (Landsmaal) as written, was not and could not be a language, because of its inevitable tendency to crumble up into the dialects of which it was created. To this end he analyzed in some detail the language of the various New Norse writers, among them Aasen. His purpose did not, however, involve an exhaustive study of Aasen's works, many of which were then unknown or scattered. Hence his classification was inadequate and at times definitely incorrect. He divided Aasen's New Norse into an older form, represented by Prover af Landsmaa et (1853) and Fridtjofs Saga (1858), and an intermediary form used in Ervingen 1 Aasen referred to the language form he had created as "Landsmaal", an ambiguous term meaning either "country speech" or "national speech". There is no single term in English which will render it, and it is decidedly inconvenient to leave it untranslated in an English text. As a useful term for this language the writer has employed — and would recommend to others — "New Norse". This suggests, but does not literally translate, its present official name in Norway — "Nynorsk". (This last is not a happy term for "Landsmaal", as it literally means "New Norwegian" and should be reserved to include all modern Norwegian language forms and dialects.) "New Norse" is appropriate also because it emphasizes the descent of Landsmaal from Old Norse and because it does not, like "Nynorsk", beg the question by claiming to be the only modern Norwegian language. Its rival, most commonly known as "Riksmaal" (officially called "Bokmâl") is most accurately and euphoniously described as "Dano-Norwegian", meaning not a Danish variety of Norwegian, but a Norwegian language of Danish extraction. By consistently using these terms, we have arrived at an English nomenclature more exactly expressive of present conditions than the original Norwegian terms: to wit, that there are two NORWEGIAN language forms in present-day Norway — one a Dano-Norwegian, the other a New Norse. 9 Copenhagen, 1888.



(2d ed., 1874), Heimsyn (1875) and Symra (3d ed., 1875). But this rough division (based chiefly on the change in 1858 from dan, dal to den, dei) gives us no conception whatever of the gradual steps by which Aasen passed from form to form and the experimentation out of which his completed New Norse norm was shaped. Much more accurate, though less detailed, is the study of Aasen's New Norse contained in Chapter VII of Halvdan Koht: Ivar Aasen.3 This work distinguishes itself by solid learning and originality of viewpoint. Koht's citations from Aasen's unprinted diary even make his account a partial sourcebook for the American student. Here are outlined the successive steps by which Aasen reached his standard New Norse and the reasoning on which they were based. The present study accepts his general outline; but as Koht has recorded only the more outstanding features and has occasionally misdated, there is still room for amplification. Achille Burgun's valuable work, Z,e développement linguistique en Norvège, is less concerned with Aasen's development than with his rôle in the great drama of Norwegian linguistic history.4 The details of external form are very briefly considered, and most of the space is given to Aasen's motives and theoretical considerations. His discussion of Aasen's vocabulary is a distinct contribution. The purpose of the present study is to record in detail all but the most inconsequential changes Aasen made in his linguistic form, when these changes show a reasoned development and bear some significant relationship to the views held by Aasen and his contemporaries concerning the Norwegian language. Space compels the omission of all material dealing with Aasen's Dano-Norwegian, his writings in dialect, the discussions leading up to his new Norse, and his treatment of syntax and vocabulary. The study owes something to V. Waschnitius' "A. O. Vinjes Sprachentwicklung", but is for the most part quite independent of that excellent summary.5 The bare linguistic facts are here presented in tabular form, and only the most significant discussed in the body of the article. A sample passage rewritten into each of the four forms here postulated will assist in visualizing the extent of Aasen's variation between them.


After long and thorough deliberation, accompanied by private and public discussion with the competent scholars of his day, Aasen published his first grammar of the dialects in 1848 and his first dictionary in 1850.® The grammar, while listing

* Ivar Aasen. Ei minneskrift, ved Α. Garborg, A. Hovden, Η. Koht. 1913. Koht's contribution, pp. 11-200. * Vid. Selsk. Skr. Hist.-Fil. Klasse (1917), No. 1. Part II, in same series (1921), No. 5. See esp. I, 154-168; II, 46. 6 Edda 1921,161-201 (xiv). For a discussion of Aasen as a writer of Dano-Norwegian see my article in Scandinavian Studies, XII (1932), 53-59. (This volume pp. 58-63). * See list of New Norse production for exact titles.



all dialect forms, usually gives the preference to one; and the dictionary, though it does not completely normalize words found in one dialect only, establishes national standards for most words. We have the right to call this first his New Norse form, because he has left us one actual composition in a form very closely resembling that found in these works. This was a dialogue between two peasants, written December 27,1848, and published in Morgenbladet 1849, No. 5. To this dialogue Aasen appended a note, declaring that "the language form is created by the union of several dialects".7 This form clearly reflects the views expressed by Aasen in the discussions of the preceding years. A reference to the accompanying tables and samples will make clear the nature of it. There were few reconstructions of Old Norse forms, and none which were quite unsupported by the usage of any dialect. It was a realistic form, in which Aasen tried to choose the 'best' among the living dialects. He presented it as the form best suited for the publication of folk-lore when it was not desired to render any one dialect. In a notation concerning the ballads he expressly rejected the ideal of further Old Norse restoration, but, he said, "It will be another matter when some one wishes to compose something original in this language; then he is of course free to use whatever form he desires."8 This remark points toward the greater restoration which he even then expected to introduce before he published his official New Norse form, the one which was to compete with the entrenched Dano-Norwegian as a national tongue. He did not intend his first form to be final; he conceded in the preface to the dictionary : "The important thing here was to present the situation as it actually exists."9 "The language form here erected is thus not yet a perfect form or a language norm; a new dictionary or a new grammar will be needed if such a language norm should be found necessary."10 He did not yet, however, contemplate very extensive changes: "For the rest it is to be hoped that the present language form will be found very near the norm, and that the cases in which a more perfect form should necessarily be adopted are not very numerous." The tenor of this form is struck by the words in the preface to the grammar: "It would be necessary to consider the most usual as well as the best or most perfect ,..." u It is striking how freely Aasen operates with such purely subjective concepts as 'good' and 'best' when dealing with the forms of the various dialects. In his eyes the 'best' or 'most excellent' form or dialect was the one which most nearly resembled Old Norse. Because Old Norse was the fountain-head from which all the dialects had departed, it became also the norm and pattern by which their greater or lesser perfection was judged. The very usage in Norwegian of the word 'fuldkommen' contributes to the confusion, because it may mean either 'complete' or 'perfect'. Hence those dialects, usually the West Norwegian, whose forms were most 'complete', 7

' • 10 11

Skr. II, 7-13. Note, ibid., 305. Cf. Langes T. II (1848), 276-277. Die1, VII. Ibid., Vili. Gr1, XU.



least worn away by time, were a priori the most 'perfect' also. The conception that the dialects of the East were corrupted was not new with Aasen. It existed before his time, 12 and is found in his writings even before he had actually studied the dialects. 13 In this connection it is of interest to note the relation between Aasen's native dialect of Sunnm0re and his New Norse. The most important influence of the dialect was unquestionably that its West Norwegian character predisposed him to favor a West Norwegian basis for his New Norse. 14 To this we may add certain orthographic and grammatical features which he carried over into New Norse from his earlier dialect writings. 15 As will be seen later, however, most of the agreements with his dialect were gradually eliminated, except in so far as they were common West Norwegian. Even in Stage I there were almost as many disagreements as agreements with his dialect, especially on controversial points. 16 Only two or three of these were later eliminated in favor of forms agreeing with those of the Sunnm0r dialect. There was no single criterion even in his first form which his dialect does not share with most other W N dialects, excepting only d after accented vowels (e.g., in god, sida), which can easily be accounted for in other ways (as etymology and comparison with Danish). He was just as rigid in excluding the peculiarities of his own dialect as those of others ; his wide and thorough knowledge of the dialects had liberated him from dependence on any one. The West Norwegian basis of his New Norse is primarily signalized by his complete rejection of the characteristic East Norwegian development described in the so-called 'law of equilibrium'. He adopted instead the pure and simple vowel system of Old Norse and W N in its most original form, allowing only a few exceptions. A few East Norwegian dialect features do not succeed in counteracting the effect of this decision, which brought with it many more characteristic West Norwegian traits.17 " Cf. D. A. Seip, in MM, 1924, 135, and in Norskhet i Sproget hos Wergeland (Kristiania, 1914); Burgun, op. cit., etc. la Cf. essay of 1836, in which he wrote that the peasants had preserved the national language, "even if this is not equally true of all districts." Skr. III, 9. In the plan submitted to the Scientific Society in 1842, he distinctly called the western dialects "superior in age and purity, as may be supposed from their notable similarity to Icelandic." SS, 1902, 464. 14 Some features identical with his own dialect were: treatment of vowels (pt. 1 and 9); k, g before unaccented palatal vowel (5); presence of ON ö after accented vowel, absence after r and before cons. (6); absence of restored final cons. (12-15); use of -e- in den, det, der (26). 16 Many of these he had learned from earlier writers like P. A. Munch and L. K. Daa: doubling of long consonant, use of ey for ei, restoration of etymological nn and II for Danish nd and Id, distinction of consonant combinations (hj, Ij, gj, etc.) which had become identical in the dialects. " Important disagreements: adoption of -i in def. sing, of strong fem. (17), and of -a for the weak (18); distinction of weak fem. from strong in the plural (19); absence of datives (22); han in accus, case (25); absence of plural verb forms (28); use of -a in unaccented syllables, esp. wk. fem. and inf., all of which have been levelled to -e in Sm.; final r after vowel; absence of svarabhakti vowel before ON r (7), etc. 17 East Norwegian features: a before ng (WN ç); loss of ON r after cons., without svarabhakti vowel; distinction of weak feminine in plural; rejection of WN consonant and vowel perversions, e.g. dn for rn and diphthongization of long vowels; -a in def. sing, of weak fem. noun; die, den, dxr (also SWN and NWN). All but the last of these forms are etymological. West Norwegian features: Most important of all is the vowel system (pts. 1 and 9); others are



A brief discussion of two or three specific points will cast some light on Aasen's outlook and methods. 1. d after accented vowels (see pt. 6 in tables). — Before Aasen's time Norwegian words which were adopted in Dano-Norwegian were regularly written without the d {Li, Hei, Sau). Against this practice Aasen protested. To omit the silent d, he declared, "would be too great an injury to the language". It was as necessary to the word as any other consonant, and its omission would give the language "an appearance of imperfection and place it on a lower plane, about as a dialect when compared with the other languages". In other words, because Danish and Swedish had the d (ON Ö), Norwegian must have it to seem equally dignified. So he declared : "For the national language or norm the rule must now be that d is to be written wherever it properly belongs, and that it must also be pronounced in reading."18 This last is an especially surprising statement. 2. ON short high vowels (u, i, y) before single consonant. — As will be seen from the table (pt. 1), these have in the East been generally lowered a full step, whereas in the West there is frequently found an intermediate vowel. Earlier writers of dialect, who were most familiar with EN, had generally employed the open vowels (o, e, 0), writing, e.g., skom 'dark', Let 'color', and Der 'door'. But in his first grammar Aasen criticized this procedure and desired a restored spelling which would distinguish the old closed vowels from those which were originally open: skum, Lit, Dyr. The distinction between these half-open vowels and the originally open ones is especially well preserved in his own dialect: in Aasen's quaint phrase: "The state of the vowels is particularly good." 19 The best pronunciation of these vowels is apparently the one which is current in Bergen's Diocese and the southern Midland (de sydlige Fjeldbygder) ... 2 0 The most and the best dialects distinguish these sounds plainly and this distinction corresponds closely to the old spelling ... — This is one of the great advantages of the language which should not be given up ... It is only the newer and more corrupted languages in which the broader vowels have gained the upper hand, and in which the relationship of words through ablaut and umlaut has become indistinct. 21

The old way of writing with the "broad" vowel can only be defended so long as one writes for foreign readers in a dialect which one does not consider of any importance. But when the language is to be treated as the language of an entire country, many higher considerations must be included, and the vowels must be restored

pts. 2,16,23,26, the use of -a in unaccented syllables (CWN), retention of short cons, after lenghtened vowel (e.g. vita, EN vxtta), j after short vowel plus cons, (sitja), etc. " Gr» 33n. " Sm. Gr. 8. 10 Gr% 29; italics mine, as also in the two following quotations. " Die1 XII.



to that form which is found from the constant orthography of the old language to be correct and which still has perfect support in many good dialects.12 The basic motive of his appeal to etymology here appears to be the consideration of dignity, the fear that his New Norse might sound too much like the plebeian dialects of Eastern Norway. The same argumentation he applied to the middle vowels, e and o, as is discussed below. 3. Ending of def. sing, strong fem. and def. plur. strong neuter nouns (pt. 17), e.g., bok, hus. — Aasen deliberated much on the proper choice at this point. 28 His own as well as the overwhelming majority of the dialects used -a, but aside from two experiments around 1850, he completely rejected this form. It was not legitimately descended from Old Norse, because it had entered the strong declension by analogy, not by the regular sound laws. It meant also a confusion of strong and weak, which Aasen preferred to avoid. Finally, it was found chiefly in the EN dialects which it was traditional to regard as 'corrupted'. Aasen's chief difficulty lay in the fact that among the 'legitimate' descendants of the O N -in there was no single strong contender. The nearest of the usable forms is properly the ending "e"; but this form is inconvenient, because there are so many other forms which end in "e" and because the peculiar intonation which distinguishes this form from others can not be indicated in writing.21 The form -a? he dismissed without consideration and chose the most unusual and remote form possible, namely -/', which also lay nearest ON, at the same time admitting that "the form with 'i' is not very convenient either, but does have the advantage that it is clearly distinguished from other endings." All this complication he drew upon himself because he chose to reject the familiar -a, no doubt because of the taint of vulgarity which clung to it, a taint which he could avoid by using the more remote and therefore more dignified -i. As compared with his later forms, the striking feature of this form was its lack of restored consonants in unaccented syllables. On this account it leaves a more distinctly modern impression than any of Aasen's later forms, in spite of its predominantly WN character. The tendency in modern New Norse has been to slough off as many as possible of his later reconstructions and to return to his first simple form, leaving only his really valuable improvements.


Even before the dictionary was completed, Aasen was dissatisfied with some of the principles he had adopted in it.25 He felt a lack of consistency and dignity in his form. " Gr129n. *· Cf. letter to Landstad, Oct. 3, 1848, printed MM, 1926, 32. " Gr* 168n. " Die1 IX.



In these years he was engaged on a task which brought these problems more immediately before him. M.B. Landstad had sent him (in July 1848) his collection of ballads for revision and correction. For four years these two discussed the problems of form, personally and by correspondence. While not an Old Norse scholar, Landstad was inclined to restore older forms; Aasen sought to modernize his version of the ballads and did succeed in eliminating a few of the worst antiquities.2® Another friend who may have influenced Aasen in these years was J. R. Unger, the Old Norse scholar. In a letter to Landstad in 1848 Aasen wrote: Although I ... have not yet definitely made up my mind concerning a Norwegian language n o r m (Normalsprog), yet I . . . have often thought of the matter, and spoken of it with several ..., especially Hr. Kand. Unger, who is greatly interested in this m a t t e r . "

Some letters from Aasen to Unger confirm the close relations of these two men and their mutual interest in this topic. A sentence from Unger's review of Aasen's Prever will show his conception of how written languages had been 'created' by the men who first wrote them: One must not believe that such men adopted the language at every point just as it was spoken by the ordinary m a n ; they were usually students of the older, original mother tongue, and knew how in their treatment of the spoken language to take the other into proper consideration and how to idealize it in the manner necessary for a written language.™

This romantic view shows that Unger's influence also would be in the direction of a less phonetic and more idealized form. It seems as if all possible influences of these years were combined to reinforce P.A. Munch's etymological argument in Aasen's mind.29 The ideas were in the air; they were current philological doctrine, and to Aasen's thinking particularly strengthened by the teachings of Rask and Grimm, his great authorities.30 Perhaps equally important was Aasen's inborn love of symmetry and order. Everywhere he was the systematic genius, who loved to putter with grammatical forms and interminable word lists, and never failed to turn chaos into order. He abhorred confused grammatical endings which failed to distinguish such categories as strong from weak and masculine from feminine. Early in September of 1850 he returned to Sunnmore for the first protracted stay since he started to study the dialects in 1842. Here at last he got leisure to devote some attention to the problem of a national language. Yet in a letter of this year to M. Aarflot he jokingly referred to s

* See correspondence printed in MM, 1926,1-65. Six letters from Aasen to Landstad are included, written from 1848 to 1852. Discussions are found in M. Moe, Samlede Skrifter, III, 172; in Koht, Minneskrift, 134; K. Liestel, Edda, 1926,19. " MM, 1926, 31. m Langes T., 1853, 293, note 1. Italics mine. — See also article by Unger in Nor, III, 3h., p. 123. Correspondence between Aasen and Unger 1849 to 1851 printed by G. Indreba, SS, 1924, 20-34. " The controversy with P. A. Munch is discussed in Koht, op. cit., 136-138. ao a . Liest0l, "Ivar Aasen", SS, 1913, 341 f.



Norwegian, the language which does not exist ... I for my part have not yet any definite plan concerning this matter; I have thought, it is true, of trying the thing some time, but I do not believe it will be of much use, as there is altogether too much in the way, and our people will probably not care for any new language. 31

In 1852 he still wrote to Landstad: As for the national language form we have spoken of, nothing of consequence has yet been done with it. I for my part have not yet come to any definite plan concerning this matter." The writings of this period were produced at intervals, in the midst of other work. But still the planning of the new language went on. In May, 1852, Aasen wrote a review of the new popular periodical, Folkevennen. The efforts of the editor, Ole Vig, toward a more popular and national style gave Aasen the opportunity of once more broaching his conceptions in public. A new "language form" must be created : "Only through such a radical reform can the nationality of our language again be restored." Much care would have to be exercised in the creation of such a form: "The language would have to be studied from its very foundation, and treated with the greatest care »33 The comprehensiveness and thoroughness of Aasen's planning for the new language are well exemplified by this passage as well as numerous others in which he referred to the necessity of "good judgment (Skjonsomhed)" and of "a definite plan for form and orthography". 34 He also emphasized the fact that he looked to no sudden revolution; his new language was to be used at first only in folk-lore, "all that which the people itself has invented or adapted and given a definite form, and which can not quite bear translation." 35 His new language was to be regarded as "a sort of dialect, and the gradually advancing efforts in it about as dialect works." 36 Since November 27, 1850, he had been working on an "Arrangement of material for the plan for a Norwegian language form", but not before November of 1852 was he able to devote serious attention to it. This arsenal of short, compact sentences which he did not complete before March, 1854, and never printed, contains in brief compass both his argumentation and his plans for the new language. Again he issued his warning against irresponsible tinkering and scattered effort: "The machine is delicate and very complicated, so that not every hand is fitted to prune it and correct it." As often before he expressed his doubt of the value or ultimate success of Knudsen's effort to Norwegianize Danish: A safer expedient would be to erect a distinct Norwegian language form according to the best dialects, that is, those which most nearly resemble the old language, but in such a way that the vocabulary, so far as necessary, might be taken from all existing dialects, and the " Quot. from Koht, op. cit., 140. ·· April 16. MM, 1926, 46. •a Skr. III, 47. M Ibid., 60-61. «« Ibid., 61. ·' Ibid., 62.



forms when necessary could be corrected and amplified (udfyldes) in accordance with the old language." In the months which followed, he worked steadily along the lines suggested by this essay. The plan for composition there laid down was as follows : It will be best to begin with folk-lore compositions, traditions (Sagri) and folktales, folk-verse (Stev) and ballads. Thence one could pass to descriptions of nature, stories and poems, or popular pamphlets on history and other interesting topics.38 Several compositions of this period (numbers 7-13 in the accompanying table) are evidently discarded material originally written for the collection known as Prever af Landsmaalet, which is discussed in the next section. He worked and reworked his plans for this book during February, March, and April of 1853. The compositions which by external or internal evidence can be dated in this transitional period show a distinct etymological trend. One by one the forms of the old language crept into his New Norse, until nearly all the leading features of Stage II, his first official form, were adopted. Typical of this development was his treatment of the ON short mid vowels (e, o), which he had not completely restored in Stage I (pt. 9 in table). This was the specific point which he regretted in the preface to his dictionary. It was an axiom with the etymologists that the symbols aa and x, being descended from ON ά and χ (its umlaut), should never be used, as they frequently were in Danish, to represent the old short sounds o and e, even if many of these had been lowered and lengthened in modern times. It was therefore a great chagrin to them that Norwegian dialect specimens, as well as dialect words which previously had been adopted in Dano-Norwegian, followed the usual Danish rule and were spelled with χ and aa, regardless of etymology. This argument was reinforced by the fact that (as with the high vowels) the WN dialects had undergone less opening of these vowels than the EN. The usual EN sounds were χ and ά, the WN è (ç) and ό. This is true, according to Aasen, of his own dialect and of the 'best' dialects generally. Yet even some of these have allowed the e and o to be excessively lowered : "in Sondhordland [SWN] O' comes a little too near to Aa; in Hardanger [CWN] E' approaches too much to JE."39 Yet even this would not have caused him to hesitate, had not the 'best' dialects, including his own, all lowered the vowels in certain positions. For this reason he made certain exceptions to his restoration in his first form, in accordance with the exceptions of his own dialect. But this was too inconsistent for Aasen's systematic mind. By 1852 χ and aa (a) were restricted to vowels descended from ON χ and ά, with only one small exception. This general elimination of aa and χ in writing resulted in a spelling which frequently failed to represent the usual pronunciation. Aasen conceded that there were "many instances, where one must write 'e', although the pronunciation seems to demand 'ae'." He also admitted that there was " " "

The article is printed by K. Liestal in MM, 1917, 4-22. This quotation from p. 14. Ibid., 20. Gr' 29η.



no obvious way of knowing these instances, because "a greater knowledge of the origin and relationship of the words" was necessary.40 This is a plain statement of the rule he followed: etymology before the living pronunciation. By looking a bit deeper we may again discern the esthetic aversion which made him reject -a in the strong feminines (boka), because the symbols a? and aa and their 'broad' sounds were associated with the vulgar dialects of the East. In his first grammar he referred to e and o as "the simplest and prettiest (smukkeste) form" and deplored the tendency "to give the vowel a broader form, which is so frequently noticeable in speech and so often disfigures it." 41 The same emphasis on dignity may be traced in his restoration during these years of the lost consonants of Old Norse. The most important of these were the final t and d of unaccented syllables (pt. 12 and 13 in table). Aasen felt that his language was incomplete without these consonants. There could be only one explanation of this feeling of incompleteness: their presence in written Danish and Swedish. The /'s were at first restored as d's, apparently in imitation of Munch's silent ö ; this represented a late pronunciation of the t in Middle Norwegian before its loss. But in 1852 he definitely turned to the old t, leaving only the common words da and kva.i2 The d's began to appear irregularly in the same year, and were soon fully restored. With these silent letters the appearance of Aasen's New Norse was quite altered, being changed from a vocalic to a consonantal language. But it had also exchanged its denuded and vulgar appearance for one of equal dignity with the neighboring literary languages. One form which caused him considerable difficulty was the definite singular of the weak feminine nouns (pt. 18). As early as 1848 he had expressed doubt in a letter to Landstad whether he should distinguish the weak from the strong feminine in this form; the distinction is found only in the CWN, NWN, and Midland dialects.43 At that time he was inclined to the WN -o as the best ending for this form. In Stage I, however, he adopted instead the EN -a. -o appeared in 1852, but throughout this period Aasen vacillated, until in Stage II he adopted -o, but not for good. In 1854 he returned to -a. The chief difficulty lay in finding a 'genuine' form, which would also distinguish the definite from the indefinite noun. In O N the indefinite and definite were distinguished by a final η : visa, visan. But as Aasen refused to adopt the lost n, he had to look for some other mark of distinction. EN dialects, which have lost the -a of the indefinite (-e, or -«), employ the ON -a in the definite (vise, visa); but the WN dialects which have retained the -a of the indefinite (CWN visa) have altered the O N -an to o or à. Here was a point where the etymological principle clearly clashed with the principle of distinction in form, and where WN was less 'genuine' than EN. Aasen insisted on retaining the -a in the indefinite; to adopt -a in the definite also 40 41 48


Gr2 13n. Gr148n. He made this change before April 16, cf. letter to Landstad, MM, 1926, 46. MM, 1926, 32.



would sacrifice the clear distinction of definite from indefinite, to adopt -o would sacrifice the regularly descended ON form. The choice of -o in Stage II strengthened the WN element in his language. His return to -a, the natural form for EN speakers, was certainly not due to its wide distribution, but to its legitimacy of descent from ON. 44 In his second grammar (1864) he merely wrote that this form "seems ... to be the most convenient" ; the form in -o "seems here to have much against it".46 Such vagueness of expression was rather unusual with Aasen; it seems to show a certain lack of assurance. He minimized the inconvenience of having the two forms identical; and with the premise that the indefinite form must end in -a, his choice was no doubt best. But it was notably an artificial construction without dialect support and a sacrifice of convenience to etymology.46 Another important WN (and ON) characteristic adopted at this time was the pronominal and adverbial forms dan, da, dar, instead of the original den, dx, dxr (pt. 26). The frequency of these words made their remote forms particularly offensive to all but CWN speakers.


On June 21, 1853, Aasen officially launched his New Norse with the publication of Prever af Landsmaalet i Norge, which may be roughly translated as "Specimens of Norwegian Country Speech".47 The first part contained a series of thirty-two dialect texts, representing twenty leading dialects from Lofoten in the north to Saetersdalen in the south. But to Aasen these were only preliminaries. His heart was in the last fifty pages of the book, where he had collected his efforts in the New Norse language 44

This is also Burgun's view, op. cit. II, 46. Cf. Aasen, Norske Ordsprog, XXII. Gr* 169n. " Cf. J. Storm, Det nynorske Landsmaal, 48-49. 47 Aasen first used the term "Landsmaal" in his diary of June 1, 1851, (according to Koht, op. cit., 136), while he was working on Prever. Just what did he mean by this term? The Norwegian word "land", like the English "country", may apply either to the country-side, the rural districts only, or to the country as a whole; hence "Landsmaal" may mean either "country speech" or "national speech". Koht maintains, op. cit., 147, that when Aasen wrote Prever af Landsmaalet, he did not think of it as primarily a "country speech", but as a proposal for a national tongue which might find entry even into the Danicized cities. Yet it is undeniable that Aasen also constantly uses the word in the other sense. In the previously cited "Grundtanker", written about this time, he speaks of Norway's two languages, "et Bymaal som holder sig til Dansken, og et Landsmaal som intet har at holde sig til." (MM, 1917, 9). Here he distinctly contrasts "landsmaal" with "bymaal" or city speech. Furthermore, we may suppose that the title of his book is intended to cover also the dialect specimens which constitute nearly two thirds of the book, and are all from the country. His proposal for a national language is also based entirely on the country dialects. "Landsmaalet i Norge" could hardly have borne any other meaning to contemporary readers than "the country speech of Norway"; the usual term for a standard written language was "Rigsmaal". Aasen called his norm "et almindeligt Landsmaal", roughly translated: "a language common to the entire country-side". Aasen believed that this language should also be the national language, and may have been unconsciously strengthened in this belief by the linguistic confusion of the two meanings of "land". It was easy enough to understand "et almindeligt Landsmaal" to mean also "a language common to the entire country". 46



under the heading "Prever af et almindeligt Landsmaal". The plan of the book was thus inductive: first he presented his concrete evidence, the dialects; thereupon he showed how their essential elements might be abstracted into a worthy and dignified medium of elevated discourse. After properly introducing his dialect specimens, he proceeded: It seemed to me that one has not by a collection of mere dialect specimens given any satisfactory exhibition of the folk language. One has shown a series of forms and transitions; but one has exhibited little of the essential qualities of the language, its power and its capacities for cultivation in a higher sense.48 He did not claim to have erected an iron-clad scheme from which no variations might be permitted: The language form in which the following pieces are written is to be regarded as a form for a common Norwegian language proposed for further testing (til mermere Prevelse), or as an attempt to unite the country dialects (Bygdemaalene) and employ their united stock of words and phrases in a single grammatical structure. 4 '... It will be seen from the subjoined annotations that there has been a good deal of doubt and uncertainty on certain points, and that some changes could no doubt be made. But it must be remembered that in reality it is only on inessential points there has been any such uncertainty, while the essential basis which the language itself offers us must be regarded as pretty thoroughly established.60 There were three types of composition, arranged in order of increasing difficulty: A. Traditional lore; B. Original compositions; C. Translations. The original compositions included a simple incident of peasant life and two essays (on 'poetry' and 'pride'). The translations consisted of two prose passages from English (Macaulay) and two from German (Humboldt, Rotteck), and selections from Romeo and Juliet, Schiller's "Lied von der Glocke", and Byron's "Childish Recollections". In a brief preface to the New Norse selections he gave an account of the structural principles he had followed : The structure here adopted does not completely coincide with any certain dialect; it has possibly the greatest similarity to the dialects of Hardanger and Sogn (CWN), but it also departs from these, in that certain forms are abbreviated and omitted, while other forms are modified or supplemented from other dialects and the old language.51 In the face of this definite statement we can label as incorrect Vinje's characterization of Aasen's New Norse in Prover as "strongly Sunnmorish".62 Examination of the criteria leads us to the same conclusion ; several of the agreement with Sm. dialect in Stage I were eliminated in II, and the general trend of the changes was toward CWN. 48

Prever, 5. Ibid., 83. 50 Ibid., 5. 61 Ibid., 83. " Review of Prever in Drammens Tidende (June 24, 1853); reprinted Vinje, Skrifter i Sämling I, 100-104. "



Vinje could scarcely have known much about WN dialects at this time, except in a very superficial way. Most of the innovations of the transitional stage were continued into II. Perhaps the most striking feature of the completed form was an orthographic one, the elimination of j after initial palatalized k, g, and sk (pt. 11). The inconsistency of the D N spelling annoyed P. A. Munch and the other etymologizers, who desired restoration of k and g before all vowels with the understanding that they should be palatal before palatal vowels.63 Aasen wrote in his first grammar: "It might seem most correct to write only g and k ... But the other spelling also has a number of arguments in its favor ,.." 54 One of these was the danger of incorrect pronunciation. He did not wish to antagonize his readers unnecessarily and therefore began by following the usual Dano-Norwegian rules. But in Stage II he experimented with the etymological spelling, using only k and g initially. But in his comments he wrote: "I am not much inclined to use this method in the future, as it has great inconveniences ,.." 85 Hence he immediately returned to the old rule, introducing only minor modifications. A notable departure from the living pronunciation in this stage was the adoption of r before η in the plural definite forms (pt. 15). This r, like the silent consonants previously mentioned, was found in Danish and Old Norse. By introducing it, he was serving at once the etymological ideal and the dignity of the language. The same is true of the dative forms and the plural verb forms which began to appear at this time. In Stage II dative forms were found chiefly in poetry, where the plurals in -ont provided convenient forms for the rhymester. The first step in the restoration of plural verb forms was made here. Aasen considered these forms to be of some importance; to those who would quite abandon them, he replied that other languages had retained them—"even the English language, otherwise so sparing of inflections."58 He regretfully admitted that nearly all dialects had lost them, "even some very good dialects". His own dialect retained the present plurals — "often, though not universally".57 But he saw a certain usefulness in them, for clarity of expression and for use in verse. "Further it should also be noted that the plural form we are here considering is an old, genuine, and uncorruptedform ,.." 58 This was the clinching argument. It is important to note that plurals were then used in written Dano-Norwegian, though the preterite plural was growing less common; all plurals have since been abandoned in Dano-Norwegian (as well as in New Norse). The adoption of them was a distinct backward step, and quite out of keeping with the development of the dialects as well as Dano-Norwegian. The antiquity of these forms wielded a powerful influence over him, but he would scarcely have adopted them had he not been accustomed to their use in written Dano-Norwegian. "

Vidar 1934, No. 92, 93, 95; cf. T. Knudsen, P. A. Munch og samtidens norske sprogstrid, 24. Gr1,30. " Prever, 84. M Gr*, 234η. «' Sm,Gr, 70. " Gr', loc. cit. M



A significant and crucial point is his treatment of the lost -n of the definite feminine nouns (pt. 13i>). To all appearances it is analogous with the lost s and d's above: it is nowhere pronounced in the dialects, but it is preserved in written Dano-Norwegian. We might expect that he would have restored this, too, for the greater dignity of the language. P.A. Munch, indeed, advised that very procedure and had practiced it in his ballad samples of 1846. But here Aasen took up the contrary position and applied the principle enunciated in his dictionary (1850): "When now a certain variation from the old language runs through all the dialects, then this might be regarded as a characteristic of Norwegian ..." δβ Why did he apply it here and not above? Apparently because Dano-Norwegian had PRESERVED the -n IN PRONUNCIATION also; hence its disappearance in Norwegian speech was really a national characteristic which would be obliterated if the η were written. To adopt the silent t's and d's of Dano-Norwegian and ON was largely an orthographic move, for Aasen scarcely expected anyone to pronounce them, at least not in daily speech; people were accustomed to seeing the i's without pronouncing them. But speakers who were accustomed to pronounce the n's of Dano-Norwegian, as well as dialect speakers, would pronounce them in New Norse also if he wrote them. Furthermore this particular loss preserved a distinct form for the feminine, which otherwise would coincide with the masculine in many nouns (e.g., ON steininn, sólin — NN steinen, soli — DN stenen, solerì). Aasen even attributed the loss itself to an unconscious striving for distinct forms of masculine and feminine, which he considered a leading characteristic of Norwegian.60 Therefore he clung to his first decision, in spite of the pressure from Munch and his own liking for the Old Norse form. 61 After much planning and thorough deliberation, Aasen had in this work succeeded in creating a sonorous and classic form, purged of the dross and 'vulgarity' of daily speech, truly worthy "to be set beside the neighboring languages". It was well calculated to excite the enthusiasm of patriots and idealists, but too distinctly sectional to be readily popularized among the people.


1. Further etymologizing: transition to III (1853-1858). — As Aasen had suggested in the preface of Prever, he continued his tinkering with the New Norse form for many years, though the changes grew less important as time passed. Possibly the most important characteristics of this period were : the return to kj, gj, skj (pt. 5), return to -a in def. sing, weak fem. (pt. 18), use of dat and kvat in prose (pt. 12), the etymological form verda for verta (8b), and a sligthly increased frequency of datives and verb plurals (pt. 21 and 27). Otherwise the form was a direct outgrowth of Stage II. Die1, VII. Gr', 107, 168n. " Prever, 84. "




This was not a period of much theorizing and experimentation; Aasen's concern now was to buttress his new language by composing in it, and by writing occasional polemic articles in its defence. The two chief works in New Norse were the ever popular play Ervingen and the collection of proverbs, Norske Ordsprog. The last of these was reviewed by Ole Vig and criticized for its esoteric form, especially the feminine -i (for -a) and such forms as dat, kvat, Sjo, Snjo (the two last were new in this book). "My opinion is that the structure of a new written language should conform somewhat to what is customary in the greater part of the country ,.." e 2 2. Old Norse triumphant: Stage III (1858). — According to P.A. Munch, the translation of sagas would be one of the principal uses of the new language. In 1858 appeared Aasen's first attempt in this genre, Fridtjofs Saga. This work summed up the development of the preceding five years in a form more etymological than either Stage I or II. It represented the high-water mark in Aasen's adoption of Old Norse forms. Most of his changes after this time were retreats. He used this form also in three brief folk-tales of the two succeeding years, because it rendered more faithfully the CWN dialects from which he had normalized them. All of the leading changes in this form represented an approach to Old Norse (except the adoption of honom and deim for oblique cases, which seems to be modelled on Danish): consistent final a in adverbs (pt. 4), restoration of O N vowel in compounds (pt. 3), full restoration ofjo (pt. 2), full dative plurals and preterite verb plurals. Aasen's words concerning the phraseology apply equally well to the form : "The choice of words has here become somewhat old fashioned, because it is modelled on the old original ..." e 3 As a matter of fact, however, there is only one feature in the external form of this translation which is not also found either in the stage immediately preceding or following, viz., the pronoun mid for me. All the rest of the new etymological features of Stage III remained into Stage IV; there were no other features adopted just for this form and then immediately abandoned. Yet the form as a whole was distinctly more antique than either its predecessor or its successor. This impression was increased by the almost mechanical rendition of the O N phraseology and sentence structure which Aasen at times produced. 3. The completed norm; Stage IV (after 1858). — It is evident that Aasen did not feel the antique form of Fridtjofs Saga to be appropriate for ordinary expository style. It needed some modification to make it more accessible to ordinary readers. It may be, as Koht suggests, that he was alarmed by the appearance in the same year of a book called Ny Hungrvekja, by one Jan Prahl, which far surpassed Aasen in its restitution of Old Norse forms. 64 The book was simply unreadable to any but students of Old Norse. At any rate it was in a review of this work that Aasen first used the form which " ·' M

Den norske Folkeskole IV (1855-1856), 342-347. Skr. ΙΠ, 330. Koht, op. cit., 154.



he thereafter clung to in his expository writing.96 This review appeared in the newly launched publication of Aasmund Olavsson Vinje, Delen, the first New Norse periodical. This is also significant, for in Aasen's slight but unmistakable retreat from his rigid normalization we may undoubtedly trace the liberalizing influence of the same Vinje. The step from Stage III may perhaps not seem large enough to justify a new division. The only immediate change of significance was the adoption of the EN (and Danish) definite article and pronouns den, det, der instead of the WN dan, dat, dar. But this in itself was enough to change the entire appearance of the language and give it a far greater familiarity to the majority of Norwegians. The whole period was further distinguished from the preceding stages by a slight movement away from Old Norse forms. Examples are the reduction of the vowel of composition (pt. 3) and the final vowel of the adverbial -lega (pt. 4) after 1864. On account of these changes, the dictionary of 1873 represented a slightly modified form in comparison with the Grammar of 1864.


(From "Svein Uraedd", Skr. I, 264) (The original form of the specimen passage is that given as Stage III. Changes made to illustrate the various stages concern the external form only; it is impossible to suggest changes in the phraseology or sentence structure. The changes in each form from the preceding are italicized. In this passage there are 67 changes (plus 8 doubtful) between Stage I and II, 29 between II and III, and 21 between III and IV, a fairly typical measure of the relative distance between them.) Stage I (1848-1850) N o var das stilt ei Stund framette; men sida tok dae te dynja aa staaka utar i Kyrkja, aa daa var dae liksom dae skulde livna aa r0ra seg paa alle Sidur. Fyst kom dae fram ei Skreid av svarte Kattar, so dae krydde i kvar ei Kraa, aa sida var dae mange store aa skrasmelege Dyr, som sprang til fraa ymse Sidur aa for kring um Altare mae stygge Laetur aa underlege Aatfaerer, aa sistpaa vart dae slikt eit Brak aa Brot aa slike Smellar i Veggjenne, at dae var h0yrande til, at heile Kyrkja skulde brotna ned (nid). "Dae var daa Gaman," sagde Guten, "eg heve altid havt Hug te sjaa mykjen Leik aa h0yra mykje Staak; men eg hadde ikje venta te sjaa slik ein Dans aa hoyra slike Slaattar no i Natt." Sida stiltest dae av mae dette; men ei Stund dœrette tok das te blaasa aa vart slik ein Storm, at Kyrkja raga som eit Straa paa Markji, aa sistpaa kom dae ein Vindknut so staerk, at han tok upp heile Kyrkja aa kasta henne ut paa Sjeen, so at Baarunne slog inn yver paa alle Sidur, aa altsaman brotna aa dreiv av i Sj0en, so at Guten saag ikje anna en Altare, som han heldt seg i.


Skr. III, 128-136.



Stage II (1853) No var da stilt ei Stund frametter; men sida/! tok da til aa (te) dynja og staaka utar i Kyrkjo, og daa var da liksom da skulde livna og r0ra seg paa alia Sidor. Fyrst kom da fram ei Skreid av svarte Kattar, so da krydde i kvar ei Kraa, og sida« var da mange store og skraemelege Dyr, som sprang til fraa ymsa Sidor og for kring um Altare/ med stygga Laetor og undarlega Aatferder, og sistpaa (sirfst-) vart da slikt eit Brak og Brot og slike Smellar i Veggerne (Veggjorti), at da var h0yrande til, at heile Kyrkjo skulde brotna ned. "Da var daa Gaman," sagde Guten, "eg heve altid havt Hug te (til aa) sjaa my&en Leik og heyra myket Staak; men eg hadde ikje (inkje) venta/ aa sjaa slik ein Dans og hoyra slike Slaattar no i Natt." Sidan stiltest da av med detta; men ei Stund daretter tok da til aa (te) blaasa og vart slik ein Storm, at Kyrkjo raga de som eit Straa paa MarAri, og sistpaa (sidst-) kom da ein Vindknut so sterk, at han tok upp heile Kyrkjo og kastade henne ut paa Sj0en, so at Baaro/τζα slog inn yver paa alia Sidor, og altsaman brotnade og dreiv av i Sjoen, so at Guten saag inkje (ikje) anwzt en Altare/, som han heldt seg i.

Stage III (1858) No var dai stilt ei Stund frametter; men sidan tok da/ til aa dynja og staaka utar i Kyrkja, og daa var dat liksom da/ skulde livna og rera seg paa alia Sidor. Fyrst kom da/ fram ei Skreid av svarte Kattar, so da/ krydde i kvar ei Kraa, og sidan var da/ mange store og skraemelege Dyr, som sprungo til fraa ymsa Sidor og foro kring um Alterat met stygga Laetor og undarlega Aatferder, og sidstpaa vardt da/ slikt eit Brak og Brot og slike Smellar i Veggjom, at da/ var h0yrande til, at heile Kyrkja skulde brotna ned. "Da/ var daa Gaman," sagde Guten, "eg heve al/tid havt Hug til aa sjaa myken Leik og heyra myket Staak; men eg hadde inkje ventat aa sjaa slik ein Dans og h0yra slike Slaattar no i Natt." Sidan stiltest da/ av med detta; men ei Stund daretter tok dat til aa blaasa og vardt slik ein Storm, at Kyrkja ragade som eit Straa paa Marki, og sidstpaa kom da/ ein Vindknut so sterk, at han tok upp heile Kyrkja og kastade henne ut paa Sjoen, so at Baarorna slogo inn yver paa alia Sidor, og altsaman brotnade og dreiv av i Sjoen, so at Guten saag inkje annat en Altaret, som han heldt seg i.

Stage IV (As of 1880) No var det stilt ei Stund frametter; men sidan tok det til aa (at 1859-1870) dynja og staaka utar i Kyrkja, og daa var det liksom det skulde livna og rara seg paa alle Sidor. Fyrst kom det fram ei Skreid av svarte Kattar, so det krydde i kvar ei Kraa, og sidan var det mange store og skraemelege Dyr, som sprungo til fraa ymse Sidor og foro kring um Altaret med stygge Laetor og undarlege Aatferder, og sidstpaa vardt det slikt eit Brak og Brot og slike Smellar i Veggjom, at det var hayrande til, at heile Kyrkja skulde brotna ned. "Det var daa Gaman," sagde Guten, "eg heve (hever 1859-1866, 1887-1888) alltid havt Hug til aa sjaa myken Leik og h0yra myket Staak; men eg hadde ikkje ventat aa sjaa slik ein Dans og h0yra slike Slaattar no i Natt." Sidan stiltest det av med detta; men ei Stund deretter tok det til aa blaasa og vardt slik ein Storm, at Kyrkja ragade som eit Straa paa Marki, og sidstpaa kom det ein Vindknut so sterk, at han tok upp heile Kyrkja og kastade henne ut paa Sjoen, so at Baarorna slogo inn yver paa alle Sidor, og altsaman brotnade og dreiv av i Sjoen, so at Guten saag ikkje annat en Altaret, som han heldt seg i.



(The list of Aasen's New Norse production includes all separate publications and all pieces now in print; a few early poems are omitted, some for their brevity, and some because the reproduction in Skr. are revised versions, not contemporary. The play l Marknaden (1854), Skr. II, 14-19, is omitted for this reason. Poetic selections are marked *; items not consulted by the writer are marked x. "Unpublished", means during Aasen's lifetime.) Stage I. (1) Det norske Folkesprogs Grammatik. 1848. (2) Samtale imellem to B0nder. 1849. (II, 7-13). (3) Ordbog over det norske Folkesprog. 1850. Transition to Stage II (Tr II). *(1) *(2) *(3) (3a) *(4) *(5) *(6) (7) (8) (9) •(10) (11) *(12) •(13)

Heimhug. 1849-1850. (I, 106). Unpub. Mab (transi.). 1850? (I, 166). Unpub. Hugverk. 1850. 0 , 107). Unpub. Exempel-Samling. Dec. 21, 1850. (MM 1917, 22-33). Unpub. /Egtemanns Raad. 1851. (I, 108-109). Unpub. Attersyn. 1851. (I, 109-111). Unpub. Tvo nye Visor. 1851. (I, 59-61). Konkel i Kungsgarden. Circa 1852. (I, 244-250). Unpub. Riddar Rev. 1852-1853? (I, 239-243). Unpub. Ola Klok. 1852-1853? a , 243-244). Unpub. Hamlets Eintale (transi.). 1853? (I, 168-169). Unpub. Um Vanen. 1852-1853? (II, 159-161). Unpub. Ein Saknad-Daude (transi.). 1853? (I, 169-170). Unpub. Taara (transi.) 1853? (I, 170). Unpub.

Stage II. (1) Prever al Landsmaalet i Norge. 1853. Transition to Stage III (Tr III). *(1) *(2) *(3) *(4) *(5) (6) (7) (8) *(9) (10)

Fyrtiande F0dedagen. August 5, 1853. (I, 112-116). Unpub. I Ljomen av et nordisk Mete. 1853? (I, 111-112). Unpub. Byrteheidi. Oct., 1853. (I, 118-120). Unpub. Paa Byvegen. 1853. (I, 120-122). Unpub. Tankarne mine. 1853? a , 122). Unpub. Mannehausen. 1855. (I, 258-261). Benkjevigsla. 1855. (I, 200-206). Ervingen. 1855. (II, 20-64). Dikt og Sanning. Oct., 1855. (I, 64-71). Norske Ordsprog. 1856.

Stage III. (1) (2) (3) (4)

Fridtjofs Saga. 1858. Svein Uraedd. 1859. (I, 261-267). Haugtussen. 1860. (I, 267-270). Huldregaava. 1860. (I, 270-273).

Stage IV. (1) (2) (3) *(4)

Um "Ny Hungrvekja". 1858. (HI, 128-136). Minningar fraa Maalstriden 1858. Feb. 20, 1859. (Ill, 136-170). Eit Kjempestig i Kunnskap. Oct. 30, 1859. (55 1922, 6). Minor poems, from around 1860. a , 76-81, 123-144, 155-164).


(5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) •(14) (15) (16) (17) •(18) (19) *(20) (21) •(22) (23) (24) •(25) (26) (27) •(28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) •(34) x(35) (36) (37)


Dovreflell. 1860? (I, 206-211). Unpub. Adam Bede (transi.). I860? (III, 375-380). Unpub. Gjeiti. 1860? SS 1913, 269-270. Unpub. Svein Duva (transi.). 1860. (I, 171-177). Gaator og Spurningar. 1860. (Pubi. 1923 in Norske Minnestykke by Jens Lindberg, pp. 148-163). Unpub. Storm og Stilla. 1862. (I, 216-211). Justedalsbreden. 1862. a , 211-216). Um Folkasegner paa Island. 1862. (II, 175-181). Merkedagame. 1863. (II, 181-187). Symra. 1863. (I, 19-49 etc.). Ettersleng til 17de Mai. 1864. (II, 187-190). Unpub. Talar fyre tome Stolar. 1864. (II, 190-200). Unpub. Norsk Grammatik. 1864. Minor poems 1864-1870. (I, 145-149, 84-91). Um Namnet Oslo. 1866. (II, 200-206). Symra, 2 ed. 1867. Den burtkomne Sonen. Before 1869. (Norsk Aarbok, 1926). Songen um Klokka (transi.) 1870. (I, 177-189). Letter to H. Krohn. 1872. (SS 1902, 297f.). Don Quixote (transi.) 1873. (III, 380-383). Unpub. Minneord yver A. O. Vinje. 1873. (I, 93-94). Norsk Ordbog. 1873. Ervingen, 2 ed. 1874 ("Abbreviated and revised") (Later eds. 1884, 1887, 1894, 1896). Symra, 3 ed. 1875. (reprinted in Skr.). Heimsyn. 1875. (II, 219-304). Norsk Maalbunad. Completed 1876. (Pub. 1925, by S. Kolsrud). Unpub. Um sjeldsynte Dyr. 1878. (II, 211-217). Part of catechism transi. 1880. (Norsk Aarbok, 1921, 12). Unpub. Norske Ordsprog., 2 ed. (Completely revised). 1881. Upp og ned. 1881. (I, 94). Letter from 1882. (Gula Tid. 1905, 145). Sidste Kvelden. 1887. (II, 66-72). Unpub. Atterfersla. Circa 1888. (Ill, 194-214). Unpub.

NOTE ON THE TABLE The dialect forms given in the first column are not exhaustive, nor detailed; they are intended merely to suggest the most usual forms in the dialects which especially concerned Aasen, viz., the Sm. and CWN, as well as the most important EN divergences. The information is taken chiefly from Aasen's grammars (including Sm. Gr.), A. Larsen, Oversigt over de norske bygdemaal (Christiania, 1899) and H. Ross, Norske bygdemaal (Videnskabs-Selskabets Skrifter, Christiania, 1905-1909), and certain monographs elsewhere cited. For convenience of reference, paragraphs in Aasen's grammars are given under each point. Numbers in parentheses refer to the selections as numbered in the list of Aasen's New Norse production preceding the tables. Page references immediately follow these numbers, thus "(5) 245" in the column headed "Transition to II" refers to the selection "Konkel i Kungsgarden", page 245 (vol. I in Aasen's Skr.). Page references are frequently omitted, especially in the short selections. In the transitional stages examples of doubtful forms are given from all selections in which examples can be found, barring possible oversights. A list of abbreviations used can be found on p. 54.




TABLE showing grammatical changes made by



Stage I (1848-1850)

a. Dialectal 1. ON short high vowels (u, i, y) before single cons. Lowered to : CWN ú, i, y (in part) EN and many WN o, e, 0 Sm. ύ, 1, y; but i lowered to e before δ. (Gr1 23n; Gr1 29; Storm, Norvegia I, 158; Flom, U. of III. Studies 1915, 20, 30-31).

High vowels regular. But lever, Fred, Ufred, fer — all in (2), restored in (3). Low vowels in (3): Belaste, Avled.

Transition to Π (1850-1853)


High vowels: liva (1). Vid, nid, bid regular, but ned (7) 2x, (8), (9). By Dec. 28, 1852 he had definitely decided on e before d, to avoid confusion. Cf. MM 1926, 52.

Regularly ju, jo. Excep- Sjo, Grjon (7), Brjost (10). 2. ON jú, jó CWN jü, jö; Sm. je, 0; EN ü, y, 0; Tr. je, β, y; tions: Sj0, Sn0, blyg, dryg, But: Sjeen (9), Sj0mann (11), dryg (12). Tel. jü, ü, jö. Bresk, Brost, Fra. (Gr1 69; Gr* 118). 3. Vowel of composition (Old Norse genitive). a. ON -ar- (strong masc. sing.). Preserved in Hard. (CWN), VTel. (Midi.), Rg. (SWN). Elsewhere most commonly -a-. b. ON -a- (plural, and weak masc. sing.). Preserved in CWN, SWN, and Tel. Elsewhere -e-, or lost. c. ON -u- (weak fem.). Preserved in Hardanger and Voss (CWN), elsewhere -e-. (Gr1 181 f; Gr2 261 f.; Ross XV, 108).

As in Sm. : a. -a- (Bygdafolk). b. -e- (Folkemengd, Nasevis). c. -e- (Klokkestreng).

4. ON adverbial ending a. -e (like, ille). a. -a. Preserved CWN, elsewhere -e. b. -lege (tydelege). b. -lega. Everywhere reduced to -la or -le, agreeing with above. (Gr1 176; Gr4 81-82).

Beginning to restore: a. -ar- Elvardrag (5), Pustarmund (12). But Rettabot (3a). b. -e- and -a- Skolpejarn, Mannabein (7); kostasam, Eignalut (8); Daudesomn, (10) Skalkaskin, Hjartalag (13). c. -e-. a. -e, -a: ille (3) vida (5), gjerne (6) (7), like (7). b. -lege: tidlege (9) 243; tollege (11); but storleg (10)

5. ON k, g before unaccented front vowels. WN (incl. Kj, gj wherever palatalized In 1852 began to eliminate Sm.) palatalized (to χ, j) before e, i derived from in WN. kj and gj. Vegen, Skogen original i; EN not always palat. (7); Saki (8); Merke (11). 1 1 (Gr 30n; Die XIV; Pr 84; Gr» 37n).

6. ON Ö in accented syllable. a. Restored, except in mae a. Also restored in med a. Alone after vowel : lost, except in southern Sm. (god, glad). (1).



Ivor Aasen in his New Norse form, 1848-1888 Stage II (1853)

Transition to III (1853-1858)

Stage III (1858)

Stage IV (1858-1888)

High vowels, except in the Skred (5); bidja (7) 201, bidja 333; bidla 334 (bela); In Die»: Fred, Sed, ned, following: Sed, Fred, Led, but beda (8) 30, 34 and Fred, Sed. ved; but Smid, Skrid, ned, ved, Belaet. Cf. Smid, (10) 29; Smid (10) 21. bidja. liva.

Sjemann, Sj0, Sn0.

blyg (1); Sj0 (6) 259; blyg, dryg (8) 38, 44. Sjo, Snjo jo, ju everywhere: bljug appear definitely in (10). 358, drjug 344; Sjo etc.

As in Tr II: Gjeitargota As in Tr II: (3); Kyrkjegarden (6); a. -ar-. b. -e-, -a- Vegamot; Folke- Gapesnakk (6) 27; Baatesnakk (10) 26; Stovedyrri skipnad. (10) 19. c. -e-.

Fully restored: a. -ar-. b. -a- Makaleysa 333; Gudahus 331. c. -o- Eigodomar 340; Drykkjostova 349.

a. -e: gerne, like, ille II, a. -e and -a: lika (1); like a. -a universal : lika, gjerna, (2), vida (3); like, gjerne reynlega (2) 263. 250, vide. (6) (7); fyrsta 37, vida 27, b. -lega. b. -lege. gjerne 28, likevael 35 (8); vida, ille (9); vida, ofta, ille 3, like 9 (10). b. -lege: heppelege (3); meinslege (7) ; underlege (8) 27; -lege (9). k, g everywhere, except in lengje, Vegjer "where it must necessarily be pronounced."

lengje (1) (2) (4) (6H10); kj, gj before -er: Sakjer (1), Bekkjerne (4), Bj0rkjerna (7) 202; elsewhere usually k, g, except in (8), which has taken up many kj's, gj's : Gjengje 27, fegjen 64, Rikje 64, but teken 24, gjenget 28, Saki 54, Vegen 21.

a. -ar-. b. -a- preferred until G s . Only -e in Die.8. c. -o- until 1860 (1) (2) (6). -e regular thereafter. Frequently prefers form without vowel : Baatlag, umogleg, Flodmaal.

a. -a throughout. b. -lega to 1864: nylega (1) 128. -lege after Gr 1 : (23) 297; ovlege (29) 221.

k, g universal : Riket, lenge, As in III. But Logjer (2) Muge (but not in inkje, 141. korkje, and derivatives, e.g. tenkjer).

c. Restoration begun : c. sist regular: (6) (7) (4) c. Ludr 355, Skidgard 331, c. Full restoration: sidst, Uvedr, Stadna, sidst (also 31, (10) 2; but soleids (6), Slidra 363. etc.



TABLE showing grammatical changes made by


Stage I (1848-1850)

(Aasen's home) and Nordfjord (preserved as re- b. c. Not restored: Or, sist. (But preterites: heyrspectively Ö and d); everywhere lost in meö. de, gjorde). b. After r: everywhere lost. c. Before another consonant : everywhere lost. (Gr 1 31, 81; Gr 4 33; Sm Gr 13, 18; cf. Κ. Kopperstad, MM 1916, 147f.).

Transition to II (1850-1853) b. No d (1); but restored (4) Jord, (7) Gard. (In (7) exceptional miswritings: sto, Kungsgaren). c. Unrestored: sist (8).

7. ON r after consonant. a. Adjectives (m. sing., in dialects extended to all sing.). b. Verbs (pres. of strong and class II weak). c. Nouns (plural of cons, stems). WN generally preserved as a svarabhakti vowel: -ò in Voss, and -u Hard. The ON -r in masc. sing, noun is traced in only two or three dial. (Gr 1 244; Pr 83-85; Gr s 65, 350n; Sm Gr 12).

a. b. r lost : stor, kjem. c. -er henceforth: Beker.

a. b. Occasionally restored as -er in poetry, first ex.: svarter (3). Both forms found in (3) (4) (7). The rule from 1850 to 1855 is to use both in poetry, but only the short forms in prose (exception: ruagder (8) 239).

8. Some short words of frequent occurrence. a. Use of aa, te, til aa as signs of infinitive. Class 1. Infinitive equivalent to a relative clause (e.g. annat te tenkja paa). 2. Infinitive governed by adj., noun, or verb requiring the preposition til. (e.g. faerdig te ganga, Hug te vera). 3. Infinitive used as subject or object of verb or preposition. (Gr 2 324n). In WN te is the usual form; in Sm te aa and aa also used. b. ON ella (-r), opt, vel, veröa, vaen. Dial.: elles (-t), ofta (ofto Midland, oftaa CWN), vai, verta (rarely ver'e, the regularly descended form), ven.

te used in all classes.

Only te to 1851; in 1852 til aa (which A. thought to be the correct original form of te) appears beside te in class 1 and 2; aa appears a few times also (2x after um, lx after faerdig).

eilest ofta vsl verta ven

eilest ofto (1850) (31a) vel (1) (2) (8) (9H11); vœl (3) (4) (6) (13). verta

c. ON hefir (pres. of hafa). har (ha) (as in Dan.) heve most common: EN, Shi., Voss, Hard., Trönd. etc. heve (hev) found in many parts of WN (IRyf. Jaed., Ryf., Ulvik Sm.) and Tel.

heve; hev also found, in poetry (1) (2) (6) (12)

d. ON ekki (eigi). Negative particle. Dial.: ikkje, ikje and inkje used side by inkje, usually abbreviated 'kje. In Sm. both forms side without distinction. seem to be in use, inkje (according to A.) in stressed position.

ikje, inkje

b. Etymological and orthographic 9. ON e, o before consonant. Lowered in dialects :e, ò

e, o except: se before m, Restoration begun in ex-



or Aasen in his New Norse form, 1848-1888 Stage II (1853)

Transition to III (1853-1858)

Stage ΙΠ (1858)

Stage IV (1858-1888)


Grodr (8) 42, (10) 15.


ì in Tr II: short forms in ose, both in poetry.

In poems (1M5) both forms found; from (6) to (9) only short forms in prose and poetry; in (10) long forms again found, beside short, for euphony.

Long forms frequently appear in prose: seter 361, lider 362.

As in III: teker (1) 132; teker (2) 138; krever (2) 163; seter (2) 150. But short forms are regular.

te and til aa are used interchangeably in classes 1 and 2; with a few exceptions aa only is used in class 3.

te used in all classes; til aa comparatively rare; aa occasionally found in class 3. In (10) aa is dominant, te very rare.

te is entirely eliminated. Class 1. til aa Class 2. til aa Class 3. aa

As in III. at for aa, cf. pt. 12 below.

eilest ofto vael verda ven

ofto to (6) 259, (7) 200; ofta (9) ff. vel (1); vael (4>(10). verda (1) f. ven

ellerst ofta vel verda vaen

ellers (as in DN) (2); elles (26) (27). ofta vel verda to 1887 verta (38) 1888 vaen


heve (and hev in poetry).

heve (1) (2); hever (4), i.e. 1859f.

heve (1); hever (2)-(19); heve (22)—(35); hever (37)(38).

inkje, ikje

ikje decreasing in fre- inkje only quency until in (8) it is completely eliminated in favor of inkje.

e exc. in pres. of class task (7); fer, task (8); fer,

ferr, tek

inkje only to 1864 (except as noted); ikkje found in 1862 (10), used beside inkje (14) (16H29); after 1875 ikkje only used, inkje confined to pronoun.

As in III. hevda (1) (2);




Stage I (1848-1850)

changes made by

Transition to II (1850-1853)

η, r, mj, n j ; in mae, aer, dae, Belœte, attmae, vael and all presents of strong verbs, class VI (taek, for). aa before mb, nd, ng, nk, and in aa ( O N ok).

ceptions of Stage I : aer, lengta, lengje (1); er, med, Seng, Svaerd, faer (fara), svaer (sverja) (2); draeg (6); Tong, Tola, aa (og) (7); Bilsete, fordig (8); Vanferd (11); taek (12). All restored except presents of Class VI.

