Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Anglistisches Seminar

Seminar: Languages of Scotland

Lecturer: Anne Hoyer, M. A.
Semester: Summer 2007

Author: Andreas Kull, stud. phil.

Date of Submission: 01.09.2007
Title: Norn – The Scandinavian Influence in Modern Orcadian and
Shetlandic Speech or: A Linguistic Puzzle about an Unknown
Language
 Norn
The Scandinavian Influence in Modern Orcadian
and Shetlandic Speech
or: A Linguistic Puzzle about an Unknown Language
Table of Contents

1. Preface ................................................................................... 4
2. History of Norn and Norn Research .................................... 4-6
3. Bad Data Problem of Norn ................................................ 6-10
4. Reconstruction Issues of Norn Phonology ...................... 10-11
5. Influence of Norn ............................................................. 12-14
6. Conclusion ...................................................................... 14-15
7. Appendix .............................................................................. 16
8. Bibliography .................................................................... 17-19
9. Antiplagiatserklärung ............................................................ 20
1. Preface

Norn, a Scandinavian language spoken between the 9th and 19th

century in Orkney, Shetland and probably even on the Scottish
mainland and the Hebrides, seems to be a quite extravagant topic for
a second year English student at first, but the attempts to
linguistically describe this largely undiscovered language enables us
to understand the basic mechanics of Linguistics. We can learn
about language contact, language death, the methods of data
acquisition and the problems that can arise and have arisen by
collecting fragments of Norn and their linguistic interpretation.
After a short history of Norn and Norn research there will be a review
about the general features, with a focus on the phonology, to
illustrate the “bad data problem” (Labov 1994:10-11) which Norn
scholars have to face.
Highly speculative hypotheses that seemed more like religious belief
than science were skipped. Finally the influence of Norn on modern
Orcadian and Shetlandic speech were analysed and summarised,
conclusions were drawn and the future perspectives of linguistic
research on Norn were reviewed.

2. History of Norn and Norn Research

Norn, which is derived from Old Norse norrœna and means Northern
language, was first mentioned in 1485 (Barnes 1991:430). Its history
began with the first Scandinavian settlements of Vikings from West-
and Southwest Norway around 800 (Tierney 1967:74-7, 115-16).
Although this date is debatable – like everything that is said about
Norn – because the Latin Historia Norwegiæ tells us, that a person
named Rognvaldr “ [...] seized the inhabitants of Orkney [...]
” (Barnes 1998:3) in 700 which is confirmed by “Viking town

4
generics” (ibid.), e.g. <-heimr> (home, dwelling) in place names of
Shetland and Orkney.
When “ [...] Shetland was removed from the earldom of Orkney [...]
” (Barnes 1991:446) in 1195 the islands built closer ties to Norway
and started trading with Hanseatic and Danish merchants – which of
course had impact on the language. Modern Orcadian and
Shetlandic speech even show nowadays traces of Dutch and Low
German (ibid. 445). During this period there were only Norse
speaking officials in Shetland (ibid. 446) which made Norn the
predominant language until the beginning of the 13th century when
“Scots gradually began to replace Norn” (ibid. 429). This language
shift started when the Scots speaking “Sinclairs succeeded to the
earldom” (ibid.) in 1379.
The actual 'death' of Norn began when Orkney and Shetland “were
pledged to King James III of Scotland as marriage dowry by King
Christian I of Denmark and Norway” (ibid.). At the time of the
reformation in Scotland in 1560 all officials and the clergy were Scots
speaking and Scandinavian law were gradually replaced by Scottish
until 1611 (ibid.). The last Scandinavian document in Orkney was
signed in 1426, the first Scottish document in 1433. The last
Scandinavian document in Shetland was written two-hundred years
later, in 1607, the first Scottish document in 1525 (ibid.).
Norn withdrew to small isolated communities of speakers on the
northern Mainland of Orkney and Shetland were the last official
reference to Norn was made in 1750 (ibid. 447) and probably the last
native speaker died on the island Unst in 1850 (Jakobsen 1928-
32:xix).
The first studies about Norn were primarily about collecting words
and explaining their etymology. Edmondston released the first
comprehensive collection with his Etymological Glossary of the
Shetland and Orkney Dialect in 1866 which was succeeded by Jakob
Jakobsen's Etymological Dictionary of the Norn Language in 1928. At
the same time the Orkneyman Hugh Marwick presented his
pioneering book The Orkney Norn which can be seen as the first

5
linguistic acceptable work on Norn that focused on specific issues.
Nowadays there are a few notable scholars – like Michael Barnes
who managed to obtain a certain degree of publicity for his work The
Norn language of Orkney and Shetland – which is related to high
requirements a Norn scholar have to comply and the bad source data
of Norn.

