[PDF] [PDF] Language change vs stability in conservative language - GUPEA

[PDF] Culture change, language change: Case studies from - CORE

lSee also Wurm (1987:40,45) for similar arguments Tom Duuon, ed Culture change, language change - case studies from Melanesia, 7-26 Pacific Linguistics 

[PDF] Language change - pratclifcom

Sociolinguistic causes of change 11 Doing what Inherent causes of language change Saussure noted: 'Time changes all things: there is no reason why

[PDF] Language Shift An Analysis of Factors Involved in - Global Journals

this germinating trend of shift from Punjabi to English language GJHSS-E Classification : FOR Code: 160506, 160503 Language Shift An Analysis of Factors 

[PDF] Is English changing? - Linguistic Society of America

Language will never stop changing; it will continue to respond Language Change: Progress or Decay Another reason for change is that no two people have

[PDF] Language acquisition and language change - UCI School of Social

Languages may change under external influence from other languages or dialects or they change through internal factors, the focus in this paper Other 

[PDF] Language change vs stability in conservative language - GUPEA

19 déc 2008 · understanding of linguistic change and stability, the main focus of this thesis is on external factors and subsequently such factors will be at the 

[PDF] LANGUAGE CHANGE AND LANGUAGE CONTACT

definition of contact-induced language change: Contact is a cause of 'any linguistic common in both types of interference, for reasons having to do with its  

[PDF] Language and society - Uni-DUE

Various external factors can accelerate the process of language change, above all social pressure from above or below Additional factors are the degree of

[PDF] recent guidelines for tuberculosis treatment

[PDF] receptive language disorder

[PDF] recette chorba langue d'oiseau facile

[PDF] recette chorba langue d'oiseau l'agneau

[PDF] recette chorba langue d'oiseau marocaine

[PDF] recette chorba langue d'oiseau poisson

[PDF] recette chorba langue d'oiseau poulet

[PDF] recette chorba langue d'oiseau sans viande

[PDF] recette chorba langue d'oiseaux

[PDF] recette gateau paris brest au thermomix

[PDF] recevoir votre numéro fiscal par courriel

[PDF] recharge inwi internet

[PDF] recherche job etudiant paris week end

[PDF] recitation mit

[PDF] recommendation for flexible working

Language change vs. stability

in conservative language communities:

Acase study of Icelandic

GOTHENBURG MONOGRAPHS IN LINGUISTICS 37

Language change vs. stability

in conservative language communities:

Acase study of Icelandic

Finnur Friðriksson

Academic dissertation in Linguistics, to be publicly defended, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts at University of Gothenburg on December 19, 2008, at 09:15 a.m., for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Linguistics

2008
Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics

University of Gothenburg 2008-12-19

Edition for defense

©Finnur Friðriksson, 2008

Printed by Reprocentralen, Humanistiska fakulteten,

University of Gothenburg, 2008

ISBN: 978-91-977196-3-6

Distribution:

Department of linguistics, University of Gothenburg,

Abstract

Ph.D. dissertation in general linguistics at University of Gothenburg, Sweden, 2008 Title: Language change vs. stability in conservative language communities: A case study of

Icelandic

Author: Finnur Friðriksson

Language: English, with a summary in Swedish

Department: Department of Linguistics, University of Gothenburg, Box 200, SE 405 30