10. Doubled vowels. Adopted from D N , where it was used to indicate length in closed syllable. Frequent in Sm. poems, 1843-1848. (Gr* 42n).

N o doubled vowels.

As in I.

11. O N k, g initially before palatal vowels (e, i, y, as, 0). All palatalized in modern dialects. In D N g, k written before i, y (sometimes e); sk before i, y, e; gj, kj, skj before the rest. (Gr 1 30; cf. pt. 5 above).

Follows rule of D N (before 1917): k and g before i, y; sk before i, y, e.

As in I : kjayrer (2), skjeyter (8). But kend, k£er beside Kjensla, kjent, gjenomsynleg, geng (13).

12. O N final t in unaccented syllable. Lost in all dialects, written but not pronounced in D N . a. Def. sing. neut. nouns (húsit). b. Neut. sing. pron. (nçkkut). c. Neut. perf. part, strong vbs (funnit). d. Neut. p.p. weak o-stem vbs (kallat).

Nowhere restored: Aare, noko, kome, snakka.

Restored as -d in (2)-(6): S vipeskafted (but kva, vore) (2); nokod, mykjed (3), vorted (4), vankad (but lengta) (5); Landed (but noko' (6). Restored as -t in (7) in all words, exc. kva and da (exceptional vorte) (irregular in (8)).

13. O N final Ö (or -öi) in unaccented syllable. Lost in all dialects. a. Pred. and p.p. of weak o-stems (kallaöi, kallaör). b. Ending -naör (fagnaör). (Gr 4 59, 229).

a. Unrestored : kalla, laga. b. Restored: Hugnad, Lovnad).

a. Unrestored in (1), but irregularly restored in (5): leitad, kallade, dreia, kast a . Fully restored (6) ff.

14. O N final η in unaccented syllable. Lost exc. in a few words in C W N : utan, sian. a. Adverbs (útan, siöan). b. Def. ending of sing. fem. nouns, fem. pron.; and plur. neut. nouns (sólin, gatan, hon, húsin). (Gr 8 59, 168η).

Unrestored except in the compound uttanlands; sida.

Unrestored: unda' (6).

in Shi. (part of SWN), and C W N , but to ae, â in the rest of the country (incl. Rg., Nhl. in WN). Even in the former ( C W N etc.) dialects, they are lowered before m and η (Sm also before r, v). (Gr 1 48n.; Die 1 IX; Gr 2 13n).

THE LINGUISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF IVAR AASEN'S NEW NORSE Ivar Aasen in his New Norse form, Stage II (1853)


1848-1888 Stage III (1858)

Transition to III (1853-1858)

Stage IV (1858-1888)

VI verbs: task, faer, graevst. Also Slaegt and Siegt.

task (10) 251.

As in I.

Many doubled vowels foor (1) (6) (8) (9); seer (4) (8) (9), but ser (1) (10); viis (Viis) (2) (3) (8M10); kleent (9) (10) but klen (10); other words: Liik, fun, Fliis, teent, riik, veen, hiit, teer, Huus, skjeer, Gliis. Most common in (8).

No doubled vowels in (1) (except foor 360) for 353. But in (3) flint, Viim, leet 268

Occasional doubled vowels: leest, 131, Stiil, viis 135 (1); also in (2) (4) 77, 79, 80; (11), (12), (15), (16). In Gr a permits use, but cautions against too much Later ex.: foor (23) hiit, foor, viis (27).

Etymological spelling: k, g, sk everywhere. Occasional oversights.

Return to kj, gj, skj, now consistently used before e, ae, 0: Gjeit (3), skjein (8) 47; kjeik (9), skjeer (6) (3), kjeyrt (6) 5.

As in Tr III. But note: sk0yta 335.

As in Tr III. But sk, k, g before ei, ey: skein (2), sk0ytel0ysa (2) 162; keiveleg (6) 377; geymsla (16) 192. (But Gjeiti (7), gj0ymt (12) 177).

All t's restored, except kva, da (but kvat, dat in poetry) and aa.

dat, kvat appear in prose in (8).

at is found for aa in (3) (4).

at in 1859 (2); continues to 1869 (21); aa reappears in 1870 (22), remains to end.


Fully restored.

a. Fully restored. b. Unrestored. See above, Sec. I l l of article.

hœvda (26). Unetymologized: Bar, (Fiske-) Vaer (26).



TABLE showing grammatical changes made by


Stage I (1848-1850)

15. ON r before η and st. a. In def. pi. of m. and f. nouns (fuglarair). b. In stem syllables (horn, korn). c. Before s (fyrst, fciyrst). Everywhere nn and ss (s), except in WN dialects where rn becomes dn, and in Sm in a few words like Jam, ern, gjerne, Stjerne (Pr 83, Gr 2 47n).

a. Unrestored. b. Do. (Honn). c. fyrst; sterste (2), stest (3).

Transition to II (1850-1853) a. Unrestored (1) (12): Fuglanne (1); Stjernunne (3) D0ttrene (7), Drikkaranne (11) 160. b. Restored: Kornbingjen (6), Stjernunne (3). But Tjenn (3a). c. No ex. found.


a. Nouns 16. Def. sing, of strong fern, and def. plur. of strong -i neuters. ON bókin, húsin. Directly descended from ON: -i Sogn and Tel., -e Midland, -x CWN. In the rest of the country the ending of the weak fern, has entered: â, o SWN, -a EN, North (Tr.), and scattered WN including Sm. See above, p. 8. (Gr a 168n).

-a (1) (2) -i everywhere else.

17. Def. sing, of weak fem. ON -an. WN -o, â (indef. -a -a, -e). EN a. After long syll. -a (indef. -e). b. After short syll. -u, -o, -ua, -oa (indef. -a, -u, -o). (Gr 1 266; Gr* 169η).

-a -o -a -o -a

18. Indef. plur. of weak fem. ON -ur (-or), WN -er (-e) -ur from strong fem. or from natural weakening. Except: Voss u (also in strong fem.) and part of Hard. -ur. SEN -er, from weakening. Midland, NEN, Trönd. -or, -ur (distinct from strong plural).

-ur -or -ur -or -ur -or -ur

19. Def. plur. of fem., final vowel (-a, -e). ON Visornar. -e CWN -a; elsewhere -e or lost. (Gr 1 225; Gr 2 178η).

-e (2) (7) (11) -a (13)

20. Plur. of weak neuters in -a. ON augu, def. augun. Have become like weak feminines, except in Sogn, part of Midland, and Trönd, where it is still augo, def. augo (Gr 1 233; Gr 2 174).

-ur: Augur (9) 243; Hjartur (12).

-UR ( 1 )

21. Use of Dative. Def. dative sing., and plur. survives No datives. in Midland, Trönd., NEN and NWN (including Sm) and some CWN (Voss Hard). Sing, forms irregular; plur. forms: WN and Midi, -o, â — EN and Trönd., -om ON -um. (Gr 1 215; Gr s 179n).

(1) (2) (3H9) (10) (11) (13) (1) 2x (2) lx (3) ( c u n n e ) (5) (6) 2x (7H9) (11) ( c o n n e ) (12)

No datives (1) 2x and (7). Dat. pl. -om (2) (5) (9), (13).


Ivor Aasen in his New Norse form, 1848-1888 Stage II (1853)

Stage III (1858)

Transition to III (1853-1858)

Stage IV (1858-1888)

a.b.c. Fully restored (Horn, Tankarne, fyrst).


-o (3) -a (5) f.




-a -o (Augo I, 167)

-o (1) (8) (9)

Rare in prose. Used in Regular in poetry; also in Regular. (6) 259, 260; not found in poetry. Ervingen (8) : av Forfederne vaare 33, av Kjenningarne deira 45, Regular in (10).



THE LINGUISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF IVAR AASEN'S NEW NORSE TABLE showing grammatical changes made by Transition to II (1850-1853)

Stage I (1848-1850)

Criteria b. Adjectives -e

-e (2) (6M9) (11). -a (13) (to rhyme with -a of Taara).

23. First person plural, nominative. ON vèr, dual vit (later mér, miö). EN Trönd (in part), scattering, vi (as in DN). WN me, mi Mid. rae, Sm. mid.


mid (6) (7) (10) (11).

24. Third person sing., dative and acc. ON dat. hánum, acc. hann dat. henni, acc. hon. Sm. dat. acc. hânà dat. acc. hinne. CWN dat. acc. hann (Voss hono) dat. acc. hinne, hena, etc. Midland (part), Trönd., EN (part): dat. honom (etc.) acc. hann dat. hinne (etc.) acc. ho. (Gr» 103n).

Dat.-acc. han Dat.-acc. henne

Dat.-acc. han; honom also found (7) 247, (8) 242, 243. Dat.-acc. henne.

25. Third person sing., neut., and dem. pron. (also adv. there). ON t>ann, £>at, {jar. CWN dan, da, dar. Elsewhere: den, dae, dasr.

den, das, daer.

dan, da, dar (1H13).

26. Third person plural, dat. acc. ON dat. i>eim, acc. t>á. WN dat.-acc. dei ( < n o m . t>eir). EN dat.-acc. (and nom.) dem, dom, dem etc. Midland (in part) like WN.



No plurals.

No plurals. Exceptional forms: ha, hava (10) 168; fara (11) 161.

22. Indef. fem. plural. ON -ar (góòar); CWN-a; NWN, Midland (partly) -a; elsewhere -e. Masculine always -e.

c. Pronouns

d. Verbs 27. Use of plurals. ON Full plurals in all verbs, past and present. a. Present plurals. Still found in CWN (except Sogn), Sm., and Midland.



Ivar Aasen in his New Norse form, 1848-1888 Stage II (1853)

Transition to III (1853-1858)

Stage III (1858)

Stage IV (1858-1888)


-a. But mange (2), betre -a. (4) 33, mange slika (4) 45.

-a regular until 1875, but begins to vacillate in Sixties (5) (cf. ed. note, I, 280); matvise, alle (7); merkjelege, fyrre, slike (12) 175. -e after 1875, except in (37), where -a appears irregularly. Some pronouns seldom take -a: ymse, nokre I, 261, II, 196; but nokra I, 270.



mid (but de (4) 270).


Distinction of cases in masculine: Dat. honom; Acc. hann; Dat.-acc. tienne.

As in II ÜH10).

Dat.-acc. honom.

dan, da (dat in poetry), dar.

dan, dat, dar.

dan, dat, dar.

den, det, der.


dei (3M10). But deim (1) deim. 2x, and (8) lx (to rhyme with heim).

a. Present plurals regular. b. Prêt, rare: toko, foro I, 253. Also var I, 252; fann I, 253 ; er, vil, etc. regular.

a. Full plurals. Full plurals. b. Occasional prêt, phir.: gingo, komo (1), fingo (2), beside song, vil, vardt (1).

As in III. (Error: laut (2) 141) Variations in form: vorde (7) for vordo; era, skula for -o (24), (29).




Stage I (1848-1850)

Transition to Π (1850-1853)

b. Preterite plurals of strong verbs (includes pres. of pret-pres. verbs, also the irregular er and vil). Very rare, except in a few Midland districts. Elsewhere singular forms are used for plurals. (Gr 2 21 In; Gr» 234; Sm Gr 70; Larsen, Oversigt) Forms: a. Like infinitive. b. Variously -e and -o (Hall).

ABBREVIATIONS CWN Dan. Die 1 Die 8 DN EN Gr 1 Gr 2 Hard. IRyf. fed. KNVS, Skr. Langes T. MM Midi. NEN Nhl. NN ON Pr Rg. Ryf. Shi. Sm. Sm. Gr. Skr. SS Tel. Tr. VSC. Skr. VTel. WN

Central West Norwegian dialects (Voss, Sogn, Hardanger). Danish. Aasen's dictionary of 1850, cf. list. Ditto of 1873. Dano-Norwegian. East Norwegian dialects (when used without modification, includes all non-WN). Aasen's grammar of 1848, cf. list. Ditto of 1864. Hardanger. Indre Ryfylke. Jœderen. Det kongelige norske Videnskabers Selskab, Skrifter. Tidsskrift for norsk Videnskab og Literatur, udg. af C.C.A. Lange, Christiania, 1847-1853. Maal og Minne, periodical 1909-date. Midland dialects. Northern East Norwegian. Nordhordland. New Norse (Landsmaal). Old Norse. Aasen. Prever af Landsmaalet. 1853. All page citátions are from the reprint by A. L. Larsen, 1899. Rogaland. Ryfylke. Sendhordland. Sunnmar dialect. Aasen, Sondmersk Grammatik. 1851. Republished Oslo, 1924. Aasen, Skrifter i Sämling, ed. Κ. Liestal, Oslo, 1911-1912. 3 vols. Syn og Segn, periodical 1894-date. Telemark. Trandelag. Videnskabsselskabet i Christiania, Skrifter. Vest-Telemark. West Norwegian dialects. All references to Aasen's grammars are to paragraphs.


Ivar Aasen in his New Norse form, 1848-1888 Stage II (1853)

Transition to III (1853-1858)

Stage III (1858)

Stage IV (1858-1888)

No prêt. (3>—(5) ; vilja, vita, but var (6) 258, (7) 205; heldo (8) 27 and vita, but numerous singular forms; kunna (9); full plurals evidently intended in (10), but many exceptions: kom 2, kann 10, er 21, veit 32, er 50, skal 208, laag 215.


Aasen's great linguistic contribution (aside from his dialect studies) was the creation of a New Norse language form out of the material offered by the Norwegian dialects. He began in 1848 with a simple form in close dependence on the dialects which he knew and liked best, the West Norwegian. But he did not feel that this was adequate as a representative of the submerged Norwegian nationality in its struggle against the more elegant and cultivated Danish. For ten years he experimented before he was satisfied with his creation. In this process the first consideration was always that a form should be 'genuine', i.e., regularly descended from Old Norse and preferably not too far removed. But beyond this lay another consideration, which has not been so universally understood: the ideal implied in the phrase from his first dictionary — "Sprogets Anseelse" — the prestige of the language, or as he first wrote it, "Sprogets Vaerdighed", the DIGNITY of the language.86 From the very first Aasen was sensitive to all slights on the dialects; he devoted his entire life to the purpose of restoring Norwegian speech to its ancient dignity. In the Dictionary of 1873 he wrote: "It is time for people to realize that we have here something more before us than a series of dialects without any significance outside their own circle."67 To understand what he meant by the dignity of the language, we must recall the views of the age on what a written language should be. Most people scarcely conceived of the SPOKEN language as a language at all; it was a mere vulgar corruption of the written language. The philologists, as Munch and Unger, had gone beyond this to the extent of an awakening interest in the country dialects, but studied them chiefly as "broken fragments" of the ancestral Old Norse. The written language, with its complement of dead letters and obsolete forms was THE language; it was 'idealized', that is to say, removed from the daily speech "in the manner necessary for a written lan·· «

In the plan of 1845, printed in Vid. Selsk. Skrifter (Trondhjem) IV, 1, p. 62. Die', VUI.




guage", as Unger phrased it. Aasen was (to some extent unconsciously) also dominated by the very feeling which he fulminated against, the current contempt for the dialects and the refusal to treat them as serious vehicles of expression. This explains his constant search for the most 'perfect' (fuldkomne) forms in the dialects ; a respectable language must of course have perfect forms. But even the most 'perfect' forms of the dialects (except in a few cases, e.g., the dative plurals) fell short of the dignity of the neighboring languages, especially Danish, with which New Norse would have to compete. This deficiency Aasen supplied, not of course by imitation of these, but by resorting to Old Norse, the ancestor, and therefore the rightful orthographic pattern of New Norse. But there were important factors which limited his choice of Old Norse forms. He did not adopt them indiscriminately, solely from a worship of the past and the ancestors. His selection was also limited by the consideration of dignity: he chose no more than necessary. The measure here was set by Swedish and Danish. Only in the matter of dative plurals did he go beyond these languages. The influence of Danish also made itself felt more directly, in certain concessions which Aasen made to the reading habits of the Norwegian public (e.g., pt. 11, 12). These two considerations explain the many surprising similarities between Aasen's New Norse and Danish where both diverge from the spoken dialects (pt. 6, distinction of consonant combinations, pts. 11-15, 28). We must not forget that he was definitely committed to a certain restoration from the very first. But it took years of experiment before he could persuade himself to a serious departure from the living dialects. In 1850 he had called restoration the ideal by which one might attain "a perfect and unimpaired linguistic form, which might sustain the same relation to the dialects as the written Swedish and Danish to Swedish and Danish speech."** Twenty-three years later, when the restoration was fully accomplished, he looked back on his procedure in 1848 and 1850 and wrote of it: This is good enough so long as one writes in a dialect with the special intention of representing the pronunciation; but it is not good enough when one is to write the language of an entire country in such a manner that it can be placed beside the languages of other countries.··

These are clear statements of his guiding principle and high ambition. He was guided in his restoration also by the desire for a harmonious system, internally consistent, as the dialects were not. Finally he was realistic enough to see that his form must not move too far from the dialects if his practical aim was to be realized. He never quite abandoned the sensible view of his first grammar: "The problem is to present something which can win general approbation." 70 But in a crucial situation, these considerations were regularly subordinated to the ideals of genuineness and dignity.11 *8 Die1, III. Italics mine. "· Die2, VIII. Italics mine. 70 Gr1, ΧΠ. 71 This article is condensed from chapters III and IV of a doctor's thesis submitted to the University



Reprinted by permission of the Modern Language Association of America from PMLA, 48, 558-597 (1933). AUTHOR'S COMMENT This chapter extracted from my 1931 University of Illinois dissertation has not been superseded by any later discussion, although much more is now known about Aasen's gradual development since the publication of his diaries and letters by Reidar Djupedal (Ivar Aasen, Brey og Dagbeker, 3 vols., Oslo, 1957-1960). Any attempt at refinement of its conclusions would require complete rewriting; I have only made a few obvious corrections here and there. This is not a presentation of Aasen's whole approach to the creation of a standard language (on this see my 'Construction and reconstruction in language planning: Ivar Aasen's grammar', this volume pp. 461-478), but of the changes he made during his planning phase. The paper therefore concentrates on what are often purely marginal aspects of his work, since he never wavered on the central principles. Although I was probably more sympathetic to Aasen's aims when I wrote this dissertation than I am now, I was less understanding of his orthographic principles, since I firmly believed in the value of a 'phonetic' rather than a 'historical' orthography. I saw Aasen's striving for etymological precision as a kind of inverted snobbishness, a struggle for status. For a somewhat different view see the article already referred to above. — There are other views that could be challenged, e.g. Aasen's view (which I accepted) that the strong feminine-neuter -a (from ON -in) was analogical (from the weak feminines). (See pt. 16 and corresponding passages in the text). Although this view was strongly bolstered by Ivar Modéer (Studier över slutartikeln i starka femininer, Uppsala Universitets Ârsskrift 1946:2; see my review in Language 23, 445-448 (1947)), the prevailing view appears to be that the change was phonological (nasalization and lowering, as with French -in). — The terminological problem of the language names is as troublesome as ever; in later writings I have abandoned the term "New Norse" and have used the Norwegian terms as loanwords in English contexts, since the Norwegians themselves have not come to agreement about the proper names for the two languages : the names are part of the conflict itself. For discussion see my Language Conflict and Language Planning, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966, especially pp. 32-34, 46-48,110-112.

of minois in 1931, entitled "The Origin and Early History of the New Norse Movement in Norway". Grateful acknowledgment is hereby made to Professor George T. Flom, under whose direction the thesis was prepared.


Although Aasen was the creator of the language norm now known as New Norse and the founder of the New Norse Movement, he wrote, in the course of his life, more pages in Dano-Norwegian than in the new language. This is not surprising when we consider that much of this was written before he was ready to construct the new language; even in later years he wrote his scientific works in Dano-Norwegian in order to make them accessible to the general Norwegian and Danish public. As he was the first Norwegian who seriously ventured to question the supremacy of this language in Norway, it is of some interest to observe his treatment of it in his own writings. In Aasen's school days Dano-Norwegian had not yet departed from Danish to any considerable degree. He gained his first knowledge of its grammar (aside from the very rudimentary instruction of the public school)1 from a small, hand-written grammar belonging to Corporal Olav Dimes, presented to him not later than 1831, Ivar Aasen's eighteenth year.2 Soon after, he secured a copy of Mauritz Hansen's Grammatik i det norske og danske Sprog, edition of 1828 (the third), which he read and reread until he had thoroughly assimilated its contents. In the preface to this work he found expressed the author's firm belief that in a few decades the Norwegian language would become distinct from Danish. Yet there were few, if any, marks of this in the body of the grammar, and Hansen admitted that as yet the two languages were "as like as one drop of water to another." Except for the dropping of a few silent e's (recommended by the Danish philologist Rasmus Rask), his orthography was essentially identical with the more conservative Danish and Norwegian spelling of the early nineteenth century.3 But even before this time Aasen had begun to compose in the language. He had poetic ambitions as early as his twelfth year (1825), from which we have preserved a 1 In a notation quoted by Koht, Ivar Aasen (1913), 20, he stated that this schooling consisted of ten days a year. * According to Koht, op. cit., 26, he got it in 1832, but see Aasen's autobiography, Skrifter I, 6, where he distinctly says that he got the book before he started teaching school, which was in 1831. 8 Cf. Seip, Norskhet i Sproget hos Wergeland (1914), pp. 34 and 71, and Burgun, Le développement etc. (1917, 1921) I, 83-84.



poem entitled "En gudfrygtig Sjels Ben". Others from 1829, 1832, and 1833 bear witness to a considerable itch for scribbling. He copied poems by Zetlitz and Frimann, Norwegian poets of the Danish period, as well as innumerable others.4 Dean Thoresen at Hero, in whose household he lived from 1833 to 1835, presented him with the works of the Danish poet Baggesen, who became one of his particular favorites. The climax of his early poetic activities came in 1836, when his eyes were opened to the bookish and imitative quality of his efforts, and he put an end to them with the laconic entry in his diary: "Med dette Aar slutter Rimerierne." Unfortunately the greatest part of these poems have never been published, and it is impossible to say much about their language. But to judge from the quotations in Koht's study,8 and the samples in Aasen's collected works,® the language is normal Danish as it was then written in Norway, with no original or unexpected departures. The brief quotations in Koht from Aasen's letters to S. Aarflot 1833-18367 confirm this impression, as does the essay "Om vort Skriftsprog" written in January 1836.8 But the year 1836 marked a turning-point in Aasen's life in more ways than one. On November 1, 1835, he accepted a position as a tutor in the household of Captain Daae at Solnör. Here Aasen found a large and many-sided library, and for the first time in his life came into full contact with the cultural life of his country. As a student of language and a peasant by birth, he could not fail to take a particular interest in the discussions concerning the Norwegian language which agitated Norway in the early thirties. There was a general feeling that the Danish language was unsuited for Norwegians, a feeling based perhaps more on theoretical and patriotic considerations than on the actual experiences of the city-born agitators. Already we discern the two opposing attitudes which have characterized the discussion of this problem ever since. On the one hand those who wished to break down the Danish character of the written language by a more or less gradual infiltration of Norwegian elements, led by Henrik Wergeland, Jonas Anton Hielm, and Ludvig Kristensen Daa. On the other those who, in the name of good taste and the "genius of the language", objected to any such bastard product and demanded the creation of a purely native language on the basis of the dialects — if there were to be any change at all. This view was supported by the growing authority of the learned P. A. Munch, still in his twenties.9 Aasen's own struggles with the alien book language, as well as the influence of democratic and nationalistic doctrines then current, caused him to look with sympathy on these proposals. But his enthusiasm had not yet directed him in any one path. He still stood at the parting of the ways. His diary shows that in 1836 he experimented with the insertion of Norwegian forms into the Danish language, as suggested, e.g., •

Koht, op. cit., 34. Op. cit., 39-40. • Skr. I, 154-155. ' Op. cit., 29, 39. Letters published in Mere, 1912-1913. 8 Skr. III, 1-11. • Vidar, August, 1832. Cf. Seip, op. cit., 42-70. T. Knudsen, P. A. Munch og samtidens sprogstrid. (1832), 5-19. 6




by L. K. Daa.10 This diary is also unpublished, but quotations in Koht's study allow us to determine the nature of his reforms: A. Phonology. 1. The introduction of Norwegian voiceless stops for the voiced stops after long vowel of Danish : uimœrke 22,11 Kunskaj? 22, Iiik 23, u/en 30, veef 30, Sproi 30. He carried this to the length of producing such curious (and Knudsenlike) forms as Straelen 30, Broie 30, Skuí 23, Vi/enskaper 23. 2. The omission of silent, unhistorical d after / and n: Kunskap 22, 30, Embedsma« 30, Grunne 30. 3. Occasional phonetic spellings, as when he omitted the historical, but silent d of Or, 22, and wrote Konjugajyoner 30, tvilsom (Dan. tvivl-) 30. 4. Nor. g Dan. v: voge 30. B. Inflection. He regularly used the pronominal form seg for Danish sig, and once the plural -ar for Danish -er is found : Jamnaldrar 22. C. Vocabulary. In these few quotations we find only one peculiarly Norwegian word, Jamnaldrar 30. Otherwise the entire body of his language was Danish, in form, vocabulary, and sentence structure. It will be seen that this fumbling, rather mechanical attempt was identical in purpose with Vinje's practice from 1852 to 1858, and resembled the doctrine so ardently preached by K. Knudsen after 1845. But at the same time Aasen was absorbing the ideas of P. A. Munch and others, and wrote the succinct little essay "Om vort Skriftsprog", which demanded for Norway the creation of an independent written language, based on a comparison of the genuinely native dialects. This was his first definite declaration of the course he was to follow throughout his life. Why did he abandon his promising attempts to Norwegianize Danish and make this radical proposal? The reason he gave in the essay was the uncertainty and inefficiency of such an "Aarhundredets Reformation"; he feared that in the end it would be the popular tongue and not the written language which would be reformed. Back of this conviction lay a feeling of the incongruity of such language mixtures as he was experimenting with in his diary. The pure dialect on which he drew refused to fuse with the Danish; in his hands it remained a mere mechanical mixture. The chief cause was probably (as with Vinje) that Dano-Norwegian always remained a mere written language to him and never became his spoken tongue. He was reared in a dialect and did not come to reside in a city for any length of time before his thirty-third year, when he settled in Christiania.12 Hence he felt more acutely than any city resident could, the gulf between the dialects and the written language. He could not, like Knudsen, draw on the living speech of the cities in his campaign for Norwegianization. Aasen's sensitive ear for linguistic harmony and the influence of Munch's "either-or" theories combined to make him react against the intrusion of Norwegianisms into Danish. 10 11 18

Morgenbladet, Jan. 1836. Quot. Liestel, Syn og Segn 1913, 330. Numbers refer to pages in Koht, op. cit. A. Burgun has suggested the same idea, op. cit., 1,170, and II, 71.



Hence his policy became to write Dano-Norwegian with as little admixture of Norwegian words and forms as possible. His orthography was in no way distinguished from the orthography of his times, and remained nearly constant from his first essay (1836) to his last important composition in Dano-Norwegian, the preface to the dictionary of 1873. It was less modern than that advocated by Rask in 1826, by M. Hansen in 1837 (Grammatik5), and adopted by the schools in 1862.13 It was characterized by a moderate, not wholly consistent use of doubled vowels in closed syllables (e, /, o, rarely u) to indicate length, and similar use of silent e after a long final vowel : e.g., doe Gr 2 IV, faae Gr 2 III, faaer Skr. III, 7, troer Gr 2 XII, see Gr 2 V, veed Skr. III, 10, Miil, Huus, Deel etc. passim (but: Leg Reise-erindringer 48, Sted ibid. 122, gaar ibid, 48, Tid ibid. 143, Flid Gr 2 VI, Brug Gr 2 V, staar Gr 2 VI, maa Gr2 II, fri Skr. III, 8, Lighed Skr. III, 7). He followed the usual practice of Dano-Norwegian in using full plural verbs (e.g., toge, vare Reise-Erindringer 8), ei, oi (inst. of ej, oj), kj before e, x, 0, and such forms as Tvivlsmaal (Gr2 VIII), and deres where Norwegian speech uses sine ("Nordmaendene synes ikke at have gjort sig megen Umage for at beholde deres gamie Maal." — Gr 2 VII). Foreign words were partly assimilated, though he sometimes vacillated : ct became kt in Dialekt, Direktion, Distrikt (but in his reports to the Scientific Society he wrote District 123, Direction 125, 140, etc. beside Dialekt 123, Oktober 142); he always retained χ and -Hon, as well as forms like Kapitain Reise-Er. 8, (Capitain Skr. I, 7) Exerceerplads ibid., 9, Lieutenant ibid., 19, Linier ibid., 141 ; others were assimilated, as Kontor (but also Contoir), Vokal, Diftong ibid., 132. Norwegian words in his Dano-Norwegian are very rare, and are either used unconsciously or when demanded by the subject matter. In this event he regularly italicised them (Kvare, Skr. II, 139), or placed them in parentheses (Bikarar, II, 147) or quotation marks ("Fraemmindlag", II, 154), just as one might indicate any other unassimilated foreign loanwords. Yet he was aware that some Norwegian words had been generally adopted (Li, Hei, etc.) and used these when necessary, though he noted in 1852 that some of them disturbed the harmony of the language.14 He was not interested in reforming Dano-Norwegian; in later years his chief reason for using it was to make his scientific researches as widely accessible as possible. He confessed in the preface to his second dictionary that it cost him no little effort to find proper Danish terms for his dialect words: "The language to which we are accustomed in our newer books and newspapers is not very good Danish; at any rate, it contains certain expressions which scarcely will be found in any dictionary. ... Such expressions must not enter into our explanations of Norwegian words, and I have therefore attempted to avoid them ...." 1S Yet he did not fall into the opposite error of Danicizing; especially in his prose he avoided peculiarly and therefore offensively Danish turns of phrase. " » 16

Seip, op. cit., 74. Skr. III, 46. Dictionary» (1873), Χ.



In Dano-Norwegian, as in New Norse, his cardinal principle was to create a style as clear and comprehensible as he could. In a review of Folkevennen (1852) he upheld this as the ideal for writers who address themselves to the people.18 He did not fail to see that even in Dano-Norwegian the adoption of familiar Norwegian words would serve this ideal, "that is to say, when one chooses the words with some judgment." 17 "By a sensible adoption and adaptation of convenient words of Norwegian origin, one can ... make an approach to the properly Norwegian (det egentlige Norske) and store up a treasure of noble material which may well be retained whether the new language form comes into existence in our time or not." 18 In 1864 he repeated the idea: "To adopt a number of Norwegian words in Danish will undoubtedly be useful in writings for the common people ...." 1β It was in consonance with this outlook that he assisted Asbjornsen in the progressive Norwegianization of the folk-tales. It has been discovered in recent years that in the seventies Aasen made more than a thousand linguistic corrections in a copy of the folk-tales (third edition), of which the sixth edition (1896) later adopted more than half. His influence on Dano-Norwegian was also felt through his work on the language of various books which were widely circulated among the people: Berlin's Lxrebog i Naturlœren (2nd. ed. 1856), Siegwart Petersen's Norges Historie (3rd ed., 1861), Landstad's Norsk Salmebog (1870), Schübeler's Havebogfor Almuen (1856).20 But he always remained sceptical — as in his essay of 1836 — concerning both the value and possibility of any large-scale comingling of Norwegian words with Danish. In 1852 he warned against discarding the Danish words unless one had "better" (i.e., more etymological) forms for the corresponding Norwegian words which one desired to substitute. By this he meant that one ought rather to write "Le", as in Danish, than the phonetic form of the Norwegian dialects "Jaa"; the proper form was the etymological "Ljaa". 21 In 1864 he wrote: "The form of the Danish language is pretty definitely established within rather narrow limits, so that any transgression is easily noticed and makes an unfortunate impression."22 Yet within this range he himself learned to move with great virtuosity. As early as 1841 Bishop Neumann had praised his "cultivated style" and his remarkable "ability of presentation, which the most capable writer need not have been ashamed of."23 Seven years later P. A. Munch highly praised his "pure, clear, and truly classic style."24 That these were not empty words can be easily verified by any one who will compare Aasen's clear, well-modeled sentences with, e.g., the ponderous periods of his learned friend Unger in the latter's " " 18


80 11

" " "

Skr. III, 24-56. Skr. III, 46. Skr. III, 49. Grammar8 (1864), X. Κ. Liest0l, "Ivar Aasen og fornorskingi", Maal og Minne 1922, 1-19. Skr. III, 49. Grammar», XI. Quot. from reprint in J. Belsheim, Ivar Aasen, 8-15. Norsk Tidsskrift for Videnskab og Litteratur (Lange's), 1848, 297.



review of Prever af Landsmaalet26 or even with the more graceful prose of P.A. Munch. Aasen's Dano-Norwegian prose — though perhaps a bit dry — was unquestionably one of the clearest and most precise instruments of expression being used in Norway at that time. But the lyric and emotional sides of his being were not released by this language : there he needed to revert to the more intimate and homelike accents of his native speech, as he later sublimated it in his New Norse poetry. Reprinted from Scandinavian Studies and Notes, 12, 53-59 (1932).

AUTHOR'S COMMENT This little spin-off from my dissertation did no more than scratch the surface of a topic that is still unexplored in Norway. It appealed to me as one of the ironies of Aasen's life that to the end of his days his primary medium of expression remained that Dano-Norwegian which he labored to displace. He wrote poems and essays in his Landsmaal and translated literary works into it, but he seldom ventured to use it in ordinary life communication. His diaries and letters (and laundry lists) have now appeared in a massive three-volume edition by Reidar Djupedal: Ivar Aasen, Bre ν og Dagbeker (3 vols., Oslo, 1957-1960). Among these, as among his scholarly articles, there is virtually nothing but Dano-Norwegian.


Ibid., 1853, 290-295.


Problems connected with the borrowing of words from language to language have occupied the attention of many linguists. In most cases this attention has been focused on languages of the remote past, where opportunity for first-hand phonetic observation has been cut off entirely. In the meanwhile borrowing has been going on within the United States on a scale rarely equalled in history, between English on the one hand and all the immigrant languages on the other. Here it becomes possible to record by modern means and to study by modern methods the phonetic form of each word in each of its incarnations, foreign, American, or hybrid. In the following study of one such dialect the writer wishes to present a concrete instance of the possibilities inherent in this kind of research. My informant concerning the particular dialect of American Norwegian here discussed is Mr. Odin Anderson, a student at the University of Wisconsin without previous training in linguistics, whose interest had been aroused to the extent that he spent many weary hours preparing a tentatively complete list of the words employed in his Norwegian dialect. That this list is not actually complete is shown by the fact that it contains only some 5500 words (of which about 1300 are English loanwords), which is probably too little for any actual language. In spite of this, it must be regarded as an impressive contribution toward complete knowledge of this very interesting dialect. The gathering of words has reached a point at which new words do not suggest themselves easily, but come to mind only rarely and fortuitously. This vocabulary represents the speech of a specific family living near the town of Blair in western Wisconsin, in the midst of a solidly Norwegian country community. No living member of this family has ever seen Norway, 1 and my informant is a third generation immigrant. His grandfather and greatgrandfather emigrated from Norway and settled in this locality in 1854, when it was still a wilderness. In spite of the early date of settlement it is only within the past decade that the younger generation has been breaking away from the linguistic tradition of its ancestors. The strength of religious conformity has been a factor in this retention, for the church represents one 1

Previous to the summer of 1937, when my informant visited Norway.



of the few cultural traditions that were bodily transferred to American soil by these immigrants. In most other fields their Americanization has been rapid and complete, antedating by far the linguistic transition which is only now taking place. The linguistically dominant members of my informant's family, as well as most of their neighbors, derive their speech from the Norwegian dialect of Soler, a district in southeastern Norway, about 60 kilometers northeast of Oslo and immediately adjacent to the Swedish border. When the speakers of this dialect were transplanted to American soil and subjected to constant and powerful influence from the surrounding American milieu, a more or less gradual transformation of their speech became inevitable. They brought with them the capacity of forming certain linguistic signals with which they had manipulated their old environment. Having been accustomed to spin and weave their own clothes, prepare their own shoes, do their own blacksmithing, they had a wide and detailed terminology in these fields. Being orthodox Lutherans, they were well trained in the distinctions of the faith, though their vocabulary here was not native and local, but inculcated in school and church from Catechism and Explanation. Although their principal occupation both in Norway and in America was farming, it was far from identical in the two countries. In their old home most of them had lived under a self-contained economy, while in Wisconsin they had to market their produce and use the money to purchase factory-made products. They were met by new types of implements, new kinds of barns and houses, new conditions of agriculture, and even some of the old objects seemed unfamiliar in these strange surroundings. All these novel objects and situations demanded new linguistic signals if the proper responses were to be made. In most cases the new signals were chosen from the system already present, namely the English language, and simply added to the store of word patterns in their minds. At the same time the word-clusters centering around the old technical processes and implements were gradually forgotten, and were of course not transmitted to the next generation. In some such fashion there has come about a complete rearrangement of the word material in our American Norwegian dialect, with the undiscarded Norwegian words and the newly acquired English words together forming new word-clusters just as inseparable and stable as the old ones. The process here hastily and inadequately sketched is of course a well-known phenomenon, characteristic of all foreign dialects in America, as well as of all languages not in complete isolation. It is generally referred to under the inaccurate metaphor of 'borrowing', and the result is called a 'mixed language', a description which is true only from a historical point of view. These terms obscure the fact that what has really taken place is a shift in structure and emphasis, correlated to a shift in cultural and social form. The basic vocabulary patterns of the language are gradually moving towards English and are thereby easing the eventual transition to the phonetic and morphological patterns of that language. When, however, the speakers of a language are under such constant influence from another language, it is possible to observe also changes in the phonological pattern analogous to those of the vocabulary. The old distinctions of sound may be broken



down, new distinctions may arise, and the result is a new structure which easily accommodates the new vocabulary that constantly streams into the language. To illustrate this progressive shifting of structure I shall describe the history of two sound changes in the dialect of my Blair informant. The dialect of Soler in Norway has four distinguishable sounds within the range usually known as 'liquids'. It has a tongue-trilled r, an untrilled, palatal retroflex r (/•, a clear dental /, and a so-called 'thick' /, which is really identical with the untrilled r except for a final flap of the tongue.2 In my informant's speech (as apparently in that of many other Norwegians in America) the flap is lost, so that retroflex r and 'thick' I become indistinguishable. This is not a significant loss, as the two sounds cannot occur in phonemic opposition to one another. 3 There are accordingly three distinct sounds in the liquid range of my informant's dialect: r, r, I. These sounds are not wholly independent of one another. The r cannot occur before dentals, where it alternates with r (stor 'big', neuter stori). The / does not usually occur in certain positions (e.g. after labial consonants, or back vowels), where it generally alternates with 'thick' I, or (in my informant's speech) with r* If we compare this scheme with that of the American English liquids, we see certain striking facts. English has only two sounds in this range, / and /·. The / is darker than the Soler /, but the r is untrilled and retroflex so that it approximates the Soler r very closely.8 If we compare the sounds of the two languages on the basis of their physiological (and acoustic) resemblance, their relation might be somewhat as follows : American English r (untrilled) 1 (dark)

Soler r (trilled) r (untrilled) 1 (clear)

Amund Larsen, Lydlaeren i dens solerske Dialekt isser i dens Forhold til Oldsproget. Vid.-Selsk. Skr. II, Hist-filos. Kl., 1894. No. 4.18 (Kristiania, 1894). ' Words ending in 'thick' / acquire retroflex r instead when a dental (/, it, t, d) follows. 4 According to the previously cited work by Amund Larsen (a native of the district and an eminent linguist) / becomes cacuminal ( = 'thick') in the following situations: intervocalic or final, when it is short and follows some other vowel than i, i:, and ei (121-122); before labial and velar consonants (98, 102); before dentals without following consonant (122); after y before j (123); after labial and velar consonants (104, 106). In all positions exceptions may occur in the case of late loan words: smal a., sal m., silke m., salme m., klxr a., klever m., stovvel m. 5 In pronouncing [f] and [J] the tongue elevation is almost identical with that of American [r] (retroflex tongue-point and tongue-blade semivowel); cf. Kenyon, American Pronunciation 8 (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1940), 44, and Larsen 14 and 18. From personal observation I should say that Norwegian [f] is tenser than American [r], with more lateral contraction and a larger resonance chamber. The [J] is distinguished from [jl solely by a slap of the tongue point on the alveolar ridge at the moment of release; as there is no slap before a following dental, the two are not distinguished in this position even in the original dialect. In my informant's speech the slap is entirely lacking, so that his [r] and [J] are indistinguishable. Several of his transcriptions show confusion of these sounds.



An offhand examination of this diagram might lead one to suppose that any English words adopted into the sound system of Sol0r would keep the untrilled r for English Γ and / for English /. But a study of the words in question shows quite a different situation. The words of English origin being used by our third-generation speaker of Soler which contain r may be divided into the following groups. In a group which we shall call R-l, English r has become Soler trilled r. In another group, R-2, r has become untrilled r, even though it was not situated before n, I, t, or d. In a third group, R-3, r has also become untrilled r; this group includes all words in which the r appeared before n, I, t, or d. The words containing / may be divided as follows: L-l, those in which English / became r in the positions where this sound occurs for I in Soler, and L-2, those in which English / became Soler / in all positions. To give a clear perspective of the situation, the relationships may be diagrammed as follows: American English

English Loanwords in American Soler

Soler r (trilled)

Γ (untrilled)

1 (dark)

R-2 + R-3

Γ (untrilled)

L-2 1 (clear)

If we consider words containing the same sounds as constituting 'word-sound' groups, the change occurring here may be described as a breaking up of such groups. The word-sound group R has been split between trilled and untrilled r, and the group L between clear / and untrilled r. In the history of languages this phenomenon is common enough, but it is usually part of a combinatory sound change. Here there is nothing in the sound or form of the words to suggest that we are dealing with a typical 'sound law'. Instead it becomes necessary to consider the meaning, the frequency, and the probable date of introduction of these words into the dialect. The words in group R-l and group L-l are all simple, everyday words which must have become part of the immigrants' vocabulary soon after arrival. They are words like barrel, beer, country, crackers, drag, grab, radish, reap, screen, street, tramp, blanket, bluff, plenty, plug (of tobacco). In groups R-2 and L-2, however, we find words of more recent vintage and less frequent occurrence, such as airmail, ampere, arithmetic, ballbearing, bracelet, camera, detour, protection, writing desk. Some of these may even be said to have an insecure foothold in the dialect, e.g. writing desk, which is said to alternate with the semi-Norwegian skrivadesk. In groups 1, then, sounds are substituted as if the speakers had been aware of the spelling equivalents, while in the latter groups the words are taken over with their nearest acoustic equivalent.



Group R-3 falls outside this development, in that here the English γ was prevented from becoming trilled r by the following dental; in the system of Soler only untrilled r can occur in this position. Hence the words in this group are ambiguous and include old words like bam, cart, cord, as well as newer ones like cornstarch and department. There are more words belonging to this group than is immediately apparent. A number of words ending in r must obviously have entered the dialect early, and are in all other respects thoroughly assimilated. Examples of these are fair (n.), river, sewer, and square (n.). In river the first r is trilled, but not the last, so that this would seem to make its classification difficult. The explanation is a striking confirmation of our grouping: these words are all borrowed as masculine nouns, with the ending -n in the definite form. They also belong to the type of words that are more common in the definite than in the indefinite form, and in this form the r remained necessarily retroflex: ['fae ra], ['revarn], ['sirrn], ['skvaeTn], By false subtraction a new indefinite was then formed, still retaining the retroflex r. This is the only possible explanation of the striking forms which the word barn received in this and other dialects. The indefinite form is dissyllabic, and lacks the n: ["ba - p], with a regularly formed plural ["ba'pr], definite ["ba-ra]. All of these forms must have arisen from a dissyllabic definite singular [1 'ba r'n], 'the barn', in which the r was kept untrilled by the following n. A parallel development can be shown for the long rounded vowels o and u. The characteristic of the Solar dialect most noticeable to other Norwegians is its treatment of o, u, and y. O is articulated a shade higher than usual even in Eastern Norway, and u is fronted and overrounded, so that the o and u impress other Norwegians as respectively u and y. Y on the other hand is unrounded, so that it becomes identical with general Norwegian i. As a result the vowels o and u are markedly different from their English kinsmen. The relationship may be roughly diagrammed as follows: American English

Solor ü

u o

o â

ο American u approximates most nearly to Soler o, but American o is rather higher than Soler á.e If we now examine the situation in American Solar, we find that in the loanwords borrowed from American English, a new vowel distinction has been introduced, so that instead of two oppositions in this range, there are three. • A comparison of the descriptions in Larsen 12-13, and Kenyon 66, indicate that the American sounds are respectively high, mid, and low back rounded, while the Soler sounds are high central, high back, and low back rounded. This leaves the mid back position unoccupied, where American [o] is imported.



American English

American English Loanwords in American Soler Λ









Here, as with L and R, we can divide the loanwords into two groups, the early groups in which English o and u became Sol0r o and u, in spite of the great dissimilarity of these sounds, and the late groups in which u was made into its nearest acoustic equivalent o, and the American o was introduced bodily into the vowel pattern. The new pattern, accordingly, distinguishes between two o's, the o1 of the old dialect, and the o2 of American English. Words from groups 1 are: coat, vote; deuce, flu, lose, sewer, tools, tube. Words from groups 2 are: avenue, bluebird, bootlegger, nephew, perfume·, banjo, calico, crowbar, earphone, explode, roadster, swallow. A striking example of this division is the word poker, which has been borrowed in both groups. The game is rendered with Solar o ['po1-ker], and accordingly belongs to group O-l. But the implement, which entered the family vocabulary in recent years when a furnace was installed, is rendered with English o [ n po 2- ker]. It thus appears that in each of these groups we are dealing with substantially the same phenomenon. We have found a series of criteria by which early and late loans can be distinguished in this particular dialect. By means of these four sounds we can divide the words which contain them into three groups: Group 1, wholly assimilated; Group 2, partly assimilated, and Group 3, ambiguous. It may be asked: what happens if more than one of these sounds occur in one word? In the overwhelming majority of words their classification agrees; e.g. in Group 1 : r and ü in spring-tooth, r and o1 in lawnmower; and in Group 2: r and u in detour, proof, and prove. However, the component parts of compounds frequently fall into two different classes. In the word hardwarestore, the partly assimilated ["ha rdwae r] has combined with the wholly assimilated [stâ'r] into a compound in which each part retains its form. As the w of hardware shows, the four sounds given above are not the only criteria for such division into two groups ; in general, the presence of w and í/j instead of ν and j are also indicative of words belonging to Group 2. Armed with these criteria, it becomes possible to look for further distinctions between the two groups. If we segregate the words whose classification is determined as above, and study their development, we soon see that we are dealing with two radically



distinct processes. A large part of the vocabulary can be classed as belonging to a presumably earlier stratum of borrowing. In this part it can be shown in detail how the system of the Norwegian language was the determinant in the treatment given English loanwords. In this process the spelling was clearly of secondary importance, for most English words give but little clue to their true pronunciation. As will be shown in greater detail elsewhere, we are dealing here with a genuinely systematic transference, where the habitual pattern of the receiving language was of greater importance than the phonetic similarity of the sounds. In the second group the English system is seen to be dominant, and has imposed itself on the Norwegian. The phonetic equivalence becomes more exact, and the systematic assimilation less complete. This is clearly due to increasing familiarity with the sound system of English on the part of the speakers. While the earliest immigrants were both unable and unwilling to introduce English sounds into their language, the younger generations have shown no such reluctance. Most of them are probably bilingual, at least to the extent of using English in business and other outside relationships. Why have they then not reintroduced the English sounds into the earlier loanwords, which have here been noted in assimilated form from a member of the third generation? The answer probably is that the third generation is rarely aware of the English origin of most of these. The words of Group 1 act and feel like Norwegian words, and the American Norwegian who tries to pick out the English loanwords is as likely to hit upon a bonafide cognate as an English loan. As a matter of fact, some of the words here occurring as members of Group 2 are found in other dialects as part of Group 1. Other words vacillate in form between 1 and 2, for instance tune appears both as [to na] and as [tirna], and some unquestionably old words occur in the forms of Group 2. It is very likely that some words have been independently introduced more than once and have not been frequent enough to maintain a traditional Norwegian form. It is too early to generalize concerning the transitional stages between these two forms. There is a small amount of overlapping between them, and the historical facts surrounding some of the objects referred to will have to be drawn in to give a complete picture of the transition. But the examples given here are sufficient to show that, under the conditions of the Norwegian immigrant group in this country, a gradual transition from language to language takes place which nowhere shows as sharp a break as might be expected from a comparison of the end products, the original Norwegian and the ultimate American. It may be added as a note for further pondering that those features of Norwegian which still cling to many words of Group 2 (e.g. unvoicing of z, Norwegian intonation) are precisely those features which characterize the American of the child raised in all-Norwegian communities. This is a continuation into English of the process sketched above: the phonological shift, which may be accomplished by an individual in one generation, but which a community can achieve only in several. Reprinted from Language, 14, 112-120 (1938).




This first technical report on my American-Norwegian field work contained in nuce the central concept of all my later thinking about the linguistic development of a bilingual community — or a bilingual individual, for that matter. The first-hand observation of "this progressive shifting of structure" in response to a "shift in cultural and social form" made it impossible for me to accept the rigidity of structural doctrine then dominating the thinking of American linguists. The rapid development of "transitional structures" under conditions of what later came to be called language contact shows how loose are the bonds that hold the parts of a language together.


In the latest edition of Professor John S. Kenyon's American Pronunciation1 the sound commonly known as 'voiced t' is for the first time recognized as a constant feature of American speech. An American with some phonetic attentiveness will at once hear that an Englishman pronounces the t of pity with sufficient similarity to the t of typical to make the identification unquestionable. But in general American the t in this position has a noticeably different quality, which makes its classification problematic. Kenyon summarizes this difference by referring to the American sound as 'voiced t \ It may be worth while to elaborate somewhat further on this sound, which apparently has not previously been discussed in print. That many misconceptions are abroad is shown by such a statement as the of H. J. Uldall in Le Maître Phonétique2 that 'in the speech of most Americans there is no difference between d and t in final position.' To clear up this whole situation, contributions from persons familiar with various types of American speech will be necessary. Kenyon's term calls attention to one phonetic difference of this t from the initial and final t: the fact that it is voiced. Aside from this, Kenyon gives no analysis of its mode of production. He merely denies its identity (which some have asserted) with 'a single-tap r'. The basis of this assertion (not given in the text, but privately stated by Mr. Kenyon) is a series of kymograms made of his own speech and that of Mr. Stephen Jones, of London. Mr. Kenyon has kindly permitted the writer to study the kymograms in question. Though there is only one pair which compares his voiced t with Mr. Jones's tapped r, these do seem to confirm the statement that the two are different. But when we examine the other kymograms of Mr. Kenyon's voiced t, we see at once that the kymograph records fluctuate rather widely. In a few instances there is a brief contact, in others there is a quick instantaneous flutter, and in still others there are several such flutters (indicating actual trills). The last-named are so similar to Mr. Jones' tapped r that 1 6th Edition, Ann Arbor, 1935, pp. 122,232. Professor Kenyon has been kind enough to criticize the present article in manuscript and several statements have been modified accordingly, without our reaching complete agreement in every detail. » Oct.-Dec. 1934, pp. 97.




this writer would demand further evidence before admitting that voiced t actually shows any material difference from tapped r. And even if it can be shown that there is a constant difference between voiced t and the British r, this does not prove that the t does not belong to the phonetic type of tongue-trilled r. The r, on account of its loose formation, is one of the most variable of sounds, even within areas supposed to have the same dialect. For the time being, then, we cannot regard Mr. Kenyon's dismissal of this classification as well founded. Certain foreign groups in America having tongue-trilled r in their language do frequently equate it with American voiced t? A similar transition in British dialects which will be discussed below is frequently referred to as a 'transition to (trilled) r'. In the writer's speech, the tongue-movement of 'voiced t' is identical with that of his (parental Norwegian) trilled r, though the point of articulation and the number of trills are different. The writer would like to offer the following analysis of his own 'voiced t'. 4 It is articulated at the same point as his 'regular't, but differs from it in being (1) voiced, (2) unaspirated, (3) short, and (4) loosely articulated. It differs from d in the two lastnamed respects. It may be described as a voiced, unaspirated, alveolar fricative. Most of Mr. Kenyon's kymograms show a closure of the passage so brief that it can not be said to have any duration. It is a mere fluttering contact, in contrast to the more solid formations of both t and d. It is possible to loosen the contact slightly and continue the sound with an effect something like that of z. There is a marked difference in tactile sensation between latter and ladder (when the second of these is pronounced with a genuine d). Note that Jespersen describes the tongue position of trilled r as one which fails to make 'complete closure'.5 Even within the present writer's speech there seems to be a variation in the amount of contact of tongue with palate according to the phonetic neighborhood. There is a more definite closure after r or / (as in hearty, melting) than after η (renting). In fact, both η and t in the last-named are loosely formed. Before / (little) the closure is more marked than before r (litter) ; in the former the tip of the tongue remains stationary throughout the combination, so that it is practically impossible to tell t from d (little: fiddle, rattle : paddle). Before n, also, the tip of the tongue remains stationary, but here the t is not allowed to become voiced at all (bitten : bidden). There is much variation of usage on these points, however. The writer has heard a number of persons pronounce the voiced t before η also; they are then compelled to insert a vowel between the t and the n. Examples actually heard are Latin, Wheaton, instead of the usual Middle Western [laetn], [hwitn]. In exaggeratedly careful speech an attempt is sometimes made to restore the 'correct' * See H. L. Mencken, The American Language (4th ed., New York, 1936), where the following examples occur: (American) Italian siri (city), siriollo (city hall) p. 644; Serbo-Croat Serap (shut up) 668, gerarehir (get out of here) 669; Lithuanian pare (party), Vorberis (Waterbury) 671. In Slovak and Hungarian d seems to take its place: sveder (sweater) 661; pade (party), kvoder (quarter) 681. * The writer was born in Iowa and was living in Wisconsin when this article was written. 4 Fonetik (Kobenhavn, 1897-1899), p. 224.



/'s in words which normally have 'voiced t'. The result is rarely the actual unvoiced, aspirated stop which is heard initially or finally. The speakers unvoice the 'voiced t \ but fail to make a stop of it, so that it continues a fricative. The escaping breath of the fricative satisfies the auditory demand for aspiration, and the speaker gets the feeling of having dutifully pronounced a 'real'/. From this description it appears that the 'voiced t' is physically more like a ¿ o r a trilled r than a t. It bears a physical relationship to / something like that of the voiced bilabial continuant to ρ and the voiced velar continuant to k. Yet the writer would not at present discontinue the term 'voiced t' for this sound. In the system of American English it is PHONOLOGICALLY related to /, though it may be PHONETICALLY closer to d. As Kenyon also recognizes, the 'voiced t' should follow the untutored sense of the speaker and be associated with the /'s. This is due not merely to the spelling, but rather to the thousands of instances in American English where the same word occurs with ordinary / in one position and 'voiced t' in another: hit vs. hit 'im, hit vs. hitting, hit vs. hitter. That this 'phonemic' classification may be open to some objection is recognized by the writer, in view of the fact (not noted by Kenyon) that in some words and (possibly) in the speech of some persons the distinction between 'voiced t' and d is lost or obscured. The process here is not one of t becoming d, or vice versa, but of both becoming 'voiced t', the voiced fricative described above. For d this involves merely a slight loosening of contact, and a shortening of duration. It occurs in the writer's speech in the words madam and nobody, but not in seedy or glider (both derivative words). The writer has not attempted to investigate this situation, but he does not believe it is wholly sporadic. Jespersen has noted the forms nobory, Maram from English dialects. That there may be important distinctions in vowel length and quality before these sounds is another possibility which deserves serious investigation. Kenyon's rules for the occurrence of 'voiced t' seem extremely complicated, requiring as they do eighteen lines of print. They need to be simplified so as to bring out the essential conditions for its occurrence. The voicing of t is seen to be dependent both on preceding and following sounds : it cannot occur unless it is PRECEDED by a vowel or a sonorant (η, I, r), and is FOLLOWED by an unstressed syllable-forming element (vowel, I, r, but not the homorganic ri). This summarizes in one formula all the rules and examples given in Kenyon; it comprises the voicing of t in malted, twenty, better, altogether, want to go, at eleven, rattle, center, and the absence of voicing in table, try, to-day, repeat, rivet, miltonic, return, and mutton. But this formulation overlooks the fact that under certain circumstances / can be voiced even before a STRESSED vowel. IF THE t BELONGS TO A PRECEDING WORD, it will be voiced also before a stressed vowel. Note the following examples: wha/ else; thai awl; puf on; Aun/ Eleanor; I wan/ ice. These may be contrasted with: the /all man, po/ato, an' /ell me, en/ice. This is a clear case of the word divisions having



phonetic consequences. If the sounds atall are divided at all (I was present at some, but not at all), the t is voiced ; if they are divided a tall (a tall man), the t is not voiced. If they constitute the unit phrase at all, meaning 'in all respects', two pronunciations are possible, one with the 'proper' syllable division (in which the t is voiced) and one with the t carried over to the second word (in which the t is not voiced).® Kenyon treats the contrast between these two pronunciations as an instance of his general rule that voiced t never occurs 'at the beginning of an accented syllable'. In a private communication he amplifies this by stating that 'the prime consideration is the incidence of stress.' The writer's hesitation about accepting this theory is due to the recognized difficulty of determining the exact point of syllable division or incidence of stress. For instance: can the syllable division follow two (or even three) consonants, as in 'Aunt Eleanor', or 'they weren't up'? It may be, but the writer's feeling is that the new syllable starts in the midst of the 'voiced t'. What is unquestionable, however, is that before stressed syllables the presence of 'voiced t' indicates the end of a word. On this basis it appears that the pronunciation of at all with unvoiced t is evidence of the complete coalescence of these two words into one, of the type attain, attention. Perhaps the strongest bit of supporting evidence for Mr. Kenyon's syllabic theory is the occurrence of 'voiced t' before h, a fact not noted in American Pronunciation. In the speech of the writer the t is voiced before h in examples like the following: I couldn't get here, ant hill, got hit, hot-house, at home. In these cases the t may not be voiced in its entirety, and the following h gives it something that sounds like aspiration. But its failure to make complete closure still distinguishes it from the usual t. Since h can only occur at the beginning of a stressed syllable, the preceding 'voiced t' must be the end of a syllable (and word). The striking thing, however, is that voicing takes place before h whether the following syllable is strongly stressed or not (though the h tends to get lost in a less heavily stressed syllable). The h behaves very much as if it were a vowei. The conditions of voicing may accordingly be more completely formulated as follows : t is voiced when it is preceded by a vowel or a sonorant (/, n, r), and is followed by h, by an unstressed syllable-forming element (vowel, /, r, but not ri), or by a stressed vowel in the following word. If we accept Kenyon's principle of syllable division, it can be still further simplified as follows : t is voiced when it is preceded by a vowel or a sonorant, and is immediately followed by a syllable beginning with a voiced or unvoiced vowel. This takes h for granted as an unvoiced vowel, and does not admit syllabic « as a vowel (though the real reason may be that before n, as in bitten, t actually begins the syllable). The chief value of such a concentrated formulation is that it suggests the essential conditions under which the voicing arose : preceding voiced sounds, with a marked lowering of stress. The writer has seen no discussion of the origin of 'voiced t' in American English. The change may conceivably have arisen independently, but there is a striking parallel •

Op. cit., 122.