3. Bad Data Problem of Norn

For a language that was almost spoken a whole millennium and has
had a huge impact on the Orcadian and Shetlandic dialect and
culture – only 60 place-names on the isles are of Scots origin in
contrast to 600 of Scandinavian or Norn origin (Stewart 1970:318-19)
– we have to deal with “extremely bad data“ (Knooihuizen 2006:6).
Michael Barnes one of the few modern Norn scholars wrote (Barnes
1991:436):

Lack of data and lack of explicitness by the investigators are

clearly both to blame for this messy and confusing picture.
What the modern scholar can do to unravel the twisted strands
is not immediately apparent.

Those quotation illustrates the hopeless and sad situation which we

have to face when we are trying to reconstruct the 'dead' language
Norn without drifting too far into the realms of speculation. For
instance, the fields of syntax and morphology cannot be
reconstructed at all with the source material we have, since only a
few fragments of phrases of doubtful origin have been found lately.
The only field of research we can talk about with some kind of
certainty is the field of phonology and lexicon which enables us to
make speculations with a certain probability.
Norn researchers actually do not even have a common idea of what

6
Norn is. Some scholars like Johnston and Jón believe that Norn is
just a “Scandinavian language opposed to Scots” (Barnes 1991:430)
were other scholars define Norn as a “mixture of Scots and
Scandinavian” (Saxby, Sandison, Graham; ibid.). Personally I think
all those scholars are right and we have to divide Norn in three
phases.
The first phase of Norn started with the Viking settlements. At this
point Norn was not a distinct form of the West-Norwegian language,
but exactly the same and only defined by the opposition to the
language of the native inhabitants.
Phase two started when the stream of immigrants from West-Norway
run dry and the settlements began to trade with Dutch, Hanseatic,
Scots and English merchants. In this period the former settlers
intermingled through intermarriage with the natives and began to
construct an own identity which was expressed through their very
own language that now began to deviate from its Scandinavian
origin.
Phase three sealed the 'death' of Norn and the beginning of the
unique Orcadian and Shetlandic dialect. Scots became more
prestigious because of certain political events (see chapter History of
Norn and Norn Research) and functioned as “[...] sole language of
public affairs [...]” (Donaldson 1958; Barnes 1991:451) and replaced
Norn gradually over decades. Decades in which Norn influenced
Scots (ibid.) – although this fact is denied by Rendboe who said that
it remained pure until its 'death' (Renboe 1984-87; Barnes
1991:432f). Flom even numbered the “[...] steadily decline ratio of
Norn to Scots” (Flom 1928-9; Barnes 1991:432 ) to 12:5 in 1850 and
1:1 in 1900 (ibid.).
Gunnel Melchers, known by various field studies, listed the three
main problems of “identifying the Scandinavian component in
Shetland dialect” (Melchers 1991:462).
The first problem which we have to consider, is that we do not have a
“linguistic acceptable account of the Shetland dialect” (ibid.). This
applies to George Low's recorded data which I will review in more

7
detail in the phonology section of this paper. All material which we
can use for research was not recorded by native speakers, but was
handed down orally for generations.
Secondly and additional to the first problem, we cannot identify “[...]
English loan or independent innovation[s]” (ibid.) because we actually
do not know what to search for and the “absence [of specific features
of Norn] might be revealing as their presence” (Barnes 1998:11).
The third and last problem applies to the important data of Jakob
Jakobsen which did not differentiate between “high versus low
language contact” (Melchers 1991:462), i.e. whether a “[...] exotic
small group of speakers influenced others” (ibid.) or the feature can
be seen as representative for the language and a larger community
of speakers.
The most problematic issue of Norn research is to analyse the
Scandinavian material and how Norn deviates from it. This is
particular a problem because we do not know how Norn deviates
from Old Norse and whether the deviations are just idiolectic
expressions or derived from dialects spoken by a minority.
Michael Barnes divided the source material in groups (Barnes
1998:10):

