# Swedish/Norweigan/Danish - dialects of same language?



## COF

It seems to me that they're essentially dialects of the same language.

For instance, the differences between Received Pronunciation and Southern dialects of the US are as significant as the difference between Swedish and Norwegian dialects and in some cases the difference between Southern Swedish and Danish dialects is even less than that.

It is my opinion that Swedish/Norwegian/Danish are essentially the same language but have been split for political/nationalistic reasons and the different orthographies used in each country is merely to reinforce the perception of difference rather than because they are distinct languages.


----------



## AutumnOwl

There have been a lengthy discussion about the Scandinavian languages here, about mutual understanding but also whether they are dialects or separate languages.


----------



## brindo

COF,

I'm curious about your level in the three languages since you have such a firm opinion and say that you can not only judge the significance in the differences, but also compare it to the differences between dialects in English.

When you say that they are "essentially the same language but have been split" it seems to me that you are saying that they might have been one language before but that this is not the case any longer?


----------



## Tjahzi

Also, please define "language" and "dialect".


----------



## Alxmrphi

Heinz Kloss came up with a distinction back in the 60s that is really useful for approaching this question, that of Ausbau and Abstand distinctions and the terminology has been adopted in linguistics to approach this exact issue. You just can't have a singular category because the distinction is cast in two levels. Languages can be separate via Ausbau but not Abstand and vice versa. Danish/Swedish/Norwegian are all separate languages on an Ausbau level, but dialects on the Abstand level. Conversely, the tongues of China are Ausbau-dialects but Abstand-languages. A distinction that works on only one level is doomed to logical inconsistencies because the political distinction plays just as big a part as linguistic-difference in the way we conceptualise the difference between the two.

The question asked by the OP can never be satisfactorily answered without a split-distinction along these two levels, unless our conceptualisation of what it means for a language to be a language or a dialect to be a dialect changes from what is pretty much the widely accepted view it is today.

More info.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

COF said:


> It is my opinion that Swedish/Norwegian/Danish are essentially the same language but have been split for political/nationalistic reasons and the different orthographies used in each country is merely to reinforce the perception of difference rather than because they are distinct languages.


 Yes, but there is no formula here. These are "languages" in the sense they have separate, albeit closely related, written standards, and therefore, by convention, are languages in their own right. That being said - if you came up with a West Midland written standard and people in the area actually started using it, you would have a new "language" right there. The point is that English, Spanish, German and many other languages probably have greater internal spoken variations than Swe, Da and Norw have to each other. Historically speaking, and strictly based on linguistic criteria - they are one language. However - they have written traditions in their separate written standards, and children are trained in their respective orthographies, so at the same time they are separate languages. I believe Tjahzi's point further up is that unless we have commonly accepted criteria for what is a dialect and what is a language, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish will be classified as both  separate languages and the same language.


----------



## LilianaB

COF said:


> It seems to me that they're essentially dialects of the same language.
> 
> For instance, the differences between Received Pronunciation and Southern dialects of the US are as significant as the difference between Swedish and Norwegian dialects and in some cases the difference between Southern Swedish and Danish dialects is even less than that.



I personally doubt it -- the differences between Scandinavian languages are much more significant. The languages, even though  they may have many words in common, feel like different languages - phonetically especially. You may call them dialects, of course, but they would not be the same language.


----------



## Tjahzi

While the framework presented by Kloss is a really neat model for classifying different _spoken and/or written variants_ in relation to each other and explain why they are labeled the way they are, it doesn't even try to draw the line between "language" and "dialect". 

What he says is essentially that languages are called languages (="people have decided to label them _languages_") either because a) they are "too different" from the languages which they would otherwise have been dialects of, or b) they have been "expanded" or "developed" in a way that the languages which they would otherwise have been dialects of have not. Personally, I find these two to be very similar to the criteria most commonly employed: common sense and politics. Swedish and Danish are different languages because a) their speakers find their languages to be "too different" to be dialects and/or b) political diversion have resulted in both "dialects" having established themselves as different _Ausbausprachen._ 

Scandinavia is further problematic since the nationally establish _Dachsprachen_ are in the process of replacing the previous _Abstandsdialekte _eventually resulting in what used to be a dialectal continuum becoming a couple of different, although closely related, varieties with their linking forms lost. (I'm well aware of the diversity of opinions regarding the validity of that statement.) If Scandinavia had been politically united for the last couple of centuries, maybe we would have had multiple _Abstandsdialekte _and one single _Ausbausprache _functioning as a _Dachsprache_.