Conditions of 'voicing' : Preceding





following — unstressed vowel unstressed syllabic 1 unstressed syllabic r h stressed vowel in following word

η with English dialects which should not go unnoticed. Like so many features of American English, it may be a dialectal English pronunciation which has grown dominant in America. Its wide distribution in American English does not point to a very recent origin. The English material as surveyed by Jespersen7 gives examples from J. Wright, Dialect of Windhill (London, 1892), from the writings of Hall Caine for the Isle of Man, and from Mrs. Humphry Ward for Derbyshire. Similar forms are found also in Dickens, Meredith, Anstey, and Jerome to represent drunken speech. The transition of pottage to porridge is parallel, and may represent the seventeenthcentury adoption of a dialect form. Jespersen was not aware of the American parallel, but his rules for the 'exchange of r for i' are similar to those given above for American 'voiced t\ In Joseph Wright's English Dialect Grammar8 the transition t to d in intervocalic position is attested from many English dialects, especially those of the southwest (Sommerset, Dorset, Devon). Examples given are bottle, better, kettle, little, nettle, bottom. The same change is exemplified in H. C. Wyld's History of Modem Colloquial English9 as early as the fifteenth century. Nearly all the examples there given would agree well with American pronunciation: St. Editha 1420fedryd, hondynge,peyndynge ; Gregory's Chronicle 1450-1470 radyfyde, depudyd; Machyn 1550-1563 hundyd; Verney Memoirs prodistants Lady Sussex 1642. Elphinston mentions the pronunciation proddestant (along with some others that do not agree with American practice) as a London vulgarism, and Bernard Shaw uses it to characterize a speaker of Irish. Though it may seem like mere carping criticism, the writer would finally express a whisper of regret at Kenyon's partial endorsement of the idea that 'voiced t' impairs 'distinctiveness in speech'. Even though he qualifies this statement by saying that it 'chiefly disturbs those to whose speech it is alien', he leaves an opening for the 'better speech' enthusiasts. The writer has used it from early childhood, without once feeling himself seriously impeded on this account in his efforts to understand or to make himself understood. It has caused him no more difficulty than has the loss of distinc' Op. cit., 444-445. See also Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar I (Heidelberg, 1928), 340-341. Here Jespersen describes the change as an instance of "the closure becoming imperfect on account of the rapid movement." » Oxford, 1905, p. 63. » Oxford, 1936, pp. 312-313.



tion between hoarse and horse, also instanced by Kenyon, or between balm and bomb, elsewhere insisted upon by Bloomfìeld, or between merry, marry, and Mary. Such doctrine may unintentionally give aid and comfort to the elocutionists. From Dialect Notes, 6, part 16 and 17, 627-634 (1938); used by permission of the American Dialect Society and the University of Alabama Press.

AUTHOR'S COMMENT Perhaps because of its place of publication, this early description of American 'voiced t' was overlooked in the later literature. This was reflected in the inadequate formulation of the phonetic and distributional features of the sound in Bloch and Trager's Outline of Linguistic Analysis (Baltimore, Maryland, 1942), p. 43. My description of it as phonetically a kind of r is confirmed by W. Nelson Francis, Structure of American English (New York, N.Y., 1958), p. 89, where it is called a flap and is written [S]. The most interesting aspect of its distribution is its intersyllabic position, even across word boundaries, where it invariably occurs before vocalic segments but not in the same syllable with them {at all vs. a tall). My note may also be of interest as documentation in what has been described as "one of the first sound changes that is being observed and documented by linguists in its successive stages" (W. P. Lehmann in American Speech, 28, 271 [1953], where the literature is surveyed). My evidence suggests, however, that the change may not be recent and that any tendency to phonemic merger may be counteracted by morphemic analogy.



En av de sterste vanskeligheter nàr man vil drive ordstudier er stoffets mengde og mangel pâ overskuelighet. Den som ensker á utf0re semantiske og stilistiske studier mâ käste bort en stor del av sin tid pâ â finne de ord han vil unders0ke. Nâr ordbeker skal skrives, kan det ofte bli noe av en tilfeldighet hvilke citater man fìnner og hvilke ord som blir med. Sammenlignende studier over sprogbruken hos forskjellige forfattere er ogsâ vanskeliggjort nâr man ikke kan sikre sig en fullstendig oversikt over deres ordforrâd uten langt og meisommelig arbeide. Til alle slike studier trenges der et omfattende register over ordforrâdet hos endel centrale forfattere, sä man altsâ kan si neiaktig hvilke ord de har brukt og hvor ordene kan finnes. Et sâdant register vilde ogsâ gi anledning til statistiske studier over ordenes forekomstisproget. Man har under de siste âr blitt opmerksom pâ den overordentlig store rolle som ordfrekvens spiller i sprogutviklingen. Det viser sig at nâr et tilstrekkelig stört ordstoff blir optellet, holder de oftest forekommende ord sig noenlunde konstant, sä man kan tale om deres relative frekvens som en besternt egenskap. Der er da en pâtagelig ulikhet i lydlig og semantisk utvikling mellem de mere og de mindre hyppig forekommende ord. De tellinger som hittil har vaert foretatt i sprog som f. eks. tysk, engelsk, fransk og latin, har vist forbausende overensstemmelser, og har fert til sp0rsmâlet om det teoretiske grunnlag for disse fakta. Vi har her et Strukturproblem, som sikkert vil fâ stor betydning for fremtidens sprogforskning. Dessuten byr ordtellinger pâ en rekke rent praktiske anvendelser, som vi ikke her skal komme inn pâ. Kaedings Häufigkeitswörterbuch (Berlin, 1898) var beregnet pâ Stenografien, de store amerikanske (Thorndike, Dewey, Horn) pâ rettskrivningsundervisningen, og en del andre pâ fremmedsprogsundervisningen. I de nordiske land har man saerlig i Sverige og Danmark vaert aktiv pâ dette felt. 1 1 O. W. Melin, Stenografo» Historia II (Stockholm, 1929); Carita Hassler-Göransson, Det primara ordforrâdet och rättstavningsundervisningen (Linköping, 1933); A. Noesgaard, Hyppigheds Unders0gelser over Ordforraadet i Dansk. Om Grundlaget for en fast Retskrivningsundervisning (Kbh. 1934); P. G. Widegren, Frekvenser i debatten. Morfologiska och fonologiska undersökningar. Del I. Morfem. (Stockholm, 1935); A. Noesgaard, Hyppigheds Unders0gelser over Ordforraadet i Dansk II. Ord fra danske Forfattere, Aviser og Handelsstoff (Kbh. 1937). Blant de arbeider, som er utkommet etter denne artikkel er skrevet, ber de feigende nevnes: A. Noesgaard, De nodvendigste



For bàde svensk og dansk har man nâ ordtellinger pâ noe over en halv million hver. Den eneste offentliggjorte ordtelling i norsk er Utfort av overlserer Hans Bergersen, og er trykt i hans Morsmálsoplxringen (Oslo, 1935) ; den omfattet 133013 lopende ord, som for det meste stammer fra leseboker og barnestiler. Omtrent samtidig med hr. Bergersen hadde jeg sat i gang en norsk ordtelling pâ cirka 50 000 ord fra 30 forskjellige norske forfattere, for â ha et brukbart grunnlag til en laerebok i norsk.2 Under arbeidet med denne ordtelling og vurderingen av dens resultater, blev jeg mer og mer overbevist om den store betydning for norsk sprogstudium av en mere omfattende ordtelling, og da heist en som samtidig künde vaere et ordregister hvor alle de sjeldnere ord var opfert med henvisninger. Jeg var klar over at en slik jobb vilde vaere helt uoverkommelig for en enkelt mann, og hadde derfor forelobig slâtt den ut av tankene. Men i februar 1938 kom der foresporsel til University of Wisconsin fra regjeringen i Washington om man kunde foreslà projekter hvortil der kunde brukes arbeidslose mennesker som ikke egnet sig til grovarbeide. Dette var et ledd i det store arbeidsloshetsprogram som var satt i gang for àndsarbeidere under ledelse av WPA (Works Progress Administration). Under denne plan tilbod regjeringen à betale arbeidslonningene, hvis staten Wisconsin vilde bekoste alle andre utgifter og universitetet vilde sorge for videnskabelig ledelse. Jeg utarbeidet da forslag til et norsk ordregister, som straks blev antatt. Den 31. mars, 1938, blev arbeidet satt i gang, og har fortsatt inntil sist i September. Det skal tas op igjen i februar, og forhâbentlig fores til en avslutning i lopet av vâren. I det folgende skal det gis en kort redegjorelse for dette arbeide.


Fortfatterne blev valgt med den tanke at de skulde vaere centrale og betydelige representanter for sin tid, altsâ av bâde sproglig og litteraer interesse. Istedenfor â ta litt fra mange, blev det av praktiske hensyn besternt â ta alt eller en meget betydelig del av noen fâ forfatteres produksjon. Henrik Ibsen, som vilde vaert den mest takknemlige forfatter, blev utelatt fordi det meste av hans ordforrâd ait har vaert utskrevet pâ sedler av det norske ordboksverk. Tre forfattere blev da stâende som de omfangsrikeste og tildéis mest betydningsfulle i sin tid: Henrik Wergeland, Bjornstjerne Bjornson og Sigrid Undset. Disse tre var dessuten representert i gode, lett tilgjengelige utgaver som kunde legges til grunn for arbeidet. Av Wergeland tok vi med hele den dikteriske produksjon, de ni forste bind i Samlede Skrifter (utg. Jaeger og Seip). Likesâ av Bjornson, hvor de átte forste bind i Samlede Digter-Verkçr (standard-utg. danske Ord (Kbn. 1940, 2. udg., 1956); Fejltyper i dansk Retskrivning (Kbn. 1945); Skoleb0rns ordforrâd (Kbn. 1955); se ogsâ hans selvbiografi Fra ploven til asfalten (Kbn. 1953). C. HasslerGöransson, Ordfrekvenser i nusvenskt skriftsprâk (Lund," 1966). Κ. Simonsen, Om laereboksvokabularet i den h0yere skole (Oslo, 1947); Lsererens ordbok (Oslo, 1953). 1 Beginning Norwegian. (Hektografert utg. Minneapolis, 1934; trykt New York, 1937; ny, omarbeidet utgave 1957).



ved Francis Bull) blev tatt med, foruten Samlede Digte (utg. Bull), som trâdte istedenfor den tilsvarende del av Samlede Digter-Verker. Sigrid Undsets Samlede Romaner og Fortaellinger fra Nutiden (Kra. 1921) blev benyttet for hennes nutidssprog, og Middelalderromaner (10 bind, 1932) for hennes middelalderstil. Disse to deler av hennes produksjon blev holdt skarpt adskilt. Foruten disse tre forfattere fra det moderne riksmâl, blev to andre tatt med for â käste lys over spesielle problemer. Tre oldnorske verker blev tatt med, delvis for sin egen skyld, delvis som sammenligningsmateriale til Undsets middelalderromaner og til det andre moderne Stoff i sin almindelighet. Til dette 0iemed valgte jeg Egils saga (utg. Siguröur Nordal, 1933), Njâls saga (utg. Finnur Jónsson, 1908), og Heimskringla (utg. Finnur Jónsson, 1893-1900). Ordregistret til disse tre verker skulde ogsâ kunne ha sin betydning for oldnorsk leksikografi og ordforskning. Endelig blev Ivar Aasens samlede Skrifter (2. utg. Knut Liestol) tatt med som sammenligningsstoff for landsmâlet. Det hadde ogsâ vaert tanken à ta med Garborg og Vinje, men det blev dessverre ikke tid. Hver av de valgte forfattere blev da betraktet som en jobb for sig (S. Undset dog som to) og nummerert fra en til seks. Hvert bind i utgavene fikk sin bokstav (A, B, C, o. 1.) for â lette henvisningen i det endelige register. De forskjellige jobber, med antall sider og ord (tildéis anslagsvis) er som folger:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Sigrid Undsets Middelalderromaner Sigrid Undsets Nutidsromaner Henrik Wergelands Dikterverker Egils saga, Njâla, Heimskringla Bjernsons Dikterverker Ivar Aasens skrifter Tilsammen




10 5 9 5 10 2

2 777 1 437 4 119 2 246 3 656 482

844 632 451 152 752 424 465 000 1 000 000 93 400


14 717

3 606 608

Summen blir altsâ omkring 3 millioner ord moderne riksmâl, og fem hundre tusen ord oldnorsk. 2. FREMGANGSMÀTE

Et stört lokale blev stillet til râdighet av universitetet, bord og papir og annet materiale innkjopt og skrivemaskiner leiet for de penger som staten skjot til. Da vi ikke künde vente at mer enn noen fâ av de tilsendte arbeidere skulde kunne norske, mâtte systemet bli helt mekanisk for deres vedkommende. Papirark 25 χ 70 cm. blev tilskâret av godt, solid papir, og pâ disse blev trykt streker pâ kryss og tvers sä arkene blev inndelt i ruter pâ ca. 3,7 X 6,2 cm. Denne storrelse viste sig â vœre det minste som var forenlig med praktisk behandling av disse nâr de senere skulde skjœres fra hverandre og alfabetiseres.



Arkene blev sà gitt til arbeiderne, som satte dem i maskinene og skrev av bokene ord for ord, ett ord i hver rute. Det blev plass til 72 ord pâ hvert ark, sâ at noe over femti tusen ark har gâtt med til arbeidet. Nâr arkene var skrevet full, blev de merket og stablet op pà hyller. Eftersom en bunke blev ferdig, fikk andre arbeidere dem til gjennemsyn og retteise, mens atter andre gikk igjennem dem og stemplet hver rute met angivelse av forfatter, bind, side og finnested pâ siden. Finnestedet blev angitt i centimeter fra 0verste linje, fordi dette viste sig â ν sere lettere enn linjetallet, som varierte sterkt i forskjellige b0ker. En typisk henvisning pâ en slik rute var f. eks. 2 D 235 6; det betyr jobb 2 (Undsets Romaner og Fortaellinger), bind 4 (Jenny), side 235, 6 centimeter fra oven. For det oldnorske stoff blev en spesiell skrivemaskine benyttet, en som tidligere hadde vaert anskaffet for fonetiske arbeider. Til tross for all mulig planleggelse pâ forhând, meldte der sig en rekke problemer under arbeidet, og mange fler vil sikkert vise sig fer vi blir ferdig. En vanskelighet er f. eks. sporsmâlet om orddeling. For den som ikke kan sproget vil det vaere vanskelig â bestemme om et ord med bindestrek ved slutten av linjen ogsà f0re skal ha bindestreken ellers. En ordforbindelse som 'son- og helligdage' kan ogsâ til mange merkelige feilskrivninger ; selv for en spesialist vil det ν aere vanskelig â bestemme hvor mange ord det egentlig bestâr av (sammenlign Wergelands "Dag- og Natchaos"). Likesâ med store forbokstaver; ofte kan det vasre vanskelig (og for den som ikke kan sproget, umulig) â si om et ord i setningens begynnelse er et navn eller et almindelig substantiv. Her mâtte almindelige regier settes op for arbeiderne, og opsynsmenn ansettes til à pâse at de blev overholdt; saerproblem, som ikke künde loses av opsynsmennene, blev sâ henvist til mig. Heldigvis fikk vi bl. a. en utdannet filolog til projektleder en del av tiden, og ellers var det nok av samvittighetsfulle, noiaktige arbeidere til â garantere kvaliteten av det meste.


Den forste del av arbeidet, kopieringen, er fullfort; likesâ det meste av korrekturlesningen og stemplingen. Det som gjenstâr er da alfabetiseringen og utarbeidelsen av manuskriptet (eller manuskriptene). Nâr alt det forberedende arbeide er Utfort, skal arkene skjaeres op av skjxremaskiner og sedlene alfabetiseres. Under dette arbeide holdes de seks jobber ut fra hverandre, mens alle sedler fra en enkelt jobb stopes sammen. Samtidig blir de 25 eller 30 oftest forekommende ord tatt ut og tait sœrskilt; derved vil cirka en tredjedel av alle sedler elimineres. Efter alfabetiseringen vil ogsâ endel fler ord bli tatt ut, sà at bare de egentlig betydningsfulle ord fàr füllt henvisningsmateriale. Derefter blir et manuskript utarbeidet for hver jobb, med en alfabetisk liste over alle deri forekommende ordformer med frekvens for de hyppigere og henvisninger for de mindre hyppig forekommende. Som det vil fremgâ av den arbeidsmetode som er skissert ovenfor, blir ikke ord som er stavet likedan skilt fra hverandre, og morfologiske former av det samme ord



blir ikke stillet sammen. Verbet brygge og substantivet brygge blir sammenfattet i en artikkel, mens formene brygger, brygget, bryggen og bryggene vil stà hver for sig. Selv om dette for enkelte formâl kan synes mindre nyttig, vilde dog en hvilkensomhelst annen fremgangsmâte ha skapt helt uoverstigelige vanskeligheter. I mange tilfeller er det selv for en spesialist helt umulig â si hvor en besternt ordform skal henregnes; det er et problem som alle ordboksforfattere sliter med. I et uttrykk som f. eks. den gutten kan det vaere vanskelig â si om den er artikkel og trykklos, eller pâpekende pronomen og trykksterk. Man kan ogsâ sporre om de to betydninger av et ord som bry, den i uttrykket ikke bry mig ! og i jeg bryr mig ikke, skal regnes som selvstendige ord eller som nyanser i ett ords betydningssfœre. Det er da tanken à hektografere disse manuskripter og utgi dem hver for sig i smâ utgaver pâ et par hundre, som kan selges eller utdeles til de biblioteker og enkeltmenn som kan tenkes á ha interesse av dem. Et saerskilt bind vil komme til à omfatte en sammenarbeidelse av frekvenstallene for de forskjellige jobbene, med endel statistiske studier over det hele ordforrâd. Pà det nuvœrende tidspunkt er det umulig à si nâr disse vil utkomme, men forhábentlig vil det ferste bind og kanskje fler se dagens lys i 1939. Det er mitt hâb og 0nske at de mâ kunne nyttiggjeres av norsk sprogforskning, og kanskje ogsâ av den sammenlignende synkroniske lingvistikk. Reprinted from Maal og minne, 1939, 1-6.


This research report on work in progress was intended to alert Norwegian scholars to the word index of Norwegian and Old Icelandic literature which eventually appeared as Norwegian Word Studies (Madison, Wisconsin, 1942). Before this a great deal had happened, however: contact with Norway was interrupted by war and occupation: the U.S. government funds which (under WPA) had been made available for this work were turned to other purposes. Only about two thirds of the word index appeared in these volumes, the rest (all of Bj0rnson's works being left in ms. form, and the edition of 100 mimeographed copies was soon exhausted. The three and a half million slips are still preserved, but these things are done so much more easily, if not more cheaply, by computers these days. Some use has been made of the word index for the kind of stylistic studies for which it was intended, e.g. by Nicole Deschamps in her Sigrid Undset ou la morale de la passion (Montréal, 1966) and by Marina Mündt in Sturla Pórdarson und die Laxdxla Saga (Oslo, 1969). The linguistic possibilities (as propounded in Madison by W. F. Twaddell) were never mined, for lack of statistical training and interest, except as they served in the preparation of my Norwegian textbooks and my Norwegian-English Dictionary (Oslo and Madison, Wisconsin, 1965).


Although Icelandic is in general the most conservative of the modern Scandinavian tongues, its system of stops gives at first sight an impression very different from that of Old Icelandic. As the Norwegian phonetician Johan Storm long ago observed, "die Schwäche des Stimmlauts fallt sehr auf im Vergleich mit der energischen schwed.norw. Aussprache und giebt dem Isl. etwas Weichliches, das es dem Dänischen nähert." 1 Storm's auditory observations agree well with the conclusions of a native experimental phonetician, Stefán Einarsson, who declares that in Icelandic "all stops are more or less voiceless."2 But if all stops are voiceless, we may ask, what has happened to the old distinction between voiced and voiceless stops? Have they coalesced into new entities and formed an entirely new consonant structure? Or has the distinction been maintained by other means? These problems are of considerable interest for the study of consonant shifts in general, and have not previously been treated from the structural point of view. An effort will here be made to contribute somewhat to their clarification. Only three of the many phonetic analyses of Icelandic need be seriously considered in the present discussion. One is the excellent account by Jón Ófeigsson in the introduction to Sigfús Blöndal's Icelandic dictionary,3 which Stefán Einarsson calls "die beste Übersicht über die gesamte Lautlehre von der Hand eines Isländers."4 The second consists of the two detailed studies by Stefán Einarsson, which are based on kymograph records of the speech of Einarsson himself and a fellow countryman, Ärsaell Sigurösson.5 The third is a recent Berlin dissertation by Bruno Kress,® based on a two-year study of the language during a residence in Iceland. These supplement


Engl. Phil. I (1892), p. 236. A Specimen of Southern Icelandic Speech (Oslo, 1930), p. 18. ' Islandsk-dansk Ordbog (Reykjavik, 1920-1924). 4 Beiträge zur Phonetik der Isländischen Sprache (Oslo, 1927). 5 The above cited Beiträge and Specimen, in which latter is contained the analysis of Sigurösson's speech. 6 Die Laute des modernen Isländischen (Berlin, 1937). His bibliography of earlier writings on the subject is extremely valuable; see the review by Stefán Einarsson in MLN 1939, p. 150-152. 2



one another admirably, and appear to give all the phonetic information necessary to gain a very clear picture of the Icelandic system.7 Ófeigsson and Einarsson agree that for purposes of phonetic transcription it is adequate to divide the stops into two groups, those with aspiration and those without. In Ófeigsson's phonetic alphabet the former are written p, t, k, the latter b, d, g. Each of these classes, however, includes phonetically distinct members to whose "motley state", Einarsson declares, "no phonetic transcription can do justice." "The finest system", he suggests, would require five sets of symbols, three for the unaspirated, and two for the aspirated: (1) after homorganic nasals bdg are unaspirated, but may be wholly voiced; (2) initially and long medially bdg are unaspirated and voiceless, but "frequently" have a voiced explosion; here belong alsoptk after s; (3) medially, whether short or long, ptk (transcribed bdg) are unaspirated and voiceless, but "frequently" have a voiceless explosion ; (4Ì initially and finally ptk are aspirated and unvoiced; (5) finally bdg (transcribed ptk) are unaspirated and unvoiced. Such a transcription is in part carried out by Bruno Kress, who writes (1) b (2) & (3) b, (4j ρ (5) b'. He does not recognize the distinction between (2) and (3) on the basis of voiced explosion, tentatively set forth by Einarsson. But he does deny the complete identity of (4) and (5), for whose distinction Einarsson admits he is unable to find any valid criterion. Kress says there is "grosse Ähnlichkeit" between final ptk and bdg, but still keeps them distinct. Ófeigsson's and Einarsson's distinction between two classes of stops on the basis of aspiration alone produces a notation that cuts squarely across the historical distribution of these sounds in the language. This is evident from the rules of pronunciation and the transcriptions in the dictionary, which are extremely complex. Written b is pronounced now b, now p, while written ρ is pronounced both ρ and b. If the language were to have its spelling reformed on the basis of Ófeigsson's phonetic alphabet, a tremendous number of words would lose their present appearance. Thus labb 'paw' and pamb 'drinking' would exchange their ¿'s for p's, while spor 'track', api 'monkey', hypja 'a kind of woolen cloth', hjâlpa 'help', vopna 'weapons', and hnappur 'button' would exchange their p's for b's. But in most positions natives are still able to tell written ptk from bdg even though some of the former have lost their aspiration and most of the latter have lost their voice. The fact that the rules for the interchange of ρ and b etc., though complex, are fairly regular, also leads one to suspect that there is a higher structural order behind them. The crucial problem is: by what phonetic characteristics are ρ and b distinguished in those positions where the language actually distinguishes them? ' I am assured on the best of authority that Kemp Malone's The Phonology of Modern Icelandic (Menasha, Wis., 1923) is a useful and brilliant work. But a mass of confusing neologisms make his results practically inaccessible. Other important contributions are Stefán Einarsson, Icelandic Dialect Studies I. Austfirdir, JEGP 31 (1932), p. 537-572, and On Some Points of Icelandic Dialectal Pronunciation, Acta Ph. Sc. 3 (1928-1929), p. 264-280. Note also Marius Kristensen, Oplysninger om islandske dialektforskelle in Festskrift Pipping (1924), p. 295.



In other words : what role does the opposition of media and tenuis play in the pattern of the Icelandic language? In the following table (p. 86) examples are given of stops in all possible positions, with pairs of words in which tenuis and media are directly contrasted when it was possible to find such a pair without too much straining. After each word is given Ófeigsson's phonetic transcription. It will be seen that in eight of the twelve positions listed, both tenuis and media occur; these we shall call the 'distinctive' positions. In the remaining four (7, 8, 9, 12), only historical tenues occur; these we shall call the 'non-distinctive' positions. The DISTINCTIVE positions fall naturally into three groups, as in the table, initial, postvocalic, and postconsonantal. In each of these positions the distinction is historically called for, and, as will be seen from the phonetic transcription, actually exists. But the same phonetic CRITERION of distinction does not apply in all positions. INITIALLY aspiration is the most prominent difference, as the tenues are followed by aspiration, while the mediae are unaspirated and begin voicing shortly before or just at the moment of explosion. AFTER SHORT VOWELS, i.e. when the consonants are long, neither tenues nor mediae before vowels are followed by aspiration, and both may begin voicing at or before the moment of explosion; finally, both are followed by aspiration.8 It is clear that the aspiration after these stops is not a criterion of distinction. But the tenues are invariably PRECEDED by aspiration, which breaks the voicing of the previous vowel and thereby distinguishes them from the mediae, which may even be slightly voiced at the beginning. The essential distinction here consists of what may be called the 'pre-aspiration' of the tenues. That this is so was recognized already by Storm, when he wrote: "Zum deutlicheren Unterschied tritt daher vor pp, tt, kk ein stimmloser Hauch ein, der einen Teil des ersten Konsonanten ersetzt."9 Ófeigsson and Kress part it entirely from the stop by writing it as a separate letter (A). Einarsson vacillates between considering the aspiration as "gehauchter Absatz des Vokals" and a part of the following consonant. Phonetically, of course, it can be either; but in the system of Icelandic it is unquestionably a part of the fortis stop that follows, and Einarsson is nearest the truth when he writes: "Then of course pp, tt, kk both medially and finally are characterized by their breathed onshift, a kind of inverse aspiration."10 The phoneticians have had their eyes trained too exclusively on the end of the sound, where aspiration traditionally occurs. The PRE-ASPIRATION alone gives the tenuis stop an existence distinct from the media. AFTER SONORANTS the situation is again different. Einarsson shows that the mediae may be wholly voiced in this position after homorganic nasals, i.e. the initial and final 8

Bruno Kress asserts that the post-aspiration of the mediae is weaker ('akustisch kaum wahrnehmbar'), Die Laute, p. 66. This is unlikely, but not impossible, though it is not stated by Ófeigsson or Einarsson; it would be worth investigating, especially for such words as mynd: mynt in North Icelandic, where the phonetic conditions are otherwise identical. See footnote p. 103. • Engl. Phil. I, p. 236. 10 Specimen, p. 23.







INITIAL 1) before vowel 2) Before cons.

bara [ba:ra] para [pa:ra] brestur [br£S'd0f] prestur [pres-dar]

dala [da: la] tala [ta:la] drefjar [drevjar tremar [trevjar]

gaf [ga:y] kaf [ka-γ] glas [gla:s] klas [kla:s]

labba [lab:a] lappa [lahba] labb [lap·] lapp [lahp]

oddi [od:i] otti [ohdi] rödd [rör] hratt [hraht]

bagga [J)ag:a] bakka [{sahga] logg [lök·] lökk [löhk]

afli [ab-Ii] apli [ahbli]

varna [vad'na] vatna [vahdna]

böglar [bög-lar] buklar [{jyhglar]

nafn [nab'ij] vopn [vohpç]

barn [bad'ii] vatn [vahtij]

vagn [vag'n] tákn [tauhkn]

apa [a:ba, a:pa] skap [sga:p] hypja [hi:bja, -pj-] vipra [vi:bra, -pr-]

ata [a:da, a:ta] hrat [hra:t] flytja [fli:dja, -t-] titra [ti:dra, -t-] götva [gö:dva, -t-]

aka [a:ga, a:ka] tak [ta:k] lykja [li:gja, -k-] vikri [vi:gn, -k-] vökva [vö:gva, -k-]

lamba [lanrba] hampa [hanvba, ham-pa]

henda [hen'da] henta [hsirda, hen'ta]

folgiö [fo u l'g J iö] fölkiö [foi'g'lö, fo u l'k J iö]

lamb [lanrp] hamp [ham-p]

mynd [min't] mynt [murt]

örg [ör-k] örk [örk]

spinna [sbnra] aspir [as'bij·] ösp [ös-p]

standa [sdan'da] hasta [has'da] hast [has't] hefta [hef-da] hökta [höx'da]

skalli [sgad'li] frlskur [fris'g0r] frisk [fris-k] maökur [mab'gYI"] rifka [rif-ga]

POSTVOCALIC After short vowel 3) Medial between vowels 4) Final 5) Medial before consonant 6) Final before consonant After long vowel •7) Medial between vowels •8) Final *9) Medial before consonant

POSTCONSONANTAL 10) Medial after voiced cons.

11) Final after voiced cons. *12) After unvoiced consonant


Non-distinctive positions.

voicing can become so strong as to join and make the sound wholly voiced. But as this is far from universal, we may regard it as irrelevant to the system. Unfortunately, the number of examples of this position in Einarsson's material is small, and several possible combinations were not investigated.



As appears from Ófeigsson's transcriptions, the historical tenues after sonorants ( / , r, m, η, η) are unvoiced; in northern and most of eastern Iceland, they are aspirated and therefore he transcribes them ptk. But in the more fashionable and encroaching southern speech, they are unaspirated (at least when medial) and therefore transcribed as bdg. Here, however, the striking fact is that these so-called bdg are distinguished from historical bdg by making voiced consonants before them unvoiced, an exact parallel to the pre-aspiration of the long tenues. Hence henta and henda do not become identical in any Icelandic dialect. 11 We find, then, that in all positions where both tenuis and media are historically justified, they are still clearly distinguished. In Old Icelandic, voicing may have played a part in this distinction, as it does in modern Swedish and Norwegian. But today the phonetic factors which primarily distinguish them are: (1) initially, the manner of EXPLOSION (aspiration, voicelessness vs. direct release, possible final voicing) ; (2) after short vowels, the manner of IMPLOSION (pre-aspiration, voicelessness vs. direct entry, possible initial voicing) ; (3) after a normally voiced consonant, the unvoicing of this consonant. In each position there are two contrasting stops, corresponding to the historical tenuis and media. It is even possible to generalize the phonetic distinction into a single formula: ICELANDIC ptk ARE KEPT APART FROM bdg BY THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE JOINED το NEIGHBORING VOICED SOUNDS. The latter join directly, with frequent overlapping of voicing, while the former are separated either and the end or beginning (but not at both) by an interval of voicelessness. There are of course other differences, but only this one is invariable. But there are four non-distinctive positions, in which no such pattern exists. After long vowels only tenues can occur, because the short mediae all became (or remained) spirants in Old Icelandic.12 After s the absence of media, at least in writing, is a common Germanic feature. Old Icelandic assimilations have prevented voiced consonants from following or preceding unvoiced. In all these positions there is no opposition of tenuis-media, and therefore no obvious method of classifying the sounds. AFTER OBSTRUENTS (position 12) it is clear that aspiration is quite mechanically regulated: no aspiration before vowel, aspiration when final. Ófeigsson separates them by classing them as mediae in the first case, tenues in the second. But in relation to the pattern as a whole post-aspiration is not an adequate criterion : the whole sound 11

The unvoicing of preceding consonant is spreading more rapidly than the de-aspiration of the stop, according to Stefán Einarsson (cf. JEGP 31, p. 537-572, Skirnir 106, p. 33-54), so that in eastern Iceland a number of people combine southern and northern speech, saying for henta [hEQ'ta], thus making the difference from henda still plainer. The opposite confusion [hsn'da], which would obliterate the distinction, he mentions for only one speaker and as a great curiosity (JEGP 31, p. 571). A certain difficulty arises in connection with mynd : mynt, which is northern Iceland fails to unvoice the n in either case, yet aspirates both t and d. For this pair Einarsson is unable to record an instrumental difference, yet his auditory experience assures him there is one; he guesses at a difference in intensity. (Beiträge, p. 45 ; Specimen, p. 23). 12 Cf. Noreen, Aitisi. Gr., p. 244-246. A few special words and proper names of foreign origin contain mediae in this position; Einarsson lists bíbí 'bye bye baby' Lybika Ida didi Agata (Beiträge, p. 38-41); his experimental results show that they are identical with initial mediae.



must be considered. Since they are preceded by an interval of unvoicing (the unvoiced consonant), they classify equally well as tenues, agreeing with the traditional spelling. Actually, their position is and remains ambiguous, since traditional mediae, if they could occur in this position, would behave exactly the same. AFTER LONG VOWEL ( 7 - 9 ) there was neither a phonetic situation nor a systematic opposition to keep the tenues distinct from the mediae. Here the theoretical difficulty of systematic classification is reflected in an actual phonetic vacillation : the system has begun to break down at its weakest point. In the conservative north of Iceland it is still intact. Here the ρ of apa and hypja remain post-aspirated and therefore most nearly related to the p's. In southern Iceland, however, an actual break with the old system has taken place; short medial ptk have lost their aspiration and are joined to both following and preceding voiced sounds by no interval of unvoicing, i.e., have become bdg. The phonetic condition favoring this change was the relative lack of stress after long vowel. The systemological condition was the absence of any necessity for distinguishing tenuis from media. The confusion is reflected in spelling errors made by many south Icelandic children, as reported by Stefán Einarsson.13 Medially Ófeigsson transcribes these ptk in South Icelandic as bdg, finally as ptk. But the latter, even though they are phonetically identical with the aspirated tenues of North Icelandic, must be classified with the mediae — because post-aspiration in final position is not a valid criterion; all stops have it. The moment one of these stops is both preceded and followed by voiced sounds, as when a vowel begins the following word, the aspiration vanishes and we have a clear media. E.g., tap [ta - p] 'loss' before ί 'in' becomes [ta'br] just like tapa [ta'ba] 'lose'.14 That this change is not peculiar to Iceland is well-known to students of Scandinavian dialects. Southern Iceland shows here the first stage of a development that has gone much farther in other south Scandinavian areas.15 In these areas it is generally accompanied by an unvoicing of the mediae and an increased aspiration of the tenues. In the Faroe Island the same pre-aspiration occurs as in Iceland and includes also short fortes after long Old Norse vowels (no uh t 'night').16 In southwestern Norway a coastal area from Tvedestrand to northern Ryfylke has confused short media and 18

Mdlbreytingar, Mentamál 1936, p. 192-197. According to this article, 19.9% of the Icelandic school children confuse k and g, 13.6% t and d, 5% ρ and b; but these errors are rarely found in northern and eastern Iceland, from Skagafjöröur in the west to Berufjöröur in the east. See also Einarsson's article Hljódvillur og kennarar, Sklrnir 1934, p. 150-157. 14 Cf. Bruno Kress, Die Laute, p. 66. 15 For bibliography see Johs. Brendum-Nielsen, Dialekter og Dialektforskning (Copenh. 1927), p. 76-77. " Cf. M. A. Jacobsen and Chr. Matras, Feroysk-donsk OrÔabôk (Torshavn 1927-1928), p. 470. According to J. Jakobsen in V. U. Hammershaimb, Fsresk Anthologi (Copenh. 1888), p. 440, the tenues are aspirated as in Danish and the mediae mostly half-voiced; the change to bdg has taken place in Vâgô, and in the S0ndenf|ord dialect. The change also took place in Shetland Norn, as shown by such examples as mädsr ON matr, kjob ON kaup. Cf. J. Jakobsen, Det norrene Sprog pâ Shetland (Copenh. 1897), p. 15, 135f.



tenuis after vowels just as southern Icelandic. From a study of these consonants by Ernst Selmer it appears that the difference in voicing between tenuis and media is very slight in these dialects.17 In southern Sweden, also, a coastal area facing Denmark (Skàne, Halland, Bohuslän and parts of Blekinge and Smâland) shows identical phenomena.18 The most advanced development, however, is that of Danish, in which the opposition of tenuis : media has completely vanished except initially (pakke : bakke). In the most exposed position the tenues have coalesced with the old voiced spirants (ON gata > Danish gade rhyming with ON bada > Danish bade). In other positions Danish has retained a stop, but with a mechanical regulation of aspiration similar to that of Icelandic though without pre-aspiration ; hence grubbe : gruppe, lab : lap are now homonymous.19 Here the old system has truly been shattered, and a new alignment has appeared.20 These reflections have led us to the conclusion that the change in the Icelandic consonant pattern is much less than the Ófeigsson transcription would lead us to think. On this point the traditional spelling is a better guide than the transcription.21 We have found that a single phonetic feature is not enough to distinguish reliably between the two classes of stops. We have seen also that no criterion is perfect: every linguistic category leaves behind an unclassifiable remainder. But only by analyzing oppositions in those positions where they actually exist can we perceive the pattern of a phonetic system, and only on the basis of extremely full phonetic information can such an analysis be made. In Icelandic the stops have undoubtedly changed their phonetic quality, but their pattern of functional oppositions is practically unchanged. Our way of looking at it reveals clearly that only in the non-distinctive positions have some speakers tended to move toward a new constellation. In current terminology: the /»-phoneme is still distinct from the ¿-phoneme, except in South

" " "

Om Stavangermàlets "hârdé" og "blate" klusiler. Opuscula Phonetica V (Kristiania, 1927). Elias Wessén, Vârafolkmâl (Stockh. 1935), p. 20. For details see André Martinet, La phonologie du mot en danois (Paris, 1937), esp. p. 195-200. 10 Brandum-Nielsen regards the whole development as spontaneously Danish; but the fact that it is generally associated with devoicing of the mediae lends some weight to Storm's theory that the original impulse might have come from Germany, where many dialects confuse tenuis and media. Cf. Om Nabosprog og Graensedialekter, VKrSkr 1911, No. 4, p. 5. Devoicing of the mediae would naturally decrease the phonetic difference between the two series, and lead to compensatory increase of the aspiration in those positions where the system was going to be maintained. But the short post-vocalic tenues were less aspirated than the others to begin with, and since Scandinavian had left them without opposition, they failed to change with the rest of their class; and in those parts of the area most subject to German influence, they gradually passed over into a new class — that of the (unvoiced) mediae. The change would accordingly be an instance of a foreign impulse attacking the weakest spot in the system and setting up a series of repercussions in it. The phonetic circumstances of this change are discussed by D. A. Seip in Studier tillegnade Esaias Tegnér (1918), p. 149154 (reprinted in Studier, Oslo, 1934). ω A purely phonemic transcription would write the words as in the traditional spelling, except in the position after long vowel. To this could be added all the necessary phonetic information by indicating the presence of aspiration with a spiritus asper: labb'/la'pp'; fcamb'/bamp'; nabij/vo'pg; aba/ap'a. This is close to Kress's practice, and Einarsson's in Beiträge, but not in Specimen.



Icelandic after long vowel. Icelandic offers us an instructive example of the relationship between a traditional spelling, a phonetic alphabet, and the functional pattern of a language. 22 Reprinted from Acta Linguistica, 2, 98-107 (1941).

AUTHOR'S COMMENT This early attempt to reorganize some data of Icelandic phonetics into more abstract classes was based entirely on the fine work of Icelandic phoneticians. It grew out of an attempt to make sense of the increasingly complex mass of data accumulated by them. That it should have pointed to Icelandic orthography, with its often conservative representations, as essentially phonemic is no longer surprising. For further study of the problem see 'The phonemics of Modern Icelandic' (this volume pp. 355-389).

" Professor Einarsson was kind enough to read this article in an early draft and made a number of valuable suggestions, for which the writer wishes to express his sincere gratitude. He has also called my attention to an important discussion by Carl Marstrander, "Okklusiver og Substrater", NTfSpr V (1932), p. 258-314. Marstrander shows that preaspirated stops, devoiced mediae, and unaspirated stops after vowels are characteristic features of the Gaelic dialects of Scotland, but are quite absent in Irish. He concludes that these features were brought to the Gaels by the vikings, in whose southwestern Norwegian home Danish influence from the Age of Migrations had already induced them. He suggests also that the preaspiration may represent a transitional stage between earlier -ht-, -nt-, -mp-, etc. and the long stops of Old Scandinavian. His belief that the preaspiration was retained in order to strengthen the distinction between the various stop series agrees well with the thesis of this paper.



1. The Syllabic Phonemes of English by Trager and Bloch (LANG. 17.223-246) is an attempt to set forth a partial phonemic analysis of American English. The analysis, though partial, is ambitious ; it displays thoughtful ingenuity and confident independence; and its conclusions are in some particulars spectacular. It is accordingly in order to consider whether the procedures of analysis represent sound and fruitful techniques. If they do, the scope of linguistic investigation has been substantially broadened ; if not, they are seductive but dangerous. The authors declare their intention to proceed "inductively from a statement of the phonetic data ... to an interpretation in terms of linguistic structure". What is the nature of this statement and of this interpretation? The statement of phonetic data is subjective; the interpretation is determined, eclectically, by the principles of phonetic similarity, complementary distribution, congruent patterning, or economy in the total number of units. In some crucial respects, these procedures appear to us to be invalid and capricious.1 2. As their "basic unit" the authors establish what they call "a phonemic phrase". Its definition involves two elements: (1) external open junctures at beginning and end; (2) one loud stress. The first item means that it must be an isolated utterance, preceded and followed by a pause, since external open juncture by definition occurs only there (225, line 3). The second item limits it to a rather short isolated utterance, since an utterance of any length will contain several loud stresses. The problem of splitting up any long utterance into 'phonemic phrases', either by introducing pauses or by subordinating the main stress under one extra loud stress, has not been touched. How is this 'phonemic phrase' related to the flow of speech? Until this is made clear, the meaning and value of the various kinds of juncture and of the degrees of stress will remain in question. The length and tempo of the phrase may determine the very existence of e.g. such internal open junctures as that of tin-tax·, it is very questionable whether this is distinguished from syntax in rapid speech. On this point the authors offer us no positive evidence. 1

Haugen prepared the first draft of §§2, 5, 7; Twaddell of §§1, 3, 4, 6, 8.



In their discussion of stress they establish four degrees which they are writing to call phonemic : loud, reduced loud, medial, and weak. The loud is the one loudest stress which dominates a 'phonemic phrase' ; the reduced loud includes both the stress of preceding modifiers (a blâckbôot) and of following compounded elements (a bôotblâck). The medial includes pre-tonic rhythmically determined stresses within long, classical words (exàminâtion) and post-tonic vowels which could not get less stress without being exchanged for shva or [i] (accent, àbstràct, àpricòt, âmbùsh). The weak includes [a], [i], [i], [u], and sporadic instances of the other vowels. It is evident that each of these classes includes disparate phonetic types. The black of a blâck boot is not identical in stress or intonation with that of a bôotblâck. The stress of the first a in exàminâtion is not that of the second a in àbstràct. The stress of the last i in willing is not identical with that of a in aloft. In each of these cases it happens that the distributions are mutually exclusive, since they depend on the relationship to the loudest stress, and on the rhythmic and morphological structure of the words. Hence it is possible to use identical symbols without ambiguity, but it is in no way mandatory. This becomes even more apparent when we discover that in no case is it possible to find a position in which all four stresses may be demonstrated as applicable to substantially identical vowels. In fact, once the position of the chief stress is fixed (by extra-phonemic considerations), the remaining syllables are limited to two possibilities, (comparatively) loud and (comparatively) weak. Thus one may say either a long shore or along shore; if the main stress is shifted to long (giving it the maximum of three possibilities available to any one vowel in English), making it alongshore (or alôngshôreT), the last syllable is as weak as it can possibly be. The type called 'weak' (as in a-) may be objectively weaker than the last-named, but the two cannot be demonstrated under comparable conditions. The entire scale of stresses is established by a series of impressionistic comparisons between incommensurable entities. The contrast of weak with medial is exemplified exclusively by comparisons of post-tonic regular vowels (cóntènts, conduct, syntàx, rotàie) with the special group of short vowels [a], [i], and [i] (current, άχis, lófty). The contrast of medial and reduced loud is exemplified (a) by such pairs as tin-tâx and syntàx, where the contrast is complicated by internal open juncture (as noted by Trager-Bloch), and (b) by sequential groups like móvie-àuditòrium, in which -tôr- is given its own level between mo- and aùd-. With enough semi-stressed syllables, one can of course work out even more steps, e.g. fòurteen-ninety-twó, in which -teen and nine- could by the same reasoning establish two 'medial' levels between reduced loud and weak. A comparison of such pairs as àlternâtions and all the nátions, or discombòoberàtion and this consìderàtion, suggests that the difference between (anticipatory) reduced loud and medial may be one of pitch patter rather than stress. After the main stress one may compare àpricòt and ârmy côt,pôlàcks and pôle-âx, âmbùsh and róse bûsh, áspic and ice-pîck, refugee and spelling bêe. A number of factors are involved in whatever differences exist here, such as the number of syllables, the type of



juncture, etc. ; and to comprise all of these under the terms here proposed is rather to conceal than to reveal the facts. In general the patterning here adopted does not seem to fit the facts too well. The classes are either too few or too many. We are painfully confronted with the fact that no direct instrumental check has yet been devised for the factor 'stress' in language. Stress may indeed be only a name for various groupings of such measurable factors as vowel quality, pitch, tone pattern, quantity, amplitude, and rhythmic sequence. It is interesting in this connection to note that in a recent study of the relation between quantity and stress, R-M. S. Heffner has shown the existence of two (and only two) sharply differentiated vowel lengths correlated to differences of stress.2 We need many more such studies of the measurable factors in stress before any general scheme like the present can be established with assurance. In any such scheme a terminology must also be devised for including the factor of sequence. While Trager-Bloch begin their discussion by referring to "the position of main stress", they proceed to analyze the "degrees of stress" as if they were talking about the same thing. In any such "minimal contrast" as tránsport η. and transport v. the real opposition is not limited to degrees of stress : just as important, perhaps crucial, is the difference between, say, iambic and trochaic sequence. 3. A crucial "statement of the phonetic data" is the setting up on p. 229 of an order of six categories [ι, ε, ae, α, Λ, Υ] on allegedly phonetic grounds ("phonetically short and non-diphthongal"). Apparently it is the shortness which is the determining criterion; for the authors specifically decline to regard monophthongal [i·, e \ u - , o - ] as categories of the same order as [ι, ε, χ , α, Λ, υ]. (These 'long' vowels are interpreted as assimilated diphthongs, 235.) The issue is accordingly quite clear: [ι, ε, as, α, Λ, U] are unambiguously asserted to be unambiguously short, as a matter of phonetic fact. If this phonetic classification falls, then all the subsequent interpretations of other vowel-sounds in terms of the six-member pattern must also fall. And how do the authors set about proving this crucial phonetic classification of [ι, ε, se, α, Λ, υ] as unmistakably short vowels? They write (230) : "Our judgments of length are admittedly subjective, and lack the precision of mechanical or electrical measurements. Nevertheless we believe that our statements regarding relative length are valid within the limits of this investigation." On a point of cardinal importance, so cavalier a procedure is simple recklessness. The authors present on measurements of the length of their vowels : techniques for obtaining such measurements exist, and although the task requires diligence, it involves no arcane processes. If the authors were unwilling to measure their own vowels, they could at the least have examined the measurements made by other investigators. Such measurements have been made and the results published in American journals during the past five years.3 If the phonetic length of vowels is a relevant datum, then a body of available information on the phonetic 2

American Speech 16, 204-207 (1941). " For example, by Heffner and co-workers, in American Speech 12, 128-134 (1937).



length of vowels should not have been ignored in favor of "admittedly subjective ... judgments of length." The authors do not explain what constitutes short vowel duration (e.g. 0.20 sec. or less). They do say that the vowels of bid, etc. are "noticeably longer" than those of pit etc. (230). According to the data of R-M.S. Heffner and W.P. Lehmann, the figures are, respectively, for Heffner, 0.20 sec. and 0.15 sec., for Lehmann, 0.20 sec. and 0.16 sec. (based on 527 measurements in all). We do not know if Trager's and Bloch's vowels show the same relations, for they have not provided the data; if so, we do not know whether they are capable of noticing a difference of 0.04 or 0.05 sec. If they can indeed discriminate so carefully, it is remarkable that they are apparently unable to notice such differences as that between [as] and [i] before [d]: 0.11 sec. for Heffner, 0.09 sec. for Lehmann; before [t], Heffner's [ae] is 0.06 sec. longer than his [i], Lehmann's 0.09 sec. longer. To be sure, these figures may not apply to Trager and Bloch; all the more distressing, then, is our lack of real data on their vowels. Since the authors present no evidence (aside from their subjective judgment) in support of the crucial statement that [Ι, ε, ae, α, Λ, U] are THE phonetically short and non-diphthongal vowels, we must ask whether their judgment is likely to be correct. The average durational values4 given by Heffner and Lehmann are based upon nearly 13,000 measurements of vowels in monosyllables, pronounced in isolation and bearing a loud stress, ending in a single consonant — precisely the conditions for which Trager and Bloch make statements (229 ff.). Here are their findings, for vowel lengths before the stops: [H = Heffner; L = Lehmann; * = no measurements for this vowel before this consonant; the numbers represent duration in one-hundredths of a second, and each number is an average of from 27 to 193 separate measurements]. Heffner's vowels before [p]: [b]: [t]: [d]: [k]: [g]:

14 ι, υ ; 16λ, ε; 18 u; 19 i; 20 a ; 21 ae, sr, o; 23 αϊ, e; 25 o ; *au. 19 ι, A; 22 ε; 25 a, u, or; 26 as; 28 o, e; *u, i, o, ai, au. 15 I, u ; 17 a; 18 ε, a; 21 ae, i; 22 o; 23 u, sr, e; 24 αϊ; 25 o; 27 au. 20 I, u, A; 22 ε; 26 a; 28 i; 29 u, 3·; 30 e, o; 31 ae; 32 ο, αϊ; 33 au. 14 i; 16 u, A; 17 ε; 20 i; 21 3·; 22 a, e; 23 ae, o, u; 25 ο, αϊ, au. 22 ι, A; 24 ε; 26 œ; 28 o, 3·; 29 e; 30 o; *u, a, i, u, ai, au. Lehmann's vowels before

[ρ]: [b]: [t]: [d]: 4

18 ι, A; 20 ε, i, u; 23 or; 25 ο, αϊ; 26 e; 27 α; 28 ae; 29 ο; *u, au. 21 A; 23 ι; 24 ε; 30 u; 33 3·; 34 a, ae, o; 25 e; 37 ai; *u, i, o, au. 16 i; 17 u, A; 18 ε; 19 i; 20 u; 21 s·; 23 ai; 24 a, e, a u ; 25 œ, o; 26 o. 19 A, u ; 20 i; 21 ε; 27 3·; 28 i, u; 29 a, ae, e; 30 o, a; 32 ai, au.

For further details see the publications by R.-M. S. Heffner in Language 16,33-47 (1940), American Speech 16, 377-380 (1940), 17, 42-48 (1942), and 18, 208-215 (1943), as well as his General Phonetics (Madison, Wisconsin, 1949).



[k]: 17 i; 19 a, u, u; 20 ε, i; 23 a·; 25 αϊ; 26 e, o; 29 α; 30 ae, o; *αυ. [g]: 22 ι; 25 λ, ε; 36 χ, or; 37 α, ο; *υ, e, u, αϊ, αυ, i, ο. It is no simple matter, on the basis of these real data, to bring oneself to talk about 'phonetically short' vowels as a definite group; but at all events, the 'phonetic shortness' of [ι, ε, as, a, a, u] is something less than certain. The position of [i] and [u] is interesting. Likewise the durational relations of [ae] and [a-]: In two of these 12 series, [ae] and [a-] are of equal duration; in two (H before [t] and [g]), [a-] is 0.02 sec. longer than [ae] ; in eight, [se] is longer than [a·]. For H, and even more decisively for L, [a1] is a vowel which is phonetically shorter than [ae] and non-diphthongal. Is it otherwise with Träger and Bloch? We do not know. We know only that (229) [ae] is described as "phonetically short" and that (238) the vowel of burr, cur, purse, worm, etc. is interpreted as containing "some kind of rather long vowel followed by /r/." Either Trager's and Bloch's varieties of General American differ radically from Heffner's and Lehmann's or their subjective judgment of the length of non-diphthongal [a-] is unreliable. 4. In the interpretative steps, Trager and Bloch have made a most desirable tabulation of the various phonetic combinations in which vowels occur. This they call recording the occurrence of sound-types ; and the work is valuable. It is the further steps, the bringing together of the sound-types into 'phonemes', that appear to us to be characterized by caprice and violence to the facts. To us, in all sobriety, the processes whereby Trager and Bloch combine sound-types into phonemes appear more akin to artistic composition than to scientific classification; and the pleasure of watching their operations with the material is rather esthetic satisfaction than scholarly conviction. The notion of 'pattern' which underlies this whole discussion needs clarification before it can become a useful term. If it is a set of habits that exist in the neural system of the speakers, then its effect on the functioning of language must be demonstrated. If it is only a working hypothesis, a 'fiction', its value for the study of language must be unequivocally stated. In attempting to justify certain of their procedures, Trager and Bloch invoke 'Phonemic theory': 234: "By the requirements of phonemic theory, we must ..."; 235 : "the requirements of phonemic theory (complementary distribution, economy in the total number of units, etc.) force us ..."; 238: "to analyze the syllabic of burr, cur, purse, worm, etc. as a special 'r-vowel' is theoretically bad ...." Where is this canon of phonemic theory, which requires, which forces, and according to which an interpretation of [a-] in harmony with phonetic fact is theoretically bad? Trager and Bloch adduce "phonetic similarity and phonetic inter-relationship" without defining these dangerously loose terms. They justify their interpretation of monophthongs as being really diphthongs by asserting that "the total pattern is best revealed" in this way ; and they expound this sovereign "principle of pattern analysis" by quoting,



as its classic formulation, an eloquent magnificat to 'Pattern', with only the vaguest of indications of the nature or the application of this principle. By its fruits must we judge it; pattern analysis interprets monophthongs as diphthongs on p. 235 ; on p. 238, pattern analysis interprets monophthongal [a-] (average 0.26 sec.) as "a rather long vowel followed by /r/" ; and on p. 238, in another connection, "the phonetics and the pattern analysis therefore agree, as they should." 5. The striving for fewer symbols leads to some curious results. One is struck on perusing the table of vowels (243) by the considerable dissimilarity among the soundtypes that are grouped together into unitary phonemes. Here the first vocalic elements of bite, bout, balm, and bar are classed with the vowels of pat and marry, while pot [pat] and sorry ['sari^ji] have joined hands with law, bore, and Hoyt. Almost as incongruous seems the collocation of boat with burr and cut ; while the weddings of pit with beat and put with boot are only a shade less repulsive. These 'allophones' which move up and down, or counterclockwise, at the command of the following 'semivowel' — what holds them together? Fundamentally, there is just one fact on which the whole system is constructed : that in stressed syllables there are six vowels which cannot occur in free syllables (the syllables of pit, pet, pat, pot, cut, put). As will be shown later, even this fact is not true of all American speech. In any case, it is not a phonetic, but a distributional fact, and the difficulties of the entire system arise because there is no necessary correlation between these two kinds of facts. The Trager-Bloch article is essentially an attempt to describe the remaining vowels or vocalic elements in terms of the six so determined. Their goal is a statement that every syllable contains one of these six vowels, followed by at least one consonant, whenever it is stressed (243). The first step is to eliminate the possibility that some stressed syllables may end in a vowel. The most obvious cases are the recognized diphthongs, as in lay and cow. Their off-glides are grouped with prevocalic j and w, which is not in itself objectionable. The only question arises when we are categorically told that they MUST be so grouped, "because there is no contrast between them". On this criterion, the diphthongs might just as well be written ei and au, or el and aU. The second step is built on the somewhat shaky first. While it is not phonetically unreasonable to hold that j and w are consonants, there are still the vocalic endings of pa and law to explain. These are held to be "long" and the "lengthening element" cannot possibly be a vowel, "since there is no example anywhere else in the total pattern for two vowels in succession" (240). The only reason there is no example is that the diphthongs have just been ruled out in step 1. Otherwise there would be nothing to prevent one from regarding these vowels (granting for the sake of argument that they should be treated as long) as composed of two short vowels: /aa/ or /oo/ for instance. Since the final element cannot be a vowel, it must of course be a consonant; one consonant is still happily unengaged, to wit h, so it is pressed into service.



This rounds out the pattern, and we are presented with three consonants, alias semivowels, j, w, and ft. One of these is postulated at the end of every stressed syllable which we had previously thought ended in a vowel. The authors are not disturbed by the rather considerable phonetic dissimilarity of prevocalic and postvocalic h; they even manage to turn it into a "striking similarity" by taking the somewhat dubious position that ft- is merely a voiceless anticipation of the vowel. Among the other vowels that do not appear to lend themselves too easily to this treatment are [i] and [u]. The system demands that even when these are clearly monophthongs, they shall be described as /ij/ and /uw/. The arguments are twofold: (1) that they "can be described" as assimilated diphthongs (but no reason appears either why they must or should be described as something they are not; and historical terms — "phonetic result", "raised", etc. — seem out of place in a descriptive statement); (2) that when some combinations in the pattern are lacking, similar units may be brought in to fill the missing spaces ("there is no other category left", footnote 24). This principle clearly demands that the fact be trimmed to suit the pattern. Yet it appears again, and more harmfully, in the handling of the first elements of diphthongs and 'long' vowels, especially those beginning with [a] or [o]. This requires a good deal of not very convincing argument, since sounds resembling [a] (e.g. in mid-western loud) have been forced into the same rubric as the [œ] ofpat to make room for elements in the [o]-range. In the case of loud, the authors admit that the resemblance "is not always close" (236). The [αϊ] of buy is grouped with [ae] and the [oi] of boy with [a] because "the first is further front". This appeal to the two-dimensional chart of the phonetician is justified by calling it "pattern analysis" (footnote 21), but it really stems from an unwillingness to grant the vowel of law unitary status because it can occur in free syllables. This leaves only two categories in this range, /a/ and /o/, and all the low vowels must be squeezed into one or the other. In the same way are handled the vowels of bar, bore (and consequently balm, law). The authors find themselves with three vowels and three spaces in the system. So the vowels [ae-] in Mary, [a ] in starry, [o-] in boring are arranged along a front-back line of phonetic relationship and fitted into the rubrics which already contain the similarly arranged but quite different [ε] of pet, [as] of pat, and [a] of pot. The obvious parallels of [ae] with [ae·] and [a] with [a - ] are deliberately neglected. The authors are pleasantly surprised when they discover that this group comes out just like the preceding one. But how could it do otherwise? The same principle runs through the analysis of the weakly stressed vowels. Here the basic distinction between free and checked syllables does not obtain at all. Yet again [i] and [u] are denied monophthongal status (e.g. in city and value). These and the other vowels eliminated from the list of unitary phonemes by the preceding analysis are pushed aside, leaving by great good luck a group of six vowels to identify. By a scheme of "phonetic interrelationship" these are again assigned to their respective spaces. The weakly stressed syllabic consonants are pressed into the same pattern by the



ingenious device of declaring that these syllables (as in apple, button, rhythm, better) shall be analyzed as vowel plus consonant, even though the vowel is no more audible than the h at the end of law. The vowel is called "syllabicity" and grouped with [a]. This is possible because every non-syllabic vowel has been rigidly identified as a consonant, but it seems like a deus ex machina. If one can thus take a general phonetic feature and call it a phoneme at will, why not abstract e.g. 'backness' and reduce the Trager-Bloch list of vowels from six to three (symbol /qj : /u/ could be written /iq/, /a/ == /eq/, /o/ = /aq/)? Or one might abstract 'voice' and use the symbol /x/ to turn the voiced consonants into consonant clusters (/z/ = /sx/, /b/ = /px/). The conclusion one inevitably reaches after analyzing the Trager-Bloch analysis is that syllabic distribution is no unfailing criterion for a systematic description of English. Not all the vowels that occur only in checked syllables are shorter than those that occur also in free, and the vowels of free syllables are not necessarily diphthongs. Nor is it inevitable or even probable that all vowels either can or must be identified with the basic six (or five) which are limited to checked syllables. There is no reason to suppose that the system resulting from the application of any one set of criteria (e.g. syllabic distribution) will agree with that resulting from any other (e.g. phonetic similarity). The additional concept of "phonetic interrelationship" or "pattern analysis" (which is not the same as Hockett's pattern congruity and is only referred to in passing by him in his programmatic statement in LANG. 18.3FF.) seems to be little more than a covert appeal to the system that is to be established, and therefore a circular argument.