1. runic inscriptions
2. documents written in the roman alphabet
3. continuous pieces of spoken Norn recorded before the
language died
4. words and forms preserved in scaldic verse
5. place names
6. fragments of spoken Norn that might be expected to
yield information about the language in function

There are 52 runic inscriptions in Orkney, due to the 33 carvings

found in Maeshowe, which are likely not written by inhabitants, but
visitors and are not comprehensible text and fragmentary (ibid. 10f).
Additional to the 7 carvings found in Shetland we can say that the

8
language in this period was not distinguishable “from contemporary
Norwegian” (ibid.) and therefore “only proofs the West-Scandinavian
character of Norn” (ibid.).
The disappointing situation of bad data continues when we are trying
to find features of Norn in documents written in the roman alphabet.
All scribes of documents related to Orkney and Shetland were either
from Norway or Denmark or they learnt their craft there, since the
first school opened in Shetland around 1611 (ibid. 11). According to
Marwick it is “[...] a complete failure to find any 'Orkneyisms' [in those
documents]” (Marwick 1929:xxi).
All recordings of spoken Norn suffer the same problem – the
dichotomy of written and spoken language. For instance the two
Lord's Prayer in alleged Orkney Norn (see appendix 1; recorded by
Wallace 1700:68-9) and Shetland Norn (see appendix 2; recorded by
Low 1774:105) as well as some scaldic verses and phrases. We all
know that especially biblical texts and lyrics were not composed in
everyday speech, but in a formal, elaborated, archaic style and
therefore are not legitimate for drawing conclusions. Another
problem is that we neither possess information of their sources nor
age nor the way of transmission and how much were lost or modified
due to orally transmission – hence the scientific usability is almost nil.
The so called Shetland Diploma of 1355 (reprinted in Low 1774) and
the place names of Orkney and Shetland are a rich source of Norn
lexemes. Words like <yealtaland> for Shetland (Sibbald 1845:11, 68)
or <iarlin> for earl puzzle Norn researchers because of their missing
progressive i-mutation which indicates that Norn was not affected by
this Germanic sound change that started between 450-500 AD and
affected all Germanic languages except Gothic. There is no
explanation for this unique curiosity yet, but we can state two more
obvious possibilities additional to the possibility above.
The first would be that Viking settlers arrived before the sound
change took place, before 450 AD - this would be terrific and has to
be proved by archeology yet. The second possible explanation, that
sounds even more unbelievable, is that a Non-Germanic language

9
influenced Norn. We know that a Non-Germanic language existed
before the Vikings arrived and the evidence (Historia Norwegiæ)
makes it clear that the native language was Pictish, although it is a
common belief that the “Pre-Viking inhabitants were assimilated,
exterminated or driven out and their language withered away”
(Barnes 1998:2) without even leaving slightest traces in the new
language.

4. Reconstruction Issues of Norn Phonology

Based on the attempts of several scholars to reconstruct the

phonology of Norn, this chapter wants to illustrate and substantiate
the problems that were described briefly in the previous chapter.
Therefore five studies1 (collected in Barnes 1991:435-6), that deal
with the analysis of short rounded vowels in the rich Norn vowel
system, are reviewed and their sources explained and criticised.
The first Norn scholar who dealt with vowels, Hægstad, identified
seven different short rounded vowels: [o], [ȯ], [ø], [å], [u] and what he
called a throng [o] and an open [u] which are the Norn allophones of
the Old Norse phoneme /o/ (Hægstad 1900).
Hægstad's inventory of short rounded vowels of Norn is based on
George Low's data (Low 1879) which Low collected during his field
trip through Foula by recording from hearsay or speech which have
been handed down since generations orally. At this point Norn was
nearly extinct (Barnes 1991:448) and the clergyman Low was of
course not a linguist and did not possess the linguistic abilities of
collecting faultless data. We can assume that he had no knowledge
of phonology and perhaps only two or three other Germanic sound
systems for comparison – he did not know Scandinavian that is for
sure – so he wrote utterances down as they was perceived by him.
The fact that Foula's inhabitants were eradicated by smallpox and

1 Please note that some phones and diacritics do not meet the IPA standards of
2007, but were often exclusively created and used by the authors of the studies.