Series: Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 37

ISBN: 978-91-977196-3-6

This dissertation is a study in language stability. Icelandic, which is regarded by many as a prime example of a stable language, is chosen as a vehicle for an examination of this field. A study, which involves a number of alleged ongoing changes in modern Icelandic, is conducted in order to determine whether or not the language can still be characterized as stable and, if the answer is positive, to identify the conditions which support this stability. The data used, which have been collected from a total of 108 informants chosen on the basis of a set of social criteria, consist primarily of informal group conversations which were analysed with respect to the relevant linguistic variables. 52 of the informants also submitted written material, not produced specifically for the purpose of the thesis, and this was analysed in the same way. Furthermore, all informants were interviewed to obtain information on their social background, the structure of their social networks, and on their attitudes towards and awareness of the alleged changes. The results regarding language use indicate that Icelandic can still be characterized as astable language. Thus, examples of the alleged changes appeared quite infrequently in the data and their distribution amongst the age groups included is indicative of stable variation rather than change in progress. With respect to attitudes and awareness, the informants generally display both a high level of awareness of the alleged changes and a high level of negativity towards them. Furthermore, a pattern emerges which indicates a relationship between attitudes and usage, such that an informant's negative attitude towards a given non- standard form decreases his or her likelihood of using it. The results also indicate that other factors, such as strong linguistic nationalism and a stability-oriented language policy, are instrumental in creating the sociolinguistic conditions in Iceland which support language stability, and it is argued that these conditions will generally result in language stability. At the same time, it is pointed out that other conditions, specific to other language communities, need to be taken into consideration before this generalisation is made. Keywords: language stability, attitudes to language, linguistic nationalism, language planning, social networks, Icelandic, 'dative sickness', case inflections, 'new passive', 'am- to-frenzy'

Acknowledgements

My name may be the only one which appears on the cover of this thesis but, as always in these cases, plenty of other people deserve to be mentioned for having, in one way or another, unselfishly ensured that I managed to complete this project. The natural starting point here is my supervisor, Sally Boyd, who I am greatly indebted to. I would like to thank her for all her support, her critical reading of my text and, most of all, for applying pressure and patience in equal measures. I think she knows what I mean! Anna Hannesdóttir, my assistant supervisor, added invaluable comments to the text, not the least its more "Icelandic" parts which have benefited greatly from her careful reading. Then to my informants, without whom there would of course have been no thesis. Sadly I can't mention them by name even though few deserve it more. I thank them for granting me access to that most personal of their belongings; their language. The following people contributed in a direct way to my work and for that I would like to express my deepest gratitude: - Rafn Kjartansson, for his careful proofreading - Kristinn Jóhannesson, for his help with all things practical in the final stages -Tom Barry, for his help with the maps -Kjartan Ólafsson, for his help with the statistics Iwould also like to acknowledge two of my colleagues in Akureyri. María Steingrímsdóttir and Bragi Guðmundsson have taken turns as my superiors these last few years and have as such given me enough slack to finish my work on the thesis - at the same time as they've made sure that I've had other things to think about at work! Bragi has also read parts of the manuscript and added valuable comments to it. Thanks, also, to my other colleagues in

Þingvallastraetið, as well as to fellow doctoral students and teachers in Gothenburg, for their

interest and support. Ican't end this without mentioning my parents. Throughout my life they've supported me unconditionally withouth applying any unecessary pressure. Rather, they've trusted me to go about my business as I should and, rather than interfering, have always been ready to help me when I've asked for it. I believe this background plays a large part in instilling in me the confidence necessary to embark on this project and, as always, Dalsgerðið was a safe haven during my work on it.

Finally, my family. Stína, my wife, has had to listen to all the rants and all the cries of despair.

She even allowed me to forget all my domestic responsibilities for five months so that I could go to Sweden to concentrate fully on the thesis. Yet, she's stood by me all the time (she even agreed to marry me somewhere in the midst of things!) and pushed me on when I've been about to give up. The phrase "thank you" is simple in itself and consists of only two words. However, a multitude of meanings can be read into these words and I would probably need all of them to fully express my gratitude. As for our children, Borgný and Birnir Vagn, I thank them for accepting that dad has been pretty usesless as a playmate these last few years. From now on, I promise to be there, physically and-believe it or not - mentally, when you need me.

Table of contents

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose of the thesis....................................................................................1

1.2 Outline of the thesis.....................................................................................4

2. Approaches to change and stability...................................................................5

2.1 Actuation and the nature of change.............................................................6

2.1.1 The sociolinguistic approach.................................................................7

2.1.2 Croft's evolutionary approach.............................................................10

2.1.3 The functional approach......................................................................12

2.1.4 The formal approach ...........................................................................15

2.2 Transmission of change.............................................................................16

2.2.1 Labov and leaders of change...............................................................16

2.2.2 Milroy and Milroy and social networks..............................................19

2.2.3 Further sociolinguistic applications of social networks; some

2.2.4 Further developments..........................................................................27

2.3 Stability......................................................................................................34

2.4 The question of the stability of Icelandic ..................................................37

2.5 Summary....................................................................................................44

3. Stability: a broader approach...........................................................................46

3.1 Nation, nationalism and language..............................................................47

3.1.1 The concept of the nation....................................................................47

3.1.2 Nationalism..........................................................................................52

3.1.3 The interplay between nationalism and language...............................54

language in Iceland: a brief history..............................................................60