That said, I doubt there will ever be definite distinction between a _language_ and a _dialect_. Partly because it would impossible to come to such a distinction, partly because it would be scientifically useless_._

How many trees make a forest?


----------



## Alxmrphi

> it doesn't even try to draw the line between "language" and "dialect".





> What he says is essentially that languages are called languages (="people have decided to label them _languages") either because a) they are "too different" from the languages which they would otherwise have been dialects of, or b) they have been "expanded" or "developed" in a way that the languages which they would otherwise have been dialects of have not_


But isn't that just it, though?
There is no "line".

There are two distinctions you made, which you correctly said is reflective of what some people could call 'common sense' and 'politics'.
The name derives from what we decide to call the distinctions, often with one or the other in mind. It's the interlinking of them both that has a prototypical centre and you can pull the boundaries but then it gets to a point where you arrive at a grey area. Nobody denies that Scots Gaelic is a different language from Scots and Scottish English, and most people treat Scots and Scottish English as dialects of each other. The Abstand relation between Scots and Scottish English is too close to have a functional separation where you can't label it as another language, in combination with the lack of Ausbau status of Scots. Scots Gaelic has both ticks in the boxes next to its functional separation from Scottish English, as does Scottish English itself.

When you have two potential dialects, if you have both Ausbau and Abstand distinctions then you have different languages. If you have neither distinction then it's the same language. When you have one but not the other, you have this grey area where differences lie in why there is doubt about their status, and there is no line between them that doesn't either split along a political or a linguistic side, which is where the common terminology of 'language' and 'dialect' fails an accurate description since neither encompasses both distinctions.


----------



## Tjahzi

Sorry Alex, I thought you presented Kloss' theory as a method to  actually determine what's a language and what's not, rather than just an  approach to explain why different languages are classified as such (to  which my "objection" was that it's the general approach reformulated).


Alxmrphi said:


> When you have two potential dialects, if you have both Ausbau and Abstand distinctions then you have different languages. If you have neither distinction then it's the same language. When you have one but not the other, you have this grey area where differences lie in why there is doubt about their status, and there is no line between them that doesn't either split along a political or a linguistic side, which is where the common terminology of 'language' and 'dialect' fails an accurate description since neither encompasses both distinctions.


Are you just quoting Kloss here, or do you also agree about it being universally true in the sense that it can be used as an argument for or against a certain classification? (I'm mainly concerned about the second statement.)


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Tjahzi said:


> What he says is essentially that languages are called languages (="people have decided to label them _languages_")


Which goes a long way to confirm COF's claim that "the same language but have been split for political/nationalistic reasons and the different orthographies used in each country is merely to reinforce the perception of difference rather than because they are distinct languages". There is a lot of truth to this. E.g. Norwegian, which is structurally and phonetically similar to Swedish (having been distinct for only about 400 years), is orthographically close to Danish. However, for the last 200 years, there have been a number of conscious efforts to distinguish Norwegian from Danish because of the discrepancies in the sound-system and structure, but mostly to establish a 'national' language'; but at the same time not align it with Swedish due to the historical tension between the countries. Swedish, on the other hand, resisted aligning its orthography with Danish/Norw (chiefly the use of silent-h, and Æ and Ø), not out of necessity, but to remain distinct.



> they are "too different" from the languages which they would otherwise have been dialects of


Yes, an this is an ongoing process. However - it is an effect rather than a cause. Until the advent of mass media and general literacy, Scandinavia was truly a closely knitted dialect continuum. Still, Eastern Norwegian and Central Swedish still has a level of comprehension which is around 75%. In terms of language teaching and acquisition, this constitutes fluency! And although Jemtish and Scanian are increasingly Swediziced (which is only to be expected), Jemtish and Mid-Norwegian dialects, and Scanian (at least Malmö) and Copenhagen are still closer to each other than to Standard Swedish.