10
was repopulated from other parts of Scotland (Edmondston 1809:85;
Baldwin 1984:55) makes Low's collected data too critical to be
considered – I think, but it is one of the few source materials which
we have at all.
Jakobsen, so to say the founder of modern Norn study, identified in
his doctoral thesis: [å], [o], [ɔ], [ɔ.], [ȯ], [u], [ø], ([ö]) (Jakobsen 1897)
and thirty-one years later in his Etymological Dictionary: [å], [o], [ɔ],
[ɔ.], [ȯ], [u], [ø], [ö], [aö]2 for Old Norse /o/ (Jakobsen 1928-32).
Jakobsen's assumptions are based on his own collected data, which
involves the problem that he did not define regional areas for his
source. Therefore several regional and very small dialects, and
probably even idiolects, have the same linguistic status in his
dictionary as varieties spoken by a larger community of people. Later
scholars such as Barnes proofed that Jakobsen's 10000 collected
items contained words of no Scandinavian or Norn influence at all,
but were influenced by Scots pronunciation (Barnes 1991: 435).
Rendboe, another well-known researcher, identified the allophones
[ɔ], [ȧ], [o], [u], [y], [ø] which he assumed to reflex the Old Norse
phoneme /o/ (Rendboe 1987).
Rendboe's inventory, which also uses George Low's data as source
material, can be used to illustrate the problem of conclusions that are
based on bad data. When we compare it to Hægstad's, who also
analysed short rounded vowels based on Low's data almost a
century before, we immediately recognise the difference – although
they used the same source material. Where Hægstad has 7
allophones (two of unclear status) Rendboe has only 6 and [y] totally
exclusive and not found by another researcher.
The phonology is considered the most productive and safest field of
research of Norn which demonstrates how frustrating the others must
be. This fact broaches a new problem: how do you measure the
influence of something you do not know?

2 Read [aö] as ligature

11
5. Influence of Norn

The question asked in the previous chapter illustrates the problem of

determining the influences of Norn on modern Orcadian and
Shetlandic speech. There are but a few linguistic Scandinavian
traces left which can be identified in the dialect without hesitation.
It is a common feature of modern Shetlandic in the 20 th century and
early Orcadian dialect in the 18th century to generally drop the [ð] and
[Ɵ] due to what is called the “Scandinavian loss” which have
occurred in all Scandinavian languages except Icelandic (Barnes
1991:436). These losses and other extreme variations in modern
Shetlandic and Orcadian speech are rooted in the rich vowel system
of Norn which had on the other hand a relatively small consonant
inventory and hence could not adopt all Scots consonants faultlessly.
Catford describes this situation with following words (Catford
1957:71f):

Norn speakers had a smaller 'repertoire' of consonants than the

incomers and failed to acquire some of the essential
consonantal distinctions of Scots.

Catford also stated that the CVVC or CVCC syllable pattern in

“stressed monosyllables closed by a consonant” (ibid.) is typical for
Shetlandic and Orcadian speech and was influenced by Norn (ibid.).
He draws comparisons to other Scandinavian languages which
obviously have this syllable pattern due to the Great Quantity Shift
that occurred between 1250 and 1550. This would explain forms like
<faat> instead of <fat> or <mett> instead of <met> (Melchers
1991:462).
Another interesting topic is the Scottish Vowel Length Rule (SVLR)
and how it applies in Orkney and Shetland. Because of the Norn
influence on the Scots' vowel system we have instead of – and in
some cases additional to – the SVLR the Scandinavian Quality Shift

