- Email: [email protected]
Language conflict and language planning; the case of Modern Norwegian
266
REVIEWS
-
COMPTES-RENDWS
linguistic self-maintenance efforts of American minority groups. Even if this volume does not remove the mountains, it probes deeply into unknown territory and provides a map that will indeed bt valuable to future (explorers. University of Minnesota, 516 Westwood Drive SO., ikfinnea~olis, M’inrt, 5~5416, U.S.A.
NILS HASSELMO
EINARHAUGEN,Lmguage conflict and language filamiq;
the Press, Price:
case of Modern Norwegian. Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966. xvi, 393 pp. 3 lO.-. As Haugen says somewhere in this book, the Norwegian patriots in the generation after 1814 clearly believed that the political independence Norway had achieved after four centuries of dynastic union with Denmark would of itself bring about linguistic independence. They foresaw difficulties (Henrik Wergeland himself spoke of the coming ‘literary civil war’) but it is doubtful whether anyone at that time could have predicted that the effort to develop a new national language would involve the whole country in a language controversy that has lasted well over a hundred years and in a sustained program of conscious planning that has effected language reforms more drastic in their nature than those instituted in any other country in a comparable period. Or that the end product of it all would be that Norway which started with a stable language of writing now has two competing languages neither of which can in any sense be described as stable. Though in fairness we should perhaps add that there is something to show for all the efforts. Language planning in the 19th century brought into being two Norwegian languages of writing. Twentieth century planning has largely been directed toward healing the cleavage and though the greater goal of fusing the two languages into a single standard has still to be achieved, they have been given a common orthographic framework that is unmistakably and adequately Norwegian. The only comprehensive account of the Norwegian language movement that has een available until now is Burgun’s Le dheloppement Zinguistique en Novvige de@& 1816, a work largely concerned
REVIEWS
-
COMPTES-KEN
267
.)US
with the developments of the 19th century. &ugen’s book picks up tlhe tale where Burgun’s leaves off bringing it down to the present day. Haagen is frankly more interested in the planning than the conflict, in the spelling and grammar reforms (3f the twentieth century themselves than in the social conflict that incited them. In his sociolinguistics he is understandably and quit!? properly, more linguist than sociologist. He does however sketch in for us enough of the sociopolitical backgrori:rd to make the linguistic discussions meaningful and to show clealy what we are al 1 increasingly coming to realize: that in the matter of legislation fo:- language, linguistic considerations are apt to count for little as against regional, cultural and national feelings. Haugen’s account is presented objectively in a straightforward manner with a minimum of comment and in language free of unexplained technicalities. The book is obviouly aimed at a wider than specialist public. Fcr the lay reader a useflll chapter is provided on the history and present state of language planning as well as a general bibliography which should serve as a useful introduction to the main aspects of the subject. There is little in what Haugen says that one would wish to challenge. His approacl to language planning seems essentially to be what Ray had in mi,rrd when he described in the prescriptive linguistics as ‘the search for reasonableness discrimination of linguistic innovations.’ In comparison with the all-or-nothing attitudes of not too 1on.g ago, the role in Language Planning that Haugen claims for lin, Gsts is a modest though not unimportant one and within that art!a of special competence he assigns to them, he is himself remarkably free of prejudice. Consider, for instance, his remarks on the assurned pr”macy of writing over speech and on the relative merits of phonemic; and morphophonemic orthographies. Haugen’s book is a timely one. Evervwhe.:e today are emergent Y nations plagued, like the Norwegians, by biingualism of different who are seeking a natioral identity through a types, or worse, national language. The Norwegian experience cannot but have implications for them too. We n?ed. more such case-histories especially if they can be presented a:; ably and as reasonably as in the volume under review. Northwestern University, Department of Lin@stics, 621 Foster Street, Evanston, ILL. 60201, U.S.A.
JBa
lERRY
REVIEWS
-
COMPTES-RENDWS
linguistic self-maintenance efforts of American minority groups. Even if this volume does not remove the mountains, it probes deeply into unknown territory and provides a map that will indeed bt valuable to future (explorers. University of Minnesota, 516 Westwood Drive SO., ikfinnea~olis, M’inrt, 5~5416, U.S.A.
NILS HASSELMO
EINARHAUGEN,Lmguage conflict and language filamiq;
the Press, Price:
case of Modern Norwegian. Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966. xvi, 393 pp. 3 lO.-. As Haugen says somewhere in this book, the Norwegian patriots in the generation after 1814 clearly believed that the political independence Norway had achieved after four centuries of dynastic union with Denmark would of itself bring about linguistic independence. They foresaw difficulties (Henrik Wergeland himself spoke of the coming ‘literary civil war’) but it is doubtful whether anyone at that time could have predicted that the effort to develop a new national language would involve the whole country in a language controversy that has lasted well over a hundred years and in a sustained program of conscious planning that has effected language reforms more drastic in their nature than those instituted in any other country in a comparable period. Or that the end product of it all would be that Norway which started with a stable language of writing now has two competing languages neither of which can in any sense be described as stable. Though in fairness we should perhaps add that there is something to show for all the efforts. Language planning in the 19th century brought into being two Norwegian languages of writing. Twentieth century planning has largely been directed toward healing the cleavage and though the greater goal of fusing the two languages into a single standard has still to be achieved, they have been given a common orthographic framework that is unmistakably and adequately Norwegian. The only comprehensive account of the Norwegian language movement that has een available until now is Burgun’s Le dheloppement Zinguistique en Novvige de@& 1816, a work largely concerned
REVIEWS
-
COMPTES-KEN
267
.)US
with the developments of the 19th century. &ugen’s book picks up tlhe tale where Burgun’s leaves off bringing it down to the present day. Haagen is frankly more interested in the planning than the conflict, in the spelling and grammar reforms (3f the twentieth century themselves than in the social conflict that incited them. In his sociolinguistics he is understandably and quit!? properly, more linguist than sociologist. He does however sketch in for us enough of the sociopolitical backgrori:rd to make the linguistic discussions meaningful and to show clealy what we are al 1 increasingly coming to realize: that in the matter of legislation fo:- language, linguistic considerations are apt to count for little as against regional, cultural and national feelings. Haugen’s account is presented objectively in a straightforward manner with a minimum of comment and in language free of unexplained technicalities. The book is obviouly aimed at a wider than specialist public. Fcr the lay reader a useflll chapter is provided on the history and present state of language planning as well as a general bibliography which should serve as a useful introduction to the main aspects of the subject. There is little in what Haugen says that one would wish to challenge. His approacl to language planning seems essentially to be what Ray had in mi,rrd when he described in the prescriptive linguistics as ‘the search for reasonableness discrimination of linguistic innovations.’ In comparison with the all-or-nothing attitudes of not too 1on.g ago, the role in Language Planning that Haugen claims for lin, Gsts is a modest though not unimportant one and within that art!a of special competence he assigns to them, he is himself remarkably free of prejudice. Consider, for instance, his remarks on the assurned pr”macy of writing over speech and on the relative merits of phonemic; and morphophonemic orthographies. Haugen’s book is a timely one. Evervwhe.:e today are emergent Y nations plagued, like the Norwegians, by biingualism of different who are seeking a natioral identity through a types, or worse, national language. The Norwegian experience cannot but have implications for them too. We n?ed. more such case-histories especially if they can be presented a:; ably and as reasonably as in the volume under review. Northwestern University, Department of Lin@stics, 621 Foster Street, Evanston, ILL. 60201, U.S.A.
JBa
lERRY