> That said, I doubt there will ever be definite distinction between a _language_ and a _dialect_. Partly because it would impossible to come to such a distinction, partly because it would be scientifically useless_._


Agree! If not useless, it would be marred by a great number of difficulties.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

LilianaB said:


> I personally doubt it -- the differences between Scandinavian languages are much more significant. The languages, even though  they may have many words in common, feel like different languages - phonetically especially. You may call them dialects, of course, but they would not be the same language.


I am not so sure about that. I was once at a conference sitting at a table with native English speakers from Queensland, Australia; Nairobi, Kenya; Lahore, Pakistan; Leith, Scotland and Montgomery, Alabama, and they had to take extra care in speaking and listening (and mind you - these were language professionals) to conduct a conversation - much beyond what I do when I converse with Swedes and Danes.


----------



## COF

LilianaB said:


> I personally doubt it -- the differences between Scandinavian languages are much more significant. The languages, even though  they may have many words in common, feel like different languages - phonetically especially. You may call them dialects, of course, but they would not be the same language.



With respect, I think you are overstating the differences between the Scandinavian languages while underestimating the dialectal diversity of English.

To use an example, if you had a Southern US speaker speaking with a broad "Southern drawl" and a Newcastle speaker speaking with a broad "Geordie" accent then unless both made an effort to speak in a more standardised manner I think it is highly likely that neither speaker would have any idea what the other was talking about.

To take the example further, if you standardized the stereotypical "Southern drawl" and the "Geordie" accent, then on paper you would have what appeared to be two very different and distinct languages much in a similar manner to Danish and Swedish appear distinct and very different.


----------



## Tjahzi

NorwegianNYC said:


> Tjahzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What he says is essentially that languages are called languages (="people have decided to label them _languages_")
> 
> 
> 
> Which goes a long way to confirm COF's claim that "the same language but have been split for political/nationalistic reasons and the different orthographies used in each country is merely to reinforce the perception of difference rather than because they are distinct languages".
Click to expand...

This is actually where I disagree. What I tried to stress with my parenthesis was that Kloss is merely commenting on the behavior of others, he doesn't validate their approach. The fact that some people label some spoken or written varieties something in relation to something else according to some criteria doesn't say anything about how one _should_ describe the situation in Scandinavia. As such, the claim that the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish are "the same language but have been split for  political/nationalistic reasons and the different orthographies used in  each country is merely to reinforce the perception of difference rather  than because they are distinct languages" is just a claim, and while one could of course provide arguments for and against, it will always come back to linguistic similarity and mutual intelligibility since the "political" argument can never be verified on its own. 



NorwegianNYC said:


> There is a lot of truth to this. E.g. Norwegian, which is structurally and phonetically similar to Swedish (having been distinct for only about 400 years), is orthographically close to Danish. However, for the last 200 years, there have been a number of conscious efforts to distinguish Norwegian from Danish because of the discrepancies in the sound-system and structure, but mostly to establish a 'national' language'; but at the same time not align it with Swedish due to the historical tension between the countries. Swedish, on the other hand, resisted aligning its orthography with Danish/Norw (chiefly the use of silent-h, and Æ and Ø), not out of necessity, but to remain distinct.


If you are saying that these are good explanations for why people in Scandinavia decided to label their spoken or written varieties as languages rather than dialects, I agree. If you are arguing whether or not they were correct in doing so, I disagree.





NorwegianNYC said:


> Yes, an this is an ongoing process. However - it is an effect  rather than a cause.


 While I agree on a factual level, a linguistically homogenous population separated by a political division will result in them linguistically evolving differently as a result of limited interaction with the other group. However, I don't see how this is any different than being separated by a mountain range, fjord or any other mean that has separated people throughout history. If some people decide they want to live on the other side of the lake and eventually end up speaking a different language, the separation will still be the cause. 