6. There are dialects in which the vowel of boot is, as Träger and Bloch put it (235) "a fairly uniform long vowel". (For its actual length, see above.) But it is still to be interpreted as /uw/, with assimilation, so that /w/, in such circumstances, is lowered, while /u/ is raised, to produce a uniform vowel. This is the same /w/ which has earlier been linked by "phonetic similarity" to /w/ in way. Here, then, is a phoneme which has a greater phonetic similarity to another phoneme's allophone (raised /u/) than to its own allophone (initial /w/). The justification for asserting "phonetic similarity" between initial and post-vocalic /w/ is given on p. 234; it is that in both we find articula t o r movements which are related though opposite in direction. Then, under the pressure of a "phonemic principle", a final /w/ is somehow present, even when the movement does not take place. The most striking innovation is the discovery of a post-vocalic /h/ after the vowels of bear, bore, balm, law, etc. In these vowels, Trager and Bloch discern one of their "short, non-diphthongal" vowels plus "a lengthening element". They cannot interpret this lengthening element as a vowel, since there are no other examples of "two vowels in succession". The vowels of bear, law, etc. cannot be regarded as unit phonemes, since that would shatter the hard-won six-term 'economy'. So what to do? Patently, a consonant must be found. And one consonant is as yet unemployed in



post-vocalic position. This is [h]. So bear, bore, balm, law are interpreted as /behr, bohr, bahm, loh/. To this interpretation we object, and not because it "looks unfamiliar", nor even because of the "puff of breath with which the letter h is usually associated". Our objections are (1) phonemic and (2) pragmatic. (1) Initial [h] is declared to be subject to draft as an allophone of a voiced postvocalic lengthening element because "it is the only spirant phoneme in English which does not take part in the correlation of voice" (240). Whatever a spirant may be, this statement appears dangerously naive. Is there no correlation between the modes of inaugurating the vowel in hill and ill! Is there any reason for finding three sounds in hill and two in ill, except the conventional orthography? Are not [h] and [ 4- ] alternative modes of "initial" vowel onset in English? And should not a phonemic analysis take cognizance of this fact by writing the two words, perhaps, as /hil/ and /-nil/?5 The description would be fairly simple : [h] represents an articulation in which the onset of breath-flow and the onset of glottal vibration are consecutive; [H-], in which they are simultaneous. On these terms, the "lengthening element" might more plausibly be interpreted as [ ] than [h], on the principle of "phonetic similarity" (movements related in kind though opposite in direction). But we hasten to add that we make no such proposal, for we consider it just as useless as that of Trager and Bloch. (2) Our pragmatic objection to the /behr, bohr, loh/ interpretation is that it is meaningless. We know nothing after such manipulation of symbols that we didn't know before. It is a familiar fact that the sound [h] occurs in American English before stressed vowels; it is a familiar fact that certain vowels are longer than others. That much we knew. What more do we know now? Only that Trager and Bloch prefer a system of notation whereby the first part of the vowel of law is represented by the same symbol as the vowel of pot, and the latter part of the vowel of law by the same symbol as the beginning of hill. This is a statement of orthographical preference, not a contribution to linguistic knowledge. There are other conclusions in the study which mar the excellent work of collection and description. We mention only two more: The assumption (237) that the vowel of cute is "a normal sequence of three phonemes" /juw/ fits some but by no means all of the demands of pattern congruity. The ukase that "under no circumstances can /δ, j/ be analyzed as /ts, d2/" (229) is without support. There is an oblique allusion to "points of open juncture". But since Trager and Bloch have already found specific "juncture phonemes" (224), we can hardly admit the validity of such contrasts as Blotch-eye and blot-shy as establishing BOTH a phonemic difference in juncture AND a phonemic difference between [δ] and [tS].e The argument that /δ, j/ are unit phonemes because of their behavior in clusters is of course circular: Since [δ] and [j] are assumed, by Trager and Bloch, they discover these unit phonemes behaving in clusters • Cf. Y. R. Chao, "The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems", Bull, of the Inst, of History and Philology (Academia Sinica) 4, 374 (1934). • α . Chao 369.



in a certain way ; if [tS] and [di] had been assumed, then these non-unit phonemes would have behaved in quite the same way. 7. So long as the authors adhere to an analysis of their own speech systems, it is venturesome for anyone else to pursue their identifications in detail. But their title as well as their summary in §15 aims at much more: they suggest a desire to "accommodate all the syllabic phonemes of all dialects of English", in spite of modest disclaimers. In so doing they are attempting a task which there is no reason to believe is possible. There is certainly a marked difference in pattern between British and American English, and among the various types of American English. It is clear from this article that certain differences exist between the speech of the two authors. While it cannot be denied that by interpreting a sufficient number of vowels as diphthongs or consonants, one can accommodate any type of English to a six-vowel system, one may doubt that such a system would automatically suggest itself to students of many varieties of English. A concrete instance is our mid-western American, not conspicuously different from that of BB. A notable deviation is the fact that it does not distinguish the vowels of bomb and balm, bother and father (for EH, sorry and starry have different vowel qualities). This means that the vowel ofpot must be grouped with that of pa, and the two are in every way parallel to the vowels of taught and law. The vowel [a] occurs in free as well as checked syllables. Hence it cannot be one of the six 'basic vowels' ; if it is included anyway, [o] will have to go with it. This destroys the Trager-Bloch system, or at least an important aspect of it, by taking away its sextet of unitary phonemes. All phonetic considerations would unite in suggesting the inclusion of [i] and [u], perhaps also [o]. In hiatus, EH's pronunciation does not normally include any semi-vocalic glide; he says [ri'asliti], not [ri^'jaeliti^i]. Without pursuing the analysis any further, it becomes clear that anyone starting with this pronunciation of English would not be likely to arrive at the same groupings as those suggested by Trager and Bloch. 8. To what end, then, is this sort of phonemic analysis directed? We can see only one purpose which is served : It is possible, through the conventions suggested by Trager and Bloch, to contrive a broad transcription with relatively few vowel symbols. Here is indeed a kind of economy, but the same kind of economy which Basic English offers in the lexical realm: relatively few symbols, but used in so many senses that the saving is only apparent.

Reprinted from Language, 18, 228-237 (1942).



AUTHOR'S COMMENT The intemperate tone of this critique may possibly be excused by the authors' youth, which led them to disregard the classic maxim of suaviter in modo, etc. They did share, however, an impatience with speculative formulations and a lively concern with the fundamentals of linguistics. The Bloch-Trager analysis of English was markedly modified before it acquired the form in which it was widely accepted by American linguists, and the critique offered here referred primarily to this first, inadequate formulation. The paper may be regarded as an early criticism of what has recently come to be called "taxonomic phonemics". The authors' plea was on behalf of what Hockett later called "phonetic realism". Today no one is shocked by their suggestion that the usefulness of phonemics is primarily transcriptional rather than theoretical. For later comment see my "From idiolect to language" (this volume pp. 415-421).



1. Classical Old Norse distinguished a maximum of nine long vowels, nine short vowels, and three falling diphthongs. Thanks to the anonymous twelfth-century phonetician who wrote the so-called First Grammatical Treatise, we can be more confident of this than of most analyses of extinct language forms. 1 In thoroughly modern fashion he produced minimally distinctive word pairs which guarantee the existence of all these vowels.2 The long and short vowels were apparently taken by him to be of identical quality; they may be schematically presented in three series, a front unround, a front round, and a back round. The final element of each diphthong classifies it with one of these series, and in the following scheme we place it at the top of its series:3 ei í

ey i


e χ


y y 0 0


ú Φ




o Ç


This distribution of vowels is still the backbone of most Norwegian vocalic systems in stressed syllables, in spite of all changes in quality and quantity that have taken place since Old Norse times. A majority of the words in the language have shifted their place with respect to this pattern ; the value of the individual units has varied 1

Edited by Finnur Jónsson in Islands grammatiske litteratur i middelalderen (Copenhagen, 1886). Elaborately analyzed by Anne Holtsmark in En islandsk scholasticus fra det 12. ârhundre (Oslo, 1936); see also the review of this work by D. A. Seip in NTSpr IX (1938), 352-371. ["First Grammatical Treatise: The Earliest Germanic Phonology: An Edition, Translation, and Commentary", by Einar Haugen. Supplement to Language 26.4 (1950). Second revised ed., London, 1970.] ' Cf. such pairs as sdr 'wound' vs. sçr 'wounds', god 'god' vs. gód 'good', súr 'sour' vs. syr 'sow'. " The exact qualities are of course not determinable now, but they appear to have approximated those of modern German; such a system is found in some of the more conservative inland valleys of modern Norway. The diphthong ey was usually written ey etc. in Norwegian manuscripts; in normalized Old Norse short a» is written e or confused with e, while long 0 is written oc. For the purpose of this article all so-called 'rising' diphthongs of Old Norse are disregarded, since they have developed either into single vowels or consonant plus vowel.



greatly ; and the function of quantity in the system has been revolutionized. But the 9 (18) vowels and the three diphthongs remain the most common form of vocalism in Norway. In the following essay an attempt will be made to show what aberrations from this norm are found in the modern dialects, and how these are correlated to the social factors of accessibility and communication.4 2. A characteristic of the Old Norse system was the fact that in certain positions all 18 vowels and the 3 diphthongs were theoretically capable of distinguishing words. The short vowels could not appear finally in stressed syllables; but before consonants, short and long, the entire 21 vowels were found. Thus it is possible to produce groups of four Old Norse words distinguished solely by the respective lengths of vowel and consonant : e.g., lit 'color' (m.acc.sing.), lit 'look' (1 .pers.sing.), litt 'colored' (neut.adj.), litt 'little' (neut.adj.). Of these four types of quantity relation, the second and third were by far the most frequent, and in the modern dialects the first and fourth have practically been eliminated in stressed syllables.5 The process of their elimination is usually described as the great quantity shift, supposed to have begun before 1200.® This meant, in effect, that every stressed syllable must be long, i.e., end in either a long vowel or a long consonant, while every unstressed syllable must be short. Similar shifts had aifected all the major West European languages, proceeding from south to north. In Norway it took place throughout the country (except as indicated below), but at a different tempo in the various dialects, and with different end results. Since the shift required that a large number of short vowels become long, and vice versa, its effects on the vowel qualities were very considerable. Insofar as lengthened shorts failed to coincide with the old

* The scantiness of the available information imposes a considerable limitation on the scope of the present study. Of Norway's administrative units (herreder) less than fifty have had their dialects treated with anything like scientific fullness. Since most of the monographs hitherto written are primarily historical in their method, they usually fail to give adequate information for a structural analysis. It is a pleasure to record that one of the exceptional monographs in this respect was written by the recipient of this Festskrift, volume Professor George T. Flom, The Phonology of the Dialect of Aurland, Norway (Urbana, 1915); each vowel is here fully described and well exemplified. To date only two analyses of Norwegian dialects have been made from the structural point of view: Hallfrid Christiansen, Gimsey-mälet (Oslo, 1933), and Carl Borgstrem, "Zur Phonologie der norwegischen Schriftsprache", NTSpr IX (Oslo, 1938), 250-273. All the remaining analyses presented or indicated in the following (about fifty all told) have been made by the author on the basis of all available printed material, some unpublished theses in the collection of the University of Oslo, and oral information gathered in this country. For a list of the published and unpublished material see the author's article on "A Sound Group in Modern Norwegian: SL and TL", PMLA LVII (1942), 879-907. 8 A count of 348 stressed syllables in Old Norse showed a numerical relationship of 79-145-112-12 respectively; i.e., about J of the Old Norse syllables were of the types that have prevailed in modern times. • On this shift see D. A. Seip, Norsk Sprákhistorie (1955), 108ff. ; Alf Sommerfelt, Bidrag til Bondesamfundets Historie II (1933), 322-325; Alf Torp and Hjalmar Falk, Dansk-norskens Lydhistorie (Oslo, 1898), 18-25; Am. Larsen, Selbygmálets Lydlxre (Norvegia II), 164.






κ vp vi κε






longs, or the shortened longs with the old shorts, new entities could arise in the vowel system. In addition to the quantity shift, we must reckon with the fact that by 1200 a number of qualitative shifts of other origins were taking place in the Old Norse system. Manuscript spellings and the evidence of later dialect development testify that by 1200 short e and a? as well as o and g, were confused. Long a (a), so crucial for the quality of the sound system as a whole, was being raised and rounded, until it had coalesced with long çP In general we may reckon with a slackening in quality of the short vowels, and an intensification of the long. The result was a system of 18 vowels — 8 long, 7 short, 3 diphthongal — the maximum number of distinctions for which there is any remaining evidence in the modern dialects. !


V i e~ ε ar


au u· y



0 o·


3. Vowel quantity is an integral factor in the Norwegian vowel system, through its function has changed in the course of time and is not the same in all modern dialects. The exact objective difference between long and short vowels has not been adequately investigated, but its existence under full stress cannot be doubted. An inspection of kymograph recordings made for other purposes suggests that short vowels vary from .05 to .12 second, while long vowels tend to stay above this level, clustering in lexical pronunciation around .20 second.8 The same figures apply also to long and short consonants. The distribution of long and short vowels is such that they are no longer in direct contrast with one another in most dialects. Since the quantity shift, short vowels cannot end a stressed syllable or precede short consonants, while long vowels can do nothing else. Short and long vowels are, in other words, in complementary distribution; the number of short vowels is usually identical with the number of long, and qualitatively they are similarly ordered, even when they are not identical.9 The long vowels are usually articulated more tensely than the corresponding short vowels and with a slightly higher tongue position. ' D. A. Seip, Sprâkhistorie 147-148. ' Cf. Ernst W. Selmer, Satzphonetische Untersuchungen (Oslo, 1917), tables p. 32ff., also his numerous other publications in which only the curves are reproduced and vowel lengths have to be derived by measuring his drawings. • No elaborate 'phonological' interpretation will here be attempted of this prosodie feature, which Norwegian shares with Swedish, but not with Danish; one might e.g. say that long and short vowels are 'allophones' of each other, correlated respectively to following single and geminated consonants. These and similar descriptions do not add much to our understanding of the situation, which involves



The correlation here described has been imposed on all but a very few dialects. In the interior dialects of Agder (southern Norway), long vowels have not always been shortened before long consonants, thus permitting such forms as [gro:tt] 'gray' (neuter) and [dou:ttar] 'daughter'. 10 A much wider area has failed to follow the general tendency to monophthongize diphthongs in this position. One gets the general impression that many western dialects do not distinguish quite as rigidly between stressed and unstressed syllable as do the rest.11 In these dialects half-long vowels are permitted to exist in unstressed endings, and the quality of unstressed vowels is not reduced to shwa. The long and short vowels also seem more difficult to correlate in these dialects ; length is less absolutely determined by position.12 A few eastern dialects show the opposite conservatism in that they retain short vowels before short consonants in many words. This means that such unusual stressed forms as [jogo] 'chase' and [vet] 'sense' are found. 13 A third exception occurs on the southern seaboard, in the district around Arendal, which has long had close ties with Denmark. Actual measurements have shown that the long lenis consonants of this region are regularly shortened. While the preceding vowels are longer than short vowels, they are not usually as long as long vowels. Hence, in words like kagg, stygg, vidd (from vit), kubbe, skodde a new quantity type has arisen which can scarcely be due to anything but Danish influence.14 There may be other exceptional prosodie forms as yet undescribed, but they are certain to be severely local in their distribution, as are the above-mentioned. 4. All dialects have at least one vowel of largest opening, belonging neither to the front nor back series, which may be called a and is derived from Old Norse short a. Its phonetic quality varies from 'light' in western Norway to 'dark' in eastern

at least three correlated factors: vowel length, consonant length, and relative stress. The long and short vowels are the extreme points of an unbroken series of qualitative—quantitative nuances; as utterance speed increases and relative stress falls, the distinction of long and short melts away. 10 Hannaas in Vestegdemâlet (Norske Bygder II, 1, 21) includes Âseral, Bjelland, Finsland, NordAudnedal, Eiken, Hxgebostad, Fjotland, Kvâs. For Setesdal see Am. L. Indberetning, 1888-1890, 275. Also in 0if)orden, Senja (Troms). 11 Am. Larsen (Sognem&lene, 64) : "the quantity of unstressed syllables is lexically almost ambiguous." 18 Thus in Aseral there appear to be only 7 short vowels to 16 long; on inspection it seems clear that the missing 9 consist of the 7 diphthongs and the sounds e~ and o\ which can occur before long consonants. In Gyland 7 short appear to correspond to 14 long; in Fjaere there is an extra slackened y and a centralized o among the short vowels; in Bergen, also, the same sounds cause difficulties; but the difficulty may be due to inadequate information. la Cf. Κ. Bjerset, Syd-Lesje og Nord-Dovremälets Lyd- og Formiere (Drammen, 1899-1900); Helga Home, Aksent og kvantitet i Vaagaamaalet (Oslo, 1917); Storm and Skulerud, Ordlister over Lyd- og Formheren i norske Bygdemaal (Oslo, 1920). It is also reported from the conservative Senjen dialect in Troms (Iversen, Senjenmaalet, 26-27). 14 Information from an unpublished dissertation by Mathias Moy, Fjxremàlet, written 1937, and photographed by the present writer in the archives of the University of Oslo with the kind permission of Rector D. A. Seip. Cf. Am. Larsen's remarks in Indberetning, 1888-1890, p. 268.



Norway. 15 When the a is light, the front vowels tend to be raised, and when it is dark, the back vowels tend to be raised and rounded.16 In a number of dialects the quality of the a is positionally determined: (a) short a is light, long a is dark; 17 (b) the a is lighter or darker before certain consonants;18 (c) light a occurs only in unstressed syllables.19 In one western and one eastern group of dialects the light and the dark a's appear to constitute two distinct entities.20 All dialects distinguish at least three series of vowel qualities — a front unround, a front round, and a back or retracted round. Of these the first is the most stable, existing in all dialects. The rounded vowels are more changeable, since labialization is itself an extremely variable factor. In a large part of the country a general shift of their quality has taken place without changing the number of units in the system. In much of eastern Norway a, o, and o have been raised and overrounded, u has been drawn forward and overrounded, while y and 0 have been kept distinct from the others by a partial delabialization.21 Some dialects have carried the change in labialization to the point of either eliminating or adding units in the vowel system. A few dialects have eliminated y entirely.22 None seem to have eliminated 0, but in much of eastern Norway considerable word groups containing original short labial vowels (y, 0, u, o) have exchanged these for new central vowels with intermediate articulations. These are difficult to classify in relation to the usual series.23 14 The more advanced a is reported from all the interior mountain dialects, from Telemark west, and from the upper mountain valleys in the east (Torpo, Hallingdal); the retracted from Tinn, Vegàrshei, Romsdal and points east, including Salta and Senjen in Nordland; but there is of course no absolute border between them. " Cf. Johan Storm Norvegia I (1864, 1908), 154: "The vowel a forms the center of the vocalism .... The pronunciation of a characterizes the timbre of the whole dialect or language (is the key to its tonality)". 17 Reported from the cities of Stavanger and Bergen, and from the Rogaland-Ryfylke area; in the city of Oslo vulgar speech tends to a similar distribution, but both qualities are darker. 18 Fjaere: ä before r, a normal, α finally and in hiatus; Holmedal, Sunnflord: a before palatals, α elsewhere; 0yer fronted before s, retracted (to d) before cacuminal /, elsewhere a ; Vefsn (Nordland) a before supradentals, cacuminale, palatals, α elsewhere; Salten, Senja: a before palatals, α elsewhere. " Reported from 0vre Eiker, probably also found elsewhere. Nordfjord in the west, Upper Gudbrandsdalen, Tynnset down to Elverom in the east; though they lie on either side of the central mountain range, these areas happen to be contiguous and connected by a mountain road; the similarity may therefore be more than an accident. In none of these dialects is the distribution adequately indicated; but if there is an 'environmental' principle, it does not appear from the examples given. E.g. Lesja bra', ka'lt, ga44 vs. smcrl, alt, kali ; Elverum sammar, satt, vatn vs. framm, att, atto; Trysil framm, hatt, na-r vs. tamm, vatt, sva-r; Nordflord ska'r, la-t, ska'l vs. ha'r (adj.), fa t, ka-ld'a. Similar examples are reported from Vemdal and Tynnset. îl Storm, Engl. Phil. I (1891), 254-255, and Norsk Lydskrift, 165, note, attributes the change to the lengthening of short a, the necessity of keeping old long a apart, the consequent upward movement of the whole back series. Such explanations are appealing, but must be accepted with caution. " Solar ; lower Hallingdal ; Grundfarnes (Senjen) ; Romsdal (Grytten), 0stfold (Tregstad), Ringerike (Soknadal, Snarum, Haug) according to Ross; Osen in Bj0rn0r; Frosta; Kvernes (Reitan), probably Sigdal; Am. Larsen claims that in Brandval and southern Grue (in Soler) an intermediate quality of j, 'weakly mixed', still represents old y, but this is certainly not general in these districts. " See Reitan in Festskrift til A. B. Larsen, 201-212.



The inherited diphthongs nearly always remain associated with their respective three series by the last element, which is /, y, u or some slackened variety of these.24 The first element varies widely, however, in the front series from a to e, the front round from a and j to the usual 0, the retracted round from ε to o. The problem of whether this first element can be associated with one of the other vowels in any given dialect cannot be answered on the basis of the available material. First-hand experience with speakers of the dialects suggests that they do associate it with other vowels in their system.25 But all such association smacks of the arbitrary, and vacillates greatly from dialect to dialect. When the diphthongs are monophthongized, the first element remains as respectively e, 0, and a rounded mid vowel, either 0, α, ό or the like. Some of the monophthongizing dialects keep the diphthongs in final position only; the phonetic evidence suggests that such 'residual' diphthongs may best be classified as vowel plus A common feature of the interior western dialects is a diphthongization of the old long vowels and even some of the new. Whenever these occur both long and short, they function exactly as unit vowels in the system. When they consist of vowel plus a short on- or off-glide, they are also clearly single units. It is impossible to analyze, e.g., 'y (also written 0y, °y etc.) as e or ö plus y. But the borderline between such a sound and a full diphthong (ey or 0y) is difficult to draw. In the following discussion, therefore, all diphthongs have been regarded as units in the vowel system whenever they have arisen from single vowels, or from the traditional Old Norse diphthongs. 5. The front unround series may contain from three to six vowels, counting diphthongs.27 The chief confusion takes place on the lower levels, and very few monographs give adequate information concerning the value and distribution of the open e-sounds.28 An interesting case is the sound ε which occurs before palatal consonants in most northern dialects, from Tynnset and Romsdal northwards. In all of these dialects there is a short e and œ ; some writers identify the ε with e, others with a?.29 24

When y is eliminated in the rest of the system, ei and ey of course coalesce; in inner Nordfjord (which does not delabialize y) ey has become ei and ei has become ai. 25 Vossing au (from ON ä) was declared by one speaker to be incorrectly written ao—it should be au; Telemarking au was declared by an informant to be centralized ό plus u; Oslo ei has been described for me as sei (i.e. with short χ as in verre, really an ε); Amund Larsen writes that the ari of Sol0r is "dependent on the pronunciation of the χ " and that the ?u (ON au) "is not quite independent in the sound system, but is understood to consist of D [a regular phoneme in the dialect, about = A] plus ii [the u of the dialect]." 86 Cf. Amund Larsen, Selbygmâlet, 160; Reitan, Vemdalsmálet, 16; Am. Larsen, KNV Skrifter 1885,81. 2 ' Three: Fjaere and Stavanger (ei, i, e/ε); Elvrom, Trysil, Aalen (i, e/ε, ε/®). Four: Sogn, Voss, Hardanger (ai, ®i, ι, elee); Tynnset, Vemdal, Kvernes (i, e, ε, ä); most dialects (ει, i, e, se). Five: Aseral, Nordfjord, Gyland, Sunn fjord, Western Telemark, Tinn, Todalen (ει, ei or i, 1 or e, ε or x, 3e or ä). Six: Setesdal (ai, ει, ι, e1, βε/ε, χ). 28 See the elaborate historical discussion on the e-ae sounds by Olai Skulerud, Tinnsmâlet 1,2, pp. 681-702. a " Skânlund identifies with e in Salta, while Tilset, Strindamâlet, Iversen, Senja-mâlet, with x; not classified in Vefsn, Kristiansund, Kvernes, Tresfjord.



This would appear to be a matter of taste, since e and χ do not occur before palatalized consonants, while ε appears only there. But in those dialects where e also occurs before palatal consonants, the ε clearly belongs with a», since a significant contrast can exist between e and ε, but not between ε and se.30 The front round series is parallel to the unround, but usually contains one vowel less. Short, lowered varieties of y, variously regarded as belonging with y or 0, are found in many western dialects. 31 The distinction of two kinds of 0 as unit phonemes is reported, but not adequately explored. 32 In most instances these are combinatory variants, occurring (a) 0 long and ö short 33 or (b) 0 normally, but ö or a? in certain environments. 34 Many eastern dialects fill the space in the system that lies between a and 0 with a more or less delabialized sound varying from œ to λ. It may be derived from any and all of the old short labial vowels, and is popularly regarded as a cross between a, œ, 0, and 3. A related sound is the mysterious and obsolescent 3 of Tynnset and neighboring communities. 35 It is regarded by Storm as a kind of i, is said to sound like a cross between e and 0, and is derived from older i, y, and u. A study of its distribution shows that it does not occur before palatals, that its occurrence is favored by labial environment, that it can contrast with i and e, but apparently not with 0 ; many words are said to vary from 0 or ö to 3. Hence it can best be regarded as an 0-variant occurring before non-palatal consonants. The retracted round series corresponds in general to the front unround in number of units, with four as the usual number (au, u, ο, o).3* Counting the number of units is more difficult here than in the preceding series, simply because it is a question of which vowels one should include in the series. The nuances themselves are usually quite distinct and easy to detect. But in eastern Norway many of the old short Ws and o's have been centralized or fronted, and either overrounded or delabialized until one no longer can find a wholly satisfactory method of classifying them. 37 The examples 30

This is true in Raros and Opdal, apparently also in Tynnset. In Opdal we find [le((] 'easy' vs. [reH] 'right'. 81 Setesdal, Sogn, Hardanger, Voss, Nordfjord, Gyland, Fjaere, Sunnfjord, Stavanger, Bergen. " Aasen gives from Sunnmere: kjele vs. Fj'el, Mede, vs. L'ede, fere vs. Sm'er; Kydland distinguishes in Gyland between stel and mjöl, sere and tjöra\ in Tynnset 0 is derived from ON ey, while ö is derived from ON e. 88 Oslo, Sunn fjord, Fâberg. 81 Oslo and Fâberg have a before cacuminal /, sometimes before r; Lesja has ö before cacuminal. 84 Tynnset, Rendalen, Bardo, Alvdal. *· Lengthened u [u·] is a distinct vowel in Setesdal, Aseral, Sogn, Voss, Hardanger, Nordfjord, Sunnnwre. Lengthened open ο [ο·] is kept apart from ON d by (1) diphthongizing the o (Setesdal); (2) by keeping the o at the o-level and the á at the s-level (Aseral); (3) by diphthongizing the ά (Sogn, Voss, Hardanger); (4) by centralizing the o (Nordfjord, Telemark). " Attempts to apply the general principles of the Prague phonologists as exemplified by Trubetzkoy, Grundzüge der Phonologie (Prague, 1939), have only resulted in an incessant clash between the demands of phonetic reality and those of geometrical symmetry. Thus a system which seems symmetrical enough in one dialect becomes unsymmetrical if one introduces into it the one extra vowel of the neighboring dialect; yet these two dialects may be mutually comprehensible, in fact, hardly distinguishable except on this one point. To set them up as visually completely different systems would be absurd. One is led to the conclusion that such diagramming is of very dubious scientific value.



found in Norway include an ó (written ό by Storm and described as "mid-mixed round"), and an ç (written ò by Storm and described as "mid-mixed retracted extra round", to which may be added the œ and Λ of the preceding paragraph). Only in the interior dialects of eastern Norway are these distinguished from each other.38 Elsewhere in the regions of their occurrence only one of them is found at a time, and in some places only as a combinatory variant. 39 6. If we now consider the vowel systems as a whole with respect to their complexity, we find that they can be divided into four groups: the diphthongal interior, the monophthongal interior, the marginal, and the general Norwegian systems. The diphthongal interior systems. — These are the intricate vowel systems nestled around the southern and western slopes of the central mountain range. They diphthongize the old long vowels and keep them apart from the lengthened short vowels. The diphthongs occur both long and short and cannot be sharply distinguished from the monophthongs. The most complex of these systems is that of Setesdal, one of the most secluded valleys in the country and most tenacious of medieval ways. By diphthongization it has maintained the entire vowel system of late Old Norwegian, with a total of 18 vowel types, including 12 diphthongs. 40 A close second is Áseral, its nearest neighbor, with 16 vowels, including six diphthongs. While the dialects in the interior valleys just west of Aseral have not been investigated, incidental allusions suggest that many of them have at least 15 vowels.41 A similar system is found in another group of diphthongizing dialects west of the mountain range, separated from the former by impassable mountain wastes. These are the dialects of inner Hardanger, Voss, and middle Sogn, which all diphthongize ON ά to au and maintain a system of 15 vowels, including eight diphthongs.42 The dialects of the wild regions of Nordfjord and Sunn*8 Trysil, Vemdal, Tynnset. 89 Thus ó occurs only before cacuminale in a large part of eastern Norway ; it varies with o in Setesdal. As a separate phoneme ό is reported from Telemark, Sunnm0re, Nordfjord. See the discussion by Skulerud, Tinnsmâlet I, 2, 704-707. 40 Free Vowels (long and short) Checked Vowels (long before slanting line, a/( 'grain' (alle sorter Gran; noge Lund med Gran); hyre 'employment at sea' > 'employment' from English hire (fik hyre i Skogen for et Sag mole Co.); korn 'grain' > 'maize' (dit Corn; flax og corn); liker 'sweet alcoholic drink* > 'liquor' (Likersalget); mil 'ab. 11 km.' > 'ab.



1.6 km.' (2 Mil; 9 Miles fra Byen); papir 'paper'>'newspaper' (jeg saa i Papiret; i hjenem deres Paper; Takker saa hjertelig faar des Papir; han har hold eders papir; faar nu papiret til dens tid er oppe); plads 'tenant farm', 'room' > 'large farm*, 'place' (vi har alle Slags forretnigs Plaser; Decorah — det burde vere en God Plads; paa same Plads; Byen Lacrosse er en fin liden Pias; somme plasser Rundt her; fra saa mange Plaser; ingen plas paa jorden; men jeg seer de har Blizard andre Pladser); provins 'province' > 'Canadian province' (vor provins); ton 'ship's ton' > 'American ton' (faa et halt ten om gangen); vei 'path, road' > 'way, manner' (den vei Verden er nu; denne vei dede han). Adjectives: mest 'most' (greatest quantity) >'most' (greatest number) (i de meste hjem); tro 'faithful' > 'real' (han var en tro mand). Adverbs : rett 'straight' > 'right' (det er rett i byen vi lever). Verbs: gaa 'walk' > 'go' (vi kan da gaa til Dellalaget i Sommer; ser Dem gaar i auto opijenem Prestberget; saa solgte jeg mit Hus og jik til Amerika; Wi gik fra Christiania den 16 Mai 1884); lede 'guide' > 'lead, as a road', for the correct Ν fere (en militaer Vei... leder igjennom denne Bygd); leve 'be alive' > 'dwell, live' (levede syd fra Hans Ruen; found in 22 writers); mene 'have the opinion, intend to say' > 'signify, mean' (det mener saa meget); rxkke 'extend, stretch out' > 'attain' (derfor raekker hun den heie alder); stoppe 'pause'>'stay, dwell' (han stoppede hos Ole Elstad; jeg stop has Knut Benson; stopede; staappe daer en uge; for at staape over natten; staapper me hende; har stopet hos mig de 4 siste vintre).



Adjectives: sengstelig 'worried' > 'eager' from Eng. anxious (Han var aengstelig for kirkens velfaerd og fremgang). Verbs : lande 'land after a sea voyage' > 'arrive at a destination' from Eng. land (Vi landet i Yankton) ; moderere 'moderate' trans. > intrans, (kulden har moderert en del). 3.


Nouns: hjemsted 'native place' > 'homestead', a technical term in landownership (de tog sig et hjemsted) ; nykommer 'a recent arrival' > 'a recent arrival in America, a greenhorn' (da Jeg som nykommer gik til Fots 10 mil ind til Fosston i 50 under zerro).


1. Stems Nouns: bank 'bank, a financial institution' > 'bank of a river' (Paa Banken af midi rever); fil 'file' > 'field' (meget arbede er jort paa filen; det ser ud til at vi kan snart til i fila); lot 'share infishingexpedition' > 'lot for house' (Men saa kjebte han sig Hus aa laat; en lot av den gamie farm); magazin '(military) storehouse' > 'periodical' (Magaciner); parti 'political party' > 'social party' (det blev et parti for helle Nilse Slaekten; Stort Cresparti for Rev. O. J. Hägen); rest 'remainder' >'rest from one's work' (en god Rest). Verbs: reise 'lift up, erect' > 'rear, bring up' (da jeg er reist paa gaarden Rusnes i Vaage; jeg var inte Netop raisa op ibland Storbenderne); spsnde 'kick' > 'spend' (spende tiden; de $125,000 de havde spent; vor jeg spsente mine lit over 30 Aar; spente pengene; vis det ikke har blit spent moni paa forselige ting). Adverbs: oppe 'up' > 'gone, over' from E up (faar nu papiret til dens tid er oppe). Interjections: vei 'good' > 'well' interjection (veil, jeg vili ei sende mere denne gang; well vi faar jo nu snart here og se vordan det blir).



2. Phrases Nominal: god tid 'plenty of time* > 'enjoyable time' (Vi hadde god tid om Vinteren Skaite over Otta). Verbal: se op 'look up' > 'show up' (vad tid skal Ola og Per se op igjen i Bladet) tage ind 'take in' (literally) > 'attend a meeting' (Jeg har inte Tat ind mer en et Lag Siden Torekven Blev borte).

5.3. Loanshift creations. These are found wherever novel expressions have come into being by the rearrangement of native morphemes. It is possible, with Werner Betz in his excellent study of the Old High German loans from Latin, Deutsch und Lateinisch (Bonn, 1949), to divide these into literal (Lehnübersetzung) and approximate (Lehnübertragung) reproductions of the foreign model. He even adds a third variety, the Lehnschöpfung, in which there is no morphemic similarity to the foreign model; these might be called 'induced creations' and united with the 'hybrid creations' discussed in the writer's article. These two types of creation would then form a class of words coming into being in one language through influence from another, but not formally modeled upon the expression in the other language. No further analysis of the loanshift creations will here be attempted, since their number is small, and they are mostly literal imitations of the kind usually known as 'loan translations'. Included here are not only derivatives and compounds, but also phrases and constructions. The distinction between the two latter is one between specific expressions, such as 'pay up', here called phrases, and generalized expressions, chiefly syntactic relationships, here called constructions. A. DERIVATIVES Verb: plane 'plan' [from Norwegian plan 'a plan* and the verbal suffix -e] (kommer ingen vei med noget af hvad dem bestemer og Planer).

B. COMPOUNDS Nouns: fyllingstation 'filling station' (opering en fylling station); hjempladsen 'the home place' (Emil er Paa Jempladsen); hyrehjxlp 'hired help' (far folk fik Relief var det nok hyre hjelp at faa). Two awkward attempts to create Norwegian compounds from English concepts are exceptional: gamlealdersvaghed 'old age weakness' (dode aaf Gamle-alder svaghed); sengefasthed 'being bedfast' (avgik ved deden efter naesten fem mâneders sengefasthed).

C. PHRASES Adverbial: al over 'all over' (all over det ganske Land; flu som raser al over; vor dem er alover); alt rundt 'all round' (Veildyrkede Farmme alt ront); ud af orden 'out of order* (det vilde ikke vaere ud af orden ved ovennaevnte anledninger at give den Norsk-Amerikanske presse den plads den fortjener) ; vel af well off' (vi er vel af, vi har ikke flood enda). Verbal: belale op 'pay up' (betaldt op for Bladet); er ... paa 'is (going) on' (det er jo ingen slags krig paa); have til at 'have to' (vi har til at vaere punktlig med betalingen); kjebe ud 'buy out' (til



dere Kjebte den ud); sne ind 'snow in' (Decorah er blet sneet ind); sselge ud 'sell out' (var en kort tid paa farmen igjen men solgte i 1898 ud og flyttet til Fol ton).

D. CONSTRUCTIONS Norwegian word order has given way to English in the following cases, resulting in new constructions: (1) subject/verb instead of verb/subject after a part of the predicate: og derfor jeg ensker at have det. (2) Adverb/verb instead of verb/adverb in main clause: han ligie posten meget godt og altid vxntet med glaede paa den; en sester og 3 bredre ogsaa begrxder hans d0d. (3) Verb/adverb instead of adverb/verb in subordinate clause : som havde alt ved denne Tid levet her henimod 20 Aar ; at hans venner og kjendte ... kunde ogsaa faa at kjende om ham; da vi har inte langt efter; somting man aldri har rigti forstaaet. (4) Month/ordinal instead of ordinal/month in dates: Marts den tolvte, aprild 3die, Aug 17, Mars 26, Mai Iste, dec. 23. (5) Preposition/noun instead of noun/preposition: over natten 'over night' (two writers). (6) Reversing order of adverbs in phrases of location: oppe der 'up there' (Norw. deroppe); runt her 'around here' (three writers).

5.4. Doubtful cases. The problem of identification has been discussed by the writer in the article cited above, pp. 226-230. The following examples include words used very much as in English, but they cannot be positively identified as loans since the words also occurred in the Dano-Norwegian of the immigrants: chance (give Kvinderne Chance til at styre) \fort (naar dette Fort blev anlagt i 1864) ; guitar (Gettar) ; ideal (en Ideal Personlighed); mine (Minen; Jaernminen); parliament (parlamentet); pension (give some af de Unge Paintion); point (fra denne historiske punkt i Norge [viz. Eidsvold]; region (bebode denne region). The following examples also have a suspiciously English ring, but can be attested from some dialects : indkomme 'income' (det er mange aar uden inkome; cf. Aasen Norsk Ordbog); part 'part' (den siste Part af September); prente 'print' (Eftther som jeg ei saag mitt sistte Brev Prentted i D. Postten); skoite 'skate' (da han Skjoitet over Otta; cf. Norsk Riksmáls-Ordbok); under 'below' (det var 10 under 0). The forms svigersester 'sister-in-law' and svigerbarn 'children-in-law' were formed on the analogy of svigerfar 'father-in-law' and similar Ν forms; it is hard to say whether the E words might not also have played a part by their obvious parallelism. The usage found in one letter of efterleve for 'survive' may be an induced creation from Norwegian efterlevende 'survivor' (two D0tre efter lever hende); but forekomme 'grant' is an older Dano-Norwegian usage (saa snild at forekomme mit 0nske). 6.1. Conclusions. Our analysis of the impact of English on the letters of Norwegian immigrants of fifty or more years of residence in America shows that the chief influence is one of numerous loanwords for the phenomena of American Ufe. These include stems, derivatives, compounds, and phrases; of the compounds about one-half show partial morphemic substitution, and are therefore called loanblends. Many of the English expressions thus adopted are respelled in such a way as to reflect the pronunciation given them by the AmN speakers; a number of the vowels show marked vacillation as to which Norwegian sound should properly be substituted for the English ones. The only English inflection which is introduced with the loanwords is the plural in -s; about one-half of the loan nouns occurring in the plural show this, while



the rest have Norwegian plurals. A number of examples were found of loanshifts, particularly extensions of meaning, in which native expressions acquired new meanings because of their similarity to foreign expressions either in sound or in sound and meaning. In a very small number of cases there were actual innovations in the language which had been produced by a slavish imitation of English expressions for which native morphemes were substituted. 7.1. Texts. — The three passages that follow are examples of the language and subject matter found in many of the letters examined. The first passage is selected from a longer letter; the second and third are complete letters. No change in spelling has been made except to italicize the English loans. The spelling in these samples is poorer than the average; they have been chosen to illustrate loanword usage. (1) Reminiscences from a Wisconsin Lumber Camp [Minneapolis, Minnesota] De var ikke svaert stor Camp 40 mand i alt, De var 8 Mand som arbeidet med Roadene og dem havde ganske langt at gaa og jeg Maate baere Midag ud til dem Jeg havde en box paa rygen og en Tekande at basre og jeg kokte Teen ude i Skogen og vaer dag var de Meget Pie ijen i boxen Jeg spiste Pie hele veien tilbage til Campen, Efter Nyt aaret begynte dem at kjere Logen ned til Elven paa dise store Slaeder dem kunde bade paa et durabelt Load paa dem, Stort som et Hus. De var en Franskmand som kom og skulde blive Toploader og naar han havde omtrent en Mil ijen at gaa til Campen om kvelden da fik han se en stor flaak Med Ulve kome efter sig og han maate da klyve op i et Trae og sate sin Saek med Klaeder i Nede Ved Traet og Ulvene kom og rev hans Saek i biter og hans Klaeder spret udover i Sneen og han maate side der i Traeet hele Naten og paa Morgenen kom han til Campen og var naesten ijaelfreset han sagde at de var den laengste og hordeste Nat i sit liv, Vi havde en Udmerket Boss han var Irlaender og jeg likte mig gaat der, Vist at dete komer i Posten skal jeg skrive mere siden og Mere Intresant, og saa til sist en Vaenlig hilsen til Posten's lassere og dets Redakter og Personale i fra Mig som ogsaa aer fad paa den Naturskjene 0 , Yttereen Norge. (2) Renewal of Subscription [Ettrick, Wisconsin] Ja naar Jeg ser paa Adresse Lappen paa Bladet saa ser Jeg at Jeg Lesser paa Credit da det skulde veret Betalt I January men det blev Overset paa Grund af at Jeg ikke Var Hjemme den Siste Maaned, og da faar Jeg herved sende Tiked saa Posten Kan faa Visitere os et Aar til da Jeg liker at Lesse nu i Disse Kaalde og Stormfulde dage. Ja dette maa vere hvad vore Forfedre Kalder Gamie dags Vinter thi det Snoger og Blaaser en dag og Blaaser og Sner den Anden, og Spretende Kaalt saa det ser ud som Kviks0lvet har froset fast under Null thi de Siste 5 Uger har det veret Ligesom en



Suprice at see det ovenfor saa Sant at Sigge saa har dette veret en Haard vinter med meget Sne og Kulde og Sneplogerne er i fuit sving baade Nat og Dag. Saa disse mend som skal prave at faa Posten og Andet Lesse stof Runt til Farmerne faar Sinne Hender fulde for at gjore sinne trips Med beste Hilsener til Posten og dens mange Lessere. (3) Friendly Gossip [Clearbrook, Minnesota] vi har naak hat en gammel dags vinter i vinter, me kulde aa sne, men haer runt Clearbrook har de inte vaeret saa taaf lsel da vi har inte langt efter alslags ve. saa de ville vaere vaar egen sjyld om vi staelte aas slik at vi maate fryse. di 2 ferste maaner of dette aar har vaeret meget lange saa de var en hygge, vaer dag Decorah Posten Kom. thi da kan vi lasse mange interesante breve fra alle kanter. den 31 Jan var der mange visiters hos Mrs Anne — da hu celebrete sin 90 aars fodselsdag. hu modtog mange lykonskninger baade i form af breve aa gaver, aa saa mange Birthday cakes aa andre slags gaatter, selv hadde hu bagt fattiman bakels, som ogsaa blev serverei me lunchen om aftenen. hu er svaert rarig paa sin hoie alder, ensjont der har vaeret mange tunge dage ogsaa for hende; hu var fodt i Wisconsin aa var me sin foraeldre en af di forste som bosatte sig 14 mil sydwest fra Rochester, hendes mand dode aatte aar siden, saa hendes son John staapper me hende. hu har sit hjem i Clearbrook nu. vi har nu vaeret haer i 20 aar. aa liker nordre Minnesota gaat, de er fredeligt, me mange snille folk, baade i by aa paa Farm, aa megen Natursjonhed, saa vi traenger inte reise lange veie efter den. men vor bra de er, saa gaar vaare minder tilbake der vor vaar vugge stod. de synes ingen plas paa Jorden saa kjasr. alt er saa levende aa hyggeligt. Tak for sist gode Venner aa slaîgtninger aa kom me non ord i posten, venlig hilsen til alle slegtninger aa Venner i Ν. Dakota aa i Minnesota, aa mange tak du Mrs L Β for dit goe brev. Kom me fiere slike, saa en venlig hilsen til bladets Personale aa lassere. Reprinted by permission of Greenwood Press, Inc., New York, N.Y. from Studies in Honor of Albert Morey Sturtevant, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas, 1952, 76-102.


R E V I E W : U. W E I N R E I C H Languages in Contact

1.1. Wherever speakers of different languages or dialects meet, there is language contact. Wherever there is contact, certain typical problems arise. The purpose of the present book is to set up a framework of theory which will enable the linguist to speak more precisely and clearly concerning these problems. It is thus a book about bilingualism, taken in the widest possible sense of this term. The study of bilingualism is essentially the study of the consequences of second-language learning. This has meant many things to many people, and connotes to most non-linguists the educational and psychological problems involved in childhood bilingualism. But anyone who has learned to understand a second language is a bilingual, and it is the linguist's task to provide the basic data concerning the linguistic situations involved in the process of language learning. Since linguists are bilingual by profession, the present book can hardly fail to intersect with every linguist's interests at some point. The subject is one that has been discussed by all books on general linguistics, under such heads as 'speech mixture', 'borrowing', 'substratum and superstratum influence', 'creolization', 'pidgin languages', and the like. But this appears to be the first time that the subject is treated at full length from the linguist's point of view. The author has been remarkably successful in compressing a great amount of information and suggestive speculation into a mere 148 readable pages. 1.2. The plan of the book is language-centered, its basic theme being to show the effects of bilingualism on the languages involved. As a general term for all such effects the author introduces the word "interference", drawn from the writings of the Prague school, which he defines (1) as "those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language." He distinguishes between the interference that occurs in the speech of bilinguals and that which has been established in the language by diffusion to monolinguals. The chief interest of this book is its emphasis on the meaning of language contact to the individual who experiences it, rather than on the historical results of such contact. In spite of its concern with a topic ordinarily thought of as historical in nature, it is thus a contribution to descriptive linguistics. At the same time it emphasizes the parallel between linguistic and cultural contact



and pleads for a fruitful collaboration between linguists and other social scientists in the exploration of this field. 1.3. The order of treatment proceeds from the linguistic structure outward to the psychological and social factors involved in the bilingual situation. The author finds that the linguist's primary task is that of drawing up a "differential description", or what this reviewer would rather call a BILINGUAL DESCRIPTION, of the two (or more) languages in contact. This means an exhaustive statement of the "differences and similarities between the languages" in every domain. Since any difference is a potential source of interference, this should enable the linguist to predict the behavior of bilinguals. The author divides this part of his discussion, entitled "Mechanisms and structural causes of interference", into phonic, grammatical, and lexical interference. But he then goes on to show that in practice the amount of interference is limited by extra-linguistic factors inherent in the bilingual's relation to the languages he brings into contact. Those which might be called psycholinguistic are treated in a chapter on "The bilingual individual", in which he discusses such problems as the speaker's facility of verbal expression, his ability to keep two languages apart, his relative proficiency in the languages, his specialization of the languages by topics and interlocutors, his manner of learning them (including the age and source of learning), and his attitude to each language. Those which are primarily ethnolinguistic he discusses in a chapter entitled "The socio-cultural setting of language contact". These include such topics as the size of the bilingual group and its relation to neighboring monolingual groups, the prestige of the language groups involved, attitudes toward bilingualism as such, tolerance with regard to mixed and incorrect speech in each language, and the symbolic values of the languages to their users. The reverse problems of the effects of bilingualism on the psychological and social status of the speakers are relegated to an appendix containing a brief survey of the literature on intelligence, group identification, character formation, and educational problems. 1.4. The terminology and theoretical framework is in part original and may be characterized as a generally happy combination of American and European practice. The influence of Saussure is probably stronger than that of Bloomfield, and one notes overtones of Prague and Copenhagen in the use of such terms as "expression" and "content", in his emphasis on the structural causes of diachronic change, and in his lack of squeamishness about statements on meaning (the unit being the "semanteme"). But the author's care in defining his terms is such that one should have no difficulty in translating his statements into other systems of metalinguistic. As a research tool it will be of the greatest value because of its bird's-eye view of a widely discussed field, its numerous examples drawn from the most diverse languages, its suggestions (§5) for research methods and opportunities, and its impressive bibliography of some 658 items. The bibliography is especially rich in references to the German and Swiss literature, much of which is inaccessible in this country, and to Yiddish literature, which is generally unknown to non-specialists. The field is important, not only for its theoretical implications in linguistic analysis, but also



for the practical problems of teaching foreign languages.1 So far most descriptive linguists have been interested only in setting up the structures of single languages. Very little work has been done on the problem that arises in the strictly synchronic comparison of different linguistic structures. 2.1. The author begins his bilingual description by listing in tabular form the phonemes of two dialects in contact observed by himself, one Roman sh (R) and one Schwyzertütsch (S). After some brief statements concerning their allophones, he makes two comparisons, one with R as the primary system, and one with S as primary. This amounts, in effect, to a study of an R-accent in S and an S-accent in R. The phonemic comparison leads one to expect certain kinds of interference which do in fact turn up in speech. In summarizing his results, the author finds four types of phonological interference. Three of these are phonemic (under-differentiation, over-differentiation, and reinterpretation), the fourth phonetic (phone substitution). He grants that these classifications do not emerge from the raw data directly, but from their phonemic analysis. 2.2. At this point the reviewer may be permitted to raise certain questions. It is evident that any bilingual description will bring out theoretical differences concerning description in general. Weinreich's approach impresses the reviewer as possibly giving undue weight to STRUCTURE as a factor in the bilingual situation without clarifying just what is meant by this term. The author maintains for instance that Russian /p/ cannot be regarded in principle as being the 'same' as English /p/, since they are parts of different structures. Russian /p/ is defined as nonpalatalized in opposition to /p'/, while in English this distinction is irrelevant. He specifically says that as structural units they are incommensurable, but that in spite of this, the bilingual identifies them "astride the limits of the languages" because they have a "physical resemblance". In Copenhagen terms, it is their substance that is identified, and only indirectly their 'real' or structural selves. But if this be true, it is the substance and not the structure that should be compared. A list of allophones would presumably have been more to the point than a list of phonemes. The use of the same symbols for Russian /p/ and English /p/ is already a falsification, since it presupposes a phonetic identification which has not yet been made. In his table of R and S consonants, Weinreich uses different symbols for R stops /b d g/ and S stops /B D G/, apparently for phonetic reasons. But structurally they appear to be in precisely the same position, and there is no obvious phonemic reason for writing the capitals in S. The fortis series /p t k/ are written alike in the two languages. 2.3. The author's dichotomy between structure and substance goes so far as to make him declare that "the actual sounds produced by the bilingual lie, as it were, in the structural no man's land between two phonemic systems", and that therefore 1

Cf. C. C. Fries, Teaching and learning English as a foreign language 9 (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1945): "The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner."



"their interpretation in functional, i.e. phonemic, terms is subject to special difficulties" (14).2 But is a phonemic system, as set up in Weinreich's or any one else's formulation, a gestalt which exerts influence on the behavior of the speakers? More concretely: does a bilingual ever identify two phonemes because they occupy analogous places in the phonemic charts of the two languages? Weinreich does not put it quite as baldly as this, but under his "structural causes of interference" this seems to be what he is saying. He regards R /ε/ and S /ae/ as somehow the 'same' phoneme because "both are defined as front vowels of maximum openness". In practice this means that they both appear in the lower left-hand corner of his chart: R i ι ε

S i e ae

When R speakers therefore identify the two, he considers this merely an allophonic change ("phone substitution"). But R speakers do not limit themselves to this identification; two pages earlier we have learned that they also identify their /ε/ with S /e/. While he does not specifically label this case of interference, he presumably regards it as an instance of "reinterpretation of distinctions". As the phonetic symbols indicate, the R /ε/ is phonetically intermediate between S /e/ and /ae/, with probably some overlapping of allophones, and the confusion might well be regarded as an "under-differentiation of phonemes". It is not easy to see why one of the two possible identifications should be allophonic, the other phonemic, if that is really what was intended. 2.4. This use of the abstracted pattern as a reality to be reckoned with is exemplified also in his assertion that the "existence of suitable 'holes in the pattern' or 'empty cases' in the primary phonemic system" makes it easier for the learner to learn certain sounds (22). His example is the R /3/, which the S speaker finds easier because he has /J/ and /z/ already and can therefore "pigeonhole" the new one into the space where their qualities intersect. Interpreted in terms of phonetic components this means simply that muscular movements can be analyzed into components and recombined in new sequences. But even such recombination requires learning. Even phonemes that already occur in a language are difficult when they occur in new sequences, e.g. /η/ initially or /h/ before consonants in English. Norwegian has /s/ and a contrast of voiced with voiceless consonants, but no /z/; in spite of this "empty space" where voicing and sibilance cross, this is empirically the last English sound learned by a Norwegian. 2.5. Another line of explanation advanced by the author is the factor of phonemic burdening (he vacillates between the words "yield" and "burdening"). He finds that S /k b / is reproduced as R /k/ because S /k/ is a rare phoneme and therefore the distinction between /k/ and /k"/ is not sufficiently important for S speakers to correct the error in R speech. He attributes the absence of the aspiration to the low functional * Cf. Z. S. Harris, Methods in structural linguistics, 72, fn. 28 (Chicago, 1951).



burdening of the contrast /k/-/k /. This would seem to be putting the cart before the horse. The naive speaker who has no /k h / in his language will surely identify it with his own /k/ whether the other language has a distinction of /k/-/k h / or not. The fact that he may gradually learn to make some kind of distinction after repeated correction by the speakers of the other language is not a structural but a sociocultural fact. It may be doubted whether phonemic burdening is a structural fact at all; in any case its status is in doubt as long as no one has devised a method for quantifying its function in speech. The existence of minimal pairs in the lexicon or the high statistical frequency of a given phoneme do not prove that a given contrast would lead to confusion in actual utterances. 2.6. On the other hand, this reviewer would regard the sequences (distribution) of phonemes as having a greater structural significance than they have here been given. A list of phonemes like that for Romansh and Schwyzertütsch in Weinreich's tabulation is of little value in predicting interference unless it is accompanied by a rather complete statement of their distribution. The occurrence of /s/ in both English and Finnish does not enable the naive Finnish speaker to produce initial s-clusters which do not occur in his language. This is not merely, as Weinreich puts it, a "factor inhibiting phonic interference", but an essential part of the structuring of each phoneme. 2.7. It will perhaps be perceived that the reviewer finds other information of greater importance than a list of phonemes, on the one hand a full description of the PHONETIC COMPONENTS and on the other of the PHONEMIC DISTRIBUTIONS. These are the elements which the speaker hears in the other language, which he then reinterprets and organizes in terms of the structure which he knows, namely his own. For this reason also, the reviewer does not find Weinreich's fourfold division of interference phenomena entirely satisfactory. As an example we may take the author's treatment of vowel length, which is phonemic in S, allophonic in R. The consequence is that S length is distorted in R, remaining in those positions where it is required by the following consonants, disappearing elsewhere, so that, e.g. S /zrba/ retains its long /i/, while /a'par/ shortens its /a/ (16). This is called a "reinterpretation of distinctions". But it could also be stated as a change from phonemic to allophonic length, which in turn could be regarded as an "under-differentiation of phonemes", since the distinction between long and short phonemes disappears. The dependence of such determinations on the author's phonemic practices is apparent when we note that there is an exactly parallel development in the relation between geminate and single consonants in R. This distinction, which is significant in R, is allophonic in S, being dependent on the preceding vowels, so that S /fili/ is reproduced by R speakers as /filli/, while R /messa/ is reproduced by S speakers as /mesa/. If the long vowels had been analyzed as geminate instead of long, the exact parallel between these two phenomena would have been brought out: gemination (or length, if one chooses) is phonemic in vowels, allophonic in consonants in S, but the reverse in R; speakers of each language turn the phonemic distinction of the other into an allophonic one, thus eliminating a



significant distinction of the other language as surely as when they coalesce /y/ and /if, or /e/ and /ae/. 2.8. This detailed consideration of one section in the book is not offered as a criticism of the author, but as a contribution to the discussion of the theoretical problem involved. No matter how well one analyzes the respective phonemic systems, the behavior of bilingual speakers will not be precisely predictable. While the author has enumerated the many factors that inhibit or promote the bilingual's tendency to interference, he has made no provision for what the reviewer called "erratic substitution", or the factor of chance which can lead to individual mishearings that are not easily accounted for by any theory.3 Nor does he mention the fact that phonemic interference can be total, so that two languages may be spoken with identical phonemic systems, e.g. Latin and English as pronounced by Englishmen. 3.1. The chapter on grammatical interference is an admirable survey of a complex and highly controversial problem. The author shows that much of the disagreement concerning the borrowing of grammatical elements is due to a lack of adequate definitions of the terms used. He therefore explicitly distinguishes between grammatical functions, which are treated in this section, and designative (semantic) functions, which are treated in the following chapter on lexical interference. He anticipates criticism by directing a barbed footnote at "those formalistically inclined readers who cannot conceive of linguistic meaning other than distribution" and therefore are likely to find his chapter on lexical interference "either repetitious or linguistically irrelevant" (47). The distinction is not unlike that which emerges in C. C. Fries, Structure of English, between "function words" and "parts of speech", the former being words that signal structural meanings, the latter words that refer to the non-linguistic world. In Weinreich's treatment the function words are handled together with more or less bound morphemes as well as such grammatical relationships as order, agreement and dependence, and modulations of stress and pitch. He would probably have achieved a more coherent classification if he had regarded these latter as morphemes also. As it is, he is able to show that the morphemes of one language may be identified by bilinguals with either the morphemes or the relations of another language. If relations are regarded as morphemes, this statement could be simplified to a statement of simple morphemic equivalence between languages. 3.2. Following hints advanced by earlier linguists, the author offers material in support of the thesis that the likelihood of morphemic transfer from one language to another is in inverse proportion to its structural integration. In other words, a free morpheme is more likely to be transferred than a bound one. In discussing this thesis he quite rightly criticizes an inadequate formulation by this reviewer written in 1950, which left the impression that the small percentage of interjections (1.4%) in loan* Norwegian language in America, 394 (Philadelphia, 1953; abbr. NLA). Cf. Christen Meiler, Zur Methodik der Fremdwortkunde, 33 (Aarhus, 1933): "Es gibt hier für alle Entlehnungen, die durch das Ohr erfolgen, einen inkontrollablen störenden Faktor ..."



word lists meant that they were less transferable than (say) nouns. This implication was not intended and has been corrected in the reviewer's book, where the statistical method now suggested by Weinreich was independently adopted. 4 When the proportion of borrowed interjections is compared to that of the language in general, they are seen to rank very high, as one would expect from their almost complete lack of integration into the syntactic structure. 3.3. In discussing the basis for identification among morphemes, the author finds that this is either a formal or a functional (for which one could also write distributional) similarity. Formal similarity led Hungarians to turn their deverbal adjectives in -ando into gerundives on the model of Latin -andus, while functional similarity caused Uzbeks "to equate the Russian construction iz plus genitive with their native partitive and to use it even where idiomatic Russian requires other prepositions" (40). In any transfer or imitation of forms it is "the more explicit pattern" that "serves as the model for imitation". This accounts for the trend in pidgin languages, where the bound morphemes of one language are given up in favor of free morphemes from the other; word order as the most explicit category of all takes the place of the subtler devices of structural signalling. On those relatively rare occasions when bound morphemes are actually transferred from one language to another, they are such as fit readily into a pre-existent category in the recipient language. When English -s is introduced into the Welsh plural system, it is hardly more than a new allomorph of the pre-existent plural morpheme. 4.1. The chapter on lexical interference, while valuable in itself, illustrates another fundamental terminological difficulty of current linguistics. While the author guards himself by noting the parallelism between the processes demonstrated for grammatical interference and those which are now presented for lexical interference, one cannot but wish that he had somehow tried to reduce redundancy by combining these. Surely there is no difference in principle between the borrowing of English but in the Yiddish sentences /nit er bAt ix/ 'not he but I' (30) and that of fence in American Norwegian, or between the reproduction of English who by Yiddish ver as a relative pronoun in the sentence /der ments ver iz do/ 'the man who is here' (30) and that of corn by Norwegian korn in the sense of 'maize'. In both cases we have bilingual identification of morphemes due to similarity of function, resulting in the first case in transfer, in the second case in reproduction. The fact that the functions are "grammatical" in one case, "designative" (i.e. semantic) in the other, is at least not relevant to the bilingual process. Nor is it possible to maintain any absolute rigidity of distinction between grammatical and semantic functions; for the purposes of generalized statement, the term 'distribution' can cover both. It was to avoid any limitation to a particular level of analysis that this reviewer adopted the terms 'importation' and substitution', which correspond in a general way to Weinreich's "transfer" and "re4

NLA 407.



production", but are used about phonemes as well as morphemes.5 The reviewer also used 'reproduction', but in a more general sense, similar to that of Weinreich's "interference". For the results of transfer we agree in using "loanword", but Weinreich has regrettably not found the term 'loanshift' useful as a common designation for the results of substitution. Instead he classifies them more or less along traditional lines, which distinguish between extensions of meaning and loan translations. But examples of the former (like his Yiddish brik 'bridge' adding the meaning of 'floor') and of the latter (like Louisiana French marchandises sèches for 'dry goods') have much in common : in both cases native words have altered their usage in response to a foreign model. 4.2. Whatever the terminology, no one can quarrel about the basic importance of the two mechanisms of interference here described and richly illustrated from the vast literature on loanwords. Weinreich distinguishes between their application to simple words and to compound words and phrases. By "simple" he really means 'unanalyzed by the borrower'. He has erroneously included the American Norw. blakkvalnot 'black walnut' among these, since it reveals analysis by the substitution of Norw. not for E nut, and by the back-formations to which it has given rise: blakkval and blakkvaltre 'black walnut tree'.® One might also question whether Amer. Italian pizza-paia should be classed here, since the element pizza is recognizable as an Italian morpheme and paia undoubtedly had been borrowed in Amer. Italian before the compound. This reviewer found that in practice it was often impossible to be sure whether a given sequence was or was not analyzed by the borrowers. Amer. Norw. krâssrâd 'cross road' consists of elements which have both been borrowed separately; the word shows complete adaptation to the Norw. phonemic and grammatical pattern. It thus fits Weinreich's definition of the transferred compound in which "all the elements may be transferred, in analyzed form", yet he would apparently class it as 'simple'. One could only make this classification for sure if one could observe the loan at the moment of original borrowing, i.e. the process of interference itself. This is one of the theoretical comments one might make on Weinreich's approach: that while he here claims to be describing interference, his examples are largely drawn from established loans, which show adjustments to previously borrowed words of the same types. This is the reason for the reviewer's adoption of the point of view that a loanword description is not to be regarded as describing the actual historical process, but as a comparison between MODEL and REPLICA which reveal the sum of all changes during the process of interference.7 4.3. The further discussion of lexical interference contains many acute observations on the lexical integration of loanwords (i.e. their relation to the previous stock of words) and the reasons for borrowing: they are the same as for innovations in unilingual speech, plus a need for semantic differentiation and the social values of the '

NLA mi.