3.1.5 Nationalism and language in Iceland: The present situation..............68

3.2 Attitudes and language...............................................................................74

3.2.1 Language attitudes...............................................................................74

3.2.2 Attitudes and language in an Icelandic context...................................78

3.3 Language planning and policies ................................................................83

3.3.1 Language planning and language stability..........................................84

3.3.2 Language planning in Iceland.............................................................94

3.4 Summary..................................................................................................108

4. Linguistic variables: definitions and earlier work.........................................110

4.1 'Dative Sickness' and other 'verb sicknesses' ........................................111

4.1.1 Aim and operationalization...............................................................127

4.2 'Genitive avoidance'................................................................................129

4.2.1 Aim and operationalization...............................................................133

4.3 Other case inflections...............................................................................134

4.3.1 Aim and operationalization...............................................................134

4.4 'New passive'...........................................................................................135

4.4.1 Aim and operationalization...............................................................141

4.5 'Am-to-frenzy'.........................................................................................142

4.5.1 Aim and operationalization...............................................................144

4.6 Summary..................................................................................................144

5. Methodology .................................................................................................147

5.1 The informants.........................................................................................147

5.1.1 Choosing informants.........................................................................147

5.1.2 Recruiting informants........................................................................150

5.2 The communities......................................................................................153

5.2.1 Reykjavík and the greater Reykjavík area.........................................155

5.2.1.1 Fieldwork in Reykjavík and the greater Reykjavík area............158

and Neskaupstaður......................................................................................159

5.2.2.3 Neskaupstaður.............................................................................163

5.2.2.3.1 Fieldwork in Neskaupstaður.................................................164

5.2.3. Flúðir................................................................................................165

5.2.3.1 Fieldwork in Flúðir.....................................................................166

5.2.4 Akureyri.............................................................................................166

5.2.4.1 Fieldwork in Akureyri.................................................................167

5.2.5 The seaside villages; Akranes and Reykjanesbaer.............................168

5.2.5.1 Akranes.......................................................................................168

5.2.5.1.1 Fieldwork in Akranes...........................................................169

5.2.5.2 Reykjanesbaer..............................................................................170

5.2.5.2.1 Fieldwork in Reykjanesbaer..................................................170

5.2.6 The communities in sum...................................................................171

5.3 Types of data............................................................................................173

5.3.1 Spoken language................................................................................174

5.3.2 Written language ...............................................................................178

5.3.3 The interviews...................................................................................180

5.3.3.1 Background information about the informants...........................181

5.3.3.2 Social networks...........................................................................182

5.3.3.3 Attitudes to language and language change................................183

5.4 Handling the data.....................................................................................184

5.4.1 Spoken and written data....................................................................184

5.4.2 The interview data.............................................................................185

5.4.2.1 Background information about the informants...........................185

5.4.2.2 Social networks...........................................................................187

5.4.2.3 Attitudes to language and language change................................189

5.5 Summary..................................................................................................189

6. Results...........................................................................................................192

6.1 Spoken language......................................................................................192

6.1.1 'Dative sickness' and other 'verb sicknesses'...................................193

6.1.1.1 General results ............................................................................193

6.1.1.2 The communities.........................................................................199

6.1.1.3 Gender.........................................................................................202

6.1.1.4 Age..............................................................................................204

6.1.1.5 Class............................................................................................206

6.1.1.6 Social networks...........................................................................209

6.1.1.7 Summary: 'Dative sickness' in spoken language.......................212

6.1.1.8 Other 'verb sicknesses'...............................................................213

6.1.2 'Genitive avoidance'.........................................................................218