NorwegianNYC said:


> Until the advent of mass media and general  literacy, Scandinavia was truly a closely knitted dialect continuum.  Still, Eastern Norwegian and Central Swedish still has a level of  comprehension which is around 75%. In terms of language teaching and  acquisition, this constitutes fluency! And although Jemtish and Scanian  are increasingly Swediziced (which is only to be expected), Jemtish and  Mid-Norwegian dialects, and Scanian (at least Malmö) and Copenhagen are  still closer to each other than to Standard Swedish.


And this is where we really disagree. While it's indeed true that Scandinavia used to be one big dialectal continuum, and some parts could still be described as such, I believe you are exaggerating. Sweden is nowhere near as dialectically diverse as Norway. What you see as "distinct dialects" being Swediziced, I would describe more like a language shift (if we accept that the dialects were indeed that different from the standard language in the first place), very few of these previously distinct dialects have transferred over the generation gap. 

Regarding Swedish, the only consistently varying regional feature is prosody. Grammar, phonemic phonology and vocabulary generally show very minor deviations. As such, it's more accurate to describe the younger generations as speaking Standard Swedish with deviating, regionally derived, intonation patterns rather than as speaking different dialects all having been influenced by standard Swedish.

I can't agree with the statement of Scanian being linguistically closer to the variety spoken in Copenhagen (by which I assume you mean Standard Danish) since I don't think the shared phonological traits in any way makes up for the differences in vocabulary, grammar and orthography. 
If the statement is based on the assumption that the varieties spoken in Copenhagen and Scania are direct descendants from the historical varieties spoken in these areas that used to form a dialectal continuum, my objection is that that simply isn't an accurate reflection of reality.


----------



## LilianaB

NorwegianNYC said:


> I am not so sure about that. I was once at a conference sitting at a table with native English speakers from Queensland, Australia; Nairobi, Kenya; Lahore, Pakistan; Leith, Scotland and Montgomery, Alabama, and they had to take extra care in speaking and listening (and mind you - these were language professionals) to conduct a conversation - much beyond what I do when I converse with Swedes and Danes.



I don't know -- but I have never had any problem understanding any type of English, but the Scandinavian languages feel like totally different languages when spoken -- the same way almost as some Slavic languages do. Maybe the people you mentioned did not understand the terms, rather that the language itself.


----------



## Sepia

LilianaB said:


> I don't know -- but I have never had any problem understanding any type of English, but the Scandinavian languages feel like totally different languages when spoken -- the same way almost as some Slavic languages do. Maybe the people you mentioned did not understand the terms, rather that the language itself.



Ever listened to persons from Glasgow speaking with each other?

Nevertheless, standard Danish as spoken in Copenhagen and standard Norwegian are, whether we understand why - or not, separate languages. Still Norwegian has similarity with standard Danish than some Danish dialects still spoken by a few people in Jutland. 

I really all depends on the chosen definition of "dialect" and "language".


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Tjahzi said:


> [T]he claim that the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish are "the same language but have been split for political/nationalistic reasons and the different orthographies used in each country is merely to reinforce the perception of difference rather than because they are distinct languages" is just a claim, and while one could of course provide arguments for and against


 
Naturally, there was no “plan” to make the languages different, but there was certainly no intention to move them closer either. Norwegian was consciously de-Danified in the 19th century, and the reinforcement of the differences was very much there in all three language – evidence given by the order of the final three vowels. There were and are greater internal variations in German than in Scandinavian – a fact well-known in the academic circles of the time – and a conference in the spirit of Scandinavism in 1869 was aimed at standardizing the three orthographies (four if you count nynorsk), but the proposal was rejected by the Swedish Academy and the Norwegian Language Council, mostly due to the souring political climate between the two countries, and it was completely disregarded in the first Danish dictionary in 1872.

The Scandinavian orthographies were not deliberately constructed to be different, but despite the recommendations from the Scandinavian linguistic community at the time, national politics dictated a different approach – especially after the pan-Scandinavian ideals waned after the Schleswig War in 1864.