* NLA 562 ct passim. ' NLA 388.



model language. The author candidly admits the inability of the investigator to explain the resistance of some words to importation, and he is healthily skeptical about potential homonymy as an explanation of such resistance (61). There is an interesting discussion of the total amount of interference and of the attempts that have been made to quantify and classify the impact of one language on another. A section on interference and language shift brings up the problem of whether languages can be genuinely "mixed" in the popular sense (68). The author here seems to contradict an earlier assertion (7, quoted from Lötz) that "every speech event belongs to a definite language". He admits here that a language switch is possible within a single sentence or phrase, and even that the speaker himself may be uncertain which language he is using at a given moment. The reviewer has discussed this problem in NLA 63-69 and cited many examples from his own observations of such confusion. Speakers not only switch in the midst of utterances, but they are frequently mistaken about the linguistic membership of given items in their own speech. Often, too, the criteria which satisfy the linguist that a borrowed word has been integrated will not disguise it to the consciousness of bilingual speakers, who will continue to call an English loanword English in spite of its adapted shape. There are thus definite (but so far unstated) limitations on Meillet's assertion that "a speaker always knows that he is using the one system or the other" (69). A section on pidgin languages, labelled "crystallization of new languages from contact", concludes the study of interference from the linguistic point of view. 5.1. The chapters entitled "The bilingual individual" and "Socio-cultural setting of contact" are shorter than the preceding and will occasion less comment here. It is shown that the amount of interference can be correlated to the bilingual speaker's language aptitude, his switching facility, and the status he accords each language. Such factors as relative proficiency, mode of use, order of learning and age, usefulness in communication, emotional involvement, function in social advance, and literarycultural value may add up to a dominance configuration for one language over the other. This configuration may be shared by other speakers, resulting in various typical language functions in bilingual groups. Linguistic effects are different according to the congruence of the mother-tongue groups with various other kinds of social groupings, resulting from geographic contiguity, migration, cultural-ethnic ties, race, sex, age, status, occupation, and urban-rural distinctions. But the author warns against "tagging two languages in contact as respectively 'upper' and 'lower' at any cost". Some may be surprised to find that a special section is devoted to "the standardized language as a symbol", but Weinreich is entirely justified in considering the relation of dialect to language an example of bilingualism. In pointing out the importance of language loyalty in relation to the standardized language, he neglects to mention that the patois can excite an equally vigorous loyalty, though perhaps of a different kind. 5.2. The final chapter, on research methods and opportunities, is brief but stimulât-



ing. It suggests the need for an approach that will combine the socio-cultural with the structural method of analysis, and the importance of such areas of multiple language contact as the Balkans and the Americas, or such languages as Yiddish, as favorable fields for the study of interference. Concerning the studies which have so far appeared the author says that they are often not comparable because of differences in techniques and orientations. "It is consequently a major task in research planning to promote the coordination of studies in this field by drawing up general canons of description". Since the reviewer finds himself in hearty agreement on this point, he can only add his assent and hope that the author may continue his bilingual researches along the fruitful lines here suggested. Reprinted from Language, 30, 380-388 (1954).

20 REVIEW: L. H J E L M S L E V Prolegomena to a Theory of Language

A fair amount of interest in the work of Louis Hjelmslev has already been shown by American linguists since this reviewer first brought it to their attention in Language 27.213-215 (1951). Searching reviews by Rulon S. Wells, Murray Fowler, and André Martinet, 1 in addition to courses given by Hjelmslev himself and his co-worker Uldall at the Linguistic Institutes of 1952 and 1953, have spread considerable information about the doctrines of 'glossematics'. The American publication of the Prolegomena now brings to the English-speaking world its first full-scale opportunity to study and test his theories. The translation by Professor Whitfield in excellent, and even authoritative, since Hjelmslev himself worked on it with the translator.2 It is questionable whether a linguist is the proper person to review this book. It is a contribution to semiotics rather than to linguistics, since it deals with the description of all symbolic systems and not with the particular structure of natural languages. The linguistic theory proper is promised for a later publication. In the meanwhile a number of Hjelmslev's pupils have been making more or less authorized applications of the glossematic terminology to various languages. These have not been too attractive, since they appear to give the linguistic data a rather procrustean treatment. The terminology devised is forbidding and breaks so completely with tradition that unusual demands are made on the reader's time and patience. Nevertheless it may be said that the study of Hjelmslev's Prolegomena is rewarding for the rigorousness of its method and the wide perspective it gives of the backgrounds and implications of linguistic analysis. It is comparable in its range and purposes to Bloomfield's postulates of 1926. Hjelmslev contends that the traditional linguistic categories have been set up inductively on the basis of materials gathered language by language. This limits their validity to the language within which they have been established. Hjelmslev does not envisage a universal grammar, since he grants that 1

Rulon Wells, review of Récherches structurales, Language 27.554-570 (1951); Murray Fowler, review of Knud Togeby, Structure immanente de la langue française, Language 29.165-175 (1953); André Martinet, review of same in Word 9.78-82 (1953). 1 The only noticeable change in the translation (and an improvement) is the substitution of 'language' for the 'every-day language' (dagligsprog) and 'semiotic' for the 'language' (sprog) of the original.



every language has its own peculiar structure. But he does believe in what he calls "a universal principle of formation", which appears to mean that the basic methods of linguistics must be universal. He develops this conclusion in his basic postulates concerning the nature of language and linguistic description. Hjelmslev's postulates and theorems are presented in the form of definitions of terms, 106 in all. While they are not so divided by Hjelmslev, we may here divide them into those which are purely LOGICAL and those which bear specifically on SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS. The former stem back to Carnap, the latter to Saussure; Hjelmslev's work is an attempt to fuse these two traditions. The logical definitions build up a method of analysis which could apply to any set of relations in the natural world. The basic postulate here is definition No. 1, in which ANALYSIS is defined as "description of an object by the uniform dependences of other objects on it and on each other". The terms in this postulate are undefined, but the remaining definitions are all based upon this one. We perceive in this definition the emphasis on relationships as the only valid subject matter of scientific description. The 'objects' or 'terminals', as he also calls them, are inaccessible to description; from a scientific point of view they exist only by virtue of the dependences they have to other objects. Logically all such dependences can be reduced to three classes: A depends on Β (or vice versa), A and Β depend on one another, A and Β do not depend on one another. These dependences he calls the FUNCTIONS of, respectively, DETERMINATION, INTERDEPENDENCE, and CONSTELLATION. A and Β are called FUNCTIVES, which are then said to "have a function" to one another. Since Hjelmslev otherwise follows the principle of binary division in his analysis, it is a bit puzzling at first to find this trinity of functions. Actually, it can be regarded as a double dichotomy, since he has excluded a fourth kind of relationship between A and Β which he calls 'incompatibility'. (23). One might say that determination and interdependence are the only true dependences in his system, contrasting with the non-dependence of two items having constellation to one another. In the latter case he assumes that A and Β are compatible, i.e. can occur on the same level. In any case he makes little use of constellation in his further analysis; it occurs when he is defining free variants ('variations' in his term) as phones that are not dependent on either preceding or following sounds. Most of the linguistic relationships which he brings up as examples of his functions are of the first two types. Thus the relationship of vowels to consonants and of main clauses to subordinate clauses are both examples of determination. But the relationship of case and number morphemes in the Latin noun is a case of interdependence, since one cannot occur without the other (15). The definitions that bear on symbolic systems begin with No. 26 (pp. 22 ff.) concerning what he calls the "either or function" or CORRELATION and No. 27 concerning the "both-and funct on" or RELATION. These define the two dimensions of linguistic description in the spirit of Saussure. Langue or SYSTEM is defined as a CORRELATIONAL HIERARCHY, while parole or PROCESS is defined as a RELATIONAL HIERARCHY. A system, which in the case of language he refers to as a PARADIGMATIC, thus consists of contrasts,



alternatives (either-or), while a process, which he calls a SYNTAGMATIC, consists of sequentially co-existing items (both-and). This provides neatly and cleverly for the data ordinarily described in American linguistics as contrast and distribution. The phonemes of pet thus stand in a syntagmatic relationship to each other, but in a paradigmatic relationship to all the phonemes of the language that can be substituted for them (e.g. ρ : b, m, v, s, w etc.). The situation becomes more complex as Hjelmslev proceeds to invent a set of terms to describe the three functions above-mentioned as they occur in each dimension. Here one feels that it would have been better to leave these to be distinguished by context. It is also highly questionable just how they can be applied in the paradigmatic dimension. It hardly needs saying that the terms used are confusing to the reader because of their different significance from that of ordinary language. A further development of Hjelmslev's terminology comes with his introduction of the term SIGN, which he uses, in accordance with Saussure's practice, to refer to the relationship between the symbol and its meaning. But Hjelmslev regards the sign function as rather a relationship between two forms, or structures, which he calls EXPRESSION FORM and CONTENT FORM. He distinguishes these, in turn, from the EXPRESSION SUBSTANCE (the physical symbols) and the CONTENT SUBSTANCE (the referents of language). He then neatly identifies the field of linguistics as being the study of linguistic form, in contrast with that of other sciences which study the various substances. The 'arbitrary' nature of language in the Saussurean sense is here seen as the relationship of a structured linguistic form to an amorphous real substance of content on the one side and of expression on the other. Schematically the functions involved could be presented as follows: LINGUISTICS

Content substance

Content form

Expression form

Expression substance

These dichotomies are not unfamiliar to American linguists, though of course under other terms. The exclusion of phonetics as "pre-linguistics" by George Trager corresponds to Hjelmslev's placing the study of the expression substance outside the linguistic pale. The exclusion of meaning as a proper part of linguistics by Bloomfield and many of his followers corresponds to Hjelmslev's location of the content substance above. Hjelmslev calls specifically for a linguistics "whose science of the expression is not a phonetics and whose science of the content is not a semantics". (50). More and more it has come to be recognized that the study of structures is a central theme of linguistic science, and the reduction of these to two and only two planes corresponds to Hjelmslev's distinction between content form and expression form. In American usage the unit of content form is the morpheme, of expression form the phoneme. The relationship of these to each other is provided for by Hjelmslev's statement that all SIGNS consist o f f i g u r é (29); in Harris's terms: all morphemes are identifi-



able in terms of phonemes.3 Hjelmslev's insistence on the parallelism of descriptive method in the two planes of content and expression goes even farther than Harris's : he uses the term TAXEME in both planes, so that it refers to the phoneme in the expression plane and the morpheme in the content plane. This reviewer has already pointed out (in the article cited above) a number of parallels between Hjelmslev's reasoning and that of the so-called 'American school'.4 Further parallels could be pointed out if one wished to make an extensive comparison between the Prolegomena and Harris's Methods, which has appeared in the meanwhile. Both agree in rejecting the distinction between morphology and syntax.6 Both of them work out explicit procedures for segmentations into immediate constituents by means of substitution.® Both are looking for a description with maximal simplicity, exhaustiveness, and consistency.7 Both hold out as their goal the construction of texts.8 Both of them work with purely formal criteria and are interested in relations rather than entities.9 Both of them arrange their linguistic descriptions into successive levels, constituting in Hjelmslev's terminology a hierarchy.10 The chief obstacle to a mutual understanding is one of terminology. There are, of course, other differences, among them those that are implied by the titles of the two books, the Prolegomena to a Theory and the Methods. The abstract, theoretical approach of Hjelmslev's work makes it difficult to criticize it in detail. One's protests are not roused until one sees how the theory works out in practice on the classification of linguistic data. Hjelmslev himself rarely deigns to give other than the most obvious examples, and we have so far available only a truncated account of his analysis * Zellig Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics (Chicago, 1951), 195. 4 The term "American school" is used without prejudice to those American linguists who do not regard themselves as belonging to this group. It is not desired to fall into Togeby's unfortunate practice of referring all American innovations in linguistics to "l'école de Yale". ' Hjelmslev 76 (all quotations are cited in the paging of the original Danish edition, given in the margin of the English translation): "... Syntax cannot be maintained as an autonomous discipline." Harris 262 : "The syntactic and morphological results are obtained by the same procedure, so that no distinction is drawn between them." * Hjelmslev 38 : "In each single partition we shall be able to make an inventory of the entities that have the same relations, i.e., that can take the same 'place' in the chain." Harris 369: "As a result of these operations, we not only obtain initial elements, but are also able to define new sets of elements as classes or combinations (sequences etc.) of old ones." ' Hjelmslev 12; cf. also 39, where he asks for "entities of the least possible extension and the lowest number"; Harris 262: "fewer and more general classes." • Hjelmslev 16 : "With the linguistic information we have thus obtained, we shall be able to construct any conceivable or theoretically possible texts in the same language." Harris 372: "The work of analysis leads right up to the statements which enable anyone to synthesize or predict utterances in the language." • Hjelmslev 22: "A totality does not consist of things but of relationships and ... not substance but only its internal and external relationships have scientific existence." Harris 365: "The only over-all consideration which determines the relevance of an operation is that it deal with the occurrence of parts of the flow of speech relative to each other." 10 Wells asked in his review of Récherches Structurales whether glossematics had provided for "a series of levels" (562). Hjelmslev describes a hierarchy as a class of classes, consisting of a series of partitions from the greatest down to the least units obtainable. Each class should constitute a level in the American sense.



of Danish.11 This suggests that he is willing to go very far in his disregard of phonetic similarity when classing phones into phonemes, e.g. in regarding the glottal stop of Danish as an allophone of /d/. One wonders also whether his insistence that segmentation must begin with the unanalyzed text and then proceed downwards by dichotomies to smaller and smaller units is intended to be a description of a practical method of analysis or merely a theoretical statement. He speaks grandly of applying the commutation tests to entire literatures or literary genres, breaking them down into "single authors, works, chapters, paragraphs, and the like". (91) He calls this procedure DEDUCTIVE; but since he grants that the INDUCTIVE method is solidary with the former, it can hardly make much difference whether one proceeds from the greatest to the smallest or vice versa, except for the fact that the latter is more feasible. Actually, most linguists begin in medias res, adopting as their "texts" utterances of such compass that they can easily be repeated for testing in substitution frames. In so far as Hjelmslev's work is applicable to linguistic analysis in the narrower sense, it may be said to constitute a rigorously logical restatement and generalization of methods used, however haphazardly, by all descriptive linguists, though not made explicit until the last few years. But Hjelmslev also opens prospects wider than those envisaged in most works on linguistics. After he has first established an "immanent" linguistics, as he calls his glossematic theory, he draws in wider and wider sectors of human knowledge as seen from this relatively fixed standpoint. He establishes the varieties of expression known as style, idiom, dialect, nationality as connotators in a semiotic where the expression is itself a semiotic (i.e. meaningful). On the other hand he finds that the real, physical objects of the world get their proper sphere of description in a meta-semiotic in which the content is itself a semiotic. The path by which Hjelmslev arrives at these startling conclusions is rather too thorny for this reviewer, but he is encouraged to find that the limitation of linguistics to the analysis of formal distinctions eventually gives way to "an ever broader scientific and ever broader humanistic attitude, until the idea finally comes to rest in a totality-concept which can scarcely be imagined more absolute". (80). "Linguistic theory is led by an inner necessity to recognize not merely the linguistic system, in its schema and in its usage, in its totality and in its individuality, but also man and human society behind language, and all man's sphere of knowledge through language" (82). The conclusion of the preceding discussion is that the reading of Hjelmslev is an invaluable stimulus and intellectual exercise for linguists. The book is rich in points of view which become apparent sometimes only after several readings. The present reviewer finds that much work remains to be done before the gap can be closed between the glossematic terminology and practical linguistic analysis. The very fact that in Hjelmslev's analysis of Danish it has been found necessary to introduce a whole slew of terms that were not used in his Prolegomena (extension, intension, pre-taxeme, participation, junction, direction etc.) shows that the system is not nearly as complete as it appears in the elegant formulations of the Protegomena. It is also a serious 11

Selskab for nordisk filologi, Ârsberetning for 1948-1949-1950 (Copenhagen, 1951), 12-24.



question whether the maintenance of a complete set of distinct terms covering much the same field as traditional linguistics can be defended. His reason for the term glossematics is the misuse of linguistics for "an unsuccessful study of language proceeding from transcendent and irrelevant points of view" (72). In so far as linguistics liberates itself from these points of view, the need for a special "glossematics" disappears, and the unity of our science can again be asserted.12 Only time can tell just what role glossematics will play in linguistic science. If this writer were to venture a premature guess, it would be that Hjelmslev's terminology is eminently suited for defining linguistic categories in an exact way, but that the American terminology now in use is better suited for applying the categories to actual linguistic material. It is a weakness of Hjelmslev's Prolegomena that while it provides an intricate framework for linguistic operations, it does not provide us with any statements of those operations themselves. It deals with material that has already been semi-processed and does not show any way of handling the raw data. It is significant that the only full-length application of glossematics to an actual language can be criticized as having "an air of unreality" (Fowler). American terminology, on the other hand, has grown up amid descriptive concern with linguistic materials from all parts of the world. Its growth has been irregular and it suffers from that inductivism which Hjelmslev deprecates. But it is not difficult to check the data on which it is based, and disagreements are canceled out in the common adoption of at least some basic terms. There is a flagrant contrast between the esoteric nature of Hjelmslev's work and the American urge to expound and explain and gain proselytes by turning every new insight into a textbook. This very contrast should make it required reading for American linguists who are sure to find in it many fruitful impulses. Reprinted from the International Journal of American Linguistics 20, 247-251 (1954).

" Critical reviews of the Hjelmslev doctrine by European colleagues appeared as early as 1944: Eli Fischer-J0rgensen in Nordisk Tidsskrift for Tale og Stemme 7.81-96 and Hans Vogt in Acta Linguistica 4.94-98.


Tvetoppet vokal, eller cirkumfleks, er et velkjent fenomen i de fleste tr0ndske og nordnorske dialekter, foruten at den ogsâ finnes i svensk og dansk. I de aller fleste tilfelle er den et historisk résultat av en tapt vokal, enten ned apokope som i vi's vise eller ved kontraksjon som i ma'rçrç mannen. D a Oppdalsmàlet er det scrligste norske mài som har cirkumfleks i füllt omfang, har det en spesiell interesse à underS0ke forholdene her som if0lge Reitan utgjer "en overgang til de 0stligere og nordligere mài". (1, s. 77). 1 Reitans oppfatning bygger pâ iakttagelsen av visse eiendommeligheter ved Oppdalsmàlets cirkumfleks. Vi skal her ved hjelp av nytt materiale og nyere metoder prove â bestemme cirkumfleksens egenart i Oppdalsmàlet og dens stilling innenfor dialektens tegnsystem. Denne studie bygger pâ en st0rre ordsamling opptegnet i bygda under fiere bes0k i 1951-1952, samt pâ lydbândopptak av eidre og yngre meddelere. En del av disse er siden analysert ved hjelp av en lydspektrograf under ledelse av professor Martin Joos ved universitetet i Wisconsin. Et utvalg av melodikurvene, tegnet av forfatteren pâ grunnlag av spektrogrammene, falger med artikkelen. Det bar kanskje nevnes at forfatteren laerte â tale dialekten i sin barndom av foreldre som utvandret til Amerika fra Oppdal i 1899. Han brukte den som eneste sprâk fra sitt niende til sitt ellevte àr (1914-1916), da han bodde i Oppdal, og har siden vedlikeholdt kjennskapet ved sporadisk bruk, sist i 1951-1952. Som tegn for cirkumfleks brakes her en apostrof etter den tvetoppede vokal, som vanlig f. eks. i Inge Krokanns romaner. Amund B. Larsen skrev i 1886 (2, s. 103): "Opdal ... har sedv. pâ apokoperet stavelse tostavelsestonelag, hvad der er bekendt og hermes efter opd0Üngen lasngere 0stpä, f. eks. i frö'ös (v. fryse)." I 1914 gjentok han (3, s. 5): "Jeg kan ikke betvile at maalet i Opdal har slike eksempler som bö'tt f. b0tte ..." I 1910 skrev J0rgen Reitan (4, s. 91) at Oppdal (?) og "det sydligste Nordm0re", i motsetning til resten av Tr0ndelag, har dobbelt tonelag pâ cirkumflekterte ord. 1 1 9 2 1 , etter naermere unders0kelse, skrev han (1, s. 77): "Det har vaert meget vanskelig â komme til et sikkert résultat med hensyn til de opdalske betoningsforhold. Jeg har i Opdal trodd â h0re bâde dobbelt og enkelt tonelag i forkortede ord, bâde tvetoppet og entoppet ... Det har 1

Tallene i parentes henviser til litteraturlisten.



ikke bare vaert forskjellig hos de forskjellige personer; ogsâ hos samme pei son har betoningen pâ mitt 0re snart gjort inntrykket av dobbelt og snart enkelt tonelag, i begge tilfelle med nogenlunde tydelig tvetoppet trykk." Til tross for sin usikkerhet besternte han den oppdalske cirkumfleks som "et slags dobbelt tonelag". Denne mening ble ytterligere bestyrket av Marthinus Wiggen (5, s. 35), som mente à ha h0rt "tvifelt tonelag" i ord som vá'gg vogge i 0vre Gauldal (ned til Horg) og i Oppdal, i motsetning til det enkelte i hans eget Bersamâl. Det er betegnende at han skriver: "Eit slikt cirkumflekstonelag er framandt for meg og mitt mâlf0re, sâ det var svasrt vanskeleg â skrive det ned." Et kymografopptak i hans avhandling synes ogsâ â styrke dette syn, i likhet med et hos Reitan (1, s. 76) fra Kvernes i S0ndre Nordm0re. Derimot skriver Eilert Mo om sitt nordm0rske Rindalsmâl (6, s. 7) at "alle dei stavingane som her vil verta umtala som delte stavingar, hev enkel, stigande toneflytjing". Da Rindalsmálet stâr Oppdalsmâlet meget naer, er denne opplysning av en innf0dt forsker av stor interesse. Et annet problem som har skapt usikkerhet i behandlingen av cirkumfleks, ikke bare i Oppdalsmâlet, er sp0rsmâlet om den skal ansees som en eller to stavelser. Storm skrev i Norvegia (7, s. 51): "Undertiden sammentraenges det sammensatte Tonefald paa en Vokal, saa at der bliver to Udaandingstryk, et stärkere og et svagere, men saa hurtig udtalte og saa n0ie forbundne, at de hores som en Stavelse, altsaa et Tryk i to Dele." Men han innrommet at "det kan ofte ν aere vanskeligt at afgj0re, enten man h0rer sa i en Stavelse eller sa"a, sa"a i to ..." Den danske forsker H. J. Jessen skrev om jemtsk i 1875 (8, s. 8) at "vokalfordobling er i Jemtsk at tage bogstavelig; t. E. kaast skal udtales med 2 a'er i samme Stavelse, altsaa 'Diphtong' i aller egentligste Forstand". J. A. Lundell skrev da ogsâ i sitt svenske landsmálsalfabet (9, s. 143-147) to vokaler for cirkumfleks: biit, beet, kaast, foruten det vanlige cirkumflekstegn. Lyttkens og Wullf ansâ cirkumfleksen for "tydligt tvâstavigt" (10, s. 9), mens Noreen bruker uttrykket "sammansatt accent" (11, s. 29) og benekter at der i cirkumfleksen er "en verklig stafvelsesgräns" (12, bd. 1, s. 365, bd. 2, s. 199). Men han innr0mmer at "gränsen emellan ett gemineradt och ett cirkumflekteradt fonem" er "mycket svâr att uppdraga". Larsen skriver (3, s. 4) : "istedenfor utlydsvokalen, som er bortfalden, er der traadt saa at sie en bistavelse, en stavelse av en underordnet rang ..." Eilert Mo (6, s. 5) oppfatter den som to stavelser i sitt Rindalsmâl: "At ei staving er delt paa vokalen vil segja at vokalen vert uttala med greidt skilte steg i tonen, so de i grunnen er tvo stavingar." Men den vanlige oppfatning er den som Reitan uttrykker nâr han sier at cirkumfleksen bestàr av "et nyt, svagere tryk, der f0lger saa hurtig paa det f0rste at det hele gj0r indtryk av en stavelse". (4, 90). Den uenighet som her kommer til uttrykk, har sin ytterste grunn i usikkerhet om selve stavelsens begrep. Stavelsen blir vanlig besternt som en lydgruppe med ett trykk eller med én sonoritetstopp, men her oppstilles det en annen slags stavelse {tvetoppet, fra tysk zweigipflig) med to tydelige trykk eller sonoritetstopper. Det overlates da gjerne til forskerensfieilelsehvordan det skal klassifiseres i det enkelte (f. eks. Sievers, Phonetik s. 219: "für unser Gefühl zu schwach"; Jespersen, Fonetik s.



523: "sâ den ikke f0les som en enhed"; Broch og Selmer, Hândbok, s. 108: "tor svak og for tett knyttet til hovedtoppen til at vâr felelse opfatter den som ny stavelse"). Man fristes til à sperre hvordan en felelse kan anvendes som grunnlag for en videnskapelig uttalelse, og vi har da ogsâ sett hvordan meningene stâr mot hverandre. Den eneste mulighet for â komme videre i analysen av dette fenomen er en sprâkligstrukturell analyse som setter det i forhold til andre sprâklige enheter. I en sâdan analyse mâ vi ferst bestemme om cirkumfleksen er sprâklig relevant, altsâ om den er et fonem, og i sâ fall hva slags fonem den er. Fiere muligheter kan tenkes. Den kan vaere en vokal, en konsonant, en diftong, en trykkgrad, en kvantitet, en aksent (tonelag), en stavelse, for bare â nevne de viktigste muligheter. Kriteriet her vil i hvert tilfelle bli om cirkumfleksen stâr i kontrast til andre varianter av disse enheter, slik at den enklest og mest motsigelsesfritt passes inn i en besternt kategori. Overalt hvor det er mulig, finner vi ordpar som kan illustrere minstekontrastene, og disse forelegges da den innfedte meddeler til kontroll. Hvis ordparene er forskjellige, bestâr kontrasten; hvis ikke, har sammenfall funnet sted. Hvis vi tar for oss et sâdant ordpar, blir vi fort klar over at cirkumfleksen er sprâklig relevant. Det er klar og utvetydig forskjell pâ stor og sto'r, den ferste brukes f. eks. i en stor gut, den andre i na sto'r guten den store gutten. Men den er ikke knyttet til selve betydningsinnholdet i disse formene (motsetningen mellom ubestemt og besternt adjektiv), da den ogsâ forekommer i mange andre ordpar, f. eks. gang m. og ga'ng v. inf. gâ. Den er altsâ ikke et morfem (betydningsbaerende element), men et fonem (betydningsskillende element). Er den en vokal? I sä fall mâtte o' i sto'r oppfattes som en selvstendig vokal i motsetning til o, a' i ga'ng selvstendig fra a, osv. Ved gjennomgâelse av ordforrádet viser det seg at cirkumfleksen kan forekomme ved alie dialektens ti vokaler, sâ det ville fordoble dialektens vokalbestand â anse den som vokalisk. Dette ville vaere uheldig, da den lydlige forskjell innen hvert vokalpar er identisk, og derfor ber ansees som samme fonem. Den kan heller oppfattes som et vokalisk tillegg til vokalen, sâ vi kan si at den bestâr av to suksessive vokaler. Er det i sâ fall den samme vokal som legges til alle? Det kan iallfall ikke vaere den dumpe ae-lyd som forekommer f. eks. i husz huset, da det er minimal kontrast mellom f. eks. le' lee (pâ seg) og lex leet (besternt intetkjenn). Vokalkvaliteten i den ferste holder seg noenlunde konstant til tross for cirkumfleksen, og det samme er tilfellet med de andre vokaler. En videre mulighet er at den kan betraktes som en fordoblet vokal, noe som fiere forskere har vaert inné pâ: stoor, gaang, lee. Den kunne da tenkes â vaere en diftong, som foreslâtt av Jessen. Dialekten har tre diftonger, ei, ¡eu, öy. Det viser seg nâ at alle disse kan cirkumflekteres, slik at vi fâr kontrast f. eks. mellom zu au og z'u eye. Det vil merkes at apostrofen settes etter ferste element, og det blir i tilfelle ogsâ dette som mâtte fordobles, f. eks. zam. Ferste del er nemlig forlenget, og sä kommer i annen del av diftongen et kort uttalt zu som i hzust. Hvis cirkumflekteringen skal ansees som en slags diftong, mâ vi da enten si at vi har tre nye, cirkumflekterte diftonger, eller at vi har bàde diftonger og triftonger. Men det viktigste er at da cirkum-



flekteringen forekommer ved alle diftonger, som ved alle vokaler, ber den ikke behandles som et nytt sett diftonger eller vokaler, men som et feiles fonem knyttet til alle diftonger og vokaler. Her er fordobling (geminasjon) en bedre lesning, men â anse denne som diftongisk innen en stavelse ville tvinge oss til â oppstille en klasse med triftonger. Lignende argumenter kan fares i marken mot â betrakte den som en konsonant. Den stàr ikke i kontrast med noen besternt konsonant, men kan forekomme for og etter dem alle, bortsett fra ustemt konsonantgruppe i ord som bôff, kast, va»/»/ osv. En kunne tenke seg kontrasten mellom le og le\ sus og su's som en mellom nullkonsonant og en "cirkumfleks" konsonant. Dens kvalitet og forekomst ville da vaere temmelig enestàende: fonetisk identisk med foregàende vokal og forbundet med de fleste ettervokaliske konsonanter. Selv om en skulle anse den for en variant (allofon) av h, som ikke forekommer i denne stilling, ville den bli eiendommelig. Ingen annen konsonant forekommer fritt med alle andre konsonanter, minst av alle h. Dessuten er reglene for cirkumfleksens forekomst sä noye knyttet til de prosodiske forhold, til trykk, tone og kvantitet, at det er uunngâelig â se seg om blant disse for â bestemme dens klassifìkasjon. Prosodien i Oppd. er ikke prinsipielt annerledes, nâr vi ser bort fra cirkumfleksen, enn i vanlig 0stnorsk. De prosodiske fonemer utgjor en struktur som sâ à si blir pâtrykt delfoneme (vokalene og konsonantene) idet den bestemmer disses kvantitet, trykk og tone. Vi skal ikke her behandle tonegangen i setningen som helhet, men holde oss innenfor tonelagsgruppen, dvs. ett eller fiere ord som er bundet sammen med en tonekontur, f. eks. kàirìmà att komme igjen, yárVd frâ se gjore fra seg, vili' Ut vil ikke. Skjematisk uttrykt forholder fonemene seg slik til hverandre : Trykk: Sterktrykk. Sekundaert trykk. Svaktrykk.

Kvantitet: Lang vokal eller konsonant. Lang vokal eller konsonant. Kort vokal og konsonant.

Tone: Aksent 1 eller 2. Ingen aksent. Ingen aksent.

I et ord som storkararj (storkarene) forekommer alle tre trykkfonemer, i forste stavelse ogsâ lang vokal og aksent 2, i annen stavelse lang vokal. Under svaktrykk forekommer altsâ ikke lange fonemer eller noen av de to aksenter (tonelag), mens under sekundaert trykk enten vokalen eller den folgende konsonant mâ ν sere lang. Hvordan passer ná cirkumfleksen inn i dette system? For det forste kan den forekomme under alle tre trykkgrader, uten á affisere disses styrke i forhold til hverandre. Sterktrykk: e ska ga'ng jeg skal gâ, vi/ du ηΐϊη,η,' bror' άΐψj pâ dif\a vil du minne din bror pâ det. Sekundaert trykk: stocka'ri} storkaren. Svaktrykk: fàr'râ'q farende (i motsetning til hárxrár¡ hären med svaktrykk uten cirkumfleks og vár'árjq med sekundaert trykk); lab'ba't} labbende (i mots, til lab"bay labbene); hanq' efsresa'η handelsreisende; v/sa'r visere; spi'V¡ti speilet; kjxm dx ηάηη tâ'kk? kommer det noen av dere? Det er altsâ fullstendig galt nâr Reitan skriver at cirkumfleksen alltid tillhorer stavelser som har hovedtrykk (1, s. 56), og at den utenom disse er "sâ lite utpreget at en ikke-



innfieidt vil ha vanskelig for â konstatere tilvaerelsen" eller utbredelsen innenfor ordforrâdet. Den eneste eiendommelighet er at cirkumfleks bare kan stâ sist i tonelagsgruppen. Samme ord kan derfor opptre med eller uten cirkumfleks, det siste hvis det stâr f0rst i gruppen. Smlg. f. eks. de ferste eksempler i denne paragraf med flg. : e ska gangy ut jeg skal gà ut, vij du miriti' me pâ d i f f a , vil du minne meg pâ det. Likesâ i en sammensetning, f. eks. e'n ener i motsetning til erìbxr enebaer. Men ellers kan den altsà spille samme rolle som alle tre trykkgrader og kan derfor ikke identifiseres med noen av dem og heller ikke betraktes som en saerskilt, ή erde trykkgrad. Derimot er det meget som taler for â anse den som sammensatt av to suksessive trykkfonemer, et strekt og et svakt. Spektrogrammene viser da ogsâ en markert svekkelse i styrke under vokalens l0p. Av ovenstâende skjema skulle vi vente at den heller ikke vil oppvise forskjellige kvantitetsgrader, siden den kan forekomme under svaktrykk. Det kan preves ved â sammenligne ordpar der vi skulle vente en motsetning mellom kort og lang vokal etter de historiske forhold. Et adjektiv som fin blir fi'η i besternt form {na fi'n ka'rn den fine karen), mens et substantiv som en finti blir fi1 ψj i besternt form (na sto'r fi'm, den store finnen). Men vokalene i de cirkumflekterte ord er nayaktig like, noe som blir enda klarere nâr vi tar ord der konsonantene ogsâ er like, f. eks. váge v. og vogge v. som begge blir til va'g i Oppd., vone v. og vonde adj. (besternt) som begge blir vo'n. Reitan fant at det var "liten forskjell pâ vokallengden" (1, s. 56), men Hallfrid Christiansen har her innsett det riktige i sin studie av Viknamâlet (18, s. 51).2 Det er altsâ ingen forskjell pâ lang og kort i cirkumfleksen, men hvis vi sammenligner f. eks. le med le\ virker den cirkumflekterte som om den var lenger enn den lange e. Det kan da sp0rres om vi skulle oppstille cirkumfleksen som en tredje kvantitetsgrad, overlang, da den ogsâ i spektrogrammene viser seg â vaere gjennomsnittlig 24,5 hs. mot de lange 19,3 og de körte 10,7. Men for den umiddelbare fonetiske iakttagelse virker den mer som en sammentrengt dobbeltlyd, med en lang vokal fulgt av en kort. I lé1 har vi ferst en lang e, omtrent som den i le, kanskje litt kortere, og sâ en kort e, omtrent som den i left, slik at det kunnen forsvares â skrive den lee, som vi tidligere har vaert inné pâ. Fordelen ved denne betraktningsmâte er at vi da slipper â sette opp et nytt kvantitetsfonem, som ikke passer inn i det ovennevnte skjema, der overlang ville forekomme med alle tre trykkfonemer. Det enkleste blir da à anse forlengelsen i cirkumfleks som en ny vokal med samme kvalitet som den foregâende lange, men kort og med eget svaktrykk, eller med andre ord, som en ny stavelse. Men fer vi kan forfelge dette resonnement, mâ vi underseke toneforholdene. Da cirkumfleksen kan forekomme med alle trykkgrader og aksentene bare med sterktrykk, venter vi ikke at motsetningen mellom aksent 1 og 2 skal komme til uttrykk i cirkumfleksen. Det er da ogsâ lett à pâvise at dette ikke er tilfellet. Hvis vi tar for oss ordpar der de historiske forhold kunne berettige oss til â vente en motsetning mellom aksent 1 og 2, viser det seg at disse er fait helt sammen. Dativ av tiden med historisk aksent 1 * Derimot skjelnes det klart mellom kort og lang vokal i Nordmersmâlet, iallfall som dette uttales av lektor Kâre Grytli fra 0re.



og infinitiven tine med historisk aksent 2 heter begge tVn. Likesâ re"η for renen hk. besternt og rene adj. besternt, te'η for tjene (tena) og teen, be'η for bene adj. besternt og b'en (bokstaven). I en samtale noterte forfatteren tâ'k som kontraksjon av tâ ákk 'ta dere', men oppfattet det til â begynne med som en eldre form av infinitiven tâ, nemlig tâ'k fra taka. Formene med historisk aksent 1 er for det meste kontraherte, mens de med aksent 2 or apokoperte. I motsetning f. eks. til Värmlandsmälet (i det minste iflg. Kallstenius 13, s. 55), der det skal finnes bâde en "akut-cirkumflex" og en "grav-cirkumfleks", er det altsâ bare én slags cirkumfleks tonalt sett i Oppd. Dette stemmer med Hallfrid Christiansens iakttagelse fra Vikna i Nord-Tr0ndelag (18, s. 49). Men ettersom cirkumfleksen kan danne tonelagsgrupper, mà vi da sperre om dens tonekontur svarer til aksent 1 eller 2 eller kanskje er en tredje aksent. Som vi sà, har fiere forskere pàstâtt at Oppd. cirkumfleks er en aksent 2. De er kommet til dette ved â sammenligne dens tonekurve med aksent 1 i enstavelsesord og aksent 2 i flerstavelsesord. Da den ferste er stigende, og den siste er fallende-stigende i Oppd. som i andre estnorske mài, mâtte det se ut som om cirkumfleksen passet best med aksent 2, da cirkumfleksen ogsâ er fallende-stigende. Dette bekreftes ved spektrogrammene, sà Reitan og Larsen har ikke hert feil da de mente â here en kurve som lignet pâ 0stlandsk aksent 2 i Oppdal. Men det som de ikke har innsett, er at aksent 1 i tostavelsesord i Oppd. ogsâ har fallende stigende tonekurve, og for den innfedtes umiddelbare sprâkfalelse stâr cirkumfleksens tonekurve naermere denne enn aksent 2. Vi har her et utmerket eksempel pâ en feilkilde som utenforstâende forskere alltid risikerer ved bedemmelsen av et sprâksystem, idet de identifiserer det nye sprâks enheter med sine egne pâ grunnlag av fonetiske heller enn strukturelle likheter. Amund B. Larsen var helt klar over denne fare (3, s. 7, 10), og Reitans usikkerhet i bed0mmelsen (sitert ovenfor) er et typisk utslag av en slik situasjon, som er naermere beskrevet f. eks. i Anders Bjerrums Uber die phonematische Wertung von Mundartaufzeichnungen (14). Ellert Mo er den som her har kommet forholdet naermest ved sin deling av aksent 1 i to slags som han kaller 'udelt' og 'delt' (6, s. 14). Den f0rste forekommer i enstavelsesord og den siste i flerstavelsesord. Det er unodvendig â gj0re dette hvis vi bestemmer motsetningen mellom 1 og 2 pâ en noe annen mâte enn den vanlige i norsk dialektforskning. Hvis vi ser bort fra den avsluttende stigning, som bestemmes av setningssammenhengen, blir det avgjorende kriterium lavpunktets plasering i forhold til trykket. I enstavelsesord kommer det i f0rste del av trykkstavelsen, i tostavelsesord med aksent 1 i siste del av trykkstavelsen, i tostavelsesord med aksent 2 f0rst i annen stavelse. Rent tonemessig er forskjellen liten (som Larsen pâpekte 2, s. 4), men fullstendig klar for den innfeidte. Ellert Mo nevner at 0stlendinger ofte har oppfattet hans aksent 1 (i flerstavelsesord) som en aksent 2 (15, s. 25), og det samme forteller Trygve Kjol om sin dialektuttale fra Kvernes i Nordm0re (16, s. 22). Forfatteren kan f0ye til at han har vaert utsatt for det samme i sin Oppdalspâvirkede uttale av riksmâlet. Spektrogrammene (plansje 1) viser den slàende h0ytone i begynnelsen



av aksent 1 i flerstavelsesord, som dog ikke er füllt sä hoy eller dvelende som den i aksent 2. Det henvises ellers til forfatterens metodiske synspunkter i en artikkel om 0stnorske toneforhold (19). Ellert Mo identifiserer cirkumfleks med sin "delte" aksent 1 og oppfatter dermed konsekvent cirkumfleksen som tostavelses. Hvis vi gj0r det samme i Oppdalsmâlet, er det lett à Anne ordpar som viser motsetningen med aksent 2, f. eks. ri'tm v. rinne og rfiti nom. fit. riene, eller Α'ψj egennavn Anne og ααη, nom. fit. a'ene (bokstaven). Disse er tydelig adskilt, mens tilsvarende motsetninger til aksent 1 er forsvunnet ved kontraksjon, f. eks. mse' em med dem er blitt til mx'm, teen til fe'«. Vi mâ da oppfatte apostrofen som tegn for en ny stavelse med samme vokalkvalitet som foregâende vokal, en slags forkortelse for ri'ir¡, Α'αη, mz'xm, te'en. Cirkumfleksens spektrogrammer (plansje 2) viser da ogsâ et brattere fall enn i aksent 2, og det er lett â oppfatte dens lavpunkt som beliggende i ferste (lange) stavelse, med stigningen i annen. I cirkumfleksen som i aksent 1, 'delt' eller 'udelt', bestâr motsetningen med aksent 2 i et tidlig lavpunkt, motsatt et forsinket lavpunkt som gjenspeiler den langsommere dynamiske avspenning i 2, som overalt i Norden. Det blir altsâ ikke nodvendig, som Trygve Kjel gj0r det i sin avhandling om Kvernesmâlet (16, s. 25), â oppstille cirkumfleksen som en aksent 3, og nâr den forekommer i forbindelse med sterktrykk, kan dens kurve naturlig innfoyes med aksent 1 i tostavelsesord, som i andre trandermâl. 3 Det er h0yst sannsynlig at det samme er tilfellet i sendre Nordmere, hvor Reitan ogsâ horte aksent 2, men Ellert Mo aksent 1. At denne har en noe annen form enn i resten av Trandelag og pâ 0stlandet, har rimeligvis sammenheng med kystmâlene sorover mot Bergen, hvor vi ogsâ finner et hoyt forslag i aksent 1 som ofte forveksles av 0stlendinger med deres egen aksent 2. Forfatteren gjorde en del erfaringer under sin innlœring av riksmàlet som skyldes Oppdalsmâlets eiendommelige aksent. Han uttalte i lengere tid ordparene karen og Karen med aksent 1 inntil han ble gjort oppmerksom pâ at de var forskjellige, og at sistnevnte navn skulle ha aksent 2. For en oppdaling mâ de begge ha cirkumfleks, altsâ kcCrn. Likesâ leste han ordet faen som fa'ti, med aksent 1 istedenfor den riktige aksent 2. Andre feil som oppdalinger lett begâr i riksmàlet, er at de uttaler hunden og korn med cirkumfleks, som hiin (istedenfor hunn'ri) og ko'rn, med deling pâ vokalen. Oppdalingene sier om seg selv at "oss draeg sâ pâ orda", og det er en vane som er dypt innarbeidet i mâlet. Det er bare en eneste slekt i bygda som ikke har den, de som kommer fra gârden Engelsjord, der det heter "oss lyt lei vângn" istedenfor leV. Noen rimelig grunn til dette er ikke funnet, men det kan hjelpe til â forklare at Reitan fant forholdene i Oppdal vanskelige â utrede. Alt taler da for â regne cirkumfleksen i Oppd. som et stavelsesdannende fonem: Vokalen fâr et tillegg som er (a) vokalisk, (b) kort, (c) trykksvakt og (d) uten egen aksent. Tilegget oppviser derved alle egenskaper som karakteriserer trykksvake stavelser unntagen at kvaliteten er identisk med den foregâende vokals. Den blir som Larsen skriver, "en bistavelse, en stavelse av underordnet rang", men dog en stavelse. * I privatbrev av 16. februar 1953 har lektor Kj0l gitt sin tilslutning til forfatterens oppfatning.



Aksent 1. g


ç' b



iflerstavelsesord lç




-f' η

o g




Râ f#









s' ρ







r i

Q'ij i



' 20 '



H 1




' 4'0




' 6b



' 80 '

JH-3 ' '1C to'


« eh

/ EH-1

' 12f0 '



Aksent 2






' W C

t r




W g

vy G|








Plansje 1. Tonekurver i flerstavelsesord med aksent 1 og 2. Skalaen nederst er inndelt i hundredels sekunder. Skalaen for toneheyde er overalt den samme logaritmiske, men kurvene er anbrakt slik at den gjennomsnittlige toneh0yde i hver ytring ligger pâ midtlinjen. Tonehayden er angitt ved hvert lav- og h0ydepunkt. Meddelere: JH f. 1873; EH f. 1906 (forf.); GB f. 1873 (kvinne); IK f. 1893. Aksent 1: gardsbruk, (han) kj0ft no (daer), Rolfsplassen, (die) rinn itt. Aksent 2: vokko, Storlien, (dae) rinn ut, (sa) riinn, (plassen) hinna. Kurvene viser stor likhet, men nàr lavpunktet tidligere i aksent 1 enn i 2.

















eller Tvetoppet

/ A"

f '

H f S N ^ c*






a' q f i '

st C \

r h


/ m sk r /

d'i a\ F# \ F > IK-1




¿d \l1 ' j.e \l J/T ' H ! JH-8

v a



tt M


η 1

V ^ f AS

b as' f'*



st st


Vjf g GB-3 e'




r. is

JH-10 o·

kk m

EH-5 a'



1 1

a« C JH-11 GB-4 GB-5 GB-6 ' 20 1 ' ' 40 ' ' ' 60 ' ' Ä) ' ' 'do ' ' 120 • '

Plansje 2. Tonekurver i ord med cirkumfleks. Fellestrekket for disse er fallet i ferste del av vokalen Stigningen er mindre vesentlig, da den beror pâ sammenhengen. Kurven er tydelig den samme som i flerstavelsesord og har mest til feiles med aksent 1. EH's eksempler er uttalt isolert, for â illustrere minimale par, men alle de 0vrige er hentet fra sammenhengende tale. Loddrette prikkede linjer i EH-4, JH-8 or GB-2 avmerker en trykksvekkelse i midtpartiet. Materiale: (â) ri'nn, (sâ) my', fö'r (va dse), (lyt no) sta'nd (haer), fl'r (for vokko), he'm, (flenk te) skri'v, (fse oss no) skri'v att, Mo'n, (â) le', (pâ sitt) bae'st, (na) sto'r kjo'kk ma'nn.



Apostrofen blir da, som Ellert Mo skriver, "eitslags uppatttakingsteikn for vokalen". (6, s. 5). Stillingen umiddelbart etter vokalen blir den eneste riktige og bor foretrekkes fremfor den vanlige cirkumfleks over vokalen eller Hallfrid Christiansens plasering etter ordet. Det vii da kunne anvendes av dem som 0nsker det ogsâ med stavelsesdannende konsonanter, f. eks. i ord som gut'n eller vatt'n, der den vanlige stavelsesdannende vokal er borte. Den historiske utvikling i apokoperte og kontraherte ord vil ogsâ klart kunne formuleres : den opprinnelige vokal er borte, men dens syllabiske egenskaper er overflyttet pà foregâende vokal.

LITTERATURLISTE 1. Reitan, J0rgen. Nytrandsk ordforkortning og betoning. Vid.-Selsk. Skr. II. Hist.-Filos. Kl. 1921. No. 9. Kra., 1922. 2. Larsen, Amund B. Oversigt over de trondhjemske dialekters slaegtskabsforhold. Det kgl. n. Vid.-Selsk. Skr. 1885, s. 37-117. Trondhjem, 1886. 3. Larsen, Amund B. Om de trondhjemske dialekters "apokope". Forh. i Vid.-Selsk. i Kra. Aar 1914. No. 1. Kra., 1915. 4. Reitan, Jergen. Betoningsforhold i Stadsbygdens maalfere. Maal og Minne 1910, 87-97. 5. Wiggen, Marthinus. Trandsk ord- or setningsmelodi. Utrykt hovedoppgave. 6. Mo, Ellert. Ei lita utgreiding um stavinsdeling i Rindalsmaale. Forh. i Vid.-Selsk. i Kra. Aar 1914. No. 2. Kra., 1915. 7. Storm, Johan. Norsk Lydskrift med Omrids af Fonetikken. Norvegia I. Kra., 1908. 8. Jessen, E. Notitser om dialecter i Herjedal og Jemtland. (Norsk) Historisk Tidsskrift, bd. 3. Chra., 1875. 9. Lundell, J. A. Det svenska Landsmâlsalfabetet. Svenska Landsmâlen I. 2. Sth. 1879-1881. 10. Lyttkens, L. A. & Wullf, F. A. Svenska sprâkets ljudlära, Lund, 1885. 11. Noreen, Adolf. Fryksdalsmâlets ljudlära. Upsala universitets ârsskrift 1877. Philosophi, sprâkvetenskap och historiska vetenskaper. III. Upsala, 1877. 12. Noreen, Adolf. Vârt sprâk, bd. 1-2. Lund, 1903-1907. 13. Kallstenius, G. Värmländska Bärgslagsmälets ljudlära. Svenska Landsmâlen XXI. 1 (1902). 14. Bjerrum, Anders. Über die phonematische Wertung von Mundartaufzeichnungen. Bulletin du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague bd. 5, s. 29-51. Kebenhavn 1940. 15. Mo, Ellert. Tonelagstilheve i Rindalsk. Vid.-Selsk. Forh. 1922. No. 1. Kra., 1923. 16. Kj0l, Trygve. Kvernes-mâlet. Utrykt hovedoppgave (1931). 17. Selmer, Ernst W. Tonelag og Tonefaid i Bergens Bymaal. Vidensk.-Selsk. Skr. II. Hist.-Filos. Kl. 1921. No. 8. Kra., 1921. 18. Christiansen, Hallfrid. Stavingskontraksjon og tonelag. Festskrift til Professor Olaf Broch, Oslo, 1947, s. 49-55. 19. Haugen, Einar and Martin Joos. Tone and Intonation in East Norwegian. Acta Philologica Scandinavica bd. 22, 41-64 (1952). Reprinted from Maal og minne, 1954, 66-78.

AUTHOR'S COMMENT This study of circumflex in the Oppdal dialect was an attempt to clarify the phonemic and phonetic nature of a puzzling prosodie phenomenon. I was able, with the help of spectro-



grams, to show that the tonal curve of the circumflex vowel resembled Accent 1 rather than 2. I argued that the circumflex could be regarded as a weakly stressed syllable with the same quality as the immediately preceding syllable. Further checking with informants, however, has made it clear that pairs like vâge and vogge, vone and vonde do not fall together for all speakers. It therefore appears that the circumflex can occur on short vowels also, at least in some words. The situation will require further checking, and it may turn out that the short vowels are preserved in some positions and lengthened in others, as Hallfrid Christiansen found in her study of the Vikna dialect (18).


0. Preface 1. Experience in collecting 2. Relation of archiving to further work 0. The title of my paper was chosen for me by the organizers of this conference and constitutes a playful reference to the dedication in my book the Norwegian Language in America which has just come off the press (2 v., University of Pennsylvania, 1953). I intend to interpret this title in my own way, and am going to divide the topic into two parts corresponding to the expressions 'pleasures' and 'problems' given in the title. The first part will be an account of the process of collecting and analysis which preceded my writing of the book. The second part will deal with the problems that I envisage as being still ahead, and particularly with the function that an archive could play in helping to solve some of these problems. The first part, then, will be historical, even autobiographical if you please, while the second part will be predictive and analytical. 1. The project which I embarked upon a number of years ago was to gather the necessary materials for the description of linguistic behavior in a bilingual group. The bilingual group was the one of which I happened to be a native speaker, the Norwegian immigrants in America and their children. Afterwards I planned to analyze these materials in order to discover the effects of linguistic symbiosis in such a group. I realized that an immigrant group was not the only kind of bilingual society in the world, but wished to extract from the experiences of such a group as much guidance as possible towards solving the general problem of bilingual behavior. My hope was that I would be able to analyze and present these in a way that would be of interest not only to linguists but also to historians and sociologists. Fortunately a large body of material is already available on the history of the Norwegian group in America. We know a great deal about its geographical distribution, its social and religious life, and there have even been some studies of its language, though necessarily of limited scope.



The plan of my collection is explained in detail in chapter 12 of my book. The problem of studying the speech of a bilingual community is in many ways different from that which one faces in a more homogeneous community. We cannot limit ourselves to the intensive study of one or two informants, with a reasonable assurance that these will be typical of the community as a whole. In an immigrant group neighbors may speak dialects of the same language which have been separated by a thousand years of divergent development in the homeland. Furthermore, in any bilingual community, one will find individuals living side by side, often within the same family, of extremely different degrees of bilingualism. There will be people, sometimes within the same family, who speak no English, who speak it badly, or who speak it perfectly. We need, for a complete study of such a community, informants who exhibit each of the possible stages from one language to another. And for each informant we need to find out how he stands in relation to the main linguistic current of his community — to what generation he belongs and when he had his determining linguistic experiences. In trying to gather this kind of material for the communities in question, I began by analyzing previous studies that had been made of the Norwegian language in America, as well as of other immigrant languages. In this case, 1 had the admirable studies of George T. Flom, which had been made during the early part of this century, down as late as the early 1930's. Among the important studies that Flom had made was a word list of approximately a thousand words, borrowed into American-Norwegian from English by speakers of one settlement in Wisconsin. I took this list and made a corresponding study of the dialect of American-Norwegian which I remembered from my own childhood. I put on cards as much of this borrowed vocabulary as I could remember, in a rough phonemic notation together with grammatical and semantic information. I then encouraged students of mine who came from Norwegian-speaking areas to make similar vocabularies. In particular I had one student, Odin Anderson, who not only made a complete list of his loanwords, but also as complete a list as he was able of the Norwegian element in his native speech from Wisconsin. I then took all the materials that had accumulated in this way and compared the contents of the various lists which had been gathered, and constructed a questionnaire which should explore those words or word-groups that showed significant differences. The model for this questionnaire was the New England Dialect Atlas worksheets, which were made available to me through Miles Hanley and Hans Kurath. I also included in my questionnaire some of the terms for distinguishing Norwegian dialects which had been worked out by the Norwegian linguist Johan Storm in the 1880's. Armed with this questionnaire I went out into the field. The field, in this case, was the numerous settlements made by Norwegians in the state of Wisconsin. I had myself grown up in Iowa, and was familiar with the situation there, as well as in South Dakota and some parts of Minnesota. Wisconsin was the focus of the early period of Norwegian immigration to this country. The settlements there were the ones that had been established the longest and could be expected to show the most interesting developments.



The problem of finding the right informants is always one that puzzles the inexperienced investigator. In my case, I tried various plans, and found that in an unfamiliar community, I could nearly always depend on the local pastors to give me good advice. The pastor knows his congregation, and he is generally aware of the degree of bilingual competence of the various speakers. He has heard the local people talk about their dialects, and he has some idea as to who the characteristic dialect speakers are. O f course one cannot stop one's investigation with the people whom the pastor recommends, but it is a great advantage to the investigator to be recommended by the pastor, so that his standing in the community is reasonably satisfactory. There was a certain tendency on the part of those who gave me advice on informants to send me to those whom they regarded as the most genuine speakers of dialect. This is not necessarily an advantage in studying bilingualism, because one thereby meets very often people who are purists with respect to their language, and who are actually struggling to avoid the sort of language mixture which is the most characteristic aspect of a bilingual community and in many ways the most interesting part of the study one can make of it. It was often very touching to see the interest which my informants took in the investigation. They were sometimes puzzled as to the purpose of such a study, and one can hardly blame them for that. The most useful approach was generally that of getting them to tell about earlier times, and to permit them to reminisce whenever they wished. In this way one not only established a better relationship to them and served their interest, but also secured living material in the form of stories and texts which could later be recorded and used as samples of the kind of speech that was characteristic of the community. Each of my inverviews took anywhere from 8 to 12 hours. The tempo of the interview was determined by the willingness of the informant to talk, or sometimes by the interest which his language proved to have. One problem was the fact that younger people were generally busy with their work, whether in the fields or in the home, and it was therefore much easier to get older informants, who had retired from their work and were only too happy to talk their native language with the investigator. In my interviews with Norwegian immigrants and their descendants, I always used the Norwegian language. It is my opinion that this gives the investigator a tremendous advantage. To try to carry on interviews about a language in another language inevitably leads to a loss of information and a failure of understanding which is acceptable only when the investigator does not master the language and when there are no investigators who do master the language. As soon as possible after the interview was completed, I recorded the informant in a free conversation which I stimulated by a list of questions prepared for this purpose. Whenever possible I had made a list of favorite stories of the informant which I then asked him to tell me again. An even better method would of course have been the complete recording of interviews. That was impossible at the time when I did my work, but I should strongly urge it UDOU anv investigator who goes out



in the field today. The use of tape recorders has made it possible to conduct interviews in an atmosphere where actually one would not need to write anything down in the presence of the informant. The apparatus is quickly forgotten, and it seems to me that tape recordings would now be the logical solution to our problem. The recordings 1 did make were mostly made in the home of the speaker. It was therefore often possible to get supplementary recordings of other members of the family or of people who happened to be present in the household. In addition I tried a form of recording which might be called the community or shotgun method. I set up my apparatus in a central place, in an office or a hotel, and got local people to bring in informants for me. They would talk to people on the street who happened to be in town on Saturday evening for shopping and would bring them in to talk to me. The material collected in this way has proved difficult to analyze, and I am not sure that I recommend it, but it does bring in a greater variety of dialects, and occasionally interesting speakers who tell good stories and are able to give one unrehearsed impressions of the speech of the community. I would now like to say something about the weaknesses which I discovered in my collection, — some of the problems that are faced by an investigator in the field. I found that the constant transcription of new dialects involved many pitfalls. Each time I found a new informant, he usually spoke a different dialect from the preceding one. He had a new sound system, and one which inevitably involved new sound contrasts, different from those of previous informants. There is the inevitable danger of overhearing shades of sound which turn out on later investigation to be more important than they seemed at first. I tried to correct for this weakness by going over the materials collected in the first interview and noting inconsistencies in transcription which I then brought back to the informant for further checking. This helped a great deal, but I am sure there are still many weaknesses in the transcriptions which I made. Another difficulty was that the investigation had to be conducted almost singlehandedly by myself. I had a trained assistant for one year who did extremely valuable work, Magne Oftedal, but the collection of material on an adequate scale required so long a period that inconsistencies in the work inevitably crept in during this period. The area covered was not as large as I would have liked to have seen it, if more trained investigators had been available. This is a type of work for which one needs people with a considerable training in phonetics and phonemics as well as a good background in general linguistic theory. One difficulty was also that I had not fully appreciated the scope of my investigation at the time I began the study. My aim in the beginning was to study the history of Norwegian in the United States. This involved the collection of data about Norwegian dialects as spoken in America, but it did not in the same degree involve the bilingual patterns of the same speakers. I did not at first collect material on the English of my informants. While I was in general aware of their capacities in English, I did not make a detailed study of this part of their behavior. As I came to discover



during my investigation, there were definite correlations between their English and what happened to their Norwegian, but because of the fact that I did not start with this idea, the material is often incomplete on this point. This will illustrate how an investigator may start with one problem, but as the materials to answer that problem are being accumulated, new problems are suggested which require the collection of new types of material. This is perhaps one of the most fruitful aspects of any kind of research. Another weakness was the technological inadequacy of the recording methods available at the time. I started with aluminum discs, worked my way up to acetate and the soundscriber type of recording, but only at the very end of my investigation did tape become available for some types of recording. This means that some of my older recordings will not bear too close investigation. Some of the sounds that one would like to be able to distinguish simply do not record on the low fidelity materials of the earlier recordings. One would usually like to be able to distinguish accurately between 's' and 'sh', but many of my recordings do not show this distinction. Once the material had been gathered, came the problem of archiving and indexing it. If it were to be used in research, it needed a great deal of analysis before any conclusions could be drawn. The handwritten questionnaires or worksheets had been made in duplicate in order to permit a filing of them both by informant and by the questions asked. The first step then was to go over the material and see whether the questionnaire was bringing in the kind of information that was wanted. Two revisions were made in which questions were dropped and added in order to make the questionnaire a more useful instrument of research. Analysis was then made of the phonemic and morphological systems of each informant. An index was made of all the loanwords occurring in the material, as well as a topical index of cultural data referred to by the speakers. File cards were made for every informant and speaker on the records, with full data on his occupation, his family, the degree of bilingualism shown, his life, the extent of the investigation made of his speech, the native dialect which he claimed to speak, and so on. The materials were then indexed alphabetically according to the loanwords found and the cultural data, as well as any linguistic phenomena judged to be of interest. Among these I included a rather full index of the secondary responses to language by my speakers. A number of them had something to say about the linguistic situation in which they found themselves, and I judged these responses to be of great interest, particularly for a sociological or anthropological analysis of bilingualism. The recordings have not been fully transcribed, something which I am sure may be criticized. I used many weary hours for the purpose of transcribing, only to find that this is one of the most boring parts of linguistic work. Nevertheless it is necessary that at least a considerable part of the materials so recorded should be transcribed and preferably as quickly as possible after the interview has been made. The investigator has the dialect more clearly in mind while the impression is still fresh. Later on he will find that many details cannot be recaptured by the help of the recordings alone.