6.1.3 Other case inflections........................................................................224

6.1.3.1 Compound women's names with a -ný or -ey suffix................231

6.1.3.2 Kinship terms..............................................................................233

6.1.3.2.1 The communities..................................................................236

6.1.3.2.2 Gender ..................................................................................239

6.1.3.2.3 Age........................................................................................240

6.1.3.2.4 Class......................................................................................242

6.1.3.2.5 Social networks ....................................................................244

6.1.3.3 Summary: Other case inflections in spoken language................245

6.1.4 'New passive'....................................................................................247

6.1.4.1 The communities.........................................................................249

6.1.4.2 Gender.........................................................................................251

6.1.4.3 Age..............................................................................................252

6.1.4.4 Class............................................................................................254

6.1.4.5 Social networks...........................................................................256

6.1.4.6 Summary: 'New passive' in spoken language............................257

6.1.5 'Am-to-frenzy' ..................................................................................258

6.2 Written language......................................................................................264

6.2.1 'Dative sickness' and other' verb sicknesses'...................................265

6.2.1.1 'Dative sickness'.........................................................................265

6.2.1.2 Other 'verb sicknesses'...............................................................267

6.2.2 'Genitive avoidance'.........................................................................270

6.2.3 Other case inflections........................................................................276

6.2.3.1 Compound women's names with a -ný or -ey suffix................279

6.2.3.2 Kinship terms..............................................................................280

6.2.4 'New passive'....................................................................................282

6.2.5 'Am-to-frenzy' ..................................................................................284

6.3 Initiators of change ..................................................................................284

6.4 Attitudes and awareness...........................................................................287

6.4.1 Language change in general..............................................................288

6.4.2 'Dative sickness' ...............................................................................294

6.4.3 'Genitive avoidance'.........................................................................299

6.4.4 Other case inflections........................................................................301

6.4.5 'New passive'....................................................................................304

6.4.6 'Am-to-frenzy' ..................................................................................306

6.5 Summary..................................................................................................310

7. Concluding discussion...................................................................................315

7.1 Icelandic: Stable or in a state of flux? .....................................................315

7.2 The present results vs. previous research ................................................322

7.3 Views of and attitudes towards change ...................................................330

7.4 Stability: A closer look............................................................................336

7.5 Suggestions for further research..............................................................347

7.6 Summary..................................................................................................349

Sammanfattning på svenska..............................................................................353

Appendix 1........................................................................................................374

Appendix 2........................................................................................................378

1

1. Introduction

Language change and variation are one of the main preoccupations of sociolinguistics. This becomes clear by taking the quickest of glances at introductory textbooks and handbooks in the field (see e.g. Coulmas, 1997; Coupland & Jaworski, 1997; Mesthrie, Swann, Deumert & Leap, 2000) and is further testified by the fact that special handbooks on this particular sub-field have been published (see e.g. Chambers, Trudgill & Schilling-Estes, 2002). Neither does it require much reading in this sub-field to realise that one of its basic assumptions is that all languages display some signs of variation and that all languages change from one time to the other. 1

From this foundation,

variationists proceed to study the processes and elements involved in variation and change and this has primarily been done by examining the relationship between, on the one hand, the development of various linguistic variables and, on the other, a number of social background factors characterizing the speakers in question at each time. Thus the interplay between change and factors such as age, gender, class and social networks has been extensively examined in the last few decades. While it is thus generally acknowledged that all languages do change, it is also well-attested that the speed and extent of change can vary from one language to the other, as well as from one variety or dialect to the other of a given language. Some languages can even be said to be characterized by stability rather than change as, even though they do not reach a level of endless status quo, they display an extremely low rate and speed of change, at least when compared with most other languages. Stability can in this way be said to be the other side of the coin of change and this has been acknowledged by some sociolinguists who can in essence be said to regard language change as occurring under conditions which disfavour stability and then try to identify these conditions (see section 2.3). However, it is interesting to note that even though stability appears in some quarters to be viewed as the foundation for studying language change, studying stability in its own right seems to have been on the sociolinguistic agenda only to a very limited extent (see e.g. Marshall,

2004; Milroy, L. 1980; Milroy & Milroy, 1985; Schilling-Estes, 2000, 2002;

Trudgill, 1989, 1992, 1996, 2002). This fact can, in turn, be said to be the point of departure for this thesis.