Also, forced language change is a true-and-tried approach. The Norwegian scholar Lars S. Vikør, professor, Nordic and Linguistics Studies, University of Oslo, says regarding the forced Swedification of Scania in the book _Language and Nationalism_, that the "animosity between the two countries [Sweden and Denmark], and the relative closeness of their standard languages where dialectal differences within each of the two countries were greater than the two standards, made it imperative to stress the difference between them in the standardization process. "The Swedish treatment of the Scanians perhaps shows that the most important element of the linguistic nationalism ideology is the desire to stress the difference from another linguistic entity that in some way may be considered threatening or challenging one's own autonomy."



> If you are arguing whether or not they were correct in doing so, I disagree.


Whether they were correct, is of lesser importance (and not for me to say). It remains a fact that the orthographies were consciously kept different on the grounds of national interest.



> I believe you are exaggerating. Sweden is nowhere near as dialectically diverse as Norway.


 I find that hard to believe. Kalixmål, Elfdalian, Jemtish, Guthnish and Scanian are at least as divergent as any Norwegian dialect.



> What you see as "distinct dialects" being Swediziced, I would describe more like a language shift (if we accept that the dialects were indeed that different from the standard language in the first place)


Naturally they were different. “Swedish” is a recent invention – just like “Norwegian” and “Danish” is. Swedish dialects do not spring from some sort of original Swedish. All Scandinavian dialects hark back to Norse, and even then they were different throughout the continuum. When Norse split in West (Western Norwegian, Faroese, Icelandic), East (Eastern Norwegian, Sveamål, Götamål) and South Norse (Danish, Scanian), the dialect groups did not conform with any political entities, nor were there any authoritative dialects. That happened much later.

The ongoing Swedification and Danification (the tendency is less clear in Norway) into rikssvensk and rigsdansk is a result of the impact of mass media. This standardization is of course drying up the dialect landscape, making the gradual transitions that existed up until fairly recently, less evident. However, even with three main “variants” – standardized dialects, if you like – Scandinavian remains no more internally different than e.g. Russian, German or English.


----------



## LilianaB

Sepia said:


> Ever listened to persons from Glasgow speaking with each other?
> 
> Nevertheless, standard Danish as spoken in Copenhagen and standard Norwegian are, whether we understand why - or not, separate languages. Still Norwegian has similarity with standard Danish than some Danish dialects still spoken by a few people in Jutland.
> .



Certain varieties of Danish and certain varieties of Norwegian, especially close to the countries' border may sound similar, but this is true about many Slavic languages as well, which are still considered separate languages, or dialects (not of the same language).  

And I agree with Tjatzi, that Swedish is not as diverse as Norwegian, although there are some small groups speaking very distinct dialects. (perhaps just the prosody differs in other varieties)


----------



## Tjahzi

NorwegianNYC said:


> Naturally, there was no “plan” to make the languages different, but there was certainly no intention to move them closer either. Norwegian was consciously de-Danified in the 19th century, and the reinforcement of the differences was very much there in all three language – evidence given by the order of the final three vowels. There were and are greater internal variations in German than in Scandinavian – a fact well-known in the academic circles of the time – and a conference in the spirit of Scandinavism in 1869 was aimed at standardizing the three orthographies (four if you count nynorsk), but the proposal was rejected by the Swedish Academy and the Norwegian Language Council, mostly due to the souring political climate between the two countries, and it was completely disregarded in the first Danish dictionary in 1872.
> 
> The Scandinavian orthographies were not deliberately constructed to be different, but despite the recommendations from the Scandinavian linguistic community at the time, national politics dictated a different approach – especially after the pan-Scandinavian ideals waned after the Schleswig War in 1864.
> 
> Also, forced language change is a true-and-tried approach. The Norwegian scholar Lars S. Vikør, professor, Nordic and Linguistics Studies, University of Oslo, says regarding the forced Swedification of Scania in the book _Language and Nationalism_, that the "animosity between the two countries [Sweden and Denmark], and the relative closeness of their standard languages where dialectal differences within each of the two countries were greater than the two standards, made it imperative to stress the difference between them in the standardization process. "The Swedish treatment of the Scanians perhaps shows that the most important element of the linguistic nationalism ideology is the desire to stress the difference from another linguistic entity that in some way may be considered threatening or challenging one's own autonomy."
> 
> Whether they were correct, is of lesser importance (and not for me to say). It remains a fact that the orthographies were consciously kept different on the grounds of national interest.