The last step in the investigation, the writing of the results, I need not say anything more about. My work in this field included the collection of a bibliography of bilingualism which would enable me to identify parallels with other linguistic areas in which bilingualism had existed. In writing my book I tried to divide the topic into two aspects, the ethno-linguistic, and the more purely linguistic. The first volume deals with what I have called "The Bilingual Community", that is, the historical backgrounds, the social development of the immigrants in the new environment, the immigrants in the new environment, their learning of English, their contacts with the American community, their gradual acculturation, and their final giving up of the Norwegian language in favor of English. The second volume, The American Dialects of Norwegian, takes up the more intimate phases of linguistic development, including the influence of the dialects upon one another, and the intrusion of English into the Norwegian speech of the immigrants. This involves the detailed analysis of the phonology and morphology of the loanwords and a close study of the process of borrowing in general. Included are also some 70 pages of texts, illustrating both the linguistic and sociological analyses. So much for the problems of research which faced me in my particular investigation. 2. We are here gathered for the purpose of considering the nature and function of a world archive of languages. It is my conviction that such an archive will not be complete unless the problems of bilingualism are included. Bilingual groups of speakers exist in many parts of the world. They are important from many points of view. They are among the most significant carriers of intergroup relations wherever differing languages meet. Whether they are few or numerous, they can become the foci of linguistic as well as cultural influence. Their influence can show itself in loanwords, in morphological and phonemic borrowings, and in other more subtle ways in the rearrangement of native material within each language. I should therefore recommend that adequate attention be given to the gathering of information about the use of two or more languages in each language area. First of all would come the purely ethno-linguistic data. In each country or other linguistic area we should want to know the number of bilingual speakers, the languages which they speak, their location, and their history. We should want to know whatever could be found out about the degree and type of bilingualism involved. This would mean gathering statistics which are not always available through the official census bureaus of the various countries. It might even be possible to stimulate some countries into including questions in their censuses which would give the kind of information that an ethno-linguist would want. Among the subtler kinds of ethno-linguistic data would be that relating to the social functions of the bilinguals themselves and their relative prestige within the social group. As we all know, this has varied greatly from time to time and from country to country. We have in the United States a situation where a man who has learned a foreign language well, usually in his childhood, does not gain any great amount of



prestige for this accomplishment. The immigrant languages have in general been looked down upon by the Anglo-Saxon element, and only among his own group has he been able to find appreciation for his linguistic accomplishment. The knowledge of English has been the prestige-carrying skill, even in the immigrant groups, and of course among the earlier inhabitants of the country. The situation is quite different for those who have learned a foreign language in school. In many cases the learning of a foreign language in school, particularly Latin, French, German, or even Spanish, has carried a certain amount of prestige, even though the actual skill in its use was much less than that of the immigrant speaker. This merely exemplifies a situation which can be regarded as potentially variable for each group, and highly significant for the kind of influence which bilingual speakers exert, as well as the kind of historical development which one may expect to find in their future relationships. The competitive situation of the immigrant language and English is not necessarily identical with that found among bilinguals in older and long-established areas, such as India. The collection of materials for an archive would naturally begin with the collection of texts. The high degree of fidelity of present-day recording makes it feasible to send investigators without complete linguistic training into the field for the purpose of gathering texts. It would be important to choose informants from various age groups and various bilingual types. As I indicated earlier, the fact that a community is bilingual generally means that it is not homogeneous. Some people have learned a second language in childhood, others in adulthood, and the degree of skill varies in proportion to the ability of the individuals and their degree of practice. If one were to carry on a more thorough investigation of the field, it would of course be necessary to make questionnaires along the general lines that I have indicated above. These questionnaires should not merely attempt to elicit linguistic forms, but should place an emphasis on cultural information. One can gain the confidence of a bilingual by getting him to talk about the things he is interested in much more easily than by asking him searching questions about his language. The situation of the bilingual is often a sensitive one, especially if one of his languages is unpopular. The immigrant will sometimes feel ashamed of his language — particularly, if he is approached by an investigator who does not speak it. He will in some cases even attempt to conceal his knowledge of the other language, for instance in a situation where a dominant group is repressing or supplanting a less popular native tongue. But he may be persuaded to speak about his expreriences with speakers of either language, perhaps even talk about their attitudes to these languages and his own learning of them — as a part of his own biography. He will sometimes, if he is encouraged to do so, be willing to talk about his attempts to keep the languages apart, or particularly his amusement at the failure of other speakers to do so. The collection of materials should also include the transcription of texts from the recordings, transcriptions which are not necessarily linguistically adequate, but which indicate to the trained investigator what was said and in general the meaning of what was said. Here it may be possible, and even important, to play the recordings back



to the informants, and get them in a second recording to analyze what they have said wherever the investigator may be in doubt as to the meaning of the original language. Naturally the trained investigator will want to go on and make detailed analysis of individual speakers in order to study the precise relationship between their two linguistic structures. This is a matter of individual informant work in which one uses all the techniques of variation and repetition that linguists have gradually developed. This is something for which one cannot give general rules, but for which the training of the individual is of the highest importance. This is not necessarily a part of the archive, but whenever such investigations are made they should go into the archive as a part of its materials. The archive will then be faced with the problem of indexing and analyzing these materials from the point of view of bilinguistics, as one might perhaps call this branch of linguistic science. The first requirement would be to identify borrowings in each of the two languages investigated. By borrowings one means, of course, those portions of the structure which are different in the speech of bilinguals and monolinguals. If one may speak of a given language as having such and such dialects or idiolects, one would want to describe the speech of bilinguals as constituting bilingual dialects or idiolects. The true monolingual would in this case be one who had never been subjected to the influence of bilingual speakers. Such a speaker might not be available in a given culture because of the previous influence of the bilingual speakers. Nevertheless it seems probable that differences can be detected in every language between monolingual and bilingual speakers of that language, especially where the bilingual speakers have acquired a second language of higher prestige than their own and show tendencies to draw upon its resources to supplement those of their own. After the borrowings had been identified, one would wish to know their numerical proportion in relation to the lexicon as a whole, and to the running texts in which they appear. They should be classified by spheres of social activity which will in general reflect the spheres of social contact between the two groups. They should also be classified by linguistic criteria, which in this case will generally refer to the borrowing process itself. Borrowing, as I have developed in articles and the above-mentioned book, can be classified into two broad types, importation and substitution. The speakers who adopt elements from other languages will either import them as they are, or they will substitute some element from their own language to take their place. In the case of many linguistic elements, the two processes will be combined, and we can speak of hybrids or loanblends in which both processes take place at once. Importation and substitution can further be classified into phonemic and morphemic importation or borrowing. These classifications are broad enough to take care of all instances of linguistic influence, and it is to be hoped that future investigations will not make use of the somewhat loose terminology that has been in vogue so far, but will attempt to create on this basis a terminology which has greater potentialities for general statements. Finally, the analysis should include a discussion of the relation between the results



of borrowing and the state of the linguistic structure of each of the languages involved. It is easy enough to identify some kinds of loans by the kind of structural irregularity which they cause, and on the other hand, it is not true that all structural irregularities are the result of borrowing. This is a moot problem, and one which it will be the task of further research to clarify. In conclusion, then, I have great hopes for the future of bilingual study, particularly if the directors of the linguistic archive here proposed make sure that whenever the monolinguals of an area are investigated, the bilinguals and their problems are not overlooked. Reprinted from International

Journal of American Linguistics,

20, 116-122 (1954).

AUTHOR'S COMMENT This paper was given at a Conference on Language Archiving organized by C. F. Voegelin at Indiana University in Bloomington, July 13-14, 1953. One consequence of my participation in the conference was the later transfer to tapes of all my recordings of AmericanNorwegian by the World Language Archives established in Bloomington by Voegelin. One set of tapes is preserved at Bloomington, while the other is in my possession; but the original recordings, on various types of material, had to be destroyed. My plea for further bilingual recording has been heeded (e.g. by the Archives for Dialect and Folklore Research at Uppsala University), though far less than I would have hoped.


The problems of descriptive technique have been much discussed in recent years, but few have considered the problems involved when we try to describe more than one language or dialect at a time. We need to extend the concept of description to include the issues which arise when two or more languages are used by the same speakers. We need to study the methods that are appropriate for making systematic comparisons of languages and dialects without regard to their genetic relationships. For such comparisons I shall here use the term BILINGUAL DESCRIPTION. The study of linguistic borrowing is a part of historical linguistics; but at the moment of borrowing we have a linguistic state which can be studied for its own sake, namely the co-existence of different linguistic structures in the same speakers. The interferences which result in borrowing are evidence of inter-linguistic identifications made by these speakers. The goal of bilingual description should be to predict (and in some cases prevent) these interferences by describing the identifications that may be expected. A bilingual description is thus more than two monolingual descriptions laid side by side, for it attempts to equate units of the one language with units of the other. In so doing it can be strictly synchronic in its procedure and should be applicable to any two languages or dialects. Foreign-language grammars and bilingual dictionaries are more or less explicitly based on bilingual description and should profit from an exploration of its principles. The historical results of bilingualism which turn up in every language as loanwords and loanshifts present us with material for testing our hypotheses. But we need not wait for history; we can test them ourselves by trying to teach the languages to monolingual speakers. We may begin by disposing of a theoretical difficulty which is raised by the current conception of the phoneme as a unit limited to a given linguistic structure. If the units of a structure are derived exclusively by the comparison of utterances in a given dialect or idiolect, how can we compare it to the units of structures derived from the comparison of entirely different utterances? Before the rise of structural linguistics the problem was less complicated. The phonology of a language was assumed to consist of sounds; the sounds of one language were interpreted in terms of the sounds of another, and that was that. Linguists were only a shade more sophisticated than



the native speakers and were themselves subject to some of the same interference effects. Today most phonological descriptions are organized around the phoneme concept, and it will seem natural for most linguists to compare the phonemes of one language directly with those of the other. But, as Weinreich points out in his recent book Languages in Contact, the phonemes of one language are by definition incommensurable with those of all others. He solves the problem by accepting a dichotomy of form and substance, assigning the phonemic structure to the former, and the interlingual identifications to the latter. "The actual sounds produced by the bilingual," he writes, "lie, as it were, in the structural no man's land between two phonemic systems." 1 In another passage he writes that it is their "physical resemblance" which "tempts the bilingual to identify the two phonemes astride the limits of the languages."2 Whether or not we accept this formulation, it points up the importance of allophonic and distributional data in the making of a bilingual description. If the identifications are due to purely physical resemblance, our description must take full account of the physical nature of the phonemes. This is no calamity, particularly if it be true, as Harris writes in his Methods of Structural Linguistics that "the ultimate elements of the phonology of a language, upon which all linguists analyzing that language could be expected to agree, [are] the distinct (contrasting) segments (positional variants, or allophones) rather than the phonemes." 3 The problem may be illustrated by referring to an article exploring the bilingual description of English versus Spanish, Chinese, and Portuguese by David W. Reed (assisted by Robert Lado and Yao Shen).4 The phonemes of these languages are here presented in parallel phonetic charts, followed by a discussion of the special difficulties of Spanish, Chinese, and Portuguese speakers in learning English. I am struck by the lack of predictive correlation between the charts and the difficulties. Some are of course obvious, but there are puzzling cases. English and Chinese are both said to have the phonemes /l/ and /r/, yet Chinese speakers are said to confuse the English sounds, so that pull and poor may sound alike. A similar description of German and English would have to state that both have the phonemes /s/ and /z/; yet we all know that the confusion of these is a common weakness in the German pronunciation of English. The key to the problem is of course the need for a complete statement of phonetic qualities and distributions. It is not enough to know that Chinese has an 1-phoneme; we also need to know where it occurs, and whether it is likely to be physically identified with English /I/ or /r/. These are the realities which the learner has to face, and it leads one to question whether a phonemic transcription is likely to be the most useful kind of transcription in a foreign-language text. This very question is raised by Yao Shen in a recent article, and she concludes that departures from phone1 Languages in Contact (New York, 1953), 14. « Ibid. p. 7. * Methods in Structural Linguistics (Chicago, 1951), 72 fn. 28. 4 "The Importance of the Native Language in Foreign Language Learning", Language Learning 1.17-23 (1948); cf. also Yao Shen, "Initial /r/ in American English and Mandarin Chinese and How to Teach it", Ibid., 2.47-55 (1949).



mie transcription are urgently called for when it is likely to lead to the learner's confusion.8 Once we have gathered our basic phonetic and distributional data for each of our languages, we are prepared to make comparisons of allophones position by position. But we will of course not wish to leave our data in the relatively complex form of an allophonic comparison. We wish to set up unit formulas of the greatest possible generality. If, as often happens, all the allophones of one phoneme in one language may be expected to be identified with the allophones of a single phoneme in the other language, they show a pragmatic equivalence which deserves a name. I shall here call this a DiAPHONic relationship and describe the two phonemes involved as DIAPHONES of one another. The term "diaphone" was used some years ago by Daniel Jones to refer to the sameness of phonemes in different dialects and can well be extended to refer to different languages as well. Such a diaphonie relationship exists, e.g. between English /b/ and Norwegian /b/, and can be expressed in a formula of the following type: E /b>b/ N . This means that English /b/ is interpreted by Norwegian speakers as the counterpart of their own /b/; the arrow has no historical significance, but means 'is identified with' and points everywhere from the secondary language to the primary one. It can be reversed when one is referring to the interpretation of Norwegian /b/ by English speakers : N/b > b/E. Such a one-to-one reversible relationship is not the only, or perhaps even the most common one. Very often two or more phonemes in one language are identified with one in another, e.g. E/aj, ej > aei/N. Such a diaphone we may distinguish by calling the former a SIMPLE diaphone, the latter a COMPOUND one. Since the two English phonemes here converge to one Norwegian phoneme, we may call this a CONVERGENT diaphone, in contrast to a DIVERGENT one like the formula E/u > u, o/N. Whenever the allophones of a phoneme become members of different phonemes in the new language, we may set up a COMPLEX diaphone of the following type : i/t)vl > θ ; ]jvd > ö/E, which merely says that Icelandic [J>] and [δ] are one phoneme, but that they will be interpreted as two by English speakers of Icelandic. On occasion we may even get a complex diaphone with compound members, e.g. E/á > 0, o, â, a; 3 > e, a/N. The commas in general mean free variation, the semicolons allophonic variation. Compound and complex diaphones may also be reversible, but are not necessarily so. While this is not the place to discuss it, a similar terminology could be worked out for morphemes, using the term DIAMORPH for morphemes which are identified across linguistic borders. We may now raise the second of the main questions in bilingual description : how likely are different investigators to arrive at the same diaphones? Much will here depend on their choice of phonemic principles for monolingual description. In order to illustrate the problem involved I shall present a small, but detailed example of bilingual description drawn from materials that I have myself collected. We shall try to describe the diaphones of quantitity in the vowel nuclei of English and Norwegian, as these might be predicted by linguistic analysis, and check this with what 1

"Departures from Phonemic Representations", Language Learning 4.83-91 (1952-1953).



has actually been found in the speech of immigrants. Much of the material has been published in my recent work, The Norwegian Language in America, but will here be taken up for renewed interpretation.® Since Norwegian is the primary language in this comparison, I shall describe the situation in that language first. The Norwegian speakers here described approached the learning of English with a vowel system in which there are 9 simple vowels /a e i o u y χ 0 á/ which can occur either long or short and 3 native diphthongs /aei 0y 0u/ which occur only long. Length is traditionally regarded as a phoneme which may be written as a colon /:/ after the simple vowels. It occurs only in connection with stress, however, and is then in complementary distribution with consonant length, so that there are two kinds of stressed syllables, which may be written /V:(C)/ as in /barken/ 'the behind' and /VC:/ as in /bak:en/ 'the hill'. This means that all non-Norwegian vowel nuclei must be reproduced with a long or a short vowel, and in the latter case the consonant must be extended. Now as we have seen, there is a clear structural parallelism between long vowels and diphthongs, so that one could also consider the long vowels as geminated. This would eliminate the phoneme of length, since the long consonants can also be described as geminated, and the more readily so as they are usually written double in the standard orthography. This would add 9 vowel clusters to the previously existing 3, and would require one to say that foreign vowel nuclei must be interpreted as either simple or complex, with a complementary interpretation of following consonants. Once we have taken this step, however, we can go still further and recognize the possibility of regarding the long nuclei as consisting of vowel plus consonant, or semivowel. In this case we would have to distinguish between the high phonemes and the rest. The four high vowels /i y u o/ fall into two groups, those with (a very slight) final tongue-tip glide and those with final labialization, so that they could be written respectively /ij yj/ and /uw ow/. The mid and low vowels have, if anything, a low or centering offglide, and would therefore in this interpretation be written /eh 0h àh œh ah/. The diphthongs would be written /aej 0j 0W/. There are arguments against adopting this interpretation for Norwegian, one being the absence of prevocalic /w/, another the complication of the consonant clusters, a third the loss of parallelism between length in vowels and consonants. But I do not wish to argue the merits of one phonemic analysis over another. I merely wish to show how each of these interpretations changes the picture of the bilingual description. It will be no secret to those present that English vowel nuclei can also be described in various ways.7 In fact, it was the wide disagreement in recent phonemic descriptions that led me to prefer the traditional IPA symbolization in my book. None of • Philadelphia, 1953, pp. 419-432. ' Leonard Bloomfield, Language (New York, 1933), 91; Bloch and Trager, Outline of Linguistic Analysis (Baltimore, Md., 1942); Haugen and Twaddell, "Facts and Phonemics", Language 18.228237 (1942); Martin Joos, Studies in Linguistics 2.44 (1943); Morris Swadesh, "On the Analysis of English Syllables", Language 23.137-150 (1947); Kenneth L. Pike, "On the Phonemic Status of English Diphthongs", Language 23.151-159 (1947); Trager and Smith, An Outline of English Structure (Norman, Okla. 1951).



the new descriptions seemed to fit my dialect precisely, and the Kenyon version of the IPA at least provided me with symbols which clearly distinguished all the nuclei from each other. For my dialect, which may be described as a variety of general midwestern, it provided 11 vowels [ i E U A a e a o i e o u ] and 3 diphthongs [ai au ai], all listed in the first column of the accompanying chart.8 Two major alternatives to this transcription have been provided by other investigators. One is that offered by Swadesh, essentially one in which the first four listed above are regarded as simple, while the rest are regarded as complex and written as clusters of two vowels each. Since my dialect is basically similar to Swadesh's, this would be a satisfactory method of writing my dialect also. But then the 14 nuclei listed above would consist of only 4 vowels /i e u s/ and we would have 10 diphthongs /aeae aa oo ii ei ou uu ai au oi/.9 Another, and more generally accepted reinterpretation of the vowel nuclei of English, is that initiated by Bloomfield and developed by Bloch, Trager, and Smith. In some of its early forms this was quite unacceptable as a representation of the dialect here described, but now that it has ceased to be a phonemic analysis of one dialect and has turned into a transcriptional arsenal on which any speaker of English can draw, it is at least one acceptable mode of presenting the data of the dialect. In this system there would also be four short nuclei, written /i e u β/. But the long nuclei would here consist of vowel plus consonant, the consonants in each case being one of the semivowels /h j w/.10 The accompanying chart shows the relationship between this transcription and the others. The peculiarity of the semivowel /h/ is the fact that its phonemic status is in doubt. It can be said to occur with the short nuclei, but only before /r/, in words like beer, care, poor, turn. On the other hand, the vowels / χ a o/ do not occur without it. There is no distinction of length between bomb and balm, can and can, pot and bought. In this transcription the long vowels [i e o u] are split into vowel plus glide /ij ej ow uw/, and are therefore classed with the obvious diphthongs /aj aw oj/. Even from this sketchy outline of the vowel nuclei of the two languages we could probably make some shrewd guesses concerning the bilingual treatment of quantity by Norwegian speakers. The English nuclei fall into four classes, which are separated by bars in the accompanying chart: (1) those that all agree in describing as short, or unitary, viz. /i e u s/; (2) those that have allophonic length, viz. /œ a o/, plus the four preceding ones before /r/; (3) those that are held to be units by some, geminated vowels or vowel plus semivowel by others, viz. /ij ej uw ow/ ; (4) those that all agree in describing as diphthongal, viz. /aj aw oj/. Since the vowels of class 1 are short and occur only before consonants, we might expect them to be identified by Norwegians with their own short vowels, of which the same is true. This is correct, but in such cases the Norwegian structure requires an extension of the following consonant .picnic,bet, * I was born and brought up in Sioux City, Iowa, educated in Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois; I taught in Wisconsin from 1931 to 1964. ' The symbols ae and o have here been substituted for Swadesh's ε and o, and ei ou for ee and oo. 10 The use of /j/ rather than /y/ is due to considerations affecting the symbolization of Norwegian.



bull, husk > /pikknik, betta, bull, hasska/. We might further expect that the elements which some have described as length in the American vowels would be identified with length in Norwegian, since the latter can also be regarded as an extension of the short nuclei and occurs before juncture. Since Norwegian rarely has length before consonant clusters, we might expect that the lengthening element would disappear in this position. This, too, corresponds to the observed facts of interference, except for one point, as we shall see. The vowels of class 2 are identified as long in words like add, bother, lawn > /ae:da, ba:der, lâ:n/, and before /r/, as in bar, chores > /ba:r, çâ:s/. Before clusters which remain clusters in Norwegian they are identified as short, in words like candy, box, cord > /kenndi, bakks, kàrrd/. But they are also frequently identified with short vowels before single consonants, e.g. in words like black, map, cob > /blekk, mapp, kabb/. While this occurs chiefly before voiceless consonants, the word cob shows that it is not a universal rule. If we turn to the vowels of class 3, we find a similar situation, but here the vowels are nearly always identified as long before single consonants. The examples in the chart become /bi:ta, ke:k, râ:d, lu:sa/, while before clusters we get examples of shortening in words like beans, rails, toast, tools > /binns, relis, tosst, tulls/. Sporadic examples of shortening also occur before single consonants, as in reap, plate, grocery, stoop > /rippa, plett, grâsseri, stupp/. Only one of these is ever identified as a diphthong, viz. /ei/ in words like frame, jail > /fraeim, jseil/. Class 4 nuclei, however, are always identified as diphthongs, so that the examples in the chart are reproduced either as Norwegian diphthongs in ripe, flour, joist > /raip, flour, jeyst/ or by newly created diphthongs imitated from the English ones as in fried cake, county, spoil > /fraidke:k, kaonti, spâila/. On this, as on some of the other identifications listed above, there is considerable variation. Any attempt to symbolize the diaphonie relations here outlined will involve us in the controversies concerning the best transcription of each language. Each system distinguishes between simple and complex nuclei, which may be designated as respectively V and W (or for the B-S-T transcription as VS). The IPA system, with its 11 simple and 3 complex nuclei will give us the following formulas: (1) E /V(#) > V:, W ; V(CC) > V; V(C) > V, V:, VV/N. (2) E/VV > W / N . If Norwegian long vowels are transcribed VV, we can simplify the formulas as follows: (1) E / V ( # ) > W ; V(CC) > V; V(C) > V, W / N . (2) E/VV > VV/N. If Norwegian long vowels are transcribed VS, this would mean only the substitution of VS for VV in each case. If we adopt the newer interpretations of English, we move the complexity of the first formula into the second: (1) E /V > V/N. (2) E /VV(#) > VV; W ( C C ) > V; W ( C ) > V, VV/N. If we use the VS interpretation for either or both languages, the W would simply be exchanged for VS in each case. There is of course no need of pairing transcriptions; there is much that speaks for a vowel-semivowel transcription in English as against a vowel-vowel transcription in Norwegian. In no case do the formulas do justice to the full complexity of the situation, and each transcription has its advantages. The IPA transcription does not bring out the similarity of behavior




Stressed Vowel Nuclei English (General Midwestern)

Norwegian (East Norwegian)

Vowel-consonant (B-T-S) IPA I ε υ Λ



i With r : e With r : u With r:



i[h] e[h] u[h]


With r:





a[h] o[h]




i is e es u us s ss

i» e 1: e as: u, 0 u: à, 0 , 0 , a


u, 0 uu â, 0 , 0 , a

i, e 1J e aeh u, 0 uw â, 0 , 0 , a




aeae ( ε ε )




asse aa




i e 0





ou (00) uu ai






ii ei (ee)

ij ej


Sample L-Word (Eng.)


au 01


e XX


add bother lawn


ah âh

i: ii ij e:, s i , ae: ee, aei, xx eh, £ej, aeh ei 0: âo u:


picnic beer bet care bull poor husk turn

beat cake

ei ââ, 0 0

ej âh, ow


âo uu

âw uw

lose ripe











ao 0y âi


aw 0J âj





(1) Transcribed as Vowel-vowel ai


i(i) e(i) ae[as]

s a[a]

au u(u) o(u)


i(i) y(y) e(e)





u(u) 0(0) â(â) a(a)

(2) Transcribed as Vowel-consonant aj





9 a[h]

aw u(w) o(w) o[h]


iÜ) y(j) e(h)


0J 0(h)


u(w) o(w) â(h) a(h)

Note on symbols: [ ] enclose allophonic length; ( ) enclose phonemic length; Norwegian symbols below the bar refer to the clusters imported from English.



between classes 2 and 3, and the other do not bring out the difference between the classes 3 and 4. I shall not be surprised if some of you have found this variety of transcriptional possibilities confusing. I have neither the time nor the inclination here to argue the merits of any one system, or to explore the question of whether diaphonie relations should be permitted to affect our choice of transcription. I will only say that a bilingual textbook would be well advised to base its transcription on diaphonie considerations rather than purely phonemic ones. My purpose has merely been to show how differences in phonemic transcription can affect our statement of diaphonie relations. In spite of this great divergence, we must not forget that there is little disagreement on the basic phonetic and distributional facts. In the final analysis, the differences in phonemic statement are relatively superficial and will probably be ironed out as more research is devoted to this problem. The main ideas I wanted to leave with you today are (1) that a synchronic approach is possible in the study of bilingual phenomena; (2) that the identifications made between different phonemic systems by bilingual speakers can be predicted by a careful bilingual description; (3) that these can be tested by experimentation and observation, and can then be stated as diaphonie formulas in which the phonemes of the respective languages constitute the terms. Reprinted from Monograph No. 7, Report of the Fifth Annual Round Table Meeting, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., 1954, 9-19.

AUTHOR'S COMMENT The term 'bilingual description' was intended to extend the concept of description from one to two systems, what has more recently been called a 'confrontation' of two linguistic descriptions. The term was not widely accepted, perhaps because the adjective suggested a description written in two languages; but it was adopted by some, who recognized that it was parallel to the term 'bilingual dictionaries', in which the léxica of two languages are confronted. Weinreich's "differential description" and the most widely used term, Trager's "contrastive linguistics", suffered from their emphasis on differences. The term 'diaphone' was adopted faute de mieux from Daniel Jones; some years later A. A. Hill proposed "diaphoneme", but the point of my term was precisely that this was not a comparison of phonemes, which I found nugatory, but of phones, one step closer to phonetic reality. Several recent studies have returned to the emphasis on phonetic identification (see my discussion in Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 10, to appear), now that the grip of structural phonemics has been relaxed. My enduring skepticism concerning its value was reflected in this article with its agnostic attitude toward a variety of phonemic interpretations of the same data. The diaphone was not a useful structural unit, but was in fact a generative rule; this is shown by the fact that it required an arrow and was not reversible. It reflected a process rather than a state: when a speaker of language A hears phone X B he 'rewrites' it as phone YA (i.e. B /X > Υ/Λ).


Det gleder meg at professor Selmer i Maal og minne 1954 (s. 67) har tatt opp til diskusjon de synspunkter som ble framstillet i en artikkel av Martin Joos og undertegnede om estnorske tonelag i Acta Philologica Scandinavica (bd. 22,1952, s. 41-64). Han har vesentlig rett i fordelingen av arbeidet mellom Joos og meg; vi har for 0vrig selv presisert forholdet i fotnote 3, side 42. Da jeg er ansvarlig for teksten i artikkelen, faller det pâ meg à f0re diskusjonen videre. Mitt hâp er at det mâ bli mulig â komme fram til metoder som naermere svarer til lingvistikkens krav i dag enn dem som hittil har vaert anvendt. Det er en selvfelge at alle som arbeider med disse problemer stâr i gjeld til professor Selmer for hans mange bidrag til emnet. Seg tror jeg kan si at jeg har lest og ford0yet dem alle sammen, selv de som ikke ble nevnt i artikkelen. Allerede for âr tilbake, da jeg ferst ga meg i kast med hans studier, feite jeg meget sterkt den manglende kontakt mellom hans konklusjoner og den umiddelbare sprâklige iakttagelse. Jeg skrev marginer fülle med notater og smâ protester, men matte den gang la emnet bero fordi jeg var opptatt av andre problemer. Siden den tid er det gjort store framskritt bâde fra eksperimentalfonetikkens og lingvistikkens side, som jeg nà tror gjer det mulig â se hele emnet fra nye synsvinkler. Min artikkel var ment som et ferste forsek i retning av en revisjon, ikke bare av oppfatningen av norsk tonelag, men av metoder i tonelagsanalysen. Dette kom ikke altfor sterkt fram, da jeg ikke ensket à polemisere, men Selmers protest har tjent til â sette saken pâ spissen slik at vi kanskje kan ta opp emnet pâ en noe bredere basis enn det ellers ville vaert mulig. Det er f. eks. karakteristisk at Selmer oppfatter den setningsfonetiske synsvinkel som det egentlig nye i min artikkel, mens han fraber seg â ta opp den fonematiskstrukturalistiske side av saken, som etter min oppfatning nettopp er det nye i den. De to er ellers sä η eye sammenknyttet at det er umulig â skille dem at. At jeg fâr kompliment som en mindre "abstrakt-abstrus" tilhenger av Strukturalismen, har vel sin egentlige grunn i at jeg ikke anerkjenner noen motsetning mellom strukturalisme og fonetikk. Det er fonetikkens oppgave â gi fysisk fysikalske bestemmelser av spràkets strukturpunkter, men de sistnevnte mâ vœre sâdanne som ethvert innfedt ere kan bestemme uten vanskelighet.



La oss sâ ta fatt pâ punkter der Selmer imotegâr mitt syn pâ tonelagene. Han begynner med en analyse av en lengere tekst i Bergens Bymâl, der han anvender min inndeling i ytringer (eller fraser, som han kaller dem) og takter, for â bekrefte den strukturbeskrivelse han hadde gitt i 1921 av tonelagene i ¡solerte ord. Som kjent fant han der seks faser i begge tonelag, og av disse var fallet og stigningen de viktigste i aksent 1, forslag og fall de viktigste i aksent 2. Eller uttrykt pâ en litt annen mâte : aksent 1 er fallende-stigende, 2 er stigende-fallende. Han finner nâ den samme struktur i sammenhengende tekst og mener vistnok derved â ha motbevist min analyse. Min artikkel handlet riktignok ikke om Bergensmâlet, men jeg hentydet til det i en sammenligning mellom ostnorsken og andre norske tonelagstyper. Jeg besternte der bergensk som en struktur der fallet i aksent 1 er konsentrert i trykkstavelsen, mens det i aksent 2 sprer seg ut over neste stavelse. Jeg antydet (uten â ha anledning til â fiare beviset for det) at de musikalske kurvene (fasestrukturen) var vesentlig ens i de to tonelag (aksenter), og at fallets plasering i forhold til trykket var av st0rre prinsipiell betydning enn fasenes vinkler til hverandre eller deres absolutte musikalske verdier. Det pussige er nemlig at jeg for en god stund siden hadde foretatt neyaktig den samme analyse med teksten i Bergens Bymâl som den Selmer nâ har framlagt. I mitt eksemplar av boken hadde jeg delt teksten opp i ytringer, takter og kjerner pâ en mate som bortsett fra uvesentlige detaljer stemmer neyaktig med hans. Jeg har heller ikke pâ noe vis tatt avstand fra hans màlinger qua mâlinger, men har tvertimot benyttet dem alle sammen i min forskning. Da jeg ikke hittil har fàtt tid til â etterpreve Selmers mâlinger ved selvstendige spektrografanalyser, har jeg bygget hele min teori om Bergens bymâl pâ hans mâlinger. Jeg har ingen tvil om at videre mâlinger i det vesentlige vil bekrefte dem. Det er derfor spilt maye â overbevise meg om riktigheten av den fasestruktur som Selmer har beskrevet i BBm. : den er mitt utgangspunkt for videre analyse. Den prinsipielt viktigste forskjell pâ Selmers og min analyse blir den at jeg 0nsker â sette tonelagene i forbindelse med trykkstavelsen, eller reitere med dens kjerne, mens han stört sett 0nsker â klare seg uten á ta hensyn til trykkets fordeling i ytringen. Jeg er klar over at han har vaert inné pâ denne tanke i Den musikalske aksent i Stavangermâlet (1927), f. eks. s. 9, 13, 15, men den er ikke der gjennomfort som et grunnleggende trekk i beskrivelsen. Og han mener nâ som fer at stavelsen er en temmelig tvetydig ting: "stavelsesgrensen er et omtvistet og ennâ delvis ul0st problem" (s. 183). Han krever "helt pâlitelige eksperimentelle mâlinger av den dynamiske aksent" som l0sningen pâ disse problemer (s. 187). Nâ er nettopp det nedslàende ved de nyere spektrografiske metoder at de ikke gir noe entydig materiale til mâling av trykket (bortsett fra den helt enkle mâling av lydstyrken). Den dynamiske aksent er et innviklet problem som slet ikke er lest ved en bestemmelse av lydstyrken.1 Derimot har lingvistikken for lenge siden funnet at stavelsen er et meget nyttig 1

Min medarbeider, professor Joos, ber meg tilfaye at laboratoriemâlinger neppe vil kunne brukes til â bestemme trykkfonemet far alle andre variabler er identifisert og kontroÜert, f. eks. vokalens identitet, tonelaget, toneheyden, og plaseringen i forhold til avslutningskonturen.



redskap i sprâkbeskrivelsen. Selv om vi ikke vet neyaktig hvordan den skal karakteriseres rent fonetisk, sâ kan ingen vsere i tvil om dens betydning i enhver beskrivelse av norsk. Jeg trodde far som Selmer ennâ gjer det, at uten eksperimentelle metoder til â mâle trykket kunne vi ikke komme lenger, men jeg er nà overbevist om at dette er feil. Pâ rent lingvistisk grunnlag kan det bestemmes at en relevant motsetning bestâr mellom f. eks. po'sitiv og positi'v, rake og rakke, og at trykk og kvantitet er knyttet til stavelseskjernen pâ en mâte som er sasregen for norsk (og svensk). Tonelagene derimot pleier â kalles "ordtoner" og blir ofte behandlet som om de ikke hadde noen spesiell forbindelse med trykkstavelsen, til tross for at det er velkjent at alle tonelag har sitt utgangspunkt i trykkstavelsen, og at tonelagsmotsetningen oppheves nâr trykket svekkes. Derfor pravde jeg ut fra et rent lingvistisk resonnement â komme fram til en analyse av tonelagskurvene, deri innbefattet Selmers bergensstrukturer. Jeg provde â pâvise at de best kunne passes inn i en beskrivelse som tok hensyn til deres plasering i forhold til stavelseskjernen. Ved â studere bâde hans og mine kurver, foruten det vesentlige av det som var trykt i de andre nordiske land av lignende materiale, kom jeg til at det er galt â beskrive tonelagene som stigende-fallende, fallende-stigende o. 1. Det viste seg nemlig at i visse tilfelle fikk vi ved en slik beskrivelse kontrasterende aksenter med tilsynelatende samme struktur, slik at det ble nedvendig â se seg om etter andre kriterier for â forklare motsetningen. I Bergensaksenten f. eks. har begge tonelag samme musikalske struktur nâr en tar alle fasene i betraktning, nemlig stigende-fallende-stigende. Selmer gjor her gjeldende at de forskjellige faser ikke har samme relevans og antyder at jeg ikke har tatt tilberlig hensyn til dette (s. 183). Men hans temmelig subjektive vurdering av denne relevans bygger mest pâ fasenes fravaer eller tilstedevaerelse, og det var nettopp mitt anske â bygge relevansen pâ et sikrere fundament enn det som dette rent statistiske faktum gir. Et vesentlig st0t til denne tankegang fikk jeg ved lesningen for en del âr siden av en utrykt hovedoppgave skrevet av lektor Trygve Kjel, der en nordnuarsk dialekt (Kvernesmâlet) ble analysert etter Selmers metoder. Det slo meg da at fasestrukturen etter at den var behandlet matematisk, var sâ lik i de to tonelag at en nesten mâtte tro de ikke ble adskilt, noe som aldeles ikke stemte med mitt kjennskap til naerliggende tranderdialekter. Forfatteren skrev da ogsâ at der er "ein pâfallande parallellitet i melodigangen i dei ymse fasene". Videre "har begge tonelag eit merkjeleg jamt bâreaktig 'forlep' med jamhage toppar" slik at det ofte kan bli vanskelig â skille mellom tonelagene. Mâlingene viser da ogsâ stigning-fall-stigning-fall i begge, og forskjellene i intervall er relativi ubetydelige. Men det som framgâr av kurvene, og som ikke nevnes i avhandlingen, er at i aksent 1 ligger lavpunktet i trykkstavelsen, i a k s e n t 2 f 0 r s t i neste stavelse. Trykkstavelsen i aksent 1 ser oftest slik ut: i aksent 2 slik: r \ . Fallet er viktig i begge, men i aksent 1 konsentreres det pâ trykkstavelsen, i aksent 2 spres det utover til neste stavelse. Dette kan ikke vaere rent tilfeldig, men det kommer ikke klart fram ved den matematiske beregning av fasenes intervaller og fallhastigheter som var grunnlaget for Selmers metode i Die methodische Verwertung



der Tonhöhenkurven (1930). Denne mâtte derfor forkastes, i all fall som endelig l0sning pâ problemet. Det var tydelig at det konstante i selve tonelagsmotsetningen var konsentrert omkring trykkstavelsen. Resten av melodiforlopet horte til pà et annet plan, noe som ellers framgikk av at begge tonelag kunne folges av samme avslutningskontur, og at ett og samme tonelag kunne ha fiere forskjellige konturer. Det forste skritt var derfor à dele den sàkalte ordtonen i to deler som jeg i artikkelen kalte kjerne og kontur, men som jeg her for â unngâ misfortstàelse skal kalle nukleus og margin (en kunne gjerne si hode og haie). Jeg mà ogsâ foye til at jeg nâ regner med to slags margin, den forutgâende (opptakten) og den folgende. Delingen mellom taktene blir da noe annerledes enn jeg tenkte meg da jeg skrev artikkelen, met det er et annet problem, og vi er her interessert bare i den margin som folger nukleus. Delingen av "ordtonen" i nukleus og margin kan foretas ved à legge ellers sammenlignbare kurver ved siden av hverandre. I Oslomâlet har f. eks. bâde aksent 1 og 2 stigende melodi i avslutningen under ellers like forhold. Altsâ kan stigningen ikke vasre en del av aksentmotsetningen. Dessuten forekommer bâde 1 og 2 uten stigning, eller med sterkt varierende stigning, noe som altsâ mâ ha sammenheng med den sàkalte "setningsaksent". Uttrykket er ellers misvisende, da avslutningstonen aldeles ikke er begrenset til den syntaktiskmorfologiske setning. Et enkelt ord i sàkalt "leksikalsk uttale", som de fleste av Selmers eksempler, har full setningsaksent. En viss uklarhet hersker om betydningen av "leksikalsk", men det er hverken mer eller mindre enn at ordet blir uttalt som en uavhengig ytring, f. eks. som svar pâ et sporsmál. Setningsaksenten er vesentlig merkbar i ytringens siste takt, og da spesielt i formen pâ denne margin. I ostnorsk vil denne ha stigende form hvis den talende venter svar eller fortsettelse, eller er saerlig animert, men som Alnœs har pâvist, kan den ogsâ holde seg lav. Den tonenukleus som vi pâ denne mâte kommer fram til, er ikke identisk med stavelseskjernen, men stâr i et besternt forhold til denne. For â kunne diskutere problemet mâ vi forst kikke litt pâ hva vi mener med stavelseskjernen og hvordan vi vil begrense den. Vi kan ikke her ta opp problemet med stavelsens grenser, men bare konstatere at ord som strak og straks bestâr av én stavelse. I likhet med tonelagene har disse en struktur som bestâr av margin og nukleus, d. v. s. vi kan skjaere vekk visse deler av dem uten â redusere dem til mindre enn en stavelse. Hvis vi tar vekk str- i begge, blir det enda igjen stavelser : ak og aks. Men vi har ogsâ en folgende margin som kan elimineres, og vi fâr da to forskjellige nuklei, a og ak(k). Disse kan ikke reduseres videre, noe som vi uttrykker ved â si at kort vokal ikke kan stâ alene i trykkstavelse. Sagt pâ en annen mâte, margin forutsetter nukleus, men ikke omvendt. I norsk er det altsâ to slags stavelseskjerner som er funkjsonelt likeverdige: lang vokal, og kort vokal med konsonant. Hvis en anser lang vokal som sammensatt av to körte, kan vi si at alle kjerner bestâr av to fonemer, enten vokal-vokal eller vokal-konsonant. Men det er klart at alt det sprâklig relevante, alt det som gjor det mulig for enhver nordmann â höre om et ord har aksent 1 eller 2, mâ forekomme innen stavelseskjer-



nens grenser, ellers ville ikke forskjellen kunne h0res i minimale stavelser som a og akk.2 En neye gjennomgâelse av Selmers materiale viste ogsâ at dette er tilfellet, isaer nâr en ser bort fra den vanlige definisjon av tonelagene og bestemmer disse, ikke som langt utstrakte kurver, men som visse heyde- og lavpunkter plasert i relasjon til stavelseskjernen. I artikkelen oppsummerte jeg disse iakttagelser ved â tegne inn stavelseskjernen pâ Selmers skjematiske fasestrukturer for de forskjellige dialekter. Jeg dristet meg endog til â stille de forskjellige skjemaene over hverandre for â vise motsetningen — og likheten mellom dialektene. For Oslomâlet og Sunnm0rsmâlet matte jeg selv läge selmerske skjemaer pâ grunnlag av hans materiale, noe som jeg dessverre ved en ren huskefeil unnlot â gj0re oppmerksom pâ i artikkelen. Han har nâ supplert det manglende ved â sette opp egne skjemaer for alle dialektene i sin nye artikkel og har samtidig kritisert mine hjemmelagede forsek. Noen vesentlig forskjell mellom hans og mine kan jeg ikke oppdage, bortsett fra at hans ikke er sammenlignbare slik de stàr, fordi de ikke er satt i forhold til noen som heist sprâklig relevant enhet, men stâr losrevet det ene ved siden av det andre. Hvis det f. eks. ikke er sterre forskjell pà aksent 1 og 2 i Sunnm0rsmâlet enn den som framgâr av hans oppstilling, da kan det ikke vsere tale om at sunnmeringer skjelner mellom dem. Men la oss ta aksent 1 i Oslomâlet som eksempel pâ mine konstruksjoner. I hans tegning er dette en rett strek som stiger fra L til H, mens jeg har tegnet et lite fall ned til L i begynnelsen og et annet ned fra H i slutten. Hvis en gjennomgâr Selmers Oslomateriale (gjengitt i BBm. s. 94), viser det seg at det ferste fall forekommer i over halvparten av opptakene (4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14,15, 16, 18,19, 21, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32). At det ikke fins i fiere, skyldes at fem opptak overhodet mangier stigning og holder seg pâ L (2, 12, 20, 22, 27). Avslutningsfallet forekommer bare i 6 opptak (4, 8, 15, 18, 19, 31), men er altsâ allikevel ikke helt oppspinn fra min side. Ingen av delene forekommer saerlig ofte innenfor stavelseskjernen, og de er ikke relevante for aksenten. Men det er heller ikke stigningen, som alt nevnt: det eneste som virkelig er relevant, er lavpunktet (L), som alene forekommer i alle opptak, bàde enstavelsesord og flerstavelsesord, og alltid i naer tilknytning til kjernen. Derfor er det riktig â si at aksent 1 i affektfri estnorsk karakteriseres, ikke av stigning, men av lavtone. Dette er ikke nytt, men det er ikke tidligere blitt bekreftet ved denne slags resonnement, og det blir ofte oversett. Stigningen er selvsagt naer knyttet til lavtonen, men er ikke en del av den og mâ prinsipielt skjelnes fra den. Selmers andre innvending, at jeg har anbragt stavelsesgrensen pâ en vilkârlig eller uriktig mâte i skjemaene, er ikke altfor graverende, som han selv gjer oppmerksom pâ. Det forekommer jo ganske Sterke variasjoner i opptakene, og i et slikt generalisert skjema mâ anbringeisen av en grense bli temmelig "approximate", som jeg skrev i artikkelen. Men det har allikevel en viss interesse, og vi skal derfor se litt pâ hans 1 At forskjellen kan heres alt i ferste stavelse av flerstavelsesord, er lett â kontrollere ved â uttale f. eks. akset og akse, eller settet og sette. Et spektografisk opptak av sistnevnte par viste tydelig lavpunkt i det ferste og hey-fallende tone i det siste ord.



kritikk av Bergensmâlets aksent 2. Jeg tegnet der inn en grense litt etter H1, slik at fallet begynner allerede i trykkstavelsen. Nâ pâstâr Selmer at dette bare stemmer for 9 av hans 19 opptak, mens de 10 andre viser et fall som f0rst begynner i den f0lgende stavelse, altsâ etter trykkstavelsens kjerne. Ved en neye kontroll av hans 10 eksempler kan ikke jeg skjenne annet enn at fiere av dem mâ tolkes annerledes enn han mener. I D6 faller toneheyden fra a til f, to hele toner, i slutten av trykkstavelsen (a i gape). I N57 (holdning) og N58 (selskap) begynner fallet i konsonanten /, som avgjort herer til kjernen. I fire av opptakene (D2, 4, 8, 12) begynner fallet i en lang η der det er umulig fra kurvene â bestemme hvor skillet mellom stavelsene ligger. Men hvis en kan si at det ligger midt i konsonanten, sà begynner fallet f0r skillet i alle fire. Ellers spiller det liten rolle for problemet, idet definisjonen av Bergensmâlets aksent 2 bare forlanger at trykk-kjernen skal vise vesentlig stigning, med en kulminasjon som kan komme sent i kjernen eller ved slutten. Forskjellen mellom hans og min oppfatning kommer tydelig fram i den definisjon han gir i sin nye artikkel av Bergensmâlets aksent 1 : "I aksent 1-skjemaet fàr vi for den stigende fase Low-High1 gjennomsnittlig 3,27 ht., for den fallende fase HighLow2 11,27 ht., og for den stigende fase Low 2 -High 2 1,6 ht." Her er det for det forste tvilsomt om hans bruk av gjennomsnittsberegninger er matematisk forsvarlig. Det lave gjennomsnittet for ferste fase framkommer nemlig ved à addere sammen ord som helt mangier fasen og andre som har den. Av 15 opptak er det 7 som mangier den stigende fase. Jeg kan ikke forstá annet enn at disse er inkommensurable med dem som har den, og hvis vi bare regner med disse siste, blir gjennomsnittet ca. 6 ht., eller litt over halvparten av den folgende og kraftigste fase, fallfasen. Da den oftest kommer fer stavelseskjernen, kan vi rolig se bort fra stigningen, som neppe er annet enn stemmens bevegelse fra hvileposisjon i toneheydens midtleie opp til kulminasjonen, heydepunktet (H) som virkelig teller. Likesâ med siste stigende fase, som bare forekommer i 6 av de 15 opptak og aldri foran pause. Gjennomsnittet her er ikke 1,6 ht., men 4 ht. Sammenlagt blir de to stigningene omirent like med fallet, sâ det er klart at de er uvilkârlige tonebevegelser fra midtleie og tilbake til midtleie, uten relevans for aksentmotsetningen. De er en del av aksentens tilknytning til foregáende og feigende takter, men det blir noe helt annet. Alt som blir igjen av Bergensmâlets aksent 1, er et H tidlig i kjernen med etterfelgende fall til et L som enten kan ligge i kjernen eller i en feigende stavelse. Hvis vi nâ forfeiger emnet inn i aksent 2, finner vi Selmers oppfatning av forskjellen mellom aksentene uttrykt slik: "Den kombinatoriske aksent 1 karakteriseres altsâ ved en mindre stigning (3,27 ht.), fulgt av et meget kraftig fall (11,27 ht.), hvorimot kombinatorisk aks. 2 oppviser en sterk stigning (7,47 ht.) og et noe kraftigere fall (10,33 ht.) — altsâ to forholdsvis jevnbyrdige faser" (187). Â sammenligne fall og stigninger uten â presisere hvor de faller fra og stiger til eller nâr dette skjer, er lite opplysende. Begge aksenter beveger seg nemlig innenfor samme tonebelte, for denne forseksperson har et register pâ ca. en oktav. H ligger altsâ omkring g-a, L omkring G-A, men toneheyden er individuell og stemmer ikke nedvendigvis for Bergensmâlet



som et hele. Det karakteristiske for dialekten er nemlig at begge aksenter har H, den ferste tidlig, den annen sent i stavelseskjernen, fulgt av et L som i aksent 2 nedvendigvis kommer i en senere stavelse. Bergensmàlet har altsâ heytone i stavelseskjernen, men lavtonen er ogsá en del av aksentnukleus, i motsetning f. eks. til Stavangermâlet, hvor lavtonen visstnok er en del av margin. Hvis vi holder oss til stavelseskjernen for â karakterisere motsetningen mellom aksentene, blir aksent 1 typisk fallende (HL), 2 typisk stigende (MH), idet vi bruker M til â karakterisere midtleiet. Min sammenligning av de forskjellige norske tonelag var bare ment som en antydning til en samlet oppfatning, med et lite sideblikk ut til andre nordiske sprâk. Det er meningen â arbeide videre med denne side av saken, og jeg har selvsagt ikke tenkt â neglisjere det dialektgeografiske moment, som antydet av Selmer. Det ligger klart i dagen at tonelagene som andre sprâklige enheter er underkastet utvikling og geografisk spredning. En behever bare â sammenligne estnorsk med vestsvensk for â skjenne dette : jeg horte nylig pà en svenske fra Borâs som virket likefrem norsk i sin tonegang. Derimot er det uklart for meg hva Selmer sikter til nàr han mener à finne 0stnorske strukturer i Meyers mâlinger av Upplandsmâlene. Selvsagt er det visse overensstemmlerser, men det er ogsâ meget markerte motsetninger, f. eks. i heytonen som karakteriserer aksent 1. At jeg i min artikkel ikke tok hensyn til Aurslands spekulasjoner omkring emnet, skyldtes at behandlingen her ikke var ment â vaere uttemmende. Jeg kan ellers til tross for mange kloke enkeltiakttagelser i Aurslands artikkel ikke slutte meg til hans oppfatning av norsk og nordisk aksentutvikling. Men jeg er klar over at siste ord ikke er sagt i denne sak, og jeg forbeholder meg retten til â revidere min oppfatning under videre forskning. I artikkelen gikk jeg ikke lenger enn til â stille opp en forelepig hypotese om muligheten av â finne en feiles formel for de norske tonelagstyper. Bâde i Oslomâlet og Bergensmàlet kunne aksent 1 karakteriseres ved hjelp av et enkelt Strukturpunkt, for Oslo L, for Bergen H. Aksent 2 mâtte derimot ha minst to strukturpunkter, for Oslo HL, for Bergen MH, og i begge tilfelle là annet punkt i stavelsen som fulgte trykkkjernen. For Stavangermâlet kan en kanskje karakterisere aksent 1 som H, 2 som HH, idet annen heytone er en kortere gjentagelse av den ferste. Forholdene pâ Sunnmere lignet dem i Bergen. Denne iakttagelse stemmer med navnene "enkelt" og "dobbelt" tonelag og ellers ogsâ med andre kjente fakta om tonelagene, f. eks. at trykk og tone er samlet pâ en stavelse i aksent 1, men ikke i aksent 2. Enkelte mener at aksent 2 nettopp er oppstátt ved trykkets framflytting fra siste stavelse, men uten at denne helt gir opp sin selvstendighet. Jeg sâ ogsâ en tilknytning til Svend Smiths studier av dansk aksent, og mente at forskjellen til syvende og sist for nordisk kunne karakteriseres som dynamisk. Det là ikke i dette noen undervurdering av aksentens musikalske natur, som Selmer synes â mene, men tvertimot et forsek pâ â stille det musikalske i sitt riktige forhold til det dynamiske. Det er et slâende faktum at selv estlendinger med sin lavtone oppfatter utenlandsk heytone som identisk med aksent 1 ; dette kan neppe skje pâ et musikalsk grunnlag. Men det blir forstâelig hvis vi kan definere aksent 1 som en konsentrert aksentkjerne der dynamisk og musikalsk aksent



dekker hverandre, aksent 2 som en diffus aksentkjerne der dynamisk og musikalsk aksent er delvis adskilt. Nâr det gjelder à karakterisere den musikalske form som aksentene tar i hverenkelt dialekt, kan det bli et sporsmâl om en ikke kan klare seg med tre strukturpunkter i de aller fleste dialekter, L M H. Nyere amerikansk forskning i disse problemer har vist at de er tilstrekkelige til â kunne entydig karakterisere engelsk tonegang i affektfri tale. Jeg henviser her til studier som Kenneth Pikes The Intonation of American English (Ann Arbor, 1947) og George L. Trager and Henry Lee Smith, Jr., An Outline of English Structure (Norman, Oklahoma, 1951). Prinsipielt er denne metode ikke ulik den som ble innfort i svensk dialektforskning av Adolf Noreen, f. eks. i Die neuschwedische Akzentuirung (1901), der han bruker uttrykkene acutus (H), médius (M) og gravis (L). Men det viktige nye er at enhetene mâ etableres som fonemer ved hjelp av spràkets minimale kontraster fer en kan avgjere om det lanner seg â mâle dem. Jeg hâper at ikke bare denne artikkel, men ogsâ den Studie av Oppdalsmàlets cirkumfleks som Selmer pussig nok etterlyser i samme bind av Maal og minne der den faktisk forekommer, vil oppfattes som et bidrag i den retning. Reprinted from Maal og minne, 1955, 70-80.

AUTHOR'S COMMENT This is a reply to Professor Ernst W. Selmer's comments (1954) on my 1952 article "Tone and intonation in East Norwegian" (this volume pp. 209-223). It develops further my objections to his purely phonetic treatment of the tones, and tries to show in detail why the successive 'phases' into which he divided the contours are linguistically irrelevant. The overall contours that he measured clearly combined two quite distinct linguistic components: a distinctive word tone with its locus in the stressed syllable and the following unstressed one, and a sentence intonation which varied independently according to the speaker's intent. A mathematically sophisticated analysis of the distinction has been presented recently by S. E. G. Öhman ("Word and sentence intonation: A quantitative model", Quarterly Progress and Status Report [Speech Transmission Laboratory. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm], 2-3/1967, 15-20. For further discussion of tonal problems see my articles "Pitch accent and tonemic juncture in Scandinavian" (this volume pp. 446-451) and "On the rules of Norwegian tonality" (this volume pp. 531-549).


If one can judge from recent accounts of the wartime program of language teaching, a dogma is growing up concerning its sources which hardly does justice to the facts. The latest to repeat it is Edmond A. Méras, who writes as follows: "As early as 1925, members of the Linguistic Society of America, in their research on the languages of the American Indians, devised learning techniques which were to play a leading part in revitalizing language teaching after 1939."1 This probably stems from the account in Angiolillo of the derivation of the Intensive Language Program, where its ideas are traced back to the teachings of Boas, Sapir, and Bloomfield.2 The same three scholars are cited in a chapter on The Application of Linguistics to Language Teaching by Mary Haas. 8 Boas and Sapir are credited with developing the informant method and the phonemic principle, while Bloomfield is said to have worked out "most of the basic principles" of the actual teaching methods as early as 1914. Perhaps the most sweeping statement is one by Mark E. Hutchinson to the effect that "this new theory of learning languages was worked out by a group of linguists who were interested in studying and recording American Indian languages."4 Insofar as these statements emphasize the importance of the role played in the Intensive Language Program by American Indianists and their great teachers, there can be no argument. But there are certain implications of these accounts which are manifestly misleading. These are: (1) that the new methods stem from research on Indian languages; (2) that they were original with the scholars mentioned; and (3) that they were unknown and/or disregarded by other linguists and language teachers. Against this I shall maintain that the teaching methods devised had little or no connection with research on Indian languages, that they stemmed almost in their entirety from the European reform movement of language teaching in the 1880's and 1890's, and that they were known and shared by many non-Indianist linguists and teachers both prior to and after 1941, some of whom had a large share in the wartime program. 1

A Language Teacher's Guide 44 (New York, 1954). * Paul F. Angiolillo, Armed Forces' Foreign Language Teaching 17 (New York, 1947). ' Anthropology Today, ed. A. Kroeber, 807-818 (Chicago, 1953). 4 School and Society 60, 33-36 (July 15, 1944).



But first we must sum up the main points of the new method. I think it will be agreed that these included the following items: (1) Oral mastery as the primary objective of language learning; (2) expansion of the time devoted to learning; (3) emphasis on constant drill, mimicry, and memorization; (4) the postponement of grammatical analysis until after memorization; (5) team instruction, also known as the informant method; (6) the preparation of linguistically analyzed materials in a phonemic transcription.6 It does not appear from the quotations presented by Angiolillo and Haas that Boas or Sapir ever published any ideas on language teaching. Since they, like most of their Indianist pupils, were employed in departments of Anthropology or Linguistics, this is not surprising. Their influence can therefore only have been in the general linguistic training they gave their students, involving among other things the use of informants and the development of phonemic theory. But by 1941, these were surely commonplaces among linguists who had seen also the work done on the New England Dialect Atlas and the lively discussion of phonemics in the 1930's, here and in Europe. In the form envisaged in Bloomfield's Outline Guide to the Practical Study of Languages the use of an informant was hardly an adjunct to classroom learning, but rather a training for the budding linguist. Team instruction has proved its value in certain situations of intensive teaching, but it is also the feature of the program least likely to be adopted in general language teaching. As for the other ideas of the 'new' method, they can be traced back rather directly to the writings of Leonard Bloomfield. This is conceded by Haas, who presents a number of valuable quotations from his early writings. But the point that is not made either in her article or elsewhere is that every one of the ideas on teaching presented in his Introduction to the Study of Language from 1914 builds on the references he gives to European writers, and particularly Otto Jespersen. This was also before Bloomfield had entered upon the study of Indian languages, and immediately followed a year of European study.® This does not in any way diminish the importance of Bloomfield's work; on the contrary, it shows that as a good scholar he founded his work on the best authorities available in his time. He freely acknowledged his indebtedness by writing: "It is only in the last twenty-five years and in the European countries that success in modern-language teaching has ever been attained" (p. 293). It would be easy to cite many parallels from Jespersen's well-known How to Teach a Foreign Language. Jespersen himself attributed the origin of his method to "men who, for other reasons, may claim a place among the most eminent linguistic scholars of the last decades (Sweet, Storm, Sievers, Sayce, Lundell, and others)," and he described it as "the sum of all the best linguistical and pedagogical ideas of our times."7 5

Cf. Angiolillo 26 if., Haas 812; M. Graves and J. M. Cowan, "Report of the First Year's Operation of the Intensive Language Program of the A.C.L.S." (1942). F. Agard and H. Dunkel, An Investigation of Second-language Teaching, 280-282 (Boston, 1948). • Bernard Bloch, Leonard Bloomfield. Language 25, 87-98. ' How to Teach a Foreign Language, 9th reprinting, 1947, 3; orig. pub. in 1904.