1.1 Purpose of the thesis

Having just said that stability is the point of departure for this thesis, it should be noted that this was not the case at the outset. My original intention was to 1 It should be noted that in my discussion I accept another standard sociolinguistic assumption, namely that all language change involves linguistic variation while variation does not have to lead to change (see e.g. Labov, 2001). 2 examine how change emerges and proceeds in a language characterized by centuries of high relative stability which is presently supported by a highly conservative language community. My vehicle for this examination was going to be Icelandic, which appears to be generally accepted as a prime example of a stable language (see e.g. Dixon, 1997; Milroy & Milroy, 1985; Trudgill, 1989,

1992, 1996, 2002), although both the public debate in recent years and some

recent research (see chapter 4) suggested that changes, not the least of a morphological and syntactical nature, were seeping into the language at an increasing rate. On this basis, a pilot study was carried out which was to consitute the platform for a more extensive study. The results of this pilot study, however, indicated that I might be asking the wrong basic questions as there were hardly any clear signs of change to be found, although there seemed to be a strong belief that the language was changing quite dramatically. These unexpected results from the pilot study caused me to change the focus and the basic questions upon which my work was to be based, and now two main dimensions can be discerned in this respect. First, in a relatively language specific context, I pose the question whether Icelandic is really currently undergoing a higher degree of change than before or can still be characterized as a stable language. This pertains to both spoken and written language, simultaneously keeping in mind that interesting differences may emerge between the two. Should it be the case that Icelandic is as stable as the pilot study suggests, a natural follow-up question deals with the factors which contribute to this relative stability. Seeking an answer to this question is particularly intriguing as Iceland has in the last century and a half undergone dramatic social changes which, on the basis of a corresponding development in several other language communities, could have been expected to lead to more extensive language change than seems to be the case. In addressing this question, factors such as nationalistic sentiments, language attitudes and language planning are added to the more traditional variables of age, gender, class and social networks in order to examine how this presumed stability has been maintained. Of course, a full examination of the level of change in Icelandic in general can not be carried out within the scope of one thesis. Hence, a set of morphological and syntactic features which, according to either the public debate or previous research, show the clearest signs of potential change were selected for examination. On this basis, it was believed that these variables would function as indicators of the level of change vs. stability in modern Icelandic. The features in question are (for a detailed account see chapter 4): a) 'Dative sickness' and other 'verb sicknesses'. This refers to a change in the case taken by the subject of so-called impersonal verbs. 3 b) 'Genitive avoidance'. A tendency either to use nominative, accusative or dative case where genitive is required in standard language or to use non-standard genitive case endings. c) Other case inflections. Claims have been made that the case inflectional system of Icelandic is showing general signs of instability in such a way that oblique cases are not used at all or a certain case is used where another is required in standard language. d) 'New passive'. A change in the structure of passive sentences. e) 'Am-to-frenzy'. A seeming expansion of the construction vera að + infinitive which in standard Icelandic is used with a limited set of verbs for continuous aspect. While the combined results for these features give an indication of the general level of stability or change in modern Icelandic, each feature poses its separate sub-question regarding its general spread and distribution in social terms. The second main dimension of this thesis is of a more general nature. Here I am referring to the fact that it is hoped that the results from this study, which is based on Icelandic material and circumstances, can be applied to a broader sociolinguistic context. Thus, while the former dimension pertains to Icelandic in particular and revolves around the claim that this language is still characterized by stability, the results from the study may also allow us to make some suggestions about the general nature of language stability as an aspect of language change and variation. In order to make such suggestions, some possible answers are here provided to questions regarding e.g. which sociolinguistic conditions need to be in place and even utilised if stability is to be achieved and maintained. Thus, it is asked here whether attitudes can play a direct role in stability or whether stability can be examined in much the same way as language change through categories such as age, gender, class and social networks. Then, by extension, the answers to these questions will be utilized to seek answers to questions relating to language planning and policy and how this can be carried out successfully. In sum, therefore, this thesis can be said to have two main aims. On the one hand, an answer is sought to the question whether Icelandic can still be characterized as a stable language and, if so, which factors contribute to this stability. On the other, it is hoped that the results pertaining to the first aim can be used to determine to some extent the nature of language stability. 4