You're fighting a straw-man here. I never argued that the separation and classification of Swedish/Norwegian/Danish as separate languages wasn't partially politically motivated. I'm arguing that this observation alone cannot be used as an argument for it being the sole or deciding reason for doing so, which is the thesis promoted by the topic starter.


NorwegianNYC said:


> I find that hard to believe. Kalixmål, Elfdalian, Jemtish, Guthnish and Scanian are at least as divergent as any Norwegian dialect.


 Again, your problem is that, Scanian excluded, those only exist on paper.


NorwegianNYC said:


> Naturally they were different. “Swedish” is a recent invention – just like “Norwegian” and “Danish” is. Swedish dialects do not spring from some sort of original Swedish. All Scandinavian dialects hark back to Norse, and even then they were different throughout the continuum. When Norse split in West (Western Norwegian, Faroese, Icelandic), East (Eastern Norwegian, Sveamål, Götamål) and South Norse (Danish, Scanian), the dialect groups did not conform with any political entities, nor were there any authoritative dialects. That happened much later.
> 
> The ongoing Swedification and Danification (the tendency is less clear in Norway) into rikssvensk and rigsdansk is a result of the impact of mass media. This standardization is of course drying up the dialect landscape, making the gradual transitions that existed up until fairly recently, less evident. However, even with three main “variants” – standardized dialects, if you like – Scandinavian remains no more internally different than e.g. Russian, German or English.


Again, you are missing my point. I'm not saying the "traditional dialects" have assimilated, I'm saying their speakers have died out and their offspring shifted to Standard Swedish while having retained certain traits (prosody and sometimes very limited vocabulary and phonological changes) from the (now moribund) "traditional dialect" of their region. 

Since Scanian is such a prominent example, we might as well deal with it right away. Essentially, what is commonly referred to as _Scanian_ is just one of many modern Swedish dialects, that is, Standard Swedish spoken with a different prosody, some additional vocabulary and certain phonological changes. What sets Scanian apart is that the phonological differences are greater than any other dialect, the regional identity is very strong and it's (perceived as being) similar to a neighboring language (Danish). However, it doesn't exhibit any grammatical or core vocabulary differences similar to those found in the traditional dialects of Norr- and Västerbotten, Gotland or upper Dalarna (or in the traditional Scanian dialects spoken by a handful of elderly people in some rural communities). Also, while some of the phonological traits are shared with Danish, some are not, and it's debated whether there is a higher degree of mutual intelligibility between Danish and Scanian than between Danish and non-Scanian Swedish, and if so, if that's to be attributed to linguistic similarity or higher exposure.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

LilianaB said:


> Certain varieties of Danish and certain varieties of Norwegian, especially close to the countries' border may sound similar, but this is true about many Slavic languages as well, which are still considered separate languages, or dialects (not of the same language).
> 
> And I agree with Tjatzi, that Swedish is not as diverse as Norwegian, although there are some small groups speaking very distinct dialects. (perhaps just the prosody differs in other varieties)


Although not a hot topic, the linguistic community is also divided when it comes to whether Scandinavian is one language or three. I think Tjahzi and I agree that since the definitions are as vague as they are, it can be argued successfully either way. Personally, I see Scandinavian as one language with 6-7 main variants, 12-14 dialect groups and numerous dialects (not unlike Serbo-Croatian, English and German), and the fact that it now has four written standards, is a later development. However, Scandinavian is on its way to split permanently, and the reason for that is (to return to COF's original question) that Scandinavian language politics up until recently has been driven by the need to develop a national identity rather than a pan-Scandinavian linguistic identity.

When it comes to Swedish dialect - it is not giving the rich and varied landscape of Swedish dialects enough credit to ascribe it to prosody. I think the speakers of the many dozens of dialect will object to the claim that they are simply pronouncing a sort of artificial standard Swedish differently.Let me give you one example: Postpositioning of the possessive determiner is not a feature of prosody. It is a grammatical feature, and Swedish dialects vary considerably when it comes to how this is applied - still today.