12
(SQS). According to the SVLR a general shortening of long vowels in
certain environments occurs - the SQS, in contrast to the SVLR, is an
“uniformisation [sic] of syllabic quantity” (ibid. 465f). This is very
confusing in certain contexts and not easily to identify, because the
SVLR and SQS are often differently regionally realised and can even
variate in the spelling of the same person (ibid.). Melchers pointed
out that the contrast is only clearly visible in a few monosyllabic
words with “fully long vowels before /d/ as in <meed> (landmark used
by fishermen)“ (ibid. 467f).
A smaller and rather specific case of the phonetic influence of Norn is
the example of Auslautverhärtung, like in Neuhochdeutsch, but only
in cases where a word ends in <d> as in <cloud> (ibid. 468f). We
also have the “final consonant lengthened” (ibid.) in a handful of
cases as in <löf> (palm) (ibid.) and in this particular example we also
have a second Norn leftover – remains of Old Norse /ø/. Another
assured and, through various field studies, proved feature of the
modern Orcadian and Shetlandic dialect, is that “disyllabic words
tend to have long vowels followed by relatively short consonants“
(ibid.) for example in <later> instead of <letter>. In large parts of
Scotland we have the initial [hw] or [kw] sound which does not exist
in Shetland at all and did not exist in Orkney until the 18th century.
(Barnes 1998:20).
Besides the influence of Norn phonology, we have numerous words
of Norse or Norn origin especially in semantic fields concerning
weather, fishing, hunting, plants, agriculture, colours, movement,
seasons, animals and ludicrous behaviour (Nässėn 1989; Melchers
1981:260b). Of course those words have undergone semantic
changes such as narrowing or broadening.
The verb <blinks> in the sentence <shö blinks> uttered by fishermen
now means “that a fish shows itself” (Melchers 1991:470). The noun
<drums> for 'gloomy, peevish mood or person' was converted to the
verb <to drum> which has the meaning of 'to sulk' (ibid.). In Foula
and Papa Stour farmers are <sproning da seed> which is derived
from Old Norse sproena for 'to squirt, spit out' (Fenton 1978). The

13
Norwegian verb 'hent' is nowadays exclusively used in Shetland for
“ [...] collecting wool [or] digging up potatoes” (Melchers 1991:472).

6. Conclusion

As I proved in the previous chapters, it is almost impossible to

reconstruct this 'lost' language and many wrong assumptions were
uttered. Every false utterance might be another stepstone that
functions as a jigsaw piece to point out the contours of Norn. But time
is blurring the contours rapidly and much is getting lost due to
influences from other languages. The old expressions are
disappearing and are only slightly visible in the language of
endangered and ostracised crafts like fishing. Perhaps in two or three
generations there will be no Scandinavian element left or
recognisable and no one cared to document it – so the past will be
lost forever.
Is this dramatical conclusion a bad thing? Why to research dead
languages anyway? What do we get from dealing with dead
languages? Profit? Perhaps.
The identity of a human beings is like an onion. We have several
layers that constitute our personality. Tradition; education;
experience; environment among others. In a biological sense we
have not changed much from our ancestor, the caveman – only a
handful of genes make the difference. If change occurs over decades
or even centuries it becomes hard to identify it for the ones involved.
The inhabitants of Orkney and Shetland would not have recognised
this change if linguists like Michael Barnes had not cared to do
research and inform the public. A bit of reality would have been lost,
since of what reality is constituted if not of language?
With a gleam of hope I quit this last chapter by an optimistic
prediction of Gunnel Melchers that is crying for new Norn scholars:
“ [...] the data is not exhausted yet and a great deal of instrumental

14
analysis remains to be done” (Melchers 1991:469).

15
7. Appendix

1. Lord's Prayer in Shetland Norn (recorded by Low, 1774):

Fy vor or er i Chimeri. Halaght vara nam dit.

La Konungdum din cumma. La vill din vera guerde
i vrildin sindaeri chimeri.
Gav vus dagh u dagloght brau.
Forgive sindor wara
sin vi forgiva gem ao sinda gainst wus.
Lia wus ikè o vera tempa, but delivra wus fro adlu idlu.

2. Lord's Prayer in Orkney Norn (recorded by Wallace, 1700):

Favor i ir i chimrie, Helleur ir i nam thite,

gilla cosdum thite cumma, veya thine mota vara gort
o yurn sinna gort i chimrie,
ga vus da on da dalight brow vora.
Firgive vus sinna vora
sin vee Firgive sindara mutha vus,
lyv vus ye i tumtation, min delivera vus fro olt ilt.