1.2 Outline of the thesis

This thesis is divided into seven chapters. In this first chapter the topic of the thesis is introduced and its main purpose and basic research question presented. The next three chapters jointly make up the theoretical and research background of the thesis. The first of these chapters consists of an overview of how language change and variation has been addressed by various theoretical frameworks. Here, the actuation and transmission of change is first discussed and then the stability aspect is placed within this context, especially as it has been approached within the social networks framework. The next chapter consists of an attempt to broaden the approach to stability as part of the field of variation and change. It is argued that stability is yet to be examined satisfactorily in its own right and that this can not be done through using only categories such as age, gender, class and social networks, even though these have proven useful in studies where change is the main focus. In order to broaden the perspective, language stability is here examined within the context of nationalism, language attitudes and language planning, all of which, it is argued, are potentially crucial to stability, at least in certain circumstances. The last of these background chapters then deals with the linguistic variables examined in this study as examples of apparent changes in modern Icelandic. The variables are defined in this chapter and the previous work that exists on them is reviewed. The fifth chapter of the thesis consists of a description of the methodology used for obtaining, handling and analysing the data studied. This chapter is then directly followed by a presentation of the results emerging from the data. Here, the results pertaining to the strictly linguistic data, i.e. the linguistic variables, are presented first and this is followed by an account of the results regarding the informants' attitudes to language change in general and the relevant linguistic variables in particular. These two sets of results are then combined to see if there is any apparent relationship between the informants' attitudes and their language use. In the seventh and final chapter, the results are summarized and examined in the context of the research questions and the main theoretical assumptions presented in chapters 2 and 3. Finally, concluding remarks, consisting of some general assumptions based on the results, are presented along with a few suggestions for further research. 5

2. Approaches to change and stability

Language change has for several decades been a highly prosperous field of linguistic research. This is quite understandable not only because this is an interesting field in itself, but also because the answers to some of the most basic questions it poses have proved to be particularly elusive. Here I am mainly referring to the "hows" and "whys", i.e. simply how and why does language change - or why does it not, but even the fundamental issues of what constitutes linguistic change and what its nature is have not been fully resolved. These questions have divided linguists into several different camps, depending on how they want to approach them or even pose them. The main dividing line has traditionally been between proponents of internal explanations for change on the one hand and language external explanations on the other. The former (see e.g. Martinet, 1952; Ohala, 1993) have tended to focus primarily on structural elements in language and thereby try to assert which purely linguistic circumstances allow for or motivate change, which can in turn be driven by e.g. psychological or functional forces. The latter (see e.g. Milroy, J., 1992, 1993; Weinreich, Labov & Herzog, 1968), on the other hand, see language change essentially as a social phenomenon which speakers rather than language itself are responsible for, even though certain linguistic circumstances may be more favourable to change than others. In recent years, however, the internal/external dichotomy has been questioned as there is evidence that rather than seeing the two types of explanations as mutually exclusive they have to be combined for almost any linguistic change we come across, if a full explanation is the desired target (Woods, 2001; Yang, 2000). Thus Andersen (1989) claims that this dichotomy is non-existent as language is a social phenomenon which cannot be separated from its social functions, at the same time as the categories of a society are embedded in its language. Sandøy (2003, p. 87) adds further weight to this unified view when he says that Når ein prosess er gjennomført og vellykka, er det vanskeleg å seie kva som har avgjort prosessen, anna enn at det er tale om ein kombinasjon av ytre og indre krefter. ... Men vi kan leggje merke til at kva innovasjonane går på språkleg, er sosialt sett heilt tilfeldig. Det kan også seiast på den måten at det er sosialt forståeleg at ei ungdomsgruppe tek opp eit språkleg saerdrag; men at innovasjonen konkret kjem til at dreie seg om ll > dl,kan ikkje forståast sosialt. Derimot er det språkleg sett ikkje helt tilfeldig kva som skjer med f.eks. ll når det først skjer. Berre visse alternativ er moglege, ikkje f.eks. ein overgang til pp! 2 2quotesdbs_dbs17.pdfusesText_23