The terms by means of which he describes the 'new' method could easily be applied to the method of the ILP as well: natural, rational, direct, phonetic, imitative, analytical, concrete, conversational, etc In England Henry Sweet presented closely related ideas in a book that is also cited by Bloomfield.8 Sweet wrote that "all study of language, whether theoretical or practical, ought to be based on the spoken language" (50); that "every sentence must be practised till it runs glibly off the tongue without effort or hesitation" (118); that "we must gain a clear idea of the structure of the language at a given period as an organic whole without regard to the antiquity of its morphological characteristics or their older forms" (86) ; that "the practical way of learning genders is to start, not with the abstract grammatical statement, but with the actual associations themselves" (104); that "no text should be published for beginners without full phonetic information in the way of quantity-marks, stressmarks, and so on ..." (107). Viëtor in his famous Der Sprachunterricht muss umkehren! of 1882 advocated emphasis on "die Sprache" as against "die Schrift", an inductively treated grammar, and phonetically written texts.9 One could go on indefinitely quoting from the European reformers of the 1880's and 1890's, but I believe there have been enough quotations to make my point: that the leading ideas of the ILP were not new, and that they were also familiar to other linguists and to numerous language teachers in this country. If their ideas had not been widely applied in regular language teaching, this was not the teachers' fault. It was due to the attitude of the American public, which did not really want languages taught effectively, and therefore did not provide the time and the money needed. No real prestige was attached to speaking foreign languages (any immigrant could do that!), so the learning of languages was regarded either as an intellectual exercise or as a merely social accomplishment. In 1903, the German teacher Leopold Bahlsen, another of Bloomfield's authorities, wrote: "I know that university professors in America, the land of rapid progress, often regard the speaking of foreign languages as a goal not attainable by the school, or as of little consequence. And others fear perhaps that with so practical an end in view the formal educational worth of language study will be lost." 10 But when the changing international situation and the wartime crisis brought a new interest in language learning, there were many others beside the Indianists who were interested in contributing to the new program, and equipped to teach by the new method, which by this time was really old. One need only look at the roster of those who were associated with the program, either as participants or as authors, to see that they were trained in many different linguistic fields, above all English and Germanic. The significance of the intensive language program was therefore not that a new method was developed, but that

' The Practical Study of Languages (New York, 1900); cited by Bloomfield in Language (1933) and in his Outline Guide (1942). • Leipzig, 1882. 10 The Teaching of Modern Language, 26 (Boston, 1903).



scientific linguists were given their first chance to apply principles of language learning that had been accepted by all competent scholars in the field for half a century or more. Reprinted from The Modern Language Journal, 39, 243-245 (1955).

AUTHOR'S COMMENT Much has been written about the program, and the end is not yet. There is still the perennial tug-of-war between linguists and littérateurs in the language departments, and linguistics has shown more and more tendency to separate off from the language departments. This is a pity, for it tends to turn linguistics into a branch of mathematics and philosophy, and leaves language departments free to neglect the problems of their basic teaching program.


There is one form of linguistic description which is comparative without being historical, and which is only now beginning to emerge as a discipline of its own. It has been practiced by linguists for a long time, sometimes as a part of their comparative historical reconstructions, sometimes in the analysis of loanwords, and most often in the construction of textbooks for language learning. This is what I shall here call BILINGUAL DESCRIPTION, or the systematic comparison of languages without regard to their genetic relationships. It should be obvious that such a description assumes that adequate descriptions have first been made of the languages which are being compared. It may be objected that we have not yet progressed far enough towards an agreement on descriptive principles, nor have these been applied to enough languages for an adequate result. While this is true, it should not prevent us from exploring the nature of the problems which face us in this field. Rough and ready methods are in use for this purpose, and it can be shown that any advances we may make in bilingual description will rebound to the benefit of monolingual description. Where alternative analyses are possible in the latter, as they still are in far too many cases, bilingual description may provide us with the key to a preference for one or the other analysis. We shall begin by showing some of the fields where bilingual analyses have been made, and then propose some approaches towards a method of bilingual description. The study of borrowing everywhere predicates a bilingual description. Borrowing is an historical problem which faces the analyst of every language, and it has been a prominent part of all historical studies. The loanword is a fait accompli which demands an explanation once it has been identified as such. Historical records rarely tell us when or why a word was borrowed, and we are compelled to make certain assumptions. First and chief of these is the assumption that in most cases the first user of the word was a bilingual speaker. History may or may not tell us the period at which such bilingualism was most probable, but it is always anterior to the loan and may have disappeared after the loan was well-established. The linguist must reconstruct a hypothetic form for a word in the model language and the process it went through in being adapted to the receiving language. But only in the most



exceptional cases is he adequately informed concerning the essential data of his basic comparison, which involve linguistic, psychological, and social circumstances prevailing at the time of borrowing. In spite of the disadvantages inherent in the situation, linguists have been able to classify the results of borrowing and characterize the main features of the bilingual process. They have shown that the influence of one language upon another may result either in the addition of items to the repertory of the second language or to changes in the distribution of items already in the language. They have shown that bilingual speakers in the past must have drawn upon the resources of one language when speaking the other, and that in so doing they have more or less unconsciously made a rough linguistic comparison between the two languages. Their discovery of vocabulary deficiencies in one have led to the importation of words and expressions into it from the other language, or in the creation of new terms from native material. Their mistakes in handling the one have arisen from their familiarity with the other, not haphazardly, but in response to certain fairly regular patterns. Rules for sound substitution have been worked out for the loanwords which show that some speakers have succeeded in reproducing sounds foreign to the native sound system better than others. Whole populations have learned new languages and have reproduced in their new speech some of the distortions induced by their previous linguistic habits. But bilingualism is not a thing of the past. Bilinguals are all about us, learning their second languages at various times in their lives, and using them under various identifiable social conditions. The process of trial and error which is observable with these individuals in their learning and use of their two or more languages must be the source of those distortions of the respective languages which historical linguists have discovered as elements in those languages. But here we can determine the exact sound and sense of the forms being imitated and reproduced in each of the languages involved. We can observe the speakers over a period of time, determine the nature of their social and psychological status, and secure their introspective responses to their own progress. We can locate them statistically within a larger social environment, and thereby determine more precisely the validity of those hypotheses that have been set up to account for borrowing. In guiding them to a more adequate facility, if the situation is one where formal teaching is called for, we can prepare better materials for their learning if we have made a bilingual description. This point has been emphasized by linguists engaged in language teaching, most emphatically by Charles C. Fries, e.g. in his Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1945), page 9: "The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner." This stimulus to a bilingual approach to language learning has been followed by Fries's pupils, e.g. in their little journal called Language Learning where a number of articles have presented parallel descriptions of two or more languages as a guide to teachers of those languages. In an article by David W. Reed (in collaboration with Robert Lado and Yao Shen)



it is explicitly stated that "a given language cannot be successfully taught in an identical way to pupils of different language backgrounds. ... Every different native language causes a different combination of problems in learning a given secondary language." 1 The scope of bilingual description is best realized when we state that it may be applied to any two languages throughout the world. It is as applicable to the difference between Hopi and English as that between German and Dutch, or even between British and American English. It involves the best way of stating the differences and likenesses between any and all languages or dialects. If we arrive at the conclusion that Hopi and English have utterly different conceptions of time because they have different ways of expressing tense relationships, we must have been guided in the first instance by a bilingual description. Much of the validity of our conclusion will be affected by the soundness of that description. If we make a bilingual dictionary, everything in it from its key of pronunciation to its manner of definition will be subject to the requirements of a good bilingual description, of which a dictionary can be one of the most important examples. Any two languages may turn out to be in contact in someone's brain, no matter how remote they may be from one another in space and cultural development. Even within the limits of a single language, bilingual description may play a part, since there is no way of setting the limits of a language. The criterion of mutual intelligibility is inadequate, since there are numerous varieties of English which are mutually unintelligible, while e.g. Norwegian and Swedish are easily intelligible in spite of being different languages. We may go so far as to say that current linguistic descriptions require the theory of bilingual description if they are to go beyond the description of single idiolects to that of whole dialects or languages. Their units are established in terms of the contrasts within a single linguistic structure. But how can these be compared with the units of a similar but not entirely identical structure? There must be a tertium quid, and this should be provided by a theory of bilingual description. While suggestions for the questions to be investigated thus have accumulated in linguistic literature concerning borrowing and linguistic mixture, concerning language teaching, and general linguistics, the bilinguals also constitute an interesting problem in themselves. As linguists we are not primarily concerned with the pedagogical, psychological, political, social, or legal problems arising from bilingual situations, but we cannot shirk the obligation of acting as helpers and advisers to those who wish to investigate these problems. The bilingual description is central to the bilingual event, which is influenced by and is also an influence on the societies involved. We seek bilinguals as informants, and as scientists we try both to predict their behavior and to check on our predictions by empirical study. The bilingual description begins by comparing two structures, two organized codes, but it ends by comparing two sets of speech events, which are somehow related to those codes. 1

Language Learning 1.17 (1948).



In making such comparisons we are attempting to reconstruct the principles on which the speakers have made their identifications. These principles involve the problems of acoustic perception. It is well known that our brains do not perceive the outer world in the same terms as it is registered by machines. We select and organize in terms of a pre-existent pattern. Those impressions which fit with our pattern are reinforced and reach our brains relatively unchanged, but the rest are either overlooked or reinterpreted. We operate something like a radio receiving set which is tuned to certain frequencies and not to others. We catch only the frequencies to which we are tuned and distort or ignore the rest. But fortunately we are unlike the radio set in being teachable. If the signals are sufficiently frequent and urgent, we can learn new ones, and add these to our repertory. But no one, not even the most acute phonetician, can accurately perceive and register every possible sound. He may have a larger repertory than the ordinary monolingual, but somewhere he too will approach a limit of accurate perception. The first requirement of a good bilingual description is that we have good descriptions of the two languages involved and that these be made on the same principles. Two views can here be contrasted. The traditional method was to apply the framework of some preconceived set of categories, usually approaching that of Latin, to each new language, and placing it within this frame. This may still be said to be the method of phonetic study of most languages. The sounds are classified according to their objectively determined characteristics, in terms of a phonetics involving time and the three dimensions of the natural world. The result was a minute description of phonetic finesses far beyond anything the speaker could perceive. Today another view is prominent and in some circles is even the gospel. This is the view that each language is a unique structure which can only be described in terms of the contrasts exhibited within its body of utterances. This internal, or structural, view of language is the one that underlies the concept of the phoneme. We may oversimplify the difference by saying that the old-fashioned 'sound' was an objective phenomenon which one measured and counted, while the modern phoneme is a unit derived from the system of a given language. Similar considerations will of course apply to grammar. Oldfashioned linguists had no doubt that terms like 'word', 'tense', 'plural' and the like could be applied to every language with substantially the same meaning. Today these terms are redefined for every language being studied, if indeed they are not abandoned in favor of more neutral and elastic words like 'morpheme' and 'taxeme.' It is too early to say whether the phonetic or the phonemic method of description offers the best basis for a bilingual description. A mere list of phonemes for each language is certainly inadequate unless accompanied by a full description of allophones and their distributions. The theoretical question is: do speakers identify phonemes, allophones, or phonetic components and are their criteria of identification structural or phonetic? We are faced with the pragmatic fact that speakers do identify linguistic units across language borders, and it is our task to work out the best methods of describing and explaining these identifications. I shall here propose a set of terms for



this kind of description and give some examples of each from my own observations of interference with English among Norwegian speakers in this country. English /b/ is a phoneme that causes no difficulty for Norwegian speakers, who have a /b/ that is physically very similar to that of English and is used in approximately the same positions. One would be tempted to say the sounds are identical and that they are the same phoneme, except that they belong to two different systems and we have no way of stating identity in such a case. Instead I shall suggest that we adapt a term proposed some years ago for a somewhat similar situation by Daniel Jones and say that they are diaphones of one another. This will be expressed by a formula which we may call diaphonie: E / b > b / N , to be read, "English /b/ is identified with Norwegian /b/ by speakers of the latter language." The arrow points from the secondary to the primary language and implies no historical equivalence, except that when loans are made, these will also serve as formulas of sound substitutions. This first formula involves a one-to-one relationship of phonemes, and we may call it a simple diaphone. A more complex relationship is illustrated by the English sounds /z, i, Θ, Ö/. For these Norwegian speakers usually substitute /s, §, t, d/ from their own language. Typical errors in pronunciation are therefore /hiss/ 'his', /visan/ 'vision', /nort/ 'north', /adar/ 'other'. English /s, s, t, d/ are also identified with these Norwegian sounds. The /s/ is just barely distinguishable in the two languages, while the /t d/ in Norwegian are distincly more dental than in English. It is therefore structurally more correct to say that English /z/ and /s/ are jointly identified with Norwegian /s/, / i / and /§/ with Norwegian /§/, /Θ/ and /t/ with Norwegian /t/, /Ö/ and /d/ with Norwegian /d/, or diagrammatically : E








t/ /


E δ


> l

N χ

d ·//

> d

If we turn these diagrams into diaphonie formulas, these will have the following shape : E /z, S > s/ N , E /z, S > s/ N , Ε /θ, t > t/ N , E /ö, d > d/ N . We shall contrast these with the first kind by calling them COMPOUND diaphones. Finally, it happens that the allophones of one phoneme are differently reproduced, e.g. E /l/ > normally — Ν /l/, but after non-dental consonants it often > /I/ in dialects having this phoneme. This may be turned into a diaphonie formula which we shall call 'complex', since it consists of more than one successive part: E/1 > 1; ( C ^ l >1,1/ N . On the semantic side similar identifications can take place. If two morphomes have phonemic shape or semantic function in common, they will often be identified by bilingual speakers. An example of an identification which often leads to interference among such speakers is the partial identity of English stick v. and Norwegian stikke v. These have in common a diaphonically equivalent phonemic shape and a considerable area of semantic similarity. Both have in common the meaning of 'thrust, poke'.



But the Norwegian word has in addition the meaning 'visit, drop in' ; I have heard an American speaker of Norwegian background say "I'll stick in here." On the other hand the English word has in addition the meaning of 'cling, be persistent', and I have heard a Norwegian speaker resident in America say in his Norwegian: "En mà stikke til det" (one has to stick to it.) Such semantic and morphological overlapping has been described as producing a 'compound sign' ; in pursuance of my suggestion for the phonemic identification, I shall refer to this as a DIAMORPH. Symbolically we may express it this way: E{stick v. > stikke v.}N. Two extreme possibilities are conceivable in the bilingual situation : one in which all the sounds of one language become diaphones of the other, and one in which all the morphemes of one language become diamorphs of the other. The first actually occurs in the speaking of certain dead languages, e.g. Latin, which is usually pronounced with English phonemes. I am not only referring to the British tradition of pronouncing Latin as if it were English, but also to the American philological pronunciation; even if we say /kaysar/ instead of /sijzar/, all our phonemes are English. The same is all too often true of the pronunciation of our pupils in foreign languages; they may learn to pronounce the sequences of the language, but the phonemes they use are English. The diamorphic coalescence of two languages can hardly become equally complete without leading to confusion. Yet situations are attested in which it is approached. The writer Szerba asserts that bilingual Sorbians have identical meanings for each of their German and Sorbian words.8 My own observations of Norwegian immigrants in the United States led to the conclusion that their "Norwegian approaches to their English because both are required to function within the same environment and the same minds." 3 Their adoption of English words took place partly in order to express distinctions appropriate to the new culture; and their Norwegian words often changed their meanings accordingly. In the rise of pidgin languages diamorphic relationships are often established between morphemes having similar grammatical functions in the two languages, e.g. Chinaside in Chinese pidgin, where the English -side is diamorphic with the Chinese -fang. In the process of learning a foreign language it is inevitable that diaphonie and diamorphic relationships are established, but their tendency to cause interference leads us to condemn them as anything but a temporary teaching device. The young child who learns a foreign language usually also learns to keep the systems separate, and is often unable to translate from one to the other. The adult learner is so deeply in the grip of his native tongue that his second language often remains only a diaphonie and diamorphic appendage to the former. Among diaphones and diamorphs, the more dangerous ones are the compound ones, in which there is not a one-to-one relationship. Successful learning consists in a gradual reduction of compound dia2

"Sur la notion de mélange des langues", Jafeticeskij sbornik 4.1-19 (1926). Cf. U. Weinreich, Languages in Contact, New York, N.Y., 1953, 9. 3 Norwegian Language in America: A study in bilingual behavior (Philadelphia, Pa., 1953), 73.



phones and diamorphs to simple ones, and then the gradual elimination of these so that the two codes may coexist as independent approaches to the realities of sound and meaning. Reprinted from General Linguistics, 1, 1-9 (1955).

AUTHOR'S COMMENT As I note elsewhere, the dia-unit as I conceived it was a process rather than an arrangement, and therefore what now is called a 'rule'. The use of the arrow showed that it was unidirectional, a form of 'derivation'. The important part of this introductory paper was its conception of language learning as the reduction and elimination of dia-units, i.e. altering the signs of the two languages from compound to coordinate status.


1. The syllable has become something of a stepchild in linguistic description. While sooner or later everyone finds it convenient, no one does much about defining it. This is not a new situation ; for many years phoneticians have been trying to find a phonetic basis for the syllable without reaching any very definite agreement. Opinion has ranged from those who denied its physical reality to those who have identified it physiologically with a chest pulse and acoustically with degrees of sonority.1 With the development of structural linguistics, the syllable has been carried over into phonemics. Here the emphasis has been laid on its relation to other features of linguistic structure, particularly tone, stress, quantity, and the like, which obviously were associated more directly with the syllable than with the individual phonemes.2 The fact, however, that in some languages, e.g. French, no such relations appear to exist, led Hjelmslev to distinguish between syllables and pseudo-syllables, the latter being those which were unmarked by any prosodeme ("accent" in his terminology).3 The same distinction appears to underlie Pike's description of the difference between a phonetic and a phonemic syllable. He identifies the former with Stetson's chest pulse, but the latter "serves as a unit of stress placement, or of tone placement, or of the timing of vowel length, or of the formation of the morpheme".4 In a recent linguistic manual by Gleason this distinction is repeated and students are warned that "in many languages syllables have no phonemic status whatever"; but we are not told how to determine whether they do or do not have such status.6 The only reference to syllabification in Harris's searching analysis of linguistic method is one which eliminates it in 1

For a summary of opinion see Heffner, General Phonetics (Madison, Wis., 1949), 73-74. Linguists received a tongue lashing from R. H. Stetson in Bases of Phonology (Oberlin, Ohio, 1945) for their neglect of the syllable; cf. review by W. F. Twaddell in UAL ΧΠ (1946), pp. 102-110. a Cf. E. Haugen, 'Phoneme or Prosodeme?' Lg., XXV (1949), pp. 278-282. * L. Hjelmslev, 'The syllable as a structural unit', Proc. Third. Int. Cong, of Phon. Sci. (Gand 1938), pp. 266-272. But note that his pupil Knud Togeby (Trav. du cercle ling, de Copenh., VI (1951), pp. 44 if.) now agrees with Robert A. Hall, Jr. (French, 12, Lang. Monogr. No. 24, 1948) in syllabifying French. 4 Phonemics (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1947), p. 90. 6 H. A. Gleason, Jr., Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics (New York, 1955), 14.23.




favor of juncture. Yet the term "syllabic" turns up in his analysis of Swahili, but without definition.7 If we turn to other practical descriptions of specific languages, we find much the same situation. Smith and Trager do not name the syllable as a part of English structure, but they frequently refer to undefined "syllabic nuclei" and speak of items containing "one, two, three or more syllables".8 In his study of Bella Coola Newman specifically denied the existence of syllables in this language, but used the term "syllabic phonemes" about its vowels.9 It is not always easy to see whether these differences are dictated by the structures of the various languages or by the predilections of the linguists. The first serious work on this problem by an American linguist is contained in Hockett's recent Manual of Phonology.10 While the results of this paper were developed independently, they have been reconsidered in the light of Hockett's theories, which are here in part confirmed, in part developed further. It will be the purpose of the paper to present a definition of the structural or "phonemic" syllable and explore some methods of analyzing it and presenting the resulting data. 11


Before attempting to define the syllable, we shall consider its relationship to other structural units with which it has often been associated, including the vowel, the accents, juncture, and the morpheme. 2.1. The vowel. — It is not always realized that our definition of the vowel is a function of the syllable. The difference between a phonetic vowel (or vocoid, in Pike's term) and a phonemic vowel is that the latter functions as the nucleus of a syllable and may therefore be called a syllabic. If the phones of a language can be unambiguously divided into syllables and non-syllabics, so that certain phones are always syllables and others always non-syllabics, there is no need for marking syllabicity. It may be regarded as a non-distinctive characteristic of the vowels. In such a language the number of syllables is identical with the number of vowels and the syllable as usually defined can be eliminated from the description. This state is one that is approximated in some descriptions of English in which syllabicity is eliminated through the adoption of a set of writing conventions. The lowered high front phone [i] is considered • Zellig Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics (Chicago, 1951), p. 82. ' Methods, pp. 199-120. 8 George L. Träger and Henry Lee Smith, Jr., An Outline of English Structure (Norman, Okla., 1951), pp. 20, 29, 37. • I J AL XIII (1947), pp. 130,132. 10 Memoir 11 of the International Journal of American Linguistics (Baltimore, 1955). Some of his ideas derive from Kenneth L. and Eunice V. Pike, 'Immediate constituents of Mazateco syllables', UAL, XIII (1947), pp. 78-91 ; see also Hockett on 'Syllabic Nuclei' in UAL, XIX (1953), pp. 165-171. 11 An early version was read to the Linguistic Society meeting at Ann Arbor, Michigan, on December 29, 1954.



an allophone of /i/ when it is syllabic (e.g. in pit), of /y/ when it is non-syllabic (e.g. in pie). On the other hand, the alveolar nasal continuant is considered a simple phoneme /n/ when it is non-syllabic (e.g. in Gretna), but a cluster of vowel plus consonant /an/ when it is syllabic (e.g. in retina). This bit of phonemic hocus-pocus produces the illusion of a description in which syllabicity has been relegated to a phonetic rather than a phonemic level. Even this device, however, appears to be impossible in some languages, where phones that can by no stretch of definition be regarded as vowels function as syllables. Hockett points to Bella Coola as one in which this is true : there are stretches of at least four consonants all voiceless, which he interprets as so many syllables, contrary to Newman as cited above.12 But if the vowel is not necessary to the syllable, then the latter must be defined independently of the vowel. 2.2. The accents. — Pike's phonemic syllable is defined, as we have seen, in terms of the placement of accents, or prosodie features. In Cantonese each syllable has one tone; in English each syllable has one stress. In both languages there are several varieties of each which need to be distinguished. It can be disputed whether the tone or the stress belong to the syllable as a whole or to one of the phonemes. But it is obvious that if the syllable has a minimal peak or nucleus, the accent can be assigned to that nucleus. In syllables containing voiced consonants, the tonal curve will spread over the consonants, but in those that do not, the tone will still be distinctive. If each tone or stress is given its own symbol (either a diacritic or a letter), this can be placed on (or after) the nucleus phoneme. There is then no need of a syllable to account for the accent. Similarly, length can be made to stand on its own, as we see from several recent treatments. One can simply interpret it as a phoneme added to the non-lengthened variety of the same phoneme. Even the familiar phonetic analysis (writing it as a dot or a colon) is in reality a phonemic one, since length is here treated as a distinct phoneme which has been added to the preceding phoneme. Other favorite phonemic treatments are to consider it an echo of the preceding phoneme (gemination), or to identify it with some consonant (y w h) or vowel occurring elsewhere in the system. But if one does this, length ceases to be a characteristic of the syllable; it is simply the presence of an extra phoneme. Hence we are not compelled to assume a syllable on the basis of the accents. This practice eliminates the need for a 'phonemic' syllable and the distinction between syllable and pseudo-syllable. 2.3. Juncture. — We have seen that Harris replaces "syllabification features" by juncture to account for the difference between a name and an aim.1* Not all features of syllabification are included in juncture, however, and Hockett has shown that the two cannot be identified except in a few tone languages, where each tone is separated from the next by syllabic juncture. 14 Some languages have internal open junctures and some do not, but in those that do, there are usually stretches with more than one " "


MP 57. Methods, p. 82. MP 60.



syllable which do not have junctural division. Even in the English cases given by Harris the implied coincidence with morphemic boundaries is doubtful. Harris lists analysis as a word in which there is no juncture; but phonetically there is no distinction between a name and analysis : loud stress has its onset with the /n/ in either case. Minimal pairs are a tack and attack, a tire and attire, which in my speech are identical : some pronunciations of at all are identical with a tall (with aspirated /t/), while others have what could be interpreted as juncture after the at (with voiced /t/). If we accept juncture as a phoneme, to be marked where it occurs by space or hyphen or other typographical device, it still does not account for all the divisions provided by the traditional syllable. 2.4. The morpheme. — Pike mentions the function of the phonemic syllable in forming morphemes. He also gives an example from Mixteco to show a situation in which distribution is best handled in terms of morphemes rather than syllables.16 This is a case of vowel harmony between successive syllables, and need not involve any description of morphemes (at least as far as the data there presented are concerned). Without denying the possibility of coincidences between syllabic and morphemic boundaries, one can surely say that in most if not all languages, the two are distinct. In English there are morphemes of all degrees of complexity from single phonemes and up. Even in the so-called 'monosyllabic' Chinese, there are polysyllabic morphemes. If syllables exist, they must be defined independently of the morpheme, in terms of purely phonological criteria. It will then be possible to consider any possible coincidences of the two as a morphophonemic problem. 2.5. Definition. — The preceding sections have shown that the syllable is not identical with the number of vowels, accents, junctures, or morphemes. Each of these can be defined in its own terms independently of the syllable. One would be tempted to deny its existence, or at least its linguistic status, as some have done, were it not for its wide persistence as a feature of most linguistic descriptions. The key to cur understanding of the syllable lies in the development of phonotactics, or the study of phonemic distribution.16 Previous attempts at defining it did not provide a framework in which the syllable could be placed. To speak of a 'phonemic' syllable is unclear if we do not know what kind of a unit the syllable is. It is not, like the phoneme, a contrastive unit; it is a SEQUENCE OF PHONEMES which together constitute a unit. This is the spirit in which Hockett has treated it in his recent Manual of Phonology, where he has placed it in a hierarchy of immediate constituents. But he does not define it explicitly, merely describing it as a structural unit smaller than his macrosegment, "to which, by a generalization of its meaning, we shall assign the term syllable".17 This conclusion was one which I also reached by a study of Swedish phonology: that the syllable is the most convenient framework for describing the distribution of phonemes. This is in line with the practice of most linguists, who describe distribution in 14

" "

Phonemics, p. 181. The former term was invented by Robert Stockwell. MP 51.



terms of syllables (initial, final, medial). But we need to make this practice explicit. I shall therefore propose that the syllable be defined as the SMALLEST UNIT OF RECURRENT PHONEMIC SEQUENCES. We will then have to include not only the segmental phonemes, but also the prosodie ones like stress, tone, length, and juncture. Any or all of these occur in sequence with each other, and the syllable is that stretch of phonemes which makes it possible to state their relative distribution most economically. The occurrence of phonemes is not random, and every language shows limitations on their possible sequences. Greater uniformity of linguistic practice in description would be attained if all could accept the idea that phonemes do not occur in contours or morphemes or words, but in syllables. The syllable in his way becomes a purely phonological unit, which in turn enters into still longer stretches of speech, reaching up to the complete utterance. Morphemes or words can be described in terms of syllables and their immediate constituents rather than the reverse.


While Hockett sets up two steps in the hierarchy of description larger than the syllable, one may have to recognize more for any particular language. He divides his macrosegment (bounded by pauses) into microsegments (bounded by junctures) and these into syllables.18 For Swedish the following series appear to be needed: clause, phrase, measure, and syllable. The phonemic clause or whole utterance is bounded by terminal pitches (which appear to be three in number). The clause can be analyzed into a succession of phonemic phrases, each of which has a characteristic accentual pattern involving one of the two accents (1 or 2) which go with the loud and reduced loud stresses. The measure, in turn, consists of syllables, of which one and only one must be heavy while the rest are light. If we choose the following utterance as a sample, we can show how it is analyzed hierarchically: Nu skal jag först tala om hur det gick til när Olle och Svante fick Pudel. "Now I shall first tell how it happened when Olle and Svante got Pudel." *Nu: Mx

I skaja^örsit M2

| ta: la 1 óm: Ms

p! när 01:le | â 2Svan:te Mj M2 P¡ 2



%u:r Mt

^ik: Ma


| d ä j i k xtíl: M2


p¡ ^uidel. M4

The utterance (clause) consists of three phrases, the first with three measures, of which the third has loud stress, the second with two measures, of which the second has loud stress, the third with four measures, of which the third has loud stress. The measures "

MP 61.



vary in syllabic length from one to three, with the heavy syllable coming variously first, second, or third. The accent of the heavy syllable is either 1 (high or low pitch concentrated on the syllabic nucleus) or 2 (gliding pitch on the syllabic nucleus, with some heightening of pitch on the following syllable). If we call the larger class a CONSTITUTE, the included class a CONSTITUENT, and the criterion that distinguishes constituent from constitute a MODULATOR, we get the following structure : CONSTITUTES




Clauses Phrases Measures

Phrases Measures Syllables

Terminal Pitches C = (P...)P.?! Stresses Ρ = (M...)M(...M) Accents M = (S...) 1,2 S(...S)


In presenting the structure of the Swedish utterance, it has not been necessary so far to speak of the segmental phonemes. Only when we get to the syllable do they appear. The internal structure of the syllable can be described in terms of the phonemes that make it up, and their patterns are constantly recurrent. Those who attempt to avoid the syllable in their distributional statements are generally left with unmanageable or awkward masses of material. We may take as an example a description of the phonemes of Motilone by Hanes, who uses the word as his unit. He finds a total of 18 different CV patterns, some of them running to 12 successive phonemes, without even accounting for all the words listed in his own article.19 If these were broken down into syllables, the patterns would be fewer and more articulated. Harris reduces Newman's description of Yokuts structure to the formula #[CV(Ç)] CV(C)# which represents the word in Yokuts.80 But if we extract CV(C) as the formula for a syllable (S), the formula for the word becomes # [ § ] S # . In other words, a word is bounded by junctures and contains at least one final syllable which is always short preceded by an unstated number of syllables which may be short or long. But each syllable has a structure consisting of one consonant and one vowel, with an optional second consonant. An even more formidable formula for the word in Taos is similarly reducible to a repetition of the syllabic formula which can be extracted as follows: C(R)V(S) plus Tone and Stress.21 Those who use the contour (corresponding to Hockett's macro-segment) as their unit and state the distribution of phonemes as contour-initial, contour-medial, and contour-final, find a large number of contourmedial clusters. In so far as these can be broken down into final plus initial clusters, one can simplify the description by assuming that the contour consists of syllables. 4.1. Analysis of the syllable usually permits us to distinguish an irreducible min" IJAL, XVIII (1952), pp. 146-149: there is a word sa:kusekyapa illustrating a pattern of CVCVCVCCVCV, which he does not list. ao Methods, p. 151. 11 George Trager, IJAL, XIV, pp. 155-160.



imum which we may call the nucleus and an optional remainder which we may call the margin. Margins in turn may either precede or follow the nucleus. Hockett has invented a useful set of terms for these, which we shall in part adopt: the nucleus is called a peak, the pre-nuclear margin an onset, the post-nuclear margin a coda, an inter-nuclear margin an interludeWe shall then reserve the terms initial, medial, and final to mean post-junctural, non-junctural, and pre-junctural. Each of the constituents of the syllable consists of one or more phonemes, with the vowels usually occupying the peak, the consonants the margins; but consonants may also be included in the peak if vowels fail to occur initially or finally. For each constituent one may then establish the number of POSITIONS. For example, in Swedish the number of positions in the onset is anywhere from zero to three. This we may represent by the formula (CCC). This stands for the positions C, C X C 2 , or QC2C3. The list of consonants that occur in each of these positions may be called the MEMBERSHIP of each position. It will usually be found that the membership of C t before C 2 is not identical with that of Ci before C 2 C 3 . It may prove useful to distinguish layers of ICs within even the three possible positions occurring here. In Swedish, for example, /s/ is the only phoneme that occurs in position C x before C 2 C 3 ; on the other hand, it never occurs in position C 2 or C 3 . The clusters /sp st sk/ may be considered a single IC, permitting the reduction of the initial positions to two : C before vowel, C t before C 2 . While all consonants occur immediately before a vowel, some never occur anywhere else, and these in turn can be subdivided into those that can be preceded by another consonant (J 1 r j/) and those that cannot (Jç h §/). This group may be called the "near" (i.e. near the vowel) and distinguished from the "remote", which can occur at one or more removes from the vowel. In complex situations it may be necessary to count in both directions : C t and C 2 for the order away from juncture, C r and C n for the order away from the nucleus. Once the positions and the memberships in each have been established, the next step is to determine how many of the theoretically possible sequences actually occur. While all C's may occur in position C- (the hyphen represents initial position and equals "not before juncture"), and all vowels in the nucleus, not all C's necessarily occur before all V's.


Completion of syllabic analysis requires that a limit be set to the extension of each syllable. Otherwise we are left with the undivided interludes which separate successive peaks. This is the policy adopted by Hockett, who regards the interludes as belonging "both to the syllable which contains the preceding peak and to that which contains the following peak. When two successive syllables in a language like English are linked by an interlude, there is no 'point of syllable division' between them." As an example "

MP 52.



he cites the familiar nitrate, in which the /t/ could be assigned to either syllable. He grants that in English there is always at least one way in which interludes can be divided into coda plus onset, but maintains that the point of syllable division in an interlude is structurally irrelevant.23 This is an appealing solution of a difficult problem which has been much discussed. But if we are to make use of the syllable as an IC of the micro-segment, it does not make good sense to leave the syllables all attached to each other by indivisible segments. It would seem better to seek ways of identifying portions of the interlude with codas and onsets, even if it means dividing the codas into final and medial, the onsets into initial and medial. The memberships of the various positions prove to coincide in so many cases that it is uneconomical to leave the interludes entirely apart from the onsets and codas. An example of a model description in terms of syllabic patterns is Key and Key on Sierra Nahuat. 24 Here it was possible to reduce all syllables to the patterns V, VC, CV, CVC, CCV, and to say that all consonant occur in onsets and all except /p k w/ in codas. Medial onsets are limited to C, while initial onsets lack /h g/; final codas lack /m/. Languages like English and Finnish offer examples of greater but opposite difficulties. In English the number of positions in codas and onsets add up to more than those in interludes, so that they overlap; in Finnish they add up to less, so that they leave a remainder. 5.1. English. — Onsets can have up to three positions as in strange, codas up to four, as in sixths. Interludes with a maximum of four, as in subscribe, can therefore theoretically be divided C.CCC or CC.CC or CCC.C or CCCC. Actually, the membership dictates a much smaller choice; in subscribe for example, the only possible division is after the /b/. The basic rule is that whenever possible, no new positions or members shall be introduced. In nitrate a division /naytr.eyt/ would introduce a non-existent final cluster -tr ; but the divisions /nay.treyt/ or /nayt.reyt/ would both fit with the existing positions and their members. The pragmatic reason for this is the existence of /ay/ and /ayt/ as finals, of /tr/ and /r/ as initials, so that either division would require no new learning by speakers. The speaker who is asked to divide such a word (without reference to the spelling or its largely arbitrary rules of word division) will do so by pronouncing each part with preceding and following juncture. While this may be artificial, it is apparently not unpatterned, and it seems that hesitations and other interruptions are more likely to occur at syllable borders than in their nuclei. Casual inquiry among a number of non-linguist speakers of English has revealed considerable unanimity that nitrate should be divided /nay.treyt/, pantry /paen.tri/. I believe this is connected with the occurrence of unvoiced fricative /r/ after /t/, an allophone which is also found in initial /tr/, but not after juncture as in night-rate. The introduction of juncture before /t/ in nitrate thus distorts the word less than putting it after the /t/. Dividing the /t/ by a juncture within the consonant also makes for a distortion into night-trait. In both cases one consonant is joined with the preceding (short) vowel: /y/ in nitrate, /n/ in pantry. The same occurs when informants are »


MP 64. UAL, XIX, pp. 53-56.



asked to divide reading, lady, happy, which are usually divided /riy.ding, ley.di, haeh.pi/. Even where speakers are in doubt, as with the intervocalic voiced /t/ in patter and fighting, the establishment of the principle that one consonant goes with every preceding vowel helps to establish / and /fay.ting/. Further research is called for which may throw light on the reasons for the traditional rule of English syllable division that a single intervocalic consonant goes with preceding 'short' (i.e. simple) vowel, but not with preceding 'long' (i.e. complex) vowel. It is typical of the English situation that In/ occurs in coda and interlude, but not in onset; wherever it occurs in interludes, it has to be syllable-final by the above rule, since it appears only after simple vowels. Its occurrence can thus be more simply stated as being invariably in the coda. 5.2. Finnish. — Hockett mentions this as a language in which it is not possible to divide the interludes into coda plus onset on the basis of initial and final clusters.26 The writer examined a small sample of the Finnish vocabulary and found that this is true enough, since the interludes run as high as CCC, while codas and onsets never exceed C.2e Study of the phonemic membership of each position, however, showed that there is considerable descriptive advantage in regarding the last consonant of each interlude as syllable-initial. The memberships are almost identical : all consonants occur (except that /f/ is only initial, /d/ only medial). But medial codas turn out to be more complex than final ones, so that the latter can be regarded as reduced varieties of the former. While all consonants occur as medial -Cj-, in the words examined only /p t k s/ occur as -C 2 -; in final codas only the four dentals / I n s t / occur. Accordingly, we divide 'corporal', vält.tä.mä.tön.tä 'necessary'. The correctness of this a priori analysis was at least partially confirmed by the discovery that it is the division traditionally recommended in popular grammars.27 5.3. General principles. — Instead of a tripartite division into onset, interlude, and coda, it is desirable to reduce this to one of onset and coda, using these terms to include not merely the margins that are adjacent to juncture, but also those that are medial. It may still be necessary to distinguish between initial and medial onset or final and medial coda, but it is believed that this 2 x 2 division will do better justice to the structure than the tripartite one. The division of interludes should proceed on the principles (1) that as few new positions or members shall be admitted as possible and (2) that the same number of positions shall regularly be divided in the same way. This will make it possible to predict the "point of syllable division" by general rules for each length of the interlude, and will establish a firm basis for the syllable as a unit of phonotactic structure. In addition to the onset, peak, and coda, there are of course also the previously discussed accents which may be assigned as exponents to the syllable as a whole.28 »

MP 64. Vocabulary included in Thomas Sebeok, Spoken Finnish (New York, 1947). *' Cf. Clemens Niemi, A Finnish Grammar (2. ed., Duluth, Minn., 1938), p. 9. 28 See the valuable discussions of the problems of syllable structure by Eli Fischer-Jorgensen in Acta Linguistica, ΥΠ (1952), pp. 17ff., and Hans Vogt in Word, X (1954), pp. 28-34.




To avoid the necessity of long lists, which have little structural significance, the data concerning syllabic distribution should be summarized in the form of diagrams, tables, and formulas, wherever this is possible. A table for showing hierarchic structure was presented above. But for showing the internal positions of the syllable, diagrams like the following may be the most useful. This represents the syllabic structure of a Norwegian dialect on which the writer is working. Onset


Coda (or Coda + Onset)

In this diagram the structure is viewed as a series of choices among the available sequences. Beginning from juncture / # / , the choices are Ci or V!; if Ci is chosen, the choices are now C 2 or V 1; as shown by the line crossing diagonally from the lower to the upper line. The only inescapable item is Vi in the nucleus; this may be followed by a nuclear vowel (i.e. length or a second diphthongal component) or a nuclear consonant; each of these, in turn, may be followed by a three-consonant coda, but after each consonant (and the nuclear vowel) there is the choice of a second vowel or a final juncture. The codas are different according to whether they follow a nuclear vowel (YC) or a nuclear consonant (cC). The same information may be presented in the form of a formula, though somewhat less clearly. The following formula for Swedish is almost the same as the above, except that positions C t and C 2 in onset and coda have been combined by regarding /sp st sk/ as units.29

This formula can be read as follows: the syllable consists of a vowel which may or may not be followed by a second vowel or a consonant, which together constitute a nucleus, that may be preceded and/or followed by a margin containing one or two positions distinguished as 1 and 2 if they are either (1) final or initial or (2) neither, as near (n) if they are next to the vowel or remote (r) if they are not.30 In either case the members of each position will have to be listed. This can often be done in quite economical formulas like the following, which go with the above description of Swedish. V is used to mean all vowels, C all consonants, while subscript vis is voiceless stops, vds voiced stops, vdsp is voiced spirants, vlsp voiceless spirants, gl glides. 2 * Cf. Hans Vogt, "The Structure of the Norwegian Monosyllables', Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap, ΧΠ (1940), pp. 5-29. The first to use a formula was Benjamin Whorf in 'Linguistics as an Exact Science,' The Technology Review, XLIII, No. 2 (1940), but his formula is long and complex. ,0 Tables and formulas from a paper on Swedish phonemics read to the Washington Linguistic Circle on August 12,19S4.



V = a e i o u y ä ä ö . C = Cvis ( p t k s p s t s k ) + Q*, ( b d g H C ^ p ( v m n ) + Q „ p (f s § h ç ) + C g l ( l r j ) + q. V t , n V = V. n C = C - h . C l n = C - g . C- l r = C - ( C l l + q δ h §). -C l r = C - (sp 1 h). C- 2n = C gl + C ^ p . - C 2 n = C - (Q,,, + § b d). Having listed each of the memberships, tables like the following will bring out the limitations on permitted sequences. This one lists the occurring instances of C- l r and C- 2n in Swedish: C-u ssv sm sn si






spl spr spj


ski skr

Pl pr PJ






kn kl kr









bi br bj


RH gl gr



fl fr fj

vr mj



A number of the holes in this pattern are systematic, e.g. the absence of /j/ after nonlabial stops and spirants : it is found here in the orthography, but only as a marker of single phonemes resulting from palatalization. It is possible, but difficult, to combine the positions and their memberships into a C-,


C-2, C-3 (choices)

η 1 r s Ç j h Ρ b m f ν t d k g


ν V ν

η η

r r

1 1

r r r r r r


j j j j

1 1

m V η 1 Ρ t k


r r r





single table like the following one (p. 314) for the Norwegian dialect mentioned above. 31 The system is similar to the Swedish one shown in the preceding table. Its weakness is the necessity for double listing of some phonemes. Reprinted from For Roman Jakobson, Mouton & Co., The Hague, 1956, 213-221.

AUTHOR'S COMMENT This paper was intended as a rescue action for the syllable, which descriptive linguists played a kind of shell game with: now you see it and now you don't. It is clearly not a meaningful unit like the morpheme, and its phonetic status is in doubt. Its distinctive function in words like litany (compared to jitney) or jittery (compared to citric) was negated by making syllabicity an allophone of the vowel shwa. To speak of a "phonemic syllable" (Pike) therefore seemed meaningless. Rather, one should regard it as a unit in the phonotactic description, the recurrent bundling of successive phonemes which in turn made up the phonemic word. In a letter of comment on the paper, Hockett found my basis for dividing Finnish "complex interludes into a syllable-final and a syllable-initial portion just as structurally extraneous as would be a division of Fox /hkw/ into syllable-final /h/ and syllable-initial /kw/ because we, as speakers of English, tend to hear it that way." Perhaps he was right in wanting to keep the term "interlude"; but any division made should of course be based on the internal patterning of the language itself. The interesting part is that every language does seem to have a trend to recurrently patterned units of the syllabic type, so that we may be dealing with a language universal. For further discussion see my article "Syllabification in Kutenai" (this volume pp. 316-323). Swedish phonotactics has now been thoroughly analyzed by Bengt Sigurd (Phonotactic Structures in Swedish, Lund, 1965); for my comments on this problem see my review in Language, 43, 806-807 (1967).


The table in Harris, Methods, p. 153, for English onsets is incomplete. Cf. now O'Connor and Trim in Word, IX (1953), pp. 103-122, which the writer had not seen at the time of this writing. See also the writer's analysis of syllabification in Kutenai, appearing in I J AL, (this vol. p. 316-323).


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction Kutenai consonant clusters Minimal and maximal syllable Onset Coda Interlude The syllable in Kutenai

1. The description of phoneme distribution is variously handled in recent studies, some using the word, others the contour, still others the syllable as their unit. 1 The growing importance of distribution as a part of linguistic description makes it of interest to examine this problem more closely. Without extensive first-hand research in these languages it would be impossible to be sure whether the difference is determined by the languages themselves or by the linguist's predilections. The present paper is intended to show for one language which has a large number of consonant clusters that it is possible to bring out the structural principles of distribution best if one adopts the syllable as one's descriptive unit. As the writer has pointed out elsewhere, the attempt to find phonetic criteria for syllable division appears to be futile.2 Morphological boundaries are often marked by juncture, which at the same time marks syllable boundaries; but these will here be disregarded. We are only concerned with the point of division where there is no juncture. It is our hypothesis that there is an optimal point at which the intervocalic clusters can be divided to give a description of phoneme distribution in terms of the syllable. We assume that this will be the same for all clusters of identical length and that it can be stated in general terms for 1

E.g. M. Swadesh, "Unsaliq and Proto-Eskimo II", UAL 18.25-34 (1952), L. C. Hanes, "Phonemes of Motilone (Carib)", UAL 18.146-149 (1952), P. W. Fast, "Amuesha (Arawak) Phonemes", UAL 19.191-194, who speak of word initial, medial, or final positions; Garvin (see reference below) speaks of the contour; most others use the syllable; see esp. Kenneth L. and Eunice V. Pike, "Immediate Constituents of Mazateco Syllables", UAL 13.78-91 (1947) and C. F. Hockett, "Short and Long Syllable Nuclei", UAL 19.165-171 (1953). ! Einar Haugen, "The Syllable in Linguistic Description", For Roman Jakobson, 1956, 213-221.



clusters of any length. The basis for this division will be the occurrence of consonants initially and finally, on the assumption that if a syllable means anything at all, it is a unit of limited and therefore recurrent phoneme sequences. Everyone talks about syllables, but no one seems to do anything about defining them. Yet the only real basis for assuming their existence is that speakers of the language can utter them separately, dividing utterances into sequences that seem natural when pronounced alone. This is the pragmatic justification for making syllabic cuts on the basis of initial and final clusters. The data on which it is based is drawn from Paul Garvin's description of Kutenai, which lists all occurring clusters, but classifies them only in terms of contours (contour-initial, -medial, -final).3 2. The consonant clusters of Kutenai listed by Paul Garvin number in all 417, of which 81 are initial, 309 medial, 27 final. Our procedure will be to analyze the initial and final clusters and see whether all the medial can be unambiguously divided into final plus initial clusters. The consonants of the language are stops /p t k q ?/, spirants /s 1 χ h/, affricates /c δ/, nasals /m n/, voiced lateral /l/, semivowels /w y/. Omitting /£/, which occurs only in loanwords, Garvin divides the rest into class I and II on the basis of their distribution, I being the voiceless consonants /p t k q s 1 χ c/, II the voiced /? h m η 1 w y/. 3. The minimal syllable has the form CV; all consonants occur. We shall call this the NUCLEUS (in Hockett's terms the "peak"), and distinguish it from the MARGINS.4 It can be preceded and followed by zero to three consonants. The theoretical maximal syllable is thus CCCCVCCC. Using Hockett's terminology, we shall call the PRENUCLEAR margin the ONSET and number the consonants as follows: C!C2C3-. The post-nuclear margin we shall call the CODA and number as follows: - C i ^ ^ . The intervocalic margin we shall call the INTERLUDE and number as follows: -C1C2C3C4C5-. 4. Initial Ci- is limited to Class I (the voiceless); after Q all C can occur (except /h/); for occurring sequences see Table 1. The sequence C!C 2 C can be regarded as TABLE 1

Ρ t k

q s

xm cm


c ρ












ex χ




C3 4

Paul Garvin, "Kutenai I: Phonemics", UAL 14.37-42 (1948). Charles Hockett, A Manual of Phonology, IUP AL, Memoir 11 (1955), 52.





consisting either of CiC with C 2 inserted, of C 2 C with C x prefixed, or of Q C 2 prefixed to C. Of these alternatives the first gives us 5 sequences which do not occur as CiC: /s? sx sc Is cy/, the second 7: /Is 1m Ix lc hv cy ?k/, the third only one: /lc/. We shall therefore divide CiC 2 /C, and add /lc/ to our list of initial clusters. In position C all members occur except / p t n 1/. In position Ci and C 2 only members of C1 occur (plus /?/), in the former only /k s 1 c/, in the latter only /k q ? s 1 χ c/. The actually occurring sequences are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 k


ksk sqk

klq kcq slq

kk? kq? kl? kc? sq? sJ?



ckk c?k k

kls Iqs cqs






ksl sil

kcx six lex

klm sic

key shv

cxm c



cky w



4.1. The sequence CiC 2 C 3 C occurs only in 10 different varieties, so that it may be chance which ones happened to be found in the material. The membership of C is still Class I plus II but now reduced t o / k q ? s l x m / ; hence we divide first into C,C 2 C 2 /C. Any attempt to divide Ci/C 2 C 3 C leaves us with 5 of the 10 as not occurring in earlier lists. The examples of QC2C3 are only five in number; only the division QC2/C3 enables us to account for all of them in terms of CiC clusters. This gives us the clusters /ks kl kc sq ck/ occurring initially and followed by /? 1 c/ ; the actual sequences are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 k s c








klcm sq?m

ckcx k








4.2. To summarize the onset: (1) Position C may be occupied by any consonant, but as pre-nuclear consonants are added, the number actually occurring is reduced (all initially, all but /h/ after Ci, dropping /p t η 1/ after CiC 2 , /c w y/ after CjC 2 C 2 ); (2) the onset may be occupied by any consonant of class I, to which may be added /?/ in non-initial position; (3) only those sequences can occur in the onset which can also occur before vowels (CxC), but not all of the latter (exception: /lc/); (4) the onset consists of clusters of two to which a third consonant may be added. A diagram describing the onset is as follows :



*< X










This diagram is to read as follows: after juncture a syllabic nucleus must open with a consonant (C), but may be preceded by from one to three consonants (C!C 2 C 3 -). A formula to describe their composition would read: C j = (before C 2 = kslc, before C 2 C 3 = ksc); C 2 = C ¥ l - pt + ? (before C 3 = - ptx) ; C 3 = ?lc. 5. Any C except /h/ may occur as final C^ But not all are followed by C 2 , as appears from Table 4 listing the occurring sequences. TABLE 4

-C! Ρ





kp kt








?k t? k? ts ks tc

1 w

St h

pk ps



q? ?s ?m ?n


ms ns

ws ys

t k ?

s c m η

-Ci is still further restricted in - C J C Î C S , but the material is too small to draw any conclusions ; only five such clusters occur, viz. /t?s k?p k?s q?s ?ks/. All of these can be accounted for as CiC 2 clusters /t? k? q? ?k/ with /s/ or /p/ added. If the coda is compared with the onset, the clusters show a tendency to reverse order (mirror effect). Of the 22 CC-clusters listed above, 15 do not occur initially; of these 7 are limited to final position (h ps ?s ms ys ?m ?n), 8 occur in reversed order initially /pk ?k yk ts Is ns ws te). The remaining 7 occur also initially; of these 5 occur in the same order as finally (kp st t? k? q?), 2 can also be reversed (kt ks). The following diagram describes the coda:

This diagram is to be read as follows : before juncture a syllabic nucleus may be followed by zero, one, two, or three consonants. A formula to describe the membership of the positions is : C t = C — h (before C 2 = C — hxel ; before C 2 C 3 = tkq?) ; C 2 = C — qbclwy (before C 3 = k?); C 3 = p s . 6. Intervocalic consonants may number from one to five. We shall attempt to assign these to the preceding or following vowel by comparing their distribution with that of



the onsets and codas listed above. In Hockett's terms: we shall divide the interlude into coda plus onset, not on phonetic but on structural grounds. The point of division will be marked by a dot. 6.1. One consonant. Any consonant (including /h/) may occur in the sequence VCV. Since Y does not occur initially, and the Cj-permits all consonants, -Cj- must be assigned to the following V and the sequence divided V.CV. For the same reason we shall see that the last consonant in any interlude must be assigned to the following V. 6.2. Two consonants. Two possible divisions of -QC2- may be considered, V.CCV or VC.CV. All consonants (except h) occur in C l 9 while all (including h) occur in C 2 . This makes the sequences of -CC- markedly different from those of CC- or -CC, both of which are quite restricted. While CC- includes 41 sequences and -CC only 22, the -CC- number 134. This is 68.4 per cent of the potential total of 14x14 or 196 sequences. We recall that initial and final positions are the only ones in which all or nearly all C's occur; hence it seems natural to divide VC.CV, so that the first C is the coda of the preceding syllable, the second the onset of the following one. The sequences that actually occur are as follows : TABLE 5 Ρ t k q ? , s 1 χ c m η 1 w y

ps pi px pc pm pt pk pq tk tq t? ts ti tx to tm kp kt kk kq k? ks kl kx kc km qt qk q? qs ql qx qc qm ?m ?t ?k ?q ?s ?1 ?x sp st sk sq s? ss si SX sc sm Ix 1c Im Ip It 1k lq 1? Is xm XX xt et ck cq c? CS cl cx cc cm m? ms ml mx mc mm mt mk nt nk nq n? ns ni nx nc nm









WS wl wx ys yi yx ?




pn tn kn qn ?n sn In xn cn mn nn

yc ym





pi py tl tw kl kw ky qw ?w sl sw tw xw cw mw ny 11 ww wy yw 1



-Qr 6.3. Three consonants. The number of such clusters is 135, including three which have /h/ as their last member. All consonants occur in position C 3 , all except /h 1 w y/ in C 2 , and all except /h χ 1 w/ in C x . As before we may identify C 3 as belonging with the following vowel. This leaves three possible divisions: V.CCCV, VC.CCV, VCC.CV. The first would require similarity between -CCC- and CCC- ; but the former has many more sequences (135 to 28) and the membership in position C, in each case is very different, being limited initially to /k s 1 c/. The second division would invite comparison between -Cj- and -C x on the one hand, between -C 2 C 3 - and CjC- on the other. The absence of /χ 1 w/ from the -Ci- makes it quite unlike the final -Ci,



where all consonants occur, but quite like the -Ci before -C 2 , where /x c 1/ are missing. The last two consonants are rather unlike initial clusters also : they have no /m- n- ?-/ and no /-I/. The third division is the only one left. As stated, the -C 1 C 2 - is much like the final -C 1 C 2 , though it has a few more sequences (Je-, -q, -1, -x/) : TABLE 6








χ c

kp kt qt ?t St h pk tk kk qk ?k sk Ik sq *q p q tq kq ps px

t? ts



ks qs ?s tl kl ?l


tc kc qc

ix sc 1c ?m ?n

ck cq c?



η nt nk nq

ms ns nl nx nc


1 w y Ρ

t k yq

q ?

s 1 X c m η


Although Table 6 is more filled out than in the case of the finals, the similarity in the use of /? m η/ will be noted. The two latter never occur before consonants in initial clusters. 6.4. Four consonants. The number of these clusters is only 29, which makes it difficult to analyze them with any assurance. Not one of them coincides with the initial CCCC-clusters, which excludes the possibility of assigning all four to the following syllable. The memberships are as follows: Cx / ρ t k q ? s 1 c n/, C 2 /k q ? s 1 c/, C 3 /k q ? s 1 x c η/, C 4 /t k q ? s 1 x m η w y/. The appearance of both class I and II consonants in C 4 confirms our practice of assigning the last intervocalic consonant to the following syllable. The occurrence of /n/ in C t also indicates that Cx belongs with the preceding syllable. C 2 has a membership resembling that of C x in QCaC, though it adds /q ?/; but the three-consonant clusters which result if we divide VC.CCCV do not agree with those that occur in the onset (only 6 of 25 are also initial). On the other hand, C 2 does not agree too well with the membership of -C2 either: it adds /q 1/ and lacks /m n/, and only 9 of the 25 clusters are also final. C 3 cannot be identified with final C 3 , but agrees fairly well with initial C! ; it adds /n ?/ and only the following clusters to those that occur initially: /?n xn ?t ?n ?y sm cy Is n? ?1 Ix ?k/. Of the possible alternatives for dividing -CCCC-, it would thus seem that the best is -CC.CC-, although this also adds a number of new clusters. These are, in the coda /pq kq ql sk si sc iq le c? ni nc/ and, in the onset /?n xn ?t ?y sm cy Is n? ?1 Ix ?k/. 6.5. Five consonants. There are only 6 of these mediáis, and the memberships are:



Ci /? s i¡, C 2 /s c/, C 3 /c k s/, C 4 /k χ η c I/, C 5 /I m ? q/. These memberships can be regarded as fragmentary correspondences to those of-Ci, -C 2 , Q - , C 2 -, C-. The only exception is the occurrence of /n/ in a position remote from the vowel; but we have already seen this above, in the 4-consonant clusters, and it occurs only before /?/. This requires a division into -CC.CCC- ; not all the sequences have occurred before. The following are new : as coda /se le/, as onset /ck? cn? kcm/. 6.6. Diagram. The following diagram represents the interlude and its division into structural coda and onset: V medial (-S-), or final (-S), the hyphen in each case standing for the absence of juncture. Each syllable has a nucleus with two positions (CV) and a margin which may be either pre-nuclear (onset) or postnuclear (coda). The maximum length of the margin is three consonants, which is reduced to two when the coda is immediately followed by the onset of a new syllable. In the following table all occurring two-phoneme sequences will be listed, with the letters i m f standing for initial (onset), medial (interlude), final (coda); if they occur only in three-phoneme or longer sequences, which have here been broken down by analysis, the letter is italicized. Consonants with m only are limited to the position next to the vowel. The phonemes have been listed by Garvin's class I and II; the NW quadrant shows the clusters that occur most freely, the SE quadrant those that occur least freely. The ambiguous status of /?/ is obvious : it is sometimes voiced and sometimes unvoiced (finally and before vl. consonants). The cluster /n?/ occurs initially, but in free variation with /?/. /h/ has been omitted; for details see Garvin.6

• In a letter of December 19, 1955, Garvin accepts the conclusions of this paper and adds the following confirmatory evidence : on a second field trip (1950) when he was able to use a tape recorder, he added a number of clusters to the list from his first field trip. Among these are /lc ck? cn?/, postulated as syllable-initial above, but now occurring also as contour-initial. A theoretical point made by Garvin is that operationally phoneme distribution has to be stated in terms of contours, since only contour boundaries are directly observable in the text; only after phoneme distribution has been stated within the contour can the distributional pattern be analyzed in such a way as to allow for syllable division.







Ρ t k q s 1 X c

m mf m imf imf imf imf mf imf m imf imf mf imf im m im imf

mf mf imf

? m η 1 w y



imf m m

imf m mf

imf imf imf








mf mf m mf mf m imf imf im im/ mf m im imf m imf im imf m im im im

m mf imf mf mf imf m

m m imf m imf im imf m m m im im im imf im

mf imf mf m mf mf

m m mf

m im

m m m/



m m im m im mf im im

im m im m

imf imf m m m m

w m im m im im m m m m

y im m im m im im m






Ulf mf

m m

m m















m m




Ρ t k q s 1 X c ? m η 1 w y

Reprinted from International Journal of American Linguistics, 22, 196-201 (1956).

AUTHOR'S COMMENT Much of the fun that linguists have comes from the manipulation of other people's data. Collecting one's own primary data is a long, hard, mind-breaking job, and then it is delightful to peek in other linguists' treasuries to see what jewels one can extract. This is one reason for the popularity of so-called 'rewrite grammar', much of which consists in the rewriting of other people's grammars. My reaction to the systematic exclusion of the syllable from phonemic description by the structuralists was to look up descriptions of languages where there were syllabic problems and see whether they could be rewritten in terms of syllabic sequences. Paul Garvin's description of Kutenai was a beautifully organized study which seemed to me to provide evidence that the use of the syllable as an intermediate unit of distribution (between the cluster and the utterance) provided great advantages.