In the case of Norwegian, the main difference is that Norwegian does not have a normative dialect - unlike Swedish and (especially) Danish. Dialect use is therefore more prevalent and accepted in Norwegian. It does not mean that Norwegian has more dialects or greater diversity than Swedish - the dialects of Norway are simply used more in media and the public sphere, and is as a consequence more accepted. Swedish media is currently moving in the same direction, but the hold of rikssvenska is still very strong.


----------



## COF

I think the dialectal diversity of English is hugely underestimated. Maybe it is because second language speakers who don't live in either the US or the UK only ever hear English through American and British TV shows where everyone speaks with a very clear, non-dialectal "media" accent.

Almost no one in the UK actually speaks with the Received Pronunciation accent commonly heard in the British media, but many second language speakers seem to assume that all British people speak with RP accents.


----------



## LilianaB

You might be right  -- some people who have never lived in English-speaking countries may have difficulties understanding different varieties of English. Regardless of that, English is considered one language, despite its diversity, whereas the Scandinavian languages are not. Probably the literary tradition has much to do with it.


----------



## Tjahzi

NorwegianNYC said:


> I think Tjahzi and I agree that since the definitions are as vague as they are, it can be argued successfully either way.


Actually, my approach is that since we cannot scientifically distinguish between a language and a dialect, the only thing to base a classification on is the *subjective opinion of the speakers*. As such, I disagree about "Scandinavian" being a single language based on the fact that their proposed speakers consider themselves to speak different languages. 

My arguing in this thread has essentially been objecting to any other method being used to define a _language_ and a _dialect_.


NorwegianNYC said:


> Personally, I see Scandinavian as one language with 6-7 main variants, 12-14 dialect groups and numerous dialects (not unlike Serbo-Croatian, English and German), and the fact that it now has four written standards, is a later development. However, Scandinavian is on its way to split permanently, and the reason for that is (to return to COF's original question) that Scandinavian language politics up until recently has been driven by the need to develop a national identity rather than a pan-Scandinavian linguistic identity.


...and as such, I don't care how the situation came about. If I have a child and you adopt it, eventually you will be the child's father by virtue of being considered so by the child.


NorwegianNYC said:


> When it comes to Swedish dialect - it is not giving the rich and varied landscape of Swedish dialects enough credit to ascribe it to prosody. I think the speakers of the many dozens of dialect will object to the claim that they are simply pronouncing a sort of artificial standard Swedish differently.


Well, this is why I never engaged in this discussion when it was brought up in the general "comparing Scandinavian languages-thread" despite there being numbers of opportunities, this point is extremely hard to prove and none of us has put forth any evidence that goes beyond "it seems to me". That said, if you are going to present your view on state of Swedish dialects, I might as well present mine.


NorwegianNYC said:


> Let me give you one example: Postpositioning of the possessive determiner is not a feature of prosody. It is a grammatical feature, and Swedish dialects vary considerably when it comes to how this is applied - still today.


...and I consider this point you are raising to be a great argument for *my* position: I have yet to meet a single Swedish speaker that employs postpositioned possessive pronouns. 


NorwegianNYC said:


> In the case of Norwegian, the main difference is that Norwegian does not have a normative dialect - unlike Swedish and (especially) Danish. Dialect use is therefore more prevalent and accepted in Norwegian. It does not mean that Norwegian has more dialects or greater diversity than Swedish - the dialects of Norway are simply used more in media and the public sphere, and is as a consequence more accepted. Swedish media is currently moving in the same direction, but the hold of rikssvenska is still very strong.


The fact that Norway hasn't had a normative dialect is probably one explanation to why it has more dialects and greater diversity than Sweden.



We are not arguing whether your perception of the current state of Swedish dialects should be interpreted and categorized my or your way, but rather whether your or my perception of the state of Swedish dialects most accurately corresponds to reality. If we were to draw our conclusions from the same data, it's not unlikely that we would be in agreement.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Tjahzi said:


> You're fighting a straw-man here. I never argued that the separation and classification of Swedish/Norwegian/Danish as separate languages wasn't partially politically motivated. I'm arguing that this observation alone cannot be used as an argument for it being the sole or deciding reason for doing so, which is the thesis promoted by the topic starter.