16
8. Bibliography

Monographs and collections:

Barnes, Michael P. 1998. The Norn language of Orkney and

Shetland. Lerwick: The Shetland Times.
Donaldson, Gordon 1958. Shetland Life under Earl Patrick.
Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
Edmonston, Arthur 1809. A View of the Ancient and Present State of
the Zetland Islands II. Edinburgh: Ballantyne.
Edmonston, Thomas 1866. An Etymological Glossary of the
Shetland and Orkney Dialect. Edinburgh: Publications of the
Philological Society.
Fenton, Alexander 1978. The Northern Isles: Orkney and Shetland.
Edinburgh: John Donald.
Graham, John J. 1984. The Sheltand Dictionary (2nd ed.).
Stornoway: The Thule Press.
Hægstad, Marius 1900. Hildinakvadet. Kristiania.
Jakobsen, Jakob 1897. Det norrøne sprog på Shetland. København:
Doctoral Thesis.
Jakobsen, Jakob 1928-32. An Etymological Dictionary of the Norn
Language in Shetland I-II. London/Copenhagen: D. Nutt/V.
Prior.
Johnston, Alfred W. and Amy Johnston 1907-42. Diplomatarium
Orcadense et Hialtlandense 1-3. London: Viking Society for
Northern Research.
Labov, William 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1:
internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Low, George 1879. A Tour through the Islands of Orkney and
Shetland. Kirkwall: William Peace & Son.
Marwick, Hugh 1929. The Orkney Norn. Oxford: University Press.
Nässėn, G. 1989. Shetland Weather Words. Stockholm: Stockholm
University, Department of English.

17
Rendboe, Laurits 1987. Det gamle shetlandske sprog. Odense:
Odense Universitetsforlag.
Sandison, William (ed.) 1953. Shetland Verse: Remnants of Norn.
Shrewsbury: Privately published.
Sibbald, Sir Robert 1845. Descriptions of the Islands of Okrney and
Zetland. Edinburgh: Thomas Stevenson.
Tierney, J. J. 1967. Dicuili liber de mensura orbis terrae. Dublin:
Institute for Advanced Studies.
Wallace, Rev. James 1700. An Account of the Islands of Orkney.
London: Jacob Tonson.

Articles:

Baldwin, John R. 1984. “Hogin and Hametoun: Thoughts on the

Stratification of a Foula Tun”. In: Crawford, Barbara E. (ed.)
Essays in Shetland History. Lerwick: The Shetland Times, 33-
64.
Barnes, Michael P. 1991. “Reflections on the Structure and the
Demise of Orkney and Shetland Norn”. In: Ureland, P. Sture
(ed.) Language Contact in the British Isles. Tübingen: Max
Niemeyer, 429-60.
Catford, J. C. 1957. “Shetland dialect”. Shetland Folk Book 3: 71-5.
Flom, George T. 1928-9. “The transition from Norse to Lowland
Scotch in Shetland 1600-1850”. Saga-Book 10: 145-64.
Knooihuizen, Remco 2006. “Language Shift, ethnolinguistic vitality
and historical sociolinguistics: testing the models”. Proceedings
of the Edinburgh University LEL Postgraduate Conference.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University 20-21.
Melchers, Gunnel 1991. “Norn-Scots: A Complicated Language
Contact Situation in Shetland”. In: Ureland, P. Sture (ed.)
Language Contact in the British Isles. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer,
461-77.

18
Graham, John J. 1983. “Social changes during the quinquennium”.
In: Withrington, Donald J. (ed.) Shetland and the Outside World
1469-1969. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 216-33.
Jakobsen, Jakob 1911. “Nordisk minder, is ær sproglige, på
Orknøerne”. Maal og minne: 318-47.
Melchers, Gunnel 1981. “The Norn element in Sheltand dialect today
– a case of 'never accepted' language death”. In: Ejerhed, Eva
and Inger Henrysson (eds.) Tvåspåkighet. Umeå, 254-61.
Rendboe, Laurits 1984. “How 'worn out' or 'corrupted' was Shetland
Norn in its final stage?”. Nowele 3: 53-88.
Saxby, Jessi M. E. 1907-08. “Notes on Shetland dialect”. Saga-Book
5: 65-9.
Stewart, John 1970. “Place names of Fula”. Fróðskaparrit 18: 307-
19.

19
9. Antiplagiatserklärung

Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich die vorliegende Hausarbeit selbständig

verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und
Hilfsmittel verwendet habe.

Andreas Kull

20