29 REVIEW: H. G N E U S S Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen [Berlin, Bielefeld, München, 1955]

This study of loanshifts in Old English is of considerable interest, not only for the specialist in Germanics but also for the general linguist. It is an analysis of the influence exerted by Latin on the Old English glosses of the Vespasian Psalter (date about 800). The author is a conscientious and intelligent worker, whose comments frequently are illuminating and whose criticism of earlier studies in the field is always apposite. There are three chapters: Die Lehngutforschung, which surveys previous research; Die Formen des Lehngutes, which presents the author's analysis of borrowing; and Das Lehngut im altenglischen Vespasian-Psalter, which lists and discusses each of the glosses found to be influenced by Latin. There is much of purely philological interest for students of Old English in this list of255 entries, which are arranged under broad semantic heads reflecting the themes of the Psalter: God and His Activity; Man before God; Language and Writing; Thinking, Feeling, and Inner Attitude; Man and his World; General Terms. This is an important part of what ethnolinguists would call the 'acculturation vocabulary' if they were studying the impact of white culture on an Indian tribe; the situation here was not dissimilar. The author's concern, however, is chiefly linguistic rather than lexical or cultural. He brings to the task a set of categories for the analysis of borrowing which he has derived from Betz, Deutsch und Lateinisch (Bonn, 1949), and he labors diligently to apply these to his material. We shall be concerned exclusively with the problems raised by this classification and his modifications of it, for the light they throw on bilingual description. Gneuss's material is admittedly not the most ideal imaginable for bilingual study. The interlinear glosses do not necessarily reflect actual OE usage, being word-by-word cribs of a text which the glossers' abject reverence tempted them to render all too literally. Examples are legion, and amusing, as when propositio is glossed as foresetnis (97) or instructio as intimberness (93). The author asserts that "there are no established [feste] methods for such an investigation; there will never be any that are completely certain" (1). But the fault is not so much in our methods as in our materials. The



object of loanword research is presumably to reconstruct the process of borrowing and its effects upon the language. But for this we lack the necessary data, above all when dealing with the written sources of earlier periods. Most of the questions we would like to raise cannot be answered unless we are able to identify the moment of borrowing and then follow the social career of each loan. The chance recording of a loan in some written document is a mere sampling from which we infer certain preceding events. In the case of these glosses we cannot be sure whether they are individual creations or general OE usage, or even whether they antedate the impact of Latin on English. Gneuss does his best with this problem, and in some cases he has made it probable that the glosses were original with the author of his manuscript. The basic dichotomy which every student of borrowing appears to have made in some form or other is that between the loanword and what this reviewer has suggested calling the loanshift, Lg. 26.210-231 (1950), or as Betz calls it, the Lehnprägung 'loan coinage'. This goes back to the dilemma faced by the bilingual speaker who is using language A and needs or wishes to use an expression from language B. If he cannot or will not switch to B, he has only two alternatives: (1) to import into A a phoneme-by-phoneme reproduction of the original, creating what we might call a PHONEMIC REPLICA of the foreign model — a loanword; or (2) to substitute one or more native morphemes suggested by the original, creating a MORPHEMIC REPLICA — a loanshift. In either case an innovation has been made in language A; if it is not an innovation, it is not a loan. But once the loan has been accepted by other speakers, it is no longer an innovation, and ceases to be a loan, except in a purely histórica 1 sense. Its origin has no bearing on its status unless it retains some limitations of usage or structural features that remind speakers of its ancestry. It is a common weakness of loanword studies that they include as loans a great deal of material which was already naturalized in the period under discussion. Gneuss does not entirely escape this when he lists as loanword glosses such words as cirice 'church', sec 'sack', and win 'wine', or so-called hybrids like bischophad 'bishopric' and wingeard 'vineyard' (153). The very occurrence of these as glosses (often of Latin words not cognate with them, as when cirice glosses ecclesia) is evidence of their assimilation. This reviewer is now inclined to think that hybrids (or loanblends as he has suggested calling them) are also evidence of the previous acceptance of the parts which enter into them; if so, they should not be listed with the loanwords (as in his Norwegian Language in America 402), but with the loanshifts. In any case, Gneuss is not concerned with the phonemic replicas but with the morphemic ones. He discusses the distinction of which Germans are so fond, that between Fremdwort and Lehnwort (16-19), only to reject it. The general scheme for classifying loans which he has adopted from Betz looks as follows (3), with his abbreviations added; it is here given, for typographical reasons, as an outline rather than a table:


REVIEW: H. GNEUSS Lehngut Lehnprägung Lehnbildung (Lbi) Lehnübersetzung (Lüs) Lehnübertragung (Lüt) Lehnschöpfung (Lsch) Lehnwendung Lehnbedeutung (Lbd) Lehnsyntax Lehnwort (Lw)

In practice, Gneuss makes use of only a part of this scheme, having excluded the loanwords and finding no useful material for loan expressions or loan syntax in his glosses. The classification involves four successive either-or decisions: (1) is the item native or borrowed (Lehngut)? (2) is the borrowed item a loanword or a loan coinage (Lehnprägung)? (3) is the loan coinage a semantic loan (Lbd) or a loan formation (Lbi)? (4) is the loan formation an exact replica (Lüs), a partial replica (Lût), or no replica at all (Lsch)? Since we will not have occasion to discuss them again, a word should be said about the position of the Lehnwendung and the Lehnsyntax in the schema. They are in no way parallel to the Lehnbedeutung with which they are bracketed, but belong, if anywhere, under Lehnbildung. They differ from other loan formations, not in the principle of borrowing, but in their linguistic structure: the same thing happens when French faire la cour becomes German den Hof machen as when English skyscraper becomes German Wolkenkratzer. In either case a Lehnübersetzung has taken place, with a substitution of native morphemes. But the linguistic theory of our author and his model Betz does not provide for a morphemic analysis; it is bound to the traditional cleavage between grammar and syntax. We shall now consider the author's ideas on each of the four questions raised by his scheme of classification. Question 1 is crucial to the selection of his material from the total body of glosses in the manuscript. He complains (38) of the 'merkwürdiges Stillschweigen' of earlier scholars on the question of proving that a given item is actually borrowed. Since there are no manuscripts antedating Latin influence on English, it is necessary to make inferences from the material itself. Gneuss uses the following criteria to establish the probability of borrowing: (1) the meaning involved is one that the word could not have had in pre-Christian England; (2) the morphemic structure of the replica shows close dependence on its Latin equivalent (cf. intimbemess above); (3) the meaning of the compound or derivative is widely different from the sum of the meanings of its parts (e.g. ascensor is glossed upstigend and means the rider of a horse); (4) the item is rare in recorded OE literature or is found only in passages closely dependent on Latin originals; (5) other psalters show varying attempts at rendering the same original. While he refers to the value of making a similar comparison with other old Germanic dialects, he has made rather less of this than he could. The parallel between ON gala and OE galan makes it unlikely that agalan 'speak magic formulas' derived its meaning from incantare·, this secondary meaning is common in ON pagan



literature. One misses a work like Frank Fischer, Die Lehnwörter des Altwestnordischen (Palaestra 85), in his bibliography. In general, however, his conclusions concerning borrowing seem well founded, and when his criteria fail to provide sufficient evidence, he rejects the items in question. There is a list of 135 words which may be loan formations and 12 which may be semantic loans; it is unfortunate that he does not discuss any of these in detail. An important theoretical difficulty in the use of glosses for a study of borrowing is that of distinguishing the loan from a bona fide translation (27-29). Gneuss ruefully admits that this is often quite impossible (29) : only an appeal to the translator himself would settle the question of whether a new meaning is involved. Even this would not settle it as long as we cannot say for sure just what a new meaning is, or even what 'a' meaning is. He accepts scamian 'be ashamed' as an adequate translation (for which he used Betz's strange term Analogiesetzung) of erubescere, while hell for infernum he holds must have involved a new meaning, at least for the first user. But what about wuldor as a gloss of gloriai Is not every translation in some degree an instance of semantic change? Question 2 is stated by Gneuss as the choice between "direct" and "indirect" borrowing (1), terms which are not really happy since they do not present the dichotomy in linguistic terms. There is also the misleading suggestion that the second is less directly related to its model, or that some other intermediary has intervened. Whatever the terms used, the dichotomy is important, as stated above, and the reviewer's distinction between loanword and loanshift corresponds closely to Betz's between Lehnwort and Lehnprägung. This is preferable to the usual division into loanword, semantic loan, and loan translation. The two latter have in common the employment of native morphemes, whose usage is shifted in imitation of a foreign model. This brings us to question 3, which involves the distinction between what is usually called semantic loans (Lbd) and loan translations (Lbi), here (and correctly) regarded as subclasses of the Lehnprägung or loanshift. Corresponding to Betz's terms loan meaning and loan formation, this reviewer used the terms extension and creation (Norw. lang, in America 400-401). Gneuss classifies each of his glosses in terms of this distinction and devotes considerable discussion to its principles. He regards the basic criterion as one of verbal innovation : Lehnbildung means that a new word has come into being. This could be challenged, in view of the fact that many of the new Lehnbedeutungen are so different from the old that they could be regarded as new words. The extreme cases are found in Gneuss's book under a category of Lehnbedeutungen which are based on 'phonetic analogy': his example is Pennsylvania German erfordern for English afford. This reviewer has Usted similar examples from American Norwegian (e.g. brand 'fire' acquiring the meaning of English bran) as homophonous loan extensions, in contrast to the synonymous loan extension (e.g. American Portuguese correr 'run' acquiring the meaning of 'run for office'), which Gneuss calls 'semantic analogy'. An alternative treatment would be to regard such homophonous extensions as loanwords, in which the phonemic replica was not



made phoneme-by-phoneme, but was mutated by the influence of phonemically similar native morphemes. In any case it would not be correct to say that loan extensions are distinguished from loan creations by the fact that they introduce new meanings. As Gneuss recognizes (35-37), there is much to be said for the contention of Wellander (Studien zum Bedeutungswandel im Deutschen-, Uppsala, 1917) and Bloomfield (Language 456) that new meanings are also imported by the loan creations. Gneuss's attempts to show that this is not always true hardly meet the argument. He gives regnlic imitated from Latin pluvialis as a meaning which would not have been new to the first English users, the type of a loan creation whose meaning is 'entwickelnd', as Betz rather awkwardly puts it, rather than 'bereichernd'. It is obvious that in such cases the sources do not permit us to decide whether this was in fact a native or a borrowed creation. But in principle, its first use was either one or the other, and in the former case it would not then have been a loan at all. This reviewer would prefer to say that in principle all loans are also semantic loans, and the difference between them is the purely formal one of whether the replica reproduces the phonemes of the model (loanword) or the morphemes (loanshift), and in the latter case whether it reproduces the morpheme arrangements of the model (loan creation) or not (loan extension). This relieves the analyst of the necessity of determining whether the meaning imported is half a meaning or a whole meaning, or in Betz's terms, 'developing' or 'enriching'. There is more of this kind of semantic discussion in Gneuss's subdivision of his loan extensions into two groups, the analogical and the substitutive (22-25). In the former, model and replica have a common meaning (also referred to as a 'basic meaning') which has led to a second meaning's being imposed on the replica by analogy, e.g. Lat. casus giving Ger. Fall its meaning of 'case'. In the latter, there is no such common meaning, but a new meaning is thrust upon the replica because of some vague similarity of their basic meanings. His example is the use of English cniht for Latin discipulus, but he is uncertain how to classify the use of dryhten for dominus. Again we are dealing with a shadowy field; it would seem that cniht and discipulus do have at least one context in common, that of referring to followers, while dominus and dryhten are both masters. Such classifications leave too much doubt concerning their application in marginal instances to be of much value. Question 4 distinguishes among loan creations (Lbi) on the basis of their degree of formal similarity to their models. His use of loan translation (Lüs) for complete identity is a more restricted use of the word than is usual in linguistic literature. The term itself is open to question because it is strictly speaking not a translation at all, but an innovation in lieu of a translation. Even here there are many cases which this reviewer would be inclined to classify as loan renditions (Lût), or, in his own terminology, as approximate or partial rather than exact replicas. Gneuss admits that one has to look at prefixes and suffixes 'etwas grosszügig' (32) to regard the equivalence as exact (e.g. oferleornes for transmigratio).1 1

There must be an error here, for in the list of glosses oferleornis is given as the gloss ofpraevaricatio ; but perhaps it could be used for both, since it literally meant a trans-gression.

review: h. gneuss


It is highly questionable, however, whether loan creations (Lsch), in the sense in which Betz and Gneuss use this term, should be listed under loan formations. These are innovations stimulated by foreign models, but without any common formal features. Among his examples are fagwyrm for basiliscus, cwildeflod for diluvium (34). There are very few of these in his material, and some of them should be differently classified: he has included such glosses as rehtheort 'the righteous one' for rectus corde (109) and neahcyrice 'neighboring church' for vicina ecclesia (34). These are indeed loan formations, differing from their model only in adopting the favorite OE structural device of compounding for the Latin phrasal structure. But the others are glosses which seize upon some characteristic of the model not suggested by its name; the one who invented fagwyrm 'poisonous serpent' for basiliscus was doing something essentially different from the one who glossed nocticorax 'night raven' as nxhthrefn (124). As pointed out for Comanche by Casagrande, newly coined words of the former type can come into being without any bilingual contact at all {IJ AL 20.217, 1954). Knowledge of the object alone, without its name, would have sufficed, as when the Pima Indians named the elephant 'wrinkled buttocks' (Language, culture, and personality 66-74). For this reason the reviewer excluded them from the loans and called them induced creations, differing from other native creations (which might be called spontaneous) in being stimulated by foreign models, but not imitated from them. In the light of this discussion, the reviewer would prefer to replace the Betz-Gneuss scheme of classification with the following revision of his own system, in the hope that it might more rigidly reflect the process of borrowing and relegate details of linguistic structure to special descriptions: Linguistic innovations Borrowed Loanshifts Creations Exact Approximate Extensions Homonymous Synonymous Loanwords Assimilated Unassimilated Native Induced Spontaneous Finally, it will be of interest to consider the summary which Gneuss makes of the proportions between various kinds of borrowing in his material. Out of a total



vocabulary in the Vespasian Psalter of 1,871 different words, he finds Latin influence in 344, or 18.4%. Loanwords constitute 52, or 15% of these, loanshifts all the rest, or 85 %. This appears to bear out his initial contention that his "indirect" borrowing — perhaps we could call it 'covert' — is far more important than the more obvious loanwords. He finds 201 creations, or 50% of the total loans, and 91 extensions, or 26 %. Of the creations, 109 are exact and 82 are replicas, while only 10 are Lsch (here called induced creations). A deceptive similarity is found in the figures given for Comanche by Casagrande : 5 % loanwords, 30 % extensions, 65 % creations. But the creations of the Comanche are almost all native creations, those treated by Gneuss almost all borrowed. This suggests an important difference between the tangential contacts of the Comanche with white culture and the intimate contact of the English priest with Latin. It is of interest, however, that the relatively fewer loanwords turned out to be more viable in English than the loanshifts: most of them are still in use, while less than a fourth of the extensions have survived, and only six of the creations.2 Reprinted from Language, 32, 761-766 (1956).

' Some of these are questionable: holding is obsolete in the sense here given, uprear and fewness are rare.



1. The subject matter of this paper will not be the effects of bilingualism on language, but rather its effects on linguistics. It will be my thesis that the phenomena observed in language contact require us to introduce what I shall metaphorically describe as a third dimension in linguistic description. It has been characteristic of most statements of linguistic structure that they are limited to a cross-section of one particular dialect or even idiolect. Harris formulates the limitation when he writes that "the universe of discourse for a descriptive linguistic investigation is a single language or dialect." 2 In his recent manual of phonology, Hockett similarly excludes "variations of phonological pattern from individual to individual, or from group to group, within a speech community ..." 3 While this limitation of the field of inquiry is understandable, it fails to do justice to the phenomena of interdialectal and interlinguistic contact which are an important part of linguistic behavior. These are most obvious in the case of bilinguals, but I believe that bilingualism is only a special case of the wider concept of coexistent linguistic systems, which can be applied not only to the contact of different languages, but also of different dialects. In any case the distinction between idiolect, dialect, and language is one of degree rather than of kind, and no one has yet established a purely linguistic criterion which permits us to distinguish sharply between dialect and language. Even in our relatively homogeneous English-speaking community in the United States we are constantly exposed to different structures from our own, and linguistic theory which does not adequately take account of the interrelationship of coexistent linguistic structures is still incomplete. Fortunately important contributions to the theory of language contact have recently been made by Weinreich; a new field of BILINGUAL DESCRIPTION, or DIALINGUISTICS, is thereby opened up.4 2. Since the phoneme is one of the central terms in the development of structural linguistics, it should be of special interest to see whether we can speak of phonemes 1

This paper was read at the General Phonetics section of the MLA, December 27, 1955. Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics (Chicago, 1951), p. 9. * Hockett, Manual of Phonology (Baltimore, 1955), p. 1. 4 Uriel Weinreich, Languages in Contact (New York, 1953). 1



when we are dealing with more than one structure at a time. As usually defined, the phoneme has meaning only in terms of a single structure. I believe it would make sense to say that the phoneme is normally defined in two dimensions, which might be described as the ALLOPHONIC and the PHONETIC. A phoneme is, on the one hand, the sum of its allophones, a linear relationship which can be stated, for example, for the English phoneme /p/ as /p/ = initial [pc] + [p] after /s/ +medial [p] +final [p]. Each allophone is defined in terms of its position in relation to the allophones of other phonemes, and it is assumed that its difference from the other allophones is correlated to its specific environment. What is ordinarily called the FREE VARIANTS of a phoneme are of a different order, or in my present terminology, in a different dimension. Each allophone varies in its phonetic characteristics around a purely statistical norm, correlated not to the phonetic environment, but to the individual speaker and the limits of toleration imposed by the social group. But these definitions of the phoneme in terms of its two factors, the allophones and the free variants, which we might call VARIPHONES to have a term that is parallel to ALLOPHONES, leaves entirely out of account the phenomena of interlinguistic communication. Can the term phoneme be salvaged for use in this larger context? I believe it can, but only by adding a third dimension to its definition. We need, in other words, a third category of phonemic variants, beyond the allophone and the variphone. In previous papers I have tentatively labelled this the DIAPHONE.5 The new idea in this paper is to regard the diaphone as a PHONEMIC VARIANT, DEFINABLE FOR EACH SITUATION OF INTERDIALECTAL OR INTERLINGUISTIC CONTACT. Speakers who hear systems unlike their own and learn all or part of these will tend to establish identifications which result in making the phonemes of the other system members of their own, but with a status that is different from that of either the allophone or the variphone. 3. Let me illustrate by a little experiment which I undertook in order to test the relationship between two dialects of American English which have clearly different structures. I asked a speaker from New England, whose speech had often struck me as markedly different from my own Midwestern, to record a list of 22 words, chosen to illustrate his distinctions in the low and mid range. He read the list twice, and the tape was then played to two classes of college students, all of them with General American backgrounds. They were told only that this was a kind of English and that they were to write down which word they thought they heard. The number of subjects was only 25, which is of course not enough for statistical validity, but the results suggest what might be found if further experiments were undertaken. For one phoneme there was complete coincidence between the dialects: every subject perceived correctly the words containing the phoneme /se/ : cat, pat, hat. Before /r/, however, the situation was quite different. The familiar triad of merry, Mary, and marry was 5

See the papers both entitled "Problems of Bilingual Description" in Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 7.9-19 (1954) and in General Linguistics 1.1-9 (1955).



included, plus the pairs ferry and fairy, very and vary. The speaker clearly distinguished all of these, pronouncing what might be described as [ε], [ε ι], and [ae], phonemically /e/, /ey/, and /ae/. But as might be expected, the answers were almost wholly random; the correct answers amounted to 52.6 per cent, which is little better than chance. The percentage would have been still lower but for the word very, which all but one identified correctly; but 16 of 25 also identified vary as very, showing that very probably was favored because of its greater frequency. The following table gives the detailed figures for each identification (the 'correct' answers are italicized) : Spoken merry Mary marry

Written merry 10 8 2

Mary 3 12 6


marry 10 5 17

Other 2

Spoken very vary

ferry fairy

Written ferry 9 2

fairy 11 15

Other 4 8

Written very 24 16

vary 0 5

Other 1 4

These results merely confirm the well-known fact that Midwest speakers have a single phoneme before /r/ in the range where New England speakers have three. While one of these is phonetically most similar to the Midwest vowel, viz. the /e/ of very, it would be dangerous to identify them uniquely in view of the difficulty encountered by listeners with merry and ferry. The relationship is between one phoneme in one structure and three in another, and we can say that all three of the New England phonemes are BIDIALECTAL VARIANTS of one Midwestern phoneme, at least to the Midwestern speaker. Another way of saying this is to call them DIAPHONES of Midwestern /e/ before /r/. But while the relation of / χ / and /e/ and /ey/ in other positions is a simple one-to-one relation, before /r/ there is a three-to-one relation. I have suggested the term "diaphonie" for these relations, and if one calls the variants which are not part of one's own system, but of the other system one hears, DIAPHONES, we have a name that stands beside ALLOPHONE and VARIPHONE as the unit of the third dimension I have here been describing. 4. Of course the relations are not always as simple as the ones I have been describing so far. Phonemes or phoneme sequences in one language may very well overlap with those of another. This is the case with the vocalic phonemes of hot, pot, cot and heart, part, cart when New England and General American are compared. I remind you that all the subjects identified hat, pat, cat correctly; but only 30 per cent identified hot, pot, cot, and 52 per cent heart, part, cart. The following table gives the details :



Spoken cot cot2 hot pot

o 6 10 8 6

ar 12 9 16 17

u 4 A







Written au 2 2

a 1

car/ heart1 Aearf2 part

1 1 5



Written o 7 2 3 5

ar 76 10 16 10




a 1 1 8 4 6 6 3 23



The New England sounds are clearly differentiated into a low back short round vowel [o] and a low front long unround vowel [a:], phonemically /a/ and /ah/. Orthographically and historically these correspond in Midwest English respectively to a low central long unround vowel [a:] and a similar slightly back vowel with retraction [a:r], But without a context to tell him which word is meant, the Midwest speaker is at a loss. The back [d] of New England suggests the beginning of his own [ar] ; so half the time he thinks he is hearing an [r] where there is none. On the other hand, the length of the New England [a:] he has learned to associate with his own [r] also, and so he identifies this too with [r] the other half of the time. But he often hears the fronting of the New England [a:] as the beginning of his own diphthong [ai], or even occasionally as his own phoneme [as]. I confess to having heard the NE /ah/ as /ae/ myself years ago when I first heard it, thinking that part and pat had been confused. We may sum up the situation by saying that Midwest /a/ has both New England /a/ and /ah/ as its diaphones, but that the latter also corresponds to /ar/, resulting in confusion of the simple phonemes with the sequences. 5. In the preceding account I have outlined three different relationships which can arise when two structures are in contact: a one-to-one, a one-to-several, and a several-to-several relationship between phonemes. In previous papers I have called these simple, compound, and complex diaphones. It should be clear that the same situation arises when the systems are so different that we have to call them languages. The student who learns a foreign language, as is well known, hears its phonemes filtered through his own. His ears will not report truly to him, nor his speech organs reproduce correctly the foreign phonemes. While German /p/ may strike him as familiar and be identified with his own /p/, the German /ü/ and /i/ will both be identified with his own /i/. Only careful teaching, supplemented by constant practice and the correction of natives, will separate the diaphones and turn them into phonemes in his reproduction of the new language. In extreme cases we can speak of two languages with but a single phonological system among such learners. One such case which I have studied is that of a speaker of Norwegian and English who learned the latter language as an adult immigrant and now speaks both languages fluently. As far as I can hear from the records I have made of his speech in both languages, he speaks a fluent and quite comprehensible English without having learned a single new phoneme. What is sometimes called sound substitution has in his case reached its extremity.



For the 24 consonants of English he has substituted his native 18, which means that 6 distinctions made by native English speakers are non-existent in his dialect. The phonemes /w ζ ζ j ö θ/ have been coalesced with his native /v s s j d t/, which he also substitutes for the corresponding English consonants. He is unable to distinguish between thinker and tinker, weep and veep, there and dare. These identifications

are productive, in the sense that when he learns new English words, they are reproduced according to this formula. The English phonemes are therefore diaphones of his Norwegian phonemes, in such a fashion that he reproduces, e.g. both thin and tin as tin. Another consequence of this situation is that in his Norwegian it is impossible to distinguish assimilated from unassimilated loanwords by phonological criteria. Phonologically there is no switching when he passes from one language into the other. That his English is still comprehensible is due largely to context and to what one might call the 'common core' of Norwegian and English phonologies. 6. While much more could be said about this theme, I shall only suggest a few conclusions. If the phoneme is to be salvaged for the study of interdialectal and interlinguistic phenomena, it must be given a third dimension in the form of dialinguistically defined variants. Although I have proposed the term DIAPHONE for such variants, I hold no brief for the term and would gladly accept another that will express the concept. The difference from the allophones and the variphones is that these can only be established for one structure at a time, while the diaphones are established for two structures at a time. The diaphones obtaining for English and Thai would obviously be different from those for English and Norwegian and both would be different from those obtaining for American and British English. A given English phoneme can have as many diaphones as there are languages which can come into contact with it. The importance of the DIAPHONIC RELATION will be apparent to anyone who considers the problems of linguistic borrowing, language learning, and bilingualism. All forms of oral interlinguistic influence are transmitted by way of diaphonic equivalents. Experiments like the one reported on above, but using more precise methods and more substantial numbers, could throw light on problems of language perception and language structure. Most language textbooks provide a set of more or less accurate diaphonic equivalents for the phonemes they wish to teach. But in actual learning, these provide only a very weak crutch for the beginner. Our goal as teachers is that the learner shall turn the diaphones into phonemes, distinguishing them precisely from his own. When they have ceased to be diaphones, we can speak of two distinct systems, instead of the system and a half or even single system which so many of our pupils employ. From a subordinate member of one phonemic system, the diaphone thus becomes a principal member of a second system which makes the speaker approach more nearly to our ideal of a true bilingual.6 Reprinted from Language Learning, 7, 17-23, (1956-1957). < For bibliography and further discussion of related problems see the author's Bilingualism in the Americas: A Bibliography and Research Guide (American Dialect Society, 1956).




This paper was one of several attempts to explicate the concept which Weinreich called "interlinguistic identification", i.e. the perception of sounds in a second language as being equivalent to (though actually different from) sounds in one's own. The trouble with the DIAPHONIE as an entity was its fleeting and variable nature, since any English phoneme could have as its diaphones any typologically same phone in any language in the world (as suggested in this paper). The accepted linguistics of the time admitted only static concepts in synchronic description, but in other articles than this one I found it expedient to sneak in an arrow to show that the diaphonie relation was not bidirectional. This meant that in fact it was a synchronic process established for any given speaker or speech community during the learning of a second language. This would nowadays be expressed as a set of rules for converting one dialect and/or language into another, which was the essence of diaphonie identification. Experiments like the one attempted here have since been performed with much more refined techniques, e.g. by Saporta, Brown, and Wolfe (Language and Speech, 2, 205-210 (1959)) and Brière (A Psycholinguistic Study of Phonological Interference, The Hague, 1968). The present article was reprinted in The English Teachers' Magazine (Tokyo, 1958) and in Theory and Practice in English as a Foreign Language (Ann Arbor, 1963).


1. Among Bernard Bloch's postulates for linguistic analysis there is one which runs as follows: "The order of phonemes is either successive or simultaneous."1 But immediately after this postulate comes one which provides a technique for turning simultaneous phonemes into successive ones. The problem of linearity and simultaneity among phonemes is one which has troubled phonemicists for a long time, but is still far from resolved. It will be my purpose in this paper to explore the concept of simultaneity, which I think is at the root of most of the disagreements that beset phonemic analysis today. Contrary to Bloch's postulate I shall suggest that phonemes are never simultaneous; that simultaneity is a phonetic rather than a phonemic phenomenon; and that our problem is primarily one of reaching agreement on the methods for converting phonetic simultaneity into phonemic linearity. 2. Anyone who has attempted to apply the methods of phonemic analysis to a body of phonetic data cannot help but have run into some of the problems raised by phonetic simultaneity. I shall briefly describe a few that have come up in my own experience or in my reading. These illustrate such typical areas for this kind of dilemma as syllabic consonants, retroflex consonants, palatalized consonants, affricated and aspirated stops, nasalized vowels, tones, glottalization, and quantity. 2.1. Syllabic consonants. — The classic example here is the syllabic [f] of American English in words like bird and butter; with this may also be included the parallel [9] [}] [ip] of button, bottle, and stop 'em. In one widely accepted analysis these are described as phonemically /a/ plus the consonants /r η 1 m/ respectively.2 But the allophones in each case do not occur in this order; they are simultaneous. The allophones of /a/ are not, as in sofa, e.g. successive segments; they are the syllabicity which occurs simultaneously with the consonantal qualities. In eifect the components of these segments have been abstracted and promoted to the status of allophones. 1

Lg., 24, 39 (1948). George Trager and Bernard Bloch, "Syllabic Phonemes of English", Lg., 17, 223-246 (1941); cf. esp. p. 232. An article by Elizabeth Bowman in Studies in Linguistics, 12, 78-84 (1957) marshals the arguments in favor of linear resolution. 2



2.2. Retroflex consonants. — A similar procedure is possible for those varieties of Norwegian and Swedish which have a series of retroflex consonants matching their dentals: [t ] s [s]

au[öy] hj [hj] k [k,"] t [th]

b [1?] hl [hj] 1 [1] u [Y]

d [4] e [ε] hn[h9] hr[hf] m [m] η [η] Ú [U] ν [ν]

ei [ei] hv [hw] o [o] 1> [M

f [f] i, y [i] ó [ou] ae [ai]

g [g] i,y[i] ρ [p h ] ö [Ö]

These can be divided into vowels and consonants purely by distribution: while every utterance must have one of the vowels, the consonants need not occur. If we disregard the diphthongs, the initial vowel phones are [a ε i i o Y u ö]. These initiate what we shall later describe as the NUCLEUS, and anything that procedes them belongs to the PRENUCLEAR MARGIN, which we may call (with Hockett) the ONSET.9 Our first step in analysis will be to determine how many consonants the onset can have, and how they are clustered. There is considerable disagreement among phonemicists whether some of the above are one or two phonemes. In settling this point, minimal pairs are of little help: a pair like kappi [khahI?:i] and kjappi [kjhahl?:i] (adduced by Malone, 6) does not prove that [k h ] and [kjh] are unit phonemes; it only proves that these words are different utterances. If [kj h ] should turn out to be a cluster, then it contrasts with e.g. [khJ], not with [kh]. Some of the phones listed above have never been segmented, and seem unlikely to be regarded as clusters by anyone; we may assume that under any theory the following are unit phonemes: the voiceless lenis stops [1? 4 g]> the nasals [m n], the voiceless spirants [f h s J)], and the voiced spirants [j 1 r v]. Each of these occurs by itself before vowels and can be illustrated, if desired, in

' From Stefán Einarsson, Icelandic 2-3, with some minor changes of symbols. * Hockett, Manual 52ff.



minimal pairs. Accordingly, we shall write them phonemically as /b d g m η f h s J) j 1 r ν/, and discuss the remaining phones in the following paragraphs.10 1.1. The stops. — Contrasting with the voiceless stops /b d g/ there are aspirated [p h t h kh], in which it is possible to distinguish a voiceless stop element and a following aspiration. Now two treatments are possible of these phones, according to whether we regard them as units or clusters. The orthography treats them as units, as does Malone; for convenience of discussion we shall call this the P-solution, after the labial phoneme. But there is another tempting solution, similar to one that has also been used e.g. for Chinese: to regard them as clusters, /bh dh gh/. This means classifying the stop elements as allophones of /b d g/, the aspiration as an allophone of /h/. We shall call this the B-solution. Its advantages are best exemplified in the position after /s/, where the orthography has sp, st, sk. Here, as in most other Germanic languages, there is no aspiration and no contrast between two kinds of stops. Hence we have nothing but phonetic similarity to base our classification on (the kind of reasoning on which Hockett11 bases the identification of English sp as /sp/ does not apply to Icelandic). If we should eliminate /p t k/ from our system, there could then be no doubt that these phones belong with /b d g/, so that e.g. spila would be /sbila/. Even so, the B-solution is a doubtful one. The economy of phonemic inventory is offset by an increased list of phoneme sequences : /bh/ would take its place alongside /bj br/ etc. More serious are the complications that would arise in the clusters written pj pi pr; these would become three-phoneme clusters /bhj bhl bhr/, of a type otherwise unknown. Furthermore, every occurrence of /p t k/ would add one phoneme to the length of the text in which it occurred; instead of /pabbi/ we would have /bhabbi/. But the really conclusive objection to eliminating /p t k/ is the difficulties it raises in describing the voiceless spirants : we will discover that all the economy we gained by eliminating the stops is lost by the need of a double series of spirant. 1.2. The spirants. — We have established four voiceless and four voiced spirants as phonemes, viz. /f s h J>/ and /v j 1 r/; to the latter we may add the nasals /m n/. But there are five voiceless spirants which are listed above (following Einarsson) as clusters, but by Malone (following Ófeigsson) as unit phonemes: [hj] or [ç], [hj] or [J], [hç] or [ç], [hf] or [f], [hw] or [xw], Einarsson's analysis follows the orthography (except that [hv] is written hv), while Malone's departs from it. The phonetic data would probably support either procedure, though Einarsson's measurements showed that the transitions to following vowels were voiced.12 The phonetic parallel to /h/ before vowels is perfect: in either case the organs occupy the position of the following sound, but articulate it without voice. In clusters like /pj pi pr tv tj tr kv kn kl kr/ the second consonant is voiceless and there is no contrast with a voiced counterpart. 10

Initial /t>/ may begin with a closure which makes it sound like /t/, as I have often had occasion to observe, e.g. in pad: the same phenomenon occurs in pú as pronounced by Bergsveinsson (2.126), cf. comment by Fischer-tergensen 4. 11 Hockett, Manual 165. " Beiträge 36; cf. also the discussion in Kress 169.



The same is true, as we shall see, in postvocalic position: the voice of these spirants is regulated entirely by their environment. Hence we can manage quite handily without the voiceless spirants in our phoneme inventory. They can be regarded as allophones of the voiced ones, provided we accept the P-solution of the stops; for the distinction of /p/ from /b/ is needed to provide an environment for the preceding spirants. We may thus say that the P-solution makes the voiceless spirant phonemes superfluous; this was not observed by Malone, who inconsistently adopted Ρ in prevocalic position, Β in postvocalic. He did not adopt the B-solution in full, which required him to recognize voiceless spirants. We will accordingly accept the initial clusters /hj hi hn hr hv/, even though they have the same disadvantage as /bh dh gh/ of increasing the length of the text; this solution has the support and authority of the orthographic tradition, which is thereby shown to be phonemic on this point, though it is only one of two possible solutions. 1.3. The palatals. — The palatal stops [gj kj h ] may be regarded as either units or clusters, as suggested above. While Malone and Einarsson agree in considering them units, Einarsson mentions that the older conception of native Icelanders was to regard them as clusters.13 The issue is whether the palatal off-glide should be regarded as a feature or an allophone. It overlaps the stop, but it can also be heard as an independent phone, especially before unrounded vowels, e.g. in gjâ [gjau:]. The orthography treats the palatals as units before historically front vowels (some of which are now back), e.g. gses [gjai:s] 'goose', as clusters before historically back vowels (some of which are now front), e.g. g/ö/[gjö:v] 'gift'. There is contrast between velar and palatal before [a au ou γ u ö] ; but only velar occurs before [o öy], and only palatal occurs before [ei i i ai]. The last statement holds only if we exclude certain marginal words of types that we may describe as (1) nicknames, e.g. Gxi [gai:i] from Gardar, gey [gei:] a peíname, Kea [ke:a] a hotel name, and (2) recent loans, e.g. ksei [kai:i] 'quay', ókei [ou:kei] O.K.', gxi [gai:i] 'guy', geim [gei:m] 'game', keis [kei:s] 'case'.14 If it were not for these, we might even say that the orthographic treatment of the palatals as units before some vowels and clusters before others is phonemically defensible. The only vowels, however, before which no such exceptions have been found are [i i] ; and before unstressed [i] the palatal is invariable, e.g. in Siggi. Elsewhere the orthography is inadequate and we must distinguish, whether by writing palatal phonemes or j-clusters. Since /g k/ are the only prenuclear consonants which would be missing in the list of j-clusters, it is probably best to regard the palatals as clusters. This would also permit us to eliminate a whole extra row among the consonants, without parallel among the rest, or among the vowels (cf. §2.14 below). Instead of distinct velar and palatal phonemes, we would then need only a single row of postdental phonemes. "

Beiträge 12. According to Halldór Sigurdsson, Icelandic children misspell geta as gjeta. Cf. Árni Böövarsson, Sitthvaô um lokhljód 7; but his explanation of gxi as being deliberately kept apart from gxgi 'window' is unlikely. This is a common loanword phenomenon, with many parallels in the other Scandinavian languages; cf. the pronunciation with stop [k] and [g] in words like Norw. gear [gi:r] 'gear' and gis [gis:] 'call to pigs' for the usual spirants before front vowels. 11



The disadvantage is that we must either write a redundant /j/ before /i/ (e.g. in gil /gji:l/) or set up an extra allophonic rule that velar stops are palatal before /i/ as well as before /j/, so that we can write /gi:l/.


While the vowels listed in § 1.0 define the beginning of the nucleus, they do not determine its end. It is tempting to make the nucleus coextensive with the vowels, but this would be a mistake. The vowels occur in two allophonic varieties, one which can end the monosyllabic utterance and is usually called LONG, and one which cannot and is usually called SHORT. In his first treatment Malone regarded these as phonemically different, thus listing [a] and [a:] as distinct phonemes. But he later thought better of this, as he realized that they are in CD (complementary distribution): vowel length is correlated to the length of the following consonant. Thus the short vowel (in stressed syllables) occurs only before a long consonant, as in menn [men:] 'men', the long vowel before a short consonant, as in men [me:n] 'necklace'. This is a phenomenon which Icelandic shares with Norwegian and Swedish, but not with Danish or German; the latter have long vowels but no long consonants. On the other hand, Icelandic differs from (standard) Norwegian and Swedish in extending this contrast to the diphthongs, so that the latter also occur both long and short, as in mein [mei:n] 'injury' and meins [mein:s] 'injury' (gen. sg.). There are 13 contrasting vowel nuclei which occur both long and short, eight of them commonly regarded as monophthongs and five as diphthongs. Although the vowel qualities of long and short allophones are not identical, they are similarly ordered, and no one has found reason to question that they should be identified, as in the standard orthography. The first problem arises when we turn to the nuclear consonants, and discover that their length is not independent of that of the vowels, but inversely correlated with it: long consonants occur only after short vowels. Hence, as Malone justly observes,16 they are both in CD and "it will not do to play favorites here." But the conclusion which he draws, that length is phonemic for both, is patently false. A study of the short vowels and consonants shows that these do occur without following long consonants or preceding long vowels, viz. short vowels in unstressed syllables and short consonants in stressed syllables outside the nucleus. Here they are therefore not in contrast with length, but in CD with it; and the feature of environment correlated to this CD is STRESS. Malone was aware of this fact, and in his reconsideration of length he tentatively advanced the idea that quantity might be abstracted and made a "feature of the syllable, a feature comparable to stress and pitch." He found that the "surgent [defined as 'the phoneme that coincides with the intensity peak'] of an Icelandic stressed syllable is regularly long; the other phonemes of the syllable are regularly short", and that one ls

Lg. 29.62. This is exactly what Bergsveinsson does in postulating length of vowels as phonemic, that of consonants as allophonic.



could therefore use the symbol of length to mark also stress, e.g. men vs. men. This is correct, and is the only solution that does justice to the Icelandic stress-quantity pattern. 14 But this tentative suggestion is not developed by Malone, and his earlier treatment of stress remains misleading. We shall examine the stress problem somewhat further. 2.1. Stress. — Malone described stress as if there were only one kind, which he says occurs initially, medially, and finally. This refers to the well known fact that stress normally occurs on the first syllable of Icelandic words; then there is a secondary stress on the second part of a compound, normally on the first syllable of that part. Malone does not explain what he means by 'final' stress, but he is probably referring to the slight lengthening of vowels before pause to which various phoneticians refer. 17 Since this is a pause phenomenon, it should not be confused with stress, but regarded as a component of final juncture. The analysis of stress proposed by Malone can only be maintained if one limits one's consideration to lexical items, and not very well even then. The essential question in this: is stress predictable in terms of morphemes (or words), or is it a purely phonological phenomenon, and hence one which needs to be marked? A study of speech utterances shows clearly that while the rule of initial stress is a useful one, it does not hold everywhere. In the first place there are lexical items which are not stressed initially, e.g. those beginning with hálf- 'half' or jafn- 'equally'. 18 Some of these may even differ in meaning according to whether the stress is on the prefix or on the stem. In the second place, it is not possible to predict which words will lose their stress in context, e.g. the word ef is unstressed in ef pú vilt 'if you wish', but stressed in ef til vili 'perhaps'. In a prepositional phrase, the preposition is normally unstressed, but if one wishes to contrast it with another preposition, it may be stressed, e.g. i húsinu 'IN the house (not outside it)'. A sentence noted from Icelandic speech will illustrate the need of marking the stress of prepositions : pad er ekki til neins 'it is of no use' was stressed as if til neins were one word : *paä er ekki1 till-¡neins; this could not have been predicted from the spelling. As for the secondary stress (here written [,]), this may fall on the second rather than the first syllable of the second element, as in pjôôfélagsins ['jDjouiö-fje^ax'sins] 'society' (gen. sg.). It may even fall on a derivative suffix, e.g. the second syllable of vandlega ['van:d'le - qa] 'carefully'. Loan words of more than two syllables also exhibit secondary stress, e.g. amerikani [ ' a i m i e ^ k a ' n i ] 'an American' or xvintyri ['ai:vin ,ίίτι] 'adventure'. An intermediate degree of stress which may be identified with secondary occurs in syntactic sequences. I have noted it, for example, in a sentence like the following: pad er mest 1 börnin og 'unga Jolkid semtssekja [pau 'it is mostly 'children and 'young ,people who ,go 'there'. Here börnin, unga, and pau received primary 18

For a similar suggestion for Norwegian see Haugen, "On the stressed vowel systems of Norwegian", Illinois Studies in Lang, and Lit. 29,1.69 (1942); Norwegian Language in America 419-420 (Philadelphia, 1953). 17 Einarsson, Beiträge 102; Bergsveinsson, Grundfragen 83. u For information on stress distribution see Einarsson, Beiträge 126-127.



stress; but folkiö and sxkja were reduced, without losing their stress entirely. I conclude that unga folkiö can be stressed [' '], i.e. with level stress, or with reduction of stress on one of the members, either [' ,] (as above) or [, '].19 Any transcription of such utterances must show both primary and secondary stress to render them unambiguously. There are sequences like minni hlutinn [' '] and minnihlutinn [' ,], or blâsnauôur [' '] 'absolutely broke' and bláraudur 'bluish red' [' ,], with different patterns of stress distribution. This also eliminates the need of assuming an extraloud stress, as Einarsson does, in the case of blâsnauôur above and similar examples like hádagur 'bright day' [' '], contrasting with hádegi [' ,] 'noon'. There may be such a stress, but if so, it is more in the nature of a morpheme, expressing astonishment or the like. We conclude that Icelandic has a LOUD stress ['], a somewhat weaker 20 REDUCED stress [,], and a WEAK stress (left unmarked). 2.2. Quantity. — If we ask about the physical nature of stress, we are met by the disagreement of phoneticians and a general attitude of hopelessness. Objective measures of loudness, we are told, fail to confirm the testimony of the ear, and no satisfactory method has been found to measure what the ear hears. In the case of Icelandic there is a clear parallel, however, between what are traditionally called stress and quantity. It will have been noted that in the phonetic transcriptions of the preceding paragraph the marking of stress was accompanied in each syllable by a length mark. We here followed the practice of Einarsson in marking two degrees of length, long [:] and half-long [·], as in hâtiô [hau:ti'ö] 'festival'. This gives us three kinds of length: long, half-long, and short; and these coincide in distribution exactly with primary, secondary, and weak stress.21 But objective measurements of length also fail to give entirely satisfactory results. In isolated utterances and under comparable conditions of tempo and juncture, 'short' vowels were measured by Einarsson as averaging 11.8 centiseconds, 'long' as 22.3 (Beiträge 92). But Bergsveinsson, who measured in longer utterances, found a much smaller difference: his 'short' vowels averaged 9.3, his 'long' only 12.85 (Grundfragen 103), with great overlapping of the classes. For consonants the situation is still less encouraging, since the different consonants vary in their inherent length, and Bergsveinsson shows that the traditionally 'long' consonants are not necessarily longer than the 'short' ones, even of their own kind (Grundfragen 115). His linguistic criterion of length is extensibility (Dehnbarkeit), which is of course not directly observable in the data. We may leave further investiga"

Cf. the sentences given by Fischer-J0rgensen 18ff., which clearly point to the same conclusion. This appears to be what Bergsveinsson is trying to say in his passage on accent, Grundfragen 177 ff. He claims that 'sentence accent' is somehow different from 'word accent' because the former has 'psychic' Voraussetzungen. The difference, however, is rather one of distribution than of the phonemic entities themselves. His recorded material shows clearly the need of marking accent. His division into four degrees of stress corresponds to ours, if his two middle categories are combined into one (our secondary); there is no evidence that the perceptual difference between them which he has noted is anything but allophonic. (Fischer-J0rgensen, who listened to his recording, found his designation of these two quite uncertain; cf. her review 17.) " Einarsson also uses the half-long mark for the first consonant in a cluster, but from our point of view this is to be regarded as an allophone of full length, correlated to following consonants. ä0



tion of these problems to the instrumental phoneticians, while maintaining that indecision on the exact physical nature of the phenomenon does not invalidate its structural role. The perceptual contrasts illustrated above involve both stress and length; their identical distributions require us to regard them as components of one phoneme. We shall refer to this unity of length and stress by the term ACCENT. 22 2.3. Accent. — Three degrees of accent must be distinguished, each of which may be called a phoneme, although there are some terminological advantages in regarding the weakest as zero. We can then call the weakly stressed syllables containing only short vowels and consonants UNACCENTED and continue to leave them unmarked. The accent proper can then be said to be of two degrees, PRIMARY (with loud stress, long vowel or consonant, and usually, as we shall see, high pitch), and SECONDARY (with reduced stress, half-long vowel or consonant, and nondistinctive pitch). But where, in the linear sequence of phonemes, should the mark of accent be placed? Stress is ordinarily thought of as distributed over an entire syllable, and is therefore marked at its beginning or end. Quantity is thought of as applying to a particular phoneme and is therefore marked immediately after it. This gives two possible points in each syllable for the quantity mark, one after the vowel, and one after the immediately following nuclear consonant. Since this alternative is significant, we conclude that the proper place for the accent mark is immediately after the lengthened phoneme. One could use either the stress marks [' ,] or the length marks [: ·]> but to make it clear that we are talking about accents, we shall adopt the acute and grave accents /' 7 and place them after the long phoneme.23 The phonemic transcription /hau'tii't>/ shows, accordingly, that the first syllabic is long and loud, the second half-long and reduced. But the accent marks prove to have a further function : they delimit for us the end of the nucleus. This is a most appropriate position, since the accent makes the phoneme sequence pronounceable; it marks the end of a distributionally complete entity. The nucleus is a minimum syllable, stripped of its prenuclear and postnuclear margins. Since the accent can come after either a vowel or a consonant, we distinguish two kinds of nuclei: those which contain only a vowel, the VOCALIC nuclei; and those which contain also a consonant, the CONSONANTAL nuclei. 2.4. Vowels. — The vowels which occur in both vocalic and consonantal nuclei are traditionally divided into eight monophthongs and five diphthongs. The monophthongs are those which in Icelandic orthography are written a, e, i (y), í (y), o, u, ú, ö. As phonetically tabulated, e.g. by Einarsson, they have the following qualities:24

M This treatment coincides exactly with the point of view expressed by Eli Fischer-Jargensen in her review of Bergsveinsson 16: "Ved akcent forstaas fremhaevelse; den erkendes subjektivt. De objektive midier til denne fremhaevelse er intensitet, stigende melodi og varighed." On the melody see below. 23 This also has the purely orthographic advantage of not confusing the Icelandic reader by placing accents over the vowels. " The transcriptions are those of Einarsson, Icelandic 10; note that [a] is phonetically central, with front and back allophones in [ai] and [au] respectively.




Low Low


[i] is, iss (yta, ytt) [ι] iö, iön (ys, yzt) [ε] ef, eff



[u] úr, úfna [Y] una, und

[ö] öl, öld [a] al, alls

[o] ok, okkur

The diphthongs are written à, au, ei, ó, œ. They can be tabulated as follows by their (approximate) beginning and end points : End:


Beginning MID Low

[ei] ein, einn [ai] aer, aert



[öy] auö, auön

[ou] ós, ósk [au] ás, áss

In addition to these five, however, there are three diphthongs that occur only in vocalic nuclei, and not even there in all dialects. They offer certain difficulties of interpretation, which Malone has ignored. Yet it seems to me that these also offer illumination which will enable us to present a more unified picture of the vowel structure than has previously been possible. They occur only in words ending in -gi, and are written respectively i (y), o, and u, as in stigi 'ladder' (lygi 'lie'), bogi 'bow', hugi 'mind'. The g has become [j] and has formed diphthongs with the preceding vowels which Einarsson transcribes ambiguously as [(i)i:, oi:, (Y)y:]. In the first of these it is not clear whether the initial element is to be classed with [i] or [i] ; in the last we find a phone [y] which occurs elsewhere only as the second part of the diphthongs [öy]. Nor is it clear whether the historical [ j] from g is still everywhere present, or has merely become a redundant transition between vowels. Malone arbitrarily assigns [oi:] as an allophone of [o:] because bogi is pronounced either way; in the parallel case of [(i)i:] he regards the diphthong as an allophone of either [i:] or [i:] ; and he does not discuss [(Y)y:] at all. It appears to have escaped him that the two pronunciations of bogi are not free variants, but belong to different dialects. They are part of a general distinction between speakers who use monophthongs before -gi and others who do not. In the case of unitary phonemes like /a e ö/, the corresponding diphthongs are the acknowledged [ai: ei: öy:], so that there are rival pronunciations for words like hagi [ha:ji] or [hai:ji], dregiô [dre:jiö] or [drei:jiö], login [lö:jin] or [löyrjin]. No one would wish to regard these diphthongs as allophones of the corresponding monophthongs, and the parallelism forbids us from doing so for the three uncertain ones. According to Björn Guöfinnsson, the monophthongal pronunciation prevails in the southeast district of Iceland (Skaftafellssysla), where it is a conservative feature. 26 In this area both monophthongs and diphthongs exist in this position, so that words like lagi and Ixgi do not rime: [la:ji] vs. [lai:ji]. For the rest of Iceland the problem results from the coalescence of monophthong and diphthong in this position and the rise of three new diphthongs of ambiguous status. "

Blöndal xxvii ; Björn Guöfinnsson, Breytingar ά framburdi og stafsetningu 29 (Reykjavik, 1947).



2.5. Diphthongs. — We may attack the problem by considering first the syllabic nucleus of [st(i)i:ji]. Those who say [sti:ji] distinguish the nucleus clearly from that (say) of myi [mi:ji] 'mosquito' (dat. sg.). Those who say [stii:ji] do not, as far as I can discover; they rime stigi and myi, and for that matter vigi 'battle' (dat. sg.). Phonetically there appears to be in either case a movement of the tongue from high mid to high. The highest position of the tongue is reached at the point where the transcription has [j]. There is at least no phonemic reason for distinguishing these two transcriptions, and two alternatives are open to us when we identify them: (1) we can regard [(i)i:] as an allophone of [i:] (not, of course, of [i:], since it is distinct from the pronunciation of those who say [stirji]) and analyze the word as /stirji/; (2) we can decompose [i:] into two successive elements corresponding to the writing [(i)i] and regard the second of these as [j], so that we analyze the word as /stij:i/. The former alternative leaves us with a redundant [j] between the vowels; it is redundant because there is no contrast between /sti:ji/ and a potential */sti:i/, or between /hy:i/ and a potential */hy:ji/. In the latter word this alternative leaves us with a new long vowel /y:/ which occurs nowhere else. The second alternative will bring out the remarkable parallel in structure between í [i:] and the diphthongs ei [ei:] and ae [ai:] : they all have in common a final rise of the tongue, with the difference concentrated in their point of beginning. This parallelism could be brought out by writing them /ij ej aj/. The other front unrounded vowels lack this final rise; instead, when lengthened, they have a final fall. Identifying the beginning of [i:] with [i] would give our phoneme /i/ two allophones, a high one before /j/ and a lower one (high mid) elsewhere. Until now [i] and [i] have not appeared as the first element in any diphthong, as [e] does; now there is a high diphthong /ij/ parallel to the others. The diphthongal glide in this case is minimal; but it is not inconspicuous, especially in final position. The writing ij for í is not unfamiliar in older Icelandic orthography, as we shall see; and it will not startle anyone working in the Sweet-Bloomfield tradition of English phonemics. I do not give much weight in this connection to the argument that the elimination of [i] reduces the inventory of phonemes; it obviously increases the number of clusters and extends the length of the text. The chief advantage lies in its clarification of the vowel system as a whole. First, the other diphthongs before written -gi now fall into place. The [o] of bogi is identified with that of (say) bord in a phoneme which we shall write /o/; the remaining part of the diphthong is /j/ with the accent that marks it as long, so that we can now write the word /boj'i/, parallel to /stij'i/. For those who do not pronounce a diphthong, the transcription is /bo'ji/ and /sti'ji/, thus reducing the difference between the two pronunciations to simply a difference in the placing of accent. Before discussing hugi, we must consider the rounded vowels in general. We may begin with [Ö] and the diphthong [öy]; the first element of the latter is commonly identified with the former. The second element of the diphthong can easily be handled as an allophone of /j/; its rounded quality depends on that of the preceding phoneme. This is suggested already by Einarsson, who points out that the



exact point reached by the upward glide in such diphthongs varies considerably, but that the [y] of [(Y)y: öy: oy:] 'may be considered to be a variant of the Icelandic ί phoneme, and in Icelandic orthography the diphthongs in question would be written phonetically [better: phonemically] uí, öl, oí.' If we identify this ί with high tongue position and call it phonemically /]/, our point is here granted not only for the two already discussed, but also for [(Y)y:]. This brings us to the most difficult part of the proposed analysis. Parallelism of the front and back vowels, both in their phonetic constitution and in their distribution, suggests that [u] ought to be treated in the same way as [i]. Like the latter it is unique in not entering into diphthongs as a first element; like the diphthongs of the back rounded series it ends in a closing movement (here of the lips and the back of the tongue). The parallelism is somewhat strained, however, by the phonetic nature of the nearest counterpart; there is no [u] corresponding to [u] as [i] corresponds to [i]. Instead, the old short u has been drawn forward and is now a front rounded [γ], while the beginning of [u] is clearly a back rounded vowel. The phonetic similarity is limited to their both being rounded, and, in comparison with other vowels, high. With some reluctance we reach the conclusion that [u] can and probably should be decomposed into /uw/, where the first symbol represents its back rounded quality and the second its lip-tongue closing movement, however slight. Orthographic u with its [y] quality is then to be combined into one phoneme with the /u/ so that the latter has two allophones: [u] before /w/, [y] elsewhere. Its phonetic definition will be 'high rounded', with the tongue position indifferent. Though this happens to agree with the orthography, it will seem unorthodox to some phoneticians. But it has the surprising effect of fitting into a revised view of the vowel system, in which lip-rounding acquires major importance. 2.6. Broad and narrow. — Before presenting this system in full, we must point out that it was confirmed (after having been worked out) by the discovery that Icelandic grammarians had for some time been operating with something like it. Icelandic schoolbooks divide the vowels into 'narrow' (grönn) and 'broad' (breid).2e Einarsson presents the distinction as one between 'lax' and 'tense' vowels, using these terms in a purely historical sense; the 'lax' are those that were short in Old Icelandic.27 Of course these terms are not appropriate to the modern pronunciation. Earlier grammarians had used the terms 'light' and 'heavy'. 28 The distinction is usually presented as a mere spelling rule, based on the origin of the vowels in the quantitative situation of Old Icelandic. But the present study has made it clear that the older system which underlies the spelling is still preserved, though under a somewhat different guise. The old short vowels ('narrow', 'lax', 'light') are no longer short; but they are still the unitary vowels in the system, those that are most useful as single phonemes in describing the structure. "

Cf. Freysteinn Gunnarsson, Ritreglur 1 (Akureyri, 1942). Icelandic 11. " Konráó Gíslason, Oldnordisk Formisere (Copenhagen, 1858); Valter Guömundsson, Islandsk Grammatik 3 (Copenhagen, 1922). 27



The old long vowels (with which the diphthongs are included) are best regarded, on the other hand, as phonemically complex, consisting of one of the six vowel phonemes plus a semivowel /j/ or /w/. Before the adoption of the present day etymologizing orthography, it was not unusual to write ί as a diphthong, either ij or ii.2* We have already seen how it simplifies and clarifies the description of the diphthongs before written -gi, which now turns out to be simply the position before unstressed /¡/. Another such position is that before ng, where the distribution is also defective and dialectically divergent. As ordinarily stated, some dialects (e.g. the Vestfiröir) retain 'narrow' vowels here while others substitute 'broad' ones.30 This requires enumerating a e i o u ö and their respective counterparts á ei í ó ú au; but in our terms we can state systematically: before /ng/ the unitary phonemes require a final glide, /j/ for the 'frontish' /i e ö/, /w/ for the 'backish' /a o u/. 31 This substitution of a complex for a simple nucleus is very much like that of the -gi diphthongs, where we can now say that g has become /j/, but dialects differ as to the inclusion of this /j/ within the nucleus.32 An apparent disadvantage of this analysis is the introduction of the phoneme /w/, which is not otherwise needed. It cannot now (as in Old Icelandic) be identified with initial /v/ in the same way that our /j/ can be identified with initial /j/. To be sure, the initial [w] after /h/ can now be joined with this nuclear allophone; but it was adequately handled without it. The reason that it cannot be identified with initial /v/ is that /v/ (from older f) also occurs in nuclear position, so that there are contrasts like hafôi /hav'J)i/ 'had' and hàôi /haw'Jji/ 'raised'. There is one position, however, not unlike that of the front -gi diphthongs, where the introduction of /w/ is an advantage. This is the position after á ó ú finally and before vowels, where g (still written) has 'disappeared' (for many speakers); we may now rather say that it has become /w/, just as g before i has become /j/. The parallelism of these three vowels is brought out by regarding all of them as having a final /w/: là 'lay' (prêt.) and lâg 'low' (f. sg.) are both /law'/, skó 'shoe' (acc. sg.) and skóg 'woods' (acc. sg.) are both /skow'/, rú 'wool' and rúg 'rye' (acc. sg.) are both /ruw'/. Returning to /j/, we may also point out that the orthography writes it or omits it in hiatus according to rather complex (and sometimes inconsistent) rules; our system would write /ij/ in all of the followi n g : hlyindi, hlyja, hyalin, bla, bríari, dyjalind, hía, lyja, mygja (also mya, mía according t o Blöndal), nía, nyja, vígi, vígja,


2.7. Vowel system. — The elimination of [i] and [u] from the list of simple vowels leaves us with six for building the structure of the vowel nuclei. These can be presented geometrically in more than one way. Before ng we have seen that they split into two " Cf. the following spellings in a letter of 1567 (Dipl. Isl. 15.1): mijnu (minu), tijundun (tlundum), kuijttan (kvíttan), pijngvelli Qñngvelli); ij was of course a common symbol for ii. 50 Guöfinnsson, Breytingar 27-28. 31 For a more complex statement see Einarsson, Icelandic 9. Some writers have changed the orthography here to agree with their pronunciation, writing á ei í ó ú y au for a e i o u y ö respectively, in words like langur : lángur, etc. " Guöfinnsson, Breylingar 29-30.



groups of three: 'frontish' /i e ö/ and 'backish' /a o u/. But the inclusion of both front and back allophones in /u/ makes this division less suitable for our purposes. The two dimensions which define /u/ can be applied to the whole system : height and rounding. Compared to /i/, /u/ has the same height but differs in rounding; compared to /Ö/, /u/ has the same rounding but differs in height, /i/ and /e/ have the same unrounding, but the former is higher. The problematic items are /a/ and /o/; both combine with either /j/ or /w/, and have allophones that are relatively unrounded before the former, rounded before the latter. Perhaps we can call them neutral with respect to rounding; note that in /oj/ the /j/ is not rounded, while in /öj/ it is. As for height, /i/ and /u/ are clearly high, /e o ö/ are mid, and /a/ is low; one could reclassify /o a/ so as to obviate the need of a special mid category, but it seems best to leave the three components of height and arrive at the following arrangement, in which the components form the two dimensions: UNROUND HIGH










Perhaps surprisingly, this scheme correlates with the behavior of Icelandic speakers who vulgarly tend to confuse the highs with the mids (Ji/ > /e/, /u/ > /ö/) and diphthongize the mids (when lengthened) with a final off-glide in the direction of /a/. The six-vowel scheme also shows rather neatly where the losses since Old Icelandic times have been : the low unround /ae/, the high neutral /y/, and the low round open /