I think the straw-man goes a little both ways here, my friend...(we are rather talking past each other!). MY point though out this thread has been that the three Scandinavian "languages" are rather the result of a political incentive to cultivate the differences than the similarities. Like you, I have never claimed it started out that way! However, COF writes: "the different orthographies used in each country is merely to *reinforce* the perception of difference", and historically speaking I am inclined to agree. To be counterfactual, if a common Scandinavian orthography had been developed 150 years ago, the linguistic landscape would have looked very different today.


> Again, your problem is that, Scanian excluded, those [dialects] only exist on paper. [...] I'm not saying the "traditional dialects" have assimilated, I'm saying their speakers have died out and their offspring shifted to Standard Swedish while having retained certain traits (prosody and sometimes very limited vocabulary and phonological changes) from the (now moribund) "traditional dialect" of their region.


I will not venture further into this other than to say that I am not sure the speakers of the dialects I mentioned are aware of their paper status! I will take your word for it, but in my personal academic and professional experience, having worked extensively with Scandinavian, I do not find (the major) Swedish dialects to be significantly weakened, nor have I seen any studies supporting that. On the contrary, there have been reports of increased use of dialects in Swedish media and greater dialectal awareness in Sweden (especially in the south and among the speakers of the mentioned Jämtska and Elfdalian)(the latter has an official orthography, is spoken by aprx 5000 people and has applied to be recognized as a minority language).



> _Scanian_ is just one of many modern Swedish dialects, that is, Standard Swedish spoken with a different prosody, some additional vocabulary and certain phonological changes.


 I disagree. By that logic it can be inferred that there was once a common Swedish spoken, and that Scanian diverged from this. Scanian can be documented far back in time, and like all other Scandinavian dialects, it harks directly back to Old Norse. The fact that _rikssvenska_, which in essence is just another Swedish dialect, has become so prominent, is a recent phenomenon, and it became normative by convention, and not its inherent qualities. The dialectal features in e.g. Scanian are the results of Scanian being an independent variant ("descendant") of Norse, later influenced by rikssvenska, and not rikssvenska with a twist to it.

However, Tjahzi - I believe our polemics here boils down to different approaches to the notoriously vague definitions. If we were to agree that dialects are prosody with some vocabulary [I want to add grammatical] and phonological changes, then where do we draw the line? Then Norwegian and Swedish are simply varying degrees of the same phenomenon. It has been claimed that there are greater linguistic differences with in the respective Scandinavian languages than between them - and there is some truth to that! Even Danish, the most linguistically homogeneous country, varies to a considerable degree - especially between Jutland vs the islands. There are Danish dialects with one, two and even three genders (there are also three-gender dialects in Sweden), and even dialects with definite article in the noun, as opposed to definite suffix. There are Norwegian dialects with prepositioned possessive and two genders, there are Swedish dialects with pre- or postpositioned possessive and diphthongs, and in my mind, prosody alone cannot explain this. They are all descendants of a common Scandinavian, and whether we choose to still see them as that, or subdivide them into Norwegian, Swedish and Danish, is really (and I absolutely agree with you there) a matter of personal preference, because the definitions available are not consistent either way!

That being said - I have no idea why Swedish dialects were dragged into this in the first place! (it was probably me)


----------



## Tjahzi

Well, some of the issues in your above post are addressed in my previous post.

However, to sum up, yes, there are indeed two parallel discussions in this thread: Firstly, COF's claim that Scandinavian _should_ be considered a single language, which I dismissed by disqualifying his methodology for coming to that conclusion, and secondly, what exactly we refer to by "Swedish dialects". 

While I don't mind continuing either discussion, I believe I've said everything there is to say regarding the former, and the latter is essentially you and I sharing experiences to come to some kind of consensus, which we could do in private. Feel free to PM me if you are interested. (I actually have some interesting material that I would like to share.)